And another Ubuntu convert!

Preston Kutzner shizzlecash at
Sat Jan 24 19:11:09 UTC 2009

On Jan 24, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Unless your browser has vulnerabilities, script isn't supposed to be  
> able to
> do anything harmful (activex, of course, is just one huge  
> vulnerability).
> Having a script blocker asking  whether it can run scripts every  
> time you
> come to a new site ruins the experience of the web, for little  
> value.  I
> don't _want_ to have to decide whether to trust scripts on every  
> site, and I
> absolutely don't  believe I need to.

As a slight tangent to the original discussion:

While I don't use noscript to prevent infection vectors while  
browsing, it is handy to keep ads and tracking scripts from running  
while I visit web pages.  Also, it is handy for sites like Linked-In  
where on systems, it's javascript is so jacked up that some of its  
pages take *minutes* to load.  It is also good for preventing those  
really annoying pop-over ads (the flash ones that FF's built-in popup  
blocking doesn't catch).  So, there are reasons for people to use such  
plug-ins.  And as far as annoyance is concerned, that's a relative  
argument.  I'd rather put up with the "annoyance" of having to  
manually allow scripts for pages than to be bombarded with useless  
advertising and tracking scripts while I'm browsing.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list