And another Ubuntu convert!
shizzlecash at gmail.com
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
> 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
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...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the ubuntu-users