And another Ubuntu convert!
shizzlecash at gmail.com
Sat Jan 24 21:50:12 UTC 2009
On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Preston Kutzner wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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.
> Have you tried just Ad-block? It might do what you want (FWIW I use
> Noscript and Adblock Plus!)
Adblock is good for killing ads, yes. But noscript also can block
certain site scripts as well. My Linked-In example is a good case-in-
point. Granted, not everyone needs NoScript and Adblock would
probably be fine for them. I was just defending the fact that
NoScript is useful to some people for various reasons.
-------------- 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