Slashdot Mirror

What tit-for-tat? I'm talking about practical realities. The simple fact is that Firefox provides a better API for blockers than Chrome does, even after the change to WebExtensions. The author of NoScript thinks Firefox's add-on API is better than Chrome's as well.

NoScript for one

NoScript works in Firefox 57+. Giorgio Maone, the author of NoScript, says Firefox's add-ons API is the best of any current browser. So that one's solved for you.

Why do you think Pale Moon depends on Firefox?

Basilisk, Pale Moon, and WaterFox all depend on Firefox because their development teams are far too small to keep up the development of a fully-fledged browser. They're going to have to rebase on the latest Firefox code eventually. No doing so will mean the browsers stagnate and fall even further behind.

Additionally, the XUL based add-ons will need developers to maintain them. No one is going to be interested in doing that in the long term because the user base is too small. NoScript is a good example of this. Giorgio Maone has committed to maintaining the old XUL based version of NoScript until June, 2018 after which he'll just focus on the current WebExtensions version.

make NoScript and other real tracking protection not work anymore all in the name of "speed."

Firefox has tracking protection built-in. Set it to "always" and it will be on in both normal and private browsing modes. NoScript works in Firefox 57+ and the author of NoScript says Firefox has "the best Browser Extensions API available on any current browser".

Your claims don't match up to the practical realities. Just use Firefox and be happy.

Gone are pretty much all the extensions that separated Firefox from Chrome.

The developers of NoScript and uBlock Origin say Firefox's WebExtensions API is the best of any browser. The API isn't standing still. New features are getting added. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions does more than Chrome's does.

Quantum completely broke noscript

NoScript is available for Firefox Quantum. Read the developer's blog to get the latest NoScript status.

Personally I use uBlock Origin and I've also set Firefox's built-in tracking protection to "always".

If you want UI changes in NoScript then tell the developer of NoScript. He says he wants to hear everyone's UI ideas.

temporary permissions

They're still there. See the developer's blog post.

Previously I would have said NoScript

Use it again. NoScript has been released for Firefox 57.

Maybe you should read what the NoScript developer said over a year ago. Or are you going to claim that he knows nothing also?

could have helped NoScript migrate

They did. All that's happened is that the new NoScript hasn't been delivered in time for Firefox 57. Here's the latest NoScript status.

could have helped NoScript migrate

They did. All that's happened is that the new NoScript hasn't been delivered in time for Firefox 57. Here's the latest NoScript status.

other sources claimed noscript was read

Those "other sources" being the author of NoScript himself. No much anyone can do when the developer changes his own release date.

Not ready for prime time, maybe?

https://hackademix.net/2017/11/14/double-noscript/#comment-37398

Mozilla should have worked with noscript dev

They did.

ad blockers for Chrome don't work the same way as on Firefox, specifically because of the API differences

Yes, Firefox's WebExtensions API extends beyond Chrome's in various ways including this one. uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (NoScript will be released in a couple of days).

ad blockers for Chrome don't work the same way as on Firefox, specifically because of the API differences

Yes, Firefox's WebExtensions API extends beyond Chrome's in various ways including this one. uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (NoScript will be released in a couple of days).

give in and switch to the path of least resistance

Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more than Chrome's does (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.

uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days).

This reminds me of the old Emacs joke posted here. It goes Yeah I love Emacs. It's a great OS it just comes with a shitty text editor.

As a browser webkit beat it a very long time ago regardless of plugins. To me I view Firefox like RealNetworks realplayer or winamp. I heard both are better or were I should say, but who cares this is 2017 the world has moved on. I have not run it many years and neither have my coworkers. My 70 year old father is the only person I am aware of who still uses it.

I do not mean this as offensive to the remaining Firefox users. I really don't. I was once a fanboy since the days of Phoenix. I realistically do not see it mattering anymore nor ever coming back just like the legacy products listed above. ... ok Emacs is still going strong with the older IT nerd crowd and is not going away:-).

give in and switch to the path of least resistance

Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more than Chrome's does (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.

uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days).

This reminds me of the old Emacs joke posted here. It goes Yeah I love Emacs. It's a great OS it just comes with a shitty text editor.

As a browser webkit beat it a very long time ago regardless of plugins. To me I view Firefox like RealNetworks realplayer or winamp. I heard both are better or were I should say, but who cares this is 2017 the world has moved on. I have not run it many years and neither have my coworkers. My 70 year old father is the only person I am aware of who still uses it.

I do not mean this as offensive to the remaining Firefox users. I really don't. I was once a fanboy since the days of Phoenix. I realistically do not see it mattering anymore nor ever coming back just like the legacy products listed above. ... ok Emacs is still going strong with the older IT nerd crowd and is not going away:-).

NoScript - "but it will be out later today!" only works for so long

Right, it works until it's released later this week.

DownThemAll

The WebExtensions version of DownThemAll is in development. Had Nils done that earlier instead of throwing a temper tantrum a year ago, you'd have DownThemAll by now.

give in and switch to the path of least resistance

Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more than Chrome's does (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.

uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days).

give in and switch to the path of least resistance

Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more than Chrome's does (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.

uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days).

I've bookmarked GhostText as a potential replacement for It's All Text, though I'm still holding onto FF56 for NoScript, the Debian testing package (it landed in unstable just today), and a few security fixes (like this DOMParser cookie bug). It actually looks better in some regards. Learn more on its GitHub page.

NoScript's current release state. It was going to be released today but now it's a couple of days away.

me: NoScript, Classic theme restorer, Cutebuttons, Hide Tab Bar, Status-4-Evar, Tabs on bottom, etc

NoScript is on the way. You can modify the UI in the Classic Theme Restorer style with CSS and similarly for CuteButtons.

Yes. The webRequest API was all thought through 18 months ago.

superset of features?

The WebRequest API, for example, is superior in Firefox. Chrome has no support for sidebarAction or theme.

why would any end user care?

Because the add-ons will work better, silly rabbit.

The problem is, as the OP noted, that none of the classic extensions are WebExtensions, so they're basically destroying their ecosystem overnight.

Mozilla has communicated the transition to WebExtensions for two years. It has not been a rapid or an overnight process and everyone's had plenty of notice. Add-on developers have had a long time to get involved to develop and extend the WebExtensions APIs, which is what the developer of NoScript did and he got the changes he needed to support NoScript.

The problem is, as the OP noted, that none of the classic extensions are WebExtensions, so they're basically destroying their ecosystem overnight.

Mozilla has communicated the transition to WebExtensions for two years. It has not been a rapid or an overnight process and everyone's had plenty of notice. Add-on developers have had a long time to get involved to develop and extend the WebExtensions APIs, which is what the developer of NoScript did and he got the changes he needed to support NoScript.

I don't see how time helps

Mozilla has invited add-on developers to get involved from the beginning, two years ago. That's exactly what NoScript's developer did, two years ago. There's been plenty of time for add-on authors to get involved with developing and extending the APIs their particular add-ons need.

From: zayavka@bsme-mos.ru
Subject: question
Hey. I found your software is online. Can you write the code for my project? Terms of reference attached below. The price shall discuss, if you can make. Answer please.

Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test. It reeks like a phishing attempt. 1) Unsolicited e-mail. 2) Broken English. 3)Request to open attachment. 4)Vague subject. 5) Sketchy e-mail address.

Zero sympathy for people who fell for this. Nerds should know better.

If they eliminate it

What makes you think Mozilla is eliminating anything required by "low level" add ons? You should read what an actual extension author thinks about the new API and the progress of its development.

Clickable links get more traffic around here. Re-posting the link for you from my login acct because logins tend to have more cred.

The problem is that the new extensions system is much more restrictive and doesn't allow all the features to be added back in.

Your claim is based on what exactly? The new extensions system is being explicitly tested against the features of current add-ons to ensure that all the required capability makes its way into the new model. Who am I going to believe? Some random user posting on Slashdot, or the author of NoScript who is currently testing and helping to implement the WebExtensions API? Given the choice between baseless talk and meaningful action I'll choose action every time.

This will kill NoScript functionality and the functionality of many other extensions as well.

This is just false, maybe it's an honest mistake but the FUD spreading has to stop. The developer of NoScript is categorical on the topic.

Of course, they're also killing support for NoScript

Odd. Giorgio Maone, the author of NoScript, says Mozilla isn't doing that. It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about.

This is the Internet, and Slashdot! How dare you accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about!

Of course, they're also killing support for NoScript

Odd. Giorgio Maone, the author of NoScript, says Mozilla isn't doing that. It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about.

Not according to the developer of NoScript. In fact, he says they are involving him to make sure extensions which alter native behavior remain possible.

Yes, they are working with some of the bigger developers but they are removing the core functionality that made FF powerful. New addons won't be able to "work with mozilla" only those who already have influence get that treatment.

Indeed. Giorgio Maone, the developer of NoScript, says everything is OK.

This is false. The developer of NoScript says that they are working with him to make sure extensions may still alter native behavior.

Not according to the developer of NoScript. In fact, he says they are involving him to make sure extensions which alter native behavior remain possible.

Some hints at what's happening with NoScript, with my proposal to preserve the edge Firefox has over Chrome in terms of innovation through extensions, despite the limitations of a Chrome-compatible API: https://hackademix.net/2015/08...

I had something like "NotScript" for Chrome in mind as opposed to Chrome's block all JavaScript option. But "NotScript" for Chrome does not have all the same features of NoScript (which inspired it) for FireFox. Related: http://hackademix.net/2009/12/...

You might also find this article interesting.
http://hackademix.net/2010/03/24/why-noscript-blocks-web-fonts/

Personally, I find stuff like web fonts a bit more worrying since the content is served remotely, unlike installing this font, which you'd need root to do in the first place.

Did you know that TTF fonts are turing complete?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Type_Font#Hinting_language

"It really worries me that the FreeType font library is now being made to accept untrusted content from the web.

The library probably wasnâ(TM)t written under the assumption that it would be fed much more than local fonts from trusted vendors who are already installing arbitrary executable on a computer, and itâ(TM)s already had a handful of vulnerabilities found in it shortly after it first saw use in Firefox.

It is a very large library that actually includes a virtual machine that has been rewritten from pascal to single-threaded non-reentrant C to reentrant C⦠The code is extremely hairy and hard to review, especially for the VM."

http://hackademix.net/2010/03/24/why-noscript-blocks-web-fonts/

Indeed, NoScript even has a surrogate script for Google Analytics.

Foxit has its vulnerabilities too, although it helps that it isn't as commonly used.

While I do resort to Evince and if absolutely necessary, Adobe (usually just for some work form PDF), I've found that most of the time I can get by with the new PDF.js functionality in Firefox.

http://hackademix.net/2011/12/07/hulk-want-pdfjs/
https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/

PDF.js plays nice w/ NoScript these days btw. It used to require whitelisting the site (ugh).

Google analytics can be easily blocked, as/and it doesn't live in your system as an effective trojan.

It's not a good thing, but that's why you simply block it. Ghostery does this just fine for example.

Actually, you can't just block Google Analytics anymore - a lot of sites are purposely redirecting links THROUGH Google Analytics - you click the link, a javascript runs that passes the URL to Google which then redirects you to the next page.

It's quite ingenious - when a browser gets a 302 redirect, it preserves Referer information (so the website gets the originating page), AND the webmaster gets the click passed through Analytics without Analytics screwing up the Referer.

NoScript fixes this so you can block google-analytics.com completely and still browse the web - NoScript Surrogate Scripts for Google Analytics.

The other option is to opt-out of analytics and trust Google...

Huh. Interesting. Looks like it is in Firefox nightlies now.

http://hackademix.net/2011/12/07/hulk-want-pdfjs/

sites which won't display their content until I allow Noscript to run all scripts on the page (including advertisers'), turn off Adblock, and disable Ghostery

Surrogate Scripts are meant to deal with this kind of crap.

Could you please show me some URLs to check?