NoScript disabled by force.

[andyprough]

can ns whitelist be imported by umatrix?

eMatrix does accept the import of rules from a file, so it's theoretically possible. I'll bet the problem would be that noscript and eMatrix may not agree on their domain references. But the syntax looks easy enough. Here's some eMatrix whitelisted domains from the odysee.com video hosting site:

Code: Select all

odysee.com lbry.com * allow
odysee.com odycdn.com * allow
odysee.com odysee.live * allow
odysee.com odysee.tv * allow

[cartel]

can ns whitelist be imported by umatrix?

Why would you expect it to? It's like asking if GNOME can run on Windows.

I dont. But it would only make sense though right?
"Hey! try this new noscript alternative I made and look I made it easy for no script users to transition to my addon."

nope

[Moonchild]

If NoScript saves these rules in a text file you can probably just do a one-shot conversion yourself in a text editor with search&replace to make it acceptable to umatrix.

[vannilla]

"Hey! try this new noscript alternative

eMatrix is not a NoScript alternative, they do something similar but operate differently. It is suggested as an alternative because the version of NoScript that used to be compatible with Pale Moon caused (and still cause if you disable the block) issues and there is nothing else but eMatrix available to do something similar.

[andyprough]

there is nothing else but eMatrix available to do something similar.

You can do it with uBlock in advanced mode can't you? That's how I've used uBlock advanced mode anyway. I just find eMatrix to be easier to work with and that it has additional features I prefer.

[vannilla]

You can do it with uBlock in advanced mode can't you? That's how I've used uBlock advanced mode anyway. I just find eMatrix to be easier to work with and that it has additional features I prefer.

Yeah, I was talking more about the out-of-the-box behaviour, advanced mode has to be explicitly enabled.
Anyway, the point is that eMatrix is an alternative to NoScript simply because they operate in the same domain, not because of the actual features and the same applies to uBlock.

[frostknight]

I used to care about Noscript myself, but Ematrix does this well enough for my uses, so idk... not a huge deal for me currently.

However, it would be nice to have per script disabling power. But Ematrix would probably be better for this functionality then noscript.

Also, I found out noscript has something in it that dials back to google. I spoke to g4jc once and he told me that noscript has setting in it that dials to google.

He made a libre version of noscript because of this without that problem.

Why would you expect it to? It's like asking if GNOME can run on Windows.

Off-topic:

I hate that GNOME even exists period to be honest. It depends heavily on systemd when it doesn't effing need to. Then again, other linux frameworks should also die as well like dbus for example. It just leads to too much complexity and bugs galore, The very reason I am sure linux is the way it is and why Moonchild finds it difficult to use.

Using non-mainstream distros that are stable and don't have systemd always helps somewhat. But this is neither here nor there.

But on topic again, if someone could make noscript work properly and have it function as well as ematrix and be willing to update it, I am interested in seeing that or better yet someone making a from scratch addon that works like noscript, but is done right and is supported for a long time.

[andyprough]

if someone could make noscript work properly and have it function as well as ematrix and be willing to update it

There's already eMatrix. No need to make a noscript that's "as good as eMatrix". It works perfectly fine as it is.

[frostknight]

There's already eMatrix. No need to make a noscript that's "as good as eMatrix". It works perfectly fine as it is.

That is likely the truth, you have a good point. I was merely saying, the per script disabling power interests me. To be able to more finely disable would be nice. Glad we have ematrix though.

[cartel]

clinging on like grim death to an extension that's been abandoned for 6 years and counting

just sayin'

2024018.jpg

[Moonchild]

Pale Moon Commander does not do anything other than providing an interface to existing preferences. It's not been abandoned, just not been updated. NoScript HAS been abandoned, the author has made that very clear.
If it pleases people I will set time aside to update it for v33 - that will mean I won't be able to spend my time on other things.

Just sayin'

[Navigator]

I was ignorant of the problems with NoScript and continued to use it until I joined this forum and learned about eMatrix. As far as I can see eMatrix works better anyway. What is/was NoScript doing that eMatrix does not?

[Moonchild]

What is/was NoScript doing that eMatrix does not?

As far as we've been able to gather from the mostly opaque code in it, it makes dangerous function calls to internal APIs, and it blocks internal component scripts, kills document references, and more. eMatrix does none of that and properly keeps its blocking restricted to external content.

[moonbat]

just sayin'

Sure, please point me to Moonchild's equivalent post of this.

Disclaimer

We cannot update nor support NoScript 5.x and below anymore, because it was based on a completely different and now obsolete technology. However you can still find usage information and a FAQ section for those ancient versions in the NoScript Classic archived website.

jUsT sAyiNg

[frostknight]

Disclaimer

We cannot update nor support NoScript 5.x and below anymore, because it was based on a completely different and now obsolete technology. However you can still find usage information and a FAQ section for those ancient versions in the NoScript Classic archived website.

Obsolete my ass, webextensions are not any better. Truth is, they are worse and more importantly, they are developed by GOOGLE!

Google is not trustwothy or your friend. Avoiding their BS whenever possible is probably wise. If alternatives exist especially.

WebExtensions is not a useful XUL alternative.

So Giorgio is full of it.

Ironically, he also has on the classic website a listing of the quantum version.

It says "quantum security for everyone"

I guess quantum security means shitty pile of the septic tank crap.

[moonbat]

WebExtensions is not a useful XUL alternative.

Can't blame him for going with what's mainstream. I remember the developer of DownThemAll! also threw a hissy fit when Mozilla made the infamous announcement of deprecating XUL - but he quickly fell in line and turned it into a web extension - which to this day lacks the features that the original had (and has been now forked for Pale Moon as GetEmAll!)

[frostknight]

Can't blame him for going with what's mainstream. I remember the developer of DownThemAll! also threw a hissy fit when Mozilla made the infamous announcement of deprecating XUL - but he quickly fell in line and turned it into a web extension - which to this day lacks the features that the original had (and has been now forked for Pale Moon as GetEmAll!)

Deprecated + obsolete means its inferior and not as good, those are completely false.

Webextensions is INFERIOR. Especially because its google.

Even if he doesn't want to support it, saying its obsolete and deprecated is a bunch of bs.

Mozilla however is the biggest douche in this situation. They just took the easiest possible path. Bunch of numbnuts.

Path of least resistance wins again...

[moonbat]

You're preaching to the choir here.

[frostknight]

You're preaching to the choir here.

Probably true, but my point was that, calling it obsolete and deprecated is more of why I take a swipe at this.

But neither is accurate. Saying its not supported, is probably more accurate to say. He can support XUL if he wants or webextensions if he wants, but yeah... that's where i take offense especially, the wording.

Both of those terms he used mean inferior or not fit for use, etc... supported however doesn't necessarily mean that, it just means they have no interest in it.

[suzyne]

My understanding in the computer context is that deprecated most commonly means not being updated any more, and that doing new development with it, is not recommended. It is more a statement of the status of XUL and not a value judgement one way or the other?

When a technology no longer has a main or official site that maintains the documentation and guides for its use, I think it is fair and impartial to call it deprecated.