The arrogance is astounding

[PaleLuc]

I just upgraded Palemoon after a long time. Completely regretted it and went back to the old version.

To my horror, new versions of Palemoon think there is nothing wrong with SNATCHING the control of my own machine away from my sovereign hands and "hard blocking" NoScript, which has been serving me exceedingly well for some 15 years.

Who the hell do you think you are???

"Boo hoo, it causes problems!!!1!"

O rly?

Well, how about this nice and long list of web sites that Palemoon fails to render correctly?

Imagine if website owner/masters/maintainers now decided to mimick the asshattery and HARD BLOCK Palemoon on their websites because "herp derp, Palemoon causes problems!"

I've been putting up with video image stutter on Mastodon for years. Only on Mastodon and only with Palemoon. Imagine me contacting the owner of an instance:

- Dude, the videos in your instance are not okay. You should check that.
- You sure? I see nothing wrong wit... Aaaw, geez! You use Palemoon, dontcha?
- Well... yes... I...
- I KNEW IT! That's it! I'm blocking Palemoon in my instance! You get yourself another browser, sir! Blocked! Hard blocked! New law! I feel very proud already! Damn, it feels good to be arrogant! It surely gives the sensation of making problems disappear!

I'm back to the old version, looking for another browser tomorrow. I don't know who the hell you think you are and I prefer not to know. I still command my own machine. Loons.

[suzyne]

I guess, if an update is installed after a long time of not keeping up-to-date and not following the changes to a program, maybe surprises are to be expected?

Nobody is forced to install a Pale Moon update, and any changes in the features are only limited to the browser, and as you suggest, you are completely free to revert to an earlier version. That is hardly stopping anybody from having sovereignty of their computer?

As someone who has never used NoScript, I find the depth of passion and loyalty that it elicits fascinating.

By the way, this topic has already been discussed at length. viewtopic.php?f=46&t=30927

[PaleLuc]

I guess, if an update is installed after a long time of not keeping up-to-date and not following the changes to a program, maybe surprises are to be expected?

Surprises are not to be expected. Anything that is to be expected can't be a surprise.

and any changes in the features are only limited to the browser

Hard blocking an extension changes the behavior of the browser. It changes the browser. I don't know of any browser that is good without extensions. Cripple extensions and you're back to Internet Explorer.

That is hardly stopping anybody from having sovereignty in their computer?

Someone else determining what the user is allowed to install and run (or not) on their own computer has no respect for the user. It's a violence.

As someone who has never used NoScript, I find the depth of passion and loyalty that it elicits fascinating.

Yes, sure, it's for no reason at all. Not because it's extremely useful and convenient. Nooo... It's just for no reason at all. I find your perception of the outside world fascinating.

By the way, this topic has already been discussed at length. viewtopic.php?f=46&t=30927

That one, that says "Locked" right at the top? Thanks. I will try to vent my frustrations there, right along with all the "surprises that are to be expected."

[suzyne]

The locked thread discusses alternatives to NoScript, which by the reports of those who use the other add-ons, can meet all their needs (and more)!

When the developer of an add-on abandons it (which is my understanding of what happened with the version of NoScript that ran on Pale Moon), instead of thinking it might be time to find an alternative add-on with similar functionality, some will assert that the abandonware should (must?) continue to be supported forevermore by others (the Pale Moon developers) who are not the original authors of NoScript.

Yes, I do find that interesting.

[andyprough]

To my horror .....

No one has stolen your precious janky old abandonware extension from you. There's a setting in Preferences-Security you can flip to allow dangerous add-ons if that's what you so desperately feel you need. Just don't come running here for help when NoScript inevitably causes you problems.

In the meantime, NoScript's functionality has been implemented better in the eMatrix add-on, a fork of the uMatrix add-on by the uBlock Origin developer. eMatrix is fully supported on Pale Moon, and has become quite beloved around here: https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/ematrix/

[Moonchild]

SNATCHING the control of my own machine away from my sovereign hands and "hard blocking" NoScript

Who the hell do you think you are???

Oh, just the guy continuing to work every day to try and improve an independent browser engine out there.
But, I guess that doesn't matter when you're as outraged as you are.

Imagine if website owner/masters/maintainers now decided to mimick the asshattery and HARD BLOCK Palemoon on their websites because "herp derp, Palemoon causes problems!"

Guess what? They have done that for as long as we've existed. "Your browser is not supported" based on often nothing more than sniffing the user-agent string, and not even because there are problems with how it handles the site.

how about this nice and long list of web sites that Palemoon fails to render correctly?

Don't you think that's rather hypocritical coming from someone who tries to use the web with an extension that basically makes it fail to render almost all web sites out of the gate?

Someone else determining what the user is allowed to install and run (or not) on their own computer has no respect for the user.

Not sure what that has to do with a block being in place for an extension that causes crashes, profile corruption and data loss. The reasons for this block have been explained ad nauseum already so I'm not repeating it here.
If you want to use it, you can disable the safeguards with a few clicks, at your own risk.
Even if that wasn't a case you are free to install or not install whatever program on your computer. You're even free to compile your own version of Pale Moon with whatever changes you want in it. But as much as you are going on about "blocking something changing the browser" you have to understand that having NoScript installed also "changes the browser" and we have always drawn the line at extensions that cause dangerous or malicious effects like app crashes and data loss.

I will try to vent my frustrations there, right along with all the "surprises that are to be expected."

I'd rather you didn't. If you're already leaving Pale Moon anyway for another browser where you hope to run NoScript then I also ask you take note of this rule.

[ron_1]

I don't know of any browser that is good without extensions. Cripple extensions and you're back to Internet Explorer.

Well good luck because that's exactly what Mozilla did with web extensions, trying to copy Gooble.

And something doesn't make sense here . . . the NoScript issue was years before you even registered for the forum.

[PaleLuc]

Don't you think that's rather hypocritical coming from someone who tries to use the web with an extension that basically makes it fail to render almost all web sites out of the gate?

That is not true and you know it. You blow it out of proportion to justify your decisions. I have been using it for more than a decade without a single problem. ONCE I had a problem and soon discovered that I had made a mistake in my configuration. On the other topic to which I was referred, the one that is locked, two users report the exact same experience as mine (minus the configuration blunder).

I am very very sick of seeing software be abandoned, FORCEDLY abandoned even, with the preposterous excuse that "it's old." More often than not, it still works if not blocked or otherwise sabotaged. "It's old!" Give me a break. Radio is old. It hasn't been "updated" in decades. It doesn't broadcast images. The range is limited. The bandwidth is thin. But it still works. People listen to the radio. People buy radios. Radio stations make money. NoScript still works handsomely too. No wonder so many people defend it like it's their firstborn. The people has spoken. RULERS do the opposite of what the people wants.

[PaleLuc]

BTW, think about the "logic":

This extension that blocks harmful Javascript and has been protecting people's machines for more than a decade and is demonstrably EXTREMELY popular is inadequate (insert "considered harmful" joke here). No problem! Let's FORCE BLOCK it so it's removed and it will no longer block anything, leaving the machine 100% vulnerable to the jungle of all good and evil Javascript in the wilderness. Yes, now that is some security!

[Basilisk-Dev]

Off-topic:
And to think I almost didn't browse the forum today. Glad I did

Can we please lock this topic? Clearly we can't meet PaleLuc's needs, which is fine as everyone has different needs. Good luck PaleLuc.

[andyprough]

FORCE BLOCK it so it's removed and it will no longer block anything

We told you how to enable it if you so desperately want to, we told you how to install a newer, maintained extension that blocks scripts better. Seems like you should be marking this thread "solved" and thanking us for our help.

[andyprough]

Clearly we can't meet PaleLuc's needs

Seems like we met his needs. He said he needed to run noscript, we told him how he can do it. He said he needed to block scripts, we told him to use eMatrix. There's no needs left, this one was solved long before he created the thread.

[Basilisk-Dev]

Seems like we met his needs. He said he needed to run noscript, we told him how he can do it.

Sure, but if he can't listen to the advice on how to continue using NoScript then that's on him. At this point we're just wasting our time as we've already addressed his concerns and points.

[therube]

There's a setting in Preferences-Security you can flip to allow dangerous add-ons

Since it took me a bit of time looking & thinking, where? (heh), it is not a checkbox, but the dropdown dialog,

Add-on security level:

& you would set that to, Off: (dangerous).