Please unlock the NoScript thread

[fishyfool]

Moonchild seems to have prematurely locked the noscript thread, could we get this unlocked?
There is quite a bit more about it to know than covered 6 years ago when the thread was locked.
Such as profiles, multiple browser installs, understanding what is optional and what is required to make a website run the content wanted and not unwanted content.
Complementary add ons exist as well, like behind the overlay (not on PM, yet)
To explain partially, I surf the internet with impudence.
NoScript allows that, I use it with firefox and Pale Moon.
I also set up browser profiles where I can have two of the same browser running but from different profiles with different add ons.
This can be done with both FF and PM
I have chrome running without noscript for the websites that require a secure socket unimpeded. (Like my bank)

[Moonchild]

I don't see a reason to bump a 6-year-old forum thread.

[moonbat]

Just use eMatrix, it does a much better job of functioning as a whitelist by default content blocker (scripts, cookies, CSS, media,frames, background XML HTTP requests) without messing up your profile. NoScript itself is only offered as a web extension that's incompatible with Pale Moon, the version that works is several years unmaintained and will break your profile in worse ways.
I mean it's not as though anyone hasn't mentioned eMatrix here before if only you people would learn to search

Edit- Also, any comparisons with Firefox or Chrome or extensions made for those browsers are invalid here - PM is an entirely different browser at this point and doesn't support web extensions that the other 2 do. If you want a particular extension here, search the Pale Moon addons site for a fork or a similar one or look at the classic addons archive for unmaintained legacy Firefox extensions that might work (again, you're on your own where any support is concerned) or try convincing a web extension author to also support Pale Moon. (That should work well.)

[andyprough]

Just use eMatrix, it does a much better job of functioning as a whitelist by default content blocker (scripts, cookies, CSS, media,frames, background XML HTTP requests) without messing up your profile.

I agree, in my experience eMatrix has been superior to noscript.

[Pentium4User]

Moonchild seems to have prematurely locked the noscript thread, could we get this unlocked?

That is common here when a thread didn't receive replies for a time.

Why don't start a new thread?

[Moonchild]

In my view eMatrix is superior to noscript.

I think it is, objectively speaking, if for nothing else than the fact that it doesn't use dangerous APIs inside the browser that cause stability and corruption issues if not used with the utmost care. Oh, and the warning about NoScript remains unabated. It's unsupported, and if you use it regardless, your use of the browser is also entirely at your own risk and you're on your own if you have issues.

[moonbat]

Why don't start a new thread?

No, don't encourage this. The topic of why not to use NoScript has been done to death.

[fishyfool]

Just use eMatrix, it does a much better job of functioning as a whitelist by default content blocker (scripts, cookies, CSS, media,frames, background XML HTTP requests) without messing up your profile. NoScript itself is only offered as a web extension that's incompatible with Pale Moon, the version that works is several years unmaintained and will break your profile in worse ways.

Not the case. I've been using noscript longer than I've been using PM. And I'm over 10 years into PM
Yes, it breaks stuff. Stuff I WANT broken. mostly CSS.
It can be re-enabled if needed.


I mean it's not as though anyone hasn't mentioned eMatrix here before if only you people would learn to search

I don't want someone else's whitelist. I can also make two profiles in a browser and install the addons that run in either, but not necessarily both profiles.

Edit- Also, any comparisons with Firefox or Chrome or extensions made for those browsers are invalid here - PM is an entirely different browser at this point and doesn't support web extensions that the other 2 do.

This year marks 31 years on the internet for me. ALL browsers can be compared, if only for what you can do with the basic install vs modified by an addon's install.

That should work well.

Keep your sarcasm to yourself, thanks.
Meaningful input is always acceptable.

[fishyfool]

Why don't start a new thread?

No, don't encourage this. The topic of why not to use NoScript has been done to death.

Instead of telling people to not use it, maybe you should tell them HOW to use it.
Along with browser profiles.
It's also nice to know how to inspect a page and disable elements you don't want running.

[athenian200]

There's really not much more we have to say about NoScript that hasn't been said before. I'll sum it up in a three-point list:

1. We don't recommend the use of NoScript with Pale Moon.

2. If you do use it, you should not expect support and most of us on the forum have agreed informally not to provide support for it.

3. If you choose to use it and accept the consequence of forgoing support, then you are free to use it. No one is going to go out of their way to stop you, you just won't get help.

That said, if you're happy using NoScript in Firefox, I would say to keep using it there... that way you can complain to Mozilla and the add-on developer about issues you have with it. But if you're using a UXP-based browser, it's better to avoid NoScript. The Firefox version uses WebExtensions more than likely, and so it will be more up-to-date, and probably won't be able to break Firefox in the way it breaks Pale Moon. The XUL version we would rely on is totally unmaintained, hasn't kept up with our development, and was kind of buggy to begin with.

TL;DR NoScript = NoSupport.

[vannilla]

I agree, in my experience eMatrix has been superior to noscript.

The best thing about ηMatrix is that 2024 marks the third (or maybe fourth?) year in which all releases had no changes other than the copyright year! (there is a reason I make these releases instead of letting things be.)
Sure, there are a couple experimental features that could use some progress, but from what I gathered there is no real interest in them aside from a couple of rarely met situations.

[andyprough]

The best thing about ηMatrix is that 2024 marks the third (or maybe fourth?) year in which all releases had no changes other than the copyright year! (there is a reason I make these releases instead of letting things be.)
Sure, there are a couple experimental features that could use some progress, but from what I gathered there is no real interest in them aside from a couple of rarely met situations.

One change I'd like to see is the ability to delete the accepted cookies from a site immediately after leaving the site, and not having to wait a minimum of 15 minutes like the way cookie deletion works now. If eMatrix could delete cookies immediately then I don't think I would use a separate cookie deletion extension.

[Moonchild]

Instead of telling people to not use it, maybe you should tell them HOW to use it.

I think this forum is the wrong venue for that. Why not find a forum that actually focuses on the use of NoScript instead of here where the very use of it is discouraged for objectively clear reasons?

The XUL version we would rely on is totally unmaintained, hasn't kept up with our development, and was kind of buggy to begin with.

^This, and calling it "kind of buggy" is being exceedingly kind.

[vannilla]

I don't think I would use a separate cookie deletion extension.

There's nothing wrong in using an extension designed to delete cookies, to delete cookies.
If anything, maybe it's ηMatrix that should not delete cookies... (I'm not changing anything, don't worry.)

[fishyfool]

There's really not much more we have to say about NoScript that hasn't been said before. I'll sum it up in a three-point list:

1. We don't recommend the use of NoScript with Pale Moon.

2. If you do use it, you should not expect support and most of us on the forum have agreed informally not to provide support for it.

3. If you choose to use it and accept the consequence of forgoing support, then you are free to use it. No one is going to go out of their way to stop you, you just won't get help.

That said, if you're happy using NoScript in Firefox, I would say to keep using it there... that way you can complain to Mozilla and the add-on developer about issues you have with it. But if you're using a UXP-based browser, it's better to avoid NoScript. The Firefox version uses WebExtensions more than likely, and so it will be more up-to-date, and probably won't be able to break Firefox in the way it breaks Pale Moon. The XUL version we would rely on is totally unmaintained, hasn't kept up with our development, and was kind of buggy to begin with.

TL;DR NoScript = NoSupport.

I do not need help. I was offering to add content to the thread that IS NOT there, I DO know how to use NoScript and I understand it's reason for being. I couldn't care less if you like it or are willing to help me/others or not.
I am willing to help others with it, and unlike you, I find it to be child's play.
As I said, I'm a longtime net user with nutscrape and alta vista before yahoo bought it
Before that, I was on AOL when they sent out floppies instead of CD's
I'm also a registered Linux user from 1995.
So unless you're a DEV.....

[andyprough]

There's nothing wrong in using an extension designed to delete cookies, to delete cookies.
If anything, maybe it's ηMatrix that should not delete cookies... (I'm not changing anything, don't worry.)

That's fine, and you're right, nothing wrong with using a dedicated cookie manager.

[RealityRipple]

meanwhile athenian sitting there with an invisible developer badge

[Blacklab]

Just to put the other side...
I've used NoScript every day on every website on every browser I've installed on both Windows and Linux OS' for over 10 years.
No problems experienced ever... no problems with any versions of NoScript on any versions of Pale Moon or Basilisk.
No problems for that matter on any versions of Firefox, Firefox ESR, LibreWolf, Waterfox, Tor, Vivaldi, or Brave either.
I read and accept all the warnings here... and am happy to accept the implied risks.
Personally, I've never, ever had any problem with NoScript.

[andyprough]

I'm a longtime net user with nutscrape and alta vista before yahoo bought it
Before that, I was on AOL when they sent out floppies instead of CD's
I'm also a registered Linux user from 1995.
So unless you're a DEV.....

I remember alta vista - that brings back some (not so good) memories. And I used to get those AOL floppies in the mail. They were cool, because you could write over them so at our office we would gather them up and save money instead of buying new floppies.

Anyway, @athenian2000 is a C++ dev for the Pale Moon project and also has his own email client called Epyrus that he develops, so he's speaking from quite a knowledgeable perspective. He and Moonchild and vannilla and RealityRipple and moonbat are all developers and are all walking encyclopedias regarding how Pale Moon and its extensions work. The views that have been expressed so far in this thread (except for mine) are about as experienced and knowledgeable on this subject as you are likely to find anywhere in the world.

[fishyfool]

I remember alta vista - that brings back some (not so good) memories. And I used to get those AOL floppies in the mail. They were cool, because you could write over them so at our office we would gather them up and save money instead of buying new floppies.

Nice. We did that too. I wish I'd have saved a few.

Anyway, @athenian2000 is a C++ dev for the Pale Moon project and also has his own email client called Epyrus that he develops, so he's speaking from quite a knowledgeable perspective. He and Moonchild and vannilla and RealityRipple and moonbat are all developers and are all walking encyclopedias regarding how Pale Moon and its extensions work. The views that have been expressed so far in this thread (except for mine) are about as experienced and knowledgeable on this subject as you are likely to find anywhere in the world.

I saw the UXL version he stated and figured something was there.
NoScript really isn't understood, like a red headed foster child.
You have to approach it with the understanding that it breaks everything and that's by design.
Anyway, I'm done fighting a battle that was over before it started.
As the above poster said, not here.