NoScript disabled by force.

[moonbat]

that's where i take offense especially, the wording.

He's just parroting the Mozilla line of XUL being insecure and obsolete.

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?

Correct, in that context. How Mozilla and people like this developer use the term is definitely in a negative/pejorative sense. Also explains why Firefox fanboys foam at the mouth at any mention of how Pale Moon does things better, or how multiple kinds of security/privacy concerns are totally irrelevant here - since this browser is a living negation of their party line.

[Moonchild]

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.

Calling it both obsolete and deprecated just shows they don't understand the terms. It can be one or the other, not both.
However, from their point of view (in a Mozilla context) It really is obsolete since Mozilla moved on to WebExtensions only. Doesn't mean the technology is obsolete,; it just means that the XUL version for Firefox is obsolete since the platform support for it was removed in Mozilla-land and the Firefox versions still supporting it are themselves obsolete.

For the record (and for suzyne ):

• Deprecated means it is still in use but not recommended for use and should be phased out. Support for using it might be reduced but it still works.
• Obsolete means it can no longer (reasonably) be used, is no longer supported, and you should either find a supported version, discontinue its use, or switch to an alternative.

Things normally first become deprecated before they become obsolete. But something cannot be both at once.

[RealityRipple]

Off-topic:
I'd argue that "obsolete" would require being replaced by something with equal or greater functionality, which has not happened.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

I'd argue that "obsolete" would require being replaced by something with equal or greater functionality, which has not happened.

Only in an ideal world. Most things become obsolete when they stop being useful for their intended purpose. You could argue when that moment in time is, but having a replacement is not a prerequisite for becoming obsolete.

[frostknight]

Only in an ideal world. Most things become obsolete when they stop being useful for their intended purpose. You could argue when that moment in time is, but having a replacement is not a prerequisite for becoming obsolete.

Ideal... many things would be better in an ideal world. My ideal world, however has no such thing has arrogance/pride, ie, the stem or if you prefer root, where evil starts from would be gone.

Things normally first become deprecated before they become obsolete. But something cannot be both at once.

Interesting... hadn't known that.

He's just parroting the Mozilla line of XUL being insecure and obsolete.

Insecure though is a lie though. As they only switched to webextensions cause it is easier to vet. Moonchild said this at one point. Whom I know is watching this thread.

I'd argue that "obsolete" would require being replaced by something with equal or greater functionality, which has not happened.

you could say that about so many different software based things, let alone tech as a whole.

[andyprough]

Off-topic:

Off-topic:
I'd argue that "obsolete" would require being replaced by something with equal or greater functionality, which has not happened.

Depends on what is being discussed. Pale Moon 33.1.0 certainly has more functionality than Firefox 52 ESR.

[JayByrd]

As a long-time Pale Moon user (c. 2016,) and having watched (passively) these debates raging over Noscript for years, I finally felt compelled to relate my experience, viz this extension.

First things first: the title of this thread is a categorically false statement. I am posting this from Pale Moon 33.1.1, running Noscript. I've been using it on every PM version throughout the so-called "forcing" period since 33.x was introduced, and nothing is forced. Go to preferences...security... Set "No add-ons will be blocked" Voila!--NoScript will run.

I appreciate that Pale Moon chooses to provide us such an option, giving users the power to do things even "against advice." (I always thought that was kind of the point...) Thank you, Moonchild.

The other part of this debate I don't get either: why everyone thinks NoScript somehow breaks things--other than the things it's meant to, that is.

When I read stuff like this in other threads:

NoScript is a cancer that attaches itself in an "I love breaking profiles" sense to everything it touches

I just have to laugh! I've been on Pale Moon exclusively since 2016, using NoScript the entire time: no problems, no crashes, nothing.... Like I said, 8+years and counting, years before that with SeaMonkey, and have NEVER lost or broken a profile.

Can I, personally, be so lucky..? It "reaches into the internals" of the browser, and does "irresponsible" things there, yet I've yet to experience any of these ill effects..? Up until this very day? (If I had to guess, I'd say that if NoScript was indeed involved in some profile corruption issue, it would probably turn out to be a probable conflict between NoScript and some other extension--NOT Pale Moon itself. Again, that's just a guess...)

In any event, let me say "thank you" once again to Moonchild for Pale Moon, and as I said above, for empowering us users. It's very similar to the idea behind Slackware Linux: it gives one the freedom and power to break it occasionally--one must use his or her own discretion. Or as I've seen it expressed here: with power comes responsibility.

PS. Thanks also to athenian. His level-headed ("moderation in all things") approach to this and other matters is noted and appreciated.

[moonbat]

Can I, personally, be so lucky..?

Yes. Do also remember if your luck eventually runs out, this is the last place to ask for any assistance.

[andyprough]

Can I, personally, be so lucky..?

I've asked the same question, when after gorhill shut down my favorite js blocking extension uMatrix it was picked up and forked and continued as eMatrix for Pale Moon by @vannilla. How could I be so lucky that my favorite extension on my favorite browser was going to continue even after the extension's original author shut down his version and washed his hands of it?

And then more recently, @UCyborg stepped up and started updating and maintaining my other favorite extension uBlock on my favorite browser Pale Moon. After its original maintainer gorhill walked away from the Pale Moon version, and the follow-up maintainer justoff appeared to get his life disrupted by the Ukraine war and his github commits stopped. I'm double lucky, in each case someone volunteered to keep my two vitally important extensions running.

I need to teach myself to work on these extensions so that I do not require someone else to volunteer to do the work if ever the current maintainers are unable to.

Maybe someday some developer will step up and do the same for you and your favorite extension. Doesn't appear to be likely though, not after this length of time with no volunteers. You might have to teach yourself to do the work yourself.

[RealityRipple]

I propose this be our official response whenever someone brings up NoScript:

[JayByrd]

Can I, personally, be so lucky..?

Yes. Do also remember if your luck eventually runs out, this is the last place to ask for any assistance.

Don't worry--I don't plan to do so. My post was only meant to share my experience: no crashes, no problems of any kind.

I also said that I've been watching these debates rage here since at least 2018. I know the score: don't expect any help if you're running a blocked add-on. And if NoScript does eventually stop working for me, I'll adapt. In the meantime, ...

One of the reasons I never joined the forum until now is because the "debate" was, from my perspective, much ado about nothing. Here's what it has looked like to me: on one side, a bunch of entitled WinXP/NoScript fan-boys crying foul and trying to blame Moonchild for their woes. On the other side, people like you saying, essentially, "Anybody who still uses NoScript is stupid."

My only point was that my experience is NEITHER one of those. I in no way blame MC for the fact that NoScript's author chose to abandon the 5.1.x branch. Nor have I ever "lost a profile" or suffered any kind of crashes due to this (or any other) extension.

In another thread a couple months back, athenian had wondered aloud how much of all the NoScript noise here was the work of a small-but-vocal minority. He posited that, perhaps, there were users out there that have been using it all along without bitching. I just wanted to let Moonchild, athenian200, and the rest of the team know that we do exist.

[Moonchild]

Here's what it has looked like to me: on one side, a bunch of entitled WinXP/NoScript fan-boys crying foul and trying to blame Moonchild for their woes. On the other side, people like you saying, essentially, "Anybody who still uses NoScript is stupid."

Can you blame that conclusion though, if people continue to use it despite many documented instances of profile corruption, application crashes, and even an in-depth analysis (as far as the obfuscated code would allow anyway) of the extension proving beyond a doubt that every day you continue using it is a day risking catastrophic issues?
It doesn't matter that things never went awry for you (so far). You're free to continue using it if you absolutely insist like the other entitleds. And I personally am absolutely sick and tired of this nonsense being revived over and over.

The current status of the extension is that it hard crashes the application if in use on certain sites, it is unmaintained, and will therefore remain blocked at the level appropriate for extensions with such behaviour. And that is all there is to it.

Thanks for sharing what we already knew: for some people it doesn't shit the bed.

Thread locked.