Blocking vs Disabling JavaScript

[Goodydino]

But the context menu is part of the function of the browser. Some extensions add things to it, and you can also read source code, or reload images from there. If that is disabled, the browser is crippled.

[John connor]

Why limit a feature that could be used by someone if say they are testing JS on their own website and need to disable and enable it on the fly?

Besides that, omitting a feature just because you're the Dev isn't really fair to the user. Let the user decide whether they want the ability to enable/disable JS if they want to. Don't take on a holier than art thou approach to coding something for the masses. I like features in a browser whether someone thinks it's unnecessary or stupid. It's analogous to omitting the GreaseMonkey add-on because you think a user shouldn't use it because it can be a source of maliciousness and that one should just use an add-on for that script's intended purpose. Let the user decide.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Trying to start an argument then. Tread lightly.

[John connor]

Trying to start an argument then. Tread lightly.

No, I'm not. I'm stating what I believe. No argument intended if that's how it comes across.

And if your idea of starting an argument means no one can object to something, then that's bullcrap.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Simply you are being somewhat antagonistic trying to invoke Post Traumatic Mozilla Syndrome resposes in others.

I'd be careful if I were you. You can object without accusing others of acting in a Modern Mozilla manor.

[Moonchild]

Why limit a feature that could be used by someone if say they are testing JS on their own website and need to disable and enable it on the fly?

You're desperately trying to find some corner case reason to keep it, aren't you?
Devtools has a session-limited disabling feature and other tools to test website design (in addition, why would you be trying something like this on non-mainstream browsers? Not like <noscript> tags aren't supported by mainstream, and it won't behave any different on Pale Moon)

Besides that, omitting a feature just because you're the Dev isn't really fair to the user

LOL. You want to talk about fair? Then consider what is fair about demanding from a dev to maintain a feature that has no actual use except for people who want it because they want it and refuse to accept better alternatives. Trying to leverage the massive disposition due to trauma against removal of ANYTHING from the browser is also a dirty move.
Also, once more, this isn't a feature. And the more you push for being entitled to it, the more I'm considering actually going ahead and removing the pref, especially if nobody can actually provide an answer to the question I posed in my previous reply.

[John connor]

Well, I guess I'm on the losing side of an argument here, especially since you are the Dev. I just kindly ask you don't change the pref. I've been happy with PM now for at least five years now. I started using PM when Firefox made that UI change years ago to copy Chrome and I said adios after using FF for years. Prior to that it was Phoenix and the Mozilla suit. What I really like about PM is that it keeps the classic FF UI intact, uses XUL add-ons, and is patched not only for the known CVEs, but defense-in-depth CVEs as well. Most of all I like the PM backup tool so that I can backup the whole gambit, encrypt that in a 7Z SFX archive and store my entire PM profile, etc in the cloud, on my computers, in my local FTP and on Blu-ray. Yes, I'm a backup junkie. I even use Amazon S3 for things. The only negative with PM really is that there aren't too many people coding XUL add-ons. Seen as how FF is a major player, Devs will naturally gravitate toward creating Webextensions for things. If I someday learn JS, HTML, and CSS I'd like to create add-ons. Which brings me to the fact that if the pref for JS was changed, I don't really know how I can go in and turn that back on. I have a rough idea, but I'm sure there's more code involved then I'm willing to mess with.

Off-topic:
BTW - Why isn't the Github repository updated? I see it was last updated sometime in July if I can remember.

[coffeebreak]

Off-topic:

BTW - Why isn't the Github repository updated? I see it was last updated sometime in July if I can remember.

Off-topic:
What repository are you speaking of?

Pale Moon's current repository is updated constantly.
Looking right now, the last commit was about half an hour ago.

[superA]

Also, once more, this isn't a feature. And the more you push for being entitled to it, the more I'm considering actually going ahead and removing the pref, especially if nobody can actually provide an answer to the question I posed in my previous reply.

So, is this a blackmail or what ?
If I follow the discussion right, you're going to remove the pref, seriously!!
I think, @F22Simpilot and gepus are saying the obvius, but it's your project, do whatever you like with it.

Some years back, I think you would ask for votes, but not now, now you want examples and direct URLs.
Since you don't browse with limited low speed internet connection,you can not find any benefit by globally disabling JS
and cancel the user right to browse as he likes.
Ok with me, but don't forget to remove from the addons site, those ''JS toogle on/of'' extensions, don't
do half the job!

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Okay guys, this has gone off the rails.. Regardless of how right or wrong a decision is regarding the preference.. Your behavior is beyond outrageous.

JUST think of how you guys are treating anyone who disagrees with you.. You know, such as Moonchild. You have accused him of Acting like Mozilla, of blackmail, of being "holier than art thou". This is beyond ridiculous and you know when it is ME who has to call out your behavior it has gone too far.

LOOK.. This preference has no place in today's world where 95% of the mainstream web doesn't even WORK without Javascript. You cite what could amount to piracy and theft as well as slow connections as your ONLY justification and defense while you shit on the man who GAVE you this browser and project while not ONE of you have given ONE valid use case where this preference is still needed.

IF YOU WANT to jump ship over this then do so but no one will be along to save your ass.. But this has got to stop. It's been years since many of you were Mozilla users.. GET THE FUCK OVER THEIR ABUSE and don't start abusing someone else because of it. It is NOT happening here because WE are not YOUR slaves to be abused.

Come up with something objectively valid.. Else, piss off. Seriously.

[Isengrim]

This preference has no place in today's world where 95% of the mainstream web doesn't even WORK without Javascript.

My rationale, as I've put it before, is that if the preference isn't hurting anything, why take it away? It is still useful in 5% of use cases. Perhaps you want to test what your site looks like without JS, or you want to run the browser in a strict JS-free internal environment. Theoretical edge cases yes, but I think it's worth keeping the option in for legitimate use cases rather than removing it because people might not understand how to use it properly.

[Sajadi]

How about seeing it like that...

There is only a problem if something is made into a problem. This pref never did some serious harm - and there was so far no general issue having this one on board.

Actually - that removal discussion is something which would fit Mozilla much more - there was also never a problem with features and customization and full themes and powerful add-ons - until Mozilla decided to create some out of it.

An UI switch is comfortable to have - no matter which function it may be. If a feature would screw up things beyond any repair - then yes, a removal would be in that case more than justified. But i personally think that removing this option would create more harm, pissed of reactions and unnecessary heat in comparison with letting it the way it is.

How about we all calm down and try to use our energy for something really constructive which would be for the benefit of everyone

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I think for the time being the matter should rest for a while and be revisited in the future perhaps when a superior solution is devised.

I am, however, VERY upset at those few people's behavior in this thread. Not normal Tobin pissed off but legit upset. It was completely unfair to Moonchild and others who were exposed to it agreeing or not with the potential decision.

To those, I shall be watching so tread lightly for a good while.

[Moonchild]

Your responses here have taught me a few things about several people and the level of damage Mozilla has apparently done in general to our user base and how our users apparently are both oversensitive to change and are happy to reflect past experiences on someone genuinely trying to do what's best for you. Grudges are held and eagerly redirected to innocent parties, apparently.

There will be consequences.

[Sajadi]

I think for the time being the matter should rest for a while and be revisited in the future perhaps when a superior solution is devised.

Sounds like a good idea... Let the steam run off and when all is calmed down and everything has been thought through - review and decide later

Your responses here have taught me a few things about several people and the level of damage Mozilla has apparently done in general to our user base and how our users apparently are both oversensitive to change

I for sure did not wanted to be respect-less. Of course it is your project and your decision to keep or remove features - but many people would of course react in quite an angry or hostile way... Just remember the No-Script discussion for example.

Just wanted to voice my personal opinion , nothing more and nothing less. So hopefully no hard feelings

[John connor]

Off-topic:
[quote="coffeebreak"]
What repository are you speaking of?

Pale Moon's current repository is updated constantly.
Looking right now, the last commit was about half an hour ago.

[/quote]

Off-topic:
This one: https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Off-topic:
That hasn't been used since Pale Moon 28. Though, it will be used again in the future for /something/.

For now everything Pale Moon and Basilisk is in the Unified XUL Platform Repository.

[Goodydino]

YesScript still works. It makes a blacklist for sites that one does not want to use javascript.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Arguably the correct approach in this day and age. That extension should be all you need to have.

[vannilla]

YesScript still works. It makes a blacklist for sites that one does not want to use javascript.

Just like other extensions whose purpose is to control which content is handled by the browser.
The difference is that those extensions take a per-site approach, while people are arguing for a global "per-browser" (the part in quotes don't make much sense, but it's a rhetoric figure) switch.
Indeed, in theory you could use those extensions to test if your website/web-whatever works without scripts (though as far as I know the web developer tools have that feature already, and if you are writing a website/web-whatever you should use them.)