What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
87 Comments
- wality, on 05/04/2009, -5/+69The best thing to come out of this is now I know how to disable NoScript updates. Nice job NoScript, I will not longer be directed to your ad page. Was the battle worth it?
- kbrosnan, on 05/04/2009, -1/+56http://noscript.net/faq#qa2_5
"I don't like NoScript redirecting the browser on its welcome page every time I upgrade it. Is there any way to prevent this?"
Type about:config in the address bar, agree to the warning use the filter to find noscript.firstRunRedirection double click to set to false. - JMilton, on 05/04/2009, -6/+44NoScript:0
Internet:1 - Paulish, on 05/04/2009, -2/+35I hope he doesn't go to jail. I don't want to pay to send someone to jail over such a petty conflict. What is this, Soviet Russia or something?
- knightmarex, on 05/04/2009, -3/+31It's worth mentioning how the community responded to this, and got it exposed everywhere. I think this is our best tool, and what will most likely prevent things like this from happening again.
- inactive, on 05/04/2009, -16/+44Last time I checked a program that changed another program that you previously installed without your permission was called malware.. doing so can get you charged.. hope he enjoys some jail time.
- buddyw, on 05/04/2009, -29/+54Noscript could beat up my mother and I would still use it. I NEED it.
Also, this was a stupid argument. Both sides were clearly at fault. - grapesofbaath, on 05/04/2009, -2/+24No wonder NoScript has been making me install a new update every. *****. day. lately. I just uninstalled it, good riddance.
It was annoying, I'll just browse suspicious sites in a sandbox. - ultrafez, on 05/04/2009, -4/+25It sounds quite irritating - a lot of websites use extensive JavaScript nowadays and disabling it globally except for sites you explicitly enable sounds like more trouble than it's worth.
- DickBreath, on 05/04/2009, -4/+22If NoScript forces me to choose, I will pick ABP over NoScript any day.
Maybe both sides have some fault, but NoScript clearly has much more. ABP blocking ads is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. ABP / EasyList made their block too aggressive if it broke NoScript installation. But this was only done after the war escalated. Again ABP only did what it was supposed to do.
I also always found the NoScript updates far too frequent, and the automatic annoyance opening of their web page quite suspicious. Now I clearly know the motive underneath it. - wright3279, on 05/04/2009, -1/+18The mute button on your tv should be automatically disabled when an ad comes on?
- FredFredrickson, on 05/04/2009, -3/+18I like the idea behind NoScript, but I get so tired of updating it every ***** time I start FireFox.
- krystalo, on 05/04/2009, -15/+30NoScript is dead to me. However, if something good for Firefox comes out of it, I won't complain.
- QuantumNighmare, on 05/04/2009, -4/+19Now I'm happy I uninstalled noscript a few weeks ago. Too much annoyance for the small gain, and my whitelist was becoming hugely bloated with trustworthy sites.
- Fhwqhgads, on 05/04/2009, -1/+14@ultrafez: I agree it can be a pain sometimes.
I think NoScript should have a EasyList type thing like Adblock has with the known good scripts on a whitelist to save some of that hassle. - din100, on 05/04/2009, -2/+15I found no script annoying every time their is an update they will push their home page to say it's updated which is why i ended up removing it long before this fisico
- SantaClauz, on 05/04/2009, -0/+13He can come stay with me. Chance are, he's in there for smoking pot.
You can never have enough stoner friends. - TnTBass, on 05/04/2009, -5/+18I use both ABP and NoScript, and I will continue to use them in the future.
Stuff like this makes me wonder if we ever really move on from Kindergarten. - overnine9k, on 05/04/2009, -1/+13I think the gist of it was everytime you updated noscript, it loaded up the noscript page where the dev gets money from the ads. if you had adblock installed, the update would without permission edit adblock definitions to enable ads to show up in that page.
- RazorEye, on 05/04/2009, -4/+16Yes, of coarse jail time for such a vile act. What you say? The jails are too full of hardened criminals who raped, murdered and stolen others lives? Its OK, let one of them go, we have someone here much more harmful to society to toss in there.
Hey kirado4, the guy that gets released to make room.... can he come stay at your place? - lordkenthegreat, on 05/04/2009, -3/+15The fact that the issues of ethics are being brought into the open-source community is a sign of changing times.
- robbob, on 05/04/2009, -5/+16What's so great about No Script anyway?
- magamiako, on 05/04/2009, -1/+12I don't click on ads. In fact, when it comes to advertisements it's a complete waste of my internet bandwidth to have to deal with them. Meanwhile, the most the website host has to handle is a little bit of text (the code to embed the advertisement on the site), my browser has been instructed to contact a 3rd party server for images, text, and in some cases sound. Sometimes it may even load a flash ad or something off the way like that.
Ads that pop up behind my screen, minimized, are "unobtrusive" to the user, but a complete waste of my computer resources and my time.
All the while the site page load may take too long when the ad server does not respond quickly enough, further killing my browsing experience.
Ads are intrusive--period.
My reaction may be completely overblown, but this guy's actions are added to a long list of reasons why I hate advertising at all. If people didn't try to do this stupid ***** to try and sell me something, hacking around my browser to get me to look at their *****--then maybe, just maybe, I wouldn't be so opposed to advertisements. But combine this with the millions of e-mail spam, the very large botnets that make millions of dollars off of advertising, the IRC spam, the myspace spam, the facebook applications spam--the entire advertisement industry can lick my hairy nuts. - mabsark, on 05/04/2009, -0/+10The issue was that NoScript was modifying AdBlock Plus without user permission. We have a term for programs that use such behaviour, malware. Other categories of malware include viruses, trojans, and spyware.
- clockpuncher, on 05/04/2009, -1/+11In the long run its probably best that Mozilla lay down some rules for addon developers. The author of NoScript admitted he was wrong, put a statement of apology on his website and patched out the offending behavior. That's more than you will get from most people or companies. I will continue to use both NoScript and AdBlock Plus because they are good addons.
- breadfred, on 05/04/2009, -1/+11No it isn't. I just checked Safari, which does not have any add-ons installed on my laptop, and went to Digg. I turned it off within 1 minute due to all the ads.
- DickBreath, on 05/04/2009, -0/+10NoScript can "want" ad views all it wants. They can't force me to see them.
The advertising parasites are attempting to plaster ads on every visible space on earth. Soon we'll have the sky plastered with glowing animated eye-popping seizure-inducing advertisement billboards in space.
Once the bits are in my computer (or TiVo, etc) they are sacrosanct. It is my equipment at the end of the day. MY software, the USER-AGENT can do what *I* want it to do in displaying those bits. - TnTBass, on 05/04/2009, -6/+15Isn't public shame enough? He openly admitted to doing wrong, and has fixed the problem.
I see no reason to put him through the courts for this. Let his public shame be enough. If you do not agree with his principles and his apology, then uninstall NoScript and move on. - jeremymccurdy, on 05/04/2009, -4/+13How was AdBlock Plus at fault? They didn't do anything to NoScript aside from expose the modifications that it was making to AdBlock.
- disappointed, on 05/04/2009, -6/+14Maone decided to agree to these principles and has issued an updated version of NoScript to completely revert the controversial changes. In an apologetic blog entry published on Monday, he expressed deep regret for his conduct and acknowledged that his attempt to surreptitiously disrupt AdBlock Plus with his own extension was inappropriate.
"I had this crazy idea of retaliating against EasyList 'from the inside', and in my blindness I did not grasp that I was really retaliating against my own users and the Mozilla community at large," he wrote. "I beg you to accept my most sincere apologies and believe in my shame and contrition."
---
That's good enough for me. - breadfred, on 05/04/2009, -1/+91. Big block of real estate on top of the page. 2. Some kind of flash animation top right hand side. 3. Even more distraction by 3rd ad.
No, thank you. Too much distraction.
And yes, the Intertubes DO run on fairy farts. And lube. - VoidOfsPg, on 05/04/2009, -2/+10I only use Adblock anyway so this isn't of much concern to me. :D
- DickBreath, on 05/04/2009, -2/+10There is another FF extension called YesScript which is a blacklist instead of a whitelist. Opposite of NoScript.
- DickBreath, on 05/04/2009, -1/+9Furthermore, metal clamps should grab your arms and legs and head, and tiny tools force your eyelids open to watch the ads.
Once the ads are done, all the metal clamps release.
You should have any problem with that. It's for your own good. You must watch advertising. - BrownieMix, on 05/04/2009, -4/+11NoScript can just go develop for Chrome if they don't want AdBlockPlus.
- mktwo, on 05/05/2009, -1/+8AdBlock Plus was not the only addon that NoScript tried to block.
It seem that NoScript developer will block anything that inform users about advertising on NoScript website.
http://news.ghostery.com/post/103180001/attention- ...
"NoScript is still blocking Ghostery through a Ghostery-specific CSS rule. This is especially vile, since Ghostery doesn’t affect NoScript’s revenue model in the slightest - it’s just the tool I use to be informed about the analytics and advertising technologies in use from site to site." - DigeratiPrime, on 05/04/2009, -1/+8chrome.exe -disable-javascript
- overnine9k, on 05/04/2009, -2/+9i agree with ultrafez, i used to run noscript religiously but after a while I found it tedious to add everysite I randomly chose to visit to noscript.
- jostheller, on 05/04/2009, -4/+10It prevents any scripts from running on web pages you visit unless you grant them permission. It prevents you from accidentally going to a "bad" site that wants to install malware on your computer. If I don't know the site, then my computer wont execute their scripts.
WOT is another good site (or add on) to use in conjunction with NoScript. - Fhwqhgads, on 05/04/2009, -0/+6@DickBreath: Never before in history have I come across a comment as true and full of WIN as yours. Bravo!
- DickBreath, on 05/04/2009, -1/+7No qualifications? None?
Even if they redirect you to baby-killers-R-us.com? Four times per day? - SanTe, on 05/05/2009, -3/+8"NoScript is dead to me."
A little over the top don't you think? There are far more important things in the world to get worked up over, especially since the guy corrected his mistake and apologized. - Focher, on 05/04/2009, -2/+7You lost many of us at "go to drudge".
- esc27, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5Perfectly legitimate websites can become host to bad code. The Fox news website for example.
- Langford, on 05/04/2009, -3/+8The way I see it, any plug-in should be able to do anything, as long as they are honest and open about it. The end experience belongs to the end user, so they should have the ability to choose if they are willing to tolerate X behavior in favor of X rewards.
- jeremymccurdy, on 05/04/2009, -4/+8Jail time? That's a bit excessive, he ***** with someone else's project, he didn't rape them.
- magamiako, on 05/04/2009, -2/+6Extra second of load time? Try an extra minute or two while the ad server doesn't respond holding up the rest of my entire page while I'm trying to get on with my day and get to the information I want.
It is *NOT* an extra revenue stream if I do not click on the ads.
Again, it's a philosophical thing. If you want me to treat you with respect and want any money from me you do not try these underhanded techniques to get around my wishes. If I don't want to see ads, and I install a utility that blocks ads--you have no right to attempt to circumvent that utility in any way shape or form just so you can show me an advertisement I'm not going to click anyway.
It's shady, and it's *****. Furthermore, you have no right if I do sign up with your site to sell or give away any information you have on me. You track my browsing habits only for the ability to optimize your site and provide me with content that you think I'll like. You do not track my browsing habits to give away to some advertiser to try and sell me things.
You don't try to install browser toolbars or hijacking utilities with any applications I download from you. On top of that, I'd go so far as to say you do not even configure by default to install or configure any of these utilities in that manner. If you want to install advertisement software on my computer, you ask me specifically if you are allowed to do so--you do not do it "behind my back" by hiding it inside a "Custom" installation method.
You don't reconfigure my browser to go to your search engine. You don't install any memory resident programs to track my computer use. You don't give me a little "buddy" (read: Bonsai Buddy) and make this little innocent and cute application that in reality tracks everything you do on the PC.
You don't give me epilepsy by throwing an advertisement in the way that makes me get a god damn headache by looking at the computer screen. No, I'm not going to punch your ***** monkey for a free playstation 3, and no, I am not interested in your free ipod nano. I don't care about free sexy singles in my area, because if I wanted to get laid I'd go buy a ***** whore.
The entire advertisement industry needs to be uprooted as I and I'm sure many other people have 0 confidence in the entire system.
If you want to do advertising in some way, you come up with an alternative system that rebuilds trust and confidence in the concept. You work it into your site so that it is unobtrusive, you give me the option to turn it off--and you don't try to forcefeed the advertisements down my throat by providing me with "intellitext" ads, or paragraphs separated by ads. - secrity, on 05/04/2009, -2/+6Great nick, dickbreath
- glitchbit, on 05/05/2009, -2/+6case in point
Do not update your freakin extensions unless you have a problem.
Step 1) Install Firefox
Step 2) Disable all automatic update
Step 3) Enjoy - JakeW, on 05/05/2009, -2/+5What is the appeal to NoScript? I've tried using it once, but that was almost 4 years ago, and I never checked back.
What are its general purposes? -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is