And another Ubuntu convert!

[Mark Kirkwood]

Preston Kutzner wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>> Unless your browser has vulnerabilities, script isn't supposed to be 
>> able to
>> do anything harmful (activex, of course, is just one huge 
>> vulnerability).
>> Having a script blocker asking  whether it can run scripts every time 
>> you
>> come to a new site ruins the experience of the web, for little value.  I
>> don't _want_ to have to decide whether to trust scripts on every 
>> site, and I
>> absolutely don't  believe I need to.
>
>
> As a slight tangent to the original discussion:
>
> While I don't use noscript to prevent infection vectors while 
> browsing, it is handy to keep ads and tracking scripts from running 
> while I visit web pages.  Also, it is handy for sites like Linked-In 
> where on systems, it's javascript is so jacked up that some of its 
> pages take *minutes* to load.  It is also good for preventing those 
> really annoying pop-over ads (the flash ones that FF's built-in popup 
> blocking doesn't catch).  So, there are reasons for people to use such 
> plug-ins.  And as far as annoyance is concerned, that's a relative 
> argument.  I'd rather put up with the "annoyance" of having to 
> manually allow scripts for pages than to be bombarded with useless 
> advertising and tracking scripts while I'm browsing.


Have you tried just Ad-block? It might do what you want (FWIW I use 
Noscript and Adblock Plus!)

Cheers

Mark