What are these fucking idiots doing?
They got rid of global untrust all so that you only enable the scripts you need. Instead there is a giant bloated whitelist of data collection domains. I can't find an option anywhere to untrust all. And now there is this stupid global list of permissions that keeps on growing with every new site I load.
Somebody needs their head kicked in for releasing this bullshit. For fucks sake the last version wasn't at all broken, it didn't need a revamp.
Other urls found in this thread:
web.archive.org
twitter.com
NoScript is kind of useless. I haven't touched it since I found uMatrix.
Same here. I often see people praising it, and just think 'what I'm not understanding?'
This
Just disable "1st-party" scripts and you have the exact same functionality.
Off-topic but IMHO uMatrix shouldn't even exist as a plugin: it should be built in like the dev console and called "Site Permissions".
Plugins were a mistake anyway. Most of them should be built-in (like custom styles, SSL enforcement or userscripts). But that's where we are at.
I think it's the opposite. Browsers should do literally nothing other than render html/css/js. Everything else should be a plugin.
tor browser gets fucked over though
you can still use add-ons in tor browser. just uninstall no-script and stick umatrix in.
That's weird. Usually we expect our software to do everything we need by default. That's the standard expected from text editors, file managers, drawing software, etc. Why should browsers be different?
because a browser already wants to be all of the above. less is better
Enjoy your unique fingerprint
Because other software is fairly self contained, you use it for a very specific purpose and that's it. Interenet browsers on the other hand are like an extension of your computer, so they should be customizable like your computer.
Don't mind because he is confusing the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" with the Lunix philosophy of "do it yourself, dependency hell plugin edition".
Hell yes ad blocking and script blocking should be part of the web browser just as the ads and scripts are part of the web page. Duh.
Gee I sure want to trust my security and privacy on Jewgle and Communiszilla. Actually nevermind I forgot I can use a shitty browser that doesn't support half the internet nor any of the plugins I want instead.
Sorry I should have been more clear what said was what I was going for. You already attract a lot of attention by using tor so the last thing you want to do is make yourself anymore uniquely identifiable than necessary.
With that mentality will you distrust AES and SHA because they come from the NSA?
Fine but that wouldn't affect the technical aspect of them implementing ad blocking in their browsers: if it's good it's worth using, if it's bad it's useless and everyone will know.
Except for the 1 gorillion forks and sporks based on Firefox and Chromium? Come on be reasonable Holla Forumsro.
µmatrix is better
join the ma~ster~~trix race
Do you really think Google will let you block all of their script and ads without sneaking some jew oil inbetween?
Nice reading comprehension.
IMHO browsers shouldn't even have JPEG/GIF/PNG/etc image codecs distributed with the binary, let alone (invariably outdated and slow mirrors of ffmpeg's) video codecs statically linked. Feels too much like 8-bit PC days when your printer had to be directly supported by the drivers built into your word processor to work.
Didn't the noscript dev cheated their users beforehand, when they made the all ads turned into white list? top Kek.
Wasn't this compromised a while back?
WE TOLD YOU ABOUT THE GIORGIO MAONE BRO
WE TOLD YOU DOG
Ha! I didn't know about this. What a scumbag.
This also refutes Mozilla's "logic" in removing XUL. Any and all software can be malicious.
Well they've greatly improved the security of Firefox by putting each extension into their own sandbox. This means the extensions will theoretically have zero ability to affect anything outside of the sandbox.
That was over a year ago. WebExtensions wouldn't be able to do such a thing because they're sandboxed.
But they can still be malicious themselves. As can all software. It should be the user's responsibility to control what gets run on their computer. Blocking or forcing the "signing" of addons just puts that control into someone else's hands.
Yes. Let's remove root permissions and give users total control over their processes and programs. That works so well, doesn't it?
The option of sandboxing is nice, sure, but making it mandatory for all addons is retarded. In your analogy, that would be like completely walling off the root account unless you installed a special jailbroken kernel fork.
You still run a bunch of shit as "root". I mean, you boot the system, right? And it can do anything then.
Besides, a program doesn't need root permissions to be malicious. What prevents me from writing a python "game" that also deletes your home directory?
Never said permissions and sandboxes made systems unbreakable. However, they make it harder for malicious software to attack.
Root access is only given for very specific tasks. No program should have more permissions than it needs to function.