On Tuesday, 13 May, 2014 12:04 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 13/05/14 08:07, A Debian User wrote:
On Sunday, 11 May, 2014 10:08 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 11/05/14 22:59, Whit Hansell wrote:
Am getting frustrated. On the internet today there are so many sites
that have taken on so much advertising that it is killing my desire to
go to various sites. I mean specifically news sites.
<snipped>
As a side note, doesn't NoScript and FlashBlock have redundant features,
in that they both block the loading of Flash content?
No.
NoScript does not block Flash by default - you could make it, and
likewise with AdBlock Plus, and /etc/hosts. Perhaps it's your use of the
term "redundant" that's problematic?
So, shouldn't you just use NoScript, since it has more features and
additionally does what FlashBlock does, anyway?
No.
Apples and Oranges.
It doesn't.
(so, no, again).
For empirical evidence go visit Youtube with *just* NoScript enabled and
compare the page load speed and totals with NoScript *and* FlashBlock
both installed.
Kind regards
So, I installed xul-ext-flashblock (Flashblock 1.5.17 Wheezy) and reset
the settings of xul-ext-noscript (NoScript 2.6.8.19) to find out.
Comparing the Preferences/Options dialogs of both add-ons, it appears
that everything Flashblock can do, NoScript already does* (in addition
to all the other things it can do).
These things are:
- block Flash content
- block HTML5 video
- block Silverlight content
- whitelist sites
*There is a minor exception that NoScript allows for the manual import
and export of whitelists, while Flashblock allows you to sync them via
"Weave/Iceweasel Sync". But this is a minor difference and not the
"point" of these programs.
Therefore, in a browser with both Flashblock and NoScript installed,
unless you have some special convoluted use case, Flashblock would be
"redundant".
It is also technically incorrect that NoScript doesn't block Flash by
default. It does. It just whitelists YouTube by default a long with a
few other sites. (Flashblock doesn't whitelist anything by default.)
But, so, what's the problem?
Each add-on installed contributes a little bit to the browser's startup
time, which may all add up to a considerable amount if you have several
add-ons installed (like me).
It would be a good idea, then, to limit the number of these add-ons and
to forgo installing those add-ons whose functionality can be provided by
those already installed.
Also, installing add-ons with similar (or "redundant") functionality
might potentially cause these add-ons to mess with each others'
functioning, much like what happens when you install two different
real-time virus scanners on a certain popular operating system.
In closing, I suggest that the correct way of using your "apples and
oranges" analogy would be that Adblock Plus is the apple, NoScript is
the orange, and the hosts file is a katana.
Cheers!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537262f3.30...@openmailbox.org
