Firefox 23 Removes "Disable Javascript" from the Preferences Dialog
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
I was testing Firefox Nightly 24.0a1 and have seen only "block pop-ups" in preferences dialog and unfortunately they removed "Disable Javascript"[1]. This coming with Firefox 23 and probably Abrowser 23 too.
Now the way to disable is about:config or NoScript.
[1] http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Firefox-23-Removes-Unused-or-Dangerous-Preferences-from-the-Options-Dialog-2.png/
[2] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Firefox-23-Removes-Unused-or-Dangerous-Preferences-from-the-Options-Dialog-344744.shtml
[3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702
On 17/05/13 10:55, name at domain wrote:
> I was testing Firefox Nightly 24.0a1 and have seen only "block
> pop-ups" in preferences dialog and unfortunately they removed
> "Disable Javascript"[1]. This coming with Firefox 23 and probably
> Abrowser 23 too.
>
> Now the way to disable is about:config or NoScript.
>
> [1] http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Firefox-23-Removes-Unused-or-Dangerous-Preferences-from-the-Options-Dialog-2.png/
> [2] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Firefox-23-Removes-Unused-or-Dangerous-Preferences-from-the-Options-Dialog-344744.shtml
> [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851702
It's a shame that they also removed the Images Exceptions section on the
dialog box as well. I often use that to block the rare image ads that I
see in my browser. I use Tor, so less images being downloaded is better
for performance and better for the Tor network.
Andrew.
You can use Privoxy for blocking of images.
> You can use Privoxy for blocking of images.
Thanks. :-) I don't think it will work for SSL websites, but that's
still okay.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-05-16 21:35, Andrew Roffey wrote:
> It's a shame that they also removed the Images Exceptions section on the
> dialog box as well. I often use that to block the rare image ads that I
> see in my browser. I use Tor, so less images being downloaded is better
> for performance and better for the Tor network.
I am not crazy! Thank you, I thought I had imagined that existed.
Is there an alternative to do that with an extension?
F.
- --
Fabián Rodríguez
http://trisquel.magicfab.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlGVlrgACgkQfUcTXFrypNWpbgCfTXv7a1OYyuccAck02b+h9KS9
GaAAn14zHjaudFaPmsWiV1wKFXEUyd1c
=t5ja
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 17/05/13 12:32, Fabian Rodriguez wrote:
> On 2013-05-16 21:35, Andrew Roffey wrote:
>> It's a shame that they also removed the Images Exceptions section
>> on the dialog box as well. I often use that to block the rare image
>> ads that I see in my browser. I use Tor, so less images being
>> downloaded is better for performance and better for the Tor
>> network.
>
> I am not crazy! Thank you, I thought I had imagined that existed.
>
> Is there an alternative to do that with an extension?
>
> F.
I found this, but it blocks images entirely, not per-domain:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/image-block/
I couldn't find any others. However, hopefully one will pop up when
people realise the option is gone.
I've added it as a task on my rather long todo list, so there's no
guarantee, but I do hope to make the extension if I don't find one
before FF 23 is released.
Andrew.
I know there are ethical issues on why some of you want to disable JavaScript, but disabling it pretty much makes most sites unusable in 2013. For the average person, having the option to enable/disable won't be an issue and the minority (like yourselves) are more tech saavy and will find a way to disable it or use an extension like NoScript instead.
The most popular JavaScript frameworks and libraries are considered free software like jQuery, Modernizr, and Mootools. There should be no incentive to block those as they pass the licensing tests.
Un minified JavaScript code is pretty much the source, but many of you have an issue with custom code created by the site owner that is minified and unreadable.
>Un minified JavaScript code is pretty much the source, but many of you have an issue with custom code created by the site owner that is minified and unreadable.
Source code is useless without a free license.
I think it is probably a good idea to remove options most people never use.
On 18/05/13 02:46, t3g wrote:
> I know there are ethical issues on why some of you want to disable
> JavaScript, but disabling it pretty much makes most sites unusable in
> 2013. [...] The most popular JavaScript frameworks and libraries are
> considered free software like jQuery, Modernizr, and Mootools. There
> should be no incentive to block those as they pass the licensing
> tests.
Well I could use LibreJS, but I didn't really like the sidebar that
much. I'm considering changing it a little for my own needs, but I've
been browsing the web without JS for at least two years now (I think).
> For the average person, having the option to enable/disable won't be
> an issue and the minority (like yourselves) are more tech saavy and
> will find a way to disable it or use an extension like NoScript
> instead.
That is true.
As long as web browsers have a "view source" option, you can peek around in the HTML, CSS, and JavaScript all you like. That is one of the beauties of the web as I cannot "view source" of Microsoft Word's code in the menus.
Maybe that's why a lot of devs choose not to put it under a free software license and leave un-minified. Anyone can look at their source code at any time which is not common with most desktop and mobile applications.
I am glad that there is a viewing of source for webpages. It helped me learn how to do it in the beginning and learn as technology progresses. Even now.
On 18/05/13 08:43, t3g wrote:
> As long as web browsers have a "view source" option, you can peek
> around in the HTML, CSS, and JavaScript all you like. That is one of
> the beauties of the web as I cannot "view source" of Microsoft Word's
> code in the menus.
>
> Maybe that's why a lot of devs choose not to put it under a free
> software license and leave un-minified. Anyone can look at their
> source code at any time which is not common with most desktop and
> mobile applications.
>
> I am glad that there is a viewing of source for webpages. It helped
> me learn how to do it in the beginning and learn as technology
> progresses. Even now.
That is true, but it's not really enough. I wanted to change the
JavaScript used on my university's intranet, but I probably couldn't
without permission. The result? I spent a while writing GreaseMonkey
replacement scripts for all of their JavaScript (I avoided reading their
JS, of course). So far I've made a bit of progress, and made the changes
I wanted.
>I avoided reading their JS, of course
The beauty of copyright is you could've read their code and then implemented it differently. That's what Stallman did in the beginning when he implemented similar functionality as in the Symbolics LISP machine for the LMI and the AI lab. However in the end he did quit reading their code to be 'ultra safe'.
Firefox 23 hit the Ubuntu repos the other day, which means that Abrowser 23 should hopefully be here soon as well. Is Ruben going to modify the FF 23 source code to bring back the disabling of JavaScript for Abrowser 23?
Wouldn't the NoScript addon work?
Well, that is a very sad decision from Mozilla. They have made some... not very good decisions over the last few months unfortunately. I think that taking away a easy solution from the user to disable JS is a poor choice. But I don't really care about that, as we still have NoScript. But I hope Mozilla thinks again about that.
I think that actually this isn't such a bad idea since both prefs can be toggled via about:config. A "normal" user will never disable JS or images, so the check boxes to do so are just clutter. (Well, they do inform the "normal" users of the existence of JS though...)
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Javascript.enabled
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Permissions.default.image
Images can be blocked using Adblock Plus. Right-click on the image, then click on "Adblock Plus: Block image...", then set the filter rule.
I am a member!
I wish Mozilla had gone the other way; that is, put a "block javascript' option in preferences, then an 'exceptions' option for making the white list. If you leae 'block javascript' unchecked, you get it all. I'm also with T3G in that unobfuscated script is readable source; the curious can learn what it does and how it works.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti