Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 21:36 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Internet & Networking Now this is a subject sure to cause some discussion among all of you. LifeHacker's Adam Pash is arguing that Chrome has overtaken Firefox as the browser of choice for what he calls 'power users'; polls among LifeHacker's readership indeed seem to confirm just that. He also gives a number of reasons as to why this is the case.
Thread beginning with comment 442330
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I need NoScript
by Eugenia on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 22:25 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

Without NoScript, I won't switch to anything. NoScript can offer added security on top of Chrome's current security. I just need the flexibility and added security of NoScript. The web is not as innocent was it was 10 years ago.

Currently, Chrome does not offer the right APIs for Noscript to exist there. So until this happens, I'll stay on Firefox.

Reply Score: 7

RE: I need NoScript
by DHofmann on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 23:29 in reply to "I need NoScript"
DHofmann Member since:
2005-08-19

Same here. Chrome just isn't powerful enough yet for the features I need.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I need NoScript
by WorknMan on Fri 24th Sep 2010 00:08 in reply to "I need NoScript"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Without NoScript, I won't switch to anything. NoScript can offer added security on top of Chrome's current security. I just need the flexibility and added security of NoScript. The web is not as innocent was it was 10 years ago.


I don't use NoScript, but I do use adblock and flashblock. If Chrome has these, I might consider switching. I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why? Does it update automatically with filter subscriptions like FF's adblock plus?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Sep 2010 00:46 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Without NoScript, I won't switch to anything. NoScript can offer added security on top of Chrome's current security. I just need the flexibility and added security of NoScript. The web is not as innocent was it was 10 years ago.
I don't use NoScript, but I do use adblock and flashblock. If Chrome has these, I might consider switching. I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why? Does it update automatically with filter subscriptions like FF's adblock plus? "

For a long while, because of the design of Chrome not Adblock, Adblock couldn't actually block ads on Chrome. Adblock on Chrome was only an "ad hider", and ads would still be downloaded but not actually shown. What was the purpose of that I might ask ... why download the ad and use up the users bandwidth if it wasn't going to be displayed anyway?

However, for a few months now, this has been partially fixed. Now Chrome implements a mechanism whereby Adblock can actually mostly prevent the ads from being downloaded ... mostly. Adblock under Chrome still can't do this for every ad.

Adblock under Firefox has no such limitation.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by Morph on Fri 24th Sep 2010 00:50 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
Morph Member since:
2007-08-20

I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why?


The reason is that Chrome doesn't have the equivalent of Firefox's 'content policies'. Firefox allows extensions to install a hook which is called whenever a url is about to be accessed. The extension can then cancel the url request if it is an ad, before any connection is made to the ad server. Chrome doesn't provide this level of control to extensions yet. Chrome adblock extensions have to wait until after the page is fully loaded (including all ads) and then hide the ads from the page using DOM methods. This is why the ads usually appear for a second or two before the blocker nabs them.

http://www.mail-archive.com/chromium-discuss@googlegroups.com/msg04...

Edit: lemur2, do you have a reference to any info about the new mechanism? Thanks!

Edited 2010-09-24 00:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by bitwelder on Fri 24th Sep 2010 06:29 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

[I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why?

Perhaps because it doesn't play well with Google core interests?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by bnolsen on Mon 27th Sep 2010 03:58 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

I don't use adblock at all anymore, just flashblock and noscript. Those two plus disabling animated gifs makes browsing pretty acceptable. I only get annoyed when the overloaded ad servers actually keep my page content from loading as fast as it should.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I need NoScript
by google_ninja on Fri 24th Sep 2010 02:57 in reply to "I need NoScript"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Javascript is not even remotely as big an issue as browser plugins (java/flash/silverlight/adobe reader/etc) when it comes to security. To me, noscript is like browsing the web with images turned off to avoid jpeg or gif vulnerabilities.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by Fergy on Fri 24th Sep 2010 07:51 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Javascript is not even remotely as big an issue as browser plugins (java/flash/silverlight/adobe reader/etc) when it comes to security. To me, noscript is like browsing the web with images turned off to avoid jpeg or gif vulnerabilities.

You do understand that you need to whitelist the pages that you actually want to see? Most of the time if a page doesn't work correctly without flash and javascript and I am only going to visit this site once I don't even bother.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by bnolsen on Mon 27th Sep 2010 04:01 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Nothing to do with security, everything to do with annoyances. What people used to do with animated gifs, which then moved over to flash, started to switch over to javascript.

I like my machines to idle in the lowest power state possible, some idiot website spamming javascript shouldn't be allowed to keep my machine from that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I need NoScript
by stardogchamp on Fri 24th Sep 2010 09:15 in reply to "I need NoScript"
stardogchamp Member since:
2009-10-18

I don't want to switch to Chrome for the exact same reason. I have been using NoScript ever since I was told about it (in my 1st semester of studying IT, which was over 2 years ago) and I don't want to miss it when browsing the web.

I won't go for Chrome for Webkit's sake alone, although I really like its speed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by Matt Giacomini on Fri 24th Sep 2010 09:49 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't want to switch to Chrome for the exact same reason. I have been using NoScript ever since I was told about it (in my 1st semester of studying IT, which was over 2 years ago) and I don't want to miss it when browsing the web.


Are you using NoScript only for security reasons. What about the fact that Chrome's sand-boxing provides an extra layer of security that FF doesn't?

Having the ability to read PDF's and know that they are running in Chrome's sandbox is big for me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I need NoScript
by Philcm on Mon 27th Sep 2010 20:57 in reply to "I need NoScript"
Philcm Member since:
2010-09-27

Have you tried NotScripts? Seems similar to noscript.

Reply Parent Score: 1