Revisiones de NoScript
NoScript por Giorgio Maone
Revisado por robsku
Se valoró con 5 de 5
por robsku, hace 5 añosI'm sorry I wrote a bad review. It seems to be deleted, although it was not inappropriate - it was mistaken, and PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS *FEATURE*; whether intentional or not.
We now have a possibility to use Multi-Container support of Firefox with NoScript; I was very bummed by the missing of ABE from the WebExtension, but this can do some of the same thing; and without understanding the almost esoteric syntax.
See, I though the permissions I had set were disappearing. Turns out the page was in separate container than the last time I had allowed those permissions. The permissions are *CONTAINER SPECIFIC*. I hadn't really properly put Multi-User Container add-on really to good use!
Now I don't lose permissions. I can have certain (all possible to keep things working) Google servers blocked on default - same with any FaceBook servers. In fact, FaceBook servers are only allowed on FaceBook container. And if a site that does not belong to YouTube container, but needs to show video from YouTube, I either temporarily allow the servers, or I move the site into YouTube container; which needs a good good reason if it's not a Google's YouTube services. OR, I'll add another container for pages that don't need all the YouTube and Google servers allowed, but need to have just those allowed that let the videos roll; and move that site there. This is in fact incredibly great way to work, although I still miss the Legacy version - I will soon try changing to a fork that has all the modern support of FF, and support for legacy add-on's. Then I can use the original, and get the massive power of ABE, but will the Legacy code be updated to have same support for multiple containers? That I would love, best of both worlds.
I even have a container for MyWOT.com, which everyone should know already is a scam itself, but the user reviews are real - and great. So that container shouldn't be able to reach any info not loaded while in that very container. And only MyWOT.com ever is.
P.S. I'm 95% certain I wrote a bad review lately - I even deleted the old good one before that, so I didn't just imagine it all, as it's gone. So what happened?
P.P.S. I was really hard thinking of giving you five stars, because it was stated that all the features of legacy version were available here as well. Well, I remember a lot of settings I see nowhere; most notable of them being ABE rulesets. So I almost didn't, just 4; here's your 5 stars anyway ;)
FINALLY: You have to make users so clear about this multi-container feature, that they don't get mistaken like I did. If they use multi-containers, they should easily understand it; if not, what does it matter? ;) But definitely make it clear and clearly shown ;)
We now have a possibility to use Multi-Container support of Firefox with NoScript; I was very bummed by the missing of ABE from the WebExtension, but this can do some of the same thing; and without understanding the almost esoteric syntax.
See, I though the permissions I had set were disappearing. Turns out the page was in separate container than the last time I had allowed those permissions. The permissions are *CONTAINER SPECIFIC*. I hadn't really properly put Multi-User Container add-on really to good use!
Now I don't lose permissions. I can have certain (all possible to keep things working) Google servers blocked on default - same with any FaceBook servers. In fact, FaceBook servers are only allowed on FaceBook container. And if a site that does not belong to YouTube container, but needs to show video from YouTube, I either temporarily allow the servers, or I move the site into YouTube container; which needs a good good reason if it's not a Google's YouTube services. OR, I'll add another container for pages that don't need all the YouTube and Google servers allowed, but need to have just those allowed that let the videos roll; and move that site there. This is in fact incredibly great way to work, although I still miss the Legacy version - I will soon try changing to a fork that has all the modern support of FF, and support for legacy add-on's. Then I can use the original, and get the massive power of ABE, but will the Legacy code be updated to have same support for multiple containers? That I would love, best of both worlds.
I even have a container for MyWOT.com, which everyone should know already is a scam itself, but the user reviews are real - and great. So that container shouldn't be able to reach any info not loaded while in that very container. And only MyWOT.com ever is.
P.S. I'm 95% certain I wrote a bad review lately - I even deleted the old good one before that, so I didn't just imagine it all, as it's gone. So what happened?
P.P.S. I was really hard thinking of giving you five stars, because it was stated that all the features of legacy version were available here as well. Well, I remember a lot of settings I see nowhere; most notable of them being ABE rulesets. So I almost didn't, just 4; here's your 5 stars anyway ;)
FINALLY: You have to make users so clear about this multi-container feature, that they don't get mistaken like I did. If they use multi-containers, they should easily understand it; if not, what does it matter? ;) But definitely make it clear and clearly shown ;)
2372 revisiones
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por cwqing1973, hace 21 horas
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Usuario de Firefox 14468519, hace 2 días
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por rabbitshee, hace 4 días
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Usuario de Firefox 19047433, hace 6 días
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por A. Bilmanda, hace 9 días
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Lazer Bear, hace 9 días
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Sembler, hace 17 días
- Se valoró con 2 de 5por Usuario de Firefox 15056996, hace un mesissues with outdoorline.sk ; I have to stop Noscrypt to proceed with Payment gateway GP webpay
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por 镂心鉥肝, hace un mesNoScript还是很好的,不管是界面还是解释如何使用都进行了改进。不过,文章内容应该更加简洁一点。告诉用户每一个功能开关的意思。同时NoScript默认会阻止扩展脚本
- Se valoró con 4 de 5por Usuario de Firefox 17847461, hace un mes
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Usuario de Firefox 18989716, hace un mes
- Se valoró con 1 de 5por Max, hace un mesI really wanted to use NoScript. I prefer single-purpose extensions that focus on doing one job well, compared to more multi-purpose extensions like uBlock Origin.
However, I ultimately couldn't stick with it because the user experience did not suit my needs.
E.g. one mobile screen presents around 12 different icons packed into the height of 3 lines of text, leaving a large portion of the screen completely empty below them.
My main frustration is that none of these icons have labels. Expecting users to learn and memorize the meaning of a dozen different unlabeled symbols creates an unnecessary barrier to entry and makes using the extension quickly and efficiently very difficult. It feels counter-intuitive to leave so much screen real estate blank when that space could be used to label each icon and explain its function.
uBlock Origin is easier to use than NoScript. - Se valoró con 5 de 5por LittleFire, hace un mes
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Absinthe, hace un mes
- Se valoró con 4 de 5por thofree, hace 2 mesesGets detected by Youtube's anti ad-block stuff. Wish you had a button to turn it off easily for a website without disabling it entirely.
- Se valoró con 4 de 5por Usuario de Firefox 18920843, hace 2 meses
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Usuario de Firefox 18315395, hace 2 meses
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por VonD68, hace 2 meses
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por luis, hace 2 meses
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Retromania, hace 2 meses
- Se valoró con 5 de 5por Luciano Rangel, hace 2 meses