4 ms·
NoScript can do this too. You have the choice to activate certain scripts permanently (of course you can deactivate them later again if you want), or you can ev
by redtuesday 10y ago
NoScript can do this too. You have the choice to activate certain scripts permanently (of course you can deactivate them later again if you want), or you can even activate them only for the current session and the next time you start the browser the temporary activated scripts are blocked again.
- ryuuchin 10y agoExcept it's easier to just use uBlock Origin for everything. The grid approach is far more intuitive than the text list you get with NoScript (IMO).
- gorhill 10y agoMajor differences are: - In uBlock Origin you can allow/block on a per-site basis with one click -- you do not need to allow one specific domain everywhere. (I am aware NoScript's ABE can get the same result, but that requires more than a single click.) - You can block on a 1st-/3rd-party basis. I consider the default blocking of 3rd-party scripts while allowing 1st-party scripts to be the optimal solution for cutting bloat with less web page breakage. Now keeping 1st point in mind, this means one could allow all 3rd-party scripts on one specific site, while keeping them blocked everywhere else by default. - Whatever is not taken care by dynamic filtering will fall onto static filtering, i.e. even if one end up allowing 3rd-party scripts, the static filters will pick up the task of blocking nuisance scripts.
- redtuesday 10y agoThis sounds really nice, especiialy the possibility to easily block scripts for a single site. That NoScript by default activates the scripts on all sites is sometimes annoying. It seems I need to take a closer look at uBlock Origin.