3 ms·
I sometimes wonder how nice life would be if we had two modes in browsers: Mode 1: Render static content; allow unobtrusive JavaScript operations (perhaps capp
by davegauer 10y ago
I sometimes wonder how nice life would be if we had two modes in browsers:
Mode 1: Render static content; allow unobtrusive JavaScript operations (perhaps capped by total operations or CPU usage).
Mode 2: Run unlimited JS operations, allow alert() and window.onbeforeunload events handers.
The second mode could be called "Application Mode" and could be turned on selectively per site.
This would allow you to give gmail.com whatever resources it needed. But clickbait-headline-slideshows.com could not, unless you explicitly allowed it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wutbrodo 10y agoI just keep Javascript turned off except for sites I whitelist. Nobody ever believes how easy and unobtrusive this is, despite browsing a pretty huge and diverse set of domains. This has gotten a little more difficult since chrome changed the UI around these settings though.
- joshbaptiste 10y agoI use uMatrix on Chrome and only allow certain things to run on various pages, to only render the content I want.
- dredmorbius 10y agoI've seen call for a four-way split of browser functionality. 1. Reading/commenting mode. 2. Applications 3. Commerce. 4. A/V media. The're four distinct use cases, with four distinct client requirements (and/or isolation requirements). uMatrix buys you some of the JS isolation you're looking for. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/256lxu/tabbed_browsing_a_lousy_bandaid_over_poor_browser/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/256lxu/tabbed_...
- jstewartmobile 10y agoPreach on my brotha! I wrote up a similar proposal a few months ago, didn't get much love: http://www.eggplant.pro/blog/proposal-safeweb/ http://www.eggplant.pro/blog/proposal-safeweb/