4 ms·
I've never used umatrix and just stuck with noscript over the years due to the lengthy process of allowing scripts / domains, going through random external scri
by senorjazz 8y ago
I've never used umatrix and just stuck with noscript over the years due to the lengthy process of allowing scripts / domains, going through random external scripts required to make pages work that are not self-explanatory.
Is there anything in umatrix to make the switch worthwhile?
- islon 8y agoI use uMatrix since 2 years or so and it works out of the box for 70/80% of websites. By working I mean they are not completely broken. For the ones that don't work it's normally 1 or 2 clicks in the UI to allow some 3rd parties and save it. Sometimes a site works by default in the "broken" state but as soon as I give it more permissions it breaks by adding a paywall or some modal window. uMatrix is like linux: it requires more work upfront but give you more control and customization options.
- zcid 8y agoI migrated to uMatrix because it allows me to block cookies, media, javascript, and xhr by default. It replaced several different privacy extensions with a single control panel. You can set the defaults to be as strict or lenient as you wish.
- dontbenebby 8y ago>I migrated to uMatrix because it allows me to block cookies, media, javascript, and xhr by default. It replaced several different privacy extensions with a single control panel. You can set the defaults to be as strict or lenient as you wish. That's a lot of configuration to do. I'd rather just use Firefox containers, noscript, and use Tor for things I don't want tied to my ad profile.
- basch 8y ago"by default" It's not a lot of config at all. If the site breaks, you click a button and unblock some stuff. Otherwise the defaults work great.