Re: Frustration made me do it.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:59:18 -0800
Kelly Clowers <kelly.clowers@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 18:02, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > My policy, for stability and privacy, is to run two instances of FF.
> > My main one has no scripting allowed (NoScript with basically no
> > exceptions - perhaps I should just entirely turn off Javascript in FF),
> > no Flash, no cookies, etc. I tend to keep dozens of tabs open here.
> > My secondary has some scripting (managed with NoScript), Flash (managed
> > with FlashBlock) and cookies on a case by case basis. I generally keep
> > very few windows open at a time, and quite frequently clear all private
> > data.
>
> Why bother with Flashblock? AFAIK NoScript is more flexible than Flashblock
> at blocking Flash.
Perhaps if I took the time and effort to become more adept at using
NoScript that would work, but in the mean time, there are many sites
for which I want to allow basic Javascript functionality, but still
block Flash, except perhaps on a case by case basis. So I tell NS to
allow scripting, and then let Flashblock manage the Flash. I'll have
to look into using NoScript for Flash management.
Celejar
--
foffl.sourceforge.net - Feeds OFFLine, an offline RSS/Atom aggregator
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Reply to: