On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 12:50:37PM +0000, Joe wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 07:39:41 +0100 > <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 07:41:16PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > [...] hope that Firefox gets a bit more memory-efficient, > > > > Stefan, I *love* your dry humour :-) > > > > That said, my way to cope with it: my main browsing profile > > is one where I have excised javascript [...]
> I use No-Script in Firefox. I find that very few commercial sites work > without at least the site itself being permitted to use JS. > > There are a few sites that just show a blank screen without JS. That's > rude, and I generally move to one of their competitors' sites. Exactly: and this is why I go to the extra length of "forced opt in": I only see them if I can be bothered to create an extra profile for that. I usually decline :-) (The one that miffs me is actually NASA, a javascript black hole. But I live with that). [...] > Client-side scripting is the work of the Devil. I'm old enough to have witnessed Word under... Windows 3.1 and when I saw it comes with a scripting language and you could embed scripts in "text" documents, I thought "hmmm... I wonder whether this is a good idea". Back then, boot sector viruses in floppies roamed the Earth. Plus ça change... cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
