>>> And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I really want them.
>>
>> Just use noscript for blocking flash
>
> I don't like the way it does it. FlashBlock gives me a box where the flash is, and when I do want to view it (and yes, *sometimes* I do), I can just click on it and it'll show. Unless noscript has changed since I last looked at it, it doesn't do anything like that, it's just all-or-nothing.
>
I think it has changed then :)

> My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can disable it.
As you can disable the reloading ;)

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone <none@example.net> wrote:
>> to get a new machine?  They're like $12 now.
>
> Where can I buy 12$ computers?
>

lern2hyperbole.

> Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
> don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,
lol

Saaa wrote:
>> My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can disable it.
> As you can disable the reloading ;) 

Thanks.

And going over the options dialog, I noticed it can block Flash and Java, too.

Now now, needing additional software just for disabling features is really... stupid, but at least I'm not using virus scanners or "personal firewalls".

grauzone escribió:
>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
> 
> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your web browser. So that's not a reason.

Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to reload the whole page again.

> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing.

Not if implemented correctly. See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all the time, and back and forward buttons work as expected. I think Facebook does this too.

And
> occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for?

To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content appear from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make it appear sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user that something is being created, and the trigger is that point.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone <none@example.net> wrote:
>>> to get a new machine?  They're like $12 now.
>> Where can I buy 12$ computers?
>>
> 
> lern2hyperbole.

Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have several instances of that website loaded (in different browser windows, tabs, etc.), things are _definitely_ starting to get no fun, even with an overclocked, 64 bit water cooled octa core.

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> grauzone escribió:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
> 
> Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your web browser. So that's not a reason.
> 
> Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to reload the whole page again.

That's true. But it wouldn't be so hard to find good alternatives to implement this. At least JS isn't inherently needed for this.

And whatever happened to frames? I guess they were too "ugly"?

>> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing.
> 
> Not if implemented correctly. See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all the time, and back and forward buttons work as expected. I think Facebook does this too.

Point is, it's hard to get right. With standard HTML, it's hard to _not_ get it right. That's the difference. Also, the AJAX method of using back buttons is likely to be buggy, even if "implemented correctly".

> And
>> occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for?
> 
> To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content appear from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make it appear sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user that something is being created, and the trigger is that point.

But when I click on an element, I expect something to happen anyway. Oh, and I _don't_ want to wait for an animation. (Even if the animation is fast, or the animation doesn't block input, the user perceives a delay.)

On the contrary, most time I do _not_ want something to change, if I don't click it. And if it's something like updating data in real time, you don't need an animation either.

I can't remember even one situation, where a GUI animation was actually helpful.

grauzone wrote:
> Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have several instances of that website loaded (in different browser windows, tabs, etc.), things are _definitely_ starting to get no fun, even with an overclocked, 64 bit water cooled octa core.

Just FYI, javascript is a lot slower on 64 bit, the engines are optimized for windows/x86-32.

> Now now, needing additional software just for disabling features is really... stupid, but at least I'm not using virus scanners or "personal firewalls".

Selectively disabling, not so stupid I would think.

I like them firewalls, making me select who can send info about me and who
can not.
Also most have additional program guards, which show me what a program is
asking for.
They give a bit more insight into how programs work.

I mostly use the virusscanner because I don't trust java and friends.