- by Juri Müller, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5Ich bin umgestiegen auf UMatrix Soweit ich das beurteilen kann ist die Funktionalität besser als bei NoScript. Es werden alle urls sauber gelistet (mehr als bei NoScript) und man kann sehr gezielt entscheiden, was man freigeben will. Dadurch können ganz gezielte, fein justierbare Freigaben erteilt werden.
UMatrix hat doch deutlich MEHR Einstellungsmöglichkeiten! Die ganzen Spalten der Matrix einzeln verwalten, nicht nur Skripte, und das für jede Seite einzeln, geht aber auch global... Es gibt schwarze Listen, die man sich aussuchen kann... Alles das kann NoScript nicht.
Noscript ist das Addon von Gestern!uMatrix is OK if you want to disable annoying stuff. Notice, though, that you can do the same with NoScript, managing a whitelist (TRUSTED preset), blacklist (UNTRUSTED) and even CUSTOM per-site settings.
If you're puzzled about how to configure white/black lists on NoScript, please check these:
Hope it helps
- by Firefox user 13639687, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5Used the classic version for years and was perfect but found the new one frustrating and awkward. I found the new UI unintuitive and more frustrating to use, it was easier to understand after the guide I saw a few days after the new one was published but still clunky and awkward to use and not user friendly at all. I've switched to Umatrix in my orange FF57 install because it is quicker/easier to use for me and more clear and intuitive. NS10 seems to be more UX design principles of looking simple and streamlined at the expense of intuitive informative less pretty design of classic NS.
The new style may suit some people more and hopefully bring more new users of that type in and do well. All my family, colleagues and friends bar 1 have abandoned it as found it none user friendly and Umatrix more their thing though so I find it hard to recommend. All the folks I imagine like the new style are ones more likely to use Chrome over FF IMHO. If it seems to go the other way and more users abandon than adopt it hopefully the implimentation will change and I may be back. Still worth trying if it sounds like your thing but not for me. Either way I appreciate the work the dev put in over the years and don't mean this as a criticism of him but more the existing implimentation and hope the feedback helps somehow and NS project does well regardless of those like me leaving it.
- by gmon, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5The main problem is trying to find out why something, a video, etc., will not load. I see nothing but a plain blue noscript icon with npo indication that noscript has blocked anything, so I have to guess that noscript is blocking whatever element is not loading, and have to scroll to find that something has in fact been blocked even though the icon shows just a plain blue S. Isn't there some way by now to have it show that something is blocked??
- by Simón, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5Please, explain in the add-on description why does NoScript now ask for a new permission to "download files and read and modify the browser's download history".
Besides, the new UI quite sucks, but the rules list semi-transparency seems to be what makes the NoScript Settings page sluggish.
- by Azarilh, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5Whoa, this new version is great! Jus' like 2 girls 1 cup!
PS: Why NoScript need to read the download history now? LOL
EDIT: Ok, that's fine. Thank you for the reply. Still, the new version is unfriendly, like others say too.
EDIT after 2 years i tried it again: UI still sucks, my rating remains 2/5. Too bad.Unlike "legacy" add-ons, WebExtensions cannot interact with your filesystem directly. The restored "Export" feature actually goes through the browser.downloads API to let you save your configuration locally.
- by Firefox user 13515039, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5In its current state, it is barely serviceable. It is still better than nothing, I know, because when I disabled it I started getting hijacked by rogue webpage scripts again. But it has alot of catching up to do to be as pleasing as the pre-Quantum version.
That annoying, user unfriendly popup window really has to go. The previous version had a more discreet and tolerable messaging UI at the bottom of the screen. Now it is in popup window format at the top of the page, in your face to annoy you very quickly.
And a suggestion of a much needed feature. An option dedicated to automatically allowing Facebook scripts. Since nearly every website now days has scripts for Facebook, it is getting tiresome to have to allow Facebook with nearly every website I visit.
- by Roelof, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5The addon doesn't save trusted, untrusted and custom entries. Maybe the plugin stores information in non-persistent storage (which is cleared with any privacy-aware configuration).
This makes the plugin unusable, as re-allowing all services every single time is way more time consuming than just blocking scripts alltogether.
And even if you manage to save settings, they're not synched, so users who use two or more devices need to re-apply settings every time, on every. single. device.
The old version worked a whole lot better, it's a shame this level of quaity has not yet been achieved on the new WebExtension version.
- by Firefox user 13577838, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5The latest extension for Firefox Quantum is a real PITA because whitelisted sites are not saved, so they have to be recreated every time FF restarts. Extremely annoying and time consuming.
- by Firefox user 13372577, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5It does work (more or less) so I cannot justify a 1-star rating. But like others have said, this is not the NoScript we knew and loved. And while I know there is a temptation to just blame Firefox57 for old addons no longer working well, the truth is that we cannot blame Firefox57 for the dreadful new interface that NoScript has, nor for the buggy way it works (forgetting your settings, for example).
I don't want to be overly harsh here. For many years this developer has given us a fantastic product that millions of us found "essential". For that he must be commended. However, the new NoScript no longer has a place in my little "arsenal of defence". I've moved on.
If anyone is interested in alternatives, I find uBlock Origin is enough for my needs, provided the "I'm an advanced user" option is checked off and third party scripts / frames are globally blocked ("medium blocking mode", as per the author). If you want more power, there is uMatrix - still not a 100% replacement for NoScript but good enough for the vast majority of people.
- by Firefox user 13560145, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5Had better experiences with NoScript years ago. The new version with the current Firefox is bad. It forgets settings and is buggy. I'am using ScriptSafe now. It's the same as under chrome. This addon works fine.
- by Anonymous, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5The new version has to be fixed full stop. The UI did not need to be fixed. And now the app does not remember settings on some sites. I'm thinking about uninstalling this until it is back up to its previous quality.
- by Firefox user 13556987, duela 4 urteRated 2 out of 5Just joined on here to give my view.
I've used NoScript continually since its inception and thinking back there were a few hiccups early days which over time got ironed out, I think it will be the same with this version.
There were lots of folk ranting when it couldn't be used on the new Firefox, some demanding that something be done instantly, which was obviously impossible.
Giorgio obviously got on with this version and possibly rushed both building it and putting it out, these things happen.
However, buggy though it is, it is useable and as with all similar programs when many folk start using them bugs surface, the bugs are a PITA but hopefully, with time, will be resolved.
Lets not forget, that thanks to Giorgio's time and effort over the years, many thousands of surfers, me included, have been protected from who knows what was lurking behind some scripts.
Why not cut him a little slack, even such as the mighty Microsoft, Google, Apple and such others put out buggy stuff and that's with their thousands of programmers and millions of pounds!
So why have I given it two ( for the time being ) stars.
Mainly due to two things.
One, to me very important, there not being available, from the day it came out, any decent instructions in layman's terms, as to how to use it, I'm reasonably computer savvy and can normally get my head around most things, eventually, but this had me going spare, marking sites as trusted then having them revert to untrusted after shutting down and re-starting was a real pain, until I discovered only this morning, whilst reading these revues, that a simple click of the little clock solved this problem, thanks to those who mentioned it.
The second reason was because of the initial buggy nature of the first release.
Will I continue using it, of course.
Why, simply because, even as it is, I can't find another program that is as good as this one and going by past experience it will settle down.