General NoScript complaint (long)

General discussion about the NoScript extension for Firefox
Alan Baxter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:47 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: General NoScript complaint (long)

Post by Alan Baxter » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:46 am

That's two pointless, off-topics, trolling posts that have needed to be split. User banned for trolling.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1) Gecko/20090624 Firefox/3.5

Tom T.
Field Marshal
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: General NoScript complaint (long)

Post by Tom T. » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:10 am

Alan Baxter wrote:That's two pointless, off-topics, trolling posts that have needed to be split. User banned for trolling.

Perhaps it could have been moved to "Web Tech" in Extras. It would be interesting to point out some errors, viz: the anger at what is produced in this GF country, whereas NS is in fact produced in Italy. :mrgreen:.
Devs using bait and switch schemes, spending their time "tinkering to justify their jobs", when in fact NS and FG have always been freeware.

Legitimate points made - (of course, Alan, you realize that because he takes the Luddite POV, I'm sympathetic in part :D ) - over-complication of web sites and the web in general. Opportunity to explain that that is why NS must evolve continually to meet the threats, which unfortunately makes it more complex as well.

The bells and whistles part was a legitimate gripe, as was the part about the vulns they introduce. Since I ditched 367-MB Adobe Reader for 3.67-MB Foxit 2.0 (minus JS), the inevitable attacks on Adobe products don't affect me. The OP has the right idea, but needs to be steered in the direction of simpler, safer products.`

I don't want to get into a brand discussion, but when I went computer-shopping, I read independent reviews in tech mags, and the brand the OP mentioned ranked very poor in service. Price isn't always the only criterion.

NS's low retention rate is undoubtedly related to those who share some of the OP's concerns about the learning curve. It needs to be explained up front that in a complex world, complex threats require complex defenses. OP grew up in NYC, where he probably had at least six locks on his front door. The analogy should be easy. And we need to learn from this post why people are unhappy, and what to do about it. Most don't express themselves, certainly not this strongly; they just uninstall. You and I have tried to make our tiny contributions with the Beginner's Guide, General Troubleshooting, etc. I believe a first-run splash screen with the BG, or a link to it, and the FAQ, or a link to them, is on the to-do list, as is a compiled HTML Help guide in NS. This post illustrates the importance of those in retaining new and low-tech users. Most people do, indeed, want to flip it on in the morning, go about their lives, and flip it off at night. We need to help those people even as we develop ever more far-ranging defenses.

And, of course, the OP needs to be told that Macs, contrary to popular belief supported by their own commercials, are *not* immune. Huge 250+MB security update last fall, another recently; they let some image-rendering (or was it video-rendering) vuln unpatched six months after even IE had patched it. This myth is going to die soon, and that's not to say that they're not good machines. But as evildoers turn their attention to them, it's evident that it isn't as simple as "buy a Mac and you have no security issues". This would have been a good chance to point that out. -- especially for those who run Fx on Mac.

So perhaps this might have been an interesting forum for discussion, and good could have come from it, once the tone of voice was filtered out to leave only the substance. Or not.

Will re-lock it and leave to your discretion whether to do anything further with it, or let it sink away here.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US at an expert level; rv: Gecko/20081217 Firefox/ diehard