 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:43:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/11/2017 10:56, clipka wrote:
>> The development cycle of the Mozilla software (Firefox and T'bird) has
>> been bothering me for a while already. Something's wrong if a
>> software's version number keeps jumping from N.0 to (N+1).0 every month
>> or two.
>
> What happened to the idea that stability was a virtue?
They changed what their version numbers mean some time ago. I forget
why, though.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Did Firefox just update the default skin?
>
> Not a fan. I like my menu bars in classic light grey.
Yeah its very annoying, I thought so too. /A
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Oh? Well, as long as uBlockOrigin and Ghostery still work (they seem to)
> I am not too concerned. Still, I do not really like those big overhauls.
Thanks for the implied endorsements :)
In today's world, perhaps someone ought to start a thread which briefly lays out
some of the more useful tools for browsers.
I found reference to these on minds.com :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/reviews/956919/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-11-2017 0:15, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>> Oh? Well, as long as uBlockOrigin and Ghostery still work (they seem to)
>> I am not too concerned. Still, I do not really like those big overhauls.
>
> Thanks for the implied endorsements :)
>
> In today's world, perhaps someone ought to start a thread which briefly lays out
> some of the more useful tools for browsers.
I think, it depends on what each one wants/needs. I have only three
addons operational: uBlock Origin, Ghostery, and HTTPS Everywhere.
That's enough for me as far as I can judge.
AdBlock Plus is not recommended as it trades info with third parties
without your knowledge. Same can be said for WOT (Web Of Trust).
NoScript does not work anymore; I did not find it very comprehensive
when it did.
>
> I found reference to these on minds.com :
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/reviews/956919/
>
>
>
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/11/2017 07:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> AdBlock Plus is not recommended as it trades info with third parties
> without your knowledge. Same can be said for WOT (Web Of Trust).
Oh! I did not know that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-11-2017 9:58, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 07:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> AdBlock Plus is not recommended as it trades info with third parties
>> without your knowledge. Same can be said for WOT (Web Of Trust).
>
> Oh! I did not know that.
>
I regularly read a consumers' magazine on digital products which
analyses what is available/advisable. In the same way, it tells me to
use 'uBlock Origin' instead of 'uBlock'.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/11/2017 12:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-11-2017 9:58, Stephen wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 07:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> AdBlock Plus is not recommended as it trades info with third parties
>>> without your knowledge. Same can be said for WOT (Web Of Trust).
>>
>> Oh! I did not know that.
>>
>
> I regularly read a consumers' magazine on digital products which
> analyses what is available/advisable. In the same way, it tells me to
> use 'uBlock Origin' instead of 'uBlock'.
>
Thanks Thomas, I'll check it out. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
