/tech/ - Technology★

>>912543 (OP)

>Is Furrymeme based on SJWzilla compromised

You tell me

Use uMatrix my dude

wrong thread, go back to /tech/ questions and advice thread

Noscript developer was previously linked to a privacy violating software, but knowing Pale Moon, it's probably a stability bug.

Use the dedicated Pale Moon XUL addons.

also listen to>>912546

>>912584

this. fuck pozjew furry edition

http://blocklist.palemoon.org/info/?id=pm112

>your browser, your way

oh the irony

>>912543 (OP)

>wah wah why do I need to click OK on this dialog??? stop oppressing me!

>stability OR security

It's fine you weiner. Dev was just getting too annoyed by idiots installing noscript and then making bug reports because they don't know how to use noscript. Hell, I'm running noscript right now.

>>912817

Yeah, same logic mozilla used to remove "disable javascript" option from the GUI. They could just place a fucking disclaimer or something "Don't blame me for the effects of your installed addons", but they prefer banning,so fuck them.

>noscript

>safe

Enjoy your NSAware bloat

Noscript is never safe nor failsafe

>>912821

Powerusers never mattered to them. Most software devs care much more about their noob users that make up their entire userbase unless that's an exclusively poweruser-tier software.

>>912823

But wasn't palemoon marketed exactly that way? Maybe it has changed. I mean it allows "dangerous" XUL addons.

>>912821

I'm not here to be your punching bag, I was answering OPs question. But if asking to remove software and doing it without your persmission are the same thing to you I suggest you use your anger productively and fork it or install another browser. You don't need 8ch's concensus.

When you target powerusers, "noobs" will after some time turn into them.

At the point that browsers are, early 00s (to some extent, but dominance of single browser is enough), Mozilla should be targeting powerusers, because "noobs" will never use firefox.

>>912827

Wasn't aware it's possible to punch over the internet, haha. I was punching Mozilla (and Palemoon dev) if anything. I'm using Iridium anyway, but what these guys are doing is still annoying.

>>912543 (OP)

NoScript's dev is a shady fuck though https://liltinkerer.surge.sh/noscript.html

Otter Browser is targeted for power users.

>>912543 (OP)

Holy fuck what even is that font rendering

>>912584

There's a ton of typos on that website. It looks bad.

>>912584

Why do you think (((Cuckcuckgo))) is "privacy-respecting" when it's owned by a kike with a shady history? It's the equivalent of telling people to use (((Firefox))) instead of (((Chrome))).

>>917796

>>917791

Anyone can contribute to the website. I didn't personally write that, and so its written there because of poor oversight. I will write articles in the future about the quality of search engines, etc, and I do try and maintain the quality of the articles, but inevitably the website will have mistakes on it.

>>912603

>>917796

You are some of the most easily lead people on the planet

They aren't wrong. NoScript does fundamentally break things occasionally even when completely disabled. It's annoying but takes 3 seconds to tick a box and change. As of right now there isn't a single alternative browser that has any real addons to speak of. In every browser thread it's always the same contrarian retards shilling browsers that while fast and light have zero addons to speak of and are realistically non-functional. Palemoon as of right now is objectively in every conceivable way the best browser on the market, and I would be INCREDIBLY happy to be proven wrong so I can finally stop using it.

>>920916

>NoScript does fundamentally break things occasionally even when completely disabled.

So does umatrix. If you need to be certain a given webpage will work 100% as intended you actually need to disable the extension.

>requiring add-on to disable scripts

Why? For ads? IIRC I read an article about Noscript blewing the cover of a few torpedos so it's technically the same level as (((Ghostery))).

>inb4 gplv2

Tor browser is also confirmed infiltrated when they kicked Appelbaum from the project (who knew something) and (((Suicided))) Ian Murdock who also knew something about tor browser being compromised and did not want it on debian (plus a connection (((with systemd))) ).

Also

>windows 8.1

Babbys first privacy

see >>912822

Noscript allows a script by few millisecond which makes it snake oil.

>>920968

& if it doesnt run without botnet it IS botnet

>>912543 (OP)

>5.0.6

It's an old version and probably has some bugs. Update to 5.1.8.5 from here:

https://secure.informaction.com/download/releases/noscript-5.1.8.5.xpi

>>920877

whats so bad about not trusting ddg?

>>920968

>even when completely disabled

>>921605

>not trusting is the same as trusting now

fucking brainlet, learn to read

>>920977

>Tor browser is also confirmed infiltrated when they kicked Appelbaum from the project (who knew something) and (((Suicided))) Ian Murdock who also knew something about tor browser being compromised and did not want it on debian (plus a connection (((with systemd))) ).

Any more info on that?

>>920977

Tor has been compromised ever since they stopped being "tor" and started being "tor browser".

>>921617

XD google are the good guys palemoon more like placeboo

itt:

>waaaa furries mean this browser suxx

if palemoon was truly anti-privacy you wouldn't be able to run ublock, go shill somewhere else you retards

>>921625

Google doesn't block me from installing whatever the fuck addons I want.

>>921628

Neither does palemoon.

>>921635

http://blocklist.palemoon.org/info/?id=pm112

>>921605

I don't consider it DDG's responsibility to hide my IP or fake my user agent. It's a search engine. They even have an onion, how many search engines can say that?

>>921638

>I don't consider it DDG's responsibility to hide my IP or fake my user agent.

Because what's the fucking point if they don't? At that point just use google because you're already doing all of the work yourself.

>>921628

>Google doesn't block me from installing whatever the fuck addons I want.

Adnauseum?

>>921605

This is the worst image ever. Not only does it have zero arguments and repeat itself endlessly, underline things to imply implications without saying anything, but it has blatant misunderstanding of how technology works by some LARPer.

The affiliate code in question tells Amazon "This person came from DDG". Amazon can tell that through other means as it is, since they follow you around the internet, especially if you have their cookies, and it's one of the few ways DDG can make money without intruding on your privacy.

Also, did you honestly fall for the oldest trick in the book, the IP tracking thing? There were forum signatures in the early 2000's that would do that.

http://www.danasoft.com/

Oh no, Tux knows your IP! He's gonna get you at [Anonymous Proxy]! Hot singles in my area!

DDG have no tracking scripts, they have an Onion website, they made an add-on to block tracking scripts that is open-source. Their track record is pristine and what the guy who started it did in his past is irrelevant, it's a petty way to cast suspicion. All software engineers have made botnet at some point in their life.

>>921645

The point is that they have no tracking scripts that report your info back to them. Google does have those, and it has them all over the internet. It is entirely your responsibility to hide your IP, use a privacy enhancing browser and hide your browsing history from your ISP. DDG are a search engine and they advertise themselves as such, they make no promises of being a shield between you and other malicious websites, they simply do not record your info for themselves and are adamant about it. If other websites do record your info and track you, that has diddly squat to do with DDG.

>>917796

FIrefox as a product is better than Chrome, it's just its management team that the same. It doesn't track you as much as the botnet.

>>921655

>Firefox, as a product, was better than Chrome

FTFY. Firefox is just another Chrome clone now, speaking purely from a technological standpoint.

>>921636

>but can continue to use it if you so wish after confirmation

Did you even read the page you linked?

palemoon haters are some of the most retarded cherry-picking people on this board.

>>921670

Not really. I use palemoon and have for a couple years now. It's incredibly buggy and shit breaks inexplicably a lot. People are justified in using it as there isn't much of an alternative that has any real addon support, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be actively pushing for an alternative. I think today I'm going to try and get the same workflow inside of seamonkey instead. Getting real tired of palemoon's shit.

>>920977

>Noscript allows a script by few millisecond which makes it snake oil.

source?

I believe you since I think it has happened to me, but I really want a link to show other people and I haven't found anything by myself

Palemoon just removed all the sandbox code from Firefox. Such a safe browser.

>>912543 (OP)

they've been white listing tracking servers for the past few years. They also re-generate said white lists on every update after you wipe it.

Well, it used to be malware.

>>920916

ITT: Palemoon shills refuse to acknowledge the existance of GNU-ICECAT the SINGLE browser on earth that isnt a botnet