Thank you! I actually just discovered this today and will be monitoring to see how it progresses. It will be good to have an archive of existing addons so that they can be updated and ported as time permits. I'm glad to hear they saved so many of them and cataloged them. I have my own saved collection but it is no where near as complete.

At some point in the (near) future, it would be great to have a website featuring all those extensions. From what I read on github ticket, this could happen !
Meanwhile, I backed up the ones I use.

how will noscripts functionality be accomplished if its not supported?

im aware that you could build that (per site) functionality into the browser (otherwise about:config suffices) and i think the story of the extension is that the author wanted it in the browser.

but im just now hearing about this browser, so im concerned about the drop of noscript support. i stopped using pale moon just for disabling it while it was running.

edit: (its blacklisted as uses non-free)

what non-free? of course i will look into the larger theme of this thread too, this is all new to me.

"Just so you know, Noscript support is probably going to be dropped very soon."

now i understand-- its going to be dropped by mozilla.

perhaps we should be keeping a list of things that have hurt free software and could be strategic? i get that sometimes frameworks are dumped. so saying "mozilla did this to hurt free software" is probably far from the truth. i would put it on the list though, as "probably not." ill go make the topic so we dont have to move farther off topic here.

oh, thank you. my first two questions about a browser are:

"can you turn javascript on and off?"

and: "per site?" im also a fan of librejs, though i generally recommend people turn it off.

you have to understand, i was hoping theyd actually implement that thing for years, and now its actually usable (you can run it) though it seems to introduce problems even on sites that even have jumped through the hoops-- even beyond just licensing their js as libre-- to get everything working.

using per-site js support, it is possible to enable js only on sites that have free js. librejs does this automatically but still breaks stuff, and noscript only does this manually (and breaks stuff a lot less!)

as far as i know, librejs defaults to trusting any site with freely-licensed js, be it malicious or clean, as long as it is freely licensed. please let me know if this is not so.

because if not, librejs could at least potentially be used as a noscript replacement. i do not believe this was ever the goal, but if i were in charge of librejs development, you could potentially use it for security as well as freedom. its worth noting that noscript also handles xss attacks, and that is almost certainly not a feature of librejs. nor does it need to be, as long as we can run both.

the two exist for entirely different purposes. unless im mistaken about the details:

1. by default, noscript runs all the js you enable, whether its freely licensed or not.

2. by default, librejs runs all the js that is freely licensed, whether its individually enabled or not.

so noscript runs js per-site and librejs runs js per-license.

but as i pointed out to someone higher up in the software freedom hierarchy than most (though lower than rms,) this does not make librejs a security tool. anyone can freely license malicious js and (i believe) librejs will run it. you can request it be fixed, but by then you have already run the malicious code (which could be on that site deliberately, or without the knowledge of the server admin.)

i must repeat i dont expect librejs to work differently than this. but it does require you to have two extensions fielding the js on each site-- unless the functionality is built-in to the browser.

most extensions are browser-specific, and if mozilla cared more about security than absurd strawman arguments about usability:

http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/968821 "as for add-ons why disable something that you have to re-enable with a work-a-round sounds dumb"

yaaa! i lost a boatload of respect for mozilla in 2013, and it has never gotten it back again.

if not for nonsense like this, noscript wouldnt even be an extension-- it would be a browser feature.

no one should be surfing with global js on by default-- both because of security and also because of freedom.

the only thing alex limi cared about was convenience. i care about that too-- but not to the exclusion of all other issues.

also, im not saying that its necessarily better to have as a browser feature. if its easier to develop and maintain as an extension, great. though it might be easier to maintain as a browser feature-- if you are already maintaining a full browser like mozilla does, and not just making tweaks to an existing one.

then again if youre mozilla, the only easy thing to do is make your browser suck more every year, and perhaps also produce stupid excuses why youre doing that.

i do have some genuine hope for the local flavour of iceweasel, though i dont expect a miracle.

(posted from a lousy mozilla web browser, because most web browsers are lousy)