Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NoScript For Android Devices Released

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the temporarily-allow-dept-line dept.

Android 107

Trailrunner7 writes "The new version of NoScript, the popular browser add-on that blocks JavaScript and other embedded objects from running on Web pages, is out in alpha form. It can now run on Android-based smartphones, giving users protection against script-based attacks on their mobile devices. The release of NoScript Anywhere includes a variety of new features, but it's the support for Firefox Mobile that is the big attraction. The add-on for Android devices is meant to mimic the desktop version, giving users the ability to set permissions for each individual site and use a default policy for restricting content. NoScript also now includes an anti-clickjacking feature and an anti-XSS filter designed to protect users from cross-site scripting attacks. The new version also works on Maemo-based phones and tablets."

cancel ×

107 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frosty Piss for Slashdorks Released (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743132)

On your knees and open your mouth for a nice cold one!

NoScript might save FireFox (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 3 years ago | (#37743136)

With FF devs alienating their user base on the desktop side, the mobile version might have a chance to stick around if extensions don't break the same way.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743220)

Can't miss the chance to take a shot at them, huh?

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 3 years ago | (#37743558)

With FF devs alienating their user base on the desktop side, can't miss the chance to take a shot at them, huh?

FTFY

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

eepok (545733) | about 3 years ago | (#37743472)

Wait... how are they alienating me?

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743530)

I hear they keep breaking extensions every few weeks.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (2)

eepok (545733) | about 3 years ago | (#37743562)

I heard that too... but then I updated Firefox with each release and am yet to have a broken add-on/extension.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 3 years ago | (#37743946)

What version are at now? (I'm at 3.6.??)

Do you run any of the following?:
-Nuke Anything Enhanced
-Password Exporter or Fubu
-Secure login
-unMHT (or equiv)
-BetterPrivacy (super-cookie safeguard)

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about 3 years ago | (#37744074)

Do you just have the max version preventing you? Other than major releases they usually don't break extensions. Disable the version checking in about:config

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

Omestes (471991) | about 3 years ago | (#37745196)

Other than major releases they usually don't break extensions.

Aren't they all major releases now?

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 3 years ago | (#37746748)

Version 7.01, running
British english dictionary 1.91.1
Cookie monster 1.1.0
Default full zoom level 4.5
Flagfox 4.1.7
Noscript 2.1.5rc4
Optimizegoogle 0.78.2
Personas 1.6.2
Stumbleupon 3.97
Stylish 1.2.3
Tabmixplus 0.3.8.6
Trackmenot 0.6.728

They all seem to be running fine. Trackmenot is an interesting one, it creates random bogus searches at the most popular search engines obfuscating search history.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 3 years ago | (#37746760)

Whoops missed Murdoch block copy.rev2.2.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743852)

I don't know about you, but Mozilla alienated me a few years back, when they basically called me a liar after filing a bug report about the Firefox memory leak that they just now claim to have fixed.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#37744072)

Mozilla alienated me when their constant number jumping killed the Avast secure site plugin, which is DAMN handy for average folks as it catches phishing attempts and drive bys. That when combined with the constant jumping making it impossible to test squat as far as the extensions my users need had me search for alternatives and settle on Comodo Dragon. With Dragon everything is sandboxed and I've updated it from V6 to V14 and zero problems. In fact as soon as I'm done typing this I'll be letting it update and again I expect ZERO failures of my extensions.

As for TFA I wish him luck but really wish he would come out with a Chromium extension as that is the only plugin I miss that I had on FF, everything else has switched over to Chrome/Dragon. Frankly between the constant UI changes, the constant extensions breakage, and the sluggishness that seems to get worse every version (I had to switch my XP Netbox back to 3.6 simply because it got so slow and sluggish after 4 it was unusable, while even the latest Dragon purrs) Firefox smells to me like a dying platform. They are making the same arrogant mistakes Netscape did but without the code to back it up. They don't listen to their users and that is the surest way to fall.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37748572)

+1.
No, +100000! (and I mean factorial).

Really, I find the current firefox version to be great, I'm not alienated, I find Chrome to be quite crappy in how it manages zoom and tabs (which is what it matters for me, not the 0.1s it would save me in a day performance-wise) and I can't stand people generalizing their opinion to the whole user-base.

Besides, I find NoScript and alikes to be utter-crap. As in "make whole websites not working anymore for some perceived advantage dictated by useless pursue of pure performance and paranoia-induced false security".

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 3 years ago | (#37743618)

The mobile version of Firefox is by far the least usable browser on my Android tablet. I prefer the built-in browser and even Dolphin to FF, which makes it impossible to go to Home, Favorites or anywhere else except by clicking a link. It's minimalism gone mad.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

HBI (604924) | about 3 years ago | (#37743642)

Agree.

I removed the mobile FF from my phone and I won't be re-adding it because NoScript is available. It's dog-slow to load and render. The built-in browser is far superior.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37748096)

Built in or then Boat Browser. After them a Opera Mobile or Dolphin HD and then others. Firefox is somewhere very far away.

All what mobile browser really needs, is great adblock and flash disabled. I can not wait HTML5 pages to come when we can no longer block ads, videos, scripts or any other stupid things...

Then it is time to go pure txt and pictures as sites and just grab them from web server and build the content in logical small form in phones. To achieve UI's like in sci-fi series and movies (Star-Trek, Stargåte, BSG etc).

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 3 years ago | (#37743696)

Give the Nightly a chance. It features a real tablet interface that utilizes the action bar on honeycomb and when its in landscape mode, the tab thumbnails are always visible. I love it!

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37747344)

Give the Nightly a chance. It features a real tablet interface that utilizes the action bar on honeycomb and when its in landscape mode, the tab thumbnails are always visible. I love it!

No thanks, we're talking about smartphones not tablets.

And FF on android is a bloated piece of pigshit.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

Truth_Quark (219407) | about 3 years ago | (#37745090)

I find the navigation the best of all the browsers on my phone.

Dragging the screen left and right to expose the navigation and tabs is an awsome use of real-estate, that I reckon will be copied.

If you want to go home or to a bookmark, open a tab and choose the page from the menu.

Sometimes I want to open an image in a new tab, which it doesn't do, but that's the only frustration I've got with ff on my mobile.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744544)

You know, I just can't bring myself to use FF anymore... Chrome is just so much nicer than FF it feels kinda like going from a space age jet car back to a horse and buggy when I try to make myself use FF now...

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 3 years ago | (#37744796)

And I can't bring myself to use a browser made by an advertising company as my main browser. It's an insurmountable conflict of interests.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about 3 years ago | (#37745056)

Funny you are writing that in response to an extension which had deliberately and silently killed other extensions.

http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users [adblockplus.org]

Don't depend on the author of NoScript to play nice. He's not one of the good guys.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

JBMcB (73720) | about 3 years ago | (#37746102)

He fixed the problem and apologized. Nobody is perfect. NoScript is awesome.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

MichaelKristopeit355 (1968164) | about 3 years ago | (#37746182)

He fixed the problem and apologized. Nobody is perfect. NoScript is awesome.

and then he created a new problem and blamed others to justify his continued agenda of pushing ads on people who have put their trust in him... some people are awesomely imperfect... almost perfectly imperfect. basically evil.

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

JBMcB (73720) | about 3 years ago | (#37746412)

Original link: "Update 3 (2009-05-04): NoScript author made an official statement on the events."

"and then he created a new problem and blamed others to justify his continued agenda of pushing ads"

When did that happen, exactly? Have a link?

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (1)

MichaelKristopeit353 (1968162) | about 3 years ago | (#37746158)

ignorant hypocrisy is not funny.

slashdot = stagnated

Re:NoScript might save FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37747504)

which had deliberately and silently killed other extensions

That is not true, and even the link you supplied disagrees with you.

The fact you don't even link to the explanation and apology from the NoScript author shows that you're simply a biased Troll who is Astroturfing. Again.

For anyone who wants the whole story, here's the other side of things. Just keep in mind that while BOTH the extensions were tampering with each other, neither one disabled the other, and neither one ever involved any other extension.

http://hackademix.net/2009/05/04/dear-adblock-plus-and-noscript-users-dear-mozilla-community/

Oh, and that was in 2009. Talk about beating a dead fucking horse.

Nice! (-1, Troll)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37743142)

Good to see Android and iOS users continuing to catch up with what N900 users could do years ago.

(Sorry, but that's what ever mobile story feels like to me!)

Re:Nice! (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37743226)

Which is a good thing, since the N900 is a dead platform from a near dead company.

Re:Nice! (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 years ago | (#37743444)

A technological tragedy if there ever was one.

Re:Nice! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37743958)

On both counts.

Re:Nice! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 years ago | (#37744234)

It's a dead platform I'd always say.

Re:Nice! (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about 3 years ago | (#37743288)

So what? It's an evolutionary dead end, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure that "catch up" has much meaning in a "you're extinct and I'm growing exponentially" context. There is an unofficial port of Android for the N900, though, so you might be able to stave off extinction for a short time.

Re:Nice! (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 years ago | (#37743526)

Sad, I think you might have touched an Android fanboy's nerve :/

Re:Nice! (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 3 years ago | (#37746818)

(Sorry, but that's what ever mobile story feels like to me!)

As a heavy Psion 5MX user (REAL KEYBOARD! NOT A SLIDER!) I felt the same way from the very start of the smart phone era... Sure, you had to tether your PDA to your phone, but otherwise, the ancient Psion still has many great productivity qualities and othe features phones have yet to match.

Re:Nice! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37748744)

I felt the same way for many years, the iPhone has only recently approached the level of functionality of my old Treo 650, and even then you can never write and compile apps on it.

I went from a candybar with a thumb keyboard to a slider and I thought it was a positive move. The landscape slider is the best layout possible for a phone IMO - you can get a widescreen the size of the whole device and a proper thumb keyboard at the same time. The only downside is that they're more fragile than a candybar and it adds some thickness (but with time that will become a non-issue).

about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743144)

If only I could get it for my logitec revue

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743148)

Can't wait for my crappy Rogers contract to run out so I can buy a sweet Droid and switch companies!

negative personal experience (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 3 years ago | (#37744130)

ran FF on a Tablet running android 2.2 and it was DOG SLOW (mind you this was on a Tegra 2,) and the UI looked like something that was designed for desktop. Opera was much much better...

Old News (4, Informative)

nman64 (912054) | about 3 years ago | (#37743250)

While excellent news, this is old news. Note that the current release is alpha 9. These alphas have been around for months.

I have enjoyed using Firefox on my G2, and while the NoScript alphas do work, they definitely do not provide the same experience as their desktop counterpart. I'm hoping that by the time NSA reaches stable releases, it provides more of the ease-of-use and feature set I am used to on the desktop. Still, if you're using an Android handset supported by Firefox, I strongly recommend giving this a try. Adblock Plus is available, too!

Does Firefox Mobile still suck? (1)

wiggles (30088) | about 3 years ago | (#37743254)

Great - just wish you didn't need Firefox Mobile for it. Last time I tried it, it was HORRIBLE. Have they fixed it?

Re:Does Firefox Mobile still suck? (1)

steveg (55825) | about 3 years ago | (#37743470)

It's not horrible on my Bionic. That would be a step up.

It freezes immediately. Can't even scroll around on the page. I've installed it a couple of times, hoping that the problem was a bad version, or corrupted, or something, but it just doesn't work here.

Despite my growing dissatisfaction with the desktop version, I still use it as my primary browser (mainly because I'm not thrilled with any of their competition either.) I was hoping that the constraints on a mobile device would moderate the Firefox devs' strange ideas on interface design, but it turns out it doesn't matter.

Re:Does Firefox Mobile still suck? (1)

admdrew (782761) | about 3 years ago | (#37743474)

Yes - I did also originally hate the older Firefox for Android, but the newer incarnations work very well, as long as you've got a semi-decent phone. Some of the older Android phones may be bogged down a little, but anything recent should work well. I have an HTC G2, and am pleased with the speed of the application, and haven't used the Android browser for months. Same goes for tablets - any of the newer/faster tablets run Firefox very well.

Re:Does Firefox Mobile still suck? (1)

dark_requiem (806308) | about 3 years ago | (#37745962)

I have had rather the opposite experience. I have a G2 as well, but mine is running Cyanogenmod 7 (one of the nightly builds, something like 220), and is overclocked to 1.5GHz (dynamic, on-demand governor). Despite that, even running at a straight 1.5GHz with no governor, all the latest builds still run slow as hell. And it's not CM, as my buddy has a G2 that is completely stock, not even rooted, and he gets the same performance. That goes for both the stable and the beta versions. I have yet to try the beta (alpha?) version which uses the native Android UI elements instead of XUL (which is insanely slow on Android thus far), but the builds I have tried were horrible. And, even if that version works wonderfully, the problem still remains that many addons rely on XUL for rendering their interfaces, so if they do away with XUL for the mobile version, that would mean addons would need to be re-tooled to eschew XUL (betting noscript uses XUL, from the looks of it). The only reason it is still installed on my phone is because I need to access an old sharepoint site for work (yeah, not happy about that myself, but that changes in two weeks!), and I can't use any of the other browsers I've tried (stock android, Opera, and Dolphin all fail, something about unsupported www-authenticate headers), but Firefox works.

Re:Does Firefox Mobile still suck? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 years ago | (#37743538)

The problem seems limited to the Android version, which misbehaves on my Nook Color. However, on my N900 the only limiting factor seems to be the lack of RAM and if not for that it would probably replace the built in browser completely.

NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (2)

Scott Swezey (678347) | about 3 years ago | (#37743266)

NoScript is about all that is holding me to FireFox. I would much prefer to use Chrome or Safari, but neither support NoScript.

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37743566)

At the very least if your not running...

stumbleupon,
adblock plus
greasemonkey

then your missing out, I don't use very many, but I've found crazy ones like image referrer spoofers and of course ol trusty firebug and that mini forest of tools.

I use IE when I don't use firefox, it's slow as hell, but google needs to stop marketing chrome as optional software with other installers for me to ever seriously try it. Don't own a Mac either, so that makes it easy.

I'm curious though, and if a Linux user can chime in that would be great, how is firefox doing on the better Linux distros (!= Ubuntu or Fedora or the like)

I remember the Linux version being superior to the windows version in terms of performance on the same hardware, I doubt windows was that bloated at the time to comp for the performance difference (was fast in both, a lot faster in Linux). I ask because the windows side has been going to shit since about 4.0.

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 3 years ago | (#37743646)

Just FYI, Safari runs on Windows machines so you could run it if you wanted to. I have yet to actually meet a real life person that runs Safari on Windows other than for testing websites, but it is possible.

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743924)

I imagine there's at least one person who accidentally got Safari when "upgrading" itunes, made it their default browser (more through ignorance than choice), and is still using it because they can't figure out why the internet changed.

In the immortal words of Mr. T, "I pity the fool!"

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744280)

My sister ran safari for six months or so because it was the default browser after installing iTunes. Then she uses chrome because she had to use Google Earth for a class and it set itself as the default during the installation. Of course, now she uses Firefox because she had another class that required it to work with user agent detecting class website.

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 3 years ago | (#37743664)

Absolutely on the greasemonkey notion. Firefox on my Xoom supports it and I wouldn't browse any other way!

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37746742)

Chrome natively supports Greasemonkey scripts, so you're wrong. Dunno how well it works though :p.

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (1)

cynyr (703126) | about 3 years ago | (#37745488)

last i knew greasemonkey scripts could be loaded like addons on chrome[1], there is adblock[2] for chrome as well. I'll give you stumbleupon, I can't seem to find an addon for it, not that I'm really sure what is up with stumbleupon, but there you go.

[1] http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/24790/beginner-guide-for-greasemonkey-scripts-in-google-chrome/ [howtogeek.com]
[2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb [google.com]

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743588)

Give SeaMonkey a try. Although it has been slowly adopting some of the annoyances of Firefox over the last year or so, it is still a mostly no-frills browser that is fast and simple to use. And you can use NoScript.

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (2)

ewieling (90662) | about 3 years ago | (#37743790)

Have you looked at NoScripts for chrome?
http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (1)

Scott Swezey (678347) | about 3 years ago | (#37743874)

Last I looked (a few months back), it was my understanding that chrome didn't offer the hooks needed to implement anything like noscript. But the site for NotScripts seem to show that this has changed, so I will definitely take a look. Thanks for sharing.

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (2)

trytoguess (875793) | about 3 years ago | (#37743978)

Personally, I found ScriptNo to be a better option. If nothing else, unlike NoScript, you don't have to manually input a password into a textfile to get it to work.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf [google.com]

Re:NoScript is about all that is holding me to FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744744)

Nah, iptNoScr is where it's at.

Too bad it can't work system-wide... (3, Informative)

isaac (2852) | about 3 years ago | (#37743276)

My single biggest beef with Android (at least the Sense-flavored version that I have to use due to ActiveSync policies) is that there's no reliable way to disable HTML email and remote element loading. As a result, I'm continually guessing from subjects and senders whether or not a given message is safe to open.

Google and/or HTC developers really should know better. At least I have a decent browser-only solution now, but I'd prefer something integrated with the base system's webkit (assuming that's what's being used to render HTML in the mail client as well as in the lousy default browser.)

-Isaac

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#37743352)

I'd really like to see a NoScript like system worked into an HTTP proxy. Privoxy can replace Adblock, we need something like that for NoScript. That way it wouldn't matter what browser you use.

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744468)

Then we will just use SSL to deliver our customers' ads :-)

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 3 years ago | (#37746800)

Privoxy has had SSL support from the start, some 6+ years ago. In addition, I heard the same thing about ftp, but it's simply a matter of telling privoxy to strip out all medias from an ftp url... Similar could be done for ssl

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 3 years ago | (#37746768)

Privoxy can replace Adblock, we need something like that for NoScript.

We have it already. It's called.... Privoxy. Surprise!

In addition to blocking images, it can also block, say, .js files, and also has a regex filter system, which allows you to filter out absolutely any text you want. A global substitution of "script" for "s-c-r-i-p-t" will quite effectively strip all javascript from all pages, and can be selectively turned off. The interface just isn't as friendly.

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743774)

You could use webmail in the browser instead of the mail app?

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744484)

Perhaps Google does know better, but Google doesn't like email clients.

Remember Google+? Youtube? Google wants everyone to use Gmail bad. They want to know exactly who you are and what you're are doing, and Gmail is their cornerstone for that. Email clients are something to discourage and eventually eliminate.

(Posting AC because I still can.)

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37745092)

Someone should port a decent mail client like re-alpine.

Re:Too bad it can't work system-wide... (1)

jc79 (1683494) | about 3 years ago | (#37748064)

K9 Mail is a good, free/libre mail client for android that can use ActiveSync. By default, it does not load remote elements in HTML mail. It's in the Android market, cost free.

This is why Android users can't have nice things (-1, Troll)

jmcbain (1233044) | about 3 years ago | (#37743296)

LOL @ the android fanboys who regale in the microscopic victories of having script-blocking software running on their Android phones. Time to pop the champagne!

Meanwhile, Apple and iOS are empowering users with devastatingly awesome features like Siri AI and an app store catalog that's now over 500,000. Oh yeah, Apple just sold 4.5 million iPhones 4s units [wsj.com] during this weekend. When will the Android fanboys realize that it's not about hardware specs but overall integration between OS software, hardware, and 3rd-party apps? The iPhone empowers people (you, me, doctors, businessmen, engineers, scientists, etc.). Android distracts people with irrelevant details (is that 4.2" screen better than this 3.97" screen)?

So basically, you can continue wasting your days trying to hack your Android browser, or you can do something useful with your life.

Re:This is why Android users can't have nice thing (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#37743374)

I don't know about you but sometimes I wish I had NoScript on a mobile browser. There are sites that have popups that take 100% of your screen with a stupid ad and the "Close" button is the size of a pixel. This is done because most of the time you end up clicking on the ad instead of closing it. Thus more revenue for the site.

Re:This is why Android users can't have nice thing (1)

MrSmith0011000100110 (1344879) | about 3 years ago | (#37743376)

Thanks for the comment. Now go do something useful with your life.

Re:This is why Android users can't have nice thing (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37743400)

What are Apple phone users doing when they browse to flash-based websites again?

Re:This is why Android users can't have nice thing (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#37743422)

Dude, please, settle down.

Sent from my iPhone

Re:This is why Android users can't have nice thing (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 3 years ago | (#37743426)

or you can do something useful with your life.

Like waiting a year or more for iOS to implement useful and time-saving features that have already been available on Android and other platforms?

After all, without innovators determining which cool new features are actually useful, where would Apple get the new version of iOS feature improvements?

Re:This is why Android users can't have nice thing (1)

eepok (545733) | about 3 years ago | (#37743518)

The tech communication and scheduling world survived quite well before Siri. It's voice recognition. While definitely impressive, it improves performance how much?

On the other hand with advertisements including high-power graphics, video, and audio that chews up bandwidth, processes and RAM, and battery life, being able to block such advertisements outright provides for actual performance improvement.

Re:This is why Android users can't have nice thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37746238)

Not sure if trolling...or pathetic loser.

"Maemo-based phones and tablets" (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 3 years ago | (#37743312)

Should those nouns be plural?

Re:"Maemo-based phones and tablets" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743738)

Should those nouns be plural?

Considering they released 5 of them, and 5 > 1 I do believe that you can pluralize

One of those is a phone. And since maemo is a part of meego on the recently released N9, then you could also pluralize.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nokia_Internet_Tablet

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Maemo#Release_history

I can't use it because of Flash (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37743392)

I have a Nexus One. For whatever reason, Adobe Flash has no "move to SD card" option on my phone. Maybe on all Android phones.

Because of that, and because every time they rev it they bloat it another megabyte, it now consumes 14 MB out of the 256 MB available in onboard NVRAM. Which means I'm done installing new things until I either buy a new phone or choose to give up other apps. Which I've already had to do twice to accept Adobe Flash updates. Which means I'm down to apps I really didn't want to delete the other two times, and really really don't want to delete now.

So, I can't add NoScript. Certainly not Firefox and NoScript. Because, well: fuck Adobe.

Re:I can't use it because of Flash (1)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37743638)

I have a Nexus One. For whatever reason, Adobe Flash has no "move to SD card" option on my phone. Maybe on all Android phones.

If your phone is rooted and you have a backup you could try integrating the update to the ROM with Titanium Backup.

I used this on Acer Liquid Metal. If I go to a flash site it's still reporting 10.3, but the player settings for 11 work and Youtube works. That does not mean it will work on your phone, or that I won't have problems down the line with mine. Use at your own risk.

Re:I can't use it because of Flash (1)

JackAxe (689361) | about 3 years ago | (#37745396)

Your comment kind of baffles me. It doesn't seem to add up, as you're complaining about something that is completely optional. So if you really wan't no-script, then you're probably in the same camp that doesn't want Flash --- as JavaScript is required just to embed Flash.

And for reference, Flash 11 takes up 12.83 MB on my Nexus One when I look under manage apps. But going by Astro Manager, it states that the plug-in for 11 is only 4.47 MB in memory. My backed up version of 10.1 is 4.23 MB. So Flash Player 11 is only 200k larger than 10.1 and it's a HUGE improvement all around. So where are you getting another meg here and there, when Flash player for Android has always been about the same size?

But on Manage App reporting a difference size than Astro Manager, I'm wondering if the extra 8 megs it reports is dedicated cache/memory for Flash?

Anyways, I'd like a move to SD card option for Flash also, along with a few other of my Apps like Google Goggles and Books. But I found out that some apps, like PowerAmp -- which I really enjoy -- have problems when moved to the SD card, so Flash might not play nicely when moved to an external card. I have 52 megs free out of 256 on my phone, so I'm not hurting for storage and I can always back up my apps or just delete and download them again if needed. Now if I could only delete FaceBook, I could free up another meg. :\

Re:I can't use it because of Flash (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | about 3 years ago | (#37749144)

More along the lines of "fuck Android" in general for not supporting the moving of any and all apps to the SD card. This is a matter of user freedom.

No thanks (1)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37743520)

Sorry, but based on Mozilla's track record of resource-intensive products, and how long they've struggled to compact Firefox down onto a mobile device, I can't see how there's a lot of advantage to using this on one. One of the biggest advantages would be preventing Javascript execution to conserve battery life, but when you're doing this inside Firefox itself you're not really getting ahead. And you're still using more resources just having the add-on, because Firefox add-ons are in fact Javascript themselves, and it's going to be active even for pages which have no Javascript in them. This should be a hard-coded feature in the browser, not an add-on.

The idea is neat, and yes there are security/privacy advantages, but the available browsers for Android already offer similar protections if you dig through the options. Dolphin and Opera are pretty nice alternatives to the default. People should check them out if they haven't.

Re:No thanks (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 3 years ago | (#37743940)

I'm not a particular fan of noscript but greasemonkey however is a different story and it works on Firefox on android. that seals it for me but ymmv.

what pisses me off about firefox mobile (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 3 years ago | (#37743678)

is that the download is forced via the Android Market... my table doesn't have Android market... it has AppsLib... when I try and go via the android market, I get a snotty message about there being no android phones associated with this account (my gmail account is shown)... OF COURSE THERE ARE NO ANDROID PHONES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCOUNT... it's a fsking tablet... not a phone... and my manufacturer has been stupid and not put Android Market on it...

Re:what pisses me off about firefox mobile (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 3 years ago | (#37743728)

You can change your build.prop file, if you want to, and make the market think your tablet is a phone. it can enable the market.

Re:what pisses me off about firefox mobile (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 years ago | (#37744556)

is that the download is forced via the Android Market... my table doesn't have Android market... it has AppsLib... when I try and go via the android market, I get a snotty message about there being no android phones associated with this account (my gmail account is shown)... OF COURSE THERE ARE NO ANDROID PHONES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCOUNT... it's a fsking tablet... not a phone... and my manufacturer has been stupid and not put Android Market on it...

Your problem was you bought a cheapass tablet running AOSP and NOT OHA Android. The difference is OHA Android has the ability to license "with Google" which includes the Marketplace. Of cousre, I also call it a failing of Google to secure apps - if you could download a marketplace APK easily, then it'll be really easy to pirate apps (APKs from marketplace are not DRM-protected).

But AppsLib is for AOSP Androids which have no marketplace access (and no GMail, YouTube, Maps and Goggles). You may be able to pirate the apps from Cyanogen. Perhaps their forums has instructions on getting it all set up. If it's an Archos device there's plenty of howtos as well.

It's one of the reasons I like iOS - the ability to have a local backup (IPA files are, however, DRM locked to the account). Google tries to hide the APK files too much and getting them off requires use of ADB or Astro File Manager or rooted TiBackup. Atr least having a local backup of your apps...

A shout out to RequestPolicy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743742)

NoScript is a great product, but it is also worth mentioning RequestPolicy which is a great compliment to NoScript.

From the RequestPolicy FAQ: [requestpolicy.com]

Is RequestPolicy an alternative or competitor to NoScript?

No! :)

NoScript is a tool that gives you a default deny policy for JavaScript, Java, Flash and other plugins. NoScript allows you to whitelist scripts and objects from domains you trust.

RequestPolicy is a tool that gives you a default deny policy for cross-site requests. RequestPolicy allows you to whitelist cross-site requests you trust.

Re:A shout out to RequestPolicy (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37744444)

That FAQ is outdated. NoScript as XSS and CSRF protection, and ABE [noscript.net] (included in NS) can block by default all cross-site requests too and allow only those you trust.

I'd rather have TrueCrypt for my phone (1)

ProfanityHead (198878) | about 3 years ago | (#37744602)

Full disc encryption to keep the dick cops out of my phone with their Cellebrite cell phone extraction device.

Then I'll worry about malware from scripts on web pages.

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/21/135610182/aclu-upset-over-cell-phone-extraction-device [npr.org]

Re:I'd rather have TrueCrypt for my phone (1)

jschottm (317343) | about 3 years ago | (#37748408)

Good security is about proper risk assessment. Unless you live a wildly criminal life and/or never surf the web on your phone, your chances of being stopped by the police and having your phone copied is minuscule compared to browsing to a malicious or compromised web site. Don't spend so much time worrying about ebola that you don't get your flu shot.

FF is best at JS and Ajax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744704)

no matter what, Firefox mobile is the best at handling javascript and ajax.
I have seen no other browser able to show a scroll bar generated by javascript except firefox.
At least, I can scroll.

Annoying updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37746712)

It it going to ask me every time I open my browser whether I want to update, so that it can send me to its splash page with advertising.
I get that it's revenue generating, but it's also annoying as heck (would rather have a paid for version myself).

In other news (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37748336)

Someone thought that releasing Firefox on a mobile phone was a good idea.

Now we just need (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | about 3 years ago | (#37749110)

Root-agnostic adblock. All the current versions are completely inept.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?