Top 10 Firefox Extensions to Avoid 538
jcatcw writes "First there were the 20 must-have Firefox Extension and ensuing Slashdot discussion. Now Computerworld has the top 10 to avoid. For example, NoScript, which does make Firefox safer, but isn't worth the hassle, Or, VideoDownloader for slow downloads, when it works at all. Then there's Greasemonkey — on both lists."
Missing from the list (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still not sure why anyone would install it though.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, thanks for mentioning it. Time for some fun.
TLF
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Insightful)
#1 Fasterfox: Don't use it, it hammers webservers! There are a lot of links on the page that you are NEVER going to click on, mostly ads. This prefetches all those ads from the adservers webserver, but you're not looking at them! Not cool!
#2 NoScript: Don't use it, it's annoying. Plus, it screws up important scripts. For example, the article has these scripts:
function popup(
function popup_noscroll(
function switchPage(
ord=Math.random()*10000000000000000;
Do you really want to have to deal with the trouble?
#3 AdBlock: Do you think we do this to provide you with lame lists? We don't. We do this to make you watch ads. And you have to watch them! Didn't you get that under #2? You're breaking the social contract, you bastard!
What a joke.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the way they make you click from page to page to load their ads (if you weren't running NoScript or AdBlock...) gives me an idea for another extension which stitches these kinds of articles together.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll admit that something like Noscript takes a little work before it runs just the way you want it, but until FF is 100% secure, I'll keep using it, especially at work.
Re:Missing from the list (Score:4, Informative)
Firefox repagination: http://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2099 [mozilla.org]
Of course, once you do that, it becomes even more obvious that the content to garbage ratio on that site is well below 50%, but at least you don't have to click and wait at each break.
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Informative)
So, would it be wrong to show people the whole list, allowing many people to ignore their ad-laden web page altogether?
Fasterfox [mozilla.org]
NoScript [mozilla.org]
Adblock Plus [mozilla.org]
PDF Download [mozilla.org]
VideoDownloader [mozilla.org]
Greasemonkey [mozilla.org]
ScribeFire [mozilla.org]
TrackMeNot [mozilla.org]
Tabbrowser Preferences [mozilla.org]
Tabbrowser Extensions [sakura.ne.jp]
FormSpy [nai.com]
Hmmm. It doesn't feel wrong.
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not using Noscript because I'm paranoid. I ran into many sites that used Javascript to float ads over the entire page. Noscript puts me in control of the content I wish to view.
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Informative)
But since you ask:
http://www.goatse.cz/ [goatse.cz]
[shudder] I prefer THIS informative link (Score:5, Informative)
At least, I think so. There's no way I'm actually clicking on your link.
Re:[shudder] I prefer THIS informative link (Score:4, Funny)
I'm pretty sure, judging by his reaction, that you were right not to click GP's link.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to assume a new identity...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Informative)
Damn good thing, too. It's back. Beware.
Re:Missing from the list (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
GoToGoatse - The extension takes you to that famous page everytime you click a link.
That's not a website, that's just a side-effect of Goatse itself. You see, the horrendous, erm... black hole at the heart of Goatse is in fact an actual black hole at the heart of the web. Get too close to it and you'll be sucked beyond its event horizon; once this happens, there is no escape.
Worse still, many of you will have passed this point without realising it. I don't want to dwell on your fate, but I've heard that encountering the Goatse singularity is likely to be very unpleasant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
What users need to do to maximize our cashflow.
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
This news source is not objective and is, therefore, made of Fail.
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Informative)
Though, I gotta say, videodownloader is overrated, especially if you're only after YouTube videos. The below link will work more quickly:
javascript:(function(){var x = document.createElement('iframe'); x.style.width='1px'; x.style.height='1px'; document.body.appendChild(x); x.src='http://www.youtube.com/get_video?video_id=
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the places it doesn't work, I just keep "tail -f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should look at ads because they'd like you to ?
Migth as well argue they should drop ads because readers would like them to. Especially anoying ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that's not the user's problem now is it?
Don't whine to me if your business model doesn't work because it annoys people. That's the free market, baby. Adapt or die.
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:4, Informative)
For most of the extensions he gives several reasons _to use it_ and then some really lame excuse like "but I don't like it" or "that's too much hassle for me", or "you're just paranoid", the latter being a particularly egregious example of stupidity given the millions of machines that are botnetted. Those so-called "too paranoid" people will be the only ones left surfing when the next big virus/worm/trojan takes down half the 'net.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, we have some bias when it comes to ad-blocking extensions.......But if everyone blocked ads, how would sites such as ours continue to offer content free of charge?
You know, I can give them the same answer I would for a dvr skipping commercials: Because I can and I will, that's why I use Adblock Plus. Its fantastic and does it's job. I despise commercials and ads. I'm sorry it creates revenue for you but that's not my problem. Are they really asking us to deliber
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I do pay for some premium content, such as the Wall Street Journal, and a couple other work related (and work paid for) news sites. Unfortunately, we don't have a viable micro-payment system yet, so when you hit a site that you would pay 5 - 10 cents to read an article, you can't.
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
The targeting is one thing, but far more important is that Google's ads tend to be far less intrusive (and thus far less likely to get added to a user's blocklist).
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
What I won't do is expose myself to more advertising than I have to.
"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." - George Bernard Shaw
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you mean "I'm talking to you espn.com", since I assume you're no longer looking at it due to annoying ads.
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:4, Insightful)
While ads have helped the web become what it is today, I can't help but think that maybe if there weren't so many sites out there trying to get hits for ad purposes, the web might be a better place. Even if that means I have to pay for subscriptions to sites with content that I want, I think I might like that web better. We'd still have a lot of low-cost hosting solutions out there, and we'd still have people posting whatever they want. There just probably wouldn't be so much auto-generated garbage out there to sift through in order to see the interesting stuff. Then again, I've thought about this for all of about 3 minutes now, so I could be completely wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For sites like this, it rapidly becomes apparent that the purpose of the site is to generate ad revenue, for which the content is a draw, rather than a site that presents good content and is supported by
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Funny)
RAM!
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Winning is businesses finding better ways to make money than by annoying the general user. And yes, I find any and all ads annoying. I don't care if they are relevent or targetted or whatever. If I want to see/here about a company, I will seek them out. If there is any "legitimate"
form of advertising, it is in the form of yellowpages-like directories or catalogs. Beyond that, I don't want to see it or here it. And quite frankly, I don't give a crap how it affects business.
-matthew
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Interesting)
But there was a time when the vast majority of content was essentially ad free. Much of it even useful information. Heck, even today I visit plenty of sites that have no ads nor do charge for content. Although maybe that has changed in the last couple years. Adblock Plus is just so effective, I'm often shocked if for some reason I have to browse without it. Like I am actually overwhelmed. You just don't realize how in prevelent advertising is until you've shielded youself from it for a while. Mass ad blocking is like a drug. A sweet, sweet drug that I never want to come off.
-matthew
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
You just said something else, although you didn't realize it:
That mass advertising itself is also like a drug. I'm constantly amazed when I hear people talk about their experiences when they don't watch TV or go on the internet for awhile.. it's like they see the world completely differently, and in fact, they do: without the constant drum of advertising against their skulls, they start to see a world NOT based entirely on crass consumerism, a world where there IS meaning and simply joy in things like going to a picnic or talking to your family or reading a book on a gentle afternoon.
We've become so conditioned to be the perfect consumers that we're actually surprised when we step out of that mold. I never watch or listen to ads anymore, and advertisers be damned: I'll buy your product when and if I need it, and only then will I go looking for it. You do not need to spend every waking moment of my life telling me I am a worthless piece of shit because I don't have the latest gadget or waving things in my face that you KNOW I'm going to have to use credit to buy.
Fuck you, all of you. I am a human being, not a machine you can control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, that'll happen. Because EVERYBODY will be willing to pay for content. Guess what, when competition is giving it out for free, guess where everyone will go? Not the pay site. Sure they take a hit, but then they get popularity which is infinitely more valuable than a few hundred subscribers.
2) Everyone makes you register for access
That's what bugmenot.com is for. If I run into registration for content, I most likely don't bother. It can't be that
The web with NoScript is so much better! (Score:5, Informative)
I admit I don't use myspace / facebook and things that go boing (though I guess that even if I did, whitelisting two sites one time wouldn't really stress me out) but I have to say that you are sadly deluded if you think that I keep whitelisting your site to see the stupid scripts on it. Most of the time, if it doesn't work straight up, then it's a good sign that the content wasn't worth it. You learn this quickly since on the first day you use noscrpt you do try whitelisting, but soon you realise you aren't really seeing anything worthwhile.
Simple message: if you are designing a site; make sure it works fine without the scripts. Otherwise you will lose viewers who just don't care enough.
Re:The web with NoScript is so much better! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there is all the statistics / tracking javascript which noscript does a wonderful job getting rid of.
Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it takes a moment to re-enable JavaScript for sites which insist on using it for navigation (which is itself annoying, but sometimes a site has content I want.) But it's less than the aggravation of having the text I'm trying to read covered with a pop-up layer.
I don't mind polite advertising, but anything that moves (Java, Flash, and most recently Javascript) is going to be worthless unless I absolutely require it.
Re: (Score:2)
NoScript is a total pain in the ass, but I love it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a heck of a lot easier than turning off JS altogether, which is the only
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Insightful)
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with client side scripting at all. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and downright impolite. If you want me to see your page, do your processing on YOUR computer. Until then, noscript will have to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's a lot of rope for a web site to hang itself with, and more often than not it's evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a website rather than a desktop application is half the benefit you get from Gmail. I can access it from anywhere I have an internet connection and a browser, and have all my mail in front of me. Not true with desktop apps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To pre-empt queries as to why I have a long whitelist: work computer, and I imported a whitelist as I was told.
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Informative)
One more "me, too". I hate dancing baloney on a web page, and doubly so when it's for useless, distracting, intrusive advertising. Not to mention all the stupid security problems that come up [ckers.org] when you just blindly trust any code to run in your web browser.
For a handful of sites, JavaScript is worth turning on; for everything else, there's NoScript.
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any other kind of dancing baloney?
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
In a related story: (Score:3, Funny)
Article translation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Article translation (Score:5, Funny)
Where can I find this "IE7 God" extension?
Re:Article translation (Score:4, Funny)
here's the tell... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just pissed that NoScript and AdBlock knock down their revenue stream.
"...while continuing to support the sites we love by allowing most ads to appear."
Bzzt - sorry. I chose to not see ads.
Who is this guy anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think every single poster we've seen here has agreed how his list of mostly good tools, and it does seem targeted against tools that target ads and privacy. There *are* many dumb Firefox extensions he could have covered (like the 'make us your portal' ones) that he didn't. But really, how stupid does he think we are? Anyone even remotely tech savvy will see through his 'list'. Who is this guy anyway? His bio doesn't exactly shine out from t
As pointless as the last article (Score:5, Insightful)
NoScript bad because it stops nasty/naughty javascript?
PDF download bad because it stops embedded PDFs breaking your system (but also stops hacked tracking links from working)?
TrackMeNot because it stops you being tracked and wastes bandwidth?
I'd suggest the only waste of bandwidth their is their site!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And to top it off, when you didn't think site could lose any more karma, i see a link to another article
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4251 [computerworld.com] Why Firefox has lost its mojo
This article states that IE has bridged the gap in features and quality because a few copycat fe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
*goes to the article to find out what add-ons to download*.
Re:As pointless as the last article (Score:4, Insightful)
As for a site broken by Adblock: how about not using horribly intrusive ads? They don't work except maybe with the moron element.
Re:As pointless as the last article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As pointless as the last article (Score:5, Interesting)
I run a bunch, and nobody complains because I don't do client side scripts or run other people's ads.
because it actually enhances the browsing experience.
I go to websites for information, not a "browsing experience". What enhances my browsing experience is delivering the information I'm looking for without a lot of singing and dancing. If I'm looking for entertainment, again it'll be the specific content (eg video clip) I'm looking for, not all singing all dancing all popup crap.
Any "Performance" tweaks as well (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Adblock and Adblock Plus?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, sites like Slashdot, Google, etc. have it right. Minimally intrusive ads with quality content == a good experience for most users.
Re:Adblock and Adblock Plus?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit on one of my pet peeves -- web sites that break a single article into multiple pages. I rarely go beyond the first page, and I only read the first page of this self-serving article. If I knew ahead of time that this was one of those articles, I would have skipped it entirely. Maybe a [WARNING: multiple pages] heads-up is warranted on future Slashdot postings.
Re:Adblock and Adblock Plus?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the problem is that websites have zero clue what they're doing when they're laying out the page. They put the ads in the largest, most obtrusive places in an attempt to gain eye-time, but all it does is piss off the user.
Look at a print magazine. Most of them have remarkably good layout - ads are clearly ads, and text flows around the ads naturally. The site in TFA has horrifying ads that break the flow of the article and send your mind into unnatural gymnastics trying to follow along.
Ads and web content can coexist peacefully, but not until webmasters realize that layout is not just a 5-minute job in Dreamweaver, but is rather a full-time job that requires real qualifications and real training.
That article sucked (Score:5, Funny)
Adblock.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But the future of Internet advertising is with astroturfing, viral ad campaigns, etc. That can't be blocked with any technical solution.
A little Bias (Score:5, Interesting)
I also love how they put in 'Adblock' and 'Adblock Plus'. They say, well we don't like it being an advertising web site, but trust us, it is not very good.
I thought 'Adblock' was a great extension and very effective.
I also like 'Noscript', it is simple to prevent sites that insist that they and every site they connect to should be allowed to run javascript on your browser. 'Noscript' allows me to specify only the sites, like the one I am browsing, to actually run Javascript instead of every ad aggregator that wants information on you.
NoScript is in fact worth the hassle (Score:4, Insightful)
Paranoia is not "cool among Web geeks,", it's an unfortunate necessity when wandering the jungle that is the World Wide Web. How many times do we hear about exploits using JavaScript? Too often, in my mind's eye. If a particular site that you trust needs JavaScript to run, then whitelist it, even if just temporarily, with two mouse clicks.
I don't call it "paranoid," I call it "due caution" and it is, in fact, worth the minor hassle.
NoScript sometimes breaks DHTML (Score:3, Informative)
It does this even when all the sites it lists for the page are set to allowed. But if you set it to "Allow script Globally" (basically, letting EVERYTHING through) and reload the page, the bug goes away. So something there is being blocked that shouldn't be.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was a glitch in dynamic inclusion of external scripts through the document.write("<script...></script>") hack used by some AJAX libraries (e.g. Scriptacolous on Digg). This was an rare problem under normal conditions, but NoScript filters used to make it appear more frequently.
Good news is that current NoScript 1.1.4.7 Release Candidate [noscript.net] fixes this issue once (hopefully) for ever.
#3 = Adblock? No bias there (Score:5, Insightful)
I freely admit I block every ad I can. If I'm going to buy something, I'll actively go looking for it. I resent people telling me that I'm damaging them by not displaying their ads on my PC. Your ads are valueless when displayed on my PC anyway, so why should I expose myself to them? The ad industry has not endeared itself to the internet community. They have only themselves to blame for people wanting to block them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do you think telemarketers hate do-not-call lists? They should be celebrating to high heavens, since all their non-customers got sorted out of the pool. *BUZZ* wrong answer. There's plenty people that don't want to be bother with them but who respond to ads - not directly but then you don't see a TV ad and immidiately call and order unless it's TV shop. Hell, there's plenty people like you that
Fasterfox (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You could save URLs that interest you and use wget or curl to grab your interests from a list.
Re:Fasterfox (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
And an extension you NEED (Score:3, Funny)
Worst... List... Evar! (Score:4, Interesting)
And yeah, some of it is my significant anti-consumerism bias, too. I block ads on principle, as I consider them an ever-increasing intrusion into my life. Yes, people have the right to create and use advertising, but I have the same right to use any legal means to keep them away from me. And for those who ask, as this article did, "what would happen to all the great ad-supported sites if everyone used these tools," well, they'd be replaced by something else - subscription-driven services, smaller clusters of free services, etc. I love the web as much as the next guy, but it's not like I'd be lost if the entire web went dark tomorrow. I have other interests. But that's not going to happen anyway.
VideoDownloader *is* extremely useful (Score:5, Informative)
Ad block and ad block plus... (Score:4, Interesting)
If ads had continued to be a small banner at the top or bottom of the page with NO ANIMATION, or even small ads down the sides that didn't interrupt the flow of the CONTENT (again, no animation), then guess what? I would never have seen a need to use ad blocking software.
The fact is that advertising has gotten very intrusive and counter productive. Hell, I'd likely visit a few advertiser's sites, but now I never see them because of the way they were changed to be as intrusive as possible, hence sent to the bit bucket. WHy do advertisers believe that being as in-your-face as possible would do anything BUT piss people off about the stuff they are trying to sell?
That decent ads (see above
So cry me a river. I'll stick with adblocking software. It's your own damned fault that people block your precious advertisers these days.
Fasterfox (Score:5, Insightful)
Its main benefits are multiple connections and pipelining (oh and the timer - I love the timer). To say that you should throw the whole thing out because they don't like prefetching (which is indeed a poor idea) is just plain silly.
Also, what's with the extremely patronizing tone of the whole article? Who made them the hall monitors of the internet?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In this guy's case, he wasn't really ev
Computerworld should know better (Score:3, Funny)
The Real List of Extensions to avoid. (Score:5, Informative)
So far I have 4 I can't live without. Adblock, IE View Lite, Firefox View, and BugmeNot. Out of these I am assuming only an "Always on" types like Adblock can cause memory + slowdown issues. The others should not hurt much right?
The blacklist has some popular extensions like Adblock, but usually its only the older versions with problems. Tab Browser Extensions and Tab Browser Preferences particularly stand out as they are not recommended.
Oh and the article is drivel.
Noscript..... (Score:4, Interesting)
FTFA:
Does NoScript make Firefox safer? Sure. Is it worth the hassle? No. For some reason, paranoia seems to be cool among Web geeks
I guess they think that having your system pwned and turned into a spam-spewing zombie DoS machine of death is what really makes one cool.
Unfounded (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a pretty broad set of statements to make, and I doubt the article's author has anything but his own opinion to back it up with. Example: Google Analytics javascripts are everywhere, directly allowing google to track an individual user's journey to any pages that include them. The author apparently doesn't think that visits to such pages are "private information". Or maybe the author doesn't realize how such information is tracked and might be used.
Re:AdBlock?? (Score:4, Informative)