Saw this flying by the other day on the overboard. Ah, the thread that would not die. May as well stop by. Anyway, original OP here. For what it's worth.
>Does anyone know the benefits of using noscript over uMatrix?
The gist of it is that uMatrix merely blocks items, while NoScript also injects and replaces various classes of problematic functionality. Because of this, NoScript can make certain sites and services work more smoothly and consistently while still blocking the crap with safe(er) replacements.
As detailed in the original post, the problem with this method being NoScript can't really be turned off and will affect how the browser renders a site even while disabled. It's the nature of the beast.
>I'm not saying the old noscript was the best or better than uMatrix.
Yes, of course. But, people seem to have some preconceived notions about how things should work thus driving much of the controversy in choosing which technology one must adopt.
A historical perspective may be of some use here. Giorgio Maone's path being
evil at the same time as
coeval with the development and deployment of much of the browser and server technology we take for granted today. While he could anticipate and elegantly solve many iffy aspects of web browsing as the scene unfolded, most of his work was devoted to crushing nasty-issue-after-nasty-issue, often mind-bendingly esoteric and unrelated, over and over, one after another. Often this was done in the face of actively hostile web service providers (and not merely site operators) who would (and still do) settle for nothing less than absolute control over the browser, and much more.
The result of this epic evolutionary arms race is what NoScript became. While Mr. Maone deserves all the credit or blame for what he has done, it's not his fault things turned out as they have. That is to say, in a certain very real sense, NoScript was made by the opposition.
What I have found today is our latest generation of the technically inclined have enough trouble coming to grips with all of what is, and making it work. What was, and why, may amuse some at best. When confronted with something like NoScript that violates so much of what they have painfully learned, it's instantly tagged as a problem instead of a solution.
Let's try an analogy. uMatrix is a simple and straightforward school crossing guard who will do things one of two ways. She will let the kids enter the intersection, or not. If she says "Go!" they might jay-walk across, or run screaming into a car slowly approaching the intersection, but none of that is her concern. Usually, kids just cross the road as you would expect them to, and life moves on to bigger and better things.
NoScript is a brutal marine sergeant. He'll haul the kids across the intersection by the collar and plant them on the other side safely. However, if they look to try anything stupid he might just break their legs first. Or, on seeing someone approaching the intersection, he might pull random drivers out of their cars and bust some heads in for no discernible reason. It's ugly, and no-one understands why he does what he does, but hey, none of the kids ever died on his watch.
>The interface sucks ass! What happened?
I too dislike the new NoScript interface. Like it or not, NoScript was repackaged for mass appeal. Mass appeal means regular people, not just the (old or new) technically inclined. It is what it is.