Re: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?

[cgw993]

Thanks for letting me know, and for creating LibreJS. I really like the
concept and the program you did.  

I don't think it would cause any harm to clarify on the settings page what
each setting means

-On = Automatic updates from   http://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ (?)
-Off = No automatic updates
-Default = Automatic updates from the Mozilla editors.   

Labeling how each choice works causes users to think about the route the
update takes and ask questions about how these settings might differ, which
I think is a good thing.  You program seems to be the most effective I have
found to reduce browser fingerprinting as reported by panopticlick.org,
while leaving the browser mostly functional.   The only thing better would
be if it automatically sent the complaint email for you automatically, but I
imagine that is not likely even practically possible.  Firefox seems to now
be putting out more updates then ever before, which would seem to make the
browser fingerprinting situation even worse, if I understand the concept
correctly, so I keep those updates off.  There are so many versions of each
browser out now, along with ever other setting of everything else, that it
seems pretty much certain that everyone's browser 100% unique nowadays.  




-----Original Message-----
From: Loic J. Duros [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 11:23 AM
To: address@hidden
Cc: 'John Sullivan'; address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?

Default is on. Which means automatic updates from AMO
(addons.mozilla.org)
It still prompts you to let you know there's an update though.
The version of LibreJS on AMO is also maintained by us, so nothing to worry
about (you can still open the xpi file and check the source if you like.)
The Mozilla editors also review the addon every time a new version is made
as well for security and other criteria.

Loic



<address@hidden> writes:

> In LibreJS there are 3 settings for automatic updates
>
> -Default
> _On
> -Off
>
> Does anyone know what the default setting means, I think this default 
> setting is checked by default when you install the program
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:14 PM
> To: 'John Sullivan'; 'Loic J. Duros'
> Cc: 'address@hidden'
> Subject: RE: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?
>
> I am all for that idea with the warning message, sounds good.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Sullivan [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:51 PM
> To: Loic J. Duros
> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?
>
> address@hidden (Loic J. Duros) writes:
>
>> <address@hidden> writes:
>>> I wonder if timed permission would be of any  use? "Allow this 
>>> particular script, or all scripts on this webpage to run for x 
>>> minutes or x hours or x days before returning to blocking the scripts"
>>
>> Sure, once we get to the point that we have the ability and the 
>> interface to allow/block a single script or all scripts, then as you 
>> suggest we can set up a counter or just save time with a timestamp 
>> and check once the browser is opened (in the event it's closed) 
>> whether the timer set has elapsed for a particular script or page.
>>
>
> What I'm talking about is a little different and I think maybe could 
> come before the ability to block and whitelist individuals scripts. It 
> would just be a single warning that there are nonfree scripts. I think 
> that might be a good interim measure, while the other features are being
developed.
>
> -john
>
> --
> John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key:
> 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
>
> Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom 
> at <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.