it actually logs your entire browser history. And it's still up on chromium app store chrome.google.com
robertheaton.com
it actually logs your entire browser history. And it's still up on chromium app store chrome.google.com
robertheaton.com
Other urls found in this thread:
addons.mozilla.org
youtube.com
ghacks.net
archive.is
web.archive.org
archive.fo
robertheaton.com
paste.ee
twitter.com
They look ok on paper, but extensions are a big fat mistake. It's pretty hard to conceive of a useful sandbox for them as well, since if you can create custom DOM elements, it's easy to leak data; if you lock them down too much, they become useless.
Yes, most of what is provided by extensions should be built-in. I mean Konqueror had custom styles iirc.
And there I was, happily using it with Firefox. On my work laptop though so it's not like my Cooperative Prepositions aren't safe :^)
Fuck I hate buttnut with a passion.
Would be great
Yet emacs packages are mostly benign. It's a thing of user culture, I think. If the user is expected to be the hacker then you have a better cycle. Plus having the extensions be the config is interesting enough for itself.
Wasn't Stylus better anyways?
old news
This
And this
Extensions suck ass, the web is insecure and is built for spying, any browsers that calls itself secure should come built-in with a script blocker, ad blocker and HTTPS Everywhere (or Smart HTTPS, they both suck anyway), security is not an add-on.
Wow, what a shocking revelation. If only we established this in literally other pertinent thread prior.
A script blocker is incredibly limited and basically useless. You need a domain-based content blocker that can discriminate between domains and scripts. Beyond that, you need a pattern-based content blocker to amend shitty web design by removing superlative elements like advertisements.
Furthermore, a custom css or user script is nothing like a content blocker. If you haven't realized, the former is used to augment the sites you visit. For example, I'm using 4chanX right now on this site. If I press "v", I'm in gallery mode. That's a feature that wasn't there prior. If I made a custom css to "rice" the appearance of this site, I would be adding to it. That might also come with the added affect that I can avoid downloading the css for this site with a domain-based content blocker, and maybe the userscript itself prevents me from doing that, but that's an incredibly inefficient way of doing content blocking. userscripts and userstyles exercise software freedom in a positive vector. Content blockers exist to filter and conceal data. They protect your right to controlling the code you execute in a negative way.
Both are two separate but important facets of free software in the sense they let you control the code you execute with your browser.
Unfortunately, with the advent of web 3.0, many people have lost favor of userstyles because of server-end augmentations. Even more often, the javascript and assets you download and use is proprietary. Both of these things make more difficult to write userscripts, because it's more difficult to impose your work onto the site, and it's more difficult to simply write userscripts in the first place.
But such is the way of the Internet. People don't necessarily like the easiest solution; that's why we don't use gophernet. But where gophernet is gone we have more powerful file sharing protocols. The important thing is to always endeavor for what you think is just.
It puts a stylesheet into the page, which can be tracked and causes some other problems.
Stylish was bought last year by (((SimilarWeb))).
/thread
not making your own custom css...
wtf OP
It's called spyware, Pajeet. Spyware is a type of malware that sends your private information to a 3rd party, a virus is a type of malware that alters files on your system to insert its own code (similar to a real biological virus).
The problem with modern computing is that any retard can use it. Steve Jobs style anti-expert mentality killed computing.
nah
nah just review the source code
This all started after versions above 2.0.7 incase anyone needs to know the damage. There are better alternatives out there so even then there's no reason to use an old version of 2.0.7 and below.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
not a million, just the basics
at least a uMatrix equivalent
...
...
That's old news!
See youtube.com
However I'm not mad at you for being retarded OP, desu~
...
When are you little skiddies going to get yourselves respectable vanity tripcodes? Your shit stinks a hundred miles away, you should rename yourselves [L4M3].
Sorry I triggered you pal
what a surprise, some hipster bullshit plugin for web browsers is insecure
no they fucking don't look ok on paper. just this board is full of retard niggers
of course the tripfag uses this bullshit. of course the tripfag is surprised that it's crap
Has any of you goys manages to install stylus on icecat? I'm getting the "this addon cannot be installed because it appears to be corrupt"
Good, because I'm not mad at you for not reading the thread like a fucking imbecile.
Contact the devs of both.
(((Stylish))) is reinstated in the Mozilla Add-ons Store.
ghacks.net
archive.is
web.archive.org
archive.fo
Doesn't Greasemonkey do all of that shit anyway?
Original article about teh return of (((Stylish))) (plus a little insight into (((SimilarWeb))) which has an interesting (((fundraiser))) ):
robertheaton.com
Here are some of the new image assets.
EVERY SINGLE TIME
a userscript can technically do the same things a userstylesheet does, but slower.
mozilla based browsers has built in userstyle via @-moz-document and userContent.css
Didn't we find out stylish was botnet years ago?
THESE
Since this is old news, this is now a stylish/rice thread. Here are a few bits and pieces of my setup, enough to get started anyway. Including solarized as an example instead of my dank amber crt theme, the gist of the whole thing is just using css vars and a base16 compatible color setup. Lazily editing existing solarized-base16 sheets (like the included ones were) should suffice for the most part.
As always, the problem is always the luser. Will he read the extension's source code to verify that it isn't malicious? Will he make his own extensions? Of course not.
Powerful concepts like extensible software just aren't meant for retards who can't even read javascript to begin with.