Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:36:36 +1000 From: andrew clarke <mail@ozzmosis.com> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Firefox plugins from Ports [was Re: question about "gnash" or "kde-gnash"] Message-ID: <20080420203636.GA59438@ozzmosis.com> In-Reply-To: <480AEDE3.7030407@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20080419211122.GA22300@thought.org> <480AC57D.80502@frase.id.au> <480AEDE3.7030407@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun 2008-04-20 08:16:51 UTC+0100, Matthew Seaman (m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) wrote: > xpi-noscript is even better IMHO. Blocks flash, javascript and all > forms of embedded media. Will remember the sites where you *do* want > that stuff, or it will let you turn it on temporarily. It's in ports: > www/xpi-noscript Not guaranteed to block every advert, but the ones it > does let through will be relatively inoffensive. For advert blocking there is www/xpi-adblock_plus. But my main reason to responding to this post is because I'm wondering what the pros and cons are of installing Firefox plugins from the Ports tree, versus installing them directly from within Firefox itself. I assume that plugins installed from Ports are activated for all users and cannot be disabled by the user, unless they run pkg_delete.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080420203636.GA59438>