Straw poll: Javascript and your browser…

Recently, I have been wondering about people’s stances with regards to the dependence of Javascript on the Internet at large — and for web apps in particular.

  1. Do you have Javascript enabled by default in your browser?
  2. If not, why?
  3. Also, if you do not, do you selectively enable it for particular sites?
  4. Has the “ajaxification” of the ‘Net changed your opinion on Javascript?
  5. Do you consider yourself a power-user of computers? (Rank yourself on a scale of 10, with 10 being expert)
  6. Do you consider yourself a Web power user/viewer?
  7. What browser do you use?

This is a totally unscientific questionnaire, but it still should have interesting results (provided people leave comments)…

Tags: , ,

85 Responses to “Straw poll: Javascript and your browser…”

  1. Mike says:

    1. Yes
    2. —
    3. —
    4. No
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  2. G says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, provides more benefits to using/allowing JS
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  3. 1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox, Opera on the Nokia 770, links

    I would also add one question: “Do you think web applications should still be usable when Javascript is disabled/not available?” and answer “Yes”.

  4. Máirín says:

    1. yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. yes, a lot of good possibilities but also a lot of bad (eg accessibility problems)
    5. 8
    6. yep
    7. ff 1.5.0.7 atm

  5. Dan Ballard says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, I’d actually consider learning it now
    5. 10
    6. yes
    7. Firefox

  6. Hub says:

    1. Yes. I used to not, but bad web designer forced me. And no JS, no CSS on Mozilla.
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes. I still believe that JS is heavily miss-used, but AJAX clearly demonstrate its raison d’être
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. FireFox 2.0beta, mostly.

  7. 1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, it’s used more often to improve the UI than before.
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Seamonkey (Firefox is too slow on Linux)

  8. medgno says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes. Now it actually adds something to websites aside from the rollovers and mouse followers of yore.
    5. 8
    6. yes
    7. Firefox (2.0 RC3)

    I also agree with Marius Gedminas’s opinion that websites should be usable without javascript, for both accessibility and compatibility.

  9. Stu says:

    1 Yes (Except in xbmc with sometimes linksbochs in xbmc)
    2 When I’m rarely in linksbochs, it doesn’t support it
    3
    4 No
    5 Yes
    6 Yes
    7 Firefox (98% of the time) Linksbochs 2% of the time

  10. Sean Middleditch says:

    1. Yes.
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No.
    5. 10
    6. Yes.
    7. Firefox and Safari

  11. Brad says:

    1 Yes
    2
    3
    4 Yes
    5 10
    6 Yes
    7 Epiphany

  12. Andrew Barr says:

    1. No.
    2. I use Noscript to manage it.
    3. Yes, with Noscript.
    4. Kind of. At least it lends it one legitmate use other than user-agent blacklisting or download link traps.
    5. 10
    6. No
    7. Firefox 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.7-2, soon to be Iceweasel ;-P
    (also: Konqueror/Embedded 200603something on Sharp Zaurus, Minimo on Nokia 770)

  13. Dennis Kaarsemaker says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox (and sometimes epiphany) (and opera on the nokia 770)

  14. 1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Well it has started to spike a few trust issues, since now all the web will basically rely on it, just how proven technology from a technology stance and such.
    5. 8-10 depending on subject Power user with an emphasis on the user part, I’m not a developer but an interested technologist.
    6. I wield google like a sword.. I guess that makes me decent, lets call it an 8.
    7. Epiphany, nothing else pleases my eyes and taste for integration.. there’s far to much Epiphany hating going on from distributors.

  15. Shaun McCance says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Absolutely. I learned JS many years ago, then dropped it after seeing the pointless things it was used for. These days, I find myself annoyed with interactive sites that do not use JS.
    5. 8
    6. 6 on the scale from #5
    7. Epiphany

  16. Claes says:

    1. Yes
    2. —
    3. —
    4. No
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  17. John Meuser says:

    1. No
    2. The Security Now! Podcast has awakened me to the risks
    3. Yes. Many sites make this necessary.. I don’t blame them for this.. I used JS heavily on my own web projects. NoScript makes selective JS enabling dead easy.
    4. Despite the fact that I keep it off by default, I do really like JavaScript, and enjoy the new AJAX and DHTML tricks that you can do with it. I’m just selective of whose javascript I will allow executed on my own computer.
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox/Mozilla/IceWeasel.. whatever you want to call the wrapper around Gecko.

  18. Rob says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Opera / Safari

  19. Tinus says:

    1. Do you have Javascript enabled by default in your browser?
    2. If not, why?
    3. Also, if you do not, do you selectively enable it for particular sites?
    4. Has the “ajaxification” of the ‘Net changed your opinion on Javascript?
    5. Do you consider yourself a power-user of computers? (Rank yourself on a scale of 10, with 10 being expert)
    6. Do you consider yourself a Web power user/viewer?
    7. What browser do you use?
    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, javascript in itself is a reasonable if hacky language which I used to really avoid due to the incompatibilities between browsers (mostly in the DOM/DHTML etc, but that’s what you are manipulating). AJAX apps showed me that reasonable crossbrowser scripts are possible and can be really cool. I still hate doing CSS though, for the same reason.
    5. 9
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  20. Tinus says:

    Whoops, I copied the questions so I could answer without scrolling, but forgot to remove them. Let’s call it a usability hint!

  21. Joey says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, picked up the basics years ago but never really gave it the time of day until two years or so ago.
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox on the desktop, Opera on the move!

  22. Francesco says:

    1) no
    2) security reasons: it is still code, even it if runs in a controlled environment
    3) yes
    4) no
    5) 7
    6) 5
    7) Firefox

  23. Sakke says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 8
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox and Epiphany

  24. Stoffe says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 8
    6. Yes (10 if you want the same scale)
    7. Firefox

  25. T says:

    1
    0
    0
    1
    8
    1
    “Opera”

  26. qball says:

    I use the no-script plugin, so I can temporary enable java for a site when needed.

    1. Yes
    2. —
    3. —
    4. No
    5. 8
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  27. 1. Yes.
    2. n/a
    3. n/a
    4. Yes, in a positive way.
    5. 10
    6. Yes.
    7. Firefox “Bon Echo”

  28. Uzytkownik says:

    1. I have JS in browser
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Ajax is useful if, and only if, it have alternative method (to open for ex. in new tab).
    5. It depends on scale (4-7)
    6. A little bit
    7. Epiphany. However it lack of few advantages of FF.

  29. Boke says:

    1 Yes
    2
    3
    4 No
    5 10
    6 Yes
    7 Epiphany

  30. James says:

    1. No
    2. The (now ungrounded) claim that Firefox had a javascript exploit prompted me to install NoScript.
    3. Yes, using NoScript. I did occasionally consider turning off javascript before I got noscript, but decided it was too useful.
    4. No.
    5. 9
    6. Yes
    7. SeaMonkey

  31. 1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 10
    6. Compared to a population average? Yes. Compared to a free software geek average? No.
    7. Opera, Firefox, Epiphany. They all suck in different ways.

  32. Callahad says:

    1. Yes.
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes. Useful cross-browser applications are being built with Ajax. Javascript isn’t just frosting anymore.
    5. 10
    6. Yes.
    7. Epiphany (and it really is one!).

  33. Nathan says:

    I generally enable Javascript in my browser – IME, it has not been nearly as problematic nor irritating as Flash and as websites increasingly use AJAX for increased functionality as well as usability there is little need to disable it.

    My numerical ranking as a ‘power user’ is a mere six, as my opinion of how much or how well I use a computer has changed with additional knowledge- sure I learn keystrokes and shortcuts as well as alter the configuration to suit my own needs however I am constantly finding out new-to-me methods to perform the same tasks more efficiently.

    I currently use Konqueror as my surfer with Firefox 2.0 as my backup for when I come across websites that require a more ‘mainstream’ viewer. However, I have an array of browsers which I use on various machines particularly when testing webpage development. AS I understand and write HTML and CSS I will give myself a seven on the web Power User scale, but I am painfully aware that there is so much more about which I know so very little.

  34. paul says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox, Opera

    I never really had a problem with Javascript (I suppose I just avoid going or returning to sites that do annoying things with it) but things like Google Mail have really made it more than a toy.

  35. ion says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, but I always see JS powerful
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox, and Safari, Opera an IE to test

  36. Jonas says:

    1. No.
    2. Mostly to avoid javascript-powered ads.
    3. Yes. Whenever something I need doesn’t work, I enable javascript.
    4. Not really.
    5. 10
    6. Yes.
    7. Firefox.

  37. M says:

    1: Yes
    2: –
    3: –
    4: No, my opinion was always that the people using it stupidly were… stupid.
    5: 10 (In intent, not necessarily ability)
    6: Yes (But maybe not necessarily a populist one?)
    7: Galeon, using the Gecko rendering engine; will probably move to epiphany soon.

  38. sertac says:

    1. no.
    2. generally flash/java/javascript is used to provide more annoyance than content
    3. yes, if I have to
    4. kind of…
    5. 8.99
    6. yes
    7. trying to adopt to Epiphany though it lacks flexibility in this regard compared to firefox. Also dillo/opera on low-end boxes without gnome. And w3m on terminals.

  39. Jerry Haltom says:

    1. No.
    2. I don’t visit MANY sites that require it to be viewable. I visit many sites that require it to annoy me with pop ups.
    3. Yes. When it’s required to get something I need done.
    4. No. I still think if people want cool interactive applications, they should develop them. In something cool and interactive. And easy to develop in.
    5. 10
    6. Yes.
    7. Epiphany/Nokia 770

  40. Tester says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, positively, even though the interpretors suck big time
    5. 10 (I’m a software eng.)
    6. yes (I did too much web apps stuff)
    7. Firefox

  41. Matthias says:

    1. Yes
    2. does not apply
    3. does not apply either
    (Note: I’m not doing overly sensitive things over the web)
    4. Not really, but there are very interesting new applications around, so maybe, yes a little bit 🙂
    5. 10 (without wanting to sound pretentious…)
    6. yah
    7. Galeon (again), because the Firefox trademark dispute in the Debian project sucks hard.

  42. 1. No
    2. Less pop-ups, ads and other annoyances
    3. Yes, using NoScript
    4. I’ve always liked Javascript, I just want to selectively allow it.
    5. 7
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  43. ksmith says:

    1. No
    2. Too many sites use it for annoying things, especially advertisers. I don’t appreciate my browser window being resized, menus being removed, etc.
    3. Yes, I use No Script to selectively enable js for sites that I trust, or that I’m willing to try out. I typically use the “temporarily allow site” option and then if I am going to return often, or trust the site will allow it always.
    4. No.
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox (1.5.0.7)

  44. Kelly says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes. I was mostly neutral on JS, now it can be very useful
    5. 8 I need to learn more programming to go much higher
    6. Yes / 9
    7. SeaMonkey, ever since it was Mozilla 0.something; occasionally Konq, Opera, FF
    8 (bonus) Sites should be usable even without JS

    I tried NoScript a while back but it didn’t seem to work right, so I removed it. I have not yet taken the time to go back and figure out how to make it work.

  45. 1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes. “Oh, it’s not a little hack to do by hand, I guess.”
    5. Yes, but on a limited domain. I rank myself 10 for development-oriented stuff. Maybe 5 for the stuff normal people do. Heavy email user, heavy IRC/IM user, very light OpenOffice user. Too lazy to do peer to peer networks.
    6. I spend a lot of time in my browser. I’ll ignore pages which don’t work in the browser, and I won’t try to make them work. I don’t have plugins or utilities hooked to my browser, though. I guess I don’t know what’s available and I haven’t had the need for one yet.
    7. Epiphany.

  46. Randall Wood says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No. See below.
    5. 7 or 8
    6. Yes
    7. Safari (Home), Firefox (Home, Work), IE6 (Work)

    I have used JS since when MS released wscript with Win98SE, since that allowed me to use JS instead of batch commands for scripting on the computer. I still use it occasionally when I have to script on the windows platform, and to script MS Office.

    On websites I use JS to avoid page reloads, since some of my customers have very slow and overloaded network connections (you can only send so much data to an operating ship or a computer in a tactical environment). Avoiding page reloads means things like using JS to sort tables and the like…

  47. kenneth says:

    1. yes
    2. n/a
    3. n/a
    4. no. javascript has been essential for the intended experience for a while now.
    5. 9
    6. yes
    7. epiphany, based on ff1.5.

  48. obi says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No
    5. 8
    6. Yes
    7. Epiphany

  49. Robert Scott says:

    1: No.
    2: Most webpage features which use JS work against me rather than for me. It’s slow. Many security holes in browsers are only exploitable with JS. It likes to think it’s standards based, but in reality it’s horribly incompatible. (Ever heard the phrase “We haven’t yet ported the webapp over to khtml…”? Infuriating nonsense.) It causes web pages to exhibit wierd inconsistant unpredictable behaviour because the designer thought it was ‘cool’ (see digg and focus jumping all over the screen). Whereas I know how a normal web page will behave. Being in the minority helps me slip under a lot of obnoxious advertisers’ radars.
    3: Sometimes unfortunately.
    4: Yes. It sucks except for a few specific applications for which it’s useful.
    5: Err. I’d consider myself a programmer. Never know how to answer that one.
    6: Probably, yes.
    7: Usually firefox.

  50. Matt Philmon says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No
    5. 9
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  51. LC says:

    1. No
    2. Security and privacy
    3. Yes
    4. I think web-pages that are intended to be documents (ej. blogs, news-sites, documentation, organization/project/company websites, etc) are generally better off without javascript. Altought webpages intended as apps can benefit of it (ej. Webmail, Administration systems, some bulletin boards and CMSs, etc). Maybe a better app delivery system should be build, separated from the browser and http. I do like javascript, I do not like documents tryng to act as apps just because “it’s cool”.
    5. 7-8
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox/Iceweasel (w/ altered useragent string), Links2 rarely (when I’m feeling really paranoid)

  52. Kurt McKee says:

    1. In Epiphany, yes. (because there is no selective Javascript blocker for Epiphany). In Firefox, no.
    2. Many websites that I frequent max out my CPU for no reason. Disabling Javascript strips websites of their ability to waste my time.
    3. Yes. My school’s awful course management and webmail software requires it for no reason. My bank also requires it (again, unnecessarily).
    4. No, but it has reaffirmed my belief that most web developers need to just quit being web developers. AJAX just allows them to do more stupid things, only now with 100% more interactivity!
    5. With web browser usage, 10. With web development, 7. Remember that people who rate themselves will usually overrate themselves. *wink*
    6. Yes.
    7. Epiphany for all things. Firefox for some minor web development (it has more requisite extensions available).

  53. Dan Sanders says:

    1. No
    2. Fewer web annoyances, reduced chance of security vulnerabilities
    3. Yes
    4. No
    5. 9
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox > 50% of the time, also Epiphany, Opera, ELinks, etc.

  54. Mat says:

    1. Yes, now, but I spent all of 2005 with it turned off.
    2. The JavaScript ticker on the top of the BBC News page was irritating me so much (now I use RSS). That is, I disabled JS for the entire web just because of one website I happened to use very heavily. I’m also concerned about the security implications of having random code from the web run in my browser automatically.
    3. Yes, I did.
    4. Very few AJAX sites actually work for me, so it’s brought it home to me how non-portable JS is.
    5. If “10” means I’m in the top decile, then I’m a “10”.
    6. No. I just want it to work.
    7. Firefox.

  55. François says:

    1. No
    2. For security
    3. Yes
    4. No
    5. 7.5
    6. 7
    7. Firefox

  56. Jens Knutson says:

    1. Yes, unfortunately
    2. n/a
    3. n/a
    4. Yes; I’m (usually) even more annoyed by its use now.
    5. 9
    6. yes, I suppose so.
    7. Epiphany

  57. spaetz says:

    1. Yes, but dislike it as a requirement for websites to work.
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes, dislike the reuirement of Javascript even more
    5. 8
    6. 7
    7. Firefox, Camino, Safari

  58. giz404 says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Not really. Javascript is powerful when used sparingly. But with the Ajax trend, more and more sites seem to suffer of what I call DHTML-mania (overuse of useless javascript effects), pretending doing AJAX…
    5. 7
    6. 9
    7. Firefox

  59. Porges says:

    1. No
    2. Annoyances and also privacy/security reasons
    3. Yes
    4. Yes; I didn’t use to have it disabled by default but now do
    5. Nearer the high end 😉
    6. Yes
    7. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20060601 BonEcho/2.0 (Ubuntu-edgy)

  60. Mike says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No
    5. 8
    6. Yes
    7. Epiphany 2.16

  61. Alan Horkan says:

    1. Yes, Javascript enabled, mostly.
    2. Some things are turned off because popups are annoying. Browser manufacturers made a serious mistakes and got things totally backwards by allowing site designers control the user experience.
    3. Some sites I selectively force sane stylesheets on them to improve readabiliy. (Easy to open Mozilla Composer and make a few quick changes.)
    4. Never had a problem with Javascript as a language despite all the idiots who abuse it. Bookmarklets rock and help put the user back in control.
    5. Expert 8, at least when it comes to web use.
    6. Yes, need more power.
    7. Mozilla (Seamonkey NOT Firefox). Occasionally Opera. Must try Epiphany more often though.

    You might consider putting these questions on surveymonkey.com or poking the Gnome admins about adding some kind of suvery/poll software to the site.

  62. 1. Yes
    2. NA
    3. NA
    4. Yes, now I really believe it is Turing-complete 🙂
    5. 8
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox/Flock

  63. Ivar Clemens says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No
    5. 8
    6. 7
    7. Mainly Firefox (but also Epiphany and Konqueror)

  64. Corey says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No (I like Ajax, but I’ve always liked JScript too)
    5. 8
    6. 9 (I’m a web developer)
    7. Firefox for my browsing purposes, but I use all the others for testing

  65. Mark says:

    1. Yes
    2. —
    3. —
    4. Yes
    5. 8
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  66. Levin says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No
    5. 8
    6. Yes
    7. Epiphany

  67. Rodney says:

    1: yes
    2: n/a
    3: n/a
    4: No
    5: 10
    6: yes
    7: Firefox

  68. Stephen says:

    1. No
    2. Potential attack vector, scripts slow some sites, gets rid of some website annoyances, javascript+cache can equal cookieless tracking (apparently)
    3. Yes, e.g. Google Maps, and sites that I use often that ‘need’ it
    4. Like most technologies, scripting can be used or abused; the only really convincing uses I have seen are Google Maps and Google Mail (and I don’t even like Google that much!)
    5. 6 in terms of absolute skill, probably around the 95th percentile
    6. 9
    7. Firefox 2

  69. mathrick says:

    1. No
    2. Using NoScript, because leaving my browser open to anyone who might want to crash it is not exactly fun
    3. Yes
    4. Yes, it’s annoying how many sites use it for no particular reason.
    5. 10
    6. What does it mean? But probably yes.
    7. Firefox

  70. ravi says:

    1. Yes

    4. Yes, though Ajax is being abused mostly for bling-bling stuff.

    5. 9

    6. Yes

    7. Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.2

  71. Eric says:

    1. No
    2. Security, no stupid ad and animations
    3. yes
    4. Not really
    5. yes (9/10)
    6. yes (9/10)
    7. Mozilla Firefox 1.5

  72. 1. yes, but I filter JS heavily through the use of adblock filters.
    2. security, and annoyance reduction
    3. yes
    4. no, I was aways in favor of javascript, but I do think that JS as is now can still annoy and do some mess. I would favor a stronger sandboxing or better user defined frontiers to the sandbox. Adblock do help, but I wished for instance to deny all off-site JS for instance.
    5. yes, 8/10
    6. yes, 9/10
    7. Mozilla Firefox 2.0RC3

  73. 1. Yes.
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Definitely. When used correctly, it makes a lot of sense.
    5. 10
    6. Yes.
    7. Firefox when I have a choice. Opera on the N770. Whatever else is available.

  74. 1. Yes
    2. NA
    3. NA
    4. Yes, it’s significantly more important than I thought it was
    5. 7
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  75. Alex says:

    1. Yes
    2. n.a.
    3. selectively disable it
    4. somewhat. JavaScript often doesn’t add to useability
    5. 9
    6. 10
    7. Mozilla & Opera on FreeBSD/Windows XP

  76. Ricky says:

    1. Yes
    2. —
    3. —
    4. No
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  77. Marc says:

    1. No.
    2. Security risks.
    3. Yes, using NoScript (FF extension). Pet peeve: sites that link to a dozen or more domains and sometimes require you to enable JS on all of them for really basic site functionality.
    4. No.
    5. 7 (others in my immediate work vicinity just rated me a 10)
    6. Yeah, I guess.
    7. Firefox mostly, sometimes IE when forced.

  78. foobar says:

    1. No
    2. So many sites use it badly. It’s a security woe.
    3. None. Better to be safe than sorry. Plus its just to much hassle for many machines.
    4. A bit. It makes some sites nice. But livesearch stuff is slow. Its usually quite bad in most cases. The libraries though do make things nicer with effects only.
    5. 9-10
    6. Probably.
    7. Firefox 3 nightly’s

    This is a totally unscientific questionn

  79. Jj says:

    no
    Sometimes it slows down my rendering
    yes
    yes, there’s too much of it now
    9.5
    yes
    Firefox

    This can’t be a trustworthy poll, since none of the responses uses IE, which means IE users may not even know what javascript is :S

  80. baffle says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. No
    5. 10
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox, Opera

  81. Guillaume Lelarge says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 9
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  82. Josh Hansen says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. Yes
    5. 9
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox

  83. André Wendt says:

    1. No
    2. Security issues. Annoyance. If sites use JS to load ads and thereby increase TTW (time to wait) by a factor of 3, it’s time to install NoScript. Or Adblock.
    3. Yes. A must-have for almost any shop checkout.
    4. Yes. It’s even more dangerous, now that more than half of the people enable it by default (see above).
    5. Hard one, I’m a student and soon-to-be developer. 9?
    6. Yes
    7. Firefox. Iceweasel.

  84. rss says:

    1. no
    2. alt.sysadmin.recovery
    3. yes (noscript)
    4. nope
    5. see number two
    6. grunt
    7. Firefox

  85. Nick says:

    1. Yes
    2. –
    3. –
    4. yes
    5. yes
    6. yes
    7. Omniweb

Leave a Reply