Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GNU LibreJS

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 165 posts

Re: GNU LibreJS

#41

Post by alfonsodev »

s4chin wrote: post #15
striking wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript". Offensive JS includes: "It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)." If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML framew…

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical. He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.

He usually says that we give up freedom in exchange of convenience. For example Facebook is convenient so, who cares about privacy ? I don't use LibreJS or plan to use it either, but I think his points are valid theoretically, implement them in our society is pretty hard but my point is, these libre tools being "impractical" doesn't invalidate the philosophical idea behind. I'd would call him idealist rather than a paranoid.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#42

Post by henrikschroder »

s4chin wrote: post #15
striking wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript". Offensive JS includes: "It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)." If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML framew…

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical. He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.

RMS is not paranoid, he is extremely consistent in applying his philosophy. He shows by example what it's like to use only free software.

For the rest of us, his ways are extremely impractical, so we compromise. We run a lot of proprietary software, and we don't really think about it.

But RMS thinks about it, and tells us in every single instance exactly what we are giving up as a compromise. And in that regard he, and the FSF, are very useful, and deserves respect.

The world would be a worse place without him, but we also only really need one of him.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#43

Post by oneweekwonder »

s4chin wrote: post #15
striking wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript". Offensive JS includes: "It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)." If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML framew…

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical. He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.

RMS takes the polar opposite position to proprietary software. Is his viewpoint always practical; maybe, maybe not.

But by creating such polar opposite he gives space for a lot more "lessor" free, more practical solutions and options.

So he plays a very important guardian kind of role; which a lot of people will chalk up to paranoia.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#44

Post by kleiba »

Zikes wrote: post #14
hoodoof wrote: post #10

This is from people who like to turn off JavaScript in a browser, right? Sort of a weird Camelot-esque quest for freedom.

NoScript I can easily understand. It's deciding for yourself what you do and don't want to run on your computer. LibreJS is trying to dictate that to all web developers, and its demands are ridiculous.

"dictate" is too strong a word for my taste. It seems to me more like these people have a certain view of the world and they're trying to convince people of their opinion. Like campaigning.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#45

Post by pessimizer »

Delmania wrote: post #32
striking wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript". Offensive JS includes: "It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)." If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML framew…

> That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the world. The organization makes issues over these kinds of details and then paints it into a "us vs. them" situation. It seems to have little interest with trying to work with people, and more insistent on making sure you follow it's dogma. The other issue is th…

The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding.

Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#46

Post by callesgg »

To me it would seam this boils down to a philosophical issue regarding what is information and what is code, and i guess ownership of information.

If someone gives me something directly (like a book or information in a conversation) without a disclaimer or some sort of contract. I would assume it is now mine and i assume the law does to.

And from my perspective getting a response from a http server is the same thing as being given something.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#47

Post by jordigh »

wvenable wrote: post #5

The majority of the sites on the web are non-free software that you interact with -- the browser is effectively a remote terminal. Whether or not large JavaScript is involved seems secondary. I understand the distinction between code running on a remote server and code distributed to me and run the browser but that seems like a more of a technical distinction than a moral one. (In terms of my own raw time, the percen…

> Unsure of exact licensing compatibility so I can't say it's all Free Software.

Open source and free software mean the same thing, or at least they intend to mean the same thing. There are very few obscure examples where they differ (for example, the NASA license). You are very unlikely to run across a difference.

https://opensource.org/faq#free-software

https://lobste.rs/s/lexyz5/why_open_source_misses_the_point_...

Re: GNU LibreJS

#48

Post by jordigh »

justinlardinois wrote: post #31
wvenable wrote: post #5

The majority of the sites on the web are non-free software that you interact with -- the browser is effectively a remote terminal. Whether or not large JavaScript is involved seems secondary. I understand the distinction between code running on a remote server and code distributed to me and run the browser but that seems like a more of a technical distinction than a moral one. (In terms of my own raw time, the percen…

I was thinking this too. You can read the HTML and CSS of any website, but there's likely no licensing information attached to it. And you'll never see the server side code of most websites. What's the reason that's not considered a problem? Is it because it's not actually running on the user's computer? Or because you can think of the resulting HTML/CSS as output of the program?

Much HTML and CSS nowadays is not really readable, but minified or obfuscated. It's not the 1990s where reading other people's static HTML was a good way to learn how to make your own websites.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#49

Post by madeofpalk »

striking wrote: post #6
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #2

Apparently it adds a "Complain" tab to your browser when it detects offensive JavaScript: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#Com...

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript". Offensive JS includes: "It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)." If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML framew…

> Calling methods with the square bracket notation > If it includes something like the above [...] and it doesn't have a free license statement, should people really complain about it?

Why on earth would this project concern itself with the coding styles of the JS that the author prefers? Even if the site and/or JS is free software, why do things things matter?

I mean, I get linting your own code, but linting the code of sites you visit just seems pointless.

This, banning AJAX requests and with the arduous process of getting into the 'libre' whitelist, makes this project a complete joke.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#50

Post by madeofpalk »

jordigh wrote: post #48
justinlardinois wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking this too. You can read the HTML and CSS of any website, but there's likely no licensing information attached to it. And you'll never see the server side code of most websites. What's the reason that's not considered a problem? Is it because it's not actually running on the user's computer? Or because you can think of the resulting HTML/CSS as output of the program?

Much HTML and CSS nowadays is not really readable, but minified or obfuscated. It's not the 1990s where reading other people's static HTML was a good way to learn how to make your own websites.

Eh. HTML and CSS is the easy part - you can't really obfuscated, only minify it to remove whitespace, which is easily reversible. All great browser dev tools have built in ways to unminify web assets. And it's even easier for HTML and CSS as they're easily viewable in parsed form (DOM).
Post reply on HN