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

Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#21

Post by 5560675260 »

bennyp101 wrote: post #4

I don't understand this at all? "Many websites damage users' freedom by sending nonfree JavaScript programs to the user's browser." Eh? I'm assuming it means libraries like jquery or alpinejs or analytics etc? Because if I write specific JS for my site, that is not 'free' either. "Otherwise, you need to use the browser debugging facilities to figure out what data and commands the JavaScript code sends to the server—i…

Author is probably thinking about sites that are rendered on the server, but need a bit of JS to submit forms and such. Overall it's still silly.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#22

Post by thinkingemote »

ma-int wrote: post #19

This is Stallman-esk far removed from reality. I get the argument (also I think it nonsense) but what will rewriting a sites Javascript do about the server side? That would still be non-free. Or is the argument here that the backend and the API is not important because it's only generating HTML/Json/whatever and that's only "data" so you don't care about it. If so, I would turn that argument around and argue that the…

Stallman has been proved correct so often especially after people mock him, that I now listen to what he says carefully. This might seem silly now, but in 10 years it might be what everyone is asking for.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#23

Post by simonhorlick »

At what point do we draw the line between free software being beneficial and being overly ideological? If I buy a printer I'd like a copy of the driver source code so if the company goes bust I can still use my possibly expensive and still working hardware. But if I'm using a web app? Half of the source code is going to be sitting on someone else's machine anyway - making the client side free-software doesn't really change that.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#25

Post by TeMPOraL »

aloisdg wrote: post #18
capableweb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who here is going to spend countless hours on that thankless task? Eh, I assume a lot of people? That's basically what the entire open source space is about! (the person one, not the "corporate open source" that is gaining traction lately) Don't forget that by "spending countless hours on a thankless task" is how we initially got tools like docker, ansible, bootstrap and more. I agree with your first part though, t…

or most of the modding community, wikipedia and much more.

Exactly. Makes me wonder what happened with userscripts lately? Is that community still going? Are there any mechanisms - technological or social - that would let me feel safe about downloading a popular userscript without doing a full-day focused audit of it?

I know this can be made to work - modding communities are a perfect example, you can have people dealing with crap and unexpected breakage on a timely basis and releasing trustworthy, high-value code for free. I just feel it didn't happen with userscripts for some reason.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#26

Post by jiehong »

bennyp101 wrote: post #4

I don't understand this at all? "Many websites damage users' freedom by sending nonfree JavaScript programs to the user's browser." Eh? I'm assuming it means libraries like jquery or alpinejs or analytics etc? Because if I write specific JS for my site, that is not 'free' either. "Otherwise, you need to use the browser debugging facilities to figure out what data and commands the JavaScript code sends to the server—i…

If your website is sending requests to your api, then that api is effectively public.

If you have poor backend code, you’re assured to get weird traffic whose purpose is to break it at some point. It’s only up to you to make your backend resilient. If you don’t, too bad for you.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#27

Post by Phrodo_00 »

brisad wrote: post #13
bennyp101 wrote: post #4

I don't understand this at all? "Many websites damage users' freedom by sending nonfree JavaScript programs to the user's browser." Eh? I'm assuming it means libraries like jquery or alpinejs or analytics etc? Because if I write specific JS for my site, that is not 'free' either. "Otherwise, you need to use the browser debugging facilities to figure out what data and commands the JavaScript code sends to the server—i…

> Erm, no? You've visited my site that I have built, you can either use it as is, or not use it - your choice - but don't start trying to mess about with it and sending stuff, I might be terrible at writing backend side and sending things wrong blows up a server. Just because it's your site, you shouldn't assume that you have the exclusive rights to decide what executable code that should run on my computer. If you d…

About your edit, that's pretty much what extensions like noscript do

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#29

Post by Toutouxc »

elastolin wrote: post #24

The article was out of touch and ridiculous enough in itself, but the author also had to use gender-neutral pronouns.

Serious question: What's wrong with their/them etc.? It took me some time to internalize these (very dissimilar to my native language) and they sound perfectly gender neutral to me.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#30

Post by parksy »

brisad wrote: post #13
bennyp101 wrote: post #4

I don't understand this at all? "Many websites damage users' freedom by sending nonfree JavaScript programs to the user's browser." Eh? I'm assuming it means libraries like jquery or alpinejs or analytics etc? Because if I write specific JS for my site, that is not 'free' either. "Otherwise, you need to use the browser debugging facilities to figure out what data and commands the JavaScript code sends to the server—i…

> Erm, no? You've visited my site that I have built, you can either use it as is, or not use it - your choice - but don't start trying to mess about with it and sending stuff, I might be terrible at writing backend side and sending things wrong blows up a server. Just because it's your site, you shouldn't assume that you have the exclusive rights to decide what executable code that should run on my computer. If you d…

I'm pretty sure you're joking, but the client's browser makes the request for a resource. If you're letting your browser request code you don't want to execute, that's on you.
Post reply on HN