I don't think this project is feasible, it would be
much easier to disable all JavaScript-files except white-listed files
Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
31–40 of 77 posts
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#32This is ridiculous. GNU should be badgering those sites to open source their client JS, or funding competitors that will. Trying to encourage people to enter into an endless game of Whac-A-Mole fixing and re-fixing browser extensions to work with sites as they update isn't a solution. Who here is going to spend countless hours on that thankless task?
> Trying to encourage people to enter into an endless game of Whac-A-Mole fixing and re-fixing browser extensions to work with sites as they update isn't a solution.
Sure it is. This is called adversarial interoperability and it is great:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interopera...
People are going to fix bad websites whether or not their owners want them to. This is exactly how ad blockers work and they solve so many problems with the web it's not even funny. I've posted many times about how we should just stop trusting hostile website javascripts and start writing custom free software scrappers or clients for all of them. I suppose GNU had the same idea. Awesome!
> Who here is going to spend countless hours on that thankless task?
I spent quite some time writing my own JS code for my school's portal because the default site was unusably bad. The results were pretty good and lasted until months after my graduation. If everyone did this, the web would be fixed in no time.
Why should we allow companies and web developers to have the ultimate say in how their sites work? The javascript is running on our computers and we can totally replace it if we want. We are in control and it is time to start exercising this power.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#33I 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…
> Perhaps there should be a required banner for every JS-using site, telling the user that it sends you executable code, and you need to press a button to confirm that you indeed want to let the browser do that. (joke)
IIRC, this was exactly what we had in the old days of IE4/IE5. Also for cookies, even earlier than that.
(We sort of got cookie popups back, thanks to it being easier to throw a popup than to actually obey the spirit of GDPR and be a good web citizen. I wonder if at some point same will happen with JS?)
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#34I 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…
They want all Javascript on your site to be free software, i.e., that it is released under a free software license or put in the public domain (and with the readable, i.e. non-compiled and non-minified source code available). That is the FSF's demand for all software that people run on their computer, including in the browser.
At least the "non-compiled and non-minified" part is easy to achieve for many websites trying to be fancy and using today's fancy packers.
You can get their map files and with a simple 10 line php script grab the almost original source code, in tha almost original directory structure. (incl. typescript code, react JSX, original commnets, etc. etc.)
And have fun looking at how, multi-million $ companies, approach frontend code. Sometimes this is a good way to get to view their full backend API surface, if they have it well abstracted in their frontend code.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> If you're letting your browser request code you don't want to execute, that's on you.
Indeed. We can run blockers to get rid of user hostile javascripts but we can't get rid of the web site's own code since that's likely to break everything. That's why we'll eventually have to replace them with free software.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#36This 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…
The backend is someone else's. It's out of scope, because it's effectively a service.
The frontend code executes in your browser, on your machine. It's in scope of GNU/FSF interest, because the end-users of that code would benefit from the four freedoms. A lot of people who strongly believe in the value of the Four Freedoms try to minimize the amount of non-free code they run, hence the desire for free frontend replacements.
The way I see it, this concern meshes nicely with a more general desire to be able to substitute your own frontend for the one that's served to you. If you imagine a world where people develop and exchange alternative frontends, the users would benefit from these frontends being "free as in freedom".
Of course we're pretty far from that world - but it's not impossible; the term of art is "adversarial interoperability" and I'm a great fan of it.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#37This 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.
Can you give an example of a widely mocked Stallman statement that has been proven true?
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#38I'm curious what GNU considers "non free" JavaScript. If it's any JS without a "free" license, then I would imagine that the vast, vast majority of websites are non-free. The website I work on has been in development for 3 years with more than a dozen engineers. The source code is proprietary, i.e., not free as in speech. The app is React, so blocking all non-free JS would render the site as a blank page. An extensio…
> I'm curious what GNU considers "non free" JavaScript. If it's any JS without a "free" license, then I would imagine that the vast, vast majority of websites are non-free.
yes.
> They expect volunteers to faithful replicate thousands of man hours of work for every single website?
yes.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#39> but convincing them proves to be very difficult, since mostly they don't understand the issue, let alone care about it
I understand the issue perfectly, it's just that you and your needs are not that important to me. Of course you're free to open my website without JS, you're free to crowdsource a bootleg JS package for my website. It's my fault if your bootleg JS package breaks my database, because I should've done better server-side validation. Everything else is your fault and I won't provide any support at all.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Actually I wasn't joking. But you're right of course. It's on me, just as it's on me whether or not I will execute a proprietary executable on my computer. And if I don't want to, the solution is to just not do it.
It is still my opinion though, that if you let your browser request the resource, you should have complete control of what code should be permitted to be executed or not. Or if you want to, you should be able to mess with it freely. Because it is your computer, and you should be in control what it executes or not executes.
But the law is not with me on that in many places in the world I believe. And therefore I am happy we have free software :-)