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

41–50 of 77 posts

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

#41

Post by _ZeD_ »

Ceezy wrote: post #9

"We could also solve the problem by convincing the webmasters to correct their sites to function without the JavaScript code, but convincing them proves to be very difficult, since mostly they don't understand the issue, let alone care about it" First who use the term webmaster? Second implying that a target audiences of your product is too stupid to understand the importance of what you selling doesn't seem like a g…

> First who use the term webmaster?

well, for example the rfcs[1]. and yes, you should use them.

[1] a pair of examples are https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2142 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945

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

#42

Post by NohatCoder »

Toutouxc wrote: post #29
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.

Groups of people have invented and used gender neutral pronouns long before their/them became mainstream. So most likely these are the words that the author have used for many years, and they don't want to change.

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

#43

Post by megous »

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…

In the past, I had a userscript that would just clean up the DOM document on the page (along the lines of document.body.textContent = '') and would just fetch/parse/query the website content anew via XHR and render the content as I liked.

It worked pretty well. And if you keep using some common helper functions, it would not even be that much code. A few tens of lines, or something like that.

You're also within the browser and the origin, with all the cookies and stuff handled for you by the browser, and a ton of platform API at hand, so it's fairly easy to even make your own forms and submit data to the server.

It's also a way to not be accused of creating a derived work from some proprietary CSS/JS that might have been on the website, if you ever publish the userscript.

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

#44

Post by capableweb »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #25
aloisdg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

> Makes me wonder what happened with userscripts lately? Is that community still going?

Oh yes, I still run userscripts from time to time. I've started using JS bookmarks more and more though, to control the triggering of user JS code whenever I want, rather than having something to run on each page load.

But I think the new webextension stuff that Chrome initially released, and now supported by every major browser, ate the lunch of userscripts.

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

#45

Post by NohatCoder »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #32
carl_dr wrote: post #3

This 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 a…

Modifying and improving websites this way is great, I have done it myself. But the article suggests to reject the default behavior of well working sites solely because of the license of the code, that is where the ratio of ideology to real-world benefit goes haywire.

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

#46

Post by fredgrott »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #32
carl_dr wrote: post #3

This 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 a…

user vs developer....users will never do it thus it will fail.

they have forgotten the users demographic of free source consumers.

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

#47

Post by eingaeKaiy8ujie »

What about nonfree HTML and CSS? These are not programming languages, but they are still instructions that tell the browser how to display the page. JS code is also a set of instructions that determines how the website should behave. JS is sandboxed, so things that it can do on your computer are limited, just like HTML/CSS. Perhaps the issue with JS is that it's still too powerful and it would be great if browsers could let to limit what it can do even more by allowing to set individual permissions for Web APIs.

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

#48

Post by young_unixer »

parksy wrote: post #30
brisad wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

EU lawmakers don't understand that. It makes too much sense.

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

#49

Post by marcodiego »

NohatCoder wrote: post #37
thinkingemote wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

PRISM and all of the problems described in "the right to read" essay. Many other are probably easily found with a bit of research.

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

#50

Post by mtberatwork »

thinkingemote wrote: post #22
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.

> This might seem silly now, but in 10 years it might be what everyone is asking for.

You may be on to something. Initially I thought the concept was silly, but then I started thinking about Wasm binaries and it starts to become less silly.

Post reply on HN