The article was out of touch and ridiculous enough in itself, but the author also had to use gender-neutral pronouns.
Those are the only correct pronouns when someone's gender is unknown.
Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
61–70 of 77 posts
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#62Earlier 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 don't think it's a joke at all. A user clicking on a link usually wants to view a page, not getting sent 100's of tracking scripts (or miners, fishers, or whatever), and it's not clear at all the user has given consent or is even aware. Search engines flagging ad- and script-heavy sites would be cool, too.
But what if all those "extra" things are what keep that site alive?
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#63Earlier 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.
This is one of the things that the FSF is proposing, with a method of tagging executable code under a free license. In general, you can only check that tag after retrieving the code.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#64Most of the early negative comments here make little sense.
>Who here is going to spend countless hours on that thankless task?
If someone wants to and feels that it is worth their time that is great.
>You've visited my site that I have built, you can either use it as is, or not use it - >your choice
A lot of people are doing this already.
Depending on source between 27% to 58% of users use som form of adblocker.
This is already changing the website from what the owner wanted.
Then you have various features of browsers to modify the page to be easier to read, easier to print.
There are also security products that will modify content for various reasons.
Then you have user script via Greasmonkey, Violentmonkey and such, I dont think many people use them, but you cuold write a user script that does what is suggested in the article.
My philosphy is that you wish to run code I have no reason to trust on a computer I own, I should have the ability to limit what it can do.
We have reached the state than just trusing and running Javascripts is getting closer and closer to someone emailing you an exe and ask you to run it.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#65I 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…
> You've visited my site that I have built, you can either use it as is, or not use it - your choice
People's choices aren't so limited. They can do any number of things to your web site. After it leaves your server and arrives in other people's computers, there's no way to control what they do with the data.
> 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.
Don't leave your APIs exposed if you don't want people to use them. Anyone can look at your javascript source code and figure out where the information is coming from. People can and will simply request it directly from your server. I already do this with curl.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a joke at all. A user clicking on a link usually wants to view a page, not getting sent 100's of tracking scripts (or miners, fishers, or whatever), and it's not clear at all the user has given consent or is even aware. Search engines flagging ad- and script-heavy sites would be cool, too.
But what if all those "extra" things are what keep that site alive?
Then it should shut down.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#67Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#68This seems very silly, the backend code for most websites (including sql queries, db stored procedures) are almost always proprietary too. Plus it might be running on proprietary architecture such as Windows Server, IIS, Oracle, ColdFusion, etc... So it's a very strange to focus on the JS so much. I don't see a meaningful distinction between "running locally" vs "running on the server" when everything works together to get you the result.
The css and html are proprietary too, sure they are not executing, but I don't see how that is a meaningful difference, html, css, and js all work together to tell the browser how to render the page. It's a package deal. Beyond that, websites are chock full of proprietary images, fonts, and videos.
When literally the entirety of a website is proprietary, it makes zero sense to "fix" it with making just the Javascript free (as in freedom).
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#69This 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.
In cases like youtube-dl or gallery-dl this solution works.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#70This is a whole lotta how, and nearly no why. Nobody will adopt if there aren't clearly articulated reasons for doing so. All I've read so far indicates this is a terrible idea, but then that's all they've offered; maybe it's not, but it sure is poor marketing, which is on brand for GNU.
Also on brand for GNU, (edit)supporters who downvote but don't want to contribute to the conversation. For example, if a traffic light has no free software, how is the end user supposed to care? Am I somehow harmed by stopping at a red light? I see this similar to background scripts, who's license has no direct effect on the end user.
Making the effort to explain and defend your pitch seems like just common sense if you're trying to convert the unbelievers, no?