Many companies struggle to decide whether creating a proof of concept (POC), prototype, minimum viable product, or a combination is the right way to approach mobile app development. Understanding and carrying out these three methods(mvp vs prototype vs poc) of mobile product validation properly can significantly improve the chances of winning investor buy-in and acquiring funding, reducing project costs, as well as establishing longevity in the mobile app market
https://steelkiwi.com/blog/mvp-vs-poc-vs-prototype/
Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
11–20 of 77 posts
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#12This 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.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#13I 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 don't want uses to mess with that, the code should be kept on the backend, because that's "your" computer and you can decide what to run there.
EDIT: 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)
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#14I 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…
There is fundamental difference of how people think about www.
For some, it is execution environment for Web Apps, where backend-frontend split and communication over network is accidental, basically internal for App. Either run in latest version of one-three of top browsers or go away. Logic and security checks can be implemented in frontend in order to save server's electricity, because it will be run in browser anyway.
For some, it is Protocol which is implemented by User Agents to fetch resources exposed by Servers and display it to them. User Agent can be unmodified or heavily customized top browser, lynx, dillo, curl, telnet, specialized tools[1]. JS should be optional nearly always. It is them who is controlling what his computer is executing. From this thinking goes aversion to 30-seconds loading sites, lack of Progressive enhancement[2] going to the point of requiring JS to load blog post, emphasis on server-side validation.
From this difference come many misunderstanding and sometimes conflicts.
[1] https://weboob.org [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#15This 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?
> 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, that there is probably a better, more efficient solution that carries chance of more sustainable results.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#16Seems like people may not be aware what "free" or "freedom" means with regards to Free Software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
"Free software means that the software's users have freedom. (The issue is not about price.) We developed the GNU operating system so that users can have freedom in their computing.
Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms:
(0) to run the program,
(1) to study and change the program in source code form,
(2) to redistribute exact copies, and
(3) to distribute modified versions."
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#17I 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.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#18This 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?
> 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.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#19This 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 non-free Javascript is only an extension of the server side and is only generating data - the DOM.
Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code
#20Me being a person who resonates with the ideas of GNU this article seems unfinished and a bit weird. I know that there is proprietry javascript executed on my browser but it is not the same as running emacs on linux. Browser is effectively a platform that executes the code that consists of html, css, js + data. For instance html and css parts are not something that comes purely from the server these days, but is created on the fly in a library or at build time by using some bundler which will use the same library when the site is live. Javascript will actually be abstracted through some framework as well.
What I do not understand is which specific problem it talks about and tries to fix? Is it all the javascript, or beacons sending data to third parties, or a proprietry program like youtube player or google docs, or what?
This "free" approach to the scripts also hits a wall considering that front-end programmers prefer to use a MIT licence in their source, showing their total lack of concern.
I would spend my time making free gnu libraries, but at the moment the proposal is not finished for me to buy into the idea.