8 ms·

> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Hel

> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.

incompatible 7y ago
Stallman doesn't want to run proprietary software on his computer, and that includes proprietary Javascript.
- kuu 7y ago
  What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - badpun 7y ago
    HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.
    - PyroLagus 7y ago
      > HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF. Well… https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ You could also argue that DOCs and PDFs are software.
      - beatgammit 7y ago
        No, DOCs and PDFs aren't necessarily software, they can contain software, just like a webpage. And just like a webpage, Stallman can choose to use FOSS to view those files, and that software can choose to not run any scripts in those files. I'm sure he'd agree that people should also not include proprietary software in those files as well, but doing so is far less common than webpages, at least for stuff the average user is going to run into. And how many people are actually programming in HTML/CSS vs JavaScript? A proof of concept is one thing, but most users won't run into it.
  - Sacho 7y ago
    Quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html > It is theoretically possible to program in HTML and CSS, but in practice this capability is limited and inconvenient; merely to make it do something is an impressive hack. Such programs ought to be free, but CSS is not a serious problem for users' freedom as of 2019.
- 5trokerac3 7y ago
  This is a perfect example of how Stallman ultimately is an authoritarian. He wants all the freedom to do what he wants, but has no problem with his "free software" vision limiting the rights of others. As someone else pointed out, "what about proprietary HTML and CSS?" Stallman has no ability to recognize the need for others to protect their own work, he only wants his free access to the fruits of others' labor. Don't want to run proprietary JavaScript? Then bite the f'ing bullet and don't visit websites that have it. Don't expect everyone else to conform to your wants.
  - simion314 7y ago
    He is not forcing his views on you, don't like him don't read what he writes. If you want to have a discussion about freedom then let's do it in a rigorous way, go read the GNU page, read about the 4 freedoms then get back and explain your point more clearly. His point is that proprietary software is bad and you should now write it and not use it, I agree with him and I still run some proprietary blobs, I do not feel forced to do anything or feel shamed.
    - 5trokerac3 7y ago
      > He is not forcing his views on you, don't like him don't read what he writes. Until just last week, when he was fired for using a technology forum to defend a 74 year old man having sex with a 17 year old prostitute on pedo island, he was the face of an organization that he used specifically to force views like "every website should work without JavaScript". It's ok to want websites to work without JS. The proper way to go about that is to help build bridges, not to interact with the CEOs of the world's largest tech companies like a whiny teenager that isn't getting what he wants. Edit: you can flag the truth all you want, but RMS defended the worst behaviors possible of mankind. If you're the one that flagged this comment, you should be ashamed of yourself.
      - simion314 7y ago
        We were talking about software and philosophy, if you attack the person and not the ideas I think you are lacking arguments. About what he said, I did not see him saying rape is Ok, Anyway I would love to see your reaction if say you watch a porn video and later will surface that the actor was 17 years old, then all the press will say that you are watching child porn, you are assumed guilty and get fired and never find a job. Your friends that would try to say that maybe we should get all the facts get also fired because "he is a child porn apologist". Just think about it, in fact I don't wish this to happen to anybody, I read about a case where a guy was accused and he was innocent, he lost his job and was forcefully separated from his children, my point is go easy with the accusations you won't like it to happen to you.
duckerude 7y ago
A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript and runs on webpages. If you want to avoid using non-free software you have to disable Javascript on many websites. Ideally the Javascript would be freed, but making it optional might be a more feasible goal.
- close04 7y ago
  > A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript Dropping JS will just lead to a lot of non-free software written in [something else]. It's not like non-free software will suddenly stop existing. You're not banning English because of the content that might use it. There must be a better approach to this than "I'm not running any code because some of it may be non-free".
  - simion314 7y ago
    It is server site rendering, use whatever you want to generate an html file and send it to the browser, most websites can do this (blogs,news, forums) then the small interactive interactions you can make them in JS using GPL/BSD whatever.
    - close04 7y ago
      > then the small interactive interactions you can make them in JS With JS enabled any site could potentially run non-free code so this has no benefits. As far as I can tell the proposed solution wasn't to develop some tech that ensures (somehow) that all functionality JS provides is transferred to something "free-only" but rather to give up that functionality entirely. That's not a solution, that's just running away from the problem.
      - UserIsUnused 7y ago
        Sometimes there is no practical solution, and running away is the pragmatist approach
        7y ago
bubblethink 7y ago
It's to avoid the use of non-free javascript, which is mostly taken for granted.
Dude2029 7y ago
Good idea regardless of motivation to be honest.
somedrag 7y ago
There are good answers from others but here is the longer explanation in Stallman's own words: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
raxxorrax 7y ago
I would say my knowledge about software engineering is to 90% copied from ideas other people had before, but I am certainly underestimating that amount.
_ph_ 7y ago
I think we all know the pros and cons about running Javascript on web pages. But it becomes more and more obvious, that while Javascript gets abused for a lot of bad things, a modern web completely without scripting in web pages isn't feasible either. Consequently, I consider this as something the GNU project failed to address. Why isn't there an official GNU webbrowser with a reasonable Javascript implementation? One where the browser and the JS engine would be free software and which could be seen as a reasonable platform for a modern web?
- extra88 7y ago
  That wouldn't address Stallman's objection; regardless of which browser is used, the JavaScript delivered by website operators would still be executed in the user's browser.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    I am aware of his objections. I agree that dealing with Javascript is a challenge. But the consequence of that there is no GNU webbrowser and Javascript implementation is, that all users have no real choice but use other browsers which might not even try to protect the user.
einpoklum 7y ago
> I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. It's just like you should not need to take orders from people on the street so as to be able to understand what they're trying to tell you.

incompatible 7y ago

Stallman doesn't want to run proprietary software on his computer, and that includes proprietary Javascript.

kuu 7y ago
What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- badpun 7y ago
  HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.
  - PyroLagus 7y ago
    > HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF. Well… https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/ You could also argue that DOCs and PDFs are software.
    - beatgammit 7y ago
      No, DOCs and PDFs aren't necessarily software, they can contain software, just like a webpage. And just like a webpage, Stallman can choose to use FOSS to view those files, and that software can choose to not run any scripts in those files. I'm sure he'd agree that people should also not include proprietary software in those files as well, but doing so is far less common than webpages, at least for stuff the average user is going to run into. And how many people are actually programming in HTML/CSS vs JavaScript? A proof of concept is one thing, but most users won't run into it.
- Sacho 7y ago
  Quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html > It is theoretically possible to program in HTML and CSS, but in practice this capability is limited and inconvenient; merely to make it do something is an impressive hack. Such programs ought to be free, but CSS is not a serious problem for users' freedom as of 2019.
5trokerac3 7y ago
This is a perfect example of how Stallman ultimately is an authoritarian. He wants all the freedom to do what he wants, but has no problem with his "free software" vision limiting the rights of others. As someone else pointed out, "what about proprietary HTML and CSS?" Stallman has no ability to recognize the need for others to protect their own work, he only wants his free access to the fruits of others' labor. Don't want to run proprietary JavaScript? Then bite the f'ing bullet and don't visit websites that have it. Don't expect everyone else to conform to your wants.
- simion314 7y ago
  He is not forcing his views on you, don't like him don't read what he writes. If you want to have a discussion about freedom then let's do it in a rigorous way, go read the GNU page, read about the 4 freedoms then get back and explain your point more clearly. His point is that proprietary software is bad and you should now write it and not use it, I agree with him and I still run some proprietary blobs, I do not feel forced to do anything or feel shamed.
  - 5trokerac3 7y ago
    > He is not forcing his views on you, don't like him don't read what he writes. Until just last week, when he was fired for using a technology forum to defend a 74 year old man having sex with a 17 year old prostitute on pedo island, he was the face of an organization that he used specifically to force views like "every website should work without JavaScript". It's ok to want websites to work without JS. The proper way to go about that is to help build bridges, not to interact with the CEOs of the world's largest tech companies like a whiny teenager that isn't getting what he wants. Edit: you can flag the truth all you want, but RMS defended the worst behaviors possible of mankind. If you're the one that flagged this comment, you should be ashamed of yourself.
    - simion314 7y ago
      We were talking about software and philosophy, if you attack the person and not the ideas I think you are lacking arguments. About what he said, I did not see him saying rape is Ok, Anyway I would love to see your reaction if say you watch a porn video and later will surface that the actor was 17 years old, then all the press will say that you are watching child porn, you are assumed guilty and get fired and never find a job. Your friends that would try to say that maybe we should get all the facts get also fired because "he is a child porn apologist". Just think about it, in fact I don't wish this to happen to anybody, I read about a case where a guy was accused and he was innocent, he lost his job and was forcefully separated from his children, my point is go easy with the accusations you won't like it to happen to you.

duckerude 7y ago

A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript and runs on webpages. If you want to avoid using non-free software you have to disable Javascript on many websites. Ideally the Javascript would be freed, but making it optional might be a more feasible goal.

close04 7y ago
> A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript Dropping JS will just lead to a lot of non-free software written in [something else]. It's not like non-free software will suddenly stop existing. You're not banning English because of the content that might use it. There must be a better approach to this than "I'm not running any code because some of it may be non-free".
- simion314 7y ago
  It is server site rendering, use whatever you want to generate an html file and send it to the browser, most websites can do this (blogs,news, forums) then the small interactive interactions you can make them in JS using GPL/BSD whatever.
  - close04 7y ago
    > then the small interactive interactions you can make them in JS With JS enabled any site could potentially run non-free code so this has no benefits. As far as I can tell the proposed solution wasn't to develop some tech that ensures (somehow) that all functionality JS provides is transferred to something "free-only" but rather to give up that functionality entirely. That's not a solution, that's just running away from the problem.
    - UserIsUnused 7y ago
      Sometimes there is no practical solution, and running away is the pragmatist approach
      - 7y ago

bubblethink 7y ago

It's to avoid the use of non-free javascript, which is mostly taken for granted.

Dude2029 7y ago

Good idea regardless of motivation to be honest.

somedrag 7y ago

There are good answers from others but here is the longer explanation in Stallman's own words: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

raxxorrax 7y ago

I would say my knowledge about software engineering is to 90% copied from ideas other people had before, but I am certainly underestimating that amount.

_ph_ 7y ago

I think we all know the pros and cons about running Javascript on web pages. But it becomes more and more obvious, that while Javascript gets abused for a lot of bad things, a modern web completely without scripting in web pages isn't feasible either. Consequently, I consider this as something the GNU project failed to address. Why isn't there an official GNU webbrowser with a reasonable Javascript implementation? One where the browser and the JS engine would be free software and which could be seen as a reasonable platform for a modern web?

extra88 7y ago
That wouldn't address Stallman's objection; regardless of which browser is used, the JavaScript delivered by website operators would still be executed in the user's browser.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  I am aware of his objections. I agree that dealing with Javascript is a challenge. But the consequence of that there is no GNU webbrowser and Javascript implementation is, that all users have no real choice but use other browsers which might not even try to protect the user.

einpoklum 7y ago

> I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. It's just like you should not need to take orders from people on the street so as to be able to understand what they're trying to tell you.