3 ms·

> this model is the polar opposite of Free software. Instead of users having absolute control over what runs on their system, they have practically no control a

> this model is the polar opposite of Free software. Instead of users having absolute control over what runs on their system, they have practically no control at all. They surrender everything to the first webpage they open, and to whatever agent is controlling that page at a time. If you read my "laws of computing" piece: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=284 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=284 do you still believe this? For the impatient: I advocate a switch to direct hardware execution of exclusively high-level (human readable!) code. Does it get more user-modifiable than that? I'd like to know.

jmillikin 16y ago
> I advocate a switch to direct hardware execution of exclusively high-level (human readable!) code. Does it get more user-modifiable than that? What sort of code the hardware executes is irrelevant to whether that code is Free. JavaScript is high-level and mostly human-readable, but it's trivial to obfuscate JavaScript such that modification by the user is difficult or impossible. And JavaScript is a relatively limited language; a LISP-like language executed directly by the hardware could be even more difficult to modify.
- asciilifeform 16y ago
  > it's trivial to obfuscate JavaScript such that modification by the user is difficult or impossible. This is a moral, rather than technological problem. Anyone writing any kind of code can choose to make life less-pleasant for those who will read it. Under current architectures, you do not even have the option of making life pleasant for those who wish to read the code that is presently running on their machine, at the time it runs. In fact, the very idea sounds like schizophrenic soapbox heresy to most people. Which is a crying shame.
  - jmillikin 16y ago
    You're missing the point. Currently, I do not have to run proprietary software to use the Web. Under your design, I would have to surrender control of my computer to arbitrary third parties to use even the most basic features.
    - asciilifeform 16y ago
      What kind of control do you presently have over your computer, that would be taken away? Current CPUs come with hypervisors; running native code need not lead to any loss of control. Sanely designed CPUs would give the user yet more control.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
mindslight 16y ago
Where does the code come from and how is its use specified? To be able to change code, my edit must affect all copies. If I'm receiving code dependencies over the network from the same source as my data, I need some sort of override rule that will use my edited copy instead. The package also needs a global name such that the datasource cannot change the name and put me back to the old code. And how do we reconcile changes to the code bundle from the datasource with my local changes? We can mitigate most of these issues with cryptographic identities and trust systems, but with that amount of surrounding infrastructure, why does the datasource even need to specify which code to run for well-known datatypes if those packages already have to be on my trusted sources?
- asciilifeform 16y ago
  I would love to post a reply which answers these and other excellent questions from some of the replies here! But if I were to write such a comment, it would, in a sense, be the code. Not that I wouldn't love to post the latter, when it is ready, but this is not the intended use of this site. My apologies if this sounds like a slick excuse, but it is the truth.
  - mindslight 16y ago
    Well, I'm curious about your conceptual design for this, because to me, the whole No Formats post directly contradicts your seventh rule. We can make the network transparent, but we cannot ignore the authority boundary between our two nodes. If I am to control the code running on my node, then I can't be expected to pull in common library code from your service to view your published data. For example, this is the way things work with a standardized format. ( -x-> means depends on and trusts through some interface (non-transitive!)) MyEnv -1-> MyImageLib ---> Jpeg specification YourCode ---> YourImageLib ---> Jpeg specification MyEnv -2-> YourCode Interface 1 defines what I may do with images, while interface 2 defines how I may interact with your service. MyImageLib and YourImageLib may of course be the same library, or they may not. This is what I interpret your post as saying: MyEnv -3-> YourCode -4-> YourImageLib In this new relationship, I am relying on interface 3 both for my relationship with you and for what I am allowed to do with images. If you are nice as well as thorough, I am able to rely on interface 3 to get the identity of interface 4 such that I can both work with the image library directly, as well as override the reference after forking my own copy. However, if you wish to restrict me, or even simply update reference 4 to an incompatible api, my ability to work with the library directly goes away and/or my local modifications are no longer referenced. What have I misunderstood?

jmillikin 16y ago

> I advocate a switch to direct hardware execution of exclusively high-level (human readable!) code. Does it get more user-modifiable than that? What sort of code the hardware executes is irrelevant to whether that code is Free. JavaScript is high-level and mostly human-readable, but it's trivial to obfuscate JavaScript such that modification by the user is difficult or impossible. And JavaScript is a relatively limited language; a LISP-like language executed directly by the hardware could be even more difficult to modify.

asciilifeform 16y ago
> it's trivial to obfuscate JavaScript such that modification by the user is difficult or impossible. This is a moral, rather than technological problem. Anyone writing any kind of code can choose to make life less-pleasant for those who will read it. Under current architectures, you do not even have the option of making life pleasant for those who wish to read the code that is presently running on their machine, at the time it runs. In fact, the very idea sounds like schizophrenic soapbox heresy to most people. Which is a crying shame.
- jmillikin 16y ago
  You're missing the point. Currently, I do not have to run proprietary software to use the Web. Under your design, I would have to surrender control of my computer to arbitrary third parties to use even the most basic features.
  - asciilifeform 16y ago
    What kind of control do you presently have over your computer, that would be taken away? Current CPUs come with hypervisors; running native code need not lead to any loss of control. Sanely designed CPUs would give the user yet more control.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

mindslight 16y ago

Where does the code come from and how is its use specified? To be able to change code, my edit must affect all copies. If I'm receiving code dependencies over the network from the same source as my data, I need some sort of override rule that will use my edited copy instead. The package also needs a global name such that the datasource cannot change the name and put me back to the old code. And how do we reconcile changes to the code bundle from the datasource with my local changes? We can mitigate most of these issues with cryptographic identities and trust systems, but with that amount of surrounding infrastructure, why does the datasource even need to specify which code to run for well-known datatypes if those packages already have to be on my trusted sources?

asciilifeform 16y ago
I would love to post a reply which answers these and other excellent questions from some of the replies here! But if I were to write such a comment, it would, in a sense, be the code. Not that I wouldn't love to post the latter, when it is ready, but this is not the intended use of this site. My apologies if this sounds like a slick excuse, but it is the truth.
- mindslight 16y ago
  Well, I'm curious about your conceptual design for this, because to me, the whole No Formats post directly contradicts your seventh rule. We can make the network transparent, but we cannot ignore the authority boundary between our two nodes. If I am to control the code running on my node, then I can't be expected to pull in common library code from your service to view your published data. For example, this is the way things work with a standardized format. ( -x-> means depends on and trusts through some interface (non-transitive!)) MyEnv -1-> MyImageLib ---> Jpeg specification YourCode ---> YourImageLib ---> Jpeg specification MyEnv -2-> YourCode Interface 1 defines what I may do with images, while interface 2 defines how I may interact with your service. MyImageLib and YourImageLib may of course be the same library, or they may not. This is what I interpret your post as saying: MyEnv -3-> YourCode -4-> YourImageLib In this new relationship, I am relying on interface 3 both for my relationship with you and for what I am allowed to do with images. If you are nice as well as thorough, I am able to rely on interface 3 to get the identity of interface 4 such that I can both work with the image library directly, as well as override the reference after forking my own copy. However, if you wish to restrict me, or even simply update reference 4 to an incompatible api, my ability to work with the library directly goes away and/or my local modifications are no longer referenced. What have I misunderstood?