3 ms·

Or just not accepting and evaling arbitrary code from every single website the user visits, including ones that should only be static documents or forms. That

by swiley 6y ago

Or just not accepting and evaling arbitrary code from every single website the user visits, including ones that should only be static documents or forms. That this is generally considered ok boggles the mind. That browser vendors have made it difficult for users to disable this is insane! Even MS Internet Explorer gave users at least that security tool!

emilsedgh 6y ago
the modern web doesn't work without Javascript. It's as simple as that. People like you who want to turn js off are a very small niche. And you have better solutions. Run your browser in a remote server using rdp or vnc. I think it may be equally safe and you may actually have a larger chunk of web working for you.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Considering the increasing sandboxing and protections I think we're getting closer to browsers in VMs already. Someday I can see a permission prompt to allow performance sensitive sites lower level access.
- astrobe_ 6y ago
  The "modern web" does not want to work without JS. It definitely could work without JS for the most part.
  - afavour 6y ago
    I don’t know about that. Google Maps (or any “slippy” map) couldn’t work. Instant messaging couldn’t work. Video chat wouldn’t work. Rich document editing wouldn’t work. I get that some people would like that because they think all those things belong in native apps, but that’s not where the “modern web” is today.
    - astrobe_ 6y ago
      If we didn't complain about Java applets, we still would have Java applets. If we didn't complain about Flash, we still would have Flash applets. Yesterday there was however people that were saying, "that's how it is, deal with it" or "But, but... Without it we can't have this and that" or "The ship has sailed, get over it". Today, we have reasons to complain about JS. Yes, it enhances interactivity, but it also abused. There's a lot of unwanted interactivity (the type of one-way interactivity that lets a server know more than necessary about their clients).
- swiley 6y ago
  Note that I limited what I was talking about to static documents and forms. Executable code should be a permission the page has to explicitly request from the user like notifications and microphones.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
Chrome desktop does actually allow you to run with JS disabled and allow per site with only a few clicks.
- postalrat 6y ago
  Not only that but google search, gmail, and other google services will still workout without javascript.

by swiley 6y ago

emilsedgh 6y ago

the modern web doesn't work without Javascript. It's as simple as that. People like you who want to turn js off are a very small niche. And you have better solutions. Run your browser in a remote server using rdp or vnc. I think it may be equally safe and you may actually have a larger chunk of web working for you.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Considering the increasing sandboxing and protections I think we're getting closer to browsers in VMs already. Someday I can see a permission prompt to allow performance sensitive sites lower level access.
astrobe_ 6y ago
The "modern web" does not want to work without JS. It definitely could work without JS for the most part.
- afavour 6y ago
  I don’t know about that. Google Maps (or any “slippy” map) couldn’t work. Instant messaging couldn’t work. Video chat wouldn’t work. Rich document editing wouldn’t work. I get that some people would like that because they think all those things belong in native apps, but that’s not where the “modern web” is today.
  - astrobe_ 6y ago
    If we didn't complain about Java applets, we still would have Java applets. If we didn't complain about Flash, we still would have Flash applets. Yesterday there was however people that were saying, "that's how it is, deal with it" or "But, but... Without it we can't have this and that" or "The ship has sailed, get over it". Today, we have reasons to complain about JS. Yes, it enhances interactivity, but it also abused. There's a lot of unwanted interactivity (the type of one-way interactivity that lets a server know more than necessary about their clients).
swiley 6y ago
Note that I limited what I was talking about to static documents and forms. Executable code should be a permission the page has to explicitly request from the user like notifications and microphones.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Chrome desktop does actually allow you to run with JS disabled and allow per site with only a few clicks.

postalrat 6y ago
Not only that but google search, gmail, and other google services will still workout without javascript.