5 ms·

"Web browsing: Certain complex web technologies, like just-in-time (JIT) JavaScript compilation, are disabled unless the user excludes a trusted site from Lockd

"Web browsing: Certain complex web technologies, like just-in-time (JIT) JavaScript compilation, are disabled unless the user excludes a trusted site from Lockdown Mode." Highly interesting, that Apple is doing this. This is a thing. MS and Google are also taking steps to harden Chromium security against JIT compiler issues with JavaScript. https://www.zdnet.com/article/securing-microsoft-edge-switch-off-jit-compilers-or-sandbox/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/securing-microsoft-edge-switch...

colechristensen 4y ago
I just don't want most of the programming capabilities on the web, plain old hypertext with a bit of style is enough. There are plenty of other ways to run software on a computer than inside a web browser.
- simion314 4y ago
  I agree half way with you, we need the web split into 2 parts, webpages and apps. I seen some cool simulation, small apps, small games that I can just test online and not have to install them on my machine. Apple would love that we all got scared and only use installed apps from their store but the web is a decent deliver platform. If we could have a modern subset of html and css for news websited and blogs , and the rest of js for web apps then you can have the option to turn off teh advanced settings or we could have different browsers that could focus on different things, like a website reader browser that does not care about super fast JITed JS it would not support webgl,camera or microphone acccess, it would just focus on text layout and simple forms, and a web app browser that focuses on extreme optimizing for JS , canvas and webgl operations, camera and microphone access.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    You can already achieve all this. Either turn of JS in your browser, or use extensions such as NoScript.
    - npteljes 4y ago
      You can technically achieve this, but you get a degraded experience. Most sites don't test for JS being turned off, and it's not rare to only get a blank page when viewing a site in that way. What OP wishes for is rather an experience that decidedly doesn't use JS, similar to Google's AMP or Gemini. A subset of HTML that makes publishing possible, without moving parts.
    - simion314 4y ago
      Actually I browse with JS off by default and whitelist stuff, ironic since I am a web dev (or maybe the fact I know how shit web tech is is why I think documents should be documents , imagine I want to show you my blog but I make an Unreal Engine 5 app because I want some cool effects and I also want to learn this shiny tool and the marketing team wants to do some shitty things too)
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    I'm having fun with Gemini exactly because it's so dumbed down that you can't do anything more than publish text It's still very niche, but it's growing and the protocol is so simple that I'm writing software for it, specifically a multi platform browser (more like a viewer?)
- capableweb 4y ago
  Most (if not all) browsers allow you to disable JS, so that seems like the perfect preference for you. I know it works on Chrome and Firefox on desktop (I use the NoScript extension myself, that blocks JS by default but allows you to enable it per-site), I can imagine it works the same on smartphones as well.
  - olliej 4y ago
    I /think/ what they're asking for is a world where turning JS off is actually a real option. Currently the web essentially does not work in such a case, so while it technically exists the option to disable JS isn't actually an real option.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      So what they want isn't the power to turn off JS in their own browser, but the power to turn it off in other people's browsers (at least the browsers of people developing websites). More seriously, I guess they might want a way of avoiding sites that don't have a good no-script experience. Perhaps if there were a trustworthy way to vote on that (or detect it automatically), someone could offer an extension which puts scary red boxes around hyperlinks which point to such sites.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kderbyma 4y ago
just seems more antiweb from Apple. they love to ruin the web and make it harder to avoid their walled app garden....it's a money ploy to fight web apps and make their little devices even less useful.

colechristensen 4y ago

I just don't want most of the programming capabilities on the web, plain old hypertext with a bit of style is enough. There are plenty of other ways to run software on a computer than inside a web browser.

simion314 4y ago
I agree half way with you, we need the web split into 2 parts, webpages and apps. I seen some cool simulation, small apps, small games that I can just test online and not have to install them on my machine. Apple would love that we all got scared and only use installed apps from their store but the web is a decent deliver platform. If we could have a modern subset of html and css for news websited and blogs , and the rest of js for web apps then you can have the option to turn off teh advanced settings or we could have different browsers that could focus on different things, like a website reader browser that does not care about super fast JITed JS it would not support webgl,camera or microphone acccess, it would just focus on text layout and simple forms, and a web app browser that focuses on extreme optimizing for JS , canvas and webgl operations, camera and microphone access.
- capableweb 4y ago
  You can already achieve all this. Either turn of JS in your browser, or use extensions such as NoScript.
  - npteljes 4y ago
    You can technically achieve this, but you get a degraded experience. Most sites don't test for JS being turned off, and it's not rare to only get a blank page when viewing a site in that way. What OP wishes for is rather an experience that decidedly doesn't use JS, similar to Google's AMP or Gemini. A subset of HTML that makes publishing possible, without moving parts.
  - simion314 4y ago
    Actually I browse with JS off by default and whitelist stuff, ironic since I am a web dev (or maybe the fact I know how shit web tech is is why I think documents should be documents , imagine I want to show you my blog but I make an Unreal Engine 5 app because I want some cool effects and I also want to learn this shiny tool and the marketing team wants to do some shitty things too)
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  I'm having fun with Gemini exactly because it's so dumbed down that you can't do anything more than publish text It's still very niche, but it's growing and the protocol is so simple that I'm writing software for it, specifically a multi platform browser (more like a viewer?)
capableweb 4y ago
Most (if not all) browsers allow you to disable JS, so that seems like the perfect preference for you. I know it works on Chrome and Firefox on desktop (I use the NoScript extension myself, that blocks JS by default but allows you to enable it per-site), I can imagine it works the same on smartphones as well.
- olliej 4y ago
  I /think/ what they're asking for is a world where turning JS off is actually a real option. Currently the web essentially does not work in such a case, so while it technically exists the option to disable JS isn't actually an real option.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    So what they want isn't the power to turn off JS in their own browser, but the power to turn it off in other people's browsers (at least the browsers of people developing websites). More seriously, I guess they might want a way of avoiding sites that don't have a good no-script experience. Perhaps if there were a trustworthy way to vote on that (or detect it automatically), someone could offer an extension which puts scary red boxes around hyperlinks which point to such sites.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kderbyma 4y ago

just seems more antiweb from Apple. they love to ruin the web and make it harder to avoid their walled app garden....it's a money ploy to fight web apps and make their little devices even less useful.