8 ms·

If Google's website is designed in the fashion where none of the content is available statically and the only way to access it is via running a blob of intrusiv

If Google's website is designed in the fashion where none of the content is available statically and the only way to access it is via running a blob of intrusive code, I can understand their sentiment. I would love people to stop linking, and posting links, to e.g. Facebook because the only thing it would show me is "you have to register to view this".

politelemon 4y ago
If non-intrusive browsers existed, which could run Javascript, is that considered acceptable to go to JS sites? eg what about Firefox or its derivatives?
- chomp 4y ago
  No. The objection to linking to sites with JS is that they contain nonfree JS blobs that spy on you, run unknown obfuscated code, and are not open to modification, because they’re almost always obfuscated.
  - Eduard 4y ago
    Still silly, because whoever cares about that stance can just visit the site with (requests for) Javascript disabled.
    - jraph 4y ago
      Chromium bug tracker doesn't work with Javascript disabled.
      - Eduard 4y ago
        okay, I appreciate your reply. Even so, linking to the issue is helpful, including JavaScript disablers.
        jraph 4y ago
        So do I with yours. I both understand the FSF not wanting to link to something that's not readable without running non-free code, and the wish to have the link anyway, at least for reference.
- aendruk 4y ago
  The FSF opposes nonfree i.e. proprietary software. JavaScript is fine if properly licensed: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript Just like any other software.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    I wonder what FSF thinks of PDF.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      Why do you think there is an issue? The FSF - and Stallman! - publish PDF documents. At https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/2020-mar-jun.html&term=pdf&type=norm&case=0 https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/202... you can see Stallman uses xournal to fill in a PDF form.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        PDF is a programming language, or at least PostScript is. I wonder if Stallman will refuse to open a random PS file?
        pama 4y ago
        At worst, postscript can crash your printer or take up a lot of cpu. There are no networking libraries or access to system stuff for postscript. So it should be safe for all practical purposes assuming you don’t care about the possible inconveniences that any Turing complete language can provide. This is a very different concern than executing random JavaScript.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        I can't imagine why you would not be able to run site JavaScript in sandboxed manner (it already is) - just throw in some additional limitations and you are done. This will break JS on some sites but not all of them, but that is apparently not sufficient for Stallman & co.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > If non-intrusive browsers existed, which could run Javascript, is that considered acceptable to go to JS sites? User agents need not be browsers. What if we had a scraper for every site? What if we had reverse engineered free software clients for every website's API endpoints? We'd be in full control. People maintain humongous repositories of ad blocker filters and executable countermeasures against "clever" websites. Perhaps it would be feasible to maintain a collection of scrapers and custom clients too.

politelemon 4y ago

If non-intrusive browsers existed, which could run Javascript, is that considered acceptable to go to JS sites? eg what about Firefox or its derivatives?

chomp 4y ago
No. The objection to linking to sites with JS is that they contain nonfree JS blobs that spy on you, run unknown obfuscated code, and are not open to modification, because they’re almost always obfuscated.
- Eduard 4y ago
  Still silly, because whoever cares about that stance can just visit the site with (requests for) Javascript disabled.
  - jraph 4y ago
    Chromium bug tracker doesn't work with Javascript disabled.
    - Eduard 4y ago
      okay, I appreciate your reply. Even so, linking to the issue is helpful, including JavaScript disablers.
      - jraph 4y ago
        So do I with yours. I both understand the FSF not wanting to link to something that's not readable without running non-free code, and the wish to have the link anyway, at least for reference.
aendruk 4y ago
The FSF opposes nonfree i.e. proprietary software. JavaScript is fine if properly licensed: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript Just like any other software.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  I wonder what FSF thinks of PDF.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Why do you think there is an issue? The FSF - and Stallman! - publish PDF documents. At https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/2020-mar-jun.html&term=pdf&type=norm&case=0 https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/202... you can see Stallman uses xournal to fill in a PDF form.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      PDF is a programming language, or at least PostScript is. I wonder if Stallman will refuse to open a random PS file?
      - pama 4y ago
        At worst, postscript can crash your printer or take up a lot of cpu. There are no networking libraries or access to system stuff for postscript. So it should be safe for all practical purposes assuming you don’t care about the possible inconveniences that any Turing complete language can provide. This is a very different concern than executing random JavaScript.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        I can't imagine why you would not be able to run site JavaScript in sandboxed manner (it already is) - just throw in some additional limitations and you are done. This will break JS on some sites but not all of them, but that is apparently not sufficient for Stallman & co.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> If non-intrusive browsers existed, which could run Javascript, is that considered acceptable to go to JS sites? User agents need not be browsers. What if we had a scraper for every site? What if we had reverse engineered free software clients for every website's API endpoints? We'd be in full control. People maintain humongous repositories of ad blocker filters and executable countermeasures against "clever" websites. Perhaps it would be feasible to maintain a collection of scrapers and custom clients too.