4 ms·
What total bullshit. JavaScript should not be mandatory. It SHOULD ALWAYS remain controllable, and killable. That should stay in the hands of the users. The ide
by negativity 14y ago
What total bullshit. JavaScript should not be mandatory. It SHOULD ALWAYS remain controllable, and killable. That should stay in the hands of the users. The idea that "disabling JavaScript" is a bug and not a feature is repugnant to me.
And images? Most people are too naive to understand that the <img> tag represents an HTTP GET for every occurrence. Being able to lock down GETS and limit them is a safety measure, not a bug. Just because users are naive, and that such naivety is encouraged by greedy parties, does not mean that the feature should not exist.
Certificate Authorities? SSL? Destroying the ability to control your cache?
Alex Limi should take note that the browser exists for the user, not the faceless "product" locked away in remote internet server land. Not all websites are "product" designed with the intent to extract cash from people's pockets. The browser is the last gateway of control a user has over what the internet is allowed to do to their machines. Taking these settings away represents a set of handcuffs.
Is it not clear that JavaScript can be used as a weapon against the user, to obfuscate, and limit the user's understanding of the actual behavior of any given HTML document?
Privacy Engineer Monica Chew should take note that people will fork or abandon their open-source browser if it doesn't represent their interests. People with the technical awareness to know better will advise people to avoid Firefox, if decisions like this are on the horizon.
Blame people like Alex Limi and Monica Chew if Firefox becomes the next Internet Explorer.
Design-by-committee indeed. Design by Steve Ballmer is one possible alternative, is it not? Does that sound better? I think we know what authoritarian decision making can look like.
Wow! No respect for this troll-bait article under any circumstances. I don't care what their pedigrees are.
- coldpie 14y agoYour nick is apt. Calm down a bit, yeah? He's talking about removing useless configuration options from a prominent dialog, not placing you in a "set of handcuffs." Except maybe for the cache control, the settings the author talks about are basically useless. Third-party plugins like NoScript are a much better solution. Be honest, do you use the "Disable JS" checkbox, or do you use NoScript? "Disable Images" can be handy in certain, very specific settings, but it doesn't really deserve a slot in the main preferences dialog. I don't think the author is advocating the complete removal of these options. I think he's objecting to how prominent they are in Firefox's UI. about:config is the perfect repository for all of these tweaks, and I expect the dialog is already just a frontend to about:config. His point is they can make better use of that prominence than they currently are.
- zv 14y agoDisable Images are handy when your internet is slow (lagging public wifi, heavy packet loss) and you need to get job done.
- josephlord 14y ago> "Disable Images" can be handy in certain, very specific settings, but it doesn't really deserve a slot in the main preferences dialog. When I have a highly limited connection is just the time I wouldn't want to download a plugin OR be searching for instructions about how to disable images. It is also fairly good plain language that even non-experts could understand. I think it probably does deserve a place somewhere in the settings.
- progrock 14y agoI like the disable images in my toolbar. Each to their own.
- dave5104 14y agoI don't think I've ever heard my parents ever want to shut off Javascript or disable GET requests from <img> tags. I think you're forgetting that Firefox is not used exclusively by developers who may find those options useful. They're simply one /portion/ of Firefox users, and in my opinion, developers should be considered power users. In which case, moving some of the more "advanced" options off to about:config, where power users would be more than comfortable. I don't think the article is advocating for disabling these options completely. Rather simply hiding them from the average Firefox user who doesn't need to mess with them.
- romaniv 14y agoI think you are forgetting that whether your website works without images and JS is up to you as a developer. Disabling those things should not completely break normal websites. The immediacy of those checkboxes is a good reminder.
- potch 14y agoI have some bad news about what constitutes a "normal" website these days.
- Dylan16807 14y agoI think in the last three weeks I have needed javascript for three things: 1. feed/email app sites 2. trying out stacksort 3. loading flash embeds on youtube because youtube is set up annoyingly So tell me your bad news. What sites are you talking about here that apparently make up a majority of the internet and need javascript? Also I just turned off images and tried a few pages, nothing broke. Google's homepage had a perfectly visible text box, I'm not sure what the problem in the article was.
- codesuela 14y agoHow about facebook (specifically messaging and paging also no likes and comments for users without JS)? I know, you probably don't use it but I know quite a few people who do.
- Shorel 14y agoIn Opera you can have a set of options for each site. Then you can disable JS for most sites and enable it for some. The same for proxy server, cookies, etc.