4 ms·

I don't really understand this article. JavaScript is less of a trap than regular software: the code is running in a much less capable sandbox. This means that

by sktrdie 12y ago

I don't really understand this article. JavaScript is less of a trap than regular software: the code is running in a much less capable sandbox. This means that unlike unfree software which behaves against the users' rights, or against the users' will, a browser app asks you permissions for many obtrusive things (webcam/mic access, location, etc).

davexunit 12y ago
But the software is still proprietary. It's not just about the software doing nefarious things, but about giving the user freedom to modify and share the software. JavaScript code is more of a trap because it runs without the user having to do anything! Just by visiting a website, an application is transparently downloaded and run on your computer. Most people don't even think of what is going on when they visit a web page in a modern web browser. System software needs to be explicitly installed by the user. Try disabling JavaScript or using the Mozilla browser extension LibreJS and notice how much of the web breaks. That's the state of free software on the web. It's terrible.
- sktrdie 12y ago
  I'd rather use a proprietary software running within an open sandbox I know and trust which asks me permissions for anything it does, rather than an open source software which can do whatever it wants anytime it wants.
  - azernik 12y ago
    For Stallman and the FSF, it's not (just) about the practical dangers of unknown software running about your machine; it's about the moral right to modify and reuse that software.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Even taking that pursuit as a given, I still don't follow the point of this. 99% of the JavaScript I use is intimately bound up with server-side software that I don't have access to. What's the practical value in having half a free app running in my browser when it's useless without the proprietary half on the server?
      - toyg 12y ago
        They is why they also criticize the trend for closed and unaccountable server-side applications (in other publications / articles). The evolution of the GPL is supposed to go in the direction of fighting this trend (although it's very difficult, for a number of reasons). Stallman and the FSF are not everyone's cup of tea, but they are extremely coherent about their philosophy. They (over)think about how we interact with technology, lay it bare for everyone else to see, and then propose alternative ways. Not everything Stallman says or does can be practiced in everyday life (among others, he runs a Chinese-made laptop that only contains hardware that is fully documented, and spends quite a lot of time sleeping on other people's sofas as he travels around the world to spread his FSF gospel), but it's usually impossible to attack his position on purely-rational grounds.
        pmoriarty 12y ago
        "they also criticize the trend for closed and unaccountable server-side applications" And that's why I release all my code under the AGPL[1] license. GPL 3 is just too weak. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
  - davexunit 12y ago
    Because the browser is a place known for rock-solid security...
    - rictic 12y ago
      Because (the OS|the shell|the server|the point of sale system) is a place known for rock-solid security...
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Just by reading a PS or PDF file, an application is transparently run on your computer.
- aikah 12y ago
  > JavaScript code is more of a trap because it runs without the user having to do anything! Dont worry,the EU will fix that! It will ask for "explicit consent" to run javascript in the browser ,just like that inane cookie law /s
Jare 12y ago
It's not about what the software can do to you, but about what you can do to the software (or, in this case, can't).

by sktrdie 12y ago

davexunit 12y ago

But the software is still proprietary. It's not just about the software doing nefarious things, but about giving the user freedom to modify and share the software. JavaScript code is more of a trap because it runs without the user having to do anything! Just by visiting a website, an application is transparently downloaded and run on your computer. Most people don't even think of what is going on when they visit a web page in a modern web browser. System software needs to be explicitly installed by the user. Try disabling JavaScript or using the Mozilla browser extension LibreJS and notice how much of the web breaks. That's the state of free software on the web. It's terrible.

sktrdie 12y ago
I'd rather use a proprietary software running within an open sandbox I know and trust which asks me permissions for anything it does, rather than an open source software which can do whatever it wants anytime it wants.
- azernik 12y ago
  For Stallman and the FSF, it's not (just) about the practical dangers of unknown software running about your machine; it's about the moral right to modify and reuse that software.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Even taking that pursuit as a given, I still don't follow the point of this. 99% of the JavaScript I use is intimately bound up with server-side software that I don't have access to. What's the practical value in having half a free app running in my browser when it's useless without the proprietary half on the server?
    - toyg 12y ago
      They is why they also criticize the trend for closed and unaccountable server-side applications (in other publications / articles). The evolution of the GPL is supposed to go in the direction of fighting this trend (although it's very difficult, for a number of reasons). Stallman and the FSF are not everyone's cup of tea, but they are extremely coherent about their philosophy. They (over)think about how we interact with technology, lay it bare for everyone else to see, and then propose alternative ways. Not everything Stallman says or does can be practiced in everyday life (among others, he runs a Chinese-made laptop that only contains hardware that is fully documented, and spends quite a lot of time sleeping on other people's sofas as he travels around the world to spread his FSF gospel), but it's usually impossible to attack his position on purely-rational grounds.
      - pmoriarty 12y ago
        "they also criticize the trend for closed and unaccountable server-side applications" And that's why I release all my code under the AGPL[1] license. GPL 3 is just too weak. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
- davexunit 12y ago
  Because the browser is a place known for rock-solid security...
  - rictic 12y ago
    Because (the OS|the shell|the server|the point of sale system) is a place known for rock-solid security...
tedunangst 12y ago
Just by reading a PS or PDF file, an application is transparently run on your computer.
aikah 12y ago
> JavaScript code is more of a trap because it runs without the user having to do anything! Dont worry,the EU will fix that! It will ask for "explicit consent" to run javascript in the browser ,just like that inane cookie law /s

Jare 12y ago

It's not about what the software can do to you, but about what you can do to the software (or, in this case, can't).