Taking Action For Free JavaScript 318
Atticus Rex writes "Today the FSF kicked off a campaign to put pressure on webmasters to make their sites work without requiring nonfree JavaScript. The first target is Regulations.gov, a site the US government uses to take public comments on proposed regulations. Right now, the site requires nonfree JavaScript, requiring citizens to sacrifice their freedom as users to take part in their democracy."
Gosh!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when the FSF was all about having choice instead of pushing their agenda, when the whole goal was to make sure there was always an alternative so you didn't HAVE to use proprietary if you didn't want to? Wasn't that nice, didn't they seem a hell of a lot less circle loopy in those days? why oh why must every single cause end up ruled by the completely loony tune?
Firstly, Stallman founded the FSF and is still president of it.
Secondly, when was the FSF ever about choice? I think you may be confused with the Open Source Initiative (who have never actually accomplished anything of note interestingly enough); the FSF has been bluntly pushing the whole "proprietary software is immoral [gnu.org]" ideology from the beginning, nothing has changed on that front. Why do you think they created the GPL instead of just using BSD 3-clause if they actually ever thought the way you seem to think they did?
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you may be confused with the Open Source Initiative (who have never actually accomplished anything of note interestingly enough); the FSF has been bluntly pushing the whole "proprietary software is immoral [gnu.org]" ideology from the beginning, nothing has changed on that front.
I agree, I remember Bruce Perens pointing out that the only real point of difference between him and Richard Stallman in terms of ideology was that whilst he believed Free and non-Free Software should co-exist Stallman believes everything should only ever be Free Software.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also worth remembering to evaluate 'fananticism', and decide whether or not 'pragmatic' or 'realistic' are actually good things, in the context of all the players:
If Stallman were, by some cosmic quirk, made omnipotent dictator for life, the question of whether he is 'too fanatical' would start to matter a bit more. As it is, though, Stallman has zero coercive power over just about anybody, and isn't likely to obtain any more(if anything, the SFLC is pretty chill about litigating against even people who voluntarily placed themselves under the terms of the GPL by using GPLed code for some purpose or other, they could turn the screws harder than they do, and I'd take them over the BSA any day...) Be he ever so fanatical, his power is so limited(and so counter-balanced by deep pocketed and well-lawyered proprietary vendors) that his influence on you cannot be greater than, and may be less, than attempts at persuasion and voluntary offers.
Then there's the fact that, given the more or less continual pressure from people who see copyright maximalism and DRM as good for their bottom lines, 'pragmatic' compromising is likely to result in outcomes that converge, more or less swiftly, with those they originally stood against. If one side stands firm, and the other agree's to split the difference, you Zeno your way toward agreement within just a few rounds.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Informative)
that they NEVER stay reasonable, they ALWAYS end up a parody of themselves
RMS and the FSF hve been pretty upfront about their goals since the beginning and these have not changed.
Given the propensity for people to make up crap about RMS, I'm going to call bullshit unless you can provide some kind of evidence backing up this claim.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I think we can all agree that the FSF reached PETA "sea kittens" levels of batshit
Actually no.
I really like this idea. Basically all they're saying is that a website should tell you if you're entitled to use something like Greasemonkey to replace their javascript with your own clean version (eg if they use crappy, DRM ridden, or annoying javascript). It's a nice, simple way to give control back to the computer user, which is the FSF's raison d'etre.
Simple, clear and functional. I like it.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I ever want some website's opinion about that? I wouldn't even trust a judge's website to correctly guess my decision in the matter of what code I allow my computer to run. Asking websites' opinions just implies they could possibly have a say (or even a vote) in the matter, which is of course completely preposterous.
The end does not justify the means (Score:2)
I really like this idea.
I don't.
It has one great flaw - in order to do like FSF asks and fill out the form on regulation.gov, we have to use a browser with non-free JavaScript.
So in essence, RMS asks us to use non-free JavaScript!?
Re:The end does not justify the means (Score:5, Informative)
Stallman wants users to do exactly that, wrt regulations.gov and others, in the case "when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software" [gnu.org]. That's how he developed GNU: until it was more mature (and Linux came along), he used non-free Unix to test.
Re: (Score:2)
Give control back? I never lost my control in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you're ALWAYS entitled to replace their javascript with something of your own. It doesn't matter whether it's free or not.
There are disadvantages to using software that you don't have the source for. Personally, I think those disadvantages are balanced with advantages for most people, most of the time. But for javascript the only disadvantage to proprietary code is that the owner of the website has to pay to use it. It doesn't affect the user's freedom in any way. This is just the FSF trying to pus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to.
Try using Greasemonkey for a while - There are already plenty of scripts out there that'll change the way you see and use the web.
Re: (Score:3)
I love Greasemonkey. It is amazing what people manage to accomplish with it. I have an online game, Kingdom of Loathing, that I play and it is fine without it until after you have installed Greasemonkey and a bunch of scripts. After you've installed those you'll never want to play the game without them again. The neat thing is that some of the functionality offered by the various scripts finds its way into the game itself. That's kind of awesome.
Another site is Fark. There aren't as many scripts for it now
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems you don't live in the USA. A place where, by modifying the source in your browser, you can be brought up on hacking charges, wire fraud, violating the DMCA, etc.
You ever actually read any of those TOS that you supposedly agree to the moment you navigate to a webpage?
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I never realized visiting a website required me to "sacrifice my freedom"!
Look, I know it's a lot to ask that you actually pause to reflect before dashing off that Frist Psot and racking up all that precious karma. But why don't you wind down your supercilious, holier-than-thou tone and actually read what Stallmann says about the Javascript trap [gnu.org]?
If you did, you'd see that he has a perfectly valid point about how the effect of non-Free licenses, combined with minified (and therefore effectively unreadable) code, especially that which uses dynamically constructed elements, is hard to read, hard to share and hard for the community to improve. The tone of the article is pragmatic, reasoned and doesn't jump up and down crying 'Injustice!' or waving a placard. Much as you might hate this, it's a reasonable technical argument that follows logically from the concept of Free Software itself.
If you want to argue against Free Software on its merits, knock yourself out. I work with both proprietary and Free software all the time, and I see the benefits of both. But when you start pitching a fit and belittling someone else's calm, reasonably stated points without even attempting to address the logic, then you've lost any credibility. Honestly, you can ridicule Stallmann all you like, but you might want to consider what you look like to others as you indulge in this kind of adolescent, pop-collared frat-boy humour.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Minified JavaScript is for convenience of transport. It's no different from compiled code, which GNU software happily produces.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Minified JavaScript is for convenience of transport. It's no different from compiled code, which GNU software happily produces.
And, you'll notice that GNU software is licensed so as to ensure that you have access to the uncompiled stuff, specifically because compiled code is dubiously fit for anything except execution.
If there is an option to get at the un-minified stuff, I'd be astonished if you heard another word on the matter from the FSF about the use of the minified form for the sake of bandwidth use and efficiency.
Re: (Score:3)
>
If there is an option to get at the un-minified stuff, I'd be astonished if you heard another word on the matter from the FSF about the use of the minified form for the sake of bandwidth use and efficiency.
You realize a bunch of tools already exist to un-minify javascript [stackoverflow.com], yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments makes the same level of sense as saying that every software is open source because disassemblers exist. Hint: they don't give you back source code.
Completely different beasts. Have you poked at an unminifier before? They provide easily readable code at the push of a button. Minified JS is not compiled source.
Re: (Score:3)
That's true, but it's generally enough information to figure out what you need to. Comparing unminifiers to disassemblers is just facetious; they're on an entirely different scope.
I really don't understand the arguments against proprietary software. It's generally just people whining about things not being free (as in cost). That's not to say I don't get the benefits of open source software. Open source is awesome. It allows amortization of technical debt across an industry, rather than a company. Which is
Re: (Score:3)
Of course not.
if(d){
myfunction();
}
Is much less readable than
if(everythingisinplace){
releasearmyoftrainedattackmonkeys();
}
And by extension evil.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The FSF's position on javascript is perfectly consistent with their position on other software; because javascript is just software. It hardly seems surprising that they would be displeased that government-backed, your-tax-dollars-at-work sites would be relying on proprietary javascript.
Re: (Score:2)
The FSF's position on javascript is perfectly consistent with their position on other software; because javascript is just software. It hardly seems surprising that they would be displeased that government-backed, your-tax-dollars-at-work sites would be relying on proprietary javascript.
When it's my tax dollars at work, I want the developers using efficient and powerful tools.
Re: (Score:2)
he has a perfectly valid point about how the effect of non-Free licenses, combined with minified (and therefore effectively unreadable) code, especially that which uses dynamically constructed elements, is hard to read, hard to share and hard for the community to improve.
He has a perfectly valid point within the scope of his ideology but of course this ends up having the 'tivoization' problem anyway, and even if you get around that are you really going to maintain your own forks of javascript programs for individual websites?
Obviously a concern about using non-free software on the web is broadly non-existent, most people use webmail as well as 'cloud' storage and applications and they have no control there at all, so if you're ok with that (and the vast majority are) then
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you did, you'd see that he has a perfectly valid point about how the effect of non-Free licenses, combined with minified (and therefore effectively unreadable) code
No. Free Software wants JavaScript to be readable, and understandable. This is a valid point, regardless of the language and the availability of the source code.
We cannot make readable C from a decompilation, mostly because of different compilers and different optimization levels. We can decompile Java and C#/VB.NET because there is one and only one VM or IL definition.
JavaScript minification is only about renaming variables. I can tell you there is only one thing in the way of understanding JavaScript minification. Two, if you include a generic text editor's lack of "replace word only" functionality.
You have to read the de-minified version, just like any other code. You have to read, or if your language is not the same as the author's, translate, the variable names, just like the original source code.
JavaScript as it runs in your browser is exactly the same as it runs interpreted, compiled, or in any other fashion. You have the freedom to block it, you have the freedom to modify it (GreaseMonky is just one of many), you have the freedom to read it, save it, or do whatever else you want. If it executes on your machine, I think the FSF would support any measure of scrutiny you wish to apply before, during, or after executing.
I have read "free" software source code, and found it no more intelligible than minified JavaScript. Some no more readable than a disassembly.
If you are going to object to minified JS, you also have to object to any code which is difficult to comprehend, and then you place a subjective quality on what is truly free. Firefox, to me, is no longer free software. I debugged just the installer for a bug report on ReactOS, and found piles of code which was misleading, in the most complimentary term. I offered to make a change to Doom, which took me 3 times as long as I thought, and ultimately failed to achieve, because the seemingly readable code was slightly obfuscated by the build process.
Either source code is enough, or it has to be readable. If we say readable, we have to define the least common denominator who should be able to read it. If we do that, it becomes a subjective criterion, and probably a moving target.
So here we are, at a crossroads. If a project produces the source code needed to build a complete, binary-perfect copy of their executable(s), but it was run through the C pre-processor, or C++ pre-processor, is that enough? It compiles, it builds with the version of tools the provider used... if you discount the pre-processor, it is effectively the original source code provided to the compiler. Is that enough?
JavaScript is what is provided to the interpreter - minified or not. Is that enough?
I say it is, and I disagree 100% with the FSF on this point. Named variables are nice, but they can be interpreted by the usage, if you are going to read the code.
If you are going to take an ideological stance and say "I don't understand this, therefore it is not enough", you are going to have to establish an objective baseline. I can understand optimized assembly, and some pure hex - is that free enough?
This is the opinion of someone who believes that source is provided for everything that executes, or is interpreted. Surely to fuck if you wrote a compiler, you can understand this. If you wrote an interpreter it is easier to understand.
If you don't understand anything else, think of JavaScript like Spanish. Lots of people understand it, most people don't. In this case, you don't. You are provided all instructions in Spanish. Is it more difficult to understand the instructions if given in Spanish? Of course. But I don't see the objection. Especially if you allow C programs written with Spanish, or French, or any other foreign language to be classified as free.
Let us support the FSF in making all software English only. Or we could just say GFY.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe Stallman answered that question already, and as you would expect from him, it's a smart
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because when you visit a website, some require you to run the scripts to make it functional.
He specifcally mentioned government websites, he wants government websites to be held to a higher standard.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Funny)
If I see 'minified' code I assume it's malware.
wow, i'm sure that's really accurate too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I see 'minified' code I assume it's malware.
If I see minified code, I know the developer pays attention to performance.
It's really half-assed "security by obfuscation" at best, the only reason to minify JS code is because it actually makes quite a significant difference on performance.
Any person able to recognize when code is minified is able enough to quickly reformat it and search&replace names until it's human-readable again.
Re: (Score:2)
replying to undo moderation.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:4, Funny)
BIOS (Score:2, Funny)
Wait until Stallman realizes he's "sacrificed his freedom" just by turning on a computer.
Re:BIOS (Score:5, Informative)
The BIOS, you say? Stallman's way ahead of you there. [usesthis.com]
Re:BIOS (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes, nothing says "freedom" like buying a product from the Chinese government.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Since when was software freedom more important than people freedom?
Re:BIOS (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, nothing says "freedom" like buying a product from the Chinese government.
When your options are a Chinese-OEMed shitbox whose guts are guarded by American lawyers, or a Chinese-OEMed shitbox whose guts aren't guarded by American lawyers...
Re: (Score:3)
I think the specs on the MIPS platform are open, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't mean the chip manufacture has open microcode.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably not which is why I'd never use it. It's proven that's where the government hides it's backdoors.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case you better just make your own chips.
Re: (Score:2)
I use an abacus to access the internet, and even now and then I swear the government is moving some of the beads while I blink.
Re: (Score:2)
opensparc & openrisc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSPARC [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenRISC [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
at least he can play the old EM pinballs they have no micro chips in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting questions.
If he doesn't drive a car, I wonder how he avoids using public/private transportation which are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards.
Does he walk everywhere? If so, I assume he ignores all traffic signals since they are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards. He must be a very lucky man crossing busy streets on a red light!
Re: (Score:2)
Surely modern steamboats must meet environmental emissions requirements which requires electronic control - i.e., software?
Re:BIOS (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that Stallman uses a Yeelong lemote right? It's a computer that runs on entirely free (as in freedom) software and firmware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemote#Netbook_computers
This is debatable (Score:3)
Users should be aware of what's going on.
In theory, it means one should not be able to enter a website without a disclaimer about the site and what it does.
The website authors/owner should be providing the info on automation and/or any info taken from the user and how it is used.it is the user's responsibility to decide if they wish to enter and as such, this means they must agree with the terms of the site.
Now, in the case of federal sites and/or governmental sites, this must be enforced. Basically they should be able to police themselves on this.
More than likely add this to Section 508 when it comes to the US Government.
This issue has been around for a long time when it comes to privacy, cookies use, etc.
To me, it's not about "non-free" JavaScript, but rather, it should be about awareness of the site and it's purpose and whether or not they collect data and what they do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
*Maybe* I could see trying to convince the government to use free JavaScript libraries, but it's pretty pointless to expect this from most companies. If they aren't going to make the (HTML/XML/whatever) content of their website free, why would they care if the JavaScript included is?
And I do highly disagree with any required "transparency" requirements (ethical or legal) on *entering* a website in general. A user chooses to load the website off of a company's servers, just as a user walks into a retail st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in the end how much "actual usable information" is stored by an arbitrary web server? Maybe your IP and user agent. Anything more requires the cooperation of some other site that has more specific information about you, which as I said really puts it on *them* and not a random website recording your access of their pages. If you have agreed to give a store your facial profile and your home address and agreed to a TOS letting them share it with other stores, then they theoretically could know who you
Re: (Score:2)
The most important aspect of this issue is transparency.
Users should be aware of what's going on.
They do know what's going on. They're the ones doing the "going on".
In theory, it means one should not be able to enter a website without a disclaimer about the site and what it does.
The website authors/owner should be providing the info on automation and/or any info taken from the user and how it is used.it is the user's responsibility to decide if they wish to enter and as such, this means they must agree with the terms of the site.
That's a shit theory. You have the power to disable Images, disable Cookies, disable JavaScript, or even not render the HTML without first looking it over with a text editor. No one can make you enable those. I can't make you give me back a digital token. Do you control your own damn hardware or don't you? I can't be held responsible for users not knowing how to use a damn computer. Any information YOU SEND MY SERVER is sent by yo
Who cares about Javascript (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not even the tip of the iceberg.
The HTML code you download for the vast majority of the web is protected by copyright. The exact same copyright that protects the Javascript. The exact same copyright that gives the GPL license its power to force GPL upon derivatives.
It's not just the Javascript either... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about all the non-free images and text taking away your rights?
Wake up people!111
Re: (Score:2)
... and teh left-handers??? These are all taking away your Ay-Murkin FREEDOMS!!11!1111!!111
Actually, we southpaws got bored with taking candy from babies and moved abroad.
WHAT popular perception? (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.
This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.
This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.
Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard anybody express the perception that Javascript is running on the server until now. People either know what it is (and thus where it runs) or they don't know what it is and thus don't know that it runs at all (and of those, 99% don't care so long as the site works).
Re: (Score:3)
node.js? :)
*ducks*
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.
No, it's really not. You have really just made the same point at another layer - proof by induction? Put it this way - the vast majority of users would have no idea about *any* of the statements made on this thread about "web sites", servers, clients, browsers, local computers, JavaScript, PHP/CGI/whatever.
If you followed this thread, you know exactly what we are all talking about and so this is not your perception. If you didn't, you have NO PERCEPTION of any of it (and probably don't care in the first
Re: (Score:2)
But Javascript runs on the instance of the web site that lives in my browser. So it runs on the web site, in my browser, on my computer. No contradiction here. A serverside resource only becomes a web site when it is accessed and interpreted by web clients.
"JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers"
You claim it runs on the web site and on your computer. The statement claims it does not run on the web site but on your computer. You claim these are not contradictory. These statements are logically false on the surface without even getting into your silly definitions of "web site".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck are you talking about? To *paraphrase*: he basically said the common perception was that JavaScript runs on a server, not the users's computer, and I said most people have no clue what it means to run a scripting language on a server vs. a local computer, and if they DO know what all this means they by definition know what all this means. Know what I mean? Apparently not...
Re: (Score:2)
Because what the guy meant was that if you know what JavaScript is you know it runs locally (he used the word web browser, just to say it differently). And if you don't know JavaScript you won't have any expectations about it (or knowledge, for that matter). So, the "contrary to popular belief" comment makes no sense because any person with the knowledge has no such belief.
Stop obfusicated Javascript. (Score:3, Interesting)
I can live with copyrighted Javascript. It's obfusicated Javascript that looks like hostile code that I object to.
Have you looked at Google's home page lately? For a page that appears to do almost nothing, there's a vast amount of obfusicated Javascript involved. Some of it:
(function(){ window.google={kEI:"a62mUcucJYHQiwKgx4DwDw",getEI:function(a){for(var b;a&&(!a.getAttribute||!(b=a.getAttribute("eid")));)a=a.parentNode;return b||google.kEI},https:function(){return"https:"==window.location.protocol},kEXPI:"17259,4000116,4001351,4001947,4003714,4003921,4004320,4004334,4004702,4004788,4004844,4004897,4004943,4004949,4004953,4004971,4005031,4005198,4005731,4005817,4005987,4006191,4006374,4006426,4006442,4006448,4006466,4006541,4006578,4006727,4006806,4006974,4007007,4007009,4007020,4007040,4007055,4007060,4007073,4007077,4007080,4007117,4007118,4007131,4007140,4007158,4007217,4007231", kCSI:{e:"17259,4000116,4001351,4001947,4003714,4003921,4004320,4004334,4004702,4004788,4004844,4004897,4004943,4004949,4004953,4004971,4005031,4005198,4005731,4005817,4005987,4006191,4006374,4006426,4006442,4006448,4006466,4006541,4006578,4006727,4006806,4006974,4007007,4007009,4007020,4007040,4007055,4007060,4007073,4007077,4007080,4007117,4007118,4007131,4007140,4007158,4007217,4007231", ei:"a62mUcucJYHQiwKgx4DwDw"},authuser:0,ml:function(){}, kHL:"en",time:function() {return(new Date).getTime()},log:function(a,b,c,h){var d=new Image,f=google.lc,e=google.li,g="";d.onerror=d.onload=d.onabort=function() {delete f[e]};f[e]=d;!c&&-1==b.search("&ei=")&&(g="&ei="+google.getEI(h));c=c||"/gen_204?atyp=i&ct="+a+"&cad="+b+g+"&zx="+google.time();a=/^http:/i; a.test(c)&&google.https()?(google.ml(Error("GLMM"),!1,{src:c}),delete f[e]):(d.src=c,google.li=e+1)},lc:[],li:0,j:{en:1,b:!!location.hash&&!!location.hash.match("[#&]((q|fp)=|tbs=simg|tbs=sbi)"),bv:21,cf:"",pm:"p",u:"c9c918f0"},Toolbelt:{},y:{},x:function(a,b){google.y[a.id]=[a,b];return!1},load:function(a,b){google.x({id:a+k++},function(){google.load(a,b)})}};var k=0;window.onpopstate=function(){google.j.psc=1}; window.chrome||(window.chrome={});window.chrome.sv=2.00;window.chrome.searchBox||(window.chrome.searchBox={});window.chrome.searchBox.onsubmit=function(){google.x({id:"psyapi"},function(){var a=encodeURIComponent(window.chrome.searchBox.value);google.nav.search({q:a,sourceid:"chrome-psyapi2"})})};})(); (function(){var d=!1;google.sn="webhp";google.timers={};google.startTick=function(a,b){google.timers[a]={t:{start:google.time()},bfr:!!b}};google.tick=function(a,b,h){google.timers[a]||google.startTick(a);google.timers[a].t[b]=h||google.time()};google.startTick("load",!0); try{google.pt=window.gtbExternal&&window.gtbExternal.pageT();}catch(e){}})();
Google's home page was once just HTML with a form. It did about what it does now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not being obfuscated to hide the code, it's being obfuscated to minimize the size. They don't need an extra 20 kilobytes of whitespace and long variable names with comments. It's surprising just how much bandwidth this sort of method reduces in heavy load websites.
Pointless (Score:2)
So instead of going on and on about how much of a waste of time this is I'll suggest a few campaigns of more importance: Better freedom of inf
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sacrificing my freedom by loading a webpage that is going to run some code which I can look at with any text editor and see exactly what it's doing (though I may need to de-minify it first)?
Honestly, if that is the biggest threat to my freedom these days, we're in much better shape than I thought!
TFA in this case is surprisingly difficult to understand. It reads like it's aimed at the converted, and the rest of us who are more concerned with "does the site work?" and "are there security concerns?" aren't invited. Either that or I'm really missing something, because I can't fathom why in a million years I would ever care in the slightest about this.
Oh, woe! (Score:2)
I can't just rape and pillage every site I want for javascript snippets and samples. I have to read the license for the code first.
Just think how much easier it would be if everything were GPL'd. Then nobody would own anything. Or get paid.
(Yes, I release my code under GPLv3 and LGPL, but that's because I want to, not because I expect everyone else to!)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would people not get paid ?
Many people currently get paid to create new GPL-code.
Uh, OK... (Score:2)
How? Do they even know how the webpages work? We would basically have the web of 1995 in all its slow, clunky awfulness.
You want a web without JavaScript? Go right ahead and make a viable open source alternative that offers the same facility.
An Inaccuracy and A Conundrum (Score:5, Informative)
Accuracy aside, there is a different issue that is personally bothersome. I'm a good programmer and have been writing code for a long time, working with a variety of languages --I have actually enjoyed Assembly Language; many can't say that! But I haven't been able to find a "best fit" type of job that lasted more than a few years, and so my income-situation is not the best (nor even remotely near to "the best"). I'm sure it is quite easy for someone who has a decent steady income to write and give away software. But when you need to sell it to put food on the table, copyright is supposed to be an author's friend. As an example, suppose I put a few years of effort into creating a nice unique web site, free for users and paid for by advertisers. Do I want that unique-ness to be copied immediately, all across the Internet, and my ad-revenue proportionately diluted, by giving away the source code? What do I deserve to earn, financially speaking, for those years of effort? Remember the children's tale of the Little Red Hen? [wikipedia.org] The assumption behind Free Software is that what you offer will get improved and come back to you, thereby benefitting you. It ignores the fact that that process takes time that you might not be able to afford!
So, what is the Answer to that conundrum, besides "Obtain the nice-income job that lets you afford to give away software"?
Stallman Needs to Learn the Serenity Prayer (Score:2)
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I am waiting for Stallman to figure out that movies and television shows are not free either.
Gov services should not require a merchant lock in (Score:3)
This is not a private entity -- government services should be available to everyone without a requirement to purchase "widget A from coporation M". Until that becomes a rule -- FSF is doing a very good job.
Is it really free? (Score:2)
No Script (Score:2)
I use it all the time. Very few sites are allowed to run javascript at all.
Why does everything on the web need to be "free"? (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense to me. Of course JS code, HTML, text, images, movies, etc. will be copyrighted. It's just a communication medium. Just because it is relatively new and the InTeRnEt doesn't mean it should all be an open collaboration with everything given away by default. Demanding 'free' Javascript is a bad message, imho. It gives the sense that it should all be free and therefore it might even be ethical to steal.
Don't get me wrong, I was a Linux kernel contributor for several years and I've r
what's the negative effect? (Score:2)
Having "non-free JavaScript" on a site seems no different to me than reading materials that are copyrighted. Does Stallman not read anything that's copyrighted? What's the problem with that? I just don't see the negative effect here.
valid concern, but not sure how important (Score:3)
This is another one of those RMS things which really does seem pretty nitpicky and impractical, at the time it's written but history shows that whenever you later look back, RMS is almost always right.
Javascript is so transient, so unimportant, and so close to the blurry line between code and content (though I'm surprised to be reading so many opinions here which are placing it on the "content" side). Our browsers are getting pretty decent at sandboxing these days, so the consequences of running unmaintainable and unauditable code within them, seem light. Who really needs maintainance for code that you only use for a few seconds and then throw away?
But it's creep. Unless I have my browser only run Javascript from whitelists, the "normal" operation is that it's doing something (running all kind of crazy proprietary stuff) that, outside the browser, just doesn't happen. My machines aren't are "pure" as RMS' machines but even so, there are really only so many places where I still have unmaintainable and unauditable code. The browser multiplies that by thousands.
It's funny; I normally don't go adding thousands of proprietary PPAs to my Ubuntu machine, and tend to be pretty conservative about what I allow to be installed. Yet my browser still isn't using a whitelist for Javascript. That's not entirely sane or consistent, is it? No matter where you stand on the Free vs proprietary spectrum, you get to call me a hypocrite. (Fortunately, I probably get to call you one right back -- unless you're as hardcore as RMS or as resigned as an iPhone user.)
They're individually inconsequential (I think!!), but I sure spend a lot of time in the browser. What's otherwise a fairly trustworthy machine, seems to be hanging by a thread: the browser's correct virtualization of the Javascript universe. If I'm really ok with that, then you'd think I'd also have some Windows or Mac OS X virtual machines around too, to further run more unmaintainable and unaudited code for my convenience. Why don't I? Maybe it's simply because doing that wouldn't really give me any more convenience. But maybe I'm inconsistent because I don't have my shit together, mentally.
I think there's a valid concern here, it's just hard to say it's important or what (if anything) to do about it. But I remember when "The Right to Read" pretty much got the same opinion from me.
As far as what to do about it, FSF's proposal seems pretty modest: don't have government actively making the creep deeper. We have enough to worry about without our own government putting us further at risk. Regulations.gov shouldn't be distributing a bunch of proprietary code to citizens; leave that sort of thing to commercial sites. Even if it's currently believed that the current version of that code is harmless (it wouldn't totally surprise me if some people have illegally(?) audited the Javscript), it's not a best practice, and outside of exceptional-because-we-don't-have-our-shit-together web it's something we normally wouldn't do or permit. If regulations.gov told you to download and execute regulations.exe or the iOS app as the only way for citizens to get some information from them, I'm sure plenty of people would be screaming. This is the same, but also different, by degrees. Whether it's two degrees or ten, though, I don't know...
Re:Loons running the asylum (Score:5, Insightful)
So the FSF still seems to be able to find ways to make themselves more loony and fringe. Nice job guys!
Yes, this is pretty pathetic. There are plenty of areas where free software is very important, such as basic computing infrastructure like compilers, operating systems, networking, web standards, and audio/video decoders. But instead they are focusing on the script that makes text blink on some random website.
Re: Loons running the asylum (Score:4, Insightful)
Look this isn't quite so pathetic as you think. The accessibility tools on Linux often depend on running really old browsers on the console. First hand experience. We have upgraded them for ipv6 etc but working js is another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
free != accessible.
Re: (Score:3)
1. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
2. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
3. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
4. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
5. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not that messed up. There are some really crazy javascript 'programs'. The code IS executing on your machine. If you say some stuff is "ok" if it is non-free and other stuff is not don't expect me to take you seriously. Just because you don't get the problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are there bigger problems? Sure. But that isn't the job of the FSF. The job of the FSF is to promote freedom everywhere.
Not doing so would be hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poignant username! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless the side effect of "loony and fringe" may well be security.
Browser exploits are a community concern. By publishing a stallman-endorsed whitelist of non-harmful JS, turning off JS for all but approved sites could become easier for laypeople.
Is this the sanest way of approaching this? Well I'll let you be the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the sanest way of approaching this?
No, having to submit the code of your website for review to stallman (or some affiliated group) just to get on this whitelist is a stupid idea and then what happens if you modify it? Submit it again?
Re: (Score:2)
It was honestly embarrassing reading this article.
It's about the license (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this downloaded copy of the JS code come with a license that secures the four essential freedoms [gnu.org] to users? Usually it doesn't unless you're on GNU.org or a MediaWiki site.
If the author licensed it that way then yes, if not then obviously it wouldn't and absolutely shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the problem you're describing is no way related to what TFA is talking about.
You're talking about requiring a certain environment for the page to work.
They're talking about the javascript on the page being licensed to you in a certain way, which has no bearing whatsoever on if it actually works or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question we should be asking ourselves is why is there so much redundant JavaScript libraries out there? Date Pickers, Fancy Dialog Boxes, Slideshows, Accordion Components, Menus, Widgets, etc all use JavaScript. How come the HTML standard has not implemented these common components?
Some of them are in HTML5, but browsers haven't implemented them yet, and since everybody uses JavaScript anyway (and will continue to use JavaScript to support older browsers for the next decade) there's no pressure for browser devs to implement them.