Web lists-archives.com

Re: why can't I visit this web site

Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:54:49AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:32:21PM +0200, tomas@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:06:30PM +0800, Long Wind wrote:
> > > iceweasel does not support javascript?
> > 
> > It doesn't support *disabling* javascript. It's always on.
> You may want to try the NoScript extension.  It disables all Javascript
> by default, and allows you to turn it on for specific domains.
> https://noscript.net/
> For some people, it may be too aggressive.  It depends on what web
> sites you intend to use.

I know that. I prefer something more aggressive: disabling Javascript
in about:config (and disabling quite a few other things, btw), and
using that as my default browsing profile.

Then I have a couple of other (separate) profiles for very specific
pages. Pages which don't work without javascript usually don't interest

> > Firefox developers have decreed that their users are too stupid
> > to cope with an "on/off" switch for Javascript. Sad, but true.
> In the last decade or so, the overall Firefox policy seems to have become
> "forget whatever we used to do, let's force people to write extensions
> to provide those features".  And in the last year or two, as people
> started using extensions to provide the features Firefox has stripped
> out, the policy has become "let's block the use of extensions".
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox
> So, uh, good luck.

I know. I suppose that it's a question of perspective. I've had
discussions with Firefox people, and while they most probably
are well intentioned, their vision is very biased. For one example,
they reason that taking away the "disable javascript" switch
is based on telemetry: it causes problems for some users.

But that this keeps many beginners from experimenting and
learning, and at the same time re-inforces "web programmers"
in their use of horrific frameworks which rely on more and
more programs running client-side... that's something they
only view as a Good Thing (just think about how much Mozilla
has invested on a well-performing Javascript implementation.
Heck, the PDF viewer is written in Javascript these days:
an impressive technical feat, and many nifty tricks in
there, but... no, thanks!).

For me, it's a Bad Thing, because it makes the interface
between the service and my computer ever more obfuscated
(was: a document in an ugly, but somewhat specified language,
is: some obscure protocol which only the service provider[1]
controls, since (s)he develops server and client-side parts
in lockstep).

So thanks, but no thanks. Call me luddite if you want, but
I don't like the path things are taking. Things may have a
free license, but are becoming so obfuscated as to be effectively


[1] Or the service provider's framework provider (who these
   days is mostly Google or Facebook because distributed
   programming Is Hard and needs lots of resources).

- -- tomás
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)