On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote:
>> That's what I meant by a (correct) specification and a compliant >> implementation. > > And here too, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The same specification > can be implemented in 2 perfectly compliant ways, one being secure and one > insecure. A JIT is inherently insecure. The same specification can be implemented in 2 perfectly compliant ways, one being slow and one being fast. An interpreter is inherently slow ;) >> It's changing. HTML5 and JS are going to be the front-ends for such >> remote services provided by those cloud platforms. And these are the >> standard way (vs. Adobe's Flash for example) to deliver a rich >> experience to the end-user, right in his browser, and IMHO we should >> support that. > > Well, that's not what HTML, nor the underlying HTTP, was designed for. I > don't see it as being an appropriate platform for software at all. (And I > don't see plugins such as Flash as being the solution either. I believe this > needs a completely different protocol, e.g. NX is something going in that > direction.) > > And IMHO, as a Free Software distribution, we should do all we can to > promote Free Software installed on the end user's machine where he/she has > full control (freedom!) over the software rather than remote services, web > or otherwise. Every browser has an option to disable JS, firefox even has an option to disable it for specific sites or enable it using a whitelist. You are free to do that on your machine but you have to accept that others want to 1) use web apps 2) want them to be fast. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
