On Monday 18 October 2010 21:23:18 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Volodya > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Why must we inconvenience 99% > >> > of our users to accomodate the irrational 1%? > >> > >> Okay, since you asked, the main cases I can see where you'd want to > >> turn off > >> javascript: > >> 1. Users with low end computers. People in hostile regimes will often > >> have > >> low end computers. > >> > >> > >> If they are capable of running Freenet with its current resource > >> requirements > >> then they are capable of using a browser that supports Javascript. > >> > > > > If that would be true (which it isn't), then by the same logic if a person > > is capable of running Freenet then that individual is capable of using a > > browser with no Javascript. > > Yes, they are *capable* of using a browser with no Javascript, but they are > not forced to.
Well, that's not the point - they might be accessing their desktop's node from a phone. Or they might be using a headless server, or using ssh -X (which tends to slow down heavy javascript apps enormously). Or they might be a blind linux user etc. However, the real issue is that a lot of privacy aware people, who are an important part of existing freenet users and contributors (the vast majority judging by responses on FMS) turn off Javascript in their web browsers - to enhance their security when browsing *the web*. And then they click on the rabbit icon and it launches the same browser with privacy mode enabled. If it then tells them that Freenet only works with Javascript enabled they will probably be rather annoyed. It's true that mixing code and HTML is iffy (although IMHO HTML is supposed to be structure, so it's not that iffy), but there are lots of ways to deal with that e.g. Bombe's nano-templating engine.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
