Matej,
and WebKit2 (http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2), as a
well-maintained piece of pre-Alpha unreleased code.
I brought this one because of the architecture redesign, that tries to
address some security and performance points, not for the code quality
per se., which is still being worked
Hi,
What about the WebKit SIG that Jaroslav Reznik wants to setup?
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-August/140497.html
-Ilyes Gouta
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Ilyes Gouta ilyes.go...@gmail.com wrote:
Matej,
and WebKit2 (http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2), as a
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Léon Keijser keij...@stone-it.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 03:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The lesser of 2 evils is no solution. Only NO evil at all will keep the
user's freedom. Users should NEVER use proprietary software, be it as
JavaScript or using
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:46:11AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Kevin, if you took off your FSF blindfold you would see that it's better
for web sites to use JavaScript. If they complied to /your/ wishes we
would have a thousand proprietary protocols, probably all
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 16:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:46:11AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The lesser of 2 evils is no solution. Only NO evil at all will keep the
user's freedom. Users should NEVER use proprietary software, be it as
JavaScript or using a
On 08/20/2010 12:43 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 16:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:46:11AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The lesser of 2 evils is no solution. Only NO evil at all will keep the
user's freedom. Users should NEVER use proprietary
On Thu 19 August 2010 15:01:17 Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sorry, but I don't think exposing our users to remote arbitrary code
execution (!) vulnerabilities just to make web apps a bit faster is a
reasonable tradeoff.
Kevin, if you took off your FSF blindfold you
Ilyes Gouta, Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:43:45 +0100:
How about a very well maintained open source piece of software, such as
WebKit
which of the two forks of KHTML is well maintained in your opinion?
Google one? (http://spot.livejournal.com/312320.html)
and WebKit2
Hi,
Since JavaScript has a client-side execution model and since the all
the JS scripts are downloaded in plain text format (even if sometimes
obfuscated) along with the html code, then can't we assume that JS
code is available in source format and hence can't be classified as
closed source
Ilyes Gouta wrote:
Since JavaScript has a client-side execution model and since the all
the JS scripts are downloaded in plain text format (even if sometimes
obfuscated) along with the html code, then can't we assume that JS
code is available in source format and hence can't be classified as
Kevin,
Free Software is not just about availability of source code. (That's exactly
why the term Open Source is misleading!) It's no use having the source
code if you aren't allowed to legally do anything with it.
I did't claim that JS code is open source. It's just that, we all
being able to
On Fri, 1994-08-19 at 16:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I want none of that useless crap, thank you very much! Applications should
be written as applications, delivered through our package repository, in a
compiled language. Web sites should just be web sites and have as little
code as
Ilyes Gouta wrote:
It's just that, we all being able to pull JS code in plain text from a
given server, from any place on the world, doesn't really help classifying
that code as a closed source.
Sorry, but you're arguing against a strawman: I didn't claim that the code
was closed source, I
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
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 15:01 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
If we tolerate any non free software then what's the point? Why not
just run Windows or OSX?
Received: from mail-fx0-f45.google.com (mail-fx0-f45.google.com
[209.85.161.45]) by smtp-mm1.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
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
Like it or not, the web browser has become a runtime environment,
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
Hi,
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
Hi,
Still, it's can be correctly designed to really lower the risk (or
even eliminate it).
I don't believe the risk can be eliminated entirely. There will always be
unacceptable risk if you execute native code generated at runtime from an
untrusted source.
How about a very well maintained
drago01 wrote:
The same specification can be implemented in 2 perfectly compliant
ways, one being slow and one being fast.
An interpreter is inherently slow ;)
Sorry, but I don't think exposing our users to remote arbitrary code
execution (!) vulnerabilities just to make web apps a bit faster
Ilyes Gouta wrote:
How about a very well maintained open source piece of software, such
as Firefox, WebKit and WebKit2 (http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2),
as a source of that generated native code at runtime? This would
immensely help verifying the emitter of such a code and take the
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sorry, but I don't think exposing our users to remote arbitrary code
execution (!) vulnerabilities just to make web apps a bit faster is a
reasonable tradeoff.
Kevin, if you took off your FSF blindfold you would see that it's better
for web sites to use JavaScript. If they
On 08/19/2010 02:07 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
Hi,
As always Kevin I agree with you. These people don't understand basic OSI
network layers; rather obvious textbook stuff.
The cool thing about JS and all what's happening today in the browser
world, is that everything is being done at the
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Kevin, if you took off your FSF blindfold you would see that it's better
for web sites to use JavaScript. If they complied to /your/ wishes we
would have a thousand proprietary protocols, probably all /closed/
source, to communicate in between /closed/ source
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 03:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The lesser of 2 evils is no solution. Only NO evil at all will keep the
user's freedom. Users should NEVER use proprietary software, be it as
JavaScript or using a proprietary protocol.
Shouldn't users be free to make that decision on
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 21:31 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Shipping a Firefox with no ability to use Javascript would be more or
less equal to not shipping it, frankly. No-one would use the thing.
What I suggest is just to use the same old JavaScript interpreter we have
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 18:35 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
While I think Firefox could do several things to increase it's real
security instead of it's apparent security, I was actually complaining
about the server side. Sites that use javascript encourage people to
Then why were you doing it
Adam Williamson wrote:
Shipping a Firefox with no ability to use Javascript would be more or
less equal to not shipping it, frankly. No-one would use the thing.
What I suggest is just to use the same old JavaScript interpreter we have
used before the JIT was introduced, which they undoubtedly
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
drago01 wrote:
The times where javascript is only used for some fancy effects are
long over ... welcome to 2010 ;)
Some web sites are indeed abusing JavaScript. Why should we promote this
behavior? It is a vehicle
I've already seen websites exploit firefox tabs and they made use of my
gmail account to send spam.
Why should we make firefox easier to exploit?
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:07 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at
wrote:
By your logic we should ban gcc, java, mono, python, perl, bash ... as
one can use them to create and/or run non free software.
Also you may be aware that javascript has its uses *outside* of the
web too (just like you can write apps in python you can do it in JS;
and having a JIT that
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 19:31 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I think using javascript for pages meant to be used by the general public
is a bad idea. It encourages people who don't know better to enable
javascript for general browsing, which signifcantly increases the risks
to them for having
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:48:14 -0700,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is effectively impossible to use
all sorts of useful websites without Javascript enabled. Even for
Then don't use them. If sites don't get used they may stop requiring
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 18:35 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:48:14 -0700,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is effectively impossible to use
all sorts of useful websites without Javascript enabled. Even for
Then
On 08/17/2010 02:35 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:48:14 -0700,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is effectively impossible to use
all sorts of useful websites without Javascript enabled. Even for
Then don't
On 08/16/2010 16:35 -0700, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:48:14 -0700,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is effectively impossible to use
all sorts of useful websites without Javascript enabled. Even for
Then don't use
On 16/08/10 08:10 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
By your logic we should ban gcc, java, mono, python, perl, bash ... as
one can use them to create and/or run non free software.
Also you may be aware that javascript has its uses *outside* of the
web too (just like you can write
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
Do you REALLY believe that in a world where 90% of the desktops are
Windows, where 2 thirds of the browser market is shared by IE and safari
Where did you got these statistics from? Any references? w3schools [1]
say it is otherwise,
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 17:08:27 -0700,
J. Randall Owens jrowens.fed...@ghiapet.net wrote:
Maybe you should file a bug against Javascript in Firefox? Oh, wait,
bugzilla uses Javascript, doesn't it? Scratch that, no bugzilla for the
purists.
I don't use it with javascript enabled.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
wo...@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
Do you REALLY believe that in a world where 90% of the desktops are
Windows, where 2 thirds of the browser market is shared by IE and safari
and where making governments to share public documents in a public
On 08/17/2010 03:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
Do you REALLY believe that in a world where 90% of the desktops are
Windows, where 2 thirds of the browser market is shared by IE and safari
Where did you got these statistics
On 08/17/2010 03:22 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
wo...@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
Do you REALLY believe that in a world where 90% of the desktops are
Windows, where 2 thirds of the browser market is shared by IE and safari
and where making
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 18:26 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But the end effect is, we're allowing a web browser to disable memory
protection, exposing all users to a severe security risk from merely
browsing web sites.
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:41 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 18:26 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But the end effect is, we're allowing a web browser to disable memory
protection, exposing all users to a
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:41 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 18:26 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But the end effect is, we're
drago01 wrote:
The times where javascript is only used for some fancy effects are
long over ... welcome to 2010 ;)
Some web sites are indeed abusing JavaScript. Why should we promote this
behavior? It is a vehicle for proprietary software, where people often
aren't even aware they're using
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Some web sites are indeed abusing JavaScript.
A web site is
not and should not be an application, an application is not and should not
be a web site.
Just because you said so? Web applications bring enormous practical
benefits to
Matt McCutchen wrote:
If you use a non-free web site, you have already lost the freedom to
read, distribute, and modify the code you are relying on
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html).
I fail to see how running the site's non-free JavaScript for the sole
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 16:44:29 -0700,
Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Some web sites are indeed abusing JavaScript.
A web site is
not and should not be an application, an application is not and should not
be a web
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 16:44:29 -0700,
Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Some web sites are indeed abusing JavaScript.
A web site is
not and should
50 matches
Mail list logo
