Please send the bugs you've encountered in LibreJS to bug-libr...@gnu.org!
I'd like to fix them.
gnash is a important project but
arent the majoraty of flash programs non-free?
dose libre-actionscript need to be made?
although if you have to use flash then its much better to use gnash than the
horrible adobe program
I don't think your proposal is wrong, I just think that it can't solve the
problem.
My proposal is a mixture of
1. your proposal (writing as many userscript replacements as possible)
2. stallman's proposal (trying to convince as many server owners to release
their code as free javascript; i
Sure, of course there is much more needed than just replacing Skype to
really free a computer but it would be a tremendous step forward. The problem
of convincing all your friends is a very common one. I had to deal with it
many times before because usually the majority of people goes with
If we're fighting for different goals, sooner or later this will cause
problems. For instance, server owners might agree to remove certain functions
and our fellows who are concerned about security will get soothed this way -
we don't.
That said, i'm not happy with your unix comparison.
Replicant for sure.
Thank you very much, andrew, for telling us about this blog post. I wasn't
aware of it before. Here is what I wrote to the HPP commitee:
In my opinion Gnash shouldn't be placed on that list so prominently
anymore because Flash is a dying technology and will (hopefully) soon be
a thing of the
That said, i'm not happy with your unix comparison.
for that rms writes a free replacement
At that time There were no Free Softwares
You can not use the computer freely
But the situation now is different
You can browse the Web without javascript
You can be avoided
I'm skeptical of just coreboot or Skype-replacement development
succeeding at freeing users' computers. You need nontrivial skills to
flash coreboot (unless it's on a sufficiently old system where someone
provides trustworthy binaries, like Lenovo does), and to use the
Skype-replacement you need
I think that Gnash should also be featured as important- there are people
that need Flash for work or school, and it may just save them from having to
use proprietary software.
Last year, I needed to use a website that required Flash for school.
Thankfully, Gnash worked with it. Gnash saved
What solution do you propose to this problem, exactly?
What we're doing right now is fumbling with trying to convince thousands of
people who completely disagree with us to start specially accommodating us.
I'm suggesting a slightly different approach: convince thousands of people to
do
For me, Libreboot and Replicant come to mind.
They are both so damn important and have severe problems (replicant doesn't
support a single device with working wifi, libreboot is limited to very few
mainboards).
Besides, I immediately think of reverse engineering of wireless card
firmware.
I have javascript always turned off but rarely I need it so I temporarely
enable it on a website when it is absolutely necessary. Tried using librejs
on several for a few days - it never worked. it is full of bugs and it makem
me wanna pull off my hair..
It would be very nice if it worked
I think this, too.
Also, I think there should be a variant of a Web browser that executes
JavaScript, but only (by default) loads stuff locally, off your own disk, not
from servers. This type of thing should be how we run HTML/JavaScript
applications (what people tend to call Web
I think that would be fine, but only if accepting a script caused it to be
stored permanently, like a user script, and with proper controls to determine
whether and from what source it should auto-update, again, like a user
script.
I have. He expressed disagreement:
That would be ideal from our point of view, but it would mean more
compromise or inconvenience for the service developers. (They want to
distribute JS code so that the service will work automatically for
ordinary users.)
In practice, some of them do
Honestly, if rms talks about *practicle* problems with your approach, it's
really time to give it some serious thoughts.
That said, I think you are exaggerating the problem. I can't think of
any situation that requires interactivity in a Web page, and many
websites do work just fine as
You say that he's exaggerating the problem but honestly
it's more that you're doing the opposite, probably because
you're too much focusing on your own browsing habits.
What situations are you thinking of that require interactivity in a Web page
beyond what the browser provides on its own?
Require in a technical sense like can't be done without javascript: none.
Require as in won't run today without javascript: an aweful lot.
I gave it some thought and agree with rms even more.
You're proposal is completely beyond any practicability.
Who is supposed to write all the replacements
I want to point something else out:
Freedom is our reason for wanting to do something about JavaScript, but there
are other reasons to reject JavaScript on the Web that other groups can get
behind: security, privacy, and simplicity. The EFF could be a massive ally
here, for example.
With
I'd say- Replicant drivers as well as support for newer devices (Most people
give you a crazy look when you suggest an S2) and Libreboot.
21 matches
Mail list logo
