Epiphany 3.7 removes option to disable JS
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Sources:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685393
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/core/3.7/3.7.1/NEWS
Epiphany 3.7 will be removing the option to disable JavaScript. Only users in the know-how will be able to disable it, via GSettings.
The continuing trend that I've noticed is that more websites are relying on JavaScript, and some not providing non-JS equivalents.
My opinion is that web browsers should do the reverse: make JS disabled by default. Sadly, I don't see any influential browser creators like Mozilla doing this any time soon, so the JavaScript trap continues.
There's also question that I've been looking for an answer to for a while: is GNOME still a part of the GNU project, and what's the relationship between them?
> Sources:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685393
> http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/core/3.7/3.7.1/NEWS
Browsers enable JS by default -> sites require it -> browser developers
think disabling JS will confuse users; I don't understand the last step,
not knowing people breaking their browsers by changing settings (more
often they don't change settings with bad defaults).
(Having two configuration interfaces with different options somehow
isn't considered bad for usability.)
> My opinion is that web browsers should do the reverse: make JS
> disabled by default. Sadly, I don't see any influential browser
> creators like Mozilla doing this any time soon, so the JavaScript trap
> continues.
I agree, although there might be other incompatible solutions that would
solve more privacy or security problems.
> There's also question that I've been looking for an answer to for a
> while: is GNOME still a part of the GNU project, and what's the
> relationship between them?
It is and this is the relationship between them. I don't see any
relation between GNOME and freedom or extensibility policies of projects
like GNU Emacs (which makes nearly all options browsable; the
development list has many cases completely opposite to GNOME Shell's
OpenGL dependency: old systems are supported so users won't upgrade to
newer nonfree ones, multithreading isn't used so it works well on single
core systems with no nonfree software (although this has many other
reasons)) or GCC (which doesn't hide dangerous options).
Thanks for your reply, that's interesting information.
Just to clarify my original post (for anyone reading), I don't hate GNOME or anything and I don't mind their software (which comes with freedom), but I don't support removing this option in Epiphany. I don't use Epiphany but a lot of distros include it by default (including Trisquel).
Anyway, I'll stop rambling... :)
I am a translator!
Epiphany is now called "Web" for some reason. I'm guessing the developers don't want to confuse new users with lots of different settings, so any "advanced" setting in their view (including changing the user agent which is essential since Web isn't a popular browser and thus some websites are not accessible) requires using dconf-editor or an external application such as a file browser (e.g. there is no way to remove greasemonkey extensions via the browser). If you need a WebKitGTK+ based browser that can be customized more easily then Midori (which has become quite stable) is probably better suited.
>My opinion is that web browsers should do the reverse: make JS disabled by default.
Now this would be wonderful! So many pages misuse JS.
Doesn't matter as Abrowser (Firefox), Chromium, and Midori are better browsers with the option to disable JavaScript there. Plus there are the extensions for the Firefox and Chromium based browsers that let you do what you want with them.
Epiphany is a wannabe browser.
Even if in your eyes these browsers are better, there are still people out there that might want to use Epiphany.
At one point Epiphany was the only sane light browser option.
Replacing it might not be an option for every user for various reasons.
Epiphany is better with HTML5 than Firefox (Abrowser) because of the WebKit. Just open a youtube video (or an HTML5 Canvas Benchmark) and look at the differences (visually and also performance) between the two.
But yes it is the only thing where Epiphany is better. Epiphany was made by the Gnome team for the Gnome Desktop, and since Gnome Shell 3.6 it starts at full screen (and the only way to get it into normal window is by pressing the ALT and then click with the mouse and moving the window) because it is now more adapted to Tablets and TouchScreens (yes Gnome-Shell is becoming Windows 8... but at least it is Free, more personalized and with a better GUI. and this even if I had the notification bar of GNome-Shell 3.6... it is just like Mac OsX Widgets Bar... fat and ugly)
This introduced "bug"/"feature" in Epiphany migh be the motivation I need to finally finish the improvements in my Epiphany extension and revive it. It disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the internal option. [1]
The publicly released version more than a year ago does not support 3.x versions. Mainly because of the lack of statusbar in 3x. The changes in my local repository support 3x and bring improvements.
Ping me in a month or two, if I haven't released the new code.
(Yes, yes the website and the bug tracker as well need fixes, I know. ;) Lack of time.)
> This introduced "bug"/"feature" in Epiphany migh be the motivation I need to finally finish the improvements in my Epiphany extension and revive it. It disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the internal option. [1]
That's excellent - if I decide to use Epiphany/Web at a later date I will definitely use your extension, and recommend it to others!
name at domain writes:
> It disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the
> internal option. [1]
>
> (Yes, yes the website and the bug tracker as well need fixes, I
> know. ;) Lack of time.)
>
> http://e-valkov.org/epiphany-extensions/js-switch-off/
The website is fixed for all resolutions and the issue tracker is up and
running again. Fey issues were submitted by me, that should be fixed
before 0.3 is released. Yet no code available from my working copy. Might
happen this week.
Epiphany developers are planning extensions (& extension core) changes
for 3.8. This might break at all JavaScript switch off at all. [1]
[1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2012-October/msg00006.html
Ivaylo Valkov <name at domain> writes:
> name at domain writes:
>> (Yes, yes the website and the bug tracker as well need fixes, I
>> know. ;) Lack of time.)
> Fey issues were submitted by me, that should be fixed before 0.3 is
> released.
Funny, the typo means completely different thing. Read as "fe*w*". ;)
Luckily Ubuntu won't be using GNOME 3.8 for a while (Ubuntu 13.04 will apparently use 3.6 - which will probably be the base of Trisquel 7.0).
Good news about your extension. I look forward to using it. :)
Ivaylo Valkov <name at domain> writes:
> name at domain writes:
>
>> It disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the
>> internal option.
>
> Yet no code available from my working copy. Might happen this week.
There are two Git repository [1] at Gitorious that hold the latest sources
and the website. I hope I will be able to modify and improve the code
soon.
Honestly, I used to like Chrome/Chromium but I don't see any particular reason to use it. I have been using Midori and it works just as well. It'd be cool if Trisquel developed their own browser.
Abrowser is a Firefox-based browser create by the Trisquel team xD Creating one from scratch would mean a lot of work not available right now.
I still don't see the point in disabling JavaScript as it would break most sites. JavaScript is a universal language supported in all browsers and even the archaic IE6 can play nice with JS frameworks like jQuery.
The hardcore free software guys will do what they want anyways through extensions or modified browsers, but JavaScript should be left alone for everyone else.
It is a shame that most JS doesn't have a license linked to it or plays along with the RMS JavaScript trap article. Until then, extensions like LibreJS need to be better for the ideology to succeed.
В 05:02 +0100 на 31.10.2012 (ср), name at domain написа:
> I still don't see the point in disabling JavaScript as it would break most
> sites.
Because it gives control to the user to browse however he/she wants. One
of the best practises in making websites is to make it so that it could
be read in a text only browser and then style it with CSS and add all
*additional* cool stuff via JavaScript. Stopping JavaScript could stop
some annoying behaviour in a website that the programmers, the designers
and the company which developed the website didn't realized. It greatly
depends on the website and what it provides, but my observation is that
on most websites people actually go to *read*.
> JavaScript is a universal language supported in all browsers and even
Read The JavaScript Trap, if you haven't already. If you did, read it
again. Exactly because it is a programming language and it is used for
large web based programs lately is an issue from free software point of
view. The other reasons are annoyance and inconvenience in websites
delivered as they are.
> the archaic IE6 can play nice with JS frameworks like jQuery.
That is proprietary software, no matter it was popular in its time. I
don't know why you bring it up and why should we care about it.
Microsoft themselves renounced from it and made a campaign to bring
awareness and render it obsolete.
>
> The hardcore free software guys will do what they want anyways through
> extensions or modified browsers, but JavaScript should be left alone for
> everyone else.
Stopping JavaScript from the core or with an extension achieves the same
goal. Why not stop it from the core then? If there is an option to stop
it, it is good for all. Who wants it will keep it, who doesn't will stop
it. What should be the default is a topic for a long discussion.
>
> It is a shame that most JS doesn't have a license linked to it
That is because by definition (copyrights law) most are proprietary
software. It does not matter that the source might be provided (if not
obfuscated) as a side effect of the JavaScript language. I'm excluding
free software JavaScript libraries.
The Epiphany extension I've mentioned for example came to life when I
was still using Google search and they've introduced the annoying auto
complete while you type. With that they made all links in the results
wrapped inside a JavaScript function which broke the
open-in-new-tab-on-middle-or-wheel-click functionality. I've wrote the
extension merely because I needed a faster way to enable/disable the
JavaScript engine on demand. There is always a reason to stop
JavaScript.
Sometimes the demand for such "crazy" features could come out of
practical reasons only.
Spare the lecture.
All I was saying is that a benefit of JavaScript is the universal support of it. Much like when you go to a web site and every browser supports JPEG, PNG, and CSS. While it is true that people can abuse JavaScript and it is even worse to check the code when it is minified, what is the REAL issue at hand?
I say this becuase if you use the jQuery framework to code JavaScript, and stick to using the built in features (like .addClass for example), there is nothing stopping you from looking at the source code at http://code.jquery.com/jquery.js and finding out what addClass actually does. It actually benefits the tin foil hat crowd if sites use a JS framework due to the functions having documentation.
Turning off JavaScript entirely? I remember how websites were in 1996/1997 and I really don't want to return to those archaic dark ages. If you are a web developer and getting paid to create a uniform experience for a client, you want to support features that are on the most used browsers. Of course this thread is turning into another one of those user vs developer discussions that is blown out of proportion.
Try reading the code of Google Doc!
As for the universal support, you mean like Flash... Yes, it is irony. And it actually works with any successful proprietary format ("almost everybody uses MS Office, so sending docx files is OK").
You may not listen to lectures but, in this way, you spare occasions to think...
> Turning off JavaScript entirely? I remember how websites were in 1996/1997 and I really don't want to return to those archaic dark ages.
This website works fine without JS, and it doesn't look like it comes from 1996/1997. In terms of style, CSS has modernised the web.
В 16:23 +0100 на 31.10.2012 (ср), name at domain написа:
> Spare the lecture.
I wasn't really lecturing. You asked some questions I've answered them
from my perspective.
> what is the REAL issue at hand?
Increasingly large programs written in JavaScript. In addition:
* those JavaScript programs are proprietary software 95-99% of the time
* those JavaScript programs are bloating the browser or inconvenient for
some users
* those JavaScript programs are badly written. Because of the easy
access everyone can be a "programmer" now. The problem is the quality,
not the access to everyone. See previous.
* a user is free to browse however he/she wants no matter who and why
paid for "experience" in a website or developed it. If a user wants
he/she will turn off this "experience" and I don't see what is the
problem with that and why the website developer or investor or whomever
should care. They can't force users to read a website the way they want
it, if it inconvenient.
* having the code of a JavaScript program does not mean you can legally
use it. By definition (copyrights law) if this code does not have
copyright or license notices its authors have full copyright, so it is
proprietary software. What a neat "open source" feature ;)
* reporting a bug/feature request/disable a feature request is not a
sane option for websites in my opinion. I doubt anybody will answer to
such requests. Users are on the mercy of the website developer or owner.
This is a feature of proprietary software.
Are those enough?
> I say this becuase if you use the jQuery framework to code JavaScript, and
> stick to using the built in features (like .addClass for example), there is
> nothing stopping you from looking at the source code at
> http://code.jquery.com/jquery.js and finding out what addClass actually does.
I've said I am excluding free software JavaScript libraries. They are
free. There is no issue with them from free software point of view. They
can still be badly written and bloat the browser, though.
> It actually benefits the tin foil hat crowd if sites use a JS framework due
> to the functions having documentation.
As a person having experience in website development I would say that
someone who avoids JavaScript frameworks is insane to try to match all
browser differences by hand. This is not the issue.
> Turning off JavaScript entirely? I remember how websites were in 1996/1997
> and I really don't want to return to those archaic dark ages.
Nobody forces you to stop your JavaScript engine. It is your choice as a
user to browse how you find it useful. I don't get it why do you have an
issue with the option for everyone else to stop JavaScript in their
browsers and their computers. The default for that option should be what
the majority (of the users of a browser) demands. If the trend turns in
the other direction and the option is off by default, you will have to
live with it.
If a website is well styled with CSS I don't see how turning off
JavaScript will affect you.
> Of course this thread is turning into another one of those user vs developer
This would always be one of the issues, if not the main one, when it
comes to free software.
It is true that a lot of JavaScript code is proprietary to the parent site, don't lump jQuery into the same category. While it does have copyright tied to a non profit foundation (like the FSF), the permissive MIT license it has will let you do what you want. The source is fully open and free via their GitHub repos and source code of un-minified release code.
В 21:15 +0100 на 01.11.2012 (чт), name at domain написа:
> It is true that a lot of JavaScript code is proprietary to the parent site,
> don't lump jQuery into the same category.
Where did you read that or how did you imagined it? I've said twice I am
excluding free software JavaScript libraries.
I haven't even implied that jQuery bloats the browser or brings
inconvenient features, which I am not claiming, because I haven't made
observations and conclusions.
For the rest, I am perfectly aware, but I prefer MooTools.
A benefit of jQuery is due to its popularity on CDNs and their caching, more often than not, you will be loading a cached version instead of pulling from their servers every time. I know that the googleapis CDN can cache a jQuery script for a year if a specific version is given. The initial download is also minified and gzipped which means it is a 32 kb download instead of 90 or 150 kb.
> extensions like LibreJS need to be better for the ideology to succeed.
Perhaps it is. :-) I haven't tried tried LibreJS because I'm used to having JS enabled entirely (and I have for the past year).
To elaborate on why I dislike JavaScript a little more though:
As a perfect example, Facebook misuses JavaScript in a way that's rather sneaky. All external links from Facebook have /onmouseover/ events which change the external link to it's actual destination (eg. http://example.com/) but an /onclick/ event changes it to a tracking link (https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com). Currently it is easy disable this using a small JavaScript, but if people did this Facebook could (further) obfuscate their scripts and make it more difficult.
Other example would be Facebook "hovercards" (when a user hovers over someone's name) an AJAX request informs Facebook of that event.
> JavaScript should be left alone for everyone else.
But I still think an option should be available to disable it.
I am a member!
There is a really easy solution to facebook and it is to not use it. If someone sends you a link you tell them why you don't use it.
Of course - I don't use Facebook and I encourage others to give it up as well.
But with JavaScript it's quite easy for any website to misuse JS. For any website which people reveal themselves on, that's potentially problematic.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios