Hacker News Reader

Comment by striking | Hacker News Reader

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript".

Offensive JS includes:

"It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)."

If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML frameworks do) and it doesn't have a free license statement, should people really complain about it?

Like, fine. Sure. You don't want to run non-free JS. Okay. But there's no reason to waste someone's time complaining about it, either.

How is anyone supposed to take this seriously?

View on HN

> That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding

You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the world. The organization makes issues over these kinds of details and then paints it into a "us vs. them" situation. It seems to have little interest with trying to work with people, and more insistent on making sure you follow it's dogma.

The other issue is that the organization presents its arguments like a sophomoric adolescent. "Windows 7 Sins"? Who's going to take that seriously?

The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding.

Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.

> The FSF has had a massive impact on the world.

It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting.

> maybe you just don't agree with them.

What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.

>What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.

They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?

As long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting.

I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing.

¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.

It's Linux, not GNU/Linux. The other problem is people don't consciously associate Emacs or GCC with GNU or the FSF, they're just tools on a machine.

It is GNU/Linux. Claiming that Linux is the most important part of the system is rewriting history (the GNU project started almost a decade before Linux was created).

GNU would have gone nowhere without Linux. Do you really think GNU/Hurd would have taken over?

Gnu over a BSD kernel could have. Linux was there at the right time.

Honesty, Linus has been more important than Linux. Linux was just a student's side project. Linus is a force.

But a force for what? The FSF is a force for freedom and good. Linus has questionable views on software freedom.

Linus is a force for marketing GNU tools

There are many other kernels. Hurd is one of them. There's also several free BSD kernels (which were liberated around the same time as Linux was being made). And universities make operating system kernels all the time. Making a kernel is not as big of a deal as creating a fully compatible Unix-like operating system -- which is what the GNU project did.

So I don't agree that "GNU would've gone nowhere". If GNU had a kernel before Linus made Linux, then Linux would've gone nowhere.

Do you call Android "just Linux" also?

There's a bit more to the OS than just the kernel.

I dunno, I think people tend to associate Emacs = GPL, Vim = BSD. Same with GCC vs Clang. Oh and Emacs says ‘GNU Emacs’ all over itself, same with the GNU Compiler Collection.

> It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact

The OSI and Linux Foundations are results of the FSF. The FSF changed the entire face of computing, and the daily lives of every programmer in the world.

> What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have.

They are an ethics organization. They are consistent and clear. They do not work with organizations or individuals who actively oppose the ethics they endorse. Exactly what goals are they trying to achieve that would benefit from that?

Their goals do not include getting the most users, making computers more convenient, or cheaper, producing the greatest software, or selling the most ads. They are clear about their purpose. When they attempt those things, it is solely to advance ethical goals. Specifically, who should they be working with, to what end?

> They are an ethics organization

That sounds weirdly like Scientology.

Riiiiiight, because the FSF conducts ritual hazing? Or do they pressure people into giving them money by harassing their whole family? Or because they have created the most successful pyramid scheme in the world? Since the FSF hasn't done any of those things, I'm surprised that someone would liken an organisation trying to give freedom to all users of software as being "oddly like Scientology".

The FSF compromises when it makes sense. In the past, rms has advocated for using non-copyleft licenses when it was a more programmatic solution. And they don't have enemies; for example, the FSF has congratulated Microsoft in the past when they released some software under a Free license.

Where they don't compromise is in situations where it would go against the very purpose of the organization, and why should they?

> Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.

I mostly agree with the FSF position and have defended Stallman on these pages many a time, donate a little bit to the Free Software Conservancy... but I have to agree with Delmania that the FSF does crap on in an adolescent manner at times. Like making pet nicknames and always using them (eg the 'Swindle'). The way the arguments are presented, it's like preaching to the choir - name-calling and in-jokes aren't exactly a dispassionate presentation of philosophy, and aren't going to win many friends who aren't already inclined that way to begin with.

Stallman argues that the name-calling is actually maturity-in-disguise, and that humour is needed in fighting oppression[1]. However, he's wrong about that, and even if he was right, it's shithouse, clumsy humour that is made for the choir, not for the wider audience.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.htm...

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical.

He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.

He usually says that we give up freedom in exchange of convenience. For example Facebook is convenient so, who cares about privacy ? I don't use LibreJS or plan to use it either, but I think his points are valid theoretically, implement them in our society is pretty hard but my point is, these libre tools being "impractical" doesn't invalidate the philosophical idea behind. I'd would call him idealist rather than a paranoid.

Let's not forget that he's the impractical idealist who created gcc, bison, emacs, make, the GPL. I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. Thousands of startups were probably made possible by access to tools – not just because they couldn't afford it otherwise, but also because a large part of cs education depends on a 12-year old's ability to clone stuff on github.

> I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack.

70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.

What are you thinking of? MIT/BSD/Apache/etc are all considered Free by rms and the FSF (even if they prefer copyleft licenses).

iOS, OS X, a heap of Sun/Oracle stuff, most Microsoft stuff.

I didn't say floss isn't prolific, I just think it's unlikely 70% of people here depend on it (almost) entirely

RMS is not paranoid, he is extremely consistent in applying his philosophy. He shows by example what it's like to use only free software.

For the rest of us, his ways are extremely impractical, so we compromise. We run a lot of proprietary software, and we don't really think about it.

But RMS thinks about it, and tells us in every single instance exactly what we are giving up as a compromise. And in that regard he, and the FSF, are very useful, and deserves respect.

The world would be a worse place without him, but we also only really need one of him.

One can be paranoid and maintain a consistent worldview.

RMS takes the polar opposite position to proprietary software. Is his viewpoint always practical; maybe, maybe not.

But by creating such polar opposite he gives space for a lot more "lessor" free, more practical solutions and options.

So he plays a very important guardian kind of role; which a lot of people will chalk up to paranoia.

It's still paranoia at the end of the day. Consistent paranoia, thoughtful paranoia, but still, ultimately, paranoia.

I think what bothers people about Stallman (or at least, what bothers me about him, and extrapolating) is that he takes a moralistic approach. Non free software isn't a non optimal thing to be fixed for well-thought-out reasons X, Y, and Z, it is an Evil, and you are Wrong for perpetuating it.

It's not paranoia if proprietary software companies do take advantage of you. And they do.

It's the taking advantage of that's evil, not the political status of the code.

The actual issue is that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of. Free software puts you in a position where that can't happen. Sure, you can have proprietary software that doesn't spy on you. But much of it does, and even though it doesn't spy on you today it could spy on you tomorrow.

So, if you consider "putting people in a situation where they have no control over their lives" as bad (I do), then the concept of proprietary software is wrong -- not just the ones that happen to misuse their power.

Free software puts you in a position where that can't happen.

Heartbleed disagrees. Less likely? Arguable. "Can't happen"? Unequivocally false.

And besides such security benefits are gained by having the source visible, not necessarily "free".

Did you read what I said? I never mentioned security. More secure software is not the goal of free software. The goal is for users to have freedom when using their computers. And it is a simple fact that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of by the software developer and free software doesn't (you can always pay a developer to fix the code without needing to ask the original developer -- this is unique to the free software world).

So, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned security, I'm talking about freedom.

>And it is a simple fact that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of by the software developer and free software doesn't

Two (non security, as you mentioned, even though it's brought up continually by apologists) examples off the top of my head:

* FileZilla, a GPLed FTP client, had malware added to its installer by Sourceforge at the request of its developers.

* Ubuntu, an operating system composed entirely of free software, started sending search data in its UI to third parties without prior notice.

If you think it's impossible for the developer to take advantage of you because their software is "free", you simply aren't being imaginative enough.

In both of those cases, people either created forks or otherwise fixed the software. I recall several scripts people wrote to undo the Ubuntu mishap -- and I'm fairly sure someone made a fork of Ubuntu just to make a point. The point is not that a developer can't do something bad, the developer can't put you in a position where you can't do anything about it. That's what I mean by "take advantage". It's not really taking advantage of a person if they can fix it at any point.

Aside: I don't think that security is a good argument for free software, because it's certainly possible to have secure proprietary software (in theory at least). But even if the software is secure, you can't prove that's the case or fix bugs by yourself or release the fixes to everyone.

What's wrong with having an ethical position?

Paranoia is a medical condition.

I think it means not what you think it means.

> Calling methods with the square bracket notation > If it includes something like the above [...] and it doesn't have a free license statement, should people really complain about it?

Why on earth would this project concern itself with the coding styles of the JS that the author prefers? Even if the site and/or JS is free software, why do things things matter?

I mean, I get linting your own code, but linting the code of sites you visit just seems pointless.

This, banning AJAX requests and with the arduous process of getting into the 'libre' whitelist, makes this project a complete joke.

Where do you guys see the prohibition?

I've opened https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#ind... and see that having functions, doing AJAX requests, square brackets and the other stuff is what they use to distinguish between trivial JS code and non-trivial one. And it exactly makes sense - no one wants to stick a license over every trivial JS one-liner that's could be less of a program and more of configuration statements block. But those who care about free software don't want to run non-free programs. So, the heuristics.

But I really can't find anything like a ban on use of functions or AJAX requests, or something similarly ridiculous, that some comments here seem to imply.

Seriously, WTF?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com