Hacker News Reader

Comment by afuchs | Hacker News Reader

> [...] My point is that to execute randomly downloaded code is realistically impossible to secure, practically used to deliver malware and usually used against the interests of the user of the computer. [...]

This argument has been rehashed over and over again. Some of the mass appeal of the web, as a platform, is that random arbitrary code can be downloaded and run inside a sandbox. It appears that these web technologies will continue to be used regardless of any security implications.

If users demand something like JavaScript or WebAssembly, do you have an alternative proposal to satisfy them?

View on HN

Rehashing an argument does not make it wrong, and continuing doing so is still important if it's valid and not considered accordingly.

Users don't demand JavaScript nor WebAssembly, some developers do. Users want to easily discover new programs/games/whatever. If they were presented those equally easy and convenient in another form, they wouldn't even care.

Those developers that demand JavaScript and WebAssembly have mostly interests that go against the interests of the users. The developers might want to hide parts of their code or underlying data from the user, or force presentation in a certain form (ads), or avoid the orderly way of delivering software through proven ways like distributions, possibly to achieve the former two goals.

Now, where does Mozilla stand in this conflict? I realize they don't stand where I thought they would stand.

I want the web, but without random drive-by code execution. Code must be delivered by other, more accounted for ways.

Users don't demand JavaScript nor WebAssembly, some developers do.

Exactly. One of the biggest use-cases I see for JS/Wasm is in implementing DRM obfuscation and more insidious advertising/tracking code.

> Those developers that demand JavaScript and WebAssembly have mostly interests that go against the interests of the users.

This is stating the obvious, but...

For anything even mildly interactive, JavaScript is absolutely essential to creating a good (or even bearable) user experience. With purely static HTML, every interaction requires a page reload, which is painful. Users absolutely do want modern, low-latency UX.

Moreover, you literally cannot build things like Slack or Google Docs without JavaScript. Users want these products. HTML-only GMail is barely possible but it's really painful to use. Users want GMail with JavaScript.

Maybe you don't want these things. Maybe you are happy with pure-HTML interfaces, or doing anything interactive through dedicated native apps. But there are very few people who prefer it that way. Please don't presume to speak for all users, or accuse Mozilla of working against users, when it's your specific needs that are unusual.

HTML is capable of a dynamic interface, but it must be statically defined. With HTML5 we even have videos. The linked webpage including video work like a charm with JavaScript disabled. Furthermore I'd welcome a HTML6 as long as it stays non-programmable, and don't see why it shouldn't be able to be a low-latency interface. The interface of the linked video feels very snappy.

I agree that HTML-only GMail in the browser right now is a mess, but that's because a browser is not an e-mail client, and shouldn't be one.

People are trained for certain behaviours and often don't want to change from that. On the other hand they like new shiney software and things to try out. That explains in my eyes why for example Google Docs (seriously, office editing in the browser?!) is used. Also, Google has a good reputation for software.

I think most people are simply not aware of the dangers, downsides and alternatives of this approach. The behaviour was learned when people talking about a globally snooping NSA were called crackpots.

On top of that, Google has no business interest in offering a standalone office solution, so people either use Google Docs in their browser, or not at all. Supply creates its own demands.

How discoverability and ease of obtaining trusted code is solved, is a technical problem. I could imagine markup-only webpages which can call locally installed programs to appear in the tab, but the prorams are installed in trusted ways. That's just one spontaneous idea.

Mozilla is making it easier for people to use technical solutions that are suboptimal for them. This has a network effect and shapes the web to be a worse place. That is what I accuse Mozilla of, and I stand by it.

> HTML is capable of a dynamic interface

HTML is capable of very specific, fixed functions. Sure, video is one of them. But video is not very interactive. You press play, and then you watch. Interactivity in plain HTML is very difficult.

> People are trained for certain behaviours and often don't want to change from that. On the other hand they like new shiney software and things to try out.

No no. People don't use these products because they were "trained" for it. The world of installed native applications existed before the web. The web took off because it's actually way better for many people. Not having to manage installing apps is awesome. Being able to access your data from multiple devices trivially is awesome. Not having to worry about backups is awesome. Being able to collaborate in real time is awesome. People don't just like this stuff because it's "shiney", they like it because it's really, genuinely useful.

> I could imagine markup-only webpages which can call locally installed programs to appear in the tab, but the prorams are installed in trusted ways.

That would actually be way less secure, because those locally-installed programs are almost certainly not security reviewed to the extent that the JavaScript sandbox is. They are far more likely to have exploitable bugs than your JavaScript sandbox. It doesn't matter that you "trust" them.

In practice, the vast majority of programmers do not know how to write secure code. We can't realistically fix that. The answer is to give them programming environments where they can't get it wrong, or at least they can only hurt their own app. We accomplish that with sandboxing.

Starting and stopping a video is an interactive action. Even a drop down menu is interactive. Arbitrary interactivity may not be possible, but I think that is totally acceptable for what we are talking about: remotly delivered, unaccounted, unreviewed and directly and automatically executed code.

That the local and native programs are not as good as the browser-based abominations is no argument for that technology; there are reasons for the businesses to choose this way despite (or because) how bad it is for users.

Code that comes for example from a distribution is signed and maintained by someone I can easily identify. It is looked at by more than the author. I can track the path of the code backwards, if something nefarious happens. That justifies trust in that code.

The comparison of that code with the JavaScript sandbox is invalid, it's to be compared with the delivered JavaScript. There is no reason why even trustably delivered code shouldn't be sandboxed. The comparison of that sandbox with the JavaScript sandbox would be apt.

I agree that sandboxing is important, even for local programs.

OK, I'm glad we agree that native apps ought to be sandboxed too. Unfortunately no major desktop OS does a good job of this yet, which is why, realistically, today, choosing web apps over native apps actually makes your system more secure. Maybe that wouldn't be true in an ideal world where desktop apps were sandboxed as heavily as web apps.

But you're still in denial about the fact that web app delivery is hugely valuable to a lot of people (yes, to users). This isn't even remotely debatable. SaaS is now a $100B/yr industry and growing rapidly. People wouldn't be rapidly replacing locally-installed apps with SaaS if they didn't really want it.

You really can't just proclaim that everyone should give all that up based on your ideology about how software "should" be delivered.

I think we don't contradict each other necessarily. JavaScript applications not delivered by websites but through the package manager would be okay for me. We would have the sandbox on one side and the accounting and responsibility on the other side. After all, even the JavaScript sandbox (FireFox) itself is delivered how I think software should be delivered.

The size of the market is no argument. Supply drives demand.

I don't simply proclaim how things should be done. I point out problems, criticize the status quo based on sound facts, and point to better solutions. What else do you suggest?

> Supply drives demand.

There's no shortage of supply of desktop apps, yet web apps are gaining ground rapidly. This indicates that people prefer web apps for some reason.

> What else do you suggest?

Build it. If you truly have a solution that is better for users, then you can make a lot of money if you bring it to market. Then you not only prove you were right, but you make the world a better place and get rich in the process. :)

But somehow you're going to need to make desktop apps significantly better than they are today. You won't win by telling users that their preferences are wrong, you win by giving them something better.

With labels, hidden checkboxes/radio buttons, and some awkward CSS you can make no-javascript collapsible/expandable content, tabs, user-changable colour themes, and other horrible abuses of pure HTML+CSS. With :hover and transitions, you might even be able to make something turing-complete that runs automatically as long as the user's cursor is somewhere over the page! (last time I tried, a box that moved away from the mouse on hover, then automatically returned because it was no longer under it did not move endlessly unless there was an animation/transition on the movement. Could you have a clever way to send signals up the DOM heirarchy by altering the presence/absence of scrollbars or forcing a div to be wider, changing how elements layout with respect to cursor position?).

In those cases, it's certainly easier to use javascript, though.

Hat's off! I'm astonished that people like this still exist. I really have no idea under which rock and in which tinfoil hat they still survive. But we need more such people, so please keep your windmill-fighting.

In the meantime, before they deliver "non-programmable HTML6", they deliver HTML 5.2 (or was it .3?) with DRM inside. Mozilla? They produced buggy, resource-hungry browser for decade (was less resource-hungry than competition, now the same). What to expect from them? These Xmas time, when opening a new empty browser page, they show an ad phishing me for money. And that's exactly what everyone expects from them.

The stories about HTML with DRM and unsolicited adds from Mozilla were discussed here on HN. So again, no idea what tinfoil hat you wear, but godspeed with keeping it up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com