AJAX non-free software
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Oct 19, 2006 1:14 AM EDT |
This article is a prime example showing the disatvantages of non-free software. What does it mean if a website uses AJAX or a similiar technology? It means that their software gets run on your computer. While many of us are using Free Software on their computers for various reasons, only a few actually care about the fact that websites want to execute non-free software on our computers. Instead, technologies like AJAX get hyped in the media without end. That situation is a potential threat to the success of Free Software. Where's the point in using GNU/Linux if you have to execute non-free java, ecmascript or flash code in order to actually be able to utilise any given webpage? |
| 1c3d0g Oct 19, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
...which is why all that bullshit isn't supposed to be used in a good website anyway. XHTML + CSS = bliss. A few sprinkles of JavaScript might not hurt, but webpages should be accessible to all, without asinine requirements like bloated Flash menus etc. |
| wind0wsr3fund Oct 20, 2006 12:46 PM EDT |
I am very interested in this thread and just wanted to give it a bump. I'd like to develop a better understanding on exactly why AJAX might not be compatible with Free Software. From what I know, Kaffee is a free-as-in-speech JVM. Does this solve the problem or are there more issues I'm not seeing? Of course, Flash is !@$!@#$!@ due to the fact that no capable free solutions exist that can render. However, I though flash had nothing to do with AJAX and in fact, I thought AJAX was a counter techology to flash in the first place? |
| jimf Oct 20, 2006 2:22 PM EDT |
> Does this solve the problem Humm... Flash is !@$!@#$!@ due to the fact that it's just plain unreliable even in windows and even with the latest Adobe plugins. It's also bandwidth intensive. I don't even think it's necessary to get into the open source aspect of it. So far, what I've seen of AJAX dosen't impress me much either. > XHTML + CSS = bliss. A few sprinkles of JavaScript might not hurt I'd tend to agree with that. The rest of it should all go away. Flash(tm) for the sake of flash just sucks. |
| wind0wsr3fund Oct 20, 2006 4:52 PM EDT |
" I don't even think it's necessary to get into the open source aspect of it. " I agree. It is far more important to first consider whether the software in question qualifies as Free Software. |
| jimf Oct 20, 2006 5:15 PM EDT |
Missed it again wind0wsr3fund. If software sucks, it doesn't much matter if it's free or proprietary. the point is moot. |
| incinerator Oct 21, 2006 7:50 AM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund: my point is that technologies like flash and ajax are used by webpage designers in order to run software on your computer. with flash and ajax, it's not the webserver that does all the gruntwork of numbercrunching and other things needed to make "their" webpage look shiny on "your" computer. No, it is your computer that does all the work by running some piece of software provided by a third party. Now the problem is, there's software running on your computer, and you don't have the source code for it. That means, you're running non-free software on your computer, with all the implications like trust, security, software freedoms and so on. Flash is even worse, because you're not only running non-free software, but the runtime is non-free, as well. With ecmascript, I can at least resort to using a free implementation of an ecmascript interpreter, they are included in firefox, konqueror etc. That doesn't really help though because the source code of the application itself is still non-free. |
| tuxtom Oct 21, 2006 11:39 PM EDT |
incinerator: "Any given webpage" is not your property to do with as you please. You are bound by the terms and conditions of "any given webpage" in order to view it or use the services it provides, free or not. Your freedoms are not being imposed upon. You are free NOT to run the software from "any given webpage" by voting with your mouse. Should a webpage be accessible to all? Should your wife, house, car, bank account, etc. be accessible to all? |
| incinerator Oct 22, 2006 12:01 PM EDT |
tuxtom: Of course I could always vote with my mouse, but your examples have nothing to with the discussion here and are missing the point completely. Services like Ebay actively rely on customer visits. If people would stop using ebay they'd be bust in no time. I think that, as a potential Ebay customer, this puts me into a pretty strong position for making demands. Secondly, if some website wants to execute some arbitrary code on MY computer, I think my demand for that code being free software is rightful, just like with operating system and application software that are installed on my computer already. If the software is not free and no source code is available, I'll just run into the same issues as with "normal" software: I get locked in by a vendor who's denying me the four software freedoms. It is widely known that things like javascript are tricky to deal with from the computer security point of view, exploits to security wholes in webbrowser software become publicly known every other day. And it's been known that malicious internet users, phishers and pharmers are a prime example, try to use these exploits to gain an advantage by gaining access to your personal data. But that's just one of the negative aspects you get hit by using non-free software. How would you like it if Ebay would, by running some AJAX code in your webbrowser, engage in spying onto you? They might not be doing that, but I won't be able to verify that unless the source code is available. |
| jezuch Oct 22, 2006 2:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:Should a webpage be accessible to all? Should your wife, house, car, bank account, etc. be accessible to all? The differece is, my [hypothetical] wife is not a public service [ahem]. |
| dinotrac Oct 22, 2006 2:52 PM EDT |
Jezuch - >The differece is, my [hypothetical] wife is not a public service [ahem]. Having worked on some divorce cases during my brief stint as a lawyer, I can honestly say that depends on the wife. |
| dcparris Oct 22, 2006 5:12 PM EDT |
Just having been witness to the marriages of some of my friends in the Marines, I would say you're a keen observer, dino. Of course, there's nothing like telling your best friend that his wife needs a "short leash" (the actual phrase I used at the time), only to discover later that he, too, could use a leash of his own. Oh well! Back to the subject at hand, though, I expect the code I run on my systems to be libre software. Otherwise, I'm not likely to be a customer. What you run on your website is definitely your business, but what you make available for me to run on my box is my business. If you can live without my business, all the power to you. |
| jimf Oct 22, 2006 5:27 PM EDT |
> could use a leash If people aren't holding their own leash, then, the Marrage is dead in the water anyways. > If you can live without my business, all the power to you. I can only hope that enough of us withholding our business will be enough to sway the situation. |
| dcparris Oct 22, 2006 7:43 PM EDT |
> If people aren't holding their own leash, then, the Marrage is dead in the water anyways. True. > I can only hope that enough of us withholding our business will be enough to sway the situation. Which is why I encourage everyone to support libre drivers (whether or not that's your individual choice)! |
| jimf Oct 23, 2006 12:22 AM EDT |
> Which is why I encourage everyone to support libre drivers (whether or not that's your individual choice)! Which is one thing I do Don :) However, that's partly because I can never get the darned ATI drivers to compile properly for this card, and partially because I really only need good 2D performance which my particular card supplies. CAD, and graphics are the main reason I use a computer and honestly, I'd do whatever was necessary to get what I need to do them. In the end, I'm not sure I'd be adverse to using 'whatever' driver to get the performance I need. So, I find it really hard to criticize others who use the OEM drivers when that's been the only way to get any performance out of the hardware. My point is really that, In this case, there must be a viable, and ethical option before we ask the user to start making ethical choices on this one. Otherwise you're asking many of us to just give up computers. Now that Intel is going to put out boards with open source drivers, we will have a viable option so, I expect that the situation will change, but, this is only a first step. Although it looks like the OEM's may themselves release open source drivers, giving users the 'imperative' of making an ethical choice right now is sure to loose. Have patience. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!