sent from a disposable whonix qube

  • OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honestly, it’s bonkers that the standard, default approach for all mainstream browsers is to let every random website in the world run any arbitrary code it wants on your computer.

    Yeah, they usually attempt to sandbox it, but still. Sometimes sandboxes can be escaped. And sometimes the code can do significant harm while still inside its sandbox.

    • Err(()).unwrap()@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Most websites would break, or not even display, without javascript. Sure, it’s bonkers for you, but an alternative browser that can’t immediately show a website that works perfectly well in Chrome wouldn’t get much of a user base.

        • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          There are protocols like gemini that only have text and files, no executing code. I wish there was more of the web moving towards that.

          *Edited for wrong language autocorrect.

          • libewa@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            There are valid use cases for JS and AJAX, but they are few. HTML/CSS is great, and has gotten many new features that can replace JavaScript in the long run: Popovers, commandfor etc. One thing I am missing is opening arbitrary popovers on a long hover. For that, you still need mousemove event listeners.

      • OwOarchist@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most websites would break, or not even display, without javascript.

        I use NoScript – I’m well aware.

        But a lot of those websites could function without javascript. A lot of websites use it unnecessarily, for reasons such as:

        • They want their ads and trackers and other malicious code (such as soft paywalls) to work as intended.

        • They want to add fancy cosmetic elements to the content and are too lazy to think about failing gracefully and still displaying the content if javascript isn’t working.

        • They built the website in a framework that depends on javascript, and are again too lazy to bother worrying about graceful failure if javascript isn’t working, even if their content could, in theory, be displayed just fine without it. (Or maybe the framework developers deserve a bit of the blame for that laziness, since they could have made graceful failure a feature of the framework, but chose not to.)

        In a hypothetical world where most browsers didn’t allow every website to run arbitrary code, then every website would be forced to take that into account and only depend on javascript when it’s absolutely necessary for the website’s core functions.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most websites from when I was a kid did not need JavaScript. Heck, they didn’t even have any JavaScript on many of them! No CSS either, just HTML and images (which were very slow to load on dialup).