What good is an ad blocker when your child is tied to their ecosystem? They are logged in using a Google account at all time, send and receive emails at Gmail, read and save documents on Google docs, and browse the web using chrome. Google will have a pretty detailed profile on your child, including academic records.
You sing praise of Chromebook as if Google is a saint. Just because something has a Linux kernel doesn't mean it deserves to be celebrated. What good is that kernel if it is hidden under layers of nonstandard UI, or tied to cloud services designed to spy on you and monetize your personal data? It's not like the end user of a Chromebook is any better off than on Windows, just more gimped, while giving more of their data to one company.
People like you don't even know what they are championing. I mean what is the point you are trying to make? You hate Windows because it isn't open source and free, or you believe it spies on you, but you celebrate ChromeOS which is made by Google who has a worse reputation for spying than Microsoft? Who cares if the kernel is Linux if the rest of the OS is built to spy on you? And furthermore, the ChromeOS experience is nothing like the Linux desktop experience. Aside from running on the Linux kernel, the end user has zero exposure to what makes Linux, Linux!
Also why do people like you care what percent of people run Windows or Linux? It's not like more devices running the Linux kernel somehow translate to better support for the Linux desktop! I mean there are now more Android devices out there then Windows, but this has done absolutely nothing for the Linux desktop!
I could understand this "fight" for FOSS and Linux, 20 maybe even 10 years ago because the world needed more than one major OS, but times have changed, Linux isn't going anywhere and neither is Windows!
What specifically do you get in return for a critical dependency only being supported for 2 or 3 years? Are there new conceptual advances in UI design requiring cutting edge support libraries to implement?
The reason why these frameworks are constantly changing or being replaced is because the browsers and web standards are constantly evolving. Right now there is a major push from big players such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft to move things towards the cloud, and as a result they are introducing more and more features to the browser. As a result of this push, a framework that was written 3 years ago with a different set of capabilities in mind, no longer makes sense.
And like I said, if for your product it doesn't make sense to adopt a new technology, you are welcome to stick with an older framework, that is why they are open source! If you need official support, then you are welcome to use one of the many commercially available frameworks from Sencha or Telerik.
You can laugh all you want, but it doesn't make my point invalid. People like you act like this is a holy war, and only you are capable of seeing the truth. Well NEWS FLASH! Web developers are not STUPID, most of us realize that on the web client development side things move fast, however, that is the nature of the business! Right now there is a lot of innovation going on in this space from lots of big players including Google, Facebook and Microsoft are pushing things towards the cloud. As a result of this push, browsers are evolving fast and a framework that was written 3 years ago with a different web standards in mind no longer make sense.
The reason why Google replaced Angular 1 with Angular 2 (which is not backward compatible) is because back when the wrote Angular 1, there was still a lot of inconsistency between the browsers and features and there was still a lot of reliance on jQuery. With browsers now incorporating a lot of what jQuery offered natively, it made sense to rewrite the framework with modern browser capabilities in mind. And this is still going on as browsers and standards are becoming more mature and browsers are adding more and more capabilities. You might want to argue that the browser is not the right platform for this, but your opinion doesn't matter, because it is the Googles of the world that decide what makes sense. Fact is development is hard, and as a developer you are constantly required to keep up to date and be open to new technologies. If you can't handle it, then maybe it is not the right profession for you.
No one is forcing you to rewrite your application using the latest fad framework! If you wrote your app in say Angular 1 and you are happy with it, then don't rewrite it! You have access to the source after official support ends and can continue to modify it and use it for development it as long as your heart desires! That is one of the many benefits of open source isn't it? But if you want the latest, most cutting edge features, then you might want to rewrite your presentation layer using a newer framework. And like I said, there are commercials frameworks out there with extended support so you don't have to rewrite every 2 to 3 years...
At the end of the day it all comes down to trust. The question is do you trust that your browser vendor's product is reasonably secure? If you are not convinced, then like I said there are other options such as running the browser in a VM or selectively enabling Javascript in sites that you trust.
Again you are just complaining why sites don't make their content available when JS is disabled. Fact is there are no laws or standards to require the content to be accessible without JS and since people who favor browsing the web with JS disabled are in the minority, frankly most companies don't give a shit. Like I said, the only reason to complain about JS is if you are paranoid about security, at which point either trust the browser, or run it in a VM.
If you are using web standards, chances are your app will work across all modern browsers. I haven't had to do any browser specific hacks in a long time! Also with the browser, you can target any platform that supports a modern browser, no need to compile your app for multiple platforms, provide installation instructions for each platform, have to deal with platform specific differences on each OS. And no native is does not have superior tooling, with native you have to either wrap all platform specific calls in a function, or use some 3rd party solution like QT (which has it's own problems). Then you have capability differences between each platform to worry about. Let's face it, not everything needs to move to the browser; leave CAD, Photoshop, 3D Max, etc where they are. But for certain applications where there is a server side component to it, the browser makes more sense!
If you application is well written and there is a good separation of business logic from the UI, then 2 to 3 year lifespan for a framework is pretty good. There are also commercial solutions out there that provide frameworks with greater support, for example Ext JS. It all depends what you are doing, but chances are that as a business your product is constantly evolving, and you also want your product to evolve with the technology, otherwise, your product will feel outdated and stale. Also, I don't know why you are having such a difficult time with NPM, I use many packages on daily bases and have had very little problems.
Try making a compelling reason to the management that they need to hire a team of say 2 developers, a project manager, and a QA just to build and maintain an in house JS framework, when there is a plethora of frameworks out there! Large corporations like to focus on areas that is relevant to their business, and for most building an in house JS framework is not relevant. Facebook and Google do it because they are sufficiently large, and they are in the business of platform as a service, so they provide tools and frameworks to attract developers to their platforms. They are also on top of the food chain so they are big enough that they need to invent solutions to their unique problems, because they are constantly trying to push technology forward.
Believe it or not, there are companies out there that build enterprise apps, and yet they are NOT large enough (or don't see a value) to have internal teams devoted to an in house JS framework. For example, I work for a Telecom and although we have large development teams for building various applications for our customers, our focus isn't building and maintaining frameworks.
Every time there is an article about Javascript, there is an individual like you complaining about why Javascript is needed. I'm sorry that all you want to use your browser is to read news on NY Times, but the truth is that there are a lot of people out there who want to do more than just browse static pages. The browser is the most efficient app delivery system today. You no longer have to worry about whether the end user has the latest update of your app, and which OS or version they are running, your app will just work! If you are paranoid and don't trust the browser sandboxing, then maybe you should run Qubes OS or browser in a VM, otherwise, perhaps it is best to stick to printed news.
Yea, try building and maintaining a large scale application using nothing more than vanilla JS. The reason JS frameworks are popular is because they do a whole lot of stuff behind the scenes like variable binding, efficient rendering of the DOM (for example virtual DOM), implementation of patterns such as MVVM, state management, routing, and a whole lot more. There is no way you could build an application such as Youtube or Facebook without some sort of a framework; best case scenario you will end up rolling your own, at which point why not just use one of the many existing ones with a community support and a full time team that is focused solely on the framework development. Unless you are a very large corporation with lots of resources such as Google or Facebook where you can devote resources to building and maintaining your own framework, it doesn't make sense to roll your own. You will make something that works, but works badly and perhaps with lots of security vulnerabilities compared to one of the major frameworks.
They'll allow you to connect to VPNs, but they'll just block all popular VPN providers, then good luck circumventing anything. This whole NN business will kill the internet as we know it.
I think what you fail to understand with the OP's analogy is thinking that this will only impact the consumer, however, this will also have a huge impact on small business. Say a startup decides to competes with Netflix who has very deep pockets, all Netflix has to do is to pay the ISPs more so their service is delivered faster than the startup, effectively killing the competition. This essentially will stifle innovation and consolidate the web down to a few big players (even more than today). Either way, killing NN laws benefits no one, but the few rich corporations.
Personally, I think people are making a mountain of a molehill and thinking there is some nefarious reason behind this. The company I work for uses a product from IBM called Tealeaf which does exactly this, it records user sessions which can then be played back. The reason why we introduced this to our product was to understand our customer better to help us improve our product. For example marketing wanted to know what caused a customer to start a purchase and then stop halfway. They wanted to understand for instance if it was due to a UI error or if the customer found the options confusing? We also used this product in several occasions to identify hard to reproduce bugs. Using this product we were able to watch the recorded user session who experienced the bug and understand exactly what steps he/she took before encountering it.
I think for most companies, these kind of products are just there to help marketing or the dev departments improve their products, rather than harvest users behaviors and sell it (I'm sure some do), because I doubt there is much value to some individual's random mouse movements.
I'm not debating whether or not other countries besides the US interfered in other countries' affairs. All I'm pointing out is that considering the track record of US, it's best to be cautious in regards to accusations by US government, especially when very little evidence has been presented.
The OP said "interfered" not just "overthrow". The United States in its 240 years of history, in one way or another has interfered in the politics of nearly every country in the world. El-Salvador is just one country in that long list.
Slashdot Mirror
What good is an ad blocker when your child is tied to their ecosystem? They are logged in using a Google account at all time, send and receive emails at Gmail, read and save documents on Google docs, and browse the web using chrome. Google will have a pretty detailed profile on your child, including academic records.
Google tracks you across the web regardless...
Yeah, Google can now harvest people's data and build a profile on them at an earlier age!
You sing praise of Chromebook as if Google is a saint. Just because something has a Linux kernel doesn't mean it deserves to be celebrated. What good is that kernel if it is hidden under layers of nonstandard UI, or tied to cloud services designed to spy on you and monetize your personal data? It's not like the end user of a Chromebook is any better off than on Windows, just more gimped, while giving more of their data to one company.
People like you don't even know what they are championing. I mean what is the point you are trying to make? You hate Windows because it isn't open source and free, or you believe it spies on you, but you celebrate ChromeOS which is made by Google who has a worse reputation for spying than Microsoft? Who cares if the kernel is Linux if the rest of the OS is built to spy on you? And furthermore, the ChromeOS experience is nothing like the Linux desktop experience. Aside from running on the Linux kernel, the end user has zero exposure to what makes Linux, Linux!
Also why do people like you care what percent of people run Windows or Linux? It's not like more devices running the Linux kernel somehow translate to better support for the Linux desktop! I mean there are now more Android devices out there then Windows, but this has done absolutely nothing for the Linux desktop!
I could understand this "fight" for FOSS and Linux, 20 maybe even 10 years ago because the world needed more than one major OS, but times have changed, Linux isn't going anywhere and neither is Windows!
What specifically do you get in return for a critical dependency only being supported for 2 or 3 years? Are there new conceptual advances in UI design requiring cutting edge support libraries to implement?
The reason why these frameworks are constantly changing or being replaced is because the browsers and web standards are constantly evolving. Right now there is a major push from big players such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft to move things towards the cloud, and as a result they are introducing more and more features to the browser. As a result of this push, a framework that was written 3 years ago with a different set of capabilities in mind, no longer makes sense.
And like I said, if for your product it doesn't make sense to adopt a new technology, you are welcome to stick with an older framework, that is why they are open source! If you need official support, then you are welcome to use one of the many commercially available frameworks from Sencha or Telerik.
You can laugh all you want, but it doesn't make my point invalid. People like you act like this is a holy war, and only you are capable of seeing the truth. Well NEWS FLASH! Web developers are not STUPID, most of us realize that on the web client development side things move fast, however, that is the nature of the business! Right now there is a lot of innovation going on in this space from lots of big players including Google, Facebook and Microsoft are pushing things towards the cloud. As a result of this push, browsers are evolving fast and a framework that was written 3 years ago with a different web standards in mind no longer make sense.
The reason why Google replaced Angular 1 with Angular 2 (which is not backward compatible) is because back when the wrote Angular 1, there was still a lot of inconsistency between the browsers and features and there was still a lot of reliance on jQuery. With browsers now incorporating a lot of what jQuery offered natively, it made sense to rewrite the framework with modern browser capabilities in mind. And this is still going on as browsers and standards are becoming more mature and browsers are adding more and more capabilities. You might want to argue that the browser is not the right platform for this, but your opinion doesn't matter, because it is the Googles of the world that decide what makes sense. Fact is development is hard, and as a developer you are constantly required to keep up to date and be open to new technologies. If you can't handle it, then maybe it is not the right profession for you.
The browser is and has always been a document viewer.
Well Google, along with Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and millions of other web developers much smarter than you and I disagree with that view...
Polyfills are not hacks...
No one is forcing you to rewrite your application using the latest fad framework! If you wrote your app in say Angular 1 and you are happy with it, then don't rewrite it! You have access to the source after official support ends and can continue to modify it and use it for development it as long as your heart desires! That is one of the many benefits of open source isn't it? But if you want the latest, most cutting edge features, then you might want to rewrite your presentation layer using a newer framework. And like I said, there are commercials frameworks out there with extended support so you don't have to rewrite every 2 to 3 years...
At the end of the day it all comes down to trust. The question is do you trust that your browser vendor's product is reasonably secure? If you are not convinced, then like I said there are other options such as running the browser in a VM or selectively enabling Javascript in sites that you trust.
Again you are just complaining why sites don't make their content available when JS is disabled. Fact is there are no laws or standards to require the content to be accessible without JS and since people who favor browsing the web with JS disabled are in the minority, frankly most companies don't give a shit. Like I said, the only reason to complain about JS is if you are paranoid about security, at which point either trust the browser, or run it in a VM.
If you are using web standards, chances are your app will work across all modern browsers. I haven't had to do any browser specific hacks in a long time! Also with the browser, you can target any platform that supports a modern browser, no need to compile your app for multiple platforms, provide installation instructions for each platform, have to deal with platform specific differences on each OS. And no native is does not have superior tooling, with native you have to either wrap all platform specific calls in a function, or use some 3rd party solution like QT (which has it's own problems). Then you have capability differences between each platform to worry about. Let's face it, not everything needs to move to the browser; leave CAD, Photoshop, 3D Max, etc where they are. But for certain applications where there is a server side component to it, the browser makes more sense!
If you application is well written and there is a good separation of business logic from the UI, then 2 to 3 year lifespan for a framework is pretty good. There are also commercial solutions out there that provide frameworks with greater support, for example Ext JS. It all depends what you are doing, but chances are that as a business your product is constantly evolving, and you also want your product to evolve with the technology, otherwise, your product will feel outdated and stale. Also, I don't know why you are having such a difficult time with NPM, I use many packages on daily bases and have had very little problems.
Try making a compelling reason to the management that they need to hire a team of say 2 developers, a project manager, and a QA just to build and maintain an in house JS framework, when there is a plethora of frameworks out there! Large corporations like to focus on areas that is relevant to their business, and for most building an in house JS framework is not relevant. Facebook and Google do it because they are sufficiently large, and they are in the business of platform as a service, so they provide tools and frameworks to attract developers to their platforms. They are also on top of the food chain so they are big enough that they need to invent solutions to their unique problems, because they are constantly trying to push technology forward.
Believe it or not, there are companies out there that build enterprise apps, and yet they are NOT large enough (or don't see a value) to have internal teams devoted to an in house JS framework. For example, I work for a Telecom and although we have large development teams for building various applications for our customers, our focus isn't building and maintaining frameworks.
Every time there is an article about Javascript, there is an individual like you complaining about why Javascript is needed. I'm sorry that all you want to use your browser is to read news on NY Times, but the truth is that there are a lot of people out there who want to do more than just browse static pages. The browser is the most efficient app delivery system today. You no longer have to worry about whether the end user has the latest update of your app, and which OS or version they are running, your app will just work! If you are paranoid and don't trust the browser sandboxing, then maybe you should run Qubes OS or browser in a VM, otherwise, perhaps it is best to stick to printed news.
Yea, try building and maintaining a large scale application using nothing more than vanilla JS. The reason JS frameworks are popular is because they do a whole lot of stuff behind the scenes like variable binding, efficient rendering of the DOM (for example virtual DOM), implementation of patterns such as MVVM, state management, routing, and a whole lot more. There is no way you could build an application such as Youtube or Facebook without some sort of a framework; best case scenario you will end up rolling your own, at which point why not just use one of the many existing ones with a community support and a full time team that is focused solely on the framework development. Unless you are a very large corporation with lots of resources such as Google or Facebook where you can devote resources to building and maintaining your own framework, it doesn't make sense to roll your own. You will make something that works, but works badly and perhaps with lots of security vulnerabilities compared to one of the major frameworks.
They'll allow you to connect to VPNs, but they'll just block all popular VPN providers, then good luck circumventing anything. This whole NN business will kill the internet as we know it.
I think what you fail to understand with the OP's analogy is thinking that this will only impact the consumer, however, this will also have a huge impact on small business. Say a startup decides to competes with Netflix who has very deep pockets, all Netflix has to do is to pay the ISPs more so their service is delivered faster than the startup, effectively killing the competition. This essentially will stifle innovation and consolidate the web down to a few big players (even more than today). Either way, killing NN laws benefits no one, but the few rich corporations.
Personally, I think people are making a mountain of a molehill and thinking there is some nefarious reason behind this. The company I work for uses a product from IBM called Tealeaf which does exactly this, it records user sessions which can then be played back. The reason why we introduced this to our product was to understand our customer better to help us improve our product. For example marketing wanted to know what caused a customer to start a purchase and then stop halfway. They wanted to understand for instance if it was due to a UI error or if the customer found the options confusing? We also used this product in several occasions to identify hard to reproduce bugs. Using this product we were able to watch the recorded user session who experienced the bug and understand exactly what steps he/she took before encountering it. I think for most companies, these kind of products are just there to help marketing or the dev departments improve their products, rather than harvest users behaviors and sell it (I'm sure some do), because I doubt there is much value to some individual's random mouse movements.
Microsoft isn't stopping anyone either as demonstrated by the developer of this patch...
By that logic, in my opinion McDonald's food is garbage so no one should get mad if I walk in and grab whatever I want without paying.
I'm not debating whether or not other countries besides the US interfered in other countries' affairs. All I'm pointing out is that considering the track record of US, it's best to be cautious in regards to accusations by US government, especially when very little evidence has been presented.
The OP said "interfered" not just "overthrow". The United States in its 240 years of history, in one way or another has interfered in the politics of nearly every country in the world. El-Salvador is just one country in that long list.