[oblio]

I'm making fun of you because it's not very realistic to disable it, especially due to network effects.

All the popular sites, including many intranet sites in every company I've worked for, use Javascript. I mean, you can disable it/enable it selectively, maybe I should try it with some Firefox extension. But I expect 95% of the web to break if I disable it.

So it's kind of a revolutionary attitude, which works out if you have nothing to lose, I guess. Or if you're trying to prove a point, but along the way you're probably hurting yourself, too.

[doodpants]

> I mean, you can disable it/enable it selectively, maybe I should try it with some Firefox extension.

The one I use is called, appropriately enough, Disable JavaScript [0]. It puts a simple toggle button in the toolbar, and remembers the setting on a per-domain basis. If a website has annoying behavior, it's little effort to switch JavaScript off to see if the site is still usable that way, or to re-enable it briefly to glance at some missing content. I recommend it; it's surprising how many sites I've disabled JS on, and left that way because there's no major breakage.

[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-javas...

[throwaway_pdp09]

> maybe I should try it with some Firefox extensions

So you're making fun of me although you haven't tried it. Yeah, okay.

> But I expect 95% of the web to break if I disable it

And you'll be wrong, it is much lower than that (except if you're talking about adverts failing to display, then I guess yes, in that respect it does).

I don't give a damn about other sites (and I don't browse intranet sites on my home machine -- if I'm in an office I use their office machine). If they don't work I don't use them except in rare cases when I really need to in which case they get run in a VM.

> you're probably hurting yourself, too

That's deeply patronising from somebody who admits they haven't even tried doing what I do, nor has even asked why I and others do it (hint: it's for many of the reasons you described). It sounds like you're talking to a rather stupid child.

[oblio]

I have tried it a long time ago (4, maybe 5 years ago?). Many, many things broke and I didn't have time to fix them all.

I already use the strictest Tracking Protection stuff in Firefox, for example, and I do hit sites that don't work correctly.

Maybe it's worth revisiting but something tells me that the web uses more JavaScript, not less, since I last tried this experiment.

And regarding the patronizing aspect, let's say your bank's website uses JavaScript, what do you do?

Edit, actually, sorry, I re-read your comment and you answered my question:

> I don't give a damn about other sites (and I don't browse intranet sites on my home machine -- if I'm in an office I use their office machine). If they don't work I don't use them except in rare cases when I really need to in which case they get run in a VM.

Q.e.d.

I'll just rephrase things to something less offensive: you're not "hurting" yourself, you're limiting yourself, sometimes with drawbacks not everyone is able/willing to endure.

[throwaway_pdp09]

> let's say your bank's website uses JavaScript, what do you do

Well mate, take a guess :) I do it on the phone only (and I don't mean smartphone). I've had a little exposure to bank's competence from the inside 20 years ago (large UK bank, mortgages), they couldn't find their own arse with a torch, arrows, diagrams and a PhD in arse-finding.

> 'll just rephrase things to something less offensive: you're not "hurting" yourself, you're limiting yourself, sometimes with drawbacks not everyone is able/willing to endure.

That's much more accurate. We can agree, however consider that that 'limiting [my]self' means limiting my exposure to ads, abuse of my CPU, tracking, most dark patterns, nag screens, malware and more. The tradeoff's very ok for me, and I've experience the web on both sides. Oh yes it's worth it! (for me).