These forums are closed. New forums are here.


Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to FoxyProxy. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

These forums are closed. New forums are here.


 

 FoxyProxy 2.5
Eric H. Jung
Posted: Mar 11 2007, 09:44 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 947
Member No.: 1
Joined: 28-March 06



Hi,

FoxyProxy 2.5 has been sent to addons.mozilla.org for public release. However, due to AMO's delayed new website, it seems FoxyProxy 2.5 won't be available for download until 15 March (earliest). In the meantime, you can find release notes for 2.5 here.

Regards,
Eric


--------------------
Top
Igor
Posted: Mar 12 2007, 03:56 AM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Member No.: 25
Joined: 27-June 06



Great job.
I probably like the new QuickAdd feature best - it's a real timesaver. The new online-parsing feature for URL patterns turns pattern configuration pretty much into a no-brainer.
Now if only AMO could get their act together ...
Top
yarikoptic
Posted: Mar 15 2007, 10:17 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 231
Joined: 11-December 06



QUOTE (Eric H. Jung @ Mar 12 2007, 02:44 AM)
In the meantime, you can find release notes for 2.5 here.

Heh heh - and still no sources according to the release notes... ninja.gif
Top
Eric H. Jung
Posted: Mar 16 2007, 06:42 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 947
Member No.: 1
Joined: 28-March 06



QUOTE (yarikoptic @ Mar 16 2007, 03:17 AM)
QUOTE (Eric H. Jung @ Mar 12 2007, 02:44 AM)
In the meantime, you can find release notes for 2.5 here.

Heh heh - and still no sources according to the release notes... ninja.gif

Wrong. Sources are always included in the XPI. Take a look.


--------------------
Top
yarikoptic
Posted: Mar 16 2007, 06:38 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 231
Joined: 11-December 06



QUOTE (Eric H. Jung @ Mar 16 2007, 11:42 AM)
QUOTE (yarikoptic @ Mar 16 2007, 03:17 AM)

Heh heh - and still no sources according to the release notes... ninja.gif

Wrong. Sources are always included in the XPI. Take a look.

Wrong... JS code with removed formatting is not the source code since I doubt that you are working on it in that obfuscated shape; thus it is a derivative/compilation/whatever but is not the source code any longer. We had discussion about that before in another thread.
What I don't get really, why you resist placing original sources into .xpi? It is compressed with zip anyways, so I doubt that you gain any reasonable size advantage by removing formatting.
Top
Eric H. Jung
Posted: Mar 17 2007, 12:26 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 947
Member No.: 1
Joined: 28-March 06



QUOTE (yarikoptic)
JS code with removed formatting is not the source code

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to my opinion. This is the source code. It may not be in the format you prefer, but I'm not here to cater to yarikoptic.

QUOTE (yarikoptic)
It is compressed with zip anyways, so I doubt that you gain any reasonable size advantage by removing formatting.

How would you know how much is gained? My gauge is this: if the gain is 1 byte or more, it is worth it stripping the whitespace.


--------------------
Top
yarikoptic
Posted: Mar 17 2007, 01:02 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 231
Joined: 11-December 06



QUOTE (Eric H. Jung @ Mar 17 2007, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (yarikoptic)
JS code with removed formatting is not the source code

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to my opinion. This is the source code. It may not be in the format you prefer, but I'm not here to cater to yarikoptic.

Uff.. It is not anybody's opinion -- it is the definition of the term "source code". I cited you before GPL's definition of the source code. Now let me cite the dictionary:

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (19 Sep 2003) [foldoc]:
source code
<language, programming> (Or "source", or rarely "source
language") The form in which a computer program is written by
the programmer.
Source code is written in some formal
programming language which can be compiled automatically into
{object code} or {machine code} or executed by an
{interpreter}.
Top
Eric H. Jung
Posted: Mar 17 2007, 04:33 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 947
Member No.: 1
Joined: 28-March 06



Meh. I prefer the Merriam-Webster definition:

QUOTE
: a computer program in its original programming language (as FORTRAN or C) before translation into object code usually by a compiler


and the Princeton WordNet definition:

QUOTE
S: (n) source code (program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into the object code for a particular computer before execution)

By those definitions, I am including the source code with each and every release. If you don't like the current format, just manually reformat it to anything you like. I'm not going to publish the source code in the format you prefer: some people may prefer braces on newlines, others not. Some people prefer tabs to spaces, others do not. There are too many people to please for something like this, so format it how you prefer. Alternatively, don't use FoxyProxy. It's not enough that I spend thousands of hours writing free software (yes, I've spent that much time on FoxyProxy)? I need someone like you to tell me how to format my source code?


--------------------
Top
yarikoptic
Posted: Mar 17 2007, 09:42 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 231
Joined: 11-December 06



First of all thank you very much for working on this piece for so long... I've spent plenty of hours for FOSS community, so I know what to appreciate here.
QUOTE

I need someone like you to tell me how to format my source code?

I promise to do not mind any formatting of your source code - any style you are using is ok with me - but I didn't have a chance yet to see the source code to even have an opinion on the format of it -- that is the issue.
As for definitions:
QUOTE
: a computer program in its original programming language (as FORTRAN or C) before translation into object code usually by a compiler

QUOTE
S: (n) source code (program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into the object code for a particular computer before execution)

Yes - your code is valid JS. But it is not in its original shape as it is written by you. It is in
obfuscated form.
I can barely call it open source (only here now it is my personal opinion). Yes, I can use some pretty printer to reformat it, but then it becomes even further from the original source code. And though comments are not translated into commands (so might not fit the definition of the source code), they play a huge role being a part of any source code. Thus, to summarize, by eliminating formatting and comments, you are
  • handicapping anyone who is willing to take advantage of open source nature of your project.
  • making it impossible to fulfill terms of GPL license you distribute it under by anyone who wants to change anything in the code. It is impossible to fulfill the terms since under GPL's definition of the source code you are not providing it. So effectively you are making it freeware at best
  • reducing user base since having it as a part of Debian (and its derivatives such as ubuntu) distribution would have attract thousands of new users
  • making it hard to validate intent of the software since it is harder to do any forensics analysis with absent formatting/comments
Top
yarikoptic
Posted: Mar 17 2007, 10:39 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 231
Joined: 11-December 06



QUOTE (yarikoptic @ Mar 18 2007, 02:42 AM)
Yes - your code is valid JS. But it is not in its original  shape as it is written by you. It is in obfuscated form.
...


  • making it hard to validate intent of the software since it is harder to do any forensics analysis with absent formatting/comments



From the wikipedia page I mentioned:
QUOTE

Obfuscation in malicious software

Spammers frequently use obfuscated JavaScript or HTML code in spam messages. The obfuscated message, when displayed by an HTML-capable e-mail client, appears as a reasonably normal message -- albeit with obnoxious JavaScript behaviors such as spawning pop-up windows. However, when the source is viewed, the obfuscations make it far more difficult for investigators to discern where the links go, or what the JavaScript code does. For this same reason JavaScript obfuscation is also often used by malware authors to conceal parts of code that run browser exploits, or that redirect to pages containing exploits.

I really hope that it is not the case with FoxyProxy -- you are the only one who can prove it be wrong by including the source code in .xpi or posting it elsewhere aside of .xpi (so that your bandwidth saving remains in effect) wink.gif
Cheers
Top
Eric H. Jung
Posted: Mar 18 2007, 09:55 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 947
Member No.: 1
Joined: 28-March 06



QUOTE (yarikoptic)
I really hope that it is not the case with FoxyProxy -- you are the only one who can prove it be wrong by including the source code in .xpi

The source code is included with FoxyProxy. To prove that FoxyProxy hasn't nefarious intentions, you have two options:

  • Examine the source code; reformat as necessary to make it more readable
  • Use a packet sniffer like wireshark or ethereal to ensure FoxyProxy is not contacting any addresses other than the ones the browser uses

Perhaps you'd prefer if I change the license from GPL to something else. If this would satisfy you, let me know and I'll consider it (no guarantees, though, I'll need to think it over)

QUOTE (yarikoptic)
Yes - your code is valid JS. But it is not in its original shape as it is written by you. It is in obfuscated form.

It not is obfuscated. Perhaps you can't read Javascript if you think it's obfuscated. If you can't read it without whitespace, then reformat it using one of the many free formatters out there.


--------------------
Top
Igor
  Posted: Mar 22 2007, 11:57 AM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Member No.: 25
Joined: 27-June 06



QUOTE (yarikoptic @ Mar 18 2007, 03:39 AM)
QUOTE (yarikoptic @ Mar 18 2007, 02:42 AM)
Yes - your code is valid JS. But it is not in its original  shape as it is written by you. It is in obfuscated form.
...
For this same reason JavaScript obfuscation is also often used by malware authors to conceal parts of code that run browser exploits, or that redirect to pages containing exploits.

I really hope that it is not the case with FoxyProxy -- you are the only one who can prove it be wrong by including the source code in .xpi or posting it elsewhere aside of .xpi (so that your bandwidth saving remains in effect) wink.gif
Cheers

@yarikoptic:

Cool down man, you're splitting hairs.

The JScript files included in the FoxyProxy 2.5 XPI are most definitely not obfuscated. All the variables and functions are in the clear and carry meaningful names.

So the JScript files have been stripped of most of their whitespace. If that passes for obfuscation in your view you really don't have a clue. Any run-of-the-mill pretty printer should be able to restore the files to a nicely formatted shape.

If you want a different source code version with lots of nice comments for use as a tutorial on Firefox Extension programming that's something different. Maybe if you ask Eric nicely instead of stamping your foot and stating demands he'll be more inclined to hear you.

I think Eric has made a very good point in stating that additional whitespace - or even lengthy comments - would only bloat the XPI when the vast majority of FoxyProxy users will never take a closer look at the JScript internals. And those curious minds who do want to take a look and have a rudimentary command of widely available source editing tools will find it fairly easy to format the sources in every which way they prefer.

So stop stealing Eric's time when he should be adding new features for FoxyProxy 3.0.

Igor
Top
yarikoptic
Posted: Mar 26 2007, 12:47 AM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 231
Joined: 11-December 06



Thank you guys for replies. Indeed I was too harsh with my statement about 'obfuscated' code -- I hoped that it could trigger some action (not just continuation of the thread). Nevertheless, all the points I listed (impossible to fulfill the GPL license, unnecessarily made hard to introduce/submit patches, etc) remain intact.
Just a note @Igor: I was looking for comments in the source not to use it as a textbook in extensions programming, believe me.

If bandwidth saving is a very desired feature - .XPI with 'compressed' JSs is fine. What I do not get is why Eric resists so much to making original sources publicly available in a separate tarball, or under some publicly available (read-only) VC? Some time ago he mentioned that public SVN repo will be setup some day... but not yet unfortunately. It definitely takes less time to make sources available than it has been already spent by replying to this thread. At the moment, I am just giving up in my attempts to discover, why and for what reason true sources are hidden away from public.

Good luck to all of you guys! I am sorry for wasting our time with non-productive discussion/thread -- I promise to don't raise this issue again. ITP bug for foxyproxy in Debian is tagged with 'wontfix' since it is not truly GPLed, so no shiny foxy proxy for debian users within its next release.. and for no good reason... sad...
Top
« Next Oldest | Other | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic Options



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.7167 seconds | Archive

These forums are closed. New forums are here.