Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:17:47 +0800
Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> wrote:

> On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than 
> > browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications.
> > 
> 
> That was the point that I was making - I had not, as a twisted response 
> indicated, criticised Firefox regarding the misuse of resources - I 
> explicitly referred to malignant web application developers (for those 
> that do not understand the term, a web application is the application, 
> on the web application hosting server, that the user accesses, using a 
> web browser, not the web browser itself) that steal users' resources 
> using client-side processing (by using malware such as javascript using 
> client side processing), rather than properly and ethically using 
> server-side processing, such as .jsp or Perl .cgi applications.
> 
> The problem is that some web developers (and, especially, their 
> employers) offload the processing that should be done on the business 
> web application hosting server, to the victim users' personal computers. 
> It is a malignant exploitation, like the "gig economy".

I am quite puzzled by your perspective: you repeatedly express moral
indignation at the offloading of processing to users' machines, calling
this "malignant exploitation" and "steal[ing]" and implying that it is
unethical. Why? What duty does the website owe you to do any processing
at all for you? The only case I can see in which such offloading would
be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in
deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not, why do you feel that there
is an ethical problem here? What right does a user have to demand
that someone else perform some processing for him?

-- 
Celejar