here is my comment on this article, please use Babelfish to read it, and I publicate it here, because main http://www.provider.net.ru/article.48.php closed for commenting:
Это хорошо, что разрабатываются альтернативные OpenSource системы, но не стоит также отказываться от ICQ, Skype, Adobe flash и т.д. Я понимаю, что некоторые вкладывают в это своё время, но как пользователю почему бы и нет? А почему бы и не вложить время? Даже если весь мир начнёт пользоваться ICQ в качестве документооборота – что в этом плохого? Рычаги власти? Эти рычаги только для одной цели: содрать какие-то там 0,01% вашего человеческого фактора с рекламных показов, и больше ничего. Никто захватывать мир не собирается. А в случае чего все просто пересядут на вариант с открытым кодом. Зачем захламлять головы людей сейчас-то? Поддержите лучше гигантов, и это Вам обернётся иновациями и новыми возможностями. Лично я больше верю гигантам, а не тем парням в гараже, которые себя воображают Стивами Джобсами и Линусами, в то время как реально вносят вклад в инновации только гиганты и промышленность, и Ваша пресловутая бизнес-система. Фтопку коммунизм!

I fully against ideas of http://www.provider.net.ru/article.48.php web-site

If you look around, the recent social networking services are NOT distributed, but controlled by large companies. These large companies may run them on a server farm to “distribute” the load, but they are NOT distributed in the sense e-mail is distributed. You can run your own mail server and send e-mail to all users on all other mail servers. You can run your own Jabber server and your users are able to talk to other users on other jabber servers. As admin of such server, you can choose to filter spam or other junk, but you are not imposing your decision to users on other servers.

But you can’t run your own ICQ server, you can’t run your own Skype server, you can’t run your own Facebook server that federates with others. And this control gives these companies too much power. They are private enterprises and they offer a private, proprietary service, after all. If they don’t like you, they can cancel your account, without notice to you. And they don’t have to like you.

This is why “sites with Javascript” should not be treated as free software. Neither should “cloud computing” services be treated free (as in freedom), because most of the time you are not running a server node in such a system, you can’t choose your account provider (user@server type of account).

This article explains it pretty well: http://www.provider.net.ru/article.48.php (use Babelfish or Google Translate)

FSF is usually ahead of things. For example, re-read the essay below and compare with the recent history we all witnessed:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

And here is a recipe:

1) Invent DRM or source code protection for JavaScript
2) Push it into a commonly used closed source browser on the next update
3) Get it used/implemented on a very popular site a-la Faceboob or GooTube.
…
10) PROFIT!

(NOTE: This disclosure is deemed prior art)

Good. Maybe this will be the first step to game makers NOT releasing imcomplete games and then forcing buyers to pay extra to download material that should have been in it to start with….plus incorrectly assuming all gamers can actually connect their consoles to the internet.

you can put malicious javascript into images that cause probs.
YOU can however make some neat browser effects with its neewer form called AJAX

haha blah blah blah
how about a paragraph and GNU has nothing to do with javascript whats that dribble on about

and go ahead and see how much code Google has “open sourced”
this poster obviously hasn’t taken time to go over there and see things.

SOURCEFORGE.NET
Free SOFTWARE RULES

There is another issue — a social and practical issue, rather than a technical issue. Normally, a website — whether Javascript plays a part in it or not — is viewed as a relatively one-way stream. You read data that is on the server. Maybe the server stores some responses (e.g., a forum or blog comments), but in general, most of a server’s traffic is outbound, not incoming (as always, there are exceptions to any generality). The scripts used to display the page seem qualify as content provided by the server. They’re limited to the page they’re loaded with, just like the HTML. They can be automatically generated, just like HTML. The source code can be viewed, just like HTML. The script is copyrighted right along with the page itself in many cases. I don’t see how a Javascript program is any different from a video on Youtube from this perspective. They’re both data to be displayed by the browser.

What seems to matter with javascript is precisely and exactly the program used to run the script, not the script itself. I won’t run a closed-source browser any more than I will run a closed-source Java virtual machine. But demanding that the javascript be open source is much like demanding that every video I watch is creative commons. It’s not going to happen, and being eccentric in this way is just going to drive off otherwise perfectly acceptable and even disireable uses for the technology and businesses that otherwise would support open source efforts.

As much as I’m a fan of free software, and don’t run anything except it on my computer, it just seems too fanatical to me to treat javascript the same way you treat C or binary programs. When I go to a web page, I will continue to ignore the Javascripts on the page until and unless they cause me problems. This seems right to me, FSF be damned.