websites these days are primary transient applications (meaning one time use apps that change all the time and where content, media and code is at most a blurry distinction, "web2.0"), and going back to the old days of text/information only websites ("web.1.0") would be a huge step backwards.
"Web 2.0" is just a nonsense buzzword that serves as an excuse for bad website design.
Just to note, most websites continue to work without JavaScript. It's only a small handful of websites, some of them quite popular, that insist on this nonsense.
Using a white-list is exactly the intentional choice to install software from a trusted source that you want, no?
No, because that whitelist also signs you up for auto-updates.
I also find it very contradicting that you don't want a separate client for every information source, yet find javascript web-apps in the browser bad even though they were exactly created as a compromise solution to that very problem.
It's not a "compromise". JavaScript code for any Web page
is a dedicated client for that information source. The only difference is that it's done silently, so people can pretend that there's a difference.
But advanced functionality & usability is pretty poor (especially on mobile browsers) compared those utilizing javascript and more often than not people then resort to closed-source insecure mobile clients to view the forums, which are definitely worse than running whitelisted FOSS javascript in the browser.
Advanced functionality such as...?
Regarding mobile browsers, I've had exactly the opposite experience you describe. Phones are usually poorly capable of handling the JavaScript nonsense you find on websites. In fact back when I actually used a mobile phone, it often took
several minutes for JavaScript-laden sites to load. This is because with all this redundant development going on, you get tons of inefficient, unnecessary software.
What mobile devices
actually require that many forums lack is responsive design. Unfortunately, a lot of Web developers these days are refusing to use responsive design in such a way that it doesn't create a JavaScript requirement, despite how easy it is. To wit, all of these websites have proper responsive design (try viewing them on a mobile phone):
https://onpon4.github.iohttp://hexoshi.nongnu.orghttps://kotc-game.github.ioIt's really not that hard, and JavaScript has nothing to do with it.
But the end result is that the user is using a service that is much less libre than if it was mostly implemented in client side javascript. An ATM is much less libre than if a FOSS javascript web-app or stand-alone app would be using a banking API.
It's not about "the end result", as you call it. It's about your freedom to control
your computing. Any Web server runs code; that's not your computing, and it's absurd to consider it a freedom hit for you when someone you're communicating with is using proprietary software on their end.
Most retailers, as far as I can tell, use Windows to run their self-checkouts. Knowing that, would you consider it to be a violation of your freedom to use the self-checkout system you don't own to ring up your groceries? Or what about the fact that all cash registers run proprietary software? Or what about the fact that ordering stuff online, the company that processes and sends the items uses proprietary software? Is buying stuff a hit on your freedom? If you think so, then your view of freedom is incompatible with any form of interaction with the outside world, and the only way to be consistent is to isolate yourself from all technology, even more so than Amish people do. If (like me) you don't think so, then it logically follows that server-side code running on servers you don't own isn't a hit on your freedom, either.
Online maps
I've already granted that these have to be specialized software, but for a different reason: because to not do so would result in SaaSS. It's perfectly possible, in fact quite easy, to have e.g. a service for finding directions, and it's also possible via use of hyperlinks and server-side code to make it possible to view a map.
The proper way for a map to function is for you to have map software that downloads large chunks of map data, saves it permanently, and then uses it on your computer to find routes. This is in fact how most GPS navigation devices work.
In any case, for specialized, complex software such as this, I am in favor of dedicated software that the user intentionally installs, like GNOME Maps or Marble.
interactive public transport schedule query systems
In what way does a public transport schedule query system need to be "interactive"? What does it need to do that requires JavaScript, and why?
Of course those could be implemented... as server-side only software
You put a lot of loaded statements where I put an ellipsis there, but are you not admitting that the JavaScript is unnecessary if you admit that you can implement the software server-side?
You seem to just take for granted that you get "less software freedom" with server-side only software. If that's the case, shouldn't you be refusing to interact with any server? Or for that matter, any other computer you don't personally control? It seems to me that it logically follows.
I am really not sure why you think a dedicated app is better than one running in the browser?
Because you can feasibly exercise the four freedoms with it, which is not the case with automatically loaded JavaScript because of the basic design of the JavaScript system.
usually can intrude in your system much deeper
Not a problem if you're only running libre software.
In addition browser code tends to be highly scrutinized by security experts... some random app than never gets updated?
What do you mean, "never gets updated"? GNOME Maps, Thunderbird, HexChat, Pidgin... these are all programs that get updates, through my repository.
And you also don't really win anything in regards to "trust" issues as you still have to trust the source of the software itself and the update mechanism it usually utilizes.
All I download software from is the repository of my distro specifically for this reason. Why are you assuming that a world without JavaScript involves downloading software from untrusted sources? It's the opposite: the whole system of JavaScript is about automatically downloading and executing thousands or millions of programs from untrusted sources.
You seem to want more "Web1.0"
There is no such thing as "Web 1.0". If by that you mean the version of the Web with less HTML and CSS capability, where Flash was dominant, then heck no, I don't want to go back to that. I want to go to a system where websites use the HTML and CSS standards to do what they need to do, rather than reinventing the wheel with client-side software that disrupts clients' freedom and creates security problems. And I'd like to see HTML and CSS expanded so they can do even more stuff, and JavaScript as a standard to be deprecated and eventually removed from the standard.
And in the meantime, I'd like websites to be designed in a competent way, such that they at least
work without JavaScript. To be clear, most websites do this just fine, including most forum software, as I alluded to earlier.
And all alternatives to pure "Web1.0" you seem to propose are less libre and less secure than running libre javascript from trusted white-listed sources in your FOSS web-browser.
You do remember that JavaScript predates the whole "Web 2.0" buzzword, right? JavaScript was developed way back in the mid-1990s. It was a problem back then, too, only at the time the problem of Flash and ActionScript was more pertinent. Now that Flash is dead, certain websites continue to do what they previously did with Flash, even though HTML and CSS were heavily extended to make it unnecessary (e.g. the video tag). But there are also more and more websites doing things right. Heck, I'll show some examples:
http://channelawesome.com/https://www.churchofsatan.comhttps://github.com/ [1]
https://www.invidio.us/Turn off JavaScript, and take a look at all of those websites. Do you see poor functionality? Do they look ugly? I don't think either is the case; I think these websites are
glorious in their design. And while most websites haven't quite gotten to the point of being as great as these ones, most at least work very well or even entirely without JavaScript.
[1] There are still some caveats here, but it's been getting better and better over time.
See, you seem to be operating under the assumption that supporting JavaScript-less browsers is a step backward. I see it in exactly the opposite way.
Not supporting JavaScript-less browsers is a step backward, and working fantastically and looking great without the need for any JavaScript at all is the future I envisage.
So this is you misunderstanding the difference between libre and ethical. Libre, free and open source software is not about you being in control of the end product. It is about access to, freedom to use and modify and distribute the source code and the software you create from that source code.
No, you're talking about the open source position, which I don't support. I support the libre software position.
I do however think that it is bad design for a website to expect JS or even CSS. (Ideally HTML should be human-readable just as plain text.) Using CSS and JS to enhance the site is acceptable, but they shouldn’t be required.
Yeah, that's a good point: CSS is a beautifier and should never be required for functionality. I don't tend to focus on that detail too much, though, because JavaScript is the more pertinent issue. That being said, I do make sure to design my websites in such a way that the CSS being missing doesn't hurt readability.
And I would much rather point my grand-ma to a trusted website than to tell her to download and install an app 
I addressed every single point you raised in my previous posts, and you seem to conveniently overlook the ones I made about FOSS javascript from trusted sources being more libre and secure than the alternative you propose (except for the pure HTML/CSS pages only option, which works to a limited extend for some webservices, but not for all or at least is usually serious downgrade over the service with client side code). I also never said that I would completely avoid non-libre services, but if I have the choice between a completely non-libre one (Your ATM example) and one that at least gives me the four software freedoms to some extend, I usually prefer the latter (even if less convenient).
