[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Web versions

From: Jacob Bachmeyer
Subject: Re: Web versions
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:07:30 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090807 MultiZilla/ SeaMonkey/1.1.17 Mnenhy/

Colby Russell wrote:
On 3/15/21 9:02 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> One of the rationales presented to me (off-list) for this was that a
> WebAssembly port of GNU could be run as a web app and therefore be
> "always up-to-date"

Despite quoting the salient parts from The JavaScript Trap, you have
regressed to committing the same error of critiquing the computing model
of traditional web apps, which is, once again, totally irrelevant. It
is neither here nor there.  Here you do it again:

> Web apps stored on "the cloud" are bad [...] Porting to "the Web" is
> simply not practical or appropriate

Please, please stop using this kind of sleight of hand to redirect the
context to web apps and "the cloud".  "The cloud" and "the Web" are
_simply_not_relevant_ to the computing model described above, which
treats the browser as a runtime which can be targeted during compilation
and which you happen to get "for free" on upwards of 90% of personal
computing devices, *NOT* as a thin client that you all keep insisting

The original poster who started this discussion (and does not seem to have actually replied to the list even once afterwards...) directly told me (and possibly others) off-list that avoiding package management tasks (which "the cloud" is well-known to promise to "magically" handle for you) was one of his goals.

  It's as if there's a short-circuit in at least half of respondents'
brains that prevents them from engaging in any way without at some point
insisting that this *MUST* involve cloud architecture and SaaS-like web
apps being the central focus.  It is _absurd_ that it takes this much
energy to continually refute this over and over.  Ideally, it shouldn't
have to occur even a single time, but failing that, once should suffice.
At this point, I have to wonder how many times this has to be pointed
out?  Is there any number which would be sufficient?

We are in violent agreement here, but the original poster clarified (off-list) that SaaS-like services were exactly what he wanted.

I am beginning to suspect that we have all been trolled, especially since giving those extra details to only some participants would be likely to cause violent discussion between those (including me) who were told (off-list) what the original poster was actually requesting and those (presumably including you) who are still thinking of the general case, where Free software *can* be packaged using the "Web platform" as a portable runtime. Mozilla's XULRunner was a closely-related example, and I believe that there are similar current "Web app on local storage as desktop app" runtimes currently maintained.

If this was a troll, it has been quite successful -- just look at all the vitriol and hot air in this thread. We all seem to have been had.

On a side note, at what point does it become appropriate to forward replies received off-list to the list when bad faith is suspected?

-- Jacob

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]