Re: Web versions

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

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
> on.

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