[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Web versions

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: Web versions
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:20:05 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/2.0.6 (2021-03-06)

* aviva <> [2021-03-16 05:55]:
> On 3/15/21 6:26 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> > That is one good example. You can edit notes and save it, all locally,
> > it works offline.
> And why is that good?  Are you lacking a shell?

At certain situations on travel I am lacking a computer and I use
browser to handle emails, notes, planning, documents and to print
it. If Nextcloud is good for that, then why not cloud-less technology?
I could place the final file with modified data any browser or any
computer to work equally. I believe TiddlyWiki could then equally well
run on my Android tablet, Motorola Lineage OS E + LTE, on GNU/Linux
computer and hostile Windoze computers in Internet points in East
Africa. I could print the notes from any computer where I arrive with
certainty they come out same as I expect it, without having my
personal computer with me. Storage could be on one of devices, on the
remote server or USB stick or similar. I would not need to pay for VPS
or dedicated server to run my application as application runs in the
browser and I can move NOTES.html to other devices. That is

Me and you we are on different places on the planet, and have
different education and experiences. For logic to be the same one
would need to start from same set of data. Logic depends on data. With
different data and context, logic is also different.

Sure I use shell and I can use shell to create notes. But assumption
that I should use shell to save notes does not conform majority of
people on this planet. They don't have it.

Would GNU software be the initiator of the WWW and first creator of a
browser, I do not think we would be discussing here how taking notes
in a browser is odd and how one should be using shell. As it is not
so, the set of data is different and logic is different.

Would GNU Emacs be very advanced to support 3D, to have video
capabilities, better image editing capabilities, it would be today
what Webassembly wants to become. By simple click one would invoke
programs and run them quicker and equally well on every operating
system. That is what Emacs wants to become.

Integration is what brings people to use technology. Not the
technology itself. Think of integration on Android, there are
contacts, one can click on phone number and phone call is activated,
or click on email to send email, or click on image to share image with
specific contact by using any kind of communication line. That is one
small example of integration, it helps people to connect and get
things faster.

Downloading software, unpacking it, building it from sources and
installing it is one good example of lack of integration for the end
user (although the underlying integration efforts could be great).

Clicking on software and clicking on it to install and run it is
little better integration. There is no need to think on how to build

In the next step one could just click and run the software. Or not
even click, just stumble upon the website.

Integration is what becomes useful for people.

Webassembly integrates things, it skips the OS problem and provides
equal experience on any OS where the browser can run. I also believe
that it is free software at least in the Firefox version.

Why would not GNU programs run in Webassembly? I see no reason.

GNU Health could then run on various operating systems without
installing it on each single computer, this lessens the cost of
installation in hospitals. Just click on the URL and manage customer's
information. This use case can be completely off the
Internet and can run in local area network.

Sales teams can have their CRM's running straight in browser,
Webassembly offers more than Javascript alone can offer. Click on URL
and manage databases.

Plethora of uses.


reply via email to

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