Re: Web versions

[Schanzenbach, Martin]

> On 16. Mar 2021, at 06:07, Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Obviously the OP was a tongue-in-cheek kind of question. But this should not 
prevent us from
lucidly reflecting on the topic and find truth in the joke; to then find common 
ground.
However, from my (brief) experience here in this ML, this discussion is a 
disaster.
It is not even a discussion. Some replies here a display of ignorance combined 
with superstition and outright
hostility.
No effort is made to understand the issue and preconceived talking points are 
thrown out seemingly at random.
A magnificent display of what goes wrong when you religiously believe and are 
unable to actually apply your
values to developments in the world.
Which is why I stopped replying. It was a disappointing experience and I see no 
basis for discourse.

> 
> 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
>

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP