4 ms·

Interestingly, the page as I just read it does not (no longer, I guess) mention "version control". Probably the author changed their mind towards simplicity. Th

Interestingly, the page as I just read it does not (no longer, I guess) mention "version control". Probably the author changed their mind towards simplicity. This is funnily, ironically meta. That said, I agree with the author and discussed the topic with friends for years. On the "do you practice what you advocate?" side, my freelancer company website is, since day one 8 years ago, a totally static (no script, no cookie... except the one my hosting provider added without letting me options, I will quit them some day) collection of documents with readable stable URLs. https://fidergo.fr/ https://fidergo.fr/ And the smaller English language https://fidergo.com/ https://fidergo.com/ The part detailing dozens of software projects is generated in advance from a structured data store into static pages uploaded to server. https://fidergo.fr/expertise https://fidergo.fr/expertise Version-controlled, scripted deployment. Safe for me to serve, safe for you to browse and read. That is the web of documents.

oefrha 7y ago
> On the "do you practice what you advocate?" side... Sure, I do that with my websites too, and I monetize none of them. (I do use cookies because some of my sites require logging in for access control.) However, you and me can afford to do that because our livelihoods don't depend on revenue directly from page views. There is this subset of the web that is already just a web of documents, because we can afford to keep them this way. But what about people whose livelihoods do depend on revenue from page views, and page views alone? It's very frustrating when people who can afford to not do X talk about X without even acknowledging people who can't.
- silicon2401 7y ago
  If that's what you're interested in discussing, why don't you start your own discussion about that? It's not constructive to arbitrarily require every single comment on X to give a perfunctory acknowledgement to people who can't afford to do X. You're commenting on a website yet don't acknowledge people who can't even afford electricity. Let people talk about what they want, and if you want to talk about something else, you can do that too.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    “While I personally adhere to X just like you, do realize that by holding X to be practical in general you have ignored all people who simply cannot do X” is a valid counterargument to “I agree with X and I personally adhere to it.” I do encourage you to stay on this site longer before you start throwing straw man analogies at other users demanding that they change where and how they would like to comment.
    - silicon2401 7y ago
      I've been on this site for years with other accounts that I've forgotten the login to. If there is some policy regarding what I'm allowed to do based on the age of my account, please direct me to it. I am curious how you consider "do realize that [...]" to be an argument, let alone a counterargument.
ema 7y ago
> Interestingly, the page as I just read it does not (no longer, I guess) mention "version control". I think you're misreading gp, they want to add version control to the requirements, they're not discussing an earlier version of op that had it.
nathell 7y ago
> Interestingly, the page as I just read it does not (no longer, I guess) mention "version control". Probably the author changed their mind towards simplicity. This is funnily, ironically meta. Author here. The article has not been edited since it was originally published. I agree that version control is an important topic, and I applaud efforts such as IPFS; it is, however, tangential to the main point of "documents vs applications" that I was trying to make.
- s_gourichon 7y ago
  Oh, sorry, thanks for correcting. That line from a commenter was actually an additional idea, not from you. I totally agree with you. Bundling a global visitor-visible version-control system would bring the whole idea closer to the never-implemented xanadu project.

oefrha 7y ago

> On the "do you practice what you advocate?" side... Sure, I do that with my websites too, and I monetize none of them. (I do use cookies because some of my sites require logging in for access control.) However, you and me can afford to do that because our livelihoods don't depend on revenue directly from page views. There is this subset of the web that is already just a web of documents, because we can afford to keep them this way. But what about people whose livelihoods do depend on revenue from page views, and page views alone? It's very frustrating when people who can afford to not do X talk about X without even acknowledging people who can't.

silicon2401 7y ago
If that's what you're interested in discussing, why don't you start your own discussion about that? It's not constructive to arbitrarily require every single comment on X to give a perfunctory acknowledgement to people who can't afford to do X. You're commenting on a website yet don't acknowledge people who can't even afford electricity. Let people talk about what they want, and if you want to talk about something else, you can do that too.
- oefrha 7y ago
  “While I personally adhere to X just like you, do realize that by holding X to be practical in general you have ignored all people who simply cannot do X” is a valid counterargument to “I agree with X and I personally adhere to it.” I do encourage you to stay on this site longer before you start throwing straw man analogies at other users demanding that they change where and how they would like to comment.
  - silicon2401 7y ago
    I've been on this site for years with other accounts that I've forgotten the login to. If there is some policy regarding what I'm allowed to do based on the age of my account, please direct me to it. I am curious how you consider "do realize that [...]" to be an argument, let alone a counterargument.

ema 7y ago

> Interestingly, the page as I just read it does not (no longer, I guess) mention "version control". I think you're misreading gp, they want to add version control to the requirements, they're not discussing an earlier version of op that had it.

nathell 7y ago

> Interestingly, the page as I just read it does not (no longer, I guess) mention "version control". Probably the author changed their mind towards simplicity. This is funnily, ironically meta. Author here. The article has not been edited since it was originally published. I agree that version control is an important topic, and I applaud efforts such as IPFS; it is, however, tangential to the main point of "documents vs applications" that I was trying to make.

s_gourichon 7y ago
Oh, sorry, thanks for correcting. That line from a commenter was actually an additional idea, not from you. I totally agree with you. Bundling a global visitor-visible version-control system would bring the whole idea closer to the never-implemented xanadu project.