13 ms·

"In conclusion, people are finally beginning to understand the hard way: Web Browsers really make poor client application runtimes for all but the most basic o

"In conclusion, people are finally beginning to understand the hard way: Web Browsers really make poor client application runtimes for all but the most basic of things. ActiveX is a security nightmare and counter to making cross-platform applications. The web is a constantly changing and evolving standard separate from Microsoft or any specific operating system, as such implementing an application for just one specific browser and version with no intent to keep it updated is just asking for disaster. Tying local help files or other local content to a "live" web browser that may change in functionality is a bad idea. But, nobody ever listened to anything I have to say." Narrator: And nobody listened to anything he said.

inetknght 6y ago
To this day I detest sites that require javascript, inject tens or hundreds of MB into cache, and make ridiculous demands of rendering.
- revel 6y ago
  isn't that all of them?
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Except HN <3
    - anthk 6y ago
      But it needs JS to search content, it sucks.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  At least they don’t leave unremovable or untraceable binaries, configurations, and databases in your system directories and registry.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    True. But on the flip side, technologies like virtual machines and containers have gone a long way to solve that in a better way.
    - ironmagma 6y ago
      Who uses those for desktop applications? Even if I need a VM for something coding-related, it’s almost too much of a pain to set up because AFAIK there still aren’t many quick provisioning tools for e.g. VMWare. And I can guarantee that 99.9% of users have never even heard of Docker.
      - Seirdy 6y ago
        Linux users have platforms like Flatpak that sandbox applications to known directories, and have multiple "app store"-like implementations with colorful buttons to make the process look unintimidating and non-threatening. Another option is to simply use distro packages. Users of good distros who use distro packages have software that's vetted built from source independently, and compatible with the rest of the system.
      - inetknght 6y ago
        > Who uses those for desktop applications? I do. > AFAIK there still aren’t many quick provisioning tools for e.g. VMWare I use VirtualBox. I boot just about any Linux distribution's live Desktop image without any hard drive attached (so, ramdisk only). Then curl a script to download and install any dependencies. After a few minutes I'm off to the races.
        ironmagma 6y ago
        I use it too. You have to have that curl script (not a default user experience), manually mount the ISO (and have it downloaded), and then you risk losing all of your application state if the machine crashes since there is no storage. Seems like a pretty terrible experience. Why don't we have something like Vagrant where you can quickly provision a VM from the command line following a template?
ebiester 6y ago
But nobody chose the alternatives. Java or single operating system applications were the alternative. Where would we be today if you couldn't swap between Mac and Windows laptops -- or worse, had to have both -- because you depended on applications that had no common operating system? The reason we can use linux as a desktop is because of web applications. Now, it's possible that we could have ended up with Web Start or some alternative, but we didn't. Even today, cross-platform applications are terrible or expensive or both. Even today, it's a giant pain to write cross-platform apps in anything but C or C++. (QT's documentation is not great for the alternatives IMO, and you end up needing to understand C++ anyway.) If we want to get back to this, we need a better option. It turns out that nobody is willing to put in the effort when we already have web applications. Worse is better.
- usui 6y ago
  It's interesting to me you're getting downvoted which signifies that people don't think you're adding to the conversation Is this a form of denialism by hardcore "I-Hate-Javascript"ers? I would like to add that I absolutely hate the subset of modern websites that choose to be slow, but I think the parent is completely right. If we keep making it hard to use useful applications across platforms, then we're going to continue to see pushes toward the lowest common denominator that consumer computers can run. Yes, yes, I know techies like you and I believe installing stuff is trivial if you spend even just a little amount of time, but _this doesn't matter to average users_ It's a nightmare even installing Python, Ruby on Rails packages properly without juggling a million virtual environments, and those are supposed to be tools that you can run with a single CLI command and it gives you debugging information if things go wrong. It's a bit much to think that average users can survive without any of the tools or knowledge we have, being locked in a stupid GUI, and at the rate that we encounter defective software (seems like I encounter bugs more frequently as time goes on). Now we are definitely going to add ARM complexity into the mix because what Apple pushed (M1) is just too good and everyone else is jumping on board for it Regarding the comment about consumer-Linux, I feel less strongly on your point about web applications being the killer reason why Linux desktop users exist. Anyone using Linux desktop is almost certainly a tech-hacker to begin with and isn't necessarily tied to web applications as their go-to reason, but it certainly helps surviving with it. There are tons of reasons to use Linux desktop with no relation to web, but for market share, it's going to need consumer applications bordering on exclusivity that makes Linux first-priority and dumps support for macOS/Windows. Many Windows users don't want to switch to macOS or Linux because of gaming Windows games kept me tied to the platform until my life became more focused on software. I only left Windows entirely after I learned that programming was a first-class citizen on Linux and macOS. Yes, you can program on Windows, but making software and using other people's software is more enjoyable elsewhere. So to wrap up this example, what can we learn about this? Well I knew life/job functions would be easier if I replaced Windows, but me doing software is coincidental. Give people a reason to use Linux. Make their lives easier, somehow, and make it clear that it will only happen if they leave their current platform. Otherwise you start coming up with systems like Windows Subsystem for Linux which... I'm not entirely sure why it exists. I think the oft-repeated ire for modern web does not add anything at this point without understanding that there are good reasons people prefer to use web applications Or, rather, web applications /are/ the common, universal cross-platform applications that we theorized, just that it arrived in less ideal ways
bri3d 6y ago
In fairness, "DHTML" / programmatic manipulation of the DOM was just invented in 1996 and eventually ended up being the envisioned successful client application runtime implemented across browser versions and runtimes. Now, of course with the Chromium hegemony we have an old-is-new-again set of problems on the web, but I do think that for a time, people _did_ listen to this advice and stopped writing applications for _only_ IE4/5/6. As an aside, I do still think that if a cross-platform application framework that were built from the ground-up for secure Internet-delivered application use had ever materialized in a robust way, we would probably be in a better place as an industry. But, that didn't happen, and it certainly wasn't for lack of trying - see Java Applets/Web Start/JavaFX, Silverlight, and of course the elephant in the room Flash / Flex. Instead, HTML evolved into dynamic HTML / "the DOM" / HTML5, and each layer of abstraction built there was "good enough" to dethrone all challengers - in no small part due to, again, people heeding the advice of the OP quote and not implementing browser-locked software.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  It’s worth remembering that Flash was in fact extremely successful. I think we’d still be using it today if not for some combination of (1) Steve Jobs and (2) Adobe mismanagement. People say Flash was bloated but try running Slack on 2008-era hardware and let me know how it goes. And there’s no reason Flash couldn’t have been adapted to use responsive breakpoints and such for mobile friendliness.
  - kitsunesoba 6y ago
    Slack and other ill-optimized Electron apps are not great, but Flash was far worse, at least in my experience. With Flash a single banner ad in some tab you forgot you had open could consume half or more of your G4/G5/C2D, whipping your fans into a frenzy and roasting your lap (if using a laptop). Slack, etc are a detriment in terms of heat and battery life too, but not to such an extreme extent and at least you're getting a reasonably functional app in exchange.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I work in defense and our stuff only runs with Internet explorer and Java applets. Requirements were written in the early 2000s and the product is still not ready to ship.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  This comment is legitimately terrifying.
ironmagma 6y ago
Today, to say the web is a “bad” runtime is to ignore the preferences of hundreds of thousands of companies. It may be true, but only along some metric that apparently nobody cares about. Maybe no one listens to this viewpoint because it’s wrong. The web is a fine runtime, not perfect, but solves a lot of the problems that matter (like distribution and cross-platform support). In the 90s, this was a different story, reflected by the industry’s and consumers’ overwhelming preference for native and terminal-based applications.

inetknght 6y ago

To this day I detest sites that require javascript, inject tens or hundreds of MB into cache, and make ridiculous demands of rendering.

revel 6y ago
isn't that all of them?
- airstrike 6y ago
  Except HN <3
  - anthk 6y ago
    But it needs JS to search content, it sucks.
ironmagma 6y ago
At least they don’t leave unremovable or untraceable binaries, configurations, and databases in your system directories and registry.
- inetknght 6y ago
  True. But on the flip side, technologies like virtual machines and containers have gone a long way to solve that in a better way.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    Who uses those for desktop applications? Even if I need a VM for something coding-related, it’s almost too much of a pain to set up because AFAIK there still aren’t many quick provisioning tools for e.g. VMWare. And I can guarantee that 99.9% of users have never even heard of Docker.
    - Seirdy 6y ago
      Linux users have platforms like Flatpak that sandbox applications to known directories, and have multiple "app store"-like implementations with colorful buttons to make the process look unintimidating and non-threatening. Another option is to simply use distro packages. Users of good distros who use distro packages have software that's vetted built from source independently, and compatible with the rest of the system.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > Who uses those for desktop applications? I do. > AFAIK there still aren’t many quick provisioning tools for e.g. VMWare I use VirtualBox. I boot just about any Linux distribution's live Desktop image without any hard drive attached (so, ramdisk only). Then curl a script to download and install any dependencies. After a few minutes I'm off to the races.
      - ironmagma 6y ago
        I use it too. You have to have that curl script (not a default user experience), manually mount the ISO (and have it downloaded), and then you risk losing all of your application state if the machine crashes since there is no storage. Seems like a pretty terrible experience. Why don't we have something like Vagrant where you can quickly provision a VM from the command line following a template?

ebiester 6y ago

But nobody chose the alternatives. Java or single operating system applications were the alternative. Where would we be today if you couldn't swap between Mac and Windows laptops -- or worse, had to have both -- because you depended on applications that had no common operating system? The reason we can use linux as a desktop is because of web applications. Now, it's possible that we could have ended up with Web Start or some alternative, but we didn't. Even today, cross-platform applications are terrible or expensive or both. Even today, it's a giant pain to write cross-platform apps in anything but C or C++. (QT's documentation is not great for the alternatives IMO, and you end up needing to understand C++ anyway.) If we want to get back to this, we need a better option. It turns out that nobody is willing to put in the effort when we already have web applications. Worse is better.

usui 6y ago
It's interesting to me you're getting downvoted which signifies that people don't think you're adding to the conversation Is this a form of denialism by hardcore "I-Hate-Javascript"ers? I would like to add that I absolutely hate the subset of modern websites that choose to be slow, but I think the parent is completely right. If we keep making it hard to use useful applications across platforms, then we're going to continue to see pushes toward the lowest common denominator that consumer computers can run. Yes, yes, I know techies like you and I believe installing stuff is trivial if you spend even just a little amount of time, but _this doesn't matter to average users_ It's a nightmare even installing Python, Ruby on Rails packages properly without juggling a million virtual environments, and those are supposed to be tools that you can run with a single CLI command and it gives you debugging information if things go wrong. It's a bit much to think that average users can survive without any of the tools or knowledge we have, being locked in a stupid GUI, and at the rate that we encounter defective software (seems like I encounter bugs more frequently as time goes on). Now we are definitely going to add ARM complexity into the mix because what Apple pushed (M1) is just too good and everyone else is jumping on board for it Regarding the comment about consumer-Linux, I feel less strongly on your point about web applications being the killer reason why Linux desktop users exist. Anyone using Linux desktop is almost certainly a tech-hacker to begin with and isn't necessarily tied to web applications as their go-to reason, but it certainly helps surviving with it. There are tons of reasons to use Linux desktop with no relation to web, but for market share, it's going to need consumer applications bordering on exclusivity that makes Linux first-priority and dumps support for macOS/Windows. Many Windows users don't want to switch to macOS or Linux because of gaming Windows games kept me tied to the platform until my life became more focused on software. I only left Windows entirely after I learned that programming was a first-class citizen on Linux and macOS. Yes, you can program on Windows, but making software and using other people's software is more enjoyable elsewhere. So to wrap up this example, what can we learn about this? Well I knew life/job functions would be easier if I replaced Windows, but me doing software is coincidental. Give people a reason to use Linux. Make their lives easier, somehow, and make it clear that it will only happen if they leave their current platform. Otherwise you start coming up with systems like Windows Subsystem for Linux which... I'm not entirely sure why it exists. I think the oft-repeated ire for modern web does not add anything at this point without understanding that there are good reasons people prefer to use web applications Or, rather, web applications /are/ the common, universal cross-platform applications that we theorized, just that it arrived in less ideal ways

bri3d 6y ago

In fairness, "DHTML" / programmatic manipulation of the DOM was just invented in 1996 and eventually ended up being the envisioned successful client application runtime implemented across browser versions and runtimes. Now, of course with the Chromium hegemony we have an old-is-new-again set of problems on the web, but I do think that for a time, people _did_ listen to this advice and stopped writing applications for _only_ IE4/5/6. As an aside, I do still think that if a cross-platform application framework that were built from the ground-up for secure Internet-delivered application use had ever materialized in a robust way, we would probably be in a better place as an industry. But, that didn't happen, and it certainly wasn't for lack of trying - see Java Applets/Web Start/JavaFX, Silverlight, and of course the elephant in the room Flash / Flex. Instead, HTML evolved into dynamic HTML / "the DOM" / HTML5, and each layer of abstraction built there was "good enough" to dethrone all challengers - in no small part due to, again, people heeding the advice of the OP quote and not implementing browser-locked software.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
It’s worth remembering that Flash was in fact extremely successful. I think we’d still be using it today if not for some combination of (1) Steve Jobs and (2) Adobe mismanagement. People say Flash was bloated but try running Slack on 2008-era hardware and let me know how it goes. And there’s no reason Flash couldn’t have been adapted to use responsive breakpoints and such for mobile friendliness.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  Slack and other ill-optimized Electron apps are not great, but Flash was far worse, at least in my experience. With Flash a single banner ad in some tab you forgot you had open could consume half or more of your G4/G5/C2D, whipping your fans into a frenzy and roasting your lap (if using a laptop). Slack, etc are a detriment in terms of heat and battery life too, but not to such an extreme extent and at least you're getting a reasonably functional app in exchange.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

I work in defense and our stuff only runs with Internet explorer and Java applets. Requirements were written in the early 2000s and the product is still not ready to ship.

ironmagma 6y ago
This comment is legitimately terrifying.

ironmagma 6y ago

Today, to say the web is a “bad” runtime is to ignore the preferences of hundreds of thousands of companies. It may be true, but only along some metric that apparently nobody cares about. Maybe no one listens to this viewpoint because it’s wrong. The web is a fine runtime, not perfect, but solves a lot of the problems that matter (like distribution and cross-platform support). In the 90s, this was a different story, reflected by the industry’s and consumers’ overwhelming preference for native and terminal-based applications.