5 ms·

If web browsers had stuck to just delivering documents, the Internet wouldn't have become what it is today. We'd end up with a bunch of AOL-like walled gardens,

If web browsers had stuck to just delivering documents, the Internet wouldn't have become what it is today. We'd end up with a bunch of AOL-like walled gardens, which benefits nobody. Your "get off my lawn" ideal for web browsers would have never worked.

betwixthewires 5y ago
That's just ridiculous. It's not a dichotomy between news sites running megabytes of software on your machine and proprietary walled garden networks. There was a near decade long golden age where people used protocols and clients, browsers delivered documents and everyone used the same global network, and you're conveniently just ignoring that to make your invalid point. Do you like what the web is today? I know almost nobody that does. "We wouldn't have the web we have today" isn't a selling point.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  I have many issues with what the web is today, but removing all interactive features from web browsers would be a very negative change in my opinion.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Why? Think about this scenario. You boot your machine, and it boots to a beautiful environment, with all the software you need to do the things you want to do. But most of it is useless because you have to start this other piece of software that's a blank rectangle, and in that software you must type the name of the application you want to run, and it will fetch the application over the network and render it. This blank rectangle must constantly be updated with new features in order to continue fetching software to run over the network properly. Whole teams need to be employed by non profits to keep this blank rectangle up to date. An operating system inside of an operating system. You don't think this is senseless? Now imagine this scenario: you click a link to a video, the stream opens in VLC. You click subscribe, the link opens in thunderbird. If a company wants to have some interactive service they have to give you a client, they can't just externalize that workload on a browser maintainer. Isn't that the web we wanted?
    - BrightGlow 5y ago
      That's not a problem on platforms like ChromeOS where web apps are treated like standard apps, from the user point of view they're indistinguishable. A solution on other operating systems would be to use Electron, but I've seen many people on here also cry foul about that.
      - betwixthewires 5y ago
        Electron is an even worse aspect of what I described, I thought about adding a line about it but decided to stay on point. You create an entire system designed for web apps, then you create basically a site specific browser to render just one web app because users need a dedicated client. It's another step in the senseless direction.
        BrightGlow 5y ago
        What is senseless about that? It's common for apps to bundle their dependencies, with Electron the bundle just happens to be a app platform for HTML, CSS and Javascript that we colloquially call a web browser. I'm not really a fan of Electron myself but some of the hatred it seems to get on this website is pretty irrational and unreasonable, in my opinion.
        betwixthewires 5y ago
        So electron is "great" in the sense that it is a workaround to this disaster that I have described above that is the web. You have to build a web app, but you want a client application, the resources to build both are a lot so you just wrap your web app in electron. It's a stopgap and it's an enabler. It is not good for the user. As much as I dislike complex web apps, I will sooner run one in a tab in my browser than download an electron app. Did you know that electron apps basically bundle the entire chrome browser in with every application you use it to make? Have you ever tried running more than a couple of electron apps at once?
        5y ago
  - userbinator 5y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing against removal of things like HTML forms, which are arguably the only good interactivity that browsers have; and indeed, a lot of "web 2.0" sites worked very well that way, no JS required. This includes all the web forums, blogs, and even sites like YouTube and Twitter which used to actually work without JS (and were much faster too).
LocalH 5y ago
"The Internet today" friggin' blows. Get off my lawn indeed, lol

betwixthewires 5y ago

That's just ridiculous. It's not a dichotomy between news sites running megabytes of software on your machine and proprietary walled garden networks. There was a near decade long golden age where people used protocols and clients, browsers delivered documents and everyone used the same global network, and you're conveniently just ignoring that to make your invalid point. Do you like what the web is today? I know almost nobody that does. "We wouldn't have the web we have today" isn't a selling point.

jaywalk 5y ago
I have many issues with what the web is today, but removing all interactive features from web browsers would be a very negative change in my opinion.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Why? Think about this scenario. You boot your machine, and it boots to a beautiful environment, with all the software you need to do the things you want to do. But most of it is useless because you have to start this other piece of software that's a blank rectangle, and in that software you must type the name of the application you want to run, and it will fetch the application over the network and render it. This blank rectangle must constantly be updated with new features in order to continue fetching software to run over the network properly. Whole teams need to be employed by non profits to keep this blank rectangle up to date. An operating system inside of an operating system. You don't think this is senseless? Now imagine this scenario: you click a link to a video, the stream opens in VLC. You click subscribe, the link opens in thunderbird. If a company wants to have some interactive service they have to give you a client, they can't just externalize that workload on a browser maintainer. Isn't that the web we wanted?
  - BrightGlow 5y ago
    That's not a problem on platforms like ChromeOS where web apps are treated like standard apps, from the user point of view they're indistinguishable. A solution on other operating systems would be to use Electron, but I've seen many people on here also cry foul about that.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Electron is an even worse aspect of what I described, I thought about adding a line about it but decided to stay on point. You create an entire system designed for web apps, then you create basically a site specific browser to render just one web app because users need a dedicated client. It's another step in the senseless direction.
      - BrightGlow 5y ago
        What is senseless about that? It's common for apps to bundle their dependencies, with Electron the bundle just happens to be a app platform for HTML, CSS and Javascript that we colloquially call a web browser. I'm not really a fan of Electron myself but some of the hatred it seems to get on this website is pretty irrational and unreasonable, in my opinion.
        betwixthewires 5y ago
        So electron is "great" in the sense that it is a workaround to this disaster that I have described above that is the web. You have to build a web app, but you want a client application, the resources to build both are a lot so you just wrap your web app in electron. It's a stopgap and it's an enabler. It is not good for the user. As much as I dislike complex web apps, I will sooner run one in a tab in my browser than download an electron app. Did you know that electron apps basically bundle the entire chrome browser in with every application you use it to make? Have you ever tried running more than a couple of electron apps at once?
        5y ago
- userbinator 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing against removal of things like HTML forms, which are arguably the only good interactivity that browsers have; and indeed, a lot of "web 2.0" sites worked very well that way, no JS required. This includes all the web forums, blogs, and even sites like YouTube and Twitter which used to actually work without JS (and were much faster too).

LocalH 5y ago

"The Internet today" friggin' blows. Get off my lawn indeed, lol