4 ms·

The problem with web is that you have 3 levels of dependency: 1. OS (Microsoft has 90%*) 2. Programming language (C++ and Javascript) 3. Browser (Google has

by bullen 5y ago

The problem with web is that you have 3 levels of dependency: 1. OS (Microsoft has 90%*) 2. Programming language (C++ and Javascript) 3. Browser (Google has 90%*) * of the market on devices with keyboard for production, mobile is consume only and completely meaningless for anything but reading SMTP over radio (unless you consider writing mails on a touch interface productive). You do not want two huge companies to be the gatekeepers of your work, one is enough (Microsoft), zero is the goal: RISC-V with open GPU and linux. Applets/WASM are too old/new to be practical now, also they are slow because of the VM (which on the client does not really profit from the benefits of non-crashability atleast not in comparison to the server). We need to rethink everything and go back to what works; for my part vanilla JavaSE (HTTP/JSON) is still the best option for the serverside as it has the unique combination of a VM with GC that is open-source and no-crashes are important on the server. On the client I have gone back to C (compiled with ++ for compatibility and comfort) with OpenGL (ES) 3. Audio/visuals both need 3D to be compelling, we have 2 eyes/ears; it's time to level up, whether you call it metaverse or not. I now exclusively use the web for advertizing, real-time communication and distribution (video and forum) as everything else can be a command line.

the_pwner224 5y ago
You seem to be mixing up monopolizing and gatekeeping. While MS/Google may own 90%+ market share of OS/browser, Linux and Firefox are very usable, effective, productive alternatives. You're not getting gatekept by MS/Google if you want to be in the modern web.
- bullen 5y ago
  It becomes bad when your customers are combining those softwares in a recursive majority. The only reason incumbants are kept alive is so we can pretend we have a choice. My excuse is it's hard to use a adjective as a verb.
oblio 5y ago
> * of the market on devices with keyboard for production, mobile is consume only and completely meaningless for anything but reading SMTP over radio (unless you consider writing mails on a touch interface productive). I don't generally say this lightly, but I used to be a bit like you not long ago. The future is now, old man! You can do a lot on mobile devices. You can't do as much as on desktops, but entire generations of people are being born and educated and live their lives using nothing but mobile devices. This will become progressively more so, than the opposite. And those are a lot more gatekept than the desktop ever was. The battle was brief and it was lost. And only ever got a chance not because of open source, which was trojaned by corporations almost from the start, but because IBM was dumb and made the only truly successful, mass market, open architecture. I'll believe that RISC-V and open GPUs and whatever are the future when I can use for all my daily computing needs at roughly the same performance as the latest cutting edge proprietary architecture. That's very unlikely to happen. Do you know why? Because there's no money in that. Money moves the world. Money makes things happen. Even volunteers have to eat, pay rent, pay tuition, take their partners on dates, etc. And if those open architectures do win, you'd better be careful. It will most likely mean that the battle has moved at an entirely different level and those open architectures on their own are useless, the average person won't be able to do anything meaningful with them because the gatekeeping is now done at a higher level.

by bullen 5y ago

the_pwner224 5y ago

You seem to be mixing up monopolizing and gatekeeping. While MS/Google may own 90%+ market share of OS/browser, Linux and Firefox are very usable, effective, productive alternatives. You're not getting gatekept by MS/Google if you want to be in the modern web.

bullen 5y ago
It becomes bad when your customers are combining those softwares in a recursive majority. The only reason incumbants are kept alive is so we can pretend we have a choice. My excuse is it's hard to use a adjective as a verb.

oblio 5y ago

> * of the market on devices with keyboard for production, mobile is consume only and completely meaningless for anything but reading SMTP over radio (unless you consider writing mails on a touch interface productive). I don't generally say this lightly, but I used to be a bit like you not long ago. The future is now, old man! You can do a lot on mobile devices. You can't do as much as on desktops, but entire generations of people are being born and educated and live their lives using nothing but mobile devices. This will become progressively more so, than the opposite. And those are a lot more gatekept than the desktop ever was. The battle was brief and it was lost. And only ever got a chance not because of open source, which was trojaned by corporations almost from the start, but because IBM was dumb and made the only truly successful, mass market, open architecture. I'll believe that RISC-V and open GPUs and whatever are the future when I can use for all my daily computing needs at roughly the same performance as the latest cutting edge proprietary architecture. That's very unlikely to happen. Do you know why? Because there's no money in that. Money moves the world. Money makes things happen. Even volunteers have to eat, pay rent, pay tuition, take their partners on dates, etc. And if those open architectures do win, you'd better be careful. It will most likely mean that the battle has moved at an entirely different level and those open architectures on their own are useless, the average person won't be able to do anything meaningful with them because the gatekeeping is now done at a higher level.