4 ms·

>The only reason the web stack is used for desktop applications is because it is a bit cheaper and less effort than writing a good - native application. Anothe

by ilyt 4y ago

>The only reason the web stack is used for desktop applications is because it is a bit cheaper and less effort than writing a good - native application. Another reason is that it can just run in browser without installing anything and "just click and it starts working" is HUGE feature, especially if you're in corpo where every fucking app needs management/helpdesk approval to be installed And so we're damned to this miserable existence of using webapps

danielvaughn 4y ago
Is it so miserable? Certainly there are problems with modern web apps, but I can't think of any that are insurmountable.
- MSFT_Edging 4y ago
  The feature parity of the web app and the electron app is often noticeable. Microsoft products are a big one. oneNote web lacks a ton of features, teams Linux is very unstable and will outright not show the message history, jumping days or weeks at a time. I needed to make a powerpoint once and it just wouldn't save, the page would repeatedly reload and lose all the changes.
  - nawgz 4y ago
    Why would you criticize a platform because corporations misuse that platform? MS intentionally cripples its web offerings because native ones can collect way more data. The web and its featureset are not responsible for issues like "unstable Teams on Linux" and "a page repeatedly reloading and losing all the changes"
  - schaefer 4y ago
    The only issue I have with teams for linux is it doesn't wake from suspend properly. So if I suspend I kill it and restart the app. Give that a try and see if it resolves your issues with message updates.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    The feature parity of non-electron desktop apps and web apps is even worse. There usually isn't even a web app to compare.
  - shrimp_emoji 4y ago
    That isn't just Teams on Linux; that's also Teams on Windows (the native app, not thought he browser, even). It is the most astoundingly buggy software I've ever used. I've experienced what you mentioned and more. Once, the GUI elements somehow failed to load, and buttons and menus appeared as text strings, like `sidebar_contact_expander`, and it was this eldritch horror of long string spam everywhere. In a native application. On Windows. Written by Microsoft. Sorry. I have to cathartically vent about it whenever given the opportunity.
    - tabtab 4y ago
      I concur! The MS-Teams UI designers must have been on an illicit substance. Or else they let a bunch of PHB's (MBA's) do a big Design By Committee. If it were not for bundling deals, nobody would touch Teams with a 10 foot laptop. And obvious features are missing. Somebody deserves a big public firing. Our most popular Teams sub-site is "How To Work Around Teams Oddities". I don't even know if they are "bugs" because I don't know what the fudge MS intended.
- ilyt 4y ago
  Compared to gains in computing power? yes, it is entirely miserable. I could press a button that I looked at in native app 20 years ago. Current day apps can't even get stable layout displayed 99% of the time. The "see the link, click the link, whoops something else got moved under my cursor in that 200ms interval" is soooo common if you try to use anything web quickly.
infogulch 4y ago
This is where the rubber meets the road. Show me a native application ecosystem that can go from some blue underline text to fully functional interactive tool with one click and 1s with no prior contact and minimal risk of cross contamination and I'll show you an ecosystem that can win over web technologies. This is the bar that users have chosen. Accept and embrace it or be doomed to be overshadowed by something that meets the bar better.
- selfmodruntime 4y ago
  You missed more: web developers are plentiful and your one app runs on every system imaginable. Some web haters counter with the idea that if we had a common runtime / sandbox, native could target any OS as well. They miss that the browser is literally just that.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > Some web haters counter with the idea that if we had a common runtime / sandbox I remember when that was called "Java". :-) It didn't work out on the desktop.
    - euroderf 4y ago
      Swing was sposta be the Great Desktop Hope. It turned out to be pretty clunky though IIRC. AWT too.
    - 411111111111111 4y ago
      The difference is that Java promised to be that, but wasnt in practice. The browser ultimately delivered on the promise
      - tabtab 4y ago
        It probably could have been fixed, but HTML browsers kept a step ahead in progress. Java applets lost the improvement pace race, but the applet concept has merit because it was designed for GUI's, unlike HTML. If applets had better up-front security, better version management and auto-updates (like current browsers do), and better download-modularity such that one didn't have to download the entire app to open one screen, for example. Oracle buying it didn't help, as they have a reputation for suing everything that moves.

by ilyt 4y ago

danielvaughn 4y ago

Is it so miserable? Certainly there are problems with modern web apps, but I can't think of any that are insurmountable.

MSFT_Edging 4y ago
The feature parity of the web app and the electron app is often noticeable. Microsoft products are a big one. oneNote web lacks a ton of features, teams Linux is very unstable and will outright not show the message history, jumping days or weeks at a time. I needed to make a powerpoint once and it just wouldn't save, the page would repeatedly reload and lose all the changes.
- nawgz 4y ago
  Why would you criticize a platform because corporations misuse that platform? MS intentionally cripples its web offerings because native ones can collect way more data. The web and its featureset are not responsible for issues like "unstable Teams on Linux" and "a page repeatedly reloading and losing all the changes"
- schaefer 4y ago
  The only issue I have with teams for linux is it doesn't wake from suspend properly. So if I suspend I kill it and restart the app. Give that a try and see if it resolves your issues with message updates.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  The feature parity of non-electron desktop apps and web apps is even worse. There usually isn't even a web app to compare.
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  That isn't just Teams on Linux; that's also Teams on Windows (the native app, not thought he browser, even). It is the most astoundingly buggy software I've ever used. I've experienced what you mentioned and more. Once, the GUI elements somehow failed to load, and buttons and menus appeared as text strings, like `sidebar_contact_expander`, and it was this eldritch horror of long string spam everywhere. In a native application. On Windows. Written by Microsoft. Sorry. I have to cathartically vent about it whenever given the opportunity.
  - tabtab 4y ago
    I concur! The MS-Teams UI designers must have been on an illicit substance. Or else they let a bunch of PHB's (MBA's) do a big Design By Committee. If it were not for bundling deals, nobody would touch Teams with a 10 foot laptop. And obvious features are missing. Somebody deserves a big public firing. Our most popular Teams sub-site is "How To Work Around Teams Oddities". I don't even know if they are "bugs" because I don't know what the fudge MS intended.
ilyt 4y ago
Compared to gains in computing power? yes, it is entirely miserable. I could press a button that I looked at in native app 20 years ago. Current day apps can't even get stable layout displayed 99% of the time. The "see the link, click the link, whoops something else got moved under my cursor in that 200ms interval" is soooo common if you try to use anything web quickly.

infogulch 4y ago

This is where the rubber meets the road. Show me a native application ecosystem that can go from some blue underline text to fully functional interactive tool with one click and 1s with no prior contact and minimal risk of cross contamination and I'll show you an ecosystem that can win over web technologies. This is the bar that users have chosen. Accept and embrace it or be doomed to be overshadowed by something that meets the bar better.

selfmodruntime 4y ago
You missed more: web developers are plentiful and your one app runs on every system imaginable. Some web haters counter with the idea that if we had a common runtime / sandbox, native could target any OS as well. They miss that the browser is literally just that.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > Some web haters counter with the idea that if we had a common runtime / sandbox I remember when that was called "Java". :-) It didn't work out on the desktop.
  - euroderf 4y ago
    Swing was sposta be the Great Desktop Hope. It turned out to be pretty clunky though IIRC. AWT too.
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    The difference is that Java promised to be that, but wasnt in practice. The browser ultimately delivered on the promise
    - tabtab 4y ago
      It probably could have been fixed, but HTML browsers kept a step ahead in progress. Java applets lost the improvement pace race, but the applet concept has merit because it was designed for GUI's, unlike HTML. If applets had better up-front security, better version management and auto-updates (like current browsers do), and better download-modularity such that one didn't have to download the entire app to open one screen, for example. Oracle buying it didn't help, as they have a reputation for suing everything that moves.