4 ms·

Why am I supposed to want any website I visit to be able to render audio offline anyway?

by omnicognate 3y ago

nox101 3y ago
https://wavacity.com/ https://wavacity.com/ ?
- omnicognate 3y ago
  Audacity's an awesome piece of software that I've used many times. Never once have I thought "by golly this thing should be a website, and my web browser should be made to expose an audio graph API to every website I visit to that it can be so!"
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    We'll make sure we stop building software you could imagine then. /s There's value here. Other people are allowed to want more than you want.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Get with the times. Your privacy must be sacrificed so some random web app you have never heard of can do something no website should be able to do at all. Or maybe that’s just a pretense and not the real reason Google keeps adding all these APIs. People seem to forget that ChromeOS is literally Google trying to turn every computer into a thin client for their services.
  - nox101 3y ago
    I'm the opposite. I think website = sanboxed, native = pownage so whenever I can use a website version I often prefer it over a native app. I use photopea all the time now. it's available on every machine, even machines I don't have permission to install software on
    - spookie 3y ago
      You can sandbox native apps too. Hell, even run them in an airgapped virtual machine. I wouldn't trust a browser sandbox all that much given the high interest in subverting it.
      - dannyw 3y ago
        What’s an easy way to sandbox apps on Windows? Sorry, I’d prefer to stick with my operating system, not install QubesOS.
        pcdoodle 3y ago
        sandboxie was neat last time i tried it.
        EraYaN 3y ago
        Windows has a native sandboxing tech now: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/application-security/application-isolation/windows-sandbox/windows-sandbox-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/applicati...
      - jakeogh 3y ago
        I firejail browsers specifically to stop them from playing audio, it's much easier than playing wack-a-mole with the browser settings.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      And they absolutely love that you, and every other user, sends them every original image you choose to edit So when you make a meme or whatever and repost it somewhere else, guess what, they know who did that!
    - zuhsetaqi 3y ago
      A "sandbox" that can freely send anything it wants to any computer connected to the internet
  - whywhywhywhy 3y ago
    > Audacity's an awesome piece of software It really isn't it's extremely janky and buggy, only use it as an absolute last resort.
ninkendo 3y ago
There’s a push to make every single last thing a normal application can do, available to web apps through some half-standardized JavaScript API or another. Generally google comes up with use cases, implements it in chrome, and tries to call it a standard. Then everyone complains when Apple doesn’t implement these standards fast enough, and that Safari is “holding back the web” or “the new IE” because it’s not keeping up with every last feature Chrome implements. I would prefer websites just be websites and that we don’t have every single damned API available to whatever trashy site I accidentally click on, but I guess you and me are outliers here. Most people on HN seem to welcome every single JS API because web development is the only platform anyone seems to care about any more.
- jwells89 3y ago
  Things like this seem niche enough to safely put behind a permission dialog. 99.9% of sites/web apps have no legitimate need for this functionality.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Permissions dialogs solve for a problem product creators have and create more problems for users.
  - ninkendo 3y ago
    That’s how location services and notifications work today, and all it means is that websites just constantly nag me to enable them. Things like this make for a more annoying web all around, because now it’s just one more tool sites can use to track me and increase engagement. (Edit: sibling poster chuckles said it way better than I can.) If I had my way, JavaScript on the web would be limited to XMLHttpRequest and basic DOM manipulation and couldn’t do anything else. A totally separate “rich” JavaScript engine could be opted into by the user for any website that presents itself as an “application” like ones that legitimately want audio API’s like these. All these half-baked web app “standards” that google is forcing down our throats can be confined to that leper colony. Then the most important bit: browsers could let me completely disable the “rich” engine, and I can go back to having a sane web experience again.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Why am I supposed to want any website I visit to be able to render audio offline anyway?

nox101 3y ago

https://wavacity.com/ https://wavacity.com/ ?

omnicognate 3y ago
Audacity's an awesome piece of software that I've used many times. Never once have I thought "by golly this thing should be a website, and my web browser should be made to expose an audio graph API to every website I visit to that it can be so!"
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  We'll make sure we stop building software you could imagine then. /s There's value here. Other people are allowed to want more than you want.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Get with the times. Your privacy must be sacrificed so some random web app you have never heard of can do something no website should be able to do at all. Or maybe that’s just a pretense and not the real reason Google keeps adding all these APIs. People seem to forget that ChromeOS is literally Google trying to turn every computer into a thin client for their services.
- nox101 3y ago
  I'm the opposite. I think website = sanboxed, native = pownage so whenever I can use a website version I often prefer it over a native app. I use photopea all the time now. it's available on every machine, even machines I don't have permission to install software on
  - spookie 3y ago
    You can sandbox native apps too. Hell, even run them in an airgapped virtual machine. I wouldn't trust a browser sandbox all that much given the high interest in subverting it.
    - dannyw 3y ago
      What’s an easy way to sandbox apps on Windows? Sorry, I’d prefer to stick with my operating system, not install QubesOS.
      - pcdoodle 3y ago
        sandboxie was neat last time i tried it.
        EraYaN 3y ago
        Windows has a native sandboxing tech now: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/application-security/application-isolation/windows-sandbox/windows-sandbox-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/applicati...
    - jakeogh 3y ago
      I firejail browsers specifically to stop them from playing audio, it's much easier than playing wack-a-mole with the browser settings.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    And they absolutely love that you, and every other user, sends them every original image you choose to edit So when you make a meme or whatever and repost it somewhere else, guess what, they know who did that!
  - zuhsetaqi 3y ago
    A "sandbox" that can freely send anything it wants to any computer connected to the internet
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  > Audacity's an awesome piece of software It really isn't it's extremely janky and buggy, only use it as an absolute last resort.

ninkendo 3y ago

There’s a push to make every single last thing a normal application can do, available to web apps through some half-standardized JavaScript API or another. Generally google comes up with use cases, implements it in chrome, and tries to call it a standard. Then everyone complains when Apple doesn’t implement these standards fast enough, and that Safari is “holding back the web” or “the new IE” because it’s not keeping up with every last feature Chrome implements. I would prefer websites just be websites and that we don’t have every single damned API available to whatever trashy site I accidentally click on, but I guess you and me are outliers here. Most people on HN seem to welcome every single JS API because web development is the only platform anyone seems to care about any more.

jwells89 3y ago
Things like this seem niche enough to safely put behind a permission dialog. 99.9% of sites/web apps have no legitimate need for this functionality.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Permissions dialogs solve for a problem product creators have and create more problems for users.
- ninkendo 3y ago
  That’s how location services and notifications work today, and all it means is that websites just constantly nag me to enable them. Things like this make for a more annoying web all around, because now it’s just one more tool sites can use to track me and increase engagement. (Edit: sibling poster chuckles said it way better than I can.) If I had my way, JavaScript on the web would be limited to XMLHttpRequest and basic DOM manipulation and couldn’t do anything else. A totally separate “rich” JavaScript engine could be opted into by the user for any website that presents itself as an “application” like ones that legitimately want audio API’s like these. All these half-baked web app “standards” that google is forcing down our throats can be confined to that leper colony. Then the most important bit: browsers could let me completely disable the “rich” engine, and I can go back to having a sane web experience again.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]