5 ms·

> everything is now a webapp When, why and how became this a good thing?

by rhabarba 1y ago

anonym29 1y ago
(edit, misread)
- rhabarba 1y ago
  I did not say otherwise.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
When? When the majority of SW dev work became synonymous with web dev. Why? Because that's what web devs are comfortable with. How became this a good thing? When web apps became the easiest way to deploy cross platform.
- AnotherGoodName 1y ago
  Also the native UX kits all suck and have done so forever. There i said it. There’s a reason KDE looks better, has better consistency across apps, does theming at the os level better etc. Html/javascript/css for your native app frontend is actually quite reasonable.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    The native UX toolkits wouldn't be so shit if everyone wasn't so greedy. We don't need to reinvent a better wheel every 5 years (windows) or force some proprietary garbage nobody cares about (mac). It just needs to be reasonable, easy to adapt to other platforms, and long-lasting. The web isn't even that good, the competition is just self-destructive to a point it can't be justified.
jollyllama 1y ago
Because, relatively speaking, it solves the distribution problem. Distributing to your set of servers is easier than distributing to the set of desktops.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  Which also goes to show how backwards Linux package distribution is at this point. If you’re a small company, you can either build a web app which works everywhere; or you can deal with a distribution pushing out a buggy 3-year-old release against your will, with users harassing you about bugs. Packaging on Linux for normal desktop apps was dead on arrival. It was never viable except for niche open source apps. The resistance to this fact makes the failure of the Linux desktop somewhat self-inflicted.
  - jollyllama 1y ago
    Sure, but this isn't particular to Linux. On what platform is it better? In terms of developer experience, web apps just beat distributing to the end-user device every time.
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      Every other platform. Windows, Mac? Bundle your own updater. Or use Steam. Download one file and run with a click. PlayStation? Nintendo? Submit it, wait about two weeks, and out it goes. The Linux desktop is single handedly the worst distribution platform for an app developer, both in fragmentation and being unable to update your own software. The Linux desktop also had the arrogance to claim developers should do it their preferred way; and to harass devs for using tools like Flatpak. Then they wonder and complain and can’t understand why devs refuse to make Linux versions even for cross-platform frameworks. The idea that someone like Adobe should make a package for each distribution, and negotiate with each distribution if they are sending out some ancient version of Acrobat, was a stupid power-trip philosophy on day one with none of the clout required. Even Apple doesn’t reserve the right to stonewall releases purely because of version numbers.
      - jollyllama 1y ago
        > Windows, Mac You're neglecting all the parts where you've got to sign your install binaries. > Steam This is a third party marketplace that exists specifically to solve this problem and it carries all the baggage of any other third party marketplace, in the abstract. > Video games I'm not really shipping in these environments but I doubt it's that easy. > Apple They will happily stonewall you on many other small issues, however.
liotier 1y ago
>> everything is now a webapp > When, why and how became this a good thing? Cheap instant all-terrain deployment trumps most other considerations, especially where technical onboarding is on the critical path to customer acquisition.
- gspencley 1y ago
  There are definitely advantages to companies. As an end-user, the only advantages I can think of are data centralization and device portability. While we're talking about "webapps", generally, and not SaaS specifically... the two often go so hand in hand that it is the exception to see a webapp that is not also a SaaS product.. and as a consumer I kind of mostly hate SaaS. With the above two advantages noted, lets look at the cons: - Companies can, and routinely do, push unwanted UX changes on me without my opt-in. Pre-SaaS you would wait for a new version to come out and could see what the reviews were saying before deciding if you like the changes and want the new features. Now you're a guinea pig and get the new "features" whether they are a benefit to you or not. - Forces me to have my data on someone else's computer - The "other peoples' computer" issue means that if there is a software or a hardware failure that prevents me from being able to do urgent work that it is entirely outside of my hands and my ability to troubleshoot the majority of the time (though this is a double edged sword since for the average non-technical user it can be a big benefit) - Can't work without an active Internet connection (though I'll concede that not having an active connection is becoming pretty rare these days) - If the company goes out of business, say goodbye to your data in the majority of cases - Often goes hand in hand with renting the software rather than paying a flat fee for a perpetual license. Given the choice, I will always opt for a perpetual license. I try hard to have as few recurring payments in my budget as possible. Utility bills are bad enough. If, however, by "webapp" we just mean a desktop application that uses a DOM-based rendering engine then I couldn't care less. There are tradeoffs, but they are purely technical and rarely impact UX directly in the way that a general approach to software delivery and consumption does.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Except a lot of these are problems with so-called native apps too. My experience using MacOS for the better half of a decade ended with >80% of the software I paid for being unsupported. My options were to continue using a non-secure OS version or update to an environment where my software doesn't run anymore. I think you're the last of a dying breed of users. The iPhone generation doesn't lose their internet connection, throw a hissy-fit when UX changes or even care all that much when data is on a remote server. They will pay for whatever is successfully marketed to them, and that company will be rewarded with success. This is what the App Store conditions users into wanting, if OnePass tells you to switch to their Electron app then you have zero choice in the matter. My solution has simply been to never pay for software. Not native, not SaaS webapps, not Electron containers. It's all just one big scam when free alternatives to 99% of meaningful software exists if you're willing to eschew laziness.

> everything is now a webapp When, why and how became this a good thing?

anonym29 1y ago

(edit, misread)

rhabarba 1y ago
I did not say otherwise.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

When? When the majority of SW dev work became synonymous with web dev. Why? Because that's what web devs are comfortable with. How became this a good thing? When web apps became the easiest way to deploy cross platform.

AnotherGoodName 1y ago
Also the native UX kits all suck and have done so forever. There i said it. There’s a reason KDE looks better, has better consistency across apps, does theming at the os level better etc. Html/javascript/css for your native app frontend is actually quite reasonable.
- const_cast 1y ago
  The native UX toolkits wouldn't be so shit if everyone wasn't so greedy. We don't need to reinvent a better wheel every 5 years (windows) or force some proprietary garbage nobody cares about (mac). It just needs to be reasonable, easy to adapt to other platforms, and long-lasting. The web isn't even that good, the competition is just self-destructive to a point it can't be justified.

jollyllama 1y ago

Because, relatively speaking, it solves the distribution problem. Distributing to your set of servers is easier than distributing to the set of desktops.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
Which also goes to show how backwards Linux package distribution is at this point. If you’re a small company, you can either build a web app which works everywhere; or you can deal with a distribution pushing out a buggy 3-year-old release against your will, with users harassing you about bugs. Packaging on Linux for normal desktop apps was dead on arrival. It was never viable except for niche open source apps. The resistance to this fact makes the failure of the Linux desktop somewhat self-inflicted.
- jollyllama 1y ago
  Sure, but this isn't particular to Linux. On what platform is it better? In terms of developer experience, web apps just beat distributing to the end-user device every time.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    Every other platform. Windows, Mac? Bundle your own updater. Or use Steam. Download one file and run with a click. PlayStation? Nintendo? Submit it, wait about two weeks, and out it goes. The Linux desktop is single handedly the worst distribution platform for an app developer, both in fragmentation and being unable to update your own software. The Linux desktop also had the arrogance to claim developers should do it their preferred way; and to harass devs for using tools like Flatpak. Then they wonder and complain and can’t understand why devs refuse to make Linux versions even for cross-platform frameworks. The idea that someone like Adobe should make a package for each distribution, and negotiate with each distribution if they are sending out some ancient version of Acrobat, was a stupid power-trip philosophy on day one with none of the clout required. Even Apple doesn’t reserve the right to stonewall releases purely because of version numbers.
    - jollyllama 1y ago
      > Windows, Mac You're neglecting all the parts where you've got to sign your install binaries. > Steam This is a third party marketplace that exists specifically to solve this problem and it carries all the baggage of any other third party marketplace, in the abstract. > Video games I'm not really shipping in these environments but I doubt it's that easy. > Apple They will happily stonewall you on many other small issues, however.

liotier 1y ago

>> everything is now a webapp > When, why and how became this a good thing? Cheap instant all-terrain deployment trumps most other considerations, especially where technical onboarding is on the critical path to customer acquisition.

gspencley 1y ago
There are definitely advantages to companies. As an end-user, the only advantages I can think of are data centralization and device portability. While we're talking about "webapps", generally, and not SaaS specifically... the two often go so hand in hand that it is the exception to see a webapp that is not also a SaaS product.. and as a consumer I kind of mostly hate SaaS. With the above two advantages noted, lets look at the cons: - Companies can, and routinely do, push unwanted UX changes on me without my opt-in. Pre-SaaS you would wait for a new version to come out and could see what the reviews were saying before deciding if you like the changes and want the new features. Now you're a guinea pig and get the new "features" whether they are a benefit to you or not. - Forces me to have my data on someone else's computer - The "other peoples' computer" issue means that if there is a software or a hardware failure that prevents me from being able to do urgent work that it is entirely outside of my hands and my ability to troubleshoot the majority of the time (though this is a double edged sword since for the average non-technical user it can be a big benefit) - Can't work without an active Internet connection (though I'll concede that not having an active connection is becoming pretty rare these days) - If the company goes out of business, say goodbye to your data in the majority of cases - Often goes hand in hand with renting the software rather than paying a flat fee for a perpetual license. Given the choice, I will always opt for a perpetual license. I try hard to have as few recurring payments in my budget as possible. Utility bills are bad enough. If, however, by "webapp" we just mean a desktop application that uses a DOM-based rendering engine then I couldn't care less. There are tradeoffs, but they are purely technical and rarely impact UX directly in the way that a general approach to software delivery and consumption does.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Except a lot of these are problems with so-called native apps too. My experience using MacOS for the better half of a decade ended with >80% of the software I paid for being unsupported. My options were to continue using a non-secure OS version or update to an environment where my software doesn't run anymore. I think you're the last of a dying breed of users. The iPhone generation doesn't lose their internet connection, throw a hissy-fit when UX changes or even care all that much when data is on a remote server. They will pay for whatever is successfully marketed to them, and that company will be rewarded with success. This is what the App Store conditions users into wanting, if OnePass tells you to switch to their Electron app then you have zero choice in the matter. My solution has simply been to never pay for software. Not native, not SaaS webapps, not Electron containers. It's all just one big scam when free alternatives to 99% of meaningful software exists if you're willing to eschew laziness.