> On 16. Mar 2021, at 06:07, Jacob Bachmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Colby Russell wrote: >> On 3/15/21 9:02 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > [...] >> > One of the rationales presented to me (off-list) for this was that a >> > WebAssembly port of GNU could be run as a web app and therefore be >> > "always up-to-date" >> >> Despite quoting the salient parts from The JavaScript Trap, you have >> regressed to committing the same error of critiquing the computing model >> of traditional web apps, which is, once again, totally irrelevant. It >> is neither here nor there. Here you do it again: >> >> > Web apps stored on "the cloud" are bad [...] Porting to "the Web" is >> > simply not practical or appropriate >> >> Please, please stop using this kind of sleight of hand to redirect the >> context to web apps and "the cloud". "The cloud" and "the Web" are >> _simply_not_relevant_ to the computing model described above, which >> treats the browser as a runtime which can be targeted during compilation >> and which you happen to get "for free" on upwards of 90% of personal >> computing devices, *NOT* as a thin client that you all keep insisting >> on. > > The original poster who started this discussion (and does not seem to have > actually replied to the list even once afterwards...) directly told me (and > possibly others) off-list that avoiding package management tasks (which "the > cloud" is well-known to promise to "magically" handle for you) was one of his > goals. > >> It's as if there's a short-circuit in at least half of respondents' >> brains that prevents them from engaging in any way without at some point >> insisting that this *MUST* involve cloud architecture and SaaS-like web >> apps being the central focus. It is _absurd_ that it takes this much >> energy to continually refute this over and over. Ideally, it shouldn't >> have to occur even a single time, but failing that, once should suffice. >> At this point, I have to wonder how many times this has to be pointed >> out? Is there any number which would be sufficient? > > We are in violent agreement here, but the original poster clarified > (off-list) that SaaS-like services were exactly what he wanted. > > > I am beginning to suspect that we have all been trolled, especially since > giving those extra details to only some participants would be likely to cause > violent discussion between those (including me) who were told (off-list) what > the original poster was actually requesting and those (presumably including > you) who are still thinking of the general case, where Free software *can* be > packaged using the "Web platform" as a portable runtime. Mozilla's XULRunner > was a closely-related example, and I believe that there are similar current > "Web app on local storage as desktop app" runtimes currently maintained. > > If this was a troll, it has been quite successful -- just look at all the > vitriol and hot air in this thread. We all seem to have been had. >
Obviously the OP was a tongue-in-cheek kind of question. But this should not prevent us from lucidly reflecting on the topic and find truth in the joke; to then find common ground. However, from my (brief) experience here in this ML, this discussion is a disaster. It is not even a discussion. Some replies here a display of ignorance combined with superstition and outright hostility. No effort is made to understand the issue and preconceived talking points are thrown out seemingly at random. A magnificent display of what goes wrong when you religiously believe and are unable to actually apply your values to developments in the world. Which is why I stopped replying. It was a disappointing experience and I see no basis for discourse. > > On a side note, at what point does it become appropriate to forward replies > received off-list to the list when bad faith is suspected? > > > -- Jacob >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
