Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the vid-off dept.

Vid.me has announced that they are shutting down on December 15th 2017, saying that they could not find a path to sustainability.

This news should be of concern as content creators have been getting increasingly frustrated with Youtube's algorithms that demonetize their videos and this means they have one less alternative to turn towards.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Wootery on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:22PM (43 children)

    by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:22PM (#605688)

    There's a wise saying that applies here: if it's not on the web, it doesn't exist at all.

    I'm sure their protocol is cute and all, and I can see they're enjoying being on the blockchain bandwagon, but if it doesn't work in the browser it's DOA. Next candidate please.

    The way forward is better web technologies, IndieWeb style, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:28PM (40 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:28PM (#605692) Journal

    if it doesn't work in the browser it's DOA. Next candidate please.

    But how would that be reconciled with the anti-JavaScript hardliners who claim that they would rather download, compile, and install a native app than run JavaScript in the browser? Or must a service offer both a native GTK+ front-end for technical users and a browser-based front-end for non-technical users?

    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:38PM (39 children)

      by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:38PM (#605695)

      Even the full-bore JavaScript-haters don't mind reasonable exceptions. It's the needless JS bloat that annoys them.

      More broadly though, web support is essentially non-negotiable for something like this. People just won't try it otherwise. It's a bit different for subscription services, as they already have the payment barrier, so requiring an app isn't so lethal.

      The general trend is to require an app for mobile, and to have an optional app on Windows alongside support for desktop browsers. Netflix and co don't bother supporting mobile browsers, for whatever reason. (The only technical reason to get the Netflix app for Windows, is surround-sound support. The picture quality is identical to viewing in-browser with IE/Edge.)

      Services like Microsoft/Xbox video, and Playstation Video, have the advantage of an established platform, so they're better able to get away with otherwise poor device support. What we're discussing though, wouldn't have that sort of head-start.

      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:55PM (6 children)

        by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:55PM (#605703) Journal

        How would web support work for something that operates like a BitTorrent client? Users of LBRY host what they have watched, and a user who has published videos generally needs to keep a service running in the background to host the videos that he has published. The web platform, on the other hand, works on a client-server model, not a peer-to-peer model. A script running in an HTML document can't open a socket to listen for connections from other users; it can communicate only with the same origin that hosts the document. This origin generally needs to have a fully qualified domain name so that it can qualify for a TLS certificate, and most non-technical end users haven't bought a domain for their home LANs.

        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:15PM (4 children)

          by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:15PM (#605712)

          How would web support work for something that operates like a BitTorrent client?

          Off the top of my head: either something clever with WebSockets (though iirc they're far less powerful than the name implies), or, more likely, you're just S.O.L.

          The web platform, on the other hand, works on a client-server model, not a peer-to-peer model.

          But this isn't necessary to be free from the clutches of the megacorporations. The IndieWeb guys have it right: the web is here to stay, and it's pretty great. It doesn't need replacing, we just need to do it right.

          Servers aren't the problem. Being tied to one company's platform, is the problem.

          The only use for anything like BitTorrent would be as a performance/load-balancing tool that might be built into an optional app, but I really don't buy the idea that the future of online video is through pure peer-to-peer distribution with no browser support.

          Another point against peer-to-peer: distribution of your video, is your problem, not mine. Many people have harsh data caps.

          • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday December 05 2017, @09:59PM (3 children)

            by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @09:59PM (#605846) Journal

            The IndieWeb guys have it right: the web is here to stay, and it's pretty great. It doesn't need replacing, we just need to do it right.

            So then how should we go about convincing the non-technical general public of the benefits of spending $135 per household per year, comprising $15 per year for a domain and $10 per month for a VPS?

            Servers aren't the problem. Being tied to one company's platform, is the problem.

            This is true whether "one company's platform" is YouTube/Facebook or even just a file hosting service like Amazon S3.

            It's also true of advertising aggregators. In order to get away from AdSense, YouTube Partner Program, and the like, each household that runs its own website would have to find the time to sell its ad space to advertisers. How can that be made practical?

            Another point against peer-to-peer: distribution of your video, is your problem, not mine.

            Even if distribution of Pino P's video is Pino P's problem, whose problem is distribution of Wootery's video?

            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:27AM (2 children)

              by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:27AM (#606069)

              So then how should we go about convincing the non-technical general public of the benefits of spending $135 per household per year, comprising $15 per year for a domain and $10 per month for a VPS?

              Eh? Weren't we talking about video hosting lock-in? We don't need LBRY, we need more diversity of video-hosting platforms, and good FOSS server-side software so those who want to can host streaming videos independently. There's no need for everyone to maintain their own server or domain.

              This is what the web is meant to be like: open to competing hosts that can give rise to healthy competition and an ecosystem that works well for all. There's no point wasting time planning how p2p will take over the world; the web approach works great when it's done right.

              This is true whether "one company's platform" is YouTube/Facebook or even just a file hosting service like Amazon S3.

              No. YouTube is a social media platform, whereas S3 is a backend technology. When people browse YouTube, they don't tend to leave the YouTube ecosystem. This is one of the reasons it's so hard for anyone to move away from YouTube. S3 on the other hand is just a backend technology, invisible to the consumer. There's nowhere near the same lock-in problem.

              each household

              I'm not suggesting that each household run its own website and live the IndieWeb dream. [indieweb.org]

              We should be hoping for a healthy ecosystem of competing YouTube-like platforms. That would be great. I'm really not convinced that p2p has anything to contribute here.

              Even if distribution of Pino P's video is Pino P's problem, whose problem is distribution of Wootery's video?

              I don't expect others to donate their bandwidth for the distribution of my content, especially if it's monetised.

              I'm not opposed to BitTorrent for distributing videos or other large blobs - it's a proven technology after all - but I can't see it replacing conventional 'webby' streaming.

              • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:14PM (1 child)

                by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:14PM (#606214) Journal

                Earlier you wrote:

                The IndieWeb guys have it right

                Then you wrote:

                Eh? Weren't we talking about video hosting lock-in? We don't need LBRY, we need more diversity of video-hosting platforms, and good FOSS server-side software so those who want to can host streaming videos independently. There's no need for everyone to maintain their own server or domain.
                [...]
                I'm not suggesting that each household run its own website and live the IndieWeb dream.

                If it's just video hosting platforms, then MediaGoblin ought to work for many. (The biggest drawback of MediaGoblin is probably support for iOS playback until the H.264 patents expire.) But I was confused as to how much of IndieWeb practice you were suggesting.

                • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:15PM

                  by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:15PM (#606295)

                  Then you wrote:

                  When I said the 'IndieWeb dream' I meant the silly utopia of everyone having their own server. When I said 'The IndieWeb guys have it right', I meant they're right to oppose monoculture and monopolistic web platforms.

                  If it's just video hosting platforms, then MediaGoblin ought to work for many.

                  I don't have a lot of faith in MediaGoblin. Why is there not a simple embedded video demo anywhere to be seen?

                  Didn't know Safari on iOS lacked webm support. Weak sauce, Apple.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:32PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:32PM (#606188) Journal

          How would web support work for something that operates like a BitTorrent client? Users of LBRY host what they have watched, and a user who has published videos generally needs to keep a service running in the background to host the videos that he has published. The web platform, on the other hand, works on a client-server model, not a peer-to-peer model. A script running in an HTML document can't open a socket to listen for connections from other users; it can communicate only with the same origin that hosts the document. This origin generally needs to have a fully qualified domain name so that it can qualify for a TLS certificate, and most non-technical end users haven't bought a domain for their home LANs.

          WebRTC would probably work:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC [wikipedia.org]

          You would need to keep the browser window open, just the same as you would need to keep a torrent client open. But you could create a special background server program though for content producers who want to ensure their video is always online; plus a lot of users leave the browser open all the time anyway so that's not a huge problem (mine is literally only ever closed if a reboot is in progress). Could potentially even cram it into some kind of browser plugin to avoid having the tab there.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:44PM (31 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:44PM (#605892) Journal
        "Even the full-bore JavaScript-haters don't mind reasonable exceptions. It's the needless JS bloat that annoys them."

        Eh, not exactly.

        I mean that was the default position, about 30 years ago.

        In retrospect, however, we can clearly see how that was the thin wedge that destroyed the web. Once you allow 'reasonable' exceptions, but there's no technically enforced definition of 'reasonable,' you're left on the honor system. And that system had no viable defense, no way to stop, the least honorable people. The spammers, the marketeers, the big corporations, and the government.

        And with no way to stop them we wind up with what we have today. The web still exists but the vast majority of what most people see and perceive as the web simply isn't. It's discarded all of the essential elements that made the web a valuable thing for humanity.

        Ecmascript was a mistake. Even 10 years ago I would have agreed with what you said. But I can see now I was wrong.

        The browser's job is taking documents with structural markup and rendering them in a usable manner on whatever sort of output device is available to it. That's its one and only job, and if it starts accepting and executing scripts it has failed.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:03AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:03AM (#606033)

          There was no WWW, let alone JavaScript, 30 years ago.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:02AM (1 child)

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:02AM (#606045) Journal
            "There was no WWW, let alone JavaScript, 30 years ago."

            I said *about* 30 years ago anon. You trying to make the old man do math? Fine.

            2017-1990 = 27 I'd say that's close enough to 30 with the 'about.' In 1990 Tim Berners-Lee already had it running. Granted it hadn't spread much beyond him, wouldn't really start getting distribution till after New Years, but it did exist.

            And it wasn't like he invented that out of whole cloth either. Hypertext was used a lot through the 80s. Internet protocols for Email, News, and File Transfer were well established and widely used, as were non-internet connected BBS systems that made extensive use of hypertext. His bright idea was bringing that hypertext environment from the local BBS to the open Internet, and doing it in a way that properly abstracted hardware (and software!) incompatibilities out of the picture. This part of it is so important. It made it easy for you to make documents publicly available in a truly transparent way, so that EVERYONE could access them, whether they had an HP (HP made real computers back then!) or Sun or VAX or some sort of PC, whether it was IBM or Apple or Amiga or whatever... none of that mattered. This was revolutionary, because virtually everything outside of these internet protocols had system requirements and if you didn't have the right system, the right add-in card, the right monitor even, you could be shut out. And migrating systems? Imagine you've been running a popular and useful BBS for several years but one day the hardware dies. They don't make what you had it running on anymore, but there's better faster hardware available for less, so you go off and buy a new PC. You hook up the old HDD and there's your BBS, just like you built it, you copy it over and... oops. Yeah, the program you built it with won't run on this PC, of course.

            No problem! You get the great new BBS server for the new system, and it's back online quickly after that, right?

            Wrong again! Because even though these two different bits of software do almost exactly the same thing (hyperlinked menus and documents) they don't speak the same language. You built your old BBS in the language the old program used, and the new program doesn't speak that lingo. So now you have to translate it all. And 9 times out of 10 well before you get that done you realize it would be less work just to start over from scratch.

            The other problem with the BBS system was of course that they were local, as we had to connect with modems and pay long-distance charges few people frequented BBSs out of their area. So there was a level of indirection, in that for instance a lot of the Free Software stuff would be distributed on the Internet first, via News primarily but not exclusively, and then a little later a few people that had internet and also ran a BBS would get it put up for their neighbors, and over more time it would slowly filter out from BBS to BBS and area to area.

            WWW solved all these problems in one sweet stroke. It was a BBS language that wasn't proprietary (HTML) transported directly on the internet (HTTP,) and abstracted away hardware differences completely so that it could be ported to any system imaginable. You go from having to have very specific video hardware, for instance, to not requiring any video hardware at all! You go from a system that probably won't be maintainable when this system dies, to one that should be easily maintainable and portable to whatever system the future could possibly throw at you. You go from staying local to avoid long-distance charges to being able to connect from and to any point that can get to the internet.

            Took off like wildfire because it rocked. But very very quickly the marketeers started in, the ad money, the speculators^winvestors cash, and it exerted a constant, corrosive influence. Bit by bit that initial sweet stroke of abstraction has been chipped away. And again, ecmascript is a very very important part of how that corrosion has been done. Now we're back where we started, in the bad old pre-web days, when you can only access this if your video card is up to it, only access that if you're on X network but not Y network, etc.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:38AM

              by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:38AM (#606075)

              even though these two different bits of software do almost exactly the same thing (hyperlinked menus and documents) they don't speak the same language

              Microsoft continues this tradition with its C++ compilers.

        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:35AM (27 children)

          by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:35AM (#606073)

          destroyed the web

          Oh come on. It's ugly and bloated and... still thriving. For all its faults, the web is working pretty damn well, even if folks like us lament many of the technical details.

          It's discarded all of the essential elements that made the web a valuable thing for humanity.

          Not really. It's still open, it still allows free linking between sites (ignoring silos), it's read/write, and it's fairly successfully keeping up with technology (streaming video etc).

          The browser's job is taking documents with structural markup and rendering them in a usable manner on whatever sort of output device is available to it.

          I'm not sure I share your universal opposition to using the web as an application platform. In real terms, I find webmail, streaming video, and web-based word processors to be highly valuable. In terms of giving us a secure cross-platform application sandbox, the web is doing much better than the JVM ever did.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 06 2017, @11:57AM (7 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @11:57AM (#606096) Journal
            "Oh come on. It's ugly and bloated and... still thriving. For all its faults, the web is working pretty damn well, even if folks like us lament many of the technical details."

            I'm afraid you underestimate the problem.

            Turn off ecmascript. Turn it off completely. Just for one day. Then come tell me that.

            "It's still open"

            It's not. A great many "websites" today do not serve a web page anymore. They attempt to run compiled or obfuscated scripts, flash or java, and simply do not work at all if denied. A few years back this was a relatively few pages and could be laughed at and worked around but no more. This has gotten baked into the way the 'web designers' work and virtually everytime a website gets a makeover they become inaccessible, if they weren't already. And nearly everything that 'normal' people, non-geeks, use is not open at all at this point.

            "it still allows free linking between sites"

            Yeah no that's getting broken every day too, by more and more sites.

            "it's read/write"

            Huh?

            I am not aware of a single consumer ISP in this country that doesn't prohibit servers, and MASSIVELY gimp upload. Sometimes they won't even allow enough upload to ACK everything coming in on the other side.

            Though that's a problem with the Internet rather than the WWW proper.

            "I'm not sure I share your universal opposition to using the web as an application platform. In real terms, I find webmail, streaming video, and web-based word processors to be highly valuable. In terms of giving us a secure cross-platform application sandbox, the web is doing much better than the JVM ever did."

            I would have agreed with you a few years ago, but I've come to see that I was wrong.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @02:53PM (6 children)

              by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @02:53PM (#606146)

              Turn off ecmascript. Turn it off completely. Just for one day. Then come tell me that.

              Right. Hence 'bloated'. But it still works.

              A great many "websites" today do not serve a web page anymore. They attempt to run compiled or obfuscated scripts

              Right. Hence 'bloated'. But it still works.

              flash or java

              Java applets are long dead, and Flash is continuing its long decline. We do have EME now though. Proprietary binary blobs by any other name...

              And nearly everything that 'normal' people, non-geeks, use is not open at all at this point.

              That's not what 'open' means. What you are referring to is compliance with good old-school web-design principles like using HTML and CSS and only using JavaScript when necessary.

              that's getting broken every day too, by more and more sites

              Silos are a problem, but I don't know that it's getting worse. Blogs and news articles are always linkable, for example. Videos are generally linkable. (This is even true of Netflix, though they don't advertise it.)

              I am not aware of a single consumer ISP in this country that doesn't prohibit servers, and MASSIVELY gimp upload.

              We're talking about the web, not consumer ISPs. The web lets us have discussions and submit our own content. That's what 'read/write web' means. As you say, an Internet matter, not a web matter.

              I would have agreed with you a few years ago, but I've come to see that I was wrong.

              What is there to disagree with? Browsers are more secure than Sun Java ever was, and it really does work as a, uh, cross-platform platform.

              • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:07PM (5 children)

                by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:07PM (#606245) Journal

                I am not aware of a single consumer ISP in this country that doesn't prohibit servers, and MASSIVELY gimp upload.

                We're talking about the web, not consumer ISPs. The web lets us have discussions and submit our own content. That's what 'read/write web' means. As you say, an Internet matter, not a web matter.

                Where are these "discussions" and this "content" stored, and over what network are they transmitted? You can't have much of a World Wide Web without the Internet, unless you're talking about an intranet within a single building.

                • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:22PM (4 children)

                  by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:22PM (#606305)

                  stored

                  Proper servers, not home machines. This isn't a big problem.

                  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:47PM (3 children)

                    by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:47PM (#606333) Journal

                    How do we go about convincing the non-technical general public to pay out of pocket for "Proper servers"?

                    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:04PM (2 children)

                      by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:04PM (#606434)

                      Pay for it with advertising, of course.

                      You seem to think my ideas are pie-in-the-sky. They're not. I just want competition for YouTube.

                      Vimeo offer video hosting already, but they're not in the ad-revenue-sharing business. Would be interesting if they branched out.

                      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:37AM (1 child)

                        by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:37AM (#606523) Journal
                        "Pay for it with advertising, of course."

                        That's how we got into this mess.

                        Who pays the piper calls the tune. Advertising is a plague and advertisers should be quarantined.
                        --
                        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:27AM

                          by Wootery (2341) on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:27AM (#606731)

                          Advertising is the biggest reason people are able to make a living making YouTube videos. Our whole conversation has been about doing that kind of thing better than YouTube does it.

                          Some people are able to go with patronage and make it work, but advertising has shown itself to be a generally more reliable way to pay the bills.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:13PM (16 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:13PM (#606103) Journal
            "In terms of giving us a secure cross-platform application sandbox, the web is doing much better than the JVM ever did."

            To be clear, I'm not advocating the JVM either, at least outside of narrow circumstances. I've come to suspect the entire concept is rotten, the question is not which tech can do this job best, the question is why would we want this job to be done? And what 'job' specifically is it? They're mostly used to do bad things. They're used to obfuscate and deceive. They're used to obfuscate, they're used to avoid showing source, they're used to fool people into thinking they can take very risky actions without risk. "No download" is a marketing slogan with no basis in reality. Of course there's a download. It's just hidden from you, you can't observe it, you can't examine it, you can't verify what it's really doing. It's a step backwards disguised as a step forwards.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:13PM (15 children)

              by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:13PM (#606247) Journal

              I've come to suspect the entire concept is rotten, the question is not which tech can do this job best, the question is why would we want this job to be done? And what 'job' specifically is it?

              One such "job" is to allow the creation and distribution of computer programs with a graphical user interface without having to write the program six times: once for Win32, once for UWP, once for macOS, once for iOS, once for GNU/Linux, and once for Android.

              Another is to allow the creation and distribution of computer programs that can access only the data that the user submits, not all data in the user's local account on his device. Desktop programs are rarely if ever sandboxed in this manner. This sandbox feature makes the owner of a device intended for guest access, such as a PC in the computer lab of a school or public library, more likely to allow (implicitly) downloading and running programs in the sandbox.

              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:21PM (14 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:21PM (#606301) Journal
                "One such "job" is to allow the creation and distribution of computer programs with a graphical user interface without having to write the program six times: once for Win32, once for UWP, once for macOS, once for iOS, once for GNU/Linux, and once for Android."

                Except that job was already being done just fine, through the use of compilers and makescripts.

                The JVM makes it easier to do this while still keeping the software secret from the user, which is a bad thing.

                "Another is to allow the creation and distribution of computer programs that can access only the data that the user submits, not all data in the user's local account on his device."

                And that's the deception part. It's a "feature" whose primary purpose is psychological, it's a (false) assurance of safety that facilitates the con game. All an elaborate ruse to avoid the distribution of source.

                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:45PM (13 children)

                  by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:45PM (#606329) Journal

                  One such "job" is to allow the creation and distribution of computer programs with a graphical user interface without having to write the program six times: once for Win32, once for UWP, once for macOS, once for iOS, once for GNU/Linux, and once for Android.

                  Except that job was already being done just fine, through the use of compilers and makescripts.

                  Without a Mac, you can't run "compilers and makescripts" for an iOS native app. Not every owner of an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad owns a sufficiently recent Mac or is willing to buy one just to compile, install, and run one application.

                  Nor can someone building an application with (say) a Win32 GUI for a target other than Windows expect to successfully link the application. The following can be expected:

                  /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -luser32
                  collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

                  [Sandboxing is] the deception part. It's a "feature" whose primary purpose is psychological, it's a (false) assurance of safety that facilitates the con game. All an elaborate ruse to avoid the distribution of source.

                  Even an application distributed in (apparent) source code form can access files that the user doesn't intend for it to access.

                  Besides, not all applications can be distributed in source code form under a free software license without completely breaking the business model. Major categories of such applications include video games, players for rented movies, and tax return preparation software [pineight.com]. Or were you referring to distributing proprietary applications in source code form under a non-disclosure agreement?

                  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:14PM (9 children)

                    by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:14PM (#606357) Journal
                    "Without a Mac, you can't run "compilers and makescripts" for an iOS native app."

                    Because you're running an OS deliberately designed to disempower you. Why would you do that?

                    Because nothing else is on sale. How did we get to such a sorry state of affairs as that, hmm?

                    "Nor can someone building an application with (say) a Win32 GUI for a target other than Windows expect to successfully link the application."

                    Again, this is because you're working with slaveware to start with. There's no technical issue preventing cross-compilers from existing, and in fact many do. But when you're buying products from companies that regard you as a slave, when you're feeding that beast you can't really expect anything but this abuse.

                    "Even an application distributed in (apparent) source code form can access files that the user doesn't intend for it to access."

                    Vigilance is required beyond simply having source, of course, but having the source is the prereq. Without that you can't even get started, you have no options, no leverage, no information, nothing. That's why it's called slaveware.
                    --
                    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:31PM (8 children)

                      by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:31PM (#606422) Journal

                      Because nothing else is on sale. How did we get to such a sorry state of affairs as that, hmm?

                      I agree with you that it is "a sorry state of affairs". But what steps should I take to help end this "sorry state of affairs"?

                      There's no technical issue preventing cross-compilers from existing, and in fact many do.

                      Say I download the source code for a computer program originally designed for use on Windows to a PC running GNU/Linux. If I were to compile it for a GNU/Linux target using GCC for GNU/Linux, I would get errors about missing windows.h and missing import libraries. If I were to cross-compile it for a Windows target using MinGW (GCC that targets Windows), I would end up with a Windows executable instead of a GNU/Linux executable. How would I run the result of such cross-compilation on my PC running GNU/Linux?

                      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:25PM (7 children)

                        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:25PM (#606447) Journal
                        "I agree with you that it is "a sorry state of affairs". But what steps should I take to help end this "sorry state of affairs"?"

                        I wish I had a magic answer to that, I don't. But I'm pretty sure that when you find yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging.

                        As to compatibility, again, obviously this relies on using standards. Code that's written directly to a proprietary platform using proprietary libraries won't be out of the box portable, which is just one more good reason not to do that!

                        Ansi C is remarkably portable, and will do just about anything you might need to do. Make does an excellent job covering any cracks. And even if you decide you simply MUST have a fancy GUI that you can't do in ANSI, the meat of the program can still be done portably with well-defined interfaces so the next user can drop his own GUI into place with little effort.

                        --
                        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:23AM (6 children)

                          by Pino P (4721) on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:23AM (#606518) Journal

                          so the next user can drop his own GUI into place with little effort.

                          Non-technical users will have no idea how to do that. Web applications avoid having to write the GUI six times.

                          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:34AM (5 children)

                            by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:34AM (#606521) Journal
                            "Non-technical users will have no idea how to do that."

                            But you only need one user who does.

                            UIs aren't hard to do, unless of course you're a 'professional designer' in which case you're going to make something atrocious anyway.
                            --
                            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                            • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:56AM (4 children)

                              by Pino P (4721) on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:56AM (#606647) Journal

                              Non-technical users will have no idea how to [take a program and make a GUI specialized for a particular user's platform].

                              But you only need one user who does.

                              Non-technical users will probably have no idea how to find such a "user who does."

                              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:13AM (3 children)

                                by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:13AM (#606652) Journal
                                And that's why we have distros.
                                --
                                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                                • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:14PM (2 children)

                                  by Pino P (4721) on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:14PM (#606847) Journal

                                  Distros don't do the hard work of creating a new GUI from scratch. As I understand it, a request for package to the effect "Please package this application which already compiles and runs on your distro" is a lot more likely to get acted on than "Please write a new GUI from scratch for this application that has a GUI compatible with a competing operating system but not with your distro".

                                  • (Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:37PM (1 child)

                                    by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:37PM (#606959) Journal
                                    Yeah, exactly.

                                    You lost the context there, you clearly think you're contradicting me but you're not.

                                    The distro picks up the UI, the users that wouldn't otherwise know how to find it get it from their repository.
                                    --
                                    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday December 08 2017, @01:44PM

                                      by Pino P (4721) on Friday December 08 2017, @01:44PM (#607174) Journal

                                      The distro picks up the UI

                                      If a UI has even been created for the application which is compatible with that operating system. My point is that often one has not.

                  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:35AM (2 children)

                    by Wootery (2341) on Thursday December 07 2017, @09:35AM (#606736)

                    Major categories of such applications include video games

                    Not so. Various games have released their source-code as FOSS while keeping the game resources (maps, models, textures, sounds, etc) as payware. Doom, Quake, and Doom 3 for instance.

                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:10PM (1 child)

                      by Pino P (4721) on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:10PM (#606843) Journal

                      Not so. Various games have released their source-code as FOSS while keeping the game resources (maps, models, textures, sounds, etc) as payware. Doom, Quake, and Doom 3 for instance.

                      Any from day one, not five years later after they've already made practically all the revenue they're likely to ever make in revenue sales and engine licensing? And any not developed by Id?

                      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:35PM

                        by Wootery (2341) on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:35PM (#606855)

                        Any from day one, not five years later after they've already made practically all the revenue

                        Not as far as I know, no. I believe the Unreal Engine's source is available to all who want it (non-FOSS), and can be used free of charge for free games. Again though, non-FOSS.

                        And any not developed by Id?

                        The ancient original SimCity, Serious Sam, various others. [wikipedia.org] Old titles and old engines, admittedly.

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:46PM (1 child)

            by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:46PM (#606202) Journal

            It's still open, it still allows free linking between sites (ignoring silos)

            "Ignoring silos" means ignoring at least half of all modern internet traffic.

            https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html [staltz.com]

            You can no longer just ignore that 30% of all web traffic is completely inaccessible if you don't have a Facebook account, for one example. To many users these silos *are* the web. Those of us who recognize why this is a problem have a duty to start working to tear down these goddamn walls.

            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:07PM

              by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:07PM (#606286)

              Totally agree that it sucks that Facebook and Twitter are openly hostile to anyone not signed in.

              A lot of Facebook content isn't meant to be public, though. Enforcing user preference in social media websites isn't the same as siloing.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:56PM (1 child)

    by crafoo (6639) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:56PM (#605727)

    Javascript was a mistake.
    I wonder if you noticed the extra-thick irony of your last sentence.
    All that is going to be left of the web is a cable-tv model of filtered, ToSed, EULAed, YouTube Heroed cesspool. Enjoy the bed you have built through unsigned, unverified silent code execution through a text and image displaying application.

    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:10PM

      by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:10PM (#605851) Journal

      "unsigned"? Every script delivered over HTTPS is signed by the server that delivers it.