SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Vid.me to Shut Down on Dec 15th 2017
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 79 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:13PM (16 children)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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"?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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.
The ancient original SimCity, Serious Sam, various others. [wikipedia.org] Old titles and old engines, admittedly.