File formats that are not tied to proprietary, closed source programs should never have closed source specs. And not even then, depending on who you ask.
File formats that are not tied to proprietary, closed source programs should never have closed source specs. And not even then, depending on who you ask.
There's an easy way around this: stop putting video on the web. The web is for text, with occasional images. You want to be a video star? Get some time on your local public-access cable channel....
There's an easy way around this: stop putting video on the web. The web is for text, with occasional images. You want to be a video star? Get some time on your local public-access cable channel.
If you're saying this in jest, I apologize for the rant. Sarcasm is hard to read over the internet. I have to very strongly disagree with this sentiment. If the web is only for text, then should...
If you're saying this in jest, I apologize for the rant. Sarcasm is hard to read over the internet.
The web is for text, with occasional images.
I have to very strongly disagree with this sentiment. If the web is only for text, then should every other form of information (software, video, etc.) be shared only by sneakernet? Do you want to go back to being unable to look up online a video walkthrough of a highly visual process? Do you want to go back to having to make phone calls to ask device manufacturers to ship you another copy of a driver disk that you lost (possibly for a fee)? Would you rather be unable to hear new music genres by any other means than sharing CDs or going to live performances? In my opinion, the internet is the greatest long-distance communication tool ever created, the full potential of which has yet to be imagined, and I'm strongly opposed to putting arbitrary restrictions on it like that. I believe that holding such a closed-minded opinion on a tool like the internet can only stifle innovation. The internet is so much more than a set of forums, wikis, blog posts, BBSes, and emails.
Don't like online video? That's fine. I would be lying if I said I was never annoyed by an auto-playing video on an article. In fact, I have autoplaying videos turned off on my browser. But no one is making you visit youtube or netflix etc. On top of that, it's never going away. The accelerating increase in cable-cutting shows that consumers find that the internet is much better for delivery of video on-demand than cable ever could be. Even if you had solid, undeniable reasons that videos should never be put on the internet, it would never make a difference because there are already mulibillion-dollar businesses whose business models are based on distribution of video over the internet.
Even aside from all that, this affects video media that's not even presented on the internet. Every DVD/Bluray disk and player uses proprietary video codecs, placing an invisible tax on the movies you buy at walmart.
In @demifiend's defense, the "web" is not the entire internet; it's just the websites you access through your browser. That said, I don't completely agree with their point. While the web has...
In @demifiend's defense, the "web" is not the entire internet; it's just the websites you access through your browser.
That said, I don't completely agree with their point. While the web has become very top-heavy in terms of how content is delivered, there's still a place for rich media on it. Which is... pretty much what your last paragraph was getting at, but lazier.
Yes, you're right. I conflated the terms. Though I would claim that the web is most people's primary portal to the internet, and because of that, tends to be the most convenient way to access most...
the "web" is not the entire internet; it's just the websites you access through your browser.
Yes, you're right. I conflated the terms. Though I would claim that the web is most people's primary portal to the internet, and because of that, tends to be the most convenient way to access most of what the internet has to offer. There are things (such as online gaming and SSH) that I'll probably never want to do completely over the web, but with the increasing capabilities available through web browsers (such as WebRTC and websockets), the amount of useful things the internet can do that the web can't is growing smaller.
Which arguably is the problem. To play devil's advocate, the web was never intended to be the entire internet, and continually tacking new features onto it has been detrimental to the internet as...
with the increasing capabilities available through web browsers (such as WebRTC and websockets), the amount of useful things the internet can do that the web can't is growing smaller.
Which arguably is the problem. To play devil's advocate, the web was never intended to be the entire internet, and continually tacking new features onto it has been detrimental to the internet as a whole in more than one way. The KISS principle shouldn't be just for programs.
the browser is the internet's operating system, web apps are the new programs. with the right restrictions, the web should be able to do everything your computer can. chromeos-like OSes are the...
the browser is the internet's operating system, web apps are the new programs. with the right restrictions, the web should be able to do everything your computer can. chromeos-like OSes are the future.
because they're native and only work in one place and are terribly insecure and dangerous to the user this is a misconception based on the average amount of work put in by web developers. the 1%...
Why not use native applications
because they're native and only work in one place and are terribly insecure and dangerous to the user
which will typically run faster and better
this is a misconception based on the average amount of work put in by web developers. the 1% increase you get from being "closer to the metal" is not worth the loss in portability, openness, and security.
this more often than not ends up being other platforms not getting it at all the security of native applications is entirely based on trust. the web model doesn't even allow sites to do even half...
development on new platforms takes longer
this more often than not ends up being other platforms not getting it at all
How are web apps more secure than well written native applications?
the security of native applications is entirely based on trust. the web model doesn't even allow sites to do even half the things native apps can do in regards to having access to the users computer. (it's not perfect but far better than native)
Openness in what sense
that you can "view source" on every page on the internet.
didn't address the concerns around resource usage
didn't want to make the post too long and this is a point of browsers not being terribly efficient but not an issue with the platform itself
I'm sorry, but your position doesn't even make sense. Web applications are not inherently more or less secure than native applications. They are typically built to run on extremely specific...
I'm sorry, but your position doesn't even make sense. Web applications are not inherently more or less secure than native applications. They are typically built to run on extremely specific software environments, which make them far less portable than the typical native application. I have no idea why you consider web applications to be inherently more open, either.
And the performance increase you see by moving to native is far greater than 1%. There is a reason why all performance-critical applications are still native and not web-based. Simple DOM updates can be very slow, to the point that they make the browser freeze at times.
Some things are better as web apps, and that list is constantly growing. But there are still plenty of things where native applications make more sense.
The bit about being a video star was sarcasm. Everything before that was as serious as cancer. Share it over BitTorrent or SFTP, not HTTP. In most situations, I'd prefer a well-written text guide...
The bit about being a video star was sarcasm. Everything before that was as serious as cancer.
If the web is only for text, then should every other form of information (software, video, etc.) be shared only by sneakernet?
Share it over BitTorrent or SFTP, not HTTP.
Do you want to go back to being unable to look up online a video walkthrough of a highly visual process?
In most situations, I'd prefer a well-written text guide with occasional illustrations and diagrams as needed. Maybe this is a generational thing?
Again, put this on BitTorrent or SFTP.
Do you want to go back to having to make phone calls to ask device manufacturers to ship you another copy of a driver disk that you lost (possibly for a fee)?
Device manufacturers tend to only make drivers for Windows. Since I run OpenBSD on all of my personal devices, I wouldn't be calling the manufacturer for drivers. If they aren't already supported in the kernel, I'd be paying a developer to write them if I can't do it myself.
Would you rather be unable to hear new music genres by any other means than sharing CDs or going to live performances?
To be honest? Yes. I miss the days when radio wasn't utter shit. And I like actually owning copies of albums I enjoy listening to.
I believe that holding such a closed-minded opinion on a tool like the internet can only stifle innovation.
Most of the "innovation" I've seen on the internet involves finding new ways to con people into providing data so that they can be fed targeted ads. If that's what you mean by "innovation", you can damned well keep it.
The internet is so much more than a set of forums, wikis, blog posts, BBSes, and emails.
You said it yourself: the internet is more than the Web. That being the case, why object to the notion that the Web should be about hypertext, and that Web browsers should not concern themselves with playing video?
Even if you had solid, undeniable reasons that videos should never be put on the internet, it would never make a difference because there are already mulibillion-dollar businesses whose business models are based on distribution of video over the internet.
Fine. Keep that shit off the Web, though, and off port 80. :)
Hypertext, as originally envisioned in the 60s by Nelson as part of Project Xanadu, didn't discriminate between media types (check out rule 5). Technological limitations meant that Nelson and...
Hypertext, as originally envisioned in the 60s by Nelson as part of Project Xanadu, didn't discriminate between media types (check out rule 5). Technological limitations meant that Nelson and later Berners-Lee's version had to be text only/occasional image for a long time simply because computers and the networks connecting them weren't up to the job of video - but the idea the web was designed as "just text with the occasional image" is to do a great disservice to the original innovators who came up with the idea in the first place. You put the idea of high-res video, interactivity and all the other things the web does so well today in front of Ted Nelson, Tim Berners-Lee, even Vannevar Bush and they'd be excited about it, not complaining about how it should be downgraded to a previous, less capable version.
If you don't like video that's fine, but to say it has "no place" on the Web is to misunderstand the entire point of the web both in concept and execution.
Oh, and just as an aside - I like music for listening to, not owning. If you miss quality music radio you might try BBC Radio 6 - that's if you can stomach the idea of streaming audio. ;)
Good for them, but I don't want the web turning into the second coming of cable TV, which is where it seems to be going. There's no room for people like me on such a web. Not when I've got a face...
You put the idea of high-res video, interactivity and all the other things the web does so well today in front of Ted Nelson, Tim Berners-Lee, even Vannevar Bush and they'd be excited about it
Good for them, but I don't want the web turning into the second coming of cable TV, which is where it seems to be going. There's no room for people like me on such a web. Not when I've got a face made for radio and a voice made for print.
If you miss quality music radio you might try BBC Radio 6 - that's if you can stomach the idea of streaming audio.
Streaming audio is kinda useless in my car, so I make do with a local station. Thanks, though.
Nobody is making you post video or audio, or anything you don't want to. Even Facebook still let you post plain text and that's unlikely to change any time soon. Like how TV didn't kill radio -...
Nobody is making you post video or audio, or anything you don't want to. Even Facebook still let you post plain text and that's unlikely to change any time soon. Like how TV didn't kill radio - although arguably radio as a format now exists more as podcasts then broadcasts - video isn't going to kill text either. People still write stuff, people still argue in text-only mode, it's just now there's so much more too.
The thing is I think what you actually want "your" internet to be is gopher, not http. I am Quite Old and I just about remember gopher. It was rubbish, even allowing for the fact I had to access it over a 300 baud packet radio link, it was still terrible. Hypertext/http 'won' the internet for a reason. The Amazing Present is so much better than the Good Crap Old Days. Although they did add multimedia support to gopher, eventually, so that's probably ruined now as well.
fwiw, the BBC app lets you download stuff for offline playback, so you don't need to stream. The modern world, eh?
the browser is the internet's operating system, web apps are the new programs. with the right restrictions, the web should be able to do everything your computer can. chromeos-like OSes are the...
the browser is the internet's operating system, web apps are the new programs. with the right restrictions, the web should be able to do everything your computer can. chromeos-like OSes are the future.
and you're right, it should be on port 443 so it's secure ;)
If I wanted to do all of my computing on some other dude's machinery, I'd get a shell account. Web apps and the cloud are nothing but rancid snake oil.
the web should be able to do everything your computer can. chromeos-like OSes are the future
If I wanted to do all of my computing on some other dude's machinery, I'd get a shell account. Web apps and the cloud are nothing but rancid snake oil.
Good job, but I've come to prefer text mode apps whenever possible. There's no way I would use a web app for writing when I've got emacs. Hell, you can use emacs for damn near everything. Oh, and...
Good job, but I've come to prefer text mode apps whenever possible. There's no way I would use a web app for writing when I've got emacs. Hell, you can use emacs for damn near everything.
Oh, and you'll love this. emacs in text mode with 20 buffers open uses about 100MB of RAM. Firefox with one tab open uses 500MB of RAM, and this is on a laptop with only 4GB of RAM.
and I'll stick to my telegraph because it uses 2 volts instead of my big clunky phone that uses 120V. if you want to stick the past there's nothing I can say. I'm not saying Chrome or Firefox are...
and I'll stick to my telegraph because it uses 2 volts instead of my big clunky phone that uses 120V. if you want to stick the past there's nothing I can say.
I'm not saying Chrome or Firefox are going to be it, but the Web as a whole is only getting bigger. And I'm on Windows so emacs uses a cool 0MB for me because I can't even download it.
File formats that are not tied to proprietary, closed source programs should never have closed source specs. And not even then, depending on who you ask.
I don't know about that, but I can tell you that Intel, Nvidia, and AMD support it, so there's a good chance it will get hardware support.
There's an easy way around this: stop putting video on the web. The web is for text, with occasional images. You want to be a video star? Get some time on your local public-access cable channel.
(and get off my lawn!)
If you're saying this in jest, I apologize for the rant. Sarcasm is hard to read over the internet.
I have to very strongly disagree with this sentiment. If the web is only for text, then should every other form of information (software, video, etc.) be shared only by sneakernet? Do you want to go back to being unable to look up online a video walkthrough of a highly visual process? Do you want to go back to having to make phone calls to ask device manufacturers to ship you another copy of a driver disk that you lost (possibly for a fee)? Would you rather be unable to hear new music genres by any other means than sharing CDs or going to live performances? In my opinion, the internet is the greatest long-distance communication tool ever created, the full potential of which has yet to be imagined, and I'm strongly opposed to putting arbitrary restrictions on it like that. I believe that holding such a closed-minded opinion on a tool like the internet can only stifle innovation. The internet is so much more than a set of forums, wikis, blog posts, BBSes, and emails.
Don't like online video? That's fine. I would be lying if I said I was never annoyed by an auto-playing video on an article. In fact, I have autoplaying videos turned off on my browser. But no one is making you visit youtube or netflix etc. On top of that, it's never going away. The accelerating increase in cable-cutting shows that consumers find that the internet is much better for delivery of video on-demand than cable ever could be. Even if you had solid, undeniable reasons that videos should never be put on the internet, it would never make a difference because there are already mulibillion-dollar businesses whose business models are based on distribution of video over the internet.
Even aside from all that, this affects video media that's not even presented on the internet. Every DVD/Bluray disk and player uses proprietary video codecs, placing an invisible tax on the movies you buy at walmart.
In @demifiend's defense, the "web" is not the entire internet; it's just the websites you access through your browser.
That said, I don't completely agree with their point. While the web has become very top-heavy in terms of how content is delivered, there's still a place for rich media on it. Which is... pretty much what your last paragraph was getting at, but lazier.
Yes, you're right. I conflated the terms. Though I would claim that the web is most people's primary portal to the internet, and because of that, tends to be the most convenient way to access most of what the internet has to offer. There are things (such as online gaming and SSH) that I'll probably never want to do completely over the web, but with the increasing capabilities available through web browsers (such as WebRTC and websockets), the amount of useful things the internet can do that the web can't is growing smaller.
Which arguably is the problem. To play devil's advocate, the web was never intended to be the entire internet, and continually tacking new features onto it has been detrimental to the internet as a whole in more than one way. The KISS principle shouldn't be just for programs.
the browser is the internet's operating system, web apps are the new programs. with the right restrictions, the web should be able to do everything your computer can. chromeos-like OSes are the future.
because they're native and only work in one place and are terribly insecure and dangerous to the user
this is a misconception based on the average amount of work put in by web developers. the 1% increase you get from being "closer to the metal" is not worth the loss in portability, openness, and security.
this more often than not ends up being other platforms not getting it at all
the security of native applications is entirely based on trust. the web model doesn't even allow sites to do even half the things native apps can do in regards to having access to the users computer. (it's not perfect but far better than native)
that you can "view source" on every page on the internet.
didn't want to make the post too long and this is a point of browsers not being terribly efficient but not an issue with the platform itself
I'm sorry, but your position doesn't even make sense. Web applications are not inherently more or less secure than native applications. They are typically built to run on extremely specific software environments, which make them far less portable than the typical native application. I have no idea why you consider web applications to be inherently more open, either.
And the performance increase you see by moving to native is far greater than 1%. There is a reason why all performance-critical applications are still native and not web-based. Simple DOM updates can be very slow, to the point that they make the browser freeze at times.
Some things are better as web apps, and that list is constantly growing. But there are still plenty of things where native applications make more sense.
The bit about being a video star was sarcasm. Everything before that was as serious as cancer.
Share it over BitTorrent or SFTP, not HTTP.
In most situations, I'd prefer a well-written text guide with occasional illustrations and diagrams as needed. Maybe this is a generational thing?
Again, put this on BitTorrent or SFTP.
Device manufacturers tend to only make drivers for Windows. Since I run OpenBSD on all of my personal devices, I wouldn't be calling the manufacturer for drivers. If they aren't already supported in the kernel, I'd be paying a developer to write them if I can't do it myself.
To be honest? Yes. I miss the days when radio wasn't utter shit. And I like actually owning copies of albums I enjoy listening to.
Most of the "innovation" I've seen on the internet involves finding new ways to con people into providing data so that they can be fed targeted ads. If that's what you mean by "innovation", you can damned well keep it.
You said it yourself: the internet is more than the Web. That being the case, why object to the notion that the Web should be about hypertext, and that Web browsers should not concern themselves with playing video?
Fine. Keep that shit off the Web, though, and off port 80. :)
Hypertext, as originally envisioned in the 60s by Nelson as part of Project Xanadu, didn't discriminate between media types (check out rule 5). Technological limitations meant that Nelson and later Berners-Lee's version had to be text only/occasional image for a long time simply because computers and the networks connecting them weren't up to the job of video - but the idea the web was designed as "just text with the occasional image" is to do a great disservice to the original innovators who came up with the idea in the first place. You put the idea of high-res video, interactivity and all the other things the web does so well today in front of Ted Nelson, Tim Berners-Lee, even Vannevar Bush and they'd be excited about it, not complaining about how it should be downgraded to a previous, less capable version.
If you don't like video that's fine, but to say it has "no place" on the Web is to misunderstand the entire point of the web both in concept and execution.
Oh, and just as an aside - I like music for listening to, not owning. If you miss quality music radio you might try BBC Radio 6 - that's if you can stomach the idea of streaming audio. ;)
Good for them, but I don't want the web turning into the second coming of cable TV, which is where it seems to be going. There's no room for people like me on such a web. Not when I've got a face made for radio and a voice made for print.
Streaming audio is kinda useless in my car, so I make do with a local station. Thanks, though.
Nobody is making you post video or audio, or anything you don't want to. Even Facebook still let you post plain text and that's unlikely to change any time soon. Like how TV didn't kill radio - although arguably radio as a format now exists more as podcasts then broadcasts - video isn't going to kill text either. People still write stuff, people still argue in text-only mode, it's just now there's so much more too.
The thing is I think what you actually want "your" internet to be is gopher, not http. I am Quite Old and I just about remember gopher. It was rubbish, even allowing for the fact I had to access it over a 300 baud packet radio link, it was still terrible. Hypertext/http 'won' the internet for a reason. The Amazing Present is so much better than the
GoodCrap Old Days. Although they did add multimedia support to gopher, eventually, so that's probably ruined now as well.fwiw, the BBC app lets you download stuff for offline playback, so you don't need to stream. The modern world, eh?
the browser is the internet's operating system, web apps are the new programs. with the right restrictions, the web should be able to do everything your computer can. chromeos-like OSes are the future.
and you're right, it should be on port 443 so it's secure ;)
If I wanted to do all of my computing on some other dude's machinery, I'd get a shell account. Web apps and the cloud are nothing but rancid snake oil.
I hate the cloud too, and web apps and the cloud are not the same. I make web apps that only run on your local machine https://apps.nektro.net/
Good job, but I've come to prefer text mode apps whenever possible. There's no way I would use a web app for writing when I've got emacs. Hell, you can use emacs for damn near everything.
Oh, and you'll love this. emacs in text mode with 20 buffers open uses about 100MB of RAM. Firefox with one tab open uses 500MB of RAM, and this is on a laptop with only 4GB of RAM.
and I'll stick to my telegraph because it uses 2 volts instead of my big clunky phone that uses 120V. if you want to stick the past there's nothing I can say.
I'm not saying Chrome or Firefox are going to be it, but the Web as a whole is only getting bigger. And I'm on Windows so emacs uses a cool 0MB for me because I can't even download it.
You have my sympathies. If you want to try Unix, you should get yourself a free shell account on sdf.org.
Yeah man, it's the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol for a reason.
But in seriousness, the horse has bolted. Video and other rich media is here to stay.
And who benefits most from this particular horse fleeing? Probably not the people making and uploading all of this video.
What do you mean?