Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#41

Post by marktangotango »

debacle wrote: post #7

Isn't this plan the same as the last plan (the name of which I can't even remember - app something. There was a kickstarter), just with Tim Berners-Lee's name attached to it? My main concern is that this project is DOA for the same reason that the last few have been - too much of an academic focus tending towards navel-gazing, not enough network effect to draw hobbyists, and zero money to attract businesses. The PDS…

The issue from a hosting provider is the platform has to be 100% sandboxes; cpu, heap, network and file system access. Lua is the only runtime that provides this level of control. SQLite can do massive multi tenancy and acceptable performance if used correctly.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#42

Post by teleclimber »

marktangotango wrote: post #41
debacle wrote: post #7

Isn't this plan the same as the last plan (the name of which I can't even remember - app something. There was a kickstarter), just with Tim Berners-Lee's name attached to it? My main concern is that this project is DOA for the same reason that the last few have been - too much of an academic focus tending towards navel-gazing, not enough network effect to draw hobbyists, and zero money to attract businesses. The PDS…

The issue from a hosting provider is the platform has to be 100% sandboxes; cpu, heap, network and file system access. Lua is the only runtime that provides this level of control. SQLite can do massive multi tenancy and acceptable performance if used correctly.

Agree it has to be 100% sandboxes. Note that TC39 has a proposal for realms that is moving along. It is meant to allow sandboxing in JS.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-realms

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#43

Post by blueadept111 »

PhilWright wrote: post #23

The problem with your personal data store is that it will be impossible to stop the large companies like Google/Facebook from simply copying and caching a copy of all the data they need to access. You give them permission to handle your email and calendar information and bingo, they have a copy of your entire set of emails and appointments. If you use multiple services from Google/Facebook then they will end up with…

That's correct, and if the companies can't see the data, then the data is really just an extension of client side storage, and therefore it can't be trusted, because you can never trust the client.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#44

Post by thaumasiotes »

Aunche wrote: post #40
egonschiele wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.

Developers love Apple. They don't have to worry whether their apps will work on a million different Android devices.

There's more than one developer out there. Developers do hate Apple.

Other developers may love it.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#45

Post by andreygrehov »

egonschiele wrote: post #20
zsck wrote: post #12

A lot of folks seem to think this kind of technology needs to be marketed or launched the way a hip Silicon Valley startup should be. I understand how the argument that critical mass is the necessary ingredient for success would appeal to people, but it’s not like the Internet succeeded that way. In fact, it’s probably better if foundational technology like this is developed and grown more slowly and deliberately. I…

> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.

I honestly don't believe that developers hate Apple/Facebook.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#46

Post by flukus »

Aunche wrote: post #40
egonschiele wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.

Developers love Apple. They don't have to worry whether their apps will work on a million different Android devices.

Some developers love them, but as a developer myself the idea that I need apples permissions to run my own apps on my own machine makes my skin crawl.

If early computing was a walled garden environment like iOS I never would have been a developer.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#47

Post by [deleted] »

mmt wrote: post #35
dustingetz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been reading about solid for three years now and there's nothing. In 1992, the Web was doubling every 3-4 months according to Weaving the Web by Tim Berners Lee page 66 which I happen to have sitting on my desk. Mosaic was founded in '93 and Netscape in '94. Solid has nothing.

> Mosaic was founded in '93 and Netscape in '94 Only Netscape is a for-profit company, and it took 3 years of the Web existing to be founded.

[deleted]

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#48

Post by Kostchei »

jacquesm wrote: post #15
Kostchei wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about avoiding marketing. It's about ownership and control. If I want my stuff to be analysed- I let that happen- it finds business or social matches- awesome. I just need the option to turn that off for things I don't want greped- like banking. I too am in favor of paid for services. Because that is what happens eventually. You pay for it. I'd rather make a decision and choose who I pay, as opposed to havin…

I would love to 'own' all my data. But companies offering services will win out because they do not have to play nice with you or your data store. Take Gmail, Facebook or Google docs as examples. In principle that's your data. But Gmail has successfully convinced people that Google is able to run its mail service better than you or your corporation ever could. In return for 'reading your mail', and vast amounts of co…

The answer, as I see it, to this, is transparent decryption via federated ledgers. That way the data is not just "available".

Note- the big guys (facebook, google) could trick/force individuals into handing over keys, but if you make the keys per object this becomes less effective for the same big guys.

In a sense, there is no control without encryption.

Still cogitating the various hows, but transparency to the user is the key.

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#49

Post by symfoniq »

PaulHoule wrote: post #38
egonschiele wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.

If developers hate Apple then why do they buy macs?

I’m seeing less and less developers buy Macs...

Re: How solid is Tim’s plan to redecentralize the web?

#50

Post by dboreham »

egonschiele wrote: post #20
zsck wrote: post #12

A lot of folks seem to think this kind of technology needs to be marketed or launched the way a hip Silicon Valley startup should be. I understand how the argument that critical mass is the necessary ingredient for success would appeal to people, but it’s not like the Internet succeeded that way. In fact, it’s probably better if foundational technology like this is developed and grown more slowly and deliberately. I…

> the platform that developers want to support is the one that wins. This is very hard to believe. Developers hate apple, facebook, and countless other platforms that are doing very well. Adoption is the fundamental problem, not what developers want to support. The platform with the most users is what people will develop for.

I remember when Facebook was very developer-friendly (2006-ish). Significantly different experience at the time developing applications for FB vs Myspace and the lesser social networking platforms of the age.
Post reply on HN