431–440 of 496 posts
Well, the EU should just fork or support existing open source Mozilla projects and pay developers... but looking at the budget there seem to be a lot of... unnecessary... money sinks. 80 Mil for management... 200 for dev... but the security team had to be downsized... yeah right. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201...
Mozilla never provided a way of donating directly to Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the author wants to do anything. It's a counter-factual to illuminate how central google is, not a proposal.
I still expect them to make a more coherent case, I still don't know what native means here, still don't know why existing solutions are different from what native means. It is not stated as a counterfactual either, it is stated as direct criticism, e.g. > The Web’s orignal architects were off base on hyperlinks; it turns out people just want to skip right to the answer they’re looking for. Who are the original archi…
As for what would native payments look like:
1. I put the element $1.00 in my HTML 2. User clicks on Pay Me button in any browser and I get $1.00
Something like that. Anything more complicated and for most people it might as well not exist. Grandma isn't loading up a Bitcoin wallet.
I will care about Chrome being the top browser when people care about Windows being on 90%+ of consumer computers.
I think the biggest failure of the open web is simply the lack of a "Publish" function. You can consume on the open web just fine, but for publishing you need to own a server, not just a client. That in turn gave growth to Youtube, Facebook and Co., as they allowed people to publish content with just a web client. Search and payment are important as well, but only really become relevant when the content is on the web…
It was called RSS, and there were plenty of free and paid providers who would host your feeds and even feed content (like podcast audio) for you. The most popular was called FeedBurner, and you can imagine what became of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FeedBurner https://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79408?hl=en
I think the biggest failure of the open web is simply the lack of a "Publish" function. You can consume on the open web just fine, but for publishing you need to own a server, not just a client. That in turn gave growth to Youtube, Facebook and Co., as they allowed people to publish content with just a web client. Search and payment are important as well, but only really become relevant when the content is on the web…
> I think the biggest failure of the open web is simply the lack of a "Publish" function. The simplest approach to something like this is Apache homedirs or finger plan files [0]: you write some text in a file in your home directory and a service makes it accessible to anyone who connects to your machine. Apparently plan files were somewhat popular thing at one point; you could finger the machines at id Software and…
If the network hosted “just your machine”, then your website (or whatever published content you have) would disappear when your machine shut down for the night.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was called RSS, and there were plenty of free and paid providers who would host your feeds and even feed content (like podcast audio) for you. The most popular was called FeedBurner, and you can imagine what became of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FeedBurner https://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79408?hl=en
These are fine for techies. Non-techies prefer the Facebook “Post” button (or whatever it’s labelled today).
Why is there so little interest in helping people self-host their own content? I know it wouldn't be a panacea, but it feels like at least a step in the right direction. This is a big part of the motivation for my side-project to help people run their own private blogs - https://simpleblogs.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is the problem for anyone outside of the CompSci field. To those it looks like URL non-sense but it's rooted far deeper then that. This isn't philosophical. By choosing to use AMP, you are ultimately choosing to destroy the internet. You're granting the power of one company to run and control what you visit, do, use. Your surrendering your data for them to make money off to use and abuse. Your supporting the…
This is an amusing bit of sci-fi. But it's just that, and it's got nothing to do, specifically, with amp. The rhetorical strategy used here was to make up a dystopian example of search being bad, and then say amp. Amp isn't more expensive, WordPress templates handle it automatically today. And the whole tangent about misinformation is interesting, but it's not how things really work. While speed is a signal, reliabil…
And now your introducing a sack of rubbish called WordPress. What if the site is not using WordPress, may do.
You work for google, so explain it to me, how do things really work?
Asking a rhetorical and irritating question - but one which web nerds need to be much better at answering: why, exactly does it matter? Don't get me wrong, I'm totally uncomfortable with a monopoly of this scale; I'm a Firefox user, a Pihole user, a non-FB user. But when people (non nerds) ask me why, it's hard to answer. They're all happy enough: Chrome is fast, AMP is faster, they get to find out the stuff they wan…
It frustrates me, why not just give me a link to an actual web page?