121–130 of 262 posts
It does not suprise me that it's a kid proposing this. They probably live and breathe open source and still dream of a free and open world, where companies prioritize the user far above over profit.
This idea suffers from the same problem federation does. It's harder to move a whole ecosystem. Makes it harder to innovate. Leads to centralized platforms outperforming these BYOC/federated/open options. Basically how Reddit replaced Usenet with upvotes and basic spam filtering. There's more on this from 'moxie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YFprqAr8 https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
That is a nice insight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the iPhone originally came out in the US it was locked together with a 2 year contract with AT&T.
And it took how long for people to figure out how to unlock it?
Git does not have colaboration tools. It's very much a "work in a silo for a period of time and then evtually figure out how to mash these things together" approach.
Maybe "save" tries to commit, and pulls up a diff interface if there is a conflict? UI indications of other people's commits pending, and maybe merge those with current state of the document if there is no conflict?
There are a lot of edge cases to consider. But I feel like there might be a way to design UX for a Git workflow that makes it comfortable and intuitive to Muggles.
So maybe something like CRDT or OT on top of libp2p? Does something like that exist already?
https://github.com/automerge/hypermerge for example
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it can happen if a significant enough open source project establishes a protocol early enough and doesn't get co-opted. That or a consortium of companies agree on some sort of standard. (See the work on pc buses in the early pc days) But you are right. When companies run under trying to get as many users locked in as possible during a paid for investors period. This model is precisely the opposite outcome expect…
For something to get traction, it has to have excellent UI and UX. So far open source hasn't been very successful at providing that since there is no economic model to finance the immense amount of work required for good UX.
Regardless,
* Blender
* Godot
* Krita
* GitLab
* Olive
* Firefox
* Thunderbird
* NextCloud
* Amarok
* Vital
* and more
The problem isn't an "economic model". The problem is that most open-source projects simply don't attract UI designers, UX researchers, and users because contribution flows are more technical or geared toward developers.
UX research isn't "expensive" when referring to open-source projects because it predominantly requires people: designers, researchers, and users. The whole foundation of open-source is volunteerism.
Background gradient makes me dizzy after reading a single paragraph
(author here) sorry to hear that! Out of curiosity, what screen size are you reading on? Anyone else have similar problems? Sounds like I should add a button to disable the gradient.
It feels like that optical illusion with disappearing background [1] where your brain attempts to re-tune itself, and it's kind of uncomfortable.
My screen width is 1280px.
The problem (currently) is that most people simply don't care about being forced to use a particular client - as long as that client looks nice. I say this with a lot of love for the idea. My company sells a collaborative knowledge base that supports Bringing Your Own Client. Out of the hundreds of users I have spoken to, only ONE has ever asked me if they could use their favorite markdown editor to access their know…
Because businesses focus on meeting users' desires instead of needs, they are content with the status quo of rigid UI/UX design.
This is why we see BYOC so prevalent in developer tools like text editors and terminal emulators, but not in office tools like Google Docs or art/design tools like Photoshop and Maya.
I've heard a million times or more the phrase, "industry standard" used to defend rigid proprietary tooling, even by users who would benefit from want sincerely enjoy more freedom in their tooling.
The competitive advantages of owning both the application and the data are so high that don't see widespread BYOC ever happening without government intervention. I'd like to see an enforced separation in law between commercial application providers and storage providers. So, if someone writes an app like Google Docs, they can't just store the data opaquely on their own cloud servers. They legally have to integrate wi…
Well it can happen if a significant enough open source project establishes a protocol early enough and doesn't get co-opted. That or a consortium of companies agree on some sort of standard. (See the work on pc buses in the early pc days) But you are right. When companies run under trying to get as many users locked in as possible during a paid for investors period. This model is precisely the opposite outcome expect…