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

Wavacity – a FOSS port of Audacity to the web

wavacity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 148 posts

Re: Wavacity – a FOSS port of Audacity to the web

#11

Post by jauntywundrkind »

1-6 wrote: post #7

We'll need to stop calling web browsers web browsers.

Honestly it's just so hurtful to me how confined & narrow opinions are on what the web should be, on what should be allowed, for what it can be.

This sort of stuff is so prime to me, so excellent.

There's plenty of scary platforms about, less than great sites, sure. But there is no other connected medium available for humanity.

And to let the Fear Uncertainty & Doubt - or to let IMHO pitiful pointless sad grumbling about performance - dog us down is is to miss such huge potential, to grow & expand & improve, in unconstrained & vast greatness. This sort of shit is so excellent. Yes you can. And anyone with any kind of computing device can tune in & try it. Heck yeah!

Re: Wavacity – a FOSS port of Audacity to the web

#13

Post by Alekhine »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #2

Alright, it's at a kind of uncanny valley situation where we have Windows XP applications running real-time in our browsers. Is the end-game just a universal sandboxed VM that's cross-platform? What do we do next?

I mean, that was kind of the idea behind the JVM, wasn't it? It's not a terrible idea.

Re: Wavacity – a FOSS port of Audacity to the web

#15

Post by russellbeattie »

1-6 wrote: post #7

We'll need to stop calling web browsers web browsers.

We need to split the web into documents and apps, in my opinion.

We still don't have a standard HTML text editor, instead relying on hundreds of Incompatible WYSIWYG editors which all produce custom output, or worse (much, much worse) the abomination that is MarkDown. Every browser should be an editor which all produce standardized output.

In 2023, we're still relying on asterisk, hash marks and underscores to format text, while simultaneously being able to run full fledged audio editors. It's ridiculous.

Re: Wavacity – a FOSS port of Audacity to the web

#16

Post by russellbeattie »

bigyikes wrote: post #3

Wow, this is incredible! I was not expecting it to work on mobile Safari of all things, but it does! The UI is even usable. Audacity is an indispensable utility. It’s great to see it and other “real” software on the web. I’m reminded of Photopea[1] which is a web clone of Photoshop. [1]: https://www.photopea.com/

If all the browsers, including mobile ones, would implement all of the the FileSystem Access APIs, these types of apps would be even more usable.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/File_System...

Re: Wavacity – a FOSS port of Audacity to the web

#18

Post by asfgiaosnio »

esperkin39 wrote: post #9
evrimoztamur wrote: post #2

Alright, it's at a kind of uncanny valley situation where we have Windows XP applications running real-time in our browsers. Is the end-game just a universal sandboxed VM that's cross-platform? What do we do next?

For better or for worse, that's what Google is aiming at with ChromeOS. Especially now that the overarching "OS" is really just a Linux shell for multiple VMs. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/l...

People often claim that ChromeOS is versatile enough to replace a normal computer because it has these various compatibility layers. They often fail to mention that they work terribly. You wind up with the poor performance and annoying isolation that VMs give, but with an extra helping of instability and incompatibility. Running anything Google hasn't approved is gated behind "developer mode", and even for a developer the pseudo-Debian container "developer mode" unlocks is confusing. I regularly encounter problems (like needing to run Wireshark) that I believe are simply unsolvable.

I don't understand anything about ChromeOS. At one point it was a bad but clear idea: a machine with just a web browser, capable only of running web apps. Then at some point they decided to just make the world's most complicated and confusing Linux distro, with the vestigial browser-centric design kept around just to make things as inconsistent as possible.

Post reply on HN