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

131–140 of 148 posts

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

#131

Post by autoexec »

rcme wrote: post #117
autoexec wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Audacity is an indispensable utility. It’s great to see it and other “real” software on the web. It's been a very long time since I used it, but didn't Audacity turn evil, add a bunch of networking code it never needed before, and start spying on people? ( https://fosspost.org/audacity-is-now-a-spyware/ ). I remember people reverting to older "safe" versions. I guess that doesn't much matter for this web app since…

I'll never understand peoples' obsession with equating telemetry with spyware. As an application developer, I need to know that my application is working appropriately for my users. It's not sufficient to rely on manual bug reports. If someone doesn't like that, then that's perfectly fine in my opinion. Just don't use the product. To accuse an application developer of spying on users is a bit much imo.

> As an application developer, I need to know that my application is working appropriately for my users.

You don't need telemetry for that. We have several decades of data showing that software can be developed, tested, deployed, used, and valued without ever forcibly collecting a single bit of data from users.

Why on earth should a user trust that their data isn't being used to spy on them just because it's being collecting under the guise of being for something else? Once the data is collected, the user has no control over what a company will do with it and the only sane assumption users can make these days is that if a company can make more money by doing something (like selling or abusing the personal data of their users) they will do that thing.

The practice of collecting telemetry is also highly suspicious because it's often done without the user's consent (opt out at best), and without showing the user exactly what data is collected and sent.

The fact is that companies have betrayed the public's trust so many times, and in such egregious ways, that it's unreasonable for developers to expect people to "just trust them" to do the right thing. If you don't want to be accused to spying, maybe just don't behave like spyware. Do testing, solicit voluntary feedback, and eat your own dog food.

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

#132

Post by [deleted] »

ajross wrote: post #105
esperkin39 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, Fugu is totally seperate from ChromeOS, since many of Fugus capabilities don't work on the platform. Still, on Windows and Mac, Fugu is definitely more impressive than anything ChromeOS is doing.

This isn't correct at all? Here's the API support chart: https://fugu-tracker.web.app/# Obviously yes, there are going to be platform-dependencies with any platform abstraction API, and different platforms support different things. For sure Android is "primary" for most of these and it is doing the best, but the other platforms seem pretty well-supported, with no particular winner that I'm seeing. Is there something…

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by esperkin39 »

ajross wrote: post #105
esperkin39 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, Fugu is totally seperate from ChromeOS, since many of Fugus capabilities don't work on the platform. Still, on Windows and Mac, Fugu is definitely more impressive than anything ChromeOS is doing.

This isn't correct at all? Here's the API support chart: https://fugu-tracker.web.app/# Obviously yes, there are going to be platform-dependencies with any platform abstraction API, and different platforms support different things. For sure Android is "primary" for most of these and it is doing the best, but the other platforms seem pretty well-supported, with no particular winner that I'm seeing. Is there something…

Then it is correct? Many of the Fugu APIs don't work.

I didn't say none.

You can always tell someone hasn't developed consumer apps for ChromeOS when they white knight for it.

If you want to know a specific API that DOESN'T work, but performs splendidly on Windows, then the Eyedropper is a perfect example.

There's an old bug report for it that even has Google Chrome team support, and still no dice.

But yeah, keep rushing to defend the platform that doesn't even get proper support from its creators.

Another example is given in the link you posted. Direct Sockets API is deprecated, but its replacement isn't available yet.

So, if you were a web-dev using "vanilla" ChromeOS to test a site, you better install a full Debian VM on your 4 gb machine, because there's no other way to spin up a server.

No, I think it was correct to say Fugu is NOT for ChromeOS.

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

#134

Post by rcme »

zlg_codes wrote: post #130
rcme wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not advocating that users ignore the possibility of spying. All software has the potential to spy on you. But that does not mean you can publicly accuse a developer who wants to add telemetry of spying. > Users should be able to trust that their software won't be blabbing over the network about what you're doing. Says who? That’s just your opinion. My opinion is that if an exception happens in my software that ma…

Says responsible developers. Good software doesn't need to phone home or report to the dev that they clicked widget X instead of Y. Telemetry is what happens when lazy or complacent devs move forward in their software but decide to be 'data driven'. What's wrong with accusing someone of having the ability to spy of maybe spying ? The point with technology and humans is, if the ability is there, it's not 'if' it will…

“Says responsible developers”. That’s called rationalizing friend.

This conversation can go nowhere because you believe you’re right and others are wrong. You really should accept that you have a specific preference and other people have other preferences. It’s not a question of right or wrong.

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

#135

Post by rcme »

autoexec wrote: post #131
rcme wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand peoples' obsession with equating telemetry with spyware. As an application developer, I need to know that my application is working appropriately for my users. It's not sufficient to rely on manual bug reports. If someone doesn't like that, then that's perfectly fine in my opinion. Just don't use the product. To accuse an application developer of spying on users is a bit much imo.

> As an application developer, I need to know that my application is working appropriately for my users. You don't need telemetry for that. We have several decades of data showing that software can be developed, tested, deployed, used, and valued without ever forcibly collecting a single bit of data from users. Why on earth should a user trust that their data isn't being used to spy on them just because it's being co…

Again, it’s just your preference. No one is forcing you to use such software. It’s not the moral issue you’re framing it as.

We also don’t have “decades of data”. Almost all large scale software systems leverage some form of telemetry/monitoring. Would you run a factory without quality control on the process? A more interesting question to me is which large software systems don’t use telemetry? Linux maybe?

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

#136

Post by hnben »

rcme wrote: post #117
autoexec wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Audacity is an indispensable utility. It’s great to see it and other “real” software on the web. It's been a very long time since I used it, but didn't Audacity turn evil, add a bunch of networking code it never needed before, and start spying on people? ( https://fosspost.org/audacity-is-now-a-spyware/ ). I remember people reverting to older "safe" versions. I guess that doesn't much matter for this web app since…

I'll never understand peoples' obsession with equating telemetry with spyware. As an application developer, I need to know that my application is working appropriately for my users. It's not sufficient to rely on manual bug reports. If someone doesn't like that, then that's perfectly fine in my opinion. Just don't use the product. To accuse an application developer of spying on users is a bit much imo.

In your opinion, where is the line between spyware and telemetry exactly?

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

#137

Post by autoexec »

rcme wrote: post #135
autoexec wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an application developer, I need to know that my application is working appropriately for my users. You don't need telemetry for that. We have several decades of data showing that software can be developed, tested, deployed, used, and valued without ever forcibly collecting a single bit of data from users. Why on earth should a user trust that their data isn't being used to spy on them just because it's being co…

Again, it’s just your preference. No one is forcing you to use such software. It’s not the moral issue you’re framing it as. We also don’t have “decades of data”. Almost all large scale software systems leverage some form of telemetry/monitoring. Would you run a factory without quality control on the process? A more interesting question to me is which large software systems don’t use telemetry? Linux maybe?

The first computer program was written in the 1840s. FORTRAN was released in the 1950s. I promise that we had many many decades of amazing software that didn't phone home to spy on users. Most software had no telemetry at all until well after the internet became mainstream.

When many people connected to the internet via dial up, phoning home (even just to check for updates) could get your software branded as spyware. The idea that a software company would be collecting data on what dates/times you were online, what your IP address was, and when/how often you used the software you purchased was offensive. Adware (and nagware) were tradeoffs users knowingly made, but data collection was a sin.

As the internet got popular enough more and more programs started spying on users and there were efforts to come up with clear guidelines for what was/wasn't acceptable, for example: https://www.grc.com/oo/cbc.htm Today most programs collecting telemetry would fail by that standard.

Just because "everybody does it" today that doesn't make it right. Most computer users have no understanding of what the software they run is doing, very little idea of the risks/harms involved with giving up their personal data, and no idea that there was ever a time when things were any different.

It's still not any of your business when your users run their software. Which features they use more often or what tasks they use their software for are also none of your business. You might find that information useful to have, but that doesn't make it yours to take without asking.

This isn't just "my preference" either. When users are respected enough to be asked if they want to be tracked, the vast majority of them care and won't opt in (https://iapp.org/news/a/research-shows-25-opt-in-rates-for-a...).

You don't need telemetry. If you want it because it lets you be lazier, request permission before collecting anything and make sure users know exactly what is being collected before asking them to opt in. Just having or pointing users to a privacy policy is not enough. Don't collect anything more than you absolutely have to and delete the data quickly once you have it so that it can't be leaked/sold later. Anything less than that is disrespectful and deceptive.

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

#138

Post by ajross »

esperkin39 wrote: post #133
ajross wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't correct at all? Here's the API support chart: https://fugu-tracker.web.app/# Obviously yes, there are going to be platform-dependencies with any platform abstraction API, and different platforms support different things. For sure Android is "primary" for most of these and it is doing the best, but the other platforms seem pretty well-supported, with no particular winner that I'm seeing. Is there something…

Then it is correct? Many of the Fugu APIs don't work. I didn't say none. You can always tell someone hasn't developed consumer apps for ChromeOS when they white knight for it. If you want to know a specific API that DOESN'T work, but performs splendidly on Windows, then the Eyedropper is a perfect example. There's an old bug report for it that even has Google Chrome team support, and still no dice. But yeah, keep rus…

> Then it is correct? Many of the Fugu APIs don't work. I didn't say none

You claimed that support was significantly worse than on Mac or Windows, and the chart certainly doesn't bear that out.

And your examples seem... pretty cherry picked? I mean, there's junk that fails everywhere. If color pickers are core to your job, then... OK, I guess. It's a hole. It doesn't seem to remotely justify the kind of bile and hatred you're deploying here.

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

#139

Post by anon____ »

hyperhopper wrote: post #125
anon____ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you apply that image file to help you order food? Then that's an application. And that's why they are wrong. If anything and everything can be called an app then the word lost its meaning.

Apply the image file? Do you apply road signs?

Yes and yes. I'm not a native English speaker, though.

Definitions of the verb apply from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apply#Verb:

2. (transitive) To put to use; to use or employ for a particular purpose, or in a particular case

    to apply funds to the repayment of a debt
3. (transitive) To make use of, declare, or pronounce, as suitable, fitting, or relative

    We need to apply the skills we've learned to solve this problem

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

#140

Post by esperkin39 »

ajross wrote: post #138
esperkin39 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it is correct? Many of the Fugu APIs don't work. I didn't say none. You can always tell someone hasn't developed consumer apps for ChromeOS when they white knight for it. If you want to know a specific API that DOESN'T work, but performs splendidly on Windows, then the Eyedropper is a perfect example. There's an old bug report for it that even has Google Chrome team support, and still no dice. But yeah, keep rus…

> Then it is correct? Many of the Fugu APIs don't work. I didn't say none You claimed that support was significantly worse than on Mac or Windows, and the chart certainly doesn't bear that out. And your examples seem... pretty cherry picked? I mean, there's junk that fails everywhere. If color pickers are core to your job, then... OK, I guess. It's a hole. It doesn't seem to remotely justify the kind of bile and hatr…

I gave another example as well. I'm also not spewing any "hate" or "bile" for an inanimate operating system.

To make this easier to understand, please give me an example of what's missing from Mac or Windows and I'll share the way it can easily be accomplished in a native environment. After that, we can try to do the same for ChromeOS and you'll see where the holes appear.

Fugu is about slowly moving Mac and Windows functions to the web, but ChromeOS exists RIGHT NOW. Thus, if it were for that platform, there would be urgency and full support across the board. Because they don't care about filling all those holes, they choose not to support every API.

That was my point. Windows and Mac don't need Fugu to function. ChromeOS does. Still, Windows and Mac needs are prioritized over ChromeOS.

I also noticed you deftly ahem cherry-picked around the lack of server support on a web-first operating system, but that's neither here nor there.

Post reply on HN