I want this too, there isn’t a great FOSS way to currently do this besides supabase or roll your own unfortunately. For PWA local save/write, try network update, refresh local upon success is the gold standard for data integrity. And for network reading fallback to local cache upon offline is great for UX. I haven’t found good tooling for this yet and i’ve been looking.
What if serverless meant no backend servers?
21–30 of 138 posts
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#22If you're accessing a remote host for the DB, there is a backend.
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#23Anybody remember Groove Networks. Lotus notes over p2p then bought and killed by Microsoft?. It was pretty amazing for its time.
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#24Like, just … a program?
I looked at the example app. It was basically a spreadsheet. To me that's what make the internet special is not only can I share my shit but people can their shit w/ me. Sharing is what makes it special.
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#25Like, just … a program?
> You might be thinking, "That's just desktop applications," but that's not what I'm referring to.
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#26I'm always glad to see people experimenting with different approaches to building and deploying apps. That said, the general idea of this Serverfree approach doesn't appeal to me. On any given day, I'll use 4 different devices. I need my data to synchronize seamlessly. I wouldn't use a program (in-browser or traditionally installed application) unless I can synchronize that data either by storing files in a Dropbox-like program or in the cloud. I don't want to have to remember which computer/browser combination I was working on.
Edit: forgot some words
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between OS core programs and third party apps though.
Please enlighten us what this difference is.
Well if the OS annoys me with "update x available, install and restart in 5 mins?" every 10 mins, I'm more likely to do it and still be using it in 10 years (true story).
If an app does that...
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#28If you're accessing a remote host for the DB, there is a backend.
It's not accessing a remote host for the DB.
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#29What we need is updates that only include security patches.... FEATURE CHANGES SHOULD BE OPTIONAL. Because all software tend to decrease in quality overtime.
While a desirable state for users, this could quickly balloon into a nest of support issues for the maintainers due to having many different versions to patch when a security issue or other significant bug becomes apparent, increasing the project's response time to anything important like that. You could try to mitigate this by maintaining only a couple of versions (perhaps preview, current, and LTS similar to Debian's sid/testing/stable) which would work for small projects, but for large ones or those that see fairly rapid development you runt he risk of stable gaining a reputation for being out of date, unless you bump it forward regularly which puts you back at square one with giving people feature updates they may not need.
Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?
#30"It depends". On one hand, if I were to have the goal to make a bunch of money, and software just happens to be the means to an end, making a gated software portal where I control everything would suit me very well. You get nothing until I get the money, and I only maintain what I want to maintain. (pretty much the model every SaaS has) On the other hand, if I know I have a very small customer base, and everyone is m…
> (third hand?)
You might like https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/392/what-is-the-or... - it's like "grok" tho, only (certain) other nerds will get it.
But, it's a nice phrase; IMHO it's less "third hand" and more "third option/perspective that renders the prior two moot".