Applications run server side and the output displays in your browser. There's absolutely no good reason to be writing the goddamn application to actually execute in your browser.
Running part of an application on the client allows for three things:
Drag as an input
Script-free HTML has a control for coordinate input, namely the ismap attribute of the <img> element. But it takes only clicks, not drags, making it unwieldy to (say) draw a curve on an image.
Immediate validation of input without repeated full page reloads
Reloads are costly in both time and data transfer charges imposed by the ISP. In the example of a script-free drawing application, every time you click on the image to make a revision, it has to download the entire image anew, not just the changed portion. Nor is it fun to fill out an HTML form multiple screens long only to submit the thing and discover that you made some easily preventable inconsistent input several screens ago, such as a date in an unrecognizable format, start and end dates out of order, or two passwords that do not match.
Real-time communication with other users of an application
Script-free HTML makes it unwieldy to (say) wait for new messages sent by other users of a chat room and display them once they arrive or to display things drawn by other users of a collaborative whiteboard as they draw them.
Or would these three things be grounds for requiring each user to download the application, compile it, and install it, if it's even ported to the operating system of the user's device?
You failed to address the elephant in the room: Javascript is the language of the web browser platform.
I think the idea is that a lot of people who regularly post comments on Slashdot and SoylentNews don't want the web browser to be an application platform. They see the web as documents, not applications. They point out that much is achievable through link navigation, form submission, and CSS, such as a script-free version of the "Fast Good Cheap" 2-of-3 checkbox demo. If they wanted an application more sophisticated than that, they would download its source code, compile it, and install it.
Minix being in 100% of the Intel-powered computers made in nearly the last decade, it has a higher marketshare than Windows, macOS and Linux.
Not necessarily. If there are more Intel computers without Windows than AMD computers with Windows, then Intel Minix outnumbers Windows. Otherwise, Windows outnumbers Intel Minix, and the numbers are Ryzen.
However, the term "Linux" encompasses a number of different kinds of systems: GNU/Linux (the environment designed to replace traditional UNIX on workstations and servers), embedded Linux (which uses uClibc and BusyBox instead of GNU), and Android. The sum of these three may very well exceed Intel Minix.
the objective was not "free tv", (most of us can get that with an antenna) or even "free tv on demand", but to watch a certain collection of titles that either (a) weren't conveniently available
Case in point: I picked two movies and a TV series, all produced prior to 1990, and looked for them on three different websites offering information about legit streaming options in the United States. I ended up with "not available" across the board.
You are correct that using BitTorrent is not the same thing as armed robbery on the high seas. But it is copyright infringement in the majority of publicized cases. I imagine there's far more traffic from sharing Hollywood movies than from sharing free operating system distributions, though I'd appreciate evidence to the contrary.
The fear is that Verizon Wireless will offer and deliver non-service and use deceptive marketing to convince the public that the non-service is service.
Verizon already offers LTE Internet Installed as a substitute for wired broadband in areas within its LTE service footprint but outside that of wired broadband ISPs. But compared to wired broadband, the monthly data allowance is a pittance for a family in 2017 even on the most expensive plan: $150 per month for 40 GB per month.
Hosting facilities aren't without cost. Amazon charges real money for EC2, S3, and CloudFront.
This problem [of selling ad space] is identical to the one the paper newspapers of the previous century, right ?
For one thing, how did "the paper newspapers of the previous century" solve it? And to what extent would those solutions continue to apply? Individual publishers back then didn't have to compete with interest-based ad networks for advertisers' money.
Yet you're on Slashdot, a site that's all about links the editors send you. Numerous stories on Slashdot have been from WSJ, and quite a few times, the "alternate source" was also paywalled.
1 GB is 1,000,000,000 bytes (1,953,125 512-byte sectors) of usable capacity plus 73,741,824 bytes of spare space for remapping up to 144,027 worn sectors.
Except I don't block ads per se. I use Firefox tracking protection to block things that track my viewing habits from one website to another. When a site serves ads that don't track me, as on Daring Fireball, I see them. But for over a year, Wired confused tracking protection with an ad blocker instead of serving ads that don't track me. TV Tropes still does.
it costs $0 to generate a new internal domain (source: dnsmasq, bind9, or any other DNS server you can self-host) and $0 per year to keep it.
Public CAs don't issue certificates for hosts in $0 domains, and the root certificate for your private CA isn't always easy to install on devices brought by guests.
I pay for the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Washington Post. And they are well worth every penny.
So what do you do when someone shares with you a link to an article in a publication other than the four you mentioned, such as The Wall Street Journal?
I personally am not. But the following applies to another class of users:
Windows 10 S blocks installation of applications from outside the Windows Store. The Windows Store Policies ban web browsers other than EdgeHTML wrappers. Therefore, for a user of a PC that came with Windows 10 S, installing another browser costs $50 for the upgrade from Windows 10 S to Windows 10 Pro.
My laptop runs Debian 9 "Stretch". Compared to the Firefox ESR that I currently use or the Chromium that I use for a few sites that don't run well in Firefox ESR (such as Discordapp.com), Edge would cost more, as I'd have to buy a Windows license, and it would use a lot more RAM, as I'd have to run Windows in a virtual machine.
Has it become common for public libraries in the United States, in both large and small cities and in states with both conservative- and liberal-leaning legislatures, to carry subscriptions to popular paywalled websites? Could I, say, visit a library branch, put in my library card number, and read WSJ.com articles without charge?
the problem would seem that the advertisers are not willing to pay enough to support the number of pages that visitors look at
Correct. This is the model of print newspapers, print magazines, and pay television. Neither subscription revenue alone nor advertising revenue alone is enough to fully fund the production of works of authorship without, say, making every pay TV channel as expensive as HBO. Only the sum of the two is sufficient.
Is the subscription price too high?
Yes in many cases. $25,000 per year for one article that happens to be exclusive to the Bloomberg subscription is far too high for the vast majority of individual readers. Even a more modest $4 per month is cost-prohibitive for someone who reads only one article per month from a given site. Anything lower than $4, however, and the commission that a merchant pays to a payment processor for each transaction begins to dominate.
Static inline images from the originating website.
Does this mean that you propose to eliminate the intermediary ad network or ad exchange? If so, how would you expect a smaller site to afford to hire ad sales personnel in order to find advertisers and sell ad space directly to them?
Or you could charge the advertiser more for the ad impression.
Publishers already charge the advertisers more for what the Internet advertising industry calls "rich" ads. But publishers have come to rely on the increased revenue for rich ads as the new normal.
Slashdot Mirror
Applications run server side and the output displays in your browser. There's absolutely no good reason to be writing the goddamn application to actually execute in your browser.
Running part of an application on the client allows for three things:
Drag as an input Script-free HTML has a control for coordinate input, namely the ismap attribute of the <img> element. But it takes only clicks, not drags, making it unwieldy to (say) draw a curve on an image. Immediate validation of input without repeated full page reloads Reloads are costly in both time and data transfer charges imposed by the ISP. In the example of a script-free drawing application, every time you click on the image to make a revision, it has to download the entire image anew, not just the changed portion. Nor is it fun to fill out an HTML form multiple screens long only to submit the thing and discover that you made some easily preventable inconsistent input several screens ago, such as a date in an unrecognizable format, start and end dates out of order, or two passwords that do not match. Real-time communication with other users of an application Script-free HTML makes it unwieldy to (say) wait for new messages sent by other users of a chat room and display them once they arrive or to display things drawn by other users of a collaborative whiteboard as they draw them.Or would these three things be grounds for requiring each user to download the application, compile it, and install it, if it's even ported to the operating system of the user's device?
I read it as "Incompetence in web browser security has been the rule since they were called Netscape."
The lack of indication of tone of voice in text makes it unreliable for a reader to distinguish deadpan sarcasm from sincerity.
You failed to address the elephant in the room: Javascript is the language of the web browser platform.
I think the idea is that a lot of people who regularly post comments on Slashdot and SoylentNews don't want the web browser to be an application platform. They see the web as documents, not applications. They point out that much is achievable through link navigation, form submission, and CSS, such as a script-free version of the "Fast Good Cheap" 2-of-3 checkbox demo. If they wanted an application more sophisticated than that, they would download its source code, compile it, and install it.
Minix being in 100% of the Intel-powered computers made in nearly the last decade, it has a higher marketshare than Windows, macOS and Linux.
Not necessarily. If there are more Intel computers without Windows than AMD computers with Windows, then Intel Minix outnumbers Windows. Otherwise, Windows outnumbers Intel Minix, and the numbers are Ryzen.
However, the term "Linux" encompasses a number of different kinds of systems: GNU/Linux (the environment designed to replace traditional UNIX on workstations and servers), embedded Linux (which uses uClibc and BusyBox instead of GNU), and Android. The sum of these three may very well exceed Intel Minix.
the objective was not "free tv", (most of us can get that with an antenna) or even "free tv on demand", but to watch a certain collection of titles that either (a) weren't conveniently available
Case in point: I picked two movies and a TV series, all produced prior to 1990, and looked for them on three different websites offering information about legit streaming options in the United States. I ended up with "not available" across the board.
You are correct that using BitTorrent is not the same thing as armed robbery on the high seas. But it is copyright infringement in the majority of publicized cases. I imagine there's far more traffic from sharing Hollywood movies than from sharing free operating system distributions, though I'd appreciate evidence to the contrary.
The fear is that Verizon Wireless will offer and deliver non-service and use deceptive marketing to convince the public that the non-service is service.
Verizon already offers LTE Internet Installed as a substitute for wired broadband in areas within its LTE service footprint but outside that of wired broadband ISPs. But compared to wired broadband, the monthly data allowance is a pittance for a family in 2017 even on the most expensive plan: $150 per month for 40 GB per month.
Online doesn't have newsprint expenses
Hosting facilities aren't without cost. Amazon charges real money for EC2, S3, and CloudFront.
This problem [of selling ad space] is identical to the one the paper newspapers of the previous century, right ?
For one thing, how did "the paper newspapers of the previous century" solve it? And to what extent would those solutions continue to apply? Individual publishers back then didn't have to compete with interest-based ad networks for advertisers' money.
I ignore links people send me.
Yet you're on Slashdot, a site that's all about links the editors send you. Numerous stories on Slashdot have been from WSJ, and quite a few times, the "alternate source" was also paywalled.
Except that there are some really useful apps that are either ad-supported or subscription only.
If you want a lifetime sub, have you inquired with the publishers of these apps about the price of a lifetime sub?
Unfortunately, most Android phones aren't rooted. And if a phone isn't rooted, you can't install an APK flie to edit /etc/hosts.
Or more specifically, someone else's farm of rapidly provisionable partitions of computers.
any number of fascinating quirks of Indian Standard English
Do any of these quirks involve needing a techneecian to remove each and every wirus from your Vindows dextop?
1 GB is 1,000,000,000 bytes (1,953,125 512-byte sectors) of usable capacity plus 73,741,824 bytes of spare space for remapping up to 144,027 worn sectors.
Except I don't block ads per se. I use Firefox tracking protection to block things that track my viewing habits from one website to another. When a site serves ads that don't track me, as on Daring Fireball, I see them. But for over a year, Wired confused tracking protection with an ad blocker instead of serving ads that don't track me. TV Tropes still does.
it costs $0 to generate a new internal domain (source: dnsmasq, bind9, or any other DNS server you can self-host) and $0 per year to keep it.
Public CAs don't issue certificates for hosts in $0 domains, and the root certificate for your private CA isn't always easy to install on devices brought by guests.
What is bad about having multiple subscriptions?
It's simple: To get any sort of breadth of subject matter or perspective, you'd end up having...
To view the rest of this comment, log in or subscribe to comments by tepples
I pay for the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Washington Post. And they are well worth every penny.
So what do you do when someone shares with you a link to an article in a publication other than the four you mentioned, such as The Wall Street Journal?
why are you using Edge?
I personally am not. But the following applies to another class of users:
Windows 10 S blocks installation of applications from outside the Windows Store. The Windows Store Policies ban web browsers other than EdgeHTML wrappers. Therefore, for a user of a PC that came with Windows 10 S, installing another browser costs $50 for the upgrade from Windows 10 S to Windows 10 Pro.
It's possible to render an abstract and credit card form with only HTML, CSS, and cookies.
On desktop, Edge is exclusive to Windows.
My laptop runs Debian 9 "Stretch". Compared to the Firefox ESR that I currently use or the Chromium that I use for a few sites that don't run well in Firefox ESR (such as Discordapp.com), Edge would cost more, as I'd have to buy a Windows license, and it would use a lot more RAM, as I'd have to run Windows in a virtual machine.
I will read whatever the fuck, from however many the fuck, sites I want to.
Then be prepared to pay however much the fuck, these sites charge.
Has it become common for public libraries in the United States, in both large and small cities and in states with both conservative- and liberal-leaning legislatures, to carry subscriptions to popular paywalled websites? Could I, say, visit a library branch, put in my library card number, and read WSJ.com articles without charge?
the problem would seem that the advertisers are not willing to pay enough to support the number of pages that visitors look at
Correct. This is the model of print newspapers, print magazines, and pay television. Neither subscription revenue alone nor advertising revenue alone is enough to fully fund the production of works of authorship without, say, making every pay TV channel as expensive as HBO. Only the sum of the two is sufficient.
Is the subscription price too high?
Yes in many cases. $25,000 per year for one article that happens to be exclusive to the Bloomberg subscription is far too high for the vast majority of individual readers. Even a more modest $4 per month is cost-prohibitive for someone who reads only one article per month from a given site. Anything lower than $4, however, and the commission that a merchant pays to a payment processor for each transaction begins to dominate.
Static inline images from the originating website.
Does this mean that you propose to eliminate the intermediary ad network or ad exchange? If so, how would you expect a smaller site to afford to hire ad sales personnel in order to find advertisers and sell ad space directly to them?
Or you could charge the advertiser more for the ad impression.
Publishers already charge the advertisers more for what the Internet advertising industry calls "rich" ads. But publishers have come to rely on the increased revenue for rich ads as the new normal.