344
submitted 10 months ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 months ago

Of course they can't compete on the adversary's field when that adversary has bigger resources and monopoly in many areas.

What I don't understand is why nobody has tried to sell the idea of an alternative Web to the wider audience?

Like Gemini, only without the "minimal" and "non-commercial hobbyist" parts.

Without trying to follow Google/MS/etc on the path intentionally chosen to not be passable for others.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That would be excellent, but trying to convince everybody to move to a "new web" would be extremely difficult in itself, even before we start to think about the likes of Google that very much want to maintain the status quo

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

Just leverage the app mentality. They do have a hundred apps for every stupid thing. Just one more.

[-] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Arguably since mainly what people actually want from the Web is just a cross-platform document renderer/UI system, if you designed something new from the ground-up with zero legacy nonsense, well, those are both complex problems, but I somewhat suspect we'd end up with something better and easier to develop for than the Byzantine nightmare that is the web.

Network effects would limit growth, but I think as the web gets shittier and shittier there would be growth.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago

It's just that when people compare this to Linux vs Windows\MacOS - the correct comparison to what Mozilla is trying to do would be ReactOS vs Windows. Where's ReactOS? Right.

Arguably since mainly what people actually want from the Web is just a cross-platform document renderer/UI system,

Yes, most customers want that and it's rather cheap to develop (not being childish, look at Gemini again, it just should be repeated with the same means, limiting extensibility of the standard, and different goals - one, more rich markup, two, some way to replace Flash of the olden days and\or the script nightmare of today without allowing the replacement to grow into a similar monster, three, some degree of content-based addressing, like in P2P, so that CDNs and big platforms would be less important, four, something to replace the centralized PKI system with all those wildcard certificates sometimes issued to bad guys and everybody saying oops).

People who want the Byzantine nightmare, or the ad-stuffing system with some websites existing today, are all on the other side. Only if the ad-stuffing system isn't really required for what we need to do, then those people should lose the competition and go bankrupt. I hope I'll see that happen.

but I somewhat suspect we’d end up with something better and easier to develop for than the Byzantine nightmare that is the web.

That's certain.

Network effects would limit growth, but I think as the web gets shittier and shittier there would be growth.

There absolutely would, especially in the times of "there's an app for everything".

this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
344 points (88.2% liked)

Technology

59983 readers
2251 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS