* Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62...@gmail.com> [2021-03-16 10:30]: > 3. Web apps stored on "the cloud" are bad because they often do not > respect the user's freedoms, as even if the software is under Free license > terms, technical issues can make running a modified version difficult or > impossible.
Just because there is possibility of abuse one shall reject the technological opportunity?! Why then reject all software at all, as I could jokingly paraphrase that as: ------- jokingly paraphrased ------ 3. Programs on the distk are bad because they often do not respect the user's freedoms, as they are often proprietary, as even if the software is under Free license terms, lack of user's skills and technical issues can make running a modified version difficult or impossible. ------------------ GNU/Linux has been abused by people since its inception, it is still insecure, and we still use it. It is being used worlwide millions or billions times to subjugate users who run software remotely on GNU/Linux systems -- all that is not relevant. Possibility of some abuse or evil conduct is not reason to say not to create free software on a free software platform (Webassembly). Is it useful to create software? If yes, why not. > Therefore: > Porting to "the Web" is simply not practical or appropriate for most GNU > software. This does not exclude the possibility of writing useful Free > software for "the Web" but the GNU project is focused on the GNU operating > system. GNU Operating Systems are various, they may already contain Webassembly if some of GNU systems include Firefox with it. For example in Parabola GNU/Linux-libre, the system I use on this computer there is package "wabt" with description "The WebAssembly Binary Toolkit is a suite of tools for WebAssembly". Thus GNU project already delivers tools for further development of Webassembly. "GNU Operating System" is the one I am running here, and I can install that package for Webassembly within seconds. Logic fails there. Or maybe you wanted to define "GNU operating system" as only those software packages developed by GNU, but not those software packages delivered with the GNU operating systems like Parabola in my case? Webassembly already has envisioned POSIX API. Please see: https://webassembly.org/docs/use-cases/ where it says: "POSIX user-space environment, allowing porting of existing POSIX applications" -- so why not? Then read: "Developer tooling (editors, compilers, debuggers, …)." -- so that means one can in future, as how it is envisioned, develop new programs for platforms X by using editors and compilers. For me that means using GCC and Emacs or similar tools. Existing POSIX applications will work in Webassembly. > Therefore: > Porting to "the Web" is simply not practical or appropriate for most GNU > software. This does not exclude the possibility of writing useful Free > software for "the Web" but the GNU project is focused on the GNU operating > system. Things are not practical when they are not implemented and not integrated. Webassembly makes it practical as it provides integration. It may not be the best method to run compatible applications on multiple OS-es. But then who is to make it better? There were various attempts to have toolkits that work well across OS-es and they are still there, this attempt with Webassembly makes it possible. It is of course there because Apple, Google and Microsoft and Mozilla have envisioned how it will be useful for them, but there is also the use for free software developers. It is new direction, new platform, seem to be the most advanced in the under developed 21st century. I have expected much more of computing in 2021, we are back in the era of Netscape and Javascript introduction, just on a new level. By the way, back in time, I remember that all kinds of plugins were installable in browsers, so all kinds of programs could run anyway inside of browsers. I have been running perl remotely executed on my browser. Here are some traces of that technology: https://www.brainbell.com/tutors/Perl/newfile295.html and I remember using similar technology before 1999. It is possible to modify browsers to run any kind of code. There is nothing new to the concept. Webassembly is attempt to make it in a safe environment. Those large companies are not known to keep the things safe, I know, but still, that is so far one of advanced cross platform environments. Let us develop software for it. I am sure that my Hyperscope system can be modified to run in any browser. It will become possible to develop Dynamical Knowledge Repositories as envisioned by Engelbart and request documents of any kinds and see/view them without modifying the OS. Open up DJVU document on any computer, use Emacs from any worldwide Internet cafe or point, play your favorite game without installing anything on a host computer. > The GNU operating system is not supposed to depend on external network > resources for routine operation. I agree with it, it is because it is made in specific environment for specific purposes at specific time in human history. Now is 2021. There is different period in human history and different technologies sprung and offer us different opportunities. Would Webassembly appear before 20 years, it would be proprietary, right now it seem to be free software upon which people may develop, including develop GNU software. We have to keep ourselves busy for next 50-100 years. We cannot expect only old technologies to remain forever and nothing new to come in soonest future. For me, Webassembly does not dictate necessarily "external network resources". Why not speak of the concept of running software in Webassembly without using external network resources, such as it is GNU Health, that could eventually in future, run inside of Firefox or modified Firefox browser in local area network. That is useful. There would be no need to install clients on every computer, it would be just enough to run the computer even from the USB stick, fire up browser, and one could manage the hospital. Software could be downloaded for execution from local area network. GNU Health is part of GNU system and GNU package, GNU software, routine operation of hospital management is to run GNU Health to manage patients and their health improvements. > I believe that "Who Does That Server Really Serve?" better applies > to these issues than "The JavaScript Trap" does: the former warns > against relying on systems outside of the user's control, even if > those systems are also running Free software, while the latter > applies to a widespread means of "sneaking" non-free software into > otherwise-Free environments under the user's proverbial nose. Sure I understand that viewpoint. I just don't think of proprietary viewpoint. There is plethora of free software already written for Webassembly. https://github.com/search?p=2&q=webassembly&type=Repositories You can install applications yourself, you can install them on your computer or your local area server or your own server. As platform for development of free software Webassembly is great tool. Let us think of free software. Here is one example how Perl runs in Webassembly: https://webperl.zero-g.net/democode/index.html Or Vim editor ported to Webassembly: https://github.com/rhysd/vim-wasm why we don't have Emacs running? Or speech recognition in browser: https://github.com/syl22-00/pocketsphinx.js Or collaborative PDF annotation environment: https://pspdfkit.com/guides/web/current/pspdfkit-for-web/getting-started/ And more: https://github.com/mbasso/awesome-wasm Webassembly for GNU Toolchain binutils, gcc, glibc: https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/binutils/2017-03/msg00044.html https://github.com/pipcet/binutils-gdb Did we speak all time about GNU running in Webassembly? Buhahahahahah. Jean
