Re: Web versions

Jean Louis wrote:
> * Jacob Bachmeyer <[email protected]> [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?!
>   

That is ridiculous, but we should still take steps to mitigate 
possibilities for abuses.  After all, we have the GPL to mitigate the 
abuse of "walking off" with a copy of a Free program and making a 
proprietary derivative, and GPL3 was introduced to mitigate the abuse of 
Tivoisation.

> [...]
>  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?
>   

The original request that started this discussion was a suggestion to 
port all of the software developed by GNU to WebAssembly to run in 
browsers.  There are some packages, such as coreutils, for which that is 
obviously nonsensical.  This does not mean that we could not support 
WebAssembly as a general compilation target, or that we could not build 
effectively a browser-based HURD port, (and HURD's architecture fits 
such an environment fairly well, treating the browser itself as a 
Mach-analogue) but generally relying on browsers is dangerously close to 
SaaSS.

> 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.
>   

Those are great.  That is something that *fits* the Web platform model.

> [...]
> 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.
>   

GNU Health is another good example of a package that could usefully be 
ported to a Web-ish runtime, and SaaSS is not a problem if the servers 
are running Free software under your own control on your own LAN, as 
would be expected in a hospital installation.

>> 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.
>   

The original request was for GNU packages to be offered as SaaSS.

> As platform for development of free software Webassembly is great
> tool. Let us think of free software.
>   

I agree with this point.

> Or Vim editor ported to Webassembly:
> https://github.com/rhysd/vim-wasm why we don't have Emacs running?
>   

Probably because Emacs is a full Lisp runtime and vim is much simpler.  
I had to learn to use vim for a while when I had just gotten a new AMD64 
system and Emacs had not yet been ported to x86-64.  (Nor had X yet been 
adapted to support building both 32-bit and 64-bit libraries; Emacs 
gained x86-64 support before I had X multilibs.)


-- Jacob