That's an interesting claim to make on a forum that frequently discusses new web technology, the progress in browser engines, the interesting new stuff that's being made.
In 1998 there was no Gmail, no Github, no Slack, no Discourse, and so on and so on.
C2 may have been perfectly usable, and I think it should remain as an archive, but there was barely any contribution anymore.
When you imply that Ward's "Smallest Federated Wiki" embraces the "bankrupty of the Web 2.0 era," it sounds to me like your pet peeve against JavaScript makes you discount the whole project.
I mean, you're very free to have your own views and opinions, but as someone who's very interested in this project, I'm pretty baffled by all the negativity, and the lack of a more than superficial interest.
The idea of a federated wiki is, it seems to me, very cool, and the fact that it hasn't been done yet indicates that the web has not peaked. So where you see "the bankruptcy of the Web 2.0 era," I see a fascinating development of the wiki idea by its original creator.
Yeah, the JS app seems a little unpolished, but also pretty cool in many ways. I don't know whether it's the best move to replace the old C2 wiki right now. Maybe Ward sees it as a way to get more people interested in the new project. I don't know.
As for me, I'm going to see if there's any way I can contribute and help the project. It would be nice to see some more of that attitude here, instead of only (in my view) superficial complaints.
> That's an interesting claim to make on a forum that frequently discusses new web technology
I don't like to shy away from controversy. ;)
> In 1998 there was no Gmail, no Github, no Slack, no Discourse, and so on and so on.
No, but there was SMTP/IMAP/Exchange, which was better and didn't spy on you. There was ViewCVS, which was just peachy, and in any case the improvements in Github over CVS have to do with git versus CVS (i.e. the native apps and protocols), not the web frontend per se. There was also IRC and AIM, which were just peachy too.
It may well be that the 1998 peak was a local maximum, but I stand by the assertion that the web was better back then. The modern web is spectacularly bad for finding and consuming information. Want a simple how-to or product review? You'll be blasted in the face with images, video, and animation until your quad-core 2GHz/16GB RAM machine falls to its knees.
And to what end? Text is still, after thousands of years, the most efficient way to convey information. Anything you layer on top of it detracts, rather than adds.
SMTP/IMAP isn't better than webmail. IMAP is an awful protocol. It's less secure than HTTPS. It doesn't do a better job of avoiding "spying" than webmail does. You can sync multiple clients with IMAP, but webmail accomplishes the same task so seamlessly clients don't even need to be aware of it.
IMAP is a pretty good example of the kind of protocol that should be eaten by HTTP/RPC APIs.
(I've written a couple IMAP implementations, both client and server, and was [in the 1990s] responsible for the mail infrastructure for a popular ISP.)
I also think Ward's project is not fundamentally bad just because it uses JavaScript.
I think the idea of federated text sharing through free software and open protocols is lovely and that anyone making a serious attempt at this should be encouraged.
And I think that interactive web software can actually help, especially when it comes to inviting people who wouldn't enjoy setting up a Usenet client.
Fair enough, but I think increased usage is more the result of a confluence of more widely-available broadband (including mobile), as well as new applications that would've been possible without rich media. Garnish aside, Facebook and Twitter are slinging a few textual quips and images around.
Also, I'd quibble about the word "better." Does the vast increase in non-technical users make the world better? Sure. Does it make the web better?
We didn't need half those things, because we had email, usenet, and IRC. Those were actually pretty good. I certainly had far better discussions on usenet back then than i've ever had on the web since.
That's an interesting claim to make on a forum that frequently discusses new web technology, the progress in browser engines, the interesting new stuff that's being made.
In 1998 there was no Gmail, no Github, no Slack, no Discourse, and so on and so on.
C2 may have been perfectly usable, and I think it should remain as an archive, but there was barely any contribution anymore.
When you imply that Ward's "Smallest Federated Wiki" embraces the "bankrupty of the Web 2.0 era," it sounds to me like your pet peeve against JavaScript makes you discount the whole project.
I mean, you're very free to have your own views and opinions, but as someone who's very interested in this project, I'm pretty baffled by all the negativity, and the lack of a more than superficial interest.
The idea of a federated wiki is, it seems to me, very cool, and the fact that it hasn't been done yet indicates that the web has not peaked. So where you see "the bankruptcy of the Web 2.0 era," I see a fascinating development of the wiki idea by its original creator.
Yeah, the JS app seems a little unpolished, but also pretty cool in many ways. I don't know whether it's the best move to replace the old C2 wiki right now. Maybe Ward sees it as a way to get more people interested in the new project. I don't know.
As for me, I'm going to see if there's any way I can contribute and help the project. It would be nice to see some more of that attitude here, instead of only (in my view) superficial complaints.