Comment by rglullis
6 years ago
TempleOS was never a business, and it never was significant part of any kind of software market and completely irrelevant in terms of economic value.
I guess you are hung up on the fact that OP used hyperbole to say that "nobody" is going to focus on local-first software and you are trying to win an argument by taking this statement literally.
Can we be a little bit more charitable here, and actually argue the point of OP? Even though I am a die-hard Linux-on-desktop, Thunderbird-for-gmail, SaaS-averse gray-hairing dude who still is bent on spending countless nights and weekends setting up my own self-hosted services on my own bare-metal servers, I totally understand that the growing of SaaS-companies are due to economic reasons, not technical ones.
It is not like people are going around saying "Gee, I made this software here and I wish people could run on their computers, but they can't so I will have to create a startup business that runs this software on the internet and I will collect subscriptions as a way to fund the operation".
>I guess you are hung up on the fact that OP used hyperbole to say that "nobody" is going to focus on local-first software and you are trying to win an argument by taking this statement literally.
Well, I was mainly responding to the closing paragraph.
>So yeah, sure, if you were to build a piece of desktop software from a clean sheet of paper today, this is a really good guide on how to do that. But nobody is going to. Because it makes no business sense to do so.
I could be more charitable and invent other things that I think they meant to say rather than focus on what they said. You are not the first to suggest it is a failing of mine that I do not do this.
Personally I think that if someone says say "But nobody is going to. Because it makes no business sense to do so.", it is reasonable to point out that there are plenty of motivations beyond 'business sense', and to point this out is fair comment, rather than getting hung up on anything.
You just used 103 words (541 characters) to basically confirm that your reply is just one "Well, actually...". This makes a discussion forum extremely annoying and makes me regret wasting all this time writing for you.
If I am not the first one to point out your failure of understanding the Principle of Charity, do us all a favor and focus on that before continuing discussion with others online.
The flip side of being a charitable reader is that a writer should also behave decently; that involves trying to be maximally accurate about claims and factual statements one communicates. "Well, actually" comments are justified if the author failed at their duty, and welcome in honest discourse.
I understand the principle, I just think the principle of charity is more misused than not. Also, you didn't waste time writing for me. You probably did waste time counting the words in my reply though. Sorry to have annoyed you, perhaps you are taking me too literally and it might help if you imagined a version of what I said that is more pleasing.
6 replies →