UI only reacts to the responses from backend. Of course it has some amount of logic not to show things user doesn't have permission to do anyway.
Regarding the error handling, just return response and show the error. For example if trying to load a dashboard and you get a 403, just display an error.
While Remix seems a bit more reasonable than some other js frameworks, they all share the same problem: fundamental architecture.
What's even weirder is that they could copy the structure from dozens of other frameworks, some of which are nearly 20 years old now, which have solved pretty much every possible problem already.
But no, just throw views,data, io, auth checks etc. everywhere and hope it builds.
what's wrong with Remix's fundamental architecture? I mean.. I generally also think that the overall state of the JS ecosystem is broken, but that's due to JS tooling modules vs commonJS etc (hope bun fixes all that). But as a backend-dev who primarily writes Go I round remix easy and simple to pick up and get started with when I had to use it this year.
I don't think issues are a good measurement for popular repos. Majority of them are just basic skill issues and inability to read 2 pages of docs.
Especially next community seems to be full of people who don't seem to know anything about web development complaining because they don't know how cookies work or something...
It's just nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it. Well, Androids don't come with root permissions either ( you should be able to get it easily if you want imo ) but at least you can install any app, even just create your own.
If we're getting technical you don't need to jailbreak to sideload on iOS either. AltStore automates the tedium but you can side load just fine on iOS too (for now).
A seven day expiration alone makes it useless. Why would anyone think side loading is supported when you can't open the app anymore after 7 days?
More likely to be iOS apologists looking for a narrative, they try it out and proclaim that it works, but have no intention to actually use their side loaded test app, so they don't even realize it only looked like it worked.
For me, the issue is, who do I distrust less - Google or Apple?
Yes, they're both shitty in a number of ways. And while is is easier to root Android devices than it is to root iOS ones, last I checked you were still dependent on the vendor kernel and parts of the vendor display server on Android because not all of the necessary drivers and related config are upstreamed (and the lack of TIVO clauses in GPLv2 makes this possible) - meaning replacing 95% of userspace doesn't actually get you very far if your issue is not being able to trust the vendor.
I choose Apple because:
1. Apple is primarily a hardware company. When I buy their hardware, I am their customer. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I am reasonably confident that very few parts of the business are working to undermine that. OTOH, Google is an advertising company. When I buy their hardware, my eyeballs become their product, which they rent out to their real customers, the advertisers. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I see that as mostly marketing BS (or, "puffery") which large parts of their business are working to undermine.
2. My phone is not my primary computing device. I have a laptop running GNU/Linux that I use for most of my computing needs, including web browsing, email, and software development. I am fine with my mobile phone being an "appliance" that I use mostly for instant messaging, and occasionally checking the news and weather, taking photos, or making short temporary notes that I will (manually) transfer to my laptop later. And sometimes, even, making phone calls. But I generally stay away from "apps". No, I don't want to install your fucking app, no matter which device it would be on. Just make sure your website works.
Given those factors, I have an Apple phone.
That's not to say Apple is for everyone. My priorities are not everyone else's, and that's fine. Different people have different tradeoffs. If an Android device works better for you, that's great.
Apple's no longer a hardware company, they're a platform rent extraction company. They are directly misleading and harming their users with this move, and also with the existing dark patterns around iCloud storage.
Revenue doesn't really matter, you should look at profits. Amazon makes most of their revenue from the website, but pretty much all of their profits come from cloud. The tech giant business model is to dominate distribution and extract profits by self preferencing. Im sure apple's services division is a good portion of their profits.
Grandparent is claiming that Apple aren’t a hardware company any more. Pointing out that the vast majority of their income comes from hardware is totally relevant.
Apple brings in hundreds of billions from selling hardware every year. They are definitely still a hardware company.
The income is irrelevant if it's just a vessel to make profits from the services. In detriment of the user, who once could trust that they were buying a device, but now are getting locked in some subscription schemes.
Apple has passed the event horizon of extracting profits now.
I do, but unless you think Apple’s hundreds of billions in hardware revenue is some kind of loss leader, it’s irrelevant.
Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.
> Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.
You are definitely correct in that Apple are a hardware company.
However (and I think this is the point of disagreement) much of their revenue growth (and presumably profits, but that's harder to assess) comes from services, and from a stock price perspective revenue/profit growth is what matters (you're only as good as your last quarter and all that).
Understanding this is key to understanding lots of Apple's business decisions recently (my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant).
I appreciate you trying to steel-man their argument, but you’ve gone far enough that it doesn’t reflect what they were actually saying. The thing I’m disagreeing with is:
> Apple's no longer a hardware company
There’s no way to spin that into anything resembling reality. If they had said what you are saying, I wouldn’t have objected.
> my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant
It doesn’t really make sense to do so. Apple aren’t an unseen third-party; the user has explicitly chosen to use their products and services. Why would ATT apply here?
They don’t do that as far as I am aware? On two counts. Firstly, they don’t say nobody should be able to link identities, and secondly Apple doesn’t link identities in their ad business.
Just to clarify, ATT is where Apple says that apps can’t collect data on you and share it with other companies without your permission.
When somebody buys and uses an iPhone, they are clearly making an active choice to be an Apple user. Apple can use their data.
When somebody installs a third-party app Foo, they are clearly making an active choice to be a Foo user. Foo can use their data.
But then Foo adds the Facebook SDK to their app. This is invisible to the user. They haven’t made a choice to be a Facebook user. They don’t even know it’s happening. When Facebook gets their data because they use the Foo application, it’s happening without the user’s knowledge or consent.
ATT doesn’t ban Facebook from tracking them, it just says that the user needs to be asked first. It’s putting Facebook’s access to data on the same level of consent as Apple and the apps people choose to use.
Apple using your tracking data in their own ad business doesn’t violate that norm. The data isn’t being sent to an unknown third-party. Apple says:
> The Apple advertising platform does not track you, nor does it buy or share your personal information with other companies.
It's a lie, based on what their sales teams were telling friends of mine who work in the F2P gaming industry.
And they're really not playing by the same rules as everyone else given that they own the platform that all this activity takes place on, so they get basically all iOS users data without needing any permission dialogue.
This is literally part of their ad sales pitch and ads is the fastest growing part of the services business.
So maybe they don't do all this stuff now (but they don't need to because they receive installs and conversions by the very nature of running the platform).
Like, google could make the same claim Apple make here and it would be true for Android.
You’ve just switched out the argument for a different one.
I was saying that the difference between revenue and profit is irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. You’re now trying to draw an analogy with what I said and gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, which is not what I called irrelevant.
The analogous situation is if you said BMW were no longer a car company for doing so, and I’d disagree with that as well. Apple makes tonnes of money selling hardware, BMW makes tonnes of money selling cars. Apple is still a hardware company and BMW is still a car company.
Because you have been saying that Apple are no longer a hardware company. Apple bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from hardware, which quite clearly qualifies them as one of the most successful consumer hardware companies today. The only way revenue vs profit would be relevant to that is if you somehow thought that Apple had terrible margins on their hardware. Do you think that?
aren't profit margins the main drivers for the decisions leading to this post to begin with?
if revenue was all they cared about, I don't think what's happening would come to fruition
A few weeks ago I was also stuck in a situation where he appeared to play dumb and refused to acknowledge the contradictions in his positions and the level of indignation that followed afterwards was unbelievable.
No, you were repeatedly insulting me and when I rejected that, you told me I was getting worked up and continued insulting me. You were saying that it literally wasn’t possible to honestly disagree with you:
> this also isn’t a legitimate difference of opinion scenario.
You were being unreasonable and insulting. If you are going to continue to act like that, how about we stay out of each other’s way? Don’t drag this thread down into a flamewar as well.
You cannot simply state where the revenue comes from. Apple sells hardware and services. The services promote the hardware. The hardware promotes the services. It is an eco system into which many people and companies, including companies that create software for that system, are bought.
Of course Apple tries to squeeze out of this system as possible at different fronts.
That's where government laws come in, to make the playing field more even.
nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it
Xbox, PS, iPad are consoles. Not everyone wants to DIY the OS and app config and maintenance. Using (digital) cartridges gets all those non value added activities out of the way of just playing the game or using the app.
Perhaps technically possible, but in practice it's against apple development directives. I doubt you do this yourself, or know anyone that actually develops iOS apps from a non-mac in the real world.
MacOS TOS clearly state that if you're someone renting out access to macOS, you may only rent it for periods longer than 24h. I heavily doubt bitrise does that, as cost would be prohibitive (oh hey I wonder why that is)
Oh and up until 2019 apple was forbidding any virtualization of macOS in its EULA, there certainly were no free cloud build servers for iOS since relatively recently.
Are you an iOS developer? Because you are repeatedly taking what is considered run of the mill by iOS developers as if it were some outlandish concept you’ve never heard of before. Build servers – yes, with free tiers – have been commonplace for iOS apps for at least a decade.
You're either being utterly blinded, or dishonest. I'll stop engaging with you. For the record, however:
NOBODY DEVELOPS iOS APPS BY ONLY BUILDING IN THE CLOUD. NEITHER PROFESSIONALS NOR HOBBYISTS. NOBODY ON EARTH. Every iOS developer has a mac, because it's impossible to develop when you can only build 200 times per month (per your link). Yes, professional developers run some CI in the cloud, nobody cares.
Neither. I think we’ve been talking at cross-purposes. This was the start of the thread:
> It's just nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it. Well, Androids don't come with root permissions either ( you should be able to get it easily if you want imo ) but at least you can install any app, even just create your own.
I’m approaching this in the context of side loading (the “you can install any app” part). Other people in the thread have as well:
> If we're getting technical you don't need to jailbreak to sideload on iOS either. AltStore automates the tedium but you can side load just fine on iOS too (for now).
In case you are unaware, it’s somewhat popular to register Apple developer accounts to build and run apps that aren’t on the App Store. That’s what AltStore is all about.
If you don’t have a Mac, you can use a build server for this. Build servers are incredibly common and have been for many years. They haven’t just popped up in the last couple of years.
I see now that you aren’t talking about this at all; you are talking about developing apps. In that context, I agree. You wouldn’t normally use a service like that as a substitute for a development machine (although a very small number of people do actually do this!). But I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the side loading case.
Nevertheless, you don’t need “a multithousand dollar apple machine” at all, even for development. I believe the cheapest machine you can buy from Apple brand new that lets you develop and submit an app to the App Store is the 9th gen iPad at 329 USD. Or, if you insist upon a computer, the Mac mini at 599 USD. And of course you don’t have to buy new, so the actual cost of the machine you need is significantly lower than that.
“it's impossible to develop when you can only build 200 times per month”
Seriously???
I am not a mobile developer, but that statement is totally bullshit.
I regularly code for 20-60min between running a build.
I highly doubt I get anywhere close to 200 builds a month on all of my hobby projects combined. Obviously work is a different story, but that’s what paid plans are for.
But this is exactly the kind of behaviour targeted by the DMA. Artificial restrictions in the functionality of iphone are inserted to drive sales of an unrelated product. It's page one of the Monopolist Playbook.
Maintaining a developer toolkit for Windows and Linux is a major hurdle.
If they intentionally prevent a third party Xcode-compatible implementation from existing, that’s monopolistic behavior. If they don’t want to provide it themselves, it’s a rightful business choice and theirs to make, in my book.
No, you can deploy to your own device with a free Apple developer account. However there is a fairly short time line (I think a week?), after which you have to reinstall it. It’s designed for running apps on your device as you are developing them, not as a long-term deployment method.
Months. I have one on my phone that I haven't reinstalled for months. And I do this on my wife's phone, and let me tell you the wife acceptance factor of the app breaking after a week would be absolutely zero.
I don't know where you get these rumors from honestly.
I’ve heard many, many times that free accounts have a short expiry. I thought it was seven days, and I’ve just checked, and I remembered the duration correctly.
I can’t find an official source, but people mention this limit practically everywhere the topic is discussed. Here’s one reference, Google can help you find many, many more:
> If you don't have an official Apple Dev Account provisioning will only last for 1 week. The app will expire every 7 days (or less in some cases -- depending upon the day the initial certificate was created).
> With Official Apple Dev Account
> You will be able to provision your app for up to 1 year.
Can you create a provisioning profile with an expiry more than one week into the future with a free account?
Aha, yea ok. That's gotta be it. My bad. I do have paid account, since I have apps in the store and you have to pay that fee every year to keep that up (which is annoying for my free hobby apps!)
It's not that easy on Android either. Rooting usually requires a factory reset and several apps (e.g. banking) will not work if they detect the system is rooted.
Installing F-Droid is not hard. No need for root. In fact, the usual criticism is that it's too easy.
There are a number of scary warnings to click through but that's it. Not great for security but the official distribution is good enough that it's not a problem outside a few select countries where doing business is hard.
The fact that you can't install apps from your own xcode and run locally (used to be at all now I guess seven day limit) is silly.
On Android, with Android 12, we can now have apps on neostore (fdroid frontend) auto update. There is no good reason to defend apple here. You as a user are always free to not install third party app stores.
There is no need to root to install software on Android. Rooting is only required for permissions that no app (save pre installed apps), whether installed via Play store or not, can be given.
No, getting root permissions should not be possible. Having a concept of a super user which can do whatever they want is bad for security and doesn't follow the principle of least privilege. There are better ways for an OS to offer functionality than requiring such a dangerous concept to exist.
The fact that desktop and server Linux distros still have a root account, have sudo, or said binaries is evidence of how far behind they are in terms of security.
Considering there are websites that get bruteforced into that have a weak root password setup over ssh that is not true. Considering in the past there have been LPE exploits to get root it is relevant that root exists. Even without a LPE if you make a malicous NPM dependency which you have someone install on their server you can make it so that the next time the user issues sudo it steals the root password and runs malware as root. These things are bad for security. If you are not hearing about Linux users being hacked, or exploits that could have had their harm minimized, that is ignorance from you.
The superuser on iOS is Apple. Apple can do whatever they want, to any iPhone, whenever they want.
Final, ultimate control must always be vested somewhere. Your argument is that it's "more secure" for it to be in the hands of a profit-seeking corporation than in the hands that are holding the device.
>Your argument is that it's "more secure" for it to be in the hands of a profit-seeking corporation than in the hands that are holding the device.
Yes. The identity a company like Apple is known and trusted. The person holding a device is not a known identity. This is unrelated to not having sudo though. Take for example the ping command. There is no reason why the user must have access to an account that has ultimate control over the device to use ping. ping should be possible to be used by a normal user. This could be implemented with a ping daemon that run with a dedicated user that has the capability to use raw sockets, and then normal users have a ping client that talks to such daemon. You can come up with everything someone would need root for and define a more secure way to offer that functionality to the user.
Good thing about htmx style solutions is that it's easy to implement the features you need without extra bs. Often it's so much simpler and cleaner to code something than using a generalized library or framework.
You can still use react , vue, solid or whatever for the dynamic parts that make sense to do clientside
They'll make it login only like Facebook, Instagram and now Twitter. It's the only option that the MBAs can come up with. That will also be the end of Youtube.
There is A LOT o f creators supported by pure money donations from individual creators, or mostly by those. A lot of them support themselves by selling merch. Which is nothing new, as nowadays a lot of small/medium size bands live of selling merch.
When a major Polish radio, legendary 3rd national radio channel, went to shit after several decades (fired important staff and dummed down offer) people literally crowdfunded a full successor, with same famous presenters and so on. When that one started to push weird agenda to much and diverged from original goals... There was another one crowdfunded, pulled a lot of other major famous personell, and runs as a huge project successfully from Patreon donations.
Regarding the error handling, just return response and show the error. For example if trying to load a dashboard and you get a 403, just display an error.