I personally don't agree, and my experience is that RSCs embrace the inherent complexity of building websites. All websites span the server and the client to some extent. Giving you the tools to wield those boundaries is actually a bid for developer autonomy and flexible control over user experience.
It is complex because the domain is complex. Though it requires a deep understanding of the web as a platform, most high-level websites could net-benefit from the ideas behind RSCs. I don't find it to be quite as much of a footgun as most people would suggest, but if you don't understand both server and client in a deep manner it is, of course, confusing.
Happy to dig in deeper for anyone who wants to have an honest discussion about the benefits and drawbacks without dropping into FUD. Even if you decide it's not for you, all web developers could glean something from their model.
It's also always worth noting that RSCs don't require a server, and still bring value without one.
It's a shame that VCs have corrupted a $200MM/year business into the perception as a failure. Who cares if the VCs didn't get a large return, or if the outsized impact of the software didn't quite fully capture the value created. $200MM/yr without aggressive R&D or operational costs could be an incredibly healthy business.
Maybe we should stop trying to build so many billion dollar/year businesses and work on more sustainable models.
I haven’t followed Docker’s case in particular, but how much investment was required to get it to that point? If it’s a case of “How do you become a millionaire? Start as a billionaire and invest in Docker”, then the perception may have some basis.
Yes but that is just a tiny part of the whole CF worker ecosystem. The other services are not open source and so the lock-in is very very real. There are no API compatible alternatives that cover a good chunk of the services. If you build your application around workers and make use of the integrated services and APIs there is no way for you to switch to another provider because well, there is none.
It's really up to the artists. Many are surprisingly cool with it, though there are a few notable exceptions (i.e. Prince). Sounds like the artist in this particlar case gave their blessing.
Many bands (like GD and Phish) specifically note in their rider that venues must allow and provide space for tapers to bring their rigs in.
A sibling comment in this thread pointed out my project Relisten[0], which now has over 4,000 bands who have given explicit permission for people to tape, record, and share their concerts non-commercially. We've been operating our FOSS platform for 12 years, and most of the audio is hosted by Archive.org. I can't tell you how many bands have begged us to add them to our platform.
Prince had intense business instincts, not just for becoming a vertically integrated multi-instrumental composer manager, bandleader and of course prodigious artist. Its rumored that to ruin the market demand for his bootleggers, Prince started his own sockpuppet bootleg label, that eventually released over four hundred CDs of content. Concerts, studio alternate cuts, and of course After-Shows. That label is curiously named Sabotage.
Whether the rumor is true or not, I can't confirm. What I can tell you is it's an amazing soundboard quality collection of his work product that I'm still not all the way through exploring after it briefly circulated among fans for a brief moment shortly after his death.
> though there are a few notable exceptions (i.e. Prince)
There was an episode of "What's Happening" when Rerun gets in trouble for bootlegging a Doobie Brothers concert, does anyone remember? It aired when I was a kid and now I somehow still feel guilty when I listen to bootlegs.
Yup, just remembered around ’99 I bumped into “Rerun” in full costume dancin’ for a small crowd in the parking lot of a Sugar Hill Gang concert in Santa Monica. Didn’t carry a camera in those days, as they weren’t allowed inside anyway. :-P
We landed an update on mobile last week that brought all 4,000 artists with a "collection" onto Relisten. That'll be coming to the web and sonos shortly as well.
We've been discussing the Aadam Jacob's collection with the archivists for some time. It comes with its own unique UX[0] and data constraints so we've been iterating on that and waiting for a critical mass of uploads before tackling it. We're getting closer though.
I agree with most of the sentiment in these comments. Archive and share non-comercially all the things!
[0] it's not "one" artist so it requires some custom UI, it should be unified through a single Aadam Jacob's collection, and it has a unique data path/structure on Archive.org relative to other collections
I run Firefox latest so it should work. There's always a risk when going from HTML5->Web Audio. There's an occasional blip that's impossible to avoid (or at least, I have never found a solution). It doesn't happen every time though. Try going from track 2 to track 3 in the second tab of the demo (if both are "READY" as web audio).
The problem with exclusively using the web audio API is that the entire track must be loaded into memory before playing it, whereas HTML5 loads progressively. So we use both to balance the techniques.
In prior versions of the library, we'd load the track in parallel to HTML5 and make the switch mid-track so it's actually far less noticeable even if it does blip. I'm considering adding that to the new version.
Another alternative is building a custom buffer using RANGE requests to exclusively drive it via the web audio API. But obviously that is a far more complex undertaking (and requires the server to support RANGE requests). I'm open to implementing it, though.
It is complex because the domain is complex. Though it requires a deep understanding of the web as a platform, most high-level websites could net-benefit from the ideas behind RSCs. I don't find it to be quite as much of a footgun as most people would suggest, but if you don't understand both server and client in a deep manner it is, of course, confusing.
Happy to dig in deeper for anyone who wants to have an honest discussion about the benefits and drawbacks without dropping into FUD. Even if you decide it's not for you, all web developers could glean something from their model.
It's also always worth noting that RSCs don't require a server, and still bring value without one.
reply