The Late Night Linux FamilyPeople often like to talk down Electron, but it is really that bad? There may be better ways to use Web technologies to make desktop apps, but isn’t having Linux versions of apps a good thing no matter how they are made?
Softwarewolf@latenightlinux I wish we lived in a timeline where XUL/XPCOM applications (or something like it) had taken off instead. The coolest part was that it leveraged native GUI toolkits on all major operating systems - win32 on Windows, cocoa on MacOS, and GTK on Linux. This meant better accessibility, lower memory consumption, and more uniform look and feel with the rest of the OS.
Simon Dassow@latenightlinux Also, what if there were more actual multi-platform GUI toolkits like #Fyne? It certainly is possible, and further compiles to WASM for browsers if necessary.
OldCoderNo, it isn't a good thing, because the issue isn't how applications are made. The issue is the nature of the results.
Three to four decades ago, a business accounting system typically ran better under MS-DOS and on 486 PC hardware than similar software runs today under Windows and on hardware that is literally thousands of times faster and that has literally thousands of times more RAM.
Electron offers the Windows-type features of slowdowns, large increases in RAM usage, and security holes due to the type of massive vertical attack surface that exists in Windows. So, yes, Electron helps to make Linux more like Windows. The question is, is that desirable?
Linux is supposed to be about modularity, transparency, efficiency, and security.
A slow and crashy #Electron terminal emulator or text editor that requires hundreds of megabytes of #RAM and that is insecure as well -- in a period of huge RAM price increases and of government agencies eagerly pawing through personal data -- is the wrong path no matter how the path is dressed up.
Progress in #Linux and #FOSS isn't about growing slower and fatter so as to emulate Windows better. It's about presenting lighter, faster, and more secure options.
A terminal emulator that requires hundreds of megabytes of RAM at runtime largely to speed up its development is a terminal emulator that isn't needed.
Three to four decades ago, a business accounting system typically ran better under MS-DOS and on 486 PC hardware than similar software runs today under Windows and on hardware that is literally thousands of times faster and that has literally thousands of times more RAM.
Electron offers the Windows-type features of slowdowns, large increases in RAM usage, and security holes due to the type of massive vertical attack surface that exists in Windows. So, yes, Electron helps to make Linux more like Windows. The question is, is that desirable?
Linux is supposed to be about modularity, transparency, efficiency, and security.
A slow and crashy #Electron terminal emulator or text editor that requires hundreds of megabytes of #RAM and that is insecure as well -- in a period of huge RAM price increases and of government agencies eagerly pawing through personal data -- is the wrong path no matter how the path is dressed up.
Progress in #Linux and #FOSS isn't about growing slower and fatter so as to emulate Windows better. It's about presenting lighter, faster, and more secure options.
A terminal emulator that requires hundreds of megabytes of RAM at runtime largely to speed up its development is a terminal emulator that isn't needed.
Jack@latenightlinux I think it does damage to users' and developers' standards for software quality. It shouldn't be normal to ship such horribly bloated software, and sadly it now is. It was a great step for cross platform development, but new tools have so greatly improved the experience. New projects probably ought to avoid electron. Is there something I'm missing?
@jingus have a listen and find out!