Moved so as to not pollute the original discussion thread. Readers may decide for themselves what is dumb and petty about the debate.

>> [...] enclose it all in a proper MUI GUI with all necessary controls,
>> and make it possible for the web-app and MUI-app to communicate
>> to become one entity. [...] a MorphOS/MUI program around it to
>> handle everything related to the OS and user interface.

> "hybrid app runtime" derived from Odyssey

Unless I misunderstand takemehomegrandma, his idea involves a real MUI GUI for the controls of the program. In contrast to this, the UI of Folio (as shown in your screenshot) seems to be part of the webview. Or do I miss something?

Quote:

That was exactly my point!

And “Folio” was actually exactly what I had in mind, but couldn’t remember the name when typing...


@ASiegel

Quote:

Putting the gruntwork part of “the browser” in a separate class of its own that also other applications can use, seems to be a very cool feature of this new browser, maybe the coolest one IMHO for above mentioned reasons...

Quote:
To me, it is rather obvious that he wrote his comment from user and not a developer perspective.

I share his desire to have applications that blend seamlessly into the rest of the MorphOS user interface but this can be achieved with a webview as well.

In fact, for many use cases, "enclose it all in a proper MUI GUI with all necessary controls" (bold emphasis mine) would more or less require rewriting applications from scratch since major parts of the code of many, say, productivity applications are in the user input part. The main appeal of hybrid apps is that you can rapidly create software to fill important holes in your software pool. By setting up arbitrary purity rules, it is easy to kill any attractive qualities that hybrid apps might otherwise have to offer.

On other platforms, many applications built on web technologies do not even feature any native UI experience. Spotify was referenced. Microsoft's Visual Studio Code mostly looks the same on Windows, MacOS and Linux. There are many other examples.

@ASiegel

Maybe you are overthinking what I wrote a bit. I just wanted to express appreciation for some of the noticeable design goals of jacadcaps new webkit project, that I believe could have big impact for possible future applications beyond just a web browser application. Iris, jacas post #79 and his reply is indeed very encouraging IMHO!

>> Unless I misunderstand takemehomegrandma, his idea involves
>> a real MUI GUI for the controls of the program.

> To me, it is rather obvious that he wrote his comment from user
> and not a developer perspective.

Seems we are interpreting what he wrote ("make it possible for the web-app and MUI-app to communicate" in comment #81 and "That was exactly my point!" in comment #84) very differently ;-)

> this can be achieved with a webview as well.

Yes, of course, the look and behaviour of a MUI GUI can be recreated in HTML/CSS/JS. One issue that comes to mind is how to keep the UIs consistent in an automatic way when the user changes his MUI settings, though.

> The main appeal of hybrid apps is that you can rapidly create software to fill
> important holes in your software pool. By setting up arbitrary purity rules, it is
> easy to kill any attractive qualities that hybrid apps might otherwise have to offer.

I very much share this general notion, but then the MorphOS team's points against provision of an X11 server (see AmiCygnix, where visual integration into the OS-native UI has been increased once more with the current release) come to mind ;-)

Quote:
I am afraid I could not possibly follow your argument here. The quote of mine is not invalidated by the two following quotes in any way. (_Any_ MorphOS application can communicate with "web apps" (technically even remote websites) running in Odyssey *right now*. Have been able to for years. They do not even have to run concurrently for two-way communication to happen.)

So, yeah, very differently indeed.

Quote:
Unless someone takes the time to extend MUI a bit, there would have be separate settings, which is less than ideal but fragmented UI settings are a MorphOS tradition. Also, by offering preconfigured themes, you at least take away configuration work from users.

Current development versions of MorphOS have included a basic Origo CSS theme for a while now.

Quote:
As far as I am aware, AmiCygnix is not a Hyperion Entertainment project either. Views expressed by representatives of an OS vendor should not stop a third-party to provision whatever software they like assuming there are any interested developers, which does not appear to be the case...

>>> To me, it is rather obvious that he wrote his comment from user
>>> and not a developer perspective.

>> Seems we are interpreting what he wrote ("make it possible for
>> the web-app and MUI-app to communicate" in comment #81 and
>> "That was exactly my point!" in comment #84) very differently ;-)

> The quote of mine is not invalidated by the two following quotes in any way.

As far as I understand your main point, it is that from a user perspective, it doesn't really matter if a GUI is a real MUI GUI or a GUI created in web technologies that looks and behaves like a MUI GUI. I interpret takemehomegrandma's emphasis on the importance of a real MUI GUI as evidence that he actually did not write his comment from a pure user perspective.

> Views expressed by representatives of an OS vendor should not stop
> a third-party to provision whatever software they like

Yes, absolutely. No argument there. What I'm wondering about, in terms of software to fill important holes in the MorphOS software pool as well as in terms of setting up arbitrary purity rules, is the consistency of dismissing an X11 solution on the one hand because it likely lessens the motivation of developing real MorphOS software (I can dig up the quotes if wanted), and endorsing local use of web technologies on the other hand. But maybe there are and have always been two distinct groups of people and I just mix them up :-)

Quote:
My argument is that he might have erroneously specified a technical requirement that is not necessarily needed to accomplish what he desires as an end user.

He has already clarified that his original post should not be taken too seriously and that he was merely trying to show appreciation for jaca's efforts and the presumed possibilities his work will offer in the future. I am perfectly fine with that. Apparently, you are not.

Quote:
There is no "endorsement" of web technologies. Plenty of reservations about this all around.

That said, in order to have at least some real world value as a provider of alternative operating systems you have to offer some modern web browser nowadays. As has been extensively documented, this is actually quite difficult and requires a massive amount of work.

Given that this is more or less a mandatory investment in terms of time and effort, doesn't it make sense to try to reuse all this work for more than a web browser?

The same does not quite apply to X11 environments. Personally, I also find software that may utilize web technologies but is specifically created / adapted for use on MorphOS and can easily interact with other MorphOS applications and the OS (Ambient, OS printing, AREXX / LUA, etc.) to be a preferable choice. Unlike you, I do not consider them to be an equivalent to X11 applications with a familiar window skin. But then again, I cannot say I have any particular interest in discussing this at length and convincing you of anything.

>> I interpret takemehomegrandma's emphasis on the importance
>> of a real MUI GUI as evidence that he actually did not write
>> his comment from a pure user perspective.

> he might have erroneously specified a technical requirement that is
> not necessarily needed to accomplish what he desires as an end user.

He might have written comment #81 in error, but I deem this not plausible, considering his follow-up comments. Furthermore, he didn't specify this as a requirement but literally as what he sees as the ideal solution.

> He has already clarified that [...] he was merely trying to show appreciation
> for jaca's efforts and the presumed possibilities his work will offer in the
> future. I am perfectly fine with that. Apparently, you are not.

Exactly, including the presumed ideal possibility of a proper MUI GUI communicating with a web app running in an instance of a WkWebKit class. I am perfectly fine with that. Apparently, you think he somehow "erroneously specified" this as if he wasn't aware that a proper MUI GUI wasn't a technical requirement.

> doesn't it make sense to try to reuse all this work
> for more than a web browser?

Absolutely, it does. I'm not aware of having implied anything to the contrary.

> I also find software that may utilize web technologies but is
> specifically created / adapted for use on MorphOS and can easily
> interact with other MorphOS applications and the OS (Ambient,
> OS printing, AREXX / LUA, etc.) to be a preferable choice.

I fully concur. The more the integration, the better. Every effort in this direction is to be applauded.

> Unlike you, I do not consider them to be an equivalent to
> X11 applications with a familiar window skin.

I confined the equivalence between X11 apps and web apps to their suitability of filling important holes in the MorphOS software pool and to their non-conformance with arbitrary purity rules. To my mind, X11 apps are no worse or better in that. There are certainly pros and cons for both in specific areas, which I'm not denying. It's just that I'd see a certain inconsistency should someone who was dismissing X11 apps in the past for the above-mentioned reason not have the same reservations against web apps. But as I said, maybe such someone doesn't even exist :-)