←back to thread

Local-first software (2019)

(www.inkandswitch.com)
863 points gasull | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.521s | source
Show context
GMoromisato ◴[] No.44473808[source]
Personally, I disagree with this approach. This is trying to solve a business problem (I can't trust cloud-providers) with a technical trade-off (avoid centralized architecture).

The problems with closed-source software (lack of control, lack of reliability) were solved with a new business model: open source development, which came with new licenses and new ways of getting revenue (maintenance contracts instead of license fees).

In the same way, we need a business model solution to cloud-vendor ills.

Imagine we create standard contracts/licenses that define rights so that users can be confident of their relationship with cloud-vendors. Over time, maybe users would only deal with vendors that had these licenses. The rights would be something like:

* End-of-life contracts: cloud-vendors should contractually spell out what happens if they can't afford to keep the servers running.

* Data portability guarantees: Vendors must spell out how data gets migrated out, and all formats must be either open or (at minimum) fully documented.

* Data privacy transparency: Vendors must track/audit all data access and report to the user who/what read their data and when.

I'm sure you can think of a dozen other clauses.

The tricky part is, of course, adoption. What's in it for the cloud-vendors? Why would they adopt this? The major fear of cloud-vendors is, I think, churn. If you're paying lots of money to get people to try your service, you have to make sure they don't churn out, or you'll lose money. Maybe these contracts come only with annual subscription terms. Or maybe the appeal of these contracts is enough for vendors to charge more.

replies(12): >>44473922 #>>44474074 #>>44474164 #>>44474231 #>>44474286 #>>44474367 #>>44474424 #>>44474450 #>>44474769 #>>44475861 #>>44476561 #>>44477275 #
prmoustache ◴[] No.44474367[source]
> Personally, I disagree with this approach. This is trying to solve a business problem (I can't trust cloud-providers)

It is not only a business problem. I stay away from cloud based services not only because of subscription model, but also because I want my data to be safe.

When you send data to a cloud service, and that data is not encrypted locally before being sent to the cloud (a rare feature), it is not a question of if but when that data will be pwned.

replies(2): >>44476464 #>>44476485 #
1. HappMacDonald ◴[] No.44476485[source]
"Trust about whether or not another company will maintain confidentiality" still sounds like a business problem to me (or at least one valid way of perceiving the problem)

And the biggest advantage I see of this perspective over the "technical problem" perspective is that assigning responsibility completely covers the problem space, while "hope that some clever math formula can magic the problem away" does not.

replies(1): >>44478766 #
2. necovek ◴[] No.44478766[source]
Here at HN, I think most people see it differently (me included): having clear math proof of "confidentiality" is usually seen as both cheaper and more trustworthy.

Yes, there might be a breakthrough or a bug in encryption, and jnless you've been targetted, you can respond. But we've seen and experienced breakdowns in human character (employees spying on customers, stealing data...), government policies and company behaviour to trust the complexity and cost (lawyers) of enforcing accountability through policy.

In general, you do need both, but if you've got one, to engineers, technical solution is usually more appealing.