[dikaiosune]

I would love to live in this future -- but where's the incentive for businesses? How do they make more money developing in this way? How do users get more value accessing sites developed in a purely decentralized fashion? How do we avoid JavaScript being the basis for all of this?

Interesting (almost exciting) vision, but I don't see why the majority of existing users would move. They just don't get much value out of privacy, versioning, reliability, etc. They get enough of those things out of Gmail, Facebook, et al for their purposes already.

[astazangasta]

Who cares? The web preceded the Internet company. I remember, it was a great place full of interesting people and things, not shitty content mills crammed full of ads. A system like the one described means that ordinary people can build the web again, which is great. Businesses can continue as they are.

[rgbrgb]

Ordinary people can and still do build the web. Why would decentralization allow for more of this? It's cheaper and easier than ever to spin up a heroku/do/aws/google/azure instance and put up a website. Things like squarespace and weebly even make it so you don't have to do any programming whatsoever.

In theory I want this decentralized web stuff to succeed but in practice the only killer apps I see are overthrowing governments and kiddy porn. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. From where I stand, decentralization seems like more of a social/product problem than a technical one. If you prove there's a product that end-users want that can't be built or accessed from the current web, people (end-users and developers) will switch.

[vezzy-fnord]

The interests of society do not revolve around making life as convenient as possible for business. It is the onus on business to adapt itself to new conditions.

A distributed web scheme should orient itself around giving its users freedom. All other concerns are secondary.

[zaphar]

This may be philosophically correct. But in a non platonic realm you must somehow fund these sorts of things. If it's not possible to make money on them then it may not be feasible to implement for the masses. The keyword being masses there. There all kinds of distributed p2p web projects out there. None of them appeal to a majority though they are all niche products.

Most of these proposals forget the need fund marketing, promotion, and scale.

[astazangasta]

Wikipedia is one of the best sites on the web and didn't think in this way. The whole point of such a system is to remove capital requirements (hardware) from the process of building massive websites. It inherently means less funding is required.

[api]

Hardware is only a tiny, tiny part of the cost of developing a system for general use by huge numbers of people. If you don't believe me, do a price check on cloud hosting and then keep in mind that cloud hosting must be profitable so the prices you're seeing have some non-trivial margin attached.

Software development isn't free. Sure, OSS developers can donate their time, but there's a selection process that comes into play.

OSS developers do what they do partly because they enjoy it, and so they tend to gravitate to the types of development that is fun. Fun stuff includes deep systems stuff, algorithms, distributed systems, the flashier aspects of UI/UX, machine learning, etc.

Fixing stupid bugs that stem from stupid compatibility issues and adding stupid features for stupid use cases is not fun. Debugging edge cases that afflict 1% of your users occasionally is not fun. Porting to popular but crap platforms is not fun. Supporting legacy platforms and APIs is not fun, nor is maintaining backward compatibility. Accessibility features and translations are not fun. Supporting right-to-left language is not fun. Rewriting your entire already-working app to support the next web fad (e.g. "responsive mobile design") is not fun.

I could go on forever. There is a really really really long tail of these horrors.

This is why OSS rules in the systems/algorithms/etc. space but drools when you get close to the user. This is why every major end user OS, site, or platform is commercial. People have to be paid to torture themselves with that stuff.

Yet these sorts of problems are precisely the ones that make the difference between something only geeks (with time on their hands) would want to use and something regular people who aren't computer experts would want to use (or computer experts without time on their hands).

For a distributed, decentralized system to challenge the silos of the web, it would absolutely need funding. Eliminating hardware and bandwidth costs is easy; eliminating HR costs is not.

There will never be a volunteer-developed mainstream platform for the same reason there are no volunteer-developed mainstream anything elses. To make a truly polished product of any kind requires pain.

Disclosure: I currently run a distributed networking / SDN startup. The core technology has been up and running for years with few modifications. It started as a side project so I haven't kept careful account, but I'd easily estimate that upwards of 90% of the development time spent on this project has been on trying to get it to the point that it can install and run trouble-free on multiple platforms and is easy enough for mere mortals to use. Getting the core plumbing, crypto, etc. working was the most fun and the most intellectually challenging, but it was a huge minority of time spent. Had there been no chance of a commercial application I would have stopped there and it'd be yet another piece of interesting GitHub networking orphanware, because for the love of God who would voluntarily try to port such a thing to Windows?!? let alone Android (It's in C, so enjoy your JNI pain).

[vezzy-fnord]

Clearly there are many major free software projects which are formed as NPOs and receive adequate levels of funding. These may further be improved through use of quadratic base-level pledging, crowdfunding, consulting work, academic grants and so forth.

Marketing and promotion are perfectly tractable. I do not see how appeasing to interests of proprietary service companies will suddenly have the funds funneling in, in any case. Not sure what is meant by "scale".