[thecodrr]

I don't think even you understand what you just said.

Consumer devices are notorious for their reliability problems. Compared to a full blown server that you have 100% control over with almost insane amounts of RAM & CPU power & a lot of guarantees.

Running a migrations on a server is far, far different to running it on every users' device. The sheer scale of it is different.

> Using 4 GB per user on your backend works?

That was a comment on the average RAM on a consumer device - not the total RAM required per user.

[olebedev]

> Running a migrations on a server is far, far different to running it on every users' device. The sheer scale of it is different.

Well, it’s not only just that. Among the other things, some of the application instances would be outdated but still need to work, so you would need to support _all_ the DB schemes you have ever had for your app.

[remram]

I know I understand what I said, and I am not convinced by anything you said.

What reliability problem would prevent you from running local-first software but doesn't interfere with running a thin client?

Why would the business logic part of your app require more RAM on the end-user device that it requires per-user (or per-document, etc) on a server?

Why do you claim that running migrations is so fundamentally different here and there?

If you want to argue I would appreciate you doing it with real arguments and experiences rather than even more unsubstantiated claims and statements like "you don't understand what you just said".