As the Wwworm Turns

Microsoft’s recent announcement that it is, in effect, abandoning the unloved and unlamented Edge browser stack in favor of Chromium is, well, both hilarious and dripping in irony.

Consider at first blush the history of the web in the barest terms:

  • 1991 — http, html, etc. invented using NeXT computers
  • 1992 — Early browsers (Mosaic, NetScape, etc.) implement and extend the standard, notably NetScape adds Javascript and tries to make frames and layers a thing. Also, the <blink> tag.
  • 1995 — Microsoft “embraces and extends” standards with Internet Explorer and eventually achieves a 95% stranglehold on the browser market.
  • 1997 — As NetScape self-destructs and Apple’s own OpenDoc-based browser “Cyberdog” fails to gain any users (mostly due to being OpenDoc-based), Apple begs Microsoft for a slightly-less-crummy version of IE5 to remain even vaguely relevant/useful in an era where most web stuff is only developed for whatever version of IE (for Windows) the web developer is using.
  • 2002 — FireFox rises from the ashes of NetScape. (It is essentially a cross-platform browser based on Camino, a similar Mac-only browser that was put together by developers frustrated by the lack of a decent Mac browser.)
  • 2003 — Stuck with an increasingly buggy and incompatible IE port, Apple develops its own browser based on KHTML after rejecting Netscape’s Gecko engine. The new browser is called “Safari”, and Apple’s customized version of KHTML is open-sourced as Webkit.
  • As a scrappy underdog, Apple starts a bunch of small PR wars to show that its browser is more standards-compliant and runs javascript faster than its peers.
  • Owing to bugginess, neglect, and all-round arrogance, gradually Microsoft loses a significant portion of market share to FireFox (and, on the Mac, Safari — which is at least as IE-compatible as the aging version of IE that runs on Macs). Google quietly funds FireFox via ad-revenue-sharing since it is in Google’s interest to break Microsoft’s strangehold on the web.
  • 2007 — Safari having slowly become more relevant to consumers as the best browser on the Mac (at least competitive with Firefox functionally and much faster and more power efficient than any competitor) is suddenly the only browser on the iPhone. Suddenly, making your stuff run on Safari matters.
  • 2008 — Google starts experimenting with making its own web browser. It looks around for the best open source web engine, rejects Gecko, and picks Webkit!
  • Flooded with ad revenue from Google, divorced from any sense of user accountability FireFox slowly becomes bloated and arrogant, developing an email client and new languages and mobile platforms rather than fixing or adding features to the only product it produces that anyone cares about. As Firefox grows bloated and Webkit improves, Google Chrome benefits as, essentially, Safari for Windows. (Especially since Apple’s official Safari for Windows is burdened with a faux-macOS-“metal”, UI and users are tricked into installing it with QuickTime.) When Google decides to turn Android from a Sidekick clone into an iPhone clone, it uses its Safari clone as the standard browser. When Android becomes a success, suddenly Webkit compatibility matters a whole lot more.
  • 2013 — Google is frustrated by Apple’s focus on end-users (versus developers). E.g. is the increase in size and power consumption justified by some kind of end-user benefit? If “no” then Apple simply won’t implement it. Since Google is trying to become the new Microsoft (“developers, developers, developers”) it forks Webkit so it can stop caring about users and just add features developers think they want at an insane pace. It also decides to completely undermine the decades-old conventions of software numbering and make new major releases at an insane pace.
  • Developers LOOOOVE Chrome (for the same reason they loved IE). It lets them reach lots of devices, it has lots of nooks and crannies, it provides functionality that lets developers outsource wasteful tasks to clients, if they whine about some bleeding edge feature Google will add it, whether or not it makes sense for anyone. Also it randomly changes APIs and adds bugs fast enough that you can earn a living by memorizing trivia (like the good old days of AUTOEXEC.BAT) allowing a whole new generation of mediocrities to find gainful employment. Chrome also overtakes Firefox as having the best debug tools (in large part because Firefox engages in a two year masturbatory rewrite of all its debugging tools which succeeds mainly in confusing developers and driving them away).
  • 2018 — Microsoft, having seen itself slide from utter domination (IE6) to laughingstock (IE11/Edge), does the thing-that-has-been-obvious-for-five-years and decides to embrace and extend Google’s Webkit fork (aptly named “Blink”).

RAW Power 2.0

RAW Power 2.0 in action — the new version features nice tools for generating black-and-white images.

My favorite tool for quickly making adjustments to RAW photos just turned 2.0. It’s a free upgrade but the price for new users has increased to (I believe) $25. While the original program was great for quickly adjusting a single image, the new program allows you to browse directories full of images quickly and easily, to some extent replacing browsing apps like FastRAWViewer.

The major new features — and there are a lot of them — are batch processing, copying and pasting adjustments between images, multiple window and tab support, hot/cold pixel overlays (very nicely done), depth effect (the ability to manipulate depth data from dual camera iPhones), perspective correction and chromatic aberration support.

The browsing functionality is pretty minimal. It’s useful enough for selecting images for batch-processing, but it doesn’t offer filtering ability (beyond the ability to show only RAW images) or the ability quickly modify image metadata (e.g. rate images), so FastRAWViewer is still the app to beat for managing large directories full of images.

While the hot/cold pixel feature is lovely, the ability to show in-focus areas (another great FastRAWViewer feature) is also missing.

As before, RAW Power both functions as a standalone application and a plugin for Apple’s Photos app (providing enhanced adjustment functionality).

Highly recommended!

BBEdit 12

BBEdit 12 (dark theme) in action BBEdit 12 is out. You can nearly make it look better with a dark theme now (although the circular “close” buttons indicating an open file are ugly) although it seems like there’s a bug in the theme customization right now. The Ulysses folks might consider this: cost of BBEdit 12 upgrade: $30. Cost of Ulysses for existing owners: $30. BBEdit 11 was released in 2014. BBEdit 12 has more new features than Ulysses has features. BBEdit is targeted at a smaller audience than Ulysses, so it’s not like it makes up for its low pricing on volume. That said, Ulysses is definitely prettier than BBEdit.

Replacing Crashplan

I’ve been pretty happy with Crashplan for five years or so, although lately not so much. Obviously, one reason to be unhappy with Crashplan is that they’re no longer supporting the family plan I was using to back up all our Macs. Worse, their quality of service seems to have (understandably) slipped as my plan approaches its termination.

Exhibit 1: my wife bought a new laptop. When she tried to restore files from her old laptop, they were MIA.

So, here we are at a nasty juncture where our supposedly bulletproof fire-and-forget backup system is (a) not working terribly well and (b) shortly going to not work at all.

Possible Crashplan Replacements

The obvious replacement is Carbonite. The problem with Carbonite is that it’s going either (a) be a lot more expensive than Crashplan was (because of our family plan — which is the equivalent of, effectively, n $100/year plans where n is the number of computers you back up; the small business plan works out as being stupidly expensive if you have more than 250GB of data) or (b) require me to do a bunch of work (i.e. set up one computer as the family server, have all the other devices back up to it, and then back it up via Carbonite. So Carbonite will either cost $300 (say) per year or $100 per year but require me to be my own network engineer. Oh, and forget mobile backups.

If I want to do a whole bunch of work I might as well just use Amazon S3. For 2TB of data that’s a mere $46/month. Ouch. I could probably use their cheaper long term storage, but now I’m basically starting my own Crashplan / Dropbox implementation and that sounds kind of like hard work. Forget that.

So, on to the “consumer” options (I’ve tried to pick 2TB plans as this is the absolute minimum I can live with):

  • Dropbox — $99 p.a. 1TB (there is no 2TB plan)
  • Box — $540 p.a. for unlimited (3 computers)
  • Hubic — $60 p.a. 10TB
  • Amazon — $120 p.a. 2TB
  • Google — $240 p.a. 2TB
  • Microsoft — $99 p.a. 5 users, 1TB/user
  • Apple — $120 p.a. 2TB (no Android client)

(Edit: TablePress was a disaster.)

Note that all these services support web browser access, so you can get at your files from any device with a web browser, but I’m talking about file-system integration where you can just save your file in the usual place and it’s seamlessly backed up to the cloud. I should note that Dropbox and Hubic even provide Linux clients. Everyone supports Mac, Windows, and iOS.

At first glance, Hubic looks like the standout value-for-money option. (Hubic is essentially like Dropbox, except it’s run by a gigantic hosting company). The problem is that I’ve found Hubic to have a poor user experience, especially with regard to performance. (My own experience is quite limited — and I’m kind of shocked that my blog post on Dropbox vs. Box vs. Hubic ranks quite high on Google searches for “Hubic Review”.) This may be a result of server location, or simply under-provisioning (10TB is so close to “unlimited” that I imagine it attracts a lot of abusive users).

(Edit: I should mention that Hubic offers both Dropbox-like services and backup services. It also has what looks like a pretty robust API. Also there are advantages to storing your data in France. On the other hand — no 2FA.)

At second glance, Microsoft OneDrive seems like a great deal at 5TB for $100/year. The problem is that it’s 5x 1TB per user, which is effectively 1TB. Still, a great deal if you’re happy with 1TB and want Microsoft Office for your family.

The shock comes at third glance — Apple’s product is competitively priced (cheaper than Dropbox!). It doesn’t support Android (surprise!) but aside from that it’s a great deal, you can share it with your family (with each person having segregated storage), it requires no real configuration and — this is the kicker — it’s smart about mirroring stuff to your devices. Want a 1TB photo library in the cloud? Great. Want it on every one of your family computers? Not so much.

Conclusion

Hubic is the clear winner in terms of price per unit storage. Apple is the clear winner in terms of functionality and comes second in price. When I take into account the fact that I pay Apple $3/month for a lower tier of storage just for convenient mobile backups it’s an even better deal (hooray for Opportunity Cost). After some consideration I’m thinking of doing both. Hubic for volume backup and iCloud for convenience.

I’ll let you know how it works out.

Followup…

I nearly gave up on Hubic. After paying for the 10TB plan I received no response and my account didn’t change… Well, until the next day. Sacré bleu! I’m still a bit concerned that the app hasn’t been updated since 2015, but it seems to work.

Anyway, I’m going to start backing up to Hubic and we’ll see how things go.

 

Further research has shown that there are two more reasonably-priced alternatives to Carbonite, notably iDrive and Backblaze. Backblaze seems very compelling for a single computer ($5/month unlimited; $4 with a two year plan), and not bad for a small number of computers (it works out as roughly the same as Crashplan for 3 computers). iDrive is offering some interesting discounts (and lets you handle any number of computers with one account) but I find the website poor to the point of suspecting the competence of the company.

Ulysses and the subscription model

Ulysses review are evenly divided between five stars and one.
We wanted table support and the ability to create custom CSS files. We got a subscription model.

 

The life cycle of software — as exemplified by Photoshop — is:

  1. A new program with an unfamiliar UI but incredibly useful features attracts a devoted following.
  2. The devoted followers evangelize the product they love to more people. For a while.
  3. The developers stop adding new features that anyone cares about and add a subscription model when people stop buying new licenses.

Here’s what I want(ed) from Ulysses:

  • Tables.
  • Better ways of managing images. E.g. the ability to browse all images within a given “folder” and update, export, replace, rename, or locate them.
  • Simpler ways to create custom styles. E.g. the ability to make a document style-guide compliant for a given purpose (such as APA).

There’s other stuff but it’s much lower priority.

Instead what we get is a subscription model and no new features I care about. Indeed, the announcement on the Ulysses web site explains how the subscription model allows them to offer a free trial while the blog post on the subject tells me that they didn’t take this decision lightly, but nowhere do I see anything that helps me — someone who has paid for the iOS and Mac versions and hasn’t seen any useful features added in years. But I do get a discount for subscribing to a product I already fucking paid for.

No thank you.

Post Script: out of a sense of hopefulness and fairness and not wanting to be horribly wrong, I downloaded the new version.

The discount for existing owners is 25%. I.e. $30/year vs $40.

I found one nice bug fix — if you search for something and then edit a file found by searching, it doesn’t whisk the file away and lose context if you delete the search term while editing.

Also there’s a nice new feature — inline image previews. Long overdue but also not that well-implemented.

Uninstalled.

Followup…

I emailed Ulysses support and whined a bit along the lines above and was told that adding table-of-contents generation, a table editor, and an image editor were high on their “to-do” list, and if I subscribed I could vote for features.

(I noted in my reply to their reply that I don’t want an image editor. I have image editors. I want image management.)

 

So, I’m kind of torn. I like indie software developers. I like Ulysses quite a bit, despite its sluggish progress. $30 isn’t much money (although it is, ugh, a subscription).

I’ll think further on it.