git mv locale/ po/

1 files changed, 514 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/po/pt/LC_MESSAGES/_articles/2020-11-14-local-first-software-you-own-your-data-in-spite-of-the-cloud-article-review.po b/po/pt/LC_MESSAGES/_articles/2020-11-14-local-first-software-you-own-your-data-in-spite-of-the-cloud-article-review.po
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..03ca2c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/po/pt/LC_MESSAGES/_articles/2020-11-14-local-first-software-you-own-your-data-in-spite-of-the-cloud-article-review.po
@@ -0,0 +1,514 @@
+#
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"title: \"Local-First Software: You Own Your Data, in spite of the Cloud - "
+"article review\""
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "date: 2020-11-14"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "layout: post"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "lang: en"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"ref: local-first-software-you-own-your-data-in-spite-of-the-cloud-article-"
+"review"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "eu_categories: presentation,article review"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"*This article is derived from a [presentation][presentation] given at a "
+"Papers We Love meetup on the same subject.*"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"This is a review of the article \"[Local-First Software: You Own Your Data, "
+"in spite of the Cloud][article-pdf]\", by M. Kleppmann, A. Wiggins, P. Van "
+"Hardenberg and M. F. McGranaghan."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Offline-first, local-first"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The \"local-first\" term they use isn't new, and I have used it myself in "
+"the past to refer to this types of application, where the data lives "
+"primarily on the client, and there are conflict resolution algorithms that "
+"reconcile data created on different instances."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Sometimes I see confusion with this idea and \"client-side\", \"offline-"
+"friendly\", \"syncable\", etc. I have myself used this terms, also."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"There exists, however, already the \"offline-first\" term, which conveys "
+"almost all of that meaning. In my view, \"local-first\" doesn't extend "
+"\"offline-first\" in any aspect, rather it gives a well-defined meaning to "
+"it instead. I could say that \"local-first\" is just \"offline-first\", but "
+"with 7 well-defined ideals instead of community best practices."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"[presentation]: {% link _slides/2020-11-14-on-local-first-beyond-the-crdt-"
+"silver-bullet.slides %} [article-pdf]: "
+"https://martin.kleppmann.com/papers/local-first.pdf"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Software licenses"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"On a footnote of the 7th ideal (\"You Retain Ultimate Ownership and "
+"Control\"), the authors say:"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"In our opinion, maintaining control and ownership of data does not mean that"
+" the software must necessarily be open source. (...) as long as it does not "
+"artificially restrict what users can do with their files."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"#!/bin/sh\n"
+"\n"
+"TODAY=$(date +%s)\n"
+"LICENSE_EXPIRATION=$(date -d 2020-11-15 +%s)\n"
+"\n"
+"if [ $TODAY -ge $LICENSE_EXPIRATION ]; then\n"
+"  echo 'License expired!'\n"
+"  exit 1\n"
+"fi\n"
+"\n"
+"echo $((2 + 2))\n"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Now when using this very useful program:"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"# today\n"
+"$ ./useful-adder.sh\n"
+"4\n"
+"# tomorrow\n"
+"$ ./useful-adder.sh\n"
+"License expired!\n"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"This is obviously an intentional restriction, and it goes against the 5th "
+"ideal (\"The Long Now\"). This software would only be useful as long as the "
+"embedded license expiration allowed. Sure you could change the clock on the "
+"computer, but there are many other ways that this type of intentional "
+"restriction is in conflict with that ideal."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"However, what about unintentional restrictions? What if a software had an "
+"equal or similar restriction, and stopped working after days pass? Or what "
+"if the programmer added a constant to make the development simpler, and this"
+" led to unintentionally restricting the user?"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"# today\n"
+"$ useful-program\n"
+"# ...useful output...\n"
+"\n"
+"# tomorrow, with more data\n"
+"$ useful-program\n"
+"ERROR: Panic! Stack overflow!\n"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"An open specification could serve as a blueprint to other implementations, "
+"making the data format more friendly to reverse-engineering. But the re-"
+"implementation still has to exist, at which point the original software "
+"failed to achieve \"The Long Now\"."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "It is less bad, but still not quite there yet."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Denial of existing solutions"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"When describing \"Existing Data Storage and Sharing Models\", on a "
+"footnote[^devil] the authors say:"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"[^devil]: This is the second aspect that I'm picking on the article from a "
+"footnote. I guess the devil really is on the details."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"In principle it is possible to collaborate without a repository service, "
+"e.g. by sending patch files by email, but the majority of Git users rely on "
+"GitHub."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The authors go to a great length to talk about usability of cloud apps, and "
+"even point to research they've done on it, but they've missed learning more "
+"from local-first solutions that already exist."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Say the automerge CRDT proves to be even more useful than what everybody "
+"imagined. Say someone builds a local-first repository service using it. How "
+"will it change anything of the Git/GitHub model? What is different about it "
+"that prevents people in the future writing a paper saying:"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"In principle it is possible to collaborate without a repository service, "
+"e.g. by using automerge and platform X, but the majority of Git users rely "
+"on GitHub."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "How is this any better?"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"If it is already [possible](https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/23/Git-is-"
+"already-distributed.html) to have a local-first development workflow, why "
+"don't people use it? Is it just fashion, or there's a fundamental problem "
+"with it? If so, what is it, and how to avoid it?"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"If sending patches by emails is perfectly possible but out of fashion, why "
+"even talk about Git/GitHub? Isn't this a problem that people are putting "
+"themselves in? How can CRDTs possibly prevent people from doing that?"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"My impression is that the authors envision a better future, where "
+"development is fully decentralized unlike today, and somehow CRDTs will make"
+" that happen. If more people think this way, \"CRDT\" is next in line to the"
+" buzzword list that solves everything, like \"containers\", \"blockchain\" "
+"or \"machine learning\"."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Rather than picturing an imaginary service that could be described like "
+"\"GitHub+CRDTs\" and people would adopt it, I'd rather better understand why"
+" people don't do it already, since Git is built to work like that."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Ditching of web applications"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The authors put web application in a worse position for building local-first"
+" application, claiming that:"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"(...) the architecture of web apps remains fundamentally server-centric. "
+"Offline support is an afterthought in most web apps, and the result is "
+"accordingly fragile."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Well, I disagree."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The problem isn't inherit to the web platform, but instead how people use "
+"it."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"I have myself built offline-first applications, leveraging IndexedDB, App "
+"Cache, *etc*. I wanted to build an offline-first application on the web, and"
+" so I did."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"In fact, many people choose [PouchDB](https://pouchdb.com/) *because* of "
+"that, since it is a good tool for offline-first web applications. The "
+"problem isn't really the technology, but how much people want their "
+"application to be local-first."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Contrast it with Android [Instant "
+"Apps](https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play-instant), where "
+"applications are sent to the phone in small parts. Since this requires an "
+"internet connection to move from a part of the app bundle to another, a "
+"subset of the app isn't local-first, despite being an app."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The point isn't the technology, but how people are using it. Local-first web"
+" applications are perfectly possible, just like non-local-first native "
+"applications are possible."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Costs are underrated"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"I think the costs of \"old-fashioned apps\" over \"cloud apps\" are "
+"underrated, mainly regarding storage, and that this costs can vary a lot by "
+"application."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Say a person writes online articles for their personal website, and puts "
+"everything into Git. Since there isn't supposed to be any collaboration, all"
+" of the relevant ideals of local-first are achieved."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Now another person creates videos instead of articles. They could try "
+"keeping everything local, but after some time the storage usage fills the "
+"entire disk. This person's local-first setup would be much more complex, and"
+" would cost much more on maintenance, backup and storage."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Even though both have similar needs, a local-first video repository is much "
+"more demanding. So the local-first thinking here isn't \"just keep "
+"everything local\", but \"how much time and money am I willing to spend to "
+"keep everything local\"."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The convenience of \"cloud apps\" becomes so attractive that many don't even"
+" have a local copy of their videos, and rely exclusively on service "
+"providers to maintain, backup and store their content."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The dial measuring \"cloud apps\" and \"old-fashioned apps\" needs to be "
+"specific to use-cases."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Real-time collaboration is optional"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"If I were the one making the list of ideals, I wouldn't focus so much on "
+"real-time collaboration."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Even though seamless collaboration is desired, it being real-time depends on"
+" the network being available for that. But ideal 3 states that \"The Network"
+" is Optional\", so real-time collaboration is also optional."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The fundamentals of a local-first system should enable real-time "
+"collaboration when network is available, but shouldn't focus on it."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"On many places when discussing applications being offline, it is common for "
+"me to find people saying that their application works \"even on a plane, "
+"subway or elevator\". That is a reflection of when said developers have to "
+"deal with networks being unavailable."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"When discussing \"working offline\", I'd rather keep this type of person in "
+"mind, then the subset of people who are offline when on the elevator will "
+"naturally be included."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "On CRDTs and developer experience"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"When discussing developer experience, the authors bring up some questions to"
+" be answered further, like:"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"For an app developer, how does the use of a CRDT-based data layer compare to"
+" existing storage layers like a SQL database, a filesystem, or CoreData? Is "
+"a distributed system harder to write software for?"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "That is an easy one: yes."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"A distributed system *is* harder to write software for, being a distributed "
+"system."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid "Conclusion"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"I liked a lot the article, as it took the \"offline-first\" philosophy and "
+"ran with it."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"But I think the authors' view of adding CRDTs and things becoming local-"
+"first is a bit too magical."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"It is a step forward, and given the number of times I've seen the paper "
+"shared around I think there's a chance people will prefer saying \"local-"
+"first\" in *lieu* of \"offline-first\" from now on."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"They give examples of artificial restrictions, like this artificial "
+"restriction I've come up with:"
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Just as easily as I can come up with ways to intentionally restrict users, I"
+" can do the same for unintentionally restrictions. A program can stop "
+"working for a variety of reasons."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"If it stops working due do, say, data growth, what are the options? "
+"Reverting to an earlier backup, and making it read-only? That isn't really a"
+" \"Long Now\", but rather a \"Long Now as long as the software keeps working"
+" as expected\"."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"A colleague has challenged my view, arguing that the software doesn't really"
+" need to be free, as long as there is an specification of the file format. "
+"This way if the software stops working, the format can still be processed by"
+" other programs. But this doesn't apply in practice: if you have a document "
+"that you write to, and software stops working, you still want to write to "
+"the document. An external tool that navigates the content and shows it to "
+"you won't allow you to keep writing, and when it does that tool is now "
+"starting to re-implement the software."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"But this leaves out a big chunk of the world where internet connection is "
+"intermittent, or only works every other day or only once a week, or stops "
+"working when it rains, *etc*. For this audience, living without network "
+"connectivity isn't such a discrete moment in time, but part of every day "
+"life. I like the fact that the authors acknowledge that."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"Adding a large layer of data structures and algorithms will make it more "
+"complex to write software for, naturally. And if trying to make this layer "
+"transparent to the programmer, so they can pretend that layer doesn't exist "
+"is a bad idea, as RPC frameworks have tried, and failed."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"See \"[A Note on Distributed "
+"Computing](https://web.archive.org/web/20130116163535/http://labs.oracle.com/techrep/1994/smli_tr-94-29.pdf)\""
+" for a critique on RPC frameworks trying to make the network invisible, "
+"which I think also applies in equivalence for making the CRDTs layer "
+"invisible."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"This particular area is one that I have large interest on, and I wish to see"
+" more being done on the \"local-first\" space."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"The point is: if the software isn't free, \"The Long Now\" isn't achievable "
+"without a lot of wishful thinking. Maybe the authors were trying to be more "
+"friendly towards business who don't like free software, but in doing so "
+"they've proposed a contradiction by reconciling \"The Long Now\" with "
+"proprietary software."
+msgstr ""
+
+msgid ""
+"It isn't the same as saying that any free software achieves that ideal, "
+"either. The license can still be free, but the source code can become "
+"unavailable due to cloud rot. Or maybe the build is undocumented, or the "
+"build tools had specific configuration that one has to guess. A piece of "
+"free software can still fail to achieve \"The Long Now\". Being free doesn't"
+" guarantee it, just makes it possible."
+msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "The point is: if the software isn't free/libre, \"The Long Now\" isn't "
+#~ "achievable without a lot of wishful thinking. Maybe the authors were trying "
+#~ "to be more friendly towards business who don't like libre software, but in "
+#~ "doing so they've proposed a contradiction by reconciling \"The Long Now\" "
+#~ "with proprietary software."
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "It isn't the same as saying that any free/libre software achieves that "
+#~ "ideal, either. The license can still be free, but the source code can become"
+#~ " unavailable due to cloud rot. Or maybe the build is undocumented, or the "
+#~ "build tools had specific configuration that one has to guess. A piece of "
+#~ "free/libre software can still fail to achieve \"The Long Now\". Being free "
+#~ "doesn't guarantee it, just makes it possible."
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid "They give examples of artificial restrictions, like this one:"
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "Just as easily as I can come up with ways to intentionally restrict users, "
+#~ "just as easily I can do the same for unintentionally restricting users. A "
+#~ "program can stop working for a variety of reasons."
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "If it stops working due do data growth, what are the options? Reverting to "
+#~ "an earlier backup, and making it read-only? That isn't really a \"Long "
+#~ "Now\", but rather a \"Long Now as long as the software keeps working as "
+#~ "expected\"."
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "A colleague has challenged my view, arguing that the software doesn't really"
+#~ " need to be free, as long as there is an specification of the file format. "
+#~ "This way is the software stops working, the format can still be processed by"
+#~ " other programs. But this doesn't apply in practice: if you have a document "
+#~ "that you write to, and software stops working, you still want to write to "
+#~ "the document. An external tool that navigates the content and shows it to "
+#~ "you won't allow you to keep writing, and when it does that tool is now "
+#~ "starting to re-implement the software."
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "But this leaves out a big chunk of the world where internet connection is "
+#~ "intermittent, or only work every other day or only once a week, or stops "
+#~ "working when it rains, *etc*. For this audience, living without network "
+#~ "connectivity isn't such a discrete moment in time, but part of every day "
+#~ "life. I like the fact that the authors acknowledge that."
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "Adding a large layer of data structures and algorithms will make it more "
+#~ "complex to write software for, naturally. And if trying to make this layer "
+#~ "transparent to the programmer, so they can pretend that layer doesn't exist "
+#~ "is a bad idea, as RPC frameworks have tried, and failed. See \"[A Note on "
+#~ "Distributed "
+#~ "Computing](https://web.archive.org/web/20130116163535/http://labs.oracle.com/techrep/1994/smli_tr-94-29.pdf)\""
+#~ " for a critique on RPC frameworks trying to make the network invisible, "
+#~ "which I think also applies in equivalence for making the CRDTs layer "
+#~ "invisible."
+#~ msgstr ""
+
+#~ msgid ""
+#~ "It is a step forward, and given the number of times I've seen the paper "
+#~ "shared around I think there's a chance people will prefer saying \"local-"
+#~ "first\" in lieu of \"offline-first\" from now on."
+#~ msgstr ""