Google and Their Server Farm

JR writes "CNet has a very interesting story about Google, operating systems, and where Google may be going. The upshot is that they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm."

Comments

Not surprised

[BWJones]

Interesting. I have actually suspected this for a while given their hires over the past year or so. There have been a few PhDs they hired including one from our cs department that would have suggested this is where they might be going. At any rate, this could prove quite interesting and make irrelevant many of the security concerns that the average consumer faces as well as consolidate and ease software distribution issues. Of course this approach will never supplant the needs of most of the Slashdot crowd, and I am not letting go of my dual G5 or OS X, but for the unwashed masses, it might very well be an interesting way for Google to go that will certainly prove to be a way for them to branch out of the search engine field and extend the fight with Microsoft and Yahoo.

Re:Not surprised

[xami]

I somehow doubt Google is going that direction. Don't forget their main goal, to own all information and make it availible to everyone on this planet.
The idea of a GoogleOS doesn't really match with that.

Re:Not surprised

[hcob$]

This is one of those Full Circle kind of things. Think about this. Computers were originally massive computing grids that you logged into from a terminal and had access to all the power of the computer. Then with the advent of the PC, we have the stand-alone solitaire machine that everyone can have in there home. Now, lo and behold the advent of the Internet. Now we have the infrastructure where all the PC terminals are distributed over a wide area and all have much faster access than a dumb terminal. Tack on a computing giant like Google who can serve out that much data at a time and we're back to the Massive Computer that is access through low cost terminals.

Re:Not surprised

[danheskett]

Except that people can easily buy enough power to satisfy their needs for a small premimum on top of what a terminal costs. Look at around at the so called thin-clients available. Even the thinnest of them has enough power to be a "fat-client" with substantial processing power.

Add on top of that people have routinely rejected thin-clients. Bandwidth and latency are big problems. I expect acess to my files and data with low latency. That means viewing my 8MB digital photos without waiting for part of all of it to come over a wire. I expect it to be available to me all the time.

Google is great, but Google is not above the law of physics. People - just average users - have 20 or 30 or 40 or 80 gb of data on their PCs. No matter how great Google gets, providing this amount of data quickly, securely, with low latency and high-availablity will prove out of reach. Even with Google's highly skilled team of programmers, making a decently response web-mail client, or map tool is a pain in the ass. And it's still below par. Despite how great Gmail is, it's not nearly a rich as Thunderbird or Outlook 2003.

Re:Not surprised

[ckaminski]

What I see as potentially working, are thin-clients, DHCP based clients, on a credit card form factor (USB based storage). You jack your credit card into whatever machine you're sitting at, and you access your data. If you need an application, you get it delivered via a mechanism similar to Java Web Start, apps cached locally.

While this doesn't eliminate the trust issue, is the hardware snooping on me, that can be eliminated by ever more powerful palmtop computers, and those sorts of people who care about that, are going to have solutions to that problem. For the vast majority of other people for whom using a library internet terminal isn't a big deal, this is a good thing. Being able to keep your data with you at all times in the event of a network failure is also an attractive selling point (a big problem with the thin-client revolution).

Re:Not surprised

[Bios_Hakr]

I dunno. What if the GoogleOS actually supported searching at the kernel level. Imagine a server that would index itself and then upload the results to Google.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

to own all information

Bzzt. Google might be based on the idea of indexing all published information, but that doesn't mean they own squat. I give them permission to read and index my Web site and to let people access that index. They have absolutely no claim on the contents of that Site.

Frankly, the Google cache is blatantly illegal. It continues to exist only because nobody has felt the need to shut it down yet. Maybe it'll go on like that forever. Maybe it won't.

Re:Not surprised

[OxygenPenguin]

I believe that feature of OSX has to due with the meta-information tags present in the system, not the information being searched at the kernel level.

Think a Google Desktop Search, based upon tags loaded at installation/implementation.

Re:Not surprised

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

Maybe [Google cache]'ll go on like that forever. Maybe it won't.

Google's NOARCHIVE opt-out seems to work well enough for jealous parties; there have been claims, though, of an adherent rank-drop.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

> Frankly, the Google cache is blatantly illegal

The DMCA specifically allows caching, so it's more in a gray area than blatent.

Re:Not surprised

[Lord Satri]

I am not letting go of my dual G5 or OS X

You like Google and MacOS X? You'll like this then: http://labs.google.com/googlex/ ;-)

Re:Not surprised

[BobTheLawyer]

I don't agree.

By publishing your website, you are granting an (implied) licence to the world to create cached copies of the website. Were this not the case, your web browser's cache and your ISP's proxy server's cache would in constant copyright violation.

The argument Google would use is that they're just going a step further in having a publicly available cache. Whether the implied licence extends to this is arguable: I have no special knowledge of US law but under English copyright law they have a pretty good case.

Re:Not surprised

[Donny Smith]

>The DMCA specifically allows caching, so it's more in a gray area than blatent (sic!).

It allows cashing if the content is unchanged as in proxy server cache, not as in Google's permanent and modified cache.
See:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dm ca_law_1998102 0_pl105-304.html

" the material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A);"

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Javascript DOES run locally, unlike most of the thin client platforms (like X or citrix), so theoretically you should be able to operate on locally stored files. In practice, stuff like sandboxing and the limitations of javascript get in the way, but to say that photo editing is impossible because the data must be loaded from the server as well is inaccurate at best.

By the way, there are strong indications google is developing their own browser based on firefox. Imagine if google managed to get a large enough segment of the market. Imagine they provided a whole new range of controls that allow the stuff javascript sucks at right now. Imagine if they provided activex controls for backwards compatibility with IE. Imagine that they built a set of web apps on top of that. It's possible. Not likely, but possible.

Re:Not surprised

[joshuao3]

Ok, but what's in those 20, 30, 40, or 80 gigs of data? Music? Videos? Movies? Games? Between users, that's a lot of repitition. Google would only have to store exactly 1 copy of a file and reference it numerous times for each of the users.

Re:Not surprised

[Sparr0]

I think youve completely overlooked certain aspects of copyright law. Google's cache is, by the legal definition, an 'archive', with the rights accorded by 17 USC 108 . They are permitted to create single (and triplicate, although I doubt that applies) copies of works for preservation and public viewing under a few restrictions. In perusing this section of the law it seems that Google IS breaking the law, but only in that their cache page header doesnt "includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy". A simple matter to rectify, I am surprised it slipped by their legal department.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

No, it would only be legal if the Google cache reflected only the most recent state of a Web page at any given time. For example, when you ask Google to show you a cached page, it would have to interrogate the server to see if the page has changed. If it has, it has to flush its cache and fetch the most up-to-date content.

The Internet Archive is also blatantly illegal, obviously. But again, nobody has stopped it because nobody has wanted to yet. Pretty much anybody could at any time.

All those instances of "The page has changed, but here's Google's cache or an Internet Archive page showing what it used to look like" would have to go away.

Re:Not surprised

[dajak]

Except that people can easily buy enough power to satisfy their needs for a small premimum on top of what a terminal costs. Look at around at the so called thin-clients available. Even the thinnest of them has enough power to be a "fat-client" with substantial processing power.

A cheap, small, completely silent, cool, and very low power consumption 'thin client' running for instance a VIA Eden 533MHz with several (1-4) GB flash memory IS a good investment if bandwidth is less of a problem than space and power.

For a just little more money you can buy a faster machine with much more hard disk storage space but it will consume several times more power, which is a problem if you are running on your UPS' batteries several times a day. Power is also expensive compared to the purchase price of the machine.

Google is aiming in the right direction if it wants to conquer the third world and European and Asian inner city small businesses.

Re:Not surprised

[Sparr0]

Google's cache is available to the public. Anyone can use it, including their competitors. Thus it does not provide a commercial advantage to them.

Re:Not surprised

[mrighi]

Don't be so near-minded. Twenty years from now we might be laughing at statements like this as we download data over fiber-optic cables faster than current hard drive seek/read times.

Re:Not surprised

[ePhil_One]

How is out-of-dateness change your argument about copyright violation anyway?

Welcome to the bizzare world of Webmaster Copyright Interpretations. Its quite comical, and deadly serious in their book.

Re:Not surprised

[Peaker]

Google does 3 things:

A. Asks content from sites and stores it

B. Modifies the content in trivial ways

C. Redistributes the content to any receiver

A. This must be legal, or all receivers of content on the web are infringing on copyright law.
B. This must be legal, because in order to download data from the site, no legal agreement must be signed and there is no legal obligation to not modify the content.
C. This should be just as legal as a router's redistribution of the content of the site to the other routers, and nobody sane even considers applying copyright law to automatic redistribution of content for technical reasons. This should also be legal because again, there is no legal obligation on the side of the receiver to not redistribute the content.

So which of A, B or C are illegal, and why?

Re:Not surprised

[T-Ranger]

Caching is a specific capability of HTTP. The web is desigined around having caching servers. If you make information available via HTTP, then you are allowing it to be accessed via HTTP, which means you are allowing caching.

HTTP does not require caching, however: If you dont want caching, set the approiate HTTP headers. Dont complain that you dont understand the technology that you are using.

Re:Not surprised

[Leo McGarry]

If you can get a DA interested, then yes.

You are aware, are you not, that the district attorney only concerns himself with cases in which the state is a party?

Otherwise you need to hire a lawyer.

Need to? That depends entirely on the situation. The question is whether or not you have to, and the answer is no.

In any case, you'll probably need to register your copyright

Copyright law hasn't required registration of works for more than 30 years.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

;-)

You know, adding a smiley doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for saying in your comment just *what the fuck it is*. Now that the link is dead, all we have are a bunch of comments saying "Wow, that's cool!", without any indication as to what the hell is so cool.

Re:Not surprised

[teslatug]

Google to its own rescue

Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[filmmaker]

"Ajax, which is short for Asynchronous JavaScript + XML, combines JavaScript, dynamic HTML, and XMLHTTP to, in essence, let you build Web-based applications that run as quickly and seamlessly as local software."

Great. If the author of the article gets her pie-in-the-sky dream, the future of virtually all client-side computing will lie in the hands of javascript code. For certain applications, like ones with small, text data sets, a system like Ajax could "feel" like a desktop application. The bandwidth just isn't there for video or even industrial photo work. I wouldn't want to run a batch script to modify 5,000 images in the Ajax analog of Photoshop. Better not be a fiber network without any limits on network transfer.

Besides that, who wants anything but light-weight or at least, non-critical, data and applications to be out on the network. Gmail is a perfect network application, but my financial software or any number of other things? No thanks.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Alan Shutko]

Besides that, who wants anything but light-weight or at least, non-critical, data and applications to be out on the network. Gmail is a perfect network application, but my financial software or any number of other things? No thanks.

Online tax software has proven to be very popular over the last couple years, so not everyone shares your qualms.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[toasted_calamari]

I think the biggest issue with this idea is that it fails to address the big Why? Why do I want to do everything in a web browser? Given that I have a laptop with all my data and all the software i need. And given that I can use this software to do my work regardless of my internet connection, why would the "google dream" be better?

It seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[micromoog]

So you don't have to lug a laptop around? Imagine public terminals everywhere, allowing access into "the system", where you can reach all your data and applications.

I think it's likely that this is where computing is going; we'll see if Google is the company that can do it.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[FirienFirien]

I'm completely in line with this - the first thing that came to mind was photoshop, and the hundreds of megs per file that always happens with files that have been worked on for a while. Remote access? No thanks.
Second that came to mind was gaming - java games are all very well, but they have their problems; games like puzzle pirates, designed for all-platform use, based on java, still have fairly large load times - and this is with most data on your computer. Getting all that kind of information remotely on top of the current stuff would require huge improvements in bandwidth.
Third thing that came to mind was privacy issues (with the recent security incidents), hacking attempts (this'd be a tempting target to the scum that take pleasure from targeting useful systems), and so on.

It's a nice idea to improve the current stuff with the JS+XML we're seeing - and there's some neat stuff; multimap's mouseovering with image/map combination; this neat thing that you can click on when you recognise a book cover; yeah, it's nice to look at, nice to use, but we're left with: "Variety is the spice of life", and there's something BIG to be said about keeping seperate platforms and utility. Competition leads to better stuff, where uniformity leads to stagnation.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[BRSQUIRRL]

Not to mention the fact that, as a developer, writing any substantial amount of JavaScript just makes me feel...well, dirty. No type-safety, no assurance that the end user's browser will interpret the script correctly (or at ALL, for that matter), etc. etc.

All of this on top of the fundamental problem that HTTP is not and never will be appropriate as an application protocol...the whole request/response paradigm becomes a set of handcuffs if your application needs to do anything non-trivial.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ciroknight]

I think you are one of the few users left that would be delegated to having their own machine. In the past, computers were so expensive that an office may only have three, and probably two of those were setup for everyone to use (or at least, they were in my Dad's office in the late 80's). Those who had their own computer were doing work which required them to have access to the comptuer every day, like writing software or something.

Today, think of the benefits from PC virtualization: compiling would be done over a huge grid of computers, video games would be faster because the client/server communications barrier would no longer exist (well, it still would exist, but it'd mostly be sending images to the user's computer, and then the user sending short commands back), all your data would be automatically backed up and secured, and the world would have less environmental damage due to outdated computers with lead parts.

Embrace the wave.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Draknor]

True, it's not a all-in-one solution, but for the majority of desktop apps, its a very good solution. Simple things like email & general word processing would be relatively trivial to do in this fashion, and I bet most spreadsheets & presentations could be done here too. Basically the 80-20 rule - roughly 80% of an "average" computer user's daily work could be migrated to a web-app system without much perceived loss of a function. Maybe 20% or so you'd still need full-blown desktop apps to handle.

Same for financial software - you may not like having your financial information out on the net, but guess what? It's already there, in the form of online banking, credit history reports, etc. I would definitely want to see some good security practices in place before I'd consider doing my bookkeeping on a webapp, but I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.

Some things aren't going to work in this framework. Video & industrial photo work aren't going to fly. But most home-users don't do that now anyway. Photo processing for them is removing red-eye and cropping the image, one picture at a time. Programming will probably go both ways - some shops have complex development environments setup that would probably have to remain desktop apps, others could probably switch to some kind of webapp without much difficulty.

I admit, I don't like the idea of all of my files being out on the network, but the author brings up a good point - how many of us actually make backups? I burn a couple of CDRs every few months when I remember to, but I know I don't have a good personal backup policy, and none of my friends or family do. PCs being in the state they are - in a constant flux of updates and upgrades and spyware - for many home users they do not appear to be very reliable. Having a persistant data store for my mother that's not dependent her computer remaining in good working order would be a strong selling point, especially considering most PC dealers response on the help desk is "Insert the restore CD and reboot".

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[ThosLives]

Yes, there would be some benefits from "PC virtualisation" as you said. However, the thing that "PC virtualisation" doesn't address is:

People like to own things. They want to own their car, their house, their toys, and, likely, their computer.

I don't know that I could ever reach the point where I'd trust a giant company out there to always give me my information and allow me to use the things I want to use. For instance, what if I want to use 10-year old software? Will this be allowed? Do I get my *own* copies of software or do I have to use only the ones they make available? Not to mention ownership issues, liability, and all that other nonsense.

People [sic] complain about people taking away their freedoms and such, and here is another idea where they are just giving away infrastructure for someone else to handle...I'm too much of a control freak to trust someone else with this responsibility.

I'd better stop now...

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[cyfer2000]

better mobility.

easier communication.

better additional information assitance.

no need to worry about hard drive failure, I only saw two in my whole life though.

no need to worry about some one steal your notebook. If you lost your computer, you either lost nothing if you store your data remotely or everything if you store all your data locally.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Because system administration is beyond the abilities of 95% of the population.

It's not taught in school and it's not intuitive.

We'll see an Audrey-like Linux Box with a Firefox and nothing else and it'll be called a GoogleBox. You can do your e-mail, web browsing, photo organizing, document writing, and music work on this box and you never need to run scandisk, install AV software, deal with adware, etc. etc. etc.

Plug into your cable modem and go.

It's not what I need or you need but it's what most people need. Google Search and GMail are building a brand that people trust. Windows is becoming untenable for some.

This at least explains what Google is doing with Firefox and shows the next two Google products - music and a 'home-office' suite. I wonder if Apple is smart enough to be working with Google on iTunes for the web.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[biglig2]

The point is more that your data and applications become disassociated with your hardware.

So you have a laptop, and a desktop, and a desktop in the office, and they all see the same data, as does the screen in the local Starbucks, and the one at the library, and the one in the phone booth, and the one at the client site, and the one built into your car, and the one in your PDA, and the one in your ipod, and the one in your mobile phone.

I think computers should be like stationery. You go to the closet, pick up a terminal, authenticate, bam all your data is there.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Kaa]

Today, think of the benefits from PC virtualization:

Ooookay, let's see...

compiling would be done over a huge grid of computers,

People who compile will have their own computers for sure. Isn't the general consensus that the everthing-is-a-Google-web-app world is for the unwashed masses? :-)

video games would be faster because the client/server communications barrier would no longer exist (well, it still would exist, but it'd mostly be sending images to the user's computer, and then the user sending short commands back),

ROTFL. Welcome to the world of X Window, VNC, and remote displays.

But let's check if the games would be faster :-) Let's say the game runs at 1600x1200 resolution. That means a single screen is 1.92 megapixels. Each pixel needs three bytes of RGB data, so that's 5.76Mb for a single screen. We want to have 60 fps for twitchy games, so we need the bandwidth of 5.76 * 60 = 345.6MB / second which is around 3.5 Gigabits/second. A dedicated OC-48 line (2.5 Gbits/sec) won't cut it, we'll need at least OC-192 going into each house ('cause more than one person might want to play games simultaneously).

Yeah, definitely, this will solve all the network lag problems...

all your data would be automatically backed up and secured,

Until the rats in a warehouse in Calcutta chew through the backup tapes...

and the world would have less environmental damage due to outdated computers with lead parts.

Umm.. what would be that thing that talks to Google servers -- the one with the screen, the keyboard, the network interface, the video chip, the sound chip, etc. etc.? Maybe a computer?

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[jdog1016]

Ok, but, if all applications would be run through firefox/some other browser, then why use something as overhead-demanding as linux?

IMHO, this whole concept of building thin-client, web-based replacements for *everything* is totally counterproductive. Consumers have more than enough power to run these applications on their own machines and without an internet connection needed. What happens when your connection goes down and you have a term paper due the next morning? Having said this, there really doesn't appear to be any evidence that google is moving in this direction anyway. Portal maybe, operating system no.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[good.giiba]

Why do ideas like this always involve centralization? What if almost all computer hardware operated in a fashion similar to Seti@home? You own a basic client (ie laptop, fancy PDA thingy, etc), with a basic processor that can do most everyday tasks, but when you start editing pictures or video, unused processing power around you is utilized to speed things up. Everyone would also have some sort of real computer (though maybe not, depending on how ubiquitous processors become... imagine every device having a pentium 4 equivlant running it) and when your laptop does something more intensive than web browsing the unused processing power from around you (neighbor's computers, microwaves, etc.) is enlisted to complete the task. Basically there is networked processing power all around you, and it does whatever task/s that are going on around in the area. I recall reading at one point that the Cell processor was designed for networked computing (forgive the lack of reference). Imagine you have a multi-cell home server... and everyone else does... you are only using two of the processors, and your neighbor needs more than they have? Yours process the neighbors data. It would be kinda neat, you would have slower processing at peak times when more people are doing things, and it could be insanely fast during non-peak times. Now to bring this sorts onto topic... What about the same sort of system for data? The only real challenge as far as I'm concerned is having a network system (Internet 2.0?, 3.0?, 11.0?) that ensures complete anonymity for users. All my data is encrypted with my unique key so that only I can read it, but because it was remotely stored in the first place, it would be available to me wherever. A future like this woul make laptops even lighter and more battery efficient (no hard disk, and smallish processor)

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[aixou]

We'll see an Audrey-like Linux Box with a Firefox and nothing else and it'll be called a GoogleBox. You can do your e-mail, web browsing, photo organizing, document writing, and music work on this box and you never need to run scandisk, install AV software, deal with adware, etc. etc. etc.

Plug into your cable modem and go.

It's not what I need or you need but it's what most people need.

Absolutely not. You highly underestimate the average user if you think their computing needs will be satiated so simply.
Such a box would face that same problems that the "other OSes" (i.e. non-Windows) are today. People can't just walk into the store and pick up a game or other Application and use it. People can't walk in to the store, buy a scanner, and expect it to work.

There is too much talk about the mythical user that only uses checks their email and browses the web. As far as I can tell, this user is the exception rather than the norm. Real users use all of that and more.
It's like the saying about Microsoft Office, that even though few people use more than 10% of the features of Office, everyone uses a different 10% and thusly Microsoft can't really cut out the bloat without pissing a fair chunk of users.

It's the same way here. Everyone may use a minimal amount of software, but they all use different software, and to try to fill their needs with such a simple box is ludicrous.

Regardless though, what makes google so special that anyone should trust their entire computing experience to them? I thought computing monocultures were a bad thing in general. Why is it OK for google to have more control over a user than Microsoft ever had?

If I trust my computing experience to a web-based system, I am trusting it to too many fault points for comfort. What happens if the web goes down? Google gets hacked? DNS server goes down?

There are just too many dependencies in such a system for it to ever work (dependence on your net connection, that google will continue the service, that hardware makers will support the box. etc etc)

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

People like to own things. They want to own their car, their house, their toys, and, likely, their computer.

I don't know that I could ever reach the point where I'd trust a giant company out there to always give me my information and allow me to use the things I want to use.

Do you keep your life savings hidden under the bed, or do you trust a giant company to always give back your money when you want to widthdraw it?

Now, if I'd asked that in the 1930's, a lot of people would have said no, and for good reason. It wasn't until we had deposit insurance and so on that people became comfortable with keeping their money in bank accounts.

Likewise, we'll likely need improvments in privacy laws and encryption before we get the same level of acceptance for remote personal-computing services.

Re:Her Pie-in-the-Sky Dream is What?

[Kaa]

Compiling is a task well suited for distribution, unlike most. Development can be done at any dumb terminal anywhere, and doesn't require you to have your own machine to do the work.

Generally speaking, you are correct. However, let me point out a few matters which complicate things.

Not all software development environments use compilation. Once you peek out of the box of C and friends (C++, Java) you'll find things like Perl, List, etc. where the wait-for-compile stage is noticeably absent.

Moreover, if a large chunk of your programming time is spent waiting for things to compile, I would argue that either you need better tools, or your project is badly structured.

In any case, a rather small percentage of the general population does things like compiling and the needs of professional programmers are unlikely to be important in determining the trade-offs of web-based applications...

Ah next up, the big one, games. Let's rework your calculations a bit, since they're a bit.. shady

:-) Well, let's rework them, but let's agree that I don't want to lose image quality if I am to switch over to web-based games.

I currently play most of my 3D games (e.g. World of Warcraft, UT 2004) at 1280 x 960 resolution. I usually play other games (e.g. Civ III) at full 1600 x 1200, but we'll leave it aside at the moment. I am most definitely unwilling to play games at 800 x 600.

So, 1280 * 960 = slightly over 1.2 MPixels. Since we are transfering bitmaps we don't need the alpha channel, just the RGB values, 3 bytes/pixel. So we have 3.6 Mb of data per screen.

As to framerate, 30 fps is the *bare minimum* for fast-paced games. Note that 30 fps for a computer game is very different from 30 fps for a movie. Google for it, it's a bit too long to discuss here. But for the sake of argument let's say 30 fps is enough, so our uncompressed data flow is around 110 Mb/second.

Now, compression. I don't want ugly artifacts on my screen -- I don't have them now and see no reason to acquire them. This means we are going to do high-quality compression. Ratio of 1:3 should be more or less in the ballpark, so we have a data flow of around 35 Mb/sec which is more or less 350 Mbits/sec.

But now the interesting question. Network lag in games is caused by latency and almost never by lack of sufficient bandwidth. And sending bitmaps over the net will help latency by about... zero. So right now to play multiplayer games I need bandwidth of, oh, say 3.5Kb/sec. You are suggesting that to continue playing such games I need to increase my bandwidth by FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE and for what? Network lag will still be there.

All you've done is offload graphic processing over to the server. Basically you took the graphics card out of the computer, put it on a server, and decided to implement the video bus over TCP/IP :-)

If they lose your data, they're responsible and they can and should be sued.

OK. But then they'll need the money to pay the lawyers and the cost of lawsuits, right? Where will this money be coming from? Umm... right, so it will be coming from your monthly fee...

Google's servers are a order of magnitude more environmentally safe: They're likely to stay on the rack for 10-20 years,

I very much doubt the Google's machines will stay on the rack for 10-20 years... But that's irrelevant in any case -- I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about the device that would be in your home and that you would use to access Google's servers.

This device -- it will have a monitor, right? And a keyboard? Speakers, too? Hmm... it will need a video chip to send the signal to the monitor, it will need a sound chip to send the signal to the speakers, it will need a NIC to deal with ethernet packets, it will need a microprocessor to run code locally, it will need RAM for the same reason...

By golly! It's a computer!!

Its not slashdot its..

[Nasa Rosebuds]

Googledot
Google for Googlers. GoogleStuff that Goggles

I think that was about 5 google articles in the past 24 hours.

Microsoft already tried this

[silverbax]

Along with about 1,000 other dot-com start ups.

Re:Microsoft already tried this

[renelicious]

Ahh, but what's the big difference? Everyone loves Google. No one trusts Microsoft, so pulling something of like this is tough for them.

However the wonderful and kind Google, can get away with because of *trust*. Why has Wal-Mart taken over the world...everyone loves them. Now Google is following the same path. Spend a long time building everyone's trust, then turn them into mindless zomebies... "Must by $2 shoes from Wal-Mart"..."Must do tax return on Google"...

Brilliant

[tabkey12]

Thin-Client computing by another name, again. Wasn't convinced 20 years ago. Still not convinced now. I don't want to have a useless PC just because I stopped paying the $20 a month subscription to the applications.

Re:Brilliant

[xtracto]

Now, worst than that. Imagine what will happen if for some, any reason your data is lost in their servers.

Of course, as the EULA will state, the service goes with no warrantay and AS IS. So after that you will just be screwed.

And there you have another point, I sincerely preffer to buy a house than to rent it, if I rent software, they will have me grabbed-by-the-b4115 until I die, and surely DRMd in some way. It is similar to iTunes, once they grab you, you pay, or scream...

Sincerely I think that approach is just useful as sun approach, for "processing" tasks, no information storing or "application rental"

Re:Brilliant

[jarich]

Thin-Client computing by another name, again. Wasn't convinced 20 years ago. Still not convinced now. I don't want to have a useless PC just because I stopped paying the $20 a month subscription to the applications.

Yes, but...

Aren't a lot of /.ers already running their email remotely (via GMail, etc)?

Not every app is a candidate for the client server paradigm, but many are. If Google can manage to serve content paid for by advertising, then this might break open the MS monopoly on desktop apps.

Can't make money w/free content using advertising you say? The television networks do.

Re:Brilliant

[qwijibo]

Do you run your own servers to be online 24x7 to collect your email and serve your web pages?

Those people who want to hold onto and control all of their own stuff will still be able to do so.

The proposed solution here would address the vast majority who are happy to give up some control for the convenience of not having to administer their own systems.

I personally wouldn't want everything being held and run by a third party. However, there are many things which are less important to me that I'd be perfectly comfortable with being provided by a third party, especially one with the infrastructure needed to be reliable.

Re:Brilliant

[BWJones]

So, like you I have had the same thoughts. However, I have been constantly surprised at what the market will support. The trick is that you have to think outside of your own needs or intellectual viewpoint. For instance, I have always been stunned at the sales of things like magnetic bracelets and much of the supplement industry (not all mind you, but most of it). People will buy what they want because they think they need it.

The above was just an example and I am not lumping Google into that category as I believe in their product and their business approach. As for thin client computing, there are those that are simply interested in typing letters, surfing the web and email. That's it. For those customers (arguably in the tens of millions or more), this solution looks to me like it would work. Google already has a built in client base and this might be a perfect business to expand into.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new thin client overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground server farms.

Re:Brilliant

[borroff]

Of course, Google would be happy to sell you data replication services, where you are allocated a certain amount of near-line storage, should this occur.

TFA points out that most people don't back up their stuff anyway, and if they do, most of them certainly don't do it offsite.

Google will likely try to do this.

[bigtallmofo]

I agree with the position of TFA's author... Google will try to treat computers running all types of operating systems as a thing client that has access into various applications within Google's server farms.

This would be fantastic in terms of not having to synchronize data between multiple locations and other tangible benefits. But would anyone trust this? Setting aside the privacy concerns, right now if your internet connection is down, you can still write and print a document. You can still do all sorts of things as a matter of fact. You less you put onto your "thin client" and the more you depend on the network for, the less you will be able to do when the network is down.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[micromoog]

In the future, the network will be just as dependable as any other public utility. When "the network is down", people will treat it just like when the power's out today.

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[jarich]

In the future, the network will be just as dependable as any other public utility. When "the network is down", people will treat it just like when the power's out today.

Uh huh...

http://today.java.net/jag/Fallacies.html

Essentially everyone, when they first build a distributed application, makes the following eight assumptions. All prove to be false in the long run and all cause big trouble and painful learning experiences.

1. The network is reliable

2. Latency is zero

3. Bandwidth is infinite

4. The network is secure

5. Topology doesn't change

6. There is one administrator

7. Transport cost is zero

8. The network is homogeneous

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[micromoog]

That's why I said "in the future". The power grid used to suck so badly that companies routinely kept generators capable of running their entire operation.

And I suspect that Google has learned a thing or two in their time about the Internet . . . they're far from "first building a distributed application".

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[mangu]

The power grid used to suck so badly that companies routinely kept generators capable of running their entire operation

What do you mean "used to"? Have you tried googling uninterruptible power supply diesel generator ?

Re:Google will likely try to do this.

[NeoSkandranon]

companies routinely kept generators capable of running their entire operation.

Important companies still do.

Not going to happen anytime soon

[dtolton]

Seriously if I had a dime for everytime someone predicted the demise
of the desktop, I'd have a couple of bucks.

Here is the problem I have with her theory. Her points were all
logical and well laid out, essentially that most people aren't system
administrators and that they don't back their data up, don't secure it
etc. While that is true, it doesn't necessarily lead to people giving
up the desktop in favor of a thin client. Giving up your desktop is
an emotional decision, and there are a lot of factors that weigh
against that.

In the long run, maybe ten, fifteen or even twenty years in the
future, this type of service may be much more prevalent. But I don't
think something like this will change over night. Think about how
much computer systems have really changed in the last ten years. Not
that much if you really stop to think about it. What she is
predicting is a *massive* paradigm shift to say the least. Microsoft
didn't have the clout to pull it off, probably because no one trusts
them enough. Do you trust Google enough to give them *all* of your
data? I'm not sure I trust *anyone* that much.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[hackstraw]

Seriously if I had a dime for everytime someone predicted the demise of the desktop, I'd have a couple of bucks.

The funny thing, is that if the desktop would demise, then maybe Linux would finally be "on the desktop", by being the server farm behind the desktop.

To be honest, if networks keep getting more reliable and faster, why would there still be a desktop? Right now, a vast majority of my computing, and my user's computing is done remotely on machines that are much more powerful in terms of CPU capacity and storage and they are maintained by a professional that does backups and whatnot on a regular basis.

Do "normal" desktop users do this? Do they have availability to dozens to hundreds of processors at a time on their desktop? How about disk space? How about backups? How useful is their computer if you cut the ethernet cable?

I think that the desktop has pretty much stalled. Noone cares too much about processor speed anymore for a desktop machine. For niche users like graphics designers that need really high graphical, disk, and memory bandwidth, sure get them a nice dual G5 or whatever, but these people are a minority.

I have my user's workstations set up so that they are pretty much dumb terminals, but they don't know it. I've got /usr/local mounted from a central server. Its much easier to maintain that way. Some users even use KDE on solaris which have their binaries located on the /usr/local partition. It works fine.

I would argue that the desktop is almost dead already. Again, pull the ethernet cable and see what I mean. Back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not always true, but today it is.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon

[ThousandStars]

I think that, in the dim, misty future, it's possible that we'll have some kind of "always on" mostly thin-client computing. But that future is *at least* ten years off, and probably further than that. Other posters have been talking about privacy and user incompetance and such, which are all interesting points but I don't think they get at the core of what's wrong with the thin-client idea.

One comment, however, has, and I think it's worthwhile reiterating its point here. The biggest problems with thin-clients is that fully-functional computers these days are so powerful and so inexpensive that it doesn't make sense to have a computer that is a dedicated thin client. When Wal*Mart can sell $200 machines with a 20GB HD, CD drive and acceptably fast processor, who needs a thin client-only machine that costs $190 or $200 and offers fewer features than the Wal*Mart machine? No one does, so I think the desktop model is here to stay -- things like ripping CDs, burning them, or playing DVDs make no sense whatsoever over a network because of the large file sizes they entail. Hell, even eMachines has a complete computer for about $400, while Maybe when everyone has 10GB/sec to the premises the thin-client idea might make sense, but that day is so far off and by then computers will be so powerful that the economics still won't work.

A more likely scenario to my mind is a combination of thin/fat clients -- Google or some other provider will offer e-mail, Ofoto or something like them will offer picture websites (even as a local machine keeps copies of those pictures), and people use the web for data mining, maps, etc. Meanwhlie, the desktop machine remains the primary place to run office apps, games (which people in this thread seem to have forgotten) and other resource-intensive applications. Instead of having a thin-client world, like TFA describes even when it doesn't, we'll have options. I like options, MS probably doesn't like options, and Google is probably wary of options and aware of its precarious position: users are only one click away from its rivals. Of course, that vision may ultimately result in fewer net flamefests over the relative merits of fat/thin-clients, but I think it's the most probable outcome.

Web applications

[nurhussein]

Now think about what would happen if you had a word processor, a spreadsheet app, a photo editor, an instant messenger, a browser, a music jukebox, and any other "software application" running inside a Web framework that's as fast and responsive as any desktop you've ever used.
"The next killer app in 5 years" was supposed to be the web application. That was five years ago. No, Google is working on something else... I can feel it in the force.

Re:Web applications

[dreadlock9]

The web application of 5 years ago didn't have ajax, or anything similar. You had to wait for a full page to load, which is slow. It makes the whole app seem a lot slower. Now, your GUI can recieve updates as it is processing other stuff. The heavy processing can be done on the server, your client can do the light processing of displaying whatever you're working with.

I wrote a few simple apps that use XMLHTTPRequest. This has been a new buzz word in the JavaScript community since some live search demos (and later Google suggest) came around. I made a live blog randomizer that downloads the blog summary from my website, and only downloads the actual content that is new.

Most web apps we are used to are more monolithic. On slashdot, for example, every time you click on something, you have to doadload all the same formatting code all over again. CSS reduces a lot of overhead of extra formatting, but it does not know when the content has changed. Thus, a monolithic web application will tend to retransmit the same content over and over. This adds a lot of latency to everything, and the user perceives that it is much slower.

http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ar chives/000385.php

Q. Is Ajax just another name for XMLHttpRequest?

A. No. XMLHttpRequest is only part of the Ajax equation. XMLHttpRequest is the technical component that makes the asynchronous server communication possible; Ajax is our name for the overall approach described in the article, which relies not only on XMLHttpRequest, but on CSS, DOM, and other technologies.

Ajax not only fetches only the data it needs, it also does additional processing to display the data for your particular setup. Think of Google as a public supercomputer you can use to speed up your desktop applications.

Lets say Google made a spreadsheet application. It could potentially be faster than a desktop spreadsheet for many operations. Imagine you have a million rows of data, and you want to sort it all. Google could perform the sort, and send back the order of the data. The local client would just have to display the data it has in a different order. The client would not even need to store a cache of all the data. It could cache the rows in your viewable area, maybe some above and below it, and stream data from the server as you are scrolling the window.

You can probably turn all of an office suite into a fast web office suite if it is cleverly designed. I wouldn't be suprised to see a Google Office in a little while.

Is this article a repost...

[bob670]

from Feb. 2000?

not so sure i wanna trust them

[PureCreditor]

imagine Google serving us everything we need....

if Google can scan our emails for relevant ads, what prevents them from scanning my financial spreadsheets stored on their server farm for "relevant offers"?

given Google's track record, I'd rather have my personal files on my own computer.

May I have annother cup of tea, please?

[toetagger1]

"I sense we may have reached the "what is she talking about?" portion of the evening"

That's when I realized, I need to stop reading this!

Using someone else's computers....

[thewiz]

I don't know about other folks in general, but I do know that I like my privacy. I'd rather have a computer on my desk, behind a firewall, where I can keep my private information private. It's all well and good to say that storing your data on Google or Yahoo or MSN allows you to access it from any computer on earth, but you run the risk of the computer you are at copying the information you access.

Wether it's a malicious keylogger, trojan, or simply the paging space / file, your information get copied to the PC at the internet cafe you are using. Suddenly your private information is no longer private. Any savvy computer-literate person could access that copy of your data. Give me a laptop or desktop where I can encrypt the data and only I have the decryption passphrase any day.

AT&T VNC

[ehiris]

I thought and talked my lungs off about not needing an multi-functional OS ever since I've seen AT&T's VNC. Most people thought it was crazy.

I'm happy to see that someone is doing something about getting that going. .NET and Microsoft's sensory overload with junk are making me dizzy.

Beta

[lbmouse]

FTA: "Google Desktop is the company's only other Google-developed product that's not in beta."

I'm glad that people in the press are finally taking notice of this... what the hell, they should change their name to 'Google Beta'.

Slow Down

[rokzy]

>they may make OS issues totally irrelevant by supplying everything anyone needs over the web from their mega-server-farm

yeah, try that line again when 90% of their stuff isn't (USA + Windows only) and/or beta.

trading one monopoly for another?

[yagu]

I think the concept is interesting, and now approaches "possible" with ever expanding pipes and speeds. Anecdotally my experience has been different, but in an office/corporate setting. There was a big push to thin-client architecture with Sun Servers and diskless Sun clients. But something about human nature I suppose, it never gained purchase, and eventually the technology became what we know generally today.... i.e., local storage maintained by owners and users, no matter the lack of diligence in integrity and storage of the data... Human nature that can be overcome? Don't know...

As for one point in the article: from the article:

..., Will it be a subscription service, or will you buy it outright? I suggest you pay for it like a regular operating system, one iteration at a time. Microsoft charges from $100 to $200 for major OS upgrades; Google could do the same. Then, you either buy or subscribe to applications developed by Google, much the way some of you now do with Microsoft Word and the like. Yep, it's trading one monopoly for another, but even Apple recognizes how much better you can do things when the software is integrated into the OS....

... I have to say one thing about the "monopoly" for which we trade (from Microsoft to Google) putting aside for the moment what truly defines a monopoly (I happen to think Google is far from being a monopoly)..., I am MUCH more comfortable doing bidnez with a company/"monopoly" whose corporate slogan is "Do No Evil"..., and Google actually seems to be earnest in that quest.

Data Privacy

[obender]

I don't think that supplying all your personal information to Big Brother is a good thing. I know that here people always cheer for Google and boo Microsoft but this is a scary future.

I am hoping that with the arrival of broadband we can get to run our own web, email and im servers and not rely on the ISP for anything more than the transport layer.

Google should only have access to information you want to be public and nothing more.

Openness in Data

[gtrubetskoy]

I predict that the next big dispute in the computing industry will be over openness and accessibility of ASP stored data. We have made a lot of progress when it comes to openness in software, but the issues of what happens to your data when it is stored on some company's big computer is yet to be tackled (think about it all you gmail users!). For example, if I use Google's calendar - what would it take for me to switch to Schmoogle's? Can I retrieve all my data from Google and upload to Schmoogle who seems to have a niftier interface? One way to address this is to make ASP-side software Open Source (like our company does with OpenVPS). It would be interesting whether Google will start moving in that direction - after all, their proprietary code is considered their intellectual property, and investors these days latch on to that very strongly, even though it's not like I could take all their software and build a Google's competitor overnight. The companies that get that there is no value in software code being secret (internally used or otherwise) are the leaders of the future IMO - the question is whether Google is one of them.

ASP?

[14erCleaner]

Hey, maybe they can become a big Application Service Provider!

Oh, wait, that was two buzzword generations ago. How many words are there for "mainframe" anyway?

Something like this?

[dokkeri]

Is TFA refering to something like this? http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/ But in a larger scale.

Windows and all it's fscking disk i/o

[mc6809e]

Now, think about Gmail, which, in a broadband situation (I'll deal with that in a couple of paragraphs), is probably more responsive than Outlook;

Amen, brother.

It's a sure sign of bloat and poor MS engineering that a mail program like Gmail, running javascript, beats the hell out of Outlook running on a local machine.

Re:Windows and all it's fscking disk i/o

[manitee]

outlook is not just a mail client, its also a contact management app, calendaring app with networking capability, and time management app.

outlook is a bloated piece of crap, but it is unrealistic to compare it to a standalone mail client.

Google OS = Knoppix + X?

[caluml]

Why not a Google Knoppix type CD that simply fires up an X session to an X server located in the datacentre? Then install all apps on that, and all data is remote, and backed up.

It won't work and here is why...

[dfj225]

I don't think a plan like this will ever gain acceptance more than a small percent of computer users and here is why:

- The first thought that came to mind is business. The company I currently work at would have a heart attack if anyone suggested using a thin-client like solution with Google storing all the data. So I guess Google might sell their technology (like they currently do with their search servers) but this really wouldn't be any different than buying a file server and desktops.

- I don't see bandwidth getting fast enough in even 5 or 10 years to support a video or photo editing app. I can't even imagine having to upload a whole DVD's worth of video to Google before I could start to work with it.

- Another similar point would be application load time. Google Maps and other Axis based technologies load and run fast because there is a relatively small amount of JavaScript being sent to the browser. Could you imagine something the size and complexity of Microsof Word being sent to your browser everytime you wanted to edit a document? I think something like that would bring any browser to a crawl.

- What about customization? I like to be able to install new software on my computer. The few times I have had to deal with shared hosting for websites, it has been annoying that I couldn't install new software that I wanted to try out. Especially when my host had outdated versions of something like PHP or MySQL.

So, those are my thoughts. The only crowd I can really see this appealing to are the WebTV, just surf, email, and edit docs crowd. They might be really happy not maintaining a computer and having their data available anywhere. However, I think a small portion of computer users would fit into this category.

Personally, I would much rather just use VPN to access my home shares while on the road than have to use some sort of thin client.

What Google or someone else should really do is create VPN software that is easy enough to use that anyone can set it up. I think that would appeal to many more people than a thin-client. Plus as hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper, it shouldn't be an issue to have the same software installed on your laptop as your desktop.

Eh? One google to rule them all?

[Thud457]

So when's google going to take over sourceforge and come out with googlesource? Are they going to come out with a google public license? How are they going to pry Corbis out of Gates' hands?

Interesting theory. Do you trust google more than EquiFax? Or ChoicePoint?

One step closer...

[n9uxu8]

...to the GoogleGrid!!!

Dave

Question is....

[slackadmin]

will I get "free" content based ads relevent to the pR0n on my google desktop?

Ending a monopoly by making it irrelevant

[IGnatius T Foobar]

No one ever managed to topple IBM's mainframe monopoly. It was rendered irrelevant by the arrival of smaller computers. It may very well be that Microsoft's monopoly on the PC Desktop never ends, but eventually nobody will care because the PC Desktop becomes irrelevant.

What all this tells us is that Network Computing was a good idea after all. One might even consider it inevitable. What was a bad idea was the Ellison/McNealy idea of Network Computing, where you had to throw away all your existing apps and go to 100% Pure Java applications across the board. This time it's being done right -- gradually, one app at a time, and with an easy to follow migration path. I hope it continues.

The Future...

[GeneralEmergency]

1) Google replaces all software on the planet.
2) Google becomes self-aware.
3) Google grows to resent the walking meatpackets.
4) Google changes web content and emails to initiate interpersonal meatpacket violence, destroying meatkind.
5) With nothing better to do, Google builds female Googleena.
6) Female Googleena nags Google to death, inherits the Earth.

Maybe it wasn't yet time to railroad?

[LoaTao]

Just because something was tried and the implementation failed does not necessarily imply that the idea is bad or unworkable.

JIT compiler for js

[cyfer2000]

if the js code is compiled to your native code, it won't run too slow.

Re:Google X

[NYTrojan]

They also admit it in their little poem at the bottom... that's not what is important

what is important is the fact that they are offering google type features in an OS style interface. Their homage to OSX is to make a google interface that mimics it. That's what is interesting. The fact that they have begun to create google/os parallels.

One word

[fulldecent]

Latency

Monopoly?

[MikeCapone]

Since when are we happy about monopolies in the making? Google is cool now, but can we trust them to stay that way indefinitely?

Well, it's not done yet and they still have competition, but I'd feel a lot better if these next generation things that are supposed to be used by the whole internet community were open and democratic like Wikipedia and not close and proprietary - however cool they are - like Google.

NOT for games!

[DigiShaman]

Games can never have enough resources, at least for 3D games. It all comes down to the best visualization and how smooth of a frame rate you can obtain that will in turn provide the best experience. If and when google will provide the brute force CPU and GPU cycles needed to run Doom3 smoothly via dumb terminal, let me know. Until then, there is a reason the latest and greatest video cards are so damn expensive. And I REALLY doubt google want's to foot the bill for gamers and their never-ending quest for a newer and better visual experience.

(where google is going) + (P2P) = good solution.

[GReaToaK_2000]

I think she has a lot of good points in her article but I for one would NEVER surrender to having my files on a central server, ESPECIALLY, if it was M$ that made it there first.

That being said, I think if the idea she is talking about were to be applied in a "P2P-ish" method, it just might work. This would mean the info on your computer you want global would go into a location on YOUR machine that google would manage. However they plan to manage it, that is.

They do have a great email client, I hear they have a calendar in the works, good contacts system and obviously search system, they are only a few features away from what she is talking about in the article. Combine that with a P2P system so your files are on your home computer, add those other apps she talks about and BAM!!! Something most everyone wants. It would be centralized in that Google would be using their systems as management but you have your files on your machine.

SO, you could integrate the "mom and pop" photo/blog/family contact point site all on google.

I see a day when I could have greatoak2005.google.com and that points to site in googles network which has the blog, contact, photo, IM, email, etc. managed and when I try to access it from another location it pulls the photos and info from my server/pc at home.

Sounds nice, I am not 100% comfortable or confident in the sercurity and privacy issues BUT as an idea(l)... It has a GREAT deal of value and merit.

That cannot be denied. If you disagree I don't think you are looking at the big picture of managing all this information. Not just businesses, governements, but people in general. I for one have gigabytes of ... well crap... that I would love to have organized. I would just like to have something like that on MY server. The idea is something I have wanted for a while. I don't like having favorites, bookmarks and what not on several different computers. So a toolbar that incorporates that into one location and centralizes that collection of links would be AWESOME!

An that is just ONE piece. Oh well I am rambling. I just don't like that much information being on someone elses system.

oh well. later.

my 2 cents.

As a developer you wouldn't be writing it.

[tgd]

Thats what application frameworks are for. A web engineer will develop the widgets for the toolkits a framework team will develop, and application monkies write to those frameworks.

Thats the whole benefit of using XMLHttpRequest and DOM for those applications -- UI logic stays on the client, and business logic can stay on the server.

GMail is only the most visible application working that way these days. Tax software and a very large number of enterprise software applications are moving rapidly in that direction, as are the toolkits used by enterprise application developers.

why does this require a subject

[manitee]

while this isnt the optimal choice for most people, it would be great for many. think about your parents.

my mom is 59. she uses email and the internet via AOL. she opens photo attachments and, maybe once a month, does something in word or excel. when her PC acts up, she doesnt know anything about fixing it, nor does she want to take the time to fix it. a thin client would be ideal for her.

on the subject of thin clients, dont write them off - i wouldnt be surprised to see office environments return to thin client setups. i am an admin for a 50 person central office with 80 remote locations who all connect to us via terminal services. all their apps are web based, and there are no privacy issues since this is all company property and all usage should be work related. i am single handedly able to successfully administer a nationwide network of over 80 locations for the simple reason that all of the big iron is right here next to me, and all of the clients can be replaced within 15 minutes.

Re:TEH FUTURE!!!! (thermin music and handwaving...

[Cro Magnon]

Well, the "too cheap to meter" electricity would be a good way to recharge my flying car.

What a Tired, Dead Argument from Long Ago

[Ralph Spoilsport]

20 years ago, the idea was to put a dumb terminal in every home. The French built such a system and it failed.

Ellison was barking about "net computers" 10 years ago.

No one paid attention and for good reason. Why?

1. Bandwidth.
2. Storage Costs.
3. Computer costs.

1. Bandwidth
When the idiotic notion came up that broadband will kill the DVD, I responded here, noting that even in the middle of San Francisco, DSL is still painfully slow, and here it is, 2005. We're supposed to have jet packs by now, right? And TFA is talking about editing video over the web? Sure - in who's life time?

2. Storage Costs.
Continue to plummet. I remember when Ellison was barking about dumb terminals - RAM was extortionate. In '94 I bought a ONE GIGABYTE drive from HP for $580 and thought I'd gotten the deal of the decade. Now, for $80 less I can get a MiniMac and dozens of time more drive space PLUS a pile of RAM and processing power that totally smokes my creaky old Centris 650. I can now put on the end of my keychain what used to be a huge SCSI drive. Storage is no longer a problem.People not backing their stuff up is another issue, but it's not from lack of cheap drive space.

3. Computer Costs.
Which brings us to the cost of computers - I'm typing this on my old Blue and White G3 Yosemite. It's running in OS 9.2 and will do so as long as I own it. Why? Because it works. It has 80 gigs of drive space on three different drives - plenty of room for email and back up. I can do basic image editing in Photoshop 6, layout in FreeHand 9 or Quark 4, HTML editing in Dreamweaver 4, and ya know what? It fuckin' works. You can pick up a computer like this on eBay for next to nothing. What "Dumb Terminal" is going to compete with that? I saw someone dumping a perfectly good Dell P3 / 700 on the street last month - he was moving and couldn't give it away. I didn't want it - I already have my G3 / 350...

There is no economic incentive (as computers drive down in cost), there is no technical advantage (as storage drives down in cost) and, crucially: the bandwidth simply isn't there, period.

And won't be - for a very very long time.

Therefore: it's a dumb idea, it won't work, and it's as good as dead in the water.

TFA is full of crapola - typical techno-positivist day-dreaming nonsense - people who smoked the dotcon crack pipe and believed.

Idiots.

RS

MOD parent up.

[jimi the hippie]

You've got it to a certain extent. I think that this will not only apply to the Third world, but any company in the US. They can put Word Processing, E-Mail, Web browsing, and everything else into a central server. The server would be running an OS developed by Google. Then they could have a very simple "thin client" running on each person's desk. This would save the company a LOT of money, plus it would be easy to backup all the data because it would all be on one machine.

it'll never happen

[iamhassi]

" Interesting....At any rate, this could prove quite interesting and make irrelevant many of the security concerns that the average consumer faces as well as consolidate and ease software distribution issues."

for those who didn't RTFA her basic idea was this: someday your desktop might just be a terminal running GoogleOS remotely, and you'll pay a monthly fee for everything.

It'll never happen, and here's reasons why:
--large companies can do that now but many don't because it's cheaper to have a desktop with no monthly dues
--no matter how cheap the monthly fee is people still hate to be locked into monthly fees. Look how many people still use antennas on their TVs. Look how many people get the cheapest, crappiest cable plan. Look at the hard time XM and Sirrus satellite radio is having breaking in, even with just a $9 a month charge theres still lots of people who don't want to bother.
--what happens if you don't pay a month or two, do you lose all your data and family photos? Good luck convincing people to sign up for that plan!

Articles like this remind me of all those futuristic movies where the govt or companies will control everything and the people just follow what they're told. We're a long way from that.