Slashdot Mirror


Early AJAX Office Applications

prostoalex writes "Perhaps many, who viewed Zimbra presentation from yesterday, thought about other office-related applications they would like to see moved to the Web. Richard McManus on ZDNet provides a list of the currently available AJAX apps. Did you know there was AJAX word processor, AJAX spreadsheet, AJAX calendar, AJAX presentation-building software, AJAX e-mail client, AJAX note-taking software and some other interesting applications, which, deployed on your local server, do not need installation and "just work" in a browser window?"

426 comments

  1. Yes but... by yobbo · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...does it keep my kitchen clean?

    1. Re:Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't know about that, but if there is one thing I learned from Cheech & Chong its AJAX can be snorted for a quick pick-me-up. That and don't look at Strawberry's birt hmark.

  2. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm still waiting for an AJAX-based browser. Just think about it! The ability to use a browser without having to install it! You just browse on over to the site!

    1. Re:Meh by Scoria · · Score: 1

      Yes, and perhaps the cache sanitization utility could be called AJAX!

      I'll be here all week, unfortunately.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    2. Re:Meh by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Someone interested in porting firefox to AJAX? hey come on, i heard its ui is mainly made out of javascipt and some strange xml! and the rest happens in the backend with svg and images. so what?

      P.S.: This was meant to be *funny*. So DON'T try this at home. Yeah, i know your dark geeky side is coming up. But please! I repeat: DON'T DO IT!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Meh by saturnism · · Score: 1

      Come to think about it, how about those javascript desktops??

      http://www.x-desktop.org/
      http://robin.sourceforge.net/

      --
      it is me
    4. Re:Meh by kassemi · · Score: 1
      --
      What the hell's a "gewie?"
    5. Re:Meh by grommet_tdi · · Score: 2, Funny
      Reminds me of the old Steven Wright joke:

      "I bought some powdered water, but I don't know what to add to it."

    6. Re:Meh by Daengbo · · Score: 0

      I mentioned AjaxOffice (ajaxoffice.sourceforge.net) in my recent entry about this.

    7. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

  3. Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember java applets?! They were suppose to do these kind of things...

    1. Re:Java applets by Muppski · · Score: 1

      They did? Must have missed that, People dont seam to like Java applets anyways. Can't put my finger on what they dont like with that

    2. Re:Java applets by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

      Sun screwed it with their crappy and bloated VM...

      Microsoft JVM feels much faster than Sun VM. I remember one game by Jagex which made my 1.9GHz system (Sun VM) feel worse than M$ JVM on my Cyrix MII PR233 of years gone by.

      I used JamVM for my website instead of Sun too, because Sun was 37% slower of what just amounted to a blog with a MySQL backend! It was also harder to downsize since it wasn't built for footprint unlike JamVM.

    3. Re:Java applets by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with Java applets is they require too much to be installed on the client side. This has big security and performance implications, leaving aside the quality of the available JVMs. Nevertheless, if AJAX had not come along, I think we would have revisited how to make use of Java practicable. With AJAX, most of the application logic remains on the server side. This drastically improves the ease of implementation.

    4. Re:Java applets by hattig · · Score: 1

      Back in the 1.1.8 VM days, the Microsoft VM was faster than the Sun VM.

      However since then the Sun VM has become much much more performant.

      Never mind that Jagex now writes Java games (Runescape) that utilise OpenGL (via JOGL or GL4Java I imagine) and I really have a lot of doubts about how well those technologies integrates with the Microsoft VM.

      JamVM looks like a really neat thing though, and I will have to try it out sometime. However it is merely interpretive, like the pre 1.2 Sun VMs, so whilst it has optimisations, I am wondering how it can be faster than the Sun Hotspot VM.

      If there is anything that we can agree on, it is that Apple's VM sucks.

    5. Re:Java applets by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      here we have a great example: http://map24.com/
      They once had everything in the applet, but moved the column on the left side out of it.
      Just try it out (use the java applet that opens when you search for a location or route).

      And i must say i liked it.

      Now all i have to ask is: Wich one will be quicker and use less bandwidth? Java or Javascript+XML? ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:Java applets by RenatoRam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For one the fact that the starting VM can bring down to a halt even a semi-fast machine.

      Or the fact that applets are SLOW, whereas (for example) gmail and googlemaps are FAST.

      Or maybe it's that java guis just plain suck in pretty much every aspect (look, feel, functionality, ergonomy).

      Oh, and the fact that java is not installed on machines anymore (by default), whereas a browser is (even if maybe a louse one as IE6).

      Dunno, choose one :-)

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    7. Re:Java applets by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      In fact there is a full office suite from Thinkfree recently shipped. Its pure java and commercial. I used their 2.2 version offline on OS X and Win32.

      3.0 version runs in browser. http://www.thinkfree.com/

    8. Re:Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that Java applets did not succeed because they will always be more versatile. Case in point, the distance measuring tool (ruler icon) on http://map24.com/ that parent poster linked to.

      Admittedly the JVM deployment issue is a pain but I'm not sure it was in Microsoft's to lessen that. And so we now have Ajax instead.

    9. Re:Java applets by asb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, I do.

      When Java applets were the next hot thing, I could not use any of them because they all assumed that I had a 8 point font. With my 16 point font, entering data to text fields was a pain in the ass. Now, I go to see the Ajax applications. Lo and behold! All of them assume that I use a tiny 8 point font.

      I'll just move along. There seems to be nothing worth looking at here...

      --
      Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
    10. Re:Java applets by asb · · Score: 2, Insightful


      But still, all the user interface code is sent to the client in a human readable plaintext format. That is why you only see Flash demos of commercial Ajax applications.

      --
      Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
    11. Re:Java applets by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The one reason why AJAX apps are doing so much noise is that they use standards that work everywhere

      There's nothing stopping you from writing a C-based app which does most of the job on the server and which you download from a web page - put it in a restricted SELinux environment and you've the security. AJAX exist is just about convenience, not technical merits

    12. Re:Java applets by stymyx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with Java applets, is that they don't interact with the HTML of the page the way Javascript does. So my GUI has to be either ALL Java or ALL HTML. Whereas Javascript was designed up front to interact with the document DOM, and therefore it becomes easy to mix in to the web page.

    13. Re:Java applets by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Java web start is the obvious choice here. The fact that people are choosing AJAX instead of Java is due to the spectacular failure of SUN to....

      1) Make sure that every desktop gets a new JVM which updates itself automatically.
      2) Make sure that the java web start doesn't look ugly as ass and behaves weirdly.
      3) Present the platform as an alternative to HTML development.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    14. Re:Java applets by smallguy78 · · Score: 1

      The key word there, [b]suppose[/b] to

      --
      Nothing costs nothing
    15. Re:Java applets by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

        Remember java applets?! They were suppose to do these kind of things...


      Using Java Applets also involved

      - downloading binary code
      - downloading binary code in an age with fewer high speed connections
      - coordinating applets with versions of browsers and versions of plugins
      - using plugins made by Sun, the company who will never be accused of making anything easy
    16. Re:Java applets by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You should never need to change the point size of a user interface. If you are having problems reading it, then change the operating system's dpi setting for your monitor.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Java applets by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 1

      With firefox or safari you can use your own stylesheet to make everything bigger.

      input{
            height: 40px;
      }

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    18. Re:Java applets by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      With AJAX, most of the application logic remains on the server side. This drastically improves the ease of implementation.

      reminds me of thinclients...

      sounds like the return of shared computer time! As ajax gets more robust, we'll start having x-like remote GUI sessions where we can log in to a remote system to access applications.

      I wonder how long it will be before someone makes an x11 firefox plugin.

      I wonder how long it will be before someone creates a web-based desktop service (email client, movable windows, etc). I can totally see the beginnings of that to be like windows 1.0. No overlapping windows, much like today's webpages. Eventually it will evolve into overlapping <div> tags with window decorations and we'll have re-invented the desktop OS in a browser window.

      that actually sounds kinda neat.

      I've got an NCD thinclient box in my closet that I acquired from my friend. I could totally see desktop computers getting phased out and turned into gaming consoles. lots of graphics power but not much general purpose processing power. Keep costs down. Lots of video ram and a little regular ram. media-based games (CD/DVD/etc). log into microsoft.com for use of office and outlook and visual studio. pay subscription services. XBoxLive turns into XBoxMediaLive. uh oh.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    19. Re:Java applets by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Your problem is a non-starter. If you have trouble reading a website, you should not change the font settings of the operating system, you should change the size of the screen, or use the zoom function in your browser. But far be it from me to tell you how to use your computer.

      Secondly, AJAX uses Javascript and CSS extensively, thus, changing the size of the input font is not as difficult as you think. You can write your own stylesheet to resize all websites for you, or you can ask the developers to code it into their stylesheet and have a special setting for people who have a hard time seeing, are color blind, are completely blind, etc. CSS was invented to solve this problem on webpages ages ago; it's up to us to make sure companies implement the standards. We don't ask for it, we don't get it. Simple, right?

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    20. Re:Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implicit assumption: #define machines windows_xp_computers

      When I install win98, it still installs the old MS VM. When I install linux (slackware), it installs the newer java VM's. Must say, I don't have a machine that DOES NOT install it by default. IE, go along with the rest of the world and quit using WINXP.

    21. Re:Java applets by Victor_Os · · Score: 0

      they use standards

      Really?

      that work everywhere

      Do they?

    22. Re:Java applets by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      No all advanced "AJAX" applications detect browsers, and usually doesn't work on browser they do not explicitly support. Just look at GMail.

    23. Re:Java applets by squirrelpants · · Score: 1

      AJAX and the font size have nothing to do with one another. Font size is controled by CSS and HTML. AJAX handles sending and receiving data in the background.

    24. Re:Java applets by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Didn't you get that memo? The web is more professional in 7-point Verdana.

      Replace "Verdana" with "Bitstream Vera Sans" for open source geeks.

      sigh...

      --
      For more information, click here.
    25. Re:Java applets by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      There is a java-javascript bridge which can allow a java applet to do much the same stuff ajax does. The only real advantage of ajax over java is that ajax is using functionality built into most modern browsers while applets require a JVM and applet download (which is usually larger than the js used in ajax).

    26. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 2, Informative

      For one the fact that the starting VM can bring down to a halt even a semi-fast machine.

      On my workstation a VM starts in less than a second and uses only a fraction of memory by default. I fail to see how this can 'bring down' a machine.

      Or the fact that applets are SLOW, whereas (for example) gmail and googlemaps are FAST.

      Applets were slow about 7-8 years ago. Now there are high-performance JIT and Hotspot VMs.

      I don't find googlemaps fast! An applet that caches data locally can be pretty much as fast as you like.

      Or maybe it's that java guis just plain suck in pretty much every aspect (look, feel, functionality, ergonomy).

      This is a strange comment, as Java GUIs are totally customisable and 'skinnable' by developers. So, you are declaring that every aspect of several hundred different GUIs suck! Many Applets use the native GUI of the OS, so you are also saying that Windows, MacOS/X, KDE, GNOME etc. also suck!

      Oh, and the fact that java is not installed on machines anymore (by default), whereas a browser is (even if maybe a louse one as IE6).

      Java is pre-installed on more than half of all new PCs. If not, it is a once-only install that does not take that long on broadband....

      Seems like you are talking about applets as they were nearly a decade ago.

    27. Re:Java applets by ev0l · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This is simply not true. JavaScript can call any method of your applet class ...
      document.appletName.method();
      And the applet can call javaScrit by doing
      win = JSObject.getWindow(this);
      JSObject document = (JSObject) win.getMember("window");
      document.eval("someFunct ion()");
      Before ajax was around I was building dynamic web applications by using java applets that were not even visible on the page.
      &tl;applet
      border='0'
      width='0'
      height='0'
      ...
      &gt;
      The page would call a java applet method the method would contact the server and than update the webpage via javaScript. I now perfer AJAX mostly because I dislike java and I think it's a more elegant approach but that does not change the fact java applets can interact with a page using JavaScript.
    28. Re:Java applets by RenatoRam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On my workstation a VM starts in less than a second and uses only a fraction of memory by default. I fail to see how this can 'bring down' a machine.

      On my workstation (P4 with 512MB RAM) opening a page with applets results in several seconds of system slowdown (not mentioning browser freeze). If you ONLY use a browser and nothing else your figures may be sensible. If the machine is already overworked by a score of apps running concurrently, that's different.

      Applets were slow about 7-8 years ago. Now there are high-performance JIT and Hotspot VMs.

      You seem to live in a dreamworld. I have yet to se a fast applet, let alone a useful one.

      I don't find googlemaps fast! An applet that caches data locally can be pretty much as fast as you like.

      Yeah, and eating tons of RAM in the process, thank you. Besides, where are the real life implementations?

      This is a strange comment, as Java GUIs are totally customisable and 'skinnable' by developers. So, you are declaring that every aspect of several hundred different GUIs suck! Many Applets use the native GUI of the OS, so you are also saying that Windows, MacOS/X, KDE, GNOME etc. also suck!

      This seems to confirm that you are either a java zealot, a troll, or live in the aforementioned dreamworld. Java GUIs on windows are ugly but manageable. Java GUIs on linux look nothing like anything they are trying to emulate. And note that I also mentioned feel. Java apps NEVER feel like native ones (or maybe you are implying that all java developers are getting it wrong... which could well be :-) )

      The only exception seems to be SWT based apps, but that's cheating: SWT uses gtk on linux.

      Java is pre-installed on more than half of all new PCs. If not, it is a once-only install that does not take that long on broadband...

      Dunno where you live. Where I live, java is almost NEVER preinstalled. Broadband is not really broadly deployed, and a lot of users could well be incapable of installing a JVM.

      I'm not really trying to flame you or java or whatever...
      the fact is simply that I never stumbled on a useful java applet EVER. Quite the opposite: I've seen to many horrible and completely useless applets in these years. Just let java live on the server side (if anywhere), and put applets to rest, please.
      (in the past I've seen java buttons for navigating a site, made in java for no other purpose than a mousover effect. How lame is that?)

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    29. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 1

      On my workstation (P4 with 512MB RAM) opening a page with applets results in several seconds of system slowdown (not mentioning browser freeze). If you ONLY use a browser and nothing else your figures may be sensible.

      No. My figures are for a loaded machine.

      "Applets were slow about 7-8 years ago. Now there are high-performance JIT and Hotspot VMs."

      You seem to live in a dreamworld. I have yet to se a fast applet, let alone a useful one.


      If it is a dreamworld, it is one in which I make money as a Java developer! Just because you have yet to see what you believe is a fast applet, does not mean there aren't any. Applets are quite often used internally within companies to provide information. One example of a fast applet I have seen is a molecular display system used for teaching. Speed is important (it needs to render 3D pictures).

      This seems to confirm that you are either a java zealot, a troll, or live in the aforementioned dreamworld. Java GUIs on windows are ugly but manageable. Java GUIs on linux look nothing like anything they are trying to emulate. And note that I also mentioned feel. Java apps NEVER feel like native ones (or maybe you are implying that all java developers are getting it wrong... which could well be :-) )

      There are two types of GUI that are are used with applets. (1) The actual native GUI of the system. (2) Swing (which on systems like MacOS/X is coded by Apple to match the native GUI very closely indeed).

      To say that Java GUIs on Windows are ugly is to say that Windows is ugly, as the majority of applet GUIs on windows actually use Windows. To say (in the context of applets) that Java apps NEVER feel like native apps is simply nonsense, as this is to say that the Windows GUI never feels like the Windows GUI! Apple have put a lot of work in to ensure that even general Java apps on MacOS/X look exactly like native Mac apps. To say that Java apps on Linux 'never look like anything they are trying to emulate' is not only wrong, it is factually incorrect, as the most popular Java app on Linux - Eclipse does not emulate anything! It uses standard GUI libraries like Motif and GTK.

      "Java is pre-installed on more than half of all new PCs. If not, it is a once-only install that does not take that long on broadband..."

      Dunno where you live. Where I live, java is almost NEVER preinstalled. Broadband is not really broadly deployed, and a lot of users could well be incapable of installing a JVM.


      Again, you are extrapolating your personal experience as if it was general. In the UK, for example broadband IS broadly deployed. As for installing a JVM, this is a single click!

      I'm not really trying to flame you or java or whatever...

      The 'you live in a dreamworld' statements suggest the opposite.

      the fact is simply that I never stumbled on a useful java applet EVER. Quite the opposite: I've seen to many horrible and completely useless applets in these years. Just let java live on the server side (if anywhere), and put applets to rest, please.

      Why should developers stop using applets (which can provide very fast browser-based GUIs for many purposes) stop using applets just because you have never 'stumbled' on a useful Java applet?

    30. Re:Java applets by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1
      On my workstation a VM starts in less than a second and uses only a fraction of memory by default. I fail to see how this can 'bring down' a machine.
      Our mileage obviously varies: I have Java disabled in my browsers because it definitely interferes with my browsing more than it helps it...
    31. Re:Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the main problem is that people want to design pixel-perfect UI and assume the user is 2 feet from a 17" screen at 1024x768. That's what it seems most UI is tested for.

      Test against a 1920x1080 widescreen TV at 12 feet, or a 1600x1200 120dpi widescreen laptop at 2 feet, or a 240x320 PDA display at arms' length...

      The funny thing is that most UI is catering to 'desktop' conventions from 1997 when more and more people want less busy UI usable without leaning into the monitor.

    32. Re:Java applets by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      First things first: java apps on windows may look almost native, but most of the time they do not feel so. Heavy, with custom open/save/print dialogs, and so on. But maybe it's only bad luck on my part.

      To say that Java apps on Linux 'never look like anything they are trying to emulate' is not only wrong, it is factually incorrect, as the most popular Java app on Linux - Eclipse does not emulate anything! It uses standard GUI libraries like Motif and GTK.

      I notice you bypassed the remark on SWT. SWT is not java. SWT is native GTK. And is slow and heavy. And I don't think you can use it in applet, do you?

      So applets can use AWT (horrendously limited) or Swing (slow on windows and osx, slow and butt-ugly on linux)... that's not really "wow", is it?

      Why should developers stop using applets (which can provide very fast browser-based GUIs for many purposes) stop using applets just because you have never 'stumbled' on a useful Java applet?

      Oh, I'm not trying to stop anyone.
      This thread originated from a guy asking "why do people dislike applets?". I provided some reasons.

      I really don't think that nobody shares this opinions, since from other discussions it always seem like the only ones that use Java based gui apps (client, not applet) are java programmers, and I don't see many praises about "oh-so-great" java-applet based apps 'round.
      The only widely deployed client java gui apps are either for java programmers or in SWT, or both (e.g. NetBeans, Eclipse, Azureus).

      Your example of chemical visualization applet sounds neat, for example, in its niche of application. I'm not implying that it's not at all _possible_ do make a fast and useful applet. It's just not done :-)

      I reiterate: can you point me to 2-3 applets available on the web that you consider valuable, useful and maybe even cool?

      Some times ago I found a jabber client applet: cool!
      Yeah, and slow, and cumbersome.

      Compare with

      http://jwchat.org/

      Browser based AJAX jabber client. It works, it's fast, and light. I'd never consider the possibility to use the applets again.

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    33. Re:Java applets by 6*7 · · Score: 1

      It may all depend on the browser, for some reason firefox is extremly slow in starting a JVM, also the whole browsers is unusable during the startup. On the other hand mozilla is much faster even though they both use the exact same plugin!

    34. Re:Java applets by drew · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think all of your points could be summed up as:

      The reason people use AJAX over Java applets is due to the spectacular failure of SUN to make Java not suck.
      (At least for app development. I will concede that Java doesn't necessarily suck for server side development, even though I personally dislike it.)

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    35. Re:Java applets by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

      For an example of a *slow* applet. Try Runescape.
      runescape.com
      3D MUD in an applet. I'd like to see that one tried with AJAX.

      If starting the VM brings down even a slow machine, there is something wrong with the machine. The javascript interpeter in your web browser is just a different kind of virtual machine.

      Speed of an Applet or an AJAX app (or any app) is much more dependent on the people who wrote the app than the platform its running on.

      As for GUIs, again, its up to the developer. No one forces them to use AWT/Swing. You can use them or write your own. Hmmm, just like the proposed AJAX apps.

      Not everywhere, well, thats a given.

      How about some reasons to use an applet. Mature development environments exist. They can be run through a debugger. Apps can be built in a fraction of the time and be more robust. Since you brought up IE6, avoid the IE6 memory leak in its javascript interpreter.

      OTOH, all of these arguments could be made for using Flash also.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    36. Re:Java applets by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      Speaking of that, I remember when Java applets were also the rage, and I turned them off because they were slug-slow on my 56kb model. Low and behold, I tried "Writerly" and it is slug-slow on my 56kb modem. Would someone wake me up with an original that makes sense?

      Web searches belong on the web. Office apps and Photoshop belong on my local machine. My data belongss wherever I wish to send it. Is that so terrible?

    37. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I notice you bypassed the remark on SWT. SWT is not java. SWT is native GTK. And is slow and heavy. And I don't think you can use it in applet, do you?

      SWT IS Java, in precisely the same way that AWT is Java. There is no difference - they are just alternatives. Most applets use AWT which is native, so you are criticising the native GUI! You can use SWT in signed applets.

      The only widely deployed client java gui apps are either for java programmers or in SWT, or both (e.g. NetBeans, Eclipse, Azureus).

      This isn't true. There are many widely used Java apps, and far more which use Swing than SWT. One example from last year was the mars rover data viewer which huge numbers of people downloaded from NASA.

      Your example of chemical visualization applet sounds neat, for example, in its niche of application. I'm not implying that it's not at all _possible_ do make a fast and useful applet. It's just not done :-)

      It is done, because that example shows that it is done!

      So applets can use AWT (horrendously limited) or Swing (slow on windows and osx, slow and butt-ugly on linux)... that's not really "wow", is it?

      This is simply wrong. Swing is not slow on Windows, OS/X or Linux! It is OpenGL and DirectX accelerated on the appropriate platforms. You may *think* it is slow, based on an old-fashioned experience from years ago, but that is now a minority view.

      As for Swing being 'butt-ugly' - there is no single Swing look or feel to call 'butt-ugly'. There are hundreds; so if you don't like the look and feel then change it!

      Browser based AJAX jabber client. It works, it's fast, and light. I'd never consider the possibility to use the applets again.

      AJAX has advantages, but it is only a front end, and is certainly not fast or flexible for things like that molecule viewer.

      I reiterate: can you point me to 2-3 applets available on the web that you consider valuable, useful and maybe even cool?

      No. I can't point to 2 or 3 AJAX sites that are cool either - I only use 1 (Google maps) and only for fun occasionally. I have found applets to be a valuable way to provide fast GUIs on intranets.

    38. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 1

      The problem with Java applets is they require too much to be installed on the client side. This has big security and performance implications, leaving aside the quality of the available JVMs

      These days, even an install of a few tens of Megabytes is insignificant. As for security, that has almost never been an issue with applets. Regarding performance implications - what are they? Modern JVMs are fast. The JVMs available these days that you will need to provide applet capabilities on most platforms are the latest from Sun and Apple. These are Java 5.0 and are fast, secure and robust, so what is the quality issue?

    39. Re:Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But HTML/CSS/Ajax apps can have fluid layouts, so if I make my window wider, they get wider. You know, like how every other window in existence works?

      Is it possible to make Java applets take up the entire size of the browser window?

    40. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to make Java applets take up the entire size of the browser window?

      Yes. You can do this with a combination of JavaScript and the LiveConnect API.

    41. Re:Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have built java and AJAX apps, and I have to disagree with you on this one.

      Have you actually developed AJAX apps? It is most definitely worse than writing java apps. At least in java you have a coherent and usable (albeit ugly) component framework. AJAX has html forms, divs, iframes and a whole lot of javascript. That just sucks.

      Plus, debugging java apps is definitely much easier. Just try setting a breakpoint in javascript, in all browsers you're targetting.

    42. Re:Java applets by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      You give a mathematical/logical proof that fast java apps exist. I'm fine with that.

      I say that the simple fact that you have to struggle to find 2-3 apps worth mentioning gives me practical proof that they are RARE, thus proving my point.

      Besides, directx or opengl acceleration means close to nothing to the percieved speed of an application. If your app does OpenGL visualization then good. But 99% of the apps dont.

      On the subject of SWING looks: if I understand correctly only Java5 apps _correctly coded_ obey to the SWING LAFs, the gtk LAF is still very buggy, and the others are just skins. A skin does not give you look an feel. Just look.

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    43. Re:Java applets by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I would rephrase that as the spectacular success of Microsoft in their effort to make Java suck.

      The only thing wrong with Java 5 is that it's not installed.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    44. Re:Java applets by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Having just done a comparison of JWChat and JBother, the Java applet is orders of magnitude superior to the scrubbing cleanser version.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    45. Re:Java applets by jo42 · · Score: 1

      It's Java craplets you insensitive clod!

    46. Re:Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reiterate: can you point me to 2-3 applets available on the web that you consider valuable, useful and maybe even cool?

      Take a look at some of the stuff that Yahoo is putting out. Almost all of the games at their games site are implemented as applets. You won't be able to look at it, but their StatTracker application for their fantasy sports leagues (I've only used the classic fantasy baseball one) is nice too. You can also take a look at some of the scoreboard pages at SportsLine (which use applets to update scores without a browser refresh)

      All of these applets load almost instantaneously on my computer (applet initialization only...they then pull their resources from the net which takes time).

    47. Re:Java applets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to live in a dreamworld. I have yet to se a fast applet, let alone a useful one.

      Then you haven't seen the power, utility, and sophistication of this :) http://www.asciimation.co.nz/

    48. Re:Java applets by misleb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and ajax applications are even slower than Java.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    49. Re:Java applets by PlacidPundit · · Score: 1
      Have you actually developed AJAX apps? It is most definitely worse than writing java apps. At least in java you have a coherent and usable (albeit ugly) component framework. AJAX has html forms, divs, iframes and a whole lot of javascript. That just sucks.

      I have to agree on this. The only thing AJAX has on Java is that it's easier to design slick custom visual styles. AJAX is not only a hack, it's an unsatisfying hack. And it takes a *lot* of work for a reasonable result.

      It kind of reminds me of developing snazzy games back in the days of DOS and the EGA/VGA. If you knew your stuff, dropped down to Assembler, and worked for a long time, you could do some rather neat stuff. But it certainly wasn't a "good" way of doing it.

    50. Re:Java applets by misleb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, too bad HTML almost completely lacks usuable GUI components. Trying to make desktop-like applications using ajax/HTML is a waste of time. All UI components need to be built from the ground up using Javascript. And that is just slow. Worse than Java's AWT. The document model simply isn't designed for desktop quality applicaitons. They way to really leverage ajax is to use something like Mozilla's XUL. Now that is a real web application environment. What we need is for all browsers to pick up XUL (or something like it)

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    51. Re:Java applets by misleb · · Score: 1

      The problem with Ajax is precicely that it DOES interact with HTML and not, say, some sane GUI model. Easy to mix with a web page, hard to make a good desktop-style application with. Mind you, AJAX is not limited to HTML. You could, for example, use it with XUL. Unfortunately it only works with Mozilla based browsers.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    52. Re:Java applets by misleb · · Score: 1

      First of all, Google Maps and Gmail are relatively simple applications. Web applications just dont' scale. Once you get beyond the complixity of a email client or simple map pan/scan, web applications get horrendously slow. Mostly because HTML lacks GUI components and you need to manufacture them in Javascript. Once you start doing that, you see performance drop dramtically. Look at all the "JSUI" libraries. They suck. Worse than Java applets. And they aren't going to get any better.

      If you think Google Maps is neat, download Google Earth. Try doing that on the web.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    53. Re:Java applets by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      You are comparing a web app with a webstart application?
      In case you did not notice the thread was on applets. Webstart does not seem like an applet at all, does it?

      If I have to install something, it will bloody well be Psi or Gaim, then!

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    54. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 1

      You give a mathematical/logical proof that fast java apps exist. I'm fine with that.

      I didn't give a mathematical proof of fast Java apps. It is simple experience. I'll give you one extreme example that is quite fun - Java is getting widely used in the aerospace industry for real-time control because it is both fast and very safe and secure. Boeing now have a remote-controlled & robotic plane that has it's software written in Java. Also, one of the competitors in this year's DARPA robot vehicle race - Tommy - has software written in Java. So, this is fast, real-time AI and control software - in Java. So, you may not think that Java is fast, but Boeing does! I believe them.

      I say that the simple fact that you have to struggle to find 2-3 apps worth mentioning gives me practical proof that they are RARE, thus proving my point.

      I struggled to find 2-3 applets worth mentioning. Quality Java GUI applications are numerous. Apart from Eclipse, NetBeans and Intelli/J (used by hundreds of thousands of developers), I'll mention a few others:

      the oXygen XML/XSLT editor/processor (I use it pretty often).
      Jake2 is a Java version of Quake2. Fast, 3D.
      Blue - music composition system for Csounds synth - multimedia, real-time.
      Raja - a high-performance 3D rendering system.
      Cabochon - a MUD RPG that uses Swing (and also uses embedded Jython)

      There are thousands of boring Swing apps out there - system monitoring, reporting, database quering etc, but I picked some which were fun and showed specifically that Java can be used for high performance stuff.

      Besides, directx or opengl acceleration means close to nothing to the percieved speed of an application. If your app does OpenGL visualization then good. But 99% of the apps dont.

      On windows Java apps use directx/opengl by default, so your 99% is false. And they do have a direct effect on the speed, as this API is used for almost all aspects of the GUI display - bitmaps, line drawing, filling etc.

      On the subject of SWING looks: if I understand correctly only Java5 apps _correctly coded_ obey to the SWING LAFs

      I don't understand what you mean by this.

      the gtk LAF is still very buggy

      True.

      and the others are just skins.

      I don't understand what you mean by this. The Windows Swing UI is not a skin. The MacOS/X UI is not a skin (and is so close the the native UI that most people never notice).

      A skin does not give you look an feel. Just look

      True, but the feel of any Swing APP is fully tunable, by subclassing the standard controls.

    55. Re:Java applets by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      See the object of this thread? It's "java applets".

      Why do you keep listing full fledged applications?

      I assume you share my opinion on semi useless and ugly applets, then ;-P

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    56. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 1

      See the object of this thread? It's "java applets".

      Why do you keep listing full fledged applications?


      Because poster keep mentioning Java rather than 'Java applets', with such statements as 'Java is dead' or 'Java is slow'. I am replying to what is actually posted, rather that what posters think they are posting. However, there seems to be such misunderstanding here that I would not be surprised if many posters actually believe that Java is only applets!

      I assume you share my opinion on semi useless and ugly applets, then ;-P

      That is too simple :)

      I believe that a large number of applets are definitely semi-useless and ugly, but that is not my point. I believe that applets can be highly useful and attractive, especially now that developers aren't relying on the ugly and outdated Microsoft JVM that was bundled with Windows for years, and which resulted in most of the problems. Now that companies like Dell and Apple are bundling up-to-date JVMs, Applets can start to be a very useful technology again. They don't need to be restricted to fixed-size grey squares. They can use some very beautiful and innovative Swing-based GUIs. They can use the huge hotspot-based performance improvements in Java 1.4 and 5.0.

      I think AJAX is really useful, but it just won't cut it for really high response situations - games for example, or real-time reports. Or serious graphics. Applets can now handle this kind of thing. That is what I use them for.

    57. Re:Java applets by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      You know what's really funny?

      That you and I in reality agree on most things (with the exception that you like java and I don't) :-)

      I was just a wee bit too harsh in the first message and we got a bit carried away (oh, and don't mix up memes: it's "BSD is dead", and "Java is slow"!).

      Anyway, I was just ranting, basing myself on a long record of bad experiences.

      Oh, and besides... java sucks! /me ducks ;-)

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    58. Re:Java applets by Decaff · · Score: 1

      You know what's really funny?

      That you and I in reality agree on most things (with the exception that you like java and I don't) :-)


      True.

      I was just a wee bit too harsh in the first message and we got a bit carried away (oh, and don't mix up memes: it's "BSD is dead", and "Java is slow"!).

      I don't think I got carried away. I was trying (and obviously failing) to describe what applets can do now, as against what people have been doing with applets for the best part of 10 years.

      You have forgotten "Sun is doomed" and "Microsoft is evil" (well, the last one is true actually)

    59. Re:Java applets by Tellalian · · Score: 1

      Now, I go to see the Ajax applications. Lo and behold! All of them assume that I use a tiny 8 point font.

      In Firefox, increase text size with Ctrl++. Problem solved.

      Although I'm not sure what you're complaining about. The apps I visited all had 12pt font.

    60. Re:Java applets by drew · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've written 'AJAX' applications. I've been writing them since 2001. It's not the easiest platform to develop for, but it's not that bad either.

      The reason Java failed is not that Java applications suck to write. From all accounts, and from my admittedly limited personal experience, Java is a great language to do application development in. The problem with Java applications is that they suck to use. Nobody (at least nobody I've ever talked to) likes using aplications written in Java. They're terrible. Every single Java application I've ever used has been hideous and slow, with one exception. The Zend IDE for PHP was still terribly slow, but it did at least manage to be almost attractive.

      So tell me, what good is it to have a language that's easy to develop in if nobody ever wants to use the result? I'd rather spend a little bit more time in an environment that is harder to program for in order to end up with an application that is far more pleasant to use.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  4. Web Applications by MadX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I really like the way that Web apps are starting to make a comeback.
    Yes, it's true that there will always be problems with compatibility in browsers,
    but at the end of the day, to make the underlying OS insignificant, it makes the adoption of alternate OS's become easier.

    Who knows, maybe the pressure will cause other proprietary companies to start looking at the way they
    do business ? A pipe dream now ... but so was flying to the moon !!

    1. Re:Web Applications by trentrez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Forgive me for saying this, as my understanding of the X Windows model is limited, but aren't rich web applications like this moving towards a server client model similar to how X works. Except in this instance we have the web server serving the applications' content and the browser acting as the client.

      It's quite ironic that all this talk of the OS becoming insignificant is just yet us piling another layer on top of our systems. Shouldn't more effort be focused on making a standard and open windowing system so that developers have one windowing GUI to think about when making their apps (instead of the current big three, namely MS Windows, X Windows and Mac OS X). Yes web apps address this, but in my opinion the way they are approaching the solution is completely backwards.

      Fair enough these web apps allow you to access your program on the move, allowing you to only worry about whether the terminal you are sat at has a nice browser that supports JavaScript, but think about Exchange server when coupled with Outlook Web Access - we suddenly see that these rich AJAX apps are nothing new and are in fact a step in the wrong direction. We should be focused on bringing everything down a level - not piling everything inside a web browser.

      Imagine an OS model where you have a server running at a nice secure location with all your applications running 24/7 then you have a standard windowing desktop client OS that connects to your server to bring up your apps and data where ever you are, be it at work, home or sat on a train on your PDA. I think having a windowing system that would allow this would be far more advantageous than using either remote desktop (VNC etc) or rich web apps (Java, AJAX etc).

    2. Re:Web Applications by prell · · Score: 1

      From AJAX to moon shots with no intermediate steps.. you must be a programmer.

      (so am I ;-)

    3. Re:Web Applications by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's been happening in the IT department and IS departments for a couple of years now. Every app we write is now a webapp. it eliminates any load on the IT guys because the apps simply exist without having to install them. Granted it makes them all unavailable when the webserver goes down as well as the backup webserver. but the same goes for most enterprise level apps anyways as they use a server side component already.

      we have written 10 critical apps that the company absolutely relies on, the timesheets for hourly employees is web based, most of the finance apps are now as well as the sales tools are in the office.

      hell the latest sales tool app came with a function to have blackberry friendly pages. Cince all our company blackberries are "on the intranet" they can access inside webapps are useable and secure. This gives the sales force a huge advantage to be able to enter orders on their crackberry at the customer's site.

      I.T. is whining though. the biggest hog of computing is the MS apps. everything else can be done just fone on the computers we had in place 4 years ago... we have to upgrade all PC's simply to support the office suite andemail/groupware because msft thinks that office needs more bloat. (Office 2003 migration is starting this week)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Web Applications by notdanielp · · Score: 1

      Oracle Guy:
      Larry Ellison.

      --
      The president has been kidnapped by ninjas!
      Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?
    5. Re:Web Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but also in a way, the source is hidden, and you can't control the application because computation is done server side and not client side.

    6. Re:Web Applications by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Why would enyone want a come back in web applications. Web applications served a purpose a few years ago in making a booming economy in US, only to later see it all come crashing to an end. Web applications, as they are to day, are a good example of using the wrong technology for wrong purpose. No mater how hard you try, most web apps are writen in languages designed for the transportation and display of static documents. By overlaying this simple technology with scripting languages like ECMAScript (which I do beleive is one of the best languages ever created) we only add complication to confusion. The Web browser was not intended to run rich applications, and even with all the bandages placed on top of the aging technology we have been unable to effectively produce true applications through the web.

      AJAX as it is called now (I worked with this technology years before it was known as AJAX among the general populous) is not a cure to a problem but more a symptom of a growing disease. Most people who are browsing the web or using web applications do so on general purpose micro computers. These computers are capable of far more than browsing semi-dynamic documents, yet we have relegated them to this exact position. Rather than move forward and use the ideas of distributed computing power we have gone back to the days of dumb terminals, letting servers take on the full responsibility of everything except rendering of display data.

      If remote applications is what the people want (I am not convinced it is), then there must be a better solution. With the creation of an Application Browser we may beable to bring this idea of functional web applications to actual usage. Tacking on extensions to web technologies, such as XUL and XAML, are fair starts but there needs to be a ground up approach to the growing problem. In what little free time I have I do personal spend time working on this problem, but untill a major company (even through the Open Source community) is willing to take the risk and promote such ideas I think it is mostly doomed. We will continue to repeat past failures and show the populous that the computers we love are truelly usless machines being supported by geeks with neat ideas, but in the end turning out nothing truely usefull to the general public.

      We have come so far these days that my modern PC uses little more power than the terminals of 20 years. Beyond the higher resolutions there is little if any thing new. We got where we are with different OSes and different producers of software and hardware for a reason, so that the best would win, not so we would use a dumbed down inferior technology to bring them all the an equal (but different) playing field.

    7. Re:Web Applications by jafac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I, as a user, have to "Pay-per-use" for their AJAX word-processor, then screw it. I'll download and install one of the fine, free alternatives, or bite the bullet, and buy a copy of MS Office.

      The reason Web Apps failed, is because they tried to impose a "pay-per-use" model, and failed to develop any reasonably workable micropayments system (in other words, pay-per-use means macropayments per use.)

      Fuck that.

      I already have a monthly electric bill, a monthly transportation bill, a monthly mortgage payment, a monthly internet service fee, a monthly phone bill. I earn a flat monthly salary.

      I want a flat fee up front, and unlimited use on the back end of the deal, and I don't want planned obsolescence built into the product either.
      Nicking into my monthly budget is why web apps failed in the past, and why they will fail in the future.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    8. Re:Web Applications by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think web apps will fail. They make A LOT of sense in a corporate environment. A lot of companies already require their users to use Citrix to centralize administration. For a company if all internal apps could run on a browser it would a godsend. No more desktop apps to support. Everything managable from a central server, etc, etc. I think that oddly what has made web apps practical now is that cheap client desktops are now fast enough to run javascript and whatnot at a speed that is useable.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  5. Webservices gone mad by ReformedExCon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Webservices were going to rule the computing world. You'd download apps as you needed them from vendors, then they would automatically bill you for the rental, but only for the time spent using the actual product.

    That idea died a horrible death, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make the Network the Computer.

    Now webservices are back, but instead of building miniature application control building blocks, the entire application interface is downloaded to your browser. Everything immediate runs client-side and anything that needs a backend is sent upstream to the server. No more trying to keep a network connection alive between the client PC and the network server. Everything can be kept very asynchronous.

    It's no surprise that this is the way things are evolving. Even the first CGI programs foretold this type of usage pattern. You'd get an interface on the client side and the heavy processing would be done on the server. But now with faster connections and the ability to run more stuff on the client side, a lot of processing can be and has been pushed off the server and onto the client browser.

    It's very interesting, and quite a pleasant break from the barrage of boring sysadmin-specific stories here.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Webservices gone mad by Ewan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surely Sun said the network was the computer?

    2. Re:Webservices gone mad by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "That idea died a horrible death, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make the Network the Computer."

      You're thinking of Sun ("The Network is the Computer". Microsoft doesn't want network applications to take off because it undermines the strength of their platform.

    3. Re:Webservices gone mad by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      You are right. That was Sun. But with regards to trying to actually implement usable web-based services, it has been Microsoft who has been the most vocal and active member of the computing community. They are at the helm of all sorts of initatives like SOAP, UPnP, now ASP.Net and others no doubt coming. They were the ones who tried to put actual application controls directly into IE (ActiveX) so that web-borne applications would have full access to the client system.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    4. Re:Webservices gone mad by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      I'm going to just point you to this webpage and let you come to your own conclusions.

      http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    5. Re:Webservices gone mad by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      That idea died a horrible death, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make the Network the Computer.

      As others have pointed out, the Network is the Computer was actually Suns slogan. I believe Microsoft did everything in their power to destroy that idea and the idea of platform independence, because at the time they had nothing to compete with in that area, and if it took off it would reduce the importance of Windows and Office. See for instance their immediate attempt to destroy cross-platform Java by introducing Windows platform specifics in the core libraries.

      User interface components seems to be the new preferred way to try to lock customers and users in to a specific platform. Previously it was the OS and the apps, but now their relevance is fading. So now we get SWT from IBM trying to triumph Swing in the Java world, and Microsoft trying to get developers dependent on WinForms for instance.

      For all the hype, AJAX is just another attempt to plug the feature gap in using web based interfaces (XUL, Java Server Faces, JavaScript...). I think developers are using a cobbled together approach based on web pages + lots of scipting and extra libraries, when perhaps they should considering going all the way and do a heavy client instead. This would reduce complexity and development time and still allow reasonable platform independence. These days they can be just as easily deployed and automatically updated when the server changes, for instance Java Web Start.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    6. Re:Webservices gone mad by vmahrra · · Score: 1

      "That idea died a horrible death, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make the Network the Computer."

      I think you'll find it was actually Sun's efforts, even after his efforts with the godawful Network Computer failed McNealy still goes on about it

      http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2002-09/sunf lash.20020918.21.html

    7. Re:Webservices gone mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is far more recent.

    8. Re:Webservices gone mad by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      Sun coined the slogan in 1987. Even when Windows 95 was launched nine years later Microsoft hadn't realized the power of the net and was taken by surprise, Bill Gates has admitted as much himself in interviews.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    9. Re:Webservices gone mad by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      I was using the wrong slogan, but I don't think it's true that Microsoft was wholeheartedly behind destroying web services. As I mentioned in another post, Microsoft has actually been one of the leaders in developing the protocols that allow web services. The difference between their vision and "your" (the general "you") vision is that instead of seeing web services as a means of freeing yourself from a single operating system or browser vendor, Microsoft sees web services as a way of freeing you from your desk and allowing you to do your work anywhere that you've got an internet connection, on Windows PCs (naturally).

      That's why ActiveX was their big idea back in 1994. You'd just download the ActiveX control to let you host applications directly in your browser, and if you needed to move somewhere else, you could just get that ActiveX control easily off the web at another computer.

      Their vision is Windows everywhere, but that doesn't preclude them from seeing distributed computing as the antithesis to this goal. They see platform independence as the antithesis, which is why they killed Java and why they took on Netscape head-on. Now they can see that they can hold on to their marketshare by simply supplying better tools and better libraries to developers. The developers will keep the users on Windows, Microsoft just needs to make the OS and tools attractive to the programmers and the lock in is automatic.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    10. Re:Webservices gone mad by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      I was referring to this in my reply:

      "Microsoft doesn't want network applications to take off because it undermines the strength of their platform."

      I was not referring to the slogan misattribution (which, frankly, is hardly the most important point in my original post).

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    11. Re:Webservices gone mad by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      They were the ones who tried to put actual application controls directly into IE (ActiveX) so that web-borne applications would have full access to the client system.

      Sun did that with Applets in 1995, only with a much stricter security system in place.

      They are at the helm of all sorts of initatives like SOAP, UPnP, now ASP.Net

      ASP.Net are an initiative of what? An awkward merging of two technologies so that ASP developers won't be frightened away?

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    12. Re:Webservices gone mad by TummyX · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty lame example. Web services, from Microsoft's point of view, will allow rich (hint: windows) applications to programmatically communicate with websites. For example, a Windows application that allows you to do shopping (without a browser) on Amazon by calling amazon's API.

      Web services complement but aren't themselves web based applications like the ones in the article.

    13. Re:Webservices gone mad by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I think whole .NET deal and billions spent to product/platform has one purpose: services.

      You would wonder what would they do if .NET really becomes multiplatform. Well, their recent act against Mono guys explains a lot in this purpose.

    14. Re:Webservices gone mad by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Webservices were going to rule the computing world. You'd download apps as you needed them from vendors, then they would automatically bill you for the rental, but only for the time spent using the actual product.

      My understanding was that "web services" referred to the SOAP (XML)-based information services that first appeared in the early 2000's; they didn't provide an application, per se, just information with a standardised API and return format. So, for example, I wrote a simple Perl script that used SOAP to take music information from Amazon's database and store it in a file; another script wrote the information to my MP3s (could have done it automatically, but I needed to verify the information was correct).

      The Java Applets, by contrast, were effectively over-the-web applications.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    15. Re:Webservices gone mad by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      I think it depends on your perspective. If you are looking for platform independence, then Microsoft's solutions are obviously not going to fall into the realm of what you consider "web services". But web applications, as I mentioned way back in my original post, can be anything from simple client-side Javascript utilities (primitive calculators come to mind) and simple CGI programs (like the example in the CGI chapter of Learning Perl) all the way up to full blown applications which rely on a slew of technologies. Microsoft provides a set of technologies as well, but these may or may not work properly on non-Windows/non-IE systems. But the technologies are out there and provide web-borne services that are more full-featured than barebones Javascript.

      I agree that Microsoft's web services are very limiting for those seeking to use non-Microsoft platforms. However, just because it comes from a vendor I may not like and restricts me from using non-vendor platforms, I don't agree that you can disqualify the technology on that basis.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    16. Re:Webservices gone mad by trezor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ASP.Net are an initiative of what? An awkward merging of two technologies so that ASP developers won't be frightened away?

      Say again? I've done all sorts of programming from Motorola assembly to php and java, both professionaly and purely on a hobby-basis, so I consider my sellf a more than competent and experienced enough developer. I've also worked quite a bit with ASP.NET.

      Sure ASP.NET may not be the right tool for every job, but then again what is? Making web-applications with ASP.NET feels like breeze compared to doing the same stuff in say php. The fact that it's event-based with a solid foundation making that the underlying protocols and technology transparent to developer, actually means that you can immidiately focus on the application logic, and doesn't have to worry about every god damn thing involving web-communication.

      Sure, I know how that works, I know the low-level protocols, I can implement it if I have to, but the fact that I don't need to feels damn good. The .NET Framework supplies tons of goodies for those who know how to take advantage of it.

      For instance, directly coupled database to webpage data-linking, including the ability to manipulate date with next to no programming. Please tell me how this can be done in less than 10 lines of code in php. As a developer, I'm really happy that I don't have to rewrite the same DB-logic, reference the same db-field names, link them to similary named html-controls, and vice-verce for updates. It makes my life simpler. What's wrong with that?

      Dismissing ASP.NET as something that only unskilled developers would use is ignorant at best.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    17. Re:Webservices gone mad by lushman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I too was skeptical about AJAX when I first saw a demo. Given an intuitive IDE you can realise your vision very very quickly. AJAX applications are fast and lightweight. Maintaining them is incredibly easy and the deployment is a cinch.

      I admit, I was enthusiastic about Java Swing applets at one point, but they really haven't evolved from the clunky things they were ten years ago. AJAX isn't just a stupid acronym. It's a truly workable system.

      For a good IDE check out TIBCO General Interface - it's not open source but it can give you a good idea of what is possible with this technology.

    18. Re:Webservices gone mad by aug24 · · Score: 1
      Sure ASP.NET may not be the right tool for every job, but then again what is?

      As far as I can tell from the fanboys, it's either PHP or Python.

      Hope that helps ;-)

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    19. Re:Webservices gone mad by killjoe · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Please tell me how this can be done in less than 10 lines of code in php."

      PHP Lens, there are others.

      I do find your santimony amusing though. You go on bragging about how ASP.NET is better then PHP as if that says something. Is it better then webobjects? Is it better then tapestry? is it better then ruby on rails? Is slapping gui controls in visual studio easier then using Java studio creator?

      ASP.NET is just another freakin web application toolkit. To me it's in the middle to the bottom of the pack. There is nothing special about it, there are many products that are easier to use, create more cross browser applications, cost less, and make more scalable and easier to maintain code.

      I just don't get you guys obsession with such a mediocre tool and programming paradigm.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    20. Re:Webservices gone mad by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Also take a look at this

      --
      evil is as evil does
    21. Re:Webservices gone mad by prell · · Score: 1

      Just a reminder that Mono has ASP.NET. You can get an Apache plugin too.

    22. Re:Webservices gone mad by tau-lepton · · Score: 1

      Dude, ASP is so 90's try Ruby on Rails, or CakePHP (since you already know PHP).

    23. Re:Webservices gone mad by Cederic · · Score: 1


      >> For instance, directly coupled database to webpage data-linking, including the ability to manipulate date with next to no programming. Please tell me how this can be done

      wtf? ASP.net's primary market is commercial website development. People serving that market really should not be directly coupling web pages to the underlying data.

      Have you heard of MVC? Of Front-Controller? Of de-coupled code? Of maintainability?

      ASP.net may well be the dogs bollocks, but that's no excuse to use it to write bollocks code.

    24. Re:Webservices gone mad by trezor · · Score: 1

      ASP.net's primary market is commercial website development. People serving that market really should not be directly coupling web pages to the underlying data.

      By that statement I ment that you can hook the a datasource directly to a GUI/HTML-element. You can filter it any way you like, to conceal confidential or sensitive data, but the point is that you don't need to involve any database-related programming to achieve this. You can make it one way, two way. You can add data-concistency checks, authorization and everything you like. Again the point was that hooking your web-application up to a database is a trivial task that is done in a second.

      If you misunderstood my statement in the direction that anyone can get direct access to any date, I'm sorry for being wage in the first place, but I thought that it was rather obvious that clued people don't do that kind of stuff.

      As for "bullocks code", how is working with a framework/api that does 99% of the datahandling for you (if you don't need all that control) make it "bullocks code"? Just interested to know your line of reasoning, that's all.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    25. Re:Webservices gone mad by trezor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just don't get you guys obsession with such a mediocre tool and programming paradigm.

      Being mediocre or not may to some extent be a subjective opinion, so I'm not touching that. Especially since I haven't tried out a gazillion other web-development toolkits out there.

      You may have noted my point about "the right tool for the right job". I didn't say ASP.NET is the answer to everything. Actually, I specificly said it isn't. Hows that for obession?

      If you take my post with some perspective, you may note that I was just responding to someone claiming that ASP.NET had nothing to it, and were exclusively used by untalented semi-developers. I made a point that that's not neccacarerly the case.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    26. Re:Webservices gone mad by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

      No, No, No, the point is that you should NEVER has the data layer and the presentation layer talking directly to each other. There should be a middle layer that does that talking and filtering. This insulates you from things like changing where the database server resides, what DB software you're using and even changes to the table layout/column data types.

      Now if you're just slapping together some 5 minute thing for internal use then link away dear chap. If you're talking about an Enterprise grade app then we're going to have to take you around back and flog you.

      --
      --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    27. Re:Webservices gone mad by kahei · · Score: 4, Funny


      Sure ASP.NET may not be the right tool for every job, but then again what is?

      Duct tape!

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    28. Re:Webservices gone mad by trezor · · Score: 1

      No, No, No, the point is that you should NEVER has the data layer and the presentation layer talking directly to each other. ... If you're talking about an Enterprise grade app then we're going to have to take you around back and flog you.

      No. No. No. Here's coming back at you.

      If you are talking about enterprise grade apps, then you should use stored procedures or views that hide the database implementation from the application and shield the database from any flaws in the application. As an added bonus changes in the DB structure can be made without affecting the applications that use it.

      There should be a middle layer that does that talking and filtering.

      There is. You simply don't have to wrry about it, if the defaults suit you. The code implementation is autogenerated, but you are free to modify it if you feel like it. For presenting data the defaults will probably be fine. For updating data, you probably want to do some error-checking, which can also easily be done.

      Let the database do what it does best, namely handle data, and let the application handle the logic. That's the multi-layered model I was taught anyway. Whatever is the best enterprise grade model can probably be debated to death, but don't think that ASP.NET isn't prepared for that either.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    29. Re:Webservices gone mad by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Two things I have against this AJAX web applications:

      1. Keyboard shortcuts: It means they will have to mix the browser keyboard shortcuts with the AJAX application and that will be a mess, for example I was testing the AJAX Document writer and after typing some text I pressed CTRL+R to "align right" and whoops, my page was reloaded and the text I typed before was blank.

      2. Secondary mouse click:
          If web applications want to achieve the OS native applications they will have to use context sensitive menus via secondary mouse click, this means developers will have to [again] mix browser menus with AJAX application menus...

      Until now I have not seen any good AJAX or JavaScript application that makes a good use of this two things which I think are necessary

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    30. Re:Webservices gone mad by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      PHP feels exactly like ASP.NEt if you turn on register globals.

      problem is it's a GIGANTIC security hole. and yes, ASP.NET suffers from the same problems. you end up writing lots more code to make sure that some douchebag is not setting variables you do not want set.

      And yes, you can do things to make ASP.NET nice and secure, but then the script writer can easily screw up and leave a giant hole for a cracker to walk in through. Every language is that way.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    31. Re:Webservices gone mad by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      Sure ASP.NET may not be the right tool for every job, but then again what is?
      As far as I can tell from the fanboys, it's either PHP or Python.

      Hope that helps ;-)


      Nah, that's so 2004, now it's Ruby on Rails! Get with the times! :)

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    32. Re:Webservices gone mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main beef many programmers who've tried ASP.NET is that it enforces structures too rigidly. There's no remove for coding outside the framework.
      It feels like MS is trying to get a handle on the wild and anarchic nature of web standards, and enforce a single framework.

      Meh. I've used ASP and VB in the past, and while not great languages, they are functional. ASP.NET was just too frustrating.

      So, yeah, I expect it attracts the same folks who were building drag n drop GUIs in Visual Studio for C++. Sure they were decent at doing basic input forms, but as soon as they tried something remotely tricky they screwed up the rest of our app. That holds true for many of these interfaces. If you're going to dumb things down, you have to make the interfaces optional.

      And before you say it, yes, I know you can avoid using 'em in ASP.NET, but there's no room for a middle ground.

    33. Re:Webservices gone mad by russellh · · Score: 1
      Sure ASP.NET may not be the right tool for every job, but then again what is?
      Duct tape!

      That's one of the two Primary Tools.
      The other is the sledge hammer.

      with them you can do anything.
      --
      must... stay... awake...
    34. Re:Webservices gone mad by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, you forgot the URL:

      Duct tape!

    35. Re:Webservices gone mad by killjoe · · Score: 1

      My beef is that A) You claim that you can't build database applications fast with PHP (which I proved to be wrong) and B) ASP.NET is more productive then PHP (which is a judgement).

      Even if we presume that ASP.NET is more productive then PHP that's setting the bar very low for yourself aren't you. Shouldn't you try to be more productive then webobjects, or ruby on rails, or java studio using JSF, or better yet using oracle toolset?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    36. Re:Webservices gone mad by smyle · · Score: 1
      Duct tape!

      That's one of the two Primary Tools.
      The other is the sledge hammer.

      No, no. no!

      The other primary tool is WD-40. What are you going to do when something is sticky and doesn't need to be? (Duct tape is for making things sticky that ARE supposed to be, but aren't.)

      You could build the hammer out of the duct tape.

      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

  6. AJAX Cleaning power by cheezemonkhai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stop with the acronyms for goodness sakes.

    AJAX is a floor cleaning product.

    I'm sorry to say this, but there are too many people who think something is cool because it uses the latest hip technology. Nobody cares that it is AJAX, they just care that it works well and does what they want.

    The sooner OSS and other people writing software out there realise this the better.

    Rant over

    1. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by mpcooke3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It amused me that to rebel against the Acronym ridden J2EE crap someone coined the phrase "POJO" - Plain Old Java Objects, just to make it sound more sexy.

    2. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Stop with the acronyms for goodness sakes.
      AJAX is a floor cleaning product.
      [...]
      The sooner OSS and other people writing software out there realise this the better.

      I don't see what old soft shoes have to do with software.

    3. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by BMazurek · · Score: 2
      I'm sorry, but just because you rant, doesn't mean you should be modded up.

      Ajax is a floor cleaning product. AJAX is an acronym standing for something different. The fact that the two have a similar name is irrelevent. Thinking differently means you should probably go for a CAT scan (no, not "cat scan") or perhaps a PET scan (no, not "pet scan"). Perhaps you should go stand on a soap box in front of your local city hall with a bull horn and expound the virtues of a non-acronymic world.

      Give me a break.

      You say nobody cares that it is AJAX, but they care that it works well and does what they want. If no one cares about the technology behind a good user experience, there will be no good user experience.

      Technology, by and large, is an iterative improvement upon previous technology. Failure to recognize this means your genes should probably have been relegated to the non-tool using part of the animal kingdom.

      Grow up.

    4. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Bj�rn · · Score: 1
      AJAX is a floor cleaning product.

      And here I was thinking Ajax were two characters in Homer's Iliad. :-)

      You are right that people in general don't care. But this is slashdot, the site with news for nerds, and I suspect that many slashdot readers do care.

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    5. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by putko · · Score: 0

      "AJAX" as an acronym is completely annoying.

      "Asynchronous Javascript and XML" -- but there's often no XML in there at all.

      You see, the acronym idiots needed an 'x' in there -- AJA! didn't sound cool enough.

      So they through in 'XML' to get the X.

      Better to have thrown in 'xylophone' or "xanthax" or "xanthan gum", because then you'd think -- oh, I see, its just some stupid acronaming.

      This is the sort of thing that I despise. I wish I could hit that guy over the head with a brick.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    6. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1
      What are you talking about? If there's no XML, it's just browser scripting (the 'A' stands for asynchronous as in an asynchronous web service, aka, XMLHttpRequest.)
      You're just talking about JavaScript.

      Look a little closer at Sarissa and prototype and see what's under the hood...surely some XML will pop up.

      You said:
      "...oh, I see, its just some stupid acronaming.

      This is the sort of thing that I despise. I wish I could hit that guy over the head with a brick."


      So now do I get to hit _you_ over the head with a brick?
      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    7. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny
      The sooner OSS and other people writing software out there realise this the better.

      That's right. Quit wasting time naming things, and get to work, you layabouts! We don't need no stinking names for things. If I want to use that spreadsheet I'll just say, give me that, uhh, counting thing.

    8. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Da+Fokka · · Score: 4, Funny

      AJAX is a floor cleaning product.

      Yes. And a Greek play, a Greek hero, an anti-aircraft missile and a soccer club from Amsterdam.

      All the good words were used up long ago. Maybe it's time to stop using vowels and open up the possibility of words like krggggnx!

    9. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps you should go stand on a soap box in front of your local city hall with a bull horn and expound the virtues of a non-acronymic world.
      he should start a new society and call it:

      "Association for Stipulating Single Words Invariably Pertain to Exactly Single Subject"

      to be known henceforth as ASSWIPESS

      it's perfectly fine because there are two S's in ASSWIPESS. otherwise, oh the irony!

    10. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by putko · · Score: 1

      I don't think you get to hit me over the head:

      XMLHttpRequest is only one of the methods of accomplishing asynchronous communication. A hidden IFrame is another technique (which Google, the master of this sort of thing uses -- or so I hear).

      The IFrame doens't have to use XML, right? Sometime it does, but it doesn't have to.

      So XML looks entirely optional.

      Here's a reference: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2002/02 /08/iframe.html

      That's why I think the 'X' in XML is pure, masturbatory acronaming.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    11. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe it's time to stop using vowels and open up the possibility of words like krggggnx!

      Your native tongue is Arabic, right?

      (Yeah I know it has vowels [and semi-vowels] like any other language, however, not in the written form.)

      As an alternative suggestion, what's wrong with a descriptive Brainf*ck representation of (a given) app's nature and intended purpose? Zero clashes with existing namespace, quaranteed.

      (I'd love to give illustrative examples, but /.'s lamenessfilter seems to panic at the sight of Brainf*ck. How lame.)

    12. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      XMLHttpRequest is only one of the methods of accomplishing asynchronous communication. A hidden IFrame is another technique.
      Indeed, both are techniques that can be used, but in AJAX applications, you use XMLHttpRequest. Hence, the X.
    13. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

      All the good words were used up long ago. Maybe it's time to stop using vowels and open up the possibility of words like krggggnx!

      'Ajax' floor cleaner is sold under the name 'Krggggnx' in Klingon markets.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    14. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by putko · · Score: 1

      But this doesn't make sense: systems that people call "Ajax" don't even use XML. There's no particular reason for them to use it, either. Saying you throw on the 'x' because you use "XMLHttpRequest" is ridiculous too, considering that XMLHttpRequest is misnamed -- it might as well just be HttpRequest.

      Furthermore, you're coming up with justifications for the 'X' after the fact -- which is silly. The guy who came up with the term explains his whole irritating thought process. So if you wnat to know where the 'X' came from (and the retarded acronym, "AJAX"), you just read what he wrote. E.g.

      Q. Some of the Google examples you cite don't use XML at all. Do I have to use XML and/or XSLT in an Ajax application?

      A. No. XML is the most fully-developed means of getting data in and out of an Ajax client, but there's no reason you couldn't accomplish the same effects using a technology like JavaScript Object Notation or any similar means of structuring data for interchange.


      So according to the Ajax master-blaster, you don't need XML to get shit in and out of an "AJAX" application.

      Here's a nice piece by a guy who sees things my way, and explains it in detail, step-by-step, with references (OK, he's not totally pissed off the way I am but...) he covers my main points:

      * AJAX was invented as a marketing term ("masturbatory acronaming")

      * it doesn't have to use XML

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    15. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to stop using vowels

      Why? ;)

    16. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by nightfallsonhoboken · · Score: 1

      You see, the acronym idiots needed an 'x' in there -- AJA! didn't sound cool enough.

      Aja is my favorite Steely Dan album. The drums on the title track alone blow me away every time.

      --
      .sig it up, fuckers!
    17. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by tau-lepton · · Score: 1

      I think that XML, specifically the client-side transform of XML using XSLT, is a very very important part of AJAX.

    18. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      Your native tongue is Arabic, right?

      Close. Dutch.

      (Yeah I know it has vowels [and semi-vowels] like any other language, however, not in the written form.)

      In fact, in Dutch it's the other way around. Linguists around the world agree that Dutch is the closest terrestrial relative to Klingon.

    19. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by putko · · Score: 1

      The ninja who invented the term doesn't seem to think so.

      Here's an in-depth summary of my points, with references to the guy who invented the term. And a critique by another guy, with whom I agree.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    20. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ... go stand on a soap box in front of your local city hall ...

      Perhaps you meant a SOAP box?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    21. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      And sometimes LAMP applications don't run PHP, BFD.
      Who are you, the acronym nazi? Why are you getting so bunged up?
      You knew what they were talking about, right?
      Right?

      FWIW, all acronyms, by definition, are 'marketing' terms, mainly for mnemonic purposes.
      Are you the kind of guy who would rather be right than friends?

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    22. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by smithmc · · Score: 1

        AJAX is a floor cleaning product.

      It's a dessert topping!

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    23. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      > > Maybe it's time to stop using vowels

      > Why? ;)

      Okay, very good.... though isn't "y" considered a vowel in such cases?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    24. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by Khazunga · · Score: 1
      "AJAX" as an acronym is completely annoying.
      It might be. However the annoyance is completely offset by the googlability of the term. It's no small deal that you can now enter "AJAX toolkits" into google, and get modern javascript toolkits, instead of stuff dated from '94.
      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    25. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by aaronrp · · Score: 1

      A reference undoubtedly to Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS).

    26. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by putko · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess I am the acronym Nazi. Names and words matter, and I'm conservative about their usage.

      I'm not sure what you mean when you write, "you knew what they were talking about, right?" --- I certainly knew enough to know that AJAX is a fundamentally flawed acronym. I even dug up that guy's article where he explains why it is so flawed.

      Acronyms, in general, are a pile of shit. We'd all be better off if folks were not pulling acronyms (and other "marketing" based names) out of their ass.

      To wit: "Javascript"

      That has nothing to do with Java (TM) -- the language that Sun created and marketed. The name suggests a much deeper connection, and it continues to cause trouble even today.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    27. Re:AJAX Cleaning power by dkf · · Score: 1

      An anti-aircraft missile?! Don't be ridiculous, AJAX is a war rocket!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  7. Well... by omgpotatoes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..hello GoogleOS! Platfrom-independent, all online, all the applications you need. Who cares if it's viewed out of IE?

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares if it's viewed out of IE?

      Those who want to keep their computer clean and data safe.

    2. Re:Well... by gothfox · · Score: 1

      ..hello GoogleOS! Platfrom-independent, all online, all the applications you need. Who cares if it's viewed out of IE?

      It could be viewed just as well from, for example, Mozilla started off mini-linux on USB stick. Do you feel better now?

  8. Cool. by bombshelter13 · · Score: 1

    I think I speak for most Slashdotters when I say 'Cool. Sounds neat.' while understanding only 80% of what you just said.

    1. Re:Cool. by DrSkwid · · Score: 0, Troll

      you high ID people are so funny

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Cool. by trezor · · Score: 1

      Hold your horses there cowboy! You are a 6-digit slashdot-uid like the rest of us. Here's hoping a a sub-5-digit ID user will bash. If nothing else, for that link to nowwhere in your profile :)

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    3. Re:Cool. by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      lol, someone stole my site !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  9. Network failures. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great, so now the network being down means I can get absolutely no work done.

    I'd like this if they sold $20 dumb terminals to use it, but I paid a lot of money for a computer that can run applications locally without constantly going to the network.

    And just in case they mentioned that that's not a concern in one of those 40 linked pages, no, I didn't read all the articles, so feel free to yell at me now.

    1. Re:Network failures. by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'd like this if they sold $20 dumb terminals to use it, but I paid a lot of money for a computer that can run applications locally without constantly going to the network.

      Most people - the overwhelming majority - are not competent to use a general purpose computer. They don't understand about basic things like security and backups. Consequently their machines are crawling with viruses and trojans, and when eventually they have a hardware problem they lose, in many cases, months or even years of work.

      For these people, a thin client web appliance using applications hosted remotely on machines maintained by competent people makes a huge amount of sense. And, frankly, that's 90+% of the whole population, so this is potentially a very big market.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    2. Re:Network failures. by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Most people - the overwhelming majority - are not competent to use a general purpose computer.

      Suddenly, I heard angelic harps. This way lies heaven! Let the 90% use their computer like a webTV unit or thin client or whatnot, do whatever they need to do with webapps, the pressure will be off of the remaining 10% of us to dumb down the computer as we know it to drool-proof status...and everyone will be *happy*!

      No, wait, the codeine's wearing off...

    3. Re:Network failures. by torpor · · Score: 1

      Great, so now the network being down means I can get absolutely no work done.


      well, this is no different than, say, my hard disk crashing, or my PC having bad RAM, or some fool installed some service on my machine when i wasn't looking, or the software is borked.

      i mean, c'mon. you're just fishing for a negative. its like saying "the world blew up, so i can't word my doc..." sheesh.

      the point of this whole exercise is: you install it on a server, once, and then you keep your network running. period. good admins do this. bad ones don't.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:Network failures. by weilawei · · Score: 1

      And then God made schoolchildren. Try to keep a network running around any sort of children. You may have the best firewall ever, but man, those teeth can chew right through CAT-5.

    5. Re:Network failures. by hostpure · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can anyone say 56k? Heck, im even on a 2mbit adsl line and I wouldn't dream of running one of these on my browser, I am limited to 10gb/mo bandwith and I dont even want to think of what these would use. Anyway, OpenOffice now has everything I need - writer, base, calc and math. Keep the bandwith for something useful (reading slashdot comes to mind...)

    6. Re:Network failures. by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      Most people - the overwhelming majority - are not competent to use a general purpose computer. They don't understand about basic things like security and backups. Consequently their machines are crawling with viruses and trojans, and when eventually they have a hardware problem they lose, in many cases, months or even years of work.

      For these people, a thin client web appliance using applications hosted remotely on machines maintained by competent people makes a huge amount of sense. And, frankly, that's 90+% of the whole population, so this is potentially a very big market.


      Well, two holes in your statements:

      1) in a corporate environment, security and virus checking is much tighter than your average home user. Sure, it's not perfect and some companies suck at it, but on the whole these issues SHOULD be manageable by most. Guess what? Companies would be the primary target market for such web apps. From my house, I wouldn't be caught DEAD using a web-based program to do my finances or personal work (due to reliability as much as security).

      2) home users would benefit most by offloading security concerns to a web-based server and using a think client, because they're much more likely to have no skills at this and have problems. They also are more likely to install crapware. However, as above - the reliability and security issues for this would be a HUGE concern. Plus - home computers are used extensively for stuff like gaming that isn't (yet) applicable to such a model.

      In theory it's a good solution, but in application it's not suitable for the right markets.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    7. Re:Network failures. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      well, this is no different than, say, my hard disk crashing, or my PC having bad RAM, or some fool installed some service on my machine when i wasn't looking, or the software is borked.

      I've lost one hard disk in my life. I've never had bad RAM, and I don't usually have software gnomes installing things on me. The networks I use die a hell of a lot more often than any of those other problems. Maybe other people's network-failure-to-hard-disk-explosion ratio is lower, but mine's pretty high.

    8. Re:Network failures. by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      You say ``I'd like this if they sold $20 dumb terminals to use it...''
      That's exactly the point. Once the world moves to this kind of architecture, they will. You'll go down to your local electronics store and choose between the $400 Dell/Gateway/whatever with hard drive and monitor onto which you have to install and support your own software, deal with virus updates, etc. etc. Then on the next shelf you'll notice the $20 terminal sold by Verizon/AT&T/Comcast/whatever. You pay $30/month (you were paying $25/month just for broadband anyway) for access to online apps, with no need to worry about installing or maintaining software. Seems easier to you, and it's definitely cheaper. Guess which one a lot of people will be going for? I know what I'd do. I'm a writer, and as much as I enjoy putzing around with my computer, it might be worth it for me to subscribe to something like this so I could just get my writing done.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    9. Re:Network failures. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Most people - the overwhelming majority - are not competent to use a general purpose computer.

      If this is true, why have they taken over the world? Why does every human being I know own and use one?

      Little heads up... if your definition of competence excludes the overwhelming majority, and that overwhelming majority are effectively using the very tool you feel they are incompetent with on a daily basis, you might want to rethink your definition. It may pass muster with some idealized list you have in your head of what computer users should know, but it fails the "reality" test, where people who flunked out of high school are setting up their own websites and little old grannies are playing poker with their friends overseas.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    10. Re:Network failures. by barzok · · Score: 1
      Great, so now the network being down means I can get absolutely no work done.
      This is already the case for many companies. If certain servers in our environment go down (requiring a hardware replacement and/or restore from tape, usually), they actually will send people home if management thinks people won't get much accomplished in the business day remaining after it's online, if it even comes back up before 5 PM.

      If the email servers go down, everything comes to a screeching halt. Too much institutional knowledge is in our "groupware" and people can't seem to grasp the concept of communicating by phone or personal visit to someone's office.
    11. Re:Network failures. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It is already that way. if the network is down you can not print. Hell if the BDC is down you cant print. most of your apps require network access so they do not work you are left with playing in office or other offline apps.

      90% of the workforce is severely impacted when the network is down because their tools all rely on servers and other networked resources.. moving to webapps will make no difference here.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Network failures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK......

      ready for this........

      Dispatch war rocket AJAX!!!!!

      Sorry had to be done!

    13. Re:Network failures. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You mean like this? http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/29/ 129235&tid=98&tid=184&tid=106&tid=219&tid=137
      Okay it is a $100 but it would work great with these apps.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Network failures. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but I can't be sure. I stopped reading right after "Posted by Zonk."

    15. Re:Network failures. by shokk · · Score: 1

      My biggest problem with all this is interoperability. Which of the apps mentioned in the article description will work with another also mentioned? The Zimbra suite had a lot of things going for it, including interoperability. (BTW, I loved the GMail style email tagging.) Until then, there is no way these are going to make a dent in the Outlook userbase.

      To be a real desktop replacement, you have to be able to drag and drop between them, not just copy and paste. Once GMail comes out with an intergrated calendar, I know someone will write a plugin for Firefox and Thunderbird that will effectively tie them all together and effectively set down this path. Yahoo has had this integration for some time, but their DHTML implementation is looking pretty slothish.

      Personally, I'm really looking forward to the fruits of the Lightning initiative and hopefully the Oracle tie-in means that there will be some way to work with Oracle Calendar Server and Oracle Mail server, both of which are based on the old Netscape Server products.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    16. Re:Network failures. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Most people - the overwhelming majority - are not competent to use a general purpose computer.

      I'd like to put forth the assertion that this is because most general purpose computers are not designed for the average person and are pretty poorly designed overall. There is no technical reason why general purpose computers cannot be much, much, much more resistant to viruses and even trojans, automatically perform backups, etc.

      For these people, a thin client web appliance using applications hosted remotely on machines maintained by competent people makes a huge amount of sense. And, frankly, that's 90+% of the whole population, so this is potentially a very big market.

      Currently the least computer savvy portion of the population is also the least likely to have an always on internet connection or a sufficiently fat internet connection. Thus trying to capture this market is going to be a pain in the ass. Second, people like to own rather than rent many things. Third, people like to be able to use their computer without a subscription or internet connection at any given moment. Laptops especially are very popular right now and only gaining in popularity, but it is unlikely that internet will be available everywhere or even most places reliably for many, many years. Who want their ability to compose a letter, write a book, or play a game to die when they go to the family cabin or on a car trip? Fourth, what makes you think moving administration to a remote location will make the situation any better? Users will still fail to secure their machines and be vulnerable to viruses and trojans unless they have proper security from the end user's machine.

      I think the proper and correct solution is to fix general purpose computers, not scrap them and move to an inferior solution. All the problems you mentioned are solvable, and are partially solved on everything except Windows machines. The problem is largely not with general purpose computers, but with the current popular implementations thereof; no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, just improve general purpose computers.

    17. Re:Network failures. by merreborn · · Score: 1

      I'd like this if they sold $20 dumb terminals to use it, but I paid a lot of money for a computer that can run applications locally without constantly going to the network.

      You'd be amazed how much processing power an AJAX application actually uses! A web browser running an AJAX app in a windows environment is typically going to run poorly on a machine with a processor much slower than about 500mhz. Why? AJAX apps are extremely high level -- interpreted Java script manipulates HTML, which itself is interpreted.

      On top of that, an instance of firefox with multiple tabs open can easily take hundreds of megs of ram on its own.

      The "$20 dumb terminal" is probably a good decade off, at least.

    18. Re:Network failures. by chill · · Score: 1

      Great, so now the network being down means I can get absolutely no work done.

      This is the norm in many locations already. Because of data integrity and compliance issues, many organizations forbid the saving of local data. All data is saved to the managed network shares, which are backed up regularly.

      Thus, when the network was down, no one gets any work done. Yes, you could load Word and start typing, but you had to start completely blank.

      I've managed networks at a couple manufacturing facilities that did this and it worked wonderfully. Because network delays were painful and obvious to the executives they allocated a real budget for the network infrastructure. As a result, those facilities had switched Gigabit Ethernet to every desktop and a very fast set of file servers. Stuff frequently loaded and saved FASTER over the network than off local hard drives.

      We also had proper training and backup equipment and as a result, in 3 years the network NEVER went down except when the whole building lost power. [Planned overnight or holiday maintenance doesn't count.]

      So it not only is doable, but if done right it is preferrable. The key is "done right", which can be a challenge.

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    19. Re:Network failures. by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1
      So what. 90% of the populace shouldn't be driving cars either 'cause they suck at it. Doesn't mean that they are forced onto public transit. Same with computers. Quit being elitist. People who pay for their PCs shouldn't be forced to pay a subscription and need a network just to type a letter.

      They should be forced to pay M$ a month's salary to do it. ;-)

      Seriously, with great OSS apps out there like OpenOffice how can anybody think AjaxOffice(tm) is a good idea?

      Also, if the lamen out there weren't such good targets, you'd be the next target. Malicious hackers are gonna keep on keeping on 'cause it is either fun, lucrative, or both.

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    20. Re:Network failures. by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      the reliability and security issues for this would be a HUGE concern.

      Would they really?

      I have roughly one network failure a year from my broadband provider, restricting my internet access. I have roughly one local pc failure per year, restricting my ability to use local applications. Supposing I could switch to a low-failure-rate thin client, for me, the reliability is pretty much identical if we are assuming gmail-like uptime. In general, most people won't have that nice a level of network availability, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that for a lot of people availability would be "good enough".

      For most users, the security argument seems moot as well. Currently you can't really argue desktop apps are in any way secure. Most users who would be prime targets for web apps I know have spyware on their computers. Their private data is ALREADY being sent across the internet to some malicious entity. If anything web apps have the potential to improve the situation, because you could have thin clients on the local end, making them much harder to compromise. I certainly don't see how they would worsen the situation as it exists today.

    21. Re:Network failures. by brit74 · · Score: 1

      ... so this is potentially a very big market. Assuming, of course, that you successfully convince them that they are too stupid to use a real computer. Good luck.

    22. Re:Network failures. by misleb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but people LIKE their general purpose machines that they can install games on and run complex applications quickly. The fact is that most web applications royally suck compared to locally installed applications which leverage the OS features with relative speed. People have been saying that web applications is a potentially very big market for a decade now. But it hasn't panned out except for free email services... Nobody is going to give up Microsoft Office for some half-assed Javascript and HTML web application!

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  10. Todo Lists application in AJAX by Roullian · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's also an Open Source "Todo Lists" application called Tudu Lists.

    You can check it out on SourceForge : http://tudu.sourceforge.net.

    And you can use the live site : http://tudu.ess.ch.

    Everything's free and Open Source (GPL), so you can check out how it works.

    1. Re:Todo Lists application in AJAX by aparrie · · Score: 1

      Have you see Protopage? http://www.protopage.com/. It's a heavily AJAXed personal bookmarks and sticky notes organizer that's worth taking a look at.

      It has completely free-form panel positioning, so feels like a windows application.

      In fact, it's almost a windows desktop replacement.

    2. Re:Todo Lists application in AJAX by aparrie · · Score: 2, Informative
      Top 5 Ajax Apps not listed here

      1. Meebo http://www.meebo.com/ - AJAX instant messaging
      2. Protopage http://www.protopage.com/ - AJAX sticky notes and bookmarks
      3. Backpack http://www.backpackit.com/ - AJAX todo lists
      4. TimeTracker http://www.formassembly.com/time-tracker/ - AJAX time tracking
      5. Delicious Director http://johnvey.com/features/deliciousdirector/ - AJAX delicious bookmarks browser
  11. Sadly, doesn't work with Konqi, Mozilla by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

    Sadly, the spreadsheet doesn't work with Konqi at all. None of the text you enter either shows up or gets saved. In Mozilla

    • Can enter fields.
    • Cursor key navigation does not work
    • Can't alter column widths by dragging or any other obvious way
    • If text entry gets too long, text entry box grows a scrollbar which obscures the content.
    • If text content wraps, field height grows but field label height does not! No, this behaviour is inconsistent: sometimes it does.

    I'm carrying on playing, because this is potentially very, very cool technology indeed.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:Sadly, doesn't work with Konqi, Mozilla by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      Further to that, Konqi can't load a spreadsheet created in Mozilla. Still playing...

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    2. Re:Sadly, doesn't work with Konqi, Mozilla by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      I'm carrying on playing, because this is potentially very, very cool technology indeed.

      It's interesting, but more in a dog which can talk kind of way. It's not what the dog has to say, it's the fact that it can talk at all.

      There's some fairly impressive AJAX stuff about, but if you were to consider, say, the Google Maps interface as an offline, desktop application, it's not so great. Look at Google Earth as an example of what can be done in a modern application - similar data, a considerably more advanced interface. Try doing that in DHTML.

      The main, useful aspects of AJAX applications are that you don't need to download and install a particular program, they're (by definition) network-connected and multi-user, are vaguely cross-platform and can be used simply by going to a particular web page. For some things, such as webmail, this is great - for others, like the linked word-processor and spreadsheet, the whole thing seems more like a giant hack.

      I remember there being loads of work-in-progress office suites based on Java some years ago, and they seem to have almost completely died out - despite Java being a considerably more capable platform than DHTML.

      If you want to use advanced software on the move, buy a laptop or install VNC or something. AJAX is useful, but it's not some grand panacea which will solve all the world's problems...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  12. Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People have been doing this stuff using the same methodology since < 2003 and have been dealing with the pros and cons eversince. Convinsing PMs that the technology has potential was a lot of trouble then, but since the term AJAX was coined the situation has become the opposite; we are now trying to point out the pitfalls.


    The power of buzzwords in people's minds is astonishing. Guess our brain is too dependent on abstraction/handles.

    1. Re:Sheesh by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      The power of buzzwords in people's minds is astonishing. Guess our brain is too dependent on abstraction/handles.

      IMO, it wasn't the buzzword that did the trick, it was the fact that a company (Google) started doing really amazing things (Google Maps, Gmail) with it. After all, there have been plenty of buzzwords that have spiraled down the drain over the years. The idea is still the part of the equation with the power.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
  13. One thing to note ... by pythonista · · Score: 5, Informative

    S5 is not an AJAX app. It uses plain JavaScript and some CSS. Nothing like XMLHttpRequest is used in S5. To create an S5 presentation, one needs only text editor. The javascript and CSS is only for the presentation and has nothing to do with the actual slide creation process.

    --
    --- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose gmail com
    1. Re:One thing to note ... by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Nothing like XMLHttpRequest is used in S5. To create an S5 presentation, one needs only text editor.

      While it's true that S5 doesn't use XMLHttpRequest, why are you talking about text editors? You can write web applications using XMLHttpRequest with a text editor too. It's not some sort of binary thing that needs compilation and plugins, it's just Javascript that uses particular APIs.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:One thing to note ... by 1110110001 · · Score: 1

      At least half of the stuff on the list has nothing to do with AJAX, but is just Javascript. That's what happens if something gets hyped. Other stuff on the list don't use XML for the communication so they aren't really AJAX either. As cool as this stuff can be as boring and wrong are most writings about it.

      b4n

    3. Re:One thing to note ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read -> Comprehend -> Post. IN that order. S5 is not an AJAX presentation creating software, you write an S5 presentation with a text editor. The article implied that S5 was a frontend for itself.

  14. Another open source AJaX E-Mail Client... by TodLiebeck · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's another example of an AJaX e-mail client written using the Echo2 Web Framework. This one is very much no frills (it's an example app for Echo2) but it does include complete MPL/LGPL/GPL source.

  15. Thin client 10 years late by LQ · · Score: 2, Informative
    Anyone remember Sun 10 years ago banging on about Java thin clients and the end of the PC? I'm certainly seeing more and more customers who don't want to install software on their users' PCs. Centralised browser-accessed apps will eventually become the norm for commercial use.

    My Java tip for the near future is Echo2 or something like it. Sophisticated AJAX without writing a line of HTML or JavaScript.

    1. Re:Thin client 10 years late by misleb · · Score: 1

      Really? I see Ajax going the same way as Java. Java was an overhyped panacea for universal (write once, run anywhere) software later relegated to a very specific niche. In the case of Java, it is primarily serverside web services. AJAX will simply continue to spice up more traditional web services such as google maps.

      AJAX/DHTML shows even LESS promise than Java. At least Java was capable, from the start, of making a real GUI. HTML barely even has the basic GUI components. Most web applications which try to duplicate some desktop functionality (with the exception of web based email) are just huge, ugly hacks. Moving to web applications would be a step 10 years back in usability and a complete waste of perfectly good bandwidth.
      Maybe coning from the *nix world, web applications look attractive. But if you've spent any time using real GUIs such as OS X, you'd know what I mean. No Windows or OS X user is going to give up MS Office for web based services.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  16. i'm all for webapps by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    BUT.. i'm yet to be convinced they are at a stage they can take on an exe. I wouldn't want to start a major application to find some future release of IE breaks it horribly. i use wxpython for the moment it's the closest thing i've come across so far to being truely platform independant with all the bells and whistles.
    i'd be majorly chuffed if i could so the same things via a web browser however.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:i'm all for webapps by adtifyj · · Score: 1

      Check out XUL. It is good enough to write a browser, Jabber client, or complete bookshop.

      Check out some of the UI functionality here.

    2. Re:i'm all for webapps by Hamfist · · Score: 1


      Why worry about whether IE breaks it.. Good AJAX starts with standards, and there are many browsers available for all platforms that support standards. If IE breaks your app, stop using it it. Good developers test their apps on more than one browser. I suspect that the day Firefox does something that breaks its current standards support, it will get forked and the previous version will continue to advance. AJAX shows us once again the importance of open standards and the adherence to them by mainstream software.

    3. Re:i'm all for webapps by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      Just to pick a small bone with you: major applications routinely break when new system versions and patches are released. What's the difference?

      --
      // This is not a sig.
  17. Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by Frac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Ajax apps all look extremely impressive, but I do believe inconsistent UI will eventually plateau the adoption. Developers love to play the artist when there's a clean slate, and everyone will have their own set of icons and widgets.

    Developers need to understand that once you're over 25 years old, you don't care to learn brand new interfaces all over again. The closer it looks to something familiar (your Windows/Mac OS UI), the better. For God's sake, if it doesn't look at Windows, at least make the metaphors intuitive.

    My recent pet peeve is tiny little icons, just for the sake of tiny little icons. I'm familiar with the standard "Open", "Save", "Copy", "Cut", "Paste", and "Print" icons. That saves real estate over text, and saves me time.

    However, With monitors getting bigger and bigger, unique icons will NO LONGER OFFER THE SAME BENEFIT. I'm not going to hover my mouse pointer over every single 8-pixel-by-8-pixel icon you have, just to forget it the next time around because you lined up 50 of them on the toolbar like lucky charms. If there's room for text, and if that saves time, put the text in!

    1. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1
      The Ajax apps all look extremely impressive, but I do believe inconsistent UI will eventually plateau the adoption. Developers love to play the artist when there's a clean slate, and everyone will have their own set of icons and widgets.

      Frankly, that's a completely bogus argument. Early X Windows applications had wildly inconsistent interfaces. Then, gradually, over time, people learned this was a bad idea, and people started developing user interface standards. Furthermore, as GUIs got more complex and GUI toolkits got better, the overhead of rolling your own became too much for most projects, so they tended to use toolkits.

      The new web-based applications - call it DHTML, call it AJAX, call it what you will - will go through the same evolutionary process. Initially the GUI will be all over the place, later standards will emerge. It's noticeable that the numsum apps already load their user interface from a separate JavaScript file than their application 'engines'.

      Over time we'll find people generating JavaScript+XML GUI libraries with standardised user interfaces, just like KDE and Gnome in the X Windows space. And we'll find projects adopting these both to make their products look more professional and because adopting a toolkit is easier than rolling your own.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    2. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by Frac · · Score: 1

      Frankly, that's a completely bogus argument. Early X Windows applications had wildly inconsistent interfaces. Then, gradually, over time, people learned this was a bad idea, and people started developing user interface standards. Furthermore, as GUIs got more complex and GUI toolkits got better, the overhead of rolling your own became too much for most projects, so they tended to use toolkits.

      I'm not sure how your statement disagrees with mine. The point of my post is that the mishmash of bad UI will eventually slow down the adoption rate (as we can see here), and the rate won't pick up until the UI is more consistent.

      On an offtopic note, what's with all this stigma surrounded AJAX the acronym? Certainly, Javascript isn't new, DHTML isn't new, xmlhttprequest isn't new, but this growing category of dynamic web applications that makes use of all these technologies are certainly unique enough to deserve their own term.

    3. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out Convea, it provides the platform, every application shares the same consistent IE.

      Crying shame they get ignored so much.

      http://www.convea.com/

    4. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by JanneM · · Score: 1

      My recent pet peeve is tiny little icons, just for the sake of tiny little icons.

      Of course, the fastest growing segment of connected platforms is the mobile phone/networked PDA type devices. They have pretty limited screen estate and low resolution. 8x8 icons make eminent sense for platforms like that.

      What you're annoyed over aren't "tiny little icons", but an UI that doesn't scale to your device, either automatically (difficult to detect across devices) or manually, with a nice "make it bigger" button.

      And you're absolutely right about developers tending to throw in wayyy too many icons into a UI. Windows apps are especially afflicted with it for some reason, but all platforms I've seen are guity of it to some extent. Icons only make sense if they are few enough, and visually distinct enough, that you can readily recognize them literally at a glance. Far better to have just the five-six most used operations as icons (make it modal if you will), and let the rest lie in the menus.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by Frac · · Score: 1

      Of course, the fastest growing segment of connected platforms is the mobile phone/networked PDA type devices. They have pretty limited screen estate and low resolution. 8x8 icons make eminent sense for platforms like that.

      I agree. For such applications, small icons make sense.

      What you're annoyed over aren't "tiny little icons", but an UI that doesn't scale to your device, either automatically (difficult to detect across devices) or manually, with a nice "make it bigger" button.

      Well, I'm only annoyed at the tiny little icons, just for the sake of tiny little icons. I agree there are applications or interfaces constraining the actions to small icons, but when the average desktop resolution is over 1024x768, there's no excuse to use 8x8 icons. (and indeed, your post makes the same point)

    6. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by hattig · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the too many small icons issue.

      I think this is why Office Vista has that new funky tabbed-toolbar thing. The toolbars in Office 2003 are simply unusable. The ones you know by heart are the ones you know the keyboard shortcut to anyway.

      Apple deals with this whole aspect in a much better way, in my opinion. A toolbar (well, they look like 32x32 icons in Pages) with the text underneath, and not too many icons - well spaced, etc. Of course you can reduce the size of the icons and the text labels and all that too, or put every icon on the toolbar if you wish, but the /default/ doesn't have that - the user can put them on when they are ready.

    7. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by DeathBert* · · Score: 1
      Frankly, that is because Convea sucks. Secondly:
      You will need to be using at least Internet Explorer 5.5 with Javascript enabled.
    8. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      The Ajax apps all look extremely impressive, but I do believe inconsistent UI will eventually plateau the adoption.

      I'd be more prone to believe you if media players (like WinAmp or iTunes) and instant messaging system wasn't simultaneously deeply inconsistant and popular, if Apple wasn't schizophrenic in its own interface (Everyone uses the white pinstripe look. Well, except for media apps which get brushed metal. Oh, and Safari's now a media app. Kinda). Microsoft itself frequently reinvents the GUI wheel. Windows Media Player rolls its own skin. Microsoft Office has repeatedly rolled their own interface, to the extend of writing their own code to display the title bar just so they can do wacky things like displaying the Microsoft logo in the middle of the title. Like the standard menu and toolbar interface of the last ten years of Micro Office? Welcome to a brand new vision.

      The reality is that as long as your interface isn't too wacky, users will suffer it. By and large the Ajax applications aren't inventing entirely new and scary interfaces, they're just putting a variety of superficial skins on top of them. By and large users are coping. They

    9. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tiny icons (in app UI) don't make sense on phones either.

        Phone displays are tiny and often viewed at a distance. The icons should be crisp, detailed, but also viewable from a distance and at a glance.

      If you are building phone apps that require someone to see an 8x8 icon it better be monocolor and simple shapes at most.

      e.g. this kind of thing (signal strength, which is not app UI or clickable typically):

                **
                **
            ** **
            ** **
        ** ** **
        ** ** **

    10. Re:Consistent and Intuitive UI will be important by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      I agree with you that one possible problem is
      • inconsistent user interfaces.
      Some other possible problems:
      • Many of these apps are not open source. It's going to be hard to lure me away from my free-as-in-speech apps with free-as-in-beer AJAX apps.
      • I get the impression that AJAX as a software platform is difficult to program on, and suffers from lots of hassles related to lack of standardization in browsers.
      • Security: the person who runs the server can tell what you're doing.
      On the other hand, some possible advantages:
      • Maintaining a computer properly is a lot of work, and Slashdotters excepted, that's not enjoyable work for most people. AJAX apps can be zero-maintenance. For example, if there's a bug fix, it can be fixed by the person running the server, without the users having to worry about it.
      • Security: a web app environment, done right, can be more secure than standard desktop software. For example, there can be sandboxing. Also, you're probably relatively immune to stuff like buffer overflows, since the app itself isn't coded in C.
      • Freedom from control. For example, I teach physics, and I've been trying to get my school to install OOo on the computers we use in lab, so that students can start working on a spreadsheet at school, then take it home and work on it some more without being locked into proprietary software. However, I don't have privs to install sofwtare on these machines, and the school doesn't want to install OOo. With web apps, that kind of central control becomes impossible, which is a good thing IMO.
  18. Some good ideas.. by onion2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Things where one user needs to access an application from many locations (email for example), or where a group of distributed users need have instant access to shared information (calendar, notes) .. great idea to have a remotely hosted application or data store.

    But for word processing? Spreadsheets? That seems like a waste of bandwidth, and an unnecessary security risk. I've been working remotely for the last 2 years (300 miles from the company office). I've never encountered a situation where a remote service text editor would be preferable to a local app. Given my flaky internet connection that would really be a very bad thing. Whatsmore .. I'm not sure of course, but I rather doubt the capability of a javascript based spreadsheet. It might be ok for holding a small set of data and a handful of equations, but I wouldn't much like to view the last 10 years of accounts of a medium sized company with one. It'd be considerably slower than a properly compiled and optimized application.

    1. Re:Some good ideas.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It might be ok for holding a small set of data and a handful of equations, but I wouldn't much like to view the last 10 years of accounts of a medium sized company with one. It'd be considerably slower than a properly compiled and optimized application."

      do google maps or gmail appear to have problems handling large data sets?

    2. Re:Some good ideas.. by CapnGib · · Score: 1

      I think for users (like myself) who work on multiple machines and OSs (XP, linux, OS X), in multiple locations (home, work, library, friend or relative's house...) web apps are a very good idea. To work on your data, you only need a browser and internet connection. You don't need to carry a memory stick with data on it, or cd's with software to install, or your own laptop etc. The collaboration aspects are interesting as well.

      As consumer broadband becomes more popular, I think things like this will begin to make even more sense. The requirements to get stuff done (browser and net connection) are almost standard equipment already.

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
    3. Re:Some good ideas.. by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Yea and a web based application that allows you view the entire world, get directions in real time, and find local stores and businesses marked on the map in real time would be way too much for any web based application. I mean and even if they did do it, it could only be vector based graphics because satellite imagery is just too much for the client to download and handle.

      The truth is that a web application can do just about anything except gaming, graphics design, and 3d modeling. If nothing else, Google has proved this with Google Maps. If you're viewing a 65,000 row spreadsheet, chances are that you're only viewing about 30 rows at any given time, have your browser cache say 50 or 60 lines and then as you scroll it will be smooth, and the browser can update the cache with the next series of lines in a continuous fashion so it seams seamless to you (very similar to what Google Maps does). In reality, the web application might be faster than a local one as all the heavy duty processing would be done on most likely a cluster of good hardware in the backend. Other details still need to be worked out, but as far as claiming that you can't do something like spreadsheets with a well designed web based application is nonsense.
      Regards,
      Steve

    4. Re:Some good ideas.. by Mulkiatsch · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure of course, but I rather doubt the capability of a javascript based spreadsheet. It might be ok for holding a small set of data and a handful of equations, but I wouldn't much like to view the last 10 years of accounts of a medium sized company with one. It'd be considerably slower than a properly compiled and optimized application.
      del.icio.us direc.tor shows that you can do some really nifty things like sorting large amounts of data from within Javascript code quite efficiently by using the browser's XSLT processor (which is usually compiled natively, of course). That said, there are limits, no doubt. And there's a lot of things you probably can't use XSLT for. I can't imagine a really responsive video editing application in Javascript, for example. But there's still some potential in approaches like this that has yet to be discovered.
    5. Re:Some good ideas.. by googleplex315 · · Score: 1

      I can think of a few good reasons for this: 1) It can run on significantly slower systems (all you need is a web browser) thus extending the life of these older machines. 2) It's easier to maintain - one installation on one server vs. every desktop in a company. Everyone is always using the latest version with patches, etc. You can deploy new workstations without having to install anything. 3) Its platform independent - You can run the same Office application on Windows, any flavor of linux, or Mac. 4) Assuming the files you work with are stored on the server as well, it means they'll get backed up - instead of sitting in a local "my documents folder" which doesn't. And while what you say is true - how many users really view 10 years of accounts in a spreadsheet? These things will likely never be as feature rich or powerful as a desktop application... but for 90% of users and 90% of tasks, a web based word processor or spreadsheet can be more than sufficient - and they have the advantage of flexibility and (probably) cost. And FWIW... a good number of word documents and spreadsheets where I work are "shared information" and kept on network file servers anyway... so since the data is already remote there's little reason not to make the application remote as well.

  19. Oblig. Gmail vs Yahoo Mail beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    AJAX e-mail client


    Google-hater.
  20. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it such a silly idea? An AJAX browser that was carefully written to work with every browser could be very useful. Applications could be written just to work for that browser and then with a simple re-direct your application would work on any browser! Another strategy could be to write only for the latest and most popular browsers and then if any other browser tries to access your page just re-direct through an AJAX browser.

  21. Oh my God! They killed KIKO! by hta · · Score: 1

    Guess we've managed to test the scalability of the implementations already.... cute names, though!

    1. Re:Oh my God! They killed KIKO! by trash+eighty · · Score: 1

      well it seems to be working, just not with Firefox. not v1.07 anyway.

  22. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by houseofzeus · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ooooh and we could call it Internet Explorer!

  23. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    Sounds an awful lot like what Java applets were supposed to give you, before crappy implementations of the early JVMs killed them.

  24. jotlive.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Check out jotlive.com

    This is an awesome collaboration tool. If anyone has some insights on how this works (technically), I'd appreciate it.

    I was under the impression that you can only poll from client to server, not the reverse, yet this application shows instant change (so no 10 sec continuous polling)

    1. Re:jotlive.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duh! Maybe it is using AJAX?

    2. Re:jotlive.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no stupid, I'm talking about the fact that to do what they do you need to have a continuous ajax call, for example, a new ajax request every ten seconds to check if something is being edited (in the background).

      However, I checked with liveHTTPheaders and it only sends a request the second i make a change as another user (other browser)..

    3. Re:jotlive.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were doing this, I would have the client make a request, but have the server sit on it (leaving it open, but not responding to it either) until data changed, at which point it transmits what changed and finishes the connection, and the client can make a new one. This way you're only making one request per timeout interval, but can still get instantly notified of changes. That's my guess at how they're accomplishing it.

  25. Sadly, doesn't work with Opera by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

    Opera 8.50, on Debian:

    • Can't view a spreadsheet created in Mozilla, in Opera.
    • Scrollbar obscures text entry box, all the time.
    • Can't see column headers.
    • Can't see grid.
    • Don't know if I'm creating any text, but if I am I can't see it.
    • Don't seem to be able to save a spreadsheet from Opera - if I click 'Save', and then, in Mozilla, reload my list of spreadsheets, the one created in Opera does not appear.
    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:Sadly, doesn't work with Opera by Rolphus · · Score: 1

      This is a real pity - if someone could get these apps working in Opera, there would be one seriously killer use for them... mobile computing. Opera and Minimo should boast full support for the protocols used in the very near future.

      Yes, mobile internet connections are somewhat sucky at the moment, but we have wi-fi in a lot of palmtops, and even at dialup speeds, some of these applications could work very well.

      I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of other posters that we have hugely powerful PCs for a reason. Handhelds and mobile phones, however, aren't nearly as robust, and the idea of an entirely web-based handheld whose applications all run elsewhere is tempting, especially for those in industries such as retail. Perhaps this is where these applications will really find a home?

      --
      ~Rolphus
  26. Why just remotely? by Freebasen · · Score: 1

    You know, this could actually go somewhere in certain corporate environments. The key here is application support internally. Run a local server with all the apps. It would be great if all you had to do to get a new workstation up is put the favorites in a login script. Then the user has all of his/her apps based upon department needs. No fuss, no issues. Need to swap workstations? No problem, the apps are always there. I know a lot of organizations that have users work off of network drives anyways, so when the network is down, they still didn't get any work done. Now about MS word compatibility...

  27. please let it die by germ!nation · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having only just managed to ween my co-workers off a ton of needless javascript in their applications 'improvements' in web technologies such as AJAX are a concern to me. Having read all about 'Web 2.0' technologies, I'm left to wonder where the business case for all this while STILL maintaining standards in accessibility comes from?

    Please note: accessibility means equal access for ALL, it is not a term to differentiate disabled internet users from their able-bodied peers.

    So now we have we have to use libraries that work for IE and every other browser separately, we then have rewrite it all for people using accessibility aids that often use scraping techniques to get content from the page and wont update unless the page refreshes, so we have to write a legacy version anyway (of course, you can make the call that the chance of getting sued is low enough not to bother).

    Before people say we have to write a ton of code to account for different browsers and accessibility combinations, I work supplying web apps to public sector education bodies and none of my applications require wild cul-de-sacs of code for special scenarios.

    We have only just started mastering equal access for all in web applications as it is, the last thing we need is a new generation of web developers who think that "omg cool functionality kthx" > accessibility

    1. Re:please let it die by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      So now we have we have to use libraries that work for IE and every other browser separately

      No, the difference between the XMLHttpRequest object in Internet Explorer and the XMLHttpRequest object in all the other browsers is merely the way in which you instantiate it - which you can emulate in Internet Explorer with only a couple of lines of Javascript. Furthermore, Internet Explorer 7 will be like all the other browsers too.

      we then have rewrite it all for people using accessibility aids

      You don't have to do that if you write things properly from the beginning. You write an accessible web application, and then you improve it with Javascript. Obviously if you start writing Javascript first and then try to retrofit accessibility you're going to run into problems. But if you start with a solid foundation, you don't have to rewrite or maintain separate legacy versions.

      the last thing we need is a new generation of web developers who think that "omg cool functionality kthx" > accessibility

      No, but at the opposite end of the spectrum, we don't want a new generation of web developers thinking that cool functionality is incompatible with accessibility, which is what you seem to think.

      Given the choice, a lot of developers will choose the cool functionality over accessibility. But in reality, they don't have to choose. If they start reading comments like yours, they'll think they do need to choose, and leave accessibility by the wayside. Better to acknowledge that you can have both without making them choose.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:please let it die by germ!nation · · Score: 1

      No, I know that once business is applied to IT something always suffers, and judging by 90% of web systems I inspect or see, it is the accessibility.

    3. Re:please let it die by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Yes, well that's irrespective of AJAX, isn't it? The business influence is going to be there regardless of whether or not you use AJAX.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:please let it die by trezor · · Score: 1

      the last thing we need is a new generation of web developers who think that "omg cool functionality kthx" > accessibility

      Huh? New? I thought that was the way it always had been? Trying to make people write (working) standard-compliant XHTML/CSS and convincing them that there is a reasons for doing so, is hard enough already.

      Stuff like this will surely make it even harder. Not saying Gmail ain't funky though.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  28. moderation suggestion by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Is there a "-1, Obvious" to go with that "+1, Funny"?

  29. Ditch The Document Browser! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not ditch the document browser and start over with completly new system for internet apps?

    http://www.newio.org/

  30. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Great. What a wonderful way to write applications that DONT ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.

    Call me when you get PhotoShop, Doom, Oracle9 and Soundtrack running at a decent speed in a web browser.

    For now, I'll stick to C code thanks.

    1. Re:Lame by Betcour · · Score: 1, Interesting

      With the new "canvas" available in upcoming Firefox, it should be possible to write pretty much any application with just Javascript (and lots of sweat !)

    2. Re:Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I seriously doubt that. Let me know when they get the PS1 versions of Final Fantasy 7, 8, and 9 running at decent speed at 1024x768 using Firefox's canvas feature. It would probably require several thousand GHz just for the CPU core, much less the video, sound, and cdrom emulation.

  31. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it such a silly idea?

    Yes. For rather obvious security reasons, XMLHttpRequest is limited to making requests to the host the script originated from. Also it would be way slower than a normal web browser. Plus completely inaccessible, which is illegal in many places.

    Another strategy could be to write only for the latest and most popular browsers and then if any other browser tries to access your page just re-direct through an AJAX browser.

    That falls apart when the browser that isn't the "latest and most popular" doesn't support the technologies your AJAX browser uses.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  32. s5 by RPoet · · Score: 1

    I used s5 for my Masters thesis presentation. It worked great, but I don't know if I would call it "AJAX". It's just combines XHTML and CSS, very well.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  33. And so we return to where we started by mustafap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Back when I started computers, we had dumb terminals with applications running on mainframes. I had no ability to write my own code; I had no right to execute CPU cycles for anything other than work. And nor could I, as CPU cycles were audited and 'billed' against each department.

    And so we will return. The server based module of applictaion licencing will suit the likes of Microsoft enormously. They want a constant revenue stream, not just intermittent ( but huge ) income on new product releases.

    More insidiously though, this move will start to erode our usgae 'rights' again . Little by little we will be discouraged from installing applications on our PC's.

    There are good aspects to server hosted applications and data storage, but also some very bad ones.

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    1. Re:And so we return to where we started by Netsensei · · Score: 1

      True. But then again, I don't think a "pay-per-use" model will ever totally defeat the "buy-once, use-many-times" model. Why? There's always a population that wants to spend money on the first (because i.e. it has nifty new feats) and the latter are costconscient. That's why commercial and open source can coexist.

      However. Hardware producers my favor the "pay-per-use" model. The moment networks are fast enough and servers can hold massive amounts of data (and that day is soon to come), computers could evolve into (mobile) thin clients. Everyone is afraid of wintel. And with good reason. In a doom scenario, there would be a day when you could only buy computers with windows baked into a chip or on an inaccessible HD. Then it's not even physically possible to install apps or store data locally.

      But then again, apart from obvious FUD, I think this is highly unlikely. I suppose the future will bring something in between. As always.

    2. Re:And so we return to where we started by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      No, YOU will never have to worry about losing rights or control. The idea of web-based apps is so that buisnesses, or the average person who will not be playing games, or editing music, or rendering graphics, can use a thin client to run applications.

      The market will split into web-terminals for the average person, and workstations for people who play graphics heavy games, or run applications that need more processing power. Even the web based stuff, there will probably be an easy way to run a localhost web server or something if you don't want to run a remote server.

      And, unlike the mainframe days when it was cost-prohibitive for a person to run their own mainframe, it is very cheap to run your own server.

    3. Re:And so we return to where we started by mustafap · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you have to take into account the economy of scale. PC's are built for the masses; As remote services kick in, and the PC becomes a web-appliance, those web appliances will get cheap and the 'workstations' more expensive. Consumer electronics research and design will go with the mass market ( IMHO, having worked as a design engineer in consumer electronics for 20 years ).

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    4. Re:And so we return to where we started by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I do say, sir, that this is ridiculous. Any usage other than work that you get out of your work computer is a privilege, nothing more. I don't think that you will administer your home computer in such a way that you limit your usage rights to it.

      Work computers are there for work. When you own the computer, then you will have a right to say something about its use or not.

      This is also not a ploy by MS to suck you in. I know that the company I work for would rather have every business application run out of a browser. The reason is that it simplifies the work we have to do, because it minimizes complexity. We wouldn't have to deal with setting up each machine with a certain database driver, a specially mapped drive, and we also wouldn't have to ensure DOS compatibility. This has absolutely nothing to do with MS, and everything to do with cost.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  34. The Devil's Dictionary (2.0): AJAX by XNormal · · Score: 1
    AJAX, noun
    An acronym for the phrase "Accessibility Just Ain't eXciting."
    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  35. Arrgh! AJAX everywhere! by porneL · · Score: 1

    It's enough to make JS do more than just rollovers and people call it AJAX. I hate that. Not everything that has draggable pseudowindows is "AJAX application". DHTML used to be name for those, but it's not cool anymore... heh

  36. Complete Web Office Solution by krahd · · Score: 1

    Well, it seems that the idea is not really new. This guys are already offering a web OS (or at least a desktop) and a bunch of web office applications. All AJAX based.

    And (I happen to know these guys), they are turning open source. The official announcement should be next week, methinks...

    --
    mod me up scottie!
  37. Flash Apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theres the occasional web-app being done in flash too. Not really of interest to slashdot's general audience, but http://webbeader.com/ is an excellent example of a flash, web based app. It has features not easily integrated into by desktop programs, like automated sharing of files.

  38. lack of development tools by edxwelch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The biggest disadvantage of ajax that I can see, is that it's written in javascript and there is no debugger available for the various web browsers (except Mozilla).
    Developing a large application without a debugger is not fun.
    Why not use flash? It seems to do everything that ajax can do, but it has a IDE and debugger available and there is the added advantage that it's cross platform (ajax requires that you write a seperate version for IE and Mozilla).

    1. Re:lack of development tools by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Why not use flash?

      Javascript works with the existing browser interface. Flash sets aside a viewport in a page in which it creates its own interface. Practically all the ways in which Flash sucks stem from this design choice.

      For example, on my laptop, I use Safari. If I middle-click on a link, it opens in a new tab. On my workstation, I use Firefox. If I middle-click on a link, I've configured it to open in a new window. In both of these cases, every single Flash "page" I have ever encountered has failed to even activate the link, let alone do what I want. But even if the developers took the time to make links open in a new window, that would break in Safari. If the developers took the time to make links open in a new tab, that would break in Firefox. And yet <a href="foo"> created in Javascript just keeps doing exactly what I want.

      Now take that inconvenience, and multiply it by a thousand, because I've lost count of the number of ways in which Flash throws away the existing browser interface - the link toolbar, right-clicking, bookmarks, browsing history, screen-readers, scrolling, tabbing, font sizes, user stylesheets, searching, find as you type, you name it.

      (ajax requires that you write a seperate version for IE and Mozilla).

      The difference with AJAX between browsers is trivially worked around with a few lines of code total, and the difference is going away in Internet Explorer 7 anyway.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:lack of development tools by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Yes that's a good point... flash was never designed to replace a browser. The designer of the flash application would have to supply all the features normally available in the browser - maybe you can get flash components that do this.
      By the way I have written DHTML code and it is *not* trivial the differences in the DOM between IE and Mozilla. About 50% of all methods are incompatible. IE7 is irrelavant. It will take about 5 years before everyone migrates to IE7.

    3. Re:lack of development tools by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      I can think of some reasons why flash is a bad idea:
      • Like a PDF, a flash program includes a fixed layout. A browser can't re-flow it easily for a small screen.
      • Flash doesn't allow deep linking, including bookmarking.
      • Flash is not compatible with most screen readers.
      • Flash is not compatible with browser auto-complete - the only time I ever need to enter my address manually on a web page is when some idiot has decided that flash forms are a good idea.
      There are probably other reasons to avoid Flash, but these are the ones that spring to mind.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:lack of development tools by TummyX · · Score: 1


      The biggest disadvantage of ajax that I can see, is that it's written in javascript and there is no debugger available for the various web browsers (except Mozilla).


      Um. The other major browser is IE and that has had a fully integrated step-step debugger since at least 1997. Remember Visual Interdev? IIRC, that even had intellisense for client side javascript. Your web pages would run inside IE and the IDE debugger would hook into that IE process and allow you to step through all your javascript.

    5. Re:lack of development tools by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      The designer of the flash application would have to supply all the features normally available in the browser - maybe you can get flash components that do this.

      Part of my point was that you can't emulate the browser features properly - see my middle-clicking example.

      By the way I have written DHTML code and it is *not* trivial the differences in the DOM between IE and Mozilla.

      Well that's the DOM, not AJAX itself. While I agree that the differences can be quite annoying at times (although not at the 50% you claim), the majority of the API people actually use on a regular basis is fairly consistent between browsers, and work like IE7 etc etc increase conformity considerably.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:lack of development tools by Zardoz44 · · Score: 1
      The JavaScript debugger built into Visual Studio .NET is superior to the Venkeman/Mozilla debugger (IMO), especially since it's on the same tool where you debug your server code.

      If you have the product, just attach to an IE process, and select the "script" style of debugging. All the currently loaded .js files will appear in the running documents window and you can step through any javascript execution.

      You may need to change some of the default IE settings like "enable script debugging".

      I find the UI in Venkeman a bit strange and non-intuitive. Or buggy. I can never get the watch to work properly. Some of the extensions to firefox for web development are really useful, like "web developer" toolbar.

    7. Re:lack of development tools by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      But is this feature still supported?
      Because Visual Interdev is a discontinued product. It has been replaced by Visual Studio.NET.

    8. Re:lack of development tools by TummyX · · Score: 1


      But is this feature still supported?
      Because Visual Interdev is a discontinued product. It has been replaced by Visual Studio.NET.


      Yes. Interdev was rolled into all the other products. The JScript debugger has always been part of IE. A quick search shows two ways of setting breakpoints and after that you can do the step-step debugging you need:

      Using the "debugger" keyword in jscript:

      http://waltritscher.com/blog/ramblings/archive/200 4/09/19/211.aspx

      Using the IDE to set breakpoints:

      http://devcenter.infragistics.com/Articles/Article Template.Aspx?ArticleID=2183

  39. AJAX, it's magic! by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone seems to be running around raving about AJAX applications. Why do you all think AJAX is so good? Really? It's cool if you need to update a webpage without reloading (and particularly for server-push), but why do I want server-push functionality in a word processor, spreadsheet, calendar, presentation-building software or note-taking software (note, I've taken e-mail client out of that list, as server push is actually useful there)?

    Sure, if these were tools to allow multiple people to work on the same document simultaneously, but these all seem to share data only after it's been saved back to the server. As someone else pointed out, the presentation application doesn't even use AJAX!

    Would people please stop using AJAX to mean "Really cool looking Javascript application"? If Javascript applications excite you, fine, you're welcome to them, but please get the terms right...

    1. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by Tanami · · Score: 1

      I'd rather submit my document to a server for spellchecking than download a javascript dictionary... Similarly with the spreadsheet, I'd rather not have to download javascript functions for every obscure financial formula I'm never going to use...

    2. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by bperkins · · Score: 1

      I've played with it a bit, and Writely does save stuff automagically as you type, and allows two people to work on a doc simulaneously. It even gives you revision history. It isn't perfect and has a lot of features to implement before it's really useful as a word processor.

      It's nowhere near a Word killer yet, but it's an interesting little project.

    3. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by Godeke · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the AJAX term has become abused, the reason for the attractiveness of such applications goes beyond server-push. For me the magic comes from zero installation. While I'm doubtful about spreadsheets and word processors (at this point in time), there are many applications where "just existing" as a resource that can be used is a great thing.

      It goes farther than the install issue though: it is the maintenance issue that really makes this work for me. No need to wonder if all the machines were updated with the proper DLLs, data sources and version of the code. But most of all, rolling out an update is as simple as updating the web with the new functionality. Bug fixes are instantly deployed to everyone in the organization. As an added bonus, users can't squirrel away data where you can't easily back it up (it's all in your database which is backed up to your schedule, whether the client machine is online or not).

      Right now I see no reason to create ERP type systems that have client side requirements beyond a browser. Yes, there are still some UI issues that are not perfect, but the use of AJAX (as in real background data transfers) has removed almost all of my prior complaints about doing software this way. Gone are the massive load times (you can expand data as needed with small loads), bulk save problems (just save what changed) and application compatibility problems.

      The fact that these are being extended out to more traditional "desktop" applications, even if they are not perfect yet, shows how mature the web client environment has become. I'm not going to throw office out, but I *am* excited by really cool looking JavaScript applications when you can reduce your support call load to nearly zero in regards to the classic DLL hell situations and completely removing the possibility of down-level applications. (The latter idea comes in real handy when your application is deployed to over a thousand companies.) The downside is that we have to be *real* careful to maintain true five nines availability... which means more backed hardware and work.

      At the end of the day, this simply takes what was good about web applications (centralized administration with strong availability guarantees, shades of the mainframe era...) and eliminates what was bad about them (really poor, non interactive user interfaces). If that means that word processing documents will incrementally appear on a server so I don't have to worry about users destroying their own work (and we can keep a weeks worth of incremental revisions for recovery)... I might even look at the word processing.

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    4. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by cortex42 · · Score: 1

      Would people please stop using AJAX to mean "Really cool looking Javascript application"? If Javascript applications excite you, fine, you're welcome to them, but please get the terms right...

      AJAX is not about creating good looking apps. You can perfectly create ugly AJAX apps.

      AJAX is a set of tools/techniques to all allow interaction with a http server avoiding full page reload.

      We could previously achieve this goal using various trick - frame, iframe, popup etc. - now various library allow an easy implementation of this mechanisms making the concept accessible to all - and creating the buzz.


      It is true that the name is very ugly but it is still better than a 10 words sentence.

    5. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Sure, if these were tools to allow multiple people to work on the same document simultaneously, but these all seem to share data only after it's been saved back to the server. As someone else pointed out, the presentation application doesn't even use AJAX!

      Actually usuing a server side technology is exactly what stuff like this is for - and yes Sharing of the application. You may want to split hairs as the server is only sharing the data between the two people, but in essence they are sharing the application. That is what sharing is about, the DATA!

      From the WordProcess example even:
      3. Then, you can edit it together online:
      If another person starts editing the same document, a small notice will appear.

      Your changes will be automatically sync'd with theirs every few seconds.


    6. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      Why do you all think AJAX is so good?

      Because it essentially, almost, turns a browser-based application into a client-server application, in terms of reduced latency and application responsiveness. The browser-based model is quite clunky by comparison. Why wouldn't you think that's good, unless you're one of the few that have been doing it already for several years (and even if that's the case, show me your apps that are as extensive as Gmail and only then will I be impressed). It's a huge step for the Web.

      Would people please stop using AJAX to mean "Really cool looking Javascript application"?

      It's the Asynchronous part of AJAX that makes it special, not its looks or the XML (or other data formats) or the Javascript.

      Like, it's a new paradigum, man! Get with it! ;)

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    7. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by indiechild · · Score: 1

      You might not need or want an AJAX word processor/spreadsheet/calendar/etc, but other people do.

      Why is your post modded insightful anyway?

    8. Re:AJAX, it's magic! by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Sorry, allow me to clarify what I meant. AJAX provides a brilliant way to work around client-pull. However, a lot of people seem to see it as inherently making things better, and that's what bugs me.

      Don't get me wrong, I'll really impressed by the apps listed in this article. They're not something I'd use, myself, but quite a few people here seem to like the idea, and that's good for them. It was just, I've never really looked for server-push in my word processor, y'know? A few people have pointed out it does actually do collaborative editing though, so okay, I'll go be quiet in the corner now.

      Oh, and for reference, I've been a web developer for 4 years (since I graduated), but only started looking at using AJAX in the last few months. On the other hand, so far our users have mostly said "Yeah, that's kinda cool, but not really worth the effort you're putting in to making it do that" to auto-updating pages, so...

  40. My prediction ... by TarrySingh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that Google will come out with it's Online GoogleOffice Suite here and eventually a Web Deployable OS with unstructured XML DB will soon be reality. Like I say, People will make lot's of Software, it's the impeccable timing of Google, that will make their products shine, be it Office products or others.

    --
    Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
  41. XMLHttpRequest security issues by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem with Java applets is they require too much to be installed on the client side. This has big security and performance implications

    Security? XMLHttpRequest is very cool, but (albeit for reasons not the same as those you gave for Java), it's likely to fall off its pedestal very soon in the face of these security problems.

    In short, assuming you have the functionality turned on (I assume there is a way to turn it off in present browsers, though I haven't checked), XMLHttpRequest breaks the assumption that web pages only record what you're doing when you "submit" a request (don't think this applies to Flash, but it's normally obvious when a flash app is being used).

    In short, it's theoretically possible for a site to be receiving information about pretty much every action you carry out within a browser window, and practically *quite* possible (and likely) for less than trustworthy sites to be receiving information you'd rather they didn't (if you knew about it); I could go further, but the article pretty much explains it well.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In short, it's theoretically possible for a site to be receiving information about pretty much every action you carry out within a browser window, and practically *quite* possible (and likely) for less than trustworthy sites to be receiving information you'd rather they didn't (if you knew about it); I could go further, but the article pretty much explains it well.

      This is a problem with Javascript in general, not a problem with AJAX per se. It's been possible to leak information in this manner since Netscape 2.0 - you just swap in an image with the URL http://www.example.com/image.gif?timestamp-mysensi tiveinformation.

      Basically, if you don't want a website to know how you are interacting with a page on that website, you need to switch off Javascript altogether.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by sheriff_p · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well before the advent of AJAX, I build javascript to monitor a user's mouse trail and keypresses over a website. It would take this information from event handlers, and serialize it into a cookie, which would be read by the next page they visited on the site, stored, and could then be played back easily through an admin interface.

      If you've been assuming this isn't possible, or in use (the company I built it for still uses it, I believe), you're missing a point here.

      More details in a back copy of TPJ, who I wrote it up for.

      +Pete

      --
      Score:-1, Funny
    3. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by romka1 · · Score: 1

      You are paranoic just a the author of the article...
      track page viewing habits and iron out usability problems
      I don't see at the problem if a website can adjust to me so it easier to use.
      Its not like they are tracking were I click the most on the webpage and next time I want to click there they display a banner there just before I click...
      Your just a random number to website owners nobody cares that much about you personally website only care about the mass.

      You are porbably the one of those users who delete all google cookies because you think google will own your computer through cookies and know everything about you..

      --
      Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
    4. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Dakrin1 · · Score: 1

      Did you not even read the comments on the devx forum for that article? This has been available for a very long time through things like hidden iframes. This is not a 'new security problem' and ajax is not about to fall off its pedestal any time soon because of this. Completely ridiculous post.

      David

    5. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Its not like they are tracking were I click the most on the webpage

      What do you mean "it's not like they are". Who are *they*?

      *They* are everyone who runs a website you might visit, and besides, we were discussing what they *could* do; not just what they are presently doing.

      Your just a random number to website owners nobody cares that much about you personally website only care about the mass.

      "They" only care about the mass? Who are "they" again?

      If you mean they only collate bulk data for statistics, well... probably not true. On the contrary, it's more beneficial to them if they know what a particular customer wants to buy, etc.

      And you're right; of course they don't care about me *personally*. That doesn't mean "they" (or *some* of them) aren't a threat, because after all, the people who would like to steal my credit card number probably don't care about me personally either, but it's still harmful to *me* specifically, and similar problems arise with the leaking of personal information.

      You are porbably the one of those users who delete all google cookies because you think google will own your computer through cookies and know everything about you..

      Well, let's be paranoid here. I'm on dial-up at present; previously I was on broadband at the same address for days or weeks on end. Even if I deleted the cookies, they still have a good idea who I am if they *really* wish to find that out.

      Anyhow, believe what you like. Considering the possibilities doesn't mean I have to act upon them, but at least I like to know what's possible.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly

    7. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Security? XMLHttpRequest is very cool, but (albeit for reasons not the same as those you gave for Java), it's likely to fall off its pedestal very soon in the face of these security problems.

      You're kidding, right?

      That article is quite weak. If you check the forums, you'll see just about every post that references this article is pointing out flaws and how the article really isn't saying anything at all.

      No. new. security. concerns. The guy even says it in the article, which makes the reader wonder why he's writing it.

      XMLHttpRequest breaks the assumption that web pages only record what you're doing when you "submit" a request

      That's a horribly flawed assumption, unless you disable everything but markup rendering.

    8. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by bogado · · Score: 2, Informative

      To help users that are concerned with those threats, that are not new as said before, there are a couple of firefox extension that will help prevent those problems.

      Add block : permits blocking external javascripts with a flexible set of rules.

      no script : enable javascript, java and plugins only to trusted domains.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    9. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by MatD · · Score: 1
      The parent's link has already been slashdotted. Could someone please post the coral cache for it?

      *That's a joke BTW*

      --
      Since when did operating systems become a religion?
    10. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In short, assuming you have the functionality turned on (I assume there is a way to turn it off in present browsers, though I haven't checked), XMLHttpRequest breaks the assumption that web pages only record what you're doing when you "submit" a request (don't think this applies to Flash, but it's normally obvious when a flash app is being used).
      XMLHttpRequest is a JavaScript Object, so you could just turn off JavaScript and you're done

    11. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by owlstead · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to let JavaScript do anything outside the page you should have it run inside a sand box. Java VM's are equiped with technology for this. You put the JavaScript together with the document object model in a sandbox, enable some security settings and presto. Just let it never open things outside the browser/current site (or, at all).

      With a nice combination of SWT together with Apache HTTPClient, a HTML reader and a good renderer, JavaScript under Java and some other components it should not be that hard to build a good Java browser. Only the renderer is missing really, and (native) plugin support. Actually, the last thing would be the hardest part.

    12. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to let JavaScript do anything outside the page you should have it run inside a sand box.

      Sandboxes don't solve this problem. Event handlers and being able to modify the document are the only capabilities necessary for this information leak. Restrict these capabilities, and you might as well turn off Javascript altogether, because practically every piece of Javascript on the web needs these capabilities in order to function; from the simplest image rollover up to web applications like GMail.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    13. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Err, no sorry, getting information from the browser to the page you are visiting is difficult. Still, with a better security design you can still minimize the surface of "attack". History only for the same site, no access to cross site cookies etc. The sandbox may therefore still be of use. But that some information is leaked, yeah well.

      But the current problem is that way to much information is given. And a lot of that information (like the history) is simply not needed by the server side.

    14. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Alystair · · Score: 1

      Any idea where I could aquire the code you wrote? Seems very good for usablity tests.

    15. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by aminorex · · Score: 1

      TPJ? That's a bit of private language in an otherwise clear discourse. Please disambiguate.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    16. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Err, no sorry, getting information from the browser to the page you are visiting is difficult.

      Did you miss the example I gave earlier? You can send data back to the server by swapping images - the data is encoded as the image URL, so it's sent back as soon as the browser requests the new image. Like I said, that's been possible since Netscape 2.0. Not difficult at all.

      But the current problem is that way to much information is given. And a lot of that information (like the history) is simply not needed by the server side.

      No, the only "history" that is given is the Referer header, and that can be disabled in most browsers.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    17. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant sorry you are right :)

      I'm getting way too sleepy to post to slashdot. Sorry.

    18. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by sheriff_p · · Score: 1

      The Perl Journal. I forget which issue...

      --
      Score:-1, Funny
    19. Re:XMLHttpRequest security issues by sheriff_p · · Score: 1

      It was pretty simple - the idea essentially was:

      Every 0.x seconds check the position of the cursor. If it had changed, add a new set of coordinates to a value. If it hadn't, add a padding single character value to that value. OnUnload, set this value as a cookie. Read the cookie on a subsequent page.

      I doubt I still have the original code, but, pete@clueball.com if you have further questions.

      +Pete

      --
      Score:-1, Funny
  42. Instant Messaging Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Don't forget Meebo, the browser based IM client, perfect for those computers you can't install AIM on. http://www.meebo.com/

    1. Re:Instant Messaging Too by TarrySingh · · Score: 1

      And then when an employee gets fired at meebo, he/she sells all your accounts (GTalk,Yahoo..) to his new employer. Neat huh?

      --
      Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
    2. Re:Instant Messaging Too by hogger · · Score: 1

      Meebo is a huge security risk.

      1. create meebo, post on /., watch a kazillion users log in with their yahoo uid and pwd

      2. harvest yahoo uid and pwds, log into yahoo email, search for ebay or paypal emails

      3. request forgotten password at ebay and paypal, fetch results from yahoo email acct

      4. life, meet living hell

  43. The most important apps in an office by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    are not wordprocessing, spreadsheet, or even presentation junk.

    The most important apps in an office are the ones that you fill out and pass around paperwork with.

    sad, but true

  44. Re:sig by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
    Cato? Is that you?
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  45. X-windows standardized? by October_30th · · Score: 1
    just like KDE and Gnome in the X Windows space.

    I don't understand how you can use X-windows as an example of a standardized GUI and still quote two GUI kits in the same sentence. X-windows is still seriously broken in the way that it doesn't enforce a single, unified and standardized interface. Until there's only one window manager and widget set, the problem has not been solved.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:X-windows standardized? by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      X-windows is still seriously broken in the way that it doesn't enforce a single, unified and standardized interface.

      By that logic, every GUI in existence is seriously broken.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  46. s/AJAX/Ajax by Fatalis · · Score: 0

    It is Ajax, not AJAX.

    --
    Deus est fatalis
  47. Banned WebSites in China by LogicallyGenius · · Score: 1

    A AJAX WebBrowser can be useful to visit banned websites ? But for that we have to first create millions of AJAX Browsers sites. HOWZTHAT

  48. Avalon Business Systems by Dr.Pepper42 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My favorite AJAX application is the Avalon Business Management Suite by Avalon Business Systems. We use it at work and it's by far the most intuitive and useful web app I've ever seen.

    It's nice because it allows you to do real-time client (etc.) searches asynchronously which allows you to get a ton done with only one real page load.

    I've seen some decent commercial and free AJAX implementations as well, but outside of Google and Avalon, they seem more focused on "cool" than "useful".

    --
    Free sex is like a warm toilet seat.... feels good but makes you wonder who was there before you.
  49. My Beef: Interface by lwells-au · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It might just be me -- and this might sound like a personal whinge -- but I am interested to here what other people have to say.

    I find these AJAX applications very impressive, even if - according to the endless /. posts - the technology is nothing new and its just a silly acronym. But I digress. My biggest problem is that I like my major applications -- email, word processor, spreadsheet, html editor, whatever - to a seperate *unique* presence on the (*hides head in shame*) Windows task bar. It is so much easier to recognise the application on the taskbar when it has its own entry invariably with a unique icon, rather than just being one of possibly tens of browser windows. Invariably I end up loosing my web application in a jumble of other browser windows and/or tabs, or thinking its just another browser windows, accidently close it. Then there is always the problem of the browser crashing, often because I am also browsering, and thus loosing whatever important documents or email I also have open.

    As I said, it may well just be me, but perhaps I'm not alone :) I'd much rather download a small executable that embeds a browser window within some sort of unique container (if that's the right terminology) that runs as a unique program, with its own task bar entry, and its own icon. So, for example, I could launch gmail.exe and it would have its own presence on the task bar even though it was essentially just gecko rending the gmail website. It could even extend functionality, allowing one to minimise it to tray and so forth.

    Just my 0.02c worth.

  50. whose time has come? by hrm · · Score: 1

    I still think that shit like this is the future. A web based office suite, for example, has these nice features compared to PC-installs:

    - less or no hassle with sw maintenance,
    - OS-agnostic,
    - possible to use pay-per-use schemes (nice for provider, so consumers may get the terminal free with a subscription like in the mobile business),
    - possible to have automatic backup and version control

    The only one loosing out in that scheme is Microsoft, unless they can reposition themselves once again. It's hard to see how they can squeeze $100 of license fees out of a web terminal.

    Now that I saw quite a few people dumping Outlook for web-based gmail, which admittedly has less features but just *always works* and *works safely*, I belief maybe the time has come.

    My ideal future:
    Gamers --> go to consoles
    Office workers --> use web services
    Geeks --> use PCs

    We'll have to pay more for our PCs of course, those being no longer mainstream commidities, but at least MS could be dead and buried...

    1. Re:whose time has come? by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      I played around with the word processor one, and one of the cool features it has is that you can download the file as a Word document (didn't try this) or "publish" to an html file, or print (and save as a postscript file using firefox.) Actually, I thought it was pretty cool, and would use it if it just had a few more features (margin size control, wysiwyg for printing, ability to edit header/footer). Also, it was sort of flaky and kept reporting an error.

      So anyway, I think these web apps could be very useful, not as a replacement for desktop editing, but to augment it.

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
    2. Re:whose time has come? by hb79 · · Score: 1


      My ideal future:
      Gamers --> go to consoles
      Office workers --> use web services
      Geeks --> use PCs


      Finally, finally, somebody who grasped the point about this: EVERYBODY does not need to run the same terminal. As hrm clearly points out, each user have to evaluate their needs, and choose the right software/hardware that suits.

      And just to add to the list:

      Library terminals--> use web services
      Museum terminals --> use web services
      Other public service terminals --> use web services
      Mum who wants e-mail, bit of news and shopping --> use web services
      Dad who wants e-mail, bit of news and shopping --> use web services
      ATM/cach points/ticket machines--> use web services, maybe?

      Did I miss some?

  51. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by cortana · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shut UP SHUT UP you're giving stupid people stupid ideas!

  52. AJAX 2.0 by LogicallyGenius · · Score: 0

    AJAX is here to Stay, I will make sure it lives on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AJAX_2-0/ Kill 2.0 and there will be 3.0

    1. Re:AJAX 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a Programmer I think PHP is best at mixing matching HTML unlike C# and hence is the most choice of programming AJAX

  53. AJAX... by idlake · · Score: 1

    AJAX appears to be the new Display Postscript...

    1. Re:AJAX... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the other day that AJAX is the new NeWS. I was also lamenting the fact that Sun never turned Java and JIGL into the new NeWS. Java interfaces using OpenGL for their drawing running on thin clients and communicating with back-end servers could be very shiny indeed.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:AJAX... by idlake · · Score: 1

      Yes, NeWS was Sun's version of Display Postscript. And Java was actually Sun's second attempt at NeWS, done basically by the same people.

      Sun did turn it into a language for thin clients: most thin clients come with Java installed, in addition to a web browser. In practice, people just happen to prefer HTML/JS, RDP, and VNC on their thin clients.

  54. I don't get it by beforewisdom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AJAX sounds like it will be a boon for naturally based web applications.

    I don't see office applications as being naturally web based applications, they seem to be very natural living on my desktop. I can't see why I would need to be connected to write a paper or do my budget.

    On the innocent side it just seems like a misdirected project.

    On the sinister side it seems similar to e-books....another way to take away something I have come to take for granted as possessing.

    My word processor may be old, but it is mine.

    I can just see the bull shit now.

    "Oh, you don't own the AJAX office suite, you were only renting the use of it. Since your lease is up you cannot use it to view your old work... unless you want to pay us more money"

    1. Re:I don't get it by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Do you backup your work on your personal computer nightly? If you were using an online office suite as part of a service they could do that backup for you. Your documents could be available to you anywhere you have access to a web browser.

      Corporate users could benefit from the ease of collaboration. No more emailing around spreadsheets and documents, they could just be 'shared' if they are saved and worked on at the server. A server application could facilitate collaboration with people working on one document at the same time and instantly seeing each others changes.

      There are lots of benefits to having a AJAX type of office suite. MS realized this awhile back and that's why Google is there main competitor. It's not about what Google has done, but what they might be working on.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1

      What does AJAX have to do with the possibility of off-site backup or saving documents on a server? A normal desktop word processing application could have that functionality as well as an AJAX app... There may well be lots of benefits to AJAX, I just don't think those are good examples.

  55. um, get your references straight by idlake · · Score: 2, Informative

    AJAX is a floor cleaning product.

    Actually, Ajax is the name of two warriors in the Trojan wars. The name was then misappropriated for a floor cleaning product (heroic cleaning?), but I suppose as you demonstrate, people these days don't know their classics anymore.

    If the term "Ajax" becomes associated with a dynamic web display technology, I think that's a step up from floor cleaning.

  56. Re:My Beef: Interface by Bogtha · · Score: 1

    I'd much rather download a small executable that embeds a browser window within some sort of unique container (if that's the right terminology) that runs as a unique program, with its own task bar entry, and its own icon. So, for example, I could launch gmail.exe and it would have its own presence on the task bar even though it was essentially just gecko rending the gmail website.

    Why don't you just create a shortcut to the browser executable that passes the URL to the website as its first argument? You can even give it its own icon.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  57. that's because Sun screwed up by idlake · · Score: 1

    Yes, but they didn't catch on because the technology was cumbersome and inflexible. Sun just reimplemented the same toolkits and languages people had been using for a decade before, and that turned out to be a bad match for the web. Add poor browser integration, the fact that Sun never opened it up, numerous security problems in the Java runtime, garbage collection bugs, bloat, and sluggishness, and you can easily see why it didn't catch on.

    AJAX, on the other hand, is or will be supported by every browser. It's lightweight, builds on HTML and JavaScript, and is a generation ahead of Java and Swing when it comes to GUIs.

  58. The distributive property of English by themightythor · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Dear editors,

    When you have a list of things to which a common adjective is applied, you can move the adjective to the front of the list and there's an implied application to all the members in the list. For example:

    AJAX word processor, spreadsheet, calendar, presentation-building software, e-mail client, note-taking software
    is equivalent to
    AJAX word processor, AJAX spreadsheet, AJAX calendar, AJAX presentation-building software, AJAX e-mail client, AJAX note-taking software.

    This is especially true when the context suggests that you might be speaking about things that qualify as being identified by that adjective.

    1. Re:The distributive property of English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU grammar zealot. Gimme a fucking break and just read the "technical" points of the post. There's no REAL reason to criticize the author's use of the English language other than to demonstrate that you have no fucking idea what he/she is talking about.

      Go buy a clue fucktard!

  59. Re:My Beef: Interface by wylf · · Score: 1

    what, you mean like a Java Applet?

  60. Ajax == failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about offering signed downloads of the frontend as firefox extensions? Running script directly from webservers is a security risk preserved for the completely retarded, which is exactly why Java applets never took off

    1. Re:Ajax == failure by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      How about offering signed downloads of the frontend as firefox extensions?

      And stuff the Opera, Mozilla and IE users. I'm a Firefox user and I'd not support that.

      Running script directly from webservers is a security risk preserved for the completely retarded, which is exactly why Java applets never took off

      No, applets never took off because of the crappy early implementations of the JVM and incompatibilities between MS's JVM and Sun's one. Java was also a little ahead of its time in terms of resource requirements; it's only recently been the case that low- to mid-end PCs can expect good responsiveness using GUI Java apps.

  61. XMLHTTPRequest+XUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're willing to target Mozilla only, you can make a much nicer application which uses XUL rather than HTML but still uses XMLHTTPRequest to talk to the server. I suspect that once Microsoft gets its own answer to XUL out of the door it won't be long before people create wrapper libraries which allow both. That still leaves Opera and Safari out in the cold, but if people were to start using it then it wouldn't be long before they implemented one or the other.

    I think the main annoyance with developing web applications at the moment is that everyone has to invent their own UI handling code. HTML wasn't designed for making UI. All you have to do is switch out to a more suitable UI-oriented XML format and you've got everything Java Applets had but without the overhead of the JVM.

  62. AJAX Security by webappsec · · Score: 0
  63. Games by Lorphos · · Score: 1

    Please reply to this posts with links to AJAX games. Multiplayer, preferably.

  64. Web Browser? by Momoru · · Score: 1

    I'm suprised with all this AJAX hype no one has mentioned a web browser! Yeah an AJAX web browser, that supports AJAX. That would be tight.

    1. Re:Web Browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone did at the top

    2. Re:Web Browser? by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Javascript doesn't have the fine control over screen pixels you'd need to write a custom HTML renderer. Actuall, with SVG and canvas, it does, but MSIE doesn't support those at all. So, you can pull in an HTML page, but you can't push pixels at the screen.:P

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  65. Kiko is buzzword compliant by SkullOne · · Score: 1

    Taken from their site:


    Buzzwords Compliance: AJAX, Web 2.0, Tagging, RSS


    Kiko also has usability in mind:

    Be Soothed By Kiko's Pleasant Colors - Pastels are good for the soul.

    --

    Brent Jones
  66. A web browser is not an OS.. by Jessta · · Score: 1

    A web browser is not an Operating System.
    A web browser is supposed to view html files.
    I see little point in running an office application inside my webbrowser.

    Don't we all remember thin clients and mainframes.
    When the server goes down...everyone goes home.
    How is this any different?

    - Jesse McNelis

    --
    ...and that is all I have to say about that.
    http://jessta.id.au
    1. Re:A web browser is not an OS.. by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      A web browser is supposed to view html files.

      A computer is supposed to be run from a CLI. My how things change.

      You do know that things change... right?

      --
      // This is not a sig.
  67. Web Applications by WebfishUK · · Score: 1

    Web applications have particular characteristics in that they tend to run within a web-browser and use particular sets of technologies for both GUI, data representation and communication. But it is not necessarily the only or even the best way. There is a difference between deploying MS Office local to one machine or running it across a network with the documents on another remote fileserver. Many applications, although installed locally will update versions or load new plugin functionality across the net. The administrator must make many judgements on what characteristics they want including performance, maintainability, security, remote access, user training etc etc. And then decide how best to deploy the application.

    I believe web applications are evolving on the back of web pages and thus on the back of web browsers. We can view traditional web page rendering and navigation as the original web service. As the services get more diverse so the browser will need to provide a greater variety of capabilities, including being designed from the ground up to be maliable via plugins. The browser becoming a lightweight framework into which the right components are loaded from the net to create the application required. See flock for some interesting moves in this direction.

    Ultimately will the browser be the web OS? In the same way that windows/linux etc provide an useful abstraction of the hardware, with the browser provide a similar abstraction of the web?

    Sorry about this being muddled but I'm writing as I think.

    --
    -- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
  68. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
    Yes. For rather obvious security reasons, XMLHttpRequest is limited to making requests to the host the script originated from. Also it would be way slower than a normal web browser. Plus completely inaccessible, which is illegal in many places.

    In order:
    1. It would probably take about fifteen minutes, maybe less, to write a handler that does a server-side HTTP request to another site. The browser encapsulates a GET request in Ajax, the server actually executes the request, munges the content, and returns it to the browser. It's not the same as direct client to server content, but it's close.

    2. Yes, it'd be way slower. Unless for some reason you couldn't get to the third server at all, in which case it becomes the only option. (Not like this is a likely usage scenario.)

    3. No reason to think it couldn't be designed for accessibility, although it'd sure be difficult. The principal issue would be that the sites you're browsing to might not be designed for accessibility. And incidentally, I've seen plenty of sites where the owners haven't seemed too concerned with accessibility requirements.

  69. Maybe... by skyphix · · Score: 1

    Maybe a nice, usable web based calendaring solution will solve me having to share .pst files because our web based pop3 email system can't do it! On the other hand, maybe it wont. The internet here is only partially stable and we dont have the budget for a dedicated web server (although I'd love it if we did). As they always say in a school setting... "maybe next year". I enjoy developing web apps, but I don't see myself diving into ajax or, in all honesty, having any real need for it. The only time my applications really need to dynamically change text is on the menu's (expandable menu's, big hit), and I already do that with "DHTML" or, javascript + html... with no need to call XML ibraries.

  70. Where's the audio [remix] app?? by IDkrysez · · Score: 1

    The combination of AJAX with dynamic flash (plus current cultural toyboxes' evolution) seem ripe for a fairly high-end audio re-mixing app. Tie it into gmail where you can store and tag your samples, tie it into google maps to blog your geotagged mixes :) By golly... Get it? There would be a somewhat limited set of functionality, but in the same way we're seeing the AJAX fad "eat" our existing application space, I'm suggesting that we regurgiate that (along with open source API's for server-built flash content) to reproduce Audacity or gnusound, and/or do a DJ-mix bit, instead of OpenOffice, duh. Office apps are boring, hello! Most folks want a rich media experience, we know that much. One particular beauty here is that most remixers *want* high-end hardware, but don't really need that much bandwidth between their interface and the machine (just need high throughput internally for machine processing and storage). Interface latency would obviously be an issue, but with flash you can at least leave some of that to the client. Then the problem becomes: how do you hook up 2 USB turntables through your PDA and map them to in-browser controls? ;) So: build it. Hire me to help, whatever. Ben

    --
    Was it a bat I saw? Racecar. Stack cats. A man, a plan, a cat, a ham, a yak, a yam, a hat, a canal--Panama!
  71. Fix KDE, Gel linux on jo-6-packs desktop by Pwned-Punk · · Score: 0

    Im still finding thr Linux desktops lagging behind Windows IMHO (not starting a flamewar here) Konquer cant seem to browse directories containing large numbers of files, Its Impossible to navigate the GUI mouseless unlike windows which can be ALt-Tab's, Shift-Tab'd etc. Really the most important part they need to fix is the control panels ... cmon even windows XP you can just gor RUN-compmgmt.msc , Run-devmgmt.msc and RUN-lusrmgr.msc ... In the KDE control center, though handy, needs to be brought upto standard ... and SHOKE HORROR ... maybe managing some other parts of the OS Thats the problem with open souce, everyones beavering away at there little bit and no one is managing the big picture.

    1. Re:Fix KDE, Gel linux on jo-6-packs desktop by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2

      This must be a new troll, I haven't seen it before.

      Im still finding thr Mac desktops lagging behind Windows IMHO (not starting a flamewar here) Finder cant seem to browse directories containing large numbers of files, Its Impossible to navigate the GUI mouseless unlike windows which can be ALt-Tab's, Shift-Tab'd etc. Really the most important part they need to fix is the system preferences ... cmon even windows XP you can just gor RUN-compmgmt.msc , Run-devmgmt.msc and RUN-lusrmgr.msc ... In system preferences, though handy, needs to be brought upto standard ... and SHOKE HORROR ... maybe managing some other parts of the OS Thats the problem with closed souce, everyones beavering away at there little bit and no one is managing the big picture.

      Hmm.... Definitely troll-ish, but not very reusable. 2/10.

      Next!

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  72. Paging the Web by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about an AJAX WYSIWYG Drag & Drop webpage layout / HTML editor? I don't care if it's compliant with all those buzzwords, but I do want to hit a page, drag GUI and JavaScript objects into it, drag them around, mark them up with styles and links, then save it. With authentication for the editor - everyone else sees it as a readonly regular webpage. With all the current HTML features, viewable in IE/Firefox/Safari/Opera. That feature should have been part of the first (or at least second) wave of the Web. Is it part of this AJAX wave?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Paging the Web by Elixon · · Score: 1

      :-) I'm working hard on it. But the way is not so easy.

      --
      Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    2. Re:Paging the Web by horza · · Score: 1

      How about an (buzzword) WYSIWYG (buzzword) webpage layout / HTML editor?

      It's amazing that even a decade later the same phrase crops up over and over. HTML = Hyper Text MARK-UP LANGUAGE. It's not WYSIWYG as every browser renders things differently. Even those that use top commercial offerings such as Dreamweaver spend a fair amount of time in 'source' mode to tidy things up.

      If you want pretty pages to print out then use Open Office and export as PDF for download/printing. If you want to make web pages look good: (a) write the content and mark it up intelligently and then (b) use CSS stylesheets to make it look good. Firefox has an extension that lets you change the stylesheets and see the changes 'live'. Otherwise what you are describing is a Wiki with a basic HTML edit extension.

      Phillip.

    3. Re:Paging the Web by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, what's amazing is that people aren't willing to accept that WYSIWYG for my page in my browser must work in multiple browsers, which is exactly what computers are good for: enforcing cross-platform grammars on content specified with a GUI. WYSIWYG and webpage are not merely "buzzwords", they're important IT objects/operations that people actually value for their results. If your understanding of "what you get" is limited to merely "what you see on that browser", and not flexible enough to mean "close enough in other browsers to work", then it is you who is stuck in the buzzwords of a decade ago. If you think a wiki is sufficient, then you didn't pick up anything from the prior revolution, desktop publishing, except buzzwords.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  73. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by mc_barron · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with having the man-in-the-middle (proxy server) simply rendering the page in the browser of choice and sending the image (ala VNC) back to the requesting client. You could use an imagemap to have the links still work. Wouldn't this get past all the incompatibilities of an old browser (I mean, what old browser doesn't support images + image maps?).

  74. qooxdoo, sajax and json by codepunk · · Score: 1

    I built a couple of apps already using a combination of qooxdoo, sajax and jason. I see myself doing many more, you can do some amazing interfaces with that combination.

    --


    Got Code?
  75. Essential Office Software Missed: AJAX Solitaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course no office worker could miss this essential piece of software, Solitaire and its AJAX counter part. Actually it just 100% javascript, but kind of relates. See it here:

    http://sysbotz.com/articles/solitaire.htm

  76. AJAX's UI is just plain old HTML and CSS! by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

    The Ajax apps all look extremely impressive, but I do believe inconsistent UI will eventually plateau the adoption. Developers love to play the artist when there's a clean slate, and everyone will have their own set of icons and widgets.

    HTML and CSS can use stupid widgets and mouse-over image swaps, but most sites do not.

    AJAX just dynamically writes and updates HTML and CSS, so why do you think it'll be any different?

    1. Re:AJAX's UI is just plain old HTML and CSS! by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      HTML and CSS can use stupid widgets and mouse-over image swaps, but most sites do not. AJAX just dynamically writes and updates HTML and CSS, so why do you think it'll be any different?
      Operating systems like Windows and MacOS X have UI guidelines. X Windows, on the other hand, has always had a policy of not specifying anything like that, and simply acting as a low-level driver. The result is that X Windows apps are a horrible hodge-podge of inconsistent UIs. The issue is that AJAX is likely to end up with exactly the same problem as X Windows.

    2. Re:AJAX's UI is just plain old HTML and CSS! by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with web applications? Which OS UI guidelines should someone follow when creating an application that's completely platform-agnostic? The whole point of web applications is that the end user's platform is unimportant. As long as basic web usability guidelines are followed (the same ones that should be considered when creating any web site), this is a non-issue.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    3. Re:AJAX's UI is just plain old HTML and CSS! by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      Which OS UI guidelines should someone follow when creating an application that's completely platform-agnostic?
      It's not clear whose guidelines they should follow, and that's a Bad Thing.

      As long as basic web usability guidelines are followed (the same ones that should be considered when creating any web site), this is a non-issue.
      Most users want consistency. For example, they want cut and paste to work the same in all applications. That's not the case in X Windows, and for most users, that's a big negative.

    4. Re:AJAX's UI is just plain old HTML and CSS! by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      I agree that X Windows is a pain due to the cut-and-paste issues, and other things.

      But I fail to see why you think HTML and CSS will be ruined by AJAX, or how it's related to X Windows' problems :)

  77. resizing screen images. by zaaj · · Score: 1

    If you're referring to the resolution ouput of the video card, that would work, but with the users I've worked with, the images are often fine at a high resolution, but text throughout the OS and all apps is just too small to read (esp. with 19??x1200 15" laptop screens). Adjusting the font size at the OS level hasn't worked well from Windows 3.1 through XP because many apps don't seem to check font sizes, so many dialog boxes are unusable. I haven't used linux as a desktop OS enough to have played around with font sizes to know if the problem exists there or not.

    1. Re:resizing screen images. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      No, I'm not talking about resolution, I'm talking about the granularity. A point is a fixed size, and has nothing to do with your monitor's resolution. If you have a 19" monitor and you run it a 1024x768 then at 8-point font should be the same size as it is on the same monitor at 1600x1200 (although comprised of fewer pixels). If it is not, then you may need to manually adjust your operating system's[1] understanding of the number of dots per inch your monitor can display. On old monitors, this was around 72dpi. On Apple displays it is 100dpi. On some modern displays it can be 120dpi or more. If your OS thinks your monitor is running at 72 dpi and it is really running at 120dpi then things will be too small. You will also not be able to run any WYSIWYG system, because text and graphics will appear smaller on the screen than on the page at 100% zoom.

      Dialog boxes should not check font sizes. Dialog boxes should be designed to accommodate the correct amount of text at a readable point size. Scaling the text while keeping the graphics the same size will look wrong. If eight-point text is not the correct size then you need to fix your system. If your system assumes one point = one pixel, then it will only work on 72dpi displays (Java used to have this bug - not sure if it still does).

      [1] Substitute windowing system here if applicable.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:resizing screen images. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the problem of mixing pixels and points. It's easy to do what you say, but then the apps look fucked up because they were coded for pixels. You can say that's wrong, but your solution doesn't work well enough for people today.

      It's 'too hard' to design scalable UI and people want it pixel-perfect when viewed close, do developers and testers skimp on the high-dpi testing and scalability.

    3. Re:resizing screen images. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What, the algorithms that NeXT used in their Display Postscript implementation that allowed lines to be nudged to the nearest pixel boundary to give a pixel-perfect zoomed display don't work anymore? Odd, they look really nice using GNUstep. OS X doesn't seem to have this problem either.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:resizing screen images. by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks for the explanation on this. I just tried in on both my Ubuntu (GNOME) partition and my Windows XP partition. My monitor is a laptop flat-screen with dimensions 12 in x 9 in and a native resolution of 1600x1200, giving a dpi of 133 in both directions.

      On Ubuntu, I changed this in my xorg.conf file, but see no difference in the size of the objects and text on the desktop. On Windows XP I had to go into the custom dpi settings to manually set 133 (the options were 96 and 120), and unfortunately, the result sucks. The fonts and such are much easier to read at a distance, but it seems to have scaled all the images in the UI as well, and this makes them all blocky and distorted and ugly, since apparently they aren't vector graphics.

      Do you have any knowledge of doing this stuff on either of these systems? Is my procedure for calculating and setting my dpi correct (and why can't the OS do this automatically)?

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    5. Re:resizing screen images. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, I think XP uses a very primitive scaling algorithm, so anything that's not a vector will look a bit ugly. This, by the way, is the reason Apple displays are only 100dpi - the entire OS is designed to work at 100dpi, and increasing to something like 120dpi or 133dpi would require some kind of scaling that makes things look ugly. 150dpi wouldn't be too bad, since then every pixel in source images would be 3 pixels in the destination image and it is possible (using some pixel-alignment trickery) to make this look good.

      I don't know if GNOME bothers to check the monitor's DPI settings (which, by the way, should be autodetected in x.org and XP, don't know why they're not). A lot of X apps don't, because they were written by muppets, or based on a toolkit written by muppets. Your best bet is to use something like GNUstep, which works based on the PostScript rendering model, and does check the X server's DPI.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:resizing screen images. by asb · · Score: 1

      Well, that was news to me. X.org thinks this is a 75dpi display but my plastic ruler reveals that this really is a 120dpi display.

      Now I only need to know how to change it. The graphic administration trools naturally provide no tools for this. A quick search reveals this page: http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html.

      When that information is adapted to Fedora Core 3, all it takes is adding argument "-dpi 120" to /etc/X11/gdm/gdm.conf:

      [server-Standard]
      name=Standard server
      command=/usr/X11R6/bin/X -dpi 120 -audit 0

      Of course, the Ajax calendar mentioned in the article still only shows the top half of the text in the week-display, but at least the input fields work correctly...

      Thanks.

      --
      Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
  78. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
    What's wrong with having the man-in-the-middle (proxy server) simply rendering the page in the browser of choice and sending the image (ala VNC) back to the requesting client.


    Everything. Think about it. It's hairy and horrible and deeply, deeply wrong.

    But more seriously, it would break any Ajax, Flash, or Java on the site you're browsing to.

    (Wait. Maybe this isn't such a bad idea fter all.)
  79. Wait a minute, hold on... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny

    If applications exist on the owner's server, and aren't installed and run locally, then how am I going to be able to pirate them?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  80. This sums it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  81. Gatorus 0.1 MTR - Javascript Quake Engine by Tei · · Score: 1

    I am actually coding a html based Quake engine.

    There will be a "engine" module, with complex code, initilalization, magic and hacks. And the gamelogic modules, with much readable code, easy to hack and enhance. To everyone to make "mods".

    Actually the mods only run inside Mozilla because reuse some graphics, but the "compiled" code may be designed to run on any non-mozilla and mozilla brownser.

    Adding some ajax features may hable multiplayer. So you can have some "tanks" games with the feel of good old Atari2600 :D

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  82. Re:Where's the audio/video [remix] app?? by IDkrysez · · Score: 1

    or for that matter, video. Cameraphone blogging is big, even if you could just create a soundtracked slideshow I think people would love it. Doesn't necessarily have to be AJAX, but as I said... fad. The server hardware wouldn't have to be so hefty or high-bandwidth if we started with PDA/cellphone mdeia.

    --
    Was it a bat I saw? Racecar. Stack cats. A man, a plan, a cat, a ham, a yak, a yam, a hat, a canal--Panama!
  83. AJAX is faster/easier or computers are faster by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    When I first started playing with Java Applets as an undergrad in 1997, my 75 MHz Pentium tricked out with 256 MB of RAM was TOO slow running Java.

    In 2003, we decided that XUL was too poorly documented so we developed an XML language for designing GUIs, that kept all the logic on the server and described widgets to the client machine. The client ran in Java. The language was a bit verbose, and our 400 MHz Pentium II machines really struggled, but when we upgraded to 800 MHz w/ 512 MB RAM clients, it ran decently for all but the largest data supplies to listboxes...

    Now we can run AJAX on our 1.5 - 4 GHz machines with 512 MB - 2 GB of RAM and we're supposed to be impressed at how much more efficient it is?

    The idea of the Applet was to move SOME processing to the client to take advantage of our FAST 200 MHz clients instead of the true dumb-terminal/mainframe model... that is even more the case here.

    I'm not convinced that AJAX is more powerful, just the machines are faster.

    Alex

    1. Re:AJAX is faster/easier or computers are faster by mccrew · · Score: 1
      I'm not convinced that AJAX is more powerful, just the machines are faster.

      I don't think this is the spin on why AJAX apps are more efficient. In the not-so-distant bad ol' days, applications were both:

      1. page oriented
      2. synchronous

      So if any one item on the screen needed to be changed due to user interaction, it resulted in a new request to the server for a full page, a full screen refresh, and for the user to patiently sit there blocked waiting for the spinning globe to stop before attempting the next operation.

      From a user's standpoint, what is compelling about AJAX apps is that asychronous background requests can be sent off to the server without blocking the user from further interaction with the web page or requiring a full screen refresh. This results in apps which are percieved to be MUCH snappier than their full-page-refresh counterparts.

      From a developer's standpoint, what is compelling about AJAX apps is that your server side logic can be much simpler. Each request can be a smaller, tighter API request that does not have to be so tightly coupled with all the form elements and data from the rest of the page. In short, server processing needn't be so "page aware."

      I'd be surprised if an AJAX app wasn't much more responsive than an equivalent Java applet on the same hardware.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    2. Re:AJAX is faster/easier or computers are faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still surf with my old computer, a 550 MHz AMD with 256MB ram. AJAX applications runs very nicely on it while both Java applets and Flash make my computer go so slow it almost hangs. AJAX applicatiosn also work without having to install flash and java plugins.

  84. Thats all very nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does it support OGG?

  85. Office .NET by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

    Anybody else remember when Microsoft said that the next version of Office was going to be a webpage where people would log in and basically "rent" the app instead of putting the app on their computer and buying it? They called it Office.NET (it was back before .NET was the framework. They had grand plans of slapping .NET at the end of all their software.) Office.NET turned into Office 2003 and the .NET moniker turned into their new framework.

    And now we finally have office apps in webpages. And not by Microsoft. ;)

  86. My AJAXy desires by CarrotLord · · Score: 1

    What I'd like to see is a proper contact management application. It could be AJAX, but the technology doesn't really matter. Something that enables you to link notes, organisations and keywords to contacts, and record details of the conversations you've had with them, and when you next need to contact them and what for.

    So you could look at Joe Bloggs, and see you've called him on Tuesday, gave him some details about blah, and need to call him back next week sometime, after you've spoken to John Random. Or when Foo Bar calls, you can refer to your notes on him, realise he's from X Incorporated, and know he was trying to sell you ninja turtles.

    And so on.

    Ideally, it would integrate with GMail or other mail clients, so you could see all your correspondance (email, phonecall and meeting notes, etc) in one nifty interface. I also think it should be able to sync up with your mobile. ie you connect your mobile, and it loads your recent call list, and propmts you to enter details on who you called and why, for each received and dialed call.

    You wouldn't necessarily want it accessible from your mobile -- you can't see the screen and talk at the same time, unless you have a smartphone with handsfree, but even then, the interface would probably limit you somewhat.

    If I was a Google employee, I'd use my 20% time to put this into GMail... :-)

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
  87. and Macintosh support by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    When Java came out, Microsoft controlled about 85% of the Market, Apple about 8%, and the OTHERS (OS/2, Engineering UNIX stations, etc. of which Solaris was a part) was the rest...

    Sun only put Java out for Solaris/Microsoft, so write-once, run-anywhere was write once, run on Windows/Solaris.

    The Mac Java was always MUCH laters and much buggier...

    If Sun shipped Java for the Mac, then as a cross-platform environment, it would have had a purpose. Back then, cross-platform meant Windows/Mac, or DOS/Windows/Mac...

    Sun ignored OS/2, the Mac, DOS, or ANY platform with usage... which made the write-once, run-anywhere POINTLESS...

    The only cross-platform advantage was theoretically Windows on non-Intel chips... which not only was a non-existance market, but Sun didn't always ship Java for it...

    Sun killed Java through stupidity.

    Alex

    1. Re:and Macintosh support by Decaff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sun killed Java through stupidity.

      Strange definition of 'killed', as Java is the most widely used development language.

  88. AJAX == browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and naturally the web browser people would like you to need their program in order to run other programs. And that's why it gets so much attention in the news. But the truth is that javascript is a terrible language and that the browser has no job acting like a VM.

    The plan is:

    1) Spread hype about AJAX (tudu lists, calendars, patience, etc)
    2) Say browser XXX doesn't do AJAX
    3) Broswer XXX dies
    4) All the three browsers left share the internet users
    5) emacs implements AJAX
    7) ???
    8) what happened to 6?

  89. Open source, eh? by wmark · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be GtuGdu Lists?

  90. Another AJAX Email Client by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    Hey, I just came across another AJAX email client in addition to the one mentioned in the article! I figured you guys would want to check it out, since I haven't seen it mentioned here on /. yet.

    1. Re:Another AJAX Email Client by SaturdayNight · · Score: 1

      And even 1 more, Microsoft's Outlook Web Access makes use of XMLHttpRequest calls, and has for a while. Granted the 'best' features are IE specific, but it does the job...

  91. It's called Marketing dude ! by Khalid · · Score: 1

    You need to identify the new concept and give it a new name to create a the buzz around and thus create an intellectual and economic activity around it. You need also to make-it hip to attract people. Many scholars argue, that the scientific innovation process is not very different from artistic creation (strong program), people need "hip" and "fashion", at any time, there is always more fashionable, sexy, hip, buzzword compliant technology (called it what you want) scientific approach than others, and this is exactly what is happening with AJAX now. Basically, scientific and and artistic innovation follow the same sociologic and cultural patterns. This area of research is called "Sociology of scientific Innovation", One of the most fascinating disciplines I have learned at the university

    Here are some entry links in Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_program
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientif ic_knowledge

    and an intersting controversy :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Hoax

  92. Re:My Beef: Interface by MrPink2U · · Score: 1

    You can also use the Bookmarks toolbar in the web browser for this. Both Firefox and MSIE have this feature built in, not sure about Opera or the others though. The websites can even set their own special icon too.

  93. Expect this to break in IE by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

    Security patches will break a bunch of features necessary to AJAX applications.

    Microsoft will not permit browser-based office suits, ever.

    If AJAX doesn't get broken on IE6, you can be assured that it will not work properly on IE7.

    I can see it now, "IE's not done till AJAX doesn't run!"

    Think I'm paranoid? Microsoft developed a free browser (IE), and *never* sold it, spending hundreds of millions on development in order to plow the mere possibility of browser apps running in an OS independent Netscape.

    They've done it once already; to protect the validity of that extermination effort, they'll have to do it again.

    Most likely, this is what the IE7 'rebirth' is about. More eyecandy, less compatability, and prevent XUL/AJAX/any-browser-based dynamic software from working properly.

    Require the *latest* IE7 for everything (office updates, MSN, etc. . ), and do your best to drive the other apps out of the market place. If necessary, pay large organizations NOT to switch to firefox.

    AJAX is one of Microsofts nightmares. Expect it to get crushed.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:Expect this to break in IE by Pman1 · · Score: 1

      AJAX isn't Microsoft's nightmare. Check up on Atlas, http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/06/28/ 416185.aspx, a neat addition to the .NET Framework that I will surely use once it's ready. Another addition to the Framework I will be using is LINQ, but that's another story...

    2. Re:Expect this to break in IE by inkless1 · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty funny prediction considering that AJAX is based on, in part, what was originally one of Microsoft's technologies.

      Also considering that they'd be making their browser incompatible with a large section of utility sites and upcoming e-commerce sites - including their own - it sounds far too stupid for Microsoft to step toward.

      Sorry, a bit too conspiracy and not enough logic for me to buy into that one.

  94. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  95. AJAX image editor? by simonff · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone has already built an AJAX image editor? It would work wonders for a photo organizing website, among other things.

  96. Wow. The future is... not here yet. by sootman · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Did you know there was AJAX word processor, AJAX spreadsheet, AJAX calendar, AJAX presentation-building software, AJAX e-mail client, AJAX note-taking software and some other interesting applications, which, deployed on your local server, do not need installation and "just work" in a browser window?"

    Let's see: word processor--didn't feel like signing up for an account. Spreadsheet--works in Firefox 1.0/Mac, but not Safari 1.3. Overall, has a long way to go--can't use arrow keys to move the active box in the grid, for example. And I doubt it's possible to recreate a zillion other useful features from a binary spreadsheet app, like dragging a cell's corner to fill lower rows. Calendar--wouldn't load at all in FF or Safari. Presentation--it's not AJAX. Email client--ha! instead of linking to Gmail, one of two programs that POPULARIZED AJAX (the other being google maps), the link leads to a nonexistant product from Yahoo. The note thing works but is pretty simple--feels like a bright student's DHTML project.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  97. Full-page UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More reasons applets suck:
    - Cannot assume most browsers have it turned on
    - Full-page UI (i.e. not just in a little rectangle) is harder
    - Java loading slow gives trademark 'grey square'

    AJAX takes off because it can reach over 90% of users, and especially the mainstream ones.

    AJAX allows the full DOM and has an excellent familiar object model for manipulating the DOM (Javascript)

    AJAX pages while loading look like a loading web page.

    AJAX can be relied upon because Microsoft supports it for OWA (Outlook Web Access) and therefore is unlikely to be removed as a feature.

    1. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      More reasons applets suck:
      - Cannot assume most browsers have it turned on


      You can't assume browsers have turned on JavaScript either, so your AJAX solution won't work in that case.

      - Full-page UI (i.e. not just in a little rectangle) is harder

      No it isn't. You simply open a new window.

      - Java loading slow gives trademark 'grey square'

      It need not - this is just bad coding and nothing specific to Java.

      AJAX takes off because it can reach over 90% of users, and especially the mainstream ones.

      It doesn't. It reaches only the users with browsers which support the latest JavaScript.

      AJAX allows the full DOM and has an excellent familiar object model for manipulating the DOM (Javascript)

      And there are Applet APIs for doing this.

      AJAX pages while loading look like a loading web page.

      So so applets if well written.

    2. Re:Full-page UI by dozer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, Decaff, you're really working overtime to tell us what is theoretically possible with Java applets. Tell you what... How about you give a URL to *one* non-trivial applet that embodies everything you're talking about. Something like Google Maps, Flickr, etc.

      - Like most Ajax apps, it must load in less than 1 second.
      - It must not load with the awful gray square or gratuitous Sun/Java logos.
      - It must run in the full page and handle window resizes well.
      - It must use the browser's native widget set (show me good Tiger widgets if I'm running on OSX Tiger).
      - It must not care what JVM it's running on. Write once run anywhere, you know. Don't force me to endure a 25 MB download just to run your Java applet.

      Not hard right? Well, point us to one.

      Nobody's doing it because, even though it's possible, it's just not worth the time! I wrote a proof of concept Java applet 6 months ago that embodied all of these requirements. I realized halfway through that I should have just used Ajax. Writing a decent Java applet required way too much manual effort.

              - Scott

      p.s. I recommend turning Java off in your browser. A number of evil websites use Java applets to evade popup blockers. Most people will never even discover that it isn't enabled.

    3. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Wow, Decaff, you're really working overtime to tell us what is theoretically possible with Java applets.

      I'm not working overtime - it is easy :)

      Tell you what... How about you give a URL to *one* non-trivial applet that embodies everything you're talking about. Something like Google Maps, Flickr, etc.

      Actually, I can't! Just because this is possible, doesn't mean that most people do it, and I admit this. A good applet is like a good Visual Basic program - hard to find! However, I'm going on about this because things should be better than AJAX. GUIs should not be a matter of hacking about with JavaScript. GUIs should not be sending a high volume of messages back and forth over the internet. GUIs should be able to handle megabytes of information in fractions of a second (the idea of a serious large spreadsheet in AJAX is bizarre!)

      I do have to comment on one of your requirements, which I think is inappropriate:

      It must not care what JVM it's running on. Write once run anywhere, you know. Don't force me to endure a 25 MB download just to run your Java applet.

      Why on earth should I write an applet that runs on Java 1.1.8, when Java 5.0 is available? That download (which is NOT 25MB!) will allow you to run any applet, not just mine.

      I put a question back to you: "Show me an AJAX page that will run on ANY browser, not just modern ones. I should not have to download tens of megabytes of browser just to run your JavaScript". Get my point?

    4. Re:Full-page UI by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I hope you didn't invest much time learning Java because it is going the way of the cuckoo. Java on the client side sucks - everyone knows it. Thats why no one deploys Java client applications anymore. Why didn't Google choose Java for maps.google.com? Why didnt Microsoft for Virtual Earth? Why didn't any major web app choose Java? Answer:

      - Crappy non-native look and feel
      - Slow start up (freezes the browser while Java initializes) and GUI responsiveness
      - Large downloads required for computers that don't the right version of Java

      Everyone should have a modern browser, even for security reasons. Not everyone should have the most recent JVM.

    5. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope you didn't invest much time learning Java because it is going the way of the cuckoo.

      Java is the most successful and widely used language in IT, and it's use is growing. You are confusing applets with Server side Java throughout your post. Saying 'Java is going the way of the cuckoo' is as dumb as saying 'the pentium is doomed' or 'no-one uses Windows'. (Actually, cuckoos are doing rather well - perhaps you meant Dodo?)

      Java on the client side sucks - everyone knows it.

      No. Just because you think that does not mean 'everyone knows it'. One of the most popular IDEs ever produced - Eclipse - is a client side Java app. Do you hear developers saying 'Eclipse sucks'? Of course not.

      Thats why no one deploys Java client applications anymore.

      Nonsense. You may be interested to know how widely used Java Web Start is - the answer is 'very widely'. Java Web Start is a technology for deploying client side apps.

      Why didn't Google choose Java for maps.google.com?

      Because they need a distributed API that doesn't need a download. Google use huge amounts of Java for other things on their servers.

      Why didnt Microsoft for Virtual Earth?

      Because Microsoft dropped use of cross-platform Java years ago!

      Why didn't any major web app choose Java?

      Most of them DO use Java, but on the server side.
      For example, e-bay runs almost entirely on Java.

      Answer:

      - Crappy non-native look and feel


      What non-native look and feel? Most applets use the native GUI!

      - Slow start up (freezes the browser while Java initializes) and GUI responsiveness

      When does this happen? Modern VMs can start up in a fraction of a second. What lack of responsiveness - it uses the native GUI!

      - Large downloads required for computers that don't the right version of Java

      Wrong. A moderate once-only download (not downloads).

      Funny how Slashdotters are so keen for users to download tens of megabytes in order to switch browsers objects so strongly to a much smaller download to keep the JVM up to date!

      Is there something about the word 'Java' that blocks intelligent thought processes? Why do I see so many posts which talk about Java as it was nearly a decade ago? I thought nerds were supposed to be up-to-date with IT developments.

    6. Re:Full-page UI by kurtdg · · Score: 1

      I am developing a custom app for a top-three pharmaceutical company and they were very pleased to learn that we can deploy using Java Web Start. Its all Swing btw.

    7. Re:Full-page UI by sryx · · Score: 1

      I was amazed to hear that there is an Applet API for DOM interaction. Is there any work to make this cross browser compatible? I develop web applications for Higher Ed and I am constantly battling the limitations of ADA compliance in making fun interactive web pages. I can see how something like this could make an excellent "Web 2.0" ish version that didn't rely on redoing every page in Java Script (thus creating a nightmare of code to support) It seems like you could build some extremely powerful web apps that went far beyond the capabilities of Java Script and used better persistence patterns and stood a much better chance of being cross browser compatible. This is defiantly worth investigating.
      -Jason

    8. Re:Full-page UI by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      You can't assume browsers have turned on JavaScript either

      It's a safer assumption.

      "AJAX takes off because it can reach over 90% of users, and especially the mainstream ones."

      It doesn't. It reaches only the users with browsers which support the latest JavaScript.


      Which probably is somewhere near, oh, 90% of users.

    9. Re:Full-page UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java is the most successful and widely used language in IT Yes just displaced that title from COBOL congratulations, but real software isnt developed in languages used by IT, not operating systems, not webservers, not rdbms, not compilers, not even webbrowsers nothing important in the grand scheme of things. Wow another little blob of code to ensure that bob from human resources can ensure that everyone has received the latest sexual harrasement training, YAWN.

      Do you hear developers saying 'Eclipse sucks'? Of course not.
      I for one will, its unresponsive on really fast machines, consumes way to much memory etc, and for that you dont get anything to compensate other than to say its written in Java woopy, I will use an IDE compiled to native instructions that dosent grind my machine to a halt, thank you very much.

      Most of them DO use Java, but on the server side.
      For example, e-bay runs almost entirely on Java.

      This oft repeated misnomer is tiresome, wow java preforms well on servers that cost north of 40k thats great, If I hade serveral GB of RAM and multiple processors maybe I too wouldnt notice a difference between java and native compiled code, oh wait I do, and the performance of java is still blows. What java programmers never seem to understand because they are so far abstracted from the hardware and live in a wonderland of sugar and fairys etc is that all the performance of there applications
      comes from the performance of the JVM and that is not consistant among platfroms or even the same code base, sun's jvm performs well on linux and windows, but not their own, differing releases of the same "product" have wild swings in performance as well , which irronically makes it not a good language for cross platform development.

      And also you contradict your early assertion that java is used widely on the client side.

      Wrong. A moderate once-only download (not downloads).
      As a java developer your probably familiar with the
      Warning xxxx is deprecated.
      Write once run anywhere in the context of java is utter and complete bullshit otherwise I wouldnt need to have two versions of the jdk installed on my machine....

      Java is irrelevant too real programmers, a terrible "platform" in its own right, and even worse language but I dont fell like ranting about that right this instant.

    10. Re:Full-page UI by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      I agree with your comments however It must not load with the awful gray square or gratuitous Sun/Java logos. is not such a great point. Go to maps.google.com (one of your examples no less) and although it loads quite quickly, there clearly is an awful grey square prior to the map tiles being d/led.

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    11. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Yes just displaced that title from COBOL congratulations, but real software isnt developed in languages used by IT, not operating systems, not webservers, not rdbms, not compilers, not even webbrowsers nothing important in the grand scheme of things

      There is a high-performance Java webserver - tomcat 5.5 does this and even matches Apache in some benchmarks.

      There is a high-performance Java database - HSQLDB.

      And, of course, the Java compiler itself is written in Java.

      There are also real-time high-performance device control systems, games, mobile devices, interpreters for other languages - you name it, it has been written in Java.

      I will use an IDE compiled to native instructions that dosent grind my machine to a halt, thank you very much.

      I really don't understand how such a lack of knowledge of Java persists on these forums. Java IS compiled to native instructions, and has been for about 7 years!

      This oft repeated misnomer is tiresome, wow java preforms well on servers that cost north of 40k thats great, If I hade serveral GB of RAM and multiple processors maybe I too wouldnt notice a difference between java and native compiled code, oh wait I do, and the performance of java is still blows.

      Perhaps you should actually take a look at the e-Bay infrastructure before you comment? Those specs are, of course, nonsense.

      Java is irrelevant too real programmers, a terrible "platform" in its own right, and even worse language but I dont fell like ranting about that right this instant.

      A strange statement, as about three quarters of 'real' programmers use Java. Unless you are simply labelling anyone who uses Java as not a real programmer.

      Write once run anywhere in the context of java is utter and complete bullshit otherwise I wouldnt need to have two versions of the jdk installed on my machine....

      Right. So no-one is ever going to be allowed to add features to Java because you are insisting that 'write once run anywhere' means that you want to only have, say Java 1.1.8 installed?

    12. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      "You can't assume browsers have turned on JavaScript either"

      It's a safer assumption.


      Not really. A good developer should assume that neither Java or JavaScript are present.

      "AJAX takes off because it can reach over 90% of users, and especially the mainstream ones."

      "It doesn't. It reaches only the users with browsers which support the latest JavaScript."

      Which probably is somewhere near, oh, 90% of users.


      I think you should do a bit of research before posting. Try Google Maps on even moderately old browsers and you will see it complain. Here is the compatibility note:

      "Google Maps is not compatible with every web browser. Google Maps currently supports recent versions of Firefox/Mozilla, IE 5.5+, Safari 1.2+, and sort of supports Opera. IE 5.0 is not supported"

      If you had experience of writing a large commercial website you would realise that that does not mean 90% of all users - not even somewhere near!

      However, suppose it was 90%, or even 95%.... on a large website with thousands of users per day, that means you are rejecting a substantial number of people.

      I like the idea of AJAX for many purposes - it seems particularly good for internal company use where you can guarantee browser versions, or for stuff like 'google maps' which is a fun or convenience thing. However, anyone who uses it for essential stuff on sites where you can't guarantee the browser type is going to make a lot of users very annoyed.

    13. Re:Full-page UI by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      However, anyone who uses it for essential stuff on sites where you can't guarantee the browser type is going to make a lot of users very annoyed.

      Essentially, if Google, 37signals, etc. are fine with requiring a modern browser, so am I.

    14. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Essentially, if Google, 37signals, etc. are fine with requiring a modern browser, so am I.

      Fine. Good luck to you. But if you are writing a website that has to support hundreds of thousands of users and your customer base ranges from young nerds with the latest Firefox to late-middle aged who are still using IE4/5 on Win98, then modern AJAX (as against lots of old JavaScript hacks) just won't do the job.

      This is why I responded in the negative to the statement that AJAX is OK for 90% of users. It isn't. Really.

    15. Re:Full-page UI by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Well, maps.google.com gives me a blank page... not too encouraging for Ajax. OTOH, maps24.com gives me a nice zoomable, draggable map interface in java for the US, Canada, and much of Europe.

      In my experiance, these javascript based apps are much more likely to not work, where all the java applets "just work" whether I'm using IE, Opera or Netscape.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    16. Re:Full-page UI by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      But if you are writing a website that has to support hundreds of thousands of users and your customer base ranges from young nerds with the latest Firefox to late-middle aged

      And Google doesn't qualify for that market... how, exactly?

      This is why I responded in the negative to the statement that AJAX is OK for 90% of users. It isn't. Really.

      While browser stats are a bit of voodoo science, TheCounter.com publishes theirs (and their counters are used on a hell of a lot of sites, so it should be a pretty good representative sample).

      http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/July/browser. php

      From that, AJAX is supported by 90-95% of their visitors. If you have stats that say otherwise, by all means present them.

    17. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      "But if you are writing a website that has to support hundreds of thousands of users and your customer base ranges from young nerds with the latest Firefox to late-middle aged"

      And Google doesn't qualify for that market... how, exactly?


      We aren't talking about Google. We are talking about Google Maps. Big difference.

      From that, AJAX is supported by 90-95% of their visitors. If you have stats that say
      otherwise, by all means present them.


      Visitors is not the same as users, as a minority of people make up the majority of internet use. You have to consider your target audience. here may be a lot of users out there who occasionally use the internet, and have legacy browsers (I know this to be the case, because if I don't allow backward compatibility, I get a lot of complaints!).

      Even if you only reject say 5% of users, you are putting off a large number of potential customers. That is bad news for many business sites.

    18. Re:Full-page UI by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      We aren't talking about Google. We are talking about Google Maps. Big difference.

      I'd be very surprised if Google Maps hadn't had hundreds of thousands of users ranging from nerds with Firefox to the elderly.

      I know this to be the case, because if I don't allow backward compatibility, I get a lot of complaints!

      A site with AJAX can be constructed in a manner that is backwards compatible, too. The AJAX helpers in Ruby on Rails, for example, make it straightforward.

      Even if you only reject say 5% of users, you are putting off a large number of potential customers.

      Depends on how much advantage you can give to the other 95% of users.

      Take Gmail, for example. Most everyone I've talked to about it vastly prefers it over the old, static Hotmail / Yahoo! Mail / etc. Faster, easier to use, better features for 95% of browsers trumps the 5% who can't use it (or need the standard HTML version) handily.

    19. Re:Full-page UI by dozer · · Score: 1

      Java IS compiled to native instructions, and has been for about 7 years!

      You understand what the original poster is saying of course. Java is compiled to bytecode. The bytecode is only compiled to native instructions at runtime. This will always be a significant performance hit. gcj rules of course, but nobody uses it yet.

      Perhaps you should actually take a look at the e-Bay infrastructure before you comment? Those specs are, of course, nonsense.

      You're wrong.

      http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead011101. htm

      Note, in particular, "EBay uses Sun Enterprise Servers in tightly integrated clusters..." Ebay does run Java on big iron.

      A strange statement, as about three quarters of 'real' programmers use Java.

      That's an even stranger statement! Are you really claiming that, of all programmers in the world, 1 in 3 actively use Java?? That's simply wrong. You'll have to back that assertion up.

      Right. So no-one is ever going to be allowed to add features to Java because you are insisting that 'write once run anywhere' means that you want to only have, say Java 1.1.8 installed?

      Yes, absolutely. Write once, run ANYWHERE. That's what "anywhere" means.

      I'll put it another way. How many times have you had to upgrade your PC physical machine because a new version of GCC came out? Since 1987, maybe twice. Yet today I'm forced to download two separate virtual machines (1.3.1, and 1.4.2) to install the full Oracle suite. Even you must admit that this indicates a pretty serious problem.

    20. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I'd be very surprised if Google Maps hadn't had hundreds of thousands of users ranging from nerds with Firefox to the elderly.

      I'm sure they do, but this is yet again missing the point. There are hundreds of thousands of users who can't use Google Maps because of their browsers.

      A site with AJAX can be constructed in a manner that is backwards compatible, too. The AJAX helpers in Ruby on Rails, for example, make it straightforward.

      No it can't. There are significant JavaScript compatibility problems with older browsers that made JavaScript development for these a problem. The way that they handled the DOM was quote different, and support for XMLHttpRequest wasn't there.

      And don't get me started on the mess that is Ruby on Rails.

      Depends on how much advantage you can give to the other 95% of users.

      No it doesn't. Suppose you are a large company with a long established customer base. You don't install a technology that immediately cuts off features from 5% of your users. It is very bad business practice.

    21. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      "Java IS compiled to native instructions, and has been for about 7 years!"

      You understand what the original poster is saying of course. Java is compiled to bytecode. The bytecode is only compiled to native instructions at runtime. This will always be a significant performance hit. gcj rules of course, but nobody uses it yet.


      Nonsense. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Hotspot works. Compilation to native code is done in the background. There is no performance hit, which is why Java can now be used successfully for things like real-time control.

      You're wrong.

      http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead011101. htm

      Note, in particular, "EBay uses Sun Enterprise Servers in tightly integrated clusters..." Ebay does run Java on big iron.


      You need to update your facts. That was from years ago. EBay has been migrating off of such so-called 'big iron' to Linux.

      "Right. So no-one is ever going to be allowed to add features to Java because you are insisting that 'write once run anywhere' means that you want to only have, say Java 1.1.8 installed?"

      Yes, absolutely. Write once, run ANYWHERE. That's what "anywhere" means.


      No it absolutely is not. This has to be the silliest definition I have ever heard.

      I'll put it another way. How many times have you had to upgrade your PC physical machine because a new version of GCC came out? Since 1987, maybe twice.

      That is a very poor analogy. The appropriate question is 'how many times have you had to upgrade your libc to run newer software since Linux was released'. The answer is many times. Does that mean that Linux is not a portable platform? Of course not! It just means that the libraries get updated on all platforms.

      Yet today I'm forced to download two separate virtual machines (1.3.1, and 1.4.2) to install the full Oracle suite. Even you must admit that this indicates a pretty serious problem.

      Of course it isn't serious - and exaggerating for effect like this does not help your point. Just because Oracle embed different versions of Java does not mean that other companies don't write very successful portable Java apps. A good example is NetBeans which not only runs on a range of platforms, it even runs on VMs which aren't Sun's (like IBMs) and VMs that aren't even based on Sun's code (HPs). This is as it should be.

      That's an even stranger statement! Are you really claiming that, of all programmers in the world, 1 in 3 actively use Java?? That's simply wrong. You'll have to back that assertion up.

      It is not simply wrong - it is a simple fact. It is backed by the job market, surveys of developers, surveys of managers, book sales, the TIOBE index, download statistics for development tools.

      You may not like it, but the development world today for most people is a Java world.

    22. Re:Full-page UI by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I was amazed to hear that there is an Applet API for DOM interaction. Is there any work to make this cross browser compatible?

      It already is! There was an API that was introduced for Netscape, but it was extended by Sun to allow JavaScript and DOM interaction for all modern browsers (although there are some differences). It is called LiveConnect, and provides netscape.* packages for applets.

      Java Applet technology has changed beyond recognition in the past few years - I find the idea of Java Applet interaction with JavaScript and AJAX to be very exciting and powerful.

      I can see how something like this could make an excellent "Web 2.0" ish version that didn't rely on redoing every page in Java Script (thus creating a nightmare of code to support) It seems like you could build some extremely powerful web apps that went far beyond the capabilities of Java Script and used better persistence patterns and stood a much better chance of being cross browser compatible. This is defiantly worth investigating.

      My view exactly!

  98. Re:um, get your references straight by drew · · Score: 1

    AJAX is a floor cleaner, Ajax is a (er, two) hero of Greek Mythology. That's the beauty of a trademark. Just like we can call junk mail spam without being harassed by Hormel, but we can't call it SPAM.

    Anyway, in the translation I read they were names Aias.

    As far as I can tell, the term AJAX was coined to allow consultants a way to bill more money for doing the same work. If they just described how they were going to build a dynamic web application to a client PHB, his eyes would glaze over, but if they tell him they're going to build him a webside using AJAX, his PHB Buzzword Fetish kicks in and suddenly the consultant can bump his billing rate up 10-20% for doing the exact same thing he would have done anyway.

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  99. Standard cross-platform woes by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    Even if developing so called thick client apps for multiple platforms, you still have to deal with this.
    Sure, you can contain the core of your business logic in some well written ANSI C++ but, generally, the UI code will be much bigger than the rest of the app, and you still have to code to the different libraries.
    Testing is still an arduous task. Making the apps 508 compliant can still be difficult.
    What AJAX really provides is simplified deployment (and marketing foofoo). Where it really hurts is dev and debugging.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  100. Hmmm, sounds like you want what MS calls an HTA (html application). Basically, an HTML file with an HTA extension. You could drop it on your desktop, and it could connect to the "live" web application, and give you pretty Icons, customized menubar, yada yada yada.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  101. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by hhlost · · Score: 1

    Before the word "accessible" goes the way of so many other techie words that are now so ambiguos that they are effictivly meaningless, I'd like to suggested that we find a different way to say that something won't have any alternate accessibility features. To me "inaccessible" means, "down" or "not functioning properly."

  102. Convenient snip by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1
    You cut out my explanation:
    There should be a middle layer that does that talking and filtering. This insulates you from things like changing where the database server resides, what DB software you're using and even changes to the table layout/column data types.


    Stored procedures only provide you a portion of that insulation. Suppose you go and move the database from mySQL to Oracle because you have a ten-fold increase in transactions. Suppose you go from a single box to a DB cluster.

    Neither of these changes would affect the screen being presented to the end user but it would affect the logic that generates that screen. So you could either go in an touch every single page and update them to the new DB pointers and files or you could leave that back with the controller/business logic level and leave the page alone.

    That was my point about insulation.
    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Convenient snip by trezor · · Score: 1

      Oh well. Guess I misread your post, and you obviously misread mine.

      Now that slashdot is actually XHTML/CSS-based anything can happen, right? So let's just admit our mistakes and call it even :)

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  103. For these people, a thin client web appliance using applications hosted remotely on machines maintained by competent people makes a huge amount of sense.

    You're right. We absolutely should not allow individuals any responsibility to control their systems and data if they're not highly trained to do so. Being able to do "enough to get the job done" isn't good enough today.

    Instead, we should force them to use third party services, via a slow and unreliable link, administered by unknown people whose qualifications are probably as good as those who "designed" all the web sites using "HTML" in the late 90s, where the security guarantees are probably much less than those that allowed large numbers of credit card numbers to leak from major financial firms several times recently, and the back-ups are probably less robust than those at companies whose own IT staff can administer them and verify that they are working, and the data protection comes with no guarantees and you couldn't rely on any you did get anyway because the service is provided from some cheap labour country using former call centre staff with no laws to look after personal information, using user interfaces designed by those same "web programmers" from the late 90s, which could be automatically "upgraded" in a way that removed your favourite feature or introduced a critical bug at any time, thus creating a single, highly probably point of failure for every person doing every job at the company that is completely beyond the company's control.

    On second thought, maybe that's THE DUMBEST IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE.

    Yeah, that'll be it. :-)

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  104. Re:um, get your references straight by idlake · · Score: 1

    Capitalization doesn't (generally) make a difference for trademarking. And we can call junkmail "spam" not because of capitalization differences but because doing so doesn't identify a product.

    The origin of the name "Ajax" is greek mythology, and that's where the trademark derives from. Of course, the trademark is still legal, but that doesn't change the history or derivation.

    Furthermore, the term "AJAX" does denote something distinct from "dynamic web application" and refers to sites like Google Maps, Google Mail, and Yahoo! Mail. Given that it is new APIs and new software, you can bet that it's going to cost the client more, given that there are fewer toolkits and less experience with implementing these kinds of apps.

  105. It does work with Opera on Mac OS X by Roullian · · Score: 1

    Sorry to contradict you, it does work with Opera on Mac OS X. And I've had reports it works on Windows too.
    Anyway, what are you thinking when you launched this closed-source browser??

  106. Re:Meh - Is it such a silly idea? by mc_barron · · Score: 1

    I agree it's hairy and heavy-weight, and that for most users it would be useless. But what about this: imagine a system where you choose which browser to render it in, and at what resolution. Web developers would LOVE this (an actual screenshot f their website in another environment, instantly).

  107. Re:um, get your references straight by drew · · Score: 1

    I suppose that depends who you are talking to. I've generally seen AJAX used to describe any type of interactive web application that uses javascript to load data from the server asynchronously. If you want to use a strict definition, Google Maps isn't AJAX either, as it uses neither XML nor the XmlHttpRequest object.

    Given that it is new APIs and new software, you can bet that it's going to cost the client more, given that there are fewer toolkits and less experience with implementing these kinds of apps.

    My point was that (IMO) the name was coined because developers could develop the exact same solutions, but charge more for it by slapping a buzzwordy name on it (with a bonus for piggybacking off the buzzwordy-ness of XML, even though most 'AJAX' applications don't actually use XML). And it is most definitely not new technology. It's a new name for something that many people have been doing for years. I wrote my first 'AJAX' app in 2001, and I'm pretty sure there were others before me, even if I wasn't aware of it at the time.

    P.S. The trademark comment was a joke. You know... Sarcasm. As many others have said, names are rarely unique. But just FYI, capitalization does enter into trademarking, together with font and color. The word spam is not trademarked, but if you put up a web site talking about junk mail, with the heading SPAM in bold yellow letters, you could probably expect to be hearing from Hormel's lawyers over it.

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  108. example... by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    I should have posted an example instead of simply running off my mouth (fingers?).

    Open a text editor.
    Enter the following, and save it in a file called gmail.hta (on your windows machine) You can then double click it. Note, you can also specify your own icons.

    code:
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
        <TITLE>Google Mail</TITLE>
        <HTA:APPLICATION ID="oGmail"
            APPLICATIONNAME="Google Mail"
            SINGLEINSTANCE="yes"
            SCROLL="no"
            >
    </HEAD>
    <BODY style="padding: 0 0 0 0; margin: 0 0 0 0">
    <IFRAME style="height:100%;width:100%;border:none" src="http://gmail.com">
    </IFRAME>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>

    Go here for more info
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/hta/refe rence/objects/hta.asp

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  109. Well.... by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

    ...there's already this. It does pretty much exactly what you're looking for, except via VNC.

  110. Uh These aren't AJAX implementations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hasn't anyone noticed that the cited pages aren't AJAX implementations at all, but merely client side scripting?

    The spreadsheet appears to have no XML at all, let alone a xmlhttp server call.

  111. HyperTIES browser for NeWS was "Ajaxian" by SimHacker · · Score: 1

    The NeWS window system was "Ajaxian" back in the 90's, but it used PostScript instead of JavaScript, PostScript instead of HTML, and PostScript instead of XML. In other words, it was PostScript based, with a much more consistent architecture than AJAX, but it used the same essential techniques like downloadable code, local interaction, asynchronous network communication, etc.

    Under the direction of Ben Shneiderman, we developed the HyperTIES hypermedia browser in NeWS, which downloaded PostScript programs and data into the NeWS window system, that implemented the HyperTIES user interface and rendered the interactive hypermedia content.

    As well as supporting fully scalable PostScript graphics and text, you could also embed "applets" written in PostScript on the HyperTIES page, like pie menus, text and graphics editors, and other kinds of locally interactive user interfaces that communicate asynchronously with the HyperTIES engine and Emacs based authoring tool.

    HyperTIES is described in the paper "Designing to Facilitate Browsing: A Look Back at the Hyperties Workstation Browser, by Ben Shneiderman, Catherine Plaisant, Rodrigo Botafogo, Don Hopkins, William Weiland.

    Since browsing hypertext can present a formidable cognitive challenge, user interface design plays a major role in determining acceptability. In the Unix workstation version of Hyperties, a research-oriented prototype, we focussed on design features that facilitate browsing. We first give a general overview of Hyperties and its markup language. Customizable documents can be generated by the conditional text feature that enables dynamic and selective display of text and graphics. In addition we present:

    • an innovative solution to link identification: pop-out graphical buttons of arbitrary shape.
    • application of pie menus to permit low cognitive load actions that reduce the distraction of common actions, such as page turning or window selection.
    • multiple window selection strategies that reduce clutter and housekeeping effort. We preferred piles-of-tiles, in which standard-sized windows were arranged in a consistent pattern on the display and actions could be done rapidly, allowing users to concentrate on the contents.
    -Don
    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  112. Almost by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    It cleans the fridge, table, oven, microwave, and floor... but not the kitchen sink.;)

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  113. Like these AJAX apps? We want to hire you. by mjosofsky · · Score: 1

    JOB TITLE: AJAX Innovator
    LOCATION: Mountain View, CA

    DESCRIPTION:
    Want to transform the world of search? We are seeking a highly-motivated software developer to lead web applications development. The ideal candidate is an enthusiastic and entrepreneurial software engineer with startup experience who feels passionately about making software highly usable. You would feel right at home with us if you believe creating great web applications requires "getting into the mind and heart of the user".

    Headquartered in Mountain View, we are privately held and VC-backed.

    REQUIRED TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE:
    * Java Servlet/JSP or equivalent
    * Web application experience (HTML, AJAX, DHTML, JavaScript, JSP)
    * Relational database experience (MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, Postgres SQL, DB2)
    * Persistence layer experience (e.g. Hibernate)
    * Human Computer Interaction (HCI)
    * Full product lifecycle
    * Natural Language Processing (NLP) and/or Search experience a plus

    QUALIFICATIONS:
    * BS or higher in Computer Science
    * 3-5 years of software engineering experience
    * Outstanding communication and teamwork skills
    * Passion for broad areas of science, technology, and innovation
    * Startup experience
    * High degree of integrity, passion and drive

    Send resume and cover letter to jobs@darthdex.com with subject line "AJAX Innovator". US work authorization required.

    KEYWORDS:
    o Search Engine / Search Engines
    o Internet Search
    o Web Applications Engineer
    o Software Developer
    o User Interface
    o Human Computer Interaction (HCI)

  114. ERP/CRM AJax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a look at 24SevenOffice - it is ERP/CRM which uses the Ajax technique extensively.

  115. Gee. How cool! by gevantry · · Score: 1

    And when your internet connection goes south, or your network connection is broken, you can't get to your stuff. Oh, you have back-up apps on the HD. What? To save money, you bought a dumb box?

    This sounds like the Microsoft version of the perfect future in which all applications are on line, you pay monthly fees to subscribe to them, and Microsoft is running the internet for peace, security, and benefit of all humankind. Bill Gates, looking like Henry Gibson on Laugh-In, is smiling at you out of the screen and has a flower for you.

    I think I'll stay behind the wave on this one.

  116. OpenOffice.org is making the office suite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google isn't making an office suite. Instead, they are probably instead building a browser based OS of sorts that will run other people's software. From what I've heard, it's part virtual network computing with the ability to do a lot of the processing locally.

    http://osx.portraitofakite.com/ is cool too.

  117. Re:AJAX, it's magic! - server push?? by mermonkey · · Score: 1

    What is all this talk about "server-push"?
    It is still HTTP underneath... everything is still client-driven... or am i missing something? Yes, the client can poll the server for updates... is that what people mean by push?

    Ho-hum, i've missed the boat on this thread and would love to discuss ajax, but i'm afraid my comments will just get buried in yesterday's news so i'm not going to waste my time ;)... except to say:

    I like ajax. In my app it is a really nice and efficient way to do in-page tree expansions, retrieve forms/dialogs, and to send complex validations and evaluations of user-entered data in order to tailor (especially where multiple form fields have dependency links).

    What i don't like: i am the proud owner of many thousands of lines of javascript renderers (the whole ui (menus, trees, dialogs, etc) are all rendered from xml in js. Now that ajax is finally catching on, i expect we'll see more and more standard rendering components. Before long, they'll be built in to the browsers. Cross-browser js is painful.

    An intersting discussion: why now? Ajax has been around for 5 yrs, why is it suddenly gettin buzz? My app went this route with IE5.0 and a couple years ago, we felt we'd misread the crystal ball by going with this approach. Sure, it was working well, but it had no buzz. The IT deps of our customers didn't understand the model and we'd have to explain it over and over and they's always want to know why we weren't more buzz-word compliant with j2ee or .net or whatever.

    The good news: i finally have a marketable skill to put on my resume :).

    cheers!
    stu.

  118. Re:AJAX, it's magic! - server push?? by Godeke · · Score: 1

    Yeah, "server-push" was a misstatement caused by too quick posting. Proof reading isn't for /. posts. In the end, polling can be quite efficient ("anything new"->"nope") in terms of bandwidth and server resources and in effect is updates from the server as needed (the collaborative word processor shown recently makes it good use of such techniques). The old "content push" clients were nothing more than this (since actually pushing to firewalled or NATted clients is nearly impossible).

    But in the end, my enthusiasm is from the idea of central management and zero client side impact as compared to the heavier apps that used to be the norm for this level of interactivity. Since our product is already web based, our (personal) main gains are in reducing the server load by doing micro updates on demand instead of brute force page rebuilds.

    I think the main reason for "why now" is that the browser market has stabilized around two platforms that are reliable enough to pull it off. Back when you had to support 4.0 versions of browsers it just wasn't going to happen.

    On the subject of the browsers adding support for ajax, I'm not really sure that's going to be a great thing. Ajax snuck up on people because Javascript, CSS and XHTML were standard *enough* to make it work... any extensions by the vendors will probably be completely incompatible.

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.