Slashdot Mirror
Online Ajax Pages The New Web Desktop?
SphereOfInfluence writes "With our existing models for operating environments aging badly, how do we manage our information and software as we get increasingly mobile and short on attention? In a ZDNet piece, Dion Hinchcliffe discusses the rise of the new dynamic, online, roaming Ajax desktops like Netvibes, Live.com, Protopage, and Pageflakes. Will concerns about privacy and reliability kill these or is this the wave of the future?"
Although cool and nifty, who is really going to want a remote desktop which governments can potentially access at their free will? Especially nowadays with lax wiretap laws and the like.
But this solution has also it's own problem, like all the earlier attempts, in this case the problem is a lot about security and secrecy.
When these applications start to be sold to companies to run on the company's own servers, some of the problems do go away ofcourse..
Oh dear, its only a short article and its got "leverage" and
"rich" (as in experience). Pass the sick bucket. Still, I
persevered. Not sure why I bothered. Seems like just another
snake oil "evangelist" (he missed that one) trying to flog yet
more CPU sucking eye candy that will have a large impact on your
computers power consumption but a small impact on how much more
usable the web will be. Is it just me? Is there really something
wrong with clear, simple HTML pages that load quickly without all
this flash/ajax/flavour-of-the-month-tool crap shoved in just to
please web fashion victims?
Netvibes, Protopage, Pageflakes, Live.com, and a bonus Google Personalized
Ah hypertext links. What wonders have Tim Burners Lee wrought. And look, I'm anonymous so no karma whoring.
I think Google and Gmail illustrate the limits of online apps (that would include Ajax as well as any other remote system). I see three basic issues:
* I (like many others) use mail as a general information storage system. And whenever I'm offline, that information is unavailable. And yes, offline still happens quite regularily - there's still plenty of trains, planes, trainstations and airports, hotels and conference venues that don't have it, have it but at ridiculous cost, or have it but some random component is down leaving everyone offline.
I need to have data cached locally - but if I'm going to have a local solution set up anyways I might as well go with that and avoid the hassle.
* If I leave data at Google (or some other off-site organization), my data integrity is only as good as their security. That is something I do not have any control over and (as has been demonstrated) even supposedly very security conscious companies regularily goof.
* Google and Yahoo have amply demonstrated a third issue: jurisdiction. If I have information stored with Google, I may suddenly be exposed to liability and possible data seizures in both my own country as well as Googles base country (USA at this time). If I am a company owner, do I really need the headache of reading up on data retention minutiae for a country on a different continent?
As a private citizen, there are today plenty of books and audio recordings that are in the public domain in Europe but not in the US. Also, rules about fair use are different. If I store an mp3 of an early Elvis recording in a service run by a company that is based in the US, will I get hit by a lawsuit, or have my (perfectly legal) recording deleted with no warning? I do not need that headache.
I think these kind of apps really will find their niche as internally run company-wide systems, where you have control, not primarily as the kind of third-party enterprises we usually talk about.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I used to think this would be the future, but my views on that has changed. Lately, it's been very obvious that any script-kiddie with control of a sufficient amount of compromised machines (zombies) can ddos any webserver, almost regardless of the capacity of the datacenter.
Will concerns about privacy and reliability kill these or is this the wave of the future?
If you think reliability is likely to kill this, I have two questions for you:
1. When was the last time Google stopped working?
2. When was the last time Windows stopped working?
The simple fact is that a single centrally administered server farm is vastly easier to administrate -- and will be vastly more reliable -- than a hundred million home PCs, most of which are managed by people who are vastly less competent than the average server farm administrator. Of course, if Windows broke and your home PC isn't working, you won't be able to use it to connect to sites online; but this isn't much of a problem. People care far more about their data than their hardware; if all else fails, they can borrow a friend's terminal.
Privacy and security, on the other hand, are much more serious issues; but (sadly) I don't think they have much chance of stopping something like this. Computer security is something which most people simply don't understand.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
If you rely on webapps exclusively, you can't reach your information all the time. Your internet connection could drop out, or you could be someplace without an internet connection (wardriving might be easy, but I never find an open access point when I need one).
Webapps complement regular apps, they don't replace them. It's good that websites are finally feeling more like real applications, and it's nice to be able to reach your information from everywhere, but they'll never replace them completely.
Why does one technology have to kill the other technology? Both can coexist fine. I use Gmail, but I still use Thunderbird to read and send my e-mail when I'm at my computer.
Online Ajax Pages The New Web Desktop?
I think I'd be happy to see this... as long as the Internet transfer speeds would equal that of a hard drive, and I wouldn't have to pay just to stay online and do my work.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
No.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
General consumers do not care about privacy until they get bit by it or a "trustworthy" news agency makes it sound like the whole world will collapse.
That's not really being stupid - just relativly uneducated and most people are too busy with other things to really think it through. I talk people out of using this type of stuff all the time - simply tell them how it can be abused. Until then they usually just look at the marketing hype about how useful it is when it works.
The first major public group that looses something important through a lack of privacy and it will stop. Just as people didn't lock doors at the turn of the century (who cared about privacy?) once it was obvious it was going to be taken advantage of it changed. Though it will probably swing back too far the other way in trusting almost nothing.
But hey, maybe they will fix thier privacy issues too, it *could* happen.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
The problem with AJAX as I see it is that it is a bit of a Kludge.
Why did XUL never take off? I think that is a really interesting technology, much better than AJAX, but I guess being mozilla only it will never really reach mainstream? I guess it wouldn't be possible to create a XUL plug-in for IE?
But please make your ajax scripts available through https or half of the corporate users won't ever stand half a chance of seeing your 'loading please wait' splash screen...
Hint: https://mail.google.com/mail (thanks google)
Although I do think, Ajax with javascript/dhtml is pretty cool, it's a bit overkill to think that it will be the "desktop" platform of the future. My beef would be an idea of a secondary application layer (only logical, not literal) over OS and within browser application framework. The shared load between Javascript JIT compilation and native applications to make Ajax application smooth, stable and functional would be hard to implement especially for portable PDAs with underpower processors and limited memory and buffer cache. Not to mention Ajax applications will always have to be confined within browser application, not able to compete with multithreaded and compiled bytecode applications.
j s.html
Try benchmark Javascript against your machine here;
http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/bench
I think, for web "desktop" to be successful and attractive for "users," the web browser platform itself has to change dramatically to give Ajax applications an development edge and ability to compete with native applications. Otherwise similar fate of Java Applets may be ahead for Ajax.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Not like we have a WHOLE load of privacy online or offline now, your PC is under the jurisdiction of the government if they so wish to search it, what's the difference with storing it online?
Even if you encrypt it you have to give up the key or go to jail.
Why not just sit in your tin-foil hat with a copy of DBAN boot-and-nuke in the drive ready at all times..
Share your Knowlege - Kung-Fu Geekery
Odd conclusion? Well no. They are expensive but that is because they do not actually have a datalimit, or rather you have one 100gb on my account but they don't actually measure your data throughput. Tiscali does and the limit is 1gb for half the price. Mmmm. 40 bucks for 1gb or 80 for unlimited.
Next is that their helpdesk is always busy, this is nasty but at least the helpdesk fucking knows their business AND is available in the weekend. Oh and their online help is good enough that the only thing I ever needed from them is password resets.
So who cares about this? Is this on topic? Well no but I am getting there. Next is reliability. I said xs4all sucks? Well it does, it always managed to drop my connection at least once per month. Fucking annoying.
Offcourse that was until I moved house and now am on tiscali. Wich drops the con every 10 minutes. Suddenly the internet is totally different. Even simple browsing becomes a pain when every 4th click results in a minute long wait for the modem to reconnect.
Why is it crap? Oh who knows. I actually have worked for tiscali (then worldonline) in the distant past and they never struck me as the brightest bulb (they hired me after all) but perhaps it is just the phone line.
But it really doesn't matter. On my old con it was already troublesome that a couple of times per year I could not google or whatever but with this ISP can you imagine using web apps? It would be like trying to do work on windows 95 adware edition.
And that is my fundemental, and I think everyone elses, problem with the whole idea of webapps. Very nice until your connection drops out.
As long as we got joke ISP's with idiotic data limits web apps are never going to take off. Think of it like this. Who here does not have some kind of emergency equipment like a flashlight for when the elec drops out or camping gas stove for when the gas drops out? And that is (at least in holland) extremely reliable stuff. Trusting my internet connection to determine wether I can work or not does not sound very smart to me.
Oh and as far as mobile computing is concerned. Those who can afford mobile connection costs don't need it, they got secretaries and those who need it can't afford it.
You can forget the net 2.0 the same problem that killed the 'bubble' ideas of the net are killing any new ideas. The ISP's simply ain't up to the task of providing reliable constant connections. Oh the better ones come close but xs4all in holland is tiny. The best and reviewed that way by consumer organisations but still tiny.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"roaming Ajax desktops"
I swear that statement would scare my mother.
We've all heard over the last few years that Microsoft et al want to move all their software to a subscription model. Gone will be the days when you pay for a piece of software once and it just works for a very long time. This isn't going to happen overnight, but this all ties together and that's where these guys want this to go. Thank god for F/OSS.
sh has aged very well, thank you very much.
Theres a good thing about remote applications
if theres a security bug,
ALL the clients can be fixed in ONE update
none of that microsoft / symantec patching every so often business
The problem I see with AJAX technologies is that almost none of them have been put to any good -use-. Everyone keeps talking about the 'potential' of such applications, the 'implications' AJAX-like setups can have for software and desktops.... But how many actually -useful- applications do I use a day? What, Gmail? Every now and then when I get directions or I'm board enough to check the satallite photos, Google Maps. And really, those things are the cream of the crop for AJAX applications. Most other sites integrate AJAX in a small way, ways that are helpful and I'm sure appreciated by their users, but nothing earth shattering and certainly nothing that ushers in the obvious defeat of the modern desktop as we know it. Most of these things are subtle improvements on an existing platform.
Frankly I would be both a bit suprised and pissed if the user interface of webpages -didn't- evolve into something much more responsive and a bit more slick. Am I the only one who sees this as a completely expected progression and not the eXTreM3 R3V0LUTION 3.0??
I understand AJAX from a technical perspective, I've made a few "AJAX" applications myself, I just don't see the results and the real world practicality to back up the absurd wave of hype. Consider me slightly amused and half-interested until I see the types of applications that fundamentally shift the ways I'm using this machine as I've been promised.
I'm new to the business world and particuarily the business/marketing aspects of software developement and website design, but do all industries act like this? Am I getting bent out of shape over nothing, or is the hyperbole really hitting the roof on this one?
"Progress comes from the intelligent use of experience."
I'm sick sick sick to see HTTP+HTML+JS used for APPLICATIONS instead of a thin client. Browsers make horrible thin clients, and HTML+HTTP+JS is a horrible way to write remote applications for thin clients. Some solution that was designed from the start for this purpose would be so much better. HTML+HTTP should be used for information transfer and PRESENTATION, not applications... To bad- while Microsoft controls desktop, this isn't going to change.
.NET
Sun did have a shot at this with java, but they failed horribly, and this opportunity is lost forever. It's a shame, i'd like to see java dominating desktop application programming, not
Oh, and one more thing. If all (ok, most) applications become web applications, who needs a computer anymore? A zero-administration appliance with integrated browser would do just as well... This reminds me we're living in a post-Microsoft computer renaissance, client-server model of computing was used and then abandoned in favor of MS solutions years ago. It is comming back now.
--Coder
I think it's interesting to note that AJAX and online desktops were presaged by Desktop.com in 1999-2000. I worked there, so I can say with authority that we did have a full web-based operating system going in Netscape 4 and IE 4. The stuff that's done now isn't as complex as the stuff we had, in general, though recently (GTalk through GMail, for example) it's started coming close. (I admit I haven't been following some of the other sites mentioned, so maybe some other folks are further along.)
We ran into a couple of killer problems:
* Browser instability -- we had no control over this. Netscape lasted on average 10-15 minutes and ate tons of memory. IE lasted longer, but also consumed memory until it crashed.
* Slow connections -- we had a good 500K download at first connection (or empty cache), which was *slow* over dailup, which was the norm.
* Apps -- nobody is going to come if the apps aren't there. In the day, even making a notepad clone was difficult because native HTML controls were always on top.
The first two of these problems have been/are being slowly overcome. The third one is still a problem.
But the problem of privacy has never really been foremost in the minds of users. Maybe it will be, but with everyone using web mail, I'm kinda doubtful.
Ian
We see a few "Web 2.0" apps, and we make our comments based upon those. However, that's like looking at Alexander Graham Bell's demonstration of his first telephone and comment that it would never get anywhere because of its technical limitations.
* What if instead of your Web 2.0 application using a remote server, it used your own desktop machine as a server. Would you still need your Internet connection?
* What if businesses ran their own Ajax applications for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, and whatever else they do instead of needing every application loaded on each and every PC?
* What if you could quickly switch from one HTTP server (running from say Google.com) to another HTTP server (running on your desktop). What if the application could store your data remotely and locally? You could use a remote server when you have good service and switch to your local server when you don't have Internet connectivity.
* What if you decide not to lug around your desktop machine, but rather work on a PC laptop? Maybe not even a laptop, but a Linux based PDA?
Do you see where this could be heading?
With "Web 2.0" applications, you could be running an application from your "desktop server", from your company's server, or even from a public server. It doesn't matter! Your application will still work.
With "Web 2.0", your data could be stored locally, remotely, or even both. It is even possible for a remote server to "update" your local instance of your application when you decide to work locally. When you switch to your local desktop server, you still have the same up to date application you had on the Web.
With "Web 2.0", you're not tied down to a particular piece of hardware or even a single platform. You could be using your Windows XP desktop at work, switch to your laptop on the train ride home, switch to your Mac at home, and when you go off on your well deserved ski vacation, switch to your handheld Linux powered PDA. Each and every device would have access to all the applications and data you need. There's no difference between one piece of hardware vs. another.
Corporations are no longer have to preload their desktop machines with the applications their workers need. They're not tied down to a particular platform. No more waiting for that MSCE to show up in order to install that application you need. Heck, if a meteor came flying through the window and smashed your desktop PC, you could get on another one and not miss a lick of work. You'll still have the same desktop and the same applications. The last time my PC died at work, it took me two weeks to get back up and running.
When an application is updated, everyone at your company has the latest copy. You don't have to install it on tens of thousands PCs. Desktop support is much simpler. You don't have to worry whether someone has the same version of your appliction (or even if they have your application).
That's why everyone is so excited by "Web 2.0".
Unfortunately, I don't believe AJAX is going to be the way to go. (Of course, what do I know? I thought Windows 95 would be a flop.) Ajax is too iffy. JavaScript is not the "universal" language we all think it is. Every browser on every hardware platform implements it a bit differently. Its even worse than Sun's "write once, run everywhere" JVM platform. I'm playing around with Ruby on Rails to see if that feels any better.
BTW, as we get more mobile, our attention spans will actually improve and be more focused, since we'll have information we want to review on demand; more time to focus on that information.
I am not certain about that. In fact, all current research points to "information overload" now occurring. There are those who even feel the rise of ADHD is related to more mobility and larger numbers of diversions. Attention spans have gotten much shorter, and we hear that in sound bites on TV and see it in the gloss-over articles of USA TODAY.
/.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
The legal line will get blurred very soon. (The content companies will make sure of this.) That will make any server clauses completely void. The only meaningful contract language left will be bandwidth limits and volume of data traffic per billing cycle. And if you think about it, that's all the ISPs really care about anyways.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
I think a well-designed system for running apps remotely would be great, but all attempts so far have had serious problems. AJAX's problems are that its component technologies were designed for completely different purposes (web document display), that it lacks many UI components, that it lacks a programming model on the display side that supports good GUI development, and that it lacks desktop integration (drag-and-drop, menu bars, window closing, etc.).
The previous attempts at this haven't been much better; X11 got everything right on the application side but screwed up on security and compression, Display Postscript and NeWS had serious technical problems and never really pushed remote usage, etc.
The closest to a good web applications delivery language might be XUL or Microsoft's proprietary clone. Or, maybe, just maybe, people will finally clean up the HTML/Javascript mess and fill in the missing bits and pieces; the standards for that are on the drawing board, but whether they get adopted is anybody's guess. Until they are, AJAX applications are going to remain painful to develop and limited in functionality.