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?"

34 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Privacy by sleeper0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the popularity of web based email answers that question. People will use non private web based applications for private data.

      The real question is who needs it at all? The linked article mentions consumers probably not being ready for this kind of service for 1-2 years. The reality is that the market is fragmented, and while there are API's the results generally just resemble personalized home pages. I saw much better technology die on the vine at desktop.com 6 years ago - it was cool stuff looking for an audience. The same team had made what became yahoo mail - much simpler tech but in the end much more popular. The same situation probably stands today - (semi) cool tech looking for an audience. More or less we've long gotten past personalized home pages as a neat new thing - just adding AJAX doesn't change the paradigm. Desktop.com went some major steps beyond that but didn't just get killed by the bubble... they also never had an audience.

    2. Re:Privacy by Greg+Merchan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If more people could safely run their own servers from home, we could have the benefits of these web-based apps without entrusting our data to strangers.

      I think the first barrier to this is the ISPs: I don't know of any broadband provider in my area that allows one to run a server. (The cable provider even tries to get people to pay extra to set up a router.) I'd think there must be little demand, but then I see ads on TV for remote access (to Windows machines).

      I guess no one has found a way to make a profit providing some sort of secure server appliance that allows a house to be networked and provides a remote connection. It seems we've had the parts of the technology for over a decade, but noone has put them all together. Heck, it's only in the last couple of years that we've seen home entertainment center computers, and those were possible at least as early as 1992.

    3. Re:Privacy by javaman235 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the popularity of web based email answers that question

      I'm not so sure it does. The difference is that my email goes over the internet whether I use outlook or gmail, but my journal never does...And I'm not so sure I feel comfortable having my journal online, but I do feel okay with having it on my box.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    4. Re:Privacy by shmlco · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Agree. Most of the examples shown were "Yahoo" with the ability to drag stuff around and edit-in-pace. Wow. Color me... unimpressed.

      Take a look at your personal computer's desktop. Do you have every document, email, and application you own open on it, running side-by-side at the same time? No? Then why should I expect the wave of the future to be a personal web page?

      Want the future? Extrapolate from an "always-connected" world. Figure servers will increase in power exponentially. Figure the devices we carry will increase in power exponentially.

      With all that, the "future" is an oversized web page? Please.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    5. Re:Privacy by Jaruzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, users that are savvy enough to run their own server typically don't have all the bullshit Windows problems, so they are constantly calling with some malware/shitware related problem.

      You were doing so well... until you threw in a random anti-windows statement.

      I run my own web servers at home, on my network, with forwarding from my internet facing router. These servers run Windows 2003. These servers do a variety of public and private web-serving. For a while I even ran a MUD server on another Windows box.

      For those that don't have access to a copy of Windows 2003 Server, Windows XP's IIS Web Server implementation is more than adequate to serve several low traffic sites (including those with dyanamic content)

      So, I resent your inferred statement that to have a workable at-home server solution it has to be be on a non-windows platform.

      -Jar.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    6. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.
      The thing you need to realize is that the vast majority of people out there just aren't terribly concerned about privacy. Most folks figure their lives aren't interesting enough for a hacker/police/whatever to go digging into their email...and if it did happen, there's very little of importance to be found there. Maybe some love letters, or an embaressing photo...but most people don't have classified information going through their email.

      Convenience is a very important factor these days. At my job we set up VPNs and VNC/RDP sessions left and right - because people want the convenience of being able to access their computer/work/data/programs from wherever they're at. Services like Log Me In and Go To My PC are insanely popular.

      If you told the average user that they could use their computer from anywhere in the world through a web browser... That all their programs/documents/settings/whatever would all be there... That it would be just like sitting down at your PC at home/work, but from absolutely anywhere with Internet access... Most of them would leap at the opportunity, and privacy be damned.

  2. On the whole they are closer to solution. by luvirini · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The way these services and others make place irrelevant is a good thing, people have tried many different solutions from PDAs and laptops to remote control software to achieve the same goal.

    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..

    1. Re:On the whole they are closer to solution. by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aaaah good old incompetent Sun and it's stupid management. Only if they had any foresight, will, and brains we would not all be hyping AJAX all to hell and be perfectly happy using applets and java web start. We would forever be saved from trying to shoehorn applications into a stateless publishing technology.

      Too bad they could not figure out how to make AWT look nice, how to get swing into every desktop, how to make multipe applications run in the same VM, how to make it easy to build swing apps, how to make gui threading managable by humans, how to not make java web start be the butt ugliest thing in the face of the planet.

      Instead we are forever doomed to try and build applications in XML and javascript quite possibly the worst combination of tools to build a applications ever invented by mankind.

      Thanks Sun, I blame you, you could have saved us from all this madness but you just couldn't capitalize on the golden goose sitting in your barn.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:On the whole they are closer to solution. by shmlco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry. There's always Flash...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:On the whole they are closer to solution. by Dom2 · · Score: 3, Informative
      You jest, but Adobe's Flex stuff looks quite useful...

      -Dom

  3. Buzzword alert by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Buzzword alert by BrynM · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Online _____ is the new ____!" If there was some way to monetize every time I hear this.... It would be the new money. Thus, online bullshit is the new bullshit - only digitized!

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    2. Re:Buzzword alert by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't want "REALLY COOL" "dude". I'm not 12. I just want
      information. Google manages to present relevant information from
      a couple of billion web pages with a simple HTML front end.


      I hate to break it to you, but Gmail and Google Maps are totally AJAX, and even a basic web search on Google makes use of JavaScript. Google integrates it all so seamlessly, you don't even realize that they're using fancy "Web 2.0" tricks to give you what looks like a simple HTML page.

    3. Re:Buzzword alert by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wasn't talking about Gmail or maps. And yes the search page
      uses javascript but so what. That takes no longer to load up
      and run than HTML. And even overuse of javascript can be a pain.

      If some people want to ultimately have their browser as some
      kind of web based virtual computer thats up to them. But I don't
      see why that sort of crap should be foisted upon the rest of us
      who just want to look for stuff and do it quickly. I still have
      to use dial up at home and I don't appreciate having to download
      a 1 meg app just to view a friggin web page which could have been
      rendered in HTML in a few kilobytes, albeit with a few less
      poxy graphics (Boo bloody hoo).

    4. Re:Buzzword alert by Vo0k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      Yes. Amount of repeatable content, basic pain of CGI/PHP. Take a GOOD application of AJAX: DeviantArt comments. Each art piece posted to the site may be commented by the users. Sometimes there's 200-300 comments, discussion occurs etc. Indentation provides some threading, there are some basic forum-like features etc. You probably want to cut on page switching when you dig into the comments. You set it to display 100 per page. Including links, avatars, smileys and some more such crap plus bandwidth throttling from the server if you're not a subscriber, it starts getting really lengthy to load the comments page. But it's still better than loading 20 separate pages 10 comments each. Then you want to participate in the discussion...

      Non-AJAX, non-javascript, pure CGI way: Click "Reply" in given thread. Wait for the "reply" form for given thread to load. Type your answer. Click "preview". Wait for preview to load. Click "send". Wait for the whole discussion page, 100 posts, plus your answer to load.

      AJAX way: Click "Reply". Immediately a textarea appears, where your post would go, with "send", "preview" and "cancel" buttons. You type in your reply and press "preview". The border around the textarea blinks for a moment and then turns into your post's final look, in context of the 100 other posts, differing only by "preview" replaced by "edit" (which with no further delay gets you back to editing your post). You click "send" and the border blinks a moment more. Buttons vanish, your post is placed in the context amongst all the rest, where it was supposed to be. No single other post gets reloaded.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  4. For Your Clicking Convenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. A partial solution by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:A partial solution by jetxee · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I would like to add to your three points (no offline availability, requirement for trust, jurisdiction issues) yet another three:
      • Backup. I case of GMail I may do backup with POP. In case of general web-desktop service I will not have such an opportunity. This is close to the concept of lacking `local cache'.
      • Permanence of service conditions. One may never be sure that the service he is using will remain available on the same conditions. I expect GMail to remain free, but I would not be amazed if any `no-cost' (or low-cost) web-desktop suddenly asks for some more compensation from me. They have my data. Why not?
      • Choice of environment. Now to change my computing environment I just need to copy my data and install appropriate software for the new environment. Even if I change an OS, it is not much a problem. I expect, it would not be so easy to move between remote web-desktops. Even further, I expect, that those desktop may discourage moving from web-desktop back to the traditional computing.
  6. Reliability? by cperciva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Reliability? by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google stopped working when windows stopped working.

      Something to think about who wears the pants in that relationship.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Reliability? by Vo0k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worse.

      Google stopped working after last storm that broke my ISP's router.
      Google slowed down to a crawl when I was delaying paying my ISP bills.
      Google stopped working when the Ethernet plug got loose in the hub.
      Google stopped working when power supply in my firewall box died.
      Google stopped working while the ISP network was down for maintenance.
      Google stopped working when the local DNS got poisoned.
      Google stopped working when a neighbor was driving his car with broken ignition near the WiFi accesspoint.

      Common home networks are too unreliable to base your desktop and mostly everything you do on them.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  7. online!=always available by J0nne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Online apps the new desktop? by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  9. Is this the wave of the future? by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Funny
    Is this the wave of the future?

    No.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  10. XUL by pubjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:XUL by Vo0k · · Score: 3, Informative

      XUL is a language for writing GUI looks with room for hooks. It's not all that much better than HTML for it. Both for XUL and for HTML you need the same Javascript backend, and if given JS backend to HTML includes xmlhttprequest() for dynamically changing the HTML content (through DOM tree), it's called AJAX.
      The kludginess of the solution lies in less-than-perfect reliablity of xmlhttprequest and hideous access to the DOM tree in JS. (e1=document.getElementById('e1'); e2=document.createNode('H1'); e2.value=reqResult; e1.parentNode.replaceChild(e1,e2); e2.id='e1';)

      With XUL it would look just the same, very similar DOM tree with the same hideous access methods, same unreliable xmlhttprequest and only different tag names. It could look differently, it could be more sleek as a GUI because it was meant to be a GUI in the first place, but it would be just as kludgy inside.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  11. Application Layer on top of Application Layer by layer3switch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    Try benchmark Javascript against your machine here;
    http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/benchj s.html

    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."
  12. Scary news by Exaton · · Score: 3, Funny

    "roaming Ajax desktops"

    I swear that statement would scare my mother.

  13. False premise. Next article! by Max+Threshold · · Score: 3, Funny
    "With our existing models for operating environments aging badly . . ."

    sh has aged very well, thank you very much.

  14. theres a good side to this by wwmedia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  15. The problem... by Gavin86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:The problem... by Tarwn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excellent, if I had mod points I would have burned some. I completely agree. Everyday some new set of articles is posted about "Web2.0", etc and yet things like AJAX don't seem to be revolutionary as much as small steps and, in most cases, gap fillers.
      I've written some "AJAX" stuff in the past. Granted only a few of sites I wrote using javascript and asynchronous XML calls were written after there was a name for it, but as the parent poster said, it is not revolutionary. There are some sites out there that are heavily AJAX-ified. Some of them are useful, some of them are just feature-filled for features sake. In most of the cases I have seen, though, AJAX has been used to fill the gaps, as a polish, if you will. Now don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing, but even GMail and Google maps are far from the promised revolution we read about in articles such as this.

      All this AJAX "revolution" does for us is allow us to treat the frontend web page as a bit more of a client, as opposed to treating it as content in a thin client. Flash did as much, if not more. The only difference here is that AJAX isn't a platform that requirs a plugin, it is instead (at it's core) a group of existing plugins accessible by the browser. How long has AJAX been around as the cool, hip thing? It's already available to every developer with notepad/vi and a browser, it's not very complicated to implement, so where is this revolution that has been remarked on since the day it got an acronym all it's own?

      And a commentary on the original article: I lost interest in reading it right after the author said that our OS's are out of date and what we really need is a web-based desktop to truly leverage all of the fantastic capabilities of our machines...right. I didn't look too closely, but to me it just looked like he was selling start pages, similar to what Yahoo and many others have had for ages...personally I like my desktop environment to do a little more.

      --
      Whee signature.
  16. Anyone remember Desktop.com? by _flan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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