WebOS Market Review

ReadWriteWeb writes "A number of small startups are trying their luck building a WebOS, which is a software platform that interacts with the user through a web browser and does not depend on any particular local operating system. Current WebOS contenders include XIN, YouOS, EyeOS, Orca, Goowy and Fold. There's also a bit of crossover with Ajax homepages like Netvibes, Pageflakes, Microsoft's Live.com and Google's start page. The key difference from Ajax homepages is that a WebOS is a full-on development platform. Indeed for developers, a big benefit is that a WebOS theoretically makes it easier to develop apps that work cross-platform. DHTML and Javascript are the main tools to do that, but not all developers think they are suitable."

Comments

WHY?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is colosally STUPID

Re:WHY?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your opinions very interesting. Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:WHY?

[Troposphere]

Absolutely agree. Only people who have never used javascript and DHTML would even dream such madness. Or possibly fanatical Javascript zealots, if they exist in some cave somewhere. This is too painful to even begin thinking about. Perhaps a Web OS might have worked if the conceptual infrastructure had been put in place for it at the beginning, but instead we now have a crippled monster that has been built up by feature accretion and bastardization, all dictated by a heady mixture of spineless toady bureaucrats and greedy corporate raiders. We need a disruptive technology to fix this mess now, I'm afraid. We are not going to get there by evolution.

Re:WHY?

[itsdave]

thank you,

thats what i was thinking.

Re:WHY?

[heinousjay]

Spoken like someone who thinks he would still have to accomodate Netscape 4.

Re:WHY?

[RMH101]

agreed. saying that javascript and dhtml are better because they work across all platforms is like saying anal sex is better as it works across all genders...

Re:WHY?

[xtracto]

Mis WEBOS!!

(or "My nuts" in Spanish, relatively similar to the expression "my ass").

Sorry mods, I just had to say it and did not find any relevant parent :)

Re:WHY?

[CastrTroy]

No, more like spoken by someone who knows he'd have to accomodate IE, Firefox, Opera, Netscape 7, Safari. At that point, it's almost easier to just write an app in Java that supports Windows/Mac/Linux. Or write an app in C++ using gtk that supports all three. I've done enough work in AJAX to know that the differences between the browsers make it a big pain to make it work in all of them. Opera doesn't have document.implementation.createDocument working correctly yet, apparently it's fixed in 9.0, which is still in beta. Not to even go off on on the CSS bugs that are present in every browser. If you want a multiplatform app, there's much easier ways to do it. The only thing that web based gives you is instant user upgrades/bug fixes.

Re:WHY?

[Serilkath_Montreal]

agreed. saying that javascript and dhtml are better because they work across all platforms is like saying anal sex is better as it works across all genders...

It's not ?

Re:WHY?

[eBunny]

I find the idea of a whole suite of programs (i won't consider the 'OS' bit since it really makes no sense) that relies on web technology to be somewhat interesting.

If not only because my favorite browser have been putting alot of work into a crossplatform coding environment that seems promising (Opera Platform for cellphones, and Opera Widgets).

The whole idea of creating a quick'n'easy (most of the work are already done by the browser) crossplatform coding environment seems like a bad re-run of what java was supposed to be, but to me this seems like it got some more bounce to it, plus some of the bad bits left out.

Re:WHY?

[Negatyfus]

Aw, come on. You gotta admit that this UN*X-like OS in JavaScript thing is pretty cool. :)

Re:WHY?

[misleb]

I find the idea of a whole suite of programs (i won't consider the 'OS' bit since it really makes no sense) that relies on web technology to be somewhat interesting.

Interesting in the same way that 3rd degree burns are interesting to a doctor.

-matthew

Re:WHY?

[Retric]

I think you are missing the point. If they setup an new language *HappyJoy* and write a *HappyJoy* compiler to cross platform java script. You use can then code in *HappyJoy* (which will only have features that it can implement on all supported platforms) and not care what the user's are running on. Now IMO if they setup a simple form validation / basic DHTML language this could work well for most simple apps. The problem with JavaScript is there is no separation between the cross browser hacks and the basic functional code which means that even the simplest functionality can quickly get out of hand.

PS: We have Java if you want to make an App what we need is a way to get simple form validation / DHTML working.

Re:WHY?

[/ASCII]

A modern web browser gives you a turing complete language, some form of network connection and rough control of most of the things going on on-screen. This is enough of a platform to do almost anything, but fact of the matter is, it is not a _good_ platform.

Issues:

* Javascript is a bad language. It is also bad as a code distribution format, as in your HappyJoy example, though the drawbacks are a bit different.
* The standard library is anemic - anything cool will have to be distributed, meaning slow startup times, low performance and large memory requirements.
* The browser is not suited for hosting an OS. The back button will kill the OS, etc.

In the end, I think that the browser as an application framework _will_ become even more common than today, because the benefits of this distribution model are tremendous for many types of applications. But the platform will suck for a long time, because it wasn't designed for this, and fixing it will take a huge amount of time and effort.

Re:WHY?

[mad.frog]

Actually, at least one of the sites mentioned (goowy.com) isn't Ajax -- it's Flash.

Which will probably make it even more evil to most Slashdot readers, I guess.

But it's a pretty damn impressive piece of work.

Re:WHY?

[deuterium]

Parent has taken the words from my mouth.
There seems to be a trend in many technologies of quality in the first generation of a new system (paradigm shifts) being lower than the standard for the prior generation. Digital photos have replaced film for most people, but most people's printouts aren't that great (or even existant). Cell phones have replaced land lines, but the voice quality is worse. Etc. Now, "Web 2.0" apps are supposedly replacing traditional OS apps, but they're slow and awkward to program. This doesn't mean that the technology will fail, but it's going to be crappy for a while. It will gradually standardize and improve, until the next wave replaces it.

Re:WHY?

[jsebrech]

Only people who have never used javascript and DHTML would even dream such madness. Or possibly fanatical Javascript zealots, if they exist in some cave somewhere.

What I don't get is why people always are talking about javascript for building a Web OS to the exclusion of the platforms that could actually be used for it, like java or flash. Especially flash. You can build amazing stuff in flash, and easily too. It's orders of magnitude more easy to develop cross-platform web apps in flash than in javascript.

Re:Why?

[jgold03]

users don't have to deal with the operating system
users can access their DATA (as well as apps) from anywhere
everything is platform independent

to you - a technical user - it doesn't seem like that helpful. but to the average user who just wants to surf the web, check their email, and check their calendar, it could be worthwhile.

Good luck with that

[linvir]

I'm staying away from this stuff until AJAX stops meaning "let their damn computers do all the work".

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Don't be silly! Why, in five years time, everyone will be doing it! They'll want their Office Suite hosted in Germany, their Calender in the USA, their Webmail in Australia, their CRM in South Korea and they'll store their data in China. Everybody will trust these companies and individuals to keep their data safe and secure (Who wouldn't?!) and none of these business will go bust and take all of your data with them, oh no. It's the Web 2.0, don't you know? Who wants to use a computer these days, when you can use a client instead? It's far cooler! As long as you ignore the latency and bandwidth issues. And the disproportionate differences in functionality. And the security implications. And the costs. And the total lack of control you'll have as a user. Can't you see how much better it will be?

Re:Good luck with that

[Odiumjunkie]

I couldn't agree more. What's the point?

If I wanted a customisable environment I could access anywhere, I'd make a custom install of a lightweight linux OS on a flash drive and carry it around with me. All my programs, anywhere - plus encrypted storage, plus no need for a network connection, plus no bandwidth usage, plus no latency issues, plus programs that I choose, customise, install and run myself, that I trust, that I can examine the source code of and compile myself if I choose OSS, plus no server downtime, plus less risk of my personal data being accessible by any one of thousands of users with read/write privaledges in an account on the same server that I use that happens to find an unpatched exploit.

The move toward a WebOS is another part of the "stupid user" school of computer education. Instead of actually promoting learning how to use a box properly, you just move all the sensitive stuff server-side. "Installing programs? We'll do that for you! Configuring system files? Leave that to us! Data storage? Backups? System Patches? Anti-virus? Malware detection? It's all on us! You don't need to know a damned thing, just sit down at your thousand dollar terminal, log in, point and click. Sports Broadcasts will resume as normal."

It's just another aspect of the great computer devide that's gradually starting. On the one hand, unix geeks who run their own systems and software, spec their own hardware, believe in open source, try to make personal backups of media, won't buy DRM and want control of their own boxes. On the other, the average consumer who doesn't give a damn about anything aside from getting a system that just works with as little management and maintanence as possible. For the second group, WebOS is brilliant. All you need to remember is a URL, a login and a password. Instant system wherever you are. You've surrenedered the autonomy of your box, but in return you get an easier system to manage. It's a dream for content suppliers as well - imagine the strength of DRM if the average media player is stored on a remote server, and the user has no access to it's program files.

Re:Good luck with that

[saltydogdesign]

Wow, it's just like the automobile divide. On the one hand, mechanic geeks who install their own water pumps. On the other, the average consumer who just wants to be able to drive to work. Imagine that!

Re:Good luck with that

[kv9]

Wow, it's just like the automobile divide.

could everyone please stop it with the car analogies? a computer is nothing like a car.

Re:Good luck with that

[saltydogdesign]

Gee, I don't think you understand the purpose of analogies. When I say that "engine is to car as processor is to computer," I'm not saying that "car = computer," and if you can't see the analogous relationship, you're the one with a problem. Sometimes it seems that slashdotters won't accept an analogy unless it's a 1:1 relationship, as "engine is to car as engine is to car." There's no such thing as a perfect analogy, but we mustn't let that cause us to throw out the category altogether.

The point is that most folks don't want to be bothered with maintenance -- and there's nothing wrong with that. People have plenty to master in their own particular areas of expertise without having to learn how to "make a custom install of a lightweight linux OS on a flash drive." That's a ridiculous thing to expect of any average computer user.

Re:Good luck with that

[MartinB]

It's just another aspect of the great computer devide [sic] that's gradually starting.

• On the one hand, unix geeks who run their own systems and software, spec their own hardware, believe in open source, try to make personal backups of media, won't buy DRM and want control of their own boxes.
• On the other, the average consumer who doesn't give a damn about anything aside from getting a system that just works with as little management and maintanence as possible.

It's essentially the difference between having systems as interesting in their own right, and systems that are useful to carry out tasks (work, play, whatever). As long as the user is getting their service from someone trustworthy, then unless you actually do care about knowing what's happening for the sake of knowing (rather than the sake of it working) it doesn't matter a damn, and you can take your DRM FUD elsewhere.

But I'm not sure those are as mutually exclusive as you might think. What's strange with wanting a system that works with as little management and maintenance as possible, and yet is fully accessible? Or gives you rights over the content stored on it? It's just a different model of ASP. Think about hosting companies that offer Plesk consoles, but on a different deal, offer a root ssh login (to a virtualised server I presume).

And most geeks with their own boxes still rely on others to help them manage their systems - unless you really are (yes, yes: I'm an insensitive clod) downloading source code for all apps, patches and upgrades, inspecting it, compiling it and so on, rather than relying on package management systems, then this means you too.

Re:Good luck with that

[CastrTroy]

There's a difference between vehicle maintenance and learning how to care for a vehicle. Most people realize that they have to change their oil, clean their car, check their tire pressure, listen for weird noises, and take the car to the shop when it starts pulling too much to the left (or the right in britain, it doesn't matter unless it's pulling into traffic). With computers, people can't even be bothered to learn how to drive, let alone learn the basics of computer care.

Re:Good luck with that

[saltydogdesign]

I don't know who these "most people" are that you are referring to, but most people I know just take their car to the mechanic every now and then, *at best.* I've never seen my mother, say, check her tire pressure. As for taking it to the shop when it starts pulling or listening for weird noises, well, that's not really maintenance, is it -- that's a response to a specific problem. Most Joe Publics will take their computer in if the screen flickers or the hard drive makes a high-pitched whine. That's not what we're talking about.

I'll repeat what the OP said: "On the one hand, unix geeks who run their own systems and software, spec their own hardware, believe in open source, try to make personal backups of media, won't buy DRM and want control of their own boxes. On the other, the average consumer who doesn't give a damn about anything aside from getting a system that just works with as little management and maintanence as possible."

I say, what's wrong with wanting a system that just works with as little management and maintenance as possible? Hell, I *am* a unix geek and that sounds like a dream to me.

Re:Good luck with that

[NineNine]

You're right. Why should computers help out humans in doing work. They don't exist to help us, they exist so that we can help them, right?

Dude, you need to get out more. There's *ZERO* point in learning about computers just for the sake of learning about computers. *ZERO*. Let me restate that: ZERO. If a computer doesn't help me get my job done, then I don't want it. If I have to spend more time learning about hom computers work than they save me, then it's a net loss.

Re:Good luck with that

[kv9]

Gee, I don't think you understand the purpose of analogies. When I say that "engine is to car as processor is to computer," I'm not saying that "car = computer," [...]

i don't think you understand what an analogy is. while a car is a vehicle designed to take you from point A to point B, a computer is an infinitely programmable software platform. so i fail to see how the two (car/computer) are similar. now, i may be wrong, that's just how i see things.

The point is that most folks don't want to be bothered with maintenance [...]

when did computers become such dumb appliances? i guess i must have missed a memo again. i understand all about the "average consumer" argument. what i don't understand is why is it always brought up *here* of all places. news for nerds anyone?

Re:Good luck with that

[br0ck]

could everyone please stop it with the car analogies? a computer is nothing like a car.

Requesting no more car vs. computer analogies on Slashdot is like using WD-40 as the primary lubricant in your old Buick.. it will eliminate the squeak in the short term, but you won't get too far.

Re:Good luck with that

[pieinthesky]

I think you are getting a little lost in the analogy. The poster used the analogy to describe maintenance, it is perfectly valid. If his analogy read:

"On the one hand, programmer geeks who write their own code. On the other, the average consumer who just wants to be able to drive to work. Imagine that!

Then, you could complain.

Re:Good luck with that

[kv9]

Requesting no more car vs. computer analogies on Slashdot is like [...]

oh yeah? then let's make it official: i hereby call on you, the slashdot.org member, to say no to computers/cars analogies!

Re:Good luck with that

[tepples]

i understand all about the "average consumer" argument. what i don't understand is why is it always brought up *here* of all places. news for nerds anyone?

For one thing, nerds have family who are "average consumers" and business associates who are "average consumers". For another, nerds and artists want to make sure that products designed for nerds and artists do not become unprofitable for manufacturers to produce.

Re:Good luck with that

[Odiumjunkie]

The point I was trying to make is that at the moment, there is a spectrum of computer expertise, as one would expect. Some people use custom unix-like systems, compile all their own software, patch their own systems, build all their machines, etc. Other people use Ubuntu, go to the support forums for any problems they have and use in-built update mechanisms to patch. Other people dual boot linux and windows, and dip in to linux from time to time. Some people use windows, but manage their own AV and patching. Other people use a pre-installed windows environment and never touch it.

And that, as a status quo, is just fine. The problem is that at the moment, there seems to be a movement to drive everyone to one extreme or the other. Vista will handle things like file encryption and other aspects of privacy for you. Microsoft is moving into AV and anti-Malware software. Trusted Computing will make it impossible to tinker with your own OS or shell, provide hardware support for DRM, and lock out the average computer user from their own box. It seems to me that a true WebOS is another aspect of this - the programs and system files take care of themselves, file storage is handled for you - you can't do anything the OS or system doesn't want you to. If the average consumer ends up relying on Web based services for everyday computing tasks, it's even more bullet proof than Trusted Computing, because not only can the user not tinker with system files or protected content, the user can't even access or even see them unless the OS or Web service wants them to. The user doesn't even know where the files are stored, what programs they're relying on, what the system is doing with their data. Nothing is local.

And while the average slashdot user would not accept a situation like that, most people will. That's what I was trying to get across, the movement that forces users to either accept the OS and programs that are supplied in the way they are supplied and use them in the way the manufacturer wishes them to be used, or to forgo mainstream coroporate software altogether and learn the (relative) complexities of OSS, and potentially extremely complex workarounds to access content designed for locked-down mainstream systems.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to maintain your own car and relying on a garage to do it for you, unless the car goes where it wants to go and only where it wants to go in the way it wants to get there, and you are not allowed or unable to examine the components of the car to see why it does what is does, and how you might get it to do what you want it to do. There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to maintain a car, unless it leads to a situation where you either buy a car that does what it wants to do, or make your own damned car, and have to learn all the technical skills that entails.

Holy astroturfing Batman!

[Gothmolly]

Oh the humanity, a submitted link that links to a blog! This couldn't be a thinly veiled attempt to drive up page hits, could it? Lets see, a user called 'ReadWriteWeb', and its linking to a blog about 'WebOS' (stupid term, misnomer, buzzword-compliant). What's next a Roland Piquipaille story?

Re:Holy astroturfing Batman!

[babbling]

I think your mention of this just drove up the traffic considerably. People will read your comment, then click the link.

Re:Holy astroturfing Batman!

[IAmTheDave]

I think your mention of this just drove up the traffic considerably. People will read your comment, then click the link.

Dammit. That's what I just did. I'm such a tool.

Not Exactly

[AKAImBatman]

1. WebOS is a misleading name. "Web Desktop" is a more appropriate term. I know that most users use the terms interchangably, but as techies we really shouldn't be encouraging them.

2. Most of these "WebOSes" are a mess. EyeOS just IFrames everything, Orca doesn't seem to work (at least not for me), YouOS is about at the XEdit and XTerm level, Fold is a fancy Portal environment, and XIN isn't available yet. These are nice starts to desktops, but they're a long way from fully featured desktop replacements. Right now, they're just fancy portals.

3. Google is not building a WebOS. Or at least, that's my opinion. There's no inherent advantage to building a windowing system in a browser other than the possibility of Web integration. Unfortunately, if the desktop isn't actually a real desktop (i.e. the only interface you see), then it isn't in any better position to provide Web integration than the web brower itself. Desktop development APIs are best saved for regular AJAX work until an actual need for a desktop arises.

Re:Not Exactly

[darkmeridian]

Personally, all the web services basically form an OS. Gmail, meebo, Google Calendar, and Writely allow me to plop down at any stupid Internet terminal and get some work done. I don't need a spreadsheet, or anything. I guess all the web windowing clients actually miss the point. I guess it would be sweet to abstract the AJAX into neat web APIs but there's already so much functionality using independent libraries that there would be very little value to be added through the standardization of the base libraries.

Re:Not Exactly

[generic-man]

Until web services work with each other, adhering to an underpinning even stronger than JavaScript and IE/Firefox's support of JavaScript, there is no "OS." There's a humongous difference between running a cool bunch of web applications and running an operating system.

Re:Not Exactly

[706GL]

WebOS is a misleading name. "Web Desktop" is a more appropriate term. I know that most users use the terms interchangably, but as techies we really shouldn't be encouraging them.

I know, I'm sure the kernel developers out there grimace ever time they hear the term WebOS. All your doing is replacing the top layer that displays the application. The stuff that an OS does is several orders of magnitude more complex than a web rendering engine. When you and on top of that the fact that it's a stupid idea to begin with, well, blech.

Re:Not Exactly

[mike3411]

The advantage I would see to integration would simply be efficiency. If I have a document on Gmail, I would have to download the attachment, open it in the word processor (Writely or whatever) for editing, save to disk, and then attach it in a new email. Obviously this is not terribly complicated, but having an online file system with applications that can be used to work with those files would be pretty nice.

NB i haven't used Writely, so I don't know what its feature set includes. Still waiting to hear when I can sign up : /

Re:Not Exactly

[arakon]

Okay so I have an idea of an OS that is based of an extremely permissioned web-server (think Apache) and all the applications on it would be standard AJAX, PHP, Perl, etc. All the user/software information could be stored in xml locally. The users desktop would be a customized Firefox browser (basically in Kiosk mode so no tool bars) with the login option that tells the apache server what level access to allow this user. From there the user has a "homepage" tha lists the systemwide menus and applications he has access to.

I've been thinking about this for a few years now, since I started using server-sided scripting on a regular basis. I just think it would make my life a lot easier to do the equivilent of "run" to test code before I post it to the www. Right now I'm using XAMMP(sp?) to sort of simulate this (at least the part where I test code locally) but its just another service running on top of a lot of other stuff I don't need running atm. Most of my work is done on web languages now anyway. This could probably be done with a highly tailored linux distribution on a pretty low-powered machine.

What would you call this model of an OS? All of the apps would be written in web scripting languages, and installing new packages/software applications would be downloading a new script. I would call it a WebOS since its based entirely on web technology, but I would hate to step on anyone's toes by using a "buzzword". Buzzwording is bad, but some of the comments are just way out of line. "Internet" and "web" have been buzzwords for a very long time now and people don't go this ape-shit when a product comes out as being "internet capable" or an "internet game". I see it simply as an apt description of what the product is trying to do. I believe I would define it as buzzwording when they make the product sound overly important by using large words that have nothing to do with the product.

Re:Not Exactly

[AKAImBatman]

Okay so I have an idea of an OS that is based of an extremely permissioned web-server

First and foremost, that is not an OS. You're talking about a type of graphical shell that uses RPC for communications. (Like most modern environments do.) If you're looking for a term for it, use "Web Desktop".

The users desktop would be a customized Firefox browser (basically in Kiosk mode so no tool bars) with the login option that tells the apache server what level access to allow this user.

Just so you're aware, this is a very easy thing to accomplish. Simply start XWindows without a Window Manager (running 'X' at the command line is sufficient), then run Mozilla or Firefox in kiosk mode, with the following command line parameters:

-geometry <WIDTH>x<HEIGHT>+0+0 http://localhost/

Replace "<WIDTH>" and "<HEIGHT>" with the screen width and height.

That should get you started on fully testing your idea. The key issue is that if the Mozilla engine opens any new browser windows, there will be no window interface. To do this "right", you'd need to find a simple Window Manager capable of keeping your "Desktop" window at the back of the screen. (Or in whatever configuration you prefer. You can do the "one window at a time" interface too.) Alternativelty, it's not that hard to build a new browser off the Gecko engine that will handle new windows in the way you specify.

Good luck!

Re:Not Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using one right now and let me tell you...

This thing is pretty lame. I'm browsing slashdot through a browser in a browser...

I mean seriously...

I feel dumb for actually doing this.

Oh well, at least someone can farm away all of my contacts, browsing habbits and pretty much everything else about me. All from the comfort of my chair!

Re:Not Exactly

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You forgot 4:

4. Ajax/"live" content sites are driven not by DHTML, but (in most cases) by DOM scripting.

Overall, the "article" says almost nothing. What little it does manage to say seems to be incorrect and/or ill-informed...

Re:Not Exactly

[MysteriousPreacher]

I think that's a very good point. Disconnected web applications are dragging us back to the days of applications that all ran in the same OS but were completely isolated from one-another. Without inter-application communication, your're just leaving your data in isolated colonies around the web or having to crudely copy and past your data.

Cross Platform?

[KermodeBear]

Indeed for developers, a big benefit is that a WebOS theoretically makes it easier to develop apps that work cross-platform.

Isn't that what Java was supposed to do? All this "Web 2.0" stuff is getting out of hand; It's trying to duplicate a technology that already exists with inferior tools. I would rather have all the effort go into improving something that already exists.

Re:Cross Platform?

[hey!]

Speaking of java...

Once you've shoehorned everything need into a web application development framework (or bolted together everything you need from several frameworks), you practically have an operating system's worth of functionality and complexity.

The difference is that you can't develop on it directly. Most web applications, if they were desktop applications would be dead simple. But it's not simple to do even a merely decent simple web application, for a couple of reasons. First is that you have to decide how to bolt all the services you'll need together, the effort of which surely must be highly reusable. Even if you use something like AppFuse, you still have a development model that is like the old batch days; faster to be sure, but surely it creates a kind of frictional loss that adds up over the course of a project.

The thing that makes Microsoft's product offerings compelling in many corporate environments is that by sticking with their entire product stack in every tier, the very existence of the tiers is somewhat papered over.

I think the idea of a Web Desktop is even better. The idea is to remove as much context as possible from the programmer's brain. A web desktop would encourage programmers to think in the problem domain rather than the web domain. Next, if you can abstract IPC and distribute processes over a cluster, you have a system where "enterprise" doesn't necessarily imply "complex and error prone".

Re:Cross Platform?

[penguin-collective]

Well, the people working on Web 2.0 are likely fully aware of Java's existence, so the fact that they aren't using it tells you that Java must fall short somewhere.

Reasons we aren't using Java much anymore include lack of an ANSI/ISO standard, Sun's JCP process, technical limitations, bad technical decisions in versions 1.4 and 1.5, and lack of good open source implementations. I don't even think that Java lives up to its hype as a good cross-platform tool. I suspect other organizations have similar reasons.

I think Java on the desktop is history and it's not coming back.

Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[Professor_UNIX]

If people wanted to use an X terminal they'd buy X terminals. People don't buy $500-$2000 computers just to handicap themselves by running some web-based operating system and using their computer as a dumb terminal. We went through similar hype years ago with the whole network computing idea of using a dumbed-down network appliance box and accessing software from an online application provider. That fell flat on its face as well. How many times do these people have to keep trying to reinvent the same concept over and over before they realize that people LIKE having a fat client on their desktop so they don't have to be connected 24/7 to a network?

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[sendtwogrey]

But an X-terminal doesn't give OS cross compatibility. HTTP does, a thin client with only a restricted browser = no down time due to personal e-mail, card games, msn or a the EBay denial of service attack.

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[miffo.swe]

People dont care what lies under that cool app as long as it works and makes things easier and better. Most people would love to just use their computer and stop being their own sysadmin.

The only thing that has held network applications back is bandwidth and price. Now thats not a problem anymore.

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[Anonymous Coward]

But an X-terminal doesn't give OS cross compatibility.

That is in fact exactly what it gives you. The server & client just have to talk XDCMP. Unless the large number of users who are running Exceed on WindowsXP to run UNIX applications on HP-UX & Solaris boxes are a figment of my imagination.

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[BenjyD]

This isn't even a dumb terminal, though. Most code still runs on the client, it's just a different language to write it in. If anything, the processor requirements of running every process in an interpreted language mean it actually takes more processor power.
All this allows you to get rid of is the storage requirement, although you will still need a local cache if you want to carry on working away from a net connection.

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[itsdave]

while you are mostly right... people are using web applications. one example that i know of is quickbooks.

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[sendtwogrey]

I haven't many embedded Linux routers or print servers that talk XDCMP, I can't find a mobile phone that does either so I can't check the server status remotely, and if the sales rep's couldn't check their clients order status from their mobile phones before going into a meeting I'd be unemployed!.
HTTP the universal interface!!!

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[Anonymous Coward]

the 2000 $ computer will crash if too many windows are open
dumb terminal indeed

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's your point? That manufacturers don't know what they're doing and insist on re-inventing the same things even though their implementation is worse and/or badly suited to the task in hand? Or that you don't know what you're doing and insist on pointy-clicky interfaces to do every damn task even when they're badly suited for the task in hand?

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[misleb]

To be fair to previous thin client ideas, they weren't trying to sell to home users. They were trying to sell to businesses and schools. Businesses want a lot more control over desktops and thin clients are a good way to go about it. Sure, they mostly failed, but not necessarily because thin clients are a bad idea. I think eventually (tho not soon) admins will just get sick and tired of tryign to manage fat clients and make a push back to thin clients. Most corporate users are connected to the network 24/7 anyway. And if the network goes down, they often can't get any work done as it is (server based roaming desktops). The reason Sun failed with the thin client was because, well, it was Sun (and Java).

-matthew

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[misleb]

The only thing that has held network applications back is bandwidth and price. Now thats not a problem anymore.

And the fact that (in this case) Javascript/DHTML/HTTP is almost completely unsuited for the task. I say "almost" because apparently some people have managed to cobble something together. At least Terminal Server/Citrix performs well. At least Sun's thin clients could actually act like they had a full local OS. People DO care what is under the hood if it performs like a tar covered pig in a room full of... more tar covered pigs. I can see it now: "Let me just ignore this local desktop with 3D accelerated menus, cool apps and games, lots of Vista/XP/OSX eye candy, and a decent looking widget set for this WebOS thing where I can get a glimpse of how graphical itnerfaces performed in the 80's. It's so retro! Yay!" Its a fucking joke is what it is.

-matthew

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[sendtwogrey]

Manufactures who don't know what they are doing go bankrupt, hence the router configuration progression from RS232 -> Telnet -> HTTP.

The reason I like pointy-clicky interfaces is that the system users these days understand them intuitively. My remit is to provide system users the tools they need to be productive and if that's a thin client running an embedded browser for data entry, team leaders running Crystal reports on XP and sales rep's pulling data from their mobile phones, so be it.

While not the most efficient use CPU cycles, it does mean that should I change the back end from Oracle running on Solaris to MySQL on Linux there is very little I have to rewrite and the client terminals don't need to be updated nor the users retrained.

The sooner all devices render HTML and POST XML the happier I'll be because all my systems will then be compatible and I will no longer need to shell out a couple of thousand on a SDK that only enables data flow in one direction keeping me tied into one system.

Do I care that accounts wanted their own Micro$oft SQL server no, in eighteen months have they realised that the only data stored on it is a set of procedures caching data from my system, no, efficient use of hardware, no, do they have the pointy-clicky reporting interface they needed to be more efficient yes!

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The reason the thin client hardware failed is that thick clients dropped below the $500 price point that that thin clients were aiming for.

Web applications, however, have shown that the managability advantages of the thin client architecture were something the market wanted.

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[misleb]

Wrong. The reason the thin client hardware failed is that thick clients dropped below the $500 price point that that thin clients were aiming for.

But a thin client can be made out of the same hardware. The problem

Web applications, however, have shown that the managability advantages of the thin client architecture were something the market wanted.

Except, of course, that you don't get the managability advantages of a thin client. You get the managability advantages of a client/server application which is nothing new. The full client is still as thick as ever and the people who have to manage them still have the same headaches. Now, if people were booting an OS dedicated to just a browser, that might be differnt. But that just isn't happening.

Nobody needed to show that the market wanted server based applications. Just look at how hospitals still run terminal based health management applications.

-matthew

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[miffo.swe]

My experience with AJAX has been that it performs much better and faster than dotnet/JAVA-VM/Mono.

About user experience nothing stops anyone from making a good nice UI, its not like JAVA/dotnet where the looks are pretty much cast in stone.

Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again

[lysergic.acid]

I agree that these Web Desktops that are trying to emulate the features and functionality of a local Operating System are ultimately pointless. I mean, why would anyone want to use a primitive, clumsy Javascript/DHTML desktop isntead of the one that's already built into their operating system.

However, AJAX applications which simply emulate the feel of a desktop environment to provide useful web services are a step in the right direction, IMHO. Web applications have slowly evolved better and more advanced UIs to take advantage of new development tools and techniques, which is only natural.

A lot of Slashdotters complain about Web 2.0, and other buzzword technologies associated with emerging web development trends. And, yes, there has been a lot of hype surrounding these topics--the 'Web OS' tripe is a prime example--but at the same time, there are truly innovative concepts involved that are worth looking into. As a web developer, I'm pretty excited about being able to implement smarter, more usabable interfaces in my web applications through the use of AJAX. Social networking/software is also an area of development which the web is a particularly well-suited platform. And despite their many critics, tagging/folksonomy, and other semantic-web-related technologies such as XML, XHTML, and RDF, have presented information system architects with revolutionary new ways of managing/organizing their data.

As its been stated before, most of these concepts are based on technology which has been around for a while now. But what's exciting about Web 2.0 is that we're finally seeing many of these existing technologies culminating in useful and innovative applications. Having gone through many evolutionary cycles without producing very interesting results, the technology has finally matured and techniques on combining them to deliever useful services have also finally been developed.

Frankly, all the people who are comaplaining that, the web was designed only for this; it's not designed to do that, are just short-sighted and counter-progressive. Technology evolves, and the web is still a budding area of technological development. People complaining about web applications today not ressembling the simple and crude static web pages of the past are really just complaining about progress being made in web development. People have found new uses and applications for web technologies, just as ideas the web is unsuited for have been dropped. So what's the point of complaining about web innovations which are successful? It seems like most of the people complaining about all the hype surrounding this Web 2.0 business are people who aren't capable of coming up with their own innovations and are just bitter that they aren't involved in all the excitement.

Don't Get It.

[WebHostingGuy]

I don't get it. It seems the article points several times to this:

"applications will be written for the WebOS and won't be specific to Windows, OS X, or Linux."

Someone enlighten me because I thought that is what all the languages used on the web do right now. PHP, Perl, Javascript, etc. It doesn't seem to me that a WebOS will provide any greater benefit that coding in Perl (or pick one). They are completely platform independant.

The article then quotes a couple users who says that Java and DHTML + Javascript is a mess. Well, yeah, but what language isn't? All programming languages have problems that why there are so many of them. What am I missing?

Re:Don't Get It.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having coded in Perl in AIX, Linux and windows, I can say Perl is NOT platform independant.

WIndows Perl is different then Linux Perl is different then AIX perl. The basics are the same but unless you are doign somethign VERY basic and relative to the current directory, you can not just copy adn run the code.

Re:Don't Get It.

[biz0r]

Ok well first of all you need to get your terms correct, PHP and Perl are server side scripting languages...something this 'WebOS' crap doesn't even touch. Javascript, HTML, XHTML, DHTML, WHATEVER is what this is building on - client side technologies. And there are many different languages because each was created out of an apparent 'need', not that some languages necessarily have 'problems' (which may in fact be called features, depending on who you speak to).

Javascript + DHTML IS a mess, and far moreso than any other language in my opinion (having worked with most modern languages, including web based ones). Compared to C, C++, PHP, Java, hell even Perl it (Javascript) is a complete mess. The way it is implemented, the way it is written, the way it is invoked - a mess. What we really need, is something COMPLETELY new, written from the ground up for what we know is needed. Something which cuts through all the bullshit, something truly cross platform and written to a frickin standard....a man can dream, can't he?

Re:Don't Get It.

[gid13]

How about any of the others? Python? Ruby?

Also, do any of the GUI toolkits work well across platforms? GTK? QT? Wxwindows?

(I know nothing about it, I just wrote my first hello world app in Ruby/GTK, I want to write for Slackware and WinXP, so far my app runs fine in both environments, and I want to know if I can/should continue down this path).

Thanks in advance

Re:Don't Get It.

[BodhiCat]

...I thought that is what all the languages used on the web do right now. PHP, Perl, Javascript, etc.

One should differentiate between CGI languages and browser languages. Most CGI languages (Perl, PHP, etc.) are able to do anything a language can do and use the browser as an interface. The main drawback is that there is a lag time, particularly if you are on a slow connection. Javascript is faster, since it runs in the browser, but it is a limited language. Until we have everyone connected to broadband running 24/7 we are not going to see thin-clients in widespread use. Java is great, but it still takes a while to get an app running in a browser. So for now its Word and Photoshop on my computer, Safari or Firefox for web surfing and OS X Mail or webbased interfaces for e-mails. For the time being I don't see any other way around it.

Re:Don't Get It.

[misleb]

Most CGI languages (Perl, PHP, etc.) are able to do anything a language can do and use the browser as an interface.

Anything in a "turing complete" sense, sure. But there are, in fact, many things that they can't do in practice. They can't access local hardware. They can't draw system widgets. They can't (ideally) do anything outside of the browser "sandbox."

The main drawback is that there is a lag time, particularly if you are on a slow connection.

No, the main drawback is the document model and the click-refresh-click cycle.

Javascript is faster, since it runs in the browser, but it is a limited language.

It isn't just Javascript. It is also HTML. If you had a decent UI toolkit, one wouldn't have to rely on Javascript so much.

So for now its Word and Photoshop on my computer, Safari or Firefox for web surfing and OS X Mail or webbased interfaces for e-mails. For the time being I don't see any other way around it.

Question is, why do you want to get "around" it? Is it really an obstacle?

-matthew

Re:Don't Get It.

[monkeyGrease]

>> So for now its Word and Photoshop on my computer, Safari or Firefox for web surfing and OS X Mail or webbased interfaces for e-mails. For the time being I don't see any other way around it.

> Question is, why do you want to get "around" it? Is it really an obstacle?

Bingo. Best comment I've read so far.

That is why google probably has no real immediate interest is a 'WebOS'. Even TFA asserts it is really about data. I'd guess seamless data hosting is where someone could really make a killing. Basicly a personal networked fs/db that automaticly gets mounted/connected on all personal devices. A filesystem (vs. database) approach would probably be best due to legacy app support.

So as an example, for a Windows user, they would download and install 'gDrive', and drive G: (this is a pre vista example) shows up on their 'My Computer'. This drive acts just like any other drive, although slower, but is identical and the same on every device they install gDrive onto. The data on that drive is guarunteed to be backed up, secure, etc, etc.

A linux user would probably just install a kernel module and mount the gDrive.

Many of us cobble something like this together for ourselves and host it ourselves, but for the general public I can see deferring the setup, admin, data integrity (backups), etc to google at the expense of not having the magnetic bits in their own house (which could burn down anyway) would be very attractive. The privacy concerns can be mitigated with encryption, much like DIBS. The data goes over the wire and sits on google's drives encrypted. The only major problem I see is how does google (or whoever) derive value from this themselves? I would not be surprised if they have a solid business model wrapped around this already, but I don't know what it is.

Antivirus?

[dybdahl]

How do I install antivirus on this OS?

Re:Antivirus?

[moochfish]

When can I sign up to write a virus for the OS?

Links

[babbling]

Links to the various sites mentioned:
Xin
YouOS
eyeOS
goowy
Fold
Orca

Re:Links

[stud9920]

and let's not forget

Karma Whore

Re:Links

[turnstyle]

You missed:
Netvibes
Pageflakes
Live.com
Google IG

and, fwiw, my web-app Bitty Browser works as a module/widget/gadget for them (and some others)... -Scott

Covered in a previous Slashdot story...

[the_humeister]

...but I can't find the story. Anyway, I like JS/UIX. Wish I could be talented enough to do that.

Re:Covered in a previous Slashdot story...

[wetfeetl33t]

Yes, JS/UIX is pretty cool. It actually isn't a real WebOS, but how neat would it be to come up with a *nix WebOS?

Re:Covered in a previous Slashdot story...

[misleb]

Hopefully you'd be smart enough to use the talent for something a little more useful though. ;-)

-matthew

My point of view:

[Lolaine]

I think that mixing the concept of a Web based desktop and a programable PIM could be the right thing, where programable PIM means that you could program yourself custom node types that appear on the web Desktop as icons and windows, and of course, share them

Re:My point of view:

[israel_zayas]

Actually, from a non-technical point of view... I am in favor of a modern and separate web base terminal with USB, Fire wire and/or a CD/DVD writer for home use. Memory sticks, CF cards and USB 2.0 hard drives are selling faster than lumber jacks eats hot cakes. So it would not be too much of a burden if I purchased a Linux terminal for surfing and keep my primary PC for work then that would make me happy. At this time I have a dedicated PC for web browsing and a dedicated PC for projects. This sucks, but this is what I have to do to keep the spy ware and viruses to a minimum.

Re:My point of view:

[Theatetus]

I think that mixing the concept of a Web based desktop and a programable PIM could be the right thing, where programable PIM means that you could program yourself custom node types that appear on the web Desktop as icons and windows, and of course, share them

Hmmm... I, on the other hand, think that a web browser should be used for, oh, I don't know, browsing HTML documents off HTTP servers. And JavaScript should be used on that web browser for calculations that are A) simple enough to be done easily on the client side and B) insecure and unimportant enough to trust any arbitrary client to calculate them. And an FTP client should be used for transferring files to and from FTP servers. And a gopher client should be used for navigating hierarchically-organized files on multiple network servers. And a file browser should be used for browsing mounted filesystems. And an office suite should be used for viewing and editing formatted documents, spreadsheets, and slideshows. And a display manager protocol like XDMCP or RDP should be used for displaying a graphical desktop on a workstation.

I guess I'm a luddite that way, you know? Actually wanting tools to be used in the domain for which they were designed.

Java sucks balls

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what Java was supposed to do? All this "Web 2.0" stuff is getting out of hand; It's trying to duplicate a technology that already exists with inferior tools. I would rather have all the effort go into improving something that already exists.

And we all know that Java needs a hell of a lot of improvement.

Re:Java sucks balls

[Decaff]

A silly statement. Java is being used to develop applications that can be deployed cross-platform right now by a vast number of developers. Nothing comes close.

Re:Java sucks balls

[symbolic]

This sounds like a comment from someone who became frustrated at trying to learn the language and/or some of its accompanying technologies. Java isn't perfect, but it has quite a bit to offer. The only thing that bothers me is that it's Sun's baby, and Sun supports the various forms of DMCA-like legislation that has been making its way out of the current (rather sordid) whitehouse administration.

Re:Java sucks balls

[Anonymous Coward]

Java is probably the best thing out there for multiple platform development. The biggest flaw in it is the time to startup the virtual machine. take that time out of the equation like with J2EE apps and it is just a hair short of C/C++ performance. Decent security model too. People make a lot of fuss about how sun controls it but given how open sun has been about a lot of things they are a company I would trust a LOT further than the star child google

Re:Java sucks balls

[penguin-collective]

Nothing comes close.

Even Qt/C++ is a better cross-platform solution than Java.

What distinguishes Java from other cross-platform solutions is that you only have to compile once, but that's a nearly useless feature, and one that comes at a huge price in terms of quality and performance.

Re:Java sucks balls

[Anonymous Coward]

And you sound like someone who hasn't been using Java long enough to have been stung by Sun's business screw-ups, or to understand all the subtle ways in which the platform sucks technically. Hell will freeze over before I do anything with Sun hardware or software again.

Re:Java sucks balls

[nasch]

How long is long enough? I've been using it every single day for about six years and haven't been stung, or seen very many ways it "sucks." Yes, it's imperfect, as are all the alternatives. No, it isn't right for everything you might want to do with a computer, and neither are any of the alternatives. So besides those two "problems," what exactly sucks about Java?

Re:Java sucks balls

[Decaff]

What distinguishes Java from other cross-platform solutions is that you only have to compile once, but that's a nearly useless feature, and one that comes at a huge price in terms of quality and performance.

Nonsense. Even if was not cross platform, Java would be an important language as it removes the horrors of C/C++ memory management, and no-one with any experience of modern Java runtimes would state that there is a performance price. Java runs everywhere from embedded systems, mobile devices, real-time systems up to the highest level of clustered mainframe systems, and the runtime code analysis and machine code transation produces C-equivalent performance in all but the smallest embedded systems (where the small size of Java byte codes often gives it a memory advantage).

The ability to compile once is a tremendous benefit. No longer do developers have to build and maintain binaries for different processor architectures, word sizes and operating systems. Developers like me deploy cross-platform binaries on a daily basis. (The often stated 'Write One Run Anywhere is a myth' is itself a myth).

This is such a powerful feature that it allows clustering of heterogenous systems, with live code deployment from a single binary - I can cluster J2EE systems on say, Linux, Windows server and Solaris and provide a single binary WAR file which is automatically deployed to all of them.

It is this sort of thing that makes C++ look, in this respect, primitive.

Re:Java sucks balls

[nasch]

Are you saying Java apps are necessarily lower quality and performance than other languages, or just the apps you've written?

Re:Java sucks balls

[Anonymous Coward]

So besides those two "problems," what exactly sucks about Java?

Just off the top of my head...

• bad implementation of generics
  
• exception handling
  
• poor quality library code
  
• Swing
  
• bad numerical support
  
• JCP
  
• no ANSI/ISO/ECMA standard
  
• bloated libraries
  
• JNI (slow, cumbersome)
  
• poor desktop integration
  
• cross-platform differences
  
• unsupported/unavailable on many operating systems
  
• Sun patents on important platform features
  
• Sun ownership of key specs
  
• single source implementation (no compliant implementations of J2SE other than Sun-derived ones)
  

There are many more.

Yes, it's imperfect, as are all the alternatives.

All software is imperfect, but some is more imperfect than others. I can't think of any application for which Java is technically "the right choice". The only reason to choose Java at this point is if one is stuck with a development team that isn't proficient in anything else.

(I've been a Java user for about a decade, and a Sun user for about two decades.)

Re:Java sucks balls

[penguin-collective]

Even if was not cross platform, Java would be an important language as it removes the horrors of C/C++ memory management

What's your point? Algol, Smalltalk, and Lisp were safe, garbage-collected, object-oriented languages in widespread use before either C or C++ ever became popular, let alone Java. Java's contribution to the world of programming languages is exactly nothing.

No longer do developers have to build and maintain binaries for different processor architectures, word sizes and operating systems.

Processor, word size, and OS dependencies, they are not an issue even in correctly written C/C++, and certainly not in most other languages.

And even in Java, developers still have to build and maintain binaries for different processor architectures, because properly packaging applications for different platforms requires that.

It is this sort of thing that makes C++ look, in this respect, primitive.

Well, what can I say, both C++ and Java suck, albeit in different ways. But while C++ sucks, at least people regularly write high quality desktop apps in it, which is more than one can say for Java.

Re:Java sucks balls

[Decaff]

What's your point? Algol, Smalltalk, and Lisp were safe, garbage-collected, object-oriented languages in widespread use before either C or C++ ever became popular, let alone Java. Java's contribution to the world of programming languages is exactly nothing.

Sorry, but this is wrong. For example Algol was neither safe, garbage-collected or object oriented.

Java contribution is huge, in that it took what these other (excellent) languages offered and finally packed it together into a single system that was practical.

I know this, because I have developed in a large number of languages (including Algol (60 and 68), Smalltalk and LISP). None of these languages combined high performance, multi-vendor support for the same dialect, good performance and cross-platform portability at the binary level (and with a cross-platform gui) and also being free (as in beer).

I had been waiting for a language like that for literally decades. Smalltalk came closest, but there was never a cheap cross-platform version that came within better than 20-30% of the performance of C.

Processor, word size, and OS dependencies, they are not an issue even in correctly written C/C++, and certainly not in most other languages.

This simply is false. As a past C/C++ developer, I had to deal with such issues all the time. Writing truly portable binary data formats with C or C++ (or other widely used languages such as Pascal or Fortran) was a major issue, which is why so many proprietary and mutually text formats for specialised use were developed. There is also the matter of running distributed code. Efficiency requires binary messaging; where word size and processor features really can screw things up.

In Java, if you serialise a binary object, you can re-load it on any platform, 32-bit, 64-bit, big endian, little endian, or whatever. This has phenomenal advantages.

And even in Java, developers still have to build and maintain binaries for different processor architectures, because properly packaging applications for different platforms requires that.

No, it doesn't. There are standard packaging methods such as Jar and WAR which are fully platform independent. I have deployed identical JARs on Windows and Linux, and MacOS/X. The only thing that matters is how you specify the classpath in different OSes, and that is the merest fraction of effort (a few lines of script). All you need is a single script for each platform which can be supplied with the name of the main Jar and the directory containing library jars, and that is all you ever need for any application for that platform.

Actually things can be even simpler than that! There are java utilities like 'one-jar' that allows all Jars for a project to be deployed and run as a single binary archive for any platform.

But while C++ sucks, at least people regularly write high quality desktop apps in it, which is more than one can say for Java.

You would be surprised. Azeurus is Java. Moneydance (one of the most popular personal accounts packages) is Java. Java is now even starting to be used for PC games! (Tribal Trouble!)

The desktop app situation is a specialised one, as developers usually haven't cared about portability, and OS vendors have sold toolkits for development in C or C++. However, now you can get a wide range of portable Java GUI APIs - Swing, SWT, Qt, GTK+. Of course, with all but Swing you lose the ability of clean cross-platform binary deployment.

Re:Java sucks balls

[symbolic]

There's nothing more informative than a seemingly bitter individual who can lambaste a programming environment without providing any specific details. Am I supposed to just walk away thinking that you are correct, when you don't even take the time to explain your position?

Re:Java sucks balls

[njyoder]

Sorry, but this is wrong. For example Algol was neither safe, garbage-collected or object oriented.

So failing to find a flaw in his point, you just point out that one of his listed examples was out of place? You can conveniently ignore the very ancient LISP if you like, but it doesn't help your argument. His point was that the oh-so-special memory management features have existed for a long time, so your "for example" statement is just a red herring to distract away from the fact that you've been proven wrong.

Oh yeah and garbage collection has been available for C for a long time.

After that argument failed, you disingenuously "moved the goal posts," so to speak. Your original argument was about these supposedly great and unique memory management features, now you're adding on other constraints retroactively. Learn to be a good sport and admit when your argument is invalid.

Furthermore, you keep on towing that old line "but java is just as fast...really...trust me...I say so! Look, I have a few microbenchmarks (ignore the others) that showing it perform almost as good!"

Java contribution is huge, in that it took what these other (excellent) languages offered and finally packed it together into a single system that was practical.

People who are wrong tend to use vague speech like this. What is it that it packed together? A less functional version of C++? If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree. They were so backwards, that it took them many years and a lot of persuasian to get any equivalent to templates added. 1.5 isn't even prevalent enough to safely expect it to deploy on the majority of machines.

I expect an argument where you fall back to the API, which is nothing more than an library issue. *yawn*

None of these languages combined high performance, multi-vendor support for the same dialect, good performance and cross-platform portability at the binary level (and with a cross-platform gui) and also being free (as in beer).

Java isn't high performance. And quite frankly, you're full of shit. When was the last time you even tried using a LISP compiler? I like how you've also moved the goal posts here from "portability" to "portability at the binary level." BWAHAHAHA. You lost that one, so you're changing your argument.

And free as in beer? Funny how you didn't say "free as in free speech," because that's what LISP has been for along time. FYI: it's not a good idea to brag about how Java is such a closed standard.

Let's face it, no one gives two shits about "binary compatability." That's only matters to a) java sycophants and b) client-side web apps. The rest of the world doesn't care, because they can get all that portability (including GUI portability) WITHOUT the need for PITA java.

(By the way, Java's GUI support is a joke, both programmatically and in terms of performance.)

Oh yeah, did I mention that java isn't really portable? You lied in your response. Java for embedded and pervasive systems isn't is JavaME. It's a very tiny, broken subset of the standard. You're *lucky* if it runs on mroe than one embedded platform. This is from someone who has actually programmed embedded system. Apart from assembly/machine code, C is the most widely available language, hence why it's the choice for embedded systems.

I had been waiting for a language like that for literally decades.

I hope you're just lying, because your criteria has been met for decades. Idiot.

As a past C/C++ developer, I had to deal with such issues all the time.

Translation: you write horrible code. Endian issues are trivially easy to deal with, as any network programmer will tell you. THere are standard functions for dealing with exactly that, how convenient! Java has them too, because it's necessary to communicate with standard internet protocols.

Writing truly portable binary data formats with C or C++ (or other widely used languages such as Pascal or Fortran)

Re:Java sucks balls

[Decaff]

So failing to find a flaw in his point, you just point out that one of his listed examples was out of place? You can conveniently ignore the very ancient LISP if you like, but it doesn't help your argument. His point was that the oh-so-special memory management features have existed for a long time, so your "for example" statement is just a red herring to distract away from the fact that you've been proven wrong.

Nowhere have I been proven wrong. My point was that Java combined the strengths of these languages with performance.

You completely forgot installation of the Java runtime in the first place. It's quite a pain to set up,

Yeah - single click downloads. Big deal.

especially on platforms like the BSDs which Sun doesn't care about as much.

Well, BSD are going to ship Java.

And don't even get me started on the mediocre "open" source alternatives.

I agree with you there - but they aren't Java - that is the point of certification.

Oh yeah and garbage collection has been available for C for a long time.

Yes, but that does still now allow binary portability, or remove the problems of pointer errors, does it?

After that argument failed, you disingenuously "moved the goal posts," so to speak. Your original argument was about these supposedly great and unique memory management features, now you're adding on other constraints retroactively. Learn to be a good sport and admit when your argument is invalid.

Please point out a single way in which my argument was invalid. I never said that these were unique memory management features. Of course they aren't. My point was that Java has provided them for mass use. Try and point to millions of developers using Lisp or Smalltalk.

Furthermore, you keep on towing that old line "but java is just as fast...really...trust me...I say so! Look, I have a few microbenchmarks (ignore the others) that showing it perform almost as good!"

No, actually. It is in the microbenchmarks that Java does not show performance. It is generally in substantial programs that run for reasonable lengths of time that Java picks up speed, due to the heavy run-time optimisation.

I hope you're just lying, because your criteria has been met for decades. Idiot.

No, they really haven't. Please name a single alternative language that was OOP, garbage collected, binary cross-platform, and high performance and was available from multiple vendors.

Translation: you write horrible code. Endian issues are trivially easy to deal with, as any network programmer will tell you. THere are standard functions for dealing with exactly that, how convenient! Java has them too, because it's necessary to communicate with standard internet protocols.

I am talking about the Joe Sixpack developer who simply wants to save data. You know - like open a file and write out data? Why on Earth should they have to use libraries? Java doesn't need such libraries.

The mere fact that there are libraries to deal with this indicates that there is an issue!

What is a "mutually text format"? Speak English please.

I can usually tolerate stupid rudness, but this is going a bit far. You criticise me for pointing out a major technical error in a previous post ('Algol is OOP') and then correct me for grammar. That is plain offensive.

If you do that, then you're stuck dependant on Java. Aside from being inherently less effecient (having the OS serialize entire objects for you), it also destroys the chance of an open standard.

When Java serialises objects, it is not less efficient. The OS is not serialising entire objects - Java libraries are.

Truly binary formats are easy, they're made all the time. In fact, they can and have been the standard for a long time. Pick your type of file and I'll point to how the vast majority are binary formats.

OK - chemical data structure files.

Wow,

Re:Java sucks balls

[penguin-collective]

Sorry, but this is wrong. For example Algol was neither safe, garbage-collected or object oriented.

Algol 68 certainly had garbage collection, had a type system that was reasonably safe. It also had things that were roughly like things you would also call "classes" and "objects" in C++, but (like their equivalents in C++) no dynamic method binding.

In any case, the point is that none of the individual features of Java were new, and you could get most of them in combination in prior languages. Other examples of very Java-like languages are Eiffel, ObjectPascal, Turing, Modula-3, and Simula 67.

None of these languages combined high performance, multi-vendor support for the same dialect

There is no multi-vendor support for Java; all conforming Java (J2SE) platform implementations derive directly or indirectly from Sun. Java is a single implementation that is repackaged by multiple vendors.

good performance

Java performance is no better than other safe languages with declared primitive types and arrays of primitive types in the past (actually, Java is a little worse because the garbage collector still sucks in the only official implementation). And like most other such languages, Java fails to address the hard cases: efficiency when using complicated abstractions, and genericity involving primitive types and user defined classes. It's the same stupid mistake that CommonLisp, Smalltalk, and other languages made. In fact, the only widely used platform that gets this right is C#/.NET 2.0.

and cross-platform portability at the binary level

Useless because the market demands standard installers, so you have to repackage anyway. Also, other languages have provided this in the past.

(and with a cross-platform gui)

A GUI of poor quality and with poor desktop integration.

and also being free (as in beer).

Yes, and that's a problem, because it has been Sun's strategy for killing competitors. The end result? A situation like Windows, in which we have a single vendor shipping and sublicensing a single, ill-defined platform that nobody else can implement fully.

There are standard packaging methods such as Jar and WAR which are fully platform independent. I have deployed identical JARs on Windows and Linux, and MacOS/X.

Yes, and that kind of nonsense is exactly why Java has failed on the desktop: people want packages for their platform, they don't want a JAR file that doesn't integrate with the desktop.

You would be surprised. Azeurus is Java. Moneydance (one of the most popular personal accounts packages) is Java. Java is now even starting to be used for PC games! (Tribal Trouble!)

First of all, those applications are far and few between (that's why I said "regularly"). Azureus isn't even a Java platform application because it uses SWT. And Moneydance is packaged in a platform-specific way and under Windows includes the entire Java runtime.

In any case, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. It's a fact that Java has failed on the desktop and it's a fact that it has failed as an applet language. With only a few years of development, both .NET and Mono are more widely used on their respective platforms than Java. I gave you some of the reasons why I think that's the case, but, of course, you are free to continue tilting at windmills and assume that Java is perfect and Java's failure to fulfill its original aspirations are everybody else's fault but Sun's.

Re:Java sucks balls

[Decaff]

Algol 68 certainly had garbage collection, had a type system that was reasonably safe. It also had things that were roughly like things you would also call "classes" and "objects" in C++, but (like their equivalents in C++) no dynamic method binding.

Not garbage collection in the modern accepted sense. You had to manually release resources. It was certainly not an OOP language in any currently accepted way.

In any case, the point is that none of the individual features of Java were new, and you could get most of them in combination in prior languages. Other examples of very Java-like languages are Eiffel, ObjectPascal, Turing, Modula-3, and Simula 67.

This is true, but 'most of them' is not the same as 'all of them' - it is a crucial difference.

Java performance is no better than other safe languages with declared primitive types and arrays of primitive types in the past (actually, Java is a little worse because the garbage collector still sucks in the only official implementation). And like most other such languages, Java fails to address the hard cases: efficiency when using complicated abstractions, and genericity involving primitive types and user defined classes. It's the same stupid mistake that CommonLisp, Smalltalk, and other languages made. In fact, the only widely used platform that gets this right is C#/.NET 2.0.

This is factually incorrect. Java performance is substantially better than those equivalent languages - it approaches or matches C speed, which is something that was almost never the case for such other languages, at least, in their cross-platform implementations.

I know this because I was waiting for such a performance for years - I was not prepared to sacrifice C-equivalent speed to get portability and sensible memory management. I occasionally do high-performance numerical work. Java is the first 'safe' OOP language with garbage collection that I know will give me good cross-platform performance.

Yes, and that's a problem, because it has been Sun's strategy for killing competitors. The end result? A situation like Windows, in which we have a single vendor shipping and sublicensing a single, ill-defined platform that nobody else can implement fully.

Again, factually incorrect. Many others have fully implemented the JVM. TowerJ for example is a certified Java that does not rely on Sun's code. HP have produced clean-room certified Java.

Yes, and that kind of nonsense is exactly why Java has failed on the desktop: people want packages for their platform, they don't want a JAR file that doesn't integrate with the desktop.

Just because you can ship in a binary portable platform-independent way, doesn't mean you are forced to. There are, of course, Java installation packages for specific platforms. Just have a look at how InstallShield uses Java.

A GUI of poor quality and with poor desktop integration.

Sorry, but it really isn't poor quality. These days it is Direct/X and OpenGL accelerated, and has very good desktop integration (with JDIC). On future versions of Windows, for example, Swing applications will match the look and feel of the GUI to the exact pixel.

Useless because the market demands standard installers, so you have to repackage anyway. Also, other languages have provided this in the past.

Firstly, if the market (I assume you mean the desktop) demands standard installers, you can use them. Secondly, what market? The merest fraction of software development is for external shrink-wrapped use. Almost all of it is for internal use, where the ability to deploy a JAR (and update by simply replacing a JAR) is a phenomenal benefit. The majority of Java applications these days are web-based. And, there is indeed a standard way of installing those which is accepted by all vendors. It is the WAR file; a JAR with some additional meta-data in. Thirdly, as I keep saying, it matters not what other languages have provided in the past. The fact

Re:Java sucks balls

[penguin-collective]

Java performance is substantially better than those equivalent languages - it approaches or matches C speed, which is something that was almost never the case for such other languages, at least, in their cross-platform implementations.

Lisp with declarations was just as fast as Fortran and C. And like Lisp with declarations, Java fails to solve the hard problems.

I occasionally do high-performance numerical work.

You can write fast loops in it, but speed alone is insufficient for high-performance numerical work--Java is simply unsuitable for serious numerical work.

Again, factually incorrect. Many others have fully implemented the JVM. TowerJ for example is a certified Java that does not rely on Sun's code. HP have produced clean-room certified Java.

That's typical: when people talk about implementations of the Java platform, people like you try to quietly change the subject and slip in "JVM". When people explicitly talk about J2SE, you try to confuse the issue by making remarks about J2ME. And TowerJ is an example of how successfully Sun has eliminated competing implementations--I suggest you look up what happened to it (TowerJ also never was a clean-room implementation of the Java platform--they relied on Sun's libraries).

The fact remains: there is no certified clean-room implementation of the J2SE platform; all conforming J2SE implementations are licensed derivatives of Sun's code.

However, arguing against Java based on common myths about performance and client-side use does not help an argument, because thousands of developers know you are factually incorrect and will immediately dismiss what you say.

Actually, it's you who is factually incorrect on many things, and who is using the distortions and misrepresentations typical of Java zealots. What you keep saying is what Sun promised (good numerical support, high performance generics, multiple independent implementations, good desktop implementation, universal in-browser delivery, open standards, ...), but Sun has failed to deliver. I don't know whether people like you simply have trouble keeping reality and marketing apart, or whether you are deliberately astroturfing.

In any case, I used to worry about this, but given that it looks like Java is going to remain confined to its niches, that Sun is going nowhere fast as a company, and that better alternatives to Java are widely available now, it simply doesn't matter much anymore.

Re:Java sucks balls

[Decaff]

Lisp with declarations was just as fast as Fortran and C.

Yes - there are fast LISP implementations. But, yet again, what Java provides is multi-vendor
And like Lisp with declarations, Java fails to solve the hard problems.

Like what?

You can write fast loops in it, but speed alone is insufficient for high-performance numerical work--Java is simply unsuitable for serious numerical work.

Factually incorrect. Java is being used for serious numerical work right now. For example, it is one of the supported languages on the University of Edinborough's supercomputer. Years ago, IBM produced research that showed that one of the Java implementations ran at FORTRAN-equalent speed.

That's typical: when people talk about implementations of the Java platform, people like you try to quietly change the subject and slip in "JVM". When people explicitly talk about J2SE, you try to confuse the issue by making remarks about J2ME. And TowerJ is an example of how successfully Sun has eliminated competing implementations--I suggest you look up what happened to it (TowerJ also never was a clean-room implementation of the Java platform--they relied on Sun's libraries).

Ah - goalpost moving! Change the language to mean the 'platform'. If you look at IBM's implementation, they use IBM code in place of sun.com. and sun.* libraries. So much so that when Sun wrote bad code in some products that used their JRE libraries, they broke with the IBM JRE!

The fact remains: there is no certified clean-room implementation of the J2SE platform; all conforming J2SE implementations are licensed derivatives of Sun's code.

The fact remains that there is and gave been. HP produced clean room full Java platform implementations.

Actually, it's you who is factually incorrect on many things,

Sounds a bit like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi :)

and who is using the distortions and misrepresentations typical of Java zealots. What you keep saying is what Sun promised (good numerical support, high performance generics, multiple independent implementations, good desktop implementation, universal in-browser delivery, open standards, ...), but Sun has failed to deliver. I don't know whether people like you simply have trouble keeping reality and marketing apart, or whether you are deliberately astroturfing.

Look, why not quote facts? Paragraphs like this are meaningless. I have provided direct proof of errors in your statements (such as 'Java isn't suitable for numerical work'). Why not come back with actual facts?

In any case, I used to worry about this, but given that it looks like Java is going to remain confined to its niches, that Sun is going nowhere fast as a company, and that better alternatives to Java are widely available now, it simply doesn't matter much anymore.

Why not take a look at things like the TIOBE index, or the number of Java projects on sourceforce? Java is certainly not a niche language, and to claim it is blatantl nonsense, and it does not depend on Sun. If Sun vanished tomorrow, there are major companies with a huge investment in Java that will ensure it's long-term survival - IBM, BEA etc.

Sorry, but nyone who things that Java doesn't matter must be sadly out of touch with current IT and development. You may dislike it - I can understand that, but to claim it 'doesn't matter' is to be simply blinkered.

You are right in that reasonable alternatives may appear - particularly if Mono shows some performance improvements. However, in terms of support and tools, Java is currently dominant. In terms of high-performance server-side development, Java and J2EE are the key technology, and (for better or worse - I admit there are bad aspects) are likely to remain so for some time.

Re:Java sucks balls

[penguin-collective]

Java is being used for serious numerical work right now.

So is assembly language. That doesn't make assembly language a high performance language for numerical computing.

For example, it is one of the supported languages on the University of Edinborough's supercomputer.

So is awk. That doesn't make awk a high performance numerical language.

Years ago, IBM produced research that showed that one of the Java implementations ran at FORTRAN-equalent speed.

So they did. In fact, even Sun's lousy JVM is up to speed now. That doesn't make Java a high performance numerical language.

Look, why not quote facts? Paragraphs like this are meaningless. I have provided direct proof of errors in your statements (such as 'Java isn't suitable for numerical work').

A bunch of erroneous, unsubstantiated assertions from you do not constitute "proof".

Java is certainly not a niche language, and to claim it is blatantl nonsense,

Java is confined to specific market niches (or "market segments" if you like): enterprise computing, some custom application development, and education. Important niches, but not the kind of usage a general purpose programming language has. And, fortunately, that's where it's going to remain--it has failed to capture the two primary market segments that it started out to capture: desktop applications and applets.

The fact remains that there is and gave been. HP produced clean room full Java platform implementations.

Ah, so you will have no trouble pointing at the product or download page for HP's cleanroom Java 5 J2SE implementation, plus at a statement by Sun certifying it. Come on, we're waiting.

Sorry, but nyone who things that Java doesn't matter must be sadly out of touch with current IT and development. You may dislike it - I can understand that, but to claim it 'doesn't matter' is to be simply blinkered.

I didn't say that "Java doesn't matter", I said that it's not worth worrying about Java taking over the world anymore because it's clear that it won't do so; Java, at this point, is roughly like C or COBOL--a historical nuisance.

Ah - goalpost moving! Change the language to mean the 'platform'.

No, I'm not moving the goalpost. I have been clear in my statements that there are no independent implementations of the Java platform. Independent implementations of the JVM or the Java language are useless by themselves because they are not sufficient for running Java applications; many of the purported advantages of "Java" are advantages (OS independence, etc.) of the Java platform.

"And like Lisp with declarations, Java fails to solve the hard problems." Like what?

Like efficient implementations of C-like structs, genericity with structs and numerical type arguments, and efficient native code binding. You know, like both C++ and C# support.

Re:Java sucks balls

[njyoder]

Nowhere have I been proven wrong. My point was that Java combined the strengths of these languages with performance.

You're so dishonest. I said your argument was invalid, which it was. You said these "safe languages" didn't exist before Java, but that is patently wrong. By all means, keep being disingeuous and changing what you've said retroactively.

Yeah - single click downloads. Big deal.

Only in windows, retard. Have you installed it on anything other than windows? The fact that you think it's about clicking doesn't bode well for you.

Well, BSD are going to ship Java.

Speak proper English; you're not making sense. Java is available for *BSD, but it's a pain to set up. If you want to run java servlets, it's even more painful. Why don't you limit your comments to things you ahve experience with; it's obvious that you have none beyond the pointing and clicking of windows.

I agree with you there - but they aren't Java - that is the point of certification.

Yes, this is what happens you rely on a closed standard like Java.

Yes, but that does still now allow binary portability, or remove the problems of pointer errors, does it?

Keep moving the goal posts and adding extra criteria. We already discussed that 'binary portability' was something you tacked on after you were losing. I've already discussed how it doesn't matter and that Java isn't portable to embedded systems anyway. Oh I love how you insert "pointer errors," which makes me think you're just inexperienced and don't understand pointers. That's ok, most amateur programmers struggle with them.

Please point out a single way in which my argument was invalid. I never said that these were unique memory management features.

Here's a quote from you, liar: "Even if was not cross platform, Java would be an important language as it removes the horrors of C/C++ memory management, and no-one with any experience of modern Java runtimes would state that there is a performance price."

That is clearly invalid since there are languages which use automated memory management.

My point was that Java has provided them for mass use. Try and point to millions of developers using Lisp or Smalltalk.

Keep moving those goal posts! What the hell does "mass use" mean? LISP has been around since the 60s. Unlike with Java, Lisp is from an open standard and can be compiled with open source compilers. Any idiot and his grandmother can easily download LISP and this was true before Java existed.

Also, it seems that you're committing another logical fallacy. "Try and point to the millions of developers..." Thats an argument from popularity... "I'm right because it's popular." Guess what, bucko: c/c++ beats the pants off of Java in terms of popularity. If only we could reverse the rules of logic and make "it's good because it's popular" arguments. That way we'd have Windows as the #1 supreme desktop operating system.

No, actually. It is in the microbenchmarks that Java does not show performance. It is generally in substantial programs that run for reasonable lengths of time that Java picks up speed, due to the heavy run-time optimisation.

Right, I bow to your speculation! If you say it, it must be true! By all means, ignore benchmarks. You should check them by the way, Java only comes close in the most trivial benchmarks.

No, they really haven't. Please name a single alternative language that was OOP, garbage collected, binary cross-platform, and high performance and was available from multiple vendors.

He moves the goal posts again, amazing! I like how you slipped "binary cross-platform" in there. I can add arbitrary features too: "Java sucks...after all it doesn't provide functional programming features which resemble lambada calculus." Java loses! Nevermind that you need to use platform specific packaging to install it anyway.

The only one Java doesn't meet is b

Market?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean there is a market for this rubbish?

People actually sell it?

Tools To Build With

[MikeyTheK]

Now that http://www.morfik.com/ is in public beta, and Atlas is about to do the same, we are finally starting to get some IDE/RAD tools to build WebOS apps. It's pretty exciting to see where AJAX has gone in 14 months. I can't wait for things to get a bit further so I can start seriously selling clients on going this route.

Next stop: IBM reintroduces the javastation (only now it will be a javascript station).

We'll see how long it takes to make this kind of interface really WORK on cell phones and other ultraportable devices.

Why?

[BenjyD]

OK, I'm extremely sceptical about this ever taking off because:

- It relies on an internet connection
- It actually increases the processing requirements of the client
- it sticks another huge layer of abstraction and source of incompatibility between my apps and the system
- It doesn't solve a user problem.

Can anyone give me an argument for why anyone would use this instead of a USB thumbdrive, or a laptop, which are pretty cheap these days?

Because we can

[barryfandango]

A few years ago JavaScript was considered a toy language. Now that it's been "discovered" the pendulum has swung the other way, and people seem to think that JavaScript plus a browser is a suitable platform for writing a windowing system.

We've been able to do a remote terminal like this for years, using more appropriate network protocols and faster execution environments. If we rebuild it on a completely absurd applpication stack:

• Actual OS (hardware interface level)
• Fast, mature windowing system
• Web Browser w/JavaScript
• Slow, buggy Windowing System inside Web Browser

How does this bring any more value to the concept? The ability to hit the "Back" button and lose my entire session? Having two taskbars at the bottom of my screen?

It seems like this is an idea being pursued just becasue we can; because we're excited about JavaScript and the Web 2.0 hype machine is working overtime.

Re:Because we can

[cthrall]

Pushing new client code w/o actually pushing anything to the client is always nice. Knowing the majority of the computers out there meet the requirements for your software is also very nice. Cross-platform support is, most likely, easier than a traditional C++/.NET/Java client.

It's not for every application, but there are a lot of reasons to do it.

Re:Because we can

[flappinbooger]

What I would do with it -

I already use gmail, and now google calendar
I would have a few documents I am working on in a doc program like "writely".
I effectively have all my favorite websites grouped together using google personalized homepage.
I could save some files, etc, in a Gdrive.

I would be able to access some documents, files, information and my email and calendar - either from work, home, friends house, laptop in the lazy boy, on the road, windows, linux, mac, wherever, whenever, however. Nothing to lose if the computer crashes, nothing to forget, nothing to reinstall, NOTHING TO BUY, no contacts to lose, real handy.

Even my PARENTS and my INLAWS have high speed internet, and the both are in the STICKS. So, doing things 100% online is very feasible now, and definitely in the future.

Have I drank the google coolaid? Well, maybe... but it tastes alright so far and the IDEA is great.

Re:Because we can

[barryfandango]

All these things are true, and I'm all for web applications. But none of what you're describing necessitates a DHTML windowing system to replace that which is provided by your OS. You can have Writely, Gmail, GDrive and god knows what else open in separate browser windows or tabs.

Don't Mix Your Metaphors

[WombatControl]

All of these projects don't understand the medium. The web is not a desktop. The web doesn't work like a desktop, and attempts to translate the desktop metaphor to the web almost all suck hard. The web doesn't have milisecond response rates -- even with AJAX. You don't have a consistant set of APIs across browsers like you do on the desktop. You can't assume everyone has JavaScript, images, or styles on, and a smart developer will try to make sure that their users get a site that degrades gracefully through any of those cases.

You can't just shoehorn a "desktop" style experience into a system that isn't at all designed for it. The web is a unique medium from the desktop. It demands a totally different metaphor than desktop applications.

A desktop metaphor adds a lot of unnecessary cruft to the web -- trying to use drop-down menus, popup windows, crappy DHTML "controls" and the like degrade user experiences and make sites slow, frustrating, and buggy. Applications like GMail and Yahoo! Mail try to use the technologies in appropriate ways - they have some elements of desktop applications, but they're not trying to mimic a desktop application.

We have a great, if maturing, set of tools in XHTML, CSS, and the JavaScript DOM. You can do amazing things with those tools provided you understand what their limitations and appropriate uses are. Trying to use those tools to emulate the usability problems of a whole different medium is misusing and misunderstanding the technology. A smart developer looks towards what works for the web rather than trying to force the medium to match an experience that it just can't do.

Re:Don't Mix Your Metaphors

[saltydogdesign]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the notion that this is a bit overboard, but at the same time, in 1992 it could have been argued that the Internet was not a graphical system. And yet, there were people trying to "shoehorn" a graphical interface onto a system not designed for it. And if that weren't enough, it wasn't long before people started shoehorning complex design techniques into web pages, to the dismay of those who thought tables were for tabular data. Really, if everyone took your idea of appropriate uses to heart, we probably wouldn't be driving cars.

Look: many of these ideas will fail, and some may well succeed. These people are pushing the limits of what these technologies can do, and I for one applaud them for it. No one is forcing you to use these systems, so cut these guys some slack already.

Chicken & Egg situation?

[Unski]

Help me out here, but what is it that supports the browser which supports the WebOS in question? Could someone tell me what software means exist to take the WebOS concept to its logical conclusion and have only a thin client viewer application? It's just that otherwise, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have said this, but what advantage is there in a whole WebOS when I still have to have a conventional OS to run the browser to connect to the WebOS?

In the current situation, where we have full-blown fat-client OS's, I could see the utility in some of the remote applications, but I think it's the need to recreate the whole OS and then require IE/Firefox to access it which is confusing me.

Duh WebOS IS a Product and has been...

[MajorDick]

WebOS is a trademark, and a product, and it has been for QUITE some time.

IThey were around some 6 years or more ago and had a very nice product, albeit a little sluggish, it was some sort of Java/Ajax enabled Office suite

It looks like they got bough out by Hyperoffice, or changed their name, but WebOS is still a registered Trademak, I wouldnt be making it generic like kleenex just yet.

Re:Duh WebOS IS a Product and has been...

[penguin-collective]

but WebOS is still a registered Trademak, I wouldnt be making it generic like kleenex just yet.

Why not? Whether it becomes generic is up to us, the people.

WEBOS!

[urbieta]

WebOS rimes with huevos in spanish, which means eggs, a slang for testicles which makes a story about egges particularly amusing for latin americans.

http://www.unapeliculadehuevos.com/

you made my day ;)

A quick review of WebOS'

[danielk1982]

They all suck.

The buzzword bee!

[RafaelGCPP]

I got stung by the buzzword bee
And what a feeling got over me
AJAX in to my eyes
WebOS into my head
'2.0 to my heart
Till I was brain-dead
I'm done! uh-hu
I got stung!!

I pray The Lord everyday to please keep me from this malignous insect!!

Yeah, but...

[bynary]

...can you run Windows apps on it?

Re:Yeah, but...

[scovetta]

Funny, but it's actually a fair question.

With the move towards virtualization, etc -- would it really be so insane to consider in-browser virtualization code that lets you run code natively built for other another os? It's no longer really just a "browser" anyway.

And for all those in the "WebOS is teh suck" crowd, consider how much user-level work is done on the web vs on the local system (think "average user"). The web *is* the computer (or, its probably at 80%+ now). The things it can't do: games, word processing, specialized applications, photoshop, instant messaging. Word processing is getting there, specialized applications are getting better, photoshop -- that one needs some word (WebGIMP?) -- instant messaging is interesting, but not really there, and games -- well, that one is likely way off, unless people stop caring so much about eye candy and more about game quality.

[/rant]

Re:Yeah, but...

[misleb]

With the move towards virtualization, etc -- would it really be so insane to consider in-browser virtualization code that lets you run code natively built for other another os? It's no longer really just a "browser" anyway.

Virtualization involves installing a whole OS, not just emulating a particular API. And yeah, it would be pretty insane (and pointless).

-matthew

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

furthermore, I'd add it's the browser wars and the associated lack of standardization that's really slowed things down. I'd say web applications are becoming just another tool in the toolbox, and indeed powerful.

The best examples I've tried are gmail/google calendar/google chat. Privacy issues aside, I much prefer this combo to my previous solution. The reasons include accessibility, non-administration and not having the Outlook the Elephant weigh down on my memory (that program just needs to go on a diet - as well as a trip to the psychologist so it can function in everyday situations).

Anthropomorphism aside, I believe in abstractions and interfaces to simplify computing. To me, web apps and services do just that. They simplify my day so I won't have to worry whether I'll be on a Linux or a Windows machine, won't have to think about where I pop'ed that mail to, or if my main machine will crash. It's basically the economy of scale, where somebody else offers the service - and takes the hassle - for many, many people.

Of course, overextending a good idea usually leads nowhere. However, many applications can beneficially be ran on somebody else's server, provided the bandwidth is there. The requirements vary for different kinds of data, and as a result, I believe we'll see more and more interesting services and apps as bandwidths keep going up.

Too much for too little.

[C.Jota]

A windowing system for a website utilizing AJAX to process seemlessly without reloading, thats just cool. But a full operating system that someone may depend on for file storage and work is not reliably enough given the current infrastructure. Reliability would go up if there were fiber lines installed everywhere and a wireless system as backup, but still would not provide the reliability and security many will require. I agree that for the basic user that only really uses the computer to get e-mail and talk on IM, this is a fine solution. What about traveling students, traveling employees, etc. Last time I checked VNC/Terminal Services did the trick and allows for administrators to maintain the software and security. I think the market will be too small for this to actually be a viable option. It only really serves 1 use.

Re:Too much for too little.

[PitaBred]

Meh. VNC runs as slow as web apps. Often slower. A VPN with a laptop is good, but other than that... not so much IMHO.

more than misleading

[muyuubyou]

In Spanish, it pronounces as "uebos" which is too close to "huevos" (in fact 100% the same in most regions).

Means "eggs" or slang alternative to "testicles" similar to "cojones" or English "balls"

No me toqueis los Webos.

Duplication != Innovation

[Artifex33]

WebOS's, or Web Desktops, do not accomplish anything that the paired browser/OS cannot accomplish in a more efficient way. Popping open a dhtml window, with or without XMLHttpRequest, can accomplish bypassing pop-up blockers, but in every other way, the client's OS is much better suited to handling any kind of windowing duties.

Allowing the user to manage their windows in an already-familiar OS environment, rather than having to relearn the duplicate controls of a web site is a clear usability win. In my company's usability studies, users are greatly confused by presenting them with a simple web-based tree view, let alone an entire windowing interface. In addition, the more advanced browsers that utilize tabs become crippled when the user doesn't have the option of spawning the dhtml window in a new tab.

Re inventing the wheel

[nurb432]

if we dont keep re-inventing the wheel, ( regardless if the original wheel was good or bad - wont get into that debate here about java ) then the market slumps.. They have to keep pushing out the 'latest and greatest' re-hash every so often to sell product.

Its sort of like the corner resturant selling leftovers and calling it something new, so people come back in to eat.

Re:Re inventing the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of Chinese food, it's called Chop Suey. And it worked.

Back in 1997

[Anonymous Coward]

I took some time off from college and went to work for a company called Inergy Online. They made something called IOS 2000, (for Internet Operating System...sorry Cisco). It was a complete web-based suite of applications complete with Email, Word Processing (Yes, we did in 1997 with Fast CGI what in many ways was far beyond anything I've seen today), a home page builder (I was the one responsible for the perl scripts to manage the thousands of user directories of a special html-markup of html...regex hell), a calendar, file manager, etc.

We had a deal where every purchase of WebTV from either Sony or Philips came with a free year of Inergy's WebDesk (which ran on IOS 2000). There were no ads and the system could be completely private-labeled for companies (hence the reason why Hotmail got purchased and we didn't, even though we had many more users at the time, and definitely a better product even though it was all integrated)

Here's what I learned both from this experience, and from following the progress of many, many companies who came after trying to do the same thing. In order to succeed with this type of idea, you ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCALLY *MUST* create the analog of the PC "hard drive" in order for something like this to fly. The only reason why Microsoft is vulnerable at all to something like this, is that they are going in the opposite direction from the personal computer, where they are the big mainframe in the sky (Viruses...Spyware....Hailstorm....Microsoft Passport...what irony to the US gov't that MS issued their own passport system around the same time as the DOJ trial). Google is the same, just trying to suck you in like a moth to the flame.

As I heard the CEO of Inergy spout about how we are all going back to the mainframe era, I thought to myself, NO FRIGGING THANKS!!!! I like my personal computer, thank you very much. I like my own space that I can control where I reign supreme. It might just be an illusion, but it's the closest thing we have by far to personal empowerment from technology. Linux is the natural successor to the PC, and will beat MS for the same reason MS beat the Mac. It is simply more open. The Mac has always been prettier, easier to use, and more polished. People suffered through win.ini the same way they suffer today through /etc, but the writing is clearly on the wall that Linux will overtake MS for exactly the same reason it beat out the Mac platform.

So my conclusion is that in order for this WebOS idea to fly, it would have to offer the same (or better) level of truly personal space. A good enough encryption algorithm *might* cut it, but even then it wouldn't be the same as having it close to your person. The best thing I've found so far is a "dedicated server". Google that term and see how many companies are doing that. Compare the # of hits for that, compared to shared hosting on a "virtual private server". It just shows that most people's natural inclination is to have something private.

Ideally, you could create your own personal grid composed of a few dedicated servers at once, with automatic backup, clustering, failover, with 100% encrypted traffic. That way, I could federate all my devices against this personal cluster. It would be neat to be able to explore synergies between all of my personal data, so that even voice mails could be delivered to my own personal server.

Sure, there are ways to approximate this for the very technical, but nothing delivers on it with a polished, end-user focused experience. Just my 2 cents. All web applications and ASP-style applications are going very hard against the grain when it comes to control and storage of data.

Well, actually...

[Sigg3.net]

Actually, I was just going to submit a link to my thoughts on my birthday party a week ago.
It was kind of lame since we had tapas, and if you've been reading my blog, you know that I'm not totally into the tapas. Not totally.
But I know it was an expression of love, and of gratitude, and for that I'm grateful. Colour me touched.
Then I saw aliens the other day. It's not my favourite (number 3 is), but I still think it's funny. Those aliens make about the same noise the darn neighbourhood cats do when they're getting it on somewhere in the vicinity. You can barely sleep in that noise. They mostly come at night. Mostly.
Today I haven't done much. I bought a ATA33 cable, this dude behind the counter was just staring at me, so, you know, I just placed my elbow on the counter and stared back at 'him and said, like: They are really hard to come by.
Since I'm here, I'd like to give a shout-out to my brothers and my sister, my mother and father, and just let you know that I miss you all and that life in the big city is not all that. And mum, I couldn't survive much longer on frozen pizza. Thanks for the food!
I still don't have enough cash for a vacuum cleaner (although I have ordered a small, USB-powered vacuum cleaner, but I don't have enough cable) so I suggest you do not come visiting just yet. My mail is down, but that's ok, just hang out on /. and we'll meet here.

The one place I can really see this used...

[biz0r]

...is in a corporate environment.

I mean think about it, you have a ton of desktops that must be kept up to date, must keep running for someone to be productive, and shouldn't really be used for personal purposes. Boot them all off of bootable CD's (or maybe even RW's so boot CD's can be cycled and some money saved when doing 'updates'), have them login to a central thin-client 'server'. This has several benefits:
1) Users are 'sandboxed'.
2) Easily control what someone can and cannot do.
3) Only 1 central machine (or cluster, depending) to manage and keep up-to-date.
4) Far less likely that someone will fsck their box.
5) If someone DOES end up messing up their box, just reboot and re-login.
6) Big brother can even more easily track you (good for company, albeit bad for you).
7) Whats that you say, no HD's to purchase or fail?
8) IT staff reduced as some of the support required drops.

Thats just a few off the top of my head...

Re:The one place I can really see this used...

[upside]

Why not use a dedicated remote protocol like X or RDP that allow you to run a fully fledged desktop and all the applications you're used to? You can boot an RDP-enabled Linux system from a CD or PXE and access a Windows desktop if you like.

Re:The one place I can really see this used...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are then tied to a platform.

Re:The one place I can really see this used...

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

You hit the nail on the head. Many posters are thinking of these desktops in terms of home use in which I agree it is not applicable and will fail. But in the Corporate environment where thousands of desktops and application instances must be managed on a daily basis these technologies can be a god sent. They allow IT departments to manage a client side, platform independent, single install from a single location. Upgrades for 10K users are instantaneous; problems do not arise from different configurations on the client. For corporate application such as accounting systems this is one of the most promising developments in usability and manageability.

Re:The one place I can really see this used...

[Myen]

(Re: anonymous parent)
And with this HTML-based thing, you're tied to the HTML/DOM platform. All that HTML and JS will *not* be usable outside of browsers. Want to move to native GTK apps? Port it. Native Win32? Port that too.

And with a browser-based platform, once the Internet moves forward your apps are dead. You can still sort of run Win16 based apps (not in Win64 though), but already Netscape 4 code is dead as a doorknob.

Of course, we'll get this "web as an OS" thing again when XAML/XUL/BobKnowsWhat gets pushed. Then it'll eventually just be Yet Another Legacy Toolkit du Jour...

Re:The one place I can really see this used...

[biz0r]

There is going to be a bit of 'stickyness' applied to WHATEVER technology/environment you use...are you trying to argue that a native desktop environment would be better? Thats fine, however don't try to pass that argument off as something else.

Who says these corporate apps need to be used outside of their environment anyhow? This isn't Joe Blow the desktop user that wants to move from one pc to another...this is a large (or not?) company that uses these specific apps to do specific work. There isn't the need to be able to run these apps outside of their web environment. If you DO have that requirement, well then this may not be the best thing for you...no one said this was the be-all for applications.

Also, once the internet moves forward you can choose to move to that new development platform if you wish, or continue with the current setup you have. No one is requiring you to move to it, that is the beauty of not being tied into a platform like Microsoft where you are essentially REQUIRED to upgrade and spend money. Don't want to implement XUL? Fine, stay with your current AJAX/Javascript/XHTML setup...no one is saying you can't and there are certainly no problems maintaining a setup like that. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of javascript/web/ajax/etc developers so you are probably going to be ok for atleast the next few decades if you choose to stay with it.

Re:The one place I can really see this used...

[Myen]

No, I'm not arguing that stickiness is avoidable, just that my parent (score: 0) was arguing that by going HTML/AJAX it would be. That's why I had that re: line there :)

I totally agree that web-based apps can be useful - my primary email has shifted to GMail, and I thought my university's web-based student services system was a good thing (I've seen the time of trying to register by phone, computer was much better). And from what I've seen, sometimes moving towards that would be nice (aforementioned student services system, on the admin side, was still Java last I checked. That having been JVM 1.3 or something, I'm sure they wish it was web based instead)

As for not being required to move forward... Yeah, legacy content (i.e. the current AJAX stuff) will probably keep some compatiblity, but not entirely. Nobody cares about document.layers now, and browser vendors probably will not keep everything the same as the specs move. And it's not exactly like you can keep running old browsers either due to the security updates... Try getting Mozilla 1.4 branch (that was the stable branch before 1.7) to work now with patches for stuff that came out after it was dropped :p

Re:The one place I can really see this used...

[misleb]

Yeah, its called Microsoft Terminal Services (or Citrix if you need more features). Sun also tried pusing thin desktops years ago. Or you can try http://ltsp.org/ if you are into Linux. Heck, even just setting up roaming desktops and storing all user home directories (and documents) on the server should solve most of the thick client management headaches.

There are any number of better ways to do this than using a web browser.

-matthew

eyeOS Link

[Anonymous Coward]

eyeOS public server is in eyeOS.info. It's Open Source, also.

Not so crazy

[hey]

Since all the comments are negative I thought I'd add some non-negative comments.

No they aren't OSes but they are environments / platforms.

The requirement for internet access isn't such a big deal.
Bascially I find any computer nearly useless if it doesn't have internet access these days. Try programming without doing some Google lookups for reference or
mail!

It subvert the big bad MSFT - so that's good.

Users will like it. No need to have a computer - just a virtual one.
Did people cry when answering machines were replaced with voice mail.

Re:Not so crazy

[BenjyD]

But voicemail replaced the need for tape based machines: what does a WebOS replace?

You still need a fairly powerful computer, you still need an normal OS to load the web browser, you still need some local storage unless you want to be completely stuck if your internet connection dies or someone slashdots the server, or to avoid having to download your OS every morning. So what components can you remove?

Re:Not so crazy

[bynary]

Why do you need a "normal" OS? I would imagine that some sort of embedded web browser could be engineered. Also, define "normal" in terms of an operating system.

Probably not going to happen... Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As for developers, a big benefit is that a WebOS theoretically makes it easier to develop apps that work cross-platform."

Just like Java! That great programming language that everybody is using nowadays because of the fact that... Oh, wait.

Re:Probably not going to happen... Again.

[nasch]

Are you suggesting that Java "didn't happen"? Or are you referring specifically to Java-based desktops?

Funny isn't it?

[suv4x4]

Isn't it funny how quickly times change the perception people have towards things.

In 1996, I was experimenting with JavaScript, creating moving, resizable windows with live applications in them like a calculator, notepad and a place where you put bookmarks.

I was a kid, I didn't know anything, but what I knew is I was just playing around and learning. If I took myself seriously and came up with those things in 1997, I'd be quickly dismissed for being noobish and abusing web technology, right there with people that put MIDI music and lake applets in their pages.

Nowadays, however, faking Desktop interfaces using html and JavaScript is all the rage, and many geeks look to the efforts in the area as the wave of the future in interfaces and application design.

Economic logic

[zis000]

Aside from the technological hassle/benefit hosted application have a BIG economical advantage. It eliminates all distribution costs. Ideally this would lead to more money put in development and eventually getting better applications.

2 cent

[layer3switch]

First, the concept is pretty cool. I'd imagine pretty good usage within LAN environment with dedicated web server(s) and managed environment. Since the road block is still the netaccess with RPC or XML feed on every write, this would make offline usage more painful and hassle with trouble prone. Centralized application in replacement over terminal application would make this favorable in my opinion.

Second, desktop realestate. It's just not there. Too cluttered to be used in any useful fashion due to window frame max cap would be the limit of the browser being used. Even having the scroll bar ideally makes sense, but scroll bar themselves takes up realestate. But mostly the idea is to have a virtual desktop on top of already a Desktop makes it somewhat redudant.

Third, related to my last statement, since the realestate is limited, on Windows Active Desktop or KDE HTML background, this would make a pretty neat widget. I would think, freeware application widgets running on desktop would make this pretty favorable toward end users instead of installing adwares or toolbar or other internetwares. For instance, Yahoo! Messanger, Gmail and RSS news feed applications come to mind.

Fourth, centralized realtime data feed to workstations or one-to-many message broadcast data feed or VoIP PBX could make this very affordable and easy to implement for small to mid size business environment with HTML desktop on workstations. For instance, replacement of expensive digital phones and implement Ajax VoIP and internal paging over Acitve/HTML Desktops and let VoIP handle extensions by carriers or set up PBX internally.

Fifth, remote application (not data) access over SSL. Alternative to VPN. Why not have private data private locally but use Ajax applications to present the data locally? If desired, let the sensitive data be sensitive with file encryption, but let the remote application control the key to unlock it and present the data.

that's it...

I've commented to this effect before

[Bertie]

But I will again.

The reason why Windows Vista is a complete let-down is because all the clever stuff's being saved for Windows Live. MS see this WebOS caper as the way forward, and the main job of desktop Windows from now on will be to provide a platform to access the services they'll be offering via this medium (and, of course, to lock everybody down via DRM etc.) They've concentrated on the security and the DRM, rather than on the functionality, because those are the things that will really matter for what they want to do going forward.

Basically, certain big cheeses in Microsoft were really put out by the massive hash they were making of developing Vista, and at the same time could see that there was some pretty clever stuff going on at the MSN end of the company, which sees itself as a separate entity. Microsoft's most successful product of late has been MSN Messenger, which waded into a crowded market late and won users over partly by being included in the OS, in time-honoured fashion, but mostly by actually being good. MSN's all vibrant and innovative and forward-looking, while the rest of the company couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. So the prevailing view on high seems to be to give a freer rein to the MSN lot and do stuff over the web instead.

Or at least, that's what a certain well-placed individual told me, anyway.

Wrong Problem

[CmdrGravy]

I don't think we need a new OS or a new Desktop, what we really need is for existing applications to be able share each others data effectively be it locally on someones home machine or from sources elsewhere and across different application groups regardless of who has developed it. Right now sharing calendar information from my website and integrating ti into my business calendars and having it available on my phone should be possible but for one reason or another isn't.

If you're going to rip off bash.org quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

at least attribute them properly: http://bash.org/?338364

Wake me up

[themusicgod1]

when this "WebOS" has drivers for my sound, video and crypto cards.

It has a browser!

[johnfink]

I just checked out the previously linked eyeOS, and it has a browser built into the "OS". You can actually open up eyeOS again, and log in again, and open up the browser in that "OS", and so on.

Now tell me, why would you put a browser in an application that runs in a browser? That's like giving me a scooter to get around within my car.

And BTW, it does not bypass any proxies or other workplace limitations, so far as I can tell.

Re:It has a browser!

[Myen]

Probably the same as the reason you can open chrome://browser/content/browser.xul in Firefox? ;) (Warning, breaks your window because it does thing it really shouldn't)

WebOS != Operating System

[MrNougat]

As observed already, "WebOS" is a complete misnomer. Last time I checked, I was not able to boot my computer with a blank hard drive using a "WebOS." An operating system allows your computer to boot and run commands, regardless of whether it's connected to a network or not.

What would be super-cool is an BIOS-embedded OS that booted from the NIC from a server available over the internet. But what these "WebOS" people are actually providing is a "WebOffice" suite. Still a useful commodity, but not an operating system.

Re:WebOS != Operating System

[dragonman97]

As observed already, "WebOS" is a complete misnomer. Last time I checked, I was not able to boot my computer with a blank hard drive using a "WebOS." An operating system allows your computer to boot and run commands, regardless of whether it's connected to a network or not.

What would be super-cool is an BIOS-embedded OS that booted from the NIC from a server available over the internet. But what these "WebOS" people are actually providing is a "WebOffice" suite. Still a useful commodity, but not an operating system.

Well, for the former, there's always Knoppix.

For the latter, I thought of an interesting solution - PXE booting already exists, but the Internet part is a slight complication. However, I bet it would be quite feasible to mod a Linksys WRT54G to serve up PXE booting to this effect. With economies of scale, I bet Google could give them away (there are already ~$10 routers out there), provided that you let AdSense pervade deeper into your computing realm.

Re:WebOS != Operating System

[MrNougat]

Well, for the former[boots computer and runs commands], there's always Knoppix.

Yes yes, I am wholly aware of live CDs, and they're also pretty great. And yet, they are also not "WebOS," being that they're local media - just like a BIOS chip or a floppy or a USB key or a hard drive or whatever.

On the second part, that's exactly what I was thinking. PXE boot to a local hardware device (like a SOHO router that almost everyone with broadband has). The SOHO router would keep a boot image file which would allow the PXE computer to get enough info to connect to the internet and download a more complete OS, then run from that. The hardware device would be able to check in with its internet counterpart for updated boot images with or without user intervention.

Now, broadband in the US is still generally 10Mb, so I wonder if the downloaded OS could start running while it was still downloading other parts. Applications, perhaps, wouldn't automatically be downloaded, but rather downloaded "on demand." Then those apps would be tied to your "WebOS" user account, so that they would donwload right away (before you demanded them), a kind of self-tailoring experience.

eyeOS is the best

[eporue]

The correct link to eyeOS is http://eyeos.info/ , where you can create a free account. Also, worth mentioning that eyeOS is the only Open Source and free WebOs here, as far as I know. And that you can download it and install in your own server. You cannot get better protection than that !!

didnt work in 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

so why should it now ?
perhaps all these web2.0 children should learn a bit of web history

http://web.archive.org/web/20010331050750/www.webo s.com/webos/index.cfm

API/X-platform/DHTML/AJAX yadda yadda yadda
try and think of something new for a change, you know INNOVATIVE

message from the future

[boyfaceddog]

What is this "browser" thing you speak of? Is it some sort of antique way of accessing networked applications where you don't have enough bandwidth to handle the application?

These are not OS's

[dilvish_the_damned]

At best they are shells, and I hardly see the point.
What problem are they addressing in a unique/better fasion? Simply using a browser engine as your desktop does not make it a unique solution, it makes it a unique approach (which it isnt ).
I would rather see a novel metaphor to replace the icon/rectangle-is-document thing we currently have. But then again, what can you expect from Home Taught Master Linquists?

But I dont want to be totally negative about this so um:
Good work guys.

Give me a Break

[eno2001]

The Web is NOT a platform. I repeat. The web is NOT a platform. There are TONS of applications that the web is not suited to support in any kind of "Web OS" because of the limitations of current bandwidth, computing power and of course the archaic web browser itself. A few examples:

1. Audio/music production software. I wouldn't want to have to use a slow and low powered web application to do audio editing or multitrack recording. Unless we all had 10 gigbit links to the internet with super low latency and the server end was running 10 terahertz CPUs in a 1024 node cluster, it could just be stupid to do this kind of work with a web application.

2. CAD. The same limitations with even more impact considering how graphically intensive this sort of thing is. Hell an X session over a cable modem between two locations would perform better than a stupid web based CAD application!

3. Video/Film editing and production. Sorry, but this is definitely ALWAYS going to be in the realm of running on a REAL OS locally (or at least on the same LAN). You can't "Webify" this type of application. It's just idiotic.

Sure, you can maybe make a few cutesy apps for word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail and the like, but how useful is that to REAL computer users? Not very. It'll keep Joe and Jane Average happy, but that's NOT an OS you're providing there... it's just a set of web services possibly in a unified, clunky "desktop" of a sort. Face it ALL web browsers are ugly. They were designed primarily to display textual content and hypertext. We've bolted on all sorts of additional functionality that browsers are ill suited for. What moron would actually want to run an application or OS inside another application that CAN'T be put out of the way (UI wise)? Even when you're running a virtual machine, you have the option in nearly every case to run it fullscreen so that you don't see the underlying app. NO web browser out there allows this and even if there was one, you'd still have the problem of being forced to get back to the browser occasionally to do something browser specific that you can't do from within the "Web OS". What a phenomenally stupid idea!

I say we ditch the entire concept of web browser and build something from the ground up that is MEANT to be an actual internet based OS that REALLY shares resources like RAM and computing power with security built in from the ground up and an eye towards taking advantage of available bandwidth but being able to scale up when more bandwidth is available in the future. There's already stuff out there that does some of this, why not just dedicate some work to actually making it a dedicated app that can run on any locally hosted platform and joins the "hive mind". Sort of like P2P for hardware resources (a la Seti).

I'm staying away until...

[C10H14N2]

"WebOS" means there's a great PXE server in the sky. Until then, I simply refuse to refer to a shoddy scripted application as an "Operating System."

What about Inferno?

[oatworm]

Inferno does meet many of the requirements outlined thus far... it can run locally as a virtual machine or as a base install, it can run in a web browser (only IE at the moment, but they're working on others), it's a full-featured OS... assuming they get this running on some other browsers sometime in the near future, what's missing?

We don't want a WebOS. We want a WebLaptop!

[danarm]

Here is an idea for a product:

Small laptop with included GSM 3G, GPRS and EDGE, EVDO, WiFi, so it can connect to any network and stay connected at all times.

The laptop should have an 1024x768 color display.

The laptop should have a few programs in ROM:

- rudimentary OS consisting of a TCP/IP stack with drivers for all the mobile conectivity options (3G, EDGE, GPRS, EVDO, WiFi) with an interface to change the connection mode

- a version of VNC, preferably UltraVNC or TightVNC because they offer compression

- a version of Windows Remote Desktop (which is faster than VNC for controling Windows machines)

- a web browser, preferably Firefox

Now, this laptop would not work as a stand-along computer. It would work only when connected to the Internet.

This seems a bad idea because of reliability, but it's not. My smartphone is always connected using 3G or GPRS - I have a reliable mobile Internet connection 99.9% of the time.

Also, the software should be able to "jump" connections when one connection is broken. No WiFi signal? Switch to 3G, seamlessly. No 3G and no WiFi? Switch to EVDO without the user noticing (or at least with MINIMAL HASSLE to the user).

So.. what can I do with this laptop? I can connect to my computer at work or at home, and have all the speed, storage and power of my Athlon 64 X2 with 4 GB RAM.

I have used UltraVNC and Windows Remote Desktop over 128 Kbit/s connections, and it works very well, I can work confortably. 3G far exceeds that speed.

Also, another advantage: I don't have to duplicate data to my laptop, because I have it on my PC at home.

So: my VNC mini-laptop would be a lot faster than most laptops.

Because my laptop is in fact a mobile terminal, it doesn't need a hard-disk. Also, it doesn't need 512 MB RAM - it probably only needs 64 MB.

It also doesn't need a powerful CPU - just a CPU powerful enough to run VNC and Windows Remote Desktop.

So, the laptop would have a slow low-power CPU, little memory, NO hard-disk, NO DVD drive. This would translate into LOW power consumption, which means a long battery time.

The lack of a hard-disk and of CD/DVD drive also makes it lighter.

So, in summary:

Advantages:

- light (because it doesn't have a HDD or DVD drive)

- very long battery life (because it lacks a HDD, DVD and it has little RAM and CPU power available)

- as fast as my work or home computer, because in fact my home or work computer is doing all the work

- I never have to synchronize data, because I'm accessing my home computer

Disadvantages:

- Depends on having a mobile Internet connection, but this is something I can rely on 99.9% (or perhaps more) of the time (I'm in Europe).

If something like this was available, I would buy it in an instant.

I wouldn't do business presentations on it (because it sucks if it "just happens" for your online connection to drop during a presentation). I also wouldn't use it for critical work - for example "the deadline is in 3 hours, and if the product isn't ready, the company goes bankrupt".

Most of my work is important but not extremely critical like that. I would buy this immediately. :)

VMWare is expensive

[tepples]

If I wanted a customisable environment I could access anywhere, I'd make a custom install of a lightweight linux OS on a flash drive and carry it around with me.

Can you do that? VMWare is expensive, and a lot of public terminals don't allow you to reboot from USB.

no need for a network connection

How would anybody else see what you write until you connect your USB flash drive to a PC and wait 125 seconds per comment until they are all uploaded?

imagine the strength of DRM if the average media player is stored on a remote server, and the user has no access to it's program files.

If the media can be played through the user's machine, then the user has access to it in some form, even if only as photons out of the monitor and compressions out of the speakers.

Re:VMWare is expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

VMWare is expensive

Free is expensive now? VMWare Player has been a free-beer download for months now, and there are plenty of tools out their to create disk images and configuration files for it.

OK who is this guy?

[nasch]

I did a web search on Roland Piquipaille and 100% of the hits were on /. So what's the story with this guy?

Intranet use?

[pembo13]

Anyone think this would work well for Intranet/LAN use for custom company apps to lower client side requirements? Or is Java still the better way to go here?

USB drives

[tepples]

I'd guess seamless data hosting is where someone could really make a killing. Basicly a personal networked fs/db that automaticly gets mounted/connected on all personal devices.

How would this beat a USB flash drive again? Many computers do not have a high-speed connection to the Internet.

Can you just bring in a .exe and run it?

[tepples]

there are plenty of tools out their to create disk images and configuration files for [VMWare Player].

I wasn't aware of these tools. But even so, will all public PCs let you run VMWare Player? Many computers made accessible to the public are locked into running only those executables stored in specified directories, which are not writable by users other than administrators. These apps include Mozilla Firefox but do not include VMWare Player.

Re:WHY not Flash?

[Troposphere]

You know, five years ago I thought Flash was going to eat HTML too. I haven't used it in two years so my opinion/facts MIGHT be out date.

But it basically seems to suffer from the same industry wide tendancy to bolt extra functionality onto a shakey early infrastructure unsuited to the final purpose, rather than recreating a valid workable solution from the ground up.

Tell me why in Flash, the outline of a polygon can detach from the fill, unlike all industry standard bezier objects where outline and fill are intrinsic properties of the polygon. This weirdness is built in from the core due to Flash having such a mixed and mottled parentage, and now we are stuck with it.

They didn't design Flash as a GUI platform and programming environment. When they conceived it, seems they had banner ads in mind!

This kind of tragic inertia is an inevitable result of the network effect and the need for backward compatibility. We need either some really clever cross platform abstraction layer technology, which AJAX is not, or better yet some total replacement technology not yet seen to truly let the web grow to full maturity.

And someone pretty damn clever is going to have to have the vision to set it up right right from the start, or it'll just be a repeat performance.