You OS Web Based Operating System

Juergen writes "You OS comes from the MIT Labs and contains an email client, Chat Function, RSS Reader, and Text Editor. YouOS is a web operating system that lets you run diverse applications within a web browser. Small applications like sticky notes or clocks. Large applications like word processing, mp3 players, and instant messaging. Even better, it's very easy to tweak an existing application or write your own. "

Comments

Title?

[porkThreeWays]

From the title it looked like this was a bad "in soviet Russia" joke...

Re:Title?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, web based operating system OS YOU!

YouOS: Breaking news!

[cunina]

Well, breaking about two weeks after Slate had an article on it.

Great title

[Eternauta3k]

"Your web browser text-based web browser"
Viva la redundancy!
Kidding, I know you os is it's name. I still don't see the point in it until there's an OS independant browser. Still, it's a step forward.

Re:Great title

[Anonymous Coward]

"I still don't see the point in it until there's an OS independant browser."

You have of course heard of Firefox, Opera, etc...

Re:Great title

[Anonymous Coward]

"I still don't see the point in it until there's an OS independant browser"

There a a few of them. Ever Heard Of Firefox? It will probably take 2 days to get it ported over LMAO

Re:Great title

[TheGavster]

I think the point is that to run this OS, the browser needs an OS to sit on top of (that is, you don't boot to Firefox, you boot to Windows or Linux or OSX, and run Firefox from there). This differs from say a thin client where there actually isn't anything on the local machine except the software that talks to the central server.

Re:Great title

[Anonymous Coward]

A self hosting browser...interesting idea. Still, no matter how hard you try there would still need to be a hardware-depending layer below the browser itself to act as a HAL for your browser. It would be so close to being a complete OS it may as well be one. You'd still need things like drivers for different hardware devices, some sort of filesystem, memory management and process management. You could probably get away without needing full-blown POSIX style processes and memory protection. You could probably do everything as threads within a single address space; you'll only be running one "process" after all. Probably not worth it, unless you're studying OS design at university. It'd be far easier to setup something like Linux in kiosk-mode and run the browser on that.

Re:Great title

[Eternauta3k]

My point exactly. We could use a floppy-based distro and put a slim browser on that (slimmer than firefox). youOS runs kinda slow on firefox on win2000.
By OS independant I mean it doesn't depend on an OS. That means, it's its own OS. Unlike firefox.

Re:Great title

[DrSkwid]

You have, of course, heard of all the OSes that firefox & opera DON'T run on ?

Re:Great title

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to boot from the network, but it seems their BOOTP server if running, is not my LAN, I'm confused. How do I network boot using youos.com's BOOTP server?

Re:Great title

[Fordiman]

That's taking 'monolithic kernel' to its extreme, now isn't it?

No, seriously. Linux by itself isn't an OS. To make it a modern OS, you need, at the very least, Linux, a HAL of some nature (like hotplug), X, a window manager like KDE, and the applications needed for basic functionality (file browser, application launcher, etc).

Hence, the term 'System' in Operating System.

Now, if this system was, say, Linux, a HAL, X, and Firefox-embedded, all sitting on a CF drive just big enough for everything to run and a half-a-gig of ram, you have the perfect platform for YouOS.

Of course, this is how Symphony OS works, 'cept it's also got fvwm to handle windows for native applications (The local web site you view is capable of doing anything root can do, and has UI hooks to do so. I think this makes its response time a little slow, as it runs on Perl.)

Ok....

[creepynut]

Ok, YouOS is a web-based OS. ... and? Aren't we missing something like, I don't know, content in the summary? It's not like I can even RTFA because there IS no FA.

Re:Ok....

[Eternauta3k]

There should be a link to some of these pages, instead of no content linking to a practically blank page.

I will not bite!

[bogaboga]

While the idea is great, I will not bite in this case because my ISP places a limit on how much traffic can be allowed through my network interface with my current plan. Even though I can "upgrade", the costs are just prohibitive. Sorry, I will not bite.

Re:I will not bite!

[rob_squared]

As sad as it is. Windows is still more reliable than an internet connection. I can understand this as an in-house thing for secretaries or other people who don't need anything to be fast or can't handle anything too complex. So until my network connection is up with the reliability of my land line. Local apps for me only.

Re:I will not bite!

[BoomerSooner]

Not to mention if their server goes down, or out of business, or HIPAA, or any number of other things...

Web based OS is like VRML, big on hype but short on practical implementations that are better than a traditional OS. Just my opinion.

It's not an OS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bunch of applications. Yes, if you're Joe Sixpack, then that's what defines an OS, but it's not a real OS. I'm not sure what it's scheduling characteristics are, it probably doesn't have peripherals (or can you plugin your USB stick or camera?), I'm not sure it has swapping, etc...

And is there an SDK around? If so, it'd sound like the ideal computing slave. SETI here goes... (ok, maybe it has resource quotas, which would actually make it an interesting project...)

Re:It's not an OS

[Lumpio-]

I agree - this has been bugging me since I heard about "YouOS" ages ago. It's not an OS. I'd rather refer to it as an online desktop environment.

Re:It's not an OS

[modir]

People often complain that the term OS is not true. I agree, but what difference does it make to a user if he/she is running the applications (the desktop) inside a browser or inside a pcAnywhere session? Or in a corporation network where all applications are running on a server with citrix software?

If those "web-OSs" would provide a good packaging system etc. then I see it as a competitor to Citrix.

But as long as I can't run VMware in it the term operating system is wrong :)

Re:It's not an OS

[Eternauta3k]

If so, it'd sound like the ideal computing slave. SETI here goes...

You do realize it runs on your pc, right?

Re:It's not an OS

[jalefkowit]

It's a bunch of applications. Yes, if you're Joe Sixpack, then that's what defines an OS...

Cut them some slack, it's not like YouOS is from MIT or anything!

Oh, wait.

Re:It's not an OS

[dacarr]

I concur. It's like saying Gnome or KDE are operating systems.

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

And is there an SDK around? If so, it'd sound like the ideal computing slave. SETI here goes... (ok, maybe it has resource quotas, which would actually make it an interesting project...)

That might work, except that the applicaitons are not actually running on a server. They are running with javascript in your browser. They merely communicate with the server for data. You'd be using yoru own CPU... with the slowness of Javascript vs. compiled.

-matthew

Re:It's not an OS

[Lord Ender]

It makes me very sad your comment didn't begin with "It's a space station!"

Re:It's not an OS

[narcc]

Slowness of javascript is right -- but let's attack it for its many other more serious flaws :)

More seriously, YouOS is important for reasons that aren't necessarily apparent at first. The demo on the site and the interest in the project leads me to believe two things: 1) People want a simple open application development platform for the web and 2) We need NEW and BETTER web standards!

Before I get flamed:

There will always be a need for native code -- that is obvious. However, the need for truly cross-platform network accessable applications is growing and growing quickly. Yes, Sun had the right idea when they created Java, but the language and platform just don't fit this need very well.

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

Slowness of javascript is right -- but let's attack it for its many other more serious flaws :)

I was specificly refering to slowness wrt to CPU bound applications such as SETI.

More seriously, YouOS is important for reasons that aren't necessarily apparent at first. The demo on the site and the interest in the project leads me to believe two things: 1) People want a simple open application development platform for the web and 2) We need NEW and BETTER web standards!

Why limit oneself to the web browser? What if someone came up with an open, client/server oriented application "player" that was cross platform? You know, something that DOESN'T rely on a stateless protocol which was originally designed to deliver documents and maybe process a form or two. What I detect is an unhealthy attachment to the web browser. People these days think that the web browser is the end all, be all of the internet. They take for granted all the other network based appliations they use every day. As we speak, I have 4 other internet applications open besides a web browser: iTunes, Usenet reader, an IM client, and an email reader... none of which would be better off running inside of a web browser sandbox, IMO.

There will always be a need for native code -- that is obvious. However, the need for truly cross-platform network accessable applications is growing and growing quickly. Yes, Sun had the right idea when they created Java, but the language and platform just don't fit this need very well.

Well keep looking then, because the solution isn't in the web browser. Browsers can barely agree on 10 year old standards. Don't expect anything novel out of them any time soon. We're goign to be putting up with shitty Javascript/HTML desktop application wannabes for a few years until people figures out what a terrible idea it is.

-matthew

Re:It's not an OS

[narcc]

I'm not suggesting we limit ourselves to the "web browser" that relies on a "on a stateless protocol". I was suggesting that as the needs of web users have changed, so NEW standards need to be developed -- this includes protocols, formats, languages, even the "application player" you mention (which, BTW, could easily be launched by a brower, inside a browser, or implemented as part of a native format). That is, it's time we begin to abandon the old web and start BUILDING the new web!

We're goign to be putting up with shitty Javascript/HTML desktop application wannabes for a few years until people figures out what a terrible idea it is.

Most people already KNOW that these "shitty Javascript/HTML" apps are a terrible solution -- but, as I pointed out in my earlier post -- they were developed because these are the kinds of things people want to happen on the web. People want to access their documents and applications from anywhere -- That's part of what the so-called "web 2.0" is all about. Right now, we don't have the necessary standards to realize those applications.

Ajax is exciting to a good number of developers not because it's a new and cool idea, but because they've finally been given "permission" to do some of the things they've been wanting to do all along (the rule before, iirc, was to use as little or no js if at all possible). Ajax means that it's finally okay to develop unique, rich, interactive applications for the web.

Existing web standards are inadequate -- there is no disagreement here! New, simple/clean, easy-to-implement standards can really change the way we work with the web and consider the browser.

Re:It's not an OS

[julesh]

What if someone came up with an open, client/server oriented application "player" that was cross platform? You know, something that DOESN'T rely on a stateless protocol which was originally designed to deliver documents and maybe process a form or two.

You mean something like X11?

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

I'm not suggesting we limit ourselves to the "web browser" that relies on a "on a stateless protocol". I was suggesting that as the needs of web users have changed, so NEW standards need to be developed -- this includes protocols, formats, languages, even the "application player" you mention (which, BTW, could easily be launched by a brower, inside a browser, or implemented as part of a native format). That is, it's time we begin to abandon the old web and start BUILDING the new web!

If you are not attached on the web browser as a solution to everything, why do you keep inserting the word "web" into each sentence... sometimes twice? Do you not understand that internet != web?

Most people already KNOW that these "shitty Javascript/HTML" apps are a terrible solution -- but, as I pointed out in my earlier post -- they were developed because these are the kinds of things people want to happen on the web. People want to access their documents and applications from anywhere -- That's part of what the so-called "web 2.0" is all about. Right now, we don't have the necessary standards to realize those applications.

Again, I ask you why you (and so many others apparently) are fixated on the browser (with more/better web standards) as the solution? Why not have a new "Internet Application Browser". Why is the web browser the end all, be all of the internet?

Ajax is exciting to a good number of developers not because it's a new and cool idea, but because they've finally been given "permission" to do some of the things they've been wanting to do all along (the rule before, iirc, was to use as little or no js if at all possible). Ajax means that it's finally okay to develop unique, rich, interactive applications for the web.

*yawn*. Unique? What has AJAX deliverd that is truely unique? Certainly it has spiced up some things that were previously a little awkward like web mail and Google maps, but unique? I don't think so. It is essentially the same ol' document centric stuff that was done 5 years ago. Local desktop applications remain lightyears ahead in overall functionality and capabilty.

Existing web standards are inadequate -- there is no disagreement here! New, simple/clean, easy-to-implement standards can really change the way we work with the web and consider the browser.

Web, web, web web, web... ad nauseum. Face it, web browsers have way too much intertia. They are simply not agile enough to do what you are talking about. You have to be willign to look beyond the web browser. Not just web browser + new standards.

-matthew

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

Yeah, something like X11, I suppose, but make the application run on the client and store the state on the server. Problem with X11 is that a server (I guess it would actually be the X client) could never support internet style loads. Also, there are problems with utilizing local resources like printers and files.

-matthew

Re:It's not an OS

[narcc]

I give up -- you're incapable of understanding my point.

1) I did not imply that internet=web (that was your random interpretation)
2) I never said ajax was 'unique' (read the sentence again)
3) 'look beyond the browser' is exactly what I'm doing!

This isn't difficult -- I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

1) I did not imply that internet=web (that was your random interpretation)

You did. Every sentences referenced teh "web" as if it IS the internet.

2) I never said ajax was 'unique' (read the sentence again)

And I never said you said AJAX was unique. I challenged the idea that "permission" to use AJAX has allowed people to make unique applications. What popular AJAX applicaiton out there couldn't be done with more traditional development styles? Sure, AJAX makes some things better and perhaps easier, but what is fundamentally unique about them?

3) 'look beyond the browser' is exactly what I'm doing!

Then how come every single suggestion involves new "web" standards? Do you have some loose defintion of "web" that I am not aware of? To me, web = HTML rendered inside a browser.

-matthew

Re:It's not an OS

[narcc]

Ah! There it is!

To me, web = HTML rendered inside a browser.

Okay, we've probably been in agreement for most of this discussion -- the only difference being your idea of 'the web'.

When I think about 'the web' I think about a world-wide collection of documents, forms, and applications all linked together (a 'world-wide web', if you will.) In my vision of 'the web' HTML and http mean nothing more than the names of two standards currently used to actualize the web. The web for me, then, can be rebuilt on new standards -- html, http, and other existing standards being unnecessary to my definition.

Have no fear, I certainly do not equate 'the web' with 'the internet'. However, 'the web' is undoubtably where people expect to find applications, which is why my focus was on 'the web'.

As for ajax:

What popular AJAX applicaiton out there couldn't be done with more traditional development styles?

Consider web-based office applications Without Ajax, these kinds of applications wouldn't be practical. Sure, you could make a web-based spreadsheet app without javascript and XMLhttpRequest, but it would be very unusable. (If you aren't specificly refering to web development styles when you say 'development styles' then my answer is 'nothing'.)

I'd imagine this entire conflict boils down to a difference in definition and not necessarily a difference in opinion.

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

Consider web-based office applications [slashdot.org] Without Ajax, these kinds of applications wouldn't be practical. Sure, you could make a web-based spreadsheet app without javascript and XMLhttpRequest, but it would be very unusable. (If you aren't specificly refering to web development styles when you say 'development styles' then my answer is 'nothing'.)

I said "popular" applications done in Ajax. Almost all the things listed fall under the 'prototype' category. And they are generally crap compared to their desktop equivenents. Google Spreadsheets? Hmm, I can download a dozen free/shareware spreadsheet programs which will all peform better than whatever Google can hack together in a web browser. So they lack 'collaboration" features. Who cares? 99.9% of spreadsheets will never need that feature. Seems like the only real justification for these online desktop app imitations is "because we can."

One of the biggest problem you're going to have with any web application is accessing local files and other resources. The only thing that makes the web even marginally secure is the sandboxed nature of whatever you are viewing... which serves as its greatest weakness when it comes to generalized application development. So for any applicaiton that isn't directly tied to a network service such as email or a blog, you're going to have problems.... no matter what standards you adopt.

-matthew

Re:It's not an OS

[narcc]

I said "popular" applications done in Ajax. Almost all the things listed fall under the 'prototype' category.

Well, Gmail wouldn't be as useful to me (though you could do webmail other ways, they wouldn't be as good). Oh, and the application I'm currently assigned to at work (which is popular where I work, I suppose)

And they are generally crap compared to their desktop equivenents. Google Spreadsheets? Hmm, I can download a dozen free/shareware spreadsheet programs which will all peform better than whatever Google can hack together in a web browser.

Yeah, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, the solutions suck. Which is *why* we need new standards.

So they lack 'collaboration" features. Who cares?

People who need to get work done. My current work project, for example, is all about collaboration.

One of the biggest problem you're going to have with any web application is accessing local files and other resources. The only thing that makes the web even marginally secure is the sandboxed nature of whatever you are viewing... which serves as its greatest weakness when it comes to generalized application development. So for any applicaiton that isn't directly tied to a network service such as email or a blog, you're going to have problems.... no matter what standards you adopt.

I don't think you really understand how people intend to use these kinds of tools. If you would, please discribe to me how you think people intend to use web-applications.

"Accessing local files" isn't a problem (saving or transmitting, I do it all the time). It's trivial to sandbox local disk writes -- even with tight security (though at present, there is no facility for sandboxing local disk writes). I'm not sure what the other resources you're refering to are, but all the ones I can imagine you'd need are already easily exposed to a web application.

I'm also not too sure what you mean by "directly tied to a network service" -- do you think people indend to use web applications the same way they use local desktop applications? More imporantly, do you think they'll even WANT to use these kinds of applications 'off-line'?

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

Well, Gmail wouldn't be as useful to me (though you could do webmail other ways, they wouldn't be as good). Oh, and the application I'm currently assigned to at work (which is popular where I work, I suppose)

Webmail has been around, like, forever. In that sense, gmail is nothing special as a web app. What makes gmail so special is the novel features and not so much the fact that it uses ajax. And for as much as I like gmail on the road, I always prefer a desktop app for email access when it is available, which is most of the time. But maybe that is just me.

Yeah, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, the solutions suck. Which is *why* we need new standards.

What do you propose?

So they lack 'collaboration" features. Who cares?

People who need to get work done. My current work project, for example, is all about collaboration.

I was specifically refering to collaboration in spreadsheets. For the vast majority it is enough to simply have a spreadsheet on a file server available ot everyone to read. But if you need more, I hear Microsoft has realtime collaboriation as an optional part of MS Office.

I don't think you really understand how people intend to use these kinds of tools. If you would, please discribe to me how you think people intend to use web-applications.

I see a continued expansion of self-publishing (blogs, wikis, etc), email, ecommerce, etc. I see NEW applications opening up that can only effectively be done within a browser. What I don't see are traditional desktop applications moving into the browser. I certainly don't see the whole desktop moving into the browser ala WebOS.

Accessing local files" isn't a problem (saving or transmitting, I do it all the time). It's trivial to sandbox local disk writes -- even with tight security (though at present, there is no facility for sandboxing local disk writes). I'm not sure what the other resources you're refering to are, but all the ones I can imagine you'd need are already easily exposed to a web application.

Not compared to what a desktop applicaiton can do. Plug in a USB camera to your computer and try to write a web app that can seemlessly pull images off of it without having clumsy HTML upload dialogs. Try ripping a CD from a web app or reading the TOC of the CD. Try writing local files without user intervention (no "download" dialogs from the browser).

I'm also not too sure what you mean by "directly tied to a network service" -- do you think people indend to use web applications the same way they use local desktop applications? More imporantly, do you think they'll even WANT to use these kinds of applications 'off-line'?

My point is that the types of web applicaitons people are going to want to use should not try to emulate desktop applications (email is the one exception that I can think of). That is why this whole "WebOS" thing is so ridiculous. Microsoft and Apple have spent a LOT of resources making the desktop fast, efficient, and powerful. Trying to reinvent it in the browser is just a waste of time.

-matthew

Re:It's not an OS

[FrostedChaos]

I was specifically refering to collaboration in spreadsheets. For the vast majority it is enough to simply have a spreadsheet on a file server available ot everyone to read. But if you need more, I hear Microsoft has realtime collaboriation as an optional part of MS Office.

Here's an example of where it is useful: keeping track of debts between people. For that, everyone needs read and write access.

I don't own any MS Office licenses, by the way, and I don't have Office installed. Neither do my roomates. It's expensive and buggy.

Personally, I think that Google spreadsheet is a great idea, and something that's likely to be used a lot.

I see a continued expansion of self-publishing (blogs, wikis, etc), email, ecommerce, etc. I see NEW applications opening up that can only effectively be done within a browser. What I don't see are traditional desktop applications moving into the browser. I certainly don't see the whole desktop moving into the browser ala WebOS.

The great thing about web browsers is that they're cross platform, and everyone has one. If you can't see the potential in that, it's probably futile to keep arguing with you. You're like that guy who can't understand why anyone would ever need or want a credit card.

Re:It's not an OS

[misleb]

Here's an example of where it is useful: keeping track of debts between people. For that, everyone needs read and write access.

That seems pretty trivial to me. I'd actually consider something more general purpose like a wiki to keep track of such things. That way you could more easily create text and track revisions. You could document policies, spread rumors, leave notes for people, etc.

I don't own any MS Office licenses, by the way, and I don't have Office installed. Neither do my roomates. It's expensive and buggy.

Buggy? Excel works just fine. I've heard of people developing whole applications in an Excel spreadsheet. Besides, there are plenty of free/cheap minimal spreadsheet programs out there.

The great thing about web browsers is that they're cross platform, and everyone has one.

"Cross platform" sounds great to geeks who like to tinker with different systems, but when you consider that the vast majority of users are running some Win32 variant with a huge array of native appliations available to them, it sorta seems insignificant. And it isn't like Mac users are hurting for applications either. If "cross platform" were really that important to people in general, Java would have made a much bigger impact on the desktop than it has.

If you can't see the potential in that, it's probably futile to keep arguing with you.

But I CAN see the potential in the browser. I'm just a lot more realistic (or conservative) about it than you are, apparently.

Do you agree that the WebOS idea is dumb? Or do you think it is a great idea?

You're like that guy who can't understand why anyone would ever need or want a credit card.

I'm no Luddite.

-matthew

How deep can it go?

[AdamBomb8705]

Upon seeing this, I immediately wondered whether the OS's web browser could run itself. I'm posting this comment from inside YouBrowser, which is running on YouOS inside of another YouBrowser inside of YouOS in Firefox. So looks like it's possible. I wonder how many levels you could go down...

Re:How deep can it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you might have just demonstrated one of the first vulnerabilites of web "operating systems".

Re:How deep can it go?

[modir]

I wouldn't say "vulnerabilites" per se.

This is about the same as someone who runs Linux inside a Linux Xen VM inside a Linux VMware VM......

The question is, what does make sense?

Re:How deep can it go?

[Zarel]

Not entirely. The YouOS browser uses iframes, so it's still Firefox, not YouOS, that's powering it. So it's more like running an app inside Linux that the VMware VM told it to run. If it really was nested, the speed would decrease exponentially (especially for a WebOS; JavaScript isn't all that fast).

Re:How deep can it go?

[gardyloo]

It's turtles all the way down, young man.

Re:How deep can it go?

[KDR_11k]

If it has one desktop page you could direct its internal browser to that and cause an infinite loop...

Re:How deep can it go?

[musselm]

I think it's turtles all the way down..

Re:How deep can it go?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Probably one level. I haven't read TFA (snort), but I'd assume they would catch the stupid extra usage of their server.

EyeOS

[Randomskk]

This is pretty similar to EyeOS ( http://eyeos.org/ ), which runs on any web server and lets you use apps (IM, RSS, web browser, games, etc) in it, change the background etc. I've got this running on my web server, and if nothing else it's great when I want to check the /. RSS while away from home :P

Re:EyeOS

[greenguy]

Perhaps they could merge the two and form the UI OS. Jef Raskin could help.

Re:EyeOS

[also-rr]

Since eyeOs takes 30 seconds to install I can't see why any geek would want a hosted version. Running on your own webserver you have much greater protection in terms of who can and cannot see the data.

Still, I can see how it would appeal to non-geeks away from home - and it's not much different to placing your trust in online mail, online shopping or online tax return services - all of which have a healthy take up and get a splodge of your personal data.

Re:EyeOS

[also-rr]

It's also worth noting that eyeOS supports Lemmings. But installing it isn't a good idea.

On Noes!

*kaboom*

Apache terminated.

Re:EyeOS

[EXMSFT]

I don't think the late Jef Raskin could add much assistance, no.

Re:EyeOS

[misleb]

Still, I can see how it would appeal to non-geeks away from home - and it's not much different to placing your trust in online mail, online shopping or online tax return services - all of which have a healthy take up and get a splodge of your personal data.

And what do people do away from home? Check email? Practially all mail services have a web based client these days. What else? IM? Try http://www.meebo.com/ . And anyone with more elaborate needs will most likely have a notebook computer with them when traveling. So what is the point?

-matthew

Re:EyeOS

[eporue]

In any case, eyeOS has an official hosted version in http://eyeos.info/

Re:EyeOS

[jbarr]

EyeOS is quite cool, and yes, it is very easy to set up and host yourself, but YouOS also has a nice development screen that lets you easily create simple add-on applications. The YouOS users can easily generate new apps or tweak existing ones. Most apps currently are simple "Web site frames" while others are more complex. It'll be interesting to see just what new apps surface.

To me, the really exciting aspect of YouOS is its persistance. Open apps, logout, login again (on the same a different PC ans your workspace is where you left it. There aren't many online apps that do this...

Re:EyeOS

[mycall]

eh, I'll stick with remote desktop.

Online mp3 player

[cyp43r]

Wow, this is innovative. Oh yes, I'll just stream my music up and YouOS will stream back the sound. If you have any even moderate amounts of music, this is sort of ridiculous on a limit. If I play 14 CD's, that's my entire months limit gone almost (10GB). Unless, of course, it compresses it or plays at a low bitrate, which rather belies the point of having one. What's wrong with Winamp?

Re:Online mp3 player

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with Winamp?

It's closed source and Windows only? Thankfully, we have lots of (IMO) better alternatives now.

Re:Online mp3 player

[red_kenotic]

Yes! Insane. People that "steam" their music to their ipods, also just as insane.

To be honest, I've sent myself music via email, so I could listen to it at another computer (that wasn't on my lan). I don't have a usb stick. It's too much data to put on a floppy. And it seemed like a waste to burn on to cd.

Just because the function is there doesn't mean you have to use it. Unless you lived elsewhere, why would you want to upload 14 CD's? - Just take them with you.

(Yes, I email myself.)

Re:Online mp3 player

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were you, I'd move to another city/country with less shitty ISPs. Seriously. I stream music and videos 24/7. I use more than 10GB/day, many others I know do too. If your internet is really crappy, you need to move in protest.

Re:Online mp3 player

[Anonymous Coward]

where do you live then, oh almighty streaming god?

Re:Online mp3 player

[Ant P.]

Stop whining. Winamp 3 is open source, and you completely ignored it anyway.

Re:Online mp3 player

[jZnat]

An online MP3 player would obviously stream directly from your computer. JavaScript is all client-side, so no worries there.

Re:Online mp3 player

[Badfysh]

A lesson to read the small print. There's no way I would have a capped broadband connection.

Re:Online mp3 player

[cyp43r]

Try living in Australia. I can either get a capped connection, or I can have a slow, slow and unreliable connection. It's easy to read the fine print; jut hope that theres an alternative.

and?

[wateriestfire]

As far as Web os's go I just use Eye OS and that runs on open source so it is already programmable. This just seems like a big knock off because Eye OS has been so successful.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like a neat idea, but what's the purpose of running an OS within a web browser of your main OS? Wouldn't you save server processor time and network bandwidth by running stuff locally?

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

Depends what system you're running it on. If your system is a PC that makes little sense of course (even if you want a remote desktop that's what terminal applications are for). But imagine you were using one of those gaming systems with a web browser like the PSP, the DS or the Wii.

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Web browser runs an OS.

Not the first...

[hackel]

I know I've actually used one of these "web OS's" before that must have been posted to slashdot a year or more ago, and I know I've seen it mentioned several other times. But it still gets back to the simple question for me: what is the point? I'm asking that seriously... What is the usefulness of this application? It's an alternative to thin-client solutions I suppose, sure, but still rather limited in what it can do (wouldn't a dummy X terminal need far less resources and CPU power than a modern "browser terminal"?). It would give enterprises even tighter control of whta their users can do--okay, I suppose that's good for them. Is that it? Please let me know what you think...

Re:Not the first...

[Lumpio-]

I think the point is that they can be used from quite much any modern enough PC, even PCs you can't really go and install an X server onto. Think libraries, certain computer labs, maybe friends' places etc.

Re:Not the first...

[cyp43r]

There isn't a point really, is there? For the low low cost of increased bandwidth use, and more processor time taken up by two OSes running simultaneously, you get...oh my, there doesn't seem to be a use that someone couldn't get by, perhaps, just running linux.

Re:Not the first...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: some of us actually leave our basements once in a while and go out into that Big Room with the blue ceiling and the really, really bright light, and therefore don't have access to our desktop computers.

Re:Not the first...

[cyp43r]

Oh, I'd forgotten there was no other way to transfer data between computers. Silly me.

"Too many users online"

[lonesometrainer]

Ever had that message with your local workstation?

This is just another playground for the next gen. of Dot-Com-Companies, nothing serious.

a.) web-applications rely on high-speed-always-on internet connections (I'll be in an airplane this afternoon, no text processing for me then?)

b.) Will always offer less features and a bad UI compared to classical desktop applications, because restricted by web browser capablilites

c.) are currently much harder to code than classical desktop apps (e.g. editable drop down boxes anyone? Easy thing in NetBeans/VS .NET, very tough in webapps or server-pushing information to the client, requires long-lasting GET requests filtered by many firewalls)

d.) collaborative features are easily added to classical desktop apps

Conclusion: less possibilities, harder to code (you'll always be tricking, hacking to get a nice effect), bad UI (restricted by browsers)

The only competition to desktop apps I do currently see is MS XAML.

Bye!

Re:"Too many users online"

[LS]

I believe that your points are flawed:

a.) web-applications rely on high-speed-always-on internet connections (I'll be in an airplane this afternoon, no text processing for me then?)

That may be the case now, but give a few years or so (3-7 years maybe), and high speed wireless internet will be ubiquitous. Also, the final forms of these applications will probably involve some kind a hybrid between desktop and web applications, with some kind of caching mechanism for when no connectivity is available.

b.) Will always offer less features and a bad UI compared to classical desktop applications, because restricted by web browser capablilites

Current browser companies/groups, standards organizations, and OS vendors are all well aware of the current browser's limitations and are working feverishly to create full-fledged networked baeed application frameworks. You can already see bits and pieces with XAML, XUL, SVG, AJAX, etc. Yes, we're not there yet, but it's inevitable.

c.) are currently much harder to code than classical desktop apps (e.g. editable drop down boxes anyone? Easy thing in NetBeans/VS .NET, very tough in webapps or server-pushing information to the client, requires long-lasting GET requests filtered by many firewalls)

long-lasting GET requests? I'm not sure what you are talking about here - is this something that is utilized with AJAX? Regarding the rest of this bulletpoint, see my response to (b). Also, I'm sure as web apps become more critical to businesses, firewall software as well as their admistrators' configuration preferences will adapt.

d.) collaborative features are easily added to classical desktop apps

You are kidding right? This is the big *advantage* of web-based apps. Have you tried using Google's spreadsheets yet? Contacting a user through g-mail and sharing the same spreadsheet... it doesn't get any more collaborative than that.

LS

Re:"Too many users online"

[Zaphod2016]

I love Google Spreadsheet...except one little thing.

In Excel, I can "drag" a formula across multiple cells with my mouse. I can't seem to figure out how to do that in Google Spreadsheets. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Anyone know how to do it?

Re:"Too many users online"

[misleb]

That may be the case now, but give a few years or so (3-7 years maybe), and high speed wireless internet will be ubiquitous. Also, the final forms of these applications will probably involve some kind a hybrid between desktop and web applications, with some kind of caching mechanism for when no connectivity is available.

Hybrid between desktop and web applications is just begging for security problems. The only reason the web is as secure as it is (and that isn't saying very much) is because the browser is (or should be) a sandbox with very little interaction with the desktop.

b.) Will always offer less features and a bad UI compared to classical desktop applications, because restricted by web browser capablilites

Current browser companies/groups, standards organizations, and OS vendors are all well aware of the current browser's limitations and are working feverishly to create full-fledged networked baeed application frameworks. You can already see bits and pieces with XAML, XUL, SVG, AJAX, etc. Yes, we're not there yet, but it's inevitable.

You say that, but you don't even know what it is, exactly, that is inveitable. The bottom line is that the browser is a TERRIBLE place to base a "full-fleged networked based application framework." What likely will happen is that all these people "feverishly" working to create browser based frameworks will wake up and say "WTF were we thinking?" and start work on somethoing outside of the browser that can accomplish the same thign with a much better better tools and protocols. Browsers can barely agree on the very basics of HTML, CSS, and Javascript which have been around for a decade. And you think they are going to pull together on more obscure protocols and standards? Don't hold your breath.

The web browser is not the end all, be all of hte internet. Get over it.

long-lasting GET requests? I'm not sure what you are talking about here - is this something that is utilized with AJAX? Regarding the rest of this bulletpoint, see my response to (b). Also, I'm sure as web apps become more critical to businesses, firewall software as well as their admistrators' configuration preferences will adapt.

The point is that HTTP is slow and inefficient for the things that some people are trying to do with it.

You are kidding right? This is the big *advantage* of web-based apps. Have you tried using Google's spreadsheets yet? Contacting a user through g-mail and sharing the same spreadsheet... it doesn't get any more collaborative than that.

Yeah, too bad Google Spreadsheet (and every other desktop app mock-up done in HTML/JS/CSS) sucks. Be honest. If you had downloaded Google Spreadsheet as a desktop app it wouldn't even register on your radar. Nobody would care. There are dozens of better freeware/shareware spreadsheet programs out there. If collaborative spreadsheets were really that important, someone would figure out how to add the feature to a traditional spreadsheet app.

-matthew

Re:"Too many users online"

[ejp1082]

And yet... Gmail/Calendar, Writely, and Basecamp are all part of my day-to-day workflow.

Can you say: Cross platform, accessible anywhere, don't have to worry about synchronization, backups, installation or upgrades, lightweight, doesn't crash, and easy-as-pie to collaborate?

(That point D. of yours was a joke, right? Try to get a half dozen people to open and edit the same network copy of an excel spreadsheet at the same time and have the changes show up on everyone's screen simultaneously. Let me know how it goes. In the meantime, I'll use Google's offering for such collaborative projects.)

Then of course there's wiki's, blogs, social networking apps - applications that are only made possible by the web. I suppose you could write desktop clients to power all that stuff, install them on each client PC, and go nuts every time there's an upgrade... but seriously, why would you want to?

Re:"Too many users online"

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be the case now, but give a few years or so (3-7 years maybe), and high speed wireless internet will be ubiquitous.

Woah. Somebody check for a time warp, we just got a post here from 1997.

Re:"Too many users online"

[qopax]

Copy the box, select a bunch of cells, and press Ctrl-D?

Re:"Too many users online"

[Zaphod2016]

Just tried it and it worked.

Thank you kindly! That has been driving me crazy for weeks.

Not quite new, but

[NotFamousYet]

YouOS has been around for a while, and it's part of a growing trend of online desktops (I refuse to refer to them as "Online OSes", because they're simply a desktop page that launches programs, an alternative to Explorer at best).

If you're interested in this area, check out also:
FlyaKiteOSX
the 30Boxes Webtop
EyeOS
Computadora (in Spanish, even though .de ?)
Goowy (it's in Flash though)

And of course, because this is Slashdot, I couldn't go without mentionning that Google is probably preparing their own, since their recent focus on releasing equivalents of desktop applications online (Notes, Excel, Word, Calendar, Picasa, etc) :)

Re:Not quite new, but

[GauteL]

FlyaKiteOSX is a clear violation of Apple copyright, as it uses actual Apple icons. I can't imagine that Apple have granted them permission.

i'd go another level

[Anonymous Coward]

We're building a YouYouOS...its has a binary based browser (similar to da matrix) which runs on the text based browser that runs on firefux.

Re:i'd go another level

[Millenniumman]

All you have to do is put a browser in the Web OS, then you can log into it with it's own browser, and log in to it again with the browser inside it inside it inside your browser, until your head explodes.

Remote Computing

[connah4700]

If you want remote computing, why not just use GoToMyPC or LogMeIn?

Interesting...

[MMC Monster]

Three articles in a row about OSs, and none of them is Linux.

Just saying. Could use more articles about the alternative OSs on weekdays. (Well, maybe not the Windows XP stuff.)

Re:Interesting...

[cyp43r]

Aren't these alternatives? Useless power wasting alternatives to good alternatives, but alternatives nonetheless. I'm confused too.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing..

It's funny that the research OSes are often Open Sourced and/or GPL licensed. All these Open OSes can share code, learn from each others successes and failures. There are people in research positions -- bright students and seasoned engineers -- working on these OSes. The ability for them to cross-pollinate and cherry-pick the best features is allowing great strides in OS design.

Then there's XP. Closed. (Relatively) small team of engineers designing it. Cannot legally pull from many Open projects. Cannot find bugs on a scale anywhere near the Open community. Sure they can dream up and implement some interesting stuff, but ultimately they are a small group competing against the world.

Re:Interesting...

[heinousjay]

ultimately they are a small group competing against the world

And winning, interestingly enough. I'm incredibly curious to see how long it will last.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

It may last as long as they can hire and retain talented engineers. For a long time -- at least while I was in school -- the aspiration of every CS student was to work at Microsoft. Now most couldn't care less about working for a monolithic, multi-national "old" software company.

Re:Interesting...

[A.K.A_Magnet]

And winning, interestingly enough.

How is it interesting that they're winning? They're winning only because of the massive misinformation of the general public, and the incompetence of IT services (I happen to agree with this post earlier; IT services from different companies should cooperate and recruit developers who could juste code what they need as Free Software -- F/OSS is also about mutual interest, it'd be cheaper for them to solve their problems that way than buying new proprietary software or renewing their software licenses). I'm sick of people criticizing so-called "Open Source" software (just to be clear, since I've sometimes been accused here on /. of being rude :P, I'm not talking about you of course) because it doesn't fit their needs while they don't do/pay developers to code or ajust existing code so that in the end it does fit their needs; btw we need a well-referenced website (or maybe it already exists) where companies and collectivities can find their common needs so they can afford developers for serious projects (not a bounty site to get code done, but a website where you can find a partner in the first place).

So you can compare "winning" either with a global percentage of XP vs GNU/Linux, or with the current trends (which, imho, are more favorable to GNU/Linux, since more and more people switch). Don't forget (counting out Macs and UNIX) that we come from a 100% Windows desktop world. Yet, I'm confident Free Software will win in the end (unless the other camp lobbies for evil anti-F/OSS laws).

I'm incredibly curious to see how long it will last.

I don't know either how long it will be till then, I just think it will happen in the next 15 years (not taking too much risks ;)).

Uh-Oh

[psema4]

I have spent almost a year working on a project that is nearly identical to (if less mature than) YouOS. Atomic OS is not as advanced as YouOS due to lack of hackers and poor timing.

This is driving me nuts. I logged into /. went through the headlines, then posted an article about Atomic OS. When I got back to the developers headlines... Boom. YouOS.

Aaaarghh!

Re:Uh-Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, nobody will use either one anyway.

Re:Uh-Oh

[psema4]

I disagree, but I have much more work to do before I can describe the difference with justice.

Probably the most important items at this point are:

1. It's self-contained. It does not require a server, except for advanced features which haven't been written yet.

2. You don't need to register for anything, or link your files to Atomic OS.

3. Atomic OS is a "marketing name." A better description would be Operating Environment.

Damn, damn, damn.

Re:Uh-Oh

[DrSkwid]

No-one is a first approximation.

Nothing you mention would seem to change that.

I use Plan 9, we have effectively no users either and we're a mature OS (15 years +) out of one of the best research labs on the planet (Bell Labs) with good apps.

good luck

Re:Uh-Oh

[psema4]

We all build on the shoulders of giants, and we all have itches to scratch. I have no desire to change the perspective that no-one is a first approximation.

Thank you - that was nice to hear, particularly on slashdot.

Re:Uh-Oh

[DrSkwid]

I am genuine in my wish for your idea to blossom.

The pessimistic view in my circles is that the interesting is swamped.

This paper by Rob Pike is worth a read

Systems Software Research is Irrelevant
http://herpolhode.com/rob/utah2000.pdf

Re:Uh-Oh

[CowboyBob500]

OK, you've been modded funny, but I just looked at your Sourceforge page, and your project looks very cool.

From what I see, you're definitely going to scratch one of my itches too. If I take a USB key drive into a client site and they have a locked down version of Windows (so no Cygwin), I desperately miss my *nix command line. Good luck with it, I'll be checking back now and again - assuming the scenario I've described will be possible when it matures a bit more.

Bob

Re:Uh-Oh

[misleb]

LOL. I saw a similar Javascript terminal app that ran in the browser and sorta simulated an actual unix OS, but I thought it was just a sort of joke. Did you really think that such an idea would actually be useful?

Anyway, don't worry about YouOS. It'll fail.

-matthew

Re:Uh-Oh

[psema4]

LOL. I saw a similar Javascript terminal app that ran in the browser and sorta simulated an actual unix OS, but I thought it was just a sort of joke. Did you really think that such an idea would actually be useful?

I wouldn't be surpised if it was JS/UIX. Trying that and TiddlyWiki solidified my concept of how to resolve my UI issues as a web developer.

Anyway, don't worry about YouOS. It'll fail.

I'm not worried about it - I don't want it to fail. Competition's good for business. =)

I was a little miffed at Murphy for his timing yesterday though.

Besides, it's available under a modified BSD license. I'm learning JavaScript by writing Atomic OS; I expect I might be able to learn a thing or two from their project.

Re:Uh-Oh

[misleb]

wouldn't be surpised if it was JS/UIX [masswerk.at]. Trying that and TiddlyWiki [tiddlywiki.com] solidified my concept of how to resolve my UI issues as a web developer.

I dont' get it. JS/UIX is just a similated unix shell with no real utility and TiddlyWiki looks like a regular Wiki with inplace editting and some interesting but superfluous effect when you click on new sections. Actually, the effect is somewhat annoying because it is delayed. The new section appears first and the "window" slowly expands afterwards to match it. That effect really needs to go away. What am I missing here?

-matthew

Re:Uh-Oh

[psema4]

JS/UIX is just a similated unix shell with no real utility...

Agreed, and it's not free software.

and TiddlyWiki looks like a regular Wiki with inplace editting and some interesting but superfluous effect when you click on new sections. Actually, the effect is somewhat annoying because it is delayed. The new section appears first and the "window" slowly expands afterwards to match it. That effect really needs to go away. What am I missing here?

You can disable animations in options on the menu to the right. They should be off by default IMO, but it's easy to work around.

It took me a couple weeks to really get my head wrapped around TiddlyWiki and it's capabilites. I didn't know JavaScript then.

By mixing the two ideas together though, shell from JS/UIX and self-containment from TiddlyWiki, it became possible to:

• Create data stores (files), containers (directories), and all manner of GUI widgets using pre-existing HTML tags and JavaScript objects. These I called Atomic Objects and were the basis for the projects final name
• Build a command interpreter and shell, so that developers could interact with Atomic Objects in real-time
• Build responsive web-based applications
• Give those applications async access to remote data stores
• And do it all within a single HTML document

There's more to the story though. After I discovered TiddlyWiki, but before JS/UIX, I wrote another (very simple) prototype application called raDHTML. It's a web-based RAD tool for webpage design that worked rather well, but was written very poorly. When I discovered JS/UIX I decided to actually learn JavaScript.

The YouOS demo is much more attractive than the one for the predecessor to Atomic OS, WAJAX. Atomic OS has more to offer in the way of applications though I think. Particularly for those still holding out against FOSS, or have a need/want to mix it with proprietary code.

Not really an OS

[Arimus]

Given that this still relies on your browser to certain degree how can this be called an OS?

1. Does it provide a hardware abstraction layer to allow me to access a graphics card (for instance) without caring which graphics card I'm talking to? Doubt it...

2. Does it manange my hardware's resources so each app gets its fair share and a fair crack at getting cpu resources? Nope, uses the browser which in turn will use your native OS...

3. Does it control access permisions between processes so process X can't read/write to process Y's memory directly? Doubt it - again it will be back to the browser's host os.

Etc etc etc.

Re:Not really an OS

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be fixed in AJAX 2.0, where they emulate a CPU in javascript.

Re:Not really an OS

[ChronosWS]

Indeed. It's software development masturbation.

Re:Not really an OS

[tepples]

Does it provide a hardware abstraction layer to allow me to access a graphics card (for instance) without caring which graphics card I'm talking to?

Yes, and it's called the HTML DOM. The driver is called "Firefox". At some point, there are things that run underneath the level of an operating system, such as the x86 instruction interpreter, written in microcode, inside your processor.

Re:Not really an OS

[Arimus]

But the HTML DOM is then passed via what ever browser you're using to your PC's own OS which does the translation from the application to the raw hardware commands. So no this technology does not provide its own HAL. It might (being generous) be considered a proxy but not from my point of view.

Re:Not really an OS

[dbcad7]

Ok, I have a brand new computer, blank hardrive, a DSL connection. Can I run this without booting another OS ?

Not that I dont think it's a "fairly" cool idea, but I think of this more like the web based email apps, it nice to have if your on the road and not lugging your own computer around. However for that scenario, there are better alternitives that wouldn't depend on the system your logging onto (that may or may not go down) You could carry around a thumb drive with your data (and apps), and a bootable thumb drive for your os (or a bootable CD such as Knoppix)

Personal Exerience with YouOS

[dswain]

I know that these online OSes have become a trend somewhat, but I've found this one rather neat myself. Granted, some of the things make you wonder "What's the point?" Well, with YouOS in particular, it acts on a server-wide filesystem. It shares similar traits to that of a UNIX type filesystem. For example, if I create a directory, say something like /my_username/youfs/shared_files and changed the permissions of the directory for a certain user (chmod username shared_files) then that user can interact with the files in that directory. Depending on what permissions you apply to the directory itself (read/write) determines what you allow him or her to do. In other words, you have a new way to share files which is very familiar for many users. Access to data from anywhere for free (limited bandwidth, but free) is a nice thing to have also. This may still be one of those "solutions looking for a problem," but it does by far hold some neat innovation to it IMHO.

Re:Personal Exerience with YouOS

[guice]

Then create an online file manager, not an entire OS. It's called overkill; "Here's 20 applications, even though you only get value from this 1."

Re:Personal Exerience with YouOS

[DrSkwid]

I use plan 9, we have a worldwide distributed OS see http://9grid.de/

chmod does not an OS make

Re:Personal Exerience with YouOS

[Cylix]

Sounds like something commies and terrorists will use!

Joking... at least I am.

Re:Personal Exerience with YouOS

[dswain]

All fair points (even the commies one!) but I figured I'd add some type of perspective to it. As many others said, can't really read TFA because there isn't one. Also, yes Plan9 is a solution and yes a webserver is a solution, but you still have issues such as technical and financial ones when dealing with those plans. With a thing like YouOS, it's as simple as providing a name and email address and in turn you're given a working system which provides all the tools you could need, some space and some bandwidth for free. It removes expenses and technical background requirements which is a great thing for some people.

Granted, I understand that this may not be the most practical solution to whatever the problem is. That in turn may be the real issue with YouOS, but I also think it has something to it considering all of the services provided are free as of this point.

Privacy Anyone?

[shaneFalco]

Why would anyone really want to use this? I made an account just to see what there is to see and sure it looks nice, but the applications are all in house- you need to register seperate to use gOffice. Their site touts it as an easy way to access your own desktop and store files- well geez I think most of us here are capable of setting up a server of our own to do just that, a server that is not accessable by whoever is running YouOS

Re:Privacy Anyone?

[nikkie]

Got one of those embedded devices that only has a browser, and no OS? Now you can run all sorts of programs on that device. It's cross-platform. And now when Opera comes out for my DS, it can do all these things without any additional software, or memory cards. That may not have been what they were thinking of when they made these online ajax apps, but it certainly works as such.

Damn!

[ElephanTS]

You are using Safari 419.

Warning:
Your browser will most likely not work with YouOS. See our FAQ for more information on browser compatibility.

-

Tell you what, I'll stick to playing MP3s and doing WP locally then.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

i ran it in safari, and it seemed to work just fine.

WebOS? Quite honestly...

[dud83]

I never can understand the reasons for the fantastic WebOS in this Web 2.0 era. Your computer needs an operating system to communicate with the hardware and to respond to events. Frankly, without an OS your computer is just a fancy bunch of IC's and wires. For using the internet sanely your computer has to be able to: communicate fully with TCP/IP, render graphics on your screen, respond to keyboard and mouse events... And this is just a short list, you could add lots more.
And for a fully-fledge WebOS 2.0 you need to process JavaScript, AJAX and many other advanced and "new" web technologies.

So my point is, that you already need a pretty advanced OS to enable you to use those amazingly fantastic WebOS for Web 2.0. So, the whole concept is to have an OS within your perfectly good OS. And that OS has to be launched inside a browser, and communicate over the internet. As opposed to your perfectly fine native OS already running.

For hecks sake, you can get a bloody thumbdrive if the idea is that you want to have certain things with you independently of the computer you're using right? Put Portable OOO and Portable Firefox on it. And perhaps all your documents as well as whatever else you need. You could even put Linux on your thumbdrive.

I just don't get the whole concept of having those wonderful WebOS around....

2x OS

[__aahlyu4518]

So... to run this OS, I need an OS to run the browser I can run that OS in... Doesn't sound like overkill at all

Re:2x OS

[guice]

Yeah, I was just noticing that myself, too. I think the site is a nice proof of concept, but I don't see any real value in it.

Re:2x OS

[TrueJim]

I think the point is that in the future one might access YouOS from something other than a conventional PC, and yet still receive a PC-desktop-like experience. For example, you might access YouOS from some lightweight client (like a gaming console, a PSP-like handheld gaming device, a wireless PDA, a smartphone, a future iPod incarnation, etc.) and still obtain the same working environment that you have on your PC.

Admittedly, the client will need blazingly fast processors and network connections, but presumably both of those assumptions will be true eventually. So the point is to experiment now to determine what functionality will need to be built-in to future browsers to deliver the desktop-like experience, even though the only client currently able to run the environment is a PC.

Operating System?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did we start confusing a desktop "shell" application and a handfull of basic functions with an "Operating System"?

An operating system is the code that provides the operating environment in which these programs run; not the programs themselves; a layer between the hardware and the application programs that provides a uniform environment, manages resources, arbitrates contentions, provides synchronization primatives such as semaphores, schedules CPU utilization, etc. Its "users" are programs, not people; its user interfaces are APIs; not shells. Shells and other application programs provide what we traditionally think of as USER interfaces for interacting with humans.

Along with the operating system one often finds a suite of shell programs (textual or GUI), basic applications and administrative programs to provide a user environment. These may be included in the operating system package, and are helpful or even essential in making the operating system usable but are not themselves the operating system or part of it.

This important distinction seems to be lost on the likes of Microsoft. Perhaps as a result, this disturbing misconception seems to be spreading throughout the community.

If the "You OS" involves somewhere an operating system, it lives on their server infrastructure and the users never see it.

Re:Operating System?

[Anonymous Coward]

You said:
"When did we start confusing a desktop "shell" application and a handfull of basic functions with an "Operating System"?"

I say: ...round about the time that Windows 3.X was re-named from "operating environment" to "operating system."

Re:Operating System?

[sankyuu]

Well, i did play with it a bit... Turns out it has a nice little javascript "api" that you can write scripts for. Try logging in and opening the shell, and typing for instance:

props uos
o = uos.browser.getBrowserAndVersion()
o.browser + o.version

uos kinda looks like the java/.net package tree. It's also got an API for ui widgets and a "file" system. It's not exactly an OS (although it tries to look like one), but it looks pretty sophisticated. Interesting concept for web-based application development.

Re:Operating System?

[oPless]

> When did we start confusing a desktop "shell" application
> and a handfull of basic functions with an "Operating System"?

Since Windows 95.

Re:Operating System?

[Chaoticmass]

Reminds me of the QBasic programming scene nearly ten years ago. We were all mostly little kids making little games and graphic demos when all of a sudden there was a huge flood on the message boards of people creating Shells with varying degrees of actual functionality and calling them Operating Systems. It was pretty funny how many arguments were started whenever someone posted thier new "Qbasic Operating System!". It was pretty funny, and some of the "OS"s created were actually pretty advanced windowing systems with a script langauge and pretty neat.

You can see some examples of a "QB Operating System" here (not my site):
http://www.sepent.com/prog/basic/bguios/

Re:Operating System?

[Fishbulb]

> Since Windows 95.

MS-DOS

Re:Operating System?

[oPless]

This is my point. Windows 95 was MSDOS under the hood, with a 32bit version of windows over it.

MSDOS/Windows 3.11 (and below) were operating environments, and marketed as such.

It wasn't til '95 M$ started saying "Windows" was an Operating System

Re:Operating System?

[Fishbulb]

Ah. Never did paid much attention to MS marketing. :)

boooooo

[squizzz]

It has just crashed my browser... :(

VNC

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I Totally agree with you, besides, if your connection can run this stuff, it surely can give you a decent quality for a VNC session back home.

Having good web-based apps is greate, but only if you accept that it's a web app and so design it as such (Like gmail or google calendar). But if you try to emulate the look&feel of a classical desktop, you are screwed.

I use a lot of webapps, I have gmail and gmail for your domain for my company's website, google calendar runs my life, Pandora takes care of my music, etc.

This is truly comfortable if you travel a lot, like me.

The name makes me wonder

[Stormwatch]

Does that "You OS" have anything to do with "Windows Me"?

Take it further

[cyp43r]

So...to run this browser, I need an OS to run the browser to run the OS so I can run the text-based browser in. Un-un-un-unIngenuiosity! It isn't redundant at all.

Wow, that's...amazing?

[aersixb9]

DOS: Run 1 program at a time.
Windows: Run multiple programs at the same time.
YouOS: Run programs accross the network...

If only the network was as fast as SATA...there's been talk of a 'network' PC since the 80's, but the network's always been too slow to load large, good software that's comparable to the stuff that's downloaded to a HDD or that ships on a CD. A serious upgrade from the current multi-tasking windows OS (with the explorer file browser, and the win32 multitasking API, and notepad) would be...gametap? Or perhaps an OS that could run every program from a server...but the limitation is the network speed. I think I'll stick with windows, although a 3D environment "os" that downloads content, similar to entropia or second life, might be good, if the downloaded 3d content included a paper/document maker (similar to word/publisher...in 3d?) a scheduler & spreadsheet, and video games...is there anything else computers do? Perhaps an OS that already includes all of those things on the CDs, in an integrated, easy to use way... (such as linux...minus the bugs and hardness of setup/maintenence) YouOS looks gimmicky and useless, especially factoring in the speed of the internet. These 'run anywhere' applications have been around for a while, each one being its own app, such as the 'outlook anywhere' app called 'hotmail'.

Re:In Soviet Russia..

[Anonymous Coward]

..Web browser runs you!

A Browser OS?

[openldev]

Isn't the point of an online OS to get rid of the local OS? But I need to have a local OS to run the browser to run the operating system which includes a browser. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Re:A Browser OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose one could install a very small, lightweight, quick-booting OS (somethign along the lines of QNX, or even FreeDOS), with only a TCP/IP stack, dhcp client, and a web browser. The browser could then automatically go to a web-based desktop environment (I won't call it an OS, as many here have already pointed it is not one).

Pretty impressive demo.

[mshiltonj]

Here's the demo I experienced:

...Creating demo user...

Too Many Users Online

We're currently in alpha stage and are limiting the number of users who can login. There seem to be too many users already online at the moment.

Please try again shortly.

HTTP-FUSE KNOPPIX

[Anonymous Coward]

HTTP-FUSE KNOPPIX is a true (What is true?) Web Based OS.

http://unit.aist.go.jp/itri/knoppix/http-fuse/inde x-en.html

It is a 6MB CD bootable Linux and gets the disk image from Web Servers.

Computadora de...

[ESqVIP]

Computadora (in Spanish, even though .de ?)

I guess it's because they wanted to make it sound like a sentence: computadora.de/miguel in Spanish is, literally, computer.of/miguel.

Re:Computadora de...

[ESqVIP]

Should've hit Preview...

That reminds me of about a decade ago, when we were overwhelmed by V3 Redirect Services' domains surf.to, come.to, listen.to, fly.to...

As a fan and an Irishman

[winkydink]

let me be the first to say, "Up You OS!"

Ottawa Linux Symposium 2006

[Anonymous Coward]

HTTP-FUSE Xenoppix is presented at Ottawa Linux Symposium 2006.

http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/view_abstract.p hp?content_key=76

Time flies like an arrow.

[DrunkenTerror]

Fruit flies like a banana.

eyeos.org

[dotfucked.org]

umm why in the heck not use eyeos.org, its being doing this for some time now...

done before...

[dioscaido]

I liked the idea of YouOS, when it was called simple.com. Years ago when DHTML was in its infancy they were doing these 'fake OS' windowed interfaces.

From the YouOS login page...

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: for YouOS to work, javascript must be enabled.

At last an OS less secure than Windows. Microsoft had better look out!

Virus

[MikeWasHere05]

If you really want to have some fun, take advantage of the "saved sessions" idea. Build a program that will open up http://www.youos.com/html/ in the youBrowser infinitely. This will eventually bog down the users system so much that he has to either exit his browser or reboot the system. Now thanks to the saved sessions idea, when he logs back into youOS that program will run again. He'll never be able to use his account again. Muahahahaha

Re:Virus

[Psycosys]

That doesn't sound very self replicating. In fact, it seems like nothing more than a denial of service attack.

Tried it..it's cool but WHY?

[Danathar]

I gave it a try, by far it's the best Web based desktop I've seen. It basically creates a GNOME like interface in your web browser.

But I have to ask myself. WHY? My desktop already works. Why do I need this?

Re:Tried it..it's cool but WHY?

[RobertLTux]

think being able to do stuff on "your computer" even if you just happen to be pearched on top of a hunk of rock in the middle of nowhere (assumes you have some sort of device and a netconnection) or have thing set up in your company so that most of your users are using a kiosk mode browser and a WebTop to do work.
(the idea is to lock them out of doing anything outside the browser lock the browser down hard .... Profit!!

Re:Tried it..it's cool but WHY?

[misleb]

think being able to do stuff on "your computer" even if you just happen to be pearched on top of a hunk of rock in the middle of nowhere (assumes you have some sort of device and a netconnection)

That would be pretty pathetic, but if I really want to do it, I'd just install VNC on my home PC.

or have thing set up in your company so that most of your users are using a kiosk mode browser and a WebTop to do work. (the idea is to lock them out of doing anything outside the browser lock the browser down hard .... Profit!!

Yeah, I think Citrix is already making some profit off of this general concept. It is certainly 100x better than anything a "WebTop" could ever deliver.

-matthew

Re:Tried it..it's cool but WHY?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could use it on devices like the N770 or PDAs (haven't tried it but I suppose it should work).

Re:Tried it..it's cool but WHY?

[Danathar]

Exactly my point. As many people have said, a web browser is a HORRIBLE development platform for full featured applications as compared to developing for an OS.

Creating a desktop that runs within a web browser that is NOT using JAVA (XML + Javascript + Ruby + something + ect..) is a interesting prototype but lets be serious here. Your typical PC/MAC/LINUX desktop can run cirles around this stuff and will continue to do so.

And I don't see that changing.

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

It is fun, absolutely useless. I guess it showcases the makers' skills, but come on... writing the next term paper on their clunky RTF editor?

A better solution

[Millenniumman]

A better web based OS could be made by allowing people to ssh into a computer running emacs. Then you'd have a full fledged OS, instead of a limited one like this. Plus, if you added vim, you would have a good text editor.

Re:A better solution

[killjoe]

How does that saying go..

"emacs is my operating system, linux is my device driver"

Re:A better solution

[Lord Ender]

You win the "funniest comment of the week" award. And it's only Sunday!

Re:A better solution

[the_womble]

You mean use something that works, has been well tested and has lots of apps available for it?

How boring!

Re:A better solution

[trupoet]

and vim is my text editor

interesting - they seem to be using..

[BigGerman]

.. Amazon S3 as a backend,even for the website.

Opera 9

[Joebert]

I didn't get to see it, they told me because I use Opera 9 it likely wouldn't work for me.

Online OS

[saikatblogger]

I've checked YouOS.com. I won't call it a OS now. It's just a bundle of applications. I'll call it a OS when I just log in to it from my computer or any such device without a installed operating system (such as Win, Lin etc.). Check a similar so called online OS is http://www.goowy.com/.

Use the correct terminology, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, can we make a distinction between a "desktop" and an "operating system"?

There's no need to confuse the two terms.

Dash needed

[Anonymous Coward]

You OS (INSERT THE DAMN DASH HERE SO THAT THIS SENTENCE MAKES SENSE) Web Based Operating System. Second thing, how can it be an OS, if you need an OS to use it? And you can't install it? And it's not even a LiveCD?

If every city has the same ISP...

[tepples]

AC wrote:

If I were you, I'd move to another city with less shitty ISPs.

Unfortunately, the reality too often is:

If I were you, I'd move to another country with less shitty ISPs.

That too is cost prohibitive.

Pointless?

[sjipca]

Hey umm... Yea this OS is pointless because in order to access the internet you need an OS on your computer whether it be DOS, LINUX, SUN, whatever's out there but I think you should go back to the drawing board and find a way to do as other people have commented find it so someone who has a piece of crap computer can use it without an OS installed. O ya.

Workspot

[celticmonkey]

Linux fans might want to check out this online OS:

http://www.workspot.com/

It's a full version of RedHat 8 that you can access through a Java applet!

YouOS is a misnomer

[Baloo Ursidae]

Is it really an OS if it requires a web browser? I don't know about you, but I expect my OS to do the simple things. Like boot. And manage devices.

The point?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a browser that supports it, then most likley you dont the YouOS at all... the one you're using to run the web browser should work just fine, and probably better...

Great? In what way?

[misleb]

While the idea is great,

Could someone please explain to me why this is a great idea? Besides the novelty. What place does YouOS have in a world where people (well, geeks, actually) debate endlessly about which desktop is the fastest/full featured/whatever? Certainly YouOS would fail to meet most anyone's criteria for a generally useful desktop.

Come on people, this "web based OS" idea is stupid. Admit it. And it is not just because of fact that "Operating System" is a great misnomer in this case. From their FAQ:

"Need to send or receive email or text/instant messages? We're working on providing full communication APIs."

If that gets you excited, then I have a network stack written in BASIC to sell you. ANd it runs in a browser! Amazing, huh? Forget the fact that your current operating system already comes with a perfectly good network stack and running mine would be completely redundant and pointless.

-matthew

Re:Great? In what way?

[UnlikelyNerd]

Aside from the novelty aspect -- I'd agree that it doesn't appear to be of any real use to anyone, today..

There might be an application for products based on "YouOS" for disposable cellphones or super-cheap comm. devices that could run a self-contained web OS to provide rudimentary functionality, which otherwise they might not be capable of -- but those devices are still limited by small 2-12 line LCD screens, so how much fun would that be to work on!

Re:Great? In what way?

[Kalak]

Ever use an old computer to do something useful? Every want *your* OS on a live CD? Ever want to your own OS at a public computer? Keep thinking and the possibilities are there. I'm looking at it for something I can run on a central server (preferably that I control) and still get to my own setup easily. In that vein, it's a powerful idea.

Also, similar to a thin client, ever want to not have to support your family/friends/not-even-working-with-you-coworkers ? Tell them to wipe their browser host OS then reinstall about anything they want with a browser. More apps and the power increases.

Re:Great? In what way?

[misleb]

Ever use an old computer to do something useful? Every want *your* OS on a live CD? Ever want to your own OS at a public computer? Keep thinking and the possibilities are there. I'm looking at it for something I can run on a central server (preferably that I control) and still get to my own setup easily. In that vein, it's a powerful idea.

Couldn't you just install VNC on your home PC and use the Java applet client to access it whereever you go? That way you would hve EVERYTHING available to you from your home PC. NOt just whatever you happened to put in your Web Desktop.

Also, similar to a thin client, ever want to not have to support your family/friends/not-even-working-with-you-coworkers ? Tell them to wipe their browser host OS then reinstall about anything they want with a browser. More apps and the power increases.

Oh yeah, right. LIke anyone is going to boot their computer directly into a browser and forsake all games and general usefulness of a local desktop and run shitty Javascript/HTML apps 24/7 just to make YOUR life easier as their defacto tech support guy. Remember, we're not talking about just any "thin client" solution here. We're talking about Javascript + HTML + HTTP. It would be a giant leap backwards in usability and functionality.

-matthew

Re:Great? In what way?

[fbjon]

A web-based desktop system would be perfect for the Nintendo DS with the new Opera loaded.

Re:Great? In what way?

[bumbledom]

Perhaps the missing piece in You OS is a bootable browser image.

Re:Great? In what way?

[misleb]

A web-based desktop system would be perfect for the Nintendo DS with the new Opera loaded.

I'd hold out for a real loacal OS like DSLinux.

-matthew

Re:Great? In what way?

[misleb]

Oh, go buy a WebTV or something.

Re:Great? In what way?

[Kalak]

VNC - bandwidth issues, and this is largely what I do anyway currently. It's the potential I'm talking about, not what is best currently.

The users who would be using this as a "thin client" approach to get tech support wouldn't know what a "shitty JS/HTML" app is if it hit them in the face. They just want to know if it works. Not to mention addressing the potential here, not the current state: shitty Java apps used to be the norm, but you've just suggested I use one in you VNC suggestion.

Re:Great? In what way?

[misleb]

VNC - bandwidth issues, and this is largely what I do anyway currently. It's the potential I'm talking about, not what is best currently.

Sure, but bandwidth is becoming less and less of an issue. We'll have better bandwidth long before we have web standards suitable for a usable "web desktop." Besides, I'd much rather have access to my real home desktop anyway vs. some lame browser based imitation of a desktop. And quite frankly, that is all WebOS is.

The users who would be using this as a "thin client" approach to get tech support wouldn't know what a "shitty JS/HTML" app is if it hit them in the face.

Wanna bet?

They just want to know if it works.

And it won't work. A desktop sandboxed in a browser will NEVER work like a real desktop that integrates with the computer. What happens when a user does something simple like plug in a USB camera to download pictures? What if they want to rip/copy a CD? What about viewing DVDs? I can list dozens of things that simply won't work under a "thin client" approach. It is a joke. A sick joke.

Not to mention addressing the potential here, not the current state: shitty Java apps used to be the norm, but you've just suggested I use one in you VNC suggestion.

I dislike Java apps as much as the next guy, but in this case it works far better than any "WebOS" would. Besides, how often do people really need to access their home desktop from anywhere? I can see putting some files up on a G-Drive or carrying around a USB stick, but most people get by just fine leaving their desktop at home. Heck, you can even inastall Linux on a USB stick and carry your desktop around with you on your keychain. All of these solutions are better than some lame WebOS that doesn't even have a communications API for developers yet.

-matthew

Re:Great? In what way?

[aztracker1]

I think, in all honesty, it is a great idea/alternative for situations where a WAN is deployted for workgroups. It would be a nice alternative for situations where a VPN, Remote Access, or other Terminal Services/VNC/Remote Desktop deployments are in use.

With enough enhancement it would be a great way to "work at home" with a controlled environment.

Re:Great? In what way?

[misleb]

I think, in all honesty, it is a great idea/alternative for situations where a WAN is deployted for workgroups. It would be a nice alternative for situations where a VPN, Remote Access, or other Terminal Services/VNC/Remote Desktop deployments are in use.

But why? VPN and Terminal Services work great. Citrix runs fine over a WAN. It certainly runs better than anything you could deliver in a web browser with Javascript. Also, every application you run would have to be completely rewritten in an extremely limited "WebOS" development environment. Ain't gonna happen.

-matthew

Re:Great? In what way?

[fbjon]

Sure, but I have a hard time believing it would be as usable as soon. No real keyboard input, remember, and it's hard to fix when things go wrong (which they will).

Re:Great? In what way?

[misleb]

Well, you've got to run Opera on SOMETHING, don't you? Once you get to the point of running somehting like Opera, you're just a small step away from having a full fledged desktop. But I guess if Nintendo never bothers with a desktop beyond running Opera, WebOS might be all you have. Although the chances of something like WebOS being usable on such a device seems... unlikely.

-matthew

Re:Great? In what way?

[fbjon]

Opera runs natively on the NDS. I don't think there's any particular OS behind it, other than the device and API itself.

Re:Great? In what way?

[misleb]

No OS? If it has a network stack, graphics, APIs, etc, it has an OS. That is the OS.

-matthew

Re:Great? In what way?

[fbjon]

Not sure how much of an OS you could call it, since you cannot return to it: you must turn the machine off and on in order to return to the main menu. I can hardly imagine a need for any hardware abstraction, other than what can be provided by libraries in an SDK. The simplest way of designing it is to have games/apps have direct control of the hardware, which makes sense. Having something resembling what we commonly refer to as an OS would be completely unnecessary, though nothing prevents you from implementing one, of course. The thing is, with Opera + web calendar/word/mail, is there any point?

Disclaimer: IANADSDeveloper

Think Citrix or Terminal Server or X or....

[wandazulu]

This is a great idea in the same way that Citrix, Terminal Server, and X in general is a good idea: you need next to nothing to run big, complex, perhaps very expensive software. This site doesn't have any of that, trying instead to replicate a typical desktop, but the idea is a great one and one I"m sure we'll see a lot more in the future. While X is defacto free but can't be run through a browser, Citrix and Termnial Server (both of which do have browser versions), cost a lot of money in liceneses, etc.

Yes, technically it isn't an OS and it's performance isn't all that great, but they're not exactly promising anything; this makes for a good proof of conceptm and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody like SalesForce takes the idea and runs with it; I think we'll probably see *real* web-based desktops within ten years (where the apps are full enough featured and fast) and don't need activex or java.

Re:Think Citrix or Terminal Server or X or....

[WWE-TicK]

> While X is defacto free but can't be run through a browser,

I'm not so sure about that.

FWIW, it works ok on a LAN ... I doubt it'd work at an acceptable performance level over DSL/cable though.

Not particularly useful w/o other apps

[93 Escort Wagon]

As others have pointed out, without the ability to truly interact with the local hardware this is of limited usefulness as an actual "OS". But as has been demonstrated time and again with ActiveX, giving a remote machine that kind of access to a person's computer is rife with security problems - and that huge issue has yet to be solved (and may never be).

True Operating System?

[treak007]

Would this classify truly as an operating system or more of a gui interface for a bunch of web tools. You still need to have something installed on your computer to use this, and that os has to deal with the hardware and other issues. To become a true operating system, Mit would have to realease a small operating system, kinda like Damn Small Linux that could be istalled. To me its not an operating system unless I can wipe my hdd and install it.

I can already see a flaw..

[Rorian]

You've been working around the clock for the last 2 weeks to pull together countless pieces of information, facts, statistics for a major presentation. Your overhead slides are stored in a YouOS Powerpoint-esque program, all beautifully laid out with well laboured-over text accompanying all the pretty images - You feel really good about this major presentation, everything is in play and it's going to go off with out a hitch...

Too Many Users Online ...

You know, Windows has given me BSODs, Linux has sent me insane with broken/missing drivers, *BSD has nerfed my partitions (admittedly my own fault) but NEVER have I been told I cannot log in because there are too many users online.

I'm sure this wont be an issue when this goes mainstream.. well, I hope not, but the possibility of valuable, sometimes crucial work being inaccessible is just not acceptable to me.

Ohh, and also YouOS will have unlimited access to my private, sensitive information

OS no no, Shell yes.

[el_jake]

It is complete nonsense to call this webpages a Operating System (OS). A more suitable term is WEBSHELL.
You cant print from within a shell without an OS. Just like these Web shells or pages with dynamic web content..

Remember when win 3.1 was called "OS"?? When it really was a shell on a Disk OS.

Weird

[kanzels]

It doesn't make sense to me right now using already some OS and some browser to run another "OS", which is not an OS. But it might be interesting research for future when we get some WebTV capable of running AJAX code. But WebTV would need CD burner or atleast USB so we can save files on stick ;-)

That YouOS business plan in full

[daybot]

1) Build something Google will want
2) Get it slashdotted
3) ???
4) Sell to Google and retire at 30 :)

konqueror support

[MADnificent]

Doesnt work in Konqueror...

This is a direct link to the online demo: http://www.youos.com/html/index.html?mode=demo

FireFox crash

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitty Browser crashed FireFox 1.5.0.4 on Windows XP Professional.

Aww, common moderators

[rinkjustice]

This is funny stuff!

nx OS

[wodelltech]

Yeah...I had the same thought. Then I launced bitybrowser (within YouOS) and surfed over to www.youos.com...

In practice, nobody sells PCs with blank HDD

[tepples]

Ok, I have a brand new computer, blank hardrive

When you bought a new PC, its hard drive did not come blank. It came with Mac OS X (if you bought it from Apple) or Microsoft Windows (if you bought it from any other major OEM). But even Windows runs on top of an operating system implemented in the microcode of the CPU of your computer.

Re:In practice, nobody sells PCs with blank HDD

[SanityInAnarchy]

I built my last two computers from components from Newegg. I assure you, the hard drives came completely blank. Had to download and install Linux from someone else or from my previous computer. I also have a (legit) copy of Windows that was burned from a school lab, as part of the MSDN Academic Alliance, installed on the most recent computer.

And there are some minor OEMs that will actually build and ship a computer without an OS. So what's your point?

news?

[evandrofisico]

Again, one "Web OS"? there have been web os'es just like this in the beginning of this decade. I used one in 2000 that was only ran in IE4 and took several minutes to load on my 33k connection. I even created some apps for a web desktop, and i seriously doubt that these are going to be such a revolution on the applications market (it's already an old idea) except for some killer-apps, like gmail or flicker. Just imagine that you have to print some documents that are located on slahdoted server? Some dependency from a connection to the web is absolute necessary for some kinds of tasks, like e-mailling and such, but a broadband connection to edit a 1 paragraph text is an idiot idea. The idea of web frameworks for some apps is cool, web apps are naturaly cross plataform (if made cross browser, of course) an very useful on some situations, but running a whole desktop from the web seems counter-productive.

Web Filter?

[DaFallus]

Could I say, log into YouOS then browse web pages that would normally be filtered by the network at work? No, doesn't look like it. I log in to YouOS and go to whatismyip.com and see the same address when I go to the site normally.

OS?

[nurb432]

How is this an operating system? It looks like its a collection of web delivered applications to me.

It's a graphical shell

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep asking myself why anyone would need this. I asked this on the IRC chat thing in You OS and someone said portability, no need to manage the system (like updates), etc. Then it occured to me that all the confusion and negative comments is because they called it an OS. If they called it You Client/Interface. It would all make sense. It's just like a graphical version of the command line shell which you use to connect to remote servers! Connect, interact, run applications. That said, there's no reason why the client has to be executed in a browser environment. Firefox, according to "top", was consuming 95-99% of the CPU resources just to run a You OS chat application.

another possible name???

[apaciq]

Call it "Tubes"

web-base OS?

[Suez]

I doubt it.

Old tech - someone already did this

[Anonymous Coward]

During the dot com era, a startup called desktop.com already did this. Here's a screenshot of their web os. http://internet.watch.impress.co.jp/www/article/19 99/0922/bw5.jpg

It was a lot prettier than the YouOS.

Desktop.com failed and now their domain name is owned by someone else and is apparently selling a search bar.

The idea of having a traditional OS like environment in a Web browser has already failed in the past.

what about my taxes ?

[cinnamon colbert]

does that mean i need a web OS and my desktop ? wow, that is certainly less complicated...

What's the point?

[Scentless]

Ok so this is cool. But really what is the point? Have we reached a technology dead-end, where our supposed innovations are merely shallow immitations of real OS systems and apps? It is time to get rid of the desktop paradigm, it is time to start thinking beyond it.

After using it...

[Suez]

the desktop is classical, now it has apps such as a small web browser,file explorer, a very simple RSS,Text editer, Buddy, mail, sticky board, and with a public chat room.

Great idea, but is really your browser the tool?

[Knutsi]

Most people have seen this coming for quite some time, but let's have a look at what this really seems to be (I cannot access it at the moment, due to to many users being logged in).

Basically, AJAX and these "Operating Systems" have arisen from the browsers capability nudging towards that of a remote desktop client, or so it seems. The browser is still made to deliver HTML, remember that.

What if someone made a much more powerfull client-side application that could do what the Javascript/DOM model does, but add support for harware accelerated graphics, and API's actually designed for this purpose? I guess FireFox's Canvas is a start, but its not in any way like FF or IE is designed to do this kind of stuff. People have simply discovered it's possible by accident, and started building these OSes. I love remote X-sessions and Remote Desktop towards my workstation, it's much richer than what your browser can deliver, but of course to slow for large scale applications, and to much of the processing happens server-side.

It would be a little bit like an X-Windows client I guess, only that more of the processing happens client-side. Apps would be downloaded in text/XML, and Javascript or similar could be used to add dynamics. Possibly a code-behind type thing would be betterm but I really have no clue (:

So, in essence, the server becomes a application dispenser, and a data source. Then the "player", optimized for the client's architetcure, would run the app.

Best,
. Knut

GoogleOS? YahooOS? MozillaOS? WebOS?

[Suez]

http://www.kottke.org/05/08/googleos-webos

The point is to have fun working on a neat idea.

[turnstyle]

Comments about YouOS often fall into one of the following buckets:

1) "feh, what's the point."

2) "feh, it doesn't manage hardware, it's not really an OS."

Regarding #1, I'd say that the point is to have fun working on a neat idea, and see where it leads. If it doesn't strike you as fun or interesting, move on an keep looking for something that is.

Regarding #2, you're right, it's not really an OS. However the metaphor still applies, as the vast majority of computer users think of the OS as "the screen that runs my programs."

fwiw, I built the Bitty Browser that's available from within YouOS (you can see Bitty in YouOS here -- though YouOS seems to be /dotted right now.)

-Scott

...it sort of is, as a matter of fact

[hatless]

Actually, it's not a collection of apps. It's a set of APIs that include I/O, a filesystem, application and file management, user permissions, resource monitoring, process control, sockets, message queueing and inter-component communication along with the UI stuff most people focus on when they first see it.

It's implemented in high-level languages, and from a developer standpoint its "native" code is Javascript, but IMO it performs the services of an OS and has the interfaces of an OS, so I'm fine with calling it an OS.

What does its inability to talk to USB hardware and flash cards directly have to do with being an OS? PalmOS and WinCE can't talk to Firewire or S/PDIF and those are OSes. YouOS talks to hardware through an abstraction layer; it just happens to do so atop a lower-level OS.

Re:Great idea, but is really your browser the tool

[Yremogtnom]

You know, I have to disagree with you. Granted, YouOS looks to be a proof-of-concept. Yes, I played with it, and yes it was a fun toy, but, given some time, I can actually see this going somewhere. There are a lot of hurdles to cross, but I think it's only a matter of time before things like hardware accelerated graphics come to the browser... which brings me to my point:

Isn't the word "browser" really a misnomer now? I think the days of the traditional web-browser are quickly coming to an end. Browsers have turned into application frameworks, and I think it would be good for browser developers (those who build the browser) to step back and redifne their products into such.

Now, image something like dillo with all of the EMCA/CSS/etc support of Firefox. Now take this product and integrate it with an OS kernel (like Linux of course), and something like YouOS becomes a very intersting and possibly usable product.

It's interesting that the post right after this one focused on Plan 9... maybe this is what THEY need...

my $0.02.

Not so sure.

[jotaeleemeese]

I have contracted Internet for several years now in the UK (at least 5 different providers since dialup until 8Mb broadband).

I can really count with the fingers of one hand the times I have been left without Internet connectivity.

In the other hand I have to reboot my office Windows machine at least once very week.

As anecdotal as this is, I don'tthink it deviates much from the norm.

What could Microsoft do to counter YouOs and simi?

[Varris]

I think there are some reasons why people think this is the future way of computing. These reasons can be countered quite easily:

1)Provide more software to the home user for free, maybe even sponsored: Office at least. Remove complicated features in basic versions. Really specialized software will never run in javascript especially not for free.
2)Installation: less software to install (point 1), other software should be extremely easy to install and deinstall.
3)Zero admin: e.g. automatic defragmenting etc so you pc keep running fine. If you need to reinstall, all your documents are still there because you will have a webdrive.
4)Provide web drive functionality for a very good prize and super high volumes (e.g. to store movies)
5)Virus scan software should be part of the operating system.

I cannot think of other good reasons why I desperately would want my applications to run on javascript in my browser.

Regards,