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

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

[dacarr]

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

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

"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: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.

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: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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.