10 Web Operating Systems Reviewed

Stan Schroeder writes "Waiting for GoogleOS? Why not try some of the WebOS applications that are already available? Believe it or not, there's already over 15 of them, and here you can find a review of the 10 most promising WebOSes. Most of them might not make you want to ditch your desktop OS just yet, but some are very good and can be used on a day-to-day basis. Highlights include DesktopTwo, Goowy, YouOS, EyeOS and Glide. You can find the whole bunch here." Note: for the purposes of this article, "WebOS" is defined as "a set of applications running in a web browser that together mimic, replace or largely supplement a desktop OS environment."

Comments

what use?

[bedonnant]

I still don't get what actual use of these can be relatively to other existing options.

Re:what use?

[mfh]

I still don't get what actual use of these can be relatively to other existing options.

Hmmm, perhaps it's good to trade one groups selfish interests for anothers every now and then, to keep the lot of them moderately honest.

Re:what use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you do, but then you wouldn't get first post if you bothered to devote 10 seconds of time to saying so, would you?

Re:what use?

[HerrEkberg]

Ever heard of those computers that come pre-loaded with a ROM containing only Microsoft Bob and a web browser?

Well... me neither, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared.

Re:what use?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new... aw shit.

Re:what use?

[ixplodestuff8]

The main use is that it's a new area to explore. It's a growing application, that doesn't have many uses today, but you never know when it'll finally have a good use. As webos's develop, people might find new innovative ways to use them.

Imagine a company that had a Webos, and hundreds of thin clients, which would probably be a operating system whose user interface is only the web browser window pointed at the the webos. You could probably load it up all to ROM and have no hard drive, making the boot up take all of about a second.

While I think there are probably already things that do this today(that is, thin clients), that's only one random idea I had, maybe one day someone will have a truly great idea on how to apply a Webos.

Or it might just never take off and be a flop, who knows, but the point is, it's worth a shot to see if it's any good later on.

Re:what use?

[mlk]

operating system whose user interface is only the web browser

The Sun Ray (I think) thin clients already come with this, but also a X client, and a Windows Remote client. Both options are better than "WebOS"es for "remote desktops".

You could probably load it up all to ROM and have no hard drive, making the boot up take all of about a second.

Then add the download time + flash start up time etc.

While "WebOSes" are a intresting toy, I don't think they will ever be any more than that

Re:what use?

[lowid (24) _________]

Nobody seems to be able to think of any use at all for these, which is surprising to me (although i guess it isn't useful if you never leave your house, which might explain the slashdot reaction). Lets set aside for a moment the fact that these systems are slow and may not work particularly well, and assume that we live in a perfect world and they are feature-complete and snappy and have all the programs you need and even a way to add more programs or what not. I can head down to the library and simultaneously research and work. I can pop into an internet cafe while traveling and add an idea to a project. I can visit family over the holidays and do work on their computers when i'm tired of dealing with them, and not have to worry about bringing a laptop (especially nice if one doesn't have a laptop).

Of course, pretty much every computer nowadays has internet and word processing already, and there are myriad ways to transfer your documents on the internet that are probably more convenient. WebOSes need to offer some advantage over this. If they can manage to replicate or come very close to your standard, at-home desktop experience, it'll be great. (How cool would it be if the webOS thing took off and developers could port apps like photoshop, logic, autocad, dreamweaver, etc... to webOSes in addition to regular OSes.)

p.

Re:what use?

[doctorzizmore]

This might be interesting to use on the Wii, which has a browser but no real 'OS' to speak of.

Re:what use?

[FLEB]

I think you've hit it about as close to my feeling as you can without just calling it useless. I see the "WebOS" as a solution floundering for a problem. Right now, the technology and methods are still in the "wow" stage, and people aren't doing much more than using new tools to make copies of existing applications that end up straining to wedge themselves into relevance in areas where they're not needed. Eventually, someone will come up with the niche that rich Web applications do fill-- uniquely and adeptly-- as for now it's just tech-demos and flexing muscles.

Re:what use?

[CodeBuster]

There is nothing new about remote access to one's computer and there have been many solutions to this problem for many years now that all perform better or no worse than the web browser approach. There is X windows for NIXes which supports remote login sessions, there is remote desktop for Windows XP and 2003 and terminal services for Windows 2000, not to mention the numerous third party products which have been available for just as long including VNC, Timbuktu, PCAnywhere, and many others. The WebOS concept really doesn't offer anything that is substantially improved over the existing solutions and it actually does some things even less well. This sounds to me like yet another solution to a problem that is already well solved searching for an audience in an already crowded marketplace. I wouldn't invest dime one of my money in a WebOS company so that pretty well sums up my sentiments about the prospects of the WebOS concept. The people here on Slashdot are right to be unimpressed by this.

Re:what use?

[tomazos]

There is nothing new about remote access to one's computer and there have been many solutions to this problem for many years

The difference is that the necessary client software (the web browser) is preinstalled and ready-to-go on every machine.

Zero deployment is a big deal.

Re:what use?

[partenon]

The main use is that it's a new area to explore. Funny to read that. Some time ago, we had "dumb terminals" (in a literal translation from portuguese to english). Applications fully running on a central computer via network isn't a new idea. The "new" factor here is the internet. How cyclical our market is...

By the way, if you wonder about having a box that only boots and get everything from network, you'd be surprised to discover BootP (bootstrap protocol) and others, used for diskless workstations.

Re:what use?

[lowid (24) _________]

The problem with current remote access solutions that in my eyes Web OSes address better than the solutions you mentioned is a problem of simplicity. Specifically, you essentially have to set up a server and keep your computer running to use these services. This isn't a problem for many people, and probably isn't much of one at all for the slashdot crowd. However, I do feel that the WebOS concept is much more appealing because you don't have to worry about the server end of things. It's just so easy to visit a website (especially on locked down computers like you might find at an internet cafe or a library) and have everything there waiting for you.

Now, I know there are still problems with the actual services, and I've tried a few of these OSes and I'll freely admit that they aren't very useful right now. However, I just think that nobody is thinking about this conceptually, and that noone can see past the (admittedly bad) products that are out there. It WOULD be a good product if it was executed well, and I think a well-done web OS would be a much better solution for the average user than the suggestions you mentioned (nothing to set up on your home computer, no need to run software on a remote computer, just pop open a web browser and type in the address).

Do I think that a web OS is a promising concept? Yes. Would I invest my money in a web OS company? No. Although I think there are uses for a web OS (that was the original question, after all), I don't have much faith that anyone is going to turn the concept into a decent product anytime soon. Agree with you there. It's pretty early in the game, though.

p.

Re:what use?

[TheGavster]

While these "WebOS" things do remove the need for keeping your personal machine configured to run the backend, the servers running them could just as easily be running more practical applications that are accessed remotely. Remote access to a centrally administered server is a neat (if somewhat old) idea, but the web is distinctly the wrong delivery mechanism. It's not even like these products are truely 'web based'; the overwhelming majority of the systems in the article use flash to get the job done. Why not substitute 'X server' for 'flash player' and be done with it?

Re:what use?

[Emetophobe]

There are pros and cons to Web apps just like there are pros and cons to Desktop apps.

This article does a good job of explaining the pros and cons of Web & Desktop apps.

Here's the full text:

Pros and Cons to Web and Desktop Applications
by S. Housley

There has been a long running debate about web applications replacing desktop software applications. While some functions are better suited to web applications. It is my belief that security concerns and legacy systems will prevent desktop software from becoming obsolete.

Some argue that the debate between web applications and desktop applications is pointless; as their is no clear answer. While still others argue that the issue at hand is as much a business and marketing issue, as it is a technological issue.

What Defines a Web Application Vs a Desktop Application? A web application is an application delivered to users from a web server like the Internet. Some businesses run web applications on an intranet, as well. Web applications are becoming more popular due to the widespread use of the web browser as a client.

Some applications are better suited and more likely to become successful as web applications. Web applications designed specifically for search engine optimization, have become increasingly popular. It is easy to understand why web applications that relate to the Internet would prosper, while business applications may have less appeal in a web environment.

A desktop application is a self-contained program that performs a defined set of tasks under the user control. Desktop applications run from a local drive and do not require a network or connectivity to operate or function properly, though if attached to a network desktop applications might use the resources of the network.

Pros and Cons to Desktop and Web Applications:

Easily Accessible Web applications can be easily accessed from any computer or location that has Internet access. Travelers especially benefit from the accessibility. This often means that if a traveler has access to a computer, phone or handheld with Internet connectivity they can utilize the web application.

Low Maintenance & Forced Upgrades Desktop applications need to be individually installed on each computer, while web applications require a single installation. Many web applications are hosted by a 3rd party and the maintenance fall under the applications hosts responsibility. The ability to update and maintain web applications without distributing and installing software on potentially thousands of client computers is a key reason for the popularity of web based applications. This can be a blessing and a curse as users of web applications on hosted systems are at the mercy of the host, if an upgrade does not go well, or the individual user doesn't want or need the new features the upgrade will still go forward.

Increased Security Risks There are always risks involved when dealing with working online, regardless of how secure a host might say a web application is, that fact of the matter stands that the security risk of running an application of the Internet is more significant than when running an application on a standalone desktop computer. Some applications require more security than others, playing Sudoku on a web application would cause little concern, but dealing with sensitive corporate formulas or accounting details in a web environment might be determined risky.

Cost Over the life of the software use, web applications are typically significantly more expensive over time. Desktop applications are purchased outright and rarely is their a recurring fee for the software use. Some desktop applications do have maintenance fees or fee based upgrades associated with them, but rarely is there a subscription fee associated with the software's ongoing use.

Many corporate web applications use a different model, users typically are charged monthly service f

Re:what use?

[CodeBuster]

X Windows, or something like it, comes with just about every version of a NIX OS and Windows XP comes with remote desktop client. If you want to go back more than six years then you can point to Windows 2000 Pro and other 9x Microsoft OSes not having this functionality pre-installed out of the box, but most people already have the tools they need with their base OS install (they just don't know that they have them). I cannot speak about the MacOS support during this time since I mostly didn't use MacOS during the past six years, but if they had remote access then it probably came with the pre-installed bundle on your shiny new Mac. The pre-installed issue is thus, not much of an issue.

Re:what use?

[SageMusings]

There is something that scares me.

Just like web-based applications, web-OSs seem like something that can be taken from me at any time. Let's say there is a change in subscription prices that prices me out of the game or the fact I have to keep paying for something over and over again. Let's not even bring up the specter of no standards.

I am comfortable with control over my machine. There may be some amazing uses in the future that compel me to adopt the use of a web-OS but I cannot see what those uses are at present.

Re:what use?

[tomazos]

X Windows, or something like it, comes with just about every version of a NIX OS and Windows XP comes with remote desktop client. Are these pre-installed clients interoperable? Are they as easy to setup and use as typing a URL at an Internet Cafe, a friends computer or public Internet terminal? There is a big difference between making something technical possible and making it ubiquitously "click-run" and "mum-can-do-it". I would like to be able to login (in one step) to any machine and have the same interface that I have from home and work. My experience of using a computer should be dictated by me and not by my physical location.

Re:what use?

[Dabido]

They're a huge step up from WebDOSPrompt. :-)

Re:what use?

[Zaphod2016]

Until very recently, I would have agreed with you 100%. However, consider this scenerio:

• You are a geek, and so YOUR laptop is setup exactly the way YOU want it- OS, apps, icons, mouse sensitivity, etc etc.
• You are so spoiled by your laptop that the thought of touching another machine fills you with dread. You call into work sick to avoid it.
• You and your laptop are off on a business trip, vacation, or multi-state police chase.
• Your laptop breaks. You do a recovery dance, then cast CURE 4. No dice.
• You order a replacement, but need to get some work done TONIGHT. Your new machine won't arrive until X days from now (^2 for mac users, ^3 for super-picky linux users).
• You begrudgingly head to WalMart and buy a cheapo $500 laptop, and promise yourself you'll exchange it for a jumbo-sized bag of gummy bears next week (once the replacement arrives).
• You get your default-windows-pos "loaner" out of the box, and start downloading your needed FOSS apps (unless you keep copies of the CDs in your glovebox).
• Being a geek, it is impossible to do any work until your Jessica Alba background is back, and you font set to "comic sans". After 12 hours of tweaking you get to work.
• The next day, in a coffee-induced rage, you accidentally strangle your accomplice/partner/lover and get sent to prison for 25 years.

Admit it- wouldn't it be easier to jump into your WebOS, no matter which machine you were forced to be using at any given time? Haven't you ever run VNC so you could access a box without finding a spare keyboard all the time? I view this as "VNC 2.0", with the added advantage that I don't have to set it up before I need it- just like my gmail, flickr pics and blog posts, the data will be waiting for me no matter where in this world I roam.

Back in '86, upon seeing my PS/2 running DOS for the first time, my grandfather asked: "why not just use a calculator and a typewriter"- and let's be honest, back in '86 he *almost* had a point. But like it or not, we are the new "old fogies", and I've decided to join the winning team early.

That said, these WebOS are still like telneting porno at 2400 bps. We've got a looooong way to go before I start relying on them for anything more than a "cool beta".

Uh, what the fuck?

[matt me]

A "WebOS" is defined as "a set of applications running in a web browser that together mimic, replace or largely supplement a desktop OS environment."

How are you looking at this without using a browser? Or do WebOS include browsers. That would make so much sense.

Re:Uh, what the fuck?

[Tx]

Who said you're not using a browser? Of course you're using a web browser to access a frigging WEB OS! Think, dammit!

Re:Uh, what the fuck?

[Tokimasa]

Yeah. I would even assume that if you had this, you could even use a PC that is just a browser to access a server that has the WebOS on it.

Re:Uh, what the fuck?

[Fett101]

"Or do WebOS include browsers."

Viewing web pages in a browser via WebOS running in a browser. My mind boggles.

Re:Uh, what the fuck?

[camcorder]

We call it iframes.

Re:Uh, what the fuck?

[H3g3m0n]

There are also browsers in some of them :) This actually does make sense, things like bookmarks and history can be kept online without requiring any bookmark synchronizers or needing to be accessed from a special bookmarks site, other than the initial webOS connection, also you could enable access to the bookmarks through such a portal site and enable synchronizers to get the best of everything. With that said, I think that webOSes them selfs are kind of pointless. It would be much better to have a web based NX client (like the one VNC has) and just virtualize an entire trimmed down operating system. Although possible it might be useful to be able to click on files in the webos filebrowser and have them downloaded locally, although I'm sure with some basic java script hooks on the browser side and some modification to the file manager being virtualized it could be done.

What browsers do they work with ?

[Alain Williams]

Shame that he didn't say what environment he was using to test. OK: I know that they are based on flash, but it would have been nice to know what browsers/... it ran under.

Re:What browsers do they work with ?

[ScrewMaster]

Most are probably based upon Ajax, I would think.

Re:What browsers do they work with ?

[jonbryce]

He pointed out that one of them didn't work with Firefox, so presumably he did test under that.

Average Users

[Joebert]

I'm sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for "the call".

Yeah joe ?
Uhhh, I registered for a Web OS, you know so I don't have to use Windows, then I deleted Windows, how do I get my new Web OS to connect to the internet ?

Re:Average Users

[miro f]

www.ubuntu.com

Re:Average Users

[Mathinker]

After the herculean effort to control your laughter, tell them that if they send you $5 + shipping, you will send them a wondrous CDROM called "Knoppix".

You could get richer than spammers!

Why I succombed to using these things...

[dino213b]

One simple answer: shared documents. Sure, I have five+ computers at home and one of them is a dedicated linux machine that I use for file storage and whatnot. The problem is, it is a multi-step process for anyone living in my house to access these files at work. While I have no problem of whatsoever establishing file shares and so forth, not everyone is as comfortable with the idea.

Luckily Google spreadsheets solved at least one problem for me - maintaining a shopping list. I can pop on any computer with internet access and be able to see what my better half added to it. Any other features? I don't need or want them.

Re:Why I succombed to using these things...

[DrSkwid]

take a look at http://www.rangboom.com/

Rangboom is a free service for securely sharing or accessing your files over the Internet.

It uses 9p

and appears as a shared drive in Windows

Re:Why I succombed to using these things...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Geez. Are you one of the people that actually uses Plan 9!?

Re:Why I succombed to using these things...

[DrSkwid]

Congratulations, you found Glenda

Argh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a desktop environment or, at the very least, an application suite. Not an operating system. Until some website is handling process and memory management, it's no OS.

But I guess "Online Desktop Environment" doesn't quite sound as cool does it?

Re:Argh.

[ettlz]

Aye. Ye cannae do interrupt handling with AJAX.

Re:Argh.

[FrankNputer]

Actually, it's a floor wax and a dessert topping!

Why?

[strags]

I can see one reason for a Web OS, and that's that it makes it easy to access your desktop from anywhere. However, from a technological point of view, the web browser has to be pretty much the worst choice of interface - the only compelling reason for using it is that it's ubiquitous.

Browsers were never meant to do this sort of thing - AJAX is a hack that's hard to get working 100% reliably across all browsers at the best of times - just look at the hoops one has to jump through to get the back-button working properly, not to mention handling the differences between Firefox and IE. Why on earth would you want to base an entire desktop on such a shaky foundation?

(Bearing in mind that 74% of all statistics are made up on the spot...) I suspect that 99% of internet users access the internet from the same machine (or at most 2 machines) 99% of the time. The cost in increased bandwidth, sluggish response, lack of high-bandwidth media support seems to me a heavy price to pay for portability. Even if we do decide that it's worthwhile, there are technologically better ways to do it.

Re:Why?

[MoogMan]

A "WebOS" is really just an expensive implementation of a Thin client.

This is a joke, right?

[rudy_wayne]

How is this an operating system?

I guess "WebOS" sounds a lot sexier than "crappy useless Flash programs that just barely work".

Re:This is a joke, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Microsoft got away with calling Windows 3.x an OS.... so you never no.

Re:This is a joke, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this an operating system?

My thoughts exactly. And I'm sick and tired of hearing about "GoogleOS". The company has publicly stated that they're NOT interested in making an OS - so for fucks sake get over it. I like using the search engine as much as the nexts guy but I wish Slashdot would just get over it's obsessive compulsive disorder regarding Google and not act as the company's own personal PR department. For those of us that just want to search; it's damn near thorment to constantly be bombarded with these company obsessed articles. The occasional article is okay IMO but these days not a single day goes by without Google hype on the front page.

Please folks, cut us some slack and find more interesting things to submit.

Re:This is a joke, right?

[rs79]

"I guess "WebOS" sounds a lot sexier than "crappy useless Flash programs that just barely work"."

What he said. It's nice to see people working in this area and I can see they've put some thought into it.

But the first two I tried didn't work at all and the third was mildly interesting.

I think they've all missed the boat (or maybe I have) though in that moving your desktop out there to the net is not I think what's going to happen. Rather than use some server out there I think your desktop will be the server.

Re:This is a joke, right?

[NotFamousYet]

Again, like "Web 2.0", this is just a term coined by bloggers to hype a new kind of feature.

For most people, an OS is nothing more than a collection of software which comes with a computer. So a WebOS is basically the equivalent of these apps, but online.

A better fitting name would probably be Online Desktop, but since those failed in the previous bubble (desktop.com anyone?), I doubt people will be calling them that :)

Re:This is a joke, right?

[e.colli]

They are missing the point, another windowing system is useless, but file sharing and placeless files has some uses. If we don't talk about hardware interfacing, the OS give to the average user just file storage, networking. A large number of people spend 100% of they computer time on email and browser, if they have an connected hardware and a browser they will don't want to know if there are an OS inside the computer. Thus, in this sense I think Google already have an 'GoogleOS' with email and an "office suite" which dismisses the need of file storaging and some office apps.

Re:This is a joke, right?

[shish]

How is this an operating system?

Ummm, did you not read the summary?

Note: for the purposes of this article, "WebOS" is defined as "a set of applications running in a web browser that together mimic, replace or largely supplement a desktop OS environment."

WebOS

[DA-MAN]

Sounds like the spanish word for testicles...

Re:WebOS

[Joebert]

You're thinking of "huevos", which is actually translated to "eggs".
"Testículos" is testicles.

So, "Don't put all your WebOS in one basket" would have worked better.

Re:WebOS

[Andyman1134]

"huevos" does literally mean "eggs" but in slang it is the testicles.

Re:WebOS

[moco]

It is the same as "balls". It can be used as slang for testicles. In spanish you can use huevos (eggs), pelotas (balls), tanates (???), gumaros (???) and, my guess is, many more words to refer to the testicles. Any other spanish speaking slashdotters care to complete this list?

Re:WebOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Cojones

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE and Gnome are never referred to as operating systems; neither should this stuff. It's really just a large web application; nothing more nothing less.

Isn't this a step backwards?

[cunamara]

Back in the day, one of the arguments for the "personal computer revolution" was to free computer users from central control. The idea was for the user to own their own basically self-sufficient computer, rather than sharing that stuff. But as time has gone on the the Internet has become ubiquitous, computer users are voluntarily being re-centralized with things like GMail, IMAP, web-based applications, etc. Are we voluntarily surrendering the freedom of personal computer ownership?

Re:Isn't this a step backwards?

[x2A]

No, we are exercising that freedom by running different things in different ways to best suit our needs.

Re:Isn't this a step backwards?

[moco]

Centralized, distributed and personal computing each have their own advantages and disadvantages. The advances in technology make either of them "cheaper" at times and the market adjusts.

Umm... promising?

[Klaidas]

I just don't understand how this is promising. To use the OS, you must already have an OS. You can't install it yourself either... And you also need a browser to access it. How is this an OPERATING SYSTEM at all?

Re:Umm... promising?

[adolfojp]

I am sorry, but these are not operating systems. These are nothing more than pretty user interfaces running on top of a web browser that is running on top of an operating system. The use of operating system in this context is a retarded misnomer and we should stop doing it.

Re:Umm... promising?

[Orange Crush]

How is this an OPERATING SYSTEM at all?

It isn't of course, I'd call it a Web Desktop Environment but that's wordier. There's also some wiggle room when deciding where an OS ends and "Applications" begin. KDE, Gnome, Explorer, etc. are technically applications, but I'd still consider them parts of the OS. Konquerer/Nautilus are a little tougher to draw the line at whereas OpenOffice/KOffice are pretty definately applications in their own right.

Re:Umm... promising?

[Kjella]

Well, because Windows and OS X users rarely if ever have needed to separate between the OS and Desktop Environment, if they at all understand what Windows is then it's as an operating system. So when you make an online desktop environment, you call it WebOS people actually think right even though it's technically wrong. It's the same way people think a 10/100 Mbit Ethernet connection would be "broadband", when it's technically not. But in their minds they get the right idea of "fast internet". Still, if I wanted anything like a WebOS, I'd much rather have a remote login to a real desktop.

Definition

[matt me]

Surely we now have a Turing machine equivalent for webOS.

A sufficiently advanced webOS is able to run itself.

Re:Definition

[Poltras]

Thus, by definition, all WebOS implementing a way to browse a page are able to run themselves. I don't see it mind blogging, since the machine (browser) needed to interpret the language (HTML) is the same (client browser...) and as such is as powerful.

Re:Definition

[TheGavster]

I dunno, how many of these "WebOSs" have Flash support? These aren't exactly web pages, or even flashy Javascript.

Better name

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a better name for these things, as many others have pointed out they are *not* operating systems by any stretch of the imagination. How about "Web Desktop"?

intriguing

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for these importants facts you jave emaled

Is this *news* or..

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, this so called news ain't nothing more than Blogger's own (weak) attempt to sell his relatively new blog and get some readers.

New Term: WebDesktop

[Anonymous Coward]

A WebOS would boot, have its own file system, etc... These all depend on the host OS/browser.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[jlarocco]

I don't even know where to start.

First off, these aren't "operating systems." An operating system is the system of software that interacts with the hardware of the computer and provides an interface for regular application software to use and share that hardware. Most operating systems do quite bit more than that, but at it's heart, that's what an OS is for. These "Web operating systems" don't do anything like that, by any stretch of the imagination. At best these would some kind of user interface.

Second of all, they're SLOW. Way to go, guys, your "WebOS" makes my 2+ Ghz Athlon 64 and gig of memory run like a slow 386.

If that's not bad enough, there's really no use for these things. At best they're remote desktop for people who are too stupid to setup a regular remote login or VPN. I mean, shit, I can tunnel X over ssh and log in to one of my home machines from work, and get full access to a regular X session and all of Linux. It's not as fast as being logged in locally, but it's still much faster than these "Web OSes"

And finally, it's an abomination of the underlying technology. Somebody really needs to have a little talk with these people about using the right tool for the job. This isn't even like using a hammer to pound in a screw, it's more like using a jack hammer to to fix a watch.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"At best they're remote desktop for people who are too stupid to setup a regular remote login or VPN"
They need to stop giving IQ tests and just ask if you can setup a remote login. That way we can find all the stupid people.

Most people, even smart people, don't know what a remote login or VPN even is. So a webOS provides a friendly familiar version of what they are used to.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[jlarocco]

Most people, even smart people, don't know what a remote login or VPN even is. So a webOS provides a friendly familiar version of what they are used to.

Ignorance is no excuse to use such a bastardization. If a person badly enough needs to login or otherwise access a machine remotely, they should setup some kind of regular remote access or VPN. If they're not technically adept enough, they can have somebody else set it up for them. Creating a very poor psuedo-remote access system built over HTTP with HTML isn't the solution.

No offense to the developers, it's decent for what it is. I just think they're solving a problem that doesn't exist, with technology that isn't up to the challenge, and then giving it a name that doesn't make any sense.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, these aren't "operating systems." An operating system is the system of software that interacts with the hardware of the computer and provides an interface for regular application software to use and share that hardware.

To the credit of slashdot, I had to scroll most of the way down the page before someone waved their amazing knowledge around to impress us all. We know what an operating system is. And no, we don't really care that you know. Neither do they. Get used to it. Oh yeah, a hacker broke into my cable modem last night.

It's been said here before.

[jeffbopp]

SSH to a remote emacs blows all of these out of the water. All of these AJAX/flash os's are pushing a bad idea too far.

Re:It's been said here before.

[WilliamSChips]

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that nobody wants to run emacs. Emacs reversed is scamE. Do you want to run a scam(E) on your computer? I DIDN'T THINK SO!

What about...

[jounihat]

...my personal favourite: Windows RG?! You know, familiar user experience has always been a key element to success.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice one, I like it.

It doesn't have all the features yet, but it crashes less than my Windows.

This mimics an OS?

[martinkb]

Note: for the purposes of this article, "WebOS" is defined as "a set of applications running in a web browser that together mimic, replace or largely supplement a desktop OS environment."

I don't think so... Where is memory management, where is the hardware interaction code, etc. A large part of a desktop OS is the libraries and hardware management code that no user ever hears of.

That said, all these are is stupid Flash or AJAX implementations that hardly work.

WebOS are cool

[slashthedot]

They do everything a desktop can do but they they do it in a browser, do it slower and hog a lot more resources. Wow, how innovative!

O-D-E

[lamona]

Online Desktop Environment = ODE. Surely someone can make marketing hay with THAT one.

What's are Weboses?

[ScrewMaster]

Are they some kind of expensive Internet speaker system?

"engineering to bridge"

[borgalicious]

I used to think that X11 was a heavyweight way of moving screen data. Then I saw AJAX. On the other hand, why shouldn't we have what Scotty and Geordie have?

BS

[slashthedot]

The term "Browser System" or BS suits them better, I'd say.

Re:But . . but . . .

[JamesTRexx]

LinuxBIOS of course! http://linuxbios.org/index.php/Main_Page

Wonderful

[LordLucless]

Because writing an "OS" in a language designed for document markup is such a great idea.

Completely pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

These "web OSes" remind me of the "Fisher Price My First OSes" I used to write to amuse myself when I was eight years old. They have no practical purpose. The platform has changed, but these "Look ma, I wrote an OS!" projects are still just a bunch of unknowledgable programmers masturbating.

Re:Uh...

[dickens]

I think they really meant "supplant" rather than "supplement", for one thing.

Flash? Forget it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry - but I don't have Flash infesting my machine, nor will I ever. So note to future companies out there: If you use Flash, I won't be your customer.

Nor will any of my clients, friends, family, co-workers, or subordinates. None of us use Flash.

Too many ads, bouncy games, and other useless crap rely on Flash that we're not interested in and don't want to waste our time with.

Re:Flash? Forget it...

[zero_offset]

A ten-pack of gold stars has been mailed to you.

GoogleOS already "out" under this def'n

[yosofun]

Since you already have access to common (windows) desktop app's such as spreadsheets, word doc's, and even low-time-budget games on Google Personalized Homepage, it appears GoogleOS has already been released. Though its interface is minimal, it's clean and straight-forward... without the hassle of cutesy icons that make you do what you don't want to do.

imho, whoever wrote the blog doesn't know what a real O/S looks like... that, it's not the pretty icons and "windows-gui-like" interface that makes something an o/s, but rather the function.

Re:GoogleOS already "out" under this def'n

[Nappa48]

I have to agree with you here
GoogleOS is already here in functionality, just not officially.
With Personalised Homepage, i have pretty much every Google service i use linked on it.
We have Docs & Spreadsheets, calenders, e-mail, chat, maps, image manipulation (to an extent).
And this is only the beginning (and this is not my words either, Google Blogs words, the official one)

The next year for Google will be getting more stuff out of beta (gmail for sure) and start to unify more of the interfaces.

Some people seem against "WebOSes", i don't think they are that bad.
Also, what if you are on a computer that doesn't have all these networking tools you need, pretty much every single OS from the past 5-10 years has a web browser.
And say you didn't have permissions to tweak networking settings either, another good reason.

I'll only say this:

[dannycim]

The day they take linux/X/fvwm/gnu away from me, they'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.

Sure, having your desktop run remotely from a web serve means your desktop follows you everywhere you go, but that also means you have to trust another party with your data.

And that ain't happening, not with me.

Re:I'll only say this:

[dbIII]

Sure, having your desktop run remotely from a web serve means your desktop follows you everywhere you go

Most people here probably already know this - but you can do that far better with X and ssh - even vnc is a half decent compromise and can work in a web browser (eg. the nice variant x11vnc).

Min system requirements

[AlHunt]

For SSOE 1.0a, from TFA:
--------
SSOE might not be the biggest OS, but it eats CPU like nothing else around.
For the best experience, ensure your computer meets the following basic requirements:
# RAM: 256MB or Greater
# Hard Disk: Unimportant. Have 4KB free for all it matters.
# CPU: 2.6 GHZ absolute minimum. The faster, the better. Dual core if possible.
# Graphics Card: Have at least 64MB VRAM. Hardware T&L preferred.
----------

Good grief. Blows Vista away.
I'll stick with some flavor of Linux and be able to use my PC when I'm *not* online, too.

Beach head for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux desktop is dead. That should be pretty clear by now.

Forget about whether WebOS is a technically correct definition. From the user perspective an OS is the stuff she interacts with, all the icons and menus that she uses to manipulate her information. A WebOS then is something that allows users to interact with a Web application in the same manner they do with a desktop app but without all the updating and installation chores that most users dread and with the ability to access their data even after having lost their laptops. That's a lot more valuable than an alternative OS which gives them the same problems as the "main" OS out there.

Imagine that you can put all those Gnome and KDE apps on a Windows desktop with all the GUI functionality that users expect but without having to run those apps on Windows. Remember how MSFT used to say that their OS was their toll bridge to the user? Well, capture that bridge, get Linux apps to the user on the Windows browser they know and love and with the same usability and features that users want and you've won a beach head. Once all apps are online and delivered to the user with GUIs the local OS becomes irrelevant. By then even Knoppix may one day become the desktop OS of the future.

Some of these 'WebOSes' are Linux-based and XML-driven. By using Flash they're just getting to the user in a familiar form. But in the future an SVG-based player that uses ECMAScript 4th edition as interface programming language with all apps programmed in PHP and running from Linux servers could become the "user OS". And that's how you get end users to use Linux.

But that's never going to happen if you keep asking the user to ditch Windows and adopt a Gnome or KDE interface that will ultimately give them the same headaches as their current OS.

MOD UP Insightful

[schweinhund]

Good point. With the new Opera for Wii this would make some interesting competition for Xbox Live and PS3 Linux.

eyeos.. caught my eye

[Anonymous Coward]

what bothers me about other is that tehy are hosted on a webserver which can go down, and has privacy issue.. which makes most of them next to useless.. the thing i like about eyeos is that you can put the files on your own server which is ingenious, and it opensource.. i have a real ass of a time registering whcih is like dumb anyways.

Missing the Mark?

[ryoukosan]

I've seen several posts which come close to explaining the WebOS, but think of this: Imagine having devices (TV/PDA/Cellphone/future PADD ala Star Trek) which can connect to a network (LAN/WAN/WiFi/etc). These smart devices won't need to have a full OS installed in order to function. All you need is network access. You could then have full access to your desktop 24/7 no matter where you are. In the home, you will be able to work in any room without the need of owning several computers. I realize that many of us here already have similar setups using multiple computers (I myself have at least one in every room with the exception of the bath and utility rooms). The future "non-techie" users could have a fully integrated smart home with only a couple of computers and the network running everything. Right now, there may be no need for WebOS, but this is just the beginning. Only with time will we be able to see if this will be a viable solution to questions that haven't even been asked yet.

Re:Missing the Mark?

[ursuspacificus]

OMFLOG!!!

Dude!

1) Pandering to "non-techies" is a bad idea. There should be a barrier to entry... the whole Ian Malcom, standing on the shoulders of giants thing... People should be required to earn a little knowledge for themselves before they get to use a computer... or a gun, or a car

2) In a perfect StarTrek world, where everyone is trustworthy, I suppose being able to just call up your Desktop on a PADD is fine... It's bad enough the NSA can sniff my Internet connection... with a "WebOS" they can sniff your whole desktop session. No thanks. And before you prattle on about encryption, remember, the Enigma Machine was an unbreakable code, until is was broken.

3) What you're talking about is a "Thin Client". Rather than using some crappy hack-upon-a-hack-upon-a-hack, why not use something optimized for running a desktop across a slow network, like, oh, tightVNC. Start a vncserver session on one of your machines at home, then connect from any and all other machines everywhere in the world.

4) Oh, and "fully integrated smart home"? BestBuy's got 'em for $15K. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/25/182820 0&from=rss

linux blows

[Anonymous Coward]

whats with the negative comments about the webos.. i think they're cool, and yeah the title is false.

It is deadly serious

[dbIII]

It is not a joke. Drug abuse does horrible things. Say no to letting tech journos write when they are on drugs.

Business model?

[SanityInAnarchy]

I don't get it. They're basically offering huge steaming gobs of bandwidth so that lazy people don't have to deal with routing and VPN issues. What's the catch?

Re:Business model?

[DrSkwid]

The Peer 2 Peer part is on the ToDo list :)

Don't call it "Web OS", then.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Google Spreadsheets is just a spreadsheet. Gmail is just email. Do one job and do it well.

Last time I looked at a "WebOS", I saw something horrible. Someone was collecting a bunch of worthless AJAX apps and wrapping them in an AJAX windowing system.

You know what? If I want to use Google Maps and Yahoo Mail, that's my choice. No way I'm getting all of my apps from one place, just so someone can implement a windowing system in the browser (which sucks donkey balls), instead of using the existing windowing system provided by my real OS! If I want to look at gmail and spreadsheets side-by-side, I'll open two browser windows!

BOOT from...WAN?

[msimm]

I'm sure the current crop of WebOS solutions are silly or novel (or both). But I do see potential for things to move in this direction. Assuming hardware can be considered essentially an appliance (you don't seriously think custom, clunky, incompatible rigs are going to be gold standard forever?) whats really important? Your environment, your applications and your data.

But aside from laptops (which you have to lug around, break, etc) as far as the average person is concerned their data is tied to their hardware.

Now periodically I see the whole thin-client argument revisited and maybe that is how it will be played, but at the very least I see a possible market for true network-based OS's that will allow you to access your *real* systems from just about any piece of hardware you have access to. Airplanes, pay phones, hotels, friends houses, etc.

I mean bandwidth aside, is there really any reason I can't have my systems run across a multitude of hardware and provide me with *my* working environment?

Does JS/UIX count?

[the_humeister]

I'm rather impressed with this

marketdroids on the lose

[d_strand]

"WebOS" is defined as "a set of applications running in a web browser that together mimic, replace or largely supplement a desktop OS environment."

So in other words the definition can also be "not an OS at all"? I guess "WebDeskTop" is not as catchy...

Multitasking

[jibjibjib]

The current state of Javascript and Web browser technology makes it impossible to efficiently implement memory protection and/or preemptive multitasking between multiple "processes" running in a web based OS. I have tried myself to get around this problem by implementing a virtual machine in Javascript and running the processes on the virtual machine, but this is slow and messy. Until we have web browsers which are actually designed to run this sort of stuff, a web based OS will never really be able to approach a traditional OS in functionality for anything but the most trivial applications.

common software?

[tombabu]

The whole point of this is to be able to work anywhere. Most computers have all the software anyone will ever need installed on them. The challenge of being able to work on large documents at different locations is virtually nonexistent with usb drives and even free online storage solutions. Why would I work on a spreadsheet program within a browser if the Excel icon is behind it?