Slashdot Mirror
A Free XML-Based Operating System
Dotnaught writes "For the past five years, Xcerion has been working on an XML-based Internet operating system (XIOS) that runs inside a Web browser and promises radically reduced development time. To provide developers with an incentive to write for the platform, Xcerion's back-end system is designed to route revenue, either from subscription fees or from ads served to users of free programs, to application authors. Think of it as Google AdSense, except for programmers rather than publishers. Is it absurd to think this poses a threat to Google and Microsoft?"
"Is it absurd to think this poses a threat to Google and Microsoft?"
Yes.
The command line is very friendly:
a rg>stuff</arg><arg>*</arg></args></command>
<command><command-name>grep</command-name><args><
If XML doesn't solve the problem, use more XML.
Considering they use javascript for the basic hyperlinks on their website, it seems they lack technical knowledge. That doesn't bode well for a company doing a web OS and if they're doing it using XML why does the W3C validator throw 103 errors on their (non-XML) home page?
Personally, I don't see these guys as a threat to anyone except themselves and their investors.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .xcerion.com%2F
Those guys can't even put down proper HTML, I'm not sure i'd trust them to write a whole web-based "OS" in XML
As subject. How is this meant to change the world or "threaten" Google or Microsoft when you need an OS (probably from Microsoft) and a browser (probably with Google as the homepage, both if we take the most popular)?
Once you wanna do something in this "internet OS" you'll fullscreen your $179 copy of Internet Explorer on Windows Vista, and fire up an app which probably uses some Google API internally. World changing? Or just another layer between you and them that serves yet more adverts?
Back in the late 80's when I got on the net we all had a pretty good idea what "the internet" was. Now, 20 years later, the internet is almost synonymous with WWW. I'd like to see good solutions taking advantage of the internet, but why does it always have to require a web browser?
Repeat after me "this is not stuff that matters, this is not news for nerds". I honestly can't decide between tagging it 'slashvertisment', 'vaporware' or plain simply 'bullshit'.
Just stop posting stories like this damnit, I'm looking at you Zonk!
Perfect is the enemy of done.
No, it's an OS on top of an OS (your webbrowser) on top of an OS (your uhm OS).
Claiming to be pedantic on Slashdot is asking for trouble
I like their front page message: Software should be free(TM)
Wow, it's like they snuck into Slashdot's secret headquarters and stole the root password... to our hearts!
But then, it's not that long ago that Google was just two guys doodling on scrap paper.
A few problems have to be overcome including internet latency and the tendancy of everyone to cache stuff they should not be putting in caches (If your PC's memory cache worked like Internet caches do, you'd be lucky to get a Solitaire hand dealt before the PC crashed.)
And I doubt this is a threat to Google because they will do the same thing it if it works out.
My impression is that what's good about this specific scheme is that only data is sent over the network, so the annoying latency issues many of us have with Google spreadsheets and Writely should be less of a problem.
What's bad is that the data is stored on someone's servers. Security will be an issue. So will availability. And loss of data. And ...
Another problem is that networked "OS"es may not be acceptable for a lot of users because they are just plain too damn slow. A few years ago I slapped together a networked application running on a server here at home for keeping notes together. Worked, sorta. But even though I owned the network and the application was built into server code, not run via CGI, it was too slow to be usable. The problem looked to be latency, not slow processing.
The few serious attempts I've seen at using HTTP/browsers to do real jobs varied from awful to marginal. IMHO even things like SAIL suck. I'd rather update the /etc files directly. Hell, even ed/EDLINE would be faster and more satisfactory.
Maybe the problems can be overcome with brains, technology, and money. Maybe they can't.
Back on topic. Is this stuff a threat to Microsoft? You just bet it is. MS makes most of its money off OK, but overpriced, products that do way more than most customers need (Exception--Xbox which may eventually be a real, money making operation with a bright future). Furthermore, adding more features and charging more for new versions of Windows/Office is probably an unsustainable strategy. We're already seeing geeks and a few organizations walking away from Microsoft. I think that is only going to become more common and some of them may well go to schemes like this.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
It also shows very poor use of XML, sadly. For instance, wouldn't it make more sense to have stuff*< /filespec></cmd>? It's not only shorter, but more future-proof, and more clear.
Still not short enough for me though. XML is OK for interchange, but it sucks as a human-readable markup language, even when used with forethought.
Furthermore, I'm not sure it makes ANY sense to have commands in XML. That's what programming languages are for -- it's the one thing they excel at. What's wrong with cmd(argname="val") or cmd(arg1, { a, b, c="10" })? It's complex to parse, sure, but that's why you make a parser once -- the point is, it IS parseable, without a human correcting the syntax before the computer can understand it.
This is supposed to be the site where we laugh smugly at people who use the word "internets" or who call an application in user space an operating system. What happened?