Slashdot Mirror
Rethinking the Linux Distribution?
eldavojohn writes "ONLamp.com is running an interesting article about rethinking how the community distributes Linux and the open source applications that often come with Linux. The author isn't arguing that Linux needs to become a full blown web OS over night but instead, asking if the community should be considering 'Software as a Service' and what he means by that is perhaps many of the open source applications that run on Linux should be available through a browser. The reasons for this are obvious, the code is open so anyone could host it, it would be platform independent so anyone could use it and it might attract more users to the Linux environment. The obvious note here is that many of the enterprise software makers are switching to Software as a Service, shouldn't the open source community investigate the possibility of a Web OS?"
WebOS: Another blathering buzzword for industry gurus in the 2000s. Thank f***ing you, Google.
Isn't that just moving the application from one linux box(the client) to another(the server)? I mean, no sane person would use Windows to host something like that.... But on a more serious note, a lot of OSS developers don't have the money to smack down on bandwidth and machines just to host their projects - where as Google and Microsoft can afford it.
www.isoHunt.com
i really would not like to see this. there have been some attempts at making a desktop run as a service, but in all it's not very fast. the only benefit is that the heavy work, like loading of a office suite can be done in someone else's backyard. don't you just hate it when your network goes down?
Why UNIX?
Is that a good selling point, from the perspective of a potential client? Browser-based applications always bring doubts about security with them, and a lot of people would be reassured in using servers owned by well-known companies, but I'm not sure how many would be enthusiastic about connecting to "anyone"'s server.
I still work offline often at school. I also don't like the idea of my applications suddenly not working because of a browser update, nor do I like the idea of application developers having to work around browser incompatibilities. I've also never seen an in-browser MSWord like application that could do everything I needed it to. Some come close but google docs comes up short, as does every other one I've tried.
Software as a service is irrelevant to the distribution of Linux. If you're running apps over the Internet, you're not distributing them. It's just another Application Service Provider who btw, mostly use Linux anyway.
Deleted
No. Next question.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Yes, that is because Microsoft has a MONOPOLY on the desktop.
So don't use Microsoft's desktop monopoly as justification for changing the current approach. Linux has been gaining marketshare. There is nothing indicating that this will change.
Yes, it MAY. But it also has it's own, unique, issues. Such as having to rely upon:
#1. Your machine.
#2. Your network.
#3. Your ISP connection.
#4. The ISP connection of the service provider.
#5. The service providers hardware.
When running the same app locally means you have to rely upon:
#1. Your machine.
Yep, he's citing "Web 2.0". Usually, when someone cites "Web 2.0" it means that they're pushing more fantasy than Reality. And that holds true in this instance as well.
Why trade the reliability of apps installed on your local machine for the complexity of apps hosted somewhere else? Because it's Web 2.0 and it's cool!
Why do these "online apps" always have to be delivered "through a browser"? Why not have it delivered "through a network transparent windowing system optimized for internet connections", like say FreeNX? If, for some reason, that's a problem, why not fix the problem at the windowing level rather than keep trying to build everyting into an application that started life as a document viewer. Surely "inside the browser" is the wrong leve of abstractio here?
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Linux would be better off reducing the number of distros than working on some hare-brained 'over-the-web' scheme that couldn't possibly work.
I'd rather see an official GNOME distro, an official KDE distro, and a 'server' distro that people can install their own stuff on. After-all, Fedora running GNOME is more similar to Ubuntu running GNOME than Fedora running KDE, as far as users are concerned. It's ridiculous to have dozens of distros, almost all of which use one of two (or both!) windowing systems.
Comment of the year
You can try one of those WebOS already. EyeOS is one of them ...the thing is that OSS community should start working on this kind of software soon. Fear goes away if we can download and change code for this kind of software. It's not about large companies having more bandwidth. It's about this simple question.. Can we install this software ( OSS ) on our own servers on our local network and then use low power terminals for word processing etc from there?
How is this a good idea? I could totally understand this if server hardware were lightyears ahead of desktop hardware. But, guess what, it's not. Should I really be running my word processor on a machine that is hosting tens of thousands of other users at the same time? Add in network latency and guess what, you've got a useless application that no one will enjoy using. I think the only reason Google has had a little success in this market is novelty topped with a little ease of document sharing. C'mon, make webservers be very, very good at sharing documents/files/whatever then you've got a good platform. Leave the user facing applications on the desktop where they belong.
With Linux, the client and server could be the same box. You could choose whether to install services or whether to use someone else's server.
Find free books.
Yes, it's an inflammatory subject, but it's exactly what needs to happen. "Software as a service" is the wet dream of many corporations right now, because it offers a per use pricing model and offloads an enormous amount of control to the vendor. When their machines run everything, it's DRM heaven.
Certain software works well as a service. Anything that is inherently multi-user, such as social chat, collaboration, bulletin boards (including the so-called Web 2.0, which is really not much more innovative than the dial-up bulletin boards of the '80s) - all those things work well as a network service. The querying of large databases can work well too, depending on what the data is. Google, encyclopedias, etc. Certain software doesn't. OpenOffice will always work best on the desktop.
"Software as a service" is a catch phrase the editors here seem to like to push in articles as it riles up those of us who know better and attracts comments. Comments attract more comments, and this pumps up Slashdot. The thing is, this type of behaviour is self-defeating, as while it does churn the butter, but some spills out. Every time you poke a stick into a hornets nest, sure, the hive will get all riled, but some will just get fed up fly somewhere else, and it does nothing to attract new blood.
So, for everyone's sake, please stop posting crap like this.
As far as I can tell the perceived benefit of software as service (or 'web os' as some people cal it) is that it will
cost less. Well how can you cost less than a distribution like Debian or Ubuntu? Granted another benefit is that
you can run software as service on less expensive hardware, but come on, are you trying to tell me that a $250
desktop is too expensive?
News Fash: Hardware is cheap.
It's the software that's the expensive part of business. I don't think FOSS should volunteer bandwidth and server
time like that. Doesn't FOSS already give enough, hosting free software in repositories making it that much more
convenient to use the software you want at any time?
Money is the root of all evil?