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?"

Comments

Irrelevant

[Colin Smith]

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.

Why "Through a Browser"

[Coryoth]

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?

Re:Anyone?

[kebes]

Indeed. And there are more than just security concerns from the point of view of the user. I can't help but think that the people who are really pushing for "software as a service" are people like Microsoft, who have a vested interest in keeping control of the application, only letting the user see the GUI. The reasons are obvious: with software as a service, you have automatic customer lock-in, you can charge on a per-use basis if you want, and you don't have to worry about your end users giving copies of the software to friends. In short, it actually achieves for software what DRM and copy-protection cannot: the company has complete control over the software. So, for instance, they can radically change the user interface, or drop support for a file format, and the users can't do anything about it. They don't even have the option of staying with an "old version" since the versions change without your permission. (Google documents currently allow import/export from standards-compliant formats, but really what guarantees do we have for that going into the future.)

My point here is that big software companies find software-as-a-service attractive, and the only thing standing in their way is bandwidth. On the other hand, open-source software doesn't care about those concerns (lock-in, etc.) so what's the point in hosting it on a server? Why not just have it on my actual computer, thereby giving me full control, and a more responsive application. In a certain sense, open-source should be advertising this as an advantage.

And I certainly understand that open-source apps have the unique advantage that you can access them *both* on your local machine and (in principle) over the network. This is indeed a selling point. What I'm trying to get at is that open-source should be reminding people of the advantages of actually having local copies of software (source and binary!), and using this as a selling point.

"the code is open so anyone could host it"

That's right, since it's open-source, it can be hosted anywhere... including on my own computer.

Geez...

[alyawn]

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.