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
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 think it would stupid for the AbiWord or OpenOffice teams to down tools and start working on a web-based version of the software. At the minute, a lot of productivity is wasted on browser incompatibilities and AJAX is still rather clumsy in comparison to what it could be. To get even the fairly basic functionality of AbiWord in to a web-app would take far longer to develop than it would for an equivalent desktop application.
I think the free software movement is doing very well. It's getting somewhere. I've used Windows on every PC I've owned since the Windows 3.11 days. In January I made the switch to Ubuntu on a new PC that I recently purchased. I decided to ditch Windows because I thought that Vista was a downgrade to Windows XP.
I was frankly amazed at just how good GNU/Linux really is. It isn't just tolerable, it's out and out better than Windows XP. After installation, the machine is usable in that it has all the software I need to actually start using the computer. Windows by comparison has a basic 'toolset' (if you can even call it that). The file system layout is far more intuitive than the baroque drive lettering system. The firewall is simple, powerful and non-intrusive - compare that to Windows based firewalls. Windows Update only supports Microsoft products. Ubuntu provides updates for all software packages it distributes. In short, it feels better engineered, more robust, consumer centric and easier to use.
Why should the free software movement rethink its strategy when it's just starting to gain traction in a big way? I say keep up the good work! It is no accident that Dell have decided to sell Ubuntu on their machines. This is no longer a hobbyists OS but a baby gorilla eating its way through plenty of fruit and gaining in size all the time. Watch out Microsoft!
Simon.
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.
So basically you want to run the apps on the remote machine and just use the local machine for display and storage. Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. Sounds like X11 or Remote Desktop doesn't it?
The only reason for the 'do it in the browser' meme seems to be set up for web this and web that and aren't set up for giving you Windows TS or Unix Shell accounts....
Oh, and X11 isn't that efficient over a network of course!
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
Why would we ever want to run our word processor in a web browser?
Certain applications make sense on the web. Web search engines, for instance. Even maps, and seeking directions from place to place. Basically, anything that takes large amounts of information and makes it readily accessible. I can understand those being on the web.
But... word processing? Image manipulation? *Why* would I want to do that? What does it gain me?
Nothing.
What do I lose?
Control. If I choose to change applications, or try a new application, I am at the mercy of the host. If the host decides to upgrade, and I hate the new version, I am at the mercy of the host.
The whole idea smacks of, "Let's do it, because we can!"
Corporations like Microsoft and Google want us to go that route, because then *they* get to control even more of our lives. But why would *we* want that?
Collaboration can happen without application hosting. It'd be better if we focussed instead on creating a great P2P collaboration framework, and build that into many applications, such as OOo, or the Gimp, or any other system you might want to use for multi-authored documents.
But the web?
Seriously.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"Software as a Service" is 100% a marketing term. Trust me, Mr. Newbie Author, the open source community has been thinking of avoiding desktop deployment for a long, long time - just ask the Apache team or anyone who's ever written a web app.
"Linux as a Web OS"? I'm not sure you know what Linux is if that's the best thing that came out of your head the last time you toked up.
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.
After-all, Fedora running GNOME is more similar to Ubuntu running GNOME than Fedora running KDE, as far as users are concerned.
But not as far as people who actually care are concerned. Why should Linux pander to the lowest common denominator?
It's ridiculous to have dozens of distros, almost all of which use one of two (or both!) windowing systems.
No, it is not. Many have gigantic differences if you know more about the OS than the windowing system you are using. Try a few flavors without X even installed, and tell me they are the same.
Right now you can run some P2P app on your computer, listen to music and balance your checkbook in between check for new stories on /.
That's because your computer has a LOT more internal bandwidth than external.
Now imagine that you're trying all of that online. All of a sudden your multi-tasking box becomes a single-task box as each of those apps tries to share your limited bandwidth. For most of us, it's easier to buy a faster CPU or hard drive than it is to get a faster Internet connection.
And that's just ONE computer with its own Internet connection. It only gets worse when you start adding more people to your connection.
And the goal is to do what? Get more people to use Free software?
The reason more people don't use Free software is that their workstation already has similar apps installed. Why download AbiWord when 90% of the workstations out there already have Notepad and Wordpad installed?
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.
Please check your fanboyism at the door
Please take your own advice...
multimedia
Actually, Linux can play all media formats, and convert between them easily. All media players support all formats in Linux. Compare this to Windows, where certain players will only play certain formats, and every player wants you to convert music into their format, and some even require you to pay for the conversion and burning features.
and games spring to mind
On Windows I can't play games from a few years ago, let alone the classic PC games I have. On Linux, I can still play all the old games, and OSS emulators provide methods to play old games from other systems (dosbox, scummvm, agi, qemu). Games that require 3D acceleration just work, and don't require fiddling around and tons of patches. Linux may not have all games running native, but it's clear that when a game is made for Linux, it works superior compared to when a game is made for any other OS.
not to mention a decent-looking UI
Well, obviously that's subjective. But then again, you can customize it to your heart's content on Linux. Not only that but you can choose between different major UIs that are each well supported and tailored to different users. And yes, you can tweak it to look/act just like Windows.
and great desktop performance
I don't recall having to reinstall Linux every 6 months to get rid of system cruft, or having to restart to get rid of dead applications or memory leaks. I've never had to shut down because an application stopped responding. When I uninstall applications, they remove cleanly and completely.
Applications don't try to steal priority over other applications, and don't try to take over each other (i.e., some toolbars that come with applications, applications stealing each others' file associations, applications trying to launch themselves on startup and won't let you turn them off). Applications don't expire without warning and force you to download a new version that may or may not even support your version of operating system. Not to mention that I can even run Linux on older computers that currently supported Windows versions choke on. I can save my home folder to easily back up all my settings and personally installed programs, they're not scattered all over the filesystem. Other users can't mess up my files by default, but I can easily give them permissions to look at, edit select files, or share their own files with me.
I can copy my hard disk install and move it to another computer and it will work fine, and if I upgrade I don't have to reinstall my operating system (the other day I moved one system from an Athlon 64 to an Athlon 64 X2, totally different motherboard, video card, expansion cards, hard drive, audio, etc. I copied the Linux installation over onto the new one and when I started it up, you wouldn't even know anything had changed. Not a single dialog box nagging me that this and that was found, and this is changed, where is that driver, etc). All the required drivers come with my system and I don't need to install every hardware vendor's custom applet to sit near my clock and nag me about updates, promotions, or even just take up space.
If I have a printer, the interface for switching settings and viewing ink levels are the same as every other printer. I don't need to learn anything new to learn how to use my new printer, it just works the same. My sound card doesn't have a billion stupid custom applications that I don't want to use but have to install anyway because the driver updates require that they be there.
Anyway, 'nuff said.
Twinstiq, game news
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts