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 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.
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.
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. That's right, since it's open-source, it can be hosted anywhere... including on my own computer.
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.
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts