Slashdot Mirror
Brad Neuberg, Google Gears, and the Future of the Web
Linux.com has an interesting look at Google Gears and one of its leading evangelists, Brad Neuberg. "For Neuberg -- as for most developers -- the idea of expanding the Web's capabilities is intriguing in itself. But both inside and outside Google, his argument is that there's more at stake than just a particular piece of technology. In fact, he does not even seem particularly concerned whether Gears or some rival project takes on the role he envisions. What matters, he says, is that finding a solution to the problems of the Web is essential not only to the continued evolution of the Web, but also to its continued freedom. "
How does a guy who says 'Lets keep it working so it can still be used' qualify as news... I thought it was just common sense!
that the buzzwords like "web {[0-9]}.0" or "semantic web" are missing from a topic discussing future of the web
Why do we have to continue developing the web and forceing it do things way outside is problem domain. USENET did not have to evolve, ftp did not have to evolve, smtp did not, gopher did not, etc etc.
Why can't we leave the web alone, use it for what we use it for now and develop a new rich application protocol if that is what people want. It might end up replacing the web like the web replaced gopher, which replaced Archie before it, or it might become an addition to the suite of internet protocols. Why does my web browser have to be all things to all people?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The most awesome Web 2.0 tool that Google didn't invent...
http://blog.pipes.yahoo.com/about-pipes/
From... YAHOO?!?
Pipes lets you use a GUI to write little 'programs' (functions appear as elements in a flowchart) that aggregate and process data from almost any source on the web. For fun, my first pipe was a simple experiment, I took the slashdot RSS feed and performed a flickr search on all the "imporant" keywords in each story title, then presented a list of stories+photos. Was easy, educational, funny in many cases, and not completely useless.
After several years of deployment, Google Maps still displays incorrectly in Firefox 2 if you spin the scroll wheel too fast. That's about where window refresh was at Microsoft Windows 2.x or so - broken.
AJAX is a method to shoehorn functionality into a trifecta of legacy platforms that was never really designed for it. Like retrofitting a horseless carriage with a honda civic engine and bolting on some wings, a rudder, and a propeller with the intent to fly across the atlantic.
Just because you've gotten it to fly doesn't mean you've invented a modern aircraft.
He may be right, but this analogy does nothing to convince of that. It's not just about being able to technologically upgrade something; it's also about how power starts to become concentrated and those with their hands on the levers don't want to change things. We could have distributed TV and radio far more than we have, especially in the 70s when cable TV came along, then in the 80s when satellite TV appeared, and so on. It wasn't until streaming video, which helps to shift power, that TV can once again be revisited and the model in which it works.
I agree with you that TVs and radios are far more fixed and non-upgradable than computers are. However, at some point the network itself will be hard to upgrade, which we are already finding with IPv4. Its gets asymptoticly harder to upgrade deployed systems over time. I joined the Gears team because it seemed like a clever way to help delay this on the web for a bit.
Best,
Brad Neuberg
Best,
Brad Neuberg
BTW, one thing that make Gears unique is that its _not_ just bound to one browser; its cross browser, so we can rev the web rather than just one browser.
Best,
Brad Neuberg
After reading the article (really!) I can see how Gears is more than just offline storage, but extending the browser to do what it should. Right now it is only available as a FF plugin right? Could it be expanded into the google toolbar? ported to IE in the toolbar?
I want to look at this as a way to make even more powerful webapps, but until it gets more widespread it only seems appealing to apps that have a clear offline use.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Call me old-fashioned, but I want to control where my data is stored and I want to make sure the programs I use to work my data is around years later. That is why I story my data locally (and a backup offsite) and keep my software locally on my PC. I decide when to migrate to a new version or application and only after I have verified it works with my data etc. With Web-Apps I have absolutely no control when new releases are forced on me and potentially cannot deal with my 10 year old data. I still use Office 97 - works just fine - no need to upgrade. And the data itself ? Will it still be available 10 years from now when stored at Google or some other service provider. What happens if the Google business model some day no longer works ? Will they then charge me to get to my data ?
First off, the web isn't even stable. Why try to bloat it further? Didn't anyone take a lesson from Microsoft? Bloating before you've stabilized what you have IS BAD and leads to Vista.
JavaScript, ActionScript, embedded video, even IMAGES, can all be exploited with quite a bit of ease. Ever wonder where all those botnets come from? It ain't from e-mail attachments. People have had that lesson drained into their heads for over a decade now.
No, the botnets come from loading exploited web sites that ask the user to install something (usually an ActiveX control) in order to continue. That something is typically a virus, trojan, zombie client, etc.
How did we get to the point that web sites can install malicious software on PCs?!
The answer: The Brad Neubergs from 20 years ago. The advocates to pair some sort of client-side scripting language with HTML to create an infinite number of possibilities. And now every user has a technology built-into their browser that they should have disabled by default. But if they get proactive and disable it half the web's functionality goes away now because we've had nearly 20 years of web development with the assumption of a javascript on the client.
What we need is a push away from this stuff. Get back to what the web was originally created for: serving hypertext document. If you want a thin client into your application WRITE THE THIN CLIENT APPLICATION. You want compatibility? Write it in JAVA. Or MONO. Or whatever.
Just ask yourself this: did we need Javascript on the web 20 years ago. If we didn't have javascript embedded into every browser out there today would we have anything like the Storm botnet? Would we have as much installed malware out there today?
I say no. And I think it's a pretty safe and obvious no.
So instead of creating new attack vectors for kids and crackers, how about we look at securing what we have now? How about we start advocating white-lists built into each browser that allow things like Javascript and the like. How about we, BY DEFAULT, keep Javascript disabled.
Ah, but mister Brad won't be so keen on that. A user will go to one of his web sites without Javascript, won't see ANYTHING and the site will simply not work, and they'll move on to another web page.
So let's keep bloating the web! Let's keep bloating the browser. And say FUCK ALL to protecting the end user.