Slashdot Mirror
Google vs. Microsoft On the Desktop
Michael_Curator writes "Gary Edwards, president of the now-defunct Open Document Foundation, helps sort out the challenges Google faces displacing Microsoft on the desktop, pitting the strengths of Microsoft's proprietary stack against the developer candy that HTML 5 represents."
HTML is just another layer of abstraction. It could just as well be Java, or .NET CLR, or cross-compiled C++ (GIMP). There is nothing amazing about applications in a browser, it is not necessary, and while it is convenient at times (at a computer that is not your own), when available a native code app will usually do the same job but "better".
As far as syncing, there is nothing stopping native apps from syncing to "the cloud". In fact, there is the Outlook Connector for Windows Live Mail and the Office Live tool for Word XP, 2003, and 2007. Also see IMAP and POP3. Oh, basically anything that doesn't go over port 80.
Browser is not a necessity for productivity. Handy in cases, yes. Disclosure: I'm currently interning at MS.
But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud. Forget speed, think about reliability. And by reliability of the cloud, I actually mean reliability of your internet connection.
I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage. So for Google to compete, cloud features are an awesome additional feature, but to really succeed, I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.
Especially with all those *private* API calls only available to Micro$oft developers, leaving all other 3rd party Windows developers in the cold. Oh - and add to that, changing the APIs at every version / update, with no warning... gotta love that...
What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs.
"Save to the cloud"? Oh god, make the buzzing stop! You mean "add an option to OpenOffice to save your files to a remote server". Calling it "the cloud" is like calling the contents of your hard drive "cyberspace".
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Microsoft actually contributed lots to HTML 5, at least according to Chris Wilson (Software Architect for IE)
In effect, it's like semi-Microsoft v. completely-Microsoft. (food for thought)
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
It really is 'the cloud' though; face it, if you save to google you're saving to a cluster. You have no idea where your data is and you don't care. To say you're saving it to a server is a bit disingenuous. You might as well just draw the good old cloud and lightning bolt ala the network diagrams of old and leave it at that, in most situations.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am a commercial software developer.
Think about it. Who generally has the expertise and trust of management to make such decisions? If developers don't have the most input they certainly do have a say that holds influence.
'developer candy' can also be translated to 'lower barrier to entry' (cheaper programmers), 'faster ROI' (faster development for experienced programmers) and 'inherently higher quality' (larger cookie-cutter components)
What do you think developers enjoy working with? Inconsistent rickety unstable messes?
Getting rid of stupid clients would be godsent for any admin in the world. Having all applications in the browser would be a huge step forward.
You try, getting three different clients working against a database from the same vendor working properly. They all crave different versions of dotnet, java or whatnot and any new version of the client software demands countless hours of testing just about every possible combination of apps. Upgrades are pure nightmare. Couple this with locked down desktops, profiles that has to be managed and policies that needs hard testing before you alter a single setting.
Getting rid of all those problems alone would be worth serious money for any company. Added benefit would be that backend services would be totally decoupled from what OS the client runs. Microsoft will fight this for all they are worth.
HTTP/1.1 400
Microsoft is where it is today because it is the easiest OS for third parties to work with.
That's not even remotely true. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion? Are you simply comparing Windows with Linux (and most any other X11 based system)?
The reason for MS's success (specifically, with Windows) is due to developers targeting the dominant system, and Windows became the dominant system primarily through being installed on the overwhelming majority of PCs. None of this was based on being the most "developer-friendly".
This comment is way too similar in style to this other comment. I call shenanigans.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
IE 6 remains a major target that needs to be covered
No, it doesn't. IE 6 is a ghetto, and can be safely ignored. Anyone who currently uses IE 6 and either will not or can not upgrade to a modern browser is someone who isn't terribly concerned about using the types of apps that things like HTML 5 and Gears are meant to make possible.
All platforms are "just another layer of abstraction". Windows for example. Of cource everything runs better if you write it all out in machine code and key it into memory directly, but that isn't practical in any sense. The purpose of a platform is to be the most efficient, direct translation of high level to low level code. .
The reason that web applications have an advantage is primarily the platform on which they sit. They're compatible with all operating systems, portable, simple to build, and really really light weight. As performance ramps up (as it most certainly is with google chrome) and more things are possible in a browser, we will see greater and greater market dominance of web applications. This is why web standards are so important.
One could argue that you're imposing an artifical lifespan on your application by writing it in something like C, as you are directly tieing it to the one and only software environment in which it runs.
The classic model where people only worked on and with local docs and programs is long gone for the newer generations, and without internet their 'computer is broken', since their facebook, favorite flash game, IM, email and home/search page all give weird error messages.
That, plus the benefits of always having your documents with you no matter what computer and operating system they are using or what location they are at, and the ability to collaborate, share and publish are pretty strong arguments against the local 'My Documents' type model.
If such an option were to be added, please let it be called "Save it to Google docs" :)
Yes please. We have enough mumbo jumbo, as you put it, without inventing new wannabe-cool terms for things.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Actually even my 67 year old clueless dad has a USB external with one touch backup. Those things are really dirt cheap now and most folks have been burnt at least once in the past and are naturally a little spooked about losing all their stuff.
Which kinda spooks me about this whole "push to the cloud" thing. Not only do you have the whole privacy issue, because you have no idea who is looking at your data, but lets be honest here, even Google has occasionally just went "oops, sorry about that" when it has come to folks data. I know I have Gmail go offline for a day or two at a time, and what if one of those days I had been on the road and having that data was "mission critical" for a job? And look at how many "web 2.0" style companies we have had go tits up in the past couple of years, and with the economy like this I would expect to see plenty more. When a company is struggling, which you may not even have a clue about, the odds that they are going to spend the money to do best data backup practices is virtually nil. Then what happens when the server dies, or the drive that contained your data goes tits up? "Ooops, sorry about that" as most of these companies have it in their TOS that they pretty much ain't responsible for jack.
So no thanks. I can slap a cheap USB drive and back up my data anytime. I even have my data partitioned to where I can back up all the important stuff to DVD without having to back up the whole OS. I can encrypt the backups so nobody can use them but me, slap the USB or DVDs in my laptop bag and have them wherever I go, even if the place I end up at has "10k on a good day" dialup, which you'd be surprised how many places in the USA are still like that. So I think I'll just stick with what works no matter how good or poor a net connection I have tomorrow is, or without having to worry about whether or not the cloud company is doing well financially or using best backup and privacy practices. Call me weird but I like being in control of my data, thanks ever so much anyway.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That's entirely missing the point. HTML5 gives you a very nice toolkit for building web apps allowing you full access to the computers computing resources with web workers (threads), storage and caching and graphics through canvas and even 3D graphics through O3D. The speed of the platform has also increased tremendously, in a year it's pretty much tripped thanks to FF3.5, Safari 4, Opera and Chrome. (and other goodies like location and no-plugin-required video playing)
The end result is that a web app can now approach a desktop app in features and speed, and with that you can finally stop worrying about what OS people run, that's becoming irrelevant, as long as they have a modern browser that supports HTML5, they can run your app. It also means that if you have a great idea, you can code it up and deploy it to everyone with a modern browser without having to ship a single CD or making a user go through a installation process
Forget about the OS, it's all about the apps! :)
I pretty much pointed out that Linux/Unix/X11 aren't necessarily the best example when I wrote, "Are you simply comparing Windows with Linux (and most any other X11 based system)?"
That being said, I am curious what you do consider to be the most developer friendly system, particularly if you have experience in industry.
Presently, OS X is extremely easy to develop for. In the past (the context here, after all, is MS's success, so you have to look at what came before), both OS/2 and BeOS were supposed to have been fairly advanced from a developer point of view, as was Nextstep.
Even further back, comparing Macintosh System, AmigaOS, etc., with DOS and somewhat later, Windows, is relevant. I really don't think ease-of-development played a significant factor so long as development was "easy enough". Commercial interests are a much greater factor.
***You try, getting three different clients working against a database from the same vendor working properly. They all crave different versions of dotnet, java or whatnot and any new version of the client software demands countless hours of testing just about every possible combination of apps.***
Thanks, no. Been there. Done That. You're right. It is a nightmare.
But I'm curious why you think, as you apparently do, that switching to "the cloud" is going to be better. From where I sit, "the cloud" looks like a huge glob of poison gas. More standards than anyone can keep track of. But no one complies with them anyway. No discipline. Very little common sense. I suspect where the cloud is headed is a worse shambles than the current desktop plus latency and bandwidth problems. And security ... what security? Do people seriously think that "Never run as root" is going to prevent the ongoing security disaster?
Fortunately, I am retired and no longer have to make a living fighting with computers. I have a lot of sympathy for those who are not as lucky. Fasten those seatbelts folks, the next couple of decades are going to be one bumpy ride.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
As far as syncing, there is nothing stopping native apps from syncing to "the cloud".
Except common sense, of course. I, for one, tell the new corporate overlords to stay out of my computer.
If the cloud would only be about data storage there would be no advantage over a Desktop app that saves to my hard drive.
However, Desktop Software is totally behind when it comes to collaboration. I have sent enough "DOCs" around and received them back and edited them again and sent them around again to understand that it sucks badly. I have enough of "can you send me the latest version of ..." and welcome online apps to solve this gigantic and ridiculous problem. Of course i would prefer to have Desktop apps that do the same thing, but as it seems at the moment nobody can get their act together and do real time collaborative Editing in a way that is more meaningful than Gobby. :)
People say this a lot, but it mystifies me. The cloud is empirically much more reliable than internal storage; hard drives crash all the time and lose *all* their data. Unless you're running a RAID and doing daily offsite backups your data is safer in the cloud because they do it for you.
What does RAID have to do with it? Regular backups have always been important, and my internet connection drops more often than my harddrive. Local storage means you're not dependent on internet connections, online storage means you can more easily access it from different locations. That's what the trade-off is here.
Nobody I know has ever lost any data stored on GMail, Flickr, or similar. The worst that I've ever seen happen is someone might not be able to log in for a few hours; maybe up to a day in an extreme case.
And that can be a big problem if you've got a big company working on something important. I've seen companies twiddle their thumbs all day because internet was down. Making yourself even more dependent on that doesn't sound like a step towards reliability.
On the other hand, practically everyone I know has experienced a hard drive crash, sometimes losing valuable data forever,
Then they should have backed up their data.
The problem is there are large companies locked into that piece of ****. It will cost them loads to move on from there.
Yeah, right until "Your browser is not supported."
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
That's an unfortunate side effect of having invested in what is essentially proprietary and (now) 5 year old software. Non-standard software and protocols become obsolete if they're not supported; and IE6 isn't even supported by Microsoft anymore. I agree with what you've said, they bought the vendor lock-in and now the vendor screwed them. Tough. Someone needs to take IE6 out back and put a mercy bullet in it, it's dragged on for far too long.
I would argue that your dad is not clueless. Do you know why he does this? I know: He got burned before and that's how he learned he got to make backups. Since he learned he is by definition not clueless
Give your old man some credit, okay?
Oh, and as for a final remark... People have only started doing this the last few years (only those that got burned before, mind you) Before ubiquitous cheap USB harddisks, backup simply was too expensive for the average home user. (I'm someone who backed up on Iomega Dittos... don't ask... it was not cheap, but cheap enough, but a fucking pain!)
What is with all of you suggesting "the cloud - the cloud - the cloud" all the time. I don't trust you. Why should I? Why should I trust my colleague who wants to borrow my 16Gb flash drive because his doesn't have space, with my "classified" company information that I store on it? And now everyone's suggesting "the cloud - the cloud - the cloud" with GoogleDocs and OpenIDs.
The cloud is NOT secure. Heck, not even passworded PDFs and DOCs are secure - forget about uploading it onto someone ELSES server and *hoping* that one nosy-parker low level administrator who doesn't have enough to do isn't snooping where he shouldn't be.
I need proof that the cloud is secure before I'll upload "secret" files to it. I'd much rather password protect the document, then zip it up two or three times in a passworded zip file, then hide it in the hidden folder on my micro SD card, and then embed it under my little fingernail before I trust that frikken' cloud!
blog.idigitall.com
Does anyone on Slashdot ever feel just the slightest bit retarded for being reflexively anti-Microsoft?
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Getting rid of browser clients would be godsent for any admin in the world. Having all applications as a native application would be a huge step forward.
You try, getting three different web browsers working against a site using the same HTML/CSS/Javascript working properly. They all crave different versions of styles, scripts, tags or whatnot and any new version of any of the major browsers demands countless hours of testing for just about every possible combination of apps. Upgrades are pure nightmare. Couple this with locked down desktops with only Internet Explorer 6 in corporate settings, graceful degradation if scripts are disabled and usability requirement laws that need hard testing before you alter a single setting.
Getting rid of all those problems alone would be worth serious money for any company. Added benefit would be that backend services could be totally decoupled from what OS the client runs. Google will fight this for all they are worth.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011