Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google vs. Microsoft On the Desktop

Posted by timothy on from the rules-of-engagement dept.

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."

19 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Take away the cloud by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. Along with integration with every e-mail client by using perhaps HTML e-mail or a plugin to enable Google Docs support. Create an iPhone app, plugins for MS Office, make it easy for anyone with any program to access and use Google Docs and it will succeed.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Take away the cloud by aaron.axvig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Take away the cloud by docbrody · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Take away the cloud by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.'"
    4. Re:Take away the cloud by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:Take away the cloud by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Take away the cloud by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ***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
    7. Re:Take away the cloud by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, "Save to the cloud" should be renamed to "Vaporize".

    8. Re:Take away the cloud by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Take away the cloud by YttriumOxide · · Score: 5, Interesting

      True story though - I was showing a member of the younger generation a floppy disk that I had lying around, and the first thing he said was, "ah, it looks like the 'save' icon!". To many of the younger generation, the icon is an abstract concept meaning "save", not a representation of a disk.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    10. Re:Take away the cloud by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Getting rid of stupid houses would be a godsend for any contractor in the world. Having all people inside a mud hut would be a huge step forward.

      You try getting three different walls working against the same roof from the same floor working properly. They all crave different stud layout, nails or whatnot and any new wall demands countless hours of planning for just about every possible combination of other walls. Electrical is a pure nightmare. Couple this with locked doors, surfaces that need to be painted and building codes that need hard testing before you can finish a single room.

      Getting rid of all those problems alone would be worth serious money for any construction company. Added benefit would be that the extension cord used to steal electricity from neigbors would be totally decoupled from the type of mud hut. Legacy housebuilders will fight this for all they are worth.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  2. Developer candy? by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah developer candy is first on my list when looking at a product as an end user. I mean stuff security, reliability, etc. That's just all rubbish when I can make my developers even more diabetic.

    Who comes up with this nonsense?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Developer candy? by fabs64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  3. Here's what Google needs by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To give Microsoft something to seriously think about, Google needs an OS on the desktop. Android is a good start in my opinion. There are some efforts in this direction already. The good thing is that Android eschews X, which is a pain to work with in its current form.

    Next, they will need [meaningful] applications that work no matter what platform one happens to be using.

    Third, targeting Microsoft must not be the aim, it must be the unplanned outcome. The aim must be tp "please" we the users.

    That way, Google will succeed on the desktop.

  4. Hate to be a spoilsport but by gcnaddict · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft actually contributed lots to HTML 5, at least according to Chris Wilson (Software Architect for IE)

      Someone had to introduce problems, incompatibilities, and inconsistency or it wouldn't be a proper standard.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Re:HTML 5 + Gears + GWT: resounding maybe by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Gary Edwards? by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey, uh, wasn't he one of the ones that threw a tantrum (along with sam and marbux) when he didn't get his way with preserving Microsoft "dark matter" (undocumented RTF encoding) in ODF and then proclaimed that ODF is doomed to fail and all that nonsense when everyone told him to stuff it where it doesn't shine??

    I am shocked. Simply shocked to see that he's extolling Microsoft's "virtues".

    Nothing to see here, folks, just another softie trying to sabotage open standards by throwing chairs at it.

    --
    BMO

  7. Amazingly we should side with... Microsoft! by Nicopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The standard desktop is better than Google desktop. Yes, everybody says, to put Google in a good light: "standard compliant" browsers, but that means nonstandard compliant mail, nonstandard everything else. We won't own software, we'll be always customers, dumb terminals, served from huge company's "clouds". Free software will be over, irrelevant. We won't be able to improve and modify our environment, we can't improve Gmail ourselves, there's no alternative/better/innnovative client for Gmail.

    Economic forces are taking technology down a terrible path. The past is better: a world of protocols, servers and clients. A common neutral space...

    The "portable" desktop, having your data everywhere should be solved by other means... I don't know, perhaps we should have personal servers, or at least we should contract personal servers from some kind of "personal server providers", which should be a standard and non-monopolistic thing. The "presence providers" envisioned by the XMPP protocol comes to mind...