Google Abandoning Gears

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday December 2, 2009 @01:56AM from the bits-and-buckets dept.

harrymcc noted a story talking about what might be the end of Google Gears. The concept has always been interesting, but it seems that Google is beginning to think of Gears as more of a proof of concept, and that focus will shift to HTML5, which has the same functionality.

139 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

wave by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 01:59 · Score: 0

that's the reason
1. Re:wave by datapharmer · 2009-12-02 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Wave doesn't have anything to do with gears. Never mind that Wave is useless at this point; chicken and egg problem - nobody uses wave so nobody starts using it.
  
  --
  Get a web developer
2. Re:wave by bhima · 2009-12-02 02:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  lots of folks are using wave... just use "with:public" and you'll find all kinds of stuff
  
  --
  Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
3. Re:wave by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Wave uses Gears for the drag and drop image uploading. That is it.
4. Re:wave by NervousWreck · 2009-12-02 02:49 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  That's true. This would be modded insightful if I hadn't used up all my mod points last week.
  
  --
  I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
5. Re:wave by LKM · 2009-12-02 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind that Wave is useless at this point; chicken and egg problem - nobody uses wave so nobody starts using it.
  We're using Wave for planning and collaboration on a number of projects. It's pretty cool, and some of my friends have already basically abandonned e-mail in favour of Wave. You just need enough invites to get all of your friends on there (which works quite well if you have less than about 20 friends :-).
6. Re:wave by Inda · 2009-12-02 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Cheers for the heads up. re: "with:public"
  
  I got my invite last week and was surprised at the lack of supporting websites. The three automatically added contacts aren't interested in playing, so it's been a no-go for me so far.
  
  I have a ton of invites (sixteen) if anyone wants one. Those who understand spamgourmet should have no problem emailing me.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
7. Re:wave by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  All of /. will make it onto wave without a probl
Summary is not accurate by yakatz · 2009-12-02 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Saying that Google is abandoning Gears is not 100% accurate as it has bad connotations.
Google created Gears to fill the void until browser makers would implement HTML5. Now that they are doing so, Gears is being retired.
1. Re:Summary is not accurate by TheRaven64 · 2009-12-02 02:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Exactly. HTML 5 is being deployed piecemeal, and Gears uses the HTML 5 features when they're available, falling back to its own functionality when it isn't. When all that Gears is doing is delegating functionality to the native HTML 5 implementation, it's pointless and just adds a layer of indirection that slows everything down.
  Gears is out and works now. HTML 5 is starting to be widely deployed and all of the major browser manufacturers are backing it (MS announced IE9 will support it). When HTML 5 is universal, there will be no point in Gears. It never had a long-term future, it was just a prototype. Several of the HTML 5 features are lifted directly from Gears, so saying Google are abandoning Gears is no more interesting than saying Microsoft are abandoning Windows 95.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:Summary is not accurate by Enderandrew · 2009-12-02 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  What about offline caching?
  I thought that was part of Chrome OS so that it can still be used offline?
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
3. Re:Summary is not accurate by slim · 2009-12-02 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Offline caching is a feature of HTML5.
  http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/offline.html#offline
4. Re:Summary is not accurate by AlexBirch · 2009-12-02 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  Except for those people who are still using IE 6 or Netscape 4.
  If only people would leave IE 6 once and for all.
5. Re:Summary is not accurate by MancunianMaskMan · 2009-12-02 02:35 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  what about mac users with a IE-only web app? i know these things exist, if only as "internal" apps such as the school grading software my Teacher GF had to use at her last school. it produced brolen HTML that would freak out gecko and Safari, so i installed IE7 in wine. On her mac (w/o parallels ...) ancient IE would have been the only option.
6. Re:Summary is not accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  So? Fuck 'em. If users want advanced features, they need to use advanced software. There's absolutely no legitimate reason to still be using IE6 on the internet.
7. Re:Summary is not accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Well that's all fine and dandy, but can you please tell me what that has to do with Gears?
8. Re:Summary is not accurate by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-12-02 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  In addition to being a bloody mess, the old mac-native IE was of limited use for dealing with "IE-only" sites. It used a different rendering engine than windows IE, and things like activeX plugs expecting to be able to play with COM weren't good for much in MacOS.
  
  I would be not at all surprised if gears hangs around in some capacity to deal with the big pool of win32/IE6 users out there(if Google is half so interested in selling Google Apps to corporate customers as their advertising suggests, they'll have little choice); but MacOS IE is dead, dead, dead.
9. Re:Summary is not accurate by zach_the_lizard · 2009-12-02 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Offtopic? Troll? Funny? You be the judge!
  Why limit ourselves to just one? I vote for all three! Only thing is you now lose twice the karma,
  
  --
  SSC
10. Re:Summary is not accurate by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-12-02 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except for those people who are still using IE 6 or Netscape 4.
  That's their problem. The cost-benefit ratio of supporting those ancient systems (and enabling the defective IT departments that stick with them) just isn't worth it anymore. Let them have their Geocities-era sites and funky rendering while the rest of us enjoy the last decade's worth of progress.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
11. Re:Summary is not accurate by Tim+C · 2009-12-02 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  My old Spectrum won't let me access the web either; should I be supported?
  There comes a time in the lifecycle of any technology or software product where you either have to move on, or accept that there are things that other people can do with their equivalent that you can't do with yours. You can only support backwards compatibility for so long, and so far back.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
12. Re:Summary is not accurate by Kozz · 2009-12-02 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  HTML 5 is starting to be widely deployed and all of the major browser manufacturers are backing it (MS announced IE9 will support it*).
  * for very small values of "support"
  FTFY.
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
13. Re:Summary is not accurate by hattig · 2009-12-02 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt such a web app would have ever used Gears, and certainly wouldn't use HTML5, so it isn't a problem.
14. Re:Summary is not accurate by rwa2 · 2009-12-02 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  In the corporate world, a lot of core training / timecard / expense "webapps" got hard coded to only work properly on IE6. So a lot of big companies (like the past 2 I've worked for) are still stuck with IE6 as their default browser because they didn't bother making their contractors adhere to web standards.
  Microsoft's proprietary lock-in strategy was so effective that people can't even upgrade cleanly to their newer stuff :P
15. Re:Summary is not accurate by ClosedSource · 2009-12-02 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Remember IE6 was released in 2001 when there were no web standard browsers that had any significant market share.
  There's no reason why these companies can't update their applications or use another browser for their non-internal web browsing. Sounds like it's more of a problem for you than for them.
16. Re:Summary is not accurate by hydroponx · 2009-12-02 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  So? Fuck 'em. If users want advanced features, they need to use advanced software. There's absolutely no legitimate reason to still be using IE6 on the internet.
  Virus propagation
17. Re:Summary is not accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Lets see, our software works using IE6. It doesn't work in other browsers. Fix 1: Spend lots of money fixing it. Fix 2: Require IE6. Most will pick option 2. Funny how that works.
18. Re:Summary is not accurate by geekoid · 2009-12-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  "My old Spectrum won't let me access the web either; should I be supported?"
  Yes, assuming if by "you" you mean 10million + users. It would be stupid for a business to cut that many people off all at once.
  Beside, you use a spectrum, clearly you pirate software delivered from radio stations and not worth consideration~
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
19. Re:Summary is not accurate by bvankuik · 2009-12-02 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This argument comes up time and time again. I don't think it is a valid one. Sure, a couple of corporate apps are limited to IE6. So? An admin could just make a shortcut in the start menu that launches IE. For the rest (ie. normal web browsing), the admin could install any of the more modern browsers.
  I think the "IE6 lock-in" is a myth.
20. Re:Summary is not accurate by Ant+P. · 2009-12-02 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  You're posting on a site that doesn't render correctly on IE6. Your points are invalid and you are a moron.
21. Re:Summary is not accurate by Ant+P. · 2009-12-02 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  They will support it or find out the segment of their users hooked on GMail will suddenly desert them one day.
22. Re:Summary is not accurate by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-12-02 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Fix 2: Require IE6.
  You forgot "...and XP because IE6 isn't available on any modern OS." We're rapidly approaching the time when IE6 will only be available on new hardware via virtualization, so you might as well use something contemporary as the main browser.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
23. Re:Summary is not accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  The cost-benefit ratio of supporting those ancient systems (and enabling the defective IT departments that stick with them) just isn't worth it anymore.
  In many cases, the people enabling those IT departments aren't the people building IE6-compatible sites. The people enabling those IT departments are the ones that give them their budget and a say in purchasing decisions.
  Where I work, we have to support IE6 because otherwise clients won't buy it. It's easy to say, "Just don't support it and let people with modern browsers enjoy the last decade's worth of progress." But what good is that progress if those people don't get to use it because the procurement department was mandated to find a solution that supported IE6?
24. Re:Summary is not accurate by Toonol · 2009-12-02 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  So the company sticks with XP for as long as humanly possible. That does seem to be what's happening...
25. Re:Summary is not accurate by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2009-12-02 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Crap - I meant to mod you "Funny", but selected "Overrated". So I'm posting this to remove that mis-moderation.
  Why isn't there a way to change/remove one's moderation of an existing post? Because there's no "undo", I'm having to throw away eight other mods I've made on other posts in this discussion.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
26. Re:Summary is not accurate by MikeBabcock · 2009-12-02 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  There's no reason they can't bind the shortcuts for their internal apps to IE6 and not allow it to access the rest of the Internet either, then using Firefox or another modern browser to connect to the Internet.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
27. Re:Summary is not accurate by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-12-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, like I said: defective IT departments. That doesn't mean it's the fault of the department, but the end result is that they're supporting old, pathologically broken software and deploying more just like it.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
28. Re:Summary is not accurate by ducomputergeek · 2009-12-02 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  That depends. 60% of orders from our website still comes from customers using MSIE 6. Until that changes, I will continue to curse, kick, and scream that MSIE is broken.
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
29. Re:Summary is not accurate by MechaStreisand · 2009-12-02 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  You get mod points more than five at a time? Interesting.
  
  --
  Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
30. Re:Summary is not accurate by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2009-12-02 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  You get mod points more than five at a time? Interesting.
  Sometimes I get five, and sometimes I get fifteen. I'm not sure what the deciding factor is.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
31. Re:Summary is not accurate by GWBasic · 2009-12-02 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's their problem. The cost-benefit ratio of supporting those ancient systems (and enabling the defective IT departments that stick with them) just isn't worth it anymore. Let them have their Geocities-era sites and funky rendering while the rest of us enjoy the last decade's worth of progress.
  Have you played with Google's Chrome Frame? It's a plugin that lets sites specify that IE should render them using Google's HTML-5 compliant rendering engine. You can even stick up a Flash-era "This site requires Chrome Frame" for IE users, but let all of the modern browsers go through.
  
  --
  No, I will not work for your startup
32. Re:Summary is not accurate by dov_0 · 2009-12-02 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully a lot of other things will be retired along with Gears. We can only hope that the webdevs of the world retire Javascript and the host of other stop-gaps that make our web and our browsers so heavy.
  
  --
  sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
33. Re:Summary is not accurate by ClosedSource · 2009-12-02 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, just because the internal app requires IE6 doesn't mean you have to use it for web browsing. It's a case of hating IE6 so much that one's common sense is disabled.
34. Re:Summary is not accurate by mjwx · 2009-12-02 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think the "IE6 lock-in" is a myth.
  Except some web sites/applications only work in IE6 and you try telling the sociopathic sack-happy PHB that he has to upgrade his favourite micromanagement software for x thousand dollars and explain why sociopathmonthly.com no longer renders properly.
  
  Yes sticking with IE6 is stupid but take a look at the real world, it's an incredibly stupid world. How many companies do you think have built it's flagship product around IE and never expected MS to change it? There are a lot more then you think.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
35. Re:Summary is not accurate by rwa2 · 2009-12-03 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, that's pretty much what I've been doing.
  Step 1: get friendly with the IT department, so they don't have a problem with me doing step 2
  Step 2: Install a "real" 64-bit OS on my work laptop, and then have IT help me reinstall their locked-down corporate build of WinXP in a VM.
  It works pretty well, since I get control over the bare-metal bits for development and stuff, but still have a fully corporate-policy-compliant VM to check email and work on office docs and run IE6 for all the corporate crap.
36. Re:Summary is not accurate by Kozz · 2009-12-03 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's interesting, to be sure. I've not gotten mod points since around 2002 back when I was clobbered for participating in the banned thread.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Timeline
  My karma has remained at Excellent despite antagonizing folks a few times with admittedly trollish/flamebait comments of mine (hey, if you've never gotten one, you're not trying or being honest). I've meta-modded, too, but I guess I'm still in the "banned" list.
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
37. Re:Summary is not accurate by bvankuik · 2009-12-04 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Please read my comment. There is no limitation on the number of browsers on a PC. Thus, a company admin could create icons in the start menu that runs IE6 and point towards the legacy stuff.
  For the rest, he could use a modern browser.
38. Re:Summary is not accurate by mjwx · 2009-12-04 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  For the rest, he could use a modern browser.
  Please read my comment and try to understand the difficulties of getting a sociopath with actual power over you to do things differently. Adding a second browser onto their machine will not force them to use it and trying to force a PHB to do something they don't want to is not a simple or desirable task.
  
  The biggest issue is that so much software is built around hacks into IE 6 for rendering, data input and other things. Many software developers did this believing that MS would never fix IE (and for a long time this looked to be true). Take ArcGIS for example, when IE 7 was installed it broke the copy/paste functions in ArcGIS causing the program to crash. ESRI took six months to fix this, fair enough we do call ESRI "The Microsoft of the GIS world" for some very good reasons.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
39. Re:Summary is not accurate by bvankuik · 2009-12-05 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  OK yes I see what you mean. You have more influence over the software than the PHB or related factors.
makes sense by fedorfedor · 2009-12-02 02:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Gears was a smart way to get important new features into stagnant older browsers (we're looking at you, IE...) and implemented far more quickly than any standards process allows. Now that those features are in the HTML5 standard, there's no reason to require gears. Until the next round of feature-adding, of course...
1. Re:makes sense by aztracker1 · 2009-12-02 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  In the interim there's always PersistJS, which uses whatever the best available client-side storage medium available is. Native, Gears, Flash, Cookies... It works pretty smoothly, since there's still going to be a few years until HTML5 is implemented, and the browsers on clients get updated. It pains me that anyone is still using IE6 at this point.
  
  At my work, they're currently making plans to (finally) update from IE6 to IE8 (bypassing 7) and update from XP to Win7 (bypassing Vista).
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
HTML 5 by jo42 · 2009-12-02 02:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Makes one wonder how much of this "HTML 5 will do this", "HTML 5 will do that" is hype or wishful thinking. Past experience has shown great disappointment in all this hyperbole...
1. Re:HTML 5 by Transfinite · 2009-12-02 02:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  from actually working with this stuff. Quite alot already.
2. Re:HTML 5 by AvitarX · 2009-12-02 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty thrilled with what came out of AJAX myself.
  Just google maps alone makes it well worth it.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
3. Re:HTML 5 by slim · 2009-12-02 02:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  HTML 5 does exactly what it says it does.
  Dive into HTML 5 tells you what that is, and whether your browser supports it.
  It's up to developers to apply it. Google is doing so.
4. Re:HTML 5 by TheRaven64 · 2009-12-02 02:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Read the spec, compare it with browser implementations. A few things are deployed and work well now, such as the video and audio tags in FireFox and Safari (although they support different CODECs out of the box) and client-side storage. The latter is the big one that Gears provided; with HTML 5 there are existing implementations of both the JavaScript persistent object storage and the database-style version (which lets you run SQL queries against a local store). Most of the new form elements are already supported by Gecko and WebKit and Canvas (which allows drawing on a PostScript-style model) has been working in both for ages.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
5. Re:HTML 5 by Blakey+Rat · 2009-12-02 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  HTML5 is pretty slick, but you have to remember most sites will never upgrade to it.
  One of the problems with the web is whenever you add a new markup, you still have to support the old markup. One of the reasons I thought that XHTML was mostly a waste of time was that everybody involved in it was acting like a year after XHTML2 came out, HTML2,3,4 would instantly disappear and browsers could simplify their parsing, becoming faster... the reality is, the vast majority of sites will never switch over.
  HTML5 is a better idea, since at least it's not a completely new way of doing things. But since it does the few things XHTML did that HTML 4 didn't, now browsers have to support a totally useless XHTML strict syntax in addition.
  Ugh.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
6. Re:HTML 5 by wolverine1999 · 2009-12-02 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  actually some sites already have been using it for some time!
  
  --
  SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
7. Re:HTML 5 by Transfinite · 2009-12-02 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  you're right... but. your missing the point. the important, ground breaking changes are not the tags or even for that matter the video elemen, these are all distractions. It's the other stuff like. WebWorkers, webSockets, ApplicationCache etc... This is the important stuff. Really go read the specs
8. Re:HTML 5 by foniksonik · 2009-12-02 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Web sites that want to support it and also support legacy browsers will use something like Modernizr or other HTML5 detection techniques and provide alternate content - like flash video as alternate content for HTML5 video, javascript or flash charts as alt content for canvas charts, etc.
  Some features like sockets and web workers and local storage aren't really feasible for legacy browsers even with workarounds like Gears but a subset can be implemented for specific apps which is the focus of this topic....
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
9. Re:HTML 5 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  Past experience in what? Something entirely unrelated? Have you even bothered to read up on some of the features? It's not hype, and in fact most of it is already here. Check out a modern browser (firefox 3.5+, chrome, etc) and see for yourself.
10. Re:HTML 5 by Dragonslicer · 2009-12-02 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty thrilled with what came out of AJAX myself.
  Just google maps alone makes it well worth it.
  The main Javascript object that does AJAX is XMLHttpRequest, which was originally a Microsoft ActiveX object. It had nothing to do with Google or HTML standards.
11. Re:HTML 5 by Blakey+Rat · 2009-12-02 03:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm not saying people *shouldn't* use it, I'm excited about it myself. What I'm saying is, realistically, the majority of sites will never convert to HTML5. The lesson being: make your standards great, because they Never. Go. Away.
  Sorry I shouldn't post at 6:30 AM
  
  --
  Comment of the year
12. Re:HTML 5 by Transfinite · 2009-12-02 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  mod +1 parent! :)
13. Re:HTML 5 by AvitarX · 2009-12-02 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  no, I was more referring to Past experience has shown great disappointment in all this hyperbole....
  I think that XMLHttpRequest is fantastic, and even if the only thing done with it was google maps, it would still be great.
  It originating by MS has nothing to do with it.
  Just as the power of that ActiveX object worked its way into standards to everyone's benefit and I think really lived up to expectations, HTML 5 is working in things such as gears and more. I expect it to be great in the end. Even if there is stuff that MS originated in there.
  and at this point it does have something to do with standards:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
14. Re:HTML 5 by DragonWriter · 2009-12-02 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  HTML5 is pretty slick, but you have to remember most sites will never upgrade to it.
  Most sites will eventually disappear.
  Most sites that you will be using 10 years from now probably don't exist.
  So, while most existing sites won't upgrade to it, at some point in the future most sites will probably be using either HTML5 or something later.
15. Re:HTML 5 by Hurricane78 · 2009-12-13 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I’m sorry??
  I bet you are one of those “web developers” who “learned” it by reading a book while driving a cab, and know think you know everything.
  XHTML was created, to finally put an end to the retarded mess that is HTML, and to have something professional. It was made, so that — just like with every other real compiler/interpreter — every time you fuck up, it fails to render the site at all, and shows you the error(s).
  If you can’t handle that, you should not write websites in the first place!
  The only thing that HTML4s forgiveness brought us, is a messy trash of a non-standard with huge interpreters trying to make sense of that crap you call HTML.
  Boy was I happy that there was no XHTML 1.1 Transitional.
  You have it the wrong way: Actually, nobody cares what those websites still are written in. It being built into the browser, does not mean you have to use it!
  What it means, is that we professionals have a professional language, to do professional things! Not your spaghetti code shit! Which saves us time, and lets us work like professionals!
  I have worked in that area since 2000. And I was one of the best in the world. I wrote AJAX, two years before the term or the API were even invented. And I want HTML (without the X) to DIE, DIE, and DIE!
  Everyone who complains about strictness being useless, shall get a huge slap right in the face!
  I hope I never have to use a site that is vomited out of your brain!
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
BLOAT by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-12-02 02:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

On a beach in Mexico a whale beached itself. It's buoyant fatty body crushed the whale's lungs and suffocated it in the wide open air. Bacteria from the whale's intestines began to multiply and ferment and large amounts of gas accumulated in the whale's body. Soon a bulge was visible around the belly of the whale. Then the bulge grew until the whole carcass was bloated.
One day, the whale's rotting body broke and released the gas in a giant explosion.
Pushing functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting means longer launch times, more failure points, and more disparate functionality from browser to browser for developers to consider. It's a fountain of whale guts, metaphorically speaking.
1. Re:BLOAT by Transfinite · 2009-12-02 02:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  what! doesn't anyone actually think things through before opening their mouths anymore? Everything you'd tried to apply some whale meme anaolgy to is wrong. Developers need to get this into their heads: 1. the days of request -> response -> request are going 2. more load is going to be placed of client resources. 3. Data should be stateless, your client will retain state HTML5 improves efficiency, removes latency. So why is that a bad thing? WebWorkers, WebSockets??? No? Then go and read the specs before to dismiss them off hand.
2. Re:BLOAT by bunratty · 2009-12-02 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're right. I think we've all taken the wrong approach with huge, bloated standard libraries. Let all developers write all code from scratch. Need to output an integer, just write the code that turns the integer into a stream of characters, then pass that stream of characters into your homebrew I/O functions, which pass them off to your custom built drivers. There's no need for all languages to have this functionality! It just makes developers have to code around the differences and bugs in each runtime!
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
3. Re:BLOAT by Bacon+Bits · 2009-12-02 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly is different or more efficient about making the browser parse new HTML tags and incorporate new libraries instead of making the browser run JavaScript every time the page is loaded and relying on third parties to produce browser plug-ins for standard web content?
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
4. Re:BLOAT by somersault · 2009-12-02 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Everything you'd tried to apply some whale meme anaolgy to is wrong
  Hey! Quit bashing WellThoughtOutAnalogyGuy!
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
5. Re:BLOAT by Transfinite · 2009-12-02 02:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's got nothing to do with "tags", the whole point of the HTML5 API is to try and evolve the request -> response model we have at the moment. for example, WebSockets http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ event based full duplex communications. Or that you can now actually store files locally (applicationCache), so for example client side templates would be possible, only send the data that changes, not as happens now, everything over, and over again. The new tags in HTML5 are not the important bits.
6. Re:BLOAT by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-12-02 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Pushing functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting means longer launch times, more failure points, and more disparate functionality from browser to browser for developers to consider.
  ...and interactive sites that don't require a whole page load every time you want to change the tiniest thing. Yeah, so they're harder to develop (unless you're one of the 99.9% of web programmers who use a library to handle the differences) but I can live with that.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
7. Re:BLOAT by Ma8thew · 2009-12-02 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, that's why Flash is such a great idea. Instead of browser developers being bogged down fixing its multitude of problems, they just have to pester Adobe for a few years.
  Seriously though, Adobe just announced that while Flash on Windows will support GPU acceleration, the OS X version will not (and I suspect neither will the Linux version). Adobe might take years to add a feature that Apple have already implemented for Safari's HTML engine (using the Quicktime library). Scripting means a single point of closed source failure.
8. Re:BLOAT by ClosedSource · 2009-12-02 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is the "evolve" part. The current request->response model doesn't really work for web apps. An HTML5 "bag on the side" isn't a good solution.
9. Re:BLOAT by Transfinite · 2009-12-02 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  ??? things do "evolve", so I don't get your point. So how else should we do it?
10. Re:BLOAT by slimjim8094 · 2009-12-02 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  No. This is essentially an extension of the cookie.
  The web has changed. I don't like a lot of the changes, but this is one of the good ones. Actually, most of HTML5 is a great idea. Would you rather rely on Quicktime and Flash to do everything in the standard? I sure don't.
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
11. Re:BLOAT by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  the days of request -> response -> request are going 2. more load is going to be placed of client resources.
  
  I find this interesting. Back in the day, people used dumb terminals, and then moved to desktops... which had more load placed on client resources.
  Looks like the same thing is happening with the web.
  I wonder if this will ever repeat in the future... or how it will look different.
12. Re:BLOAT by ClosedSource · 2009-12-02 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's not going to happen, but the better solution is to design a new set of standards and protocols that include web apps capability as a first class design goal.
13. Re:BLOAT by DragonWriter · 2009-12-02 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Pushing functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting means longer launch times, more failure points, and more disparate functionality from browser to browser for developers to consider.
  
  This isn't true insofar as it is relevant to the issue at hand, and isn't relevant so far as it is true. First, HTML5 local storage doesn't push "functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting"; the browser functionality relies on JavaScript scripting. Second, because it pushes local storage for which there are demands and existing, but not common, implementations (like Gears) into a standard form (HTML5), it reduces disparate functionality among browsers.
14. Re:BLOAT by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe this is just that pot speaking, so bear with me... (AC so I can admit that)
  The same thing is happening to some degree with the way the software is even written, when you look at FLOSS. The development of software is moving to people on desktops in [their parents basements]... Power's returning to the people?
15. Re:BLOAT by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  The cons of Flash outweigh the benefits IMO. With each passing day, the technical reasons for ever choosing to use Flash become smaller and smaller.
16. Re:BLOAT by jipn4 · 2009-12-02 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Pushing functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting means longer launch times, more failure points, and more disparate functionality from browser to browser for developers to consider.
  What utter bullshit. HTML5 doesn't "push functionality [from scripts] into the browser", it provides standards and functionality that cannot be provided in scripts. Scripts can't do video decoding. Scripts can't do geolocation. Scripts can't create a canvas. Scripts can't even provide new input element types (they can do the validation, but they can't communicate portably to the browser what it is they are doing).
  It's a fountain of whale guts, metaphorically speaking.
  Your brain is whale guts, metaphorically speaking.
As long as I can still have offline Gmail... by madsci1016 · 2009-12-02 02:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

...I won't really miss Gears. Since right now Offline Gmail uses Gears, I don't want it to go away.
1. Re:As long as I can still have offline Gmail... by drinkypoo · 2009-12-02 02:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As long as Gears is perpetually behind on Linux/x64, it's a hassle. As long as Offline Gmail uses Gears, I won't use it. I have used it and think it's nifty but... not that nifty. I can send mail with and archive mail in Evolution, if need be.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Great news by FrankDerKte · 2009-12-02 02:21 · Score: 1

Google has created a technology to adress the shortcomings of an old standard and now, as the new one reaches it's final state, Google tells us to use it.
I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 02:29 · Score: 0

that Google Gears would be replaced by Google Sky Net ?
What about offline gmail? by homunq · 2009-12-02 02:32 · Score: 1

Abandoning gears has been obvious for some time - for instance, there's no support in the linux version of Chrome. However, the question is, when willl existing google services based on Gears move to HTML5? The most important one of these being, of course, offline gmail. Google has demonstrated a mobile offline gmail prototype using HTML5 around the beginning of 2009, so the delay is hard to justify on a technical basis.
One wonders if they haven't made a policy decision not to support offline gmail - to force you to use the online, ad-containing version. If that is true, it would be yet another straw on the back of the "don't be evil" camel.

--
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
1. Re:What about offline gmail? by slim · 2009-12-02 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Of course offline GMail will use HTML5. That's *strongly* implied by "we are abandoning Gears in favour of HTML 5"
2. Re:What about offline gmail? by ickleberry · 2009-12-02 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  what's wrong with using an ordinary email client? or are you also stuck on the 'Everything over HTTP' bandwagon?
3. Re:What about offline gmail? by Ma8thew · 2009-12-02 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Since the iPhone version of GMail already uses HTML5 for offline access, I assume so will the desktop version.
4. Re:What about offline gmail? by icebraining · 2009-12-02 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. GMail was the free provider who offered free IMAPS and SMTPS support, when Hotmail was charging for a HTTP based Outlook only system. I use a Gmail account with Alpine without any problems.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
5. Re:What about offline gmail? by Dog-Cow · 2009-12-02 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  You are a massive idiot and asshole.
  "Forcing" you to use the online version of a free service so that there is a chance to display ads is not evil. It's not even remotely evil. It's not bad. It's not wrong.
  You are a greedy shit. I would think that's actually evil.
6. Re:What about offline gmail? by PCM2 · 2009-12-02 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Abandoning gears has been obvious for some time - for instance, there's no support in the linux version of Chrome.
  That's hardly a fair complaint, considering Chrome for Linux is not supported, either (yet).
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
7. Re:What about offline gmail? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  I like the gmail interface. I like not having to remember to sync my email before I lose my internet, and without having an extra app always running in the background. I like having the same interface for when I'm computing from the cloud (on a public computer) or from home. I do not like fiddling with the settings and updates of yet another app.
  Sure, email clients work. But they are not the same as offline gmail.
8. Re:What about offline gmail? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  If that is true, it would be yet another straw on the back of the "don't be evil" camel.
  
  That camel is a, um, straw man or beast to begin with. "Don't be evil" is not Google's central corporate motto, it's part of a remark in the section of the corporate home page where business practices are described. Others have taken that snippet out of all proportion. Google is just another big company; it doesn't pretend to be anything else, and it's a fairly well behaved one (even generally beneficial in some respects).
  
  Others pointed out the indications that offline Gmail continues. (I'll start using Gmail again when they fix the b0rked threading. As it is now, random "Re:" and similar local reply indicators in Subject fields can't be filtered/stripped and break the threading, the central idea in the interface. No reply to feedback either. *sigh*)
9. Re:What about offline gmail? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  lol - suck dick much?
10. Re:What about offline gmail? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Well as far as i know (from reading over some of the HTML5 functionality), HTML5 should be capable of running Gmail Offline.
  There was a section i can remember reading that highlighted how you can create a file that will tell the browser to download a list of files, 3 different types of files were talked about as well.
  Ah, found some stuff on it
  Offline Applications
Google hates anything that is offline by alen · 2009-12-02 02:37 · Score: 1

event the iphone app is just a front for the website. For Google Reader I use MobileRSS that downloads the first few lines of my feeds so i can read them offline in the NYC subway.
1. Re:Google hates anything that is offline by ickleberry · 2009-12-02 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Offline == No ads, No statistics == No money for google Also, protocols other than HTTP easily support the injection of ads, therefore google hate anything that isn't HTTP
2. Re:Google hates anything that is offline by Transfinite · 2009-12-02 02:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Really? you don't think that if you have a client side DB that is network aware, that can sync when it reconnects that it can't a) inject ads b) record what you do c) sync all of the above when you re-connect? I'm sorry but get prepared for offline analytics and ads
3. Re:Google hates anything that is offline by ickleberry · 2009-12-02 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's possible, but people will complain that it's spyware. You see, if you do all your spying server side and it isn't immediately obvious that everything you do with the software is being recorded then people won't mind it so much.
4. Re:Google hates anything that is offline by Steeltoe · 2009-12-02 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yea, Google is evil. That's why they have been the first to have released APIs for nearly every service they provide on the web.
  Oh wait..
  
  --
  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
5. Re:Google hates anything that is offline by Firehed · 2009-12-02 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  They're already scanning your email to build up an advertising profile of you. They may lose out on a couple of ad views when in offline mode, but the extra data they're provided by you continuing to use their service instead of switching to a competitor is more than worth it.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
6. Re:Google hates anything that is offline by thejynxed · 2009-12-02 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Which competitor? Even your own ISP does it. Run your own email server? Not much luck with that in the States. Most ISPs in this country block Ports 25 and 80 for consumer-grade connections. Verizon blocks Port 25 in quite a few markets on their Business Grade stuff unless you pay extra, Comcast just doesn't give anyone the option, Port 25 is always blocked. Have no idea how AT&T, Covad, Time Warner, etc handle it.
  
  --
  @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Hey Google, by nixtanatos · 2009-12-02 02:41 · Score: 1

Come to the Dark Side of the Force.
the only reason I'll miss gears by spyrochaete · 2009-12-02 02:46 · Score: 1

I had poor luck successfully using Google Docs offline, even though this was supposedly what Gears was made for. I still do find Gears useful for one thing - Wordpress. I obviously can't blog offline, and if I were writing a post offline I'd do it in Microsoft Live Writer or MS Word or something, but regardless, that's not how Wordpress uses Gears; it leverages Gears to cache common Javascript files locally so that the pages on the admin console load much more quickly. This makes complex procedures really painless - like when I have to switch between many pages on the admin console, such as when I'm tweaking a series of templates or testing incremental changes to a plugin.
I'm no web designer so perhaps I'm misunderstanding TFA, but is offline script caching one of the features of HTML5? I really love this feature for frequently viewed web apps.
1. Re:the only reason I'll miss gears by slim · 2009-12-02 03:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm no web designer so perhaps I'm misunderstanding TFA, but is offline script caching one of the features of HTML5?
  Yes.
  http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/offline.html#offline
2. Re:the only reason I'll miss gears by spyrochaete · 2009-12-02 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the information! Sounds like HTML5 is a non-proprietary rip and replace for Gears.
Time to ... by PePe242 · 2009-12-02 02:53 · Score: 3, Funny

shift gear
So, Opera 10.10 will be the best Google client? by Ilgaz · 2009-12-02 03:01 · Score: 1

So now, with a browser having 100% perfect Acid 3 score even on mobile/ARM flavor, I should be able to use Google sites in their full function not missing a single feature, no quirks, no "browser.js" hacks.
Basically I should be able to use Opera 10.10 and I shouldn't be thinking a second about Google Chrome which wasn't released for PowerPC anyway.
Somehow, I have hard time believing that.
1. Re:So, Opera 10.10 will be the best Google client? by slim · 2009-12-02 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Somehow, I have hard time believing that.
  Why?
  If every browser was as standards-compliant as Opera, Google wouldn't have needed to push Chrome. Yes; you should be able to use Google sites to their full function in Opera, once they migrate off Gears to HTML5.
2. Re:So, Opera 10.10 will be the best Google client? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  So now, with a browser having 100% perfect Acid 3 score even on mobile/ARM flavor, I should be able to use Google sites in their full function not missing a single feature, no quirks, no "browser.js" hacks.
  Not really. Acid3 does not test a lot of advanced HTML5 features of the kind being discussed here, like local storage, web workers, video tag, etc.
  All features that incidentally, AFAIK, are not currently available in the Opera browser. But then again, neither is Google Gears, except for Opera Mobile.
3. Re:So, Opera 10.10 will be the best Google client? by TheRaven64 · 2009-12-02 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  You realise, I hope, that ACID3 tests a set of corner cases in CSS, ECMAscript and DOM that were poorly implemented on existing implementations when the test was introduced? It is not a full-coverate test suite for HTML, CSS, or JavaScript, and it does not cover any of the new features added with HTML 5.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
4. Re:So, Opera 10.10 will be the best Google client? by larry+bagina · 2009-12-02 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome isn't just the alternate alternate windows browser, it's also a part of ChromeOS and (more importantly) Android.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
5. Re:So, Opera 10.10 will be the best Google client? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Does Acid 3 test the client storage parts of HTML 5?
Interesting idea of the day -1 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 03:12 · Score: 2, Funny

I'd been toying with the idea of making my existing webapp available offline, and just this morning began reading up on Google Gears to use it. I put the documentation down for a minute to check out /. and what do I see? Well, fuck.
Offline apps by jeroen94704 · 2009-12-02 03:43 · Score: 1

The couple of times I looked into Gears, the main feature touted by Google was the ability to use your web apps when you're not connected to the internet. This was reason enough for me not to spend a lot of energy on Gears, as in practice, in this day and age, I never find a computer that is NOT connected to the internet.

So in short, I've never had a need for Gears.

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
1. Re:Offline apps by Brandee07 · 2009-12-02 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  The only need I've had for Gears was on airplanes, and for drag-and-drop document upload on Wave.
2. Re:Offline apps by lwsimon · 2009-12-02 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  The couple of times I looked into Gears, the main feature touted by Google was the ability to use your web apps when you're not connected to the internet. This was reason enough for me not to spend a lot of energy on Gears, as in practice, in this day and age, I never find a computer that is NOT connected to the internet.
  So in short, I've never had a need for Gears.
  You don't think this will change as we move to more and more powerful mobile computing platforms? Already, my iPhone runs into issues at times when the network isn't available - when WLAN netbook/tablets/retinal implants drop from the network, this type of tech will be key.
  
  --
  Learn about Photography Basics.
3. Re:Offline apps by Jonathan · 2009-12-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Do you don't use a laptop? Or do you have a 3G modem or something? That's the main point of Gears -- being able to edit a Google Docs document on a laptop without needing to find a wifi hotspot.
Shhh by ClosedSource · 2009-12-02 03:50 · Score: 1

We don't even imply that MS had any original ideas around here.
stream of chars, I/O functions, drivers? by ClosedSource · 2009-12-02 03:56 · Score: 1

Hey if your going to mock, do it correctly. Need to output an integer? Use assembly instruction code to write to hard-coded address. Done.
1. Re:stream of chars, I/O functions, drivers? by camperdave · 2009-12-02 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and if you do
  
  JMP $E456
  
  instead of
  
  JSR $E456 RTS
  
  You can save yourself two bytes of stack space plus nine cycles of computing time.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
2. Re:stream of chars, I/O functions, drivers? by ClosedSource · 2009-12-02 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  When programming for the Atari 2600 we sometimes jumped into the middle of a multi-byte 6507 instruction to save a byte or two. No excuse for that now, but plenty back then.
Chrome OS by ZankerH · 2009-12-02 04:16 · Score: 1

From what I understood, Gears was the primary reason a computer with chrome OS is somewhat more useful than a brick when offline. Does this mean they'll have to allow real local applications for chrome OS now?
1. Re:Chrome OS by Brandee07 · 2009-12-02 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  No, because HTML5 includes Gears' functionality. As browser developer teams upgrade their browsers to be adherent to the new standard, you won't need a plugin to use these features.
  So, it's not hard to imagine that ChromeOS will be HTML5-compliant.
2. Re:Chrome OS by DragonWriter · 2009-12-02 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  From what I understood, Gears was the primary reason a computer with chrome OS is somewhat more useful than a brick when offline. Does this mean they'll have to allow real local applications for chrome OS now?
  No, it means that Google is planning on relying on HTML5 local storage (and related HTML5 features) to provide this functionality, instead of Gears.
I'm still waiting for the Linux Gears! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 04:46 · Score: 0

Evil Evil Evil!
1. Re:I'm still waiting for the Linux Gears! by PCM2 · 2009-12-02 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Cool, here you go.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
JavaScript speed wars by PCM2 · 2009-12-02 05:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

One of the more overlooked features of Gears is its JavaScript parser, which allows apps to execute JavaScript in a separate thread from the rest of the page to improve performance. Now that Google has released Chrome, it makes less sense for it to keep working on a hack to allow Firefox and IE to run JavaScript more efficiently. Chrome is incentive enough for Mozilla and Microsoft to start doing that for themselves.

--
Breakfast served all day!
1. Re:JavaScript speed wars by Hurricane78 · 2009-12-13 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because all four of you users who actually use Chrome, and because one of them actually cares... Riiight... :P
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Fantastic!! by Steeltoe · 2009-12-02 05:49 · Score: 1

Which part of this is it that Google != do no evil?
me.bows_down_to(Google)

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Gears?!! by PPH · 2009-12-02 07:22 · Score: 1

Gears went out of favor after Babbage's Difference Engine.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
does this mean by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-02 07:27 · Score: 0

does this mean I can't save my content on google locally any more, and access it off line?
IE6 lock-in isn't a myth by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-03 13:46 · Score: 0

IE6 lock-in is not a myth. My company Integrien.com has developed a very powerful web based application using as much of the latest tech is possible. We though we could completely abandon IE6 for the new features, we where some what wrong. At lease 70% of our customers where OK with IE7+ or Firefox 3+.
The problem for corporation is the following: for those that jumped on the web bandwagon early have create 1,000 of applications that run in only older browsers.The cost to upgrade all those applications would be very expensive to upgrade and test and they work now. So for some of our users IE6 is the highest they can get to. We had to go back and write some work arounds for this limits.