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.

11 of 139 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 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?
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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?
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.'"