Chromeless Supplants Mozilla's Prism Project

mikejuk writes "Mozilla Labs has dumped its Prism project, that was intended to bring web applications to the desktop, in favor of a revamped and repurposed Chromeless, a way of building experimental web browsers, to provide yet another way to create a desktop app using web technologies."

Comments

Single point of failure development

[icebike]

Why does everything have to be built on desktop apps dependent on the web or web browsers?

We've been doing desktops since dirt, and have it pretty well understood, reasonably well standardized
across multiple operating systems. The building blocks are well understood, highly developed and
well documented.

So why does it seem as if everybody wants to make us dependent on a 24/7 connection to the
web, and why does it seem everyone wants to turn the browser into the building block upon
which everything else depends?

And don't get me started on clouds!!!

What do we gain besides a huge dependence on things outside of our immediate control.

Did events in Egypt not teach us anything about putting every thing on the web and in
the cloud?

Re:Single point of failure development

[ColdWetDog]

Browsers are lightweight, 'easy' to program. Cheap. More or less OS independent. So that's where the impetus comes from.

But I agree, sticking everything in the stupid browser is annoyingly limited. I can't imagine Photoshop or Maya being browser based. Hell, their browser based help systems don't even work well and that's just linked text - something a browser ought to be good at.

But the vast majority of users don't go past simple stuff - where a browser UI isn't bad. And Bog knows we ought to put everything on the network so that the poor little user can't screw things up.

That's our job.

Re:Single point of failure development

[mcrbids]

why does it seem as if everybody wants to make us dependent on a 24/7 connection to the web

How else do I say it: Because it's *easier*! Rumors that desktop application development is "well understood", well documented, and highly developed, are incorrect.

I'm an application developer, supporting both client-side and web-based models, and it's much, much easier to support a web-based model than a client-side model. With a web-based model, you can almost always replicate bugs reported by end users without much fuss. You hold the cards, so you can recreate problem scenarios and not have to bother the client with all that.

But, with client-side development, you run into situations where (I shit you not!) a combination of an antivirus package and MS Office (no, I'm NOT KIDDING) causes your application to mysteriously stop working. You can't recreate it, despite having a test machine with the same version of windows, similar hardware, etc. The only way to reproduce the problem is on the client's computer, and they are behind a firewall that prevents any remote desktop software from working.

Have you ever travelled 600 miles in order to discover that the problem was their antivirus in combination with a dumb file association with MS Office?

But when it's web-based, the problem is significantly easier to manage. Browsers are much more standardized than desktops. Javascript runs pretty much the same on 32 bit systems as 64 bit systems, PPC, ARM, or i386, Windows, Macintosh, Linux, or iOS, regardless of firewalls, antivirus, or whatever.

And to be truthful, end users are often unable to grasp basic things like saving files, let alone backing them up. But when it's web-based, I can provide a very, VERY strong assurance that backups have occurred within the last 24 hours, 365 days per year!

See the difference yet?

Re:Single point of failure development

[visualight]

All the browser based applications I've ever used suck compared to something similar written in c or c++ (maybe a reflection of how accessible it is to crappy devs and not of the concept). But really I've not run into many of those, there's just not that much need for actual applications in the browser.

What I do see more and more every week are "web apps" (hear me vocalize the quotes) that really need to be web pages. It's as if people can't put up a paragraph of text with a photo unless there's 4 layers of abstraction and 3 jquery scripts to help them.

Re:Single point of failure development

[c0lo]

why does it seem as if everybody wants to make us dependent on a 24/7 connection to the web

How else do I say it: Because it's *easier*! Rumors that desktop application development is "well understood", well documented, and highly developed, are incorrect.

See the difference yet?

Rumors that Web interface is easy to build are grossly exaggerated.
If they are without JavaScript, you are stuck within the "power of expression" of HTML. If they are "powered" by JavaScript, the cross-browser compatibility and debugging/tracing on "what the hell is wrong" becomes quickly a nightmare (everything is Runtime and interpreted, no strong typing, a very loose "Object Oriented" programming paradigm, managing the "context/status of the application" may - and will - create troubles due to the lack of concurrent programming, almost everything is asynchronous, etc).

The best combination for crafting an application I encountered: sandboxed but still rich/smart clients, potentially written as an "update-able plugin". SWT/Eclipse Framework is the first example to spring in mind - many others may exist - : write your application as an Eclipse Plugin and use Eclipse Framework the way an "Web application uses a browser".

Re:Single point of failure development

[dakameleon]

The issue is not that desktop applications can't access a network service - indeed, an increasing majority of desktop programs appear to be doing so - but that web "apps" provide a certain advantage from a development perspective. It's the thick-client-vs-thin-client for the GUI world - a web "app" gives you all the following basically for free:
- cross-platform - get the browser independence right, and you don't have to account for the vagaries of Windows, Mac and Linux.
- globally accessible - log in anywhere with a "terminal" in the form of a browser window (see: e-mail)
- lightweight versioning and updating - no need to roll out updates to each and every user, just update the pages served (see: Facebook)
- familiarity - everyone understands the language of hyperlinks, or can be taught to very quickly.

Some apps will not migrate to the web for some time yet - games, system and basic utilities like text editors, and heavyweight programs that need serious access to hardware. "Productivity" stuff can move over pretty damn easily.

Re:Single point of failure development

[Rinnon]

That's the way someone who understands computers thinks. We are not the majority of people who use computers anymore. The majority of people do NOT understand the way computers work, they just happily sign on to Facebook or their Email when they want to. The idea of being able to go to their friends house and access all their stuff there seems like something out of Sci-Fi to them. It's super cool, and nothing but convenient. I mean, why WOULDN'T you want to be able to do that?

Things like privacy issues aren't really a concern to them either. You ever tried to tell someone about the way Facebook operates, and had them say they don't care about any of that? Happens to me all the time. Also, as a general rule, a lot of people (especially in North America) see what is happening in Egypt, and say to themselves "But that could never happen here."

Finally, in closing, a lot of people do not WANT things in their immediate control. Having all your data on your computer means that it could break, or could get a virus, and then it's in danger of being lost unless Geek Squad can fix it. Many would rather trust it to Google than to themselves. Having worked previously in Geek Squad many moons ago, I have to say, for some of them, trusting their data to anyone but themselves was the wise thing to do.

Re:Single point of failure development

[SanityInAnarchy]

If they are without JavaScript, you are stuck within the "power of expression" of HTML.

If they are without JavaScript, they're probably not the target market anyway. But suggesting that this limits you to HTML... really? I guess server side code doesn't exist?

If they are "powered" by JavaScript, the cross-browser compatibility and debugging/tracing on "what the hell is wrong" becomes quickly a nightmare...

Having done web development, frankly, no it doesn't, not if you know what you're doing.

everything is Runtime and interpreted, no strong typing,

Which means the application itself was much, much quicker to develop and easier to maintain. Also, I have to say, I've never once been saved by the type system that I can remember -- the kinds of bugs I run into, even if they're runtime, never arise because I was using an object of the wrong type. Not once.

a very loose "Object Oriented" programming paradigm,

Erm... What's "loose" about prototypal inheritance? What makes classical inheritance better?

No offense, but are you sure you actually understand the JavaScript object model? It may be that you understand it and dislike it, and prefer other models instead -- but most people who hate JavaScript for not being "OO enough", in my experience, don't really understand JavaScript at all.

managing the "context/status of the application" may - and will - create troubles due to the lack of concurrent programming,

Also means we don't need locking. That's right, web apps don't deadlock.

almost everything is asynchronous,

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:Single point of failure development

[MerlinTheWizard]

So why does it seem as if everybody wants to make us dependent on a 24/7 connection to the web, and why does it seem everyone wants to turn the browser into the building block upon which everything else depends?

Because it's a potentially endless source of revenue. It's really that simple.

Re:Single point of failure development

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

We've been doing desktops since dirt, and have it pretty well understood, reasonably well standardized
across multiple operating systems. The building blocks are well understood, highly developed and
well documented.

that's exactly the problem. multiple. operating. systems. making a desktop app that runs on all of them is a pain in the ass, an for commercial developers, expensive. no wonder that the majority of multi-plataform apps are opensource. now, developing for web, finally bring the dream of "write once, run everywhere", something that java promissed but failed to deliver in large scale.

So why does it seem as if everybody wants to make us dependent on a 24/7 connection to the
web

HTML5 can store data locally, i guess this includes the applications files, so you can still use them while offline.

And don't get me started on clouds!!!

What do we gain besides a huge dependence on things outside of our immediate control.

Did events in Egypt not teach us anything about putting every thing on the web and in
the cloud?

most non-techie people i know have problems installing updates, anti-virus, doing backups and all that. put it on "the cloud" and let professionals handle that.

and "huge dependence on things outside of our immediate control" ??? why do you use different standards for your personal data and your money ? i bet you keep your money on a bank, so why not your data ? it's not like it'll be unavailable if the web goes down, as long as you keep local copies.

and what does egypt have to do with web and clouds ? are you implying that a nation-wide internet shutdown will paralize us ? it didn't paralize the egyptians. the existence or not of the web had zero effect on the egyptian protests.

Re:Single point of failure development

[kelemvor4]

Why does everything have to be built on desktop apps dependent on the web or web browsers?

We've been doing desktops since dirt, and have it pretty well understood, reasonably well standardized across multiple operating systems. The building blocks are well understood, highly developed and well documented.

Mozilla makes web browsers. They're trying to create a dependence on their product like Microsoft did with windows years ago.

So why does it seem as if everybody wants to make us dependent on a 24/7 connection to the web, and why does it seem everyone wants to turn the browser into the building block upon which everything else depends?

And don't get me started on clouds!!!

What do we gain besides a huge dependence on things outside of our immediate control.

Did events in Egypt not teach us anything about putting every thing on the web and in the cloud?

It's not what WE gain, it's what corporations gain in the form of DRM, and tracking your online activities so they can make more money. There's nothing magical or new about any of this, companies will do what's in their best interest regardless of what's in the customer's best interest. Sometimes those two interests cross paths, and sometimes they don't. There's way too many uneducated consumers out there to do anything about it with methods other than cyberwarfare (DDOS etc) or government legislation. However, do not forget that the legislators are in the pockets of the companies in the first place and therefore aren't serving your interests either (again, unless your interests by chance happen to be the same as the corporations interests on a particular issue).

Re:Chromeless...Chrome-less?

[Lennie]

Actually the interface in Mozilla browsers is called the chrome. Mozilla was already using the name for years when Google released their project. You could even say Google. Now that Mozilla allows developers to create their own interface (thus chrome) they called it chromeless, because an interface does not yet exist, the developer can create their own.