Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gtk 3.2 Will Let You Run Applications In a Browser

Posted by timothy on from the never-get-off-the-merry-go-'round dept.

An anonymous reader submits this intriguing tidbit: "Gtk+ 3.2 will let you run any application in a browser thanks to the new HTML5 gdk backend. That means you'll be able to run GIMP, Gedit, a video editor or whatever, remotely (or on the same computer), using a web browser. Just imagine the possibilities!" At this point, says the article, it's only possible with Firefox 4.

131 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Standards people! by viablos · · Score: 2

    If it only works with Firefox, then they're not clearly using HTML5 standards. Opera, Chrome and Internet Explorer 9 all have a great support for HTML5. Why is it not working with them? And this is open source project, which should have even more standard support than proprietary software. Or is Microsoft actually better? Do it correctly!

    1. Re:Standards people! by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 4, Informative

      HTML5 is still a draft standard and in common usage it usually refers to a bunch of stuff like an in-browser video codec, WebGL, DOM data storage, canvas, geo location data support, etc. - almost all of which are not uniformly supported across all "HTML5" browsers - and that's especially true for IE9.

    2. Re:Standards people! by Desler · · Score: 1

      HTML5 is still a draft standard and in common usage it usually refers to a bunch of stuff like an in-browser video codec, WebGL, DOM data storage, canvas, geo location data support, etc.

      Protip: WebGL is not part of the HTML5 standard nor is it a W3C or WHATWG standard. It is a completely separate standard maintained by the Khronos group.

    3. Re:Standards people! by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 1

      If it only works with Firefox, then they're not clearly using HTML5 standards. Opera, Chrome and Internet Explorer 9 all have a great support for HTML5. Why is it not working with them? And this is open source project, which should have even more standard support than proprietary software. Or is Microsoft actually better? Do it correctly!

      Maybe Mozilla, Apple, Google, and Opera implement different subsets of the "standard" (HTML5 is not what I'd call a standard) and functionality this needs is implemented only in Firefox's subset? Maybe they even implement vague parts of the standard in different ways?

      Just because there is a standard doesn't mean that writing an application conforming to that standard will get you cross-platform support in every platform that claims to support that platform.

      (Of course, they could be using mozilla-prefixed CSS properties and whatnot - but that's part of the standard too.)

    4. Re:Standards people! by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      And that's why I said, "in common usage". Nobody cares what the committees say in practice. If all commonly used browsers support WebGL to some degree, then it's a "standard", and people will use "HTML5" as the buzzword. Fact is, a lot of things that are included now in HTML5 (e.g. web workers) were not part of what the committees published some time before, and HTML5 is still a work-in-progress. So the standard right now is still a very malleable thing.

    5. Re:Standards people! by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The guy in charge doesn't think that HTML 5 will be a real standard with two complete, interoperable implementations until 2022.

    6. Re:Standards people! by Desler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By "in common usage" you mean it is improperly implied to be so by people like this so they can make lame, butthurt-filled rants against Microsoft, right?

    7. Re:Standards people! by Desler · · Score: 1

      Also, I never said that WebGL was not a standard. I even specifically said:

      It is a completely separate standard maintained by the Khronos group.

      Sorry, but WebGL is not part of HTML5 no matter how much people want to imply it is so.

    8. Re:Standards people! by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      It also requires Websockets, which isn't available in IE (yet?) and is disabled by default in Opera and Firefox.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    9. Re:Standards people! by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      No. In common usage means when you actually go and code web-related projects like jQuery Mobile and CKEditor. When you're actually coding anything non-trivial for a few browsers, you'll find that the standards don't really work perfectly and that 100% rating on ACID3 is meaningless. There're always minute differences between browser implementations even though they all tell you they support X.

      IE9's support for newer features is poor - that's a fact. In none of my previous posts have I even mentioned Microsoft. I mean.. what the heck is happening?

    10. Re:Standards people! by tuffy · · Score: 1

      Assembling a standard from several different, somewhat divergent implementations is hardly a new practice. The idea with HTML5 seems to be that once browsers implement all these fancy proposed features, the resulting subset will be hammered into an actual standard.

      The alternative is specifying a standard first and throwing it at the feet of implementors to see what sticks, but I doubt that approach will work any better for HTML than it did for Perl6.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    11. Re:Standards people! by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      You're not getting what I'm saying. Whether something is in a bunch of draft standards or not.. is of academic interest to some people only. If you're actually coding something, you don't care - you can try to stick to the "standard" way but it will always breaks at some point. If you don't believe me, just look at a bug tracker in any popular FOSS web project - jQuery, extJS, jQ Mobile, CKEditor, etc. etc. If you want a specific example, read jQuery Mobile's fastclick branch, read the code and the commit log and see what the clusterfuck it is to simply handle "tap" events in mobile, "standard compliant" browsers.

      And with the malleable nature of HTML5 right now... a bunch of usable features that breaks all the time in practice and has to be tested on different browsers on a case-by-case basis, is all what it means to a software developer. I guess what you're focusing on is the academic kind of correctness - whether W3C published it or not. Having W3C and WHATWG publish it has its uses... but at the end of the day, unless you're someone working at W3C, it doesn't really matter for you.

    12. Re:Standards people! by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Protip: WebGL is not part of the HTML5 standard nor is it a W3C or WHATWG standard

      Brain hurt.
      Want to go back to simple HTML:
      http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961114151757/http://scifi.com/
      (look how fast it loads)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    13. Re:Standards people! by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Ian's the Secretary for the Specification. He's the mediator. The people in charge are the corporations implementing the specification. The spec will be done by 2014. This 2022 is absurd.

    14. Re:Standards people! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Want to go back to simple HTML:
      http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961114151757/http://scifi.com/
      (look how fast it loads)

      It loads fast because it's not doing much. I write new HTML almost every day that performs just as well because it's not overly-complex.

    15. Re:Standards people! by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Ah, back when scifi was sci-fi, not wrastling.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    16. Re:Standards people! by gsnedders · · Score: 2

      Up-front disclosure: I've been involved with HTML5 since 2006, and worked for Opera Software since 2009, and (among other things) am QA for HTML/DOM/etc. implementation.

      2022 is far from insane: CSS 2.1 has been under development since 1998, and is yet to reach REC (though hopefully will this year) â" and CSS 2.1 is just a minor update to CSS 2.

      Yes, for most practical purposes the spec will be done long before it reaches REC, but writing a testsuite that is considered complete enough is massively-time consuming, and having two implementations passing every test will take time (again, we're still not there with CSS 2.1 after 13 years).

      HTML5 will almost certainly take longer than CSS 2.1 because not only does it just clarify prior ambiguities, but it also adds a fairly large number of new features. Also, the ambiguities that are being clarified are often large gaping holes (e.g., there is no definition of how cross-origin access between frames should work, what should be allowed, prior to HTML5) in previous specifications, and as such each browser has its own design for quite what happens in those areas (normally similar except in the edge-cases from reverse-engineering), and quite a lot of those designs will be non-trivial to change to match HTML5 for all browser vendors in places, meaning there will be quite a lot of things that will remain different in the edge-cases for a while.

      Note that under what the W3C Process requires today for a spec to proceed to REC neither HTML 4 nor CSS 2 would yet be a recommendation (indeed, such documents are closer to the quality that would be expected of an early working draft nowadays).

      For a probably more refined answer than this, see http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What.27s_this_I_hear_about_2022.3F.

    17. Re:Standards people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would you think that you need gtk 3.2 on the target machine? ( Hint: You don't. )

    18. Re:Standards people! by VertigoAce · · Score: 1

      The approach the IE team has started taking for unstable standards is to release prototypes independently of the main browser. For example, the websockets prototype is here: http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/prototypes/available-for-download/websockets. My understanding is that there have been breaking changes in the websockets protocol spec fairly recently (to resolve security issues), so shipping an implementation for widespread use isn't a good idea until the spec stabilizes.

    19. Re:Standards people! by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      No you don't. Its a pure HTML5 thing. This will run, eventually, on an ipad for instance.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    20. Re:Standards people! by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The idea with HTML5 seems to be that once browsers implement all these fancy proposed features, the resulting subset will be hammered into an actual standard.

      At which point everyone's already implemented those features in their way so wtf do we even need the standard for?

    21. Re:Standards people! by amorsen · · Score: 1

      These days much of the real value from standards is the process which creates them. The finished standard is almost just a diploma to put on the wall.

      If we can find a superior way to get competitors working together, perhaps standards can just go away.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    22. Re:Standards people! by umghhh · · Score: 1

      My experience with standards is also that they are living things. Some of them are OC established and stable but some of them are developing and by nature of things - if you are developing some new area and aim for functioning interwork between items coming from different vendors then standards are of great value also when they change constantly. You can ignore them and hope that the interwork issues are of no importance or that the rest of the world will adjust to your concept and thus forming de facto standards (also called industry standards). You can leave it at that too. You can see the consequences of both approaches in mobile telephony. US has usually much better technology but it was singular in this sense that only some of the operators used it and no interwork was possible. Europe took different approach and with ITU established a common platform which allowed them the following: provide customers with smooth switching between networks, reuse of equipment across boarders etc and thus most importantly rapid growth. US had better technology but because the guys on the market could not agree on any common standard the result was a mess. I guess you still have problems there with handover? OC web development is different in that it does not follow any regulations and thus allows a lot of crap to prevail. It is indeed miserable experience to use web applications for years now and seeing your approach this is not going to change.

    23. Re:Standards people! by exomondo · · Score: 1

      These days much of the real value from standards is the process which creates them. The finished standard is almost just a diploma to put on the wall.

      If we can find a superior way to get competitors working together, perhaps standards can just go away.

      So the idea of 'standards compliance' is not relevant anymore then.

    24. Re:Standards people! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Offtopic but damn that was a cool demo. Thanks for sharing.

  2. Why exactly? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why exactly do I want do this?

    And more importantly, can I run firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4?

    1. Re:Why exactly? by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have answered your first question with your seconds question.

      --
      -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    2. Re:Why exactly? by maxume · · Score: 2

      A migration path for simple apps (in either direction, from web to desktop or from desktop to web)?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Why exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No programs should ever migrate to the web.

    4. Re:Why exactly? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Or using traditional application development tools to build a web app?

      I like the Web, but I have to admit, GUI toolkits tend to be quite a bit better. I don't know how well this would actually work, but it would be nice to develop a web frontend using tools like glade or QtDesigner rather than what I do now with Haml and jQuery.

      I'm very skeptical, though -- there are ways the Web is currently better than many desktop apps. Even ignoring issues like bandwidth and performance, would this give me an app which properly supports things like bookmarking, tabbed browsing, and the back button? Is it just drawing to canvas, or does it take advantage of native stuff?

      From the video, the answer seems to be "no, and it's just drawing to canvas." If that's the case, I take back everything I just said, and I hope this is never deliberately used to build a web app. Still a cool idea, though.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Why exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I would run the emacs operating system inside firefox 4, and then load firefox 4 again within emacs. Using the inner firefox 4 I would run vim. This is finally a way to give emacs a decent text editor!

    6. Re:Why exactly? by Nemesisghost · · Score: 2

      Why exactly do I want do this?

      Simple really. This is for those of us who run applications remotely for one reason or another. I personally like being able to run GEdit remotely since my server doubles as my homework computer. If this would let me do the same thing from a web browser, so that I don't have to use a separate SSH application then I'm all for it.

    7. Re:Why exactly? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Why does that sound suspicously like emacs?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Why exactly? by lonelytrail · · Score: 2

      Does it ever get old stifling peoples creativity?
      I can think of lots of reasons I would like this.
      I have a server at home.
      I would like to edit something at home, from work. That's one trivial example.
      Do you ever get tired of shooting down somebody else's idea just because it doesn't immediately fit whatever is in your head RIGHT NOW?
      Give it a second. Stop to think before you call somebody else crap and maybe just bite your F'ing tongue.

    9. Re:Why exactly? by proxy318 · · Score: 1

      we have to go deeper.

      --
      Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
    10. Re:Why exactly? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I have a server at home.
      I would like to edit something at home, from work. That's one trivial example.

      Me too.

      But I already have several remote access solutions. (Remote desktop services, vnc, etc) I'm not sure what advantage this give me.

      I'm not stifling creativity. I'm just not sure what the point is.

    11. Re:Why exactly? by lonelytrail · · Score: 2
      Yes, you are.
      There's a slight but incredible difference between

      Why exactly do I want do this?

      and "What could I use this for?"
      It's like the difference between "That's crap" and "I think there's a better way."
      You don't think so, but it comes off as block-headed.
      It's negative and derogatory. I'm so sick of negative responses I can barely stand it.

    12. Re:Why exactly? by ludwigf · · Score: 1

      Firefox 4 might not work, but generally yes: http://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2011/03/16/yo-dawg/

    13. Re:Why exactly? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      incredible difference between "Why exactly do I want do this?" and "What could I use this for?"

      I disagree that there is any difference at all. You might have read some sort of negativity there, but take a closer look with an open mind to the idea that there was none. There really was none.

      It's like the difference between "That's crap" and "I think there's a better way."

      I see the difference there, and understand what your complaint is. I just don't think my statement has the negativity you saw in it. Sure if you read it with the right tone of voice in your head you can make it sound like I'm belittleing it... but that tone of voice makes "What could I use this for?" just as negative...especially if you stress the word "this" while snorting in derision... ;)

    14. Re:Why exactly? by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      But I already have several remote access solutions. (Remote desktop services, vnc, etc) I'm not sure what advantage this give me.

      I'm not stifling creativity. I'm just not sure what the point is.

      The point is that VNC/RDP-like functionality is now accessible to everyone, which is a good thing. When was the last time Six Pack Joe had a properly configured VNC client?

    15. Re:Why exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And more importantly, can I run firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4?

      You can already do that. Type "chrome://browser/content/browser.xul" as your url

    16. Re:Why exactly? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      No programs should ever migrate to the web.

      What if they migrate back to the desktop every spring?

    17. Re:Why exactly? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I'm not stifling creativity. I'm just not sure what the point is.

      And everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. You're messing with his Zen thing, man.

    18. Re:Why exactly? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      The point is that VNC/RDP-like functionality is now accessible to everyone, which is a good thing. When was the last time Six Pack Joe had a properly configured VNC client?

      joe six pack would "Windows Remote Desktop" by clicking it in the start menu, and entering the ip address to connect to.

      The reason most joe-sixpacks don't is because they need to enable the RDP server, tweak the firewall rules to let the incoming connection, and know a bit about tcpip to find their address and/or register dynamic-dns name.

      As a result, a joe sixpack who needs this ends up overpaying for the functionality with gotomypc or something like that.

      With this, Joe sixpack is still going to have to configure his server to host his appications through a web server or something so that he can reach it with his browser to run the gtk apps... wait a minute ... joe sixpack is running a linux server? I seriously doubt joe sixpack is going to be going anywhere near this.

    19. Re:Why exactly? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      And more importantly, can I run firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4?

      You can already, though I haven't tried it on 4.

      Just use the following URL:

      chrome://browser/content/browser.xul

      Do it in a new tab and that tab will act like a new Firefox window (in a tab) with its own tabs and your plugins.

      It works because Firefox is really just a XUL runtime...

    20. Re:Why exactly? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      For one thing, it means that you can run gtk apps in your web browser even if an administrator has locked down your system and limited the apps you can use.

      I'd like to see Qt do this too, so there'd be some competition ;)

    21. Re:Why exactly? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, it looks to me like one of those situations where you apply the DRY principle to your design, and suddenly realize that the uncoupling of assumptions has created some surprising, oddball ways of using your code. Whether or not actually doing those things is sensible, you've got to code up some demonstrations just to show how successful your refactoring is.

      Another way of saying this is that some people ask, "Why should the system be designed to make this possible?" Others ask, "Why should the system be designed to *preclude* this possibility?" Now who are the better designers?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:Why exactly? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. in this case, a 'cloud' centric computing future does NOT look like this utopia you speak of solely out of YOUR convenience.

    23. Re:Why exactly? by dannys42 · · Score: 2

      No programs should ever migrate to the web.

      What if they migrate back to the desktop every spring?

      Depends if it's an African or European program.

    24. Re:Why exactly? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      No programs should ever migrate to the web.

      What if they migrate back to the desktop every spring?

      Depends if it's an African or European program.

      They could bring us coconuts!

    25. Re:Why exactly? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Emacs is a nice OS, but it lacks a decent editor...

      If you're going to start holy wars, you gotta get it right. ;)

    26. Re:Why exactly? by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      Short-sightedness doesn't get old in Slashdot, does it?

      Jose Sixpack can easily connect to a remote server, regardless of who set it up. This means that this can be commercialized to provide remote services (i.e., teh cloud) to Joe Sixpack. Imagine being able to connect to a real Libre Office app instead of the severely limited Google Docs.

      If you think about it, connection via RDP is already commercialized (i.e., Amazon EC2) but it still requires the user to set up a client. Being able to connect via browser removes this requirement.

    27. Re:Why exactly? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I really don't. I want that even less than I want ADF and jDeveloper.

      Partly because I want the result to not suck. Can I use those tools to develop a frontend which is essentially static HTML? Not actually static, use some templates and sugar to make it easier to build, but is it actually reasonable to develop a frontend which doesn't have to talk to the server for every little thing?

      But mostly, I want to develop and deploy on open platforms. I can't count the number of times it's been helpful to read the source of a library or tool I'm using, and there are a number of times when patching it directly has been the best option. Maybe that's an indication of the lack of quality of the particular frameworks and libraries I'm using, but from what I hear from the proprietary world, and certainly from my own experience with Oracle ADF, it's not really different there. In Oracle's case, it's often far, far worse, to the point where I really don't get why anyone willingly chooses Oracle for anything.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    28. Re:Why exactly? by elsurexiste · · Score: 2

      we have to go deeper.

      That's what she said.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    29. Re:Why exactly? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Emacs is a nice OS, but it lacks a decent browser.....

      An OS with cooperative multitasking didn't cut it in 2000, and certainly doesn't cut it now.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    30. Re:Why exactly? by tequila13 · · Score: 1

      chrome://browser/content/browser.xul

  3. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What you're saying is I'll be able to run Browser X on Computer A and arbitrary OS, and use it to control Application Y running natively on Computer B and GNU/Linux/GNOME analogously to X11 forwarding?

    Cool.

    1. Re:So by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't GTK apps under *BSD/MacOS/Windows work?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:So by Stregano · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if this makes it so that I can keep a *NIX OS and run Windows apps in it, this would actually be super slick and awesome. Granted, I would get no work done once I figure out how to efficiently run pc games from my home pc to my work browser (work browser = whatever browser I want). Do they explain whether everything will be rendered in the browser, or if it will do some type of blow-out or whatever to cover the entire screen?

      --
      The world is how you make it
    3. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They get rid of minimize/maximize buttons to stay away from Windowsisms, yet they want to replicate what is basically ActiveX integration?

      WTF, GNOME?

    4. Re:So by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2

      That was my first thought, as in 'Didn't we do this in the eighties with X-Terminals?'

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    5. Re:So by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Didn't we do this in the eighties with X-Terminals?

      Always wondered why nobody just did an X Server as a browser plugin. Stick to the old 2D X drawing primitives and it is actually fairly fast vs posting bitmaps for everything like modern Qt and GTK does. It is a well known and documented interface and would allow pretty advanced apps.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    6. Re:So by maxume · · Score: 2

      http://www.google.com/search?q=X+Server+as+a+browser+plugin

      Seems someone did do it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:So by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      wormholes.

    8. Re:So by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Making it a browser plugin is not fundamentally better than making it a separate app, as you still need to download and install it. Now, writing one in pure JS (with HTML5 canvas and WebSockets) would be impressive.

    9. Re:So by jbolden · · Score: 1

      http://www.jcraft.com/wiredx/

  4. Just imagine the possibilities!" by radtea · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't... I'm too busy imagining the performance...

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    1. Re:Just imagine the possibilities!" by Spritzer · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I can't wait to run AutoCAD Mechanical in Firefox over a 256kb/s connection from a hotel in Malaysia. That's going to be amazing. Why, I won't need anything but a XOOM for all of my mobile computing needs.

  5. Re:A preview of this amazing thing by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    goatsie. Yeeeeeee -- wait, that's in wordpress! Holly cow, that means you are SO INTO GOATSIES YOU BLOG THEM!!

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  6. And we reinvent X by dodobh · · Score: 2

    X over HTTP?

    If you thought remote X was slow, imagine the performance.

    --
    I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    1. Re:And we reinvent X by skids · · Score: 1

      Save your breath. Inventing new standards and then running emulations of old standards over the new standard, or emulating the new standard over the old standard, is the bread and butter of 90% of the programming workforce. The more the new standards suck, actually, the better -- more work to do. It's a jobs program, I tell ya. And so much less challenging then actually learning the math needed to make something truly innovative.

      That aside, this particular hack is actually potentially useful going forward, so I will spare it my derision. Buckets in X11 protocol were never adequately used -- now I'm guessing they are abstracted under HTML5 idioms so at least the client will cache graphical content for a change. Might actually even perform better, despite the awful encapsulation.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    2. Re:And we reinvent X by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      still a bloated mess. X11/vnc/ms remote desktop et al are far superior for this than some stupid html/gtk wrapper. what will they think of next? oh wait, I know, they'll use some trendy half-interpreted half compiled language to code this in, increasing the bloat and slowness by multiple factors.. yuck. the stacks the industry is building these days are disgustingly obtuse... and all for the sake of moving execution control away from the consumer (so he can be charged over and over).

    3. Re:And we reinvent X by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      By posting that you have only proved that you simply have no idea how this works, or even what the architecture is.

    4. Re:And we reinvent X by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      You seem to think this is some kind of X server implemented in the browser. It is not. You *could* read up a bit on what it is before evaluating the technology... What you wrote only shows you have no idea what this is, really.

    5. Re:And we reinvent X by dodobh · · Score: 1

      In terms of effect, what's the difference?

      Running applications remotely with the display local? That's what X *does*.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  7. Speed? by UBfusion · · Score: 1

    Will this will allow us too run apps faster in a browser than natively? Or is this just an Apple thing?

  8. Idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should put entire desktop into the browser and make it a default shell, I'm sure nobody thought of that! Oh, wait...

  9. this opens a possibility by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Funny

    this opens a possibility that even the modern, newest computers, with gigabytes of RAM and multiple processors/cores won't be enough to do a basic thing without nearly hanging the entire machine.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:this opens a possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whats hardware innovation if you can't make ludicrously inefficient use of it?

  10. IE6 and ActiveX wants a word with you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously. HTML5 is trying to minimize use of addons and plugins. The reason why IE6 is still around because of proprietary ActiveX that is locking people in to it at work.

    1. Re:IE6 and ActiveX wants a word with you. by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      I see no addons or plugins here.

    2. Re:IE6 and ActiveX wants a word with you. by bolthole · · Score: 1

      This amount of bloat is insane.

      The old joke was, {all programs will expand until they can read usenet}

      Now it seems to be, {all programs will expand until they can run a browser inside them}

      In both situations, the sane response is, "Quit adding bloat, and instead give me reliability, speed, and efficiency!!!"

  11. FTFY by Whispers_in_the_dark · · Score: 1

    "Just imagine the vulnerabilities !"
    This seems like the same sort of thing that gets Windows into trouble all the time (Flash in Excel for example).

  12. Re:The web catches up with... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    At least the implementation will be better.

    You are joking, right?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Honest question. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Why would I want to run something like Gimp in a browser, when I can just run it regularly?

    1. Re:Honest question. by happyslasher1 · · Score: 1

      Gimp no, but some admin tool, even just nautilus, is sweet.

    2. Re:Honest question. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Some reasons that come to mind:

      1) Your'e not at home/wheever the app is running. You're someplace else and wanr to run it remotely. Think home security applications, programming your DVR, etc).

      2) You can't run it regularly because you don't have access to the computer it's running on. Maybe it's running in the cloud.

      3) This is just another way of building highly interactive web pages. Beats the crap out of AJAX. Google could rewrite GMail as a linux app rather than using web technologies, and you'd not know the difference.

    3. Re:Honest question. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Ok yeah after thinking about it more, I can see some potential in a feature like this.

    4. Re:Honest question. by lennier · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to run something like Gimp in a browser, when I can just run it regularly?

      Because if you embed anything in a browser it automatically becomes a "web app" and you can charge for it, hold the data hostage, raise the prices whenevery you want, and yank access if the users complain.

      Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  14. Can someone clarify what this does? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    So the app is generating an HTML5 based web page that you serve to the remote browser? I'm not up-to speed on HTML5, so how does this handle the application "pushing" screen updates to the browser?

    1. Re:Can someone clarify what this does? by robmv · · Score: 1

      WebSockets: allows any web application to open a direct connection to a server (by default following the same origin restrictions) and it works only in Firefox because it is a nice hack/experiment and it is not targeting to be released on GTK 3.2. For those asking, it only works on Firefox NOW because the developer is just experimenting at the moment, using disabled by default WebSockets implementation in Firefox 4 (disabled on Opera too until the spec is more mature).

  15. Re:Qt plans network transparency too by blair1q · · Score: 1

    I'm going to start presuming that any user ID over 2e6 is posting that link.

  16. Not really running in a browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    More accurately, GTK 3.2 will let you take a GTK program running /outside/ the browser and, assuming it does not use anything X11-specific, forward drawing as gzipped data: URIs to your browser which then assembles things in a element. It's basically a poor reimplementation of a VNC that only works in GTK. Significantly more interesting would be a GTK that draws with PPAPI and runs in NaCl, which would allow you to develop a web app using GTK, deploy it on the web, and run it (safely) within your browser.

    1. Re:Not really running in a browser by tyrione · · Score: 1

      More accurately, GTK 3.2 will let you take a GTK program running /outside/ the browser and, assuming it does not use anything X11-specific, forward drawing as gzipped data: URIs to your browser which then assembles things in a element. It's basically a poor reimplementation of a VNC that only works in GTK. Significantly more interesting would be a GTK that draws with PPAPI and runs in NaCl, which would allow you to develop a web app using GTK, deploy it on the web, and run it (safely) within your browser.

      Two thumbs up for being knowledgeable on the subject.

    2. Re:Not really running in a browser by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, someone doesn't understand the difference between a GUI toolkit and a browser. I doubt Gtk+ 3.2 includes a C->HTML5 transcoder.

      Anyone want to write a Gaussian Blur filter in ECMAScript, and run it on a four-million-pixel, 4-channel raster image?

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    3. Re:Not really running in a browser by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      Significantly more interesting would be a GTK that draws with PPAPI and runs in NaCl, which would allow you to develop a web app using GTK, deploy it on the web, and run it (safely) within your browser.

      I agree that running a GTK app entirely clientside would be very interesting. There is another way to do that: Compile a GTK app from C to JavaScript using Emscripten. (I wrote Emscripten, sorry to plug my own project, but I'd be thrilled if someone used it to do something like this!)

    4. Re:Not really running in a browser by Roxton · · Score: 2

      Anyone want to write a Gaussian Blur filter in ECMAScript, and run it on a four-million-pixel, 4-channel raster image?

      That's kind of doable now with (what is colloquially referred to as) HTML5. I know you're referring to the atrocity of running the actual convolution with browser JavaScript engines, but as it stands, you can specify the convolution filter in ECMAScript and pass it off to WebGL. The early part of this video has a pretty cool demo.

      http://www.google.com/events/io/2010/sessions/gwt-html5.html

    5. Re:Not really running in a browser by mad.frog · · Score: 2

      It's totally doable *right now* in Flash.

      http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/pixel_bender_basics_flex_air.html

    6. Re:Not really running in a browser by BZ · · Score: 1

      > Anyone want to write a Gaussian Blur filter in
      > ECMAScript, and run it on a four-million-pixel,
      > 4-channel raster image?

      So like https://bug495499.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=380489 more or less, but doing gaussian blur instead of desaturate? The image there is a 4,096,000 pixel image (2560x1600); the desaturate filter takes 250ms on my machine in Firefox 4 (and that includes getting the bits out of the image and into JS and then back into image form).

      Of course it's a bit slower in other browsers, but only by a factor of 2-4 or so over here.

    7. Re:Not really running in a browser by lennier · · Score: 1

      Compile a GTK app from C to JavaScript

      That word... my dictionary is very sad.

      (Is it a sign of the times that we now need a word for turning a compiled language into an interpreted one? 'Elipmoc' perhaps?)

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  17. screen by dmbasso · · Score: 1

    I would really enjoy having a "screen" tool for my GUIs sessions.

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  18. I recognize this idea... by Radtoo · · Score: 1

    Java applets!

    1. Re:I recognize this idea... by robmv · · Score: 1

      WRONG, it is a web based VNC like utility, done at the GUI toolkit level. the apps runs on the server. Probably not useful for many people, but a modern replacement of the X protocol that can be made efficient at the toolkit instead of sending bitmaps all time like VNC do, and web enabled is something cool for remote administration for example (if done securely)

    2. Re:I recognize this idea... by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      How d'you like them applets?

  19. Gtk has a video editor? by joeyadams · · Score: 1

    Also, why on earth does the OpenShot package in Ubuntu depend on libgfortran3 ?

    1. Re:Gtk has a video editor? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      why on earth does the OpenShot package in Ubuntu depend on libgfortran3

      Presumably because they use linear algebra routines for something. Check to see if it also relies on LAPACK or BLAS, or a package which relies on either of those two. Or, perhaps there is some other maths package which it uses.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  20. Re:Qt plans network transparency too by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It's Slasher again. This guy's an elite troll. At least he's a nice refreshing break from all the noob/lame trolls, it's good to see somebody putting some thought and effort into it.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  21. Innovation? by macs4all · · Score: 1

    How is this different than using VNC, other than it doesn't require a server-client app pair?

    1. Re:Innovation? by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      VNC is more or less just a video stream with input controls, while GTK+ 3.2 is an interface toolkit. This not only uses less bandwidth for the typical "remote desktop" scenario, but it also can be used for entirely different purposes, such as a web application or an interface to a remote application. They're two totally different things.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    2. Re:Innovation? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      It has more up-to-date buzzwords?

    3. Re:Innovation? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      VNC is more or less just a video stream with input controls, while GTK+ 3.2 is an interface toolkit. This not only uses less bandwidth for the typical "remote desktop" scenario, but it also can be used for entirely different purposes, such as a web application or an interface to a remote application. They're two totally different things.

      So, it really IS a hacker's dream!

  22. Useless by diego.viola · · Score: 1

    Why don't you guys spend effort on Wayland instead of this?

    Seriously.

    1. Re:Useless by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I don't believe Wayland has remote desktop (or whatever we wanna call it, since there isn't really a desktop in X).

      In Wayland, the job is more generally envisioned to be handled by the toolkits, as they know more about the application than the X Server. This is a start to that process actually.

      This is one solution to replace a feature lost by Wayland, pushing it forward as a general solution.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Useless by diego.viola · · Score: 1

      I see, thanks for clearing that up for me. And sorry about that, I just want Wayland to succeed.

  23. Re:Great! Here's my program. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    You can already run that one with CGI, if your goal is simply to make your server commit suicide. No need for a GTK wrapper (which you forgot to provide in any case). I think, perhaps, you don't understand that the apps are running on the server and only using the browser for display and input.

  24. Still need SSH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As you can see, the GUI is exported to the browser, but you still have to start the application on the machine that it runs on. You still need SSH.

    This is just plain old X forwarding, but retarded.

    1. Re:Still need SSH by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      Oh.. do you *really* need SSH? You couldn't maybe setup a web page control center that would enter the command on the server after you verify yourself? Pretty sure you don't *need* to ssh :)

  25. SAAS by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

    Sounds good and all, but this just sounds like it will enable more "Software as a Service", or at the least make a quick and dirty kludgey GUI. I would rather see it done better myself. But I guess to each his own, unfortunately.

    --
    Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
  26. Awesome by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    So will Java 1.0 and up. Or Flash whatever.0 etc...

  27. Dream the dream of days gone by... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    Oh how wonderful to see this technology foretold so long ago.

    Hmmm, there used to be the same thing for Window Maker, but I can't find it anymore.

  28. Re:Horrible flash back by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    I remember that abomination. We looked at it, shuddered, and decided that *that* was going to be seriously banned in our company. We never regretted that.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  29. QDB says it best by Dalcius · · Score: 1

    http://www.qdb.us/305324
    <Pomax> 20 years from now, someone is going to have the radical idea to give users access to the underlying OS, rather than to the browser API, and he will be heralded a revolutionary.
    <Pomax> All manner of programming languages will pop up that work outside "the browser", giving access to "offline" applications, storing files in "user space", even perhaps running in something called "kernel mode".
    <Pomax> It'll be a brave new world.
    <Mirell> It's scary that's believable.

    --
    ~Dalcius
    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    1. Re:QDB says it best by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      That has already happened, at least on the mobile front. Take a look at PhoneGap.

      You can expect the APIs on this kind of thing to become standardized in a few years.

    2. Re:QDB says it best by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...and then Apple will abandon the idea of forcing people to write all phone apps as a web app, and then Android will feature an NDK designed to make it as easy as possible to get your code running right under the kernel... ...except it didn't take two years, let alone 20, it was more like two months. So that actually never came to pass and that particular wag was amusing but nothing more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:QDB says it best by jbolden · · Score: 1

      If this goes that far the underlying OS will be a browser. Of course that browser will have to handle all sorts of other OS functionality but the difference between the browser and the OS will start to disappear. You know like active desktop from I.E. 4.

  30. Hurrah \o/ by shish · · Score: 1

    Just as I thought my computer was running basic office and email tasks too quickly, more abstraction layers \o/ Thanks, generation of developers who don't know about ports other than 80~

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  31. Really? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

    It said 'please upgrade to a modern HTML5 compliant browser', (I'm using firefox 4 RC) then it linked to safari. For fuck's sake, why does the site not detect that I have no 264 support and automatically start the webm video, which is available?

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  32. On Broadway! by JordanH · · Score: 1

    Sounds like they've reinvented Broadway.

    I always thought it sounded like a neat idea, but it went exactly nowhere 14 YEARS AGO.

  33. Nice...looking fwd to in/direct benefits of HTML5. by whovian · · Score: 1

    I noticed that other day that Chrome had the Aviary image editor which looked roughly like a lightweight (I mean size-wise) GIMP. It's interesting to be able to have the real GIMP inside a browser now. This could spark an apps-vs.-extensions war and corresponding pissing match^W^W debate.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  34. Re:Qt plans network transparency too by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    kristopeit seems to be back too.

  35. GIMME A SHELL! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Cloud-enabled root privilege escalation, here I come!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."