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.

26 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 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.

  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: 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!

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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!
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?

  6. 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?

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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 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

    2. 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

  10. 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.
  11. 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..."