Mozilla Labs Introduces the Webian Shell

kai_hiwatari writes "Mozilla Labs has introduced its concept of a desktop replacement called Webian Shell. The Webian Shell basically consists of a browser which will replace the traditional desktop, and web applications are given more importance than the native applications. Right now, the prototype of the Webian Shell is nothing more than a full screen browser with a dock which holds the tabs and the clock." The project's blog offers more about the ideas and underpinnings; there's even more on the home page of developer Ben Francis.

Comments

Oh wow . . .

[bedouin]

So we've come full circle back to IE again?

Re:Oh wow . . .

[AliasMarlowe]

So we've come full circle back to IE again?

Sounds more like a death spiral than a circle...

Re:Oh wow . . .

[Tx]

To be fair, internet connectivity is far more ubiquitous, and we spend a lot more time (proportionally) using web apps, than in the dial-up 90's. So just because this kind of thing was a bad idea back then, doesn't necessarily mean it will always be a bad idea, and it will probably keep repeating until it's time finally comes. I'd say that time hasn't yet come, but the time of the browser-based primary UI may well come eventually. Probably before the day of Linux on the desktop becoming mainstream.

Re:Oh wow . . .

[itsdapead]

So we've come full circle back to IE again?

The difference this time time is it will use open, cross-platform standards that haven't been "embraced and extended" into a proprietary system by Microsoft. It may also have something resembling a security model.

The alternative, in a world where productivity apps (at least) will increasingly be expected to offer tablet & online, cloud-y versions, is to continue to need multiple incompatible codebases for application front ends.

God knows, there should be better choices than HTML/CSS/Javascript for writing GUIs, but the Real World has spoken and, for better or for worse, it is the emerging standard for platform-independent GUIs and already runs across OSX, iOS, Windows, Android and various *nix flavours.

Re:Oh wow . . .

[AHuxley]

We now have the bandwidth, cpu power, OS and vision for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Chrome
For the net desktop ... think of the malware :)

Re:Oh wow . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet in a decade or two we'll be seeing a flood of so-called "native" or "local" applications and UIs that run 100 times faster than regular applications. They will be called Apps 2.0. Also, entertainment content like movies will be delivered on portable, physical media that doesn't exhaust your sparse download quota. Those will be cutting edge innovations! How exciting!

Death-spiral indeed ...

Re:Oh wow . . .

[The MAZZTer]

Actually, I thought this about Windows 8, "Design your apps in HTML and JavaScript" is secret MS code for "Design your apps to run in IE".

Re:Oh wow . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you abandon the tried-and-true.

If Mozilla, had only stuck with the original Mozilla Labs they wouldn't come up with cockamamie crap like this.

Re:Oh wow . . .

[green1]

I was thinking more like an old ISP we used to have around here about 15 years ago. I believe they called themselves 3web, and thy provided you with a dialup client that opened a remote desktop session where you would run a browser, or FTP, or IRC, or mail client on their computers with the output being streamed back to yours through the dial-up connection. They claimed it meant you didn't need a powerfull computer to run such intensive apps as netscape navigator... The catch of course being that at the time, the bottleneck was the dial-up modem, not the processing power of your computer, so this resulted in a very painful web experience...

Re:Oh wow . . .

[History's Coming To]

Just wait until somebody comes up with an App 2.0 that recreates the webtop (see what I did there, web based desktop?!). Then you can have your OS running on an App (2.0) in a webtop on a browser in an OS! And anybody who is able to use the normal OS directly will be a 1337 hax0r. Rumours of a text-only interface to a computer will persist amongst those over 35 years old.

Re:Oh wow . . .

[dainbug]

Sorry to harp on this one, but it has been bugging me for years. In 1997, Microsoft saw that browser based computing was not only possible but in fact, the future. The idea at the time, didn't fit into their world view (read: profit stream) so they spent millions to kill Java applets, then gave the world a system that was so virus prone it has soured us against all browser based apps for over 10 years. I don't know that Mozilla will have the perfect system, or anyone will, but I do know that 'market share' will not be the defining factor in security decisions, and open standards will get us a lot further down the road.

Re:Oh wow . . .

[vegiVamp]

> pen, cross-platform standards that haven't been "embraced and extended"

You mean, will again be "embraced and extended", no ?

Re:Oh wow . . .

[josepha48]

ROTFLMAO! yes death spriral

I Like it!

[Fri13]

I must say but I like the GUI more than what "Chome OS" GUI is. I did not read the article (yet) but I hope that is possible to get work on other OS's than just Linux. With that, even HURD would have a change to be successful operating system so GNU people would be happy!

Re:I Like it!

[Tarlus]

I did not read the article (yet) but I hope that is possible to get work on other OS's than just Linux.

Then for crap's sake, don't post. Spare us the idiocy and spare yourself the embarrassment. From the third paragraph of the article:
"The Webian Shell is just a shell that will run on top on an existing operating system - Windows, Linux or Mac OS X."

I'm not even going to touch that HURD sentence.

Re:I Like it!

[Fri13]

Turn ON your "fuckit all" sarcasm sensors.... Oh, good, then you can tell what microkernel is used in HURD today? (Did you get it?)

Active Desktop

[Dunbal]

a browser which will replace the traditional desktop

That idea is so 1990's. There is a reason the dot-com bubble burst.

Re:Active Desktop

[Seumas]

This kind of shit really has me concerned for the direction browsing is going in, in general. I just want a browser that is efficient and does lots of cool things that make the browsing experience more productive. I don't want social-fucking-everything, branded tabs, branded browsing applications, a dedicated interface for every dipshit hipster social service and integration with a fucking smart-phone and mood ring. Just a fucking browser.

Re:Active Desktop

[boristhespider]

Lynx is your friend.

Re:Active Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. ELinks is your real friend.

Re:Active Desktop

[boristhespider]

Had to hunt out that one. I was expecting it to be based in Emacs. Turns out that would be Emacs/W3.

Re:Active Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Lynx on my smartphone.

Re:Active Desktop

[Lisandro]

I just want a browser that is efficient and does lots of cool things that make the browsing experience more productive.

IMHO, Opera seems to be the only browser nowadays walking the fine line between features and bloat without falling to either side.

Re:Active Desktop

[Darkness404]

Yes, there were two reasons why the dot-com bubble burst:

A) Most dot-com "businesses" were started by people with lots of technical knowledge, but no business knowledge. They were funded by people with lots of business knowledge but no technical knowledge. Most of the "businesses" had no hope of ever really turning a profit, most of them were businesses that lose money on every sale, but they make up for it in volume.

B) The internet was -slow- in the 1990s. Lets face it, because of faster internet we've been able to do a lot of stuff that was impossible to do back in the 1990s.

While I do think that "the cloud" hype is backwards in its thinking, I don't think that it will be like the dot-com crash because they are two different things. Rather, the cloud will fail because consumer hardware is always getting faster, ISPs/cell phone companies are screwing their customers (bandwidth caps, throttling, etc.) and privacy issues.

Re:Active Desktop

[The MAZZTer]

You'll like Chrome OS then, I think. That's all it is. Just a browser. :P

Re:Active Desktop

[Seumas]

I stupidly walked into that. :)

Re:Active Desktop

[erroneus]

Those two sentences do not belong in the same paragraph and likely not even in the same comment.

Both are true but they are not connected in the slightest.

Active Desktop did not catch on because desktop widgets didn't really catch on until Vista/7. Machines and the OS they ran on were underpowered and the concept of the Active Desktop was not implemented fully.

The reason the dot-com bubble burst had nothing to do with Windows9X/XP in the slightest. It had everything to do with businesses buying and "investing" in things they did not understand. (Not that this is anything new... the sub-prime loan securities people can attest to that.) Personally, I saw it coming as people continued to buy and invest in technologies and manpower that simply had no long term use or purpose. The bubble burst when ROI was extremely bad and it was plain that over-investing in IT did not yield magical results.

So I have to ask, what did Active Desktop have to do with the dot-com bubble? They were both in the 90's, but then my sons were born in the 90's... were they also responsible or connected to the dot-com bubble? I don't think so.

Re:Active Desktop

[yarnosh]

Good to know Opera doesn't fall to the side of "features." ;-)

Re:Active Desktop

[LWATCDR]

Yes it is but it may be a not so bad idea right now.
I know a family that runs a small business. He installs tile for a living. They use QuickBooks for their accounting, Email and Google Calander to handle job. They have a full PC and they don't really need it.
Another example was an older couple that used their PC just for Facebooking with their family, email, and eTrade for investments.
There is a large segment that now really do us their computer as nothing but an internet terminal. I do question the idea of not having native apps and living in an all HTML5 and JavaScript world. Why not go back to Java then. The performance issues of Java are really a thing of the past and where mostly myth even then. Using a JIT and an ISA should be faster than JavaScript.
The real truth is that with things like GoogleDocs, Google and Amazon Music, and online services like etrade, Quicken, and others that are starting up all the time. The actual need for native apps is less and less and for a subset of the world they could function just fine with only an browser based system.
Of course we are then falling back the world that the creators fo Mutlaics dreamed of where computing was a utility and away from the micro revolution where everybody has control of their own computer.

Re:Active Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, Opera seems to be the only browser nowadays walking the fine line between features and bloat without falling to either side.

IMHO, Lynx seems to be the only browser nowadays walking the fine line between features and bloat without falling to either side.

Re:Active Desktop

[jbarr]

I just want a browser that is efficient and does lots of cool things that make the browsing experience more productive.

It's all really subjective opinion. I've been using Chrome because my CR-48 Chromebook is Chrome-based, and it does everything I need it to do. Before that, it was Firefox 100%. And believe it or not, some actually even find IE to be productive. There are many browsers that through congoing competition are providing more and more of what users need and want. The problem is that everyone doesn't have the same needs or wants.

Re:Active Desktop

[Raenex]

The reason the bubble burst is because it was a bubble. Lots of hype over new technology, with lots of people investing in anything Internet related, regardless of merit.

The other thing is that even if every project had merit, with any new "gold rush" industry there's always going to be a shakeout period where there are lots of losers and a few winners. That's just the nature of fierce competition.

Re:Active Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Really just a browser? Open up a terminal and behold - full Debian command line.

Re:Active Desktop

[Omestes]

There is a large segment that now really do us their computer as nothing but an internet terminal.

This would be both of my parents, if you put it as "internet terminal and magic solitaire box". But... In my father's case, he would NEVER buy a browser-computer (as another person here put it "webtop"). He basically uses his computer for email and light browsing, and the occasional foray into tax software (and downloading malware). His old computer (from 2002) was getting long in the tooth, so he went out to buy a new one, asking my geekly advice. I told him get something light and cheap, probably some flavor of low end Intel (like a cheap i5), with a couple Gb of RAM and some flavor of integrated video, basically go for cheap since his needs aren't very high. My real advice was for him to get a Mac (goodbye literally daily free tech support!) or a laptop, but both of these were dismissed without any thought. Preferably something with a cheap bundled monitor to replace his 12" (square), ten year old flatscreen.

He came home with a quad core Phenom II (3.1Ghz or so, forgot the name) with 6Gb of DDR3, and some mid-range NVidea card. The idea of power was much more important to him than something he could actually use. His new computer is almost up to par with my decent gaming rig, and he will never load a game, edit/transcode video, compile code, or do anything that really taxes his computer.

Why would he ever want a computer that isn't one of the most powerful available at a retail shop?

He was breifly going to get a laptop (so he could do his bills on it, and not his desktop, someone on the radio said it was "more secure", who am I to argue?), but complained about how big and expensive they were, so I told him to get a small, cheap, netbook. He scoffed, pointing to some giant 18" laptop with a harcore desktop CPU and a pretty good GPU, asking why I would recommend such an under-powered computer to him!

This is how a lot of people are. You must get the absolute best *whatever* that money can buy, even if you'll never use 10% of it. Like buying a performance car just so you can sit in rush hour traffic averaging 5-10mph, while your speedometer goes up to 250.

Re:Active Desktop

[LWATCDR]

Well that is just too bad. Most computers are vastly over powered in the CPU department but most could use a bit better GPU than what Intel offers. Honestly a cheap I3 or one of AMDs duel core is overkill. I compile code and a Core II Duo is fine for IOS development and even an old P4 is doing just fine for Java development.
Frankly for most people they should get an inexpensive dual or tri-core cpu. A good integrated GPU like from nVidia or AMD a lot of RAM and a good monitor. The CPU is just loafing most of the time.

Re:Active Desktop

[Omestes]

I agree. I have a Phenom II x4 965, and it mostly goes to waste, when I used to game more it was nice, but that habit has been flagging lately. It comes in handy when I process large batches of RAW images, or transcode, but I don't really do those as often as I could (or would like). Most of the time I might get two cores up to around 20%. My old Core 2 Duo (2.4Ghz ish) laptop works just fine for pretty much everything, its little crappy Intel GMA GPU is the main bottleneck I ever experience. My new-ish Radeon is similarly wasted most of the time (5700 series). Basically the only resource I come close to maxing out is RAM, you can never really have enough.

Monitors are always good. For some reason he has no problem with his crappy old LCD, while his computer needs to be in the top 10% of commercial desktops. His monitor is hideous, with pretty much no color accuracy, its tiny, its slow, its... Ugh. I play this up a bit too, since I want it to mount on the inside of a kitchen cabinet,, its damn hard to find small monitors these days.

Re:Active Desktop

[LWATCDR]

Powerful computer and crappy monitor just is not right. I guess people are still in the muscle car stage of computers. They want a big engine but ignore the suspension, brakes, and frame. I guess I am getting old but I want the smallest computer I can get that will do what I want for three years. Oh and I want it silent.

Re:Active Desktop

[LWATCDR]

"I just want a browser that is efficient and does lots of cool things that make the browsing experience more productive."
"I don't want social-fucking-everything,"

Umm maybe you don't understand that is what a large number of people think of as a cool thing that makes the browsing experience more productive.

Really why the anger and annoyance. Just get Firefox and pick and choose your plug-ins.
And frankly Chrome is really nice as well as a browser IMHO.

Re:Active Desktop

[robmclarty]

Exactly.

Re:Active Desktop

[Darinbob]

And these sorts of decisions are being made from a business standpoint and not a technological one. Marketing people want to get on the bandwagon of whatever seems cool without actually evaluating whether it's useful or not. Ie, the dot-com snafu, everyone wanting to get in on it without knowing what it was. Today it's the "cloud" or "apps". These things aren't created to help end users but instead to help monetize the end users.

Re:Active Desktop

[Darinbob]

You forget all the dot-coms that were started by people with marketing knowledge but zero technical knowledge! Most of dot-com was extremely low tech bullshit. Ie, it was about advertising and content.

Re:Active Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

When my browser has a torrent client and an http server in it I consider it has not only crossed the line but charged through it.

Re:Active Desktop

[Jorl17]

One Word: Dillo.
Google it, it's awesome.

Re:Active Desktop

[IHateEverybody]

In fairness, most of us were on 56K, 28.8K, or even 14.4K modems in the 1990s. Now that broadband is fairly common and cloud computing is starting to become viable, an Active Desktop concept like Webian might actually have a chance to succeed. In the meantime, we'll try to muddle through with ChromeOS and JoliCloud and phone OSes which rely heavily on serverside support.

Re:Active Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Safari for OS X does that.

Re:Active Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera fanboy here. Chrome is, in my opinion, doing pretty well too.

Re:Active Desktop

[segin]

Neither does a full mailer, news reader, Web server, or BitTorrent client, but hey, who's counting?

Installation in 4 easy steps!

[RagingMaxx]

To install Webian Shell:

1. Launch Firefox
2. F11
3. ???
4. ... oh wait there's no need to install Webian Shell.

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[jbarr]

And it works just the same in IE and Chrome.

It's not about a fullscreen browser window, it's about the Web apps that provide the functionality that you wouldn't otherwise get from a "typical" Web site.

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[sourcerror]

Pretty much.
All these WebOS-es are seeming to remove features, not adding them.

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[Anonymous Coward]

whereas all these browsers are adding features, not removing them!

can't anyone get it right?

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that was the purpose. A stripped down OS for internet-based activities that can be ran on very spares (read: cheap) hardware for people who don't need a full-fledged PC.

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[Anonymous Coward]

WebOS shits on "webian shell", iOS, WP7, etc. Palm and it's buyer HP never bothered to pair it with good hardware. Really though I wanted you to know WebOS is a specific OS, designed primarily for a touch screen device.

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[Anonymous Coward]

web applications are given more importance than the native applications

Add step 1.5: Set thread priority "above normal"

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[RagingMaxx]

I understand the Web app use cases, I use gmail, Dabbleboard, Grooveshark, etc, when they suit my needs. That isn't what this is about.

This is about some half-baked idea which adds nothing to the current technology landscape. This doesn't use less resources than a traditional browser, in fact as others have noted it quite possibly consumes more by utilising Chromeless for its UI. It doesn't add notable features which current browsers lack, add a clock extension to Chrome or Firefox, fullscreen it and voilà!

I read through the links in TFA and couldn't find mention of a single feature of this "project" that current mainstream browsers don't already have, nor could I find a compelling scenario that would actually necessitate this project's use in anything. It's a total non-story, and whoever posted this to slashdot at such an early phase of the projects conception has basically doomed it to never be taken seriously, ever.

Re:Installation in 4 easy steps!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like iPad vs netbook...
Fact is that there is very little reason most devices need the superheavyweight desktops we have now. I understand the low level optimizing that goes into "official" GUI API but how many applications Need that level of performance? The vast majority of applications are crappy little one-trick-ponies in VB6 that would suffer nothing rolled into this stripped out desktop. This represents the evolution of the "Unix Way" more than anything else... All is data, CPU independent, network independent...

Webian

[littlefoo]

I was going to suggest using it to replace Unity.. so I could have Webian on Debian.

Luckily I thought better of it before posting.

Re:Webian

[Anonymous Coward]

Good work; posting that would have been a disaster.

Oh, nice, more bloat.

[Lisandro]

First was Gnome 3 using JS for scripting and now this. Wasn't this a bad idea when it was known as Active Desktop?

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[Samantha Wright]

Yes!

Now, if only someone could convince browser vendors that the reason it was bad was more than "computers were too slow at the time."

Although, to be fair, consider that most of Firefox (and indeed every other major Mozilla product) is made out of Javascript, CSS and XML files bundled up in a ZIP archive. It's not exactly a speedy design in the first place. So they're kind of losing the race out of the gate here.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[Lennie]

And what do you think QT (thus KDE) and Windows 8 use ? Again webtechnologies like HTML/CSS/JS.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[Lisandro]

And what do you think QT (thus KDE) and Windows 8 use ? Again webtechnologies like HTML/CSS/JS.

Which explains quite a bit regarding KDEs performance lately...

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[CastrTroy]

To be fair, way back when Active Desktop was touted, everyone (those who had internet at least) were still dialing into their internet connection. And almost all web pages were static pages, hand edited by people, and not applications. People back then didn't spend all their computing time on the web browser. They spent time playing games, in their word processor, email client, IM chat client, IRC, managing finances (quickbooks, excel, or quattro pro), and writing programs. Except for writing programs, I would have to say that just about all those tasks are now done solely in the web browser for a large majority of people, and the vast majority of people will never write a program. So while it may not be the right GUI for you, there's a lot of people that never leave their browser anyway, so anything that isn't their browser just ends up getting in the way.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[vlm]

Except for writing programs, I would have to say that just about all those tasks are now done solely in the web browser for a large majority of people, and the vast majority of people will never write a program.

And for those that want to write a program anyway, at least at the level of introductory learning, there's

http://tryruby.org/

http://tryhaskell.org/

and probably many more....

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[gl4ss]

active desktops however gave you a way to do desktop widgets. long before dedicated programs for running js programs were all the rage.
however, long before that, application developers were free to do widget look apps in windows, winamp is a perfect example.

basically all these javascript+html based os's are always perfect for "other people", these mysterious other people. and computers are still slow and cumbersome so taking pixel access and native code away from developers will hurt what's possible on your platform and it _will_ matter sooner or later.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[LWATCDR]

So is CSS/HTML5/JS the new XML?

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[m50d]

Wasn't this a bad idea when it was known as Active Desktop?

No, it was fantastic. I was quite annoyed when it was removed from later windows, only to come back in the form of "widgets" that waste far more space and are less customizable.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[CastrTroy]

The operative word being "try". If you want to try out a language for the first time, those are probably good solutions, as they let you try out the language without installing anything, which can sometimes be more difficult than it should be. I have yet to see an online IDE that comes anywhere close to being as productive as working on your own actual machine. Although I'm sure upon mentioning this, that someone will point me towards something that is at least passably good.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[digitalaudiorock]

Yes! Now, if only someone could convince browser vendors that the reason it was bad was more than "computers were too slow at the time."

...exactly...it was MS doing something nobody wanted in order to make the case to regulators that their browser was an "integral" part of the OS. Seriously...are browser developers the only ones who haven't figured this out?? Given that they're also the only people with any interest in launching other applications within the browser, I'd say so.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[Lennie]

No JSON is the new XML.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[drinkypoo]

What was bad about active desktop was Aieee! It's not an inherently bad concept.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Javascript is slow... but it depends on what it's doing. When used for GNOME 3 for example, it's not "sloooooow". It's slow in places that really don't matter much - you aren't solving flow equations in JS... unless you are retarded. It spends most of its time scripting very intensive operations. The JS contribution to any slow performance is ultra small - for a big gain in functionaility and the ease with which you can do some cool stuff. Not saying it's right... just not as stupid as some people think.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[Billly Gates]

What I didn't like about Active Desktop and Netscape's push technology was information was supposed to just "come to you" and you just sit there. Keep in mind this was before RSS.

People have better things to do and have TV for everything else.

I am excited about the new html 5 and applets from phones coming into the desktop and other devices as they are real programs. Many MacOSX users have wanted to run their Iphone apps on the desktop at the same time. However turning your whole desktop into a cell phone interface is stupid and misses the point.

People would love to use their apps in the explorer or finder based desktops. But unless you own a tablet, you do not want what Gnome Shell or what Windows 8 has. I think more R&D is needed to learn how people can have a full browser or word processor up as well as accessing an applet. Too much focus on one app running at a time. At least Windows has a bar at the bottom of the screen where you can browser with Windows 7 and get a preview of all your other apps. I like the idea of running things side by side too. This needs to be worked on rather than a gui where we all just minimize everything and stare at the screen (active desktop). Maybe Windows 9, KDE 5, or Gnome Shell 4 will get this right.

Re:Oh, nice, more bloat.

[lucian1900]

And is no true in the slightest, either.

Air Supply

[LordThyGod]

Does Microsoft know about this? Isn't this the same strategy that led MS to cut off Netscape's "air supply", and then led to the dominance of IE way back in the day?

Netscape Constellation

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Netscape's aborted Constellation project:
http://www.archive.org/details/CC1417_best_of_comdex
segment starts at 11:30

Is this a joke ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless !

Re:Is this a joke ?

[Inda]

Your delivery and punch line needs some work.

You have to create a situation in the audience's mind - the set-up - then you deliver the punch line. Certain pauses throughout the joke will add to the hilarity.

Q&A jokes are the bread and butter of many a stand up comedian, but it is often the comedian people are laughing at, not the joke. Everyday events work well. Puns are funny, but not cool. Topical subjects must be delivered shortly after the event. Racist jokes can be funny in front of the correct audience and the same can be said for making fun of the handicapped.

Your punch line "Useless!" failed in every way, although it had potential.

Re:Is this a joke ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be an absolute scream at parties..







Not!

This takes me back

[MichaelSmith]

I am sure Netscape had this in 1999.

Re:This takes me back

[x0n]

Internet Explorer had it in 1995.

Re:This takes me back

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. 1997. IE4.

Though, in Dec 1995 they sort of had it already in their upcoming Windows 96 development build

Netscape didn't have it at all.

Netscape Constellation ??

[Anonymous Coward]

They have reinvented Netscape Constellation!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator

  Netscape began to experiment with prototypes of a web-based system, known internally as "Constellation", which would allow a user to access and edit his or her files anywhere across a network no matter what computer or operating system he or she happened to be using.

Didn't work out for MS

[roman_mir]

Computer is not for web only, I know, it's amazing to think otherwise, but some of us actually work on them, and most of the work is not happening on the web, though reading /. you won't be able to deduce this fact.

Anyway, I always wanted my shell to take all of my RAM, overbook the CPU, run the fans on full throttle just to refresh the clock on the background.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer is not for web only, I know, it's amazing to think otherwise, but some of us actually work on them, and most of the work is not happening on the web

The introductory video in the article agrees with you. It calls Webian a shell for computers which don't need a desktop. The narrator then goes on to say "If you're anything like me, you'll find that most of the stuff you do on your PC these days happens in a web browser".

I really hate the idea of Webian because like you I'm not a browser addict, but this really seems to be selling itself as a system for specific circumstances, not something to totally replace the desktop of old.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

I do webdevelopment and network- and Linux/Unix system administration. It is that I've not had time yet to it up and try it out but I think I could actually move over all my work into a webbrowser if I wanted to. I've actually been wanting to try it out as an experiment:

http://www.cloud9ide.com/ (open source webbased programmers editor with git version control and offline support is almost ready)
http://code.google.com/p/shellinabox/

And the rest is already online, because it is the same as a lot of people are already using, like webmail and fora like slashdot.

I'm not an Office user however and I don't know if Google Docs or similair open source webapplication would be good enough for me, I do know I would want to have one that atleast supports HTML5-offline use. But as I understand it a lot of people already use it, so it probably satisfies their needs.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[yarnosh]

I do webdevelopment and network- and Linux/Unix system administration. It is that I've not had time yet to it up and try it out but I think I could actually move over all my work into a webbrowser if I wanted to. I've actually been wanting to try it out as an experiment:

You're not a real web developer or admin or you'd have very specific requirements of your terminal and editor. Either that your you greatly underestimte your requirements to get real work down. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself "what is the point?" I mean, just because you could theoretically move your work into the web browser, that doesn't mean you should. Is there any benefit? It looks like that terminal you linked to requires that you run a local server..??? So it isn't like you could use that anywhere.

http://www.cloud9ide.com/ [cloud9ide.com] (open source webbased programmers editor with git version control and offline support is almost ready)

So.. um.. how do you actually build/preview your project? Do you have to deploy your changes every time you want to see the results??? I can't see how this could possibly work. I'm a web developer and I have a specialized Ruby on Rails development environment including local daemons like memcache, mysql, activemq, etc. A "cloud" based editor woudl be totally useless to me.

I'm not an Office user however and I don't know if Google Docs or similair open source webapplication would be good enough for me, I do know I would want to have one that atleast supports HTML5-offline use. But as I understand it a lot of people already use it, so it probably satisfies their needs.

Google Docs are good for sharing documents and allowing multiple people to edit simultaneously, but I can't imagine using it as my primary Office program.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[mscman]

"Shell In A Box implements a web server that can export arbitrary command line tools to a web based terminal emulator. This emulator is accessible to any JavaScript and CSS enabled web browser and does not require any additional browser plugins. Most typically, login shells would be exported this way:" No thank you! As a network/linux admin, you're seriously going to trust your root prompt to a web service?!?! Please, stay off my machines. Seriously though, as an admin, it's very difficult to see moving all of this stuff to the web. What happens when the border routers to my site go down? I don't have any way to bring them up, because my OS keeps telling me "Page not found"?

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[gmueckl]

Sounds like an ideal base for kiosk-like setups where the user needs just a little bit of control beyond navigating a single web site.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

To be honest, I code most of my code in vi and ssh, just to be clear I'm not a webdesigner. I usually don't even use syntax highlighting.

All the other work I do on networks is all ssh or webbased management tooling.

The point is:
- I can work from anywhere (without carring stuff around)
- have the exact same environment I do all the time
- only having a central system to backup

I would run the "cloud" based editor on the same system where I do my testing for the websites I work on. Which means I'm editing the code on the same system it needs to be deployed on.

The terminal I linked to could also run as a daemon on that same or other central system and a webserver can just reverseproxy to it. I've tested this, that it does work. It is just "an other login-process" only over HTTPS.

So maybe my requirements are very specific, but it might work for me. It would also just be an experiment at first.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[The Great Pretender]

But what we're seeing here is the evolution of a device. I agree, there's so much more to computers, I'm a power user at work, but a lot of folks are just using the computer as an web based device. My HDX 16T laptop now sits in the living room streaming netflix and playing DVDs. Completely under utilized, but it's that or being shoved on a shelf in the garage while I pay for a cheaper computer to do the same thing. I lament at what a waste this is for the HDX. This is the next step in netbooks. A simplified GUI for simplified use. I think we'll see, computing-wise, smart phone sized systems, greater than netbook webuse systems like the tablets and then devices more akin to what we're currently used to a as computer. Each is going down it's only evolutionary pathway.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

Actually, shell in a box runs as user nobody and is just a login-prompt. it is the same most people have open on their SSH port, so aint all that special.

I use it over HTTPS and it is password and IP-address check protected, maybe I'll even use a one-time-password-system for that.

At my home I have a Soekris system which is my router to the Internet it can run this, so it is on the local network segment "where I am".

I could do the same thing at work. Run in on a server in the same local network segment, which could also be localhost. Although maybe it gets a bit silly in that case.

I also mentioned it was just an experiment.

Maybe I'll just try out using the IDE and continue to use SSH-client for everything else.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[hitmark]

It is aimed at the same user group as ChromeOS.

Hell, i have family that spend their computer use 90%+ in the web browser. Only time they do not is when they want to handle photos taken at some family event or other.

So if this can also provide good interaction with the file system, then everything required can be done in the browser.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[yarnosh]

I can work from anywhere (without carring stuff around

If I need to, I can always download Putty onto someobody's Windows box and get access from there. Doesn't even need to install. Just the .exe run from desktop. And vi if I really need to edit something. But for real development, I need to use a local dev enviornment.

I would run the "cloud" based editor on the same system where I do my testing for the websites I work on. Which means I'm editing the code on the same system it needs to be deployed on.

I'm pretty sure the IDE you linked to is a hosted service and not an app you can install on the server where you deploy so you can't edit on the deploy server. You would have to edit on the hosted service, commit to github, and then deploy to the server to view changes. And even if you could install the editor on your deploy server, what are you going to do, install a different instance of the editor on EACH server? That's just awful.

Either way though, editing files on the deploy server is amateur. Proper development happens in a developer's private enviornment and changes are only pushed to production when they're tested and compete. Or better yet, they go through a "staging" environment.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

Actually the code of Cloud9IDE is on github, you can download it and do your own install.

I would only have to have the editor on the testserver/environment.

All my production environments are very similair.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[yarnosh]

I guess I just don't udnerstand the purpose. I'm only ever doing development on one machine. I'd rather be able to use the tool that works the best, not the one that happens to work inside a browser. And sure, I use a web browser a LOT, but I'm also running a few other apps at any given time. Skype, Mail, Adium (IM), iTunes, TextMate (editor), Calendar. You're telling me that you really only use a browser and terminal and that's *it*?

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

I don't use Skype, my current mail client is for home Mutt actually, but it should be easy to switch to webmail. My current work email client is webmail. I don't use iTunes, I sometimes have vlc open, but that is just if I open a local file from a filebrowser, which hardly ever happends. I don't have a Calendar.

I use irc, vi, diff, git, less, dig, ssh on the commandline, etc. so it doesn't really matter on what machine I run these applications.

Ohh and a browser. :-)

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Billly Gates]

"Computer is not for web only, I know, it's amazing to think otherwise, but some of us actually work on them, and most of the work is not happening on the web, though reading /. you won't be able to deduce this fact."

What about salesforce.com, gmail, and clouds?

Have you seen the spec for HTML 5? Even progress bars are supported, h.264, and even data types like strings containing dates. With html 5 and javascript you can write apps that can scale from the phone to the desktop. It is the feature and yes, the dream of Watson with his old IBM mainframe with a sea of dumb terminals is becoming a reality where the server cluster is the mainframe and the desktops run a browser or phone applets on the desktop.

Businesses can save a fortune getting rid of I.T. and putting things on a cloud or internet site and it feels like the 1990s all over again with the new browsers and cell phones. Hardware acceleration and JIT javascript compilers and helping make this possible.

I believe like any technology it can be used to waste time or help business and I wouldn't worry about it slowing your system down.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[yarnosh]

Wow, doesn't sound like you actually *do* much with your computer. :-P

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

Well, I'm very a very heavy user of commandline tools. :-) So that is mostly just text.

Judging by this discussion, I've concluded maybe I'm kinda special.

Sure sounds pretty bad if the people on Slashdot think you are weird. ;-)

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

I forgot some applications I do use regulary.

tcpdump and wireshark (and especially it's commandline friend tshark)

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[yarnosh]

Nah, I guess I was like that when I was running linux on my desktop. Before GNOME and KDE were really big and most people just used simple window managers. Then it was basically just a browser and a terminal because most GUI apps were kinda half-ass. Though even with the commandline, there was still a lot of stuff I did locally. Tinkering with programming and other odd things. Stuff that could be put on a server somewhere, but was easier just to work on locally. Since switching to OS X several years ago, I've gotten into relying more on desktop programs because, you know, they're actually good and they integrate better with the desktop rather than just being a mishmash of random applications, each using a different UI toolkit.

It does seem like it is mostly either Windows or Linux users driving to make everything web based. Windows users because of security concerns (for the sake of ignorant users who could manage to install malware in 15 minutes) and Linux users because they don't really have a lot of great apps anyway. So moving to the web isn't so much of step down. Coming from OS X, it baffles me that anyone would actually WANT all applications too move to the browser. I like Cocoa (OS X) apps. Please don't stop making them! ;-)

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[roman_mir]

I believe like any technology it can be used to waste time or help business and I wouldn't worry about it slowing your system down.

- you can believe whatever you want to believe, however so far, the browser on my system (FF on whatever GNU/Linux distro I am at whatever moment) is the most resource consuming piece of software, which also is doing the smallest amount of useful visual output compared to most other applications I am using.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

I liked the hardware so I tried Mac OS X for a while 5 or so years ago.

Didn't find the GUI-alternatives for the stuff I needed, when the hardware broke I stopped using it.

Maybe because I deal with lowlevel stuff a lot of the time anyway, like protocols, it didn't add anything for me.

A simple example: I've never seen a replacement tool for all the features I need which 'dig' has.

Which is available on the Mac too, although it might have included an old version by default. I don't remember.

When dealing with things like DNSSEC you really want an atleast slightly up to date version.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[yarnosh]

A simple example: I've never seen a replacement tool for all the features I need which 'dig' has.

Why would you even expect a GUI replacement for such a simple tool? The great thing about OS X is that I can have both, great GUI apps and a full LInux commandline. Besides the GNU (and BSD) utilities that come out of the box, there's macports. Best of both worlds. You can get the latest GNU tools if you need them. Most things are ported.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

Well, you mentioned GUI apps to be fantastic on the Mac. But I don't see any tools on the Mac I would actually want/need to use.

So I was thinking, what would I replace ? dig was just an example.

Well, Mac OS X does come with a 'GUI tool' for ping, whois, nslookup and netstat. But I'm a heavy user of dig and ping, I actually do need all the options for testing. So they don't solve what I need.

From all the tools I use I wouldn't know what to add to my toolbox or what to replace as an improvement.
For example I don't create such effect-heavy websites where I would need something like: http://tumultco.com/hype/features/
While http://meld.sourceforge.net/ is nice, I've hardly ever had a need to use it.
http://cola.tuxfamily.org/screenshots.html is nice, but I don't usually need to split up patches in git.

Thus as I don't need any GUI apps, I thought if the market seems to want to try and move us all into the browser, I might as well try it out. As an experiment.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[yarnosh]

Yeah, I think it is odd that you spend so much time digging and pinging. Sure, they're useful tools for network admin, but geez, how much time can you actually spend doing it? I mean, total time. For me it was just something I had to do if something was wrong or while logged into a remote server. And even now I still do all of my source management from the commandline, but running svn diffs or parsing log files whatnot doesn't take much of my time.

I wasn't suggesting you replace those tools with GUI versions. Certainly there is something you spend time doing on the desktop, yes? Reading mail? Apple Mail is really good. It is simple, fast, reliable, and easy to search. Also it is a good way to combine mail accounts into one program. Don't you ever have to compose documentation or anything like that? Don't you do anything outside of network admin? You don't play music? Chat with people? View PDFs? Build and maintain network diagrams? Don't you ever have to create/modify images for websites? What about at home? Don't you do anything with your computer outside of work? I'm baffled.

Re:Didn't work out for MS

[Lennie]

- the network diagram is in a Cacti plugin.
- chat is on IRC (commandline client).
- view PDFs in my browser (plugin, a bit cheating I know :-) )
- I don't create/modify images, I have colleages for that.
- outside of work ? I go on Youtube, read the news online or go outside. So more specifically I don't play computergames or maybe ones every 8 months or so. I like work/play with computers to much to waste my time on that.

RagingMaxx Multiple Desktop (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW!

I opened a couple of Firefoxes and 'F11'ed them and now I have multiple workspaces! This is INCREDIBLE!

Damn! Dude you should patent this, get some VC and go public! I see you becoming a BILLIONAIRE!

Re:RagingMaxx Multiple Desktop (TM)

[RagingMaxx]

The VC guys and I have already cooked up a name for it: Porn Shell.

Is this a patent application yet? Where do I collect my money rake and monocle?

Are you "feeling lucky" yet?

[roman_mir]

Oh, how great it will be - Google text ads scrolling past you, as you are trying to find that damn file. Anytime you try to open your word processor, there will be an appearing/disappearing link to Google web-based office, anytime you try to edit a picture, there will be a bunch of ads about various photo-studio and album offerings, every attempt at typing find . -name somefilename will bring up the Google page with 'Are You Feeling Lucky' button pressed already for you.

It's going to be great.

Re:Are you "feeling lucky" yet?

[AmberBlackCat]

The worst part for me would be when I'm trying to click on an mp3 or video and because the mouse moves over the wrong part of the screen, some fucking box pops up from addthis.com, asking if I want to like this on Facebook or something. A box that doesn't go away when I move the mouse away from it. Like you just have to click on it and let them know you saw it, just to get it to go away. Although I do like being connected to the internet all of the time, I don't want my whole computer acting like websites do.

Minimalist trend

[Lord Lode]

This is not fully on topic, but I'm worried about the minimalist trend going on in GUIs these days, such as the disappearing of the URL bar in browsers, hiding things behind clicks instead of immediately visible, removing the minimize and maximize buttons from windows, etc...

I like having status bars, lots of indicators, toolbar buttons, menus with many options and customizations, having as much mouse buttons with a useful feature as possible, etc...

Do you think the minimalist trend is temporary? Or should I really be worried?

Thanks!

Re:Minimalist trend

[MichaelSmith]

Do you think the minimalist trend is temporary? Or should I really be worried?

Now that user interfaces have pretty much been done, developers have to justify their existence by breaking their product, and fixing it again. Don't worry, the buttons will be back; Bigger and better than ever.

Re:Minimalist trend

[vlm]

Do you think the minimalist trend is temporary?

Three societal / cultural trends / beliefs / needs across all areas of human endeavor:

1) Talk down to the noobs. "Hay n00b U R dum so ur UI will B 1 button". Its a public display of profound intellectual arrogance. "The average gutter dwelling noob could never understand the rarefied nobility and intellectual challenge of the maximize button, so I, as their superior, as a shining example of Nietzsche's overman, will take away that dangerous option from them for their own good"

2) Everyone gets a participation trophy, so we must drag everyone down to the noob level. There must not be a learning curve or the people at the bottom of it might have hurt feelings. If that means the entire population must only be given tools equivalent to lincoln logs and playdough, the frustration of almost everyone is inferior to the feelings of one individual.

3) Eternal September has finally sunk in, around a decade too late, and now completely obsolete, and its going to take a long time to get rid of it. People that have not already had their "eternal september" moment years or decades ago are either about 5 years old or are socially and economically irrelevant so there is no need to pander to them, unfortunately people still insist that "everyone knows" that 99% of the population has never clicked a mouse. Its an meme thats obsolete and just won't die. Maybe when the Gen-Xers have all died of old age and the Gen-Y finally get it pounded into their heads that there's no one alive on the planet that was born before facebook... but that could take decades...

In other words, expect to be held back for quite awhile.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Provocateur]

They must think we use cell phones to browse or something, full time...

Re:Minimalist trend

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my problem with Chrome, the minimalist browser extraordinary. If I'm just tooling around on the Internet a minimal browser works just fine. But I actually use my computers to work, as such the minimalist trend is aggravating (I'm talking about you Unity), and Webian looks like Unity on speed... if that were possible.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Why have big buttons when you can have ButtonsHD(TM). They take up far more screen real estate, use a gig of ram per button, and feature embedded videos with full volume sound to annoy the most people the most efficiently. Remember the multimedia PC? This is the future of the multimedia PC! Start up noises will last for 15 long minutes, an info dialog will take 2 minutes to pop up while it does a little song and dance routine, and Clippy will be projected directly into your nightmares.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimalist interfaces are easier and better when done properly, so we should hope for the trend not to disappear.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Serpents]

well, as someone said

Build a system that even an idiot could use, and only an idiot will use it

Re:Minimalist trend

[yarnosh]

I, for one, am glad the Mac uses the toolbar for the application menubar. That means that Firefox and other apps can't hide it in a misguided attempt to be minimal. Don't hide the menubar, I still use it, dammit!

Re:Minimalist trend

[Cthefuture]

It's just a fad. It's very similar although not exactly the same as "Not Invented Here" syndrome caused by developer inexperience and naivety.

Although this has happened countless times the primary example I like to take out is Java. Java tried to be minimalistic and "simple" by leaving out all sorts of useful functionality (eg. generics, etc). Now look at it, everything they left out in the beginning is shoehorned into the current versions and it sucks because they failed to account for the functionality in the original design.

What will happen is these products and projects will start out very minimalistic but will then slowly grow into a bloated, poorly designed pieces of shit as the developers realize that some features exist for a reason and are actually needed or just plain useful.

Then there will be backlash against the "idiotic" minimalist approach and we will start to get over-designed, over-complicated, inefficient, bureaucratically designed, and slow to implement bloatware which will slowly shrink into buggy poorly designed pieces of shit as the developers realize that you can't start giant designs and implement the whole thing at once.

Then there will be backlask against the "idiotic" over-complicated software so... (this is what is happening now)

Repeat ad nauseum. Einstein had it right: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." You need to start with a solid flexible, possibly somewhat complicated design but with the intent and proper planning to only implement a simple subset of the design at first. Then it can grow into the full-blown design over time.

Re:Minimalist trend

[asquithea]

Not like C++ then. Or C#. Or Perl. Or Python. Or Scala.

That's a terrible example you've got there.

Re:Minimalist trend

[tenco]

My Gnome 3.0 experience was over when i had Gnome Shell laughing into my face for snatching the "Save", "Apply" and "Close" buttons from my LyX 2 settings dialogue.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Anonymous Coward]

as the op said, it swings both ways . overdesigned versus too minimalistic almost everything fits into one or the other. which is the reason almost all software sucks

nobody said anything about your specific examples being good or bad

Re:Minimalist trend

[TuringTest]

Now that user interfaces have pretty much been badly done, developers have to justify their existence by dismantling their broken product, and fixing it again.

There, fixed that for you. New interfaces like the World Wide Web first and later the iPod/iPad show that there are better ways for computing than showing applications inside floating windows. That developers keep trying to find a new style of post-wimp interface is usually a good thing.

The desktop metaphor was a necessity in the 80s but is terribly suited for the amount of information we have today. Projects like this Webian Shell, trying to shoehorn desktop elements into the clean Web interface, are two steps in the wrong direction - getting the worse of both worlds for no benefit, as they solve no real world problem.

Re:Minimalist trend

[gmueckl]

The minimalist trend is not temporary, nor should it be. But developers tend to overdo it.

There is no reason to have every last feature of a program available directly in the main UI of said program. This is especially true now that program complexity and feature-completeness has risen to enormous levels (which is not a bad thing in itself). You remember the ridiculous screenshots of MS Word with every toolbar displayed, leaving 2 lines of the actual document visible on screen amidst all those buttons?

When cleaning out the user interface, there are 3 things that you can do:

1. Remove rarely used features entirely. This is simple, but not the way to go in general. Users will generally hate you for that.
2. Rearrange features in the UI. Guess (or measure) which features the users tend to use most often and reserve the most prominent places in the UI for them. Less used features can be hidden more deeply in the user interface because the time to access those doesn't generally matter when they are rarely used. This is not very hard to do, but it has to be done exactly right or the UI will feel like it gets in your way.
3. Look at your feature set and think very very hard about ways to redesign the basic user interaction with the program. Depending on the type of program there can be ways to merge features and modes in such a way that they are perceived as a single, much more powerful and - if done correctly - much more intuitive - tool that allows a much more direct interaction. This is very hard to do, requires a lot of research and prototyping and very few teams actually do this. And some developers get this almost, but not quite right. The MS Office ribbons are an example for this latter category. Google Sketchup is an example for a program where user interaction is designed so intelligently that it feels very direct and simple although it is actually quite complex under the hood (if you don't believe me, try to build the same model in Sketchup and in Blender or Maya, ...).

Right now, some developers seem to apply 1. instead of 2. or 3. far too liberally. And this will not hold up.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Raenex]

You need to start with a solid flexible, possibly somewhat complicated design but with the intent and proper planning to only implement a simple subset of the design at first. Then it can grow into the full-blown design over time.

It's pretty much impossible to figure out exactly how much complexity you need to start and where the design will end up going. You can take a guess, but there's a good chance you'll be wrong. Software grows organically.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about getting a perfect design, it's about getting a better design by not being too minimalistic or trying to do too much at once.

Yes, software design and implementation is incredibly hard and it's unlikely you will get something really great even when using proper techniques but you can get better software by not following the extreme poorly thought out fads. The current trend of "slash everything to the bare bone no matter what" is ridiculous in its extremism.

Re:Minimalist trend

[supersloshy]

"The average gutter dwelling noob could never understand the rarefied nobility and intellectual challenge of the maximize button, so I, as their superior, as a shining example of Nietzsche's overman, will take away that dangerous option from them for their own good"

Woah woah woah, slow down there. GNOME 3 removed the maximize button from the default configuration (it's still there technically) but not the functionality. It was redundant to have the maximize button there, not only because it was so close to the close button which could accidentally be clicked, but because you can maximize by dragging the window to the top and/or double-clicking the window border.

There must not be a learning curve or the people at the bottom of it might have hurt feelings.

You have a really messed-up definition of "learning curve" and are over-simplifying this way, way too much. Minimalism and simplifying a UI aren't bad things at all. In the end, the UI that people like more will win out anyways, so it's pretty pointless to complain about something that might actually be a good UI if you get used to it; how's that for a learning curve? For example, GNOME 3, for me, took a day or two to get used to as it was so different from GNOME 2, but it's much easier, simpler, and better than GNOME 2 for me. Am I not allowed to like it because it's "minimalist" and "simplistic" and doesn't have eons of buttons and settings for me to configure? I have different priorities than the average "power user" in that sense, and so should you in this case. I don't mean to sound offensive, but at least give these new UIs a try before you complain about their flaws; some things that sound bad on paper aren't nearly as bad in real life, and you might notice some significant benefits to new UIs while you're at it. You'll never know until you try! :)

Re:Minimalist trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily, I'm working it the completely opposite direction. A UI that is *efficient* instead of just "easy" without power (which is essentially laziness). Plus emergent (a lot of freedom and power, with very few base concepts/mechanics). Which makes it very elegant too.

Oh, and *no compromises*! Period.

The only problem: I have personal problems, and so got nearly no time to work on it. :((

I've got the concepts all written down and everything. It "just" needs the work of a software engineer, to be put into code. (Preferably NOT something as inelegant as C/C++, but rather Haskell.)

I hope I'm not the only one trying to save humanity though. ;)

Some inspiration: Imagine the UI of Autodesk Maya (the modularity, the plug-everything-into-everything, the generic properties dialog, the CLI-GUI synchronity, etc) as a OS shell, and there being no applications per se, but just modules (inclusive view/controller modules), and one generic graph data structure for everything. Unix-style.

Re:Minimalist trend

[LWATCDR]

funny but I don't. I have been using computers since 1982 and I am sick of tool bars. They take up a ton of screen space and frankly tend to be too large. Some you can customize but not all and how many people ever do? But then On say netbeans they are actually pretty dang useful but on a browser or word processor they are just about useless most of the time. But then you can go too far. I want my drop down menus still but tool bars? and a bunch of useless info? Let me turn that junk off. Tool bars? When I am typing why do I need to see them. Make them fade away until I grab the mouse.
Way too much of that stuff is nothing but gee haws that get int he way of getting work done IMHO.

Re:Minimalist trend

[Darinbob]

Don't forget the sort of people who proudly proclaim their ignorance as well. In the past people tended to keep quiet about being ignorant, but it seems to be something to brag about in some circles now. Knowing how stuff works is nerdy therefore the cool hipster thing to do is complain about how computers are so hard.

Re:Minimalist trend

[farble1670]

Now look at it, everything they left out in the beginning is shoehorned into the current versions and it sucks because they failed to account for the functionality in the original design.

i can't deny that this is certainly your opinion.

Re:Minimalist trend

[MichaelSmith]

The desktop metaphor was a necessity in the 80s but is terribly suited for the amount of information we have today.

The new user interfaces (iOS, Android, Gnome3, etc) are generally a subset of older ones, generally with the features favoured by the developers left in. How does making a less versatile user interface help people cope with the "amount of information we have today", whatever that is?

Re:Minimalist trend

[vlm]

Don't forget the sort of people who proudly proclaim their ignorance as well. In the past people tended to keep quiet about being ignorant, but it seems to be something to brag about in some circles now.

Looking at the Venn diagram of them and "socially and economically irrelevant so there is no need to pander to them", there is nearly 100% overlap.

Re:Minimalist trend

[TuringTest]

It does not - they're still based on the desktop metaphor. What's needed is something like iPad and Windows 8 interfaces, that hide applications management and concentrates on showing lists of content.

Re:Minimalist trend

[TuringTest]

I mean, Gnome 3 does not. iOS and Android do work very well with a small amount of applications and lots of data.

They tried it already,

[SharpFang]

never really took off, still bumps around in the night at obscure servers and disused packages.
Same concept really, except they used a text editor back then. Emacs, they called it.

Re:They tried it already,

[MichaelSmith]

Great operating system. If it had had a good text editor it might have taken over the world.

Re:They tried it already,

[benignbala]

Great operating system. If it had had a good text editor it might have taken over the world.

Ah, So the editor wars haven't died yet. Meaning, people with maturity levels of nursery kids are on slashdot. Grow up!

Re:They tried it already,

[DarwinSurvivor]

So much for the world. http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/ViperMode

Re:They tried it already,

[shish]

people with maturity levels of nursery kids are on slashdot

Indeed; everywhere I turn, I see people throwing tantrums and calling names in response to things clearly intended to be harmless jokes :-P

Re:They tried it already,

[benignbala]

Indeed; everywhere I turn, I see people throwing tantrums and calling names in response to things clearly intended to be harmless jokes :-P

Not throwing tantrums. The problem is that, there are people who will eagerly take that as a flame bait and start a useless war :(. Emacs and Vi are both great editors. Let's use what ever we feel like using, but let's not throw sarcastic jokes. A few people do have attachments to editors :)

Re:They tried it already,

[Anonymous Coward]

Great operating system. If it had had a good text editor it might have taken over the world.

Ah, So the editor wars haven't died yet. Meaning, people with maturity levels of nursery kids are on slashdot. Grow up!

Someone is an Emacs user...

Re:They tried it already,

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people who will take pretty much anything that's used in jest and bend it into an excuse to attack those they oppose. The underlying basis of humour is to poke fun at people or situations, and you'll always find some edge case who uses that to demonstrate why their agenda is right or why they are oppressed, etc. Take that to the logical conclusion and you'd never be able to make a joke. Saying that a browser experience based around a text editor would be good if they could build in a good text editor is simple fun, anyone who would use that to attack either side of the Vi/Emacs debate is a nutjob who should be ignored, not pandered to.

So they've invented Chrome apps?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA compares it to Chrome OS, when that's a weird comparison - Chrome/Chromium is the actual "shell" minus the operating system.

Re:So they've invented Chrome apps?

[MichaelSmith]

And now that you can boot Linux inside a VM written for javascript in a browser a web shell should be able to do pretty much anything.

Re:So they've invented Chrome apps?

[Lennie]

It even comes with a compiler

Re:So they've invented Chrome apps?

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah I compiled that hello.c program. Seriously while IT at my work regulate all operating systems on their network, they haven't told me not to run this virtual machine. Additionally I am surprised it is so fast and lean on memory, while other virtual machines use all my RAM and CPU.

Jolicloud, is that you?

[Rhaban]

Isn't it exactly the idea behind the Jolicloud linux distro?

The jolicloud html5 desktop is also available as a chrome webstore app... [Insert Yo dawg joke here]

Re:Jolicloud, is that you?

[drinkypoo]

And you can watch a steady (if small) stream of Jolicloud users departing because their latest launcher fails to integrate desktop apps with web apps, so you can't launch them all from the same place. I'm subscribed to the thread about it so I get email notifications of those who actually bother to post, which you can assume to be a small slice of those who are departing.

Be interesting to see how they solve THAT problem.

Back to the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they get us all mainframed again it will be back to client/server.

Can't wait for someone to come out

[Shivetya]

with a new project introducing a stream lined browser which has a small foot print and is fast.

Re:Can't wait for someone to come out

[BrokenHalo]

Mozilla did that over 10 years ago. It was called Phoenix. At the time, the original Mozilla browser was even faster if you did your own builds, leaving out all the cruft.

But if any browser occupied a tiny footprint, everybody would whine about how few features it offered. You can't have it both ways, so the simple solution is just to buy more RAM.

We all know...

[Anonymous Coward]

that web technologies are flawed, insecure and generally circlejerked over for (to proper coders) no apparent reason.

How many times does this shit need to fail before browsers and web 5.0 technologies stay where they're meant to be. I like security, self-hosting my data and using non-clunky markup and languages, thank you very much.

Marc Andreessen would turn in his grave ..

[cheros]

.. if he wasn't still alive :-).

I really, really hope that I don't hear people herald this as innovation, because that was the Netscape vision (and the reason Microsoft had to nuke their business by giving away Internet Exploder for free).

With that vision come the flaws, and they remain still pretty much identical too: without the net there is no work (net-work, geddit? No? Sjeez..). This is sort of OK for the desktop but it doesn't really work for mobile use.

Conclusion: yawn. Anything interesting on TV?

Name sux

[rossdee]

Webian? Is that pronounced Web ee Ann or Weeb ee Ann ?

(Mind you I never did find out how to pronounce Debian I just thought it had a long e since there was only one cosonant between the vowels)

Re:Name sux

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it is Web Eye Ann.

Re:Name sux

[Hatta]

Since when does a consonant-vowel-consonant sequence imply a long vowel?

Re:Name sux

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian is named after Debra and Ian Murdock. The Debian project even gives a pronunciation guide:

http://www.debian.org/intro/about

Re:Name sux

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia says:
The original "Debian Linux" distribution was released in August 1993 by developer Ian Murdock, and was named as a combination of his own given name and the given name of his girlfriend at the time, Debra Lynn.

So Deb-Ian would be correct.

Re:Name sux

[fnj]

[Crap added due to lame slashdot dupe filter.]

Is "camera" pronounced came-ee-ra because there are only single consonants between the vowels?

Re:Name sux

[Anonymous Coward]

debian is pronunced as the first part of the name Debra and the name Ian, as that's where the name come from.

How to pronounce Debian

[vrt3]

Deb ee Ann

It's easy to remember, once you know where it comes from. To cite Wikipedia:

The original "Debian Linux" distribution was released in August 1993 by developer Ian Murdock, and was named as a combination of his own given name and the given name of his girlfriend at the time, Debra Lynn.

Sounds like what X-Window System was about..

[Banekartr]

right? History repeating itself with faster computers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System

Re:Sounds like what X-Window System was about..

[fnj]

Is "camera" pronounced came-ee-ra because there are only single consonants between the vowels?

Re:Sounds like what X-Window System was about..

[fnj]

Ignore post misplaced due to busted slashdot interface

Aurora Revisited?

[Yacob]

Reminds me of the early goals of Netscape's Aurora desktop in 1997 -which I never did get to use.

A web based desktop i expect has a better chance to make it in this AJAX/REST/WS era and the web based office suites to make it more interesting.

Looking back at Aurora, I'm impressed now how they project adopted RDF early on. I hope the new project goes the same route and leverages the now more viable field semantic technology and linked opendata.

Involution

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely the end of the world is near...
We are making everything worse, even the technology gets worse every year, more Flash crap, more colors and bubbles and definitely more adds.
We already have one thing that let's you use applications and manages your video and audio and all that, it is called operating System, who wants a browser-only computer. Maybe for public access terminals or something like that, but come on, use your time to solve real problems, don't invent new ones.
Quiting some smart guy: "The best minds in our generation are employed on getting you to click more adds"

Reinventing time sharing...

[klubar]

The 70's called and they want their timesharing systems back.

It seems like cloud computing is just a fancy name for timesharing (although with a graphically richer frontend). Timesharing allowed you to share a large network...but they hadn't invented the cloud yet... it was just a hunk'ng mainframe (or mini).

Re:Reinventing time sharing...

[Sarten-X]

timesharing + dynamic resources + virtualization + isolation = cloud

Re:Reinventing time sharing...

[Tarlus]

And I was thinking: The 70's called and they want their dumb terminals back.

Re:Reinventing time sharing...

[lennier]

timesharing + dynamic resources + virtualization + isolation = cloud

Oh, so you mean IBM System/370 VM/CMS from 1972?

Truly the Cloud (tm) is a pioneering 21st century innovation!

Re:Reinventing time sharing...

[Sarten-X]

Not so much. You can't really shut down 90% of a mainframe to cut costs during off-hours. If you've reached the limit of the mainframe's capacity, you can't just plug in a module and expand it linearly, without downtime. In short, you're missing a major factor in the "dynamic resources" component.

Weabuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the Ubuntu version will be called Weabuntu. It won't have Pong but it'll come with paddles.

Why, oh why?

[macraig]

What's wrong with the desktop I have now? Is it interpreted code? No. Is it slow? No (mostly). Is it unresponsive to user input? Sometimes, but that's the fault of the kernel and other processes, not the shell per se. Could the desktop metaphor be improved? Maybe... but what's wrong with just changing the existing code/resources?

WHY do I need my desktop in a Web browser? How will shoehorning my desktop into a browser actually improve any of the few problems my desktop does have? "Integration", you say? Pffft! The browser is ONE CLICK and a few seconds away. WHY do I have to have my entire desktop inside the browser just for 'integration"? Preload the damned browser code instead, for gosh sake. I already do that.

Leave my fucking desktop out of the browser, please, Mozilla. A more intelligent integration MIGHT be to merge Web and file/document browsing; they're both browsers intended to locate stuff, after all, eh? Maybe you could then integrate (Open|Libre|)Office into that integrated browser, so that it could then locate AND open both Web and other documents?

Why don't you tinker with that instead, Mozilla, and leave my freaking desktop out of it?

Re:Why, oh why?

[Anonymous Coward]

A more intelligent integration MIGHT be to merge Web and file/document browsing; they're both browsers intended to locate stuff, after all, eh?

And they could call it Konqueror. Still my favorite browser, even though everyone's abandoning it.

Re:Why, oh why?

[macraig]

Of course I know about Konqueror. So does Mozilla.

Re:Why, oh why?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. OpenOffice plugin already exists, but it sucks.
2. file:///, motherfucker, do you use it?
3. Shellinabox + http://localhost:4200/
4. ????
5. FUCK Webian.

Re:Why, oh why?

[Tasha26]

A desktop replacement or pave the way to an "App Store" model? I think it's the latter, lats of money in there.

Re:Why, oh why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Leave my fucking desktop out of the browser, please, Mozilla. A more intelligent integration MIGHT be to merge Web and file/document browsing; they're both browsers intended to locate stuff, after all, eh?"

Because that worked out so well with IE6.

A browser is just an app, and should never be elevated to this level of system control. It's a recipe for not only failure, but opens the door to more malicious activity thrust upon the unsuspecting masses.

Re:Why, oh why?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY do I need my desktop in a Web browser? How will shoehorning my desktop into a browser actually improve any of the few problems my desktop does have? "Integration", you say? Pffft! The browser is ONE CLICK and a few seconds away. WHY do I have to have my entire desktop inside the browser just for 'integration"? Preload the damned browser code instead, for gosh sake. I already do that.

Because it's hip and cool! You should also store all your data on the cloud, especially all the data related to your work so we can take a peak.

Re:Why, oh why?

[macraig]

Malicious activity like... a Mozilla app store?

Re:Why, oh why?

[macraig]

You might be right. A Mozilla app store... ugh.

Re:Why, oh why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the desktop you have is that people write fewer and fewer apps for it and write more and more apps for the web. They do this because everyone has a web browser, and because entering a URL is easier than installing a program (especially on Windows without a package manager). These are good practical reasons. That an application is not written in C is not a good reason to confine it forever inside a document viewing interface. Besides, your browser isn't interpreting JavaScript unless you use an ancient one.

Re:Why, oh why?

[macraig]

What you're talking about as a solution is NOT a browser, but rather platform independence. You can achieve that without a browser, and in the specific case of the desktop paradigm preferably without a browser. You're also promoting the "cloud" and web apps as a solution apparently without comprehending the very BAD things that will happen if those become entrenched.

Re:Why, oh why?

[Art3x]

What's wrong with the desktop I have now?

Platforms like this and Google Chrome OS are not meant for the typical Slashdot reader. They're not trying to force everyone onto the Web for everything. They're meant for people who already are on the Web for everything, who fire up Windows and immediately then fire up a browser and never touch any other app. It's not like they're saying, "Oh, you're using that app? Well now you have to use it in a browser!" It's more like, "Oh, you aren't using that? Well, let's just get rid of it."

I think there will continue to be a choice between these browser-only computers and the ones that have a separate app framework for the OS, as long as there are many people who still want to use those native apps. But for people who only use a browser, there are several gains to be had if you just rip everything else out. You can get things like longer battery life, shorter boot times, a smaller, tighter, safer OS, and easier upkeep. Almost everything my mother calls me about for tech support would not be an issue if she had a Chromebook. And if she had a Chromebook, there is nothing she would miss.

Chromium, much?

[AC-x]

The Webian Shell basically consists of a browser which will replace the traditional desktop, and web applications are given more importance than the native applications.

This idea seems so familiar...

Re:Chromium, much?

[hey]

It would rather trust my desktop (and browser) to a non-profit.

Re:Chromium, much?

[farble1670]

mozilla.org: copying google chrome since 2008.

shite

[Anonymous Coward]

n/c

Convenience, economy of labour

[Arker]

Having an OS with a shell like this could certainly save time in teaching new users to use the platform, as well as saving a lot of programmer time on porting over the years. A local web server is a very inefficient way to provide apps in a sense, but then so are all GUIs and that doesnt seem to limit their popularity in any meaningful way. And if you run all your apps through that, you can keep a fairly small, modular operating system codebase that isnt a nightmare to maintain, update, and port using relatively frugal resources. .

For Gramma

[hey]

This is great for Gramma/pa. Or other beginner users.
I have to support my parents and would love it give this to them (when its 1.0).
Of course, its not for Slashdot "nerds" to use ourselves.

It's trying to get you to use the keyboard

[Chemisor]

Look down. See that big thing in front of you with lots of keys. It's called a "keyboard", and it is what you are supposed to be using most of the time instead of all those GUI buttons that went away. The less you use the mouse, the faster you'll finish what you're doing.

Re:It's trying to get you to use the keyboard

[Lord Lode]

Sure, but part of this trend is the replacement of the F1-F12 keys with "multimedia keys"...

Getting sick of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla is putting forth all this pseudo-innovation out of the fear they might lose their Google advertising dollars.
 
In my opinion, they're becoming more and more like Microsoft. They're fixing things that work, telling the end user that they don't know what they want, and trying to compete in areas they shouldn't be competing in ("me too" sort of thinking). FF4 is a testament to all of this.

Sweet

[matunos]

Now, instead of having to restart Firefox twice a day, I get to restart my whole desktop shell.

I like it

[Art3x]

I thought it looks rather nice (ducks).

Seriously, I've never heard so much FUD. The collective "Get off my lawn" hurts my ears.

My Linux desktop runs exactly two programs: Firefox and Shell. If I weren't a programmer, like 99% of the world populace, then I would run just Firefox.

HTML + CSS + JavaScript is the new platform, again. This time, I think it's gonna work.

CLI - VNC - HTML?

[Anonymous Coward]

So its basically all HTML
then... does it work remote?

I really like my shell you know... logging into the other computer, doing something there... don't like vnc at all.

Wow, really?

[Weaselgrease]

I think the 'balance of usability' would be perfectly easily defined by the end-user more than the programmer.

How about making the OS scalably responsive based on how it's used? "Gee, this guy only seems to use notepad and Firefox, and he has a hard time reading the text because he keeps enlarging it. Let's do that for him, and keep Notepad at the ready. Maybe even in a few weeks archive some of his least-used programs and data files to save system space. But make sure he knows we'd like to do it, and give him the option to decide not to."

"It looks like this guy really likes to play DX games and surf the web, and tweak his configurations. Let's give him the option of enabling administrative mode more easily and seeing hidden files, but allow him to disable it if he ever wants. And while we're at it, let's prioritize DirectX applications when they're running fullscreen so he gets the best experience out of it. In fact, he's so good at using this thing, let's let him have the option to modify his resolution, UI features, button sizes, text and color formatting, refresh rate, even tinker with his registry. He obviously knows how to handle it."

"This person thinks they know what they're doing, but they changed something that we had to adjust to make the system functional again. If he tries it again, we can just give him a polite reminder of what happened last time and offer that he seek support on the subject on our forums before he continue enforcing the same changes as before."

And most importantly...

"This person really doesn't seem to like it when we augment the OS's actions based on what they do, so let's just disable it and let him change his ability to access things manually."

All you have to do is make sure that the OS lets the end-user know 'Yes, we did this, and no, it wasn't a virus. Do you want us to put it back the way it was?' Give the end-user all the options but also the protections for the people who think they know what they're doing or the ones who DO want to minimize it for their use to a handful of actions.

I'd even be happy with after two months it goes 'You have a bunch of programs you never ever use. They're components of the OS, but if you never expect to use them we could remove them for you. Would you like to see a list and take out things you don't want to improve disk space and possibly even system performance?'

And last but not least, have all these annoying questions and thoughts in a convenient little place that doesn't get in the way. Popups on the taskbar? Maybe. But better yet, how about a scrolling ticker on the desktop? It floats behind other objects/windows, asks questions about your system use, and can also be configured to constantly inform you of important things. From RSS feeds to the weather, if you have new email, or occasionally mention your system performance.

Makes sense for phones

[SCHecklerX]

HP's WebOS, for example. But even there, they have hybrid apps where you can use native APIs. On the desktop, why make your desktop just a big browser? Lame.

Active desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

This is fucking horrible I hope they die in a fire.

chromeos

[netflusher]

So its basically mozilla's answer to google's chromeos?

Am I the only one...

[ianezz]

... whose first thought after reading "Webian" was "Debian for wabbits"?

Pfft

[Aphoxema]

taskman.exe is all the shell I need. The "notification area" is for wimps.

What about crashes

[MrL0G1C]

And what if a Webian Shell app' crashes - will the whole thing have to be restarted? I've already got an OS, I don't need an OS in my OS, VMs are for that.

Moz' should be careful about burning cash, Google won't be funding them forever, and it seems like they've picked up a phb or two along the way.

This is not a Mozilla Labs project

[deusx]

For what it's worth, the headline is inaccurate: This is not a Mozilla project, nor even a Mozilla Labs project. Chromeless is a Mozilla Labs project, on top of which Webian Shell is built. Webian Shell is a nifty looking thing, but it's not an official Mozilla Statement on the FUTURE OF APPLICATIONS and a CHALLENGE TO CHROMEOS or whatever crap is being assumed here. It's just some dude playing with a concept.

Re:Time Warp - DIVIDE BY ZERO

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can run a web browser in an OS in a web brower in an OS in a web browser in an OS in a...

Don't they ever learn?

[knorthern knight]

> "Mozilla Labs has introduced its concept of a
> desktop replacement called Webian Shell. The
> Webian Shell basically consists of a browser which
> will replace the traditional desktop, and web
> applications are given more importance than the
> native applications.

First, Java was going to render the underlying OS irrelavant, running applets on every browser.

Then AOL was going to render the underlying OS irrelavant by expanding Netscape to make it a pseudo-OS. While working on their pseudo-OS, AOL totally ignored Netscape 4.x, and that's when IE walked away with the web.

Here we go again... if I only had several million dollars and a team of programmers at my disposal... sigh.

Re:Don't they ever learn?

[Johann Lau]

just use a normal browser and hit F11?

but yeah, if you ever get into money, send some my way, so I can do something actually innovative with it. I have better ideas under the shower than mozilla has in years of meetings, and I think that goes for just about any remotely intelligent and curious person on the planet. just saying.

Re:The Web is Dead

[segin]

Your imaginary deity called, it wants you to stop telling it to bless crap to your own ends. Oh, and he said that demanding a blessing upon your country still benefits you. It's a good imaginary deity, it is smart enough to protest your selfish demands of blessings that benefit you.