Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canonical Unveils WebApps For Ubuntu

Posted by timothy on from the dislocation-dislocation-dislocation dept.

nk497 writes "Canonical has revealed a system to make web apps behave more like native applications in Ubuntu. The Ubuntu WebApps feature will 'allow applications that normally run in the web browser to have some functionality outside that browser, within the Ubuntu desktop,' product manager Pete Goddall said. Basically, sites can be pinned to the launcher — which sounds a bit like IE9's pinning system, but WebApps can also interact with the OS, displaying notifications for new messages in Gmail, interacting with Last.FM via Ubuntu's sound controls, and when right clicking on photos, including Facebook as an upload option. WebApps will land in 12.10 in October, but there will also be an add-on version for people staying on long-term support version 12.04."

34 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. What could possibly go wrong? by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did those guys just re-invent Active-X controls?

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Danzigism · · Score: 1

      It sure sounds like it. Sounds like an awesome way to make malware too.

      --
      *plays the Apogee theme song music*
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. This sounds like a structured API, not full system access.

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by skippy13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did those guys just re-invent Active-X controls?

      No. Whereas Active Desktop was a deep integration of the browser into the desktop shell, Ubuntu Web Apps is a collection of Firefox plugins. Each supported site requires its own plugin. Sure, there's still an opportunity for malware and exploitation, but the scope is significantly different than what Active Desktop offered.

    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did those guys just re-invent Active-X controls?

      I'd ask "How did you come to that conclusion after reading the article," but we both know you didn't read it.

      This feature doesn't let websites run native code on your machine. Try it yourself and see.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's still an opportunity for malware and exploitation, but the scope is significantly different than what Active Desktop offered.

      Sure--in much the same way that getting punched in the face is is a significantly different scope than getting punched in the balls. Regardless, both scopes are a bad idea.

    6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Why Firefox?

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      But it does sound like a good way to get me to switch from kubuntu to Mandriva.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    8. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      This feature doesn't let websites run native code on your machine.

      Well, that's CLEARLY enough. Because we all fully know and understand that non-native interpreted code can never EVER break out of its sandbox and run native shellcode. Never.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

      Probably because Firefox is the default browser in Ubuntu.

      --

      Read my blog.

    10. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      This is relevant to the topic.... how, exactly?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    11. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Actually this is far closer to Microsoft Windows Sidebar Gadgets, especially in the security arena. Watch where you get those plugins from!

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  2. Re:How about.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about getting the source and doing it yourself. If you're waiting for someone else to do it, it's already proprietary.

  3. Re:How about.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It seems you wouldn't be able to google your way out of a paper bag, there's easy tweaks to disable the global menu that could probably be turned into a one liner.
    Anyways I like the global menu, and the launcher after turning it on autohide. No sacrifice in screen real estate and all of the features.

  4. Interesting by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My thought is that they just cloned a lot of what gets done on Android. The contacts are hooked into facebook & google, as well as numerous email and other things. Once you have it set up it's quite slick.

    The downside, of course, is that everyone gets a sniff of what you are *actually* doing with your computer and compiling info on the users. I have come to the conclusion that the future of the internet is that it will be dominated by information aggregators who will sell analyzed data to whomever has the money. Not actual information on individuals, but large statistics and the like.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm just an old out-of-touch fogey with no clue how users want to user their computers these days.
      None of this makes any sense to me. I have no idea why anyone would want any of this functionality.
      And it's not like I'm some Linux command-line elitist or something. I use Kubuntu.

    2. Re:Interesting by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      This is not good. Haven't the Ubuntu boys been watching how so many Windows applications [cough]Adobe[/cough] have tried to take over the world, do all things, and opened HUGE vulnerabilities for viruses, malware, exploitation? Yeah, the browsers too. Why do you think I have NoScript running on my Firefox browser even as we speak. And why NO Adobe programs are on my PC whatsoever (outside of Flash, which I haven't found a substitute for .. yet)?

      But noooo ...

      Morons.

  5. Not again by JDG1980 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ubuntu: slavishly copying every bad idea that originates anywhere else!

  6. gtk by 101percent · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this already a feature of the newer GTK+ releases?

    1. Re:gtk by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      kinda makes sense really - Microsoft's latest GUI system uses XML formatted markup with some source "code behind" the controls to provide interaction. Sounds a lot like HTML markup with javascript behind to provide interaction.

      At least with HTML+JS you can take the majority of your code and run it on a website. Now if only it could all be compiled down to native code, we'd have a great system for programmer productivity (as we wouldn't have to code everything twice - once for the web side of things, once for the desktop). Of course, we could use a different GUI mechanism, but we're stuck with HTML for the web.

  7. Ubuntu specific? by IAmR007 · · Score: 2

    My main problem with this is that it sounds too Ubuntu specific. It seems Canonical is trying to slowly build a separate branded desktop environment rather than contributing programs and patches to existing projects. The same goes for the Ubuntu app store. I wish Canonical would build more open and documented APIs so that other distros could easily plug in to them. Too many of Canonicals improvements seem to benefit just them. Linux is a group project.

    Hell, I'll go beyond thinking this should be more than distro specific. Functionality like this should be an actual standard so that developers only have to write for one API for all desktop integration.

    1. Re:Ubuntu specific? by IAmR007 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's written distro specifically when it doesn't need to be, which means reimplementing for other distros creates a lot of wasteful redundancy when Canonical could have easily just written it to use multiple backends.

    2. Re:Ubuntu specific? by IAmR007 · · Score: 1

      non-debian package managers.

  8. Doesn't This Defeat the Purpose of WebApps? by organgtool · · Score: 2

    I thought the primary benefit of WebApps is that they are mostly platform-independent. So what benefit is there to introducing a platform-dependent API?

    1. Re:Doesn't This Defeat the Purpose of WebApps? by Githaron · · Score: 1

      All the OS creators really need to get together and create a freely available specification for this kind of thing so that these types of APIs are not platform dependent.

    2. Re:Doesn't This Defeat the Purpose of WebApps? by tibman · · Score: 1

      The WebApps can be platform-independent but something has to sit on linux to handle the api calls. THAT part (unless it is also written in something platform independent) must be platform-dependent.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    3. Re:Doesn't This Defeat the Purpose of WebApps? by organgtool · · Score: 2

      The WebApps can be platform-independent but something has to sit on linux to handle the api calls.

      I understand that - my point is that you're tainting code that was platform-independent with code that only works on one platform.

      THAT part (unless it is also written in something platform independent) must be platform-dependent.

      Why does that part need to be written at all? Why does a WebApp need access to anything at the OS level? I'm not trying to be a Luddite, but I do not understand why you wouldn't write the entire program in a native language and provide better integration into the supported platform if you depend on such low-level access to the OS. This whole thing reeks of technologies that came out of Microsoft during the Nineties, such as Active-X, that provided unnecessary privileges to questionable applications. The technology was rarely necessary for legitimate applications but was exploited like crazy by developers of malicious code.

    4. Re:Doesn't This Defeat the Purpose of WebApps? by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      This whole thing reeks of technologies that came out of Microsoft during the Nineties, such as Active-X, that provided unnecessary privileges to questionable applications. The technology was rarely necessary for legitimate applications but was exploited like crazy by developers of malicious code.

      Great, so when the Ubuntu users get slammed by malware, those of us using all of the other distros out there will get to put up with tons of smirking from the Win/Mac crowd about how "Linux" (read: Ubuntu) isn't at all secure. Just imagine how much fun it will be to explain this one to tech-clueless friends/family/clients after they see the Wired headlines...

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    5. Re:Doesn't This Defeat the Purpose of WebApps? by tibman · · Score: 1

      The reason the webapp needs access beyond the webpage is so that is can become an "app" and not just a web page. For example, you can install a webapp that integrates into your systray or taskbar or right-click context menus. If you never want your apps to exist outside of your browser then you can simply use web sites and bypass the whole idea of webapps.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    6. Re:Doesn't This Defeat the Purpose of WebApps? by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      The WebApps can be platform-independent but something has to sit on linux to handle the api calls.

      I understand that - my point is that you're tainting code that was platform-independent with code that only works on one platform.

      That's a good point. The APIs are open and standard, so the hope is that different platforms can have their own native implementation.

      THAT part (unless it is also written in something platform independent) must be platform-dependent.

      Why does that part need to be written at all? Why does a WebApp need access to anything at the OS level? I'm not trying to be a Luddite, but I do not understand why you wouldn't write the entire program in a native language and provide better integration into the supported platform if you depend on such low-level access to the OS.(...)

      You don't necessarily need so much low level access or very tight integration: you just want to be neatly integrated into the GUI, so that a user barely needs to know that this is a web app rather than a real application. Gmail, for instance, is probably already in many ways the best email client available, but to use it i would want notifications arriving in the notification indicator together with those from other programs, and I would like to be able to access its menus just like a real application with whatever functionality the os provides (global menu and HUD included, if you are in ubuntu). Google hangout will never fully replace skype until I can receive "calls" without having a browser tab open on google+, etc.

  9. "which sounds a bit like IE9's pinning system" by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    "which sounds a bit like IE9's pinning system"

    Really? Creating webapp shortcuts on the desktop or taskbar, and the first analogy that comes to mind is IE9? Seriously? Especially since IE's pinning just puts a link on your taskbar, nothing close to Chrome's app shortcuts' feel/behavior (or previously the doomed Firefox's Prism/Webrunner/Chromeless stuff).

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  10. Watch where you apt-get any software from by tepples · · Score: 1

    Watch where you get those plugins from!

    Watch where you apt-get any software from. This is the same whether the software is packaged as .deb, .apk, dmg, .msi, .exe, .rpm, or .tgz. But anything in the default repositories will have been vetted by at least the Masters of the Universe.

  11. Kernel vs. operating environment by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why does a WebApp need access to anything at the OS level?

    You haven't yet defined "operating system" to mean "kernel" or "operating environment"; this definition is a perennial debate. To avoid collapse of the discussion due to definition disagreement, I'll address both meanings: A web application doesn't need access to anything at the kernel level, but I can explain why it would need access to something at the operating environment level. Say the operating system has a list of applications that are playing audio. A web application that plays audio needs to somehow register itself as an application that plays audio so that when you have Pandora running, it'll show up as "Pandora (web)" and not "one of your 100 open Firefox tabs; good luck guessing which one".

  12. What other Debian-based distros are useable? by allo · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu goes more and more into the wrong direction.
    I use KDE anyway, but i still have their patched gtk-libs and other stuff ... mint and other ubuntu forks are not an option, as they use the same packages. debian is slow with releases and only slowly adopting new tech.

    What other debian-forks are usable, which did not change to ubuntu as the base of their packets?