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."

9 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 The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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."
  2. 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'
  3. Not again by JDG1980 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.