Straight up, at it's base, this is a great idea that will likely come to fruition in the future. Why?
Look at how many web developers are out there! If a browser OS (a real one, where the scripting was html/javascript/Flash interacting with a server just like they do for websites) existed, it would be the ultimate playpen for web developers and designers, people who already spend their time being concerned about user experience. If it existed, I'm sure most advanced web developers would salivate at the chance to write desktop apps.
But what's needed to make this work, which hasn't been talked about?
- a version of XMLSocket for HTML (ie the Flash socket-connect API which allows a Flash app to remain constantly connected to a server, negating the call-response requirement of AJAX) - a local web server on the user's computer. In this way apps created in HTML/Flash could connect locally for their functionality. I don't understand why everyone seems to be forgetting that it's a "Browser", which is designed to work in a client-server manner using http. - for desktop functions, a direct API between javascript and X is needed.
It just seems that most posters here don't understand the power and use of HTML/javascript/Flash, and are the same people that saw their java/VB apps die as much more efficient web-based apps replaced them.
The idea of a browser desktop is great, and it's also the future. Unfortunately, there's so much development waiting if it's to be done properly that it's still several years away from becoming a reality.
I wonder how the previous elections' voting computers would fare, being put through the new tests... think diebold would like to see exposed just how many security holes there were in their last series of "machines"?
PHP application security. Do we blame php for the fact that it's a web language?
On an enterprise application level, PHP doesn't have the highest penetration, but since the mass majority of web apps, from 20 liners to tens of thousands of complex open source ones, are done by independent developers or SMEs who require a stable, free, portable web language with low barrier to entry. Given the choice of LAMP on so many ISPs, PHP is the language of choice for the web.
Since the web is MUCH less secure than any other type of development, it makes perfect sense that PHP is the least secure language out there, whether caused by the developers or the language itself, I'd say it's the least secure simply because it's the most ubiquitous web language out there.
Your average one-off developer or small company doesn't have proper QA procedures. Enterprise level software is generally created in an environment that is more security-aware. Not the software, not the developers (necessarily), but the programming environment.
As a PHP programmer for 6 years, I've learned my share of security lessons, and am aware of PHP's issues, but it's a language made from the beginning for the WEB (unlike java and much of.NET), and has inspired some of the most exciting web apps that exist. PHPBB was insecure, but so popular because virtually anyone could use it. Its popularity and insecurity both came from PHP. PHP still needs to work on the balance of accessibility v.s ease of programming and backwards compatibility, and with version 6, they seem to be doing just that.
---
PHP is the most popular web language. It operates in the least secure environment, and tends to be developed in non-QA'd environments more than other languages. Least secure language? Yeah, sure... that's it's nature! For web-coding in a QA'd environment by experienced programmers, the code is quick, efficient, portable, perfectly secure, and likely took less time to code than (almost) any other language.
Slashdot Mirror
Straight up, at it's base, this is a great idea that will likely come to fruition in the future. Why?
Look at how many web developers are out there! If a browser OS (a real one, where the scripting was html/javascript/Flash interacting with a server just like they do for websites) existed, it would be the ultimate playpen for web developers and designers, people who already spend their time being concerned about user experience. If it existed, I'm sure most advanced web developers would salivate at the chance to write desktop apps.
But what's needed to make this work, which hasn't been talked about?
- a version of XMLSocket for HTML (ie the Flash socket-connect API which allows a Flash app to remain constantly connected to a server, negating the call-response requirement of AJAX)
- a local web server on the user's computer. In this way apps created in HTML/Flash could connect locally for their functionality. I don't understand why everyone seems to be forgetting that it's a "Browser", which is designed to work in a client-server manner using http.
- for desktop functions, a direct API between javascript and X is needed.
It just seems that most posters here don't understand the power and use of HTML/javascript/Flash, and are the same people that saw their java/VB apps die as much more efficient web-based apps replaced them.
The idea of a browser desktop is great, and it's also the future. Unfortunately, there's so much development waiting if it's to be done properly that it's still several years away from becoming a reality.
I wonder how the previous elections' voting computers would fare, being put through the new tests... think diebold would like to see exposed just how many security holes there were in their last series of "machines"?
PHP application security. Do we blame php for the fact that it's a web language? On an enterprise application level, PHP doesn't have the highest penetration, but since the mass majority of web apps, from 20 liners to tens of thousands of complex open source ones, are done by independent developers or SMEs who require a stable, free, portable web language with low barrier to entry. Given the choice of LAMP on so many ISPs, PHP is the language of choice for the web. Since the web is MUCH less secure than any other type of development, it makes perfect sense that PHP is the least secure language out there, whether caused by the developers or the language itself, I'd say it's the least secure simply because it's the most ubiquitous web language out there. Your average one-off developer or small company doesn't have proper QA procedures. Enterprise level software is generally created in an environment that is more security-aware. Not the software, not the developers (necessarily), but the programming environment. As a PHP programmer for 6 years, I've learned my share of security lessons, and am aware of PHP's issues, but it's a language made from the beginning for the WEB (unlike java and much of .NET), and has inspired some of the most exciting web apps that exist. PHPBB was insecure, but so popular because virtually anyone could use it. Its popularity and insecurity both came from PHP. PHP still needs to work on the balance of accessibility v.s ease of programming and backwards compatibility, and with version 6, they seem to be doing just that.
---
PHP is the most popular web language. It operates in the least secure environment, and tends to be developed in non-QA'd environments more than other languages. Least secure language? Yeah, sure... that's it's nature! For web-coding in a QA'd environment by experienced programmers, the code is quick, efficient, portable, perfectly secure, and likely took less time to code than (almost) any other language.