Blake Ross Working on Parakey Web OS

prostoalex writes "IEEE Spectrum is running an article on Blake Ross, creator of Firefox, and his new project called Parakey, which will bridge the gap between Web and desktop operating system. From the article: 'As he describes it, from a user's point of view, Parakey is "a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do." Translation: it makes it really easy to store your stuff and share it with the world. Most or all of Parakey will be open source, under a license similar to Firefox's. There are differences between the two projects, however. Although Ross plans to incorporate the talents and passions of the free-software community, he's building Parakey around a for-profit business model. And he's leading the charge with a simple battle cry: "One interface, not two!"'"

Is this just a virtual file system?

How is this an OS? An OS manages the hardware and software resources for a computer. Is this just a virtual filesystem?

Re:Is this just a virtual file system?

I did a bit of searching to find out what it is. His idea is simply to take files from a machine, and make them accessible on the web. (Potentially via your own subdomain of parakey.com.) To that end, it will probably be a program that would automatically handle the upload of things like digital images from your camera, and important documents to the web. It's conceivable that it's implemented as a virtual file system, but it could be something as simple as a right click menu item that says, "Send to Parakey". It could even be a set of drivers to handle things like digital images automatically. We'll have to see.

Re:Is this just a virtual file system?

Who said anything about paying for the service?

In any case, with respect to your concerns about data lock-in: one of the driving principles of the system is that your data is always synchronized to at least one of your machines. If every datacenter on the planet exploded tomorrow, your data would be right there on your computer. You always own it.

If I wanted to capitalize on name recognition, I'd have released the world's 87 millionth bookmark sharing website a few months after Firefox launched. We've been working on this in silence for a very long time, and will resume doing so when this has blown over next week. This has nothing to do with fame or fortune; it's about improving the experience for things we do everyday.

Nifty

I've always thought you should be able to write interrupt handlers in Javascript.

One job, one tool

Why must we have tools that try to do everything?

I remember hearing about some guys named Brian and Dennis and uh I forget the third guy's name - it was back in the 60's - trying to write an operating system based on the idea that each part should do one distinct thing, and do it well. I don't know if anything ever came of it, but I thought that it sounded like a good idea.

There is a major distinction between MY computer and the rest of the world. One is mine; the rest belongs to others. I treat them differently. I want my desktop to reflect it.
There are already too many people who seem to forget that my stuff is mine - spammers, politicians, cold callers, door-to-door salesmen, etc - and that I might want it separate from the rest of the world. I don't want my OS forgetting this too.

Win98 called..

they want their lame idea back.

For profit AND open source?

Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?

I hope it's walled off

Anything that makes it "really easy" for me to move/save/delete files while online from any computer means that unless you're amazingly careful, you're also making it that much easier for someone else to do it for you.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I have yet to see *any* vendor, be it closed source or open source take enough time and care with their code to write something that doesn't have gaping security holes in it.

What's going to happen when what was a simple browser problem becomes a file system problem? Drive by downloads that wipe your machine.

You say Parakey

I say butter.

So in other words...

He is writing iPhoto/iWeb for windows?

A simple battle cry?

a simple battle cry: 'One interface, not two!'

Of course, when MS - also seeing a change in the traditional boundaries - wants to embed a browser in their own OS, and make poking around the local file system feel similar to poking around web sites... that's the battle cry of... Teh Evil!

*sigh*

MySpace++

This sounds great for the vast majority of web users ... people who want to create blogs, picture pages, keep notes, network with their friends, use e-mail, chat, etc. Calling it an O/S is a bit of a stretch since it doesn't perform any hardware/software control on the computer or the server, it simply comes with an application to facilitate file manipulation/moving/sharing/tagging/etc. Sounds like MySpace meets e-mail meets Flickr, on steroids.

BTW - if you'd like to get more information on this product when it launches, you can get on their mailing list or just bookmark their site at www.parakey.com [parakey.com]

Everything an OS can do!!11111

Including running like molasses and then BSOD!

But seriously, is this just another one of those "desktop in javascript" things? They've been done a million times, and they all suck.

Most used feature: web recycle bin

I wonder how this project will manage to give a "web os" more power over hardware while not simultaneously throwing our security in the "web recycle bin".

IE had too much power over the OS and it caused problems. Firefox and IE7 do more to put some distance between the os and the web for good reason.

Web Os....

Why would you want to run an OS from within a browser, in your own OS, and then surf the net from the browser in an os which is in your browser on your OS!!. The idea is ridiculous. How about just making a "functional website" rather then glorify it by calling it an OS. I'm sure if you had enough time you could do the whole thing in flash. It stinks - as much as the idea of Office live.

Dumbing down of terminology

Am I the only person appalled by these web interfaces, or even web desktops, being referred to as operating systems? It is technically wrong by a large margin. An operating system is the interface between hardware and software that manages the resources of hardware. Web "operating systems" do not manage any hardware.

I find this usage appalling, and I hope that this terminology doesn't spread and dumb down the use of technical terms.

Calling it an OS is overkill

It's hardly an operating system. It's more like trying to combine all your data into one browser window. It is a unique idea - no application I'm aware of centralizes this functionality. Why noone has thought of it before, who knows. It seems like the only reason I'd want to use this would be to share files with other people. It wouldn't seem like it would be a big deal to write an application that showed you the files on your computer, give you the option to post them online to any web server of your choosing, and format them nicely with a web portal. Even filtering the site so that different sets of people would see different data would hardly seem to be a problem, as you can email a 'key' to them that sets their level of access.

As others have said, the most important thing to worry about would be security. What will prevent malicious code from altering your local files, or uploading sensitive data?

eyeOS is a free PHP app that does this

Check it out eyeOS [eyeos.org], its open source also :)

Wow

Parakey is "a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do."

It can be more useful than a brick when the network connection is down? No? Then it can't do everything an OS can do.

Let me save everyone the trouble :)

I'm well aware that a "web operating system" would not fulfill the same functions as a true web operating system, and I'm as tired of the "WebOS" rhetoric as anyone else. I did explain this to Spectrum, and it seems the magazine decided to leave the mention but explain that it's only an "operating system" from the average user's perspective--which is difficult to prove either way, since my mother probably thinks an "operating system" is some kind of surgical device.

As for the "how is this different from XXX?" comments, I understand that it may be difficult to differentiate Parakey based solely on the description provided in this early article. Rather than chase those sorts of questions here, I'd rather continue working towards putting the product in your hands so you can decide whether it's different and, ultimately, whether it's worth your time. Thanks everyone.

Shades of Desktop.com and WebOS

What makes Parakey different from Desktop.com and WebOS, two companies that looked like they had a decent future during the internet bubble? Desktop.com had a full operating system inside Netscape 4.5 and IE 4. You could share file, folders, etc. with your friends, use online "AJAX" applications, etc. WebOS had a very slick interface, too.

At Desktop.com, we had a couple of problems making the product fly. The first was technical: it bloated the browser up to 32Megs and made it unstable. (Nowadays, I don't bat an eye when Firefox is hungrily consuming 250M.) The second was usability: the online experience just wasn't as smooth and easy as a local application. This was partly due to the lower connection speeds that people were using back then, but also due to the inability to seamlessly interact with local files. And the really big problem was the business model: you either have to charge the users, or figure out how to put ads somewhere where people aren't used to ads -- like in the application title bar. Ick.

So, "one interface, not two" is all fine and dandy, but I'll be interested in seeing if they actually make it work and worthwhile.

move OS into cpu?

I've begun wondering lately why the processors themselves can't be extended to handle much of the functionality of the 'OS'- essentially migrate the basics into the CPU? If there was a way to get things up far enough to access some flash memory that would house some signed net/video/input/storage drivers to get things up and running. This is just a very basic idea and by no means is all-inclusive of every possible requirement..

An idea in search of a name

I'm going to start with some obvious information to establish why I think there's a real development going on here.

Historically, computing improvement has been achieved by layering the technology, so that each layer operates with a high degree of autonomy from the layer below it. Depending on your perspective, there are anywhere from 6 to dozens of layers within the computer you're using to read this.

This layering, called "abstraction" by most, has minimized the amount of complexity that needs to be managed at any one point, allowing us dumb people to work together and improve the whole by incrementally improving each part.

Even with a single "layer", there may be multiple internal layers. For example, much of the software I write is managed through a file abstraction layer that takes care of the details of converting a memory object to a file on disk. I do something simple like ($obj->FWrite($object)) and all the rest is managed for me.

Now, on to the point. There are major abstractions in use today. EG:

Hardware ->
FirmWare ->
Operating System ->
Application ->

And there's a new, cross-system development now underway. Technologies like SOAP, XML, RPC, AJAX, and similar, related words describe a new layer of abstraction on top of the Application layer.

It's not a well-developed idea yet, and the foundational principles of this idea are now being explored. Yes, there are definitely specific implementations of this, but just like the Operating System developed after decades of exploration in designs, this next abstraction hasn't been well defined and/or commoditized yet. So far, any development in this area really requires a very specific implementation - code reuse is minimal.

IMHO, the best implementation of this new abstraction is probably XML/RPC. But it's honestly not much more than a transfer protocol.

So, yes. There will be a "Web O/S" - though we'll probably not call it such. It's closest cousin is called "Middleware" by IBM.

PROFIT!

There are differences between the two projects, however. Although Ross plans to incorporate the talents and passions of the free-software community, he's building Parakey around a for-profit business model.

Ah...the classic "Get your product/service made for free and then sell it for profit" business model. Best of luck to people who work for this and don't get compensated for their time and efforts.

I like it

I think it might be comparable to using wordpress or some other CMS vs. updating your site's content in the html source without the benefit of a sql database.
I'd much rather my mom be trapped in a user friendly and productive content management system instead of nagging me every two minutes to do something for her.

For the average person all popular OSes are too complicated.
Does grandpa really need the contents of c:\windows\ showing up when he searches for one of the few files that he himself created?

I think a lot of people would feel comforted knowing that something like parakey is sandwiched between them and the 'real' OS and they don't have to worry about possibly destroying their computer some how.

Sure, this isn't a good fit for most people like me with our 1800 php files, 3000 html files, countless psd gif jpg, mb, 3ds, wav, ogg, etc...
but we're not the "average joe". One of the main reasons IE is so damned popular is because a large portion of computer users ONLY use their computer to update their profile page on some community site, check their mail (ever had to help someone set up outlook over the phone, people hate all the steps and foreign terms),
and search for information.

When last did you see somone buy and encyclopedia on cd/dvd? stuff like Wikipedia is faster and easier and like so many things on the web it's straight to the point.

Sure other people have attempted something like this in the past maybe. But maybe their implementation sucked. Maybe this won't suck so bad. With so many examples online of just how useful a good CMS can be, I'm sure they have a good chance to get it right and make something good.

not getting it

I work with Blake on Firefox. As one of the few people who's actually seen and used Parakey, I can tell you that the assumptions being made here are misguided. It's a unique product that surpasses anything similar I can find out there today.

The article referenced does a poor job of explaining what Parakey is about and an even worse job of describing how it works. It won't be long before you all can see for yourself.

- A

OS + web vs. OS + wiki

The idea of a "web operating system" sounds very 1990s to me. It doesn't really sounds the least bit interesting these days. On the other hand, I don't understand why linux distros don't take more advantage of things like wikis. I'd really like to see linux distros become more integrated with wikis - error messages could have links to wikis or forum posts, control panel applets could contain links to editable howtos, etc. there are some security issues but nothing impossible.

This is important - thank you Blake Ross...

A quick scan of posts so far in this thread indicates (to me at least) that many of you aren't getting it. Definitely some fault for that goes back to the parakey = OS confusion sowed by the spectrum article. In case you missed it in this thread, Blake clears some of that up here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204087&cid=166 81717 [slashdot.org]

The only thing I've got to go by is the Spectrum article, so I'm going to read into it *a lot*. So if my assumptions are correct you should be very excited by Parakey for the following reasons:

• Its evolutionary: the web browser platform and programming methods have been continually evolving to support richer and richer client side applications (AJAX a great example). Parakey takes the rich client evolutionary process in the browser to its obvious next big step: the browser becomes the desktop (hey Spectrum editors: not the underlying OS!) Why is this great? Your PC OS has to run only one application, instead of 10 or 20 or so. Everything happens within the browser. You don't give a flip what OS is running on the client - the "webtop" abstracts it away, as if it were just the engine under the hood of your car. Hmmm - would I want to pay for Windoze Vista (or OSX) if the only thing I'm going to do is run a full screen browser on it 100% of the time? Maybe there is a free OS alternative out there [wikipedia.org] that could do the job very well and not cost a cent?
• The KISS Principle [wikipedia.org] is obviously driving Parakey innovation. That much is very clear from the Spectrum article. And the participatory internet feeds on simplicity as the differentiator between winners and losers in the application space. So I'm gonna say it now... its totally Web 2.0 [oreillynet.com] (sorry Blake - I means this in the most technically positive light)... techies cringe, investors rejoice!... :-)
• Its disruptive. Windows - OS X - KDE - GNOME, etc... they are all amazing technical achievements. How necessary will they be in the years to come? Why do we need an OS/GUI/Session Manager/whateverthehellyoucallit that can become so complex it makes me think of a 1ft thick Swiss Army Knife? The browser-as-the-desktop model I hope will cause the KISS model to reign supreme in next generation human/computer interface design. (OK - kudos to the Gnome/Ubuntu crowd - they do get it - for proving that simplicity is better for the masses)
  
• Blake's philosophy seems to fit for the, oh... 90%-95% or so of people in the world that only need to use computers to accomplish some basic things like communicating and sharing content. Sure the browser-as-the-desktop model doesn't work for someone who lives in Photoshop for example.
  

For profit or not, this is a great project. ...Blake - do I get it?... and - who do I send a resume to? :-)

Old idea, new protocol

Yeah, calling it an OS is a bad idea, but these do have a purpose. With the whole Web 2.0 thing, we're basically seeing a move back towards thin clients. All you really need on a machine now is access to a modern web browser. From there, you've got email, IM, FTP, SSH, you name it. This basically looks like they're just rolling everything together into one bundle of Ajax apps. I'd imagine it'd be handy in an enterprise setting.

webos is a bad term

I really dislike the use of the term "webOS", especially for a product aimed at the average user. Mom and Dad probably don't know what an operating system is or what it really does for them. Geeks, on the other hand, will just shake their head at the misuse of th term. In short, the term does nothing to describe the product.

That said, I think Parakey does seem interesting. Even though I'm a geek and more than capable of figuring out how to publish things online, it would be very convenient to have one place to store various types of media. I think the concept of sending virtual keys to your friends is a good one as well. There have been many times when I've wanted to share a file with a friend or two, but not the public at large. Despite knowing how to use many tools, it is still very difficult to do this. I think that with the right feature set, Parakey could take off with the geek crowd despite being targeted for average users, much like Firefox has done today.

Forget OS, security and all that jazz...

... what about plain old privacy? Would anyone really want to do this with their files? For a minute let's not get into how it's stored online, and what kinds can you store.

But the simple fact that you can store all kinds of files online (and potentially access them - something similar to google docs or such??) brings int he question of privacy too. Security implies deleting, overwriting, and accessing (ofcourse), but would anyone really want to put files online which they truly hold dear? What if we have someone, or a bot, trawling through our files for information, numbers, etc?

I guess this would make big business for anti-virus/internet security products, who now not only need to protect home PCs, but also online "OS"s of sorts! I guess that's where the revenue sharing/for-profit model partially comes from.

YouOS

For a really impressive web OS, try YouOS [youos.com]. It works in several browsers (I've tried Opera and Konqueror), looks and acts like a desktop OS with GUI, has its own API, and it's open source.

Creator of Firefox

Although Blake is certainly out front in Firefox land, I didn't think he was the creator, at least the sole one anyway.
I thought that Dave Hyatt ( now with Apple ) had quite a bit to do with that.

Who are the creators of Firefox?

Great idea

Personally I really like the idea of Parakey. I've been thinking about how to do similar things for myself and my family for a while now. Being able to give myself, my friends and family and the public different levels of access to my data is something I want to do. I already do so via my own web pages, but in many ways it's clunky and inconvenient and I don't have a solid way of making sure the copies of my data in various locations are kept up to date which Parakey may be able to help with. Also, I can see my parents using it for photos that they want to share with the family.

However, I'm not interested in storing my data on external servers (Parakey's site). Some of my data is personal and sensitive and should remain only on servers I run myself, though I would still like to be able to access it at any time. I hope that Parakey offers the capability of running your own personal server which can be accessed from the outside.

Steve

Re:Share, and share alike.

I'm betting a bunch of Sheeple use it for swapping music, porn, and movies until RIAA sues it into oblivion....