WebOS Market Review 173
ReadWriteWeb writes "A number of small startups are trying their luck building a WebOS, which is a software platform that interacts with the user through a web browser and does not depend on any particular local operating system. Current WebOS contenders include XIN, YouOS, EyeOS, Orca, Goowy and Fold. There's also a bit of crossover with Ajax homepages like Netvibes, Pageflakes, Microsoft's Live.com and Google's start page. The key difference from Ajax homepages is that a WebOS is a full-on development platform. Indeed for developers, a big benefit is that a WebOS theoretically makes it easier to develop apps that work cross-platform. DHTML and Javascript are the main tools to do that, but not all developers think they are suitable."
WHY? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:WHY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WHY? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WHY? (Score:2)
Which will probably make it even more evil to most Slashdot readers, I guess.
But it's a pretty damn impressive piece of work.
Re:WHY? (Score:2)
What I don't get is why people always are talking about javascript for building a Web OS to the exclusion of the platforms that could actually be used for it, like java or flash. Especially flash. You can build amazing stuff in flash, and easily too. It's orders of magnitude more easy to develop cross-platform web apps in flash than in javascript.
Re:WHY? (Score:2)
Re:WHY? (Score:2)
Re:WHY? (Score:2)
Issues:
* Javascript is a bad language. It is also bad as a code distribution format, as in your HappyJoy example, though the drawbacks are a bit different.
* The standard library is anemic - anything cool will have to be distributed, meaning slow startup
Re:WHY? (Score:2)
Interesting in the same way that 3rd degree burns are interesting to a doctor.
-matthew
Good luck with that (Score:1)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
If I wanted a customisable environment I could access anywhere, I'd make a custom install of a lightweight linux OS on a flash drive and carry it around with me. All my programs, anywhere - plus encrypted storage, plus no need for a network connection, plus no bandwidth usage, plus no latency issues, plus programs that I choose, customise, install and run myself, that I trust, that I can examine the source code of and compile myself if I choose OSS, plus no server downtime, plus less risk of my personal data being accessible by any one of thousands of users with read/write privaledges in an account on the same server that I use that happens to find an unpatched exploit.
The move toward a WebOS is another part of the "stupid user" school of computer education. Instead of actually promoting learning how to use a box properly, you just move all the sensitive stuff server-side. "Installing programs? We'll do that for you! Configuring system files? Leave that to us! Data storage? Backups? System Patches? Anti-virus? Malware detection? It's all on us! You don't need to know a damned thing, just sit down at your thousand dollar terminal, log in, point and click. Sports Broadcasts will resume as normal."
It's just another aspect of the great computer devide that's gradually starting. On the one hand, unix geeks who run their own systems and software, spec their own hardware, believe in open source, try to make personal backups of media, won't buy DRM and want control of their own boxes. On the other, the average consumer who doesn't give a damn about anything aside from getting a system that just works with as little management and maintanence as possible. For the second group, WebOS is brilliant. All you need to remember is a URL, a login and a password. Instant system wherever you are. You've surrenedered the autonomy of your box, but in return you get an easier system to manage. It's a dream for content suppliers as well - imagine the strength of DRM if the average media player is stored on a remote server, and the user has no access to it's program files.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
could everyone please stop it with the car analogies? a computer is nothing like a car.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
The point is that mo
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
i don't think you understand what an analogy is. while a car is a vehicle designed to take you from point A to point B, a computer is an infinitely programmable software platform. so i fail to see how the two (car/computer) are similar. now, i may be wrong, that's just how i see things.
The point is that most folks don't want to be bothered
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
oh yeah? then let's make it official: i hereby call on you, the slashdot.org member, to say no to computers/cars analogies [petitiononline.com]!
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
It's essentially the difference bet
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2)
Dude, you need to get out more. There's *ZERO* point in learning about computers just for the sake of learning about computers. *ZERO*. Let me restate that: ZERO. If a computer doesn't help me get my job done, then I don't want it. If I have to spend more time learning about hom computers work than they save me, then it's a net loss.
I'm staying away until... (Score:2)
Holy astroturfing Batman! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Holy astroturfing Batman! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Holy astroturfing Batman! (Score:2)
Dammit. That's what I just did. I'm such a tool.
Well, actually... (Score:2, Funny)
It was kind of lame since we had tapas, and if you've been reading my blog, you know that I'm not totally into the tapas. Not totally.
But I know it was an expression of love, and of gratitude, and for that I'm grateful. Colour me touched.
Then I saw aliens the other day. It's not my favourite (number 3 is), but I still think it's funny. Those aliens make about the same noise the darn neighbourhood cats do when they'
Not Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Most of these "WebOSes" are a mess. EyeOS just IFrames everything, Orca doesn't seem to work (at least not for me), YouOS is about at the XEdit and XTerm level, Fold is a fancy Portal environment, and XIN isn't available yet. These are nice starts to desktops, but they're a long way from fully featured desktop replacements. Right now, they're just fancy portals.
3. Google is not building a WebOS. Or at least, that's my opinion. There's no inherent advantage to building a windowing system in a browser other than the possibility of Web integration. Unfortunately, if the desktop isn't actually a real desktop (i.e. the only interface you see), then it isn't in any better position to provide Web integration than the web brower itself. Desktop development APIs are best saved for regular AJAX work until an actual need for a desktop arises.
Re:Not Exactly (Score:2)
Re:Not Exactly (Score:2)
Re:Not Exactly (Score:2)
Re:Not Exactly (Score:2)
NB i haven't used Writely, so I don't know what its feature set includes. Still waiting to hear whe
Re:Not Exactly (Score:2)
I know, I'm sure the kernel developers out there grimace ever time they hear the term WebOS. All your doing is replacing the top layer that displays the application. The stuff that an OS does is several orders of magnitude more complex than a web rendering engine. When you and on top of that the fact that it's a stupid idea to be
more than misleading (Score:2)
Means "eggs" or slang alternative to "testicles" similar to "cojones" or English "balls"
No me toqueis los Webos.
Re:Not Exactly (Score:2)
Re:Not Exactly (Score:2)
First and foremost, that is not an OS. You're talking about a type of graphical shell that uses RPC for communications. (Like most modern environments do.) If you're looking for a term for it, use "Web Desktop".
The users desktop would be a customized Firefox browser (basically in Kiosk mode so no tool bars) with the login option that tells the apache server what level access to allow this user.
Just so you're aware, this is
Cross Platform? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what Java was supposed to do? All this "Web 2.0" stuff is getting out of hand; It's trying to duplicate a technology that already exists with inferior tools. I would rather have all the effort go into improving something that already exists.
Re:Cross Platform? (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you've shoehorned everything need into a web application development framework (or bolted together everything you need from several frameworks), you practically have an operating system's worth of functionality and complexity.
The difference is that you can't develop on it directly. Most web applications, if they were desktop applications would be dead simple. But it's not simple to do even a merely decent simple web application, for a couple of reasons. First is that you have to d
Re inventing the wheel (Score:2)
Its sort of like the corner resturant selling leftovers and calling it something new, so people come back in to eat.
Re:Cross Platform? (Score:2)
Reasons we aren't using Java much anymore include lack of an ANSI/ISO standard, Sun's JCP process, technical limitations, bad technical decisions in versions 1.4 and 1.5, and lack of good open source implementations. I don't even think that Java lives up to its hype as a good cross-platform tool. I suspect other organizations have similar reason
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
A silly statement. Java is being used to develop applications that can be deployed cross-platform right now by a vast number of developers. Nothing comes close.
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Even Qt/C++ is a better cross-platform solution than Java.
What distinguishes Java from other cross-platform solutions is that you only have to compile once, but that's a nearly useless feature, and one that comes at a huge price in terms of quality and performance.
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Nonsense. Even if was not cross platform, Java would be an important language as it removes the horrors of C/C++ memory management, and no-one with any experience of modern Java runtimes would state that there is a performance price. Java runs everywhere from embedded systems, mobile devices, real-time
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
What's your point? Algol, Smalltalk, and Lisp were safe, garbage-collected, object-oriented languages in widespread use before either C or C++ ever became popular, let alone Java. Java's contribution to the world of programming languages is exactly nothing.
No longer do developers have to build and maintain binaries for different processor architectures, word sizes and operating systems.
P
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Sorry, but this is wrong. For example Algol was neither safe, garbage-collected or object oriented.
Java contribution is huge, in that it took what these other (excellent) languages offered and finally packed it together into a single system that was prac
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Algol 68 certainly had garbage collection, had a type system that was reasonably safe. It also had things that were roughly like things you would also call "classes" and "objects" in C++, but (like their equivalents in C++) no dynamic method binding.
In any case, the point is that none of the individual features of Java were new, and you could get most of them in combination in prior languages. Other examples
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Not garbage collection in the modern accepted sense. You had to manually release resources. It was certainly not an OOP language in any currently accepted way.
In any case, the point is that none of the individual features of Java were new, and you could get mo
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Lisp with declarations was just as fast as Fortran and C. And like Lisp with declarations, Java fails to solve the hard problems.
I occasionally do high-performance numerical work.
You can write fast loops in it, but speed alone is insufficient for high-performance numerical wo
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Yes - there are fast LISP implementations. But, yet again, what Java provides is multi-vendor
And like Lisp with declarations, Java fails to solve the hard problems.
Like what?
You can write fast loops in it, but speed alone is insufficient for high-performance numerical work--Java is simply unsuitable for serious numerical work.
Factually incorrect. Java is being used for serious numerical work right now. For example, it is one of the supported langua
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
So is assembly language. That doesn't make assembly language a high performance language for numerical computing.
For example, it is one of the supported languages on the University of Edinborough's supercomputer.
So is awk. That doesn't make awk a high performance numerical language.
Years ago, IBM produced research that showed that one of the Java implementations ran at FORTRAN-equalent speed.
So they did. In fact, even Sun's lousy JVM is up to speed
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Nowhere have I been proven wrong. My point was that Java combined the strengths of these langua
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Re:Java sucks balls (Score:2)
Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing that has held network applications back is bandwidth and price. Now thats not a problem anymore.
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:3, Insightful)
And the fact that (in this case) Javascript/DHTML/HTTP is almost completely unsuited for the task. I say "almost" because apparently some people have managed to cobble something together. At least Terminal Server/Citrix performs well. At least Sun's thin clients could actually act like they had a full local OS. People DO care what is under the hood if it performs like a tar covered pig in a room f
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:2)
About user experience nothing stops anyone from making a good nice UI, its not like JAVA/dotnet where the looks are pretty much cast in stone.
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:2)
I agree that these Web Desktops that are trying to emulate the features and functionality of a local Operating System are ultimately pointless. I mean, why would anyone want to use a primitive, clumsy Javascript/DHTML desktop isntead of the one that's already built into their operating system.
However, AJAX applications which simply emulate the feel of a desktop environment to provide useful web services are a step in the right direction, IMHO. Web applications have slowly evolved better and more advanced U
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:2)
All this allows you to get rid of is the storage requirement, although you will still need a local cache if you want to carry on working away from a net connection.
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:2)
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again (Score:2)
But a thin client can be made out of the same hardware. The problem
Web applications, however, have shown that the managability advantages of the thin client architecture were something the market wanted.
Except, of course, that you don't get the managability advantages of a thin client. You get the managability advantages of a client/server application which is not
Don't Get It. (Score:3, Interesting)
"applications will be written for the WebOS and won't be specific to Windows, OS X, or Linux."
Someone enlighten me because I thought that is what all the languages used on the web do right now. PHP, Perl, Javascript, etc. It doesn't seem to me that a WebOS will provide any greater benefit that coding in Perl (or pick one). They are completely platform independant.
The article then quotes a couple users who says that Java and DHTML + Javascript is a mess. Well, yeah, but what language isn't? All programming languages have problems that why there are so many of them. What am I missing?
Re:Don't Get It. (Score:2)
Also, do any of the GUI toolkits work well across platforms? GTK? QT? Wxwindows?
(I know nothing about it, I just wrote my first hello world app in Ruby/GTK, I want to write for Slackware and WinXP, so far my app runs fine in both environments, and I want to know if I can/should continue down this path).
Thanks in advance
Re:Don't Get It. (Score:2)
Anything in a "turing complete" sense, sure. But there are, in fact, many things that they can't do in practice. They can't access local hardware. They can't draw system widgets. They can't (ideally) do anything outside of the browser "sandbox."
The main drawback is that there is a lag time, particularly if you are on a slow connection.
No, the main drawback is the document model and the click-re
Antivirus? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Antivirus? (Score:2)
Links (Score:5, Informative)
Xin [naltabyte.se]
YouOS [youos.com]
eyeOS [eyeos.org]
goowy [goowy.com]
Fold [fold.com]
Orca [orcaa.com]
Re:Links (Score:2, Funny)
Karma Whore [wikipedia.org]
Re:Links (Score:2)
Netvibes [netvibes.com]
Pageflakes [pageflakes.com]
Live.com [live.com]
Google IG [google.com]
and, fwiw, my web-app Bitty Browser [bitty.com] works as a module/widget/gadget for them (and some others)... -Scott
Covered in a previous Slashdot story... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Covered in a previous Slashdot story... (Score:2)
-matthew
My point of view: (Score:1)
Re:My point of view: (Score:2)
Hmmm... I, on the other hand, think that a web browser should be used for, oh, I don't know, browsing HTML documents off HTTP servers. And JavaScript should be used on that web browser for calculations that are A) simple enough to be done easily on t
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
- It relies on an internet connection
- It actually increases the processing requirements of the client
- it sticks another huge layer of abstraction and source of incompatibility between my apps and the system
- It doesn't solve a user problem.
Can anyone give me an argument for why anyone would use this instead of a USB thumbdrive, or a laptop, which are pretty cheap these days?
Because we can (Score:5, Insightful)
A few years ago JavaScript was considered a toy language. Now that it's been "discovered" the pendulum has swung the other way, and people seem to think that JavaScript plus a browser is a suitable platform for writing a windowing system.
We've been able to do a remote terminal like this for years, using more appropriate network protocols and faster execution environments. If we rebuild it on a completely absurd applpication stack:
How does this bring any more value to the concept? The ability to hit the "Back" button and lose my entire session? Having two taskbars at the bottom of my screen?
It seems like this is an idea being pursued just becasue we can; because we're excited about JavaScript and the Web 2.0 hype machine is working overtime.
Re:Because we can (Score:2)
It's not for every application, but there are a lot of reasons to do it.
Re:Because we can (Score:2)
Don't Mix Your Metaphors (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these projects don't understand the medium. The web is not a desktop. The web doesn't work like a desktop, and attempts to translate the desktop metaphor to the web almost all suck hard. The web doesn't have milisecond response rates -- even with AJAX. You don't have a consistant set of APIs across browsers like you do on the desktop. You can't assume everyone has JavaScript, images, or styles on, and a smart developer will try to make sure that their users get a site that degrades gracefully through any of those cases.
You can't just shoehorn a "desktop" style experience into a system that isn't at all designed for it. The web is a unique medium from the desktop. It demands a totally different metaphor than desktop applications.
A desktop metaphor adds a lot of unnecessary cruft to the web -- trying to use drop-down menus, popup windows, crappy DHTML "controls" and the like degrade user experiences and make sites slow, frustrating, and buggy. Applications like GMail and Yahoo! Mail try to use the technologies in appropriate ways - they have some elements of desktop applications, but they're not trying to mimic a desktop application.
We have a great, if maturing, set of tools in XHTML, CSS, and the JavaScript DOM. You can do amazing things with those tools provided you understand what their limitations and appropriate uses are. Trying to use those tools to emulate the usability problems of a whole different medium is misusing and misunderstanding the technology. A smart developer looks towards what works for the web rather than trying to force the medium to match an experience that it just can't do.
Re:Don't Mix Your Metaphors (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh WebOS IS a Product and has been... (Score:2)
IThey were around some 6 years or more ago and had a very nice product, albeit a little sluggish, it was some sort of Java/Ajax enabled Office suite
It looks like they got bough out by Hyperoffice, or changed their name, but WebOS is still a registered Trademak, I wouldnt be making it generic like kleenex just yet.
Re:Duh WebOS IS a Product and has been... (Score:2)
Why not? Whether it becomes generic is up to us, the people.
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
With the move towards virtualization, etc -- would it really be so insane to consider in-browser virtualization code that lets you run code natively built for other another os? It's no longer really just a "browser" anyway.
And for all those in the "WebOS is teh suck" crowd, consider how much user-level work is done on the web vs on the local system (think "average user"). The web *is* the computer (or, its probably at 80%+ now). The things it can't do: games, word pr
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Virtualization involves installing a whole OS, not just emulating a particular API. And yeah, it would be pretty insane (and pointless).
-matthew
The one place I can really see this used... (Score:2, Informative)
I mean think about it, you have a ton of desktops that must be kept up to date, must keep running for someone to be productive, and shouldn't really be used for personal purposes. Boot them all off of bootable CD's (or maybe even RW's so boot CD's can be cycled and some money saved when doing 'updates'), have them login to a central thin-client 'server'. This has several benefits:
1) Users are 'sandboxed'.
2) Easily control what someone can and cannot do.
3) Only 1 central
Re:The one place I can really see this used... (Score:2)
Re:The one place I can really see this used... (Score:2)
There are any number of better ways to do this than using a web browser.
-matthew
Not so crazy (Score:2)
No they aren't OSes but they are environments / platforms.
The requirement for internet access isn't such a big deal.
Bascially I find any computer nearly useless if it doesn't have internet access these days. Try programming without doing some Google lookups for reference or
mail!
It subvert the big bad MSFT - so that's good.
Users will like it. No need to have a computer - just a virtual one.
Did people cry when answering machine
Re:Not so crazy (Score:2)
You still need a fairly powerful computer, you still need an normal OS to load the web browser, you still need some local storage unless you want to be completely stuck if your internet connection dies or someone slashdots the server, or to avoid having to download your OS every morning. So what components can you remove?
Re:Not so crazy (Score:2)
Funny isn't it? (Score:2)
In 1996, I was experimenting with JavaScript, creating moving, resizable windows with live applications in them like a calculator, notepad and a place where you put bookmarks.
I was a kid, I didn't know anything, but what I knew is I was just playing around and learning. If I took myself seriously and came up with those things in 1997, I'd be quickly dismissed for being noobish and abusing web technology, right there with peopl
2 cent (Score:2)
Second, desktop realestate. It's just not there. Too cluttered to be used in any useful fashion due to wi
I've commented to this effect before (Score:2)
The reason why Windows Vista is a complete let-down is because all the clever stuff's being saved for Windows Live. MS see this WebOS caper as the way forward, and the main job of desktop Windows from now on will be to provide a platform to access the services they'll be offering via this medium (and, of course, to lock everybody down via DRM etc.) They've concentrated on the security and the DRM, rather than on the functionality, because those are the things that will really matter for w
Wrong Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake me up (Score:2)
WebOS != Operating System (Score:2)
What would be super-cool is an BIOS-embedded OS that booted from the NIC from a server available over the internet. But what these "WebOS" people are actually providing is a "WebOffice" suite. Still a useful commodity, but not an oper
Re:WebOS != Operating System (Score:2)
Re:WebOS != Operating System (Score:2)
Yes yes, I am wholly aware of live CDs, and they're also pretty great. And yet, they are also not "WebOS," being that they're local media - just like a BIOS chip or a floppy or a USB key or a hard drive or whatever.
On the second part, that's exactly what I was thinking. PXE boot to a local hardware device (like a SOHO router that almost everyone with broadband has). The SOHO router would keep a boot image file which would allo
These are not OS's (Score:2)
What problem are they addressing in a unique/better fasion? Simply using a browser engine as your desktop does not make it a unique solution, it makes it a unique approach (which it isnt ).
I would rather see a novel metaphor to replace the icon/rectangle-is-document thing we currently have. But then again, what can you expect from Home Taught Master Linquists?
But I dont want to be totally negative about this so um:
Good work guys.
Re:Too much for too little. (Score:2)