Blake Ross Working on Parakey Web OS 150
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this just a virtual file system? (Score:5, Informative)
WebDAV, anyone? (Score:2)
Personally I think WebDAV should get the "Internet's Most Unappreciated Technology Award", in terms of having a lot of promise but being seldom used. (Although Apple does drag it out every once in a while; I think the
Nobody uses IMAP either (Score:2)
Too late, IMAP already won that one.
Re: (Score:2)
What you'll probably see is a XUL application that acts as a Windows Explorer type of app. It will keep a local cache of the files you're working on, then mirror them back to the server. I could also see it containing an interface to allow you to drag and drop files into a pre-defined page layout. (e.g. Drag your images into a photo-album page.)
Considering that it would be an XUL application,
Re: (Score:2)
I think Ross will quickly find that name recognition alone won't get you very far.
At least with the
Re:Is this just a virtual file system? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But... your computer is a datacentre too, isn't it? Pfffffft.... Goodbye. (j/k)
Actually the value of the datacentre as a repository for your data has nothing to do with whether you're a startup or not. What matters is the integrity of the data centre itself (hardware guarantees implicit in design of the comps, strength of the infrastructure, DRP structure, and the physical site integrity
Re: (Score:2)
Had enough bookmark sites? Heh.
As long as I can use the service to easily sync my Firefox profiles between home and work, I'd be happy even with data lock in potentials.
Cut the B.S. (Score:2)
Oh really?
IEE Spectrum Articles, Blog, Wired Articles == attention whoring (e.g. fame)
For-profit business model == money grubbing (e.g. fortune)
Nothing wrong with wanting recognition and some $$$ in pocket for your hard work. Not everyone's an introvert or RMS. Plenty wrong for trying to pretend otherwise.
You're doing plenty good work. Don't taint it by spewing out blatant lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YourOS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This aspect of it will be sort of like MySpace on crack, only it's hosted from your computer, and hopefully it's a lot more robust and user-friendly, and a lot less lame.
At least, that's the impression I got after R-ing TFA.
Netscape + Java was supposed to do that (Score:2)
Breaking compatibility took care of that problem for them - why is it different today?
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like a glorified CMS that runs on the local computer and connects to an external web server. The local application can connect with devices, for example like a digital camera to extract pictures to your picture area within the program. Then you select which pictures to share and who has access. Other functions like movie editing and office suite will follow. I'm guessing that there will be an extension system like Firefox to add functionality and "programs". You still need another OS to run t
Nifty (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING filter bypass.
Re: (Score:2)
One job, one tool (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And why are some web devlopers so obsessed with the OS model? Everyone of these that I have seen, and I mean everyone of them, has either been a toy or an intentional joke. And if they're a toy, they're not even fun to play with.
To tell you the truth, I think what we have already - meaning various file keeping and sharing web applications - is all people would want out of a "Web OS."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we've read William Gibson and we want to build cyberspace.
Microsoft, Apple et al all rely on the clear separation of workstation and world so they can sell the same product millions of times.
Governments have lost the will and the ability to conceptualise and sell beautiful futures.
If we want a great infrastructure project like cyberspace, we'll have to muck in and do it ourselves. This may not let me burn chrome tomorrow, but it ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I just love having one account for my image hosting, a different account for my weblog, a third account for my video uploading, another account for my webmail. I love that it takes magic to make any of them talk to each other. I love that it takes magic to get any of them to actually know what's on my machine or for my machine to know what's up at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was actually 4: Brothers Brian, Dennis, and Carl along with Mike Love.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am indeed primarily a Windows user. If you're going to make software for everyone, it helps to use the same computing environment as 95% of the world, so you can understand their problems better. However, my partner Joe is primarily a Mac user. There is no primary development platform; we develop on all platforms.
As for the business model, it's a new take o
Re: (Score:2)
What's to stop someone else from offering the same service a week after you launch?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone set out to make a entire toolbox of tools that did one thing well, would you deride them because the toolbox as a whole can do many things?
Re: (Score:2)
You're a slashdot reader. Of course you see a distinction there. You're atypical. You will see and treat these two as different because you understand the internals of the system. My little sister who wants to share her travel photos with me doesn't. The highschool english teacher that lives next door to me and wants to get in invitati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But the difference between mine and theirs is orthogonal to the issue of local or remote, or PC or the Web. I can care deeply about what's mine and what's not and still not have to care about the difference between local or remote applications or storage.
- A
Re: (Score:2)
People absolutely should know when something is in their house vs at a companies site. For all sorts of
Re: (Score:2)
I'll concede that having all those services in separate places and accessed in potentially vastly different ways increases complexity and raises the bar of entry for normal users. And yes, current people communicating on the web that are not familiar with the way the system works do not see the distinction between the their computer and the web. But likening it to an OS is a bit disingenuous. If you still need Windows, OS X or Linux to run the application, it is NOT an OS, and you are doing a disservice
Re: (Score:2)
Just call it what it is, a CRM front-end.
Great, now I'm misusing terms. I meant CMS (Content Management System). All of this terminology is meaningless to users. We should get rid of all these acronyms.
And a big problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We mustn't. However, some "tools" are platforms, on which lots of functionality can be built.
``...an operating system based on the idea that each part should do one distinct thing, and do it well...
There is a major distinction between MY computer and the rest of the world. One is mine; the rest belongs to others.''
I use that operating system extensively, and one of its great features is that I can access all of my computers through uniform interfaces, reg
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What influence did these guys have on desktop operating systems? Is their idea the basis of popular applications like Microsoft Office, Firefox and Mac OS X? Have the masses shown
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Brian and Dennis went on to write a book. Obviously their OS idea didn't play out.
one tool to rule them all (emacs that is) (Score:2)
Damn, that is a good idea. Wish somebody would do it!
There were these other guys in the 70s (curiously enough also named Brian and Dennis) who wrote an operating system that treated
Win98 called.. (Score:2)
For profit AND open source? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. The source is free (at least the client component), but the service to hold your files on the web will cost $$$.
Think: Different
Think:
Is very .Mac-like (Score:2)
Seems like it shouldn't be hard, then, to reverse-engineer the code and figure out how to use somebody else's servers as the data repository. Unless he's planning on doing something sneaky/evil, like using encrypted binary lumps or something. Even then, if it's really that neat an idea, people will figure out a way to do it on their own servers.
Think:
Agreed; the whole thing reminds me o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
selling your data.
Re: (Score:2)
References (Score:2)
I hope it's walled off (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:1)
So in other words... (Score:1)
A simple battle cry? (Score:2)
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*
Re: (Score:2)
* With a qualifying purchase of Windows Vista Home Multimedia Office Television Edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we go again - what part of "monopoly" do you people not understand? When you are a money-grubbing monopolistic power with a strangle-hold on an entire industry the rules are different. We don't have to be "fair" to MS, that's not how it works.
Is this really that hard to grasp?
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's better for lawyers to dictate which is the best user interface in an O/S? How about what the shift key does? Or whether the screen resolution is adjusted with a slider bar or radio buttons? Or whether notepad.exe does, or does not support choosing your
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I guess it is difficult. If a good technical idea is implemented in such a way that MS leverages their monopoly power to further undermine competition, that's a Bad Thing. Even if the technical aspect of it is sound. In other words:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what if I, as the maker of an O/S, think that I want to use a browser interface for that? One that also knows how to invoke other tools to show directories full of images as thumbnails, or some other trick? Who care what I want?
Should a lawyer or a judge decide which exactl method is the best (or only, or allowed) way to render a list of
MySpace++ (Score:2)
BTW - if you'd like to get more information on this produc
Everything an OS can do!!11111 (Score:2)
But seriously, is this just another one of those "desktop in javascript" things? They've been done a million times, and they all suck.
Re: (Score:2)
It just needs a text editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, don't tell me someone wrote a Lisp interpreter in JS just to run Emacs.
Most used feature: web recycle bin (Score:3, Interesting)
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.... (Score:1)
Dumbing down of terminology (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be so innovative it hurts.
Re: (Score:1)
If you find that appalling, wait till you find out what they call a hacker.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no problem that can't be solved by introducing another layer of abstraction. Calling it a WebOS is a pretty easy way to introduce the topic to the largest audiences you care about: end users, and to a lesser degree, application developers.
If the term offends your purist sensibilities, that's basically j
The triumph of ignorance (Score:2)
It's just like an intelligent but illiterate professional dancer talking about how he has worked out there are 35 "senses" because he hasn't listened to anyone long enough to find out that the word perception exists. It appears that many are spinning different definitions of existing terms to profit from confusion or due to simple ignorance or lazyness. My instant reaction to this usage is to treat anyone who uses it as ignorant
Calling it an OS is overkill (Score:1)
eyeOS is a free PHP app that does this (Score:1)
Wow (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me save everyone the trouble :) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If so, it looks nice
Re: (Score:2)
Dear mr Ross, please read this. (Score:2)
Instead of making a Web O/S, why don't we forget all about Javascript, HTML, XHTML, web forms etc, web services etc and make a distributed computing platform that allows us to easily program distributed applications? enterprises and even web users do not really need only a shared file system, but a way to create distributed applications as well. The current situation is disappointing at best: lots of 'standards', lots of bad implementations
An idea in search of a name (Score:2)
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
Huh? (Score:2)
Everything you're talking about is using XML and the web CGI model for transactions. This technology exists in MULTITUDE other forms. Let me see, uh, RMI, CORBA, ringing any bells? How about jabber? If I scripted interaction with a jabber client using Lua for driving voice/text prompt tree navigation or something, would we make some new acronyms for that?
What you're talking about
PROFIT! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
at least he's honest (Score:2)
At least the guy is upfront.
Not like numerous other characters who release their stuff under GPL, all the while reserving themselves (and only themselves) the right to sell it commercially to people under other, less restrictive licenses.
Let the flames pour down on me and my petrol-impregnated shell suit but
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
BSD is the only one really open.
not getting it (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
OS + web vs. OS + wiki (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
webos is a bad term (Score:2)
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
YouOS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah (Score:2)
You don't need the marketing speak here (Score:2)
Come on guys - we are not all in the first year of high school and no good at anything but football here. Silly lies to children to dumb things down about computers are not necessary - statements like the above are more likely to intially confuse people into thinking a qemu window is running in a browser than what I assume you really mean from the rest of the context.