>>Perhaps all you'll need pretty soon to be productive is a machine with Linux installed & merely a good web browser?

>Only if you don't mind having no privacy and always need a working Internet connection to do any work.

I hear what you are saying. But I think its just a matter of time before someone just up and solves the problem. What if all of your data stored online were encrypted with a private key--one which your service provider does not hold in escrow? As long as your connection is encrypted, and the "static" store is encrypted--that's fairly private, wouldn't you say?

In some people's opinion, the fundamental strategy behind Google (and other "Web 2.0" companies) offering all these fantastic services - mostly for free - is the advantage they have in 'owning' all of our data. If they can't read it, then what's in it for them?

I see your frustration, but the browser-specific workarounds are actually features. They point out the space between where browsers are and where we need them to be. Currently, browsers are really just great viewing appliances. Perhaps the workarounds brought about by AJAX etc will encourage browsers to evolve into app conduits? The internet is crying for improved browser functionality. Browsers need to get to the point that they compete with a local app. I still miss the MSDOS days where everything I did could be done via one medium (ie keyboard), rather than type, move the mouse, click, type etc. I do agree that the current state of workarounds is very frustrating. Our entire company runs on Linux and have chosen Konqueror as our preferred browser, which does not allow us any of the features of gmail, but reduces gmail to a crippled 1985 email app. And, apparently, the guys developing Konqueror are struggling to get it working with Gmail, due to the state of Gmail's code, which is apparently obfuscated.