Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Blake Ross Working on Parakey Web OS 150

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the web-2-point-oh-no dept.
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!"'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blake Ross Working on Parakey Web OS More

Blake Ross Working on Parakey Web OS

Comments Filter:

  • Is this just a virtual file system? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rminsk ( 831757 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @06:21PM (#16680953)
    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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @06:31PM (#16681131) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • Sounds suspiciously like WebDAV, only with less brain-damage than Microsoft's implementation of a client for it.

        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 .Mac services use it.) It has a lot of potential.
      • After a bit of pondering over the "One interface, not two!" motto, I think I may have a guess about how it will work.

        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)

          by daeg ( 828071 )
          Great. So users will start using it and get tired of bugs and paying for a service. They then cancel, only to find their files locked away in a proprietary service they have no control over. With an operating system, you can always reinstall and hopefully recover you files that way.

          I think Ross will quickly find that name recognition alone won't get you very far.

          At least with the .Mac online service, you know Apple won't suddenly fold and delete your files. Startups are a dime-a-dozen.

          • Re:Is this just a virtual file system? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by blakeross ( 611172 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @10:17PM (#16683685) Homepage
            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.
            • If every datacenter on the planet exploded tomorrow, your data would be right there on your computer. You always own it.

              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)

              by daeg ( 828071 )
              Sorry, I was going mostly off of comments and not TFA (couldn't load when I posted), which now loads. Go figure.

              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.
            • "This has nothing to do with fame or fortune; it's about improving the experience for things we do everyday."

              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.
              • You're certainly entitled to your opinion, though I do feel more qualified to speak about my own motivations.
                • Thanks for responding -- that's as diplomatic F-U as I've seen in a long time. I tried to type a nasty rebuttal, but for some reason Firefox wouldn't let me. Nevertheless, actions speak louder than words. When you I.P.O. (not if) and you make your first significant philanthropic donation, I'll be more than happy to print out and eat this thread.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by killjoe ( 766577 )
        If that's all he wants to do (doubt it) then he should use ifolders or subversion.
        • I don't know how different it is from YourOS. I kind of like the idea, though, even if it's not the unified solution many of us want.
      • More than that, it sounds like it is basically going to be client software for hosting your virtual life. So, you can manage files on your computer remotely through a browser, and also your friends and family can see all the stuff you have flagged as shared.

        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.
    • The reason MS came out with IE was that Netscape+Java was supposed to be a sufficiently portable user+services interface environment that the underlying OS was supposed to be irrelevant, and therefore running Linux underneath could be just as useful as Windows. They didn't care about the market for free browsers, they cared about keeping Windows from getting killed.


      Breaking compatibility took care of that problem for them - why is it different today?

    • 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)

    by Virak ( 897071 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @06:24PM (#16680983) Homepage
    I've always thought you should be able to write interrupt handlers in Javascript.
    • I'm really interested to see their scheduler too, and their memory management code. This looks, from the scant information available, to be Yet Another Browser that tries to integrate everything people do into one interface. It's not anywhere near being an OS, probably not even a Window Manager.
    • Or Action Script Flash kernel modules. "CLICK THE EPILEPTIC SEZUIRE INDUCING MONKEY TO WIN A FREE .KO!"

      Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING filter bypass.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quantam ( 870027 )
      I remember there was one component somebody was making that lets you handle interrupts in VB. How's that for scary?

  • One job, one tool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Harmonious Botch ( 921977 ) * on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @06:24PM (#16680997) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Why must we have tools that try to do everything?

      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)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        Because web devs have an inferiority complex. They want to be real programmers, but they just can't hack it. So they try and pump up their egos by writing "web OS" type web apps.
      • And why are some web devlopers so obsessed with the OS model?

        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)

        by asa ( 33102 )
        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."

        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
    • I remember hearing about some guys named Brian and Dennis and uh I forget the third guy's name

      It was actually 4: Brothers Brian, Dennis, and Carl along with Mike Love.

    • We're all about "one job, one tool." That was the concept that drove us to fork Firefox in the first place. What about the article suggests that we're deviating from that with Parakey? Perhaps I can clarify our intentions.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fossa ( 212602 )

      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)

      by asa ( 33102 )
      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.

      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
      • 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 invitation to our upcoming barbecue doesn't. The Montana farmer getting his first computer to manage his heavy equipment doesn't. My grandmother who wants to see how my cat is recover

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by asa ( 33102 )
          Maybe slashdotters are the only ones who see a difference between the desktop and the web, but even two-year olds see a difference between mine and theirs.

          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)

        by jp10558 ( 748604 )
        The rest of the Web ought to care because otherwise they are more and more suceptible to phishing scams and the like. Not knowing the difference between a stranger and a trusted adult is how childern get kidnapped. Likewise, not knowing that ebay is different from your bank is different from a random link on google is how people get tricked into giving away CC numbers and become victims of identity theft.

        People absolutely should know when something is in their house vs at a companies site. For all sorts of

      • 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

        • 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.

    • Is that the Internet isn't fast or reliable enough for the most part to act as part of a computer. A major distinction between local and remote is that all local data I have immediate access to, and I don't worry about losing it. That's a major difference from any remote data. Though my link to the net is somewhat fast in relative terms, 6mbps, it doesn't even approach the slowest local links. My mouse has a faster connection than that. So things I get remotely I have to wait longer for. Also, I find that t
    • ``Why must we have tools that try to do everything?''

      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

    • 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

    • 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.

      Well, Brian and Dennis went on to write a book. Obviously their OS idea didn't play out.

    • 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.

      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

  • they want their lame idea back.
  • Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?
    • Any ideas?
      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: .Mac
      • Yeah. The source is free (at least the client component), but the service to hold your files on the web will cost $$$.

        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: .Mac

        Agreed; the whole thing reminds me o

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jp10558 ( 748604 )
          This has been mentioned, but I wonder if something like iFolder cleaned up a little and SSL back in wouldn't meet that criteria.
    • Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?

      selling your data.
    • Presumably you'll need a server so that you can "Access Your Computer Anywhere!" Sounds like .Mac on steriods.
    • Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?
      The answer to that is well known in the industry, as "Step 2". For more information, see the seminal work in this area by Parker & Stone, entitled "Gnomes".

  • I hope it's walled off (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alcimedes ( 398213 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @06:30PM (#16681113)
    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.
  • I say butter.
  • He is writing iPhoto/iWeb for windows?
  • 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*
    • I'm sure Microsoft's battlecry would be, "Free Sharepoint!*"

      * With a qualifying purchase of Windows Vista Home Multimedia Office Television Edition.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by glwtta ( 532858 )
      Teh Evil!

      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?
      • 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.

        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)

          by glwtta ( 532858 )
          So, it's better for lawyers to dictate which is the best user interface in an O/S?

          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:

          Fun OSS project implements a new feature == "Cool, let's see how it works!"
          Giant monopoly implements a new feature == "Hmm, I wonder if this will have a negative impact on the rest of

    • ...Because Blake Ross has a history of writing good programs, while Microsoft has a history of writing bad programs(Although it's not because their programmers are bad per se, it's because the company is, in the words of Paul Graham, a walking mountain). In addition, Blake Ross's effort is cross-platform and this makes all the difference.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by spitzak ( 4019 )
      Being able to show a local directory in a browser window does not require "embedding in the OS". Take a look at Konqueror or, actaully, any other browser, even IE.
      • Being able to show a local directory in a browser window does not require "embedding in the OS". Take a look at Konqueror or, actaully, any other browser, even IE.

        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
  • 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 produc
  • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Statecraftsman ( 718862 ) * on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @06:37PM (#16681251)
    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • Everyone wants to glorify themselves these days. Every technician calls himself an engineer, i've even heard of helpesk staff calling themselves helpdesk engineers. Like doctors, engeering titles should be applied to people who have engineering degrees and are doing actual engineering work. Same goes with these glorified OS things.
      • Quite true. I'm waiting for the term <textarea> being replaced with "Web Office Suite", <form> with "Web Database" and <table> with "Noninteractive Web Spreadsheet". The stuff will be built by Web Development Engineers, Web Style Engineers and Web Hosting Engineers. People access these appall-- amazing new features through their Web BIOS (formerly known as a browser).

        It'll be so innovative it hurts.
    • I find this usage appalling, and I hope that this terminology doesn't spread and dumb down the use of technical terms.

      If you find that appalling, wait till you find out what they call a hacker.
    • How about if you say "An operating system is the interface between resources and software that virtualizes the specific characteristics of the resources, allowing software to be written generically."

      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

      • If the term offends your purist sensibilities, that's basically just too bad

        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

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

  • Wow (Score:2)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 )

    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 :) (Score:5, Informative)

    by blakeross ( 611172 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @07:15PM (#16681717) Homepage

    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.

    • "...as a true operating system...", that is.
    • So, from a geek to a geek, parakey looks more like a sort of IM-like, "social" program, that tries to unify IM, email, archive sharing, photo sharing/sending, calendar, blog (everything that can be considered "social", that these days means almost everything, even sharing experiences between sysadmins).... and unifying it with a server/client model like God Intended to replace the protocols mess we've today?

      If so, it looks nice :)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )
      So how much does a slashvertisement run you these days?
    • What you are doing is good, but here is an idea that is even better:

      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
  • 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
    • First of all, SOAP _is_ XML RPC. And AJAX is SOAP launched from a web client by javascript (as opposed to a piece of middleware).

      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
  • 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.

    • Profit and open-source are not mutually exclusive. We would never try to profit unfairly off the backs of others.
    • 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.

      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

  • 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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kisielk ( 467327 )
      Well, can you point us to somewhere that gives a *good* description of Parakey? I'm interested in learning more...
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close