×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

222 comments

Take away the cloud (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218199)

What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs. Along with integration with every e-mail client by using perhaps HTML e-mail or a plugin to enable Google Docs support. Create an iPhone app, plugins for MS Office, make it easy for anyone with any program to access and use Google Docs and it will succeed.

Re:Take away the cloud (5, Insightful)

aaron.axvig (1238422) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218245)

HTML is just another layer of abstraction. It could just as well be Java, or .NET CLR, or cross-compiled C++ (GIMP). There is nothing amazing about applications in a browser, it is not necessary, and while it is convenient at times (at a computer that is not your own), when available a native code app will usually do the same job but "better".

As far as syncing, there is nothing stopping native apps from syncing to "the cloud". In fact, there is the Outlook Connector for Windows Live Mail and the Office Live tool for Word XP, 2003, and 2007. Also see IMAP and POP3. Oh, basically anything that doesn't go over port 80.

Browser is not a necessity for productivity. Handy in cases, yes. Disclosure: I'm currently interning at MS.

Re:Take away the cloud (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218257)

Whenever I watch a movie trailer, I think of Don LaFontaine and when I think about Don I get a hard on that won't quit.

Ten years ago,I worked in what was once my Grandfather's movie studio. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the sound studio by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help with the trailers.

Don always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white under the brim of his battered felt fedora.

He did not chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

Dirty Don, he extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old man winked at me. "Don LaFontaine is the name and playing pecker's my game.

I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

"Now me," said Don, "I just love jumping men. . ."

"I'll bet you do."

". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Don.

"I though we were talking about. . ."

"You like jumping old men's peckers?"

I shook my head.

"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Don lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

That summer of 1999 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of the bathroom, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

Under the stage lights, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as brown as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Don wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his hightop work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Don licked his lips from corner to corner then stuck it out far enough that the tip could touch the tip of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

"People do that?"

He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

"I never. . ."

"Well, Dirty Don's willing to let you find out."

"No way."

"Just teasing," said Don. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

"Why would I do that?"

"Curiousity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

"I'm no queer."

"Now don't be getting judgemental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't being queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Don slipped a handside the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

I swallowed, hard.

Don winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"

***

We worked steadily until noon. Don drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

I followed I ke to the end of the recording studio where he stopped at the outside wall of the utility shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

"Yes sir," breathed Don, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

I looked away.

"You taking a serious interest in Dirty Don's pecker?"

I shook my head.

"Well you just haul out yourn and let old Don return the compliment."

Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

"Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Dirty Don's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

I tried not to look interested.

"Yer sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

"What if somebody walks in?"

Don shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

I glanccd over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

"I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Don. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "I t sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

"You like checking out this old man's cock?"

I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

"Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Don slid his fingers back and forth on his expandingshaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

I shook my head.

"Maybe I 'll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Don's hairy balls?"

I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set 'em free. Now let's see yours."

"Why?"

"Just to show you're neighborly," said Don.

"I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the recording studio.

Don followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Don grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

"Yessir," said Don. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Don.

"Yessiree," said Don, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

I shook my head.

"Cause I keep excerising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

"Some say you'll go blind if you do that too much."

"Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been puling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

I laughed.

"You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

"Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

"I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Don.

"I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

"Covers up my bald spot," said Don. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

"Your head?"

"No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Don's ass?"

"I don't think so."

"That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

"We shouldn't be talking like this."

"C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

"I reckon," I confessed.

"You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Don.

"My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

"How'd that come about?"

He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

"What did your grandpa do?"

"He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma 'wouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

"Did you want to join him."

"I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

"I like showing off my cock," said Don. "A hard-on is somethng I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on fromall this talk, son?"

I nodded and looked away.

"Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Don what you got."

"We shouldn't."

"Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

Don grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiositythat needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather .

"C'mon let's see it all."

I shook my head.

"You can join the party anytime, said Don. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to ajust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." I ke grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

"Dirty Don's about to spout a geyser." Don breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

I shook my head.

The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Don held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

Don sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaing drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle foming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Don.

***

"Cock-tale telling time," said Dirty Don. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

"Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Don licked his lips.

I shook my head in denial.

"Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

I stared at his caloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

"Like I said," continued Don, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

"Almost seven inches. . ." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

"And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

"I don't do. . ."

"Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said,"I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

"A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

"I don't think so."

"What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging 'tween your skinny legs?"

"It's not for showing off."

"That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?

"It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree whan I was seven.

"There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Don.

I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

"Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

"Nineteen almost twenty."

You ever fucked a woman?"

"No."

"Ever fucked a man?"

"Of course not.

"Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass."

"I didn't know men did that to each other."

"Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

"You've done that?"

"I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a fewhard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

"I think that would hurt."

"First time, it usually does," agreed Don. He took a bite from his sandwich.

I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

"We got time for a quickie," said Don. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

"Showtime," said Don. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and graypubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

Don moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Don leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't. . ."

"C'mon, boy. Show Don your peckeer. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

"That's a beaut." Don stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

"We really shouldn't. . ."

"Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

"I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

"Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Don. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

"I don't know about that," I said.

Don's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Don licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

"Well boy, I'd sayyou're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Don's way ahead of you."

I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

Don toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

"I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

"You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

"I thought about it a lot."

"Ever see him with a hard-on."

"I told you about that!"

"Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

"I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man.

"Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

"Everybody fucks," said old Don. "They fuck or they jack off."

"If you say so."

"Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old I ke to lick some of it away?"

"You wouldn't."

Don licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Don might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

And that is what he proceded to do. He sucked me dry.

Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and procede to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."

***

The following day, We skipped the peliminaries. We dropped our pants. Don got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

"C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old I ke's tight, brown hole and massage old Don's prostate.

Don bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accomodate you."

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

"Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

"It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

""It'll go," said Don. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

"I can tell," said Don. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

"Are you ready," I asked.

"How are you liking old Don's hairy asshole so far?"

"It's real tight."

"Tighter than your fist?"

"Might be."

"Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

"I reckon."

"I want you should do old Don one more favor."

"What?"

While you're pumpin my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back amd then pulled it up and over the expaded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

"C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Don come!"

I came. And I came. Don's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

"A man's not a man till he's cum in another man." said old Don. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Don returned the favor.

I never have managed to come that hard again. If only Don were here.

Re:Take away the cloud (-1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218413)

Browser is not a necessity for productivity. Handy in cases, yes. Disclosure: I'm currently interning at MS.

Oh, the irony. Microsoft just got done telling us that the web was TEH FUTURE!!!!11!!

Farewell, ActiveX. I knew thee well. Unfortunately.

Re:Take away the cloud (5, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218651)

Getting rid of stupid clients would be godsent for any admin in the world. Having all applications in the browser would be a huge step forward.

You try, getting three different clients working against a database from the same vendor working properly. They all crave different versions of dotnet, java or whatnot and any new version of the client software demands countless hours of testing just about every possible combination of apps. Upgrades are pure nightmare. Couple this with locked down desktops, profiles that has to be managed and policies that needs hard testing before you alter a single setting.

Getting rid of all those problems alone would be worth serious money for any company. Added benefit would be that backend services would be totally decoupled from what OS the client runs. Microsoft will fight this for all they are worth.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218729)

Getting rid of stupid clients would be godsent for any admin in the world. Having all applications in the browser would be a huge step forward.

Deployability seems to continue to trump a richer GUI in organizations. To-desktop installation comes with tons of headaches. Many organizations have made it require administrative access to install new apps so that people don't download executable trash from the web. However, this also makes it difficult to download legitimate apps. Finer-granularity permissions management is not yet perfected.

     

Re:Take away the cloud (4, Insightful)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219003)

***You try, getting three different clients working against a database from the same vendor working properly. They all crave different versions of dotnet, java or whatnot and any new version of the client software demands countless hours of testing just about every possible combination of apps.***

Thanks, no. Been there. Done That. You're right. It is a nightmare.

But I'm curious why you think, as you apparently do, that switching to "the cloud" is going to be better. From where I sit, "the cloud" looks like a huge glob of poison gas. More standards than anyone can keep track of. But no one complies with them anyway. No discipline. Very little common sense. I suspect where the cloud is headed is a worse shambles than the current desktop plus latency and bandwidth problems. And security ... what security? Do people seriously think that "Never run as root" is going to prevent the ongoing security disaster?

Fortunately, I am retired and no longer have to make a living fighting with computers. I have a lot of sympathy for those who are not as lucky. Fasten those seatbelts folks, the next couple of decades are going to be one bumpy ride.

Re:Take away the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219137)

Why does everyone think that shoving your application into a RESTful framework is a good idea?

Re:Take away the cloud (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218819)

All platforms are "just another layer of abstraction". Windows for example. Of cource everything runs better if you write it all out in machine code and key it into memory directly, but that isn't practical in any sense. The purpose of a platform is to be the most efficient, direct translation of high level to low level code. .

The reason that web applications have an advantage is primarily the platform on which they sit. They're compatible with all operating systems, portable, simple to build, and really really light weight. As performance ramps up (as it most certainly is with google chrome) and more things are possible in a browser, we will see greater and greater market dominance of web applications. This is why web standards are so important.

One could argue that you're imposing an artifical lifespan on your application by writing it in something like C, as you are directly tieing it to the one and only software environment in which it runs.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219157)

that's why Microsoft does not like it. They must play here but like with MS-OOXML, they will do anything and everything they can to somehow tie it to Windows, to one software environment. After all, their profits and growth come from Windows and without Windows, they house falls down.
 

LoB
 

Re:Take away the cloud (2, Insightful)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219457)

They're compatible with all operating systems, portable, simple to build, and really really light weight.

Yeah, right until "Your browser is not supported."

Re:Take away the cloud (2, Informative)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218941)

There is nothing amazing about applications in a browser, it is not necessary, and while it is convenient at times (at a computer that is not your own), when available a native code app will usually do the same job but "better".

I think you already know this, but it's not about doing it better: It's about ubiquity.

While I agree it's another "layer of abstraction", the point of using a browser is access from anywhere / anything. Whether it's a desktop, netbook, phone, Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, CISC, RISC etc.. you can potentially run whatever it is and have the same exact same experience on any platform. That's pretty cool.

By using native applications, you just don't get that ubiquity. People also want stuff that just works... Users don't want to install different versions of the same app on different devices and deal with the occasional issues of not having the correct libraries, UI differences and so on. It's also a terrible pain for the developers: Who wants to maintain, port and compile dozens of versions of the same product?

With the idea of native apps not being practical for the purpose of ubiquity, one would probably point to cross-platform frameworks, like Java or GTK. That's fine and good, but these things require some "coaxing", if you will, especially in the UI department. A really simple app might be work just fine, but you have to be careful about using OS-specific functions and more complex programs sometimes need to be changed substantially. Applications that use web browser technologies don't really suffer from this.

So, how do we keep the experience exactly the same on every system, every device, everywhere? Why not use well supported web technologies like HTML, CSS, Ajax, Javascript, Flash etc? To me, it just seems like a natural extension of that greater desire to be "ubiquitous". There are certainly limitations and a native app will be faster, but is it better? I think that depends on how you define "better". Functionality and compatibility are the main concern of web apps and to address these things, using the browser as a platform of sorts... well... it makes a lot of sense.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219241)

With the idea of native apps not being practical for the purpose of ubiquity, one would probably point to cross-platform frameworks, like Java or GTK. That's fine and good, but these things require some "coaxing", if you will, especially in the UI department. A really simple app might be work just fine, but you have to be careful about using OS-specific functions and more complex programs sometimes need to be changed substantially. Applications that use web browser technologies don't really suffer from this.

Sigh, it happens too often that people say "you have this problem with (C|C++|C#|GTK|Qt|$YOUR_FAVORITE_LANGUAGE)+ and Java".

Java has webstart since 1.4 (2001) which uses JNLP (Java Network Launching Protocol ). From the desktop user's point of view.

WS automatically downloads new versions of the software, checks java versions etc. If you want to see it work and you have Java installed (>=1.4) you can try these Java 3D examples [java.net] to see how the experience is.

Re:Take away the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219299)

Good points. I just wanted to further add that, I think the biggest problem with native applications is that the gui becomes so tied to the application logic unless you're very careful. Only recently (as far as software is concerned) has there been an effort into making and forcing a layer between the programming logic/business logic, and the UI/logic required for the UI. I can easily write an application which ties all of its routines into button events and so on.. This means if I want to change the UI considerably, my application (all the business logic) most likely will need to be rethought too. HTML, and "web applications" force this distinction, so you can't build a web application without the distinction between UI and business logic. This is quite nice of course, because browsers can really be seen as interpreters for some structured format. The browser interprets the structured format, then renders the parts, and runs the code that was asked of it, such as javascript. The way they tie it all together is through a very thin layer, that is, form posts, and gets. This way you have a simple 'glue' layer that ties the application logic to the ui & its logic. All the guts of the work is run on the server, and we all know it's easier to manage one thing than test across a wide varieties of systems and their configurations.

Re:Abstraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218991)

The browser is just another abstraction layer: Correct.
What is amazing is that we finally have a OS independent layer that we can program for on a desktop, then be used by thousands of users. (assuming it is written correctly.) Google is doing what Java failed to do: relegate the OS to being a hardware abstraction layer as it should be.
Chrome is more than a browser: it is the top layer of a properly built OS. Put it on a proper bottom layer (post Linux would be nice...Android?) and we may finally be free of MS crapware and Unix legoware. (Nothing against unix per-se, but it is a hotch-potch and oh-so 80s)
It is a shame that CSS and Javascript is so inelegant. A rewrite by professional coders would be nice.

Re:Take away the cloud (3, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219017)

You are of course right in theory; But this is a typical case that "in theory theory is the same as practice; in practice things are different". HTML has somehow managed to get the right balance to be much better than other applications. Primarily, there are no viruses written in HTML and HTML+Java(ECMA)script has almost no practical viruses.

The key advantages of HTML / ECMAscript / HTTP include

  • not blocked at the corporate firewall
  • has a subset which is pure data and easy to be sure is safe
  • has a subset which is compatible across many different platforms for many different years
  • is not controlled directly by a company with criminal tendancies

Every other option has serious drawbacks

  • Java / .Net - too heavy; the minimal application requires loads of extra stuff
  • Java / .Net / C++ - non trivial to package.
  • C++ / .exe - too much history with trojans / too much incompatibility e.g. try developing one for Windows 200 working on Vista; compare with
  • Anything which doesn't go over ports 80 or 443 - blocked by the firewall
  • Anything containing executable content - blocked by the corporate mail filter
  • .Net stuff - doesn't run on out of the box Ubuntu or Macintosh / not cross platform.

Disclosure: I'm currently interning at MS.

your honesty is appreciated. When you are just starting in the job market, any good job seems like a good idea. Please remember you have years and years of work, ahead. Taking ethical choices is a seriously good idea. When your CEO is threatening your president with firing you [dailytech.com] then you seriously should consider if that's a company you want to work for.

Re:Take away the cloud (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219057)

As far as syncing, there is nothing stopping native apps from syncing to "the cloud".

Except common sense, of course. I, for one, tell the new corporate overlords to stay out of my computer.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219127)

native code might sometimes be optimal but guess what? A heck of a lot is good enough in a browser and that means it runs on nearly every device and not just the ones with the Windows logo on them. Look what happened to the netbooks when Windows got ahold of them. They got fat, they got shorter battery lives and they got more expensive. The OLPC XO is another example, Windows doesn't fit on everything but the browser does. Good enough.
 

LoB
 

Collaboration (3, Insightful)

drx (123393) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219179)

If the cloud would only be about data storage there would be no advantage over a Desktop app that saves to my hard drive.

However, Desktop Software is totally behind when it comes to collaboration. I have sent enough "DOCs" around and received them back and edited them again and sent them around again to understand that it sucks badly. I have enough of "can you send me the latest version of ..." and welcome online apps to solve this gigantic and ridiculous problem. Of course i would prefer to have Desktop apps that do the same thing, but as it seems at the moment nobody can get their act together and do real time collaborative Editing in a way that is more meaningful than Gobby. :)

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

orngjce223 (1505655) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218279)

I *already* compute in the cloud. Except for the stuff that needs high security (like stuff I'd like to actually claim as intellectual property someday) - uploading that to a website that in its EULA claims the right to read your data is just stupid.

Then again, the reason I *do* do so is because I use five different computers and if it isn't the cloud, it's the sneakernet and I'm notorious for losing USB-flashdrives.

Re:Take away the cloud (5, Insightful)

docbrody (1159409) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218289)

But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud. Forget speed, think about reliability. And by reliability of the cloud, I actually mean reliability of your internet connection.

I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage. So for Google to compete, cloud features are an awesome additional feature, but to really succeed, I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218951)

Google have already started to tackle this one [google.com].

Although it's got to be difficult to mirror all of the application logic offline, the Gears apps that I've used thus far make a valiant attempt, and seem to preserve the core functionality.

Re:Take away the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219151)

I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.

People say this a lot, but it mystifies me. The cloud is empirically much more reliable than internal storage; hard drives crash all the time and lose *all* their data. Unless you're running a RAID and doing daily offsite backups your data is safer in the cloud because they do it for you. Nobody I know has ever lost any data stored on GMail, Flickr, or similar. The worst that I've ever seen happen is someone might not be able to log in for a few hours; maybe up to a day in an extreme case. On the other hand, practically everyone I know has experienced a hard drive crash, sometimes losing valuable data forever, and always resulting in hours if not days of wasted time (reinstalling everything, etc).

Re:Take away the cloud (4, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219333)

People say this a lot, but it mystifies me. The cloud is empirically much more reliable than internal storage; hard drives crash all the time and lose *all* their data. Unless you're running a RAID and doing daily offsite backups your data is safer in the cloud because they do it for you.

What does RAID have to do with it? Regular backups have always been important, and my internet connection drops more often than my harddrive. Local storage means you're not dependent on internet connections, online storage means you can more easily access it from different locations. That's what the trade-off is here.

Nobody I know has ever lost any data stored on GMail, Flickr, or similar. The worst that I've ever seen happen is someone might not be able to log in for a few hours; maybe up to a day in an extreme case.

And that can be a big problem if you've got a big company working on something important. I've seen companies twiddle their thumbs all day because internet was down. Making yourself even more dependent on that doesn't sound like a step towards reliability.

On the other hand, practically everyone I know has experienced a hard drive crash, sometimes losing valuable data forever,

Then they should have backed up their data.

Re:Take away the cloud (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219315)

You don't really think local internal storage is more reliable than the cloud?

Most users really don't have raids nor proper backup. I feel my documents are much more secure (and accessible) in my gmail than on my disk partition (come to count it, currently I have 9! not counting numerous USB disks or flash cards). And each can die moment, and I don't even think to start taking care of backuping them all up. Even if they don't die, get rewritten or formatted I will add or replace another computing device and migrating is always a pain, even for me.

Number of PCs per user is only going up, and the cloud is the only solution to the data mess that comes with.
And with smartphones and blackberries things get even better if you opt for the cloud.

I agree speed does not seem to be an issue (I still waste more time locating / browsing for my documents than it takes me to move them across the net).

Internet connection is reliable as electricity or mobile networks (if not more so :-) and we are so depended on it anyway (probably more than we are aware) that it does not make sense to constrain and lock down your documents with no clear benefit.

All my data on disks, diskettes, cdroms, printouts from 10 years are lost or destroyed except for my online home space at my ex college and my geocities page (oh wait, that's gone too :).

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219491)

I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.

Yeah, tell that to the email clients...

Re:Take away the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218297)

When Google claims the desktop from Microsoft in 2013, will Linux claim the win?

Re:Take away the cloud (3, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218359)

What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs.

"Save to the cloud"? Oh god, make the buzzing stop! You mean "add an option to OpenOffice to save your files to a remote server". Calling it "the cloud" is like calling the contents of your hard drive "cyberspace".

Re:Take away the cloud (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218519)

It really is 'the cloud' though; face it, if you save to google you're saving to a cluster. You have no idea where your data is and you don't care. To say you're saving it to a server is a bit disingenuous. You might as well just draw the good old cloud and lightning bolt ala the network diagrams of old and leave it at that, in most situations.

Re:Take away the cloud (2, Interesting)

lanswitch (705539) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218713)

most people don't know what a server or cloud is. they don't even care. all they want is that they can find their documents.
i guess it will go like this: "if i store it on the cloud/server/whatever, it's not always there, but if i put it in 'My Documents', it's always available. so i'll store it on 'My Documents""

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218745)

And then their hard drive takes a gigantic shit and they learn the value of a multi-tiered approach.

On the other hand, always-on internet access is real for some people already.

Re:Take away the cloud (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218841)

Actually even my 67 year old clueless dad has a USB external with one touch backup. Those things are really dirt cheap now and most folks have been burnt at least once in the past and are naturally a little spooked about losing all their stuff.

Which kinda spooks me about this whole "push to the cloud" thing. Not only do you have the whole privacy issue, because you have no idea who is looking at your data, but lets be honest here, even Google has occasionally just went "oops, sorry about that" when it has come to folks data. I know I have Gmail go offline for a day or two at a time, and what if one of those days I had been on the road and having that data was "mission critical" for a job? And look at how many "web 2.0" style companies we have had go tits up in the past couple of years, and with the economy like this I would expect to see plenty more. When a company is struggling, which you may not even have a clue about, the odds that they are going to spend the money to do best data backup practices is virtually nil. Then what happens when the server dies, or the drive that contained your data goes tits up? "Ooops, sorry about that" as most of these companies have it in their TOS that they pretty much ain't responsible for jack.

So no thanks. I can slap a cheap USB drive and back up my data anytime. I even have my data partitioned to where I can back up all the important stuff to DVD without having to back up the whole OS. I can encrypt the backups so nobody can use them but me, slap the USB or DVDs in my laptop bag and have them wherever I go, even if the place I end up at has "10k on a good day" dialup, which you'd be surprised how many places in the USA are still like that. So I think I'll just stick with what works no matter how good or poor a net connection I have tomorrow is, or without having to worry about whether or not the cloud company is doing well financially or using best backup and privacy practices. Call me weird but I like being in control of my data, thanks ever so much anyway.

Re:Take away the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218959)

Why does an off-site backup, a technology we've had for some 40 years now, have to be renamed "the cloud"? This seems doubleplus ungood.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218789)

Or you use DropBox [getdropbox.com] which seamlessly syncs your local data with the "cloud" and whatever other machines you have.

It's pretty sweet. Every photo of my kids I upload from a camera to my PC (OK, Mac) appears on the grandparents' PC (OK, that's a Mac too) shortly thereafter (Yes, I know I could just cron a unison job across a SSH tunnel to get a similar effect, but a) I'm too old for that crap and b) I want auto offsite backup).

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218795)

Alternatively, they could use the "reasoning" of "You mean, if I downloaded up to the intarnetz I can get my stuff from school, my friend's house, or my iphone without having to figure out all those scary cables and thumbdrivamagiggers?"

If your average person can't get access to their files because their internet connection is down... they just go do something else for a while. Your typical (or at least stereotypical) slashdotter should be able to find an alternative way to get internet access if the files are that important... neighbor's unsecured wifi, tethered cell-phone, bringing your laptop to someplace that does have access, or even more, um, exotic alternatives. [faqs.org]

Re:Take away the cloud (3, Insightful)

chabotc (22496) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218823)

The classic model where people only worked on and with local docs and programs is long gone for the newer generations, and without internet their 'computer is broken', since their facebook, favorite flash game, IM, email and home/search page all give weird error messages.

That, plus the benefits of always having your documents with you no matter what computer and operating system they are using or what location they are at, and the ability to collaborate, share and publish are pretty strong arguments against the local 'My Documents' type model.

Re:Take away the cloud (3, Funny)

drx (123393) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219185)

Dude the main thing is that people click on an icon that shows a diskette!

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

chabotc (22496) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218801)

"Save to remote server" ?

Personally I think that a end-user would be slightly confused by such mumbo jumbo, I mean, do you really know a lot of non-technies that know what a 'cervaaar' is?

If such an option were to be added, please let it be called "Save it to Google docs" :)

Re:Take away the cloud (2, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218829)

If such an option were to be added, please let it be called "Save it to Google docs" :)

Yes please. We have enough mumbo jumbo, as you put it, without inventing new wannabe-cool terms for things.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219047)

Funnily enough Microsoft office already has this, with Office Live [officelive.com]. I have Open from Office Live and Save to Office Live in my file menu.

Re:Take away the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219249)

Microsoft would have few problems if they would quit making crap and follow standards. If MS implemented new technologies in a reasonable time frame their competitors would have little room to push them aside.

There was a time when MS was in the position Google is now, poised and ready to take over the market from a slow, outdated, bureaucratically bloated competitor ... and now it's their turn.

They need to figure out how to keep users happy or eventually they're going to lose the sweet deals with governments and large companies that are now keeping them in business.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

CoccoBill (1569533) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219349)

What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs.

I'm sure some home users might find that useful, but good luck selling that to businesses.

"Now, where's that option to save this classified document somewhere on the internets?"

I'm hesitant to save even any of my personal stuff to google's services, a business that'd allow it will not be in business for long.

Re:Take away the cloud (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219469)

Lots of businesses do this already - sometimes it's just more convenient to use a drop in solution rather than roll out your own, you weigh up the risks first obviously.

Netsuite is just one of several that cost anywhere between 5 and 6 figures to set up, and they don't exactly lack clients.

Re:No, they want to make something /good/ (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219365)

OOo is not a good starting place. They already have chrome + gears, which is more than enough to use google docs by itself.

The cloud is here (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219431)

OOo has been able to 'save to the cloud' for a very, very long time. WevDAV was introduced many years ago, and works as well today as ever. It gives decent security, is quite reliable, and can be seen as a local drive on most modern OSs. (Sadly, even Windows Vista still needs NetDrive)

Bottom line: there is no need to NOT save to the cloud in basically any program out there today, client-based or no, if you are at least somewhat intelligent about it.

Niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218241)

Niggers are funny, but dangerous and prone to monkey behavior.

They are porch monkeys.

HMTL? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218263)

Salshdot: Nwes for lysdexics, futs that smatter

Re:HMTL? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218319)

As an individual with Dysgraphia, I don't find your comment very funny. Maybe that's just me and my present mood.

Re:HMTL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219063)

That's supposed to be, "I'm an individual with dysgraphia, you insensitive clod!"

Don't you kids know anything?

Re:HMTL? (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219461)

Well he was reading the second part as "inclod sensitive you" and he probably didn't know what it meant.

Developer candy? (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218273)

Yeah developer candy is first on my list when looking at a product as an end user. I mean stuff security, reliability, etc. That's just all rubbish when I can make my developers even more diabetic.

Who comes up with this nonsense?

Re:Developer candy? (1)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218325)

If the developers ain't interested in developing applications for it, the end user has no reason to install it.

Re:Developer candy? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218549)

You're talking about hobby development.

Re:Developer candy? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219367)

Not just that. Many developers prefer being paid for fun stuff rather than for boring stuff. It's certainly how I pick my jobs.

Also, hobby development has actually gotten quite big over the last decade and a half.

Re:Developer candy? (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218345)

Fact is fella the end users don't decide on frameworks. And while sometimes decisions like that are made higher up often it is at the whim of a developer.

Re:Developer candy? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218483)

You think for commercial software they decide what framework? You think in any environment other than hobby projects that the primary selection criteria is developer candy???

Re:Developer candy? (4, Insightful)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218533)

I am a commercial software developer.

Think about it. Who generally has the expertise and trust of management to make such decisions? If developers don't have the most input they certainly do have a say that holds influence.

'developer candy' can also be translated to 'lower barrier to entry' (cheaper programmers), 'faster ROI' (faster development for experienced programmers) and 'inherently higher quality' (larger cookie-cutter components)

What do you think developers enjoy working with? Inconsistent rickety unstable messes?

Re:Developer candy? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219089)

What you're describing is not developer Candy. Developer Candy is a neat new scripting language or plugin that does something "cool".

What you're describing is:

- The Rapid Application Development paradigm which was too hastily abandoned.
- Code stability/reliability/predictability.

Re:Developer candy? (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219123)

HTML5 is a new scripting language? Or a plugin that does something "cool"?

That's user candy fella.

I pretty clearly was not describing a paradigm, I was simply pointing out that things developers like tend towards faster development leading towards faster roi.

I'll give this much to Google (0, Troll)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218291)

They deserve credit for stating something that has long frustrated me with non-MS systems: they're not developer-friendly. If Google is to accomplish anything with this, the solution has to include an easy-to-access system. Microsoft is where it is today because it is the easiest OS for third parties to work with.

Re:I'll give this much to Google (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218309)

Especially with all those *private* API calls only available to Micro$oft developers, leaving all other 3rd party Windows developers in the cold. Oh - and add to that, changing the APIs at every version / update, with no warning... gotta love that...

Re:I'll give this much to Google (3, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218735)

Microsoft is where it is today because it is the easiest OS for third parties to work with.

That's not even remotely true. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion? Are you simply comparing Windows with Linux (and most any other X11 based system)?

The reason for MS's success (specifically, with Windows) is due to developers targeting the dominant system, and Windows became the dominant system primarily through being installed on the overwhelming majority of PCs. None of this was based on being the most "developer-friendly".

Re:I'll give this much to Google (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218799)

As a "hobbiest" developer working on a cs degree, my personal experience is that windows is infinitely easier to develop for. It removes the need for me to understand 3 or 4 different arcane scripting languages that get together and have a preprocessor orgy with themselves in order to output makefiles. This has been my experience with autotools, scons, and cmake (cmake wasn't too bad on the whole). On the other hand, I was able to get a standard copy of VS 2008 from my university's campus connections and I can configure building things much easier. That and WPF is a nifty gui toolkit. I found myself able to hand write the gui description files after about 1/2 an hour of tinkering. Something I never could have done with glade or qt's ui files.
For those of us who like to tinker on little projcts on our own, if we can hardly set up a build system, and the docmentation for said build system is horrible, whats the point (I'm looking at you autobook).
That being said, I am curious what you do consider to be the most developer friendly system, particularly if you have experience in industry.

Re:I'll give this much to Google (2, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218949)

I pretty much pointed out that Linux/Unix/X11 aren't necessarily the best example when I wrote, "Are you simply comparing Windows with Linux (and most any other X11 based system)?"

That being said, I am curious what you do consider to be the most developer friendly system, particularly if you have experience in industry.

Presently, OS X is extremely easy to develop for. In the past (the context here, after all, is MS's success, so you have to look at what came before), both OS/2 and BeOS were supposed to have been fairly advanced from a developer point of view, as was Nextstep.

Even further back, comparing Macintosh System, AmigaOS, etc., with DOS and somewhat later, Windows, is relevant. I really don't think ease-of-development played a significant factor so long as development was "easy enough". Commercial interests are a much greater factor.

Re:I'll give this much to Google (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219423)

You realize that preprocessor "orgy" happens anyways, just behind the scenes? And that if you used a proper IDE, you get the same "blinders" that MS-VS gives you?

And if that is your only complaint - the tools, then I challenge how you can call yourself a developer. Have you SEEN the Windows API? Now... thinking of that, have you seen glibc?

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but from what you've given us, I'm hesitant to take anything you've said seriously.

Re:I'll give this much to Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219427)

At the time MS was getting big it was Next had by far the most developer friendly system by a long shot. Lot of good that did them.

Here's what Google needs (5, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218303)

To give Microsoft something to seriously think about, Google needs an OS on the desktop. Android is a good start in my opinion. There are some efforts [arstechnica.com] in this direction already. The good thing is that Android eschews X, which is a pain to work with in its current form.

Next, they will need [meaningful] applications that work no matter what platform one happens to be using.

Third, targeting Microsoft must not be the aim, it must be the unplanned outcome. The aim must be tp "please" we the users.

That way, Google will succeed on the desktop.

Re:Here's what Google needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218553)

I get annoyed everytime people claim that google needs to write it's own operating system for the desktop, and get rid of MS. An operating system stack along with even a few basic applications takes hundreds of thousands of man hours to write and test.

The reason why nobody at Google wanted to release a custom distribution of Linux which is endorsed by them is because they'd be blamed for it if a user ever had a problem, the same way that Windows gets blamed if a user downloads and installs spyware hoping for free smileys.

The OS/Cloud wars are balderdash. There will be some applications better left to the clouds - basic non-enterprise email, task management, etc. But for other things HTML is fucking retarded. Do you know that there's no rich text editing component, the whole rich text editing ability is a huge workaround by setting the DOM node as editable.

There are thousands and thousands of applications which will never be able to run on Javascript/Html, IDEs, word processing, data processing, etc. The desktop is not going away anytime soon, so don't worry.

Re:Here's what Google needs (1)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218591)

Their own OS? I don't think Google really needs one, but I agree it would be a step in the right direction. The main reason why Microsoft are so against openness in anything is that the fewer reasons there are to tie people to a specific OS, the fewer people will stick with that OS. We already have alternatives to Microsoft's offerings, so useful applications that work on anything are the what we need more than anything else at this point.

Re:Here's what Google needs (1, Interesting)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218753)

This:

Android eschews X

and this:

Third, targeting Microsoft must not be the aim, it must be the unplanned outcome. The aim must be tp "please" we the users.

Are the two most critical things that needs to happen for Linux to begin to take on significant market share. These are two of the biggest influences on the increasing success of Mac OS X.

Re:Here's what Google needs (3, Insightful)

chabotc (22496) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218857)

That's entirely missing the point. HTML5 gives you a very nice toolkit for building web apps allowing you full access to the computers computing resources with web workers (threads), storage and caching and graphics through canvas and even 3D graphics through O3D. The speed of the platform has also increased tremendously, in a year it's pretty much tripped thanks to FF3.5, Safari 4, Opera and Chrome. (and other goodies like location and no-plugin-required video playing)

The end result is that a web app can now approach a desktop app in features and speed, and with that you can finally stop worrying about what OS people run, that's becoming irrelevant, as long as they have a modern browser that supports HTML5, they can run your app. It also means that if you have a great idea, you can code it up and deploy it to everyone with a modern browser without having to ship a single CD or making a user go through a installation process

Forget about the OS, it's all about the apps! :)

Re:Here's what Google needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219025)

What's worrying for me, with Google's latest push with Wave is not just the fact that suddenly all your conversations go through google, and they know who you are and that's more data for them to mine to give you adverts, it's the fact that they've stated they need a new feature added to HTML5. Just for Wave. They're willing to hijack a standard and push through a feature just for a single application. That's ok you say, the standards drafter will never allow that to happen ... guess who he works for?

Forcing a feature into a standard to support your own proprietary application is shoddy.

Re:Here's what Google needs (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219391)

Forcing a feature into a standard to support your own proprietary application is shoddy.

Google Wave is open source, not proprietary.

HTML 5 + Gears + GWT: resounding maybe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218341)

I've seen the HTML 5 in-browser/no-plugin demo at Google I/O and of course it look impressive.
Now Google has to make a convincing case that the HTML 5 / Gears / GWT combo opens the world to developers who target the desktop. So far, GWT as great as it is, hasn't exactly gathered a big followship. At any rate, developing for the DOM presents some challenges and pitfalls, and IE 6 remains a major target that needs to be covered. That many corporations and casual users haven't "upgraded" yet, now plays out as an advantage for MS.
Even harder will be the mobile environment, where connectivity and bandwidth are weak and mobile web apps will require considerable optimization to not end up useless bandwidth hogs.

Re:HTML 5 + Gears + GWT: resounding maybe (5, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218775)

IE 6 remains a major target that needs to be covered

No, it doesn't. IE 6 is a ghetto, and can be safely ignored. Anyone who currently uses IE 6 and either will not or can not upgrade to a modern browser is someone who isn't terribly concerned about using the types of apps that things like HTML 5 and Gears are meant to make possible.

Re:HTML 5 + Gears + GWT: resounding maybe (2, Insightful)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219437)

The problem is there are large companies locked into that piece of ****. It will cost them loads to move on from there.

Hate to be a spoilsport but (4, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218367)

Microsoft actually contributed lots to HTML 5, at least according to Chris Wilson (Software Architect for IE)

In effect, it's like semi-Microsoft v. completely-Microsoft. (food for thought)

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218531)

You better be careful. The people who think that W3C has no relationship with MS/IE and that it only does things to hurt IE will get mad. :-p

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (5, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218579)

Microsoft actually contributed lots to HTML 5, at least according to Chris Wilson (Software Architect for IE)

Someone had to introduce problems, incompatibilities, and inconsistency or it wouldn't be a proper standard.

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218637)

Chris Wilson joined the HTML 5 working group (WHATWG) in April '07. Over one year, his sole contribution was that HTML versioning crap: ref. [diveintomark.org] He has also been against @font-face.

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218701)

Who said he was the only one to contribute? I said Microsoft contributed, not Chris Wilson.

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218783)

Wow reading that sure ticked me off. Microsoft basically just said that they suck and cannot ever implement any spec correctly, therefore they need version tags in html. I hate them even more.

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218803)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If the idea was W3C vs MS, you'd have a point, but this is Google vs MS. The fact that Google is using a tool that is being developed with help from MS is somewhat ironic, but doesn't make this a "semi-Microsoft v. completely-Microsoft" battle any more than the Japanese attacking China with gunpowder weapons is "semi-China v. completely-China".

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (1)

chabotc (22496) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218881)

If only IE would support silly little things like the canvas and video tags, or have proper SVG support for that matter.

They have stated they intent to support HTML5, but I'm still waiting for this to actually take shape (hope they will!)

Re:Hate to be a spoilsport but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28219075)

Microsoft actually contributed lots to HTML 5, at least according to Chris Wilson (Software Architect for IE)

In effect, it's like semi-Microsoft v. completely-Microsoft. (food for thought)

Well since Microsoft Expression Web 2 can work with both IE6/7/8 AND open standards this might very well be true.

Good Informations (-1, Troll)

vk107 (1555681) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218641)

Hai! The informations presents in this article is really very useful. Thanking You! Ka --- SFTP Server [sysax.com]

Who still listens to these two clowns? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218747)

Two guys gave themselves a fancy name ("Open Document Foundation"), which opened them doors to some panel discussions. They don't have any role in ODF standardization. All they did in the last couple of years was to act like little MS shills. Last time they attacked the Open Document Standard [slashdot.org] their role was quickly uncovered. [slashdot.org]

Their insignificant role does not deserve any attention, but as they trolled their way into mainstream media IBM's chief ODF architect Rob Weir was bothered enough to discuss the technical merits of their "contribution" [robweir.com].

Gary Edwards? (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#28218855)

Hey, uh, wasn't he one of the ones that threw a tantrum (along with sam and marbux) when he didn't get his way with preserving Microsoft "dark matter" (undocumented RTF encoding) in ODF and then proclaimed that ODF is doomed to fail and all that nonsense when everyone told him to stuff it where it doesn't shine??

I am shocked. Simply shocked to see that he's extolling Microsoft's "virtues".

Nothing to see here, folks, just another softie trying to sabotage open standards by throwing chairs at it.

--
BMO

Either option better than door #3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28218945)

Google, Microsoft - either option works for me since they'd both work for the most part. Just as long as the choice is not IBM software or Lotus anything.

Desktop? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219039)

Google dont need to displace Microsoft from the desktop. What google is doing is displacing the desktop itself. Once you have the same info and roughly the same functionality from your cellphone, netbook, computer, gaming device, whoever else computer and so on, "Desktop" is becoming meaningless. Microsoft must give away the desktop and embrace the cloud to have any chance, just because it isnt a battlefield anymore.

Where is the foundation on which you build? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219085)

Chrome. Safari. Firefox.

"The edge of the web."

God alone knows what that means. Market share dominated by the home user and the enthusiast. Chrome very immature.

Internet Explorer. The browser you use at work. Rich tools for deployment and management by the system administrator...

In the simplest terms:

You can build a business ground up from the loading dock and point of sale to the clerks in accounting to the guys and gals in middle management and the executive suite and never leave the working environment of "MS Office."

That has enormous implications for recruitment, staffing and training at every level.

Cloud vs Desktop? Aren't they the same? (2, Interesting)

caywen (942955) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219105)

Isn't the deskop really just the next evolution of the cloud? Once the desktop becomes an active participant in the cloud? I think the next step will simply be to make all your desktop apps available anywhere. We're just about there already with remote desktop connections. Isn't the path of remote desktops and virtualization just as valid a distributed computing model? In the future, there might be so much bandwidth and parallel computing power available, a single server could serve remote connections to thousands of simultaneous virtual Win7/OSX/Linux machines. And you won't have to actually rewrite OpenOffice 10.0 for web.

Amazingly we should side with... Microsoft! (4, Interesting)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28219319)

The standard desktop is better than Google desktop. Yes, everybody says, to put Google in a good light: "standard compliant" browsers, but that means nonstandard compliant mail, nonstandard everything else. We won't own software, we'll be always customers, dumb terminals, served from huge company's "clouds". Free software will be over, irrelevant. We won't be able to improve and modify our environment, we can't improve Gmail ourselves, there's no alternative/better/innnovative client for Gmail.

Economic forces are taking technology down a terrible path. The past is better: a world of protocols, servers and clients. A common neutral space...

The "portable" desktop, having your data everywhere should be solved by other means... I don't know, perhaps we should have personal servers, or at least we should contract personal servers from some kind of "personal server providers", which should be a standard and non-monopolistic thing. The "presence providers" envisioned by the XMPP protocol comes to mind...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...