Beta
×

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!

Gtk 3.2 Will Let You Run Applications In a Browser

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the never-get-off-the-merry-go-'round dept.

GNOME 184

An anonymous reader submits this intriguing tidbit: "Gtk+ 3.2 will let you run any application in a browser thanks to the new HTML5 gdk backend. That means you'll be able to run GIMP, Gedit, a video editor or whatever, remotely (or on the same computer), using a web browser. Just imagine the possibilities!" At this point, says the article, it's only possible with Firefox 4.

cancel ×

184 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Standards people! (2)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520000)

If it only works with Firefox, then they're not clearly using HTML5 standards. Opera, Chrome and Internet Explorer 9 all have a great support for HTML5. Why is it not working with them? And this is open source project, which should have even more standard support than proprietary software. Or is Microsoft actually better? Do it correctly!

Re:Standards people! (4, Informative)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520076)

HTML5 is still a draft standard and in common usage it usually refers to a bunch of stuff like an in-browser video codec, WebGL, DOM data storage, canvas, geo location data support, etc. - almost all of which are not uniformly supported across all "HTML5" browsers - and that's especially true for IE9.

Re:Standards people! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520112)

HTML5 is still a draft standard and in common usage it usually refers to a bunch of stuff like an in-browser video codec, WebGL, DOM data storage, canvas, geo location data support, etc.

Protip: WebGL is not part of the HTML5 standard nor is it a W3C or WHATWG standard. It is a completely separate standard maintained by the Khronos group.

Re:Standards people! (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520176)

And that's why I said, "in common usage". Nobody cares what the committees say in practice. If all commonly used browsers support WebGL to some degree, then it's a "standard", and people will use "HTML5" as the buzzword. Fact is, a lot of things that are included now in HTML5 (e.g. web workers) were not part of what the committees published some time before, and HTML5 is still a work-in-progress. So the standard right now is still a very malleable thing.

Re:Standards people! (1, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520196)

By "in common usage" you mean it is improperly implied to be so by people like this [i-programmer.info] so they can make lame, butthurt-filled rants against Microsoft, right?

Re:Standards people! (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520330)

No. In common usage means when you actually go and code web-related projects like jQuery Mobile and CKEditor. When you're actually coding anything non-trivial for a few browsers, you'll find that the standards don't really work perfectly and that 100% rating on ACID3 is meaningless. There're always minute differences between browser implementations even though they all tell you they support X.

IE9's support for newer features is poor - that's a fact. In none of my previous posts have I even mentioned Microsoft. I mean.. what the heck is happening?

Re:Standards people! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520224)

Also, I never said that WebGL was not a standard. I even specifically said:

It is a completely separate standard maintained by the Khronos group.

Sorry, but WebGL is not part of HTML5 no matter how much people want to imply it is so.

Re:Standards people! (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520520)

You're not getting what I'm saying. Whether something is in a bunch of draft standards or not.. is of academic interest to some people only. If you're actually coding something, you don't care - you can try to stick to the "standard" way but it will always breaks at some point. If you don't believe me, just look at a bug tracker in any popular FOSS web project - jQuery, extJS, jQ Mobile, CKEditor, etc. etc. If you want a specific example, read jQuery Mobile's fastclick branch, read the code and the commit log and see what the clusterfuck it is to simply handle "tap" events in mobile, "standard compliant" browsers.

And with the malleable nature of HTML5 right now... a bunch of usable features that breaks all the time in practice and has to be tested on different browsers on a case-by-case basis, is all what it means to a software developer. I guess what you're focusing on is the academic kind of correctness - whether W3C published it or not. Having W3C and WHATWG publish it has its uses... but at the end of the day, unless you're someone working at W3C, it doesn't really matter for you.

Re:Standards people! (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520708)

>>>Protip: WebGL is not part of the HTML5 standard nor is it a W3C or WHATWG standard

Brain hurt.
Want to go back to simple HTML:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961114151757/http://scifi.com/ [waybackmachine.org]
(look how fast it loads)

Re:Standards people! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521576)

Want to go back to simple HTML:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961114151757/http://scifi.com/ [waybackmachine.org]
(look how fast it loads)

It loads fast because it's not doing much. I write new HTML almost every day that performs just as well because it's not overly-complex.

Re:Standards people! (1)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520186)

Exactly. The guy in charge doesn't think that HTML 5 will be a real standard [techrepublic.com] with two complete, interoperable implementations until 2022.

Re:Standards people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521182)

Regardless of what Ian Hickson is saying this week, the current feeling amongst devs is that a lot of people are going to hold out for html 6 - its strength is that (being based around whatever the latest ecma is) it cannot be out of date. At long last we have native gpu support for svg, css3 and video in whatever format happens to be delivered! As far as tablets are concerned, the native support for multi-touch baked right into it you cannot go wrong.
For a demo of what's currently possible with this incredible technology have a look at
http://www.optimum7.com/css3-man/ [optimum7.com]

Re:Standards people! (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521422)

Ian's the Secretary for the Specification. He's the mediator. The people in charge are the corporations implementing the specification. The spec will be done by 2014. This 2022 is absurd.

Re:Standards people! (1)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520122)

If it only works with Firefox, then they're not clearly using HTML5 standards. Opera, Chrome and Internet Explorer 9 all have a great support for HTML5. Why is it not working with them? And this is open source project, which should have even more standard support than proprietary software. Or is Microsoft actually better? Do it correctly!

Maybe Mozilla, Apple, Google, and Opera implement different subsets of the "standard" (HTML5 is not what I'd call a standard) and functionality this needs is implemented only in Firefox's subset? Maybe they even implement vague parts of the standard in different ways?

Just because there is a standard doesn't mean that writing an application conforming to that standard will get you cross-platform support in every platform that claims to support that platform.

(Of course, they could be using mozilla-prefixed CSS properties and whatnot - but that's part of the standard too.)

Re:Standards people! (1)

tuffy (10202) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520346)

Assembling a standard from several different, somewhat divergent implementations is hardly a new practice. The idea with HTML5 seems to be that once browsers implement all these fancy proposed features, the resulting subset will be hammered into an actual standard.

The alternative is specifying a standard first and throwing it at the feet of implementors to see what sticks, but I doubt that approach will work any better for HTML than it did for Perl6.

Re:Standards people! (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520308)

It also requires Websockets, which isn't available in IE (yet?) and is disabled by default in Opera and Firefox.

Why exactly? (4, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520026)

Why exactly do I want do this?

And more importantly, can I run firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4?

It's fiery turtles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520062)

...all the way down!

Re:Why exactly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520064)

Yo dawg, I herd u liek to browse while u browse, so i put a firefox in ur firefox so u can firefox while u firefox, dawg.

Re:Why exactly? (-1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520066)

And more importantly, can I run firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4?

Yo dawg! We heard yo liked to browse so we put a browser in your browser...

Re:Why exactly? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520644)

Why does that sound suspicously like emacs?

Re:Why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521014)

Why does that sound suspicously like emacs?

Somebody has to say it:

Emacs is a nice OS, but it lacks a decent browser.....

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Why exactly? (5, Funny)

Tiger Smile (78220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520124)

You have answered your first question with your seconds question.

Re:Why exactly? (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520192)

A migration path for simple apps (in either direction, from web to desktop or from desktop to web)?

Re:Why exactly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520262)

No programs should ever migrate to the web.

Re:Why exactly? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520424)

Or using traditional application development tools to build a web app?

I like the Web, but I have to admit, GUI toolkits tend to be quite a bit better. I don't know how well this would actually work, but it would be nice to develop a web frontend using tools like glade [gnome.org] or QtDesigner [nokia.com] rather than what I do now with Haml [haml-lang.com] and jQuery [jquery.com] .

I'm very skeptical, though -- there are ways the Web is currently better than many desktop apps. Even ignoring issues like bandwidth and performance, would this give me an app which properly supports things like bookmarking, tabbed browsing, and the back button? Is it just drawing to canvas, or does it take advantage of native stuff?

From the video, the answer seems to be "no, and it's just drawing to canvas." If that's the case, I take back everything I just said, and I hope this is never deliberately used to build a web app. Still a cool idea, though.

Re:Why exactly? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520518)

I would run the emacs operating system inside firefox 4, and then load firefox 4 again within emacs. Using the inner firefox 4 I would run vim. This is finally a way to give emacs a decent text editor!

Re:Why exactly? (2)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520576)

Why exactly do I want do this?

Simple really. This is for those of us who run applications remotely for one reason or another. I personally like being able to run GEdit remotely since my server doubles as my homework computer. If this would let me do the same thing from a web browser, so that I don't have to use a separate SSH application then I'm all for it.

Still need SSH (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521314)

As you can see, the GUI is exported to the browser, but you still have to start the application on the machine that it runs on. You still need SSH.

This is just plain old X forwarding, but retarded.

Re:Why exactly? (2)

lonelytrail (1741524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520656)

Does it ever get old stifling peoples creativity?
I can think of lots of reasons I would like this.
I have a server at home.
I would like to edit something at home, from work. That's one trivial example.
Do you ever get tired of shooting down somebody else's idea just because it doesn't immediately fit whatever is in your head RIGHT NOW?
Give it a second. Stop to think before you call somebody else crap and maybe just bite your F'ing tongue.

Re:Why exactly? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520776)

I have a server at home.
I would like to edit something at home, from work. That's one trivial example.

Me too.

But I already have several remote access solutions. (Remote desktop services, vnc, etc) I'm not sure what advantage this give me.

I'm not stifling creativity. I'm just not sure what the point is.

Re:Why exactly? (2)

lonelytrail (1741524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521006)

Yes, you are.
There's a slight but incredible difference between

Why exactly do I want do this?

and "What could I use this for?"
It's like the difference between "That's crap" and "I think there's a better way."
You don't think so, but it comes off as block-headed.
It's negative and derogatory. I'm so sick of negative responses I can barely stand it.

Re:Why exactly? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521500)

incredible difference between "Why exactly do I want do this?" and "What could I use this for?"

I disagree that there is any difference at all. You might have read some sort of negativity there, but take a closer look with an open mind to the idea that there was none. There really was none.

It's like the difference between "That's crap" and "I think there's a better way."

I see the difference there, and understand what your complaint is. I just don't think my statement has the negativity you saw in it. Sure if you read it with the right tone of voice in your head you can make it sound like I'm belittleing it... but that tone of voice makes "What could I use this for?" just as negative...especially if you stress the word "this" while snorting in derision... ;)

Re:Why exactly? (1)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521590)

But I already have several remote access solutions. (Remote desktop services, vnc, etc) I'm not sure what advantage this give me.

I'm not stifling creativity. I'm just not sure what the point is.

The point is that VNC/RDP-like functionality is now accessible to everyone, which is a good thing. When was the last time Six Pack Joe had a properly configured VNC client?

Re:Why exactly? (1)

proxy318 (944196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520660)

we have to go deeper.

Re:Why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520780)

hit dat button:
  http://inception.davepedu.com/

Re:Why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520696)

And more importantly, can I run firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4 in firefox 4?

Firefox is not a GTK+ app. You could try it with Epiphany.

Re:Why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521302)

Yo Dogg, I got a browsa 4 my browsa so I can browse while I'm browsin'.

Re:Why exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521426)

Because we've moved from an era when all applications were under the OS to one where many applications are accessed through the browser, while others are still accessed through the OS GUI.

There are two solutions to this:

1) Run web apps as desktop apps.
2) Run desktop apps as web apps.

The former option has been tried, at least by both Firefox and Chrome but fails to entirely resolve the issue because the traditional desktop interface was not designed for hyperlinked documents. Now we can try the latter option, provided we're happy using only GTK apps and web apps.

I like the idea. I think it would be handy to be able to bring up a proper text editor or file manager from my browser interface, without having to switch paradigms.

So (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520038)

What you're saying is I'll be able to run Browser X on Computer A and arbitrary OS, and use it to control Application Y running natively on Computer B and GNU/Linux/GNOME analogously to X11 forwarding?

Cool.

Re:So (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520098)

Why wouldn't GTK apps under *BSD/MacOS/Windows work?

Re:So (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520220)

Yeah, if this makes it so that I can keep a *NIX OS and run Windows apps in it, this would actually be super slick and awesome. Granted, I would get no work done once I figure out how to efficiently run pc games from my home pc to my work browser (work browser = whatever browser I want). Do they explain whether everything will be rendered in the browser, or if it will do some type of blow-out or whatever to cover the entire screen?

Re:So (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520240)

They get rid of minimize/maximize buttons to stay away from Windowsisms, yet they want to replicate what is basically ActiveX integration?

WTF, GNOME?

Re:So (2)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520488)

That was my first thought, as in 'Didn't we do this in the eighties with X-Terminals?'

Re:So (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521062)

> Didn't we do this in the eighties with X-Terminals?

Always wondered why nobody just did an X Server as a browser plugin. Stick to the old 2D X drawing primitives and it is actually fairly fast vs posting bitmaps for everything like modern Qt and GTK does. It is a well known and documented interface and would allow pretty advanced apps.

Just imagine the possibilities!" (5, Funny)

radtea (464814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520040)

Can't... I'm too busy imagining the performance...

Re:Just imagine the possibilities!" (1)

Spritzer (950539) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520358)

Yeah. I can't wait to run AutoCAD Mechanical in Firefox over a 256kb/s connection from a hotel in Malaysia. That's going to be amazing. Why, I won't need anything but a XOOM for all of my mobile computing needs.

Pimp My Browser (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520056)

Yo Dawg, I heard you like to surf, so we put a browser in your browser, so you can surf while you surf.

Wow! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520070)

It's like a vacation without leaving my chair!

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520228)

It's like a party in your mouth. and everyone is coming.

Mechanism? (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520080)

I wonder whether the the UI would be "painted" in the browser or the code "streamed" to the client and assembled in-situ...
The again, it probably helps thinking when you're not sleep-deprived.

A preview of this amazing thing (-1, Troll)

tuxrocks6 (2019556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520082)

Here a more detailed overview [wordpress.com]

Re:A preview of this amazing thing (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520104)

goatsie. Yeeeeeee -- wait, that's in wordpress! Holly cow, that means you are SO INTO GOATSIES YOU BLOG THEM!!

And we reinvent X (2)

dodobh (65811) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520146)

X over HTTP?

If you thought remote X was slow, imagine the performance.

Re:And we reinvent X (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521428)

Save your breath. Inventing new standards and then running emulations of old standards over the new standard, or emulating the new standard over the old standard, is the bread and butter of 90% of the programming workforce. The more the new standards suck, actually, the better -- more work to do. It's a jobs program, I tell ya. And so much less challenging then actually learning the math needed to make something truly innovative.

That aside, this particular hack is actually potentially useful going forward, so I will spare it my derision. Buckets in X11 protocol were never adequately used -- now I'm guessing they are abstracted under HTML5 idioms so at least the client will cache graphical content for a change. Might actually even perform better, despite the awful encapsulation.

a hacker's dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520158)

Obviously I didn't RTFA, but I'm imagining the possibilities of running "whatever" remotely using a web browser.

What could possibly go wrong?

Speed? (1)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520190)

Will this will allow us too run apps faster in a browser than natively? Or is this just an Apple thing?

Re:Speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520336)

If you're referring to Safari being faster than WebKit-based apps, it appears you aren't understanding exactly what happened. Those apps that are running slowly are not native apps. The "app" is just a full-screen web browser displaying html+css+javascript pages stored locally on your machine. In iOS 4.3, Apple added the much faster Nitro Javascript engine to Safari. Nitro is not actually part of WebKit (in fact Firefox 4's spiffy new Javascript Engine works by combining Nitro with Tracemonkey, the engine Firefox added in 3.5). Even though Safari was updated, it seems they didn't update the WebKit component to use Nitro, so it's still falling back on the old engine.

Idea! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520256)

Maybe we should put entire desktop into the browser and make it a default shell, I'm sure nobody thought of that! Oh, wait...

Yo dawg! (0)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520310)

I heard you liked applications running inside your applications so applicated you a new one yo!

this opens a possibility (3, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520314)

this opens a possibility that even the modern, newest computers, with gigabytes of RAM and multiple processors/cores won't be enough to do a basic thing without nearly hanging the entire machine.

Re:this opens a possibility (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520550)

Whats hardware innovation if you can't make ludicrously inefficient use of it?

IE6 and ActiveX wants a word with you. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520334)

Seriously. HTML5 is trying to minimize use of addons and plugins. The reason why IE6 is still around because of proprietary ActiveX that is locking people in to it at work.

Re:IE6 and ActiveX wants a word with you. (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520442)

I see no addons or plugins here.

The web catches up with... (0)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520362)

The web catches up with the X window system from 1984... :-) At least the implementation will be better.

Re:The web catches up with... (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520422)

At least the implementation will be better.

You are joking, right?

FTFY (1)

Whispers_in_the_dark (560817) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520370)

"Just imagine the vulnerabilities !"
This seems like the same sort of thing that gets Windows into trouble all the time (Flash in Excel for example).

Qt plans network transparency too (-1, Troll)

happyslasher1 (2019572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520404)

I have read rumors about that on a KDE developer blog [wordpress.com]
Now, any anger about lack of net transparency in wayland?
. X, your days are numbered (at least as a direct to hardware system).

Re:Qt plans network transparency too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520416)

Link is Goatse.

Re:Qt plans network transparency too (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520572)

I'm going to start presuming that any user ID over 2e6 is posting that link.

Re:Qt plans network transparency too (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521104)

It's Slasher again. This guy's an elite troll. At least he's a nice refreshing break from all the noob/lame trolls, it's good to see somebody putting some thought and effort into it.

Re:Qt plans network transparency too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520508)

Mod parent down. That's a goatse link.

Mod down please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520640)

Mod down

Honest question. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520512)

Why would I want to run something like Gimp in a browser, when I can just run it regularly?

Re:Honest question. (1)

happyslasher1 (2019572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520542)

Gimp no, but some admin tool, even just nautilus, is sweet.

Re:Honest question. (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520804)

Some reasons that come to mind:

1) Your'e not at home/wheever the app is running. You're someplace else and wanr to run it remotely. Think home security applications, programming your DVR, etc).

2) You can't run it regularly because you don't have access to the computer it's running on. Maybe it's running in the cloud.

3) This is just another way of building highly interactive web pages. Beats the crap out of AJAX. Google could rewrite GMail as a linux app rather than using web technologies, and you'd not know the difference.

Can someone clarify what this does? (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520526)

So the app is generating an HTML5 based web page that you serve to the remote browser? I'm not up-to speed on HTML5, so how does this handle the application "pushing" screen updates to the browser?

Re:Can someone clarify what this does? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520846)

HTML5 carries something called websockets for javascript that can do it.

Re:Can someone clarify what this does? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520906)

WebSockets: allows any web application to open a direct connection to a server (by default following the same origin restrictions) and it works only in Firefox because it is a nice hack/experiment and it is not targeting to be released on GTK 3.2. For those asking, it only works on Firefox NOW because the developer is just experimenting at the moment, using disabled by default WebSockets implementation in Firefox 4 (disabled on Opera too until the spec is more mature).

You have been able to do that with Linux always. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520556)

X window system that runs below Gtk. has been doing this since 80's.

Remote X Apps mini-HOWTO: http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-mini/Remote-X-Apps.html

Not really running in a browser (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520602)

More accurately, GTK 3.2 will let you take a GTK program running /outside/ the browser and, assuming it does not use anything X11-specific, forward drawing as gzipped data: URIs to your browser which then assembles things in a element. It's basically a poor reimplementation of a VNC that only works in GTK. Significantly more interesting would be a GTK that draws with PPAPI and runs in NaCl, which would allow you to develop a web app using GTK, deploy it on the web, and run it (safely) within your browser.

Re:Not really running in a browser (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521446)

More accurately, GTK 3.2 will let you take a GTK program running /outside/ the browser and, assuming it does not use anything X11-specific, forward drawing as gzipped data: URIs to your browser which then assembles things in a element. It's basically a poor reimplementation of a VNC that only works in GTK. Significantly more interesting would be a GTK that draws with PPAPI and runs in NaCl, which would allow you to develop a web app using GTK, deploy it on the web, and run it (safely) within your browser.

Two thumbs up for being knowledgeable on the subject.

Imagine the security vulnerabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520754)

Hackers all over the world must be happy now.

screen (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520766)

I would really enjoy having a "screen" tool for my GUIs sessions.

Re:screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520984)

You might want to look at xpra, then.
http://code.google.com/p/partiwm/wiki/xpra [google.com]

Re:screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521348)

X2go can do that.

I recognize this idea... (1)

Radtoo (1646729) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520812)

Java applets!

Re:I recognize this idea... (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521032)

WRONG, it is a web based VNC like utility, done at the GUI toolkit level. the apps runs on the server. Probably not useful for many people, but a modern replacement of the X protocol that can be made efficient at the toolkit instead of sending bitmaps all time like VNC do, and web enabled is something cool for remote administration for example (if done securely)

Re:I recognize this idea... (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521152)

How d'you like them applets?

Great! Here's my program. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520868)

#!/bin/sh

rm -rf /

Re:Great! Here's my program. (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521300)

You can already run that one with CGI, if your goal is simply to make your server commit suicide. No need for a GTK wrapper (which you forgot to provide in any case). I think, perhaps, you don't understand that the apps are running on the server and only using the browser for display and input.

Gtk has a video editor? (1)

joeyadams (1724334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520966)

Also, why on earth does the OpenShot package in Ubuntu depend on libgfortran3 ?

Re:Gtk has a video editor? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521094)

why on earth does the OpenShot package in Ubuntu depend on libgfortran3

Presumably because they use linear algebra routines for something. Check to see if it also relies on LAPACK or BLAS, or a package which relies on either of those two. Or, perhaps there is some other maths package which it uses.

Horrible flash back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521044)

Wow! I just had a horrible flash back. [As thought bubble appears above head.] Of when another company tried this same exact thing, and it only worked in their browser. You could write an app with their programming tool, and run that app inside their other apps, and even run it in their browser. And since the whole world was thrilled with all of their other Active apps, they named it, wait for it... wait for it... Active Documents. http://visualbasic.freetutes.com/learn-vb6-advanced/lesson14/
[Thought bubble pops.] Thankfully no one else will think to try such a thing... Will they?

Innovation? (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521130)

How is this different than using VNC, other than it doesn't require a server-client app pair?

Doing it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521172)

this may be the definition of "doing it wrong"
seriously, nobody needs that crap.
1. use standards
2. use x11 ssh tunneling
3. ????
4. Profit

Useless (1)

diego.viola (1104521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521174)

Why don't you guys spend effort on Wayland instead of this?

Seriously.

SAAS (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521356)

Sounds good and all, but this just sounds like it will enable more "Software as a Service [bluehome.net] ", or at the least make a quick and dirty kludgey GUI. I would rather see it done better myself. But I guess to each his own, unfortunately.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?