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!

New Linux Desktop Environment Built on Firefox

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the believe-it-when-it's-useful dept.

GUI 198

IL-CSIXTY4 writes "'Pyro is a new kind of desktop environment for Linux built on Mozilla Firefox. Its goal is to enable true integration between the Web and modern desktop computing.' This looks like an interesting marriage of the web and the desktop. In Pyro, Web apps run in windows on the desktop, right alongside desktop apps (through compositing). Features expected in a desktop environment, like task/window selection and an Expose-like function, are written in Javascript." "

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

Does this mean... (1, Redundant)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945345)

...that I can write application in php+css?

Re:Does this mean... (1)

Xiph (723935) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945355)

you can do that already, You run it with apache and firefox.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945365)

I know, but I meant applications that integrates with your desktop..

Re:Does this mean... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945571)

Would require either a XPConnect SAPI for PHP [mozilla.org] or a PHP compiler that emitted javascript (or compatible bytecode).

Basically the answer is yes, Tamarin has the potential to be everything parrot promised. But for now, you're probably better using javascript.

Re:Does this mean... (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946771)

Didn't everyone agree a long time ago that integrating IE into the OS and using it as a shell was a bad idea?

So what is it that makes this any different?

Re:Does this mean... (0, Redundant)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945751)

Apache is horrifically bloated for using as a personal web server.

Re:sig (1)

Alan Doherty (87875) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946533)

"There are 11 types of people in the world, those who know binaries and those who don't."

i realy hope ths was typo as the quote/joke is wrong in so many ways

the correct one is know/uderstand are interchangeable but understand is the common one
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who know/uderstand binary and those who don't.

as 11 == 3 thus makes the joke nonsense
and binaries equally makes nonsense of the joke

Re:sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946625)

Whoosh

Re:sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946657)

Are you dense?!

Thats the whole point of the joke

he obviously _doesnt_ understand binary.

Its a variation. Thats why its funny.
I swear you cant tell a joke to a geek.

Re:sig (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946763)

It's the amalgamation of two (old) jokes:

There are only three sorts of mathematicians [sometimes people], those who can count, and those who can't.
And:

There are 10 sorts of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't.
And, yes, combining them does make you sound like someone who's heard the second and incorrectly remembered it.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945637)

oh great ... that's all we need, a bunch of pyro-mainiacs.

See, you've already melted their server ... didn't anyone teach you not to play with fire?

Re:Does this mean... (0, Troll)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945671)

Probably, but since this desktop runs on xulrunner/firefox it will likely eat up 1GB+ ram by itself, ignore the system themes, render ugly fonts, render ugly buttons (there is a workaround [ubuntuforums.org] ), freeze often when trying to open new windows/apps/etc, and make Win95 seem like a rock solid desktop.

This does sound like an interesting idea, though. Hopefully someone will implement an alternative with Webkit [webkit.org] (there is a GTK+ port [sourceforge.net] in progress).

slashdotted after the first comment (3, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945357)

Already slashdotted after the first comment, so ... this is what the future web-desktop will be like huh?

Re:slashdotted after the first comment (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945387)

So I've heard for a decade+

Re:slashdotted after the first comment (4, Informative)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945397)

Already slashdotted after the first comment, so ... this is what the future web-desktop will be like huh?

Not if the server is within the intranet. Here's the text from the site:

What is Pyro?

Flickr Add-on

Exposé-alike

Window Picker

Pyro is a new kind of desktop environment for Linux built on Mozilla Firefox. Its goal is to enable true integration between the Web and modern desktop computing.

By merging the Web with the desktop, Pyro offers the first big step toward a new future for the Web and the applications built for it.

In Pyro, Web content is no longer confined to the browser's window. Instead, trusted Web sites and extensions are given access to the full range of interactivity and control enjoyed by native applications today.

Imagine...
Rich Web pages running side-by-side with native applications
Single programming environment for the whole desktop
Desktop-wide mashups, killer Web integration
Novel desktop effects

Pyro enables a desktop that tracks the latest in Web technology, and helps mold the future of the integrated Web.
[edit]
NEWS

From Ars Technica

July, 20 2007:
Pyro project offers Firefox-based desktop environment on Ars Technica, by Ryan Paul.
Pyro delivers Web apps to the Linux desktop on DesktopLinux.com.

Check out the slides!

July, 18 2007:
Pyro Announced during GUADEC '07 Conference Keynote Speech.
[edit]
How does Pyro work?

Pyro works fundamentally by drawing your entire computer screen as a Web Page, all from within Firefox. Indeed, at the core Pyro is simply a window manager which renders Web content alongside existing native applications.

By leveraging the trusted Firefox Add-On system, all the capabilities of dynamic HTML, JavaScript, CSS, SVG, and Adobe Flash are available to enable incredible applications, extensions and themes.

Bringing all these Web technologies together with the newest generation of Linux display technology, called window compositing, allows Pyro to integrate native applications as an intrinsic part of the overall Web Desktop, seamlessly merging the two.

Re:slashdotted after the first comment (2, Interesting)

smallfries (601545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946267)

Maybe I'm being naive, but how would this be different to running a separate browser window for each page, without any navigation controls. You know, like some really nasty site interfaces do before you navigate away from them really quickly...

What is the point? Why does it need a separate window manager? Why on earth does the summary mention compositing when it doesn't appear in the article?

Re:slashdotted after the first comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945625)

Yes, but they should change their 500 http error page to look like the BSOD that we all know and loathe.

Re:slashdotted after the first comment (2, Informative)

paulatz (744216) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946019)

Yes, it is slahdotted, but coral cache is working: pyrodesktop.org [nyud.net] .

the desktop future (1)

m1h41 (1119765) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946163)

oh my god it's full of ads!

Re:slashdotted after the first comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946463)

nope. http://www.pyrodesktop.org/Screenshots [pyrodesktop.org]
only the wiki part got slashdotted.

Re:slashdotted after the first comment -- Back now (1)

orphennui (1131535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946561)

It's back up now. Sigh...

My personal project hosting provider, DreamHost, actually *moved* the main directory on pyrodesktop.org due to too much server load. I'm using the totally bundled MediaWiki version that DreamHost provides, mind you. I was on a train to London, and just realized something was up now.

So I've just moved the wiki directory back. Let's see how long it stays up...

IE4 Anyone? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945361)

Didn't we learn our lesson with Active Desktop? This is one of the reasons I use Firefox instead of IE. It's not so tied into the OS that when it crashes, it's taking down other apps as well.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945383)

It is not the same. Active Desktop was intigrated with your desktop, Pyro IS your desktop.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945483)

Sounds like a great way to bypass annoying browser security vulnerabilities.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (1)

Glytch (4881) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945553)

It seems like the opposite to me; an easy way for malware writers to not have to bypass the barriers between the browser and the desktop in the first place.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945601)

Yeah, but at least we'll get rid of browser vulnerabilities.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (0, Offtopic)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945623)

Look; the only reason they made this is because a lot of people thought it would be a good idea. Now some of the same people are shooting it down? I don't get it. I guess I must be new here, or something.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945959)

I wonder if perhaps the people who are shooting it down are not the same people who thought it would be a good idea.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (1)

nnm.one (1103799) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945739)

JavaFX is the way to go.

We need to integrate the connectivity of the web and web dev. languages with your desktop, and not merge our desktops & web.
Besides, it won't go further than some mashup apps or some half-assed Office suite, web apps will never replace read IDE's or video editing software or just good old irssi :P.

Re:IE4 Anyone? (5, Insightful)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945813)

Didn't we learn our lesson with Active Desktop?
...and why would anyone want this anyway? The only real reason MS did this sort of thing was to support their legal argument that IE was a necessary and integral part of the OS. This is just as bad as the awful practice of embedding other applications in the browser by default instead of launching the appropriate applications externally (konqueror for example). Why does everyone want to copy all the worst ideas MS has had for browser functionality?

It either runs ... (1)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945363)

.. on the Desktop or on the web (or both)

Everything else is just glue and interfacing - I didnt read the article, but I bet that it is just a rehash of an existing term.

If only... (2, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945371)

the apps include a very simple word processor and a spreadsheet that could work from a server hosted within the company intranet... this would be a very useful project indeed. Basic features would do - no need for all that fancy schmancy stuff.

Re:If only... (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946795)

Basic features for the office? You have a job in IT don't you?

When you are doing (database/data) analysis and reporting on spreadsheets you certainly don't want to use the Microsoft Works style answer to 'spreadsheeting'.

Somehow familliar (1)

Kazuma-san (775820) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945373)

This strangely reminds me of Microsofts Desktop in Windows 95/98 and the resulting law suits. I am no programmer, but wouldn't the performance of a desktop system written to support java script etc. be lower than that of a regular written desktop? So, in the worst case it would slow down the whole system.

Re:Somehow familliar (3, Interesting)

haakondahl (893488) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945459)

This strangely reminds me of Microsofts Desktop in Windows 95/98 and the resulting law suits. I am no programmer, but wouldn't the performance of a desktop system written to support java script etc. be lower than that of a regular written desktop? So, in the worst case it would slow down the whole system.
Regarding speed, I don't think it's an issue.

First, all computers wait at the same speed, and presumably the point here is to accomplish something heavily dependent on the network. Even the best network (in my experience) winds up being the limiting factor.

Second, the applications are not likely to depend on the speed of the processor for much, in the user's experience. Now obviously, if we're using bloated software like Word to accomplish what notepad could do, we'll feel the hit. On the other hand, I'm consistently frustrated by the sloth of OO apps. So if FIrefox offers an equally slow solution that is better integrated, I say it's a winner.

Of course, I haven't RTFA, as it is FSD'ed.

Re:Somehow familliar (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945629)

First, all computers wait at the same speed, and presumably the point here is to accomplish something heavily dependent on the network. Even the best network (in my experience) winds up being the limiting factor.

"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not"
Winnie The Pooh

Modern computers don't make everything "wait" for something to happen. They multitask. Even modern browsers (Opera, IE, Safari) multitask. Firefox doesn't.

For Firefox, loading of several files over the network is a Very Important Thing, and it'll just hang in mid-action waiting for the network to say something. That's pretty bad.

JavaScript has no concept of threads. Also it has no concept of security, apart from the "100% trusted" or "100% not-trusted" sandbox.

It'll be very funny to watch this project fail into obscurity, for those interested. I'm not.

Re:Somehow familliar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945837)

This isn't where we are now, it's where we're all going; see the MS, Adobe, lazlo and JavaFx frameworks for the proof.

Here's a clue [mozillazine.org]

Re:Somehow familliar (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946077)

This isn't where we are now, it's where we're all going; see the MS, Adobe, lazlo and JavaFx frameworks for the proof.

Here's a clue [mozillazine.org]


This is not where we're going. With multi-core processors on the table.

I've read the article in your "clue". For me, this clue just shows the Firefox team is clueless, and that's why I've given up any hope on it.

Lazlo is just a failed open-source version of Flex-like framework. They open-sourced it since they couldn't sell it.

Microsoft .NET and JavaFX are full-blown languages with great idea of what a thread is, and they are multi-core ready from the onset.

Adobe's AIR is just a way to publish your web work as a desktop gadget. They recognize the lack of threads as a serious problem and actually just a month ago Adobe released a new version of Flash Player 9 that has split the engine into multiple threads that takes advantage of multi-core CPU-s. Don't be surprized if the next Flash Player adds multi-thread support in the user space as well (i.e. ablity to spawn threads in ActionScript).

So this is where we are ACTUALLY going. Firefox will see their mistakes one day, but it'll be too late.

Re:Somehow familliar (1)

Courageous (228506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946479)

Lazlo is just a failed open-source version of Flex-like framework. They open-sourced it since they couldn't sell it.

You are, of course, aware that Adobe is open sourcing Flex, also?

Anyway, I like Flex.

Joe.

Re:Somehow familliar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946493)

> For me, this clue just shows the Firefox team is clueless

So the guy who created javascript is clueless?

If things go to plan, Adobe and Mozilla will be both be using Tamarin to host the next major ECMAScript revision (Javascript 3).

> So this is where we are ACTUALLY going.

I thought the article was clear, ECMAscript will not use threads to implement coroutines.

Re:Somehow familliar (1)

MrDrBob (851356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946485)

An application written in JavaScript has to be parsed and interpreted through a VM, which takes both CPU time and memory. Native applications (typically written in C on Linux) have no need to be parsed, interpreted, or run through a VM, and so will consume less CPU time and memory. If your window manager (a pretty important part of your desktop) is in JavaScript, things are going to render more slowly, and we all know that Firefox isn't the most efficient browser out there. (Interesting how the people who regularly spite Firefox about memory leakage don't seem to be apparent in this discussion.)

SUE!!!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945433)

How dare they??????

Re:SUE!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945793)

Microsoft will likely patent this, innovate it into Vista+1 (7), and then use those patents to threaten the Pyro project for coming up with the ideas in the first place.

First read (3, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945435)

right alongside desktop apps (through compositing).

At first I thought that said through composting. Guess you'd have to call that organic computing.

On a serious note....Instead, trusted Web sites and extensions are given access to the full range of interactivity and control enjoyed by native applications today.

The "trust" issue would loom very large in that statement. Provides some interesting possibilities all the same.

Re:First read (1)

someone300 (891284) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945507)

As much as it makes me uneasy, potentially it's not that much less secure than downloading and running those random closed source shareware apps from download.com, and probably just as secure as providing your credit card info to a trusted site over the internet.

But yeah... something about it scares me. Not sure what...

Re:First read (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945583)

The "trust" issue would loom very large in that statement.

Given FireFox's history of security issues, I would tend to agree.

Re:First read (2, Insightful)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945691)

Instead, trusted Web sites and extensions are given access to the full range of interactivity and control enjoyed by native applications today.

Yeah, I don't like the sound of this either. Seems like a two-level trust scheme: trusted websites have access to everything.

One of the design flaws in present day GUIs (including all the X11-based GUIs for Linux) is that one malicious application can compromise the entire GUI if it can open a window. This is true even if you take the sensible step of running untrusted applications as another user: you still have to give them access to your display, so (for example) a compromised Firefox can still act as a global keylogger even if it's running as nobody. There are ways to avoid this in X11 (using Xnest for example) but these are rarely used because they don't integrate well with other applications.

Is that design flaw now being extended to include web applications loaded from a possibly compromised remote server? Written in Javascript, which has proved notoriously hard to secure? Sounds nasty. Secure sandboxing should be built into every level of both the OS and GUI design so that nothing has to be "trusted".

Re:First read (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945815)

Present day is an amusing adjective to apply to X11.

Re:First read (1)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945869)

I just included that so as to make it clear that this design flaw is not confined to Windows/OS X.

Re:First read (1)

nnm.one (1103799) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945829)

We will soon get XSELinux at least =), I just hope that the Ubuntu developers get off their asses and start integrating it when it's released.

Informative parent (1)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946035)

I am glad to hear that someone is working on a real solution to this problem, because many people do not even seem to be aware of it. XSELinux sounds like exactly what is needed. More information here [beasts.org] .

ARG! POPUPS! (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946179)

Agree with your comments.

The whole thing sounds to me like running web applications as popups that are exactly like the locally run application windows, both in appearance and in all, or most, of the infrastructure behind them.

I can't think of a better way to assist malicious web apps in fooling the user by removing any clue that they're not something local and innocuous.

A phisher's dream.

bad idea (1)

wolfgang_spangler (40539) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945471)

Didn't we decide this was a bad idea when MS did it? They might not have done it as completely as pyro, but that just sounds like a bad idea.

I can't of course RTFA at the moment due to the flames rolling out of the webserver it is on.

Re:bad idea (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945667)

Didn't we decide this was a bad idea when MS did it?

We? Mr. Gates is this you?

Re:bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946765)

Didn't we decide this was a bad idea when MS did it?

We? Mr. Gates is this you?
Mr. Gates probably still thinks it's a good idea. Anything that hurts the competition and sets in vendor lock in is Gates's and Ballmer's definition of a good idea.

I wonder how long it will take Microsoft to patent the features in Pyro...

Re:bad idea (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945881)

Didn't we decide this was a bad idea when MS did it?

No, I think we decided that it was a bad idea because MS was doing it - and was using it as an excuse for locking Windows users into IE and its capacity for "embracing and extending" web standards.

Actually, years before that we "decided" that web apps in general were a bad idea when Sun/Oracle touted their java-based thin client/Network Computer idea. I think that died, mainly, because the question was always "yes, but will it run Word for Windows and browse IE/Netscape only websites?"

Until the pyro people have put the magic smoke back into their server, its hard to even ask the right questions, but hopefully when they say "Firefox" they imply lots of standards-compliant goodness that left the applications portable across Firefox/Gecko, Webkit/KHTML or even (roll of thunder) Internet Explorer.

If anything, the Active Desktop idea was ahead of its time - back in 1995 you ran applications on your desktop, one of which was a networked hypertext reader called a "web browser" (even dynamic/data driven websites were very much "turn based") so it was far from clear why the two needed merging. In these days of AJAX and "Web 2.0" [Drops $2 into the industry buzzword swear box] the distinction between applications and web apps is blurring, and web-based technologies (Java, AJAX, Flash, DHTML) are becoming more attractive as (potentially OS-agnostic) application platforms.

One of the problems with the X Window system is that the central idea - network transparent GUI rendering - is past its sell-by date and only minimally usable with Gnome/KDE apps (I usually end up using xnest - at which point you might as well use a java VNC client in a browser...) - the cost difference between a client device smart enough to run an X server and a "thin client" capable of doing most of the GUI-related processing locally is too minimal.

These things take a few false starts to get going - I remember computer magazine front pages back in the 80s proclaiming that "The Year of Unix on the Desktop Has Arrived" - not to mention a Phillips brochure from about 1975 saying how we would have flat-screen TVs to hang on our wall like pictures Real Soon Now.

Re:bad idea (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945937)

Actually, I think we decided it was a bad idea when we figured out that running an OS, then an window manager, then an application, then an (web)OS, then a (web)window manager, then the intended (web)application is horribly inefficient, and not one bit easier to program for. In fact, it's rather constricting.

I think people are seeing how easy GUI is to do in HTML/XHTML and trying to take advantage of that, but in doing so are making it more complicated. It would be a lot smarter to make an add-on for an existing GUI system (QT or GTK or whatever, it doesn't really matter) and making it easy to program for in that way. I'm a KDE person, but I'd want it on GTK for the open-source-y-ness of it, rather than built on the proprietary QT. (Yes, it's 'free' under some circumstances... But not all. I'll take my 'freedom' with fewer strings, please.)

Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945485)

Tamarin will make XULRunner a viable platform for app development, extending this to a desktop environment is an interesting and logical idea.

The apps themselves become relatively lightweight (javascript, XML and CSS) while the runtime does all the work. It's not so different from the fabled Java desktop but will probably be easier to develop for and it appears to be the way application development is going anyway.

They should move to Fx3 pronto and make a demo ISO based on DSL or something.

Haven't we done this before? (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945517)

Wasn't this done with MS in Windows 98, the Active Desktop? See how well that worked? Why would anyone want this?

Re:Haven't we done this before? (4, Insightful)

aminorex (141494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945523)

On this interpretation, we should never use artificial intelligence because of Clippy.

Re:Haven't we done this before? (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945769)

Wasn't this done with MS in Windows 98, the Active Desktop? See how well that worked? Why would anyone want this?

That was done in 1998. It was early Web 1.0, and people didn't dig web stuff so much. But now, it's different. There are plenty of uses for a web based desktop, and to quote their site:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@pyrodesktop.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


I think Microsoft is totally shaking in their boots at the thought of Pyro: just consider, a connected, integrated, web desktop. It's just like .NET 3.0 except it's much slower, much less secure and runs on JavaScript. Complete winner!

Re:Haven't we done this before? (2, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945995)

I don't know, but (the article is /.ted) but it sounds more like MS's HTAs - their web-as-a-desktop-app system. (HTA = Hypertext Application). They used IE as a client front end to a local (or remote) web application. It was hosted in IE but without titlebar, buttons etc. It also ran in an increased security environment (as you'd expect a desktop app to interact with the filesystem, for example, that normal web apps hosted in a 'normal' browser would not get acess to).

It semed like a good idea, and enabled you to write desktop/web applications, but it never quite caught on, MS moved to Jav, sorry .NET, and lost interest in it.

Active Desktop was just a way of putting content on your dekstop instead of a static image. I think it was a little before its time due to everyone using dial-up modems instead of always-on broadband. If someone did it today, we'd have the advantage of a lot of experience in using web applications, faster networking and better security. Imagine what it could be in an Ubuntu environment, it could easily be a new desktop paradigm that makes Window's taskbar-based system look old and boring.

Convergence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945539)

Wow, this is a pretty cool concept. I think there are some security questions that need to be answered, but it looks like the right direction for driving the web/desktop model to new heights.

I was just reading a similar blog post about the transition of web2.0 to web3.0 and that guy was saying that a similar thing needed to happen to power up the apps.

That is an interesting read too. http://creduware.com/blog/2007/07/21/when-will-web -20-die/ [creduware.com]

Security Nightmare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945545)

This sounds like a security nightmare. Think Internet Explorer bad.

From their web site: trusted Web sites and extensions are given access to the full range of interactivity and control enjoyed by native applications today.

Thanks, but not for me.

Symphony OS Anyone? (2, Interesting)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945547)

Re:Symphony OS Anyone? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946427)

http://www.symphonyos.com/cms/ [symphonyos.com]
YEP.

See also ByzantineOS (Mozilla Desktop) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945577)

This idea has been around for a little while. See the ByzantineOS [sourceforge.net] has had releases on Distrowatch since 2003 [distrowatch.com] .

It was a pretty cool idea. Basically the whole desktop is a web browser and you write apps as XUL extensions. There is possibly a future in this as corporate and institutional thin client platforms to run custom apps.

Bad naming. (1)

mxf8bv (118038) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945585)

This is already the third project called pyro.
"Python Remote Objects" http://pyro.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
and "Python Robotics" http://pyrorobotics.org/ [pyrorobotics.org]
and possibly there are even more.

Lack of network: Failure? (1)

theolein (316044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945587)

In order to head off claims that this environment would be useless if network connections were down, I should point out, that in modern business and private settings, having no network is almost as bad. In other words, being dependent on the network is probably not a liability.

Re:Lack of network: Failure? (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945759)

Still it wouldn't hurt to have Fluxbox with a few offline apps as backup anyway.

Re:Lack of network: Failure? (1)

MrDrBob (851356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946517)

People's applications should be able to run fine without network — that's what we've got NetworkManager for. Saying that people can't work without network and then using this as an excuse to depend completely on a network connection's a bad idea. I do hope this is not what you mean.

Site is already slashdotted :D (0, Redundant)

hebertrich (472331) | more than 7 years ago | (#19945639)

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@pyrodesktop.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

ROFL

Why this is cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945695)

It's more about that they're using popular languages that people know (HTML, CSS, Javascript) to do things that traditionally were done by unpopular languages (C, Python, etc.)

Now before you flame me about calling those languages unpopular all I mean is that not as many programmers know them, I don't mean to insult anyones language.

So Pyro (although I don't think it'll go anywhere) has some good ideas about simplifying and opening up the linux desktop to more developers, and that's something that should be applauded.

Re:Why this is cool (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946335)

It's more about that they're using popular languages that people know (HTML, CSS, Javascript) to do things that traditionally were done by unpopular languages (C, Python, etc.)

Now before you flame me about calling those languages unpopular all I mean is that not as many programmers know them
Um, but surely people who know HTML and CSS but not a conventional programming language like C or Python are not programmers - they are web site developers. (Now, before you flame me, I'm not saying that they're inferior, I'm just saying they're different.)

The people who write the code that drives web apps are programmers, but they all know languages like Ruby, PHP, Java, and so forth. That's what they use to write web apps in the first place. You can't use AJAX if there's no server for you to send your AJAX requests to, and the code running on that server is not written in HTML. It could theoretically be written in Javascript, of course, but that's pretty rare, if it happens at all. Why? Probably because more programmers know languages like PHP and Python than know Javascript...

Basically, I do not believe there is any significant number of people who are capable of using Javascript to do more than copy and paste trivial scripts, but do not know any other programming language. Yes, Javascript can be used to write complex applications; but my point is that the people who are capable of doing that are also capable of using conventional tools for the same purpose, so while this project might indeed enable some interesting new applications, it is unlikely that there will be many people capable of developing with it who would not be equally capable of developing without it.

not as many programmers know them? (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946361)

To really "know" your favorite languages (HTML, CSS, Javascript) is quite rare. Lots of us can get some minor thing half-way working on one browser. Writing solid code is not at all a trivial task; very few people can manage. Not even Google always gets it right.

While I've seen some very buggy and unportable C code, fixing one platform doesn't tend to break all the others as is the case with the web stuff.

Coral got it (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19945993)

Yay for coral! [nyud.net]

Internet Explorer (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946013)

Huh? What's this? For Linux users who wish they were running Windows?

This site has ceased to be! (0, Offtopic)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946043)

It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This website is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't posten it on slashdot, it wouldn't be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! Its off the twig! Its kicked the bucket,shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-WEBSITE!!

(c) Monty Python, the dead parrot sketch (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946127)

And the website isn't down, it's merely resting. :-)

Per your request. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946229)

If you hadn't posten it on slashdot ...

[My english is better than most other people's german, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]


"posted"

(Unless there's some variant I'm unaware of, perhaps in UK English or a reference to a comedy routine, where "posten" would be proper or humorous in that sentence.)

Your use of English idiom is excelent.

Very Old Idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946055)


Does anyone beyond me remember Workspot [workspot.com] ?

mmm (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946073)

Didn't Microsoft try this with XP and IE??

Look what happened to them..

I will believe it when I see it.

Heh. (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946105)

So, Active Desktop is making a comeback, is it?

"mashup?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946303)

What the fuck is a "mashup" and why is it good?

Memory usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946455)

Firefox is notorious for its memory usage. It has to be restarted a lot so the memory usage can be controlled. Do we really want this for the whole desktop? Login-logout cycles every hour so your box won't swap because your bling-bling desktop system is taking up all of the physical memory?

Desktop environment built on bugs? (2, Interesting)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946461)

Until Firefox can solve some of the many, many bugs still present in it's product, I think that this entire discussion is silly.

Re:Desktop environment built on bugs? (1)

Saurian_Overlord (983144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946637)

Why? Microsoft has been building desktop environments on buggy web browsers for years, and they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.

/. effect (1)

Mazin07 (999269) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946511)

Obviously their webserver is running as a web app from within Firefox, or else it would be able to serve more than 5 simultaneous clients at once.

Slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946555)

Usability and practicality aside... wouldn't scripting your OS in Java just be too slow?

Re:Slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946711)

I would think so. Good thing it's not Java.

GNOME - got a toolkit make a destop from it. (1)

krischik (781389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946575)

Ohh - please no. We had this allready. No, not Active Desktop. I mean GNOME. Got a tookkit for a graphic processor (GIMP) and then think: Why not make hole desktop from it. Stupid idea - just because it works for a graphic processor or bowser it does not mean it will scale up to desktop environemnt. Even after years GNOME is not as stable as KDE. Don't believe me? How about:

Unable to start the settings manager 'gnome-settings-daemon'.
Without the GNOME settings manager running, some preferences may not take effect. This could indicate a problem with Bonobo, or a non-GNOME (e.g. KDE) settings manager may already be active and conflicting with the GNOME settings manager.


There is a damm lot more to a desktop environment then pretty looks. It look easy at the beginning and sounds like a great idea but becomes quite complex over time. And in the end you have a mess like GNOME. And it is a mess: gtk, cairo, pango, bonobo and no common line.

Martin

Re:GNOME - got a toolkit make a destop from it. (1)

MrDrBob (851356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946615)

You sir, have no idea of what you're talking about. Quoting an error message with no context means nothing. Do you even know what GTK, Pango, Cairo and Bonobo are? What's a "common line"?

Re:GNOME - got a toolkit make a destop from it. (1)

krischik (781389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946767)

You sir, have no idea of what you're talking about. Quoting an error message with no context means nothing.
It was not meant to be a bug report - it was meant as an example for a bug which appeart on my system and won't go away. Actulay it also appeared once on my solaris system. Solution: delete all setup directories.

Bottom Line: The setup system of GNOME is not stable. Smallest mistake in your files and BANG!

Do you even know what GTK, Pango, Cairo and Bonobo are? What's a "common line"?
A single download side with a single directory per version would be a good start. And yes I know them: From time to time I need compile Gtk+ from scratch and it is hell you get a set of fitting version together from all the different sites. And this is just Gtk - I don't even want to know what trouble one is in when one wants to create a hole GNOME.

On the other hand: If KDE anounces a new release I go to kde.org and everthing is there. Sourcecode or binaries and a unified subversion archive. KDE is just one project with a common line and not a humble jumble of dozend half independent projects.

Martin

Discussion on someone's blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946581)

There's been some vocal discussion about Pyro on someone's blog (http://squeedlyspooch.com/blog/archives/002095.ht ml [squeedlyspooch.com] ), which is probably relevant to this article.

Download and try .. still up and running. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19946589)

http://pyrodesktop.org/releases/compzilla-0.1.xpi [pyrodesktop.org]

the wiki part is /. but the install / download still works.

Hmm... (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946591)

This just sounds like its follwing Microsoft's trend of adding even more layers of middleware to suck down all our CPU time and resources just to do the simplest of tasks.

Version stabilty (1)

krischik (781389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946619)

Got another one: I a desktop evironment you can's just declare plugin "incompatible" from one version to the next - the way firefox does not. A desktop evironment just jsut have to keep compatible with your past.

This is the most stupid idea I heart this year!

Martin

User interactivity? (2, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | more than 7 years ago | (#19946655)

Given that Firefox already has issues with ignoring user input at various times, I guess Pyro will also bring that ability to ignore the user to the Linux desktop, as it has existed in Windows since the beginning?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?