Browsers the next os? 2

[j4606]

I was wondering if you guys think the future os may be run in a web browser. I see so many cool things running off web browsers now its bound to happen I think. Here are a few links to get the topic flowing.

Desktop:

http://extjs.com/deploy/dev/examples/desktop/desktop.html

Paint:

http://www.amaltas.org/svgapp/

mp3 player:

http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/demo/jsAMP-preview/

IRC chat Client:

http://www.mibbit.com/

Google has some examples of online Calendars, email, IM, but what I really like is google docs a web-based word processor and spreadsheet.

http://docs.google.com/

 

[gbaughma]

A browser won't end up being an OS. It's not an OS. An OS (Operating System) does things like file management, responding to user requests, and so forth.

The computer will pretty much always need a BIOS to bootstrap, then an OS of some sort.

It seems like you're talking about a browser as the front end (which is different from being the OS). But I can tell you that I wouldn't be happy with that scenario. I don't *NEED* to be online for probably 90% of what I do. And not everybody has the *ability* to get online.

Plus, even with ActiveX plugins and so forth, there are still some things that are better done as a dedicated program. For example, SoundForge, LightWave, Cakewalk, any *good* video games... require some down-and-dirty twiddle-the-bits programming.

I just don't see that kind of interaction happening with yet another application layer (browser) forcing applications to work through a pre-defined pipelines and procedures that, frankly, would hamper higher-end programs from operating efficiently.



Just my 2¢
-Cole's Law: Shredded cabbage

--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[damber]

Greg, I assume (and hope) your definition of an OS wasn't aimed at me.. I think I clearly describe that point in my post. I think it may be easier to change the word "OS" that j4606 uses for the initial post for "Desktop Environment" - this makes much more sense and for Linux users it makes an obvious separation.

Also, you probably want to read through this bit of my last post:

Secondly, what this is really talking about is separating the execution and hosting environment (the client) from the software and content delivery environment (the server). In other words, the OS will still be there executing software (hopefully based on standards), but it will be delivered the presentation and behaviour 'software' dynamically as needed by the server on demand and most likely cache it until the server tells it there is a newer version available (hey, that sounds familiar... updates anyone?). It will then interact with the server for data content. This is how the browser works now.. it caches images and stylsheets and js files... even pages sometimes.. and importantly, it all executes locally... so what's so hard to believe about this being extended to all applications, if that model isn't already there conceptually anyway ?

So, the future is not necessarily going to be a browser that does hardware interaction and removes the need for an OS, but it is likely that the OS will become merely a shell for hosting an environment that interacts with internet based services/ASP's - so you could kinda think of that as a browser ;-) This is the best of both worlds - the centralisation of your 'stuff' and 'run anywhere' type availability whilst performance and hw interaction capabilities of local apps. It may seem like this is a hybrid, but actually it is the browser model just extended a little to improve local machine access (of course.. this opens up the biggest can of worms.. security!)

A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[SQLDenis]

soon enough an OS will be embedded in a chip (a level down from a Hypervisor)

Denis The SQL Menace
--------------------
SQL Server Code,Tips and Tricks, Performance Tuning
SQLBlog.com, Google Interview Questions

 

[Sympology]

soon enough an OS will be embedded in a chip

You mean like the good old days
Atari / Amiga / Spectrum etc etc...

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[gbaughma]

damber:

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.... just me giving my thoughts (as usual).

I mean, you all know me... I'm so quiet and mousey, that I hardly *EVER* speak my mind. ;-)





Just my 2¢
-Cole's Law: Shredded cabbage

--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[lionelhill]

but it is likely that the OS will become merely a shell for hosting an environment that interacts with internet based services/ASP's"

But isn't that what operating systems began as? A shell that provided the environment for applications programs, of which a web browser is merely an example?

A good operating system is like an old-fashioned Butler. It manages the interface between the hardware and the applications side of things in a silent and efficient manner, and you don't even notice it's there. You only notice it (as we did with Windows when CD recorders came out) when it fails in its duty and we have to buy Nero to handle the one disk that doesn't look like every other disk.

 

[damber]

But isn't that what operating systems began as?

Exactly - unfortunately, that is not the common view of the OS held by many or even how they've now developed.. and in regards to the original post, which describes applications commonly found on the desktop now being made available 'in the cloud', my point is that we're not talking about replacing the hardware 'operating system', instead moving the application level 'desktop environment' to the cloud... at least that's what I took from the original post.

If you break through the Microsoft ideology of Operating Systems, and consider alternatives where the desktop environment is removable/replacable it makes it a little easier to consider it moving back to being 'just' a shell for hosting the cloud based environment.



A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[strongm]

>You mean like the good old days
>Atari / Amiga / Spectrum etc etc..

<fx: checks Kickstart disk, checks Workbench disk> No, my Amiga OS definitely came on disks ...

 

[damber]

strongm, I'm jealous - I would love to still have my Amiga to play with, and my amstrad come to that

A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[Sympology]

Gosh I always thought the Amigam was Chip based. No wonder it was never as good as the Amiga.

(Hee hee, who needs a crappy Linux vs Windows war when we can reignite the Atari vs Amiga battles)...


Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[lionelhill]

... call me a Luddite, but I still feel the good old days had their good side.

The original Lyons corner-shop computer (variation on EDSAC I believe) had a processing speed measured in kHz, a memory less than 10K, but successfully achieved the entire business-computing needs of a major organisation - pay-roll, stock-control - everything - and was used to out-source administration from other large companies.

Sometimes I feel the modern approach is so abstracted that we don't get the best out of our hardware. Development time is expensive, processor time is cheap, but processor time is Watts, and environmental matters are getting more important nowadays. Come back, light-weight user interfaces.

 

[strongm]

>at least that's what I took from the original post.

The OP very specifically says "[do you] guys think the future os may be run in a web browser?

 

[damber]

The OP very specifically says

Do you really believe that is what the OP intended? do a search for 'cloud computing' and descriptions like that are ten a penny, despite contradictory statements within the same articles discussing just taking the desktop environment and apps to the cloud (even storage.. aka s3).

This is usually what is intended when statements like this are made... unfortunately people like to jump on to the 'I know what an OS is and you don't' type bandwagon in response to a poorly worded post.. I think j4606 is smart enough to know the differences. Even if not, since when has "Paint, Calendar, IM, docs,etc" been part of the OS?? at least give the OP the courtesy of questioning their intent rather than trying to belittle their views due to a slightly poorly worded post.



A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[strongm]

Alternatively I suppose what I could have done is ignore the OP, decide what the question ought to have really been, then set up a straw man argument to belittle anyone who pointed out my reinterpretation.

As opposed to what I actually did which was simply to suggest the OP confirm for themselves their understanding of what an OS actually was, which would then enable them to come back and clarify their question if they so desired(which, by the way, they have not as yet done).

 

[damber]

strongm,

unfortunately I have seen many analysts and architects in my time that simply listen to the words, and not understand the meaning behind requirements. What usually follows is ignorant belittlement of the stakeholder making the requests saying "you don't need that.. you don't understand it.. etc"... simply because they haven't understood what is really needed. And when questioned as to why they ignored the "need behind the need" they get very defensive and point fingers else where.

The post before your last was riddled with pedantry - if your mother talks to you about how computers work and describes the way it "saves the information to memory so I can get it back when I turn it back on" - would you say " I suggest you look up what Memory is <smirk>" - or would you say.. "yes, you're right, but the long term storage is called a hard disk - the 'memory' is for short term calculations/storage etc" ? - because you understand what she 'means'

If you really understood that this is a common misrepresentation of the concept as you deftly imply in your last post, you would have agreed with my interpretation and possibly interjected that the OP should reply back with clarification.. instead you've spent the last post and the one before trying to detract from the actual conceptual discussion in play.. simply to back up your original harsh and to some, arrogant reply.

Maybe you would like to talk about the concept that I refer to (and I suspect the OP intends too) to make this a more interesting discussion.. rather than debate minor semantics... ?

I also hope you don't red flag this in spite, as it serves as a good example of how future gazing is very difficult for some people due to the way they approach conceptual thinking - which is what this forum is supposed to be about...

oh, and thankyou for the purple star.. I just know it must have been you ;-)





A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[damber]

on a mildly relevant note, here's an interesting video on web browser architecture and security etc:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H9_mG_yAoTQ

A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!

 

[damber]

Here's an interesting read on how the mozilla guys see the browser developing and "blurring" the edges/definition:

http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9904867-2.html?tag=nefd.only

A smile is worth a thousand kind words. So smile, it's easy!