
A Web OS? Are You Dense? - joao
http://teddziuba.com/2008/09/a-web-os-are-you-dense.html
======
jacobscott
The ratio of hot air to righteous anger in this rant is too high. Concrete
points Dziuba makes:

a) Chrome is only out for Windows

b) Web applications can be more resource intensive than desktop apps

Is there anyone reading Hacker News who wasn't aware of these points? With
WebKit/V8/etc, Chrome essentially acts as the language runtime, so the
software stack he draws doesn't even get any taller (once the browser releases
for all OSes).

~~~
wheels
The other important point, hit right up there at the front is: desktop apps
aren't going away anytime soon.

It's been a real ride for me coming back into the web world after about 6
years of working on enterprise and desktop apps. Everyone in the web world
seems to think we're just on the cusp of everything moving over to the web.
Which is pretty much what they were saying when I was working in web
programming 7 years ago. To the rest of the universe, desktop apps are still
mainstays of day-to-day computing and while there is a shift, it's much more
gradual than people in the web business seem to assume.

Amusingly, this phenomenon is not all that different from what folks working
in the Linux desktop have been assuming since I got into that some 8 years
ago: that _this_ is the year of the Linux desktop. It's about to tip any day
now...

~~~
goodness
In the case of the linux desktop, I have to say that I think it is a lot
closer than 8 years ago. I have tried installing Linux at many points over the
last 8 years or so. I have always abandoned it because configuring hardware
took too much work. I recently installed Ubuntu 8.04 on 3 different machines,
including a brand new Dell laptop, and the install worked flawlessly on each.
Most importantly, every piece of hardware I've tried worked with basically no
configuration - sound card, internal microphone, wireless, and graphics card.
I did install a new driver for the Nvidia graphics card, but this was mostly
optional. Also, when I've needed to tweak settings or install the new driver
for the video card, I've done it through a GUI rather than the command line
and various cryptic config files.

Installing software through Synaptic is also awesome. This is one place where
Linux now actually excels over Windows. Of course, I haven't actually needed
to install anything that's not in synaptic yet.

~~~
eru
You can usually just add repositories to get almost anything into Synaptic.

Compiling on your own does not need more than calling configure and make in
most cases, though.

------
startingup
Let me list the ways that Chrome starts to encroach on the OS territory.

1\. It has a fast Javascript VM, that converts Javascript into native code,
cutting through lots of layers.

2\. Each Javascript app (i.e a tab) runs in its own process, which the browser
manages. So effectively Chrome _is_ the OS layer as far as your JS apps is
concerned.

3\. The browser provides a nice control panel for managing those tasks and
provides stats about its usage - again tradtionally what you wanted from an
OS.

4\. Chrome is not yet cross-platform, but we can expect it to be cross
platform in due course. It is open source with a BSD license, so I am guessing
lots of people have already started compiling it to every platform on earth.
Expect unofficial distros soon.

5\. Layering Chrome on top of a very stripped down Linux or BSD kernel,
letting Chrome do all the GUI work is possible. Chrome does not need MFC, it
is layered directly on top of a lower level graphics library (Win32). The
calls Chrome needs could be done on top of BSD fairly easily. In fact, that is
how Chrome (or Firefox for that matter) is really cross-platform - they come
with their own widget sets (i.e MFC equivalent) rather than relying on the
specific platform's widget set. Incidentally, Java does the exact same thing.

6\. OEMs could come up with a 20-30 MB distribution of Chrome, with everything
included (kernel, libraries, JS, Flash etc) and bundle it as a web top.

So, yes, Chrome _is_ an alternative to traditional operating systems. The fact
that it would include a stripped down BSD kernel doesn't count: from the
application perspective Chrome _is_ the OS.

Snark is all fine and dandy, but occasionally exercising the brain cells a
little bit keeps them in good working order.

~~~
blasdel
_WRONG_

I think most of this 'WebOS' bullshit was kicked off by web-dilettante Jason
Kottke, and it's even more ridiculous this time around, because Chrome is the
least OS-like modern web browser yet made (and Firefox would be the most OS-
like by far).

Chrome is not trying to be the operating system, it's trying to get out of its
way. By using a shared-nothing separate process for each tab and plugin, it's
letting the Kernel and libc do the job they were designed to do.

Most modern browsers (especially FF3) are trying to do an operating system's
job — scheduling logically independent processes, micro-managing memory
allocations, mapping virtual memory, providing an internal windowing system,
providing an internal GUI scripting system. The whole point of an 'operating
system' is to present a lot of layers.

Chrome does none of these things. It parries them off to the real operating
system, where they belong — instead of adding another five nested layers on
top of the pile of indirection.

~~~
scott_s
You said something similar in the other thread, but from the horse's mouth,
[http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-
documents/process-...](http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-
documents/process-models):

"Web content has evolved to contain significant amounts of active code that
run within the browser, making many web sites more like applications than
documents. This evolution has changed the role of the browser into an
operating system rather than a simple document renderer. Unlike current
browsers, Chromium is built like an operating system to run these applications
in a safe and robust way, using multiple OS processes to isolate web sites
from each other and from the browser itself."

------
axod
It's all in definitions. For a lot of people, the web is already their O/S,
and they could easily do without windows/OSX/linux.

I think we will see more machines that go that way and just have a bare bones
linux o/s with chrome/firefox on top of it.

Sure, desktop software will always be around, for techies and hardcore gamers,
but for the average non-tech user, they don't really need desktop software,
and webapps are more natural and useful for them. (Tons of advantages to
them).

I think some people are underestimating just how much google can throw at
chrome in terms of marketing. They already have a link on google.com, and
there's a ton of other ways they can promote it.

I think "Windows killer" is unwarranted, but it'll most likely make windows
even less relevant than it is now to most people.

------
collint
The argument about percentage for use/knowledge of web-based office apps does
not support the article.

To clarify, I'll put another app's name in the same percentage.

There was a time when 73% of Americans had never even heard of Youtube.

As long as more than 73% of Americans have heard of Youtube this statement is
quite likely true.

While Youtube clearly had a wonderful growth curve, both are horribly useless
statements. Just as the knowledge of Youtube was low until it became high,
knowledge of Google Docs will be low until it becomes high. Or it could stay
low forever. But the current percentage/growth rate doesn't actually mean
anything.

------
kajecounterhack
I think he needs to make one thing clear:

CHROME IS A BROWSER. <http://xkcd.com/198/>

------
jrockway
I don't think that desktop apps are going anywhere -- but web apps are going
to look a lot more like desktop apps very very soon.

I think it's safe to say that applications written in dynamic languages (like
Javascript) that communicate with the Internet regularly are going to become
more common. And a lot of these apps are going to run in something like Chrome
or XULRunner.

A "desktop app" is a pretty simple distinction. You go to your "desktop" and
load the app. From there, the app can read/write the file system, talk to the
Internet, read the keyboard and mouse, communicate with special hardware
devices, etc. Web apps are going to be very much like this very soon. And then
there will be no difference between a web app and a desktop app.

~~~
jbert
> And then there will be no difference between a web app and a desktop app.

So why choose to write a "web app" in that case? What distinguishes the two -
what is the defining characteristic of a web app? (One comes on a CD, one is
downloaded - no) (One is written in C++, one is written in a vm-hosted
language - no).

Is it just that you use HTML/JS to write the app?

~~~
jrockway
One distinguishing factor is that the "authoritative" copy of the data is on
"the server", not on your disk. Web apps may not have full functionality
unless connected to the 'net. (Think about how apps that use Gears work now.)

~~~
jbert
That's an interesting criterion, but there are plenty of "traditional" desktop
apps who keep data server side (any thin-client DB program using ODBC,
subversion clients, etc).

Even IMAP email clients I suppose.

So is a web app "something which keeps primary data on a server, and uses the
HTTP protocol to read+write it"?

------
alaskamiller
TechCrunch also believes that Facebook is becoming a Web OS as well.

------
maxklein
This is not relevant. The layers are not really built on top of each other in
that way. Windows is mostly just a collection of libraries which do important
stuff. If you did not have this libraries, you'd have to write the libraries.
So this is not a layer you can remove, it's an essential part of the
application.

Things like the Java VM are a real layer, but things like MFC (which chrome
does not use, it uses WTL) do not really slow things down or act as a real
layer. They compile down to the same code as if you were to do this by
yourself.

And anyways, what's the point? We should stop writing web apps?

------
sown
I think I can understand the author's frustration. While it might be just
definitions unless we are willing to divest the word operating systems of all
its meaning, I think we need to be really sure that we need a web version of
word.

I can see some kind of apps requiring to live "in the cloud" but I don't think
desktop apps need to live there.

~~~
froo
_we need a web version of word_

I thought we already had a web version of the word - "web portal"

Google as far as I can tell is already essentially a "web OS" (I think they
lost their rights to call themselves a just a search engine a long time ago)
and Chrome is just Google's attempt to integrate their "web OS" more readily
with your computer/device.

~~~
sown
I meant more like "Microsoft Word". :)

~~~
froo
Zoho Writer, Google Docs, Adobe Buzzword etc.

~~~
unalone
Yeah, but each one has pretty big flaws with it. None directly compare yet.

~~~
froo
I guess that's what happens when you have 25 years of development time in a
product (Word was originally released in 1983 called _Multi-Tool Word_ ) vs
what... 2 for the rest?

~~~
sown
I guess my only problem is I don't see the point.

I'm probably making a foolish assertion. Perhaps the future will be better or
different but I don't trust any corporation enough to just hand them the
everything over the network.

I hear a lot of talk about "cost" being an advantage but I don't quite see how
"doing it over the network" is going to inherently going to bring costs down.

~~~
froo
_but I don't quite see how "doing it over the network" is going to inherently
going to bring costs down_

It's a simple matter of the economics of scale.

Let's assume it takes 1 IT person per small business and assume there are 1000
businesses. The cost of upgrading and maintaining all those systems is roughly
1000 salaries.

Now if you take those same 1000 businesses and provide them with SaaS
solutions (assuming cost of software will remain consistent between the two
platforms) and say that you have a decent sized team of 50 people, then
assuming the salaries are consistent you're solution is much cheaper.

This is a very simplified way to put it, but should make it clear.

~~~
sown
Interesting.

But what if they starting just charging me out the nose again?

------
extension
The once clear meaning of "operating system" has become vague with today's
software stack, but that's a semantic debate.

The web is undeniably an application _platform_ and in that capacity, it is
improved significantly by Chrome.

The most successful web applications, social and communication apps, would
likely have never existed on the desktop.

There is also a broad class of desktop apps that have no forseeable migration
path to the web such as rich media editing (photo/audio/video/etc) and games.

Which apps will make the leap from desktop to web is a subject ripe for
speculation, but it's not going to be _all_ of them. Such hyperbolic
revolutionary fantasies always go unfulfilled.

------
nuggien
whatever you call it, please respect real operating systems enough NOT to call
chrome an OS.

------
jcromartie
How about the multiple interrelated stacks that make up web app _development_?
That's what's really scary. You've at least got a server OS with its own
kernel, runtimes, HTTP server, database server, application server, web
framework, HTTP, SQL, SSL, HMTL, CSS, JavaScript, the browser itself, jQuery
or other client-side frameworks, web services, etc. etc. etc. ...

It's madness!

------
KevinMS
You know who also thought a web browser could become a replacement for the OS?

Microsoft.

So much so they freaked out and ruined netscape, tried to ruin Real Media, and
tried to extend and extinquish Javascript and Java, and almost got their
company broken up by the government they were so worried about it. And now its
back, and looking like more of a threat than ever.

------
silentbicycle
I'll call it an OS when it boots.

~~~
pavelludiq
I'll call it an os when i can make toast with it:
[http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2005/08/11/toast...](http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2005/08/11/toaster-
pc-runs-bsd-and-makes-toast)

