
Google Predicts Rise of Web OS in 2011 - lotusleaf1987
http://gigaom.com/cloud/google-predicts-rise-of-web-os-in-2011/
======
Qz
It's funny to me that Web OS is being heralded as 'the thing for the future'
when all we've really done is reinvent the terminal.

~~~
haberman
Terminals did not have:

* a client-side data structure (the DOM) and rendering engine that can be manipulated by a client-side platform-independent language/VM. Modern web applications would not be possible without this.

* a persistence model (cookies) that allows users to behave as if they have a long-lived session with the application, when in fact they are communicating over a stateless protocol and may be getting directed to different servers every time. One instance of the web server can crash; this does not interrupt the session.

* a link structure that allows applications to effortlessly direct users to other applications in a user-friendly way.

* a security model that lets different applications interoperate, allowing them to exchange data, delegate authentication, or embed parts of one application into another.

* an application loading/launching system where a user can type a short string that they saw on the side of a truck into their browsing application and be instantly running an application that is hosted literally anywhere in the world.

We haven't "reinvented" anything, we took an idea that saw limited success due
to numerous practical limitations and evolved a better version of it that
scales to billions of users and millions of applications.

It's like saying "it's funny to me that going to the moon is being heralded as
'the thing for the future' when all we've really done is reinvent the
biplane."

------
WiseWeasel
Yes, as the first and only vendor of web-only OSs, Google predicts that the
segment will rise. In other news, Microsoft predicts the rise of touch-
friendly smartphones that don't render HTML5, and Apple predicts the rise of
tablets with a single button on their face. In fact, all of these segments are
likely to rise from "some" to "some + some more" in 2011.

------
dstein
Google is only fooling themselves if they think people want to live in a
totalitarian computing paradigm. Network computing is obviously the future,
but it will be democratized, decentralized, and multi-platform. Google may
supply applications for this environment, but they will in no way be the
gatekeeper of all our I/O.

~~~
zephyrfalcon
You are implying that Google wants people to have a "totalitarian computing
paradigm", that they oppose network computing being "democratized,
decentralized, and multi-platform", and that they want to be "the gatekeeper
of all our I/O". Where in the article exactly do they make these claims?

~~~
dstein
_Google Apps, App Engine, Chrome OS, Chrome Browser and Android_ is a
vertically integrated computing platform where:

* my development is done on AppEngine

* my operating system is replaced with Google's web browser

* my information is stored in Google docs

* my files are on a Google filesystem

* my applications run on Google's infrastructure

* all my phone calls, search, and interactivity is done through my Android smartphone

Google is systematically building an environment where every byte of data I
consume will flow through Google's network.

~~~
zephyrfalcon
Offering these services != locking you in, or locking competitors out. You can
pick all, any or none of them. Competitors can and will offer alternatives.

~~~
dstein
_You can pick all, any or none of them._

No you can't. In ChromeOS you cannot replace the filesystem, native
applications, and web browser with non-Google alternatives. This is the exact
opposite of an open platform.

~~~
axod
Not sure what you quite mean here.

The platform, is the web. Which is completely open - you can install and run
any webapp you wish.

I think you're still thinking in the 'old' terms, where computers have local
filesystems and native applications. Forget about those, they're just firmware
like the BIOS.

~~~
dstein
_The platform, is the web. Which is completely open - you can install and run
any webapp you wish._

The web is open, agreed. But you're going to have to explain to me how I can
read or write a file on a ChromeOS without Google knowing what is read or
written.

Then, if Google's infrastructure is required for I/O, please explain how this
is not totalitarian computing.

~~~
dstein
_If you don't trust google, then that's another matter._

What do you mean "another" matter? This is "the" matter. In an open computing
platform I don't have to "just trust" anybody.

~~~
axod
Yes you do, you have to trust the chip makers, the BIOS maker, the network
interface card maker, your ISP, your router etc etc

Any one of those could be screwing with you.

~~~
dstein
_you have to trust the chip makers, the BIOS maker, the network interface card
maker_

So, what you're saying is we might as well just give up, and purposely store
all our data on Google's file servers and give up all data and information
privacy, because all network chip manufacturers and internet providers are
already sniffing all our data?

------
jawee
Note... webOS != Web OS.

~~~
davidcuddeback
Thanks. That was confusing me.

------
tybris
There's not even a half-decent open file system for the web yet. I can store
my files on my desktop and open them with any application, put them in Dropbox
and open them in any computer. Before you have that (and many, many other
things), web applications that are on par with Desktop applications remain a
dream. As they have been for the past 15 years.

~~~
axod
Files don't make as much sense on the web as on the desktop.

I'm not sure we really need the concept of a 'file system' in the coming web
era.

As long as you have the ability to move your data around, eg 'export photos
from flickr to facebook', adding some file system only complicates matters.

~~~
stcredzero
Right now, I am in a bit of a personal computing utopia. I've maxed out the
ram of my 2 year old Macbook and installed an SSD. Now, the only wait I have
that's longer than 1 second is for network stuff and most things are instant.

This gets me wondering: what if we made everything orthogonally persistent in
the cloud and used the 200 GB of local storage as a cache? There wouldn't be
any notion of a hard disk. Instead, I'd have 200GB of persistent RAM
(simulated by about 8GB of dynamic RAM, backed by 200GB of MLC Flash) directly
synced with the cloud.

I would never have to think about saving anything to disk. I'd just have "My
Apps" and "My Data." They'd just always be there, forever. If I ever lost my
laptop, so long as I have network, they'd still be there, just everything
would run slower for a few days. This is a far cry, even from the Cr-48. Such
a machine wouldn't even need to boot. [1] Everything would just always be
there. (Apps would have to be rewritten to eliminate the notion of the disk.)

Clearly, we already have the hardware and software to support this. At this
point, it's just a matter of putting it all together. This would take some
serious engineering, but whoever succeeded would basically be the next
Microsoft.

[1] - An easier way to accomplish this would be to maintain a small boot
partition, but use the majority of the SSD for 200GB of swap. The kernel would
have to be changed so that local swap is treated as a cache for pages stored
in the cloud. This prevents us from having to engineer error correction
directly in RAM. This would only be a stopgap, however, as eliminating the
notion of a hard disk entirely would have significant benefits.

~~~
pyre

      > If I ever lost my laptop, so long as I have network, they'd still
      > be there, just everything would run slower for a few days.
    
    

* It would also always be there for governments and corporations to spy on.

* It would also always be there to some extent even if you tried to delete the data (archived by design or by request of government/corporation).

* It would also make it that much easier for governments/corporations to secretly data-mine everyone's data for suspicion of subversive thoughts

... etc

~~~
axod
Those are pretty much the same point - privacy. Which most people aren't _too_
worried about.

~~~
mdwrigh2
And if you're really concerned with this, haven't we generally solved this
problem? Pass the information back and forth completely encrypted and only
store the key locally. I mean, obviously the problem is far more difficult
than that, but there's no reason we can't have data stored "in the cloud",
while maintaining some privacy of information.

I suppose what I really should say instead of "we've solved this" is that
storing things "in the cloud" doesn't necessarily mean you give up all rights
to privacy. There has to be some middle ground here.

