Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The Web, the Desktop, and the Google between

Chrome OS is Google's proof-of-concept for a future where everything - both data and the programs and services that manipulate them - will live on the wide web. I don’t personally find it a very appealing path either, and the things I’ll be talking about below will probably explain why.

Innovation on the browser has been relatively slow despite there being multiple parties working on it, and the browser today isn’t exactly a fundamentally different creature from the first Netscape browsers that we used – we just got more tabs and better ways of remembering and revisiting favourite sites. The thing that has really been changing and enhancing our web experience is changes in the wide web itself – the evolution from static web pages to having guestbooks and then the appearance of forums and blogs and wikis and now powerful social networks. However, the influence of web-bound technologies will always be rate-limited by hardware – network bandwidth, speed, reliability – as well as Internet availability, which is still atrocious in some countries, and doesn’t look like it’s improving in too much of a hurry. In other words, it’ll probably take a looong time before we have the infrastructural power needed to support a truly ubiquitous computing platform that exclusively relies on web technologies. In yet other words, even if Google wants to diminish the desktop and ‘replace’ it with the browser, it’s not gonna happen soon. So the desktop is gonna be sticking around – what does it do in the meantime? Sit around and wait, maintaining an awkward relationship with the browser?

I think the desktop can do better.




More in Tux Machines

Mir 0.8 Works On Less ABI Breakage, Touchspots, Responsiveness

While Ubuntu 14.10 on the desktop isn't using Mir by default, Mir 0.8.0 is being prepared for release by Canonical and it has a number of interesting changes. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Mozilla Wants to Save the Open Web, but is it Too Late?

Again, I think this is absolutely correct. But what it fails to recognise is that one of the key ways of making the Web medium "less free and open" is the use of legally-protected DRM. DRM is the very antithesis of openness and of sharing. And yet, sadly, as I reported back in May, Mozilla has decided to back adding DRM to the Web, starting first with video (but it won't end there...) This means Mozilla's Firefox is itself is a vector of attack against openness and sharing, and undermines its own lofty goals in the Open Web Fellows programme. Read more

Open source is starting to make a dent in proprietary software fortunes

Open source has promised to unseat proprietary competitors for decades, but the cloud may make the threat real. Read more