6 ms·

As much as I appreciate the efforts to build a successful, truly open mobile OS, the "browser as an OS" approach is an incredibly dumb idea. It's another step a

As much as I appreciate the efforts to build a successful, truly open mobile OS, the "browser as an OS" approach is an incredibly dumb idea. It's another step away from general purpose computing, and I don't like this direction one bit. Some people here on HN might not really want to hear this, but web apps aren't the future. You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it. What would interest me more in B2G is whether the Linux base underneath it is fully functional. And not just a slightly advanced "bootloader" for B2G. A fully functional, mostly free GNU/Linux system that gets widespread adoption, even just as a smartphone OS, would be a great blessing to the efforts of the Free Software community.

Someone 15y ago
"Browser-based" does not have to be synonymous with "web apps". You could also see it as giving up control over your local cache of (photos, mails, apps, etc) in exchange for ease of use. This could replace "I want to play Angry Birds, so I download it and then run it" by "I want to play Angry Birds, so I click this button". Then, your device could download the app, if it was not already cached on your device, and run it.
- falling 15y ago
  How does that have anything to do with using a browser or not? Surely you could do the same thing on any other OS.
  - Someone 15y ago
    That's exactly my point. The post I replied to objected to "everything in the browser" because "you cannot put everything on the web". I pointed out that A does not imply B. For example, consider a browser with local storage that allows for running locally stored apps (written in SVG + JavaScript, Flash, NaCl, whatever). Such a device could run games, word processors,cetc, without a network connection.
currywurst 15y ago
I'm also really annoyed by the more locked-down future that the new OS environments are facilitating, but I've been continually amazed at the boundaries "web" apps are pushing (e.g. WebGL, WebAudio )
sabret00the 15y ago
I generally agree with what you say. I'm yet to be won over by the browser as an OS idea, whether from Google or Mozilla and also while Web App might be the future, they're far from the now. That said, Mozilla seems to be really be behind B2G so let's wait and see whether their OS can do everything that ChromeOS has failed to.
arturadib 15y ago
is an incredibly dumb idea Ouch. It's another step away from general purpose computing Not if the web platform itself is taking enormous strides towards general purpose computing, particularly in the mobile realm of B2G: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#New_APIs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#New_APIs In fact, in my opinion the web stack is becoming The Greatest Programming Toolkit Ever Built: http://blog.arturadib.com/the-greatest-programming-toolkit-ever-built-i http://blog.arturadib.com/the-greatest-programming-toolkit-e... It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it. Depends on what you mean by "incredibly simple". If you look at the most popular apps besides games, it's hard to imagine why they can't be implemented in HTML5. As for games, stay tuned. Folks are working hard on it: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet TL;DR: I disagree. The web stack is becoming the greatest general-purpose toolkit ever built. Already it's a great platform choice for building an entire "app" ecosystem on top of, and it's only getting better. DISCLAIMER: Although I'm not in the B2G team, I work for Mozilla. However, the above is strictly my personal opinion.
- alexgartrell 15y ago
  I don't work for Mozilla, don't use Firefox, and am not a front-end developer (I write C). That said, I agree 100% that Apps of the future will be delivered over HTTP to general purpose runtimes that will essentially be browsers (maybe they'll drop the need to wrap everything in chrome, or something). Browsers are increasingly become a dynamic language runtime attached to a powerful graphics rendering library. Make the runtime faster, provide better graphics widgets, and get past this "remote everything with shitty local caching" thing and you've got yourself one hell of a toolkit.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    At which point, the OS isn't doing anything but hooking that runtime to the device drivers, and the natural question will be, "Why shouldn't the browser just be the OS?"
gue5t 15y ago
You're completely right. I don't understand why everyone thinks we need to standardize on the web browser as the one true computing platform either. The sheer overhead involved is so upsetting when you see simple canvas/etc. demos that just chug when running on incredibly powerful computers and see people applauding the effort. Native compilation is too sweet a prize to give up; -webkit-box-shadow, the fucked box model, <video>, <canvas>, and friends are no substitute for a real, efficient software stack that isn't incredibly bloated and underperforming. The sooner HN at large realizes this, the sooner it can get to working on things that are actually new and interesting. The only reason the web is considered the end-all-be-all is because people want to reach "average users" who can't handle installing native software and don't want the inconvenience of maintaining their computers' software. They never will, but that doesn't mean that the future of computing should be decided by the least common denominator of end-users. The current trend in "web technologies" is to implement a wrapper for every native technology. When we finally finish, we'll end up with what can't possibly work better than what we had before, and it'll have taken incredible amounts of effort for programmers to optimize it enough that it's even usable for real jobs (see javascript engines at large). If all that programmers want is a standard software interface, they should construct one, but the browser as an environment has too much cruft from its history as a /content navigation tool/ to be an effective programming environment.
tomjen3 15y ago
Why can't you put everything on the web? Right now it is not powerful enough for 3D rendering but that is mostly a limitation of Javascript and people using old browsers. Other than than I don't see any program which is used by ordinary people today that you couldn't put on the net. Most of them properly already should have been.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  Why can't you put everything on the web? Why would I want to? I really don't see the point of trying to run a real time industrial automation control from a javascript engine inside fire fox. It might be a fun hack but I fail to see any real use.
  - there 15y ago
    Why would you be running a real time industrial automation control from a phone? This is about making mobile phones and tablets that have the ability to run web browsers, not replacing all computers with web browsers.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    Well obviously you need someway to write to the physical wires and if true real-time is required you will have to skip Javascript, but I can't see the issue with having the user facing part of the system be a webapp -- in fact it would properly be easier to do and would be safer too since the system is better walled of from things like viruses and malware.
azakai 15y ago
> You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it. The web isn't everything - no perfect solution exists for every problem. But you go way too far in the other direction. Modern web browsers can run very complex code at very high speeds. Saying the web can only do incredibly simple things is like saying Java can only do incredibly simply things (which people did say, several years ago). > What would interest me more in B2G is whether the Linux base underneath it is fully functional. And not just a slightly advanced "bootloader" for B2G. A fully functional, mostly free GNU/Linux system that gets widespread adoption, even just as a smartphone OS, would be a great blessing to the efforts of the Free Software community. The problem is that such an OS cannot easily get widespread adoption, because it would have no apps. That is the problem of every new phone OS today, people develop for iOS and Android, and that's it. That's what makes it so hard for Bada and Windows Phone and WebOS to get any traction - developer attention is all on the top two mobile OSes, and users buy those OSes to get those apps. So inventing a new development platform is incredibly hard, and that's what using Linux as a development platform would get us. The only real way to get around that is to leverage an existing development platform. The best existing such platform is the web - it's open, has multiple compatible implementations, is royalty-free, and a lot of effort is going into it (look at recent advances in web browsers). That's why B2G, WebOS and Tizen are all using the web as their development platform. It's the only approach that has a chance. They are all also using Linux underneath - it's the best OS for that. But it's not the best app development platform.
- tjoff 15y ago
  The problem is that such an OS cannot easily get widespread adoption, because it would have no apps. That is the problem of every new phone OS today, people develop for iOS and Android, and that's it. So true. And that's what I base my assumption that there will be no enthusiast-phone on the market in the future (today we have Maemo/meego and that's it). But, an enthusiast OS running linux could, in theory, run android apps and that could be a loophole. I know work was put in to doing this on Maemo but it never got mature (or else I should have heard about it). The same goes for the web. It might suffice for the average Joe but for those doing "real" work on their machines or want more control of their machine will suffer. In this evolution I truly hope that the mainstream-focus doesn't get all the attention. An App/OS doesn't have to be dumb to be beginner-friendly, an advanced application doesn't have to be beginner-unfriendly and please for the love of god realize that beginner friendliness IS NOT the same as easy to use. Those are completely separate topics and today when people talk about user-friendly interfaces they only talk about beginner-friendly and actually making them very hard to use but easy to learn. There are experts everywhere. Ten-year-olds that utilized every obscure shortcut available on the old phones without for that matter being interested in tech or even phones have no parallel today. They just learned how to use their phone effectively but today there is no room for growth on our dumb devices (thanks apple). A good interface is an interface that is easy to use and depending on the target audience relatively easy to use up front (or very easy to use up front) and sports advanced features and room for growth. A bad interface is one that is easy only because it is dumb.

Someone 15y ago

"Browser-based" does not have to be synonymous with "web apps". You could also see it as giving up control over your local cache of (photos, mails, apps, etc) in exchange for ease of use. This could replace "I want to play Angry Birds, so I download it and then run it" by "I want to play Angry Birds, so I click this button". Then, your device could download the app, if it was not already cached on your device, and run it.

falling 15y ago
How does that have anything to do with using a browser or not? Surely you could do the same thing on any other OS.
- Someone 15y ago
  That's exactly my point. The post I replied to objected to "everything in the browser" because "you cannot put everything on the web". I pointed out that A does not imply B. For example, consider a browser with local storage that allows for running locally stored apps (written in SVG + JavaScript, Flash, NaCl, whatever). Such a device could run games, word processors,cetc, without a network connection.

currywurst 15y ago

I'm also really annoyed by the more locked-down future that the new OS environments are facilitating, but I've been continually amazed at the boundaries "web" apps are pushing (e.g. WebGL, WebAudio )

sabret00the 15y ago

I generally agree with what you say. I'm yet to be won over by the browser as an OS idea, whether from Google or Mozilla and also while Web App might be the future, they're far from the now. That said, Mozilla seems to be really be behind B2G so let's wait and see whether their OS can do everything that ChromeOS has failed to.

arturadib 15y ago

is an incredibly dumb idea Ouch. It's another step away from general purpose computing Not if the web platform itself is taking enormous strides towards general purpose computing, particularly in the mobile realm of B2G: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#New_APIs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#New_APIs In fact, in my opinion the web stack is becoming The Greatest Programming Toolkit Ever Built: http://blog.arturadib.com/the-greatest-programming-toolkit-ever-built-i http://blog.arturadib.com/the-greatest-programming-toolkit-e... It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it. Depends on what you mean by "incredibly simple". If you look at the most popular apps besides games, it's hard to imagine why they can't be implemented in HTML5. As for games, stay tuned. Folks are working hard on it: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet TL;DR: I disagree. The web stack is becoming the greatest general-purpose toolkit ever built. Already it's a great platform choice for building an entire "app" ecosystem on top of, and it's only getting better. DISCLAIMER: Although I'm not in the B2G team, I work for Mozilla. However, the above is strictly my personal opinion.

alexgartrell 15y ago
I don't work for Mozilla, don't use Firefox, and am not a front-end developer (I write C). That said, I agree 100% that Apps of the future will be delivered over HTTP to general purpose runtimes that will essentially be browsers (maybe they'll drop the need to wrap everything in chrome, or something). Browsers are increasingly become a dynamic language runtime attached to a powerful graphics rendering library. Make the runtime faster, provide better graphics widgets, and get past this "remote everything with shitty local caching" thing and you've got yourself one hell of a toolkit.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  At which point, the OS isn't doing anything but hooking that runtime to the device drivers, and the natural question will be, "Why shouldn't the browser just be the OS?"

gue5t 15y ago

You're completely right. I don't understand why everyone thinks we need to standardize on the web browser as the one true computing platform either. The sheer overhead involved is so upsetting when you see simple canvas/etc. demos that just chug when running on incredibly powerful computers and see people applauding the effort. Native compilation is too sweet a prize to give up; -webkit-box-shadow, the fucked box model, <video>, <canvas>, and friends are no substitute for a real, efficient software stack that isn't incredibly bloated and underperforming. The sooner HN at large realizes this, the sooner it can get to working on things that are actually new and interesting. The only reason the web is considered the end-all-be-all is because people want to reach "average users" who can't handle installing native software and don't want the inconvenience of maintaining their computers' software. They never will, but that doesn't mean that the future of computing should be decided by the least common denominator of end-users. The current trend in "web technologies" is to implement a wrapper for every native technology. When we finally finish, we'll end up with what can't possibly work better than what we had before, and it'll have taken incredible amounts of effort for programmers to optimize it enough that it's even usable for real jobs (see javascript engines at large). If all that programmers want is a standard software interface, they should construct one, but the browser as an environment has too much cruft from its history as a /content navigation tool/ to be an effective programming environment.

tomjen3 15y ago

Why can't you put everything on the web? Right now it is not powerful enough for 3D rendering but that is mostly a limitation of Javascript and people using old browsers. Other than than I don't see any program which is used by ordinary people today that you couldn't put on the net. Most of them properly already should have been.

stonemetal 15y ago
Why can't you put everything on the web? Why would I want to? I really don't see the point of trying to run a real time industrial automation control from a javascript engine inside fire fox. It might be a fun hack but I fail to see any real use.
- there 15y ago
  Why would you be running a real time industrial automation control from a phone? This is about making mobile phones and tablets that have the ability to run web browsers, not replacing all computers with web browsers.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  Well obviously you need someway to write to the physical wires and if true real-time is required you will have to skip Javascript, but I can't see the issue with having the user facing part of the system be a webapp -- in fact it would properly be easier to do and would be safer too since the system is better walled of from things like viruses and malware.

azakai 15y ago

> You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it. The web isn't everything - no perfect solution exists for every problem. But you go way too far in the other direction. Modern web browsers can run very complex code at very high speeds. Saying the web can only do incredibly simple things is like saying Java can only do incredibly simply things (which people did say, several years ago). > What would interest me more in B2G is whether the Linux base underneath it is fully functional. And not just a slightly advanced "bootloader" for B2G. A fully functional, mostly free GNU/Linux system that gets widespread adoption, even just as a smartphone OS, would be a great blessing to the efforts of the Free Software community. The problem is that such an OS cannot easily get widespread adoption, because it would have no apps. That is the problem of every new phone OS today, people develop for iOS and Android, and that's it. That's what makes it so hard for Bada and Windows Phone and WebOS to get any traction - developer attention is all on the top two mobile OSes, and users buy those OSes to get those apps. So inventing a new development platform is incredibly hard, and that's what using Linux as a development platform would get us. The only real way to get around that is to leverage an existing development platform. The best existing such platform is the web - it's open, has multiple compatible implementations, is royalty-free, and a lot of effort is going into it (look at recent advances in web browsers). That's why B2G, WebOS and Tizen are all using the web as their development platform. It's the only approach that has a chance. They are all also using Linux underneath - it's the best OS for that. But it's not the best app development platform.

tjoff 15y ago
The problem is that such an OS cannot easily get widespread adoption, because it would have no apps. That is the problem of every new phone OS today, people develop for iOS and Android, and that's it. So true. And that's what I base my assumption that there will be no enthusiast-phone on the market in the future (today we have Maemo/meego and that's it). But, an enthusiast OS running linux could, in theory, run android apps and that could be a loophole. I know work was put in to doing this on Maemo but it never got mature (or else I should have heard about it). The same goes for the web. It might suffice for the average Joe but for those doing "real" work on their machines or want more control of their machine will suffer. In this evolution I truly hope that the mainstream-focus doesn't get all the attention. An App/OS doesn't have to be dumb to be beginner-friendly, an advanced application doesn't have to be beginner-unfriendly and please for the love of god realize that beginner friendliness IS NOT the same as easy to use. Those are completely separate topics and today when people talk about user-friendly interfaces they only talk about beginner-friendly and actually making them very hard to use but easy to learn. There are experts everywhere. Ten-year-olds that utilized every obscure shortcut available on the old phones without for that matter being interested in tech or even phones have no parallel today. They just learned how to use their phone effectively but today there is no room for growth on our dumb devices (thanks apple). A good interface is an interface that is easy to use and depending on the target audience relatively easy to use up front (or very easy to use up front) and sports advanced features and room for growth. A bad interface is one that is easy only because it is dumb.