Linked by Kroc Camen on Sun 6th Mar 2011 11:13 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes It's not the return of the OSNews comic, but it was too good to let pass. Our coverage of the Apple event was minimal this week, so I decided to round the key points up in an illustration...
Thread beginning with comment 464914
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by molnarcs
by kaelodest on Sun 6th Mar 2011 21:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by molnarcs"
kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

I find that I can do all of what you want and more through web-apps (*yes* john gruber's shit-sandwich solution) I presume naïvely that here in the world of HW haxors that wrapping a solution that is 3 or less clicks away (@ google+Automator+Saghoian). Otherwise the iPad is no more a stand alone device than any other other pad or sub-notebook. The issue here unfortunately that we have yet to arrive at that 'city in the sky' where all of your functions are handled by one device - less so one that shares it's screen with a touchpad AND is web enabled - for free (not the $$$ cost but the time cost) and if the solution is to roll a web app that does what you said AND the interface (not just the headers) is free than fish or cut bait.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by molnarcs
by TheGZeus on Mon 7th Mar 2011 00:18 in reply to "RE: Comment by molnarcs"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

...This is nonsense.

The solution to creating an all-in-one solution is... a web app?

You seem to think the solution to _any given problem_ is "a web app + something".

Ok, ok, we get it. You just learned CSS and JavaScript. That's cool.

It's also not that difficult, and not a very good solution for ...anything. It's a _tolerable_ solution for many things, but it's rarely the _best_.
It's just an outgrowth of various historical events.

It's cumbersome and requires you to write in 3 different languages to get one 'application'. The resulting 'application' is infinitely slower than a native application would be.

You don't even state what this application would actually _do_. I think you're saying it would "connect to the cloud"... Ummmm... Yeah... That's what websites are, really.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by molnarcs
by sorpigal on Mon 7th Mar 2011 13:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by molnarcs"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

A world wherein applications are "network aware" and transparently remote their UIs, remote their storage, remote their CPU cycles. It's a grand vision that has been predicted and attempted many times. All such attempts have failed; the only successful effort has been the under-the-radar "web app" which quietly did these things without raising a fuss or requiring that everyone sign on.

Fast forward to the (near) present and some folks woke up and realized that we have today what Java and NeWS promised but couldn't deliver, we almost have what DCOM was supposed to deliver. It's just wrapped up differently and not at all standard and requires a dozen different languages and formats. So here we are, today, incrementally moving the under-the-radar, it-works-because-it's-open web toward being a real applications platform.

Everything you say is true. Today. But despite the chaos and the mind-numbing effort involved, eventually there will be real useful applications using the browser.

Reply Parent Score: 2