Linked by David Adams on Sun 6th Nov 2011 04:35 UTC, submitted by twitterfire
Linux Linux advocates have for so long advocated browser-accessed software as a service as a way to break out of Microsoft's proprietary desktop. Now that this world has arrived, there's less incentive to work on native Linux apps.
Thread beginning with comment 496125
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: This is a bad thing?
by mappy on Sun 6th Nov 2011 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is a bad thing?"
mappy
Member since:
2010-06-02

I would think that webapps in the future will be able to run offline and be packaged in a download.
I guess when they solve those 2 problems you'll love webapps?


"In the future, we'll have a solution to a problem you didn't have with native apps"

Offline web applications are still slower and still don't use the native UI toolkit. Why put lipstick on a pig? Not everything should be delivered through a web browser.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: This is a bad thing?
by moondevil on Sun 6th Nov 2011 09:40 in reply to "RE[3]: This is a bad thing?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Offline web applications are still slower and still don't use the native UI toolkit. Why put lipstick on a pig? Not everything should be delivered through a web browser.



I keep telling it every day, but somehow it seems most enterprise applications are moving to web only interfaces and with it the trend is comming to the consumer applications as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: This is a bad thing?
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:54 in reply to "RE[4]: This is a bad thing?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I keep telling it every day, but somehow it seems most enterprise applications are moving to web only interfaces and with it the trend is comming to the consumer applications as well.

Like it or not, web technologies make up the only universal UI toolkit. In addition to having a automatic update system and platform independence. In addition to being the faster way of implementing most UIs.
If you don't need a lot of processing power, WEB is the best way to proceed.
As for enterprises, it helps with data loss prevention.


* Fast = more efficient = lower cost at higher quality

Edited 2011-11-06 15:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: This is a bad thing?
by Delgarde on Sun 6th Nov 2011 21:30 in reply to "RE[4]: This is a bad thing?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I keep telling it every day, but somehow it seems most enterprise applications are moving to web only interfaces and with it the trend is comming to the consumer applications as well.


For enterprise apps, it's *extremely* convenient to do it that way. A lot of those apps have their roots in ancient "green screen" apps - once used via a genuine dumb-terminal, later via some sort of terminal emulator under Windows.

And when you have a software company with a lot of experience developing under Unix systems and clients with a lot of experience running those same systems, then adding a Unix-based web layer on top of those apps is the obvious way to go. The first step is probably a collection of Perl CGI scripts that screen-scrape the old terminal app, and which over time evolve into something more sophisticated. This kind of thing is probably a big part of why Java was so successful as a server language - it came out at just the right time for companies looking to replace their old green screen apps.

(And yes, speaking from experience here...)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: This is a bad thing?
by s-peter on Sun 6th Nov 2011 10:10 in reply to "RE[3]: This is a bad thing?"
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

Applications with web-based front-ends have a fair share of advantages over native ones, even if you don't use them to collaborate with others through the Internet, and even if you run them on your own machine(s). Notes (including task / todo / buy-list management), personal finance management etc. would be good candidates, as it is useful to be able to access to these from tablets and/or phones besides your desktop/laptop, and having a web-based interface is still easier than having entirely different interfaces for each device type. (You will need somewhat different designs for different screen sizes, but it is still easier to use and develop than having completely different front-ends for each). They are also inherently multi-platform (for the client-side at least, but most web-apps are also developed in a portable manner anyway). Some of these services also happen to be managing information that one may not want to be hosted at a "cloud provider", so the ability to self-host is also important.

Of course, there are still many cases where a native application is better, but I expect that there will be more and more web-based ones coming.

Edited 2011-11-06 10:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: This is a bad thing?
by orestes on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:01 in reply to "RE[3]: This is a bad thing?"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Consider that GTK3 has a web based rendering back end available. It's entirely possible that in the future web based apps will be able to use the native widgets on whatever platform they choose.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: This is a bad thing?
by Delgarde on Sun 6th Nov 2011 21:53 in reply to "RE[4]: This is a bad thing?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Consider that GTK3 has a web based rendering back end available. It's entirely possible that in the future web based apps will be able to use the native widgets on whatever platform they choose.


Sigh... GTK3's "broadway" web backend is basically a remote-display technology like VNC. It's in no way a web application, save that the client is a Javascript library that displays pixels in an HTML canvas widget...

Reply Parent Score: 6