The future of your software [You Tube link free]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6574839.stm

As a commercial web developer, I've saw this emerging over the past 2 years, but with applications like Photoshop online in development, it looks like we're going to see some interesting developments.

Do you have any plans to embrace the Web 2.0 revolution in any of your projects? Do Blitz Research have any plans to release a version of Blitz to take advantage of Web 2.0?

So does anyone remember back when Web 2.0 was another word for IPv6? Before marketing people turned it into another word for AJAX/XMLHttpRequest?

On a side note, does anyone else think it's ironic that the only thing Microsoft has done that was marginally innovative (XMLHttpRequest) was largely ignored by Microsoft and made popular by Google?

Ha ha... Microsoft don't know how to innovate, they just immitate. Examples:

* Windows
* X-Box
* Internet Explorer - oops... The only exception, because they stole the code from the original developer.

I personally don't like the idea of running remote apps at all. I don't even like local apps that try to phone home without asking.

I buy software from a company to run on my hardware as I see fit, and to apply any updates (or not) as I see fit. The idea of the app's company being able to make arbitrary changes at any time bugs me almost as much as the idea of my data flowing back and forth over the 'net. For casual, group-oriented stuff, like online communities, remote applets (like forums, polls, wikis, etc.) make sense and I enjoy using them, but not "real" apps using just my own data.

Maybe it's my age; as the story mentions, this doesn't seem to sit well with us older folk. Now you kids get off my lawn! <g>

There are a variety of issues to consider, but there are also advantages:

* Ability to access your applications and data from any location

* Platform independence - The web as a platform could destroy Windows dominance.

* Automatic updates - allowing you to have the latest updates without having to install anything yourself


By using your own hosting, you could install your own versions of the software that you use, meaning that you can control what is updated and what isn't. Web software could use features that obtain settings from the local host and also from the software vendor - of course, these settings could be changed by the software user to suit their preference.

If things turn out as you describe, Game Boy, that could be worthwhile. I've benefited at least a little from each of the three advantages you mention (mainly having to do with email and websites/cPanel). What you describe would be similar to having your own web-accessible PC, which could be fine (assuming bandwidth and security issues are resolved).

Perhaps I haven't been reading the right articles, but the impression that I've gotten is that the software, like the online version of Photoshop mentioned in the link above, won't be installed on your own host but rather runs on the software company's. Is that incorrect?

Sorry, in what way have you not gone full-circle back to what we already have in the humble desktop there?

I suspect that remote apps are chiefly about taking control and power away from the consumer under the guise of progress (I mean it sure would be lovely for Microsoft if it could make users pay to use Word on a per minute/letter basis). In terms of OS, DTP, text editing and emailing etc we really don't need anything more than we've got -- the home computer is essentially complete.

But, of course, few of the companies that got us this far are geared for that reality -- they have to keep growing and generating new features to perpetuate the existing business model. So you might not need nor even want remote computing, but by jove you'll cocking well swallow it.

*BINGO!*

There's been talk for a while about about the future being in providing software as a service. I agree that this isn't the way I'd want to be using Word, or whatever.

As I see it, there is likely to be two types of software for the web:

* Software as a service - provided either on a pay as you go basis, or as part of a hosting deal that you get from a web host.

* Buy it yourself - You buy and install it to your hosting and then configure it yourself. Maybe also have the ability to select which (if any) parts are used as a service provided via the software vendors website.


Then also, apparently there's going to be some type of Apache style mini server provided with FireFox 3, meaning that web applications can exist both on the server and on your remote machine - allowing you to use web software when not online, and then synchronise the changes when you are next online.

Lol anyone for citrix? (and wwe know how slow that can sometimes be locally let alone wide!)

Ush, horrible idea. As if the nets bandwidth isnt becomming chogged enough as it is.

What about if you are not in a hotspot and want to do some work on the lappy. Without big mobile costs youre screwed.

I see it as a fad, but I am terrible at predicting these things.

I can't really see this stuff taking off until high-speed has become fast enough for the majority to use at an affordable cost, because as it stands, I really wouldn't want to load something like a fully-featured web-version of Photoshop on my PC everytime I need to use it.

Maybe when the net becomes faster than the average harddrive may this even be worthwhile for me.

Citrix brings back some bad memories from college.

You forgot the third option: OpenSoure. Once MS Office goes pay-per-view "micro" payments, you'll all wanna switch.

I can see it taking of, not because it's useful or convenient, but because it's being aggressively pushed by the companies that matter.

Namely Microsoft and IBM (if I recall correctly). From time to time I hear people talking about how the average PC will be nothing more than a portal to the internet. The only program that needs to run and matters is Internet Explorer. In fact, during my last semester at college, I listened to a presentation from an IBM employee who shared information about a bare-bones PC system. The PC at your desk was no larger than a router, and only connected your keyboard, mouse and screen to a cable. That cable led to a 'blade' that ran several PC instances at once. The blade could be housed in a server-like room with dozens of others, even located overseas if the company wanted it to be.

Anyway, I could actually see a web version of MS Office-like products being worthwhile for work users. It would be easier to share data with co-workers, and you could access your info from anywhere. There would no longer be a need for remotely accessing your home PC for work documents, or taking work home with you. Just get online and keep working on your active copy.

But for home users who are concerned about their privacy and not convinced that these sites are secure, it will probably not fly.

Hmm, that sounds like a reversion to the 1960/70s-era model of computing, where "the computer" was in an isolated room and attended by technicians (who had all the power), and users had dumb terminals networked to it (and had to grovel for access). That's the monolithic approach that PCs were created to replace in the first place. No thanks, IBM, I don't want to return to that!

Actually, the IBM speaker did mention how things were starting to move back towards that direction. I don't think things will become quite that bad, though - I mean, who enjoyed those working conditions? I think IBM is simply answering the call of more businesses - cheaper hardware for more users. A few of the advantages he mentioned was that all the terminals were interchangeable. If someone were to spill coffee onto the local PC unit, the computer and its data wouldn't be lost. They could pull up a chair at another desk and get right back to work. When you logged into a unit, you had your own personal PC there, no matter which unit you were on.

But maybe I'm getting off subject here.

Well you need to remember that that's the only form of computing the Bill Gates understands.

The advantage of thin clients are that they don't need much power (since their programs are running on the blade server) and thus aren't as attractive for thieves. The blade server of course can be locked inside a secure server room and bolted into a 19"rack (along with the SAN giving automatic redundancy and backup for data), which in turn is bolted to the floor and wall, making thievery of corporate property a big nuisance. The school I used to work for (now a client) has only had one break-in since they switched to thin clients 5 years ago. They used to have one every other month.

That's another side that I hadn't thought about FlameDuck.



I've already switched to Open Office, and wont look back. However, the average person will always be taken by the commercial propoganda machine.

I really don't understand this.

Okay, there are some cases where web-based applications are the way to go. However, since half the processing is done externally, they are slow!
People don't seem to see this: Google is not going to have a processor-intensive program running on their servers. Once you have a couple thousand connections at the same time all requesting that you carry out huge tasks, it causes a lot of burden both for them and the clients. Google has a lot of money and some darn good servers to push that capability, but I doubt even they will push this much further. If people have to wait ten seconds for little calculations to take place (as thousands of other users do the same thing), it will not be nice. They have to compensate by having simpler programs, and in many cases (image editing, for example), those simply cannot replace locally run programs that don't have to be sharing resources with everyone else.
The trick is that Google Docs is actually pretty simple, because the server can't sensibly do much more. Google Docs could run happily on your thin client with a simple session - perhaps faster than over the web.

I'm all for web integration. Locally stored computer programs should strive to talk more to web services, and the operating system of the future should make that as seamless as possible.

If you want a server hosting applications, use SSH -X (still waiting for Microsoft's answer to it...) internally. It's a lot faster, it's nice looking, and the actual applications (same thing you've always used) require no learning curve to operate. What's more? Nothing needs to be rebuilt.
Oh, and you can have thin clients -- perhaps thinner, since they just have to handle local networking, a windowing system and a window decorator. No crazy AJAX stuff, no modern web browsers, no image libraries...
That is why we have those advanced, open-ended operating systems in the first place.

Details of FireFox3 worth reading:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/firefox_3_offline_apps.php

Add to this the proposed specification for HTML 5 and we're on the way to building a new and more powerful standard for the ways in which web applications are developed.