Modify Colors
Posts in Online
Cloud Computing Is Not Bad: It Just Needs Some Openness
Recently, Richard Stallman called cloud computing “worse than stupidity.” His argument for this view is that, by giving your data away to the host of the web application you are using, you are essentially giving up all rights to that data. After all, they own it and there is little you can do to stop them from doing whatever they want with that data.
I agree with Stallman that there is a potential risk to putting your data in a closed-source, closed standards web application. I do not believe, however, that it is fair to say that web applications in general are a data trap, or, for that matter, in any way something to avoid.
If a web application is open-source, supports open standards, and has a good privacy policy, I see little to worry about. The privacy policy, which you can in part confirm through the source code, ensures that your privacy is protected, assuming there are also some reasonable data protection methods in place; and the open standards ensure that you can easily get data in and out of the application, so you don’t have to worry about losing your data or being locked into the application.
I understand the concerns about locking your data into a web application, but we should keep in mind that, as long as you have good open standards and a good privacy policy, (open-source is, of course, good, but not absolutley needed), you don’t have to worry too much about your data.
Another Reason for Open-Source in Web Apps: Data Flow and Syncing
A recent Free Software Magazine article lays out the case for open-source and free software in web applications. I agree with the arguments, but I also want to add another one that I feel is important.
The author touches on data portability, saying that:
“If the users can’t get their data out they will be more reluctant to put it in and they will tell others.”
The issue is more than just getting your data out. Let’s take the example of e-mail. Say I use Thunderbird (if anyone cares, I actually just use the Gmail web interface). I can export my data from Thunderbird to another email client, but it is a hassle. It is perfectly usable if you plan to switch to that new program full time, but if you want to use both or want to try one out, exporting your data is not going to be a workable solution. What you need is a protocol for syncing and exchanging data between multiple applications (in this case, IMAP).
Without IMAP-like protocols for transferring data across web applications, working with web applications from different companies is going to be hard. Why does this require open-source? The answer lies a couple sentences back: “working with web applications from different companies is going to be hard.” Why would you put in effort to make your software work with the competition, particularly if you are Google, Adobe, Microsoft, or any of the other big players? If your application is open-source, though, someone else can do it for you, no matter if you like it or not.
As I have said before, without good data exchange across all web applications, the web app scene is either going to be a monopoly or a disaster. Thanks, but I think I will take the good data exchange option.
The Theory Of Google's Chrome As An Operating System
There is no doubt that Google did a nice job of promoting their “Chrome” web browser. Practically everyone is considering this front page news, and for a good reason, too. Whatever you think of it, Google, primarily a web search and web application company, introducing a web browser is big news. The interesting part of all the coverage is the theories about why Google made this move.
Many of the theories around propose that Chrome is really the long-awaited “Google OS” in the form of a platform for web applications. A couple of days ago, I wrote my own theory, which proposed that Chrome is really about pushing other web browsers forward to better support web applications in general. Both of these theories are really quite similar, in that they are both making it easier for people to use web applications to replace desktop applications.
The real difference is that one theory suggests that Google’s Chrome will become the platform for web applications, meaning that it will have specific, unique features that will benefit Google applications, and perhaps nothing else. In the other theory, my theory, Google would use Chrome to push all browsers along, something which would be beneficial to all. Only time will tell what their plans are (after all, they may not even know yet), but I want to give a warning if Google follows the path of creating their own custom platform: Avoid it. Just avoid it.
Why? The web is a chance to redefine applications from a piece of software that runs on a particular OS to just a piece of software. Right now, almost by definition, web applications are cross platform. This is our chance to keep it like that. If Google introduces their own custom platform for their web applications, that is a major step in the wrong direction. It is almost guaranteed to end up with a mess of “features” introduced by Google to be used by Google. We have to keep the platform maker separate and independent from the software maker if we want to maintain the standards of the web. No single group should even be able to dominate both fields. If they do, consumers lose.
All of this is not to say that Chrome is evil. If the point, as I suspect it is, is just to push web browsers into the future, then that is great. We just have to keep a watchful eye and not let Google get too much power.
Google's Chrome: What is it for?
Today, Google announced a new project – a web browser called “Chrome.” (A Windows-only beta will be launched on Tuesday.) This could be a major transition for Google, taking them right into the desktop space and fighting Microsoft head on where Microsoft reigns. It could be, but I don’t think it is.
Instead, I suspect that, at least for now, Chrome will serve as something of a reference design for other browsers. Google has a vested interest in technically solid browsers that people want to use. Until browsers have minimal overhead, almost never crash, and are made incredibly speedy, web applications, such as Google’s Docs or GMail, can never take off.
What this means is that even if Google is not really interested in dominating the web browser market, it still makes sense for them to have their own browser. This browser can simply serve as a way for Google to introduce and demo new features they would like to see in every browser. Plus, by making it open-source and saying that “We hope to collaborate with the entire community to help drive the web forward,” they are just inviting people to take their work and add it to every browser.
This theory also explains their heavy emphasis on technical details of the browser, rather than user features. If you want to win the average user’s desktop space, you focus on cool features, not stability. If, instead, you want to push underlying technologies into other browsers, you focus on technical details.
It still remains to be seen if the open-source license they choose will be one that enforces copy left or not, but I think it is safe to say, if this theory is correct, that as much of it as possible will be released under a license that does not enforce copy left, meaning that Google’s code could be made part of closed-source code.
We will not know Google’s true intentions with Chrome for some time, but I am inclined to believe this is not about dominating the browser market, but, rather, about pushing all web browsers forward and making them work better with web applications – particularly Google’s.
Online Word Processors Worth A Try
If you a looking for an alternative to OpenOffice, web applications are becoming an extremely good option. Of course. Most people know about Google Docs, but there are many other alternatives. In order to help you narrow your search, below is a list of some of your options as well as a short description.
- Google Docs – Most people probably already know about this, but I just have to mention it. This is pretty much the standard for online word processors, and it is what I use. The interface is the standard minimalist Google design and, of course, it exports to all sorts of formats, including Microsoft Word (.doc, not .docx) and HTML. Not surprisingly, Google Docs supports Google Gears, allowing you to do your word processing offline.
- Adobe Buzzword – Now part of Acrobat.com, Buzzword is another very well known one. I would say the main difference between Google Docs and Buzzword is that Buzzword’s interface feels much richer and more visually interesting. The formatting options for Buzzword are also quite extensive. Finally, the change tracking is great, allowing you to easy revert back to just about any point in time.
- Zoho Writer – Zoho Writer is something of a mix between Buzzword and Google Docs. It has elements of Google’s minimalist style, while also having many of the formatting options of Buzzword. It also lets you have tabs with a document in each tab and supports Google Gears.
- Peepel – Peepel’s interface has two interesting aspects to it. First, it gives you windows inside of your browser window. This means you can open up multiple documents or open up a web browser (don’t ask me why you would use a web browser to open a web browser) or a calculator. Personally, I am not a fan of this, but you might disagree. The second interesting aspect of it is that it mimics Microsoft Office 2007. Now, I do think that the Office 2007 interface is nice, but Peepel lacks the only feature of Office that I think is really cool – the ability to highlight text and have instant access to basic formatting. Still, if you are familiar with Office 2007, you might want to give this one a try.
- WriteBoard – WriteBoard is really different from other online editors. You create a board and then insert some text. Formatting options appear to be very limited and there are no buttons to apply them. Instead, you do something like this to make text bold: *text*. The idea is sort of an online whiteboard for a few people to collaborate on. This is probably not your best option for day to day tasks, but I can certainly see this coming in handy in the occasional situation.
Hopefully this will give you some new web applications to try, and you might just like one of them more than what you have now.
Microsoft Is Not The Only One Who Has To Move Fast
Recently, an Ars Technica article pointed out that, while Microsoft is in a strong position to push its web presence, it needs to act fast if it wants to be a part of cloud computing. A completely agree, but this could really be said of a lot of companies and of open source software.
Right now, only a small handful of companies really have their foot in the water, or, more accurately, the cloud. These companies are Google, Adobe, Mozilla, and perhaps a couple more. Apart from those companies, everyone needs to act fast – including open source software.
Just like if Microsoft does not move fast they will be left out, if open source software does not move into the cloud, it will be left out. We need to make sure that does not happen.
Operating System's As Web Browsers
Recently there has been some discussion of operating systems becoming irrelevant as applications and data move to the web. This begs the questions of (a) are operating systems becoming irrelevant and (b) how can Linux stay relevant?
First of all, operating systems can never become completely irrelevant unless computers become irrelevant, because you need an operating system to make a computer work. They can, however, get to a point where they are so generic that it does not matter what operating system you use. I don’t think that even that will happen, though.
What will, quite likely, happen, though, is that operating systems as managers of many applications will be transformed into operating systems as web browsers. Does that mean the end of innovation in the OS? No, not at all. It does mean that open-source operating systems, such as Linux, will have an advantage due to Firefox (and/or Firefox-based browsers such as Flock) being both open-source and currently, I would say, the most innovating browser(s). Plus, you can take some of Linux’s features, such as multiple desktops, and apply them to the web browser.
So operating systems are not going to become irrelevant, but they are going to change a lot and when that change occurs, Linux is quite likely to turn out on top.
Open Standards for Cloud Computing
We are in an exciting time for technology and cloud computing. While web applications are not yet replacing desktop applications on a large scale, web applications that are capable of competing with their desktop counterparts are appearing on an almost daily basis. Google, Microsoft, and Apple are all moving, some faster than others, to the cloud along with hundreds of smaller startups. Right now we are seeing the future of computing – cloud computing.
Looking into the future, I see two main possibilities. Either a large company will dominate the web applications market, much like Microsoft currently dominates the desktop, or there will be a set of open standards that let every application compete on a level playing field and talk to every other application.
If one dominant company emerges, there may be some third party developers creating web applications under the dominating company’s rules and there may be some smaller companies trying to compete with the dominating company, but essentially one company will have a monopoly. If, on the other hand, we get a well-established set of standards for web application to interact and communicate, there will be hundreds or thousands of applications by different companies fiercely competing with each other. Obviously a set of open standards would be far, far better. If there is going to be an established set of standards, though, those standards need to be created very soon.
Right now, no one company dominates the web application market, but before long, that may change. Now is the time for someone to establish a set of open standards for web applications to interoperate.
I have always been a big fan of web (or cloud) applications, because they make it easy to switch freely between computers and between platforms. With web applications, your applications don’t tie you to any platform, leaving you free to choose whichever platform suits you best. Recently, though, a Linux.com article and a post on a Clipperz blog got me thinking about how open-source and the cloud go together, or don’t go together.
As I first began to think about it, it seems putting the two (open source and web applications) together would be a challenge, but I soon realized that they are, in fact, a natural fit for each other.
Perhaps the best example of open-sourcing a web application is Reddit, which recently open-sourced all of their code. The biggest argument against open-sourcing code with an application like Reddit is that everyone can copy what you have done. That is true, but anything based on, for example, the Reddit code must be released back as open-source, assuming the original code was released under a GPL-like license that requires this. So for an application (if you call it an application) like Reddit, open-sourcing seems to make a lot of sense. This basic logic can also be applied to most other more traditional web applications, such as word processors.
In the case of partially or fully businesses-oriented web application, a further step could be taken by selling a subscription update service for businesses that wanted to host the application themselves.
You could pretty much summarize the last two paragraphs by saying that the arguments for open source in web applications are essentially the same as the arguments for open source in traditional applications, but there is one more (or at least one more) reason for open-sourcing web applications:
One frequent concern with web applications is privacy. How do I know that Google is not reading everything I make in Google Docs? Done correctly, it should be completely possible to encrypt the data before it leaves the client’s computer such that Google (or <insert name of web application company>) cannot possibly read it. Even if a web application provider claims they have done this, though, how do you know for sure? The answer is that you really cannot – unless the application is open source. If it is open source, tech-savvy people will almost certainly go through the code and ensure that your data is safe, but if the application is closed source, you just have to trust the company.
So for these reasons, I see the aruments for open source in the cloud as even stronger than the arguments for open source on the desktop. I just hope that the web application developers agree.
A Better Website With More Community Control
Canonical has just announced that they are creating a new Ubuntu team to help out with the Ubuntu website. For two reasons, I applaud this decision.
First, and most obviously, this brings a strong potential for a really cool website. The announcement says that some of the things that might be improved by the team include countdown banners, the start page, and, of course, elements of the main website. This means that, for example, when Intrepid Ibex ships, and a new user starts Firefox for the first time, the home page he or she sees will be less of a generic page and more of a cool and useful launch page for learning about Ubuntu, getting involved in Ubuntu, or for surfing the web.
The second, and less obvious reason, that I applaud the forming the new team is that it gives more control to the community. This really emphasizes Canonical and the community as partners, rather than one just helping out the other.
So for these two reasons, I am really glad to see the forming of this new team and I look forward to seeing the results.