jOS - The next step?
Rasmus Wikman
jQuery UI handles the browser, isn't that a perfect combo to create a
web based OS?
At least I'm tired of writing the same functionality for domain, user,
database handling and so on, when I really would like to focus on
creating applications.
There are commerical attempts, like HP webOS and eyeOS, but I think it
would be really cool if the open source coding community would gather
forces and build it instead. Mozilla has just started with an attempt
called Boot 2 Gecko and webian is functional. But that's it. I've
begun gathering some thoughts on www.ubuntuonline.me but it should be
a community effort to be really successful.
All eyes are now on Node and it should be possible with the combined
know-how of the community. JS + HTML all the way.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Rasmus Wikman
mscdex
> There are commerical attempts, like HP webOS and eyeOS, but I think it
> would be really cool if the open source coding community would gather
> forces and build it instead.
> Thoughts?
I've personally been sold on the idea of a browser/web-based OS (not
to be confused with webOS) such as eyeOS and the like.
Sotonin
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to nod...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
nodejs+un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
mscdex
> I've personally been sold on the idea of a browser/web-based OS (not
> to be confused with webOS) such as eyeOS and the like.
idea ...
Bogdan Bursuc
What would a browser/web-based OS be good if you do need an OS to
access it ? It like you want to use Linux but you install Windows and
use it from a VM ? Doesn't feel right.
--
Thanks,
Bogdan I. Bursuc
Brandon Benvie
mscdex
have yet to catch on.
Liang Arsalan
> --
> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> Posting guidelines:
> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "nodejs" group.
> To post to this group, send email to nod...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> nodejs+un...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
>
--
_____Best Regards_____
Syed Arsalan Shah
Mana...@gmail.com
Branko Vukelić
> What would a browser/web-based OS be good if you do need an OS to
> access it ? It like you want to use Linux but you install Windows
> and use it from a VM ? Doesn't feel right.
The idea is that you could run such an OS from your phone and it would
still do the stuff that a typical desktop OS does. At least that's that
I think is the idea. :)
--
Branko Vukelic
bra...@herdhound.com
bg.b...@gmail.com
Lead Developer
Herd Hound (tm) - Travel that doesn't bite
www.herdhound.com
Love coffee? You might love Loveffee, too.
loveffee.appspot.com
Scott Elcomb
> I've been thinking, if Node handles the server side and jQuery and jQuery UI
> handles the browser, isn't that a perfect combo to create a web based OS?
Web-based OS is as unfortunate a term as the Pirate Party. Based on
~8yrs (part-time) pursuing this line of research and experimentation,
I believe web-based Operating Environment is a considerably more
suitable description.
> At least I'm tired of writing the same functionality for domain, user,
> database handling and so on, when I really would like to focus on creating
> applications.
+1: This is the foundation for my interest as well - and a big part of
why I want to quit experimenting & just finish Atomic OS.
> There are commerical attempts, like HP webOS and eyeOS, but I think it would
> be really cool if the open source coding community would gather forces and
> build it instead. Mozilla has just started with an attempt called Boot 2
> Gecko and webian is functional. But that's it. I've begun gathering some
> thoughts on www.ubuntuonline.me but it should be a community effort to be
> really successful.
My Node Knockout entry will likely be a standalone (open source) app
that can export something useful for, but does not require, Atomic OS.
I'll offer to donate both projects to such an effort.
> All eyes are now on Node and it should be possible with the combined
> know-how of the community. JS + HTML all the way.
>
> Thoughts?
I'm in. :-)
--
Scott Elcomb
@psema4 on Twitter / Identi.ca
Atomic OS: Self Contained Microsystems
http://code.google.com/p/atomos/
Member of the Pirate Party of Canada
http://www.pirateparty.ca/
David Herron
> I've been thinking, if Node handles the server side and jQuery and
> jQuery UI handles the browser, isn't that a perfect combo to create a
> web based OS?
>
> At least I'm tired of writing the same functionality for domain, user,
> database handling and so on, when I really would like to focus on
> creating applications.
>
> There are commerical attempts, like HP webOS and eyeOS, but I think it
> would be really cool if the open source coding community would gather
> forces and build it instead. Mozilla has just started with an attempt
> called Boot 2 Gecko and webian is functional. But that's it. I've
>
> All eyes are now on Node and it should be possible with the combined
> know-how of the community. JS + HTML all the way.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rasmus Wikman
be the best choice.
That is - I feel in the excitement about Node.js a "let's rewrite the
whole world in this newfangled thingy". "It's so cool, why don't we
do X or Y or Z with it?"
Yeah, it's cool. It's a great platform with a bright future in front
of it. But I wonder if it makes sense to rewrite all software
everywhere to use this stack. Yes that isn't what you said, but
within what you asked that as the end-goal...
Don't other language software development platforms also have their
strengths and weaknesses?
In my book "Node Web Development" I did spend part of the first
chapter talking about a long-time dream of the same language on the
client and server ends. The dream dates back to when Java sprang onto
the scene and it was plausibly possible for Java to have implemented
that dream. Applets on the front end, and Servlets on the back end.
Don't laugh, I said "plausibly possible". Somewhere along the way
several stumbles were made and that version of the dream didn't come
into reality. Node.js does re-open the possibility the dream could be
implemented, this time with JavaScript on front and back-end ...
Last winter I talked with my manager at Yahoo at length about this (at
that time I was in the QE team in the group setting up Yahoo's Node.js
hosting platform; I've since left) and suggested "same language on
front and back-end" as one justification for adopting Node.js. He
wanted to know a solid technical reason - and didn't see "same
language on front and back-end" as enough of a justification. For me
what I settled on was it's a way to implement real-time-web and/or to
get better server utilization.
+ David Herron
Rasmus Wikman
On 14 aug 2011, at 01.51, mscdex wrote:
> On Aug 13, 6:23 am, Rasmus Wikman <rasmus.wik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are commerical attempts, like HP webOS and eyeOS, but I think
>> it
>> would be really cool if the open source coding community would gather
>> forces and build it instead.
>
> eyeOS is open source.
You're right. I meant something like an initiative that's not backed
by a certain organisation but rather evolve as jQuery and Node does.
I think jQuery has proven that there is a strength in letting code
evolve outside rigid structures.
Which is probably made possible because JavaScript requires so little
knowledge of programming to get started with. I'm hoping that future
generations of coders can get started even faster.
Especially that teenager who made that successful app in the Apple
AppStore made me really happy. When I was 14, well, coding BBS's
wasn't exactly the stuff of dreams. :)
Rasmus
Rasmus Wikman
On 14 aug 2011, at 01.58, Sotonin wrote:
> I think the idea is a fantastic one. But not with jQuery. jQueryUI
> is one of the weakest UI libraries i've come across. Maybe something
> involving Ext would be a better choice.
The licensing terms of Ext are a little too restrictive to allow for
non-destructive development and adoption.
I'm not saying that jQuery might be the best technological solution,
but it has a large adoption rate which is key to success.
Just as Node I think the other winners of the JS race will be those
that are truly community efforts and not the ones that limit certain
types of use.
Rasmus
Rasmus Wikman
Well, as I see it, most applications that the average user uses can be
made as a web application today.
Making an OS that can be run as a standalone installation or in a
browser would make it available to as many as fast as possible.
With the goal of giving users a consistent experience on whichever
device they happen to use, whereever they happen to be.
I think the current trend of re-making web-based OS's from scratch
(like Boot 2 Gecko and webian) is code porn rather than trying to
fulfill the needs of users. Which is all nice if you code for the sake
of coding but not if you really want to create great applications.
Rasmus
Rasmus Wikman
On 14 aug 2011, at 12.48, Liang Arsalan wrote:
> think if nodejs work on share hosting
Indeed.
Or with an option in the Node "kernel" that would allow for automatic
updating of itself.
With an official registry of applications they could also be updated
according to the same scheme.
And lastly with a common data identification system based on the same
principle as P2P services like Bittorrent.
Rasmus
Rasmus Wikman
On 14 aug 2011, at 15.35, Branko Vukelić wrote:
> On 2011-08-14 08:28 +0300, Bogdan Bursuc wrote:
>> What would a browser/web-based OS be good if you do need an OS to
>> access it ? It like you want to use Linux but you install Windows
>> and use it from a VM ? Doesn't feel right.
>
> The idea is that you could run such an OS from your phone and it would
> still do the stuff that a typical desktop OS does. At least that's
> that
> I think is the idea. :)
Or from your laptop, desktop, Xbox, Playstation, workstation...
With a common base, browser optimisation would only have to be done
once, which is one of the most important parts of community developed
libraries as I see it.
At least I'm quite tired of wasting another night on compatibility
tests for everything from IE6 to iPad.
Rasmus
Dean Landolt
Dojo. The engineering quality of Ext with a liberal license and clean IP.
FWIW I'm with Scott -- calling whatever you're trying to do an OS would probably be a mistake. I'm guessing you're going to need an OS to run node on! You don't plan on rewriting all the userland tools, right? You're probably talking about a desktop environment, right?
In any event, good luck -- it seems to me like a great time for it.
Rasmus Wikman
On 14 aug 2011, at 21.15, Scott Elcomb wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Rasmus Wikman <rasmus...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> I've been thinking, if Node handles the server side and jQuery and
>> jQuery UI
>> handles the browser, isn't that a perfect combo to create a web
>> based OS?
>
> Web-based OS is as unfortunate a term as the Pirate Party. Based on
> ~8yrs (part-time) pursuing this line of research and experimentation,
> I believe web-based Operating Environment is a considerably more
> suitable description.
I agree with you fully. There's a lot of confusing terminology at the
moment and it's hard to keep track. I've noticed that to "sell" the
idea of a web based OS to non-developers the term most suitable is
something like "online collaboration platform".
But I think that with both HP webOS, Apple iOS and Google Chrome OS,
OS is becoming something of a one-term-fits-all.
>> All eyes are now on Node and it should be possible with the combined
>> know-how of the community. JS + HTML all the way.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I'm in. :-)
Alright! :)
Rasmus Wikman
On 14 aug 2011, at 22.11, David Herron wrote:
> I think you're sliding down a slippery slope and wonder if this would
> be the best choice.
>
> That is - I feel in the excitement about Node.js a "let's rewrite the
> whole world in this newfangled thingy". "It's so cool, why don't we
> do X or Y or Z with it?"
>
> Yeah, it's cool. It's a great platform with a bright future in front
> of it. But I wonder if it makes sense to rewrite all software
> everywhere to use this stack. Yes that isn't what you said, but
> within what you asked that as the end-goal...
>
> Don't other language software development platforms also have their
> strengths and weaknesses?
Yes, but programming languages are much more sociology than
technology. In a perfect world we would have a single language that
would do everything.
JavaScript and XML are fast becoming the de facto standards for
programming and data presentation respectively.
Not perhaps because they are the best suited, but because they attract
the largest adoption. And this is what it's all about; the most
popular kid in school might not be very beautiful on the inside, but
with proper education...
> In my book "Node Web Development" I did spend part of the first
> chapter talking about a long-time dream of the same language on the
> client and server ends. The dream dates back to when Java sprang onto
> the scene and it was plausibly possible for Java to have implemented
> that dream. Applets on the front end, and Servlets on the back end.
> Don't laugh, I said "plausibly possible". Somewhere along the way
> several stumbles were made and that version of the dream didn't come
> into reality. Node.js does re-open the possibility the dream could be
> implemented, this time with JavaScript on front and back-end ...
Indeed. And I think that while Node is in it's infancy, it will blow
out the competing server side solutions faster than any other before
it. It's just too damn easy to get started with to afford not to.
> Last winter I talked with my manager at Yahoo at length about this (at
> that time I was in the QE team in the group setting up Yahoo's Node.js
> hosting platform; I've since left) and suggested "same language on
> front and back-end" as one justification for adopting Node.js. He
> wanted to know a solid technical reason - and didn't see "same
> language on front and back-end" as enough of a justification. For me
> what I settled on was it's a way to implement real-time-web and/or to
> get better server utilization.
You should've said time saving because that's money saving and that's
what managers of managers want to hear. Beats technology anytime in
this day and age. ;)
Rasmus
Rasmus Wikman
On 15 aug 2011, at 00.33, Dean Landolt wrote:
>
> On 14 aug 2011, at 01.58, Sotonin wrote:
>
> I think the idea is a fantastic one. But not with jQuery. jQueryUI
> is one of the weakest UI libraries i've come across. Maybe something
> involving Ext would be a better choice.
>
> The licensing terms of Ext are a little too restrictive to allow for
> non-destructive development and adoption.
>
> I'm not saying that jQuery might be the best technological solution,
> but it has a large adoption rate which is key to success.
>
> Just as Node I think the other winners of the JS race will be those
> that are truly community efforts and not the ones that limit certain
> types of use.
>
> Dojo. The engineering quality of Ext with a liberal license and
> clean IP.
Wow, had missed that one. Development is truly speed of light at the
moment!
> FWIW I'm with Scott -- calling whatever you're trying to do an OS
> would probably be a mistake. I'm guessing you're going to need an OS
> to run node on! You don't plan on rewriting all the userland tools,
> right? You're probably talking about a desktop environment, right?
Well I'm mostly theorising at the moment and asking questions to avoid
unnecessary work.
If JavaScript turns out to be the long term solution that becomes a de
facto standard, I think we'll see faster development of the language
specification aswell.
What's to say everything currently written in C can't/won't be
rewritten/reparsed in JS?
And I'm not the only one poking around asking questions:
http://code.google.com/chrome/nativeclient/
Every OS has to be written in some other language before it can be
rewritten in itself. Chicken and egg. :)
> In any event, good luck -- it seems to me like a great time for it.
And to you too, exciting times we're living in! :)
Rasmus
Mark Hahn
Well it won't get you quite to standalone OS level, but you could combine Node with Chromium Embedded Framework and get you to the point of being able have nearly everything built on top of V8->html/js/css.
--
Trygve Lie
where "web apps" are first class:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/beyond-the-browser-microsofts-c3-next-gen-platform-for-html-based-applications/9282
You might be interested in this; a master exam on the topic "Web
Operating System for Modern Smartphones" (written by interns at Opera
Software):
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/cpl/record/index.xsql?pubid=143816
I think the biggest challenge in making "web OS's" a success is related
to standardize API's.
If I as a developer are not able to write a web application which runs
in both web OS A and web OS B because of unequal API's I think we have
failed.
Btw: I'm not working for Mozilla but they are hiring developers to their
Boot 2 Gecko project:
http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?c=qpX9Vfwa&cs=9Kt9Vfw1&page=Job%20Description&j=o5mSVfwY
Trygve
Joran Greef
Dean Landolt
Wow, had missed that one. Development is truly speed of light at the moment!
On 15 aug 2011, at 00.33, Dean Landolt wrote:
On 14 aug 2011, at 01.58, Sotonin wrote:
I think the idea is a fantastic one. But not with jQuery. jQueryUI is one of the weakest UI libraries i've come across. Maybe something involving Ext would be a better choice.
The licensing terms of Ext are a little too restrictive to allow for non-destructive development and adoption.
I'm not saying that jQuery might be the best technological solution, but it has a large adoption rate which is key to success.
Just as Node I think the other winners of the JS race will be those that are truly community efforts and not the ones that limit certain types of use.
Dojo. The engineering quality of Ext with a liberal license and clean IP.
Well I'm mostly theorising at the moment and asking questions to avoid unnecessary work.FWIW I'm with Scott -- calling whatever you're trying to do an OS would probably be a mistake. I'm guessing you're going to need an OS to run node on! You don't plan on rewriting all the userland tools, right? You're probably talking about a desktop environment, right?
If JavaScript turns out to be the long term solution that becomes a de facto standard, I think we'll see faster development of the language specification aswell.
What's to say everything currently written in C can't/won't be rewritten/reparsed in JS?
And I'm not the only one poking around asking questions:
http://code.google.com/chrome/nativeclient/
Every OS has to be written in some other language before it can be rewritten in itself. Chicken and egg. :)
And to you too, exciting times we're living in! :)In any event, good luck -- it seems to me like a great time for it.
Rasmus
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to nod...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to