Interesting article on Microsoft, developers and our friend, the Win32 API.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
Very interesting article. I think he is right to a large extent, at least it seems to make sense and the trend away from the API towards web based applications is happening. However there are a few things he left out the most important of which is with rich client applications (ie resident on your PC) your corporate data is not potentially exposed to the rest of the world. For example the company I work for is legally obliged to demonstrate that we are taking "sufficient measures" to protect the information we deal with, this entails hardware encryption over pptp networks, extreme firewalls and (recently) dumping Windows in favour of Linux. Linux at work, though I originally was excited about it, has lost some of it shine as problems with the software ports add up and frustration builds. This is the major advantage of the API, it is never smooth changing to another OS. He did not emphasis enough how badly Microsoft shot itself in the head with DHTML and web based technology, making OS changes painless is not something that they seem to have considered a side effect of that technology. Though as he said it is now deader than dead at Microsoft as they began to realize the can of worms they opened.
Also he only glanced over the way Microsoft sometimes used Windows developpers as "market research", the effect of this is far more devastating to Microsoft in the long run than any virtual machine could be, it is the root cause of the anti-Microsoft movement and may end up being the worst business decisions they have ever made. Those companies they screwed are now the main force behind their competition when they could just have easily been their allies, and the profitablilty is dubious when you consider the billions they paid in anti-trust settlements because of the corporate raider philosophy they embraced in the mid 90's. Finally though, Microsoft is not the 800 lb Gorilla, it is the 800 tonne Gorilla and it will survive, simply because they offer the best OS around for the individual desktop. But that Gorilla is losing weight fast, the new managed environment in Longhorn may spell the end of Microsoft as many developpers move from platform development to web development rather than relearn everything one more time, but that death will be slow and who knows they may start making cellphones.
Also he only glanced over the way Microsoft sometimes used Windows developpers as "market research", the effect of this is far more devastating to Microsoft in the long run than any virtual machine could be, it is the root cause of the anti-Microsoft movement and may end up being the worst business decisions they have ever made. Those companies they screwed are now the main force behind their competition when they could just have easily been their allies, and the profitablilty is dubious when you consider the billions they paid in anti-trust settlements because of the corporate raider philosophy they embraced in the mid 90's. Finally though, Microsoft is not the 800 lb Gorilla, it is the 800 tonne Gorilla and it will survive, simply because they offer the best OS around for the individual desktop. But that Gorilla is losing weight fast, the new managed environment in Longhorn may spell the end of Microsoft as many developpers move from platform development to web development rather than relearn everything one more time, but that death will be slow and who knows they may start making cellphones.
I don't get it. He argues that applications will become web-based and therefore Microsoft will lose to linux?
He himself says that there are quite a lot of problems with web-based applications. Some things are just not possible at all, and user interfaces are bad, for example.
So then why does he think there will be a big move to web-based applications? I can't imagine that happening.
And even if it will happen, what does that have to do with Microsoft vs linux? As he says himself, web-based applications work in any browser, any OS. So also Windows. I see no reason for myself to move from Windows to another OS, if I will use mostly web-based applications.
He himself says that there are quite a lot of problems with web-based applications. Some things are just not possible at all, and user interfaces are bad, for example.
So then why does he think there will be a big move to web-based applications? I can't imagine that happening.
And even if it will happen, what does that have to do with Microsoft vs linux? As he says himself, web-based applications work in any browser, any OS. So also Windows. I see no reason for myself to move from Windows to another OS, if I will use mostly web-based applications.
I think he meant that existing installations were not likely to migrate to another OS but they may lose their virtual monopoly of the desktop market for new users. He said as much in the article. The problem is that more and more PC resellers (especially here) are now selling PCs without an OS at all, offering one "as an addon" at extra cost. Many of the computer retaillers here offer you the choice of Linux for free or Windows XP (retail) for $200.00 and Linux is gaining a growing percentage of the choices though still not that significant overall. The explanation is that Microsoft was too restrictive in it's OEM requirements and they have just decided to drop OEM Windows all together and save a few bucks. If there are more web-based applications, for example word-processors, there will be less of a reason to pay the extra cash for Windows. I do most of my accounting with an old version of PeachTree, but more and more I am just using the services my bank provides me for free via the internet, I mean who can beat it, when I mark a bill it is paid instantly. And in reality that is what most people do with their PCs, games are much better on the dedicated platforms, most modern stereos can play CD's with MP3's already and movies are not generally viewed on PCs. There will always be a market for platform specific software for GUI or speed reasons, but it is undeniable that many applications are moving out of the PC and onto the web.
for example word-processors
Well, as he says himself, you cannot have interactive spelling/grammar checking. How will you make it WYSIWYG anyway? I don't think office applications are very suitable for web-based implementation.
games are much better on the dedicated platforms
The games are mostly different. Games like Quake are not played on consoles much, because you want high resolutions, framerates, and ofcourse a mouse. Until recently, consoles were not capable of multiplayer either.
I often hear about people who have a console alongside the PC, and play games on both. My brother is one of those.
most modern stereos can play CD's with MP3's already and movies are not generally viewed on PCs.
Actually, recently a new type of PC surfaced: the Home Theater PC. If you have a PC, you have one device that can handle everything. It can play CDs, DVDs, mp3s, webcasts, radio, tv, etc.
I myself also use my PC a lot for playing music, and the only DVD player I have is my laptop. I don't have a dedicated player. But my laptop has tv out, so it works just as well.
There will always be a market for platform specific software for GUI or speed reasons, but it is undeniable that many applications are moving out of the PC and onto the web.
I don't deny that there will be applications that will be moved to the web. I just don't agree with the 'many'. What is 'many' anyway? I already mentioned Office as something that I don't find likely to make the transition. I mentioned games, not likely either. DVD players? Impossible (let alone video editing). And then, let's see... I use Visual Studio daily. How will that ever be web-based? Will I have to download my own code in the future? What about IP?
3dsmax? No way that will ever run in a browser.
Photoshop? Impossible.
There are so many applications that just will not work this way.
Thanks Masmer, good article !
The link is very good also.
The link is very good also.
For example, WinFS, advertised as a way to make searching work by making the file system be a relational database, ignores the fact that the real way to make searching work is by making searching work. Don't make me type metadata for all my files that I can search using a query language. Just do me a favor and search the damned hard drive, quickly, for the string I typed, using full-text indexes and other technologies that were boring in 1973.
Venture Capitalists won't invest in Windows applications because they're so afraid of competition from Microsoft.
I don't get it. He argues that applications will become web-based and therefore Microsoft will lose to linux?
He himself says that there are quite a lot of problems with web-based applications. Some things are just not possible at all, and user interfaces are bad, for example.
So then why does he think there will be a big move to web-based applications? I can't imagine that happening.
And even if it will happen, what does that have to do with Microsoft vs linux? As he says himself, web-based applications work in any browser, any OS. So also Windows. I see no reason for myself to move from Windows to another OS, if I will use mostly web-based applications.
Having not yet read the article... I must say, that I have written two Enterprise scale web applications (very intense for the desktop, how much more for the Web given the nuances of the Web in general) and I greatly beg to differ that Web applications have any limitations and suffer from bad UI design (unless you have a bad designer or no designer at all). Granted, for web apps, all you really do is list results and input data and hardly much more but if I only had the time to describe the challenges and the things that have to be considered for making a good Web Application (I'm currently producing a 1000+ page book on the subject). We're talking about a web app that has to support 5000-10000+ users that will be using it 8 hours a day or more and has full accounting and everything you can imagine for the insurance industry.
I have not yet found one thing I can't do in a Web App that we haven't accomlished and how many more of those things are widely believed to not be achievable in a web app. Granted, most of our stuff *requires* IE and would never work in Mozilla, but the point is we have produced it and profit from it.
I can certainly see how web apps *could* be the wave of the future. They certainly have their advantages over client applications (again, I've not enountered one limitation I wasn't able to completely overcome in pure HTML/client scripting in a web app) but the only real problem I see is that the knowledge of how to produce a true Enterprise application that "feels" like a desktop application and has similar workflow is very scarce and it is next to impossible to fine people capable of producing one. When we interview, it takes months to find someone (not because of unreasonable expectations, but because most people have only worked on smaller ASP sites or PHP sites that aren't true business applications and haven't truly worked on a business application in the first place and those that have lack many fundamental skills required for success when merging the two together).
We've hired a few that have only made things really horrible because they had a good resume, and good verbal skills in the interview, but it turned out, they were really learning on the job here and they didn't pull their weight and we have paid the price. It does take a special person (its not as simple as it sounds) but as easy as I would think it should be to find such a person, it is in reality quite difficult. That's why when we do find them we rewards them handsomely financially to try to keep them and retain them. People here aren't underpaid (IMO). In fact, our starting salaries are at least in line of the region average or higher than the average (commensorate with experience and ability, of course).
As for the ability to move from one platform to another because of DHTML... all I can say is crappick. most browsers have a different scripting model (well, at least, some specifics that aren't consistent between all browsers) and IE more so. The application we write will never work in a Mozilla-based browser without a major changes to key portion of code. Other brosers, that are tabbed, will never work because we use popup windows that are made to "feel" like dialogs in windows (but not look like them) and would need major changes to present themselves well in a tabbed environment. Not to mention, it would confuse the heck out of our customers.
I've done much research and much development on this application and I realize you can do more in IE than in Mozilla/Netscape. For example, yes, it is possible to create a semi-well-featured WYSIWYG document editor in IE (and a more limited one in Mozilla but not Netscape) (examples online about) that are complete with spell checkers. I've even produced one that underlines your misspelled words as you are typing (yes, in DHTML). I've created a real-time syntax highlighting component that highlights as you type (yes, in DHTML) (I'm trying to package a .NET WebControl out of this one as it took much effort to get working correctly). I've created a real-time masked input control with a mask outline as you type in (similar to the VB6 and Delphi version) in pure DHTML (IE only, of course... Mozilla and Netscape would have to degrade gracefully and lose the mask outline as you type feature).
I've created a spreadsheet in DHTML (I'm trying to package into a .NET WebControl) that "feels" like Excel in many ways... the highlighting, the dragging and dropping, keyboard command, everything, complete to the formula engine in a limited capacity. The ability to drag one of my spreadsheets into a "WYSIWYG" document (yes, in pure DHTML) similar to how office behaves.
I've created a visual form designer in pure DHTML to create web pages and even connect it to an engine I produced... to similate a DHTML version of Access, complete with a Not-VBA engine for scripting your own stuff.
I've even created a image manipulation applet in DHTML to manipulate images as if it were a desktop (that is a trick and a half but quite obvious once you've seen it).
I've made many calendar controls in .NET that completely simulate Outlook (including the Outlook navigation menu on the side (circa 2000, XP, and 2003 versions). I've created drag and dockable toolbars that you can't distinguish from a real UI toolbar but is DHTML. I've created tables that you can resize the headers and rearrange their location via DHTML.
I'm able to control the clipboard and the drag and drop target/source from javascript in IE and do some amazing things. I've not found one limitation yet.
Just about all these things I'm unsuccessfull in accomplishing for Mozilla because of limitations in the browser or just simply have to make significant changes to. If I use any of these tricks I am automatically locked to IE, anyway. Of course, .NET is a true application server as opposed to PHP. I wouldn't dream of writing and Enterprise application in PHP although with PHP 5 that may change.
If you are creating a message board or a blog or a wiki or a portal, yes, you might be able to easily change your server platform (if the technology is supported well enough) but if you are writing the things I write than you are stuck with Windows and IE. But I'm not complaining, we make millions a week (I don't, the company does) so we're in no loss, besides, most of our customers don't use Linux on the desktop so there's no concern. Those who do, were told to use IE for this app and they happily made the change.
Anyway... I'm done.
Thanks,
_Shawn
Let me just clarify that I don't consider Java applets, ActiveX controls, or whatever other similar 'downloadable applications that appear inside the browser's window' to be web applications.
I consider them regular applications, they just happen to be inside the browser window when running. But they are written like regular applications, and they can pretty much do everything that regular applications can do (with the possible limitations imposed by a sandbox). Also, those don't run in every browser and on every OS.
Web apps, to me, are things like JavaScript, php, etc. And I think that is also what the author means, else his entire article doesn't make sense, if you ask me.
I consider them regular applications, they just happen to be inside the browser window when running. But they are written like regular applications, and they can pretty much do everything that regular applications can do (with the possible limitations imposed by a sandbox). Also, those don't run in every browser and on every OS.
Web apps, to me, are things like JavaScript, php, etc. And I think that is also what the author means, else his entire article doesn't make sense, if you ask me.
But there's a price to pay in the smoothness of the user interface. Here are a few examples of things you can't really do well in a web application:
1. Create a fast drawing program
2. Build a real-time spell checker with wavy red underlines
3. Warn users that they are going to lose their work if they hit the close box of the browser
4. Update a small part of the display based on a change that the user makes without a full roundtrip to the server
5. Create a fast keyboard-driven interface that doesn't require the mouse
6. Let people continue working when they are not connected to the Internet
1. Create a fast drawing program
2. Build a real-time spell checker with wavy red underlines
3. Warn users that they are going to lose their work if they hit the close box of the browser
4. Update a small part of the display based on a change that the user makes without a full roundtrip to the server
5. Create a fast keyboard-driven interface that doesn't require the mouse
6. Let people continue working when they are not connected to the Internet
I've done 1 (but not fast, it is medium), 2, 3, 4, 5. Haven't figured out 6.
Thanks,
_Shawn
But you said you did them with IE-only code?
So that would not be the kind of web application that the article is about. After all, IE-only stuff is still dependent on Microsoft and Windows.
So that would not be the kind of web application that the article is about. After all, IE-only stuff is still dependent on Microsoft and Windows.
Well, as he says himself, you cannot have interactive spelling/grammar checking. How will you make it WYSIWYG anyway? I don't think office applications are very suitable for web-based implementation.
I did not say that it was possible or even likely only that there is a danger if those types of applications move to the web. I have no doubt that it is difficult if not impossible to do now, but what makes you so sure it will always be the case ?
Originally posted by Scali
<SNIP>
The rest of the post dealt with only one topic
<SNIP>
The rest of the post dealt with only one topic
There are obviously many applications that only will run as resident. You may use your computer for DVD/CD and home entertainment but I would seriously doubt that those who do make up anything more than an insignificant minority. Perhaps here they are in the majority but a programming board is hardly a fair sampling of PC users. Everybody has a DVD player, I paid something like $100 for mine and it plugs nicely into my stereo and plays MP3s, VCDs, DVDs and CDs. What does a PC for $100 do ? it makes a nice boat anchor. I have a TIVO that will digitally record anything I want and soon the cable company may offer a package to download movies directly to my TIVO fo a simple rental fee.
Programmers use Visual Studio, and just in case you were wondering they still make up a small minority of PC users. Do you seriously think that Joe Sixpack is going to spend the time to deal with a PC when he can just stick a disk in his $55 Walmart DVD player and it works fine ? And that's who we're talking about when we talk about multi media applications. So any argument about PCs being best for multimedia is to ignore the fact, dedicated playback and recording units are the norm and by far the best in terms of features that people actually use and quality.
Yes, Photoshop and video editing are good examples of resident applications that *may* not ever be available on the net. But seriously, how many people use them on a daily basis, I suspect the number would be close to zero and would be zero for average users, I did say that some applications would not make the migration due to GUI or speed concerns after all.
But you said you did them with IE-only code?
So that would not be the kind of web application that the article is about. After all, IE-only stuff is still dependent on Microsoft and Windows.
Because other browsers don't support the functionality or support it differently (the WYSIWYG editing capabilities, for example, is supported in both IE and Mozilla (most people don't know it is in Mozilla) but is different and even so, Netscape doesn't support it, nor does Opera). So if I had done that in Mozilla I'd be limited to Mozilla on any platform (Mozilla 1.3+) but couldn't move it to IE without significant changes nor could I move it to Netscape at all. It's not because it's IE specific, so much, because it has a great object model for scripting, but because other browsers don't support it.
So, if we stick with just the standards and only the DHTML that was available between all browsers, then most of my stuff wouldn't be possible. I don't target the common denominator (and never will), I instead target the platform that has the most functionality and least limitations. Perhaps then, I would take to agreeing with the author of the article that the UI would suck. But I doubt that, you can do a lot in appearance in any browser (even NS 2.0) but functionally, you can do more with IE and then Mozilla. But there is a major gap between the two and the creators of each have completely different motives. I think MS's motives are better because they better understand both the end-user types and the developer-types and goes out of their way to appease both.
Perhaps that's why I don't care too much about supporting Mozilla or Netscape or Opera at the moment because those browsers aren't geared towards the web application crowd nearly as much as IE is and my taxes were $150+k for the 2003 filing and I write Enterprise Web Applications... not common denominator stuff that OSS zealots can use. But, I suspect I am in the minority on this... but as time marches on, I think web applications will become more common in enterprises and I somehow doubt they will cator to the common denominator, also. They will want the most functionality as well, if their users or analysts are anything like ours (and most are).
The only problem is that IE6 is 4 year old technology that won't be significantly updated unless we move to Longhorn (as MS states) so that will cause me to rethink in about 2 years but even so, if Mozilla doesn't start to spark the functionality that we take for granted in IE (that could easily be independant of anything MS) than it will be a down grade. I won't trade standards conformance in for loss-of-functionality unless it effects the bottom-line. The Mozilla crowd just doesn't get it. I've tried to make suggestions and have even asked innocent questions and they are too hate-filled against MS to be taken seriously, and that goes for the browser maintainers, as well. Yeah yeah, I can add the functionality myself but I doubt the changes will be accepted if they don't know who I am or if they ever find out that I make my living by supporting MS software.
I don't want to take this thread off topic. I dissaggree with the author and I dissagree with many industry sentiments about web applications and such when they clearly aren't in a position to comment about such technologies.
Thanks,
Shawn
I have no doubt that it is difficult if not impossible to do now, but what makes you so sure it will always be the case ?
I never said it will always be the case, but the article seems to suggest that the move is happening at this moment, and I cannot see that happening. It may happen in the distant future, but my crystal ball is as good as yours :P
You may use your computer for DVD/CD and home entertainment but I would seriously doubt that those who do make up anything more than an insignificant minority.
At this moment, yes. But this is something that has potential, I think. I can imagine that people want a single device that manages all their audio and video (this could also be an XBox or similar device. XBox Next will focus more on this aspect. Sony also made a special version of the PS2, which can even record to DVD-R, very similar to a VCR). In fact, Microsoft developed a Media Center version of their OS, and there are similar applications for linux. There are also PCs on the market that are designed for this purpose mostly. Silent, compact PCs that blend in nicely in the living room.
Think of it like this: How many people had a VCR 10 years ago? Just about everyone? And how many people have a VCR now? Hardly anyone? Most people moved to DVD and/or TiVo. Why wouldn't they move from a combination of devices to a single PC within 10 years? Heck, in the old days we had separate components for radio, CD, tape, amp aswell. Now we have 'receivers' and such that combine the functionality in a single component. I see the HTPC as the next step. I see nothing in the way of it anyway.
And that's why it's different from the web application thing, I think. I see problems in the way.
And no, not everyone may run an IDE, and not everyone may use PhotoShop, and not everyone may do video editing, etc... But all of those applications that have problems operating web-based combined should be a significant part of all computer users.
I instead target the platform that has the most functionality and least limitations.
Yes, ironically enough, Windows is usually that platform, regardless of all the criticism it gets :)
But the author talks about how Microsoft would lose because of web applications... Yet you say only Microsoft makes your applications possible. So the author's conclusion seems to be in conflict with your information.
The Mozilla crowd just doesn't get it. I've tried to make suggestions and have even asked innocent questions and they are too hate-filled against MS to be taken seriously
Yes, I find this very silly. It amazes me that people want to outdo MS on one side, yet try to avoid anything MS-related on the other side. If you don't admit that MS has good ideas and products aswell, you will never do better, I suppose. You'll just go in the wrong direction.
I guess that is the difference with MS and most other developers. MS will simply copy something good when they see it, then try to improve it by giving their own twist to it.
Anyway, I'm not worried about MS getting into trouble anytime soon. Sales of Windows are still going strong, and Windows still holds many advantages over linux for most people (obviously hardware and software support, to name one thing).
Hi Scali,
I see what you mean now and I agree. The advent of dedicated platforms may spell the end of the personal computer in the form it is now, a general purpose device. The merging of the functionality of several different platforms into one would essentially replace the PC for any home entertainment and that is where the biggest market lies. But that would also spell the end of the OS industry as well, and as a side issue maybe p2p as more copyright protection could be built into a fixed dedicated system (the mod chip market will do well). That was the reason for my off-hand comment at the end of my first post "Microsoft may start making Cellphones", that they may move away from software and towards a more hardware based business model. I think the general purpose PC market is going to start dying for the average home user and with it much of the current software market will dry up, OSS has contributed to this by making sure there is no market to protect and GPL by making sure there never will be. There will probably always be a need for PCs and programs that can only be run resident but for Joe Sixpack, the industry is working hard to replace themselves. Companies that have solid foundations such as Microsoft will reinvent themselves for the brave new world but I suspect many will die, like during the last shakeout in the mid 80's when many were blindsided.
I still remember in 1983 when Steve Jobs said that a personal computer should be like a toaster, nothing more than another appliance in your home, maybe he had something there.
I see what you mean now and I agree. The advent of dedicated platforms may spell the end of the personal computer in the form it is now, a general purpose device. The merging of the functionality of several different platforms into one would essentially replace the PC for any home entertainment and that is where the biggest market lies. But that would also spell the end of the OS industry as well, and as a side issue maybe p2p as more copyright protection could be built into a fixed dedicated system (the mod chip market will do well). That was the reason for my off-hand comment at the end of my first post "Microsoft may start making Cellphones", that they may move away from software and towards a more hardware based business model. I think the general purpose PC market is going to start dying for the average home user and with it much of the current software market will dry up, OSS has contributed to this by making sure there is no market to protect and GPL by making sure there never will be. There will probably always be a need for PCs and programs that can only be run resident but for Joe Sixpack, the industry is working hard to replace themselves. Companies that have solid foundations such as Microsoft will reinvent themselves for the brave new world but I suspect many will die, like during the last shakeout in the mid 80's when many were blindsided.
I still remember in 1983 when Steve Jobs said that a personal computer should be like a toaster, nothing more than another appliance in your home, maybe he had something there.
True, most people don't really NEED a general purpose device. It just needs to do what THEY want it to do. A set-top box which allows them to play music, watch videos, play games, surf the web and do some email may be all they need.
But I suppose the software industry will be creative enough to invent all kinds of new software for such a device.
And ofcourse at the office, people will still need general purpose PCs. Very large market aswell.
So I don't think the current software market will dry up. And I don't see what effect OSS/GPL has had on it so far, at all. It may not ever have any effect? (it's been around for ages now).
And perhaps some people only need a set-top box, but they buy a PC anyway, because it is kind of a status symbol or so. We don't know what will happen. So far, the set-top boxes aren't remotely as popular as PCs or dedicated devices though.
But I suppose the software industry will be creative enough to invent all kinds of new software for such a device.
And ofcourse at the office, people will still need general purpose PCs. Very large market aswell.
So I don't think the current software market will dry up. And I don't see what effect OSS/GPL has had on it so far, at all. It may not ever have any effect? (it's been around for ages now).
And perhaps some people only need a set-top box, but they buy a PC anyway, because it is kind of a status symbol or so. We don't know what will happen. So far, the set-top boxes aren't remotely as popular as PCs or dedicated devices though.
True enough, but when my nephew visits and brings his x-box, I wonder how long that will be the case. The software market drying up that I was reffering to was the current flood of home entertainment software each with it's own standards and codecs etc... Once a dedicated standard is in place I see alot of companies going the way of the dinosaur or Amiga, and companies like Microsoft will have to reinvent themselves, but they are very good at that and have a war chest of about 100 billion to survive the storm. But yes, in the office, PC's will always rule, I can see no way that a dedicated platform could take their place.
OSS/GPL has no direct affect, it is more an affect of drying up the profitability of certain lines of enterprise. When freeware or OSS code can do the same thing there is no longer a market to protect and little innovation in it. After all innovation is driven by profit whether we like it or not, and when somebody reverse engineers your software and publishes it under the GPL he is forever damaging that market.
OSS/GPL has no direct affect, it is more an affect of drying up the profitability of certain lines of enterprise. When freeware or OSS code can do the same thing there is no longer a market to protect and little innovation in it. After all innovation is driven by profit whether we like it or not, and when somebody reverse engineers your software and publishes it under the GPL he is forever damaging that market.
When freeware or OSS code can do the same thing there is no longer a market to protect and little innovation in it.
I agree there, but in how many situations is this actually the case? As far as I know, most commercial applications are still orders of magnitude better than OSS/GPL clones. There may be usable OSS/GPL mailclients or browsers or such, but they were free anyway, so who cares?
I agree there, but in how many situations is this actually the case? As far as I know, most commercial applications are still orders of magnitude better than OSS/GPL clones. There may be usable OSS/GPL mailclients or browsers or such, but they were free anyway, so who cares?
I would be interested in seeing a study of this topic, I find it very interesting. Personally I am Anti-GPL for the reason I gave, I believe profit drives the industry and cannot see the reason so many programmers are so bent on destroying their own means of support. OSS and freeware are fine by me but GPL forever poisons the well. But that is just an opinion based on my own skewed logic, it is difficult to find any concrete numbers to back up the argument either way. After all any one person can only see a small slice of the market and the slice that we see is generally developper oriented (even though I am far from a developper) and that is still a highly profitable branch of the industry. I cannot find a comprehensive study on the effects of GPL or OSS on the industry as a whole however.
Here I go? :)
I think that photoshop can be done at web level, also the only real problem that I see is the diferent speeds in diferents connections all around the world.
I see some impacts, like some change all is impacted in some way, eg.. supose that Adobe do photoshop at web enviroment, that mean that you will not need install the binaries (and sure.. you cant crack it), Adobe will have more control over his product :D, and if they never deliver one copy of his binaries, then there will not be posibility of have a personal server with photoshop cracked, you will need pay or subscribe for use it, also for crack it, you will need crack the server(s) that offer photoshop, but they can repatch the holes, and get you out... You will need to pay for use it. Also you will need have a good connection (you/I will need pay more).
That can be (have photoshop at wen enviroment), because like previously stated, you only need break the problem in parts.
You whant a idea?? (come MS or other interprise rip this ;).... lol)
The key notes for break the problem are:
? Have independent representation of the commands that affect the GUI and others , but can be a new 'language' one oriented to this type of applications, that not show the sintomas Listed by _Shawn.
? Have a standarized way of do calls.
? And the application in the server side will need output commands in the new 'standarized' language.
The standarized language, call it IRL .. Independent Repressentation Language, that is designed specifically for this type of applications dont have the problems for represent exactly (or near to exactly) the same application in diferent enviroments (OS, architecture), that mean that there will be a interpreter (at client side) that can send command in IRL to the server, that need follow the specs of IRL and there not will be adds to IRL that are not standar for not break the IR.
Like you where thinking, overhead applications like photoshop and if all use the function (or call remotely) the function that use more hard the process, will be a interesting topic for the server side applications, at server side, how many servers will be working?.
If you remember, I said that the GUI is dependent from the functions that you have in your programm for use them... eg, for what put a button (a command in the GUI), if has no functionality?, or for what put a function that in any way can be called from the GUI directly or indirectly?.
Letting the imagination go more far, for handle the large request, mean that the large corporations will need more power for buy more large servers, and pheraphs the velocity of the PC will be lost a little in the way of handle large companies... pheraphs no, because we will need see the impact in the economy if this sucess.
Supose for a moment that exist a server with the capacity for handle a large amount of request that require much power, then the problem of power is solved, also that mean that the companies can develop programms that the binaries where will be protected at the server side and you will only request use it.
The benefits for the large corporations will be:
? They only need do one programm that output IRL and receive IRL.
? If there is a error, then can be patched the binary in the server side, and because follow IRL output, the client application will never know that the function that is calling is diferent from the one that have called previously... also not much benefit to companies, because there are companies that follow pathc and patch and continue sending patchess that are suport and pheraphs they require a fee $, they will lost this entry of money...
? A very protected binary at server side, no "pirateria" piracy?, no cracks, no hacks, no nothing.
? If some time, a guy can crack the security, can be patched in a way that he/she can not get the binary, and dont let it reproduce for other server.
? You will need to pay, bacause the anterior point.
? Also there will be a up in the fast connections, for rentability of use this applications (we need pay more), corporations that ofear broad band will up his entries.
Benefits for us:
? No piracy :S (That is for what I use GPL or other, I not need piracy)
? I will need subscribe to the company that offer the product that I whant.
? I need request for broad band (more fast, less I see that there is a interaction with the server).
? I will can open my same information in diferent computers, and even if have low power (you see there is not necesity that a PC have power), I can still using the functions, because the power is needed remotely, the only "power" that I need is the connection.
? The goberment will protect US, because we not need that PC with such power, and only companies that are backed up with a inspection of the goverment will can buy a large server with the posibilityes of a million of actual computers (the ideal PC).
Pheraphs I go to more far that what is discused, but who said that this phreaphs can not happend?
Also a final note, remember that the actual try to independent representation IRLs where only oriented first to display or format text (remember the first OS whitout graphics and only command line text???), after with forms for get a little more fun, but pheraphs is started the IRL somewhere in the world..... :D
Have fun guys :P
Have a nice day or night.
I think that photoshop can be done at web level, also the only real problem that I see is the diferent speeds in diferents connections all around the world.
I see some impacts, like some change all is impacted in some way, eg.. supose that Adobe do photoshop at web enviroment, that mean that you will not need install the binaries (and sure.. you cant crack it), Adobe will have more control over his product :D, and if they never deliver one copy of his binaries, then there will not be posibility of have a personal server with photoshop cracked, you will need pay or subscribe for use it, also for crack it, you will need crack the server(s) that offer photoshop, but they can repatch the holes, and get you out... You will need to pay for use it. Also you will need have a good connection (you/I will need pay more).
That can be (have photoshop at wen enviroment), because like previously stated, you only need break the problem in parts.
You whant a idea?? (come MS or other interprise rip this ;).... lol)
The key notes for break the problem are:
? Have independent representation of the commands that affect the GUI and others , but can be a new 'language' one oriented to this type of applications, that not show the sintomas Listed by _Shawn.
? Have a standarized way of do calls.
? And the application in the server side will need output commands in the new 'standarized' language.
The standarized language, call it IRL .. Independent Repressentation Language, that is designed specifically for this type of applications dont have the problems for represent exactly (or near to exactly) the same application in diferent enviroments (OS, architecture), that mean that there will be a interpreter (at client side) that can send command in IRL to the server, that need follow the specs of IRL and there not will be adds to IRL that are not standar for not break the IR.
Like you where thinking, overhead applications like photoshop and if all use the function (or call remotely) the function that use more hard the process, will be a interesting topic for the server side applications, at server side, how many servers will be working?.
If you remember, I said that the GUI is dependent from the functions that you have in your programm for use them... eg, for what put a button (a command in the GUI), if has no functionality?, or for what put a function that in any way can be called from the GUI directly or indirectly?.
Letting the imagination go more far, for handle the large request, mean that the large corporations will need more power for buy more large servers, and pheraphs the velocity of the PC will be lost a little in the way of handle large companies... pheraphs no, because we will need see the impact in the economy if this sucess.
Supose for a moment that exist a server with the capacity for handle a large amount of request that require much power, then the problem of power is solved, also that mean that the companies can develop programms that the binaries where will be protected at the server side and you will only request use it.
The benefits for the large corporations will be:
? They only need do one programm that output IRL and receive IRL.
? If there is a error, then can be patched the binary in the server side, and because follow IRL output, the client application will never know that the function that is calling is diferent from the one that have called previously... also not much benefit to companies, because there are companies that follow pathc and patch and continue sending patchess that are suport and pheraphs they require a fee $, they will lost this entry of money...
? A very protected binary at server side, no "pirateria" piracy?, no cracks, no hacks, no nothing.
? If some time, a guy can crack the security, can be patched in a way that he/she can not get the binary, and dont let it reproduce for other server.
? You will need to pay, bacause the anterior point.
? Also there will be a up in the fast connections, for rentability of use this applications (we need pay more), corporations that ofear broad band will up his entries.
Benefits for us:
? No piracy :S (That is for what I use GPL or other, I not need piracy)
? I will need subscribe to the company that offer the product that I whant.
? I need request for broad band (more fast, less I see that there is a interaction with the server).
? I will can open my same information in diferent computers, and even if have low power (you see there is not necesity that a PC have power), I can still using the functions, because the power is needed remotely, the only "power" that I need is the connection.
? The goberment will protect US, because we not need that PC with such power, and only companies that are backed up with a inspection of the goverment will can buy a large server with the posibilityes of a million of actual computers (the ideal PC).
Pheraphs I go to more far that what is discused, but who said that this phreaphs can not happend?
Also a final note, remember that the actual try to independent representation IRLs where only oriented first to display or format text (remember the first OS whitout graphics and only command line text???), after with forms for get a little more fun, but pheraphs is started the IRL somewhere in the world..... :D
Have fun guys :P
Have a nice day or night.