[Tfug] Browser based UI's

[keith smith]

I think there will always be a need for an app that runs off the local computer and might connect to a distant server or just stay local.

The browser based idea is a good one in that there is no deployment.  You just point your browser toward whatever you want to run.

The downside is it is difficult to create browser based application... at least that is my opinion.

I do not have much experience with flash and John says they "freeze up when loading on a moderately fast internet connection...".

I like the concept of Flex.  I have not built anything using Flex so I have no first hand experience, however with a standardized plug in, your code runs in a "known" environment.  It is my understanding it is relatively secure and maintaining state is the same as a desktop app.  No cross browser compatibility ... AJAX... CSS... configurations issues as far as I know.

I may try Flex it in the near future.   

------------------------
Keith Smith


--- On Thu, 7/16/09, johngalt1 <johngalt1 at uswest.net> wrote:

> From: johngalt1 <johngalt1 at uswest.net>
> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Browser based UI's
> To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 5:19 PM
> This was a stupid idea way back when
> Microsoft tried to "integrate" the browser into their OSes.
> They were in a painc after realizing they messed up by
> discounting the Internet.
> 
> During that time period, practically every other "industry
> funded" BS white paper and study predicted a browser
> takeover of the desktop OS.
> 
> This was in the Microsoft 95/98 days..
> 
> Well, we see how far that vision carried forth...
> 
> Only now - ten years later, do we have sluggish Flash /
> silverlite apps that freeze up when loading on a moderately
> fast internet connection....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bexley Hall" <bexley401 at yahoo.com>
> To: <tfug at tfug.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:34 AM
> Subject: [Tfug] Browser based UI's
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've been trying to give browser based user
> interfaces
> > "the benefit of the doubt" as potential general
> purpose
> > user interfaces.  But, I think I have come to
> the
> > realization that they just don't (can't?) work for
> > *all* types of applications.  I.e., Google's
> idea
> > that they can replace the desktop with web based
> > applications is  just a wet dream, IMO.
> > 
> > But, I have been unable to codify *why* these "just
> don't
> > work" -- whether it is the browser's "fault" (i.e.,
> capabilties
> > that are missing in that type of interface) *or* that
> of
> > the applications, themselves (i.e., could these work
> if the
> > model adopted by the application were different than
> it
> > *has* been?)
> > 
> > Of course, the responsiveness of the network plays a
> role.
> > But, pretend you were connecting to "localhost" for
> all of
> > your "web based services"... so transport delays,
> dropped
> > packets, etc. were not an issue.  I'm sure you
> could still
> > see how many "applications" just *suck* using this
> form of
> > interface.
> > 
> > [i.e., imagine rewriting KDE so you opened a giant
> browser
> > window in your startup script that was pointed at http://localhost/kde
> > to provide that "environment".  Some of it would
> work "OK".
> > Some parts would be "passable, but not ideal". 
> And other
> > things would just suck horribly!]
> > 
> > Any thoughts as to what aspects of the
> applications/browser
> > make for *good* interfaces vs. bad?  I.e.,
> obviously a 100%
> > static application can be handled reasonably well in a
> browser...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> > Subscription Options:
> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>