Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Blake Ross Working on Parakey Web OS

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Nov 01, 2006 05:17 PM
from the web-2-point-oh-no dept.
The Internet Mozilla Operating Systems Software
prostoalex writes "IEEE Spectrum is running an article on Blake Ross, creator of Firefox, and his new project called Parakey, which will bridge the gap between Web and desktop operating system. From the article: 'As he describes it, from a user's point of view, Parakey is "a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do." Translation: it makes it really easy to store your stuff and share it with the world. Most or all of Parakey will be open source, under a license similar to Firefox's. There are differences between the two projects, however. Although Ross plans to incorporate the talents and passions of the free-software community, he's building Parakey around a for-profit business model. And he's leading the charge with a simple battle cry: "One interface, not two!"'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Facebook Acquires Parakey's Web OS Platform 64 comments
NaijaGuy writes "Facebook has purchased Parakey for an undisclosed sum. We have previously discussed how Facebook recently opened up development opportunities for third-party developers. With this acquisition some observers have noted that Facebook might be trying to become a Google alternative, by providing an application development platform based on Parakey's technology. Facebook's 'Web OS' has also been discussed, and the company has made headlines partly because of the fame of one of its founders. Blake Ross helped launch Firefox, and it was enthusiasm for helping less geeky users like his mom to thrive on the web that got him through the doors of Netscape at the age of 15. A recent interview charts how that same enthusiasm led him to start Parakey, 'a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Blake Ross Working on Parakey Web OS 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Is this just a virtual file system? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rminsk (831757) on Wednesday November 01 2006, @05:21PM (#16680953)
    How is this an OS? An OS manages the hardware and software resources for a computer. Is this just a virtual filesystem?

    • Re:Is this just a virtual file system? (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 01 2006, @05:31PM (#16681131) Homepage Journal
      I did a bit of searching to find out what it is. His idea is simply to take files from a machine, and make them accessible on the web. (Potentially via your own subdomain of parakey.com.) To that end, it will probably be a program that would automatically handle the upload of things like digital images from your camera, and important documents to the web. It's conceivable that it's implemented as a virtual file system, but it could be something as simple as a right click menu item that says, "Send to Parakey". It could even be a set of drivers to handle things like digital images automatically. We'll have to see.
      • Sounds suspiciously like WebDAV, only with less brain-damage than Microsoft's implementation of a client for it.

        Personally I think WebDAV should get the "Internet's Most Unappreciated Technology Award", in terms of having a lot of promise but being seldom used. (Although Apple does drag it out every once in a while; I think the .Mac services use it.) It has a lot of potential.
      • After a bit of pondering over the "One interface, not two!" motto, I think I may have a guess about how it will work.

        What you'll probably see is a XUL application that acts as a Windows Explorer type of app. It will keep a local cache of the files you're working on, then mirror them back to the server. I could also see it containing an interface to allow you to drag and drop files into a pre-defined page layout. (e.g. Drag your images into a photo-album page.)

        Considering that it would be an XUL application,

          • Re:Is this just a virtual file system? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by blakeross (611172) on Wednesday November 01 2006, @09:17PM (#16683685) Homepage
            Who said anything about paying for the service?

            In any case, with respect to your concerns about data lock-in: one of the driving principles of the system is that your data is always synchronized to at least one of your machines. If every datacenter on the planet exploded tomorrow, your data would be right there on your computer. You always own it.

            If I wanted to capitalize on name recognition, I'd have released the world's 87 millionth bookmark sharing website a few months after Firefox launched. We've been working on this in silence for a very long time, and will resume doing so when this has blown over next week. This has nothing to do with fame or fortune; it's about improving the experience for things we do everyday.
      • If that's all he wants to do (doubt it) then he should use ifolders or subversion.
        • I don't know how different it is from YourOS. I kind of like the idea, though, even if it's not the unified solution many of us want.
      • More than that, it sounds like it is basically going to be client software for hosting your virtual life. So, you can manage files on your computer remotely through a browser, and also your friends and family can see all the stuff you have flagged as shared.

        This aspect of it will be sort of like MySpace on crack, only it's hosted from your computer, and hopefully it's a lot more robust and user-friendly, and a lot less lame.

        At least, that's the impression I got after R-ing TFA.
    • The reason MS came out with IE was that Netscape+Java was supposed to be a sufficiently portable user+services interface environment that the underlying OS was supposed to be irrelevant, and therefore running Linux underneath could be just as useful as Windows. They didn't care about the market for free browsers, they cared about keeping Windows from getting killed.


      Breaking compatibility took care of that problem for them - why is it different today?

  • Nifty (Score:5, Funny)

    by Virak (897071) on Wednesday November 01 2006, @05:24PM (#16680983) Homepage
    I've always thought you should be able to write interrupt handlers in Javascript.
    • I'm really interested to see their scheduler too, and their memory management code. This looks, from the scant information available, to be Yet Another Browser that tries to integrate everything people do into one interface. It's not anywhere near being an OS, probably not even a Window Manager.
    • Or Action Script Flash kernel modules. "CLICK THE EPILEPTIC SEZUIRE INDUCING MONKEY TO WIN A FREE .KO!"

      Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING filter bypass.

  • One job, one tool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Wednesday November 01 2006, @05:24PM (#16680997) Homepage Journal
    Why must we have tools that try to do everything?

    I remember hearing about some guys named Brian and Dennis and uh I forget the third guy's name - it was back in the 60's - trying to write an operating system based on the idea that each part should do one distinct thing, and do it well. I don't know if anything ever came of it, but I thought that it sounded like a good idea.

    There is a major distinction between MY computer and the rest of the world. One is mine; the rest belongs to others. I treat them differently. I want my desktop to reflect it.
    There are already too many people who seem to forget that my stuff is mine - spammers, politicians, cold callers, door-to-door salesmen, etc - and that I might want it separate from the rest of the world. I don't want my OS forgetting this too.
    • Why must we have tools that try to do everything?

      And why are some web devlopers so obsessed with the OS model? Everyone of these that I have seen, and I mean everyone of them, has either been a toy or an intentional joke. And if they're a toy, they're not even fun to play with.

      To tell you the truth, I think what we have already - meaning various file keeping and sharing web applications - is all people would want out of a "Web OS."

      • Because web devs have an inferiority complex. They want to be real programmers, but they just can't hack it. So they try and pump up their egos by writing "web OS" type web apps.
      • And why are some web devlopers so obsessed with the OS model?

        Because we've read William Gibson and we want to build cyberspace.

        Microsoft, Apple et al all rely on the clear separation of workstation and world so they can sell the same product millions of times.

        Governments have lost the will and the ability to conceptualise and sell beautiful futures.

        If we want a great infrastructure project like cyberspace, we'll have to muck in and do it ourselves. This may not let me burn chrome tomorrow, but it ha

    • I remember hearing about some guys named Brian and Dennis and uh I forget the third guy's name

      It was actually 4: Brothers Brian, Dennis, and Carl along with Mike Love.

    • We're all about "one job, one tool." That was the concept that drove us to fork Firefox in the first place. What about the article suggests that we're deviating from that with Parakey? Perhaps I can clarify our intentions.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by blakeross (611172)
          The quote in the article is not correct. Parakey will be open source, as the article does say elsewhere ("Most or all of Parakey will be open source").

          I am indeed primarily a Windows user. If you're going to make software for everyone, it helps to use the same computing environment as 95% of the world, so you can understand their problems better. However, my partner Joe is primarily a Mac user. There is no primary development platform; we develop on all platforms.

          As for the business model, it's a new take o

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fossa (212602)

      If someone set out to make a entire toolbox of tools that did one thing well, would you deride them because the toolbox as a whole can do many things?

  • they want their lame idea back.
  • Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?
    • Any ideas?
      Yeah. The source is free (at least the client component), but the service to hold your files on the web will cost $$$.

      Think: Different
      Think: .Mac
      • Yeah. The source is free (at least the client component), but the service to hold your files on the web will cost $$$.

        Seems like it shouldn't be hard, then, to reverse-engineer the code and figure out how to use somebody else's servers as the data repository. Unless he's planning on doing something sneaky/evil, like using encrypted binary lumps or something. Even then, if it's really that neat an idea, people will figure out a way to do it on their own servers.

        Think: .Mac

        Agreed; the whole thing reminds me o
    • Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?

      selling your data.
    • Presumably you'll need a server so that you can "Access Your Computer Anywhere!" Sounds like .Mac on steriods.
    • Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?
      The answer to that is well known in the industry, as "Step 2". For more information, see the seminal work in this area by Parker & Stone, entitled "Gnomes".

  • I hope it's walled off (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alcimedes (398213) on Wednesday November 01 2006, @05:30PM (#16681113)
    Anything that makes it "really easy" for me to move/save/delete files while online from any computer means that unless you're amazingly careful, you're also making it that much easier for someone else to do it for you.

    Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I have yet to see *any* vendor, be it closed source or open source take enough time and care with their code to write something that doesn't have gaping security holes in it.

    What's going to happen when what was a simple browser problem becomes a file system problem? Drive by downloads that wipe your machine.
  • a simple battle cry: 'One interface, not two!'

    Of course, when MS - also seeing a change in the traditional boundaries - wants to embed a browser in their own OS, and make poking around the local file system feel similar to poking around web sites... that's the battle cry of... Teh Evil!

    *sigh*
    • I'm sure Microsoft's battlecry would be, "Free Sharepoint!*"

      * With a qualifying purchase of Windows Vista Home Multimedia Office Television Edition.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by glwtta (532858)
      Teh Evil!

      Here we go again - what part of "monopoly" do you people not understand? When you are a money-grubbing monopolistic power with a strangle-hold on an entire industry the rules are different. We don't have to be "fair" to MS, that's not how it works.

      Is this really that hard to grasp?
      • Here we go again - what part of "monopoly" do you people not understand? When you are a money-grubbing monopolistic power with a strangle-hold on an entire industry the rules are different. We don't have to be "fair" to MS, that's not how it works.

        So, it's better for lawyers to dictate which is the best user interface in an O/S? How about what the shift key does? Or whether the screen resolution is adjusted with a slider bar or radio buttons? Or whether notepad.exe does, or does not support choosing your
  • This sounds great for the vast majority of web users ... people who want to create blogs, picture pages, keep notes, network with their friends, use e-mail, chat, etc. Calling it an O/S is a bit of a stretch since it doesn't perform any hardware/software control on the computer or the server, it simply comes with an application to facilitate file manipulation/moving/sharing/tagging/etc. Sounds like MySpace meets e-mail meets Flickr, on steroids.

    BTW - if you'd like to get more information on this produc
  • Including running like molasses and then BSOD!

    But seriously, is this just another one of those "desktop in javascript" things? They've been done a million times, and they all suck.

  • Most used feature: web recycle bin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Statecraftsman (718862) * on Wednesday November 01 2006, @05:37PM (#16681251) Homepage
    I wonder how this project will manage to give a "web os" more power over hardware while not simultaneously throwing our security in the "web recycle bin".

    IE had too much power over the OS and it caused problems. Firefox and IE7 do more to put some distance between the os and the web for good reason.

  • Am I the only person appalled by these web interfaces, or even web desktops, being referred to as operating systems? It is technically wrong by a large margin. An operating system is the interface between hardware and software that manages the resources of hardware. Web "operating systems" do not manage any hardware.

    I find this usage appalling, and I hope that this terminology doesn't spread and dumb down the use of technical terms.

    • How about if you say "An operating system is the interface between resources and software that virtualizes the specific characteristics of the resources, allowing software to be written generically."

      There's no problem that can't be solved by introducing another layer of abstraction. Calling it a WebOS is a pretty easy way to introduce the topic to the largest audiences you care about: end users, and to a lesser degree, application developers.

      If the term offends your purist sensibilities, that's basically j

      • If the term offends your purist sensibilities, that's basically just too bad

        It's just like an intelligent but illiterate professional dancer talking about how he has worked out there are 35 "senses" because he hasn't listened to anyone long enough to find out that the word perception exists. It appears that many are spinning different definitions of existing terms to profit from confusion or due to simple ignorance or lazyness. My instant reaction to this usage is to treat anyone who uses it as ignorant

  • Wow (Score:2)

    by Bogtha (906264)

    Parakey is "a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do."

    It can be more useful than a brick when the network connection is down? No? Then it can't do everything an OS can do.

  • Let me save everyone the trouble :) (Score:5, Informative)

    by blakeross (611172) on Wednesday November 01 2006, @06:15PM (#16681717) Homepage

    I'm well aware that a "web operating system" would not fulfill the same functions as a true web operating system, and I'm as tired of the "WebOS" rhetoric as anyone else. I did explain this to Spectrum, and it seems the magazine decided to leave the mention but explain that it's only an "operating system" from the average user's perspective--which is difficult to prove either way, since my mother probably thinks an "operating system" is some kind of surgical device.

    As for the "how is this different from XXX?" comments, I understand that it may be difficult to differentiate Parakey based solely on the description provided in this early article. Rather than chase those sorts of questions here, I'd rather continue working towards putting the product in your hands so you can decide whether it's different and, ultimately, whether it's worth your time. Thanks everyone.

    • "...as a true operating system...", that is.
    • So, from a geek to a geek, parakey looks more like a sort of IM-like, "social" program, that tries to unify IM, email, archive sharing, photo sharing/sending, calendar, blog (everything that can be considered "social", that these days means almost everything, even sharing experiences between sysadmins).... and unifying it with a server/client model like God Intended to replace the protocols mess we've today?

      If so, it looks nice :)
  • I'm going to start with some obvious information to establish why I think there's a real development going on here.

    Historically, computing improvement has been achieved by layering the technology, so that each layer operates with a high degree of autonomy from the layer below it. Depending on your perspective, there are anywhere from 6 to dozens of layers within the computer you're using to read this.

    This layering, called "abstraction" by most, has minimized the amount of complexity that needs to be managed
  • There are differences between the two projects, however. Although Ross plans to incorporate the talents and passions of the free-software community, he's building Parakey around a for-profit business model.

    Ah...the classic "Get your product/service made for free and then sell it for profit" business model. Best of luck to people who work for this and don't get compensated for their time and efforts.

    • Profit and open-source are not mutually exclusive. We would never try to profit unfairly off the backs of others.
  • I work with Blake on Firefox. As one of the few people who's actually seen and used Parakey, I can tell you that the assumptions being made here are misguided. It's a unique product that surpasses anything similar I can find out there today.

    The article referenced does a poor job of explaining what Parakey is about and an even worse job of describing how it works. It won't be long before you all can see for yourself.

    - A
  • The idea of a "web operating system" sounds very 1990s to me. It doesn't really sounds the least bit interesting these days. On the other hand, I don't understand why linux distros don't take more advantage of things like wikis. I'd really like to see linux distros become more integrated with wikis - error messages could have links to wikis or forum posts, control panel applets could contain links to editable howtos, etc. there are some security issues but nothing impossible.
    • Thanks for your perspective. We've been at this for awhile now, so we've had plenty of time to think through the issues you mention. Of course, only time will tell whether we get them right. As for the business model, we do have it figured out, but it's not something that will be made public until we launch (which is still some time off).
    • All they have to do is get Google to buy em.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.