10 Web Operating Systems Reviewed

Stan Schroeder writes "Waiting for GoogleOS? Why not try some of the WebOS applications that are already available? Believe it or not, there's already over 15 of them, and here you can find a review of the 10 most promising WebOSes. Most of them might not make you want to ditch your desktop OS just yet, but some are very good and can be used on a day-to-day basis. Highlights include DesktopTwo, Goowy, YouOS, EyeOS and Glide. You can find the whole bunch here." Note: for the purposes of this article, "WebOS" is defined as "a set of applications running in a web browser that together mimic, replace or largely supplement a desktop OS environment."

what use?

[bedonnant]

I still don't get what actual use of these can be relatively to other existing options.

This is a joke, right?

[rudy_wayne]

How is this an operating system?

I guess "WebOS" sounds a lot sexier than "crappy useless Flash programs that just barely work".

Definition

[matt me]

Surely we now have a Turing machine equivalent for webOS.

A sufficiently advanced webOS is able to run itself.

Re:Isn't this a step backwards?

[x2A]

No, we are exercising that freedom by running different things in different ways to best suit our needs.

Re:Umm... promising?

[Kjella]

Well, because Windows and OS X users rarely if ever have needed to separate between the OS and Desktop Environment, if they at all understand what Windows is then it's as an operating system. So when you make an online desktop environment, you call it WebOS people actually think right even though it's technically wrong. It's the same way people think a 10/100 Mbit Ethernet connection would be "broadband", when it's technically not. But in their minds they get the right idea of "fast internet". Still, if I wanted anything like a WebOS, I'd much rather have a remote login to a real desktop.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

[jlarocco]

I don't even know where to start.

First off, these aren't "operating systems." An operating system is the system of software that interacts with the hardware of the computer and provides an interface for regular application software to use and share that hardware. Most operating systems do quite bit more than that, but at it's heart, that's what an OS is for. These "Web operating systems" don't do anything like that, by any stretch of the imagination. At best these would some kind of user interface.

Second of all, they're SLOW. Way to go, guys, your "WebOS" makes my 2+ Ghz Athlon 64 and gig of memory run like a slow 386.

If that's not bad enough, there's really no use for these things. At best they're remote desktop for people who are too stupid to setup a regular remote login or VPN. I mean, shit, I can tunnel X over ssh and log in to one of my home machines from work, and get full access to a regular X session and all of Linux. It's not as fast as being logged in locally, but it's still much faster than these "Web OSes"

And finally, it's an abomination of the underlying technology. Somebody really needs to have a little talk with these people about using the right tool for the job. This isn't even like using a hammer to pound in a screw, it's more like using a jack hammer to to fix a watch.

Re:This is a joke, right?

[NotFamousYet]

Again, like "Web 2.0", this is just a term coined by bloggers to hype a new kind of feature.

For most people, an OS is nothing more than a collection of software which comes with a computer. So a WebOS is basically the equivalent of these apps, but online.

A better fitting name would probably be Online Desktop, but since those failed in the previous bubble (desktop.com anyone?), I doubt people will be calling them that :)

Re:Why?

[MoogMan]

A "WebOS" is really just an expensive implementation of a Thin client.

Re:what use?

[doctorzizmore]

This might be interesting to use on the Wii, which has a browser but no real 'OS' to speak of.

BOOT from...WAN?

[msimm]

I'm sure the current crop of WebOS solutions are silly or novel (or both). But I do see potential for things to move in this direction. Assuming hardware can be considered essentially an appliance (you don't seriously think custom, clunky, incompatible rigs are going to be gold standard forever?) whats really important? Your environment, your applications and your data.

But aside from laptops (which you have to lug around, break, etc) as far as the average person is concerned their data is tied to their hardware.

Now periodically I see the whole thin-client argument revisited and maybe that is how it will be played, but at the very least I see a possible market for true network-based OS's that will allow you to access your *real* systems from just about any piece of hardware you have access to. Airplanes, pay phones, hotels, friends houses, etc.

I mean bandwidth aside, is there really any reason I can't have my systems run across a multitude of hardware and provide me with *my* working environment?