Posted on 10/04/2005 10:47:35 AM PDT by N3WBI3
GOOGLE & SUN OFFICE: THE WORLD CHANGES THIS WEEK
[Oct 4, 2005] Google & Sun are to announce an Office Suite based on OpenOffice, and accesible via webbrowser, according to Jonathan Schwartz --President and COO of Sun Microsystems-- (the original title of his post was "The World changes this week").
It's probably the beginning of the WebOS, an Operating System based on the Web.
UPDATED: Some interesting links: :: Sun president: PCs are so yesterday :: Google Office wishlist: seamless Web storage, great built-in search, integration with other Google tools, a truly better user interface, true browser-based operation :: Some web-based Office tools: Kiko, Num Sum, Writely.
UPDATED 2: Google and Sun had agreed to a multi-year pact to distribute Sun's software technologies that offer a potential alternative to Microsoft's dominance of business users' desktops. These technologies are 'Java Desktop' and 'OpenOffice'.
"I would never run it over the Internet, I would however run it privately on my intranet."
True but what did we end up with? we ended up with people infecting their whole network with viruses written by some 13 year old in Beijing. We ended up here because when you took control in the corporate landscape from people who actually care about security you end up with what you paid for. This has been in the works for years, do you think Microsoft developed their terminal server out of nostalgia?
A client server architecture is better for business, we are seeing it more and more with ERP packages, inhouse applications, and other mission critical applications.
That is not going to change, no matter how fast and reliable the Internet becomes.
Agreed, but an intra net is a different story. Thankfully MS has for some time been giving people the ability to lock down a workstation, but applications often do not support that. In an environment where you have to lock down desktops, and often people save work to a network drive how is an intra net only, browser based office suite any different?
People want to store their documents on their own hard drives and backup devices and not on a server somewhere.
(1) In the office: In a corporation people are told *not* to save onto a local hard drive, they save onto a network share on a file server which is backed up.
(2) In the home: Just because you use a remote office suite does not mean the documents cant be saved locally. Personally if there is something I know I am going to need later at a moments notice I encrypt it and put it out somewhere on the net where I can get to it whenever.
Rumors of the demise of the PC are greatly exaggerated.
Of course, but this will (hopefully) provide competition to that model so that both can push the other to improvement.
Would you htink it useless if it was running on a stand alone webserver within a companies intranet?
Agreed.
Ah...behold the "enlightened, mature, and schooled" response of the "Golden Eagle."
So typical. Sooooo typical. *snicker*
I'm hip to that. It's so tiresome when that troll crashes these threads.
LOL! I love it!
I just don't see the need for it. Of course, I don't use the Office products a lot so I may not be the best judge of what's relevant or not for this subject.
"1980's here we come"
Which is of course exactly why I don't see this taking off. The world moved away from this model of computing for a reason (largely because it sucked). I know they've been predicting a return to it under various names for a while, but the fact that they keep having to change the name to maintain any level of buzz shows just how little movement towards it there really is.
The world moved away from this because the internet had not taken off and the idea of portable graphical applications was in its infancy, it was too expensive on the hardware side to do it. All the moves you see to client server are showing that it was a model whos time had not come. Will it ever go back to the 80's no, thank goodness. but we will see a hybrid of the two, heck we are already seenig it.
I know they've been predicting a return to it under various names for a while, but the fact that they keep having to change the name to maintain any level of buzz shows just how little movement towards it there really is.
Are you saying there has not been a rise in the importance of web based applications over the past five years? MS has invested a good deal of time and money getting their terminal services going. in NT is was pretty much an after thought but it has matured considerably. We even see vmware esx and others (IBM P-Series) using *gasp* LPAR technology.
Look at ERP packages, how many of them are going web based? why? and why would an office suite be any different?
MS Office has been able to do that for years, it's called a Network install, it's slower than snail snot, and it means that when one router goes down productivity dies. That's one of the reasons the world moved to fully functional desktop machines, so people can still work when the network is having issues.
So in other words MS has not been able to give users a realistic way of doint it. Being able and being usable are two different things. Also let me ask you can you run a network install to say an apple box? what about solaris? MS's implementation in addition to 'being slower than snail snot' was also not *portable*. Beyond the fact that MS never tried to optimize office for that behavior, and beyond the fact is was not portable to other operating systems, it was based on MS's network protocols which were never really kind to a network. An implementation in HTTP would resolve all of these.
That's one of the reasons the world moved to fully functional desktop machines, so people can still work when the network is having issues.
The major reason this started happening was because people wanted PC's in their home, and bandwidth at the time *IF* you could even get it was not enough to do anything useful. once people were running stand alone at home the needed applications. Now the glass is out there for people to use and while this may not catch on in the home to ignore client server in a corporate setting because it so 'ancient' would not be a wise decision.
No, the world moved away from it because it sucked. A companies entire productivity relied on the stability of the network, with nobody able to use local storage you were one bad harddrive away from losing everything (a situation that went away, but has come back recently as harddrives have gotten too big to effectively backup, sure you've got RAID but that just means you're 2 dead drives away from the grave), it was slow, and all around it was a pain. All the "moves" I see in client server are a bunch of bluster and fluster with no real changes.
Terminal Services has been around in some form or another since NT3.51, changed names a couple of times but it's not a development of the last 5 years. Most of the "maturing" it's done is to steal features from Cytrix and undercut their market, it still doesn't have a major market share.
The reason ERP is going web is that a central repository is key to ERP. Most office stuff is written by one or two people then shared. And really ERP shouldn't be going web because the UI for web app sucks, every app (ERP or otherwise) that's gome from real client server to web based has taken a HUGE leap backward in usability.
Thank you for that in depth analysis
with nobody able to use local storage you were one bad hard drive away from losing everything (a situation that went away
I hate to break it to you but most corporations today don't want you to save things to your local hard drive. Shadow copy is nice and all but they want important docs to go to a file server.
sure you've got RAID but that just means you're 2 dead drives away from the grave
or three or ten or twenty, depending on how many hot spares you put into place.
it was slow, and all around it was a pain.
Was! we have this thing now called a *SAN*, running raid disks that are going to be faster than anything you find in a pee-cee.
All the "moves" I see in client server are a bunch of bluster and fluster with no real changes.
So in other words you are saying web based applications are not more prominent than they were 10 years ago? five years ago?
Terminal Services has been around in some form or another since NT3.51, changed names a couple of times but it's not a development of the last 5 years
And were crap until 2k, I never said it was not less than five years old. I said MS treated them like an after thought in NT4 which is more than 10 years old. but in the past five years they have significantly improved the product.
The reason ERP is going web is that a central repository is key to ERP.
So why not just use desktop clients that connect to a database like they have been doing with *ugg* Powerbuilder for years.
And really ERP shouldn't be going web because the UI for web app sucks, every app
No worse than powerbuilder. I have seen web based apps that look every but as good as local apps.
real client server to web based has taken a HUGE leap backward in usability.
Has not been my experience. I have seen web based apps that let you save session data to your local desktop just as if you were using a local app. What I do know is centralized apps save money, and save a good deal of it.
No they've done it the right way, the problem is the very concept blows. There's an Apple version of Office so they couuld to it there, MS isn't interested in Solaris so even if they went through the web that would be no. Actually the MS implementation is very *portable*, they never optimized for it because there's a very small section of the market interested in it and it wasn't worth the money. Actually it's network generic, just not OS generic, goes fine over TCPIP, if your Windows (or Apple) machine can get to the network share it'll work.
You're not making sense, if the dsktop was driven by the home market, and thin client doesn't take off at home, then it's not going to take off elsewhere. Actually desktops took off because they were cheaper, less need for big iron and more functional if something happened between the user and the core machine. It's the same thing that's been keeping this thin client rebirth from happening, desktops are more generally useful and will continue to be so.
It does suck, that's as deep an analysis as thin client deserves.
Sure everybody wants the big documents on the file server, but as you say shadow copies are nice.
Nope it only takes two dead drives to kill a RAID array so long as one of the dead drives is the parity drive, lose the parity drive and one other at the same time and your data is toast. Chances of it happening are low, but it does happen.
The drives of the server have nothing to do with the slowness of running things over the network, the slowness is in moving data around. No network can read or save data faster than local, it's the nature of the beast, and when you add sending actual running code over the network the beast gets even slower.
Sure there's more, but they all have drawbacks (mostly in usability and speed) over client server, and client server still owns the majority of the market by a long shot.
Again, the improvements to the product has mostly been stealing features. NT4 Cytrix with TS gave you more functionality than 2K3 TS on it's own gives now, not much more but more. MS gets twitchy about people making money by adding obvious functionality to their products, it's the same reason they've been delving into anti-spyware stuff.
Because Powerbuilder is ugg. There's a lot of buzz again about web apps, but it'll fade, it always does.
I haven't seen any web app that works anywhere near as well as local, this is especially true if the app previously was local. Compare the last local version of any app that's made the mistake to their latest web version and you'll find the local version was faster, had better UI and was much more useful. It's a universal truth.
I haven't seen any centralized app save one single dollar. Sure they all say they do, but they're lying their butts off. They never take into account what happens when the network goes and suddenly nobody can do anything. 1 hour of down time for a central app can cost a mint.
There's an Apple version of Office so they couuld to it there
So its not portable?
MS isn't interested in Solaris so even if they went through the web that would be no.
Umm if they went HTTP the OS would not matter
Actually it's network generic, just not OS generic, goes fine over TCPIP, if your Windows (or Apple) machine can get to the network share it'll work.
The first implementations all ran on networks using WINS and other windows protocols that even Microsoft has abandoned.
Actually the MS implementation is very *portable*
Yea you can port it to any version of windows they tell you that you can use...
You're not making sense, if the desktop was driven by the home market, and thin client doesn't take off at home, then it's not going to take off elsewhere.
There is a desktop and a server market. This will, I think, have some impact on the server market and might change they way offices do business. The savings in terms of maintenance *alone* is huge.
There is no right way to implement it because the very concept is flawed.
It's as portable as it needs to be. You can logon to any machine on your network or that can get to your network and work on your documents, that's as portable as anything needs.
If they went to HTTP then they'd have to go through a browser and the UI would revert to Word5 (web based UI is nearly identical to Win3.1, which was aweful). A giant leap backwards to accomplish nothing of any use.
WINS is ancient history, they've all worked on TCPIP since at least 1998.
Don't need any more portability than that, it's a WINDOWS application.
It's not going to change how anybody does business. There is no savings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.