The Future Might Be BIOS and Browsers 350
An anonymous reader writes "Few in the open source community have welcomed online applications like Google Docs with open arms, but Keir Thomas claims he's found a way forward — and it's one that involves exclusively open source. He reckons BIOS-based operating systems are the future, because they will alter the way users think about their computers. FTA: 'The key breakthrough is ideological: BIOS-based operating systems demote the operating system to just another function of the hardware. It breaks the old mindset of the operating system being a distinct platform, or an end in itself. The operating system becomes part of the overall computing appliance. This allows the spotlight to focus on online applications.'"
This is true for some value of (Score:5, Insightful)
computer users, but when the network is down all bets are off. No matter how good the experience normally is, one lightning storm is all it will take to send johnny user off to computers are us to buy a full functioning pc.
Could be useful (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on how they implement it. I'd imagine for at least 80% of the unwashed hordes who just want something to boot in seconds, and then to surf the web and check their gmail, this would be great.
I've always wanted something like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've wanted it for a long time for PC gaming, but it's certainly a lot of work. A bios-based browser framework would be much simpler, and frankly it would fulfil the needs of a great many PC users. I know I'd like it for those times when all I want to do is get on the web. Boot should only be a few seconds before you're browsing slashdot. ;)
Think about it though, for gaming (if someone would ever do it). Basic OS + gaming specific API = leanest gaming OS possible. Consoles basically use this concept, and get a lot more out of less hardware than PC games can, because PC games have much greater overhead.
My thoughts, anyway.
Supplement, not replace (Score:5, Insightful)
If all applications are on a server -- someone else's server -- it doesn't bode too well for my freedom. This is a fine model for a lightweight system, such as a thin client or terminal, but I think these will complement the personal computer rather than supplant it, and will only do so to the extent that bandwidth and ubiquity permit. Emerging devices like netbooks and smartphones do seem to point toward this model gaining in popularity in coming yearss, but I think a lot of people will still find having code that executes locally, and which they can own and control, to be valuable -- too valuable to discard entirely.
Castle in the clouds (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks, I would actually like to be able to execute native code. Javascript or ECMAscript or whatever they call it nowadays is a pretty poor substitute for any of the dozens of much better programming languages in the universe. Plus it's write once debug everywhere to a much greater extent than even Java.
Why do you think there was such a kerfluffle over iPhone application development? Apple initially said you could just roll a Web 2.0 app that looked native to the iPhone, and exactly nobody was satisfied with that.
I have no doubt that browser devices will become more popular over the course of the next few years, but they're never ever going to replace native code.
Re:I've always wanted something like this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm, welcome to recursion (Score:5, Insightful)
So, no OS. Browser becomes OS. Then browser adds features to do things that BIOS doesn't do.
So congratulations, you've taken "OS", moved it up and now call it "BIOS", the you've taken "browser" and now call it "OS". You've taken "applications" and called them unnecessary. Then you've taken "online applications" and called them "applications".
So all you've done is to throw the OS into the hardware, and you've changed the programming language into an internet-delivered language. Oh yeah, and you've put the browser into the position of controlling the system.
And now you're going to say that internet explorer isn't a fundamental part of windows? No, you're going to say that windows isn't a fundamental part of online applications. except windows doesn't exist anymore, and all applications are online applications, and internet explorer is now the entire operating system.
So you've said notihng but juggled around terms.
And then, in five years, when firefox decides to support downloadable fonts, stateful connections, when "cookies" become "files" and there's access to a "file system" for these online applications to use, and some kind of "active control" to interface with other hardware like printers and scanners and cameras, then you'll simply have virtualized an operating system again.
Congratulations for saying nothing. I can do it to. Watch this:
"Computers are relying more and more on the Internet these days. Someday, more applications will begin online, instead of client-side. Oh, and your hardware will do more work than it used to." -- me, 2009
Re:I've always wanted something like this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Consoles have 1 unique hardware platform.
A PC game must work on hundreds of different hardware configurations; to do that, we have to have a bunch of APIs (DirectX), but most importantly each different hardware component must have it's own driver that interfaces with that API to allow it to do the real work.
A BIOS OS (for now) just uses very generic "drivers" to access the basic/common hardware functions. We're still a long way off to the point where a common BIOS will allow for gaming.
If you allow the BIOS to be user-updatable with drivers, then it's no longer a Basic Input-Output System, it's really an embedded OS.
EFI might work, with plugins/drivers, though.
Long time still... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's going to be at least 10 years before this is feasible to the masses. We're not streaming live high def content in real-time. If we were, then a central gaming server could stream your screen to you and your computer would just have to be strong enough to play it.
However, until that happens, gamers won't move to it. Until gamers make it usable, the general public won't move to it. By time this is possible, won't storage and processing power be so compact and powerful that it'll just be a silly argument anyways?
I can see virtual systems with the drives stored online and cached locally, so you can take your computer to any terminal and immediately pickup. But pure bios machines, no. This just isn't feasible for the masses currently, nor will it even be the best choice once it is.
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:4, Insightful)
And what will Johnny User do with that computer when the network is down?
- Can't do email if you can't access Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo.
- Can't chat with friends on IM
- Can't socialize on Facebook/Myspace
- Can't surf YouTube for funny or interesting videos.
- Can't pay your bills online or manage your bank account
There goes probably 90% of your average user's computer use. Sure, they can always type a letter in MS Word, or update some Excel spreadsheet, or download their digital pictures (just don't try emailing them to anyone or uploading them anywhere!). Or maybe Solitaire. But let's face it, most of the exciting stuff to do on a computer now is online.
Re:Smells of DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Smells of DRM
I would hate to have the BIOS as the OS especially if I could not replace it.
This is my thought also. Everything hardwired right into the silicon including DRM, TPM, unique ID hashes for tracking, and plenty of government/law enforcement back-doors. It would also take care of all those pesky open source operating systems and enable lockout of "unauthorized" applications. Nice, safe (from the governments' and big-corps' view) computers for the masses.
Not for me, thanks.
Strat
(yawn) yet more "cloud" advocacy, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't Ellison and McNealy try to sell us this pig in a poke years ago? They got nowhere with their initiative, and the current "cloud computing" nonsense won't replace local apps and data any time soon, either. What stopped this tired old notion before was lack of bandwidth - lots of people were on dialup, and it would have been painfully slow for them. Nowadays most are on broadband, but how much bandwidth do we REALLY have to play with? Not all that much, according to the Comcasts, Rogers, Bell Canadas and Verizons of this world. Do we really want to rely on online access going through an ISP which is counting every kilobyte of traffic and choking it off as it sees fit? Not to mention spyong on its customers on behalf of various shadowy government agencies.
Also, isn't the browser itself becoming another big choke point in all this? Security vulnerabilities, remote exploits, memory hogging, reliance on add-on technologies like Flash and Java with their own security problems - and of course, all this is built on the shaky foundations of browser scripting, which can never be made completely secure.
Forget it, boys. This turkey STILL won't fly.
Please no (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from the issues of control over your data, access times etc:
One of the nice things about today's OSes is that they've forced applications to become reasonably consistent and interoperable. All my applications have similar UI, and the services offered by the OS mean that the apps can talk to each other.
Degrading the OS to just a host for the browser means you give up these services, and once again every application is a kingdom unto itself. The state of online apps today is similar to the less-functional, less visible OSes from 25 years ago, including the horrible and inconsistent UI, the lack of flexibility (no scripting, for instance), and the total lack of communication between apps hosted on different sites.
And this time, because the apps are hosted on different sites, there's no OS vendor that can enforce consistecy and interoperability.
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he could write software like we all did in the old days.
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:3, Insightful)
If this happens, and I believe to a certain extent it will, Internet providers will have to harden their networks to the point that outages are a rare occurrence - like the power companies hav#!5g45g%T+++ NO CARRIER.
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Play any number of local games of all sorts (not just solitaire)
2) Play music and podcasts already downloaded and ripped.
3) Play a DVD
4) Upload that bunch of pictures from his camera and get them squared away with GIMP or Photoshop.
(OH wait you already had part of that)
5) Perhaps write a program of his own?
Hey, I LIKE solitaire. If a letter is needed, why not?
6) Gather freinds for a LAN party (Just because the DSL/Cablemodem is down does not mean the local home network is down too.)
Of course if that thunderstorm also knocked out power...
Online Apps Suck (Score:4, Insightful)
"This allows the spotlight to focus on online applications."
Who has been asking for all these online applications? I keep reading about the freakin' "CLOUD!!!" and am just not impressed. I wouldn't trust anyone's Cloud platform with my company's data.
As many people have mentioned, once the network goes down, no more online anything. I want my apps, my data and my work all under my control on my local machine/network. There are uses for online applications but to rely on them for business, private data or to store anything that lack of access to would cause a work stoppage is a bad idea.
Online is the coms, not the content. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just getting old, but to me, the "online" is just the communication channel, not the content arena.
When it comes to content I create, I want to create it and store it on my computer, not on someone else's computer.
Yes, I love the internet and the ability it gives me to send and receive content (which I then, again, store on my computer). And yes, the utility of my computer is greatly compromised when I can't access the internet.
But I don't want to rely on someone else's computer to run applications like Office, or Email, or games, or...anything I can think of right now.
I don't want to rely on someone else's computer to store my data.
The reason why I don't want these things is
1) There might come a reason at some point where I can't access the data (they go out of business, internet is down, I can't afford internet access anymore, etc.)
but mostly:
2) I don't trust that the people who so graciously store my things online won't use them or cripple them in some manner not in my best interest, but is instead in someone else's money-making interest.
Having been involved with computers since the days of the TI99/4A, what seems clear to me is the future of computing is about CONTROL OF DATA. So the fundamental question becomes, do YOU want the control over your data and applications, or are you going to give that control to someone else?
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the email that you've downloaded but not read yet
Look up your friend's phone number to call him on ye olde phone
Watch that kewl DVD you hadn't gotten around to yet
Enter latest bills on Quicken to update when your connection returns.
Most of the good stuff IS online, but there is still stuff you can do offline with a real computer.
Re:I've always wanted something like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like you said, just buy a console. You can use keyboards and mice on XBox360's, I'm pretty sure.
Fancy WebTV (Score:1, Insightful)
I can see this catching on a little bit, particularly with people like my parents. The whole idea reminds me of WebTV (MSN TV [wikipedia.org]), but better. With wider availability of high speed internet and an appreciable offering of "cloud" services, e.g. Google Docs, this might not be half bad for a certain market segment.
Re:Online is the coms, not the content. (Score:3, Insightful)
Phrased differently, you just want to be independent, self-reliant, and keep things in control, which is absolutely normal.
I suppose the thing with most computer users these days is that since they don't feel like they're in control of anything they don't mind giving that away.
Re:I've always wanted something like this... (Score:3, Insightful)
The moment you have a user-updateable BIOS, you have an embedded OS. And all security risks associated.
It's just the inner platform effect all over again, with every program expanding until it can read mail. I hate to stereotype it that way, but everything in the OS has a reason, which in the resource hog category is more often than not just "John Doe might need it someday". And if it wasn't included with the OS when it shipped, John Doe would complain for hours why computers need to be sooo complicated just to connect a wireless HDMI stream over his WPA2-AES secured and UPnP-enabled home network to his Wifi-enabled, but not WPA2-compliant Flatscreen.
If it's user-updateable, you have rootkits in 1..2..3. If it's not, then it's core components will be obsolete five days after leaving the factory. Everything else we have hogging our CPU and memory simply stems from this fundamental issue.
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:4, Insightful)
You realise those are all problems for both a tiny, browser-only OS and a big OS that runs programs natively, right?
The fact is, for what PC's are usually used for these day, the network being down already makes them nearly useless for probably 70% or more of the population.
The most popular games don't work off the network, can't get internet without the network, all you are left with are local apps. Better get those specs out of email so you can work on whatever your project is! Oh wait..
Seriously, how often is the network out? And what are you going to be doing when the network is out anywy?
I know at work, if the network goes down, 90% of work stops. Everything is integrated anyway, so the negatives of a browser-only PC aren't that huge.
Plus, who says just because there is a browser on the BIOS that you can't boot into a regular OS if you want to? TBH, the browser OS will probably be the optional OS on a PC, not the primary (though it could be!). You know, hit it when you just want to brows the web sort of situations. I know I'm often there, I just want to look something up, or check my favorite news-aggregation website, etc.
We have no history (Score:5, Insightful)
We repeat the same lessons every generation, don't we?
We have our own terrible [php.net] business languages [wikipedia.org], our own non-relational [google.com] databases [apache.org]*, our own stupid [wikipedia.org] development [wikipedia.org] fads [wikipedia.org], our own overwrought RPC protocol [wikipedia.org], our own profoundly ignorant ways to "disable" things for the user [javascripter.net], our own wasteful incompatibilities [quirksmode.org], our own locked-down propretiary platforms [wikipedia.org], and the same casual disregard for proper security [cgisecurity.com].
This industry has no sense of its own history. Instead of benefiting from the innumerable hours past programmers spent solving universal problems, we ignore and reject their work, and with only a few exceptions, we spend countless hours solving solved problems.
By the time we work through the mess, another generation of programmers will have rejected our work, and will be well on the way to repeating the cycle. It's depressing as hell.
(Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever written a post that offended so many software developers simultaneously.)
* RDBMs systems didn't come first; people started using them over navigational databases for good reasons that still apply today.
Re:Online is the coms, not the content. (Score:5, Insightful)
JEZUSFUCKINKRIST! This is the whole point of personal computers! The whole "computer revolution" thing of the 1970s, starting with the Altair, was to give people control over the data governing their lives.
I look around thirty years later and find DMCA, corporations with databanks stuffed with peoples' personal data, and people who think the internet is the only reason to own a computer. WTF?
Re:Smells of DRM (Score:2, Insightful)