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.'"
If there's a WinXP compatible (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like Phoenix BIOS vs IBM PC BIOS.
Then Microsoft will lose it's hold over the market, and people might just concentrate more on what runs on top.
User perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Better attack vector? (Score:3, Interesting)
Smells of DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
I would hate to have the BIOS as the OS especially if I could not replace it.
Modern Thin client? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't BIOS + Browser just a modern interpretation of the thin client? Sure, there's always going to be a small market for them, but I don't see how it can grab a huge share of the market.
Of course a business can run the Web apps from an internal server so it's definitely viable, but it never took off before - I doubt it would now.
On the home front, such a business model turns your computer into a subscription service. It works as long as you pay your internet bill (and whatever other costs are needed to access the actual web applications). This wasn't very popular for music when the customer was presented with other options (iTunes).
And this doesn't even address network reliability.
Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
The solution to slow booting is not to put MORE stuff in the bios, the solution is a move adaptive startup process, if a user only uses firefox then boot up the system to the point it can browse the web ASAP and load the rest of the crap in the background (at a low priority so not to affect browsing) /etc,/usr & /home (or windows equivilents)
1.mount
2.load sandboxing software (UAC/selinux/etc)
3.start networking
4.put a webbrowser in fullscreen
5.profit and eventually load the rest of the OS
It's quick booting, customizable, gives a full featured OS eventually, i doubt many people want to sacrifice the last 2 for the 1st.
Re:The future today! (Score:3, Interesting)
I was glad when gmail came out. All the other free webmail providers I had used either didn't provide free POP access anymore, got spammy, put retarded ads on my email, or went under. The web client had good integration and features. The mobile interface was nice. The only price you pay is your privacy, and that's arguably already been paid.
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I am going completely against the article. You can have my local, native programming when you pry it from my cold dead CPU.
My comment is in reply to the one above that asks:
And what will Johnny User do with that computer when the network is down?
@Dracknor.
Re:Modern Thin client? (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't BIOS + Browser just a modern interpretation of the thin client?
So? Why is that a bad thing? Looking after a set of locally installed applications is a chore most users have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with.
The modern PC (and to a lesser extent, the Mac) uses what I call Woz Architecture. By that I mean it's a direct descendant of the Apple II, a system Wozniak designed to maximize hackability. He was thinking in terms of selling systems to his fellow hackers, but he created an technical and economic ecosystem that dominates desktop computing to this very day. Geeks like us wouldn't have it any other way, but for most users having to play hacker all the time (or paying an IT department to play hacker) is a major PITA. And for businesses, which actually buy most computers, it's a major cost center. Which is why the thin client model has never really gone away, despite its many failures.
I don't see how it can grab a huge share of the market.
It's already grabbed a big share. You may have noticed one or two popular web-hosted applications? (It seems likely most people will end up doing their taxes that way.) Many businesses rely on terminal servers for their desktops. (Not technically a thin client, but from the end user's POV there's not much difference.)
I personally prefer the original thin client model, namely the network computer [wikipedia.org]. More elegant than kludgy web applications or resource-intensive terminal servers. Alas, proponents of the NC model destroyed any chance of its acceptance by pushing the idea long before the technology was in place to support it.
The traditional PC still dominates, but it's definitely losing ground. People are just fed up with the increasing complexity and brittleness of Windows. Desktop Linux, if it ever gets significant mind share, will just go down the same route. Open Source is good for squashing bugs, filling security holes, and encouraging creative application development. But it's actually worse at maintaining a consistent and simple user experience.
The Mac has mostly avoided these pitfalls, but only because a single company has tightly control the user-developer-hardware ecosystem. Users can count on a consistent and simple experience, because Nanny Apple has decreed that it must be so. Same goes for OS/X APIs. This makes life simpler for all involved, but so much control by one relatively small company has always limited acceptance. That's why I still don't own an iPhone — too many issues relating Nanny Apple's dictating what you can and cannot do with it. I don't want a shake-the-baby application, but what business of theirs is it if I do?
On the home front, such a business model turns your computer into a subscription service. It works as long as you pay your internet bill (and whatever other costs are needed to access the actual web applications). This wasn't very popular for music when the customer was presented with other options (iTunes).
Yeah, people have resisted any flat-fee subscription model for online content. On the other hand, they've not only accepted that model for network access, they've actually resisted any attempt to impose usage charges!
Here's the difference: nobody's going to pay $10 every month for access to a library that may or may not provide them with $10 worth of content every month. Such libraries typically don't have very complete collections, since they don't have enough revenue to make it worthwhile to content providers. And in any case, people don't usually buy music every month.
But note that Netflix has done quite well with their flat-fee access to streaming movies, despite their limited selection. Yes, they've piggy-backed on their DVD subscription business — but is that business fundamentally different? (Aside from being less convenient.) And in any case the streaming service has turned into a
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, but how you gonna check it into Subversion?
Re:This is true for some value of (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking from experience in Hong Kong (my current home) and The Netherlands (my native country):
Accidental power outages are measured in mere minutes or even seconds per year. In Hong Kong power outages are usually confined to a building (poor maintenance of the building's management, not the power company) and once over the last years I recall a power dip lasting a fraction of a second, which is enough to wreak havoc with lifts, traffic lights and even train services, causing serious chaos. Most years I do not experience power outages, at all - even people living in the more remote rural areas barely if ever have power outages. In my office building there is a few times a year a Sunday without power, and this is announced in advance. Barely anyone has their computer connected to a UPS - I don't even recall seeing any of those on offer in the major computer malls. They are probably for sale but not put prominently on display, indicating really low demand for these devices. This is how reliable the power supply is here.
Internet services are pretty much at the same level. I have outages less than once a year - and most of those are announced and due to maintenance or network upgrades. Not due to natural disasters or poor network set-up. Outages are about as rare as outages of the telephone network, and that is really rare. And if my ADSL would go down, I can always connect over my mobile phone (3G data). Not fast but it still works, and enough for browsing/chatting.
Now I do understand the US is quite behind large parts of the world in this (broadband availability, mobile telephone networks, power reliability), but large parts of the developed world do not have much of an issue with network/power reliability. Of course you are trying to joke (and get modded "insightful" which to me confirms the sad state of affairs in the US), it is really not so much of an issue in large parts of the on-line world.