April 16, 2007 at 17:01Why web applications will never supersede desktop programs
Matt Hartley of MadPenguin.org believes that web applications can never truly replace desktop programs . There are many reasons for this, including security threats and identity theft, uptime guarantees, speed of work, etc.
Frankly speaking, Matt Hartley's statement is a rather provocative thesis in modern conditions, when the exact opposite is obvious: there are more and more programs working directly through the browser. At Slashdot, a heated discussion arose about this.
Matt Hartley understands that he is going against the tide: “More and more articles appear with statements: they say, the only thing we need is a network operating system,” Matt laments. He says that any adherent of this point of view can be "killed" with one simple argument: there simply isn’t enough bandwidth for that.
Lack of strip is not the only argument. What about privacy, Matt asks? Services like Gmail are painfully trying to provide everyone with unlimited disk space for storing mail. These torments are so strong that even the thought of unlimited storage space for everyoneThe files are just ridiculous. This is not even about the bandwidth, which is definitely not enough to transfer giant files. It's about privacy. With online data storage, the risk of leakage is more than likely.
Another problem is the lack of synchronization. A classic example here is Google Calendar : an extremely functional application that is absolutely unable to synchronize with anything without assistance.
Anyway, there will never be such a plug-in for Firefox that could duplicate the functionality of GNOME and KDE.
In the discussion at Slashdot , radically opposite opinions are expressed. Someone hates web applications with all the fibers of the soul, and someone assures that they are even more reliable than desktop programs.
One way or another, some types of programs, for example, that work with large amounts of data in real time, will be extremely difficult to replace with online equivalents. Most likely, web applications and desktop programs will develop for a long time in parallel with each other.
via Slashdot
Frankly speaking, Matt Hartley's statement is a rather provocative thesis in modern conditions, when the exact opposite is obvious: there are more and more programs working directly through the browser. At Slashdot, a heated discussion arose about this.
Matt Hartley understands that he is going against the tide: “More and more articles appear with statements: they say, the only thing we need is a network operating system,” Matt laments. He says that any adherent of this point of view can be "killed" with one simple argument: there simply isn’t enough bandwidth for that.
Lack of strip is not the only argument. What about privacy, Matt asks? Services like Gmail are painfully trying to provide everyone with unlimited disk space for storing mail. These torments are so strong that even the thought of unlimited storage space for everyoneThe files are just ridiculous. This is not even about the bandwidth, which is definitely not enough to transfer giant files. It's about privacy. With online data storage, the risk of leakage is more than likely.
Another problem is the lack of synchronization. A classic example here is Google Calendar : an extremely functional application that is absolutely unable to synchronize with anything without assistance.
Anyway, there will never be such a plug-in for Firefox that could duplicate the functionality of GNOME and KDE.
In the discussion at Slashdot , radically opposite opinions are expressed. Someone hates web applications with all the fibers of the soul, and someone assures that they are even more reliable than desktop programs.
One way or another, some types of programs, for example, that work with large amounts of data in real time, will be extremely difficult to replace with online equivalents. Most likely, web applications and desktop programs will develop for a long time in parallel with each other.
via Slashdot