Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

OEone HomeBase Desktop 178

Posted by michael from the training-wheels dept.
Mike Potter writes "OEone has released its OEone HomeBase product as an open source project, and a free download. HomeBase is a complete operating environment that runs on top of Mozilla, with the base operating system being RedHat Linux 7.1 or 7.2. There's a review of it over at Newsforge. Some of the OEone software has already been released as open source to other projects. For instance, OEone's calendar was the basis of the Mozilla Calendar project."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OEone HomeBase Desktop More

OEone HomeBase Desktop

Comments Filter:

  • Hang on here... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Clay Mitchell ( 43630 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @09:22AM (#4061243) Homepage
    It's an OS that runs on top of a BROWSER that run on top of another OS...

    Could somebody explain to me the benefits of this? Please? Because I haven't the foggiest clue... Seems like a case of going around your elbow to get to your backside, but that's just me...
    • Hi,

      The Newsforge article states it is not an OS, but a Frontend/Desktop for an OS - in this case RH7.x. Not half bad either, according to Newsforge. when they have a SuSE version, i'll be checking it out.
    • Ironically enough, 'HomeBase' was one of the names considered for what eventually was named 'Microsoft Bob,' a 'friendly' computer interface where the computer was represented with a house and a variety of characters - try looking up the old slashdot column "Who Remembers Bob?"

      I can't find it because the slashdot search engine does not index 3 letter words.

    • Re:Hang on here... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jack Hughes ( 5351 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @09:34AM (#4061347)
      It isn't built on top of the browser.. it is built on some of the the same building blocks that Mozilla is built on. Perhaps the most important is XUL [mozilla.org] (XML User Interface Language).

      So rather than using KDE/QT or GTK+ or Motif or whatever it is using XUL and a load of other technologies to create the interface, widgets, look and feel and whatever.

      The intention is to create a relatively clear and simple user interface that can be used for key tasks but also lends itself to "kiosk" type applications - for example embedded systems such as set top boxes.

      They aren't necessarily trying to come up with a completely new general purpose desktop system but one which is appropriate for a, potentially, significant niche - set top boxes, internet kiosks and so on. They hope to make money by flogging the system to OEMs

      • Re:Hang on here... (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Quixadhal ( 45024 )
        So, what you're saying is that when I run an application inside this framework, it has to be rendered by the "homebase" rendering system, which invokes the mozilla renderer, which in turn will call on my gnome/kde window manager's rendering engine (for widgets), which has to invoke X11's rendering system to manipulate the background structures of the generic X11 system, which then has to be rendered into the specific display actions for the display it's being routed to, which has to go through the device drivers to be turned into actual commands for my accelerated video card to then render into pixels that my monitor can display?

        And exactly how is this going to make anything faster, better, or simpler?
        • Adding layers of abstraction to handle software complexity is a technique that has been used for decades. Does it introduce computational overhead? Yes. It's called a trade-off. But, it is a fundamental design philosophy. Without it, large-scale software would be utterly un-manageable.
        • First, as others have mentioned, the "homebase" system is just xul, meaning that it is the same layer as the browser. In addition, Mozilla does not have to call gnome/kde, and it can run without a window manager, as it is its own environment. So basically you have as much overhead as running KDE or GNOME.

          This will not be faster than KDE or GNOME. It will be simpler because it will have a consistent user interface with interactivity between applications at the forefront. You can easily use this system as a standalone web terminal without the use for any other apps.

          Therefore, it's better than other solutions when these are your requirements.

      • They aren't necessarily trying to come up with a completely new general purpose desktop system

        Uh, I believe the CEO of the company actually said that's exactly what they were trying to do. He went out of his way to mention, however, that they are not claiming to have invented the interface paradigm that Homebase uses. The CEO said that's just the way he saw home technology moving and wanted to take advantage of it early.

        I personally would not think any Mozilla-developed technology would be suitable for embedded applications where factors like speed, simplicity, and size rule the roost.
        • I personally would not think any Mozilla-developed technology would be suitable for embedded applications where factors like speed, simplicity, and size rule the roost.

          Why not? Mozilla has a complete HTML rendering engine, a JavaScript engine, a complete near complete GUI implementation, XML support, and a component system that supports JavaScript, C++, and even Perl, Python, and Ruby with the appropriate plugins. All this comes in a package that is about 11 megabytes in size and uses 20-50mb of ram (ram's cheap these days).

          I dare you to find a suite of similar technologies that are freely available, and provide all of the above (AND MORE!) in such a compact package. My guess is you won't.

          Bryan

    • Could somebody explain to me the benefits of this? Please?

      I _think_, and the interview supports this, that the idea is to do something like KDE or Gnome, but to take advantage of Mozilla to run on more platforms.

      Why not use Qt, which has X, Windows and MacOS X ports? Licensing, maybe? (Although this is a case of "If you can't afford a couple of developer copies of Qt, you shouldn't be trying to run a software business.")

    • It's an OS that runs on top of a BROWSER that run on top of another OS...

      You know for a moment I thought you were explaining .NET
    • Except emacs is an editor that wants to be an OS.

      The UNIX model is to have small managable programs that work together form a larger system.

      The EMACS model (which Mozilla follows) is to assume that one should never leave this wondrous application. Therefore, this application should do everything.
    • OK, everyone knows of the X-box Linux Project and the anonymous donor with the award of award at total of US$ 200,000 for a simple and completely legal way to run Linux on the Microsoft Xbox.

      If you connect that story and this story about OEOne desktop, do you start to see a picture?

      Now cross this idea with the comments from the NewsForge article about how OEOne and video4linux could act like a Tivo like system!

      I'm starting to see a CD you put into your xbox that will start a complete internet-ready desktop that interacts with the local hard-drive or remote servers to store info and can also act as a Tivo, mp3 player etc etc etc.

      Anyone else starting to think that CEO of OEOne Eid Eid is the anonymous donor?
    • It's not an OS. It's an OE, an Operating Environment, like GNOME, KDE, or CDE. That's why they named that particular string of vowels, thinking they'd made a clever pun. Ew.

      I'll say it again (if only because I've said it before...) at least they saved millions of dollars by not hiring a naming consultant.

      OSS is going to win the desktop war by being increasingly less pronouncable than the competition, greatly limiting the opposition's ability to spread FUD in COMDEX keynotes and by word of mouth. When criticism of your product is met with shocked replies of "What the hell did you just call me?!" or "Do you kiss your kids with that mouth?!" then you know you've correctly named your OSS/Linux/BSD/GNU-based product. It uttering your product's name aloud causes Satan to spontaneously materialize in a <BAMF>cloud of brimstone</BAMF> or motivates Chuthulu to wake up a few eons early, then you've got a killer app on your hand. The moment your competion dares utter your product's name, they'll all die screaming as hideous supernatural creatures suddenly appear in their board room meetings and devour all the executives, and you'll gain valuable mindshare with the Old Ones! The-product-whose-name-must-not-be-spoken is FUD-proof indeed, so long as you can train your staff to only converse about the product in winks, head nods, and hand gestures. Except, of course, the employees you want to "let go".

      Best of luck to them and uh... their product.

  • the homebase anywhere suite appears to be a clone of the .mac/itools services, with its backup/synchronization features. itll be interesting to see if billy g picks up the idea as well.

    otherwise it looks good, it looks real good, people friendly even.

  • This is perfect for web browsing only computers such as those in libraries and schools.
    • It looks like thats exactly what the product is aimed at - even Internet Appliances, too...libraries, schools, net cafes, places where novice computer users are going to be. It's a neat idea..it looks good enough at least..I'm not in a hurry to try it out tho.
      • That's what the OEOne desktop was created for, thin client Internet computers, also known as NCs and network appliances. However, all incarnations of Larry Ellison's Network Computer from whatever source have failed. I don't think there are any left in the market at this point. With PC prices continuing to plummet, there's just no demand for a stripped-down computer that lacks the features of a mainstream PC.

        --
        Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org

  • Bringing OpenSource to the masses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by passthecrackpipe ( 598773 ) <passthecrackpipe.hotmail@com> on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @09:34AM (#4061344)
    This actually looks like a potential OpenSource killer app. It gives most non-techie users what they need, what they want and what they will use, for a fair price. Like Lindows, but without the crappy attitude and marketing tripe. The screenshots look slick, and the stuff looks easy to use. Not something I would go all that wild over, but I can see my wife, or her parents for that matter, using this without any major hassles. Add OpenOffice.org to the mix, and you are done. Cool stuff!
    • I agree. This looks to me like that rarest of creatures: a genuinely creative and 'innovative' open source project. Kudos to them for using Mozilla as it is intended: as a cross platform base for creating new products. As an entry-level platform or specific purpose 'kiosk' application, this looks great. Here's hoping they succeed!
    • Yes, at first glance it looks good, and the price seems fair on the surface, but the shipping and handling cost seems too high.

      I wish companies would just charge honestly for the product and pass along their actual shipping costs to me, instead of low-balling the product price and charging separately for "handling".

  • An Idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by af_robot ( 553885 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @09:35AM (#4061359)
    "HomeBase is a complete operating environment that runs on top of Mozilla, with the base operating system being RedHat Linux 7.1 or 7.2"

    Oki Oki, how about Running it Under Wine in Internet Explorer window, which will be running VMWare plugin, inside which there will be RedHat Linux 7.2 running Mozilla and HomeBase on top of it... That will be really cool :)

  • Its interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @09:36AM (#4061364) Journal
    At least someone is trying a tactic to finally get beyond the STANDARD desktop model. Instead with this setup you have a combo concept where you have a desktop model merged into a home page model. I doubt if you can count it as revolutionary but at least they tried to push the edge a bit.

    For an end user I think it might actually be better than some lame approach of merely emulating a windows desktop on top of linux the way a couple of distros seem to be going like the Lindows stuff.

    What would be interesting to see is how a real life end user would react to such a setup.

    ________________________________________________ _

    • i find browser based interfaces quite interesting

      this kde usability report
      http://dot.kde.org/1027587840/
      http://www .viralata.net/kde_usability/001_02.html
      discusses how users were quite confused by the web style single click interface used by KDE3 and how users familiar with double click sometimes even click hyperlinks twice.
      Seems like it might work well for newbies though.

      I was pretty confused personally when trying to use KDE3, i can relate to making lots of accidental clicks. an interesting concept but i am not convinced it is a huge enough improvement to make it worth unlearning my old habits.
  • I'll have to wait til I get to work to see if the demo will work on Galeon. How ironic if this Linux-based environment has a demo that will only work on MSIE.
  • Well, I must say, for me, this system has little appeal: one of the main reasons I prefer Linux to Windows is that I can tell the difference between my desktop and my web browser (and I have many options for the latter, as well as at least two options for the former). On the other hand, I could see this appealing to the common user, and the idea of having the same desktop regardless of the underlying system is rather neat. That said, I think Microsoft is already moving in the same direction (IE and Windows become more intertwined with every release, and the MSN homepage is looking more and more like a desktop), which could spell trouble for these folks.

    Come to think of it, weren't there rumors a while back that AOL was planning on doing something like this, using Netscape as the basis for a desktop? At any rate, it's neat to see the concept transformed into something solid, regardless of the eventual outcome. I'll probably throw this on my machine at home, just to see what it's like.
    • They tried it before. AOL partnered with Gateway to make an internet appliance [zdnet.com]. It was pretty pricey at $599 and flopped. There may be hope yet for a web appliance device. This OEOne could try to capitalize on cheap PC OEMs who want to avoid the Microsoft tax, but give a richer user experience than say... Lindows.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • As I looked through the flash demo I was going wtf and "this sucks" at every page. Plenty of skins around that do this and a lot more. So why do I agree it is slick? Cause it ain't aimed at me. This is aimed at the people who want to use services wich just happen to run on a computer.

      I can really imagine installing this for friends who want to surf/email/divx/chat but who wouldn't know their way through a setup.exe let alone a ./configure && make && make install if I stood behind them with a whip.

      Master plan:

      1. Buy old iMac
      2. Install linuxn for ppc
      3. Install this little app
      4. Never get called around to my girls house to safe her bacon and have her be gratefull to me...., mmm maybe I need to think this out a little more.

  • It has its place. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fugly ( 118668 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @09:48AM (#4061441) Homepage
    Well, I watched the flash demo and I have to say it looks like a very slick environment. Without using it, it's hard to say, but I think this is the kind of thing I could give to my mom to use.

    You can argue about the technical merits of their implementation all day long but look at how elegant and aesthetically pleasing the interface is compared to say the screen shots on the website of say... your favorite window manager...
  • That didn't look like Tux to me.

  • Ok, but.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 )
    While this "desktop" does look rather elegant and has a pleasing appearance it has some rather significant issues that may not be immediately apparent.

    First there is the question of speed. Layering browser type apps on top of Mozilla, on top of Red Hat is surely going to mean a performance hit.

    Then of course is the age-old problem of application compatibility. Or, more specifically, file format compatibility. Here we have yet another office suite with the most important file format glaringly absent. How long will it take developers to realize that .doc *is* the standard, regardless of whether we like it or not. Without support for this file format and the other MS Office formats these Yet Another Office Apps(YAOA) don't have a chance.

    There is also the question, a *major* one in my mind, of why a Linux based company builds their website targeting IE and Netscape base browsers. I take major issue with this, regarless of the fact that IE is the dominant browser. If you are going to use, sell or advocate open source and open standards then your web site should too. But oeone gives us Yet Another IE Site(YAIS), and one that requires Flash to view the screen shots. At least they, thankfully, didn't host the site with IIS.

    Sorry oeone, I've already lost all interest.
    • eh? their wp *does* read .doc, read the article

      and their site works fine in moz, what makes you think its ie only?

      (you're right though, the flash is annoying)
      • Their wordprocessor does support the most rudimentary .doc files but, like most it is severly lacking and results in a bad user experience. Even Abiword an excellent WP suffers from this. Star Office 6.0 is the best supporting suite yet.

        The site does work with moz, assuming you have the flash plugin, but it is specifically targeted at IE and Netscape. Have a look at the source for the demo page. It's a browser identification script and it offers three choices, IE, Netscape and screwed.
    • Umm, did you go to their web site? Did you read it? From the tiny little text at the bottom:

      "This site is laid out with the use of CSS boxes and conforms to HTML 4.0 and CSS 2 standards. It is best viewed in Mozilla."
    • If you look closer [mozdev.org] you will see that it is not yet another office app that it in fact uses Abiword [abisource.com] which they have successfully turned into an Abiword plugin for Mozilla [mozdev.org].

      Checkout the screenshot at mozdev.org small screenshot of Abiword mozilla [mozdev.org] plugin
      big screeshot of Abiword mozilla [mozdev.org] plugin .

      As for speed i would expect this would be no slower than running both mozilla than Abiword at the same time, so if you already have mozilla open all day everyday the speed difference is probably not noticable

    • Well flash is a standard of sorts and anyway is available for linux. Would have been nice to get standard screenshots option as well.

      Thing that baffled me was that it refused to open in opera and when I opened the url in IE it asked to download VB scripting. I denied and the flash loaded anyway but still mighty odd for a linux site.

    • Re:Ok, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ianezz ( 31449 )
      How long will it take developers to realize that .doc *is* the standard

      At least as long as it will take users to realize that .doc is just a dot and three letters, designating a bunch of different file formats.

      Incidentally, while reading such file formats is relatively easy, writing them so Word can read them is hard. .doc files, in addition to the document itself, contain lots of Word internal garbage: flip the wrong bit in the wrong place and watch Word burn in ashes when opening the document...

      It took years of trial and error for the StarOffice guys (and others as well) to get this almost right for the existing versions of Office, so please don't say programmers don't "get it", because this is not true.

      • Please forgive me for making such broad statements. They are rarely accurate. I should have been more specific by targeting the specific programmers of Yet Another Office Apps that, rather than build on the existing work and bring the .doc file format compatibilty closer to reality, insist on starting over again.

        Yes, I know that oeone is using an Abiword plugin but, unfortunately even Abiword is lacking in the compatibility areana. Perhaps not as much as KWord or whoever else you might choose but, lacking none the less. New users drop Abiword as soon as they open a .doc that they have already seen in MS Word. With the formatting messed up, images that aren't displayed and headers/footers trashed they go back to MS. Hopefullly they will give Star Office a try but, as close as it is, it's still not perfect.
        • today, your assessment is correct about AbiWord. fortunately, you can track its continual progress: http://www.abisource.org/information/news/ . they already have slew of new features in the works to provide compatibility, etc. The whole point of a 1.0 release was to give AbiWord a stable place where they could say "look, it ain't feature complete, but you can do some work with it".

          Is staroffice/openoffice available as a plug-in? There's a patch for AbiWord to make it available as a lite bonobo-component (which i use for viewing Word doc's inline in Evolution).

          -l

    • The what you have to do is really simple. Convince Microsoft to open up EVERYTHING regarding how they setup the DOC, XLS, PUB and all other MS Office file formats. Oh, you also have to convince them to never change the formats without first publishing all of the changes, at least 6 months in advance of releasing the next Office Release. This of course must include free to use royalty-free consent for those file formats.

      Once that information is open, then there will nothing holding back the creation of fully MS Office compatible office suites. Then, MS Office will have to win by the merits of its technical superiority. (Which I grudgingly have to state, it does have.)

      Okay, one thing to prove it's superiority...

      In Excell, since at least the 2000 release, you can create drop down menus within cells. These are very usefull for creating reusable charts that contain very regular use information within them. Things like vendor price comparison charts and Role-Playing Game Character Sheets. (Those are two things that I currently use that feature for.) I would LOVE to see that within Star Office or Open Office, it just doesn't exist and I haven't the time nor current skills to work it into Open Office myself.

      -.-

    • First there is the question of speed. Layering browser type apps on top of Mozilla, on top of Red Hat is surely going to mean a performance hit.

      I admittedly have yet to try this out, but one of the things that makes Mozilla slow is the fact that it uses *all* of the Mozilla-developed technologies and they all get loaded into the application at start time. Until it is actually tested, I say give them the benefit of the doubt... perhaps they aren't using all of the Mozilla tecnologies and/or perhaps they have widened up some of the bottlenecks.

      How long will it take developers to realize that .doc *is* the standard

      Wrong. It can only be considered a standard, in my opinion, if there were more than one program that could read or write DOC files reliably. Oh yes, Microsoft would love to make the DOC format a real standard, if they could only think of how to do so without actually telling anyone how it works.

      The only real standard is 7-bit ASCII without newlines or carriage returns. :P

      There is also the question, a *major* one in my mind, of why a Linux based company builds their website targeting IE and Netscape base browsers.

      A) More than likely, they did what most every other company does when they need a decent web presence: they contract their web development out. I'd bet the farm that most web delopment companies out there do most or all of their work in a Microsoft environment targeted towards Microsoft platforms. No, I don't agree with it but that's the way it is and it won't change if or until Mozilla gets more market share.

      B) Their site worked just fine for me in Linux + Mozilla.
  • checkout the abiword plugin for mozilla at
    http://abimoz.mozdev.org [mozdev.org]

    pretty cool
  • Considering the recent story on AOL and Mozilla/Netscape/Gecko I thought some of you would find this quote interesting. Personally I would like to see them pull off something like this.

    Eid is also talking to AOL. Imagine a PC with a desktop based on a Mozilla or Netscape browser, one with an AOL logo on it, that is as tightly integrated with the AOL service as Microsoft would like all PCs to be with its own .NET, MSN, and Passport services.
    • Right, AOL isn't developing Mozilla the browser, AOL is developing Mozilla the application development framework.

      So much time has been invested in making Mozilla into such a framework that it would be naive to think AOL just wants a good browser to replace IE with. There are much more interesting, and far more elaborate uses for Mozilla that AOL can use in its fight against MS.
  • i'd like to see this kind of simple desktop on one CD you can run on any system, Knoppix style. It would be cool just to be able to carry a cd around and have a nice simple desktop with you all the time. Beats loging on in WinXP on the computers all over my campus.
  • I remember reading in Byte ages ago about the future "network appliances" at the time. It was when win 95 had the shell extensions to have your background a web page and web channels and so on...Netscape had something simmilar called constellation, but I've never saw it, does anyone remember it/saw it working?? Cheers! /v

  • Linux terminal for high-endusers (Score:5, Funny)

    by BroadbandBradley ( 237267 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @10:21AM (#4061671) Homepage
    in the nice demo tour at thier website, near the end it shows top running in a terminal window, the caption says:
    Linux terminal for high-endusers

    of course I thought, hey it's great someone is thinking about us stoners and providing the features that us really high end users need.

  • A step towards ... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...Having Linux on more desktops. I havent tried it yet and it doesnt appeal to me directly (although I will install it soon..), but at least it's a step towards orginality on Linux desktops, and more "User-Friendly"-ness much needed for Linux.

    And those who think it's a ridiculous idea, I'd like to know one thing: What are YOU doing to make things easier for end-users (I.E. Winbloze users mostly) to help them use Linux on the desktop?

    We have to start thinking in terms of whats cool for such newbies, and really stop having that "I dont use GUI and Im better than you lowlife win user", otherwise you're just going to be turning people away from a wonderful OS which has a lot to offer. And whats to say, that some users after some time won't start becoming "Power-Users" and use Linux like most of us.... You catch more flies with honey remember?

    Spread the love, Tux love!

  • ahem.. (Score:2)

    by vr ( 9777 )
    I'd just like to emphasize that it apparently is an operating _environment_, not operating _system_. I guess there's a difference somewhere.. Also; they're pitching it at ugly people. Or so it appears.. They have a bunch of them on their webpage.
  • Seems like another one of those "Gee this is a great idea" ideas that just fall flat on it's face.

    This DESKTOP seems lot like just a new interface with remote storage for a price thrown in. Whatever happened to all those dot.coms that offered webbased remote storage?

    Right now i see about as much use for this as used toilet paper.

  • Before you install... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jodrell ( 191685 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @10:30AM (#4061740) Homepage
    You might want to know the following before you install...
    • The installer appears to be based on Ximian's Red Carpet [ximian.com]. This is actually a pretty snazzy tool, but it can be unresponsive while it resolves dependencies. It will download any packages it needs into /var/cache/redcarpet and clobber the installer file in that directory, so backup if you think you're going to need it.
    • It wants to install a huge great pile of dependencies (115MB on my system), like Abiword and OpenSSL and many others, even some perl modules, even though most of them were already installed. So be warned that it may clobber (and possibly break) a lot of your existing software. My advice is to use a sacrificial machine if you want to try it out.
    • appears to be based on Red Carpet?

      It is based on RedCarpet and used with permission.
      > Eid, hopes to merge that slightly forked version of Red Carpet back into the main development tree before long.

      The advice to use a sacrificial testing machine is very wise.

      Slashdot just would not be as much fun if people actually read the articles :P

  • Sorry RedHat only (NO THANKS) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This POS wont install on Mandrake which IS mostly RedHat. So I guess Debian, SuSe and others are out of question. I say Thanks, but NO THANKS.

    If you dont know how to make it work on other distros, let US do it, because I aint buying your dumbed down version of Linux.

  • Here's the power in this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by psicE ( 126646 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @10:37AM (#4061795) Homepage
    So somebody releases another Linux desktop. Not important. What is important is that it's based on XUL, theoretically a fully cross-platform toolkit; many simple XUL-based applets can run, unedited, on Mozilla on all platforms, at native speed.

    Imagine if this OEone desktop can somehow be designed to work equally well on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS. So that a user can have a completely identical desktop no matter where they are. It makes transition to Linux much easier than before. Eh?
    • I agree that XUL is the big news here, but it's unclear to me how much of the app integration in OEone is taking place in XUL. (Although I intend to buy their CD and find out...)

      XUL(and XPCOM)could (and perhaps should) become common and prominent in cross-platform GUI applications, since there are version of Mozilla/Netscape that run on most platforms.

      Few people (even propellerheads) realize that Mozilla should be viewed as *much* more than a browser. It is that, and a mail/calendar/HTML compositoin tool/etc., but more importantly, it comes with its own framework that enables the creation of cross-platform GUI applications.

      So far as I know the only largest "third party" (non-Mozilla)XUL applications so far are this (OEone), and ActiveState's products like VisualPython, VisualPerl, VisualTcl, and such that are built on thier Komodo engine. (Although if AOL is smart, they're using a lot of XUL for thier next-gen stuff...)

      Does anyone have a list or rundown of XUL-based apps that they'd care to post?

      P.S.: FWIW, I would *love* to see an embedded wireless web tablet running OEone. If built properly (i.e., cost engineeered for volume production and consequent low price), with appropriate low-power, mid-range performing CPUs, there's no reason this couldn't be the basis of an "all-purpose" web-pad type device that would have resonable battery life and not even require a hard disk. The problem with most webpads to date is they were too far ahead of hte 802.11 curve, and they were designed around either regular x86 PC technology (way to expensive, both power and $$) or were locked in the CE straightjacket and couldn't be made useful.
      • I've taken the time to test the ActiveState Komodo tools -- GUI response times are exceedingly slow, especially on Linux.

        I think XUL/XPCOM have promise outside of Mozilla but they need serious performance enhancements before I'd consider them mature.
      • Agreed completely. And I think that, for that reason, the Moz team should split into three different projects (though they should all stay under the moz.org banner): [a] XUL/toolkit, which depends on no other Moz part; [b] Gecko, which depends on XUL; and [c] browser, which depends on Gecko. Then, they should distribute them separately; you have the XUL modules installed (DLLs on Windows, for example), the Gecko modules installed, and the Moz browser can be a single binary (maybe libs too) that simply depends on those libraries. Then, HTML-based applications can use Gecko without needing to compile all of Moz, and other XUL applications can use XUL without needing to compile Moz or Gecko.

        Also, the XUL team should work on a native-wdget port; instead of displaying chrome-based widgets, they should display (on the largest toolkits, GTK and Win32, at least) OS-native widgets. Instead of downloading chromes, you just download a GTK theme, and it applies to all your apps, including XUL-based ones.

        Don't you agree that a lot more people would use the Moz tools if they were separate and this easily integratable?
        • It already uses native widgets to "render". Check it out on XP. You'll not be able to distinguish from the rest of the os (except for when you select "modern" theme).


          But the problem is, it only uses native widgets to "render". It does not use native "behaviours" like keyboard navigation, etc. In the future, if MS add some features (say for accesibility), Moz will not be able to use them.


          PS: I agree about the split. That will be very good, especially if thet also ship an ActiveX control. (To beat MSIE control).

  • While some components of it appear to be open source the articles obvious claim is the entire thing is open source. Going to the down load page talks about a license, and other links point to open source components, but none point to an open source download of the product as stated.

    Feels like a bait and switch hoax to me.
  • http://www.oeone.com/images/screenshots/sm_wordpro cessor.gif

    Nice, finally an open source linux based media player that does not use MDI (Gimp is a great program but man i cannot get used to that interface).
    makes sense to have an interface that is not a radical departure from Quicktime/Realplayer/Microsoft media player interfaces.

    I wonder what is based on? Gstreamer, i would gess.

    Oeone seems to be full of nice litte pieces that would be a welcome addition to the standard desktop.

  • Basis for really cheap PC app. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alistair ( 31390 ) <alistair@ho[ ]ap.com ['tld' in gap]> on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @10:50AM (#4061886)
    One of the most interesting things to come from the review was the potential for this to be sold as an embedded computing device. I guess many Slashdot readers grew up in the age when we had Atari 400/800s, Vic 20s, Commodore 64s, BBC and Spectrums. The interesting thing about all these devices was that that only required a TV for display and they all had costs which were in the $100 - $350 range, low enough to be affordable to 11 / 12 / 13 years olds. For a long time after that we have been educated that $1000 has been the right price to pay for a PC with Games Consoles holding the low end of the market.

    An embedded device with this plus Linux in a single keyboard device surely hold the possibility of a return to those days. This would boot directly into the browser and mail / OpenOffice and thus provide more of the functionality than todays set top boxes usually provide. The interior of Linux would be hidden but would be available for those who wanted to hack on the system. The price could then be lower than even the bare bones systems Wal Mart has been selling recently (and remember many of us in Europe still can't get systems this cheap). By using the TV as an output device it could compete with Games Consoles and run software of similar quality (Doom, Quake World, Tux Racer :-) ). The space advantages of having a keyboard sized device should not be underestimated, many people who have a PC for their home office don't want to take up the same space again for a kids device. As broadband take up increases this could share the bandwidth with other PCs and mobile devices.

    If they could get the price back to the level of the much loved home computers of old, I would buy one, if only to boot up Atari and Commodore emulators....
    • The downside of TV display is that current analog TVs just don't have the resolution for serious typing - even email - and most websites will be severely cramped by a 640x480 display (I'm giving NTSC the benefit of a 1/30s frame).

      HOWEVER, as HD sets get more and more prolific I can see a real possibility using the 720p (1280x720) desktop as a realistic cross-over system display device. Now we only have to wait for the HD connections to sort themselves out...

      (Man...I can remember drooling over an Atari 800...real keys and everything. And then to find an Ace1000 under the Christmas tree that year - it was like I'd died and gone to geek heaven :-)

  • After seeing some of the geneology sites, he got a bit interested. This is a typical example of what I could recommend. It's rather specific, stable and can be remotely administered (given that I set up a proper firewall to shield him as much as possible from portscans from other people than me).
  • They really pay attention to details, I'll give them that. Before I even install the software I have already encountered several examples of Good Thinking.

    #1: This is their installer: $ lynx -source http://install.oeone.com/ |sh

    This trick has been around for a while (I use it [nuvc.org] myself) but it's good to see a commercial developer paying attention to tricks of the trade. No need to explain to people how to use the command line to run an installer, just paste, please.

    #2: CVS pserver. Once again, commercial developer paying attention.

    Now, I give them a strike for providing a RedHat-only installation. A binary tarball would have been fine. But...

    #3: The source code hasn't just been dumped on the net with a little "here ya go, knock yerselves out" message. They've taken the time [oeone.com] to explain how things work and even provided hints for Going Debian.

    #4: Their mascot [oeone.com] doesn't suck. :-) Even though I personally would have named it "Tuxilla."
    • #1: big security no-no -- DNS spoofing is trivial, and all you have to do is redirect install.oeone.com to your IP and stick a webserver with some basic remote shellcode, and instant root. The least they could do is SSL.

      Besides that, this looks like a very interesting system for novice end-users. I'd also be excited about the single-CD idea.

      Ken

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close