Why web applications never supplant desktop programs
Matt Hartley from MadPenguin.org is confident that web applications can never truly replace desktop programs . There are many reasons for this, including security threats and identity theft, uptime guarantees, performance, etc.
Frankly speaking, the statement of Matt Hartley is a rather provocative thesis in modern conditions, when the opposite is evident: more and more programs are working directly through the browser. There was a stormy discussion on Slashdot about this.
Matt Hartley understands that he is going against the current: “More and more articles appear with statements, saying that the only thing we need is a network operating system,” Matt laments. He says that any adherent of such a point of view can be “killed” with one simple argument: there is simply not enough band for this.
The lack of a band is not the only argument. What about privacy, Matt asks? Services like Gmail are painfully trying to provide everyone with unlimited disk space to store mail. These torments are so strong that even the thought of unlimited storage space for all files is ridiculous. It's not even about the bandwidth, which is definitely not enough to transfer giant files. The point is privacy. With online data storage, the risk of leakage is more than likely.
')
Another problem is the lack of synchronization. A classic example is Google Calendar : an extremely functional application that is completely incapable of synchronizing with anything without help.
Anyway, there will never be such a plugin for Firefox that could duplicate the functionality of GNOME and KDE.
Cardinally opposite opinions are expressed in the discussion at Slashdot . Someone hates web applications with all the fibers of the soul, and someone says that they are even more reliable than desktop programs.
Anyway, some types of programs, for example, that work with large data arrays in real time, will be extremely difficult to replace with online equivalents. Most likely, web applications and desktop programs will continue to develop in parallel with each other for a long time.
via Slashdot
Frankly speaking, the statement of Matt Hartley is a rather provocative thesis in modern conditions, when the opposite is evident: more and more programs are working directly through the browser. There was a stormy discussion on Slashdot about this.
Matt Hartley understands that he is going against the current: “More and more articles appear with statements, saying that the only thing we need is a network operating system,” Matt laments. He says that any adherent of such a point of view can be “killed” with one simple argument: there is simply not enough band for this.
The lack of a band is not the only argument. What about privacy, Matt asks? Services like Gmail are painfully trying to provide everyone with unlimited disk space to store mail. These torments are so strong that even the thought of unlimited storage space for all files is ridiculous. It's not even about the bandwidth, which is definitely not enough to transfer giant files. The point is privacy. With online data storage, the risk of leakage is more than likely.
')
Another problem is the lack of synchronization. A classic example is Google Calendar : an extremely functional application that is completely incapable of synchronizing with anything without help.
Anyway, there will never be such a plugin for Firefox that could duplicate the functionality of GNOME and KDE.
Cardinally opposite opinions are expressed in the discussion at Slashdot . Someone hates web applications with all the fibers of the soul, and someone says that they are even more reliable than desktop programs.
Anyway, some types of programs, for example, that work with large data arrays in real time, will be extremely difficult to replace with online equivalents. Most likely, web applications and desktop programs will continue to develop in parallel with each other for a long time.
via Slashdot
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/6949/
All Articles