[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Simon Waters wrote: > Richard Brown wrote: > >> I think there are quite a few free apps to do what want - depends on >> what you want. I did a quick Google search on "online image editor" >> and came up with sumo paint. Looks ok to me. >> >> <http://www.sumopaint.com/web/> >> >> I'm fairly sure that without too much effort we could find free apps >> to do most stuff. >> > > Sumopaint appears to be proprietary, so is not free in the way Ben means. > > But I think a key point is that I haven't seen functional general > purposes storage for browsers (I know there is some permanent storage > arriving in browsers right now..), but without this the concept of a web > application wasn't going to catch on. > > Sure you could use the URL of everything to link to everything else, but > you don't want to do that. You want to design your logo in tool X, and > make a copy of it in your website design tool. But if it is all in a > cloud you'll have to keep your graphic tool service working till you can > upload the image to the web site design service. > > There are also inherent limitations in what browsers and servers have > allowed (by the standards). The pain we have with uploading images to a > website at work is a clear case in point, how hard should uploading a > image be? > You should ask yourself why this is so. I know - its because proprietary companies make it so! The HTML 5 standard has just failed to add video content standard - the parties couldn't agree. As for image editing - the canvas would cover that - except IE8 has not included it. JavaScript has been crippled by MS (silverlight) and Adobe who release two flash engines to reveal that Actionscript is really just an extension of JavaScript doing things they prevented the JS standards group doing for a whole variety of specious reasons. Uploading images was never a problem - except for MS and shit programmers... The browser interface is shit because lot of money has gone into making it so. > It still isn't clear to me what Google are proposing, and it I'm betting > the default mail client is Gmail, and we've already discussed it's > shortcomings here not so long ago..... > > That said Google are right about things like start-up time, modern > computers suck at so many things they should be good at. But given how > lousy Google Chrome is still, I wouldn't bet anything on the success of > a Google OS just yet. > What Google is doing is a bit of land grab - trying to 'own' some free space. Most of the apps that this OS is going to come with are apps that are there to do the things that JS/XHTML/JSON/XML/SVG/CSS could have done easily if allowed. There is no real reason the browser cannot do any of the things any other windows interface can do. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html