Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Web Device

openwebdevice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Open Web Device

#81

Post by dannyr »

Now that Chrome has made its way to Android, my guess is that Chrome Apps on Android are not far behind.

I hope an app built for Chrome will work for OpenWebDevice & vice-versa.

Re: Open Web Device

#82

Post by left_behind »

daeken wrote: post #78
left_behind wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about support for Nokia's Linux phones? There are probably millions of soon to be unsupported devices, N900 (already left behind), N9 and N950 that could conceivably run this. After all, N900 can run open office and it is the oldest of these devices. It would be much easier to test and contribute if one had a device already to properly experiment with. My N900 is gathering dust and there is no good replacements…

In terms of getting 'official' support (meaning Mozilla employees working on it for real, I guess), I don't know how likely that is. But that said, it's all actually open, and porting it to other devices is not just ok, but encouraged -- I don't know about anyone else, but I'd love to see this running on other devices, and have some plans for some personal projects along those lines myself, when I have some spare tim…

Ok, thank you for the reply. Looking forward to how all this evolves. Sadly I don't have the expertise to contribute at this point.

Hopefully some of the maemo.org guys get excited about this in the future. Sadly the discussion there is not looking too promising.

Other obsolete Linux touch device I have is the HP Touchpad. It could also be a fit for a Boot2Gecko platform ;)

Re: Open Web Device

#83

Post by rb2k_ »

cryptoz wrote: post #24
rb2k_ wrote: post #20

While I think the idea is interesting, I will say what I always say in these situations: Talk is cheap. I wish people would announce projects when there is actually something to look at rather than just having a vague list of goals. It's like the "I have a great idea for an app and just need somebody to do the software development". I always like to think of products consisting of 15% Idea and 85% implementation.

Well, they've written a bunch of the code and they have hardware partners. What more are you looking for, aside from holding one in your hand? Check out more of the project's details: https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G#Contributing

That's probably the link that I've been missing on the page itself.

Re: Open Web Device

#84

Post by zobzu »

dannyr wrote: post #81

Now that Chrome has made its way to Android, my guess is that Chrome Apps on Android are not far behind. I hope an app built for Chrome will work for OpenWebDevice & vice-versa.

I bet on Google to make this incompatible and claiming their way is the highway. hehe.

Re: Open Web Device

#85

Post by zobzu »

coderdude wrote: post #49
WayneDB wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I have not been waiting for another Html driven platform. I don't like Html/Css as a UI framework, I just think it's highly overrated. Things I like better: Qt/Qml, Wpf because they are much more precise (meaning, I don't have to use an opaque type like "DIV" as a placeholder for a list-view or something else that I really wanted).

I don't necessarily think HTML and CSS make for good languages to design UIs with, but it beats the hell out of learning a new language, stack, and tools. I can use mostly the same tools and workflow to create apps as I would for making sites. That's one reason I can't wait for Windows 8. The promise of HTML5 apps, even if they're using IE as the runtime, is friggin sweet.

I agree. I also like Qml better. But. Then again, everyone can do HTML/CSS and that's the thing.

Re: Open Web Device

#86

Post by zobzu »

flpmor wrote: post #44
icebraining wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox already has all that. A good part of the browser is written in JS which runs with high privileges (full filesystem access, full network access, etc) while the code on websites doesn't. It already has systems for unprivileged JS to request access to certain privileged APIs (location, localStorage, etc). "Apps" - websites - are already segregated and run in their own sandbox.

I know, and we have constantly lived along the edge of the cliff because of that. From a perspective of security it was a very poor design decision. By making those decisions you create a big security burden, the attack surface is very large, the impact of bugs is very large. These are the types of security consideration that have to happen at design time. In this case I would like to know more about, maybe it's bein…

So you're saying sandboxing webapps are a bad design decision. What is your proposal then?

Re: Open Web Device

#87

Post by akoumjian »

Last time I checked, Gecko and all the other browsers still had a long way to go before being fully HTML5 compliant. Chunks of the File API, postMessage, and a variety of other specs are incomplete and underdocumented.

Sites like caniuse.com vastly overestimate what has been sufficiently implemented.

Re: Open Web Device

#88

Post by drivebyacct2 »

akoumjian wrote: post #87

Last time I checked, Gecko and all the other browsers still had a long way to go before being fully HTML5 compliant. Chunks of the File API, postMessage, and a variety of other specs are incomplete and underdocumented. Sites like caniuse.com vastly overestimate what has been sufficiently implemented.

More details would be great. I've had no problem using the APIs you've listed, nor have I found discrepancies in caniuse.com.

Re: Open Web Device

#89

Post by azakai »

dannyr wrote: post #81

Now that Chrome has made its way to Android, my guess is that Chrome Apps on Android are not far behind. I hope an app built for Chrome will work for OpenWebDevice & vice-versa.

Chrome Apps can use non-standard technologies (WebSQL, for example; and soon Dart), so they won't work in other browsers. In fact, some of those nonstandard technologies won't even work on Chrome when running on another type of device (NaCl apps will not run on ARM).

Re: Open Web Device

#90

Post by amirmc »

fragsworth wrote: post #75
benihana wrote: post #45

Until I use this, I'm going to hold off on the excitement everyone seems to have for it. The tagline is "The Device the developer community is waiting for." That's great for the developer community. Unfortunately, the developer community is a small minority of people and honestly, people don't really care if their device is easy to develop for. People care how good their device is. If a device is easy to develop for,…

> That's great for the developer community. Unfortunately, the developer community is a small minority of people I think you underestimate the amount of influence developers have on the rest of the population. If you get developers to love you by making their jobs that much easier, they will go out of their way to promote your product and get other people to start using it. It's in their profit-minded interests to se…

I understand your point but I don't think it's as influential as you make out.

First, you're assuming that developers have (sufficient) influence over swathes of non-developers. I'm not sure that's true, especially in the case of hardware.

Second, it's in developers' "profit-minded interest" to get their stuff on every relevant platform. It's where the customers are that matters.

Finally, no matter how good the product is, I doubt any technically capable folks (not just devs) want to end up as the de-facto 'tech-support guy' for all the people they convinced to sign-up.

Post reply on HN