Web 3.0 OS

[sol87]

Web 3.0 has been described as the "executable web". In the analogy to file system permissions, Web 1.0 was "read-only", Web 2.0 is "read-write", and Web 3.0 will be "read-write-execute".

Im just thinking of ideas for the future of the internet and the idea of a OS that can be fully integrated with the internet, i want to hear what other people think an OS like this would be
Kinda like a brainstorm of ideas so if you have any ideas just throw them in

[smartboyathome]

I like the way EyeOS is going. Though the main problem with stuff like that is that people would get tied into one company, which could then own your data. Say goodbye to privacy with this. :(

[sol87]

I like the way EyeOS is going. Though the main problem with stuff like that is that people would get tied into one company, which could then own your data. Say goodbye to privacy with this. :(

yes ive seen a few things like EyeOS but im thinking more along the lines of your computer having an os thats seamlessly integrated into your computer and the internet itself and not to a certain server, i dont think that makes any sence but its a really hard concept

maybe kinda like how an internet browser connects to the internet but your os connects instead to use or get to whatevers on the server. Say you click on a gmail icon on your desktop, it would open gmail up like a regular program and keep a constant connection to googles server until the program is terminated.

*If any of that makes sence*

[hardyn]

ever read the gmail and facebook eula?


I like the way EyeOS is going. Though the main problem with stuff like that is that people would get tied into one company, which could then own your data. Say goodbye to privacy with this. :(

[sol87]

ever read the gmail and facebook eula?

I know with google chrome in the beginning there was a big thing with the eula saying something about if you uploading anything to any website using google chrome then google pretty much owns it

[smartboyathome]

ever read the gmail and facebook eula?

I feel safer with google than I do with Microsoft (which would adopt this if it took off).

[Sealbhach]

There's no way I would want an OS that is useless without an internet connection.


.

[magmon]

there's no way i would want an os that is useless without an internet connection.


.

+1

[smartboyathome]

There's no way I would want an OS that is useless without an internet connection.


.

What about if it used something similar to Google Gears? Then it wouldn't be useless without an internet connection. ;)

[mech7]

Google released a plugin to run C code straight in the browser the first step is there :)

http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/

There is really no such thing as a 2.0 or 3.0 though :D

[Delever]

Google released a plugin to run C code straight in the browser the first step is there :)


ActiveGears?

[sol87]

Google released a plugin to run C code straight in the browser the first step is there :)

http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/

There is really no such thing as a 2.0 or 3.0 though :D

Native Client looks pretty cool, im going to install it and mess around with it a bit :popcorn:

[icecruncher]

there's no way i would want an os that is useless without an internet connection.
+1

[Dr Small]

I feel safer with google than I do with Microsoft (which would adopt this if it took off).
You should never feel "safe" with anyone but yourself that is handling your data.

[sol87]

+1

Google Gears means you can run pretty much anything offline but just cant send or receive data

If someone did make an OS like this Google code and apps would be the cornerstone of it.

[Grant A.]

chown Grant_A ubuntuforums.org