Feanor

Yes, I guess since the whole desktop must be contained in the browser, also games should be. To me it sounds like the dumbest idea ever. All this stuff, starting from HTML5, is not going to make things better or easier for people who develop We sites. I see big confusion, not only about the technicalities but also about the goals. About Google, looks like they want to monopolize the Web like MS monopolized the PC desktops.

On a side note: what the hell means when an application is "rich" and "interactive"? Is there any software that does not interact with the user and that is "poor"? I hate this nonsense crap.

I guess there is a misunderstanding here. The "nix" shell does interact, in fact you do input and the shell process and gives you output. The whole shell is about interacting. Then simple scripts can give you multiple choices, etc. I think the only software that does not require any interaction is an AI.

I don't understand why the Web MUST provide the desktop applications. But, lets say it is a good idea, WHY these applications MUST be "rich" or "interactive" or even "3D"? This stuff is like selling used cars...

On a side note, after the Flash hype some time ago, when all the sites had the "loading....", now you can see Flash is mostly used as a multimedia or video player. I guess if all the "richness" and the "interactiveness" is Youtube, well...

Well yes, you are right. Also the AI is about interaction, since it is the same for us as human beings.

Actually Java is different since it is a full programming language that was adapted to RIA applications only much later. What killed Java, besides the poor performance for desktop applications, was the .Net platform.
I never understood well what Flash was for, besides putting (annoying) animations on the Web pages. Some time ago it was the choice of people who did not want to learn HTML, CSS and such and today I see flash used as player for streaming video.
I see even Microsoft is not using Siverlight on their own sites like MSN so I don't know what to think about it either.

Well I guess it is me, I am definitely old school.

But see, I got burned years ago in the "new economy" madness and following collapse. So far I've seen so many "revolutionary" stuff that was just a flop. To say one among the many, the SMIL technology:
"The Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL, pronounced "smile") enables simple authoring of interactive audiovisual presentations. SMIL is typically used for "rich media"/multimedia presentations which integrate streaming audio and video with images, text or any other media type. SMIL is an easy-to-learn HTML-like language, and many SMIL presentations are written using a simple text-editor."
SMIL 1.0 came in 1998, SMIL 2.0 in 2001.
But, while the browsers do not agree what video codec they support with the HTML5 "video" tag and Chrome adds O3D engine, "[...] SMIL is not yet native to web browsers, so in order to put SMIL in a web page, one must embed it and open it in a plug-in such as Apple Quicktime or Microsoft's Windows Media Player." So basically it is almost useless.

Like I said above, I do not understand what RIA means, besides the need of advertise some technology to non-technical people. It sounds a lot like the "Virtual Reality" of many years ago, you know the times of the VR helmets and gloves... and the VRML, "(Virtual Reality Modeling Language, pronounced vermal or by its initials, originally — before 1995 — known as the Virtual Reality Markup Language) is a standard file format for representing 3-dimensional (3D) interactive vector graphics, designed particularly with the World Wide Web in mind. It has been superseded by X3D".

About Silverlight and the plugins, I understand the model behind that and Flash-alike technologies is to take the Web out of the browser and translate it in some proprietary technology (instead old good html and such). Then you rise a generation of developers who don't know anything else like some years ago many believed there wasn't any Web without Flash. And they pay for licenses.

The plugin on the long term should be replaced by a "runtime engine" that allows to have Flash or Silverlight RIA applications right on the desktop. This is somehow not related to the single technology, also Google is trying to create an ecosystem based on the existing standards but with their "native" client and APIs for the "cloud".

I do not understand people. Why everything must be an expensive and almost useless game on which you can waste some big money and nobody cares of the real content. I would like to make a survey about what are the most used functions on mobile devices and how much power is actually used. Maybe then we discover people play Pacman over the Iphone.

I don't know but lets say I am going to book a travel over a Web site, which is what "real" Web apps are about.
I don't care less about seeing "rich interactive" special effects, on the contrary, I don't like to see anything that makes the whole thing less efficient.
All I need is the most basic and straightforward interface that completes the task in the shortest round.
Now, what is the "rich interactive" about? When do I need to see animation/sound effects/3D, considering I do not have them over my PC desktop?
Again, I think it is me. Like Compiz over Linux desktops, I do not understand why people think the rotating cube or the "wobbling" windows are "cool". To me it looks like a waste of resources for something that gets annoying after 30 seconds you see it for the first time.

About money... Here is another big topic, where is the money in the IT business and then where is the money in the Web business. A sub-topic is about the perception that people have about when it is right and when it is wrong to spend their money. It goes for your clients when you are an IT professional and goes in the consumer field when you consider stuff like the Iphone.

I don't think it is much likely.

All these discussions about "RIA" and "the cloud" in my opinion involve a small group of people who work on some "bleeding edge" stuff, while most IT is keeping on with old legacy stuff. I mean, there are still many job offers for Cobol programmers. At least, this is my view here in Italy, I don't know US.

And the browsers and the "web standards" aren't making life easier for people who design and code "real" Web sites, they are just piling up more complicated stuff (like the O3D) that you won't use ever in your real life while everyday annoying stuff like aligning text and images is still there untouched.

The reason why I don't understand the RIA concept is I never met a customer who understood or needed that kind of stuff. I met a few who wanted to spend big money to some vapor project which of course failed when the customers finally had to deal with big losses in their budget. I don't even know if nowadays you can make a living developing Web sites, so the science fiction RIA stuff sounds like a joke.

I don't look at things from the programmer's perspective but from the business POV. Like I said, I never met a customer who understood what the Web was about. That made very difficult to build a reliable business on top of developing Web sites (and Web apps), in fact after the "new economy" bubble collapsed, all that was gold became crap rather quickly.

Think of Youtube, it is NOT a business that makes sense for anybody but Google that has got the resources to keep it running despite the losses and maybe the business model (advertisement) for the big numbers and the related huge costs.

The idea of moving stuff on remote servers (the Web actually is only about the way you connect to the server) instead of having it in house and the idea of developing apps with Web technologies (that are lighter and easier) is VERY old and again, it was the reason behind the first war of the browsers that erased Netscape and took to the IE ubiquity.

Problem is after the collapse of the New Economy and after this current financial crisis, there isn't much money to waste in nonsense stuff. The IT firs today are mostly working on very traditional software, like logistics, banking, CAD and so on. That kind of stuff that was there BEFORE the Internet and it seems it will be there after it. In that field big changes aren't good, both because you have got a lot of legacy software to maintain and because basically the software runs in closed and protected environment where there are concerns of security, privacy and such.

I mean, it is not a big deal if you move from your traditional POP3 mail to Gmail as home user. It is pretty different to move the whole mail of a medium company over a Web application. And the mail is the basics. Think about moving the data of an insurance company over the "cloud". I don't think it will happen ever. Some things like CAD does not make sense on the cloud at all.

Oh, BTW, I suspect NO JOB is fun, included being a programmer
Here in Italy programmers are more or less like factory workers and, besides some lucky people in good positions, they do have boring and not well payed jobs. Like working on the said logistics, banking, etc.

I mean you can use HTML for a simple application that allows the man at the desk in your bank to check your account. That does not mean the bank will put all the data on Google servers and develop software on top of Google APIs (see "the cloud").
Plus, the application with an HTML GUI works for very basic tasks but for example you can't manage a storage or sales with it, try to input 100 products with all their related info one by another, it is much slower than a text-based software/GUI from 20 years ago, regardless if the Web app is "local" or "remote".

Anyway, my question is "what is the Web about"?
Or you can say it in another way "what is the business model of the Internet?"

I don't get it.
First of all, we don't know Livejournal real budget and I have learned you don't know if a business is profitable or not unless you are in the board of directors or when you see the company closed or sold.

Then, how many Livejournal do you think there can be? Or, lets say it in another way, how many people can make a living on this sort of things, considering there are designers, programmers, etc in every corner of the world, included countries where labor costs 1/100 than here. Besides, it is not an accident that Livejournal was born in US then, after the "new economy" collapse, it was sold to Russia and now it is developed over there.

Anyway, here in Italy there can't be any Livejournal business for several reasons. So I don't care much unless I move to another country or even continent. Like I said, the IT here is related to pretty conservative traditional business and the Web works only in some little niches (that are maybe 1% of the whole).

The business about selling cars looks like people who some time ago worked as consultant to build stuff over Second Life. But if I need to get some money I can get any temporary job, which is quite different than make a living of it and even more different than build a career on it. Not serious stuff, regardless the money involved.

If the answer to the question "what is the business" is "livejournal and selling mods for online games" I guess it is more or less the same as saying "there isn't any serious business" and then it is better to go working as plumber.

I don't know.
Latvia is an "emerging market" like all east Europe, including Russia. I guess there are many opportunities there.
Here in Italy I see few opportunities in any business because a sum of negative factors. Traditionally here the economy is driven by small or medium business lead by a founder/owner and his family. The business is usually related to e local network, like you make some food in a place because the ingredients are farmed around there. Or you build a town because you are "friend" of the local politician. As soon as the business gets too big or the founder retires, the firm is sold to some multinational firm. These are the customers for the IT business and, coupled with the fact that you can find IT professionals everywhere, this leads to a market where low cost is the only variable and there is no interest for innovation.
Anyway yes, I bet it is easier to find work as programmer (until you don't mind the pay) than as iron factory worker. Both because all the iron factories have moved to the "emerging markets" and because we got million immigrants who are filling those positions.

On a side note, Google has bought ON2:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/05/google-acquires-video-compression-technology-company-on2-for-106-million/

If I recall correctly, the OGG Theora video codec originates to the VP3 codec from ON2 that was released as open source some years ago (now they are on VP8).

Meanwhile, Microsoft is closing their video portal (the MS answer to Youtube/Google video).

In theory Google could replace all the Flash video player around with ON2 and I guess is becoming a monopoly on the Web like Microsoft is on the desktop.