LQ Google Chrome App?
 

Is there any possibility that Jeremy (or someone else) can create a Google Chrome extension that provides an App icon for LQ in Chrome's New Tab page? Any feedback is appreciated.

It seems that most of the "Apps" for Chrome OS so far are simply bookmarks to existing sites with a big icon. So I imagine it won't take a whole lot to put an LQ one out there. It doesn't even need any official involvement from LQ, anyone can do it.

Perhaps even somebody who see's this topic will end up doing it.

And as I said before, they also work for standard Chromium (10+):

Attachment 5572

Also, since there is no Chrome app for Launchpad either,

https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/691970

Interesting about using the apps in standard Chrome. I assumed it must be possible, but hadn't looked into it.

Reading up on the creation of Chrome OS apps, it is ridiculously easy to publish an existing site as an "App" in the Web Store. I would be willing to do an LQ one up real quick, but between the Web Store registration fee and the apparent trend to downvote and leave negative comments on bookmark-style apps, it isn't a very attractive proposition.

Honestly, I'm not sure why Chrome OS doesn't let you create your own shortcuts in the "Apps" screen. It is really no different than a bookmark folder.

Why does someone have to "write" bookmarks for you?

As much as I like Chrome OS and see that it has potential for certain computer users, right now, that's exactly what it is: a browser where you have to "install" bookmarks from a Web Store. Google is so hell-bent on convincing everyone that the Web is really an applications platform that they have gone so far as to make users think that they are "installing" an application by making a bookmark.

You can create more traditional applications that are actually installed to the local Chrome machine (though they need to be Web style apps, written in HTML5 or similar), but I don't see how that would really work in LQ's case. Seems like it would be reinventing the wheel.

I have nothing wrong with some people using the web as an applications platform (although I don't really like the concept for myself), but tricking people into believing that they have to "install" them? That's just sick. There is no concept of installation in web applications. They're just there for you to access all the time.

This reminds me of another sick thing Google tried to do: patent the "highlight all" search feature that's already used in just about every proprietary and open-source web browser, text editor, etc.

As I said before, some apps can be installed as Chrome extensions inside Chrome. It's that kind of app that I think LQ should be... Like the Ubuntu One app, for example.

I think the whole "app" thing is overblown. It is marketing gone virulent.

An acquaintance of mine was showing me his iPhone and boasting about all his apps--weather, ESPN, newspaper, etc.

I said, "I've got one app that does all those things. It's called 'browser.'"

i lol'd.

i see no use for a LQ app as if it is on the list of most visited sites you can pin it.

That's only if the LQ app is bookmark-style. It would be totally different if you actually could use the app to run LQ offline and then sync to LQ when you get back online.

What's the use of browsing a forum offline? Won't it be out of date, and how do you post?

If you can post to the local app, then the posts in the local app can be automatically synced to the forum when you get back online.

What is someone else posts before you sync?

You're right, others posting before you sync is a real issue. There also is an issue with the post numbers and how we may end up with two posts having the same number, especially if someone posts before you sync. However, these also are issues that can be worked around, say, by changing the post numbers around during the sync process to avoid post database conflicts.

why so much hassle :|
to much work involved only to sync LQ offline and for what.. perhaps the question you are answering to in offline mode might as well be already solved before you sync ... and you'd be adding your answer and putting the solved question on top of the list, while other , unsuolved questions might end up unsolved only because they got down the top list because you've synced with LQ.

An offline Chrome OS app?

There is really no concept of offline with Chrome OS. If you don't have an internet connection (which is already hard to manage, since you have 3G built in), then the OS is more or less useless. If you are planning to use Chrome OS in a situation where you might not be able to get 100% access to the Internet, I would say you are thinking about a situation for which Chrome OS is completely un-suited.

Really? Try running the Fiabee app and you'll see that it is internal, running as a Chrome extension. Same thing with the Ubuntu One, Chrome Player, Launchpad, Scratchpad, SourceKit, Calculatoure, 5calc, and Write Space apps. Run all those apps and expect to find no URL in the upper bar. Why? Because the URL is internal, under the name "chrome-extension://<random-string>".

er, it's called usenet. (Grin, duck, and run)

The fact that you could name every major Chrome OS "app" that actually installs itself as an extension, out of the hundreds of apps in the Webstore, is a testament to how little interest there is in developing them.

There is really no debate on this subject, Google's design goal for Chrome OS is a completely web-based, always online, OS.

But the number of apps that install themselves as extensions is growing. There were only about 2 apps when I first started using the Web Store (which is before I got my Cr-48: You can use them in standard Chromium), and now there's many more. I can almost certainly tell you that I did *not* list all of them. Just the *free* ones. There are plenty of paid apps that also install as extensions (I bet you almost all the paid apps that don't require a subscription fee install as extensions).

While we have no plans for a ChromeOS App at this time, we'll certainly keep an eye on how ChromeOS progresses and whether an LQ app would be beneficial.

--jeremy

Especially since the HTML5 standard specifies ways to do exactly that. No "app" required.

My daughter says I'm suffering from ADOS - Attention Deficit... Oooh, Shiney!

IOW, I was about to respond to your post @MTK358, and saw a brand new shiney *Arch* icon down there on the bottom left for your browser agent ID :)

That's the first Arch icon I've noticed here at LQ, and the Oooh, Shiney!, that my daughter keeps reminding me of, LOL!

I'm gonna have to grab that Arch icon and add it to my little collection ;)

Okay, about your post.

DUH!

To expand upon your [rhetorical] question...

You guys want an App? k. np. I get emails for several of the boards I watch here, as well as the *Not Replied To* threads.

There's also RSS, and if you do a little search here, I had a problem where I wanted to get *just* the Slackware forum notifications sent out to me so I could..., um..., compete, so to speak, with some of the other longtime Slackers here who are lightning fast in responding to cries for help from others - although they still beat me to the punch most of the time and I can't figure out how they can get anything else done if they're watching the forums manually.

But I digress...

Anyway, Jeremy personally helped me out setting that up, so search for the thread here on LQ and the detailed instructions contained therein will walk you through it, step by step (Now, I think that just might fit under the definition of a web-app too - without all the upselling!).


Okay, so there's RSS, and a related feed that can be sent to you via email for any forum(s), and OMG! Xmarks works in Chrome, Chromium, FF, and even (or so I'm told) Exploder too!

I hope that helps :)

:twocents:

Kindest regards,

.

Apps Schmapps - it's a bookmark for cryin' out loud!
 

@silvyus, I disagree with you completely on this point.

Not about the relative issues of posting assistance in an offline mode, not knowing whether your contribution is going to be significant with regards to its timeliness, but rather, that posts on old, stagnant threads, or the notion that threads marked *[Solved]* don't require or deserve comment.

In fact, when Jeremy introduced the *[Solved]* feature, to alert folks that the OP had found a solution, he made a point of mentioning that you still could add to that thread.

You can read more HERE.

I've been the OP of many a thread here where someone posted a comment LONG after I had marked it solved, read that comment, and found significant value in what that poster had to say.

Case in point Here.

I also like to post to old threads myself, when I have a comment or would like to breath life into a discussion that has waned.

One thing that really, no... REALLY bugs me about the Mozilla boards (I forget which particular board system), is that they actually berate and chastise you for posting in an old thread - and then they'll lock it if you do.

Geez! Well, why not just mark the dang thing locked in the first place then? Not only that, but when I google and have six hits to the same problem that requires the exact same fix across multiple versions of TB or FF, It serves to thin the focus of the responses and I have to search all of those fricken threads until I get a satisfactory solution.

What do *I* do over there when it affects me directly? Why, I write up a canned post offline and then post to each of those threads, take my flaming, watch them lock the threads, and then get PMs thanking me for posting the common solution across all of the instances of that particular issue scattered across those distributed threads.

No. I do not agree with you at all on this point.

good point. i get it.
but for example i've seen posts that are like posting in a 5 year old thread saying a more modern thing, though i'm quite sure after 5 years the OP isnt even going to remember about that thread he openes(i certainly wouldjnt :\ )

i also hate that they tell you huh why the heck did you post, and ive also happened to do that one time on romanian ubuntu forum and i got shut up by them . lol . i hate that. i like LQ .

I was able to create an LQ app using Appmator; all I have to do is, when I get my next paycheck, pay the $5 developer registration fee and upload it.

You mean a bookmark-style app?

Yes. However, I wonder who can upload it to the Chrome Web Store for me (who already has paid the fee). If anyone responds, I will email them (via LQ) asking for a reply so I can use Gmail to send the app to them so they can upload it.

So not only are you tricked into the misconception of "installing" web sites, and made to download bookmarks from someone else, but you have to PAY to share it?

I wouldn't use Chrome OS just in spite of that, it's plain sick.

Actually no, you only have to pay a one time fee to sign up as a developer. After that, you can upload as many apps as you want.

Still, why do you have to be a "developer" to create a bookmark?

Instead of this misleading and cheating, why not just have the option of bookmarking a site as an app?

Attachment 6201

This is obviously what the fee is for.

is it really just a bookmark? or is it perhaps a bookmark plus a few api calls to insert the person's credentials into the target site's database, hence the 'installer'? just a thought, i honestly don't know the answer to that question which is why i'm asking.

It really, as I said in another thread, counts as a desktop shortcut, because it launches from the New Tab page, which can be themed and customized just like a desktop.

right that's the end result but is there a one shot api call somewhere that inserts credentials into a site's user database (not that i'm saying it really justifies calling it an installation process) but this would be a bit more understandable.

Actually, no, but you can tell Chrome to remember your credentials.

And if you log into Chrome with your Google account, you have access to *all* Google services.

Nope. It's really just a bookmark with a high-res icon.

Take a look at the Appmator link already posted. After you give it the URL, those handful of fields it let's you enter data for is the extent of the "application". It is really hilarious if you think about it.

My apologies! It's a bookmark that opens in a new tab. Well that changes everything! How could I have missed that?

The New Tab page, as I have said before, is the Chrome OS desktop. As such, when you open a new tab, all your "apps" (or desktop icons) are there; you just have to click them. The New Tab page background can also be changed -- by Chrome themes.

You don't get it, it still doesn't matter. No matter where it is, it's still just a bookmark that you have to "install" from a "store".

It is. But what's not hilarious is that Google is trying to make people think it's OK. It seems to have worked on Kenny. :)

Ah! So because the bookmark is on a "desktop", it becomes an application.

In that case, I would like to now formally announce something I have been working on for some time now...the KDE4 LQ App! This is just a first release, so there is still some work to be done, but you can install it and give it a shot by right clicking on your desktop.

Let me know what you guys think. Oh, and don't worry, I have waived the normal installation fee for you since this is a test release.

Like I said in the "cloud" thread in Syndicated Linux News: I would agree to anything (except something that jeopardizes my life or the lives of others) for the benefit of Linux, even if it does force me to place my data on a remote server (which really isn't a big deal to me).