Difference between revisions of "Talk:Seaside"
Infomaniac (talk | contribs) m (→seasidebrowser bridge) |
(Our main vision for the 3D environment is the modern Geoscope) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Have you thought of or learned about any other uses for this paradigm? | Have you thought of or learned about any other uses for this paradigm? | ||
| + | :Our main vision for the 3D environment is the modern [[Geoscope]] --[[User:Nad|nad]] 11:27, 18 January 2011 (PST) | ||
=== seaside<-->browser bridge === | === seaside<-->browser bridge === | ||
As I understand it, seaside, in its current implementation, is the browser and repository. In other words it is a peer in the peer to peer network and contributes to the dht storage as well as the virtual routing system. I can see how it can also become an http server, acting as a bridge between the peer to peer network and traditional browser clients. However browser users, since they are not using the seaside client, will only be able to consume and contribute content, but will not be contributing storage or routing. What sort of incentives will there be to run the peer to peer client? Perhaps the capabilities offered by the bridge will be limited? | As I understand it, seaside, in its current implementation, is the browser and repository. In other words it is a peer in the peer to peer network and contributes to the dht storage as well as the virtual routing system. I can see how it can also become an http server, acting as a bridge between the peer to peer network and traditional browser clients. However browser users, since they are not using the seaside client, will only be able to consume and contribute content, but will not be contributing storage or routing. What sort of incentives will there be to run the peer to peer client? Perhaps the capabilities offered by the bridge will be limited? | ||
Revision as of 19:27, 18 January 2011
Integration of Seaside with OpenCobalt
Some questions/thoughts that came to mind that I would like to clarify:
3D
- having seen the screenshots of the 3D world browser, looking beyond the cheesy atari-game-ness of the demos, it is clear that this capability should have some powerful potential for data visualization. I'm not sure that the best use of this capability will be navigation amongst avatars and e-toys -- at least, not for adult collaborators. I'm not even sure what gain in productivity would be achieved n browsing text pages in 3d perspective. Text pages are not even readable or meaningful until viewed squarely and close up. Nevertheless some ideas come to mind:
- expansion of the desktop area - à la Minority Report and Avatar for manipulations, processing, procedures or operations using gestures, for example
- an improvement over the hierarchical file system paradigm - some people have a memory "filing system" that is chronologically indexed (I know I received that letter mid-August last year) ; other people tend to index things spacially (last year's tax filing is in the third pile from the left on the middle shelf by the printer)
- I know that the world wide web structure is in fact 3d, although it is generally not represented geographically. But much data is powerful when visualised geographically.
Have you thought of or learned about any other uses for this paradigm?
seaside<-->browser bridge
As I understand it, seaside, in its current implementation, is the browser and repository. In other words it is a peer in the peer to peer network and contributes to the dht storage as well as the virtual routing system. I can see how it can also become an http server, acting as a bridge between the peer to peer network and traditional browser clients. However browser users, since they are not using the seaside client, will only be able to consume and contribute content, but will not be contributing storage or routing. What sort of incentives will there be to run the peer to peer client? Perhaps the capabilities offered by the bridge will be limited?
