Any interest in an HTML5 "compliant" desktop OS?

I'm about to revive a little project I started about a year ago and was wondering whether there would be any interest in it, community wise.

The final goal is to have a stable, reliable and secure multimedia focused desktop operating system that appeals to creative people and features it's very own native tool-set (alongside classic tools from other, Unix based OS').

However, before I get there, I'd like to start off with a more simplified concept that only features applications coded in HTML5.

Since I'm employing open standards (Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine, in case of the HTML5 codebase) , porting your Construct 2 games to it would be a matter of minutes.

There are already some neat little features like irregularly shaped windows and alpha transparency for pretty much everything (including the contents of a window itself).

So what says the community?

I'm interested, but I've used Chrome OS from my USB before. For me I love the ideas. But I suspect we will see intermediate OS first. A standard OS that runs HTML technologies invisibly integrated so no one ever notices.

I suppose this all comes down to getting people to use the OS. however if you can. I'm all keen on it :)

Technically, Windows 8 is already very HTML5 compliant/based (+ WebGL in 8.1, faster than Chrome in tests so far from the OS / IE11), the whole metro interface and *I think* most of the store apps are based on HTML5 too.

However, it would be awesome to see a light-weight OS like that which isn't made by a huge corporation, would it also be possible to support the current/older web multimedia platforms too (Java, Flash, Unity Web Player, etc)?

Jayjay

Yep that's very true. However I like to hold out away from newer MS OS's for a few years. Mostly for them to iron out the OS and come out with any new major iteration.

However I really feel that MS did a super smart move leading this rather than waiting for success first from other companies.

However. if any HTML OS came out I would certainly consider it :)

What's the point? There's already operating systems that are developed by thousands of people, I don't think 1 person has a hope of catching up alone.

I'd be interested in an HTML5 OS that could be installed on a small PC in the living room and operated with a gamepad :)

To develop a real OS, it is necessary to use native code. However you could create a new shell that runs on an existing OS.

Chrome OS and Firefox OS come close to a HTML5 OS - Firefox OS closest of all, since even the system UI is powered by HTML5.

I remember when HP and Palm came out with WebOS and a tablet that used it. I thought it was a great idea. Although I felt the release was too early I also thought they should have stuck to their guns and kept it going. But they gave in far to fast rather than hold out and continue to push the WebOS platform. I suppose since WebOS didn't storm the world they just dropped it :(

To develop a real OS, it is necessary to use native code. However you could create a new shell that runs on an existing OS.

Chrome OS and Firefox OS come close to a HTML5 OS - Firefox OS closest of all, since even the system UI is powered by HTML5.

So far, my OS is actually nothing more than a modified Linux personality (sans the GNU userland) hosted on top of a modern microkernel.

Coming up with a specifically tailored native toolset and a bunch of full-screen applications really isn't a problem, even at this early point in time.

Where I struggle is with the window manager. Which is why I only wrote a small browser so far.

Right now, it's particularly tough to port any native application to the platform since the structure of my windowing system departs from the traditional concept that every application should host it's own window.

After going through a number of spec changes and basically defaulting on a couple of key choices, I have made quite some progress on my OS.

There are now two development frameworks.

Junior, the one I'm currently concentrating development on, caters to the modern web developer and combines ease of use with a modern language supporting a number of native services and powerful graphical features. Natura, on the other hand, tries to provide a low level toolset for those who need every last bit of performance, reliability and security.

Here's a screenshot of Anima's login manager (WIP. Don't mind the debug console to the left). The frontend was entirely created in Junior whereas the backend relies on features that I'm going to add to Natura. Combining a Junior based application with code from Natura (or any other low-level framework, for that matter) required a single wrapper class of less than 20 lines.

posting to follow it more easily, I like the concept of an html5 OS, I hope spécifications and rules of développement would be really emphasised, as they are important.

Did I mention that I really hate the term "html5 OS" (hence I said "HTML5 compliant") ?

I mean, I love HTML5. I really do. But "html5 OS" sounds like it was something that only ran in a browser. A sort of emulated OS, if you will.

Anyways. I'm already working on some new specifications, especially concerning the proper use of client side decorations. Currently, I'm working feverishly to get some bootup scripts ported to zsh since it will replace GNU/bash as the default root shell. Design wise, I already got rid of all virtual consoles as I really don't think they belong into a user oriented OS. The system should boot right into the graphical user environment.

I posted on my phone, so forgot the "compliant", I understood it was not OS running in javascript (not that it could not be done, but that is not the point).

I am not really into OS architecture, so I am not sure I understood your post, but if it is a OS Where the graphic interface is not just an addition where you still need using the command line manually, but really a part of it, then as an end user, I like this choice)

You have my interest Blinx123 - What sets your Operating System Apart from Chrome OS or Firefox OS?

Just Curious