Pros and Cons to Web and Desktop Applications

Last Updated: 09/29/2019

Pretty much everyone who has used a computer has used a desktop application (e.g., Microsoft Word, VLC Player, Notepad, Adobe Photoshop, Internet Explorer, etc.) Desktop applications can be found just about everywhere for just about every kind of use.

However, over the past (roughly) 10-15 years, another kind of application for users has come about. They are called web applications. Web applications, simply put, are programs that users can interact with using their web browsers. Users also do not have to install web applications. They are already “installed” on the server you are accessing with your web browser.

Now many programmers feel passionate about both. I have written several desktop and web applications alike. So, I have a good enough feel for both to give some insight into the pros and cons of both. You must remember there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to the desktop or web. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Anyone that says (or at least implies) otherwise, does not know what they are talking about!

Features

Desktop Applications

Web Applications

 Rapid Development

Designed from the beginning to be a quick and easy solution to building graphical user interfaces (GUIs), especially when using Windows Forms in Visual Studio for Windows.

Never was designed for rapid development. Using the MVC (model, view, control) architecture is typically seen as the “correct” way to create web applications.

 

I have spent hours and hours looking into this and the closest thing to “rapid development” for web applications I have found is ASP.NET WebForms.

Of course, I am aware that WebForms is not a solution for everyone, since it is designed to run on a Windows Server.

 Security

Since the user keeps his or her data on their own computer systems, this makes it harder for hackers to gain access to people’s data.

 

There are some desktop applications (usually for businesses) that connect to a central database server to get and store its information.

In that case, the desktop application would be like a web application.

Since all the user’s data is stored online, technically there is a greater chance of the users’ data being compromised.

 Available Controls

Desktop application developers have a whole buffet of user-interactive controls to choose from. This goes for the out-of-the-box controls (e.g., Visual Studio for Windows) as well as 3rd-party controls.

No real controls “out-of-the-box” to speak of, except for HTML controls (e.g., text boxes, buttons, check boxes, etc).

 

While you can add controls via jQuery or something else, these are not as mature as the desktop equivalents (in my opinion).

 Flexibility

It is very easy to write desktop applications that take advantage of the user’s hardware (such as:  scanners, cameras, WiFi, serial ports, network ports, etc.)

Web applications do not compare to the flexibility of desktop applications.

 

If you want to write a web application that interacts with the user’s hardware, you are doing it wrong. Just stick with a desktop application for your program. You will be happy you did.

 Portability

Desktop applications can be portable, but most are not portable and require manual installation from the user.

Web applications have desktop apps beat here.

 

Web applications are very portable and will work with just about any computer with a decent web browser.

 Maintenance

Desktop applications usually need to be updated either automatically or manually.

Web applications have desktop apps beat here…again.

 

End-users do not have to install any updates. All the updates are already taken care of by the web application administrators.

 Performance

Usually you will find that well-written desktop software running on a decent computer runs faster than web applications.

Web applications usually have slower performance than desktop applications, due to having to transmit data across the Internet.

 

The Internet (and web browsers in general) were never designed with huge web applications in mind.

For example, if Adobe created a full-blown Photoshop (all features, nothing removed) that ran in the web browser, I would say a lot of people would have trouble using it.

For one, web browsers would not be optimized for such a web application.

Secondly, most people would not have enough Internet bandwidth to run it smoothly, not to mention many broadband subscribers have a monthly bandwidth limit that they would easily go over if they used such a web application.

 


Posted in Internet and Servers, Software

Response to “Why Arguing That Windows is Better Than Linux Makes You Look Silly”

This is a response to the web article entitled “Why Arguing That Windows is Better Than Linux Makes You Look Silly” found at (https://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/768257-why-arguing-that-windows-is-better-than-linux-makes-you-look-silly).  Please note that I mean no disrespect to the article’s author in anything I say.

Update 02-27-2020  :  It appears the author of the article I responded to – a few years back – has deleted his article.

Author’s words in red and my responses are in black.

1. “Reason #1: As soon as you mention one distro, all the fanboys go insane claiming you’ve made the wrong choice.”

You didn’t just hallucinate.

The #1 reason to not use Linux, stated by a technology writer for both ZDNet and CNN, is that other people use Linux also. Some of those people have opinions. And you, with your obvious inability to exist within a universe with other people in it, will simply collapse into a fetal position and give up using computers altogether.

Bottom of the barrel reasoning. Heck. Not even in the barrel. In a box next to the barrel with the words “just some fish or something” scribbled on the top with a sharpie. But let’s jump past that relatively catastrophic level of goobery-ness and tackle some of the more reasonable (at first glance) points that are made in many of these sorts of articles.

While I agree that not every Linux user goes “nuts” when you mention a distribution they do not prefer, having several Linux distributions is really not the best way to gain support for desktop users.

Linux has so many different distributions that it is virtually impossible for any one software company to support their software on Linux (a few try though).

One Linux distribution (e.g., Ubuntu 15.04) might have different software libraries than say CentOS 7 or even Debian. That is why you find software companies that have Linux software only supporting a limited selection of Linux distributions. In other words, you may not be able to use your “favorite” Linux distribution, since the software you need to use is not supported on it.

If you don’t mind Linux having 80+ different distributions, that is fine. However, please do not expect the rest of the world to not see all of those 80+ distributions as confusing and intimidating (I don’t, but other less technical users will).

2. “Windows has more software.”

One of the common mantras in making the case against Linux, particularly on the Desktop, is that Windows simply has more software available than Linux. In fact, I don’t even think you can use the phrase “Windows is better than Linux” in an article without trotting out this tired old argument.

This is usually backed up by an example of an important piece of software that doesn’t run on Linux, such as Adobe Photoshop.

There’s just one problem with that argument: It’s not at all true. Want to run Adobe Photoshop (or the vast majority of software often used to make this argument)… you can. With Wine.

Sure, you could make the argument that not all Windows software runs perfectly using Wine on Linux. Then again… I could make that same argument about Windows software not always running well on Windows itself. Which would be a far more damning point to make. And, because I’m not the type to kick a guy when he’s down, I’m just going to move on…

Actually the majority of software available to the everyday user out-there is Windows only. Using “wine” for Linux is not the go-to solution for everything.

Contrary to what you stated, most Windows software either does not run correctly or at all on “wine”. Why would someone go to Linux, if they have software that requires Windows in the first place?

Software companies probably would not give you support for their software, if they found out that you were using their Windows-only software via “wine” on Linux.

“Sure, you could make the argument that not all Windows software runs perfectly using Wine on Linux. Then again… I could make that same argument about Windows software not always running well on Windows itself.”

You are comparing apples to oranges here.  What does Windows-only software running on Windows itself have to do with Windows software running under “wine” on Linux?  These are two separate topics altogether!

3. “Windows has more commercial support.”

This one gets pulled out fairly often.

The idea here is that people and companies want professional support – the ability to pick up the phone and call someone when they have a problem. This is, obviously, super critical. Especially for big businesses who have mission-critical work happening on their computers.

When this gets written, I feel like the writer wasn’t even trying. This argument is immediately disproven by a quick Google search for “linux enterprise support” and checking out the number of options on that first page of results alone. Multiple high profile companies offering various support options for both Linux servers and desktops.

In other words, “Lots and lots of commercial support for Linux”.

In this case, it really is a matter of what a company is currently using in its infrastructure. If they use Windows software to run their business, they are going to want to use Windows. If they use Linux software, then they are going to pick a professional Linux distribution that they can get support with.

4. “Windows is pre-installed.”

Ah, now here’s a valid point. At least it would be, if installing operating systems were difficult at this point in human history. It also assumes nobody has ever had to re-install Windows which, I am pretty sure, is a task that has been done at least 50 times by every man, woman and child on planet Earth (on average).

Also… the logic here is “You already have this thing… so don’t worry about that other thing that might be better. Also buy some new versions of the thing you have. But, seriously. Don’t think about other, better things.”

People are not looking to install a completely different OS (that they probably are not familiar with) when they buy a new computer. Sure tech savvy guys might wipe Windows off a new system and put Linux on, but don’t expect the “everyday” person to want to do that.

Also, if you are just installing Linux “just because it is not Windows” then that is a silly reason to begin with. I use whatever OS best suits my needs. If that happens to be Linux, then its Linux. If Windows, then it’s Windows.

5. “Windows is easier to use.”

The core of the argument here usually revolves around how it is impossible to use Linux without spending all day hunched over the terminal and typing archaic commands into Emacs. Which is both completely wrong (Linux desktop distros tend to be astoundingly easy to use nowadays), and also a wee bit insulting for the reader.

If a person is reading a technology article comparing two different operating systems… my guess is they don’t have a panic attack the moment they need to type two words on their keyboard. I know, call me crazy.

I could go on and on with this but I think the point has been made. It sort of feels like all of these “X Reasons Windows is Better than Linux” articles are regurgitated versions of similar articles written in 1998. And, in the end, simply make the writers look uninformed about Linux.

Also goobery. It makes them look a bit goobery.

I have used Linux for over a decade. Both desktop and server distributions still require the user to be somewhat knowledgeable about the terminal.

Saying “Which is both completely wrong (Linux desktop distros tend to be astoundingly easy to use nowadays), and also a wee bit insulting for the reader.” is not entirely correct. However you are entitled to your opinion.

“It sort of feels like all of these “X Reasons Windows is Better than Linux” articles are regurgitated versions of similar articles written in 1998. And, in the end, simply make the writers look uninformed about Linux.”

Linux has many advocates involved with its use and development. I have talked with several myself on the Internet. In my experience, roughly 90% of the time, Linux advocates trash Windows and parade Linux, but never really give any factual or technical reasons beyond “Linux is more secure than Windows…” or “Linux is more stable than Windows…”.

Both of those statements are nonsense, and would not make an individual or company want to switch to Linux (no technical arguments in those statements), nor do they make the Linux advocate saying them look smart.

I actually had one Linux advocate who implied that open-source software cannot be backdoor-ed by the NSA.  How could he know that the NSA hasn’t and / or cannot have people working undercover to infiltrate open-source software? He cannot. He is just making an assumption (and a dangerous one at that!).

In the end, it’s usually the Linux advocates who talk uninformed about both Linux and Windows. They even will go as far as to insult people who have a differing opinion. I am not saying this to be mean, but that has been my experience.


Posted in Computers, Internet and Servers, Operating Systems

hMailServer – Free Open Source E-mail Server for Microsoft Windows

As a server administrator, I have to make sure that I use software that is both sound (security wise) and performs optimally for my users (doesn’t randomly crash, not slow to work, etc.)

Now I know many people have their own ideas of what software to use and what works for them, but in this blog post I am going to give a quick, brief overview of a e-mail server software that I have been using for a long time…called hMailServer.

Now hMailServer is not your “answer to everything” in regards to e-mail hosting, but it is a light-weight, secure (I have never known to be hacked; also, it has almost no security problems to speak of), and performs adequately.

Some of the features of hMailServer are as follows:

  •  1)  Easy Installation and Configuration

Installing hMailServer (with the SQL-Lite database option *) takes almost no time at all. Total install time for me is under one minute. Configuring hMailServer takes a little bit of time, but with a GUI (Graphical User Interface) available for server administrators to take advantage of, configuration is a snap! (think:  no manual editing of text files on a computer terminal!)

* If you are configuring hMailServer to use a MySQL or Microsoft SQL database, it will take a little bit more time to setup this configuration. However, the MySQL / Microsoft SQL database configuration is accomplished using a GUI for ease of setup.

  • 2) Great Security

hMailServer provides great security for the server administrator.

This includes:

  • A)  Virtual E-mail Addresses

This is good since the e-mail users don’t have actual user accounts on the server. They just have “pretend” (virtual) user accounts. This helps with keeping the server safe from intruders since the e-mail users don’t really have access to the server. They just have access to their own e-mail account(s).

  • B)  SMTP Relay Protection

Prevents people from using your server as a e-mail relay without prior authorization.

  • C)  Built-in “firewall”

You can control what the outside would can or cannot do with your e-mail server. This helps especially when you have backup mail servers that need direct access to your main e-mail server without having to bother authenticating first, or you have computers in your network or VPN that need direct access without first authenticating.

  • D)  Anti-Virus Scanner Integration

You can have hMailServer transfer received e-mails to an anti-virus scanner to check for viruses in the e-mail.

  • E)  Built-in Blacklist

You can access blacklist DNS servers to help with combating SPAM. This helps catch a lot of SPAM!

  • 3)  Integration with OS and other Software

hMailServer has a COM library which gives server administrators the ability to write scripts and integrate hMailServer into their current IT infrastructure.

  • 4)  Other Interesting Features
    • Includes a POP3, IMAP, and SMTP server all in the same program (saves time setting up by having all three servers in one software program)
    • Built-in backup and restore system
    • SSL  /  TLS  support
    • Integration support for SpamAssassin (a very popular anti-spam software program)
    • Built-in routing support
    • Built-in MX (mail server) backup support
    • Built-in Multi-homing support

As you can see, hMailServer is a very good e-mail software that has the potential to work for many people in many different environments.

Now am I saying that hMailServer is the best e-mail server to use, and that you should get rid of the software you are using in production and switch to hMailServer? Of course not! However, I would recommend for you to at least try out hMailServer (e.g., on a Windows virtual machine that is *not* being used for production) and see if it meets your needs.

hMailServer Homepage:  https://www.hmailserver.com/


Posted in Internet and Servers, Software

Arrogance Amongst Certain Linux Users

In this blog post I am going to talk about something that has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time about several people in the Linux community. I want to be clear, I am not anti-opensource (I make use of open-source software every day), nor am I anti-Linux (I am both a Windows and Linux administrator myself and really like Linux on my phone (Android).

Many times, I have read and responded to various Linux users online who have come off as arrogant and think they know everything about operating systems “just because they use Linux”.  Of course, I do not claim to know everything about operating systems myself (there are many more people who know more than I do).

This blog post is not meant to be an attack against Linux users (because, of course, not all Linux users are this way). I am just sharing one of many not-so-great experiences I have had with various people who have used Linux.

Summery of what happened:

  1. A while back, I made a comment on a tech website. In a nutshell, I said “using Linux did not mean that you are completely secure from malware infesting your Linux box”. This is a valid statement. I did not bash or hate on Linux. I enjoy using Linux.
  2. Someone posted a reply to my comment, saying that I had made several wrong points about Linux. He claimed that I said “Windows malware would work on Linux” and I was wrong for saying that.
  3. I responded to him, telling him that his first point he said I was “wrong” about was something that I never said.
  4. I responded – using the bash shell-shocker vulnerability as an example – something being open-source does not mean that it is more secure.
  5. I also responded asking him to show me the points that I got “wrong”, since he didn’t give any valid points. All were just his opinions or straw-man arguments.
  6. He responded back and ignored my question and the issue about putting words into my mouth. He just wanted to talk about how Linux is still secure because people “fix vulnerabilities quickly” for Linux. He basically changed the subject.
  7. He also said the ShellShock vulnerability was fixed within two days.
  8. I told him that the bash shell-shocker vulnerability was in fact not completely fixed in two days. It took a little bit longer.
  9. Now the guy does not respond back.

The bug did not have an official fix until 24 September 2014 (the date when the fix was released to the public). The fix came out almost two weeks after the initial discovery.

Now of course I don’t hate the guy, but what he did was just another example of the problems I have encountered with the Linux community.

He started a technical discussion about a comment I made to someone else 3+ months ago, claimed I said things I didn’t say, and presented his personal opinions as verified facts. When he was confronted with evidence to the contrariety, he decided to “sneak out” and not reply anymore.

I know there are good people in the Linux community, but situations like this make me wonder. Also, other people who may be considering Linux will see various attitudes like this and be turned off by that alone. Not a good way to gain users in my opinion.


Posted in Computers, Internet and Servers, Operating Systems, Society, Software

‹ Older Posts Newer Posts ›