No, I like native widgets, predictable shortcuts, and easy off-line use. Also, desktop software is easily manageable via Exposé/Mission Control.

Also, I don't like the fact that webmail providers such as GMail cannot only track my e-mail, but also my reading/browsing behavior.

just to play devils advocate

predictable shortcuts are like bookmarks, easily manageable (tabs expose for chrome) - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ackpfhlmgjdjlohhjm... your ISP is tracking, cookies are tracking, or basically its more of a hassle to minimize all tracking than to stop thinking about it.

Either way in the end it is about preference

No, you seem to be with the majority. But I really don't want to use web software any more. I might be the only one, but hopefully not.

You're not the only one. I don't really like web applications too. It is irrational of me, but I really feel better about desktop, on-line software. I think I don't really trust "the Internet" and "the Cloud", and would like my computer to be usable even after the whole networking infrastructure burns down.

Agree, I'll take a good desktop app over a webapp any day. Webapps disappear frequently, aren't as quick and most importantly you put your data in the hands of a 3rd party which can work against you.

I tend to feel the same way, but you have to ask: Which is more likely to burn down, the whole networking infrastructure or my house?

Perhaps the OP was using hyperbole: it does seem more likely for reliance on external infrastructure to be disrupted by something beyond your control than for your own tools to stop functioning in a way that you can't correct.

There are also other effects of externalizing your tools that don't relate to continuity of uptime: levels of complexity, adaptability, security, and manageability of change all have different values for web-based and desktop software.

Yes, you have. That's why I said it's a bit irrational for me. I can't shake off the feeling that the whole Internet will go down one day, even though it's more likely that a car will hit me twice before.

Maybe it's because I'm looking for solutions that will last for long years, not the apps that I have to change every three or so months. I guess this is not possible nowdays.

You can keep the master copy at home but do (encrypted) backups on the cloud. I find it much more reassuring than the other way round (put everything in the cloud, maybe backup locally every now and then).

One thing doesn't prevent the other: I use Gmail, but I also keep offlineimap as a cronjob to download backup it all, and Thunderbird installed.

Web apps have their advantages but their integration into the desktop, responsiveness etc. is lacking far behind desktop applications.

Browsers fail horribly at providing a desktop alternative.

And oddly none of the new browsers has the balls to tackle this problem, they're all about web standards which are very cumbersome for building business apps. MS obviously don't want to tackle it as they want desktops to last as long as possible.

The obsession with a web page as a document is the part that needs to be addressed.

Firefox's long lacking support for something as simple as overflow:ellipsis is one of the examples of the anti app ethos of browsers. You don't need it much on web pages, but it's pretty essential in business apps as you've got to present a lot of data but need to show it compactly. And it's essential to indicate there's more text to a comment or email.

That and the terrible support for non-fixed layout.

You may be pleased to know that text-overflow: ellipsis is supported in Firefox 7 (in the Aurora channel now, release later this year). At that point it will finally be supported in all modern browsers!

Maybe we are not so much headed towards a sharp divide between desktop software and the web, but instead will see more seamless integration between the two.

You (well, some of you) are already using Gmail seamlessly as a web app, on your laptop, your mobile phone and your tablet. Each with their own unique interface, but each with the same metaphors. Same with Twitter, Facebook and a slew of other services.

I think the definition of what constitutes an 'app' is blurring. Web-apps, in-browser Chrome apps, browser add-ons, native apps, site-specific browsers, web-content inside native apps, native content inside web apps, the Chrome book, all of that has some app-ness… Some web apps don't need an internet connection any more. Some native apps are completely dependent on an internet connection. Which of these is the web app, then? It is really only that some apps are executed within the context of a browser and some are not. That says little about their web-awareness, though.

In the strictest sense, a web-app is an app that runs "in any browser", accessible through a URL; a native app one that runs "in a specific operating system".

Requiring Internet access or not has nothing to do with it.

For example, an OS X native app wouldn't run in Linux (at least as easily as a Linux native app would). A web app would.

I agree. I only use desktop email to ensure that I have a copy saved locally.

For the workgroup that I support, I give them Mailplane for Google Apps. I find that some users just can't get past the idea of having a "shortcut" on their desktop, even when on a Mac.