Google OS

[pzz76077]

IME, it mashes Word documents to pieces, yuk. But I do foresee a move to thin client computing for sure.

Thin client - another technology that works for 95% of users ( see the Sun Sunray stuff for example) costs less, takes less looking after, but has not taken off. Why??

PZZ

 

[Bunk]

IME, it mashes Word documents to pieces, yuk. But I do foresee a move to thin client computing for sure.

Yep, which Google have been working on for a while with Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Reader etc. This is just an extension of that I reckon. I wonder what they'll do about stuff that you really want to run locally, eg Photoshop. I know there's an online lite version but for a hefty raw image it's not practical.

 

[VectraMan]

Yep, which Google have been working on for a while with Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Reader etc. This is just an extension of that I reckon. I wonder what they'll do about stuff that you really want to run locally, eg Photoshop. I know there's an online lite version but for a hefty raw image it's not practical.

Why is it not practical? If the data and the processing is remote, then it is practical. The biggest problem with this sort of thing is insisting on sticking with bloody HTML for the interface.

I'm only suprised it's taken this long. An increasing number of people only use a PC as a web browser, and then the justification for an "operating system" as we've come to understand the term (i.e. lots of bloat) isn't very relevant. You don't need much of a file system, hardware support, or even multitasking if all you want is to open your netbook and get a browser.

 

[Bunk]

Why is it not practical? If the data and the processing is remote, then it is practical. The biggest problem with this sort of thing is insisting on sticking with bloody HTML for the interface.

I'm only suprised it's taken this long. An increasing number of people only use a PC as a web browser, and then the justification for an "operating system" as we've come to understand the term (i.e. lots of bloat) isn't very relevant. You don't need much of a file system, hardware support, or even multitasking if all you want is to open your netbook and get a browser.

But usually the image isn't remote, it's copied from a memory card to hard disk. Most digital photos will be at least a few megs nowaday and a lot more for high quality images. So either it needs compressed before uploading or it takes ages.

 

[bogeyman]

Not very exciting at the moment. It's an OS for web appliances (remember them?).

It's merely a bare-bones Linux with a new (yet another) window manager.

Nothing much new here for developers other than web-app devs - and even then there's nothing special or unique about it.

The Google badge will guarantee some takeup but all rather underwhelming.

This does not compete with Windows or OS X in any way at all.

The entire focus is on web apps - so your client could be any OS and any browser anyway.

If Google could persuade Adobe to make their CS product line run natively on it (and by consequence any Linux) then that would be a a major development. I'm guessing Adobe are not the least bit interested in that at the moment.

So, to recap. "Google offers Yet Another Linux Distro plus a world of marketing hype".

zzzzzz

 

[Bunk]

I can't see what benefit this gives over people running Chrome browser on Windows. Are the web apps going to have extra functionality on Chrome OS? And if so, what does the OS add that can't be added to the browser on Windows?

On a side note, has anybody ever seen any real world Google Gears development? The only stuff I've seen has been to add offline capabilities to Google's own web-apps.

 

[bogeyman]

I can't see what benefit this gives over people running Chrome browser on Windows. Are the web apps going to have extra functionality on Chrome OS? And if so, what does the OS add that can't be added to the browser on Windows?

On a side note, has anybody ever seen any real world Google Gears development? The only stuff I've seen has been to add offline capabilities to Google's own web-apps.

Indeed.

In fact, I think they may live to regret this.

It'll be fine while they cut deals with makers of closed, non-extensible, hardware (netbooks, smartphones, pdas), but once people can install it on any old x86 PC, with any old harware bits and bobs, from umpteen manufacturers, Google are going to have to face the exact same problems that have held Linux back from mainstream consumer adoption!

Because of the Google branding, people are going to install it and assume it will 'just work'. It won't. Then Google will have a ton of egg on their smug, 'do no evil', faces.

 

[Bunk]

Indeed.

In fact, I think they may live to regret this.

It'll be fine while they cut deals with makers of closed, non-extensible, hardware (netbooks, smartphones, pdas), but once people can install it on any old x86 PC, with any old harware bits and bobs, from umpteen manufacturers, Google are going to have to face the exact same problems that have held Linux back from mainstream consumer adoption!

Because of the Google branding, people are going to install it and assume it will 'just work'. It won't. Then Google will have a ton of egg on their smug, 'do no evil', faces.

Unless they can do the unthinkable and make Linux usable for the general public. If they can then they deserve all the plaudits they get. I suspect all will be fine as long as you just use the web app side of things, but will break as soon as people need to learn sudo apt-get etc

Also, considering the questions over Google's attitude to privacy, does anyone really want to use an entire OS developed by them?

 

[bogeyman]

Unless they can do the unthinkable and make Linux usable for the general public. If they can then they deserve all the plaudits they get. I suspect all will be fine as long as you just use the web app side of things, but will break as soon as people need to learn sudo apt-get etc

Also, considering the questions over Google's attitude to privacy, does anyone really want to use an entire OS developed by them?

Nice idea about making Linux usable for normal people, but I doubt even Google could manage that (for free).

Anyway, Google have a let out in that all their offerings are in a permanent 'beta' state and nobody can complain as a) it's beta, b) it's free.

The whole thing reeks of a huge marketing exercise. There are no tangible benefits for consumers, or developers in it. It offers nothing new.

I'll hazard a guess that the chaps at Redmond and Cupertino are not laying awake at night worrying about this.

And yes, Google's avarice for our every bit of private minutia is a deal-killer from the start.

 

[NickFitz]

Anyway, Google have a let out in that all their offerings are in a permanent 'beta' state

Wrong.