Google OS

[DSW]

And then there's Silverlight/Flash/maybe even resurrect Java to do what it was originally intended (God forbid).

we have javafx as a flash competitor, its actually quite cool in that it just needs the java runtime, however adoption rates are pretty much 0%. I guess we will have to see what Oracle wants to do with it. Java was probably sabotaged by IBM almost as much as Microsoft with the 'we dont like awt' so sun did swing and IBM then go 'we dont want swing, we want something like awt! heres swt that we created'.

 

[lilelvis2000]

I just wonder what computer vendor will install this on their machines. There are only a couple of vendors I think of (DELL is one) that installs Linux. The rest leave it to you. And these installs are still not as easy as a Windows install. Can't see this making a break through at all frankly. Maybe only with the geek crowd.

 

[DSW]

I just wonder what computer vendor will install this on their machines. There are only a couple of vendors I think of (DELL is one) that installs Linux. The rest leave it to you. And these installs are still not as easy as a Windows install. Can't see this making a break through at all frankly. Maybe only with the geek crowd.

Netbooks- think acer, asus, etc - I presume there will be no licence fees so it keeps the cost down

 

[bogeyman]

What's was Google's native code in a browser system? I forget. Maybe they'll allow that, or something similar. And then there's Silverlight/Flash/maybe even resurrect Java to do what it was originally intended (God forbid).

A browser only system doesn't mean no locally running applications, but just no applications installing themselves on the local hard disk and running willy nilly all over the system.

I think this is good. I'm a software developer, so a system like this would be entirely useless to me and I'd need a "real" computer, as I'm sure would most on here. But many people, maybe even the vast majority don't need that. If they hide away the Linux'ness, then that'll be a good thing too.

Yes, but that's the whole issue with this 'Google OS'.

It's Linux again! Yay! With a new WM! Yawn!

If Google (with their mighty dollars and resources) had taken a basic UNIX-like kernal and wrapped it in great UI/API (a la OS X), or gone in some completely different direction (like picking up the pieces of BeOS) then I could have warmed to this idea somewhat.

FFS even Google's Chrome browser is mostly based on WebKit (a free OSS project).

As it stands, it seems to me that BIG G is just spunking some of it's vast marketing budget at this 'Google OS' - which is nothing of the sort.

All Google's external software offerings (not their search tech) have leached of OSS projects, and relied on spin and marketing to make a (short-lived) buzz, this is no different.

It still amazed me that 'geeks' are still sucking up to G when I think it is a far more sinister organisation than MS or IBM ever were (and that's saying something).

Google! Happy Shiny People!

They are a MARKETING company, not a TECHNOLOGY company.

 

[lilelvis2000]

Netbooks- think acer, asus, etc - I presume there will be no licence fees so it keeps the cost down

Some of these already come with a version of Linux - but even there (I think) Windows is still winning. I suppose Google will find it much easier to partner and the name itself with improve the marketability. Might make a Apple sized bit outta things...ie: very small.

 

[VectraMan]

It's Linux again! Yay! With a new WM! Yawn!

But is it Linux? The reality of Linux is that you have to have spent the last 20 years living in your parents basement with nothing but a pot noodle and a faded printout of an ascii art woman for company to have a hope in hell of knowing what you're doing. Ubuntu and the like have made it a lot better, until something goes wrong and then you're still back to needing an übergeek to type in some magical command line to fix it.

I was working on something last year that was a device based on embedded Linux but with an entirely custom front end. The user would never care what was underneath, just that it worked. It wouldn't have been Linux in any accepted definition of what any Linux user would expect. This could be the same. A browser device that just happens to work using Linux, not just another distro of Linux that confuses the hell out of any normal person.

 

[bogeyman]

But is it Linux? The reality of Linux is that you have to have spent the last 20 years living in your parents basement with nothing but a pot noodle and a faded printout of an ascii art woman for company to have a hope in hell of knowing what you're doing. Ubuntu and the like have made it a lot better, until something goes wrong and then you're still back to needing an übergeek to type in some magical command line to fix it.

Nice cameo there of AtW's lifestyle!

Seriously though, even with comparatively sanitised distros like Ubuntu, Linux makes it hard to get work done beyond the cliche web-surfing, emailing and MS-Office-like activities.

The 'Linux on the Desktop' boosters think that probably 99% of users only ever surf the web, do email, and occasionally write documents or spreadsheets.

This isn't really so.

People engage in a vast array of hobby and pastime activities, for which Windows devs have catered over the years. Want a program to plan your model train layout? Windows has it. Does Linux?

Similarly professionals and businesses use specialist and bespoke software.

Want a program to visualize and explore a raw CAT scan file of a human brain, or maybe model the stresses on an aircraft wing that you've designed in a CAD program? Windows has these tools available. Does Linux?

I was working on something last year that was a device based on embedded Linux but with an entirely custom front end. The user would never care what was underneath, just that it worked. It wouldn't have been Linux in any accepted definition of what any Linux user would expect. This could be the same. A browser device that just happens to work using Linux, not just another distro of Linux that confuses the hell out of any normal person.

Linux is fine for embedded devices and servers. I have servers that run Linux and I like it fine. I would never run Windows Server unless I really had to.

For embedded devices, Linux is usually bloat and overkill. And while Linux works well on mobile devices, I would be wary of the fact that it is eminently crackable, given that the source is in the field (yeah, I know, security through obscurity... yada)

Linux is a bit of a full-stop to OS development in the embedded world because everyone will use it as it is 'just there for free' even though it's not often the ideal tool for the job.

 

[Board Game Geek]

Why reinvent the wheel ?

We already have plenty of OS'es to chose from, and most have years of pedigree anyway.

Unless Google OS is going to be 100% perfect, then I don't really see the point. It's just another OS, and a cut down one at that.

As for thin client, bah. I want my OS here, now, in my PC, not fart-arsing around uploading and downloading stuff to and from god knows where.

 

[NickFitz]

If Google (with their mighty dollars and resources) had taken a basic UNIX-like kernal and wrapped it in great UI/API (a la OS X), or gone in some completely different direction (like picking up the pieces of BeOS) then I could have warmed to this idea somewhat.

Linux is a basic UNIX-like kernel. The various Linux distros come with assorted WMs and applications and so forth, but Linux is just the kernel.

That's why Richard Stallman keeps on ranting that people should call it GNU/Linux, as all the stuff other than the kernel is basically taken from his GNU project, or other stuff released under the GNU Public License or licenses deemed to be compatible (or at least not incompatible) with it.

From the GNU homepage:

"GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used by millions.

"Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many variants or 'distributions' of GNU/Linux."
​

So it looks like Google are doing exactly what you describe

 

[d000hg]

Why do they have to call it "Google Chrome OS"? That's like MS releasing "Office OS".