Reply to: Google OS

[Sysman]

It's not just for netbooks...

Ahem:

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010.

[RichardCranium]

A new operating system?

This makes me so happy.

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

Arse.

[krytonsheep]

It's not just for netbooks...

Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems.

[Sysman]

What part of adding yet another windows system to Linux is going to mean users don't have to spend hours configuring new hardware and software updates? Sounds like complete spin.

Netbooks with a very restricted set of hardware components?

[krytonsheep]

Now I've looked into it I agree with Bogey.

WHS.

If you look on the google blog....

...designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems....

Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates. And any time our users have a better computing experience, Google benefits as well by having happier users who are more likely to spend time on the Internet.

What part of adding yet another windows system to Linux is going to mean users don't have to spend hours configuring new hardware and software updates? Sounds like complete spin.

[DS23]

This 'Google OS' is a stunt. The media are all over it, declaring it as a 'serious challenge to Microsoft'. That's ridiculous, frankly.

Google are like New Labour, masters of the media, and spin. There is no substance behind it.

i don't think it matters whether or not the google os is a technological step forward that quickens the hearts of a herd of geeks. what matters is that there are some potential process and cost benefits. if users and accountants are happy then google os might well gain enough traction to mount the "ridiculous" challenge.

[DimPrawn]

Now I've looked into it I agree with Bogey.

This is just some marketing gloss over another Linux distro.

I thought at first it was a ground up new OS.

Yuk. Fail.

[DS23]

No. The reason he keeps ranting about how everyone has to use his terminology or he won't talk to them is because the man's a typical arrogant, opinionated geek with poor social graces, who gained extreme delusions of grandeur after raised to high public prominence.

i wonder what his cuk monikers are.

[bogeyman]

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

I somewhat disagree Nick. The (non-embedded) Linux kernel is getting quite bloated.

Anyway, the whole UNIX ethos is getting a bit old now. The "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it - badly" shtick, is wearing rather thin.

UNIX is based on a 40 year old computing paradigm. Are we condemned to keep on with UNIX derivatives forever?

A company with the R&D budget of Google could possibly have designed something better and leaner, after all, it only needs to be a self-booting Chrome browser, with some limited local file system, USB device support and network functions.

But, operating systems are not the market G operates in.

Once again, Google is an advertising and marketing company, not a technology company.

They will innovate tech, just as long as it serves their greater goal (whatever that is, but it is surely worrying).

This 'Google OS' is a stunt. The media are all over it, declaring it as a 'serious challenge to Microsoft'. That's ridiculous, frankly.

Google are like New Labour, masters of the media, and spin. There is no substance behind it.

[NickFitz]

No. The reason he keeps ranting about how everyone has to use his terminology or he won't talk to them is because the man's a typical arrogant, opinionated geek with poor social graces, who gained extreme delusions of grandeur after raised to high public prominence.

That too

[d000hg]

That's why Richard Stallman keeps on ranting that people should call it GNU/Linux

No. The reason he keeps ranting about how everyone has to use his terminology or he won't talk to them is because the man's a typical arrogant, opinionated geek with poor social graces, who gained extreme delusions of grandeur after raised to high public prominence.

[d000hg]

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

[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

[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.

[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.