OSNews

Supergreen!

- Gilboa
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116/quotes)

I doubt Google would sell any operating system they design, like mostly everything else it would be ad supported. In that regard, this is saving them money. They're getting the ad revenue, but they don't have to put forth the development effort.

I do find it interesting that Everex chose a perpetually beta window manager for such a commercial product offering. Maybe because it offers the advanced yet simple graphical look and feel similar to KDE4, but keeps configuration out of the users way beyond even Gnome?

I also find it interesting that Everex is opening up their work so fully. I definitely respect it, but at the same time I wonder if they'll be able to maintain dominance in their own software's market if it takes off. Anyone can build a system and throw their operating system on without Everex receiving a penny. I doubt anyone is going to be particularly interested in Everex's hardware, much like Apple.

I have always found it curious how google continues to grow while raking in billions in revenue and yet we are willing to ascribe "genius" to those who could not possibly achieve the same by borrowing from google's success. I'm not saying gOS isn't a great idea, and it looks absolutely fantastic.

How many times do we have to hear how "stupid" google is for not releasing it's own OS. google seems to be doing just fine. or isn't it?

Its not just you.

Yep. Without a task bar and a start button, it just not all encompassing.

Stop being an idiot; here is Joe average; Joe average takes home the computer, he has some games and applications he wants to load on. The don't work. Sends the computer back to the store because it is 'broken'.

The end users don't care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft.

"""
Stop being an idiot
...
The end users don't care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop.
"""

Stop being an idiot. ;-)

Home users != The Desktop

Linux's next frontier is the business desktop, where it works quite well. As an administrator of Linux business desktops, I can speak from experience. The challenges are different. Hardware and software support are factors. But it makes a huge difference whether you have a hundred desktop boxes being administered by one skilled admin, or Joe (I'm so computer illiterate... tee hee!) Stupid administering his home botnet node^W^WPC.

It helps if one is willing to compromise a bit. Crossoever Office running IE, deployed in a small number of strategic locations, goes a long way towards fulling in the gaps which are left. And if I have to deploy the occasional Windows box for a special purpose app here and there, that's really not so bad, since they are still running a Linux desktop via NX.

The end users don't care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft.

You just don't get it. The gPC surfs the web with a better interface to all of Google's tools than Win out of the box, has a powerful Office Suite included. Plays movies on DVD and MP3's out of the box. For most home users that is everything they want. You just have to make sure you tell them it won't run the latest Windows games - for some home users that's an advantage. Keeps the kids from wasting their time on your computer.

Actually the gPC sounds like it provides a better out of the box experience than a cheap Windows Vista Home basic system costing a lot more.

"The end users don't care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft."

or do what Apple has done

You're right. There is nothing stopping, however, someone from grabbing an operating system - lets say Solaris. Have a machine with Intel x3100 + CPU etc. Grab the OS, integrate a desktop, lets say GNOME, heavily with the operating system - to the point that it is actually one and the same.

From there, create a good selection of middleware. Create an iLife and iWorks package. Work WITH hardware companies rather than announcing jihads against companies who aren't willing to opensource drivers. Work WITH middleware companies to get their applications working on your operating system - if it means slipping a few bucks under the table, then do it.

People sit around thinking that making a workable alternative to Windows as some sort of thing akin to landing a man on mars. Its not that hard. The problem is that every time someone comes up with a '*NIX for the masses' (outside of Apple), its either run by an out of touch geek who has no grounding in reality or some MBA wizzkid who is amazed at the most minor enhancements - declaring every alpha/beta a 'Windows killer'.

Edited 2007-11-04 16:32

I couldn't agree with you more.

For a long while now I've been waiting for some company to come along, create its own custom version of Linux integrated perfectly with its own hardware, and make a killing. This could be that moment.

Of course, this is just one niche market. There's still a huge potential out there to build custom Linux machines that tap into other markets. My top picks are music production, video editing, and 3D modelling. Sure, all three of these capabilities at once (and more) would be nice, but to be realistic, getting a Linux machine to do just one of these things *really well* would be quite a feat. Priced right it could outsell an all-purpose machine despite its limitations.

Edited 2007-11-04 17:04

I was hoping maybe HP, and when I heard Dell, I prayed that maybe they would hire 500 programmers and get them working on a "Dell OS" which was exclusive to their hardware. It would be a great proposition - and they have the money required for the investment.

Linux/BSD/Solaris - anything really would do the job; the problem as I see it, there isn't a company willing to make losses off the project for 4 years before it turns a profit - Apple has been the only one willing to do that in the case of MacOS X; it made no profit for the company, it was sucking profits in each quarter, but in the end, as we see today, it all paid off.



Or even just general purpose desktops. End users have very easy requirements to meet. The problem is, there are very few applications in the opensource world which are great.

Take gimp for example - who on earth designed it? they need to be given a publi flogging. Anyone worth their weight in salt will tell you that they should have modularised the core of the code; various rendering/transformation modules, then from there, combining them and building front ends. The net result? you have a common back end which can be shared amoungst different applications; you have a photo editing front end; add webcore/java scripting back end, combine with the existing, and create a web development front end. Rinse and repeat.

Its hardly rocket science modularising the code in such a way to allow a large number of projects to share a common set of back ends. The problem is, again, no one wants to do it in the GIMP community - the net result, *NIX suffers from the lack of quality applications.

Why in the world would a company like HP or Dell pay "500" programers to do an OS, when they are doing just fine as they are? More so to work on an OS they could not "sell"...dream on, it is NEVER going to happen. Reality is companies like HP and Dell are quite happy to be selling Windows based machines, in fact it is much more lucrative market. The only reason companies such as IBM and HP to some degree have been replacing Unix with Linux is simply because they no longer have to maintain a larger staff of programmers when they can get people to do it for free.

The whole Dell/Ubuntu thing was no big embrace of OSS, but merely targeting a segment of users who would chose this product merely because it had Linux, regardless of the quality of the product, or price. The whole joke is that for about the same price of this Dell Ubuntu laptop, I got an HP 17", dual core, 2GB memory, 3 yr warranty...FOR LESS! To even come close to what I got in terms of specs, you pay over $300 more just to have an OS you could easily have downloaded for free. It does not take a genius to figure out they merely are targeting Linux fanboys.

The reality with this gOS is a machine that is really only targeted to the lowest segment of the market. Even then, as someone earlier pointed out, in all actuality this is not that great of a bargain compared to the similar Vista desktop for $100 more than includes a monitor. The real joke of these crappy Wal-mart junk is my brother just bought for himself a HP with AMD 3800+, 1GB RAM, 250GB SATA, GeForce 6150, VHP, DVD+RW, for $334.

Take gimp for example - who on earth designed it? they need to be given a publi flogging. Anyone worth their weight in salt will tell you that they should have modularised the core of the code; various rendering/transformation modules, then from there, combining them and building front ends. The net result? you have a common back end which can be shared amoungst different applications; you have a photo editing front end; add webcore/java scripting back end, combine with the existing, and create a web development front end. Rinse and repeat.

What in the hell are you talking about mister arm chair programmer? GIMP _is_ already modularized into a series of libraries. GIMP itself uses several dozen other external libraries from other projects. Other applications could use them if they wanted to bring it as a dependency, but GIMP's functions are pretty specific to GIMP and would only be usefuly if one were writing a photo manipulation tool.

In my experience, most code is too domain specific to worry about code sharing (at least not prematurely). It just winds up causing overly complex interfaces for no good reason.

Sidebar: You do realize that GTK+ used to be a library developed for GIMP (GIMP Tool Kit) right? GTK+ is only shared by every other GNOME application and tons of non-GNOME applications. Yeah. No code sharing going on there.

I'm also not sure what web development, webcore (not even sure what this means) and javascript has to do with GIMP. GIMP is for editing raster images not for making your coffee in the morning.

I was hoping maybe HP, and when I heard Dell, I prayed that maybe they would hire 500 programmers and get them working on a "Dell OS" which was exclusive to their hardware.

So did I in a way. No such luck. Alas, the vast majority profess to creating a genuine Windows alternative, but they simply have no clue what's involved in doing it - and Microsoft knows that. Squeal 'lock-in' all you like, but there's much more to it than that.

Edited 2007-11-05 20:20

Stop being an idiot; here is Joe average; Joe average takes home the computer, he has some games and applications he wants to load on. The don't work. Sends the computer back to the store because it is 'broken'.

Sounds like Joe is broken. Short of genetic engineering, I don't think we can do anything about that.

The end users don't care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft.

I don't think hardware support is relevant here. The box comes pre-configured with the operating system.

As to "software support", the relationship is backwards. The operating system doesn't support the software, the software supports the operating system. If the vendor for the software package won't port to Linux/BSD, it's not some technical deficiency on their part.

In any case, this product would work perfectly fine in the role the article suggests.

Yep. Without a task bar and a start button, it just not all encompassing.

Clearly you're clueless as to what binds a desktop and its applications together. Don't worry. You're obviously not the only one.

I cannot see how or why this whole thing is any different to what we've had before.

Edited 2007-11-04 12:49

Clearly you're clueless as to what binds a desktop and its applications together. Don't worry. You're obviously not the only one.

Enlighten us ol' wise one.

Enlighten us ol' wise one.

Sadly, I'm going to tell you to have a look at Windows. Look at how you can program within Windows in an environment such as Visual Basic and start reusing elements of the office suite and desktop in your own applications. Look at how various elements of the desktop and MS Office are available via APIs to each other, and how both use as much as possible and can be used by others. Can you do that with gOS? No, you can't.

On a far simpler level, I doubt that when you change the theme or colours on this gOS desktop environment (if you even can) that the theme and colours of Open Office or any other application would change as well.

It's called integration, and few get it. You don't have to particularly wise to get this at all ;-).

Sorry but noone that recommends Visual Basic could be taken seriously

.net - sure, they have a point, as does Java. I would prefer the latter using RCP.

Sorry but noone that recommends Visual Basic could be taken seriously

I'm afraid you might want to get yourself a job ;-) and look around at what an awful lot of companies are using to develop software with. There is an absolute ton of classical VB around (hence the uproar when Microsoft basically abandoned it), and no one is moving wholesale to VB.Net any time soon (VB.Net is useless anyway because it gives up what made VB actually useful - simplicity without the esoteric parts of OO programming). It's fashionable to make snide remarks about VB, but they're usually made by people who haven't used it, don't know how to use it and are somewhat cut off from reality. An awful lot of organisations use VB and various components to integrate applications with their office suites, create spreadsheet output etc. etc.

.net - sure, they have a point, as does Java. I would prefer the latter using RCP.

It's impossible for anyone who recommends Java and RCP to be taken seriously. It's still a very long way from being a straightforward RAD environment for anyone to use - and it doesn't have Open Office plug-in components or anything rich that's ready to use. You get that from Microsoft.

That's somewhat off-topic though.

The issue still stands. Whatever you use, there are components available within Windows, and Office also, that bind everything together in an integrated way. When you change your theme and colours in Windows the changes are instantaneous, and no one has to make excuses such as different toolkits being used as to why it doesn't happen.

Whining about this won't make a difference. This gOS is the latest in a long line of alternative desktops over the past seven or eight years that offers nothing new at all.

Edited 2007-11-05 20:19

An awful lot of organisations use VB and various components to integrate applications with their office suites, create spreadsheet output etc. etc.

Oh look, I work in a Microsoft only shop and we use Microsoft tools for everything. Oh my. What a surprise. Like you have a choice.

I've worked in several different mixed shops, and nobody really gave a flip about VB. In fact, in the last few years, I can't recall a single case were we deployed an application that wasn't a webapp or java applets disguised as one.

Popularity isn't a technical argument, but if you want to go there, Java wins.

The issue still stands. Whatever you use, there are components available within Windows, and Office also, that bind everything together in an integrated way. When you change your theme and colours in Windows the changes are instantaneous, and no one has to make excuses such as different toolkits being used as to why it doesn't happen.

Is this supposed to be an important design requirement? Who is this important to? Fashionistas?

I'm pretty sure they use Linux at Google. At least last I heard.

ha, little did you know they are MSs single largest licensee for Server 2003

That doesn't necessarily mean that its the only stuff they use. Google is a large company they most likely have to support many employees that use Windows as their os. You are not going to admin a windows network with linux/bsd you are going to use windows server because itss the best tool for the job. I doubt that Google uses windows server for their backend stuff though. Last I heard they use an array of servers that run linux on them.

ha, little did you know they are MSs single largest licensee for Server 2003

Unfortunately unlike Slashdot you can't be marked up funny. But here it is just to clear up what Google really does run on:

http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=google.com&position=limited&loo.....

Yeah. I think Yahoo are the ones that primarily use BSD in their backend. I might be wrong though.

Really? I didn't see Gnome at all. Have you used Gnome?

Have you used Gnome?
If you look really carefully you will see Nautilus being used in Spatial mode as a file manager. It just has a custom theme applied to it and a couple Python-GTK applications to enhance the GUI.

How you can get an OS just like this:
Create some desktop links to open Firefox or Seamonkey browser in new tabs. Right-click and create a new laucher or add a launcher to the Panel. Set a pretty icon by copying the Gmail logo. Add your other Google web applications. Then set the command to (old-school mozilla users substitute seamonkey for firefox):
firefox -remote "openURL(http://gmail.google.com,new-tab)"

I have a screenshot of all this icon launching goodness:
http://markbokil.org/images/gmail-launcher.png

Edited 2007-11-04 03:09

It's based on Enlightenment 17, not Gnome. It doesn't use Nautilus at all. I think the file manager is Entropy tho I'm not sure. Anyway, do your research next time ;-)

It's based on Enlightenment 17, not Gnome

Whether is is Gnome, XFCE, Enlightenment or Fluxbox is not the topic of discussion. I had just mentioned it was not anything new. If you know it is Enlightenment then this just further adds to that evidence. I was just using it as an example. Ahh, the pickiness of forum posting when it goes off-topic...

Awww buff...it's OK to admit you were wrong...truly it is...

Awww buff...it's OK to admit you were wrong...truly it is...

It was just a guess when I looked at the site. If you feel better I was wrong about mistaking an image for Gnome that was Enlightenment. I hope I can get over it. It is such a big one. The whole point is that it was nothing new. A couple GTK apps with a green theme - revolutionary!

Well wrong again, quite a few of the apps are actually EFL (Enlightenment Foundation Libraries) apps.

Whether is is Gnome, XFCE, Enlightenment or Fluxbox is not the topic of discussion. I had just mentioned it was not anything new. If you know it is Enlightenment then this just further adds to that evidence. I was just using it as an example. Ahh, the pickiness of forum posting when it goes off-topic...

The topic is the gOS distribution of the Linux operating system. What Window Manager/Desktop Environment it uses is very relevant to the discussion. Stop obfuscating the issue. It is not picky to insist on factual correctness.

I was looking at the screenshots and I saw Gnome and standard applications like Firefox, etc. The only difference to Fedora or Ubuntu was a couple of icons that link to online google applications. Not much of an alternative OS. Just Linux/Gnome with a couple browser links.

RTFA - the gOS is using Enlightenment e17 not GNOME. OK there is at least one distro out based on e17.

What is new is selling an e17 based interface orientated towards interaction with Google services, on top of the latest Ubuntu, preinstalled on an entry level PC. That is innovative.

All it is is simply a repackaged version of Ubuntu with E17 as the default window manager. There is nothing new, exciting or even innovative about this OS except for the theme. I honestly didnt think I would ever see a theme that was uglier than the RISCOS interface. I was wrong.

I always thought that e17 had a lot going for it. The problem I see that they have been hampered with is slower development. I am not that aware of the development process, but I will take a guess that it may just simply come down to the number of people available. Hopefully this may help some, maybe even Google might assist in spreading the word about e17 to draw in more developers.

I am kind of surprised that they did pick e17 to run off of Ubuntu. Although I have no complaints, it does seem strange that Google wouldn't just re-brand so to speak Ubuntu/Gnome and release that. Not to knock e17 at all, but Gnome is a much more finished product than e17.

Lastly I am surprised that they do not offer a special webcam that will simply monitor your every waking move, kind of easier than scanning your e-mail and tracking your every move Google (sorry, I find Google to be just an annoying entity).

Google is in no way involved in the project. The link between Google and gOS is that gOS developers used Google applications as parts of their system. Oh, and this green pc too.

They didn't use Gnome or KDE because they put a slow-ass 1GHz or so VIA CPU in there, but they still want the performance to be snappy.

Many people get this wrong on forums. The word alot is not a real word. It is two words as in a lot.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm. TCO has nothing to do with the home consumer, and you're comparing hardware costs between two vendors. In your example, the operating system has absolutely nothing to do with the prices you are comparing. Apples to Oranges.

"The gOS (GreenOS) is designed to be a conceptual Google Operating System"

Says who? Because whoever says that is an idiot. It is an eMachine clone with Firefox shortcuts on the desktop. It has nothing to do with Google.

The manufacturers website didn't say that they were trademark-infringing goofballs, so maybe it is just the reviewer making this trash up.

Are you a complete tool? Does Google have "g" copyrighted, or the title "green". Believe it or not, you can't capitalize a letter, which is why businesses and products pop up all over with the "i" prefix.

"g" means "green" officially, but in real life, every one knows it's intended for Google, especially the desktop being particularly Google-centric, the "G" logo is very similar to the Google "G", the big Google search in the upper-right corner, links to Google Calendar, Gmail, etc...It even has "Google" in its slogan, LOL...

Well I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that Google doesn't mind the automatic web traffic. After all, it does make them money, and they already give away all the services this OS links to. That's an important point too; the OS developers set up links to the various Google services but do not install any Google software, and even if they did it would surely be okay with Google as they give away all the software they develop.

Beyond that, the Everex website even has a disclaimer that they are not affiliated with Google. I'm sure that's just extra added legal protection and probably unnecessary, but it's there all the same.

It has icons to google services along with icons to many non-google services. How is this google centric?
It seems this whole "Google OS" thing is something the reviewer dreamt up since Everex never states this anywhere.



It's a lower case "g". They all look pretty much the same and even then Google does not have an exclusive right to preface their products with a "g". I Could create a product called gBrowser or gModem or gWhatever as much as I want.



Really? Since when does "The Alternative PC for the Masses" have "Google" in it?

Too bad that's not the product slogan.

Not that I don't believe you, and in fact I am downloading the ISO as I type this so I can try it out myself...but would you mind posting something to back up that claim? Call me naive, but I find it hard to believe that a company who markets themselves as friendly to the open-source community would do something like that.

What did you see that made you come to the conclusion that your searches are logged, apart from the cookies and history that are always logging every web session of nearly every browser on every operating system? Is there a special "Joe User is searching for this" secret log hidden in the filesystem? If so, how did you find it? Sorry for all the questions but I am intrigued and I want to find this myself.

Well they actually state on the download page that you will need to burn it to a DVD. I also feel that it is a waste of a DVD though, just to burn ~28MB beyond a regular CD.