Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 8th Jul 2009 05:23 UTC
Google From NYTimes: "In a post on its company blog, Google said the operating system would initially be aimed at netbooks, the compact, low-cost computers that have turned the PC world on its head. It said the open-source software, called Chrome OS, would be available in the second half of next year. Read more for a quick observation on the announcement.
Order by: Score:
bah
by l3v1 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 06:06 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

So, basically they do a crunchpad without the hardware, i.e. a lightweight linux distro which boots directly into a browser, which in this case is naturally the chrome. Other than this, I don't clrearly see how this has any real "wow". See, those people who are only using their netbooks for online access and browsing (the intended usage, nonetheless) won't see much difference, since they didn't use apps to reallt slow down their netbooks in the first place, beside from the browser. And if one will be able to install and run apps on this chrome os, then it will just be yet another lightweight linux distro. I like google and all, but I need some more convincing to see the brightness in this one.

Reply Score: 8

RE: bah
by Eugenia on Wed 8th Jul 2009 06:10 UTC in reply to "bah"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

The "brightness" is on the discussion I linked from the article. It was explained there, 3 years ago.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: bah
by l3v1 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 07:04 UTC in reply to "RE: bah"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I wasn't impressed back then, and I'm still waiting for it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: bah
by Eugenia on Wed 8th Jul 2009 06:11 UTC in reply to "bah"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Besides, French say that "if anyone can do modern art, why don't you?". It's the same principle here. Google is the first to try something like it, since they have enough bandwidth. So it's not about "what's brand new about it", but rather "who was the first to be able to implement the idea I heard a few years ago".

Edited 2009-07-08 06:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: bah
by l3v1 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE: bah"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

"if anyone can do modern art, why don't you?"

That's a two way street. Anyone being able to do it doesn't mean you should do it too. Although the "why not" philosophy can work, and choice is as good as always. I still have more hopes for the crunchpad, maybe they (goog) will make a better os to run it on. See, I even managed to reason myself into privisionally accepting the idea ;)

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: bah
by pns.sri on Wed 8th Jul 2009 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE: bah"
RE[2]: bah
by righard on Wed 8th Jul 2009 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE: bah"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

The people that say that anybody can do modern art, are the people that therefor don't recognise it as an art. And that's obviously the reason that they don't do it.
Why should they start gluing feathers up light bulbs calling it Chicken's Epiphany, if they don't see it as art. There must be a motivator.

They French say something flawed.

(o yeah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALUjwIASN0Y ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: bah
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 9th Jul 2009 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bah"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Why should they start gluing feathers up light bulbs calling it Chicken's Epiphany, if they don't see it as art. There must be a motivator.


Exactly. IMO something can't rightly be called "art" unless there was artistry involved in its creation. Otherwise, what's the point?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bah
by Wowbagger on Thu 9th Jul 2009 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE: bah"
Wowbagger Member since:
2005-07-06

if anyone can do modern art, why don't you?

Because it's a stupid idea, ugly and I've got more meaningful things to do?

Same applies to a browser glorified to be an operating system. They should team up with Sun Microsystem "the network is the computer" or whatever their slogan was. Would fit in perfectly.

How many people even with netbooks do they really think are online PERMANENTLY? Even with google gears, I just don't see it having a computer that doesn't do anything meaningful when I'm offline...

Reply Score: 1

RE: bah
by pns.sri on Wed 8th Jul 2009 09:39 UTC in reply to "bah"
pns.sri Member since:
2009-06-20

There can be apps like palm webOS with tight cloud interaction and caching with cloud. That would make it more attractive I guess.

Reply Score: 1

privacy, much?
by niemau on Wed 8th Jul 2009 06:16 UTC
niemau
Member since:
2007-06-28

privacy minefield.

...yet, it will be gobbled up. arrrgh...

it's like the data-mining-for-advertising-purposes version of the video-camera-on-every-street-corner debacle. "it's for your own good! really, it is!"

we're enabling idiocracy, people!!! i mean... errr... sheeple! i mean... ummm... i feel so dirty!

Reply Score: 7

Too much fragmentation
by kragil on Wed 8th Jul 2009 06:32 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

Another Linux OS .. I don't think this will have a lot of advantages over Moblin.

So why bother?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Too much fragmentation
by edmnc on Wed 8th Jul 2009 11:14 UTC in reply to "Too much fragmentation"
edmnc Member since:
2006-02-21

There would be no progress with anything in this world if people/companies didn't think that they can do better than already is available. So I hope there is a very limited number of people around that have the "why bother" mentality.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Too much fragmentation
by umccullough on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:47 UTC in reply to "Too much fragmentation"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Edit: I retract my half-awake comment... it was only half-right.

Edited 2009-07-08 14:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 8th Jul 2009 06:46 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I wrote a lengthy article on the subject of Internet access which covers the topic of a “Cloud-OS” and why it simply isn’t going to work very well.

http://camendesign.com/blog/why_wifi

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by RshPL on Wed 8th Jul 2009 08:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

I kind of agree with your reasoning on why the all-time-online idea will not work but why do you demonize the idea of commercial providers? If not for business, we wouldn't be able to use Internet at all. I have a very bad experience from governments providing any type of services - and if not companies, it would have to be governments. Governments tend to like control and you end up paying for the service in taxes anyway, but it's probably either gonna be worse service, or the total cost will go higher. The reason for that is that governments do not have a need to optimize expenses and maximize income, whilst companies do. It's the constant competition that drives innovation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by gustl on Wed 8th Jul 2009 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Don't be so sure about that.

The US-American school system needs much more money from people than the Finnish, yet the Finnish pupils get much better education on average.

Also the Austrian health insurance is non-privat, but it costs the people less than in the USA. I am currently non-employed and do not pay any money into the health care system, but if I would need a heart transplantation for € 200000,- I would get it.

When I have an income of € 3000,- I have to pay € 700,- for pension, health and unemployment insurance. Someone who earns less, has to pay less.


For all goods which have lots of consumers and lots of sellers, and where the value of the trading good is easily determined, a market is the right tool to ensure efficiency.
For things that are not as easily valuable, or for which a natural monopoly exists (electricity lines, water pipes, ...) a market leads to higher and higher prices because no working market can possibly exist.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by invent00r on Wed 8th Jul 2009 10:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
invent00r Member since:
2009-04-27

Sounds to me like a very Zeitgeist way of seen things..

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

Reply Score: 2

What's the appeal?
by Drumhellar on Wed 8th Jul 2009 06:48 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

What's the appeal of a cloud-based OS for a consumer?

Web-based apps don't perform as well or have as many features.
Your data is stored someplace else, which means other people control it and only choose to allow you to access your own data.
If you don't have an internet connection, you're apps don't work.
Everybody's data is stored in one spot, so one successful hack (or disgruntled employee) can take TBs from thousands of people swiftly and easily.
Limited app choice, since all the apps will (presumably) come from Google.

Meanwhile, I see some huge benefits for Google:
You have to look at constant advertising just to use your own computer.
Google has all your data, so they can analyze it all they want and sell the (probably non-identifiable) information to others.


Am I missing something?

Reply Score: 10

RE: What's the appeal?
by kragil on Wed 8th Jul 2009 07:13 UTC in reply to "What's the appeal?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Well, I don't really think it is a good idea.

BUT

Google is working on a secure native code plugin. That might give you speed and features.

And with something like gears/html5 web apps can work offline.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What's the appeal?
by Kroc on Wed 8th Jul 2009 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE: What's the appeal?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You have to load the web app to begin with before it can go offline, and there’s only so much it can do offline before it needs an online resource.

How are they going to deal with ISPs in the UK, some of which don’t even support Linux to install the broadband hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What's the appeal?
by Adurbe on Wed 8th Jul 2009 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What's the appeal?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Virgin Media are getting uppety about BBC iPlayer bandwidth usage.

Imagine a whole OS!

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: What's the appeal?
by liber on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What's the appeal?"
liber Member since:
2008-10-26

Video is Bandwidth intensive. HTML and javascript is not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What's the appeal?
by tyrione on Wed 8th Jul 2009 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What's the appeal?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Video is Bandwidth intensive. HTML and javascript is not.


Think YouTube video intensive services for HD Movie and personal HD movie distribution that needs their Services to leverage.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What's the appeal?
by memson on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What's the appeal?"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Virgin Media are getting uppety about BBC iPlayer bandwidth usage.


Of course they are, because it is included as part of their IPTV cable package *for free*. Why would they want people eating up the consumer bandwidth with it *just* to watch it on a computer? Makes no sense... lol. They want Cable subscribers not "bandwidth hogs", obviously.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What's the appeal?
by Adurbe on Thu 9th Jul 2009 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What's the appeal?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

This is moving off topic a bit BUT

I pay for my internet bandwidth as part of an 'unlimited' package. How I choose to usemy bandwidth is my choice, not theirs

We must be careful not to allow a precident to be set that the ISP whould decidewhat I can and cannot use my bandwidth to view

Reply Score: 2

Overextended
by 3rdalbum on Wed 8th Jul 2009 07:00 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

I think Google has overextended itself with this one. Android is not a good fit for netbooks, I'm pretty sure of that - but user-level "cloud computing" is not much more of a reality than it was back in the mid-90s when we first heard about applications in the browser.

A better approach would be to tweak Android to give it more of a "desktop" if run on devices with bigger screens, and provide more of the services and software that netbook users would expect.

Reply Score: 5

It's fine when its Google?...
by Einlander on Wed 8th Jul 2009 07:06 UTC
Einlander
Member since:
2009-07-08

So apparently judging from the comments in this post http://www.osnews.com/comments/21793 its fine fine when Google takes the browser and turns it into an os, but when Microsoft says thats what they want to do, its a 'solution in search of a problem'. You have to love how easy it is for people to ignore anything Microsoft is doing and to praise whatever Google is doing

Reply Score: 0

RE: It's fine when its Google?...
by MechR on Wed 8th Jul 2009 08:15 UTC in reply to "It's fine when its Google?..."
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

Now, now. That was one person, who hasn't even commented on this story yet. Furthermore, almost all the comments here from other people have been negative so far.

Edit: Make that two people, if you count the guy questioning domain segregation as a browser security paradigm. But that's not what Google's doing here.

Edited 2009-07-08 08:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

When did one comment become representative of everyone in the discussion? Also, you can't really compare the two companies by culture or implementation.

Google is doing this under a FOSS license which means if the experiment shows real promise, it can be forked to more trust worthy companies or independent projects. It's much harder for the users to become locked into a single vendor and you won't be gouged for "what the market will bare".

Microsoft has a long history of doing all it can to lock users into one vendor and crush anyone else. If they did the same, the chance of it being an open license or legally forked by independent projects is somewhere around a snowflake surfing in Hawaii.

Personally, I have issues with both companies which completely invalidates your complaint that G is universally supported in this where MS was denounced for considering it. Between Microsoft enforcing it's vision of my computing or Google's data hording and inherent "Cloud" insecurities (remember when it was simply called dumb or thin client computing?). I'm not about to put any more trust in "do no evil" than I have for "where do you think your going today".

But, there you go, one comment denouncing both companies so everyone in the discussion must feel the same then.

Reply Score: 3

pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

The FOSS license will only cover the client, ie. the Chrome OS, not the Cloud-based servers... This is why it won't be that easy to just clone or fork it, because we'll need the server side too for it to be any use.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The server side is mostly an http deamon though isn't it. I can see Google not releasing the word processor and spreadsheet app though. If it demonstrates potential ant interests enough people, the server side will appear. I still won't be rushing to store my data on untrusted third party servers.

Reply Score: 2

Fat clients or thin clients?
by korpenkraxar on Wed 8th Jul 2009 08:51 UTC
korpenkraxar
Member since:
2005-09-10

While I think the details are very clouded atm as to how cloudy this OS is going to be, I think there can be nice benefits for users to have a virtual desktop as a complement to their standard one, if this is indeed the path Google is taking. I think many of us have already tried other services such as Dropbox or heck even sshfs to extend the functionality of our present systems. Seamless integration of local and remote data is nice indeed and if the Chrome OS/browser has the ability to support a new breed of HTML5-based apps, I for one would love to see an ssh-client and a VNC or similar GUI client living in my browser to connect to any server I might have sitting around at home.

I am no expert in this field but HTML5 seems to be designed to make the browser more capabale of doing things client-side so I wonder how far into the thin-client world Google is aiming. Are we talking "have your apps on any computer" or "have your instant-on desktop session on any computer"?

And why netbooks?

Reply Score: 3

What a prediction
by mrAmiga500 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 09:08 UTC
mrAmiga500
Member since:
2009-03-20

This is eerie. Look what I said in April:

"I'd like to see a company like Google attempt an OS. They actually have the resources to get something going (although their only reason to make an OS would be to kill Microsoft). If they made a snappy responsive lightweight OS, we'd see something interesting."

...and look what I see today on BBC news:

"We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds."[...] "One of Google's major goals is to take Microsoft out, to systematically destroy their hold on the market,"


Well, now we're seeing something interesting. (too bad it's a damn web-based OS, but I guess one can't have everything)

Edited 2009-07-08 09:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: What a prediction
by bryanv on Wed 8th Jul 2009 17:33 UTC in reply to "What a prediction"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

18 months ago, I interviewed with Google. I wasn't interested in relocating, but I figured what the hell. In the end, it didn't work out -- and I'm glad. I really like my current place in life, and I cannot imagine how different (Terrible) things would be if I had gone to the Big G.

That said, at that time, I suggested to one of my last interviewers that Google should do an OS. I described in detail how I thought it's user-interaction and integration with web services and search should be utilized. They were quite amused that I'd put that much thought into it, and wouldn't say if it was or was not a potential project.

I had been playing with the first beta of Android at the time, and told them flat out, "It's quite apparent you already have the talent in-house, somewhere, to do this kind of work."

Personally, I'm surprised it's taken them this long.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What a prediction
by mrAmiga500 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE: What a prediction"
mrAmiga500 Member since:
2009-03-20

That's very interesting.

If I had an interview at Google 18 months ago, I probably wouldn't have had the guts to suggest they develop an OS. I'd be too worried they'd think I was a raving lunatic and that I'd blow the interview. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Worst
by Aeko on Wed 8th Jul 2009 09:19 UTC
Aeko
Member since:
2007-10-20

Worst situation of propietary software is that someone keeps your data away from your hands, at least from a bussines view. I think.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Worst - both forms of extortion are unnacceptable
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Jul 2009 12:35 UTC in reply to "Worst"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Loss of data control may be the worse of the two though. I've said it before; centralized data and application (aka. Cloud or mainframe or thinclient...) makes some sense within the owning company. Relying on a third party company for your software and security is outright madness though.

Hm.. either accept extortion over access to your data or extortion over the tools to use your data. I'm not liking either option.

Search is probably the most acceptable Google service.

Email, well, encrypt it and use them for a transport only rather than browser accessed front end.

Apps, get a USB with OpenOffice and whatever other portable apps you like; including Thunderbird/Enigmail for the point about.

If your a business and just gotta have the latest novelty; go Citrix or in house hosted webapps. It may even allow you to drop that abhorrent clear text CIFS/SMB protocol.

I'm rambling.. I'd best move on to the rest of my morning reading while my sleep deprived mush slowly wakes up.

Reply Score: 3

Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

I think you missed the part of the announcement where they already say the apps will be available to anyone with a standards complient browser... other than that, my reply to the original thread author also applies to you.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Worst
by Lunitik on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:59 UTC in reply to "Worst"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

Why can't the business just set up internal web applications for their staff, and keep that data in-house... most modern companies already are moving towards web-based interfaces for management and the like, why not every day tasks as well?

I highly doubt Google will be forcing people to store everything on their servers, especially not if they are serious about competting with - and thus one day planning to exceed - Microsoft's market share.

I for one can't wait, finally a Linux based open source OS that isn't trying to copy what everyone else is doing as far as user interaction goes. If you look at some of the things Chrome is already capable of with its O3D and HTML5 stuff, I can certainly see myself switching the day it's made available.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Worst
by Hiev on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Worst"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Why can't the business just set up internal web applications for their staff, and keep that data in-house

For the same reason they keep their money in the bank and not in their offices, let someone else take care of your problems is atractive, you only need to know who to trust.

Edited 2009-07-08 14:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Centralized storage and app hosting makes sense within the business:

- access control over data and applications.

- app management is all in one place for single update roll out company wide.

- the local platform doesn't matter provided it can run a browser.

- processing and heavy resource use is on the server side so workstations can be lower specs.

- a broken workstation means putting a fresh one on the desk and logging back in again while IT fixes or retires the old one.

Lots of things that make sense when kept within the company but.. involve a third party and:

- any network failure between you and google puts you out of work until fixed.

- data integrety can not be verified unless you can somehow visit Google's server farms and the boxes your data is floating through. integrety over the network is even worse.

- you can not control your data and application access

- you are limited to Google's update cycle (may be better or worse than your own so that goes either way)

- legal and contractual obligations may require locally stored data.

- In the US, it's very easy to convince a third party without vested interest to open your data up.

- The EULA clearly states that data stored on Google's servers, belongs to google.. if they hit hard times, they are legally obligated to find profits any way possible including off your data through research or outright retail.

- Currently, network hosted apps do not compare to locally installed apps for performance or functionality.

- There are existing better ways to gain the few advantages to this type of setup without involving a third party.

As for banks, some people do manage there own investments but if the bank looses your money, it's insured and you don't have to get the same dollar bills back. If they loose your data it may be irreplaceable or duplicated to many unauthorized people. Money is an anonymous medium primarily, information is personally identifiable and related to a single individual. If I loose 20$ on the street, no great loss beyond the obvious financial figure. If I loose my social insurance number on the street or a database full of customer data; that's a real problem that may cost magnitudes more than 20$.

Reply Score: 2

Why would I want this?
by jabjoe on Wed 8th Jul 2009 09:24 UTC
jabjoe
Member since:
2009-05-06

This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software. No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem. You locked to google. Why would I want this? Technical Linux people aren't going to want it. Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system. And everyone, will want to be able to run the apps they want, not only google approved ones. All this pain just for browser? This seems to be built on the dream of a thin client that runs nothing but a browser and all software is web software. It's an old dream, the world only needs five real computers, etc etc. Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have. I want to run what I want, how I want thank you very much Mr mainframe. If I'm right about the web app stance, this is a stupid idea come up with by people who think they can see the future but aren't looking at the past.
The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem. They can quality control the software with a repository. That way they can take advantage of much of the existing Unix software. Then they can use their brand, and Linux speed, security, software base, etc etc, to make it big in the OS world. Love it or loathe it, you need X compatibility.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why would I want this?
by korpenkraxar on Wed 8th Jul 2009 10:34 UTC in reply to "Why would I want this?"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

Well, how about looking at it as a very capable application instead that runs in a VirtualBox session?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why would I want this?
by Hiev on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:09 UTC in reply to "Why would I want this?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Because we all know X is the jewel of the crown in Linux, right.

If it cannot run any X Linux applications I won't care, there is actually zero X application Im attached to in Linux, that's the true freedom you know.

Edited 2009-07-08 13:10 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why would I want this?
by Lunitik on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:05 UTC in reply to "Why would I want this?"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

If you want X based stuff, use another Linux based system... X plainly sucks, and will always suck.

There are however already technologies that allow you to use virtualized OS's via a web browser, those would work fine I would imagine if you really gotta use archaic software.


EDIT: Also, just for the record, there were some blogs a little while ago about Qt being ported to the browser already... so a lot of the best X based apps should be relatively simple to port to ChromeOS...

Edited 2009-07-08 14:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why would I want this?
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 9th Jul 2009 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Why would I want this?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

If you want X based stuff, use another Linux based system... X plainly sucks, and will always suck.

I've heard this several times, and yet, no one ever steps up and announces a suitable, superior replacement. Even if it finally *does* happen, when hell freezes over, X will still have its uses; especially its client/server model. Meanwhile, in the real world, X is continuing to be improved. Hopefully running X without any root priviliges will be a reality soon... it seems that it's just beyond the horizon. The main thing I want to see, however, is a snappier GUI. That said, I would like to see development start on a new X replacement, with modern goals, features, and performance part of its design.

Edited 2009-07-09 01:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why would I want this?
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Wed 8th Jul 2009 15:53 UTC in reply to "Why would I want this?"
visconde_de_sabugosa Member since:
2005-11-14

But if can be possible to install and use an X server then there is no problem with X applications.

There is already an X server written in java

http://www.jcraft.com/weirdx/

Even in MacOS X, which don't use X, it is possible to install an X server.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why would I want this?
by middleware on Wed 8th Jul 2009 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Why would I want this?"
middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

If the attractiveness of an OS that does not use X by default is to install X on it, then the OS is a failure. Mac OS X can run X, but its native Window Server and APIs are superior so there is no need to install X for most users.

One of the most important reason making an APIs superior is there are good applications on it. So more user will be familiar with the operation style of the APIs and the power of the APIs can be revealed, both together attracting more developer to write applications for it. Apple write good applications based on its own APIs.

So for Google, it is not enough to present a new APIs, but also need to write enough good applications for it.

Reply Score: 1

Sounds similar to ByzantineOS
by ggeorg on Wed 8th Jul 2009 09:36 UTC
ggeorg
Member since:
2009-07-08
Cloud OS
by OSGuy on Wed 8th Jul 2009 10:08 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

I personally will never put personal data on servers owned by a third party so Google, good luck! You'll need it and MS too with their Gazelle or whatever they call it. Link: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10280270-56.html?tag=newsEditorsP...

Edited 2009-07-08 10:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cloud OS
by Hiev on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:06 UTC in reply to "Cloud OS"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

So, you don't put your money in the bank eather, it is under your couth?

Edited 2009-07-08 13:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cloud OS
by joekiser on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloud OS"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

If the bank gets robbed, the FDIC ensures you don't lose anything. Who ensures you don't become a victim of ID theft if your personal data gets stolen?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Cloud OS
by umccullough on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cloud OS"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

If the bank gets robbed, the FDIC ensures you don't lose anything. Who ensures you don't become a victim of ID theft if your personal data gets stolen?


FDIC doesn't insure all the money in the bank, just up to a certain amount per account (this amount recently changed, so I don't know what it is now).

Furthermore, banks are not necessarily required to be FDIC insured in all situations, and some small financial institutions are not in fact.

As for ID theft, I'm pretty sure there are already half-dozen companies that insure that - it seems the free market has already seen a need for this, and is filling in the niche ;)

Edited 2009-07-08 14:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cloud OS
by Soulbender on Thu 9th Jul 2009 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Cloud OS"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That's not even remotely the same. For one you know when you're missing money but you won't know if anyone else has copied or looked at your private data.

Reply Score: 2

Linux drivers?
by pmac on Wed 8th Jul 2009 10:33 UTC
pmac
Member since:
2009-07-08

The most significant thing I see coming from this is that hardware manufacturers are likely to take notice because it will get a lot of publicity, and they'll want it to work with their hardware. It's linux based, that means they'll have to write linux drivers for their hardware which will be great for linux in general.

If their new window manager is as stylish, and user friendly as the chrome UI, then I can see this taking off, and being much more than a web browser container. Hopefully the open source project starts soon!

Reply Score: 4

Interesting
by TBPrince on Wed 8th Jul 2009 10:37 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's interesting because for sure it won't be "yet another Linux-based OS".

According to what they write, the whole operating system will be a proxy to Web so you basically have a tiny container which will bring you online, where you do most of your actions.

Yet again Google is betting on network speed. Great for netbooks but it seems a waste of resources for other computers.

Anyway, I'm very curious to see it even if they clearly stated it will just be a window over the Web. "For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies.".

Reply Score: 2

what if internet does not go . . .
by Janvl on Wed 8th Jul 2009 11:12 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

If you live outside of an area where internet falls out every now and then, this is no solution.
anyone wanting a small and fast system should look at the specialised linux-distros that already have that.

I would never put my data on an internetserver, too insecure to my opinion, had to take the trouble of scrambling the data with encryption software. It is much simpeler to have your own desktop that even functions without internet.
The climate-changes bring much more lightnings so you might expect that there will be more problems with connections in the future, an OS like this does not fit in there.

Reply Score: 2

Random thoughts
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 8th Jul 2009 11:23 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

1) I would not trust ANY third party with my files.
2) Google apps can run locally.
3) At least this is something different/interesting to follow.
4) Will Iron Browser come out with a "clean" version of Chrome OS too?
5) Can it be part of a dual boot system or placed in ROM on the motherboard?
6) Will it work with old hardware?
7) It is compatible with ARM, will it end up in routers, gumstix, pogoplugs?

Reply Score: 2

Cant trust the Cloud with encrypted data
by Dirge on Wed 8th Jul 2009 11:38 UTC
Dirge
Member since:
2005-07-14

Don't rely on your encrypted data being wholly private. An IBM breakthrough "privacy homomorphism," makes possible the deep and unlimited analysis of encrypted information.

www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=7690

Edited 2009-07-08 11:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

What's the difference...
by wanderingk88 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 12:40 UTC
wanderingk88
Member since:
2008-06-26

What's the difference of this "lightweight Cloud OS" from the already widely available stripped-down Linux version available from Flash memory in many netbooks? My mom's Lenovo S10 boots within one and a half seconds into a basic Linux OS that comes with Firefox, Pidgin, and Skype, and uses the Openbox WM. I believe ASUS was doing something similar with their motherboards.

As far as I can tell, this is the exact same thing. But it's Google, so it must be "revolutionary", right?

Edited 2009-07-08 12:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: What's the difference...
by stanbr on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:33 UTC in reply to "What's the difference..."
stanbr Member since:
2009-05-22

Agree.. I see nothing new here. But lets wait... I dont like google (anymore) but lets face it: its google. Its a big big company with a lot of money. They made a nice work out of android, so lets wait before we say it sucks... lets wait for more informations, alpha/beta releases, ...

I dont like putting my data on a remote server (third party), but I also miss it sometimes... thats why I keep my personal server online all the time. But we cant expect everyone to do the same...

I dont like cloud computing, but I will check out this project once its available.

One big problem, in my opinion, is the fact that the OS itselft is open-source, but everything else runs on servers! (all the user-land softwares). And these aplications (gmail, greader, etc, etc) are NOT open-source... so android and this google OS are not 100% open source after all...

Edited 2009-07-08 13:37 UTC

Reply Score: 5

...
by Hiev on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:04 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

What's the problem people?

Are you afraid of some competence?

I like the idea of Chrome OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by BluenoseJake on Wed 8th Jul 2009 16:52 UTC in reply to "..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm afraid of google, not competence. There is no evidence whatsoever that they can design a good Netbook OS, Android isn't really taking off to any great degree, or keep their "cloud" running 24/7. They just had an outage a few weeks ago, actually :

http://blogs.computerworld.com/google_down.

If I lose access to my data because Google is down, that is not competent, that is incompetent, and useless.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by DirtyHarry on Wed 8th Jul 2009 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
DirtyHarry Member since:
2006-01-31

Excuse me? On what planet do you live?

Android is the biggest development in the mobile world in the last decade! Do you know how many (and which!) companies are introducing Android phones this year?

Wake up! And as an owner of an Android phone.... it's great. Google just get's it. The usability experience is superb.

So yes, I anticipate that Chrome OS could be big for the average 'non-geek' user that is on the web 90% of the time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ... - come back and brag in a year
by jabbotts on Wed 8th Jul 2009 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Android looks interesting and may very well take off but as of now, it's not doing so. In a year, we'll see if all those "being introduced" devices hold up or not. It's not a personal jab, it's simply that Android is the new kid that hasn't proven itself yet and could still go either way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 9th Jul 2009 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Introducing is not taking off. Selling like hotcakes is. I haven't even seen an android phone, so they can't be that flying off the shelves.

So you own an Android phone, ok, glad you like it. Doesn't mean that this new netbook OS will be good. Android is much more similar to a traditional OS than what google is talking about here.

I think that even the most casual of users will find this wanting, the very concept, in my opinion is flawed. I don't think the privacy, security and reliability concerns can be neutralized by the name "Google"

Reply Score: 2

webconverger?
by spiderman on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:08 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23
Unlikely
Member since:
2009-05-31

Not complaining. I have seen this offered in many forms over the years. Google has the muscle - Marketing and Presence but, is truely clueless in respects to this realm. Although, you can't blame them for jumping on the Cloud-wagon with MS, Sun, Citrix and every other vender spouting CloudOS\Services. We have many other companies offering the same features and yet I do not see them as sucessful as they would like to be.
Look at:
http://www.startforce.com/
http://www.icloud.com/en/landing
http://g.ho.st/

We are currently running VMWare's vSphere 4 with all features, and even that product does not live up to hype of "Cloud OS". I don't think it matters whether the "OS" itself is a stripped down\full featured nLinux, Windows, nSolaris but, whether the applications can be delivered, security can be maintained (Provider and User responsibility), and the ISP's are willing to cope with bandwidth usage.

Applications and security will be the main focus of skepticism from future users and corporate entities.

Reply Score: 1

Finish what you started...
by dindin on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:31 UTC
dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

Google just got to a start with the Android OS ... How about refining the development process, providing more native development platform and unifying vendor implementation to prevent fragmentation.

they seem to have short attention span.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Finish what you started...
by pooo on Wed 8th Jul 2009 17:02 UTC in reply to "Finish what you started..."
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

I was thinking almost exactly the same thing. Now between chrome OS, gwt, and android they essentially have three incompatible application development platforms. That isn't strictly true considering gwt apps will certainly run on chrome OS but if people use the native code plugins for faster apps then I definitely don't think the compatibility will last. Google could have consolidated at least the sdk's for these three platforms with app engine and then you'd really have something but instead I really don't get this fragmentation of effort, mindshare, userbase.

Reply Score: 1

I find this interesting
by JeffS on Wed 8th Jul 2009 13:36 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

I think this Google project has real potential ...

Boots up and connects to the web with a few seconds - if Google can truly deliver on that, it will truly "wow" people. Windows 7 will never achieve that kind of fast boot up.

And, combined with Google Gears, and the ability of apps written for Gears to operate offline, I'd say the idea has some traction.

Of course, a purely cloud based OS can't work. Nobody wants their data to be purely in the cloud. This OS will need to run apps, and store data, locally as well as in the cloud.

And that is already proven with Gears.

Combine this with Android's success (there is about to be an explosion of Android devices from multiple manufacturers), and Google's clout and market reach, I suspect this Chrome OS, provided it has offline functionality and local data storage, has great potential.

MS has already lost the smart phone market. And they nearly lost the netbook market (while asleep and putting out bloated vista, Linux was the way, until they practically gave away, and resurrected, XP).

If this Google Chrome can deliver on it's performance promise, and have offline functionality and local data storage, it will blow away Windows 7 in the netbook market.

BTW - I'm typing this post in Firefox running on Vista, which I dual boot with Ubuntu Jaunty. I go with whatever works well for me, and for whatever I'm in the mood for. I'm no anti-MS shill (although I do have criticisms, but who doesn't?).

Reply Score: 4

rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

Is there any guarantee that anything you type in this Chrome OS will not be copied on google servers?? (to improve customer service!!)
I would like to keep all my work and personal files with me.
Chrome browser records everything you type in address bar..
Chrome OS will record everything on your netbook to google servers..
Govt should look into this BYTE STEALING MONOPOLY company.
Also google is late to party..Try
cloud http://www.thinkgos.com/index.html or from
http://eyeos.org/

And how many people in USA are having broadband connections outside their home/residence. data enabled wireless is a dream in USA.

Edited 2009-07-08 14:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

convergence
by rsperform on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:55 UTC
rsperform
Member since:
2009-07-08

This is a logical progression when one considers the convergence of:

SSDs - lower power, large enough for mini-OS
Example - Asus Express Gate - fast boot linux based mini-OS for common applications

Cloud - beginning to exit the trough of disillusionment as 'trust' grows.

Mobile - THE growth segment. With netbooks, smartphones, etc.

A Cloud enabled mini-OS that augments limited local mobile storage with Cloud dSaaS is convergence.

Swap out Google SaaS apps on-demand

And as mentioned store session metadata in the Cloud

Reply Score: 2

My take
by Novan_Leon on Wed 8th Jul 2009 15:01 UTC
Novan_Leon
Member since:
2005-12-07

Citing all the reasons state above, I don't think a cloud OS like this will work in today's environment. The only exception would be for people who just use computers to browse the web and nothing else.

I don't think this is serious competition for Windows, OSX or any other traditional OS.

That said, I think this is a great idea for Google. They're probably spending very little money to put this project together and since it's open source it'll always have some level of support. If it fails to catch on, no loss to Google. If it succeeds, Google has just opened up a Pandora's Box of possibilities.

Edited 2009-07-08 15:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: My take
by korpenkraxar on Wed 8th Jul 2009 16:13 UTC in reply to "My take"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

This sounds like marketing fluff, but really, it seems to me that Google more than most other IT-companies are interested in delivering tomorrow's computing environments. Maybe it works maybe it doesn't. We'll see in a year or two.

Reply Score: 2

interesting...
by motang on Wed 8th Jul 2009 16:02 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

Looking forward to what it is going to be. But it seems like from what I read in ComputerWrold, ArsTechnica, and OSNews it seems like it will be online all the time, what if I am traveling and I am on the plane or in the middle of nowhere, then what? Am I going to be able to work as if there isn't a problem and then I can sync up when I do connect up to wifi? Those are some questions I have but I am more than sure it will be answered before it comes out.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Wed 8th Jul 2009 16:49 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Folks keep aiming a Microsoft as the big loser here, but there are others who may be feeling a bit queasy. Intel, for example - not so much need for those high-power, high-margin desktop chips. Or some OEMs - not so much need for those high-power desktop machines either or even for high-power notebooks. A small and modest lappy will do nicely.

This has clearly been coming for a few years now, so there's hardly a need for surprise. No, I don't imagine cloud computing will work brilliantly if you live in the middle of nowhere, but then few people do. Google's apps seem to start from a solid urban base, like their wifi experiments, and then work outward. I'd guess this will true of their cloud computing too. It's hard to see why it shouldn't work perfectly well and prove pretty darn popular.

As for Microsoft, they have a few arrows in the quiver, too. It is up to them to come up with good competing offers. But the real money for Microsoft comes from MS Office, corporates and all those server OSes. These aren't under immediate threat and it's hard to see any of this as a "war". It's the hardware makers who might find themselves shafted first of all. That could include some of the thicker mobile boyos if Google on a netbook and Android on mobiles can be made to mesh really really well.

Reply Score: 2

Good and bad
by sorpigal on Wed 8th Jul 2009 17:13 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

Good:
- Big company pushing Linux to OEMs.
You get more hardware support out of this, for sure. You get more acceptance and visibility for Linux.

- Truly modern Internet integration possible.
If you give me a workable OS with natively executing apps and native storage which offers a new paradigm of seamless integration with remote storage and remote execution at my option, then this is a win. Imagine being able to toggle a setting that says "Automatically replicate my settings to any other Chrome OS I log in to (when a link is available)". That would be nice. Being able to save files locally but have them transparently mirrored in the background to a server run by Google or another service provider and back again on another system, that would be a win.

- New, easy UI
Google is having a go at making a truly easy Linux distribution; doing what I've been saying should be done for years and just taking the kernel and building something new on top. Not a new idea, but each new attempt is valuable.


Bad:
- Ditching X.
It's is a giant leap backwards, no matter how gleeful its detractors might be.

- Mandatory web integration is bad.
Requiring that I save to remote all the time, or without choosing the option, would be a deal breaker.

- Possible iPhone-like monolithism
If the platform is strongly locked down and servicable only by Google then this would be a very bad thing.


Ugly:

There are many issues yet to be resolved. If they want a cloud-centric computer... yawn, nobody cares about those and the market for them is questionable. If they want a fast, light OS that provides a browser and little or nothing else... yawn, Linux distributions can do that today without a whole new platform. Just configure autologin and have a small WM (e.g. flux) and launch a browser fullscreen by default.

If it's not a *device* but an actual attempt at a general-purpose *OS*, then Google has to answer some questions:
- how do I add drivers? I just bought a FooAwesomeNewWirelessUSBAdapterCard and it doesn't work!
- how do I install software that *isn't* delivered over the web? If I can't or it isn't supported then this is a non-starter.
- how are multiple users of one machine handled? Security model? Sharing of files?

And on and on. I'd like Google to get ambitious, but I doubt they're that ambitious.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good and bad
by Delgarde on Wed 8th Jul 2009 21:13 UTC in reply to "Good and bad"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Bad:
- Ditching X.
It's is a giant leap backwards, no matter how gleeful its detractors might be.


That's a matter of perspective. If Google were making a general-purpose desktop OS on top of Linux, then yes, ditching X would be a major mistake.

But I think you're getting too focused on this being based on Linux - Google aren't just doing yet-another Linux distro, same as countless others. They're doing something new, that just happens to use Linux as a low-level implementation detail. It's not intended to be compatible with your existing Linux applications, any more than Windows or MacOS are.

Reply Score: 2

phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Netscape (the company from the 90s) wanted to do this for quite a while, but couldn't. They wanted the web browser to become the desktop, running apps from remote servers.

As with everything in computing ... the old has become new again. This is almost a return to terminals, except without the hardwired links back to mainframe. ;)

Personally, I like the idea of having data stored "in the cloud" to make it accessible from anywhere, using any app. However, I don't like the idea of all (or even most) apps being in the cloud. I want those local, to be able to use the full power of the local hardware. Having the option to run the app on a remote server for situations where local hardware is not powerful enough, is good, though.

Basically, I want a setup similar to what we use here in the local school district (diskless Linux clients, with the ability to run apps off the server if needed), but able to be run over a 54 Mbps wireless connection. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Irony
by jayson.knight on Wed 8th Jul 2009 20:04 UTC
jayson.knight
Member since:
2005-07-06

Does anyone else see the irony in this? MS tied a browser to its OS, and now Google is tying an OS to its browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Irony
by dindin on Wed 8th Jul 2009 20:54 UTC in reply to "Irony"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

I do. ;) Does this mean Google will have to provide alternate Browser support on Google Netbook platform so that customers have choice ... if this thing takes off. ;) MS said "Browser is part of the OS" and Google replied "Browser is the OS"

So will I be able to run Firefox on ChromeOS?

Reply Score: 2

Open Competition is Win-win
by waid0004 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 23:29 UTC
waid0004
Member since:
2009-06-19

Google using its influence/money to convince more PC makers to write drivers open source drivers for the Linux kernel is a big win. Assuming they aren't binary blobs.

Google challenging Microsoft and Apple on the desktop is a big win (keeps everyone on their toes).

Google supporting ARM netbooks/laptops/desktops is a big win (keeps Intel and AMD on their toes).

Privacy issues may keep me from personally using it, but that doesn't mean I (and everyone that runs Linux) won't benefit from better hardware support.

Reply Score: 2

Thin web client
by Lo_Phat on Thu 9th Jul 2009 00:07 UTC
Lo_Phat
Member since:
2009-07-08

So Google is going to create a thin web client using Linux as the substrate, big deal.

Makes perfect sense for them to do this as it will fit in with their ambitions to continue to get new accounts in the enterprise AS THEY ARE ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY DOING.

The fact that Google had to do it themselves signals clearly the failure of Linux community to come up with a sane solution to the needs of desktop users. It is also an opportune time now that netbook style hardware is reaching volume production.

I had high hopes for Ubuntu when it was announced but it is just the same old repackaging treadmill with little real innovation as all the other 623 "distro's". (source : http://distrowatch.com/search.php?status=All)

It's quite likely that Google will succeed to popularise their internet appliance as they have the brand power, money & most importantly the infrastructure to do it right.

Reply Score: 1

New news
by Tyler G on Thu 9th Jul 2009 07:45 UTC
Tyler G
Member since:
2009-07-09

Computers truly need to get better. Those who are searching for information, checking email, catching up on the news, shopping or just staying in touch with friends are the most who will enjoy using this new Google Chrome. The big news on the software front these days is about the http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/07/08/google-operating... that is beginning to debut. The Google operating system is being released as a competitor to Windows 7, and the Google OS, or Chrome OS, bears the same name as the internet browser they released last year, and best of all will be free. It is set to begin debuting on netbooks, and its primary focus is online applications. Press for it has said that they geared it to plug the gaps in internet security of most OS packages. It's good to know that you can get the Google operating system without needing money and the unending amount of registration that comes with Microsoft products.

Reply Score: 1

This is Android rebranded
by joshv on Thu 9th Jul 2009 14:10 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

This is nothing more than an exercise in rebranding and updating Android to handle larger screens and more memory. I also expect them to throw in tighter integration with Google Docs for simple word process/spreadsheet, and maybe an easy to access "G-Drive" for online storage.

The idea that Google would develop a whole new OS, with all of the same features of Android, is laughable.

Reply Score: 2

I want to be like Mic
by pdman on Thu 9th Jul 2009 15:08 UTC
pdman
Member since:
2006-05-22

...Love'em or hate'em, when given the opportunity, every company will strive to be like Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

Epic
by zenulator on Thu 9th Jul 2009 18:27 UTC
zenulator
Member since:
2008-06-29

Am I the only one who is excited by this? Google is developing a new windowing system and OS layer on top of the Linux kernel there by essentially doing what Apple and Jobs did with BSD and NeXT. On top of that they are going to be giving it all away for free including source code. Where do you guys pull in negativity from that? I don't get it. We're talking about a small light weight browser centric operating system for low powered atom and arm based netbooks. I'm pretty certain this isn't going to replace Ubuntu or Windows on my desktop any time soon but it might replace or coexist with Windows on my laptop once it's released. I'm a fan of all operating systems from plan9 to haiku. Lately I've been working with android on touch screen arm powered devices. It's something truly magical to see android running on beagle board or a htc touch. I've built and run Android on my notebook and while usable for simple web surfing and some games it just doesn't feel right since it wasn't designed for anything more than smart phones. So I welcome a Google designed Linux based operating system for netbooks and notebooks. Mobile computing is the future and Google is jumping in head first.

Edited 2009-07-09 18:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Epic
by sbergman27 on Thu 9th Jul 2009 19:18 UTC in reply to "Epic"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Google is developing a new windowing system and OS layer on top of the Linux kernel there by essentially doing what Apple and Jobs did with BSD and NeXT. On top of that they are going to be giving it all away for free including source code.

I think that the lack of excitment comes from the expectation that Google will do all this in the way that they usually do. They'll put together all the specs, and make all the decisions, behind closed doors. Release something designed primarily with their own business needs in mind. And that thing will not look very much like Linux either to users or to developers. There will be a media circus on all the mainstream news sites... because they're Google, of course. And after all the hype over "Bride of Android" has died down, Microsoft Windows will continue to dominate the desktop, as always. But the Linux landscape will be a little more fragmented after all is said and done.

Many people would rather see the effort put into the existing Linux distro which already has the most momentum in the netbook market.

Reply Score: 2

Take it down a notch, all you haters.
by Howie S on Thu 9th Jul 2009 19:47 UTC
Howie S
Member since:
2005-07-14

Howie S
Member since:
2005-07-14

To all you haters,

So many people on this tread are taking such firm stances on something they've only read a few general paragraphs about. How absurd. Let's wait to see more details - and even perhaps some working code - before we jump to any real conclusions, alright? I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic.

Just because "The Year of Desktop Linux" has never really arrived, does that mean we can't be open to the possiblity of somebody re-imagining the OS? Google just plain "gets it" in so many things that it does. Perhaps this will be one of it's sucesses as well.

I also think targeting netbooks and working with OEMs is an excellent stragegy. Most people will just use the OS that comes with their computer - period. This fact alone makes existing Linuxes a non-starter for 99% of laptop/desktop users out there - one of those 'sad but true' facts that pretty much dooms Ubuntu and other Linux distros to go the way of the dodo, as far as making an impact on the desktop mainstream. (Sorry, but it's true.)

Personally, I'm elated that Google is finally putting it's design and imagination behind a desktop (er, netbook) OS. IMHO most of open source software is totally brain dead in the imagination department. In most cases, all it seems to know how to do, is copy (poorly) what has already been done before. Finally Google will breathe some real innovation into this field, and hopefully the entire open source community will benefit.

I also don't understand people's alarm at exposing their data to 'the cloud'. We already use Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr. We already expose so much of ourselves and our data. Now think about all the organizations that have your sensitive data on their computers - of which you have absolutely no control over -- your doctor, your hospital, your employer, various governmental agencies, insurance companies, credit card companies, and so on. All of this is to say, instead of whining about how insecure the 'new' cloud infrastructure is going to be, we should instead admit we already have one foot in the 'clouds', and focus instead on designing better safeguards to protect individual privacy. The cat is already out of the bag, people.

Reply Score: 2

Moblin
by Jeroenverh on Sun 12th Jul 2009 10:01 UTC
Jeroenverh
Member since:
2006-05-21

Why don't they just join the Moblin project? Why do they want there own distribution? It would be better if Google just developed the underlining application, make them open source and deliver them to all the Linux distribution. Than we could have many distributions competing for the same thing. I'm afraid of a Google Monopoly.

Reply Score: 1