Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Jul 2009 14:03 UTC
Google Even though everyone's talking about it, fact of the matter is that Google's Chrome OS is currently nothing more than an internet announcement, with a supposed release date of somewhere in 2010. Google chief executive Eric Schmidt has now stated that netbooks running Chrome OS could appear as early as this year. In addition, Schmidt also talked about his position at Apple's board of directors.
Order by: Score:
I hope Google will test them thouroughly ..
by kragil on Sun 12th Jul 2009 14:15 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

those asian OEMs can't be trusted. And I hope Google will demand control over the software update. They did OK with Android, but there certainly is room for improvemment.

And I hope they will have one unique selling point like a Pixel Qi screen.

Easy software installation and fast operation are a must. I hope they look at Coreboot (LinuxBios).

Really curious how software management will work in Chrome OS. Native Client will be on board for sure, but what else? I think updates will just install without notification.

Reply Score: 2

Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

What I am keen to see is HOW their software updates are installed. Chrome does them for you without so much as a 'hello world'.

I can see the benefits of this in a browser (keeps it secure and up to date) worst case update fails, you use another browser

With an OS.. update fails, pc (office?) out of commission!

Reply Score: 2

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I think Google is looking very closely at the upcoming techs in the Linux world.

They could combine their package management with BtrFS snapshots and be fairly safe. If you turn of the machine while an update gets installed it just goes back to the last snapshot and installs again.

Similarly they will probably use all the fast boot enhancements and I guess kernel mode setting etc.

What I don't get is if they intended to build their own OS all along based on Linux why didn't they work more upstream. Without Andrew Morton Googles contributions are pretty meaningless. They could have been in a much better position now .. I guess they aren't as strategic as everybody thinks.

Let's hope Chrome OS will change that.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

What I am keen to see is HOW their software updates are installed. Chrome does them for you without so much as a 'hello world'.

I can see the benefits of this in a browser (keeps it secure and up to date) worst case update fails, you use another browser

With an OS.. update fails, pc (office?) out of commission!

Android offers you a choice, so clearly Google are wise to the fact that more sophisticated / critical software needs downtime to perform updates.

However, Google also say in one of their PRs that Chrome OS won't need system / security updates like Windows does. Now given that there's no such thing as a finished OS (security holes and bugs are always found (and fixed) and code optimisations are thought up), I find it hard to believe that Google wouldn't be releasing service packs of some description.
So maybe they intend to hide it from the users?

I guess the only way to know for sure is to wait and see.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

those asian OEMs can't be trusted. And I hope Google will demand control over the software update. They did OK with Android, but there certainly is room for improvement.


Ooh, how delicious - 'those asian OEM's', anyone note something in the tone of that post? before you start making up fictional issues about 'those asian OEM's' maybe it is time for 'those American OEM's' to start producing products that aren't of poor quality.

The best example of poor quality would be the Sky Decoder I have at home which is made by Motorola - I never thought it would be possible for a set top box to crash and it to spontaneously reboot but Motorola shows their crappiness goes beyond their mobile phones right to through their other product lines.

No thank you, I'll take 'those Asian OEM's' over 'those American OEM's' any day of the week.

Reply Score: 3

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Hey, I didn't want to offend anyone.

All I wanted to say that most OEMs (most of them are asian atm) don't support their products with software updates. They only think short term until the product ships. You never get feature updates. Look at HTCs WinMo cells, they usually don't get new WinMo releases. Also look at most vendors of embedded Linux product. They don't work upstream because they operate only from one product to the next and don't care for shipped devices. I really hate that. Google did good with shipping Android 1.5 cupcake. Let's see how the support for HTCs new Android sense interface will be. My guess is that once they shipped old devices won't get new feature updates. Which sucks.

Or look at the whole Linux on the netbook desaster .. OK a lot of people wanted XP, but still the Linpus or Xandros shit they shipped sucked ass. A tuned version of Ubuntu with a nicer branded theme or something would have made much more sense.

Reply Score: 1

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Then just say OEMs. By specifying "Asian", you implied that non-Asian companies would be better.

Reply Score: 2

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Well, how many netbooks are build outside of asia??

Reply Score: 4

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

How many non-white people helped cause the global financial crisis? Specifying race when it isn't relevant is, well...

Reply Score: 2

can't wait
by lqsh on Sun 12th Jul 2009 15:04 UTC
lqsh
Member since:
2007-01-01

Unlike Microsoft, Google actually innovates and moves technology forward.

It will be interesting to see what Google has come up with and how this affects future OSes.

Reply Score: 1

RE: can't wait
by Adurbe on Sun 12th Jul 2009 19:38 UTC in reply to "can't wait"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

now, I am a fan of Google BUT Microsoft have done some groundbreaking work in a number of fields.

I appreciate they are unpopular because of their market share and some 'shady' practices but credit where credit is due please

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: can't wait
by kaiwai on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE: can't wait"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

now, I am a fan of Google BUT Microsoft have done some groundbreaking work in a number of fields.

I appreciate they are unpopular because of their market share and some 'shady' practices but credit where credit is due please


Innovations such as.....?

I'm not being a smart ass but realistically, what have they contributed that would be of an innovative nature (assuming one defines innovative as 'the best implementation of an idea')?

I look at Windows 7 for example, their flag ship product, the anchor on which everything spins around - and it reminds me of the mish-mash, ad-hoc approach to desktop design of Linux 10 years ago. Mountains of different widget kits used, ranging from Windows 3.11 all the way up to Windows 7; then there are the technologies merged but never taken advantage of - why haven't they killed off GDI+/GDI and replaced it with a shim sitting ontop of Direct2D/DirectWrite?

One can dance around naked all day as to the supposed 'innovation' by Microsoft but when one seeks evidence for such a claim - its very few and far between.

Edited 2009-07-12 21:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: can't wait
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: can't wait"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How about getting a computer on every desk, in every home? I find that a pretty big innovation.

In addition, they pioneered the model where software is not tied to the hardware (very uncommon when they started in the home business), which played a major - if not the only - role in making computing affordable.

People always say "yeah well, someone else would've done it if MS didn't do it", but that's a nonsense argument. You might as well say the same about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Innovation isn't just about features, it's also about concepts.

I won't go into your Windows 7 remark, because I don't want to emberass you by listing the amount of inconsistencies in for instance Mac OS X.

Edited 2009-07-12 21:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: can't wait
by sbergman27 on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: can't wait"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

How about getting a computer on every desk, in every home? I find that a pretty big innovation.

I dispute that one, for sure. It's hard to imagine an alternate history in which that did *not* happen. Once IBM released the IBM PC as an open hardware platform it was pretty much a given. And IBM's decision to let MS hold the ownership of DOS guaranteed that Microsoft would be the one to ride that wave. (All that is in retrospect, of course. But it looks pretty obvious now.) Maybe, in later years, they've had some innovative *business practices* which helped them do that. But even there, companies like Standard Oil probably hold prior art.

If they had been really, really stupid, they could have failed to ride the wave. I'll give them that much.

But it is ever-falling hardware prices which have resulted in the ubiquity of PC's. That and the Internet... the significance of which MS actually managed to miss until late in the game.

Edited 2009-07-12 22:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: can't wait
by cjcoats on Mon 13th Jul 2009 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: can't wait"
cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

Imagine if DEC hadn't seriously dropped the ball when Apple wanted to use the Alpha for the Mac (instead of its eventual PPC). And imagine if _that_ had been an open hardware platform.
<P>
But I'm dreaming...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: can't wait
by kaiwai on Sun 12th Jul 2009 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: can't wait"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

How about getting a computer on every desk, in every home? I find that a pretty big innovation.


Oh Jesus f--king Christ, I can't believe that of all people you're suckered into this "Microsoft created the PC revolution" horse shit. If Microsoft didn't exist then Apple, Atari, Amstrad or some other vendor would have taken the position of Microsoft. 20 years ago computers were accessible; hell, I remember in my area alone filled with lower middle to middle income people owning Amiga 500's and swapping disks to get the latest games.

So please, don't humour me with this horse shit that some how we should be all bending over and worshipping Microsoft for something that was an inevitable - Microsoft were in the right place at the right time with competitors too inept to do anything about it.

In addition, they pioneered the model where software is not tied to the hardware (very uncommon when they started in the home business), which played a major - if not the only - role in making computing affordable.


Make computers affordable! what a monumental load of absolute horse shit. I remember in Australia in 1988 when the cost of a PC at the best of times was at least 2 times the amount of an Amiga and didn't even do 10% of what an Amiga could accomplish.

So please, cut the crap - I don't know what the f--k you've been smoking but the reality is that 20 years ago the PC was an over priced novelty that only gained any traction because, as I said, the competitors were so shocking at getting their stuff into the enterprise. It is the enterprise that dictates the direction of the end user - if the enterprise is using PC's, then by crikey, end users will be doing the same thing.

I've cut the rest of your post because it adds nothing to the discussion what so ever. Windows 7 is an abortion when it comes to UI consistency; 8 generations of widget kits, numerous different look and feels, no consistent short cut keys - different with each application. Its a disaster area and in the 20 years it has existed Microsoft hasn't raised a damn finger to address those issues.

Yes, I want my damn operating system to look eye pleasing and well designed both at the core and the UI level - Microsoft fails monumentally when compared to the effort that volunteers put in when compared to GNOME. At least in the case of GNOME they make an effort to conform to some sort of HIG, and when HIG violations are found in applications, the issues are addressed rather than ignored for 3 release cycles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: can't wait
by lqsh on Sun 12th Jul 2009 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: can't wait"
lqsh Member since:
2007-01-01

Didn't IBM approach Microsoft when they were looking for an OS for their PCs? So here, IBM innovated by pursuing this relationship. Show me the innovation.

MS-DOS was based on QDOS. Show me the innovation.

Windows 1.0 borrowed UI elements (legally I think) from Apple. Windows GUI was based on Apple's Lisa and early Mac OS. Show me the innovation.

From Windows 3.0 on, Microsoft was pretty much playing catch up with Apple on the GUI front. Show me the innovation.

Microsoft's dominance is due to a good sales team and anti-competitive business deals, not innovation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: can't wait
by Adurbe on Mon 13th Jul 2009 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: can't wait"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

IBM did approach Microsoft.

Microsoft brokered a deal where they could resell their OS to multiple manufacturers. Famously, IBM let them as there was 'no money in software'

Windows copied Lisa. Lisa copied Xerox. Xerox copied NLS yadda yadda yadda...

A few of the things that microsoft have developed which I think are industry leading

Visual Studio
DirectX
Windows 2000 (MS made something you could call a server!)
Exchange

My examples may/may not suit your criteria for 'inovation' but in my opinion were not all ground breaking but were all industry defining products

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: can't wait
by Greuceanu on Mon 13th Jul 2009 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: can't wait"
Greuceanu Member since:
2007-09-27

Visual Studio first appeared in 1997, while Delhpi first version was in 1995. So, Delphi was an innovation for its time, not Visual Studio.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: can't wait
by Adurbe on Mon 13th Jul 2009 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: can't wait"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Visual Studio's innovation' was the incorporation of mutiple languages within the IDE with intergration between them.

I started on Visual Studio 6 using VB. The fact I could then 'migrate' to the C based languages without learning a new interface and IDE 'quirks' was wonderful

It became THE Windows programing IDE

Borland Delphi, if memory serves, did not become multi language until later in its life

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: can't wait
by james_parker on Tue 14th Jul 2009 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: can't wait"
james_parker Member since:
2005-06-29

In addition, they pioneered the model where software is not tied to the hardware (very uncommon when they started in the home business), which played a major - if not the only - role in making computing affordable.


Microsoft adopted this model from Digital Research and CP/M.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: can't wait
by Alex Forster on Tue 14th Jul 2009 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: can't wait"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

.NET

If you don't think so, it's because you don't know enough about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: can't wait
by sbergman27 on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE: can't wait"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

now, I am a fan of Google BUT Microsoft have done some groundbreaking work in a number of fields.

Hmmm. I think it would be safe to say that the the ratio of *actual innovation* to *talking about innovation* would be distinctly higher for Google.

Truth be known... innovation is best enjoyed in moderation. 99% of what makes a good OS is skillful selection, implementation and integration of extant features, regardless of origin, along with good taste, and good judgement. Constant innovation is also known as "churn". Few users... and even fewer admins... like it.

Edited 2009-07-12 21:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: can't wait
by Laurence on Sun 12th Jul 2009 20:46 UTC in reply to "can't wait"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Unlike Microsoft, Google actually innovates and moves technology forward.

It will be interesting to see what Google has come up with and how this affects future OSes.


Got any evidence to back up that bold claim?

I like Google, but I think it's a leap to say that they've pioneered more than MS.
Most of the technologies they've released has been to an excellent standard, but they've hardly been ahead of the game.

If anything, they're just one of many companies looking at consumer technology and realising that most consumers aren't geeks and are unhappy with the needlessly complex / crash prone systems they're forced into.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: can't wait
by ephracis on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE: can't wait"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

If anything, they're just one of many companies looking at consumer technology and realising that most consumers aren't geeks and are unhappy with the needlessly complex / crash prone systems they're forced into.

+1
Best description of this move ever.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: can't wait
by kaiwai on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE: can't wait"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Got any evidence to back up that bold claim?

I like Google, but I think it's a leap to say that they've pioneered more than MS.
Most of the technologies they've released has been to an excellent standard, but they've hardly been ahead of the game.

If anything, they're just one of many companies looking at consumer technology and realising that most consumers aren't geeks and are unhappy with the needlessly complex / crash prone systems they're forced into.


In over a decade they (Microsoft) have yet to pioneer a web browser to conform to some standards that have been established for many years. If innovation is done on the basis of implementing ideas and standards - then Google, Apple and the Open Source community steam roll over Microsoft.

Regarding end users wanting things to 'just work'(tm) you are right - but just work means providing developers with technologies that allow them to create products that are easily accessible and aren't reliant on buggy plugins (Flash) or bloated and buggy API's (Win32).

So it is very much in the end users interest to ensuring that the web browser conforms to the latest standards so that developers can deliver products using those open standards without resorting to using Flash or Silverlight which adds a new layer of bloat and complexity (which raises a whole new level of problems). This issue applies to all situations relating to computers - give the developers the tools to make good applications and they will.

Edited 2009-07-12 21:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: can't wait
by Laurence on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: can't wait"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


In over a decade they (Microsoft) have yet to pioneer a web browser to conform to some standards that have been established for many years.

Pioneer isn't the right word for the context you're using it in.
But yeah, IE is sh!t - nobody is disputing that.
However, that's still a very poor example of MSs lack of innovation because MS were one of the fore-runners in integrating web-technologies into the users desktop (ok, many of their technologies were crappy, but none-the-less they were up there with desktop web-widgets long before Google was a popular search engine)

If innovation is done on the basis of implementing ideas and standards - then Google, Apple and the Open Source community steam roll over Microsoft.

You're talking about "implimenting open standards" rather than simply "implimenting ideas and standard" like you posted.
MS Office is a world standard office suite.
DOC / XLS (and their, more recent, 2007 XML counterparts) are as much a standard for documents in most organisations as PDFs are.
Sure, MSOffice's binary blobs might be a closed, propriatory standard. But it's still a globally recognised standard.
Same goes for IE. It maybe crappy and doesn't follow w3c standard, but by being on everyones desktop it's become a standard.


Regarding end users wanting things to 'just work'(tm) you are right - but just work means providing developers with technologies that allow them to create products that are easily accessible and aren't reliant on buggy plugins (Flash) or bloated and buggy API's (Win32).

I'm really not sure why you're arguing with me here as you're just reiterating the point I made re Google and Apple answering peoples despair.


So it is very much in the end users interest to ensuring that the web browser conforms to the latest standards

Nope. It's in there interest to ensure the technologies they use conform to OPEN standards.
Flash (buggy plugins and all) is a standard - it's just not an open standard.


[edit - as I'm getting modded down without follow up comments hehe]

I just want to point out that I'm no MS fanboy.
In fact, quite the opposite - I try to run their software as little as I can get away with (instead favouring open source when ever I can)

However, I just wanted to make the point that, as crappy as a great number of their products might be to me/us, they are still the world number 1, thus - like it or not - they are still one of the biggest standards out there.

Edited 2009-07-12 21:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: can't wait
by makc on Mon 13th Jul 2009 02:16 UTC in reply to "can't wait"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/

Just take a moment to check what they do before being so bold in your judgement ;)

Wether you like or dislike the company and their products, please judge research by it's own; and you'll find out researchers of those centres are contributing to advances in many fields.

edit: mistype

Edited 2009-07-13 02:17 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: can't wait
by Johann Chua on Mon 13th Jul 2009 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE: can't wait"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Xerox PARC did a lot of innovative stuff, but never marketed them properly. MS's bread and butter is Windows and Office.

Call me when there's actual shipping products based on Gazelle or Singularity.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: can't wait
by shotsman on Mon 13th Jul 2009 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE: can't wait"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

There is a world of difference (And a long way in time) from a research project to something they can sell.

It is all very well doing this sort of research but IMHO, very little really finds its way into sellable products. That is the very nature of ALL research project. Some work but probably the majority don't.

The posters who brought this up are looking at products that they can buy and use. Comparisons here don't really look good for Microsoft.

Personally, I feel if this Google project takes off then Microsoft are in deep trouble in this market area. If it can do what more than 50% of PC users want to do and all nicely integrated then they have a very nice USP.
IMHO, the Microsoft restrictions on Netbook configuration is very anti-competitive and actually shoots themselves in the foot.
As soon as I got my MSI-Wind, I added 1GB of RAM and changed the HDD to 320Gb. Now I have a really lightweight and portable dev platform running CentOS+Oracle+DB2 very nicely thank you. It also dual boots into XP-PRO for the times I need it. Not exactly how MS wants to see Netbooks being used.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Stratoukos
by Stratoukos on Sun 12th Jul 2009 15:23 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

"as in the SDK gives you access to the hardware and data storage as well, despite the fact that it uses web languages."

I don't think this is possible since google promised compatibility with any browser for Chrome's apps. Maybe they'll release an SDK for Chrome-only applications but what I think they are trying to do is make the existing web apps their core apps.

Reply Score: 1

shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Groklaw reports the case where current Netbooks will be barred from the US soon.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200907110734205...

Reply Score: 2

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

That article says only six companies are affected, and ARM is the only one mentioned by name. Since most netbooks use Intel Atom processors, I doubt there's much to worry about.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Groklaw reports the case where current Netbooks will be barred from the US soon.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20090711073...


Marvelous; Land of the free, home of the royally screwed.

Looking at some of the patents submitted I'm wouldn't be surprised if one could patent the design of a twirly-whirly straw.

Reply Score: 2

Wait a second...
by molnarcs on Sun 12th Jul 2009 17:19 UTC
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

The summary is a tad bit sensationalist: "netbooks running Chrome OS could appear as early as this year" vs (from the article): “Everybody we’ve talked to under nondisclosure is excited about the plan,” Schmidt told Reuters. “So hopefully later this year we’ll see some announcements.”

Another "what?!" moment comes from the article itself: "“I don’t want to talk about Microsoft,” he told Reuters. “We actually don’t look at market share at all.”

Sure.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wait a second...
by kaiwai on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:32 UTC in reply to "Wait a second..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The summary is a tad bit sensationalist: "netbooks running Chrome OS could appear as early as this year" vs (from the article): “Everybody we’ve talked to under nondisclosure is excited about the plan,” Schmidt told Reuters. “So hopefully later this year we’ll see some announcements.”

Another "what?!" moment comes from the article itself: "“I don’t want to talk about Microsoft,” he told Reuters. “We actually don’t look at market share at all.”

Sure.


Why is it unbelievable? you do realise that if you're a company who believes in your product - why would you be constantly looking over your shoulder at a distant competitor? talking about insecurity issues if you need to constantly check to see how far back the competition is rather than improving the products.

Microsoft is the prime example of the market share syndrome run amok - instead of addressing the short comings of their products they whine about the rise of competitors and then spend MILLIONS on marketing. Why haven't I seen an improvement in Windows 7? what it seems to be is Microsoft with the ego of, "Well, its everyone else with the problem - there is nothing wrong with Windows, its all PR".

I'm not claiming that when it comes to spending money that it is either marketing or investment but given the fact that there has been little or no improvement in Windows 7 at either the fundamental system level or UI consistency - I question whether the organisations focus has shifted from fixing their product in favour of hoping PR will short out the issues.

Edited 2009-07-12 21:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

innovation
by smashIt on Sun 12th Jul 2009 21:54 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

after reading all this comments about innovation i start to understand how apple gets all their crap through the us patent-office...

Reply Score: 2

It's a Rocky Road
by segedunum on Mon 13th Jul 2009 00:22 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Unless Google recognise fully that they're creating a platform and not a product and they're only as good as the third-parties who build off it then they're on the road to nowhere where countless others have failed.

Everything looks like something you can run in a browser until you actually try and create a desktop operating system.

Reply Score: 2

It's all about branding
by joshv on Mon 13th Jul 2009 05:56 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

Please, don't get confused by the re-branding of Android as the Chrome OS. It's not going to be a browser based OS. It's going to be Android with better browser integration and Java based apps written to an improved Android API. Seriously, Android does almost everything that Google has claimed will be in "Chrome OS" - why the hell they go out and write something entirely new?

Reply Score: 2

Innovation really?
by akrosdbay on Mon 13th Jul 2009 08:06 UTC
akrosdbay
Member since:
2008-06-09

I distinctly remember Microsoft integrating IE into WIndows 98. Everyone screamed bloody murder.

Now 11 years later Google does the same thing it is innovation? Google wants to create an OS that only runs their Apps from their cloud and everyone is loving it.

This kind of blind love for Google is down right scary. I am no MS fan.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Innovation really?
by dragossh on Mon 13th Jul 2009 09:54 UTC in reply to "Innovation really?"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

First, Google doesn't hold a monopoly position in the OS industry, so they are free to include everything they want in it, not to mention that the OS is open source. Also, it seems this OS *is* the browser, so you can't really separate the two like in Windows' case.

Second, you will be able to use non-Google apps as well. Think of webOS.

Edited 2009-07-13 09:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Innovation really?
by akrosdbay on Tue 14th Jul 2009 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Innovation really?"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

First, Google doesn't hold a monopoly position in the OS industry, so they are free to include everything they want in it, not to mention that the OS is open source. Also, it seems this OS *is* the browser, so you can't really separate the two like in Windows' case.


Google is a monopoly in online Ad and search business. The OS is not the browser. There is a linux kernel that boot straps the browser which is a Google product. There is no indication that a competing browser will be available on Chrome OS. So it is much worse than the windows case. At least you could run other browsers on Windows.

If Google wants to maintain their security spiel they may prevent other browsers from being deployed on Chrome OS. I think they want to treat it like an appliance and tightly control it.

Second, you will be able to use non-Google apps as well. Think of webOS.


The other Apps are called websites which already work on netbooks today.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Innovation really?
by Johann Chua on Mon 13th Jul 2009 10:41 UTC in reply to "Innovation really?"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Google is great, but I don't buy the "do no evil" thing. They censor their searches in China, after all.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Innovation really?
by testman on Mon 13th Jul 2009 12:48 UTC in reply to "Innovation really?"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Plus they're big and successful now. They can no longer lay claim to the dashing young revolutionary image they once fostered and the geek-world now has another target in their myopic sites.

IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Canonical, Google… it happens to everyone.

In Australia, we call it "tall-poppy syndrome".

Reply Score: 2

whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

I find it interesting that we've come to the point where we're eagerly anticipating new closed systems.

Currently, we have pretty much open systems that we can selectively sandbox (using VMs, special runtime environs, etc.).I'm not talking about source code accessibility, rather simply system accessibility.

Most modern kernels are more open than ever, having modular designs, offering pluggable extensibility, etc. We can easily add new drivers, new hardware, new applications.

Now, with GoogleOS, we have effectively a closed at the get go OS, offering only as much extensibility as Google chooses to let us have. We will be second class citizens on our own software/hardware.

Perhaps they'll publish the capabilities that will let folks "do whatever they want" to breach the sandbox and run "real apps" at the OS level of the system. Maybe they'll make folks jump up and down and spin around 3 times before they can install such apps and software, you know, to prevent viruses and trojans and all of the other wonders of the modern internet age.

Or...not.

They may leave that to the purview of the manufacturer. With nominally closed systems like Netbooks with fixed video architectures and other unchangeable hardware choices, who cares if you can load a new driver, etc.?

All of this is, of course, to make the consumer safe...safe from the internet, safe from their coworkers infested USB drive, safe from themselves, and, of course, safe for the content providers.

There may well be no way to install alternative codecs, or software that have "direct access" to hardware resources. Only approved software can touch privileged IN/OUT ports or memory mapped IO.

Even more interesting, given the likely commodity nature of the platforms upon which it will run, there will be little motivation for users to hack GoogleOS. Why bother? Just install Linux on it instead, a system that doesn't need to be hacked, a system that can (or will) Chromium readily, and any web innovations necessary to make the users GoogleOS web application experience noteworthy will likely be ported and duplicated in to a FF add on within a short time.

Who can say, we really don't know anything about GoogleOS and how closed it will be, but I'm just guessing the the trend is for more closed than not.

But it is an interesting trend to see. iPhone, GoogleOS, etc. Closed systems for the masses.

Reply Score: 3

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Google Chrome OS will be released as open source, what's closed about it? And let's not forget that we also have Android and webOS on mobiles -- both are pretty open.

What scares me is this all of a sudden love with 'cloud computing.' Since when slapping a buzzword on decades-old technology make it so cool?

Edited 2009-07-13 10:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

I don't know if it's that its necessarily 'cool' but the cloud buzz is back because Google is already running zillions of servers all over the world in the course of it's search and Ad business. They debatably have the chops to actually make it happen this time around.

Jean-Louis Gassée (of BeOS fame)seems to think they want some of the MS Office pie, too:

http://www.mondaynote.com/2009/07/12/google-os-chrome-plated-linux-...

Reply Score: 1

kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

Oh, BTW, while I agree that the kernel and browser enhancements may be open .... I doubt the code that constitutes Google Apps/Office will be open source!!

Reply Score: 1

Techrepublic on Google O/S
by shotsman on Mon 13th Jul 2009 09:16 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=2131&tag=nl.e101

The article lists 3 reasons why it is good and 4 why it will be irrelevant.
If the 4 irrelevancies, 3 & 4 are pure FUD
3) Its too late.
So by the time this is released Windows 7 will be everywhere? WTF. He states limited driver availability. This directly contradicts with his prime reason 1) It is limited to Netbooks. This limits the number of physical devices this will run on so making drivers a non issue. Besides, I would really doubt that he has run the latest Linux Distros on a netbook recently. I run Fedora 11 on an MSI-Wind and the only the WiFi needed a bit of fiddling. This was not needed on an eeeBox B206.
4) It runs linux.
So what? It boots up straight into the browser making the choice of underlying Linux irrelevant.

PAH.
Another uninformed piece of garbage journalism. This will no doubt be regurgitated ad infinitum by other lazy journo's.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Techrepublic on Google O/S
by segedunum on Mon 13th Jul 2009 15:38 UTC in reply to "Techrepublic on Google O/S"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

He states limited driver availability. This directly contradicts with his prime reason 1) It is limited to Netbooks.

3G modems and mobile phone connectivity for one thing, which is really an essential on a netbook. This is supposed to be a device completely reliant on network connectivity as well. People also have a tendency to want to print things and connect digital cameras to upload photos on netbooks as well. They don't exist as islands.

He's also right about ChromeOS and Android overlapping. It doesn't inspire too much confidence that Google knows and understands that it is developing a platform.

Reply Score: 2

3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

Yes, they could ship tomorrow. Development build of Chrome, set it up to launch with a basic window manager and PyPanel, and add Network Manager.

When the extent of your operating system is little more than chucking a custom-installed Debian system onto a CD, you can ship things so very quickly.

Reply Score: 2

caught between deep sea and devil?
by rakamaka on Mon 13th Jul 2009 13:49 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

Microsoft : browser is a part of OS
Google: browser IS OS
caught between deep sea and devil? wait till google forces OEMs to eliminate everything else

microsoft should file case with EU to include "choice" of "windows" in the chrome browser system!!! hahaha...

Do we call Google as "Tech company" where 80% of their revenue comes from advts??

Reply Score: 2

kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

They'd had to start releasing IE for other OS's first.

Five year old versions for Mac don't count.

Edited 2009-07-13 23:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Envying1
by Envying1 on Tue 14th Jul 2009 17:40 UTC
Envying1
Member since:
2008-04-22

Quote from Wiki: Chrome OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS)
Google has stated that the Google Chrome OS project will be open source[5] by the end of 2009. Although it is based on the Linux kernel, it will use "a new windowing system".[6]

I am really interested in seeing a new windowing system. To me X window is a heavy weight WM, is not a good one for lightweight OS as we expect from Google chrome OS.

Reply Score: 1