Submitted by The LA Times is speculating the arrival of a Google PC running an OS also made by Google. “Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart, among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The machine would run an operating system created by Google, not Microsoft’s Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap – perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars.” They also say that Larry Page, Google’s co-founder and president of products, will give a keynote speech at CES coming Friday, announcing all this.
Great, It’ll be called “TAOS” or “Text Advertising Operating System” ;^)
EDIT; Beer plus posting = bad 😛
Edited 2006-01-03 10:52
As much as I want to believe this (would be a real push for linux on the desktop), google’s track record in this sense isn’t exactly great.
Let’s think a bit about this, if it’s not microsoft windows than it has to be some kind of *nix derivate, because you can’t develop an entire OS in five minutes and have hardware and application support. If it’s that kind of cheap it’s also not osX86, so that leaves us with bsd’s, linux, and unix’s. Let’s imagine they would choose linux (the most obvious choice, considering they use it, and it has the most support and development of the community).
Now let’s look at most google releases.
Google earth: No linux, no mac os.
Google talk: No linux, no mac os. They hired the main project dev of gaim to add better support, but it’s not exactly the same as making their client available, AND the support isn’t “THERE” yet.
Gmail notifier: No linux.
Google desktop search: No linux. no mac os.
Google Picasa: No linux, no mac os.
etc etc etc
The bottom line is: they have been neglecting linux on the desktop totally and completely up to now. And now they announce a computer with linux on it? What gives? It seems this is pure speculation or a half-hearted attempt.
On the other hand, google does know that it has to move fast in order to survive microsoft’s attack, so they have been trying to expand and offer some unique services hoping to gain more distance from them, but attacking them on the desktop directly like this I think isn’t going to work…
Edited 2006-01-03 11:02
Indeed. If this is true, I’ll eat my hat(, after I buy one).
Anyone remember the Sun and Google joint announcement, and everyone thought ‘This is it, online version of Star/Open Office’.
Remember it was something completely different (and much less exciting)?
Google trying to beat Microsoft at it’s own game is like Microsoft trying to beat Google at it’s own game: it will produce a lot of laughable attempts, and add to this that Google has near zero experience on the desktop, besides developping a few apps.
Even if Google remodelled a Linux distro to fit their needs (the only way it would even have a remote chance of succeeding considering hardware support problems; if Google had asked dozens of companies for specs we would’ve known by now), there’s plenty of competing Linux distros that would be more mature.
In other words: this is just rampant speculation from someone who doesn’t know what it takes to make an operating system.
the only way it would even have a remote chance of succeeding considering hardware support problems; if Google had asked dozens of companies for specs we would’ve known by now
If you read the article, you’ll notice that Google will also introduce its own computer– meaning, they KNOW what hardware to support with their OS– they do not have to offer support for the plethora of hardware out there.
I’m not saying the rumour is true (I highly doubt it too), but that argument is nonsense.
I agree with your statement about if they use their own Linux distribution, they can “recommend” it only for their Google PCs, in the way that they can control the the stability of their distribution. They can push a little more by taking a position like “we will not provide any support to non-cerftified hardware”. So, if you want to install a new device by your own, you can do it, just like any Linux distribution, but then please don’t call us asking for support.
The fact that the desktops applications made by Google are not available (yet) to Linux, that does not mean that they don’t have them running under Linux internally. Remember that statement of S Jobs about the double-life of OSX, running under PPC and x86. This could the opportunity of releasing their apps under a certified Linux distro and certified hardware list.
But well… it’s still in the rumors’ room. But, if it is true, it will be more interesting yet than apple moving to x86. Just imagine, Google has an opportunity of remaking what apple did, but with a larger impact in the market, since their sytems would less expensive.
It’s funny, but in a article that appeared a few months ago in a french journal (Liberation) , I read that one of possibilities of killing MS would be that Google and Linux merge in a product.
A Google branded Linux distro maybe they could pull off without everyone knowing about it. But a full desktop operating system would require millions of lines of code, years of work, and hundreds (thousands?) of programmers.
People we able to predict Microsoft’s new shell years back because they started hiring people with experience in that area.
I think if Google hired a few hundred developers with enough expertise to write an operating system we would have heard something prior to a week before CES.
I agree, it’s doubtful that it’ll happen but we can hope. Since this is just an unconfirmed rumour (unless I totally misread the article). Still if they did do this it would almost have to be Linux, and it could do good things for Linux. It would be interesting to see whether they could get decent ATI or nVidia drivers for Linux, which would benefit Linux as a whole. Another great benefit would be if they increased the ability of Linux to run Windows based games.
Whether Google is capable of fighting Windows on the desktop would depend on the product. If they can get good support for multi-media and preferably something to run more complex Windows based games they might have a decent chance. Google has a decent image as a brand and I think a lot of consumers would just go for the cheapest computer available. On the other hand a lot of them would probably be anxious to stay with what they know. It’s probably never going to get beyond a rumour, but I for one would quite like to see what would happen if they actually had a go at it. The battle between price advantage and inertia wouldn’t necessarily be a walkover for either side.
Edited 2006-01-03 12:18
One reason for no support for other OSes is that Google bought Google Earth and Picasa and they haven’t really done any development on them.
There wouldn’t be much point in porting a lot of this stuff.
Sure, a gmail notifier would be neat; but gmail is still beta anyway.
Picasa: A windows program Google bought; who knows why yet.
Desktop Search: Are you sure they haven’t put any time into things like Beagle or KDE’s effort?
Google Talk: We just don’t have voice/video support. I’m sure it will come eventually, a year or so. But the main thing to support is chat. And for all you knew they’re just hiding the patches to make it work for this announcement.
However, all in all, I really doubt this. Shipping an OS on a PC doesn’t seem like a google thing. Ordinary retail shipment of a per-item cost product just isn’t Google’s thing
.
there is a beta version of Google earth for mac, that is expected to be introduced soon.
What for a Google desktop search on mac when there is Spotlight?
But its true to say that i reaaly doubt that Google will introduce their own operating system. For who? Based on what? Linux? Any of their servives works for Linux, thats right to notice that. And what kind of operating system?
> There is a beta version of Google Earth for Mac OS X
Which looks like crap, if I am allowed to say (but, yes, works just fine).
Edited 2006-01-03 12:12
They didn’t write it, KeyHole did. Google have been porting other people’s code.
Google can probably develop an operating system (they have excellent engineers and operating systems experts like Rob Pike of Unix and Plan 9 fame, and they have experience in developing large scale distributed systems).
Now, just because they can does not mean they will.
….and it won’t be based on linux.
I’m sure it will heavily rely on distributed computing in some way. I suspect a lightweight OS, heavily utilising XML and perhaps javascript too. I suspect that Google will also provide an API that allows applications to be developed in an XML-derived language.
This would be revolutionary, and in retrospect an astonishingly simple idea.
This I have to say is perhaps the most intelligent post I’ve seen here yet, it’s much more intuitive of a guess than most of the (I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true) scatterbrained posts so far. Google has built it’s entirety around web applications, and services, and has built up quite the infrastructure for those services. The idea that the GooglePC (TM) would run as part of some distributed setup fits perfect with everything that google has ever tried to do. It’s common sense.
I imagine this “operating system” would be a grouping of services and accessable as an internet experience. The backend would be their existing servers with the to be announced operating system software as a user interface. I’m guessing of course but isn’t this the concept we have all been waiting for.
If AJAX is a part of this so much the better.
A Google branded PC – wow!
If they get this right it could be huge – taking over the PC market in the same way they took over the search engine market.
The PC could be locked-down, virus immune, safe, quick, cheap and would carry out all the requirements of the average user – email, browsing, office docs, messaging.
It could come with a Google branded printer.
And Google have the resources to supply updates and security patches.
Let’s face it – MS have never had the guts to release a MS branded PC – cos they know that every PC sold just produces masses of problems which would break them.
These are currently dealt with like this:
* User buys new PC.
* PC goes wrong – virus, worms, spyware, installing apps causes problems, etc etc etc etc etc
* User goes to PC supplier to get fix.
* Supplier says its the OS (Windows).
* MS say it’s the drivers, 3rd party app, wait for next release/patch and give us some money to help.
* User tears hair out and blames themself for being stupid.
* User buys new PC… (go back to beginning)
But a Google machine could be as reliable as Macs etc and just like Macs could be supported.
If Google take it further and only allow tried and tested apps to be installed they could be on to a winner. I sure that I personally would be able to resell these PC’s into the corporate environment as well as home users.
(PS – my bet is that they would be Debian based and that Google have been waiting for the release of Sarge).
Hum, not to be nitpicking, but what you’re suggesting is really what you want? You want a locked-down pc that only allows running google-approved apps?
If it was microsoft that was thinking of doing something like that (and they already preparing to do some of those things) probably you (and me, and lots of members of the community) would be all over them, but if it’s google then it’s ok?
Be careful what you wish for.
“Hum, not to be nitpicking, but what you’re suggesting is really what you want? You want a locked-down pc that only allows running google-approved apps? ”
Hmmm…. Kind of like a Mac?
Not to be a killjoy because obviously you are not a fan of Mac’s, but the Macintosh platform can obviously run other applications other than those Apple approved. Lets not exagerate things.
Not what I personally want cos I’m a developer and Debian is fine for me.
I mean the Average Joe – by that I mean my:
Chiropractor,
Sister,
Wife’s mate,
Neighbour 3 door’s up
Neighbour from next street
Cousin
Dad’s mate
etc
etc
etc
who all want a PC for email/browsing/basic doc editing and contact me when their windows based PC goes wrong!
Real ‘hypothesis’ stuff here, but what if they’ve been working on versions of their software for Linux (Earth, Talk, Desktop Search etc.) for some time, but have waited to build them into their own OS?
This way, they can have everything working on their own platform without the need to make them open source, and can use these apps to differentiate themselves from other distro’s.
If what is being rumoured is true, I see the above as being a great way to flood the market with cheap machines based around the services of a company that everyone already knows.
Just my guess
Dont worry! Its a Rumour thats what subject line says!!!
If this was to be made for google specific hardware, there are plenty of other capable technologies out there, and some upcoming ones.
I for one would prefer to see different technology embraced.
However, I also see this as no more than a rumour.
I think people are saying that because google runs their servers on a custom linux distro they make.
I get the feeling its more likely to be an embedded device for connecting the internet to TVs and Hi-Fi equipment,
If it were a Desktop PC running Linux, then I would expect to see Google and its employees putting more work into existing OSS projects (as they are not doing so its hard to imagine them shipping Desktop Linux)
It’s very possible that Google could do this. I’m actually glad they are, because it would really make
EDIT: (Didnt finish my statement) …it would really make Linux growth serious.
Edited 2006-01-03 13:06
IF this is going to happen (I find it unlikely), I don’t think they’ll be using Linux.
This device will probably be more like a Noka 770. I don’t think Google will go for the desktop PC market– the profit margins are near zero there, and sales of desktop computers (except Apple’s) has seen a decline. So, Google would be stupid to compete there.
Google is far more interested in making a device that will connect to the internet directly, through GPRS/UMTS and WiFi. So, it’s gonna be a mobile device, and as we all know, Linux just plain sucks on those devices (I have a Zaurus). Also, the fact that Linux is GPL can be seen a problem for Google (Google doesn’t release its own apps as open-source, why would it be different for their OS?).
The OS will be a lightweight one. The rather huge Linux kernel ain’t gonna cut it there.
Also, the fact that Linux is GPL can be seen a problem for Google (Google doesn’t release its own apps as open-source, why would it be different for their OS?).
Google runs on Linux. I’m getting rather sick of this ‘business doesn’t like GPL’ bollocks. The GPL doesn’t apply to every f****** piece of software you might run on a system, it isn’t a problem as a result and I’m getting pretty sick of hearing about it, as are the kernel developers.
If you don’t know how the GPL works and what it encourages in the development of the Linux kernel then just don’t bother commenting.
The rather huge Linux kernel ain’t gonna cut it there.
You can get a Linux kernel to run more than adequately on just about any mobile device, and because of the fact that you can tailor it it isn’t huge.
Google runs on Linux. I’m getting rather sick of this ‘business doesn’t like GPL’ bollocks. The GPL doesn’t apply to every f****** piece of software you might run on a system, it isn’t a problem as a result and I’m getting pretty sick of hearing about it, as are the kernel developers.
If you don’t know how the GPL works and what it encourages in the development of the Linux kernel then just don’t bother commenting.
What is your problem? Google has NEVER released ANY of its apps as open source (Picasa, Google Talk, Desktop Search), and now you expect suddenly that their potential operating system WILL be open source?
The GPL forces that any products Google makes out of Linux, must be open source too. BUT, as Google’s track record shows, they will NOT make their OS open source, hence the Linux kernel is out of the question, HENCE the GPL is the limiting factor. What’s so hard to understand about that?
You can get a Linux kernel to run more than adequately on just about any mobile device
You obviously have never used a Zaurus or a Linux phone.
Google has NEVER released ANY of its apps as open source (Picasa, Google Talk, Desktop Search)
No. So why is the GPL a problem?
and now you expect suddenly that their potential operating system WILL be open source?
Never said that. Again, you think that a whole OS has to be open sourced and the GPL is the problem. I said that the GPL wasn’t a problem for the stuff that wasn’t feasible to open source, which people like you think there is. However, Google uses Linux in its everyday operations and they see it as no problem.
What do you suggest they do? Make their own kernel and surrounding OS? License something from Nokia? The former is not feasible, and if you think the latter is then you don’t know Google.
You obviously have never used a Zaurus or a Linux phone.
I have, and I’ve also used Windows Mobile quite a bit, and in no case is it the Linux kernel’s problem. You do know there’s quite a bit of software running above the kernel, it’s put together by the respective companies, and you do know it’s closed – right?
Never said that. Again, you think that a whole OS has to be open sourced and the GPL is the problem.
No, of course that isn’t the case. But the kernel and all the libraries that link to it are kind of very essential. Again, taking Google’s track record into account, why would they suddenly now change their midnd and start creating open-source projects? They certainly cannot just take the vanilla Linux kernel for a mobile device (which is important to remember, you kind of took my statement out of the context of Google making a mobile device), so they have to modify it. Again, Google’s track record shows they aren’t all that keen on making their OWN work open-source.
Get it now?
and in no case is it the Linux kernel’s problem.
Pretty much every mobile Linux device suffers from the same problems (the biggest being short battery life), and you claim every vendor that has created a software stack atop that kernel is to blame? Isn’t it much more feasable that the only common factor among Linux mobile devices (namely, the Linux kernel) is to blame?
Again, taking Google’s track record into account, why would they suddenly now change their midnd and start creating open-source projects?
They’re not going to license them from other companies either. The options are that they make their own stuff, license from others or use existing open source projects like Linux. Only the latter is feasible given Google’s track record. They will not license from other companies or be dependant on them.
Get it now?
No, because you have absolutely no clue as to how it could, and does, work.
Pretty much every mobile Linux device suffers from the same problems (the biggest being short battery life), and you claim every vendor that has created a software stack atop that kernel is to blame?
Most mobile devices suffer from bad battery life, and not all of them are Linux based.
Isn’t it much more feasable that the only common factor among Linux mobile devices (namely, the Linux kernel) is to blame?
No. That’s just trying to come up with a balance of probability on what might be the cause.
They’re not going to license them from other companies either. The options are that they make their own stuff, license from others or use existing open source projects like Linux. Only the latter is feasible given Google’s track record. They will not license from other companies or be dependant on them.
That’s why they are going to OR buy another company (Google buys a lot of companies) OR they’re gonna develop something in house.
I can guarantee you for 100%, they’re not going to use Linux, for the reasons I listed. It just doesn’t fit inside Google’s model.
The GPL forces that any products Google makes out of Linux, must be open source too. BUT, as Google’s track record shows, they will NOT make their OS open source, hence the Linux kernel is out of the question, HENCE the GPL is the limiting factor. What’s so hard to understand about that?
No you don’t get it. OK they release a device that uses the Linux kernel which is GPL’d then any mods they make to the Linux kernel have to be released. However they can write proprietary binary modules that can be inserted into the kernel just as say those for the Nvidia drivers are now.
Anyway they are more likely to be concerned about the application programs that connect via the web to google’s servers. On any GNU/Linux system you are allowed under the GPL to run closed proprietary applications such as Oracle or Adobe Acrobat Reader. So it isn’t a problem at all for Google if they decide to do this, which I think most likely is just a rumour anyway.
Edited 2006-01-03 16:06
No you don’t get it. OK they release a device that uses the Linux kernel which is GPL’d then any mods they make to the Linux kernel have to be released. However they can write proprietary binary modules that can be inserted into the kernel just as say those for the Nvidia drivers are now.
For the last time: I KNOW that. But it is irrelevant: Google has NEVER made ANYTHING they created/bought open source, so what makes you think they suddenly WILL open source ANY part of their hypothetical operating system? And since using the Linux kernel IMPLIES they MUST make their changes open-source, they will NOT use the Linux kernel, hence the gpl is the LIMITING factor (*for Google*).
Is it really that hard to understand?
For the last time: I KNOW that. But it is irrelevant: Google has NEVER made ANYTHING they created/bought open source, so what makes you think they suddenly WILL open source ANY part of their hypothetical operating system? And since using the Linux kernel IMPLIES they MUST make their changes open-source, they will NOT use the Linux kernel, hence the gpl is the LIMITING factor (*for Google*).
Is it really that hard to understand?
I understand your reasoning, though I personally don’t agree with it. I can understand the need for locking their applications, but Google full well knows the advantage of leveraging OSS. There’s no exposure to them in using linux as a platform for prorietary applications.
Besides, Google is using linux on their enterprise search appliances:
The Google Search Appliance is based on the same software that is used in Google’s datacentres. The operating system is a hardened version of Linux that is optimised for search, sometimes referred to as Google Linux.
url: http://www.google.co.uk/support/gsa/bin/answer.py?answer=15898
For the last time: I KNOW that. But it is irrelevant: Google has NEVER made ANYTHING they created/bought open source, so what makes you think they suddenly WILL open source ANY part of their hypothetical operating system?
For the last time you still dont get it Thom! The whole of Google is built on Open Source Software – hundreds of thousands of instances of the Linux kernel. They don’t care that the OS they use is open source they care about the proprietary secret stuff that they put on top. As I and other people keep pointing out again and again. They do not have to open source any of the stuff they write themselves if they use a Linux based OS, for whatever hypothetical device they may or may may not be planning, other than any changes that they make to the Linux kernel. Therefore it would not be contrary to what we might expect Google to do.
Off course they equally well use a closed version of the Solaris kernel given their new relationship with Sun. But that is neither here nor there with regard to using open source software at the bottom of your stack. If they chose to use Linux the situation would be exactly analagous to Sony’s choice of Linux for the PS2. Get now Thom?
As I and other people keep pointing out again and again. They do not have to open source any of the stuff they write themselves if they use a Linux based OS, for whatever hypothetical device they may or may may not be planning, other than any changes that they make to the Linux kernel.
I KNOW!
. But they HAVE to opensource whatever additions they make to the Linux kernel, and seeing my hypothetical scenario (a small, mobile device) would require massive work to be done on the kernel, they would have to release a lot of THEIR work to EACH AND EVERY CUSTOMER requesting it (since gpl only demands you distribute source among people you have distributed the binary to). Now, the fact they already use Linux in their Search Appliance means NOTHING, because the Search Appliance is for big companies only– those companies are NOT using the source to create new, competing products, they are only using it IN HOUSE.
Now, if Google were to use the Linux kernel in a mass-market device, they’d have to distribute ANY changes to the kernel to each and every consumer in that mass-market. That will make it VERY EASY for competitors to make a device EXACTLY like Google’s, just a little cheaper because they do NOT have to develop the base kernel (Google has already done that for them!), and ‘ONLY’ have to develop the software stack on top (and thus SAVE money on developing/working on the base).
Hence, Google will not use the Linux kernel, and hence why Google has NEVER open-sourced ANYTHING they acquired/created. You have to look a little bit further ahead.
What if they made all their modifications in binary drivers? They’re a legal gray area, but if you control which version of the Linux kernel your machines are supplied with there’s less worry, and you can make sure you don’t have nVidia-style problems.
And… What was Google’s Summer of Code about? Does that count as supporting Free / Open Source, or just a way to get goodwill and maintain their geek-friendly image? (I imagine you think it was entirely the latter)
Anyway, if we assume that Google is using Open Source (like Linux) and Open Standards (like Jabber, granted they bolted on their ‘talk’ extension), they’re either interested in Free/Open Source or they’re cheap. I wouldn’t COMPLETELY write off the first one.
And… What was Google’s Summer of Code about? Does that count as supporting Free / Open Source, or just a way to get goodwill and maintain their geek-friendly image? (I imagine you think it was entirely the latter).
No, I don’t. They probably really wanted to support the f/oss movement– however, they probably also thought about their image. Let’s face that.
But, my point remains: Google has NEVER made anything THEY bought/wrote open source. Sure, they donated some to EXTERNAL projects, but that has nothing to do with opening up their OWN work.
Now I personally think Google wont release a Desktop OS, but… using Linux, or BSD even as a base is plausable; and Thom Google doesnt have to open anything up, they could take an already produced Linux Kernel, then produce their own GUI Backend and then their own Windowing system.
In this case there would be no requirements to make any of their work available, sort of al’ la Apple with Mac OS X, they take Darwin and place their own stuff on top, okay… Apple produced Darwin from BSD, but Google could benefit the same, produce an OSS base, and then build the real stuff on top and make it proprietory, it isnt that hard to believe, just because a company has never produced OSS before doesnt mean they wont, pretty much every large corporation that supports / produces OSS now, at one point probably didnt, and people probably said the same… thing is… times change, and if you don’t wanna be left behind you have to change with them.
[quote]But, my point remains: Google has NEVER made anything THEY bought/wrote open source.[/quote]
That doesn’t mean they never will. Google has never released an OS, either. Companies that don’t diversify, change, or dare I say it, do things they’ve NEVER done before, die.
I KNOW!
. But they HAVE to opensource whatever additions they make to the Linux kernel, and seeing my hypothetical scenario (a small, mobile device) would require massive work to be done on the kernel,
Thats only your hypothetical device, they could equally well be going for a setop or desktop device. Anyay I don’t agree, with carefully chosen hardware a pretty much stock kernel could be used the work needed on the kernel would be minimal.
they would have to release a lot of THEIR work to EACH AND EVERY CUSTOMER requesting it (since gpl only demands you distribute source among people you have distributed the binary to). Now, the fact they already use Linux in their Search Appliance means NOTHING, because the Search Appliance is for big companies only– those companies are NOT using the source to create new, competing products, they are only using it IN HOUSE.
Potential competitors (MS, IBM and others) can still buy the search appliance and request the code for its kernel. This is also a precedant for Google selling a product with the Linux kernel.
That will make it VERY EASY for competitors to make a device EXACTLY like Google’s, just a little cheaper because they do NOT have to develop the base kernel (Google has already done that for them!), and ‘ONLY’ have to develop the software stack on top (and thus SAVE money on developing/working on the base).
What is important is the software stack on top and this is where Google can control. I have no illusions about Google. This is where Google can emulate MS in its battle with MS. MS leverages its desktop monopoly using deliberate obfuscation of open protocols to attempt to create a server side monopoly. Google can make a network appliance that leverages Google’s web search and services predominance. By introducing cool new stuff that is only available though a Google appliance running the Google software stack they leverage their strengths and protect against competition just like MS. Not very pretty is it.
Finally as I pointed out earlier Sony used Linux as the OS in its PS2. The important point of control for Sony was software further up the stack – the games. Similarily Google’s point of control is the interaction of the client side software with its server side software on the web.
I agree with your point completely, but the only other side comment I would make is that many big corporate legal departments aren’t exactly enamored with the GPL. There’s too many gray areas. The whole status of binary drivers in the kernel has been questioned recently by at least one kernel developer – firing off some letters to some hardware companies (think the article was on osnews).
The only real benefit I see to using Linux is the plethora of drivers. All the userspace stuff could just be ported over to another Unix if need be.
What is your problem? Google has NEVER released ANY of its apps as open source (Picasa, Google Talk, Desktop Search), and now you expect suddenly that their potential operating system WILL be open source?
You’re missing what is really going on at Google Thom. Google does an excellent job at leveraging open source technologies. Google uses Linux for Google search. Google utilizes jabber for its instant messaging service. If Google’s goal is to actually release an operating system their best bet is Linux. Imagine what they could do if the used Linux as their base operating system but had a closed source applications. People are familiar with google. They are much more likely to use google branded products than something called “Gfoo” or “Kfoo”.
The GPL license is only an issue for libraries (like QT and everything that depends on them like KDE).
So if Google uses GTK and other LGPL libs then using Linux wont be a problem for propriety apps.
So if Google uses GTK and other LGPL libs then using Linux wont be a problem for propriety apps.
Obviously– but it WILL be a problem for Google’s operating system, which is my point.
Obviously– but it WILL be a problem for Google’s operating system, which is my point.
Why?
Do they need to change the linux kernel?
Even if they did, its likely to be small things so releasing a small patch aint gonna put off anyone. New drivers might be necessary but like propriety drivers from Nvidia and Ati, they can get away with keeping them closed source if they really want to
Why?
Read my post. Take Google’s track record into account. They don’t like open source as much as some make it out to be.
but it WILL be a problem for Google’s operating system, which is my point.
Google’s OS of choice in their everyday operations is Linux ;-).
Not necessarily: look at OS X, it was built on a free kernel and yet it is a proprietary OS.
Google could have a proprietary “layer” on top of an Open-Source core, which could be GPLed without too much issues (as most libraries are LGPL, including the KDE libs by the way).
In any case, just because they haven’t open-sourced any of their apps does not mean they wouldn’t open-source the actual OS, especially if it’s tailored for their own “Google boxes”.
That said, I also don’t put much credence in this rumor…though I’m sure it makes MS a bit nervous! 🙂
“F this is going to happen (I find it unlikely), I don’t think they’ll be using Linux.
This device will probably be more like a Noka 770.”
The last I checked the 770 runs Linux…I own one.
The last I checked the 770 runs Linux…I own one.
And I guess it has a relatively short battery life (it’s about 3 hours with active use)? And secondly, I said: “more like”. Not, “Exactly like”.
Linux is not the deciding factor in battery life, in many cases an OS makes not an Iota of a difference, its the hardware the device contains, CPU, Bluetooth transmitters / recievers, G2.5 & G3 transmitters and recievers, Screens, Memory Card slots, etc
# My Orange SPV C500 has 4.5Hrs Talktime (average) Windows Mobile 2003SE
# My Sisters Nokia 6680 has 3.75Hrs Talktime (average) Symbian OS
# My Friends old Palm Treo has 5Hrs Talktime (average) PalmOS
All smartphones in general have super crappy battery life, mainly due to all the bits of hardware in them, turn off things like Bluetooth… GPRS… lower backlight levels (you can on my SPV C500), the OS has little bareing in battery life.
I doubt they’ll put out a desktop computer. I’m sure they’ve crunched the numbers and they don’t want to take on Microsoft in that arena (at this time). But I wouldn’t be surpised , with all the engineering talent and “personal” time they have, if they had a fairly robust crossplatform toolkit and window managers up and running.
The viralness of the GPL is more of an issue in the embedded space, but doesn’t affect user space. Binary device drivers are a muddy, gray legal area in the Linux kernel so they might not want to deal with that.
Despite all the fanboy gushing over Google, they are a pretty secretive company and there’s no doubt that they would slap a big fat proprietary user space on top of whatever kernel they would use.
Except the massive amount of time it takes to develop a user space. I suppose they could sit there and port programs; or hope everyone ports.
But really, user space programs are a huge area; they make writing the kernel look like just a big task among 6,000 other tasks
.
The make a good point about licenses. Google might actually be more attracted to a BSD kernel for the license.
If that’s true, a smart move would be to create a base Linux install, with the very minimum software and services to run a browser (customized firefox ?) which can be the operating system.
Think about it, this would allow the perfect use of online Google services and Internet experience, thus relying onr their existing technologies, as well as offline, cross platform applications, maybe based on XUL or a similar technology.
Games would be a problem with that scenario but then again, if this is to be cheap, flash or SVG games would be good enough for a start!
The Google OS: http://www.kottke.org/04/04/google-operating-system ?
The Google OS: http://www.kottke.org/04/04/google-operating-system ?
Congrats, you found the source of the rumour. After that article people who completely missed what it was actually trying to say, which is that Google IS an OS not that Google is building an OS, started making up this stupid shit.
Enter a bunch of Linux zealots who scream that ofcourse this must be based on Linux and an joker who photoshops some fake screenshots together ( http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/google-os–123473.php ) and an urban legend is born.
Now the article also states “Google will unveil its own low-price personal computer or other device that connects to the Internet.” Which basically could be anything from a cellphone to a pc and everything in between. A full fledged pc would be the least likely option here, a PDA that could browse, email, IM and check maps would be more realistic (not to mention cooler)
You may have missed the point. Google is not an OS; that is just drivel from marketers. Somewhere along the line a real OS is needed, even if only a super-clustered Google-modified Linux backend.
Second, you can do a great deal with an ordinary, conventional PC that you cannot do with a cheap locked box, even if that box is connected to an account on the world’s most powerful computer. There has always been a devil and a deep blue sea here which has successfully deterred all challenges to the MS monopoly. If you try to do more, you get drowned in a tsunami of support, software and hardware issues. If you try to do less, you either don’t have a compelling product to offer so no one buys it or you have a niche product that only a few buy (Apple Mac). Either would be the kiss of death for a Google.
You may have missed the point. Google is not an OS; that is just drivel from marketers. Somewhere along the line a real OS is needed, even if only a super-clustered Google-modified Linux backend.
I agree, my point was this “GoogleOS” as a pc operating system was started by people who didn’t understand the whole Google supercluster thing.
Second, you can do a great deal with an ordinary, conventional PC that you cannot do with a cheap locked box, even if that box is connected to an account on the world’s most powerful computer.
Who in their right mind would want to enter the pc market at this point, especially when you don’t have the expertise or retail channel in-house ? On the other hand I’m sure there are plenty of PDA makers who would love to market Google branded devices.
With the recent cozying up between Sun and Google my money is on it turning out to be an OS based on (open)Solaris. A heavily locked down solaris based OS where all applications are written using Java/Xml/HTML would make for a powerful home applicance which wouldn’t cost the earth…
Of course, I could be totally wrong!!!!
Hmmn, follow the money. There is no money in ultra-cheap PCs, the graveyard of many an optimistic business plan. There is almost no money in connectivity, if the finances of the average ISP are to be believed. The money is in content, either those pesky ads or more interesting stuff. So if Google announce anything in the PC OS line, which frankly sounds unlikely to me, it will be all about content, content and more content.
In addition, becoming a bigtime hardware-maker and retailer is no cakewalk, for beyond existing Google devices. It means huge extra costs and additional infrastructure that you cannot easily get rid of and, as Microsoft can tell anyone about the Xbox, the potential for huge losses is also there.
I’d always seen Google as a nimble outfit adept at hitching a ride on someone else (delivering Google services as a “layer” on existing systems). Perhaps they’ve concluded this is no longer viable because Microsoft will do absolutely anything to kill it.
OTOH, there’s a good quote on Planet Debian ( http://planet.debian.org ) today from Ian Murdock: “Geoffrey Moore: ‘[A]n offer cannot present itself as a platform until it has achieved ubiquity of use as a product.'” Ah yes.
Edited 2006-01-03 14:23
While you argue whether a Google OS should be Linux based or not I can just say, fools.
The desktop OS (Linux, Windows, whatever) is dead. The whole concept has no future and google knows it. It makes absolutley no sense for them to create another one.
The google future is about the Web as the system and your desktop as a terminal. A google “OS” would be nothing more then a fullscreen mozilla renderer.
I agree that a thin client seems the most likely scenario. If Google is to release a machine, why not a “network computer”? It might well run Linux, but probably the OS it uses won’t be apparent from the user perspective at all.
The only problem is that this is the same thing Oracle tried in the nineties ( http://tinyurl.com/72lne ) with Sun also involved ( http://tinyurl.com/d72mn ) and it never took off. Is the world more ready for this now, I wonder?
I agree that a thin client seems the most likely scenario. If Google is to release a machine, why not a “network computer”? It might well run Linux, but probably the OS it uses won’t be apparent from the user perspective at all.
Whole-heartedly agree as well. I’m not entirely convinced this is more than a lofty rumour, but if there is any truth to it then it’s hard to believe Google would be going into the PC market.
Google’s whole mission since expanding beyond simple web search has been to reduce to relevance of the OS in general, which is what puts them at great odds with MS who keeps trying to make the rich client PC more and more relevant.
I don’t think it’s entirely inconceivable that they would release a cool little x86 based platform that would run a transparent version of linux but centered around web-centric applications (information retrieval, media searching/streaming, IM, email, net based storage etc.) More along the lines of something to stick in your living room than to replace the desktop in your den. The hardware requirements for that type of useage would be very reasonable, and using off-the-shelf components would probably create a decent pricepoint. And a company like Dell would be more than happy to create it for them as cost-effectively as possible, or it could be outsourced to Asia like every other manufacturer does to keep the pricepoint down.
I don’t understand why people think linux wouldn’t make sense. It would make perfect sense, they could take a stripped down vanilla distribution, they certainly have the inhouse linux expertise and it wouldn’t make business sense to re-invent the wheel. There’s no “risk” to using an OSS platform. A stable linux distro running on properly supported hardware would be virtually bulletproof for appliance useage, I doubt they would do anything cutting edge with the hardware. They could certainly license the necessary multimedia codecs as well, to keep everything clean and integrated. I don’t see where the downside to GPL is in that scenario? Use Debian. Roll their own LFS. Whatever they did would be stripped down and optimized for that specific platform, so who cares? If I’m not mistaken, they’re using linux for their enterprise Google search appliances anyways.
Their apps, on the other hand, would no doubt be locked down. They have Qt development licenses, so nothing would prevent them from releasing proprietary Qt-based apps. The LGPL GTK option is always there as well.
It’s all absolute speculation, but I really can’t believe Google would enter the desktop OS market. A thin-client appliance I can see, but not a desktop. It would be suicide, even for Google.
The only problem is that this is the same thing Oracle tried in the nineties ( http://tinyurl.com/72lne ) with Sun also involved ( http://tinyurl.com/d72mn ) and it never took off. Is the world more ready for this now, I wonder?
Maybe. Those ideas were definitely ahead of their time, not to say that this is necessarily the right time either. Broadband is in much wider adoption, and the idea of web- or server-oriented architecture is a little more accepted. No doubt it would be positioned as a more “secure” way to use the net. Everything google is doing now is server-based anyways. Maybe a partnership with some broadband ISP’s to create a bundle deal. Then there’s always their partnership agreement with AOL to consider as well. Who knows? We’ll have to wait and see…
It’ll be a locked down box that plugs into your tv and provides access to google services.
A quick look at Google Base (base.google.com) shows you where Google is heading. With topics like recipes, housing, jobs, services and wanted ads it’s clear that Google want to be your local paper. A lightweight Solaris/Java/Ajax box fits provides the perfect way for Google to serve this up to you.
Sun have been here before and failed, but I bet they’ve learnt from their (and others) mistakes. Sun have the know-how and Google have the services (chat, email, search etc). Together they make a perfect fit for a commodity home pc.
Their apps, on the other hand, would no doubt be locked down. They have Qt development licenses, so nothing would prevent them from releasing proprietary Qt-based apps. The LGPL GTK option is always there as well.
No, the more likely option is that they wouldn’t bother playing ball with those two groups and write their own toolkit. They have ample resources to do it.
Because: People in the market for a cheap computer don’t have fast enough internet connections for a network based system.
Unless they’re good with terminals!
The idea of a big shared distributed computer that everybody gets an account on to use in various ways from your own machine sounds pretty reasonable to me though.
People in the market for a cheap computer don’t have fast enough internet connections for a network based system.
But there are plenty of people who can afford fast internet access but know nothing about computers. I know plenty of people who fall into this bracket. They don’t buy a computer because they feel they don’t know enough about them to use one. A cheap computer has that “I’ll give it a go” air about it unlike a full blown (£600) PC
The desktop OS (Linux, Windows, whatever) is dead. The whole concept has no future and google knows it. It makes absolutley no sense for them to create another one.
The google future is about the Web as the system and your desktop as a terminal. A google “OS” would be nothing more then a fullscreen mozilla renderer.
The “the computer is the network” gig has been repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed. The $64,000 question is whether Google will try again and succeed. I am not holding my breath, unless they have in mind a king of supercharged Blackberry. It may play well in the high-tech ghettos of California but the rest of the world is likely to be a lot more sceptical, especially if broadband availability is an issue. Would I use it for one? Nope. I don’t want to hand control of my computing over to Megacorp Inc. of the USA in exchange for a blizzard of adverts and above all my files and data are staying right where they are.
The desktop is dead in the sense that more and more stuff is getting shifted to the web and Google wants everything to run off their own servers, but you still the need the supporting infrastructure on the client. A diskless client is still a pipe-dream, except for ultra-high bandwith corporate sites. If the desktop is dead then the operating system is even more irrelevant.
Why would they use Linux if they already have their high-performance operating system?
What about FreeBSD?
No licensing problem, a very clean OS base to work on.
The whole article was written by what seems to be someone peering into their crystal ball for 2006… Just someone’s opinion on what *might* happen in the year ahead.
If Google does release some sort of PC device, I would expect it to be built on Linux with a bunch of shiny Ajax applications. That’s my crystal ball “what if” scenario.
If Google does release some sort of PC device, I would expect it to be built on Linux with a bunch of shiny Ajax applications. That’s my crystal ball “what if” scenario.
They wouldn’t bother with the limitations of HTML. Think XUL, XAML, and that ilk, with ruby, python, or some other language bindings to XPCOM or some other browser technology.
“I imagine this “operating system” would be a grouping of services and accessable as an internet experience. The backend would be their existing servers with the to be announced operating system software as a user interface. I’m guessing of course but isn’t this the concept we have all been waiting for.”
To answer the question, I can only hope people are NOT hoping for a concept like this. IMHO, with this type of setup people will not need PC’s any longer, and you would be giving control of your data over to someone else. I like having control over my data. I want to run my own applications, have control over the hardware it runs one, etc. With the scenario of “Web based applications” on a server farm somwhere, you will lose all that. Is kind of like the Juno license agreement, where they give you free email, but by doing that you give them permission to use your computer for calculations without your knowing. Unless they removed that clause from the license, I see it as the same thing. You give the host, whoever that is, permission to maintain your personal data. May as well go back to dumb terminals, as that would be the same thing IMHO
From the article:
” Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC.”
Excuse me, what sources? Can we contact them and verify the information? Where are they getting their info from? Who are these people? What makes them reliable?
I’m sorry, but the article looks like a bunch of unsubstantiated guesses and wild predictions thrown together without any facts to back them up.
I mean, I have sources too: the voices in my head are telling me that Bill Gates is a cyborg controlled by the angry weasels. So what, I should be published in LA Times now?
Bingo. I was beginning to lose hope that nobody caught that.
The media is famous for it’s use of anonymous source to blotch the truth. Just look at how it’s spun the NSA “ordeal” to be what it isn’t. They’re manufacturing realities left and right.
The LA times is one of the many newspapers pushing the latest rumors, nothing more.
In case it ever happens…
1. I doubt it will be a Linux kernel, they’ll roll their own. Harware support really isn’t that much of an issue if they sell the GooglePC or is hardware support an issue with Macs. Wich hardware vendor would say no if Google would tell them they coud be their GPU-vendor (for example) of choice. Also the vendors that like to keep their stuff secret most likely would get what they want because I doubt that Google would open source/free the OS.
2. It’ll probably be a fancy thin client (does the thin clients rock myth ever die ?) to access all kinds of google services on the web. If they’d really push it they could put the storage on the web etc. They could even go for a PlanBish solution where all GooglePCs share their resources and Google chips in their resources for a giant borg community, who knows. (remember the dark fibre)
3. Should they go for Linux, we might finally see a huge marketing campaign for Linux and at least one vendor that’ll be 100% dedicated to the desktop market. I think they’ll also develop thier own desktop enviroment.
Oh well, all rumors.
I would just like to point out what great publicity this has been for LA Times. Do a Google search on this topic. There are a lot of articles that have quoted the LA Times… in underhanded journalist fashion many of them paraphrase the LA Times article in a matter-of-fact manner in the headline and first paragraph…. only to later explain that it in speculation from one media outfit.
in underhanded journalist fashion many of them paraphrase the LA Times article in a matter-of-fact manner in the headline and first paragraph…. only to later explain that it in speculation from one media outfit.
That’s why you should read OSNews. We made it clear from the header down it’s a rumour
.
Everyone was so excited when they heard about Sun and Google (including myself), but it ended up being way less groundbreaking than what we expected. In all likelyhood, this is not going to be the dream announcement we are hoping for (a google desktop PC) but something more mundane like the google search applience, or MABE a set top box of some sort.
To me, since Google is in the embedded services market, it seems more likely that this rumor is:
a.) bull
b.) a thin client (or thin-ish, a small computer capable of writing documents and connecting to the internet, Google and Gmail to do the rest), need not be Linux at all if it’s simple.
c.) an investment/partnership with an existing Linux vendor. Linspire already has deals with Wal*Mart… or it could be someone else in the desktop user market willing to accept money (Xandros, Mandriva, Canonical?)
My money’s on A, personally. Then again, I was wrong about Apple and Intel…
My friend at Google told me it will be a Google Box with connection between your high speed internet and your TV and/or PC monitor. Expect a combination of WebTV and a thin client running an AJAX Desktop on top of Linux. Also comes with a handy remote and a wireless keyboard. I cant wait to get mine! Ssshhhh. dont tell anyone
Edited 2006-01-04 01:38
I am a big fan of Google. I like their light-weight, fast and with-simple-interface (minimalistic) apps.
I just wonder why only BSD or Linux come in mind.
In my experince both are not so fast (what I mean is: pure point of view of end user (UI), not the command line or whatever below). I have tried many kind of distros but nothing can beat my Win2K and WinXP.
One thing can beat them: BeOS.
Just wonder, if Google would base their OS on BeOS. They have many in common. Fast, Minimalistic, and solid.
PS: dont take this comment as a troll. I just try to point out about BeOS thing. Havent try OS X though.
Just wonder, if Google would base their OS on BeOS. They have many in common. Fast, Minimalistic, and solid.
In all its greatness (I’m a long-time BeOS user, heck, I still use Zeta on a day-to-day basis), BeOS has serious limitations as well. There are two really obvious ones: it’s single user, and networkig on BeOS is spartan and underdeveloped. The former is being worked on by yT, but the latter is something I do not know of if yT is workong on it.
And we would’ve known if Google would’ve bought the rights to BeOS. Does Google own Access by any chance?
.
Everyone is discussing, hell LONGING for google products now.
Even if there is a snowballs chance in HELL of it actually happening.
Pure Marketing GENIUS!!!
I want a g-book. A small screen, decent keyboard, ethernet, usb, cd/dvd, flash-ram based persistent memory, with a thin-client-linux embeded.
I want a gecko-fied desktop with ajax widgets and applications for everything, from email to file browser.
On the server side, I want a dedicated Linux, hosted under a hypervisor, which I can install new apps to through some google-apt-get ajax app from some google-apt repository. I also want 100 gigs of storage server side.
For each app that hasn’t been converted to the g-book yet, I want a lite vnc window that renders just that remote app to pop up — not rendering a whole remote desktop — which is resizable, tangable, and acts just like desktop apps. All over a secure connection.
I want all the hardware free. Just a flat 20 dollar a month fee.
EDIT: on the other hand, a vnc windowing thing might not be necessary if the device has enough RAM. One could just download the binary to RAM, for whatever program they use, while the config files for any given program stay server side on /etc or /home.
BTW: couldn’t this all be done with that ‘system on a chip’ tech?
Edited 2006-01-04 19:29
I’m thinking that this will be a wireless router meets set-top box. Possibly everyone in the house will be able to controll it by wi-fi or bluetooh (infa-red remotes are antiquated) and it may indeed work with modern television screens as opposed to monitors.
Google is all about information…. They have the worlds most powerful computer storing tonnes of information. So why would Google create an OS? So that they can get even more information.
My belief is that Google takes in more than it gives out. I believe they are learning from everything we do and eventually the will know everything about everyone. That might seem paranoid but it’s feasible.
Back to the set top box…. It’ll be a lot like a cable TV box. You’ll be able to watch TV, listen to music and of course surf the web. Really the operating system is not as important as the data being transferred across. Google will then be able to draw a profile of you. They’ll know what you like, what you don’t like and who you know. Then they will be able to advetise to you specifically. Maybe it’s your mothers birthday… Google know that and they also know that your mother likes such and such a wine. Google would then be able to output an advertisement about mothers and wine to make you think, “That’s a good idea for a presnt” aand then you go and buy it. The problem with TV today is that many adverts are ignored because they are aimed at large masses of people who may/may not be interersted. With “Google Targetted” advertising they will know you’re interested in that. Companies will pay more for targetted advertising because it will have higher returns.
The O/S will probably be a lite, embedded one. Maybe linux based but the software controlling it will be closed source(and probably wont work on any other hardware). Hardware compatibility wont be an issue because the O/S will only be designed for a small set of hardware. You’ll need the right hardware to use it. That means Google wouldn’t have to worry about making their software support multiple systems. The same way that until recently Apple did not need to support hardware from other vendors.
In summary, Google is a spy tool designed to profile you. Their machince/os will just be another step towards doing that. There is not much prodfit in selling PC’s but there is profit in selling services, advertising and selling information 😉