"Earlier this week Everex launched the gPC TC2502, which is a sub-USD 200 PC sold at a major US retailer, but what makes this unique is that it runs the gOS. The gOS (GreenOS) is designed to be a conceptual Google Operating System that is based upon Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon. Though this is not the conventional GNOME desktop environment but an Enlightenment E17 desktop is used that is heavily modified and reflects a green Google theme. The gOS provides easy access to Google services such as YouTube, Google Product Search, Google Calendar, and Google Maps. Also a click away are other web services such as Wikipedia and Facebook. This isn't a pure Internet desktop but Xine, Skype, OpenOffice.org, and other applications are available for this Linux LiveCD. We've been trying the gOS out for a while and it's a rather nice slim desktop Linux distribution that would be perfect for Internet cafes and other public places." More screenshots.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-22
Why in the world would a company like HP or Dell pay "500" programers to do an OS, when they are doing just fine as they are? More so to work on an OS they could not "sell"...dream on, it is NEVER going to happen. Reality is companies like HP and Dell are quite happy to be selling Windows based machines, in fact it is much more lucrative market. The only reason companies such as IBM and HP to some degree have been replacing Unix with Linux is simply because they no longer have to maintain a larger staff of programmers when they can get people to do it for free.
The whole Dell/Ubuntu thing was no big embrace of OSS, but merely targeting a segment of users who would chose this product merely because it had Linux, regardless of the quality of the product, or price. The whole joke is that for about the same price of this Dell Ubuntu laptop, I got an HP 17", dual core, 2GB memory, 3 yr warranty...FOR LESS! To even come close to what I got in terms of specs, you pay over $300 more just to have an OS you could easily have downloaded for free. It does not take a genius to figure out they merely are targeting Linux fanboys.
The reality with this gOS is a machine that is really only targeted to the lowest segment of the market. Even then, as someone earlier pointed out, in all actuality this is not that great of a bargain compared to the similar Vista desktop for $100 more than includes a monitor. The real joke of these crappy Wal-mart junk is my brother just bought for himself a HP with AMD 3800+, 1GB RAM, 250GB SATA, GeForce 6150, VHP, DVD+RW, for $334.
Member since:2005-07-06
Take gimp for example - who on earth designed it? they need to be given a publi flogging. Anyone worth their weight in salt will tell you that they should have modularised the core of the code; various rendering/transformation modules, then from there, combining them and building front ends. The net result? you have a common back end which can be shared amoungst different applications; you have a photo editing front end; add webcore/java scripting back end, combine with the existing, and create a web development front end. Rinse and repeat.
What in the hell are you talking about mister arm chair programmer? GIMP _is_ already modularized into a series of libraries. GIMP itself uses several dozen other external libraries from other projects. Other applications could use them if they wanted to bring it as a dependency, but GIMP's functions are pretty specific to GIMP and would only be usefuly if one were writing a photo manipulation tool.
In my experience, most code is too domain specific to worry about code sharing (at least not prematurely). It just winds up causing overly complex interfaces for no good reason.
Sidebar: You do realize that GTK+ used to be a library developed for GIMP (GIMP Tool Kit) right? GTK+ is only shared by every other GNOME application and tons of non-GNOME applications. Yeah. No code sharing going on there.
I'm also not sure what web development, webcore (not even sure what this means) and javascript has to do with GIMP. GIMP is for editing raster images not for making your coffee in the morning.
Member since:2007-02-17
You are not understanding what he is talking about. GIMP may use a slew of external libs but the program itself is not well built. Case in point, colorspace management, cmyk support, etc. These are things which have not been implemented into GIMP, not because the demand isn't there but because the program was written in such a way that it can't be extended without a lot of work. This is the programmers fault, they should have thought ahead and made the program modular enough to extend without having to put in a lot of work, especially considering the lack of developers that they have, they should have put in the work early, to save them some trouble later.
When he means modular he is talking about modular design. The GIMP should split the backend from the UI, among many other things that is frankly holding the gimp back. If this was done then the GIMP could have been used for any purpose, could have been implemented into other apps, and still be a competent Image editor.
Think about it like this, Apple's Logic is a great pro audio application, but the real beauty of the app is that its backend (the parts that actually handle audio) can be used in other apps without a total re-write, for example Garageband uses the Logic backend for audio. Another example is the latest version of the program has a totally different UI, yet the backend has changed very little and pretty much handles audio in the same way. The GIMP can't do that, it wasn't built modular enough for the app to progress without a major overhaul. The same exact concept as Logic can be used for the GIMP if the app were written better. Complaints about the UI would be null, because creating your own UI would be almost trivial.
Edited 2007-11-05 19:44
Member since:2005-07-06
I was hoping maybe HP, and when I heard Dell, I prayed that maybe they would hire 500 programmers and get them working on a "Dell OS" which was exclusive to their hardware.
So did I in a way. No such luck. Alas, the vast majority profess to creating a genuine Windows alternative, but they simply have no clue what's involved in doing it - and Microsoft knows that. Squeal 'lock-in' all you like, but there's much more to it than that.
Edited 2007-11-05 20:20
Member since:
2005-07-06
I was hoping maybe HP, and when I heard Dell, I prayed that maybe they would hire 500 programmers and get them working on a "Dell OS" which was exclusive to their hardware. It would be a great proposition - and they have the money required for the investment.
Linux/BSD/Solaris - anything really would do the job; the problem as I see it, there isn't a company willing to make losses off the project for 4 years before it turns a profit - Apple has been the only one willing to do that in the case of MacOS X; it made no profit for the company, it was sucking profits in each quarter, but in the end, as we see today, it all paid off.
Or even just general purpose desktops. End users have very easy requirements to meet. The problem is, there are very few applications in the opensource world which are great.
Take gimp for example - who on earth designed it? they need to be given a publi flogging. Anyone worth their weight in salt will tell you that they should have modularised the core of the code; various rendering/transformation modules, then from there, combining them and building front ends. The net result? you have a common back end which can be shared amoungst different applications; you have a photo editing front end; add webcore/java scripting back end, combine with the existing, and create a web development front end. Rinse and repeat.
Its hardly rocket science modularising the code in such a way to allow a large number of projects to share a common set of back ends. The problem is, again, no one wants to do it in the GIMP community - the net result, *NIX suffers from the lack of quality applications.