From NYTimes: "In a post on its company blog, Google said the operating system would initially be aimed at netbooks, the compact, low-cost computers that have turned the PC world on its head. It said the open-source software, called Chrome OS, would be available in the second half of next year. Read more for a quick observation on the announcement.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-09-10
Member since:2005-09-27
Member since:2005-08-07
If you want X based stuff, use another Linux based system... X plainly sucks, and will always suck.
There are however already technologies that allow you to use virtualized OS's via a web browser, those would work fine I would imagine if you really gotta use archaic software.
EDIT: Also, just for the record, there were some blogs a little while ago about Qt being ported to the browser already... so a lot of the best X based apps should be relatively simple to port to ChromeOS...
Edited 2009-07-08 14:07 UTC
Member since:2006-12-05
I've heard this several times, and yet, no one ever steps up and announces a suitable, superior replacement. Even if it finally *does* happen, when hell freezes over, X will still have its uses; especially its client/server model. Meanwhile, in the real world, X is continuing to be improved. Hopefully running X without any root priviliges will be a reality soon... it seems that it's just beyond the horizon. The main thing I want to see, however, is a snappier GUI. That said, I would like to see development start on a new X replacement, with modern goals, features, and performance part of its design.
Edited 2009-07-09 01:24 UTC
Member since:2005-11-14
But if can be possible to install and use an X server then there is no problem with X applications.
There is already an X server written in java
http://www.jcraft.com/weirdx/
Even in MacOS X, which don't use X, it is possible to install an X server.
Member since:2006-05-11
If the attractiveness of an OS that does not use X by default is to install X on it, then the OS is a failure. Mac OS X can run X, but its native Window Server and APIs are superior so there is no need to install X for most users.
One of the most important reason making an APIs superior is there are good applications on it. So more user will be familiar with the operation style of the APIs and the power of the APIs can be revealed, both together attracting more developer to write applications for it. Apple write good applications based on its own APIs.
So for Google, it is not enough to present a new APIs, but also need to write enough good applications for it.
Member since:
2009-05-06
This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software. No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem. You locked to google. Why would I want this? Technical Linux people aren't going to want it. Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system. And everyone, will want to be able to run the apps they want, not only google approved ones. All this pain just for browser? This seems to be built on the dream of a thin client that runs nothing but a browser and all software is web software. It's an old dream, the world only needs five real computers, etc etc. Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have. I want to run what I want, how I want thank you very much Mr mainframe. If I'm right about the web app stance, this is a stupid idea come up with by people who think they can see the future but aren't looking at the past.
The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem. They can quality control the software with a repository. That way they can take advantage of much of the existing Unix software. Then they can use their brand, and Linux speed, security, software base, etc etc, to make it big in the OS world. Love it or loathe it, you need X compatibility.