Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Nov 2009 17:01 UTC
Google TechCrunch's Michael Arrington is claiming Google's Chrome OS will debut next week - but his story does have an odd ring to it. He goes on and on about how driver support will be shoddy, but that makes no sense - isn't Chome OS supposed to be built on Linux? The only way I can see initial driver support to be shoddy is when Chrome OS has its own, custom graphical layer, instead of using X. However, were that to be the case, I'm sure Google would at least support some NVIDIA, ATI, and Intel chipsets. In any case, it's a rumour - do with it as you please.
Thread beginning with comment 394594
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Android
by OSGuy on Sat 14th Nov 2009 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Android"
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

not being able to use any native linux apps would be a bold move by google, and I'm not sure it would pay off

And exactly why would you want to run native linux apps? If you want to run native linux apps then get a proper linux. I've commented in the past, someone needs to take this bloated piece of *cr* cough cough "code" and do radical changes. The changes would be so big, one can't even tell it is even remotely close to Linux. Get rid of X.ORG and even the file system structure and do something about it - aka SkyOS.

*Only* then will Linux see the light on the desktop. Don't expect to concur the desktop with GNOME/KDE, it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

Edited 2009-11-14 05:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Android
by Praxis on Sat 14th Nov 2009 09:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Android"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

well I think Moblin has done a decent job cleaning things up without breaking anything. The problem with following the Android model and completely breaking things is that it means you start off with zero developer support. Android could do it cause smartphones are still an emerging market and the form factor requires a new UI or more for most applications anyway, so Android didn't turn developers away. If Chrome OS does a Android style break however I think it will turn developers away, why should they have to re-write all their stuff just cause google wanted to be different. Again I realize that Chrome OS will be focused on web apps so the platform will have stuff to run, but its going to be competing against platforms like Moblin that can run web apps just as well and draw on applications from the overall linux ecosystem. So I think a Moblin style soft break is much more likely to succeed than an Android style hard break.

I do think Chrome OS will drop X in favor of something else, and they won't be using one of the standard DEs, but I see no reason it should change the filesystem structure, it would create compatabilty issues for the sake of something that any reasonable system would hide for normal users anyway. If the user won't see it, why change it. Radical changes from the user pov can still be running on a more conventional backend

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Android
by OSGuy on Sat 14th Nov 2009 09:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Android"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

but I see no reason it should change the filesystem structure, it would create compatabilty issues for the sake of something that any reasonable system would hide for normal users anyway

Again, why should we worry about compatibility? I am talking about a whole new system such as SkyOS with Linux/BSD kernel. I am talking about a system that should not care about Unix apps. Linux apps should not even be remotely considered let alone running them. 0% compatibility, a fresh new system built on top of linux. That is how you fix a mess. By keeping Linux apps compatibility it would be nothing more than just another distribution....If I was in charge of Chrome OS I would make sure that my goals are met regardless whether is compatible with the rest of Linux or not. My sytstem would be a fresh new system, centralized API (WIN32) and with same standard rules for all apps something that X.ORG severely lacks.

Edited 2009-11-14 09:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2