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 394605
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Android
by OSGuy on Sat 14th Nov 2009 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Android"
Member since:

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

RE[6]: Android
by Delgarde on Sun 15th Nov 2009 01:56 in reply to "RE[5]: Android"
Delgarde Member since:

0% compatibility, a fresh new system built on top of linux. That is how you fix a mess.

Ok, so you're looking to build something that *nobody* will use? There are, like, a billion pet project out there from people who have tried that. Nobody uses them, barring their creators.

Why? Because if you start with nothing, with no compatibility with existing software, you don't have anything that people can use. Can't check email, until someone writes an email client. Can't browse the web, no web browser yet. Photo editing? Forget it - you don't even have the Gimp, never mind Photoshop. Watching movies? Nope. Word processing? Nope. Spreadsheet? No, don't have that either.

From what I've seen of all the past attempts to start from scratch, you'll end up with a terminal client, a clock in the corner of the screen, and a badly done version of Minesweeper. Just what you need to attract the masses to your new desktop, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Android
by OSGuy on Sun 15th Nov 2009 04:07 in reply to "RE[6]: Android"
OSGuy Member since:

Ok well that is because there is no commercial company such as Google, IBM etc to back them up financially and smaller companies such as Serenety Systems (eCS) are not financially strong enough to launch massive advertising and invest with all their strengths.

You know, if IBM takes the matter with eCS seriously and advertise it among their partners, they will slowly but surely create a "new standard" for office apps but the the point is, IBM is lazy.

They took OOo and built upon instead...They want to climb up the easy way. Well not so fast. The only way for IBM to succeed would be to take eCS seriously and bundle a version of OOo that looks almost identical to MS Office 2003 and start advertising. Port all of their server tools to eCS, seamlessly integrate VB for Windows compatibility.

Reply Parent Score: 2