Google Working on Desktop Linux

paulmac84 writes "The Register reports that Google is working on a version of Ubuntu, known internally as Goobuntu. Google has confirmed it is working on a desktop linux project, but declined to supply further details, including what the project is for. Is Google about to release this as an alternative to Windows?" Update: 02/01 00:11 GMT by SM: chrisd is the first among many to point out that this is just more fodder from the Google rumor mill and isn't something they are currently planning to release.

Comments

Google OS

[AnalystX]

I think it's a waste of Google talent. They should concentrate on data collection, aggregation, and dissemination tools.

Re:Google OS

[Lehk228]

what if they make a good "database" style filesystem for user documents and release it before vista ships. remember Google has quite a bit of experience in automatically classifying and searching documents.

A linux distro where you never have to go hunting for a file you want would be quite attractive to the many people who don't have good PC organizational skills.

What can Google do

[Silver Sloth]

Plough in massive amounts of cash and resources. I know Ubuntu is backed by Mark Shuttleworth but the more funding/resources the better.

Re:What can Google do

[TallMatthew]

More to the point, what does Google plan to do that Ubuntu isn't already doing? The Ubuntu project has already made good progress in terms of usability and so forth; why would Google want to mess with a good thing? And once they rebrand Ubuntu, why would Ubuntu continue to offer their internal updates?

It seems more likely Google would partner with Ubuntu than snapshot their product and start wandering off in their own direction. Ubuntu could definitely use the human and network resources Google has to offer, but I don't see them just handing over all their work and letting Google take over, nor does it make sense for the two to start competing with one another.

Re:What can Google do

[sperm]

With a Google name on it, Corporate acceptance will be easier to sell, than simply "Ubuntu"!!!

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

Mod the parent up. It's simplistic, but it's incredibly true. There are two barriers to linux pretty much wiping away MSs stranglehold on the OS market. The first is the actual usability of the linux distros. Google can help with that, but it will probably be incremental over the existing efforts.

The second major barrier is something that linux can't really overcome on its own, however, and that is credibility. The impact of having a Google-branded linux distro could be huge. Google is one of the most well-known brands in the world. Techies may be happy to choose between Ubuntu, SUSE, Mandriva, and the huundreds of other varieties of linux but to the average man or woman on the street the choices of distros make the move to linux doubtful. Having a Google-branded distro would be like a huge signpost reading "this is safe" that would encourage droves of people to try linux out. Of coruse - most people aren't going to reinstall the OS on their desktop, but it opens the opportunity for IT service companies to come in and say "you know that Google OS you've been hearing about? We can install it for you."

For private users this is not such a big deal. But for small to medium sized (non IT) businesses - many of which outsource their IT - this could be huge. These companies want to save money on IT and they don't care very much about the nuts and bolts. If Linux is cheaper AND they feel it is safe and credible - they will switch. A lot of them already know that Linux is cheaper, but they don't have the expertise to verify how stable and/or easy to use it may be so they go with the safe option: Windows.

Goobuntu (what a ridiculous name) totally changes this equation. Suddenly Linux is cheaper AND trusted. The reprecussions could be huge. Not just for Google-linux, but really for all the desktop distros.

Note that I'm not saying this will end Windows at all, but that it will end the Windows monopoly. Windows is good at what it does. The market doesn't need a new monolith - it needs real competition. That's the great part about linux and open source. If you've got open standards than transitioning the software won't kill access to the data. So the companies and individuals aren't as locked into their software. And with hundreds of distros to choose from - and several close competitors at the top - we are looking at the dawn of REAL competition in the market. And that competition is what we want.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[SilverspurG]

Marketing, intellectual property, ownership, etc. Google may be our best friend... but on a sliding scale, your best friend isn't really truly your friend if they still have allegiances with entities which work against you. Google has allegiance to shareholders, business partners, ISPs, and software companies who would leave F/OSS dead on the side of the road if they had half the chance. It's much more profitable to fleece us blind.

I'd expect this to be a test market product. If Goobuntu makes any significant impact they'll probably spin off the OS department and fund them from behind the 19th hole at the local CEO golf club. Heck, they may start a spin-off as a front and then let the investors put up a back-channel Gentoo knock-off just to create a dog-and-pony show for the investors to buy in on.

Re:What can Google do

[Irish_Samurai]

More to the point, what does Google plan to do that Ubuntu isn't already doing?

How about live person tech support on the phone?

Google has the resources to fund this, most Linux distros don't. I believe red hat live support is for their Enterprise products, not desktop, althogh I could be mistaken.

And before anyone starts crying "look at all the community support", I will respond with "look at all the end users who don't know what your talking about, what to search for to get help, or even describe the problem other than the effects."

A manned call center is just for that, especially if google incorporates a secure remote control capability so experienced Linux heads can fix the problem on callers machines themselves. Imagine how many more entry level jobs would be created for Linux guys by that initiative alone?

Also, they have the manpower to GUI and Wizard up EVERYTHING within a reasonable timeframe. If google manages to create a non-tech friendly method for configuring the really cool parts of the OS, then they will have created the road for droves of converts.

Re:What can Google do

[Keruo]

> Goobuntu (what a ridiculous name)

As ridiculous as whistler and vista.
The complete product will likely have better name.

Re:What can Google do

[AKAImBatman]

The second major barrier is something that linux can't really overcome on its own, however, and that is credibility. The impact of having a Google-branded linux distro could be huge.

Or Google's brand could be devalued by the move.

I hate to say it, but Corel, Novell, Sun Microsystems, and several other large companies with good reputations have tried this. The result has always been the exact reverse of what was expected. Instead of Linux being risen up, the company is dragged down. Next thing you know, the company is ejecting Linux faster than you can say "What happened?"

The problem (I think) is a lack of corporate control. Linux has always been a hobbiest's OS. When big companies come in and start trying to help improve areas where they feel Linux is lacking, there's often a lot of pushback. For example, the Sun GNOME engineers have often complained about how hard it was to get many of their usability improvements into the main trunk.

It's not so much that one side is right and the other side is wrong (though arguments could be made both ways), but rather an extreme culture clash. The corporates say, "Our customers need this, do it" while the hobbiests say, "I think this is a cool feature, I want to work on it, you should know more about XYZ if you want to do ABC."

Google isn't stupid. I'm betting dollars to donuts that their new desktop is nothing more than a cool network configuration tool or kiosk type scheme. Meanwhile Google will continue to benefit from all these boneheads who continue to think that they're doing a consumer desktop. Mark my words: This isn't what people think it is.

Re:What can Google do

[john83]

None of those companies have ever been as big as Google is. You probably couldn't be fired for chosing Google.

Re:What can Google do

[aphor]

The main problem with Open Source (Free) software is that forking is easy, but merging is hard. It is not wrong for Google to fork Ubuntu. It is wrong to avoid the extra care of making sure the Ubuntu community can easily merge Google's work back into Ubuntu.

What Google *should* do is explicitly design the roadmap for Goobuntu as an iterative process of forking, releasing, merging back to Ubuntu (so that the community as a whole (not JUST Google) can support the persistent Google features, and then re-forking before Google starts work on another release.

I think this is a good model for cooperative free software collaboration with industry. Google would be accomplishing much more than just another great software implementation: they would be championing a framework that would result in many more free software accomplishments.

Re:What can Google do

[Anonymous Coward]

Corel was on its last gasp and tried to use Linux to pull it out of its tailspin.

Sun used Linux as a platform for Java and they were in trouble, not because they supported Linux on the desktop, but because they were still pushing million dollar servers over cheap Linux and WIndows servers.

Novell is now using Linux to replace NDS and it is working for them.

IBM hasn't branded Linux, but its a HUGE supporter of Linux. Not going down any where.

Re:What can Google do

[Weh]

not really IMO, compare ms names to linux names:

Linux:
The Gimp
Konqueror
Gnome
KDE
Ubuntu
Ogle
Gedit
etc.

Windows
Internet Explorer
Photoshop
XP
Vista
Notepad
Media Player
Outlook
etc.

Which set of names do you think appeals more to business types or to the average user?

Re:What can Google do

[bigjerkboy]

Sun: forced to do Linux because Solaris was not used much on desktop; Biggest market is servers not desktops; Used it to promote Java; Linux server software has damaged Sun more than anything else! Corel: was steps from going out of business and they came out with a weak effort and failed to port key applications to Native Linux( Corel Draw and Word Perfect ) Novell: NDS has been dying and the bought SuSE; Success story here; Their Linux sales are skyrocketing thanks the IBM IBM: has not branded a Linux; but has endorsed Red Hat and SuSE/Novell; Has made BILLIONS from Linux; Oh and by the way, Red Hat sales are skyrocketing as well; SO saying that these companies were drug down by Linux is like saying that Windows brought down WordPerfect and Lotus. When the mocved their products off of DOS they were drug down by their Windows ports not selling. Of course if they never did Window's ports they would have died just the same!

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

I see it a little differently. First of all large companies haven't been entirely dragged down by Linux. I don't think IBM is going to jetison it any time soon, for example, and I think that Sun still has high hopes for Star/Open Office.

But the problem is that large companies have tried to laterally transplant linux into the marketplace. This won't work. What Google could do here that is radically different is start to build a groundswell of support. Think of it as politics. Large companies are like well-funded small-interest groups, Google is starting a grassroots campaign. If you want to get a specific earmark, go with the small-interest groups. But if you want to make fundamental changes in politics - or in in IT - you need a grassroots movement.

By convincing individual users - in business, academic, or private capacity - that linux is safe to use Google could start just this kind of grassroots momentum. This spreads to small and medium businesses and retail (why use Windows to run cash registers with a few bells and whistles?). That kind of broad market penetration means that the employees of large companies will be able to transition more easily to linux - so eventually IBM, Sun etc. start to get what they've been gunning for as well: mainstream adoption of linux.

Of course a lot of companies are going to find out that Windows is better for them than Linux. That's really what we want to have happen, however. Instead of politics we may actually get a more open market where people have genuine choice and therefore there's genuine competition.

Google can contribute to this process in ways that IBM, Sun, Novell, etc. never could because Google is visible to ordinary non-techies in their day-to-day lives in ways those tech giants aren't.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

What you write is true, but I wouldn't write MS off yet. For one thing you have to remember that nature abhors a vacum. If MS topples SOMETHING will have to take it's place. As MS shrinks marketspace will be split between the new kid on the block (Google) and a variety of additional smaller interests. But as Google swells to take on the burned of MS-business they will begin to suffer the same interia problems that MS currently does.

MS, on the other hand, benefits greatly from its size in terms of both intellectual and physical capital. Their server products are getting better, and the .NET framework offers some truly powerful programming solutions for the programming masses. We've seen that they can adapt to open source when absolutely necessary (creating their own open document standard) and I think we'll see them continue to kind of morph into a more open-tolerant company.

In many ways the open-source movement spells the end of software-as-product. What Google really shows us, if we look closely, is not just a new comapny within the old paradigm but an entirely new paradigm: software-as-service. That's what searches are all about. That's what Gmail is all about. That's what the OpenOffice on the internet project would be all about. No longer do you sell licenses (units of product) but access (service).

I think MS sees this, and I think that with their capital (financial/physical) and experience (intellectual capital) they will turn out to have quite a lot to offer the market in terms of services. This is what is going to keep them alive - although it will not be the same MS that we see before us today.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[nospmiS remoH]

One difference: Find the most non-tech person you know who still uses a computer. Now, give them a list of company names as follows:

1) Corel
2) Novell
3) Sun Microsystems
4) Google

Now, ask that person which companies they have heard of and what those companies do. A strong brand name is a very powerful thing.

Re:What can Google do

[dekemoose]

Google has virtually zero reputation as a software provider in the enterprise. Sure there is the Google search appliance, and you likely can't get fired for buying that. However, you should sure as hell could get fired for rolling out the Google OS to all your desktops, only to have it never come out of Beta and eventually be written off as an unsuccessful venture.

Re:What can Google do

[podperson]

I hate to say it, but Corel, Novell, Sun Microsystems, and several other large companies with good reputations have tried this. The result has always been the exact reverse of what was expected. Instead of Linux being risen up, the company is dragged down. Next thing you know, the company is ejecting Linux faster than you can say "What happened?"

All of these companies were in a downward slide and tried to save themselves by jumping on the Linux bandwagon. They weren't trying to build a credible Linux by using their shiny aura, they were trying to bask in Linux's shiny aura.

The problem (I think) is a lack of corporate control. Linux has always been a hobbiest's OS. When big companies come in and start trying to help improve areas where they feel Linux is lacking, there's often a lot of pushback. For example, the Sun GNOME engineers have often complained about how hard it was to get many of their usability improvements into the main trunk.

My guess is that the problem faced by SUN is that they know jack, diddly, and squat about usability. The GNOME team is, basically, a bunch of folks trying to clone Mac OS X and the KDE team is a bunch of folks trying to Clone Windows; while this is hardly ideal, it's a heck of a lot better than trying to do whatever Sun thinks is a good idea. I fondly remember Sun fanbois trying to explain to me why it's a GOOD thing for focus to follow the mouse pointer.

It's not so much that one side is right and the other side is wrong (though arguments could be made both ways), but rather an extreme culture clash. The corporates say, "Our customers need this, do it" while the hobbiests say, "I think this is a cool feature, I want to work on it, you should know more about XYZ if you want to do ABC."

What does this have to do with anything? If Google wants to build its own Linux distro it can do whatever the heck it wants and so can hobbyists.

Google isn't stupid. I'm betting dollars to donuts that their new desktop is nothing more than a cool network configuration tool or kiosk type scheme. Meanwhile Google will continue to benefit from all these boneheads who continue to think that they're doing a consumer desktop. Mark my words: This isn't what people think it is.

There's a nice discussion of business strategy 101 here http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLet terV.html which goes something like this: every other business out there is either a competitor (someone who does what you do), a collaborator (someone who offers services that complement your services or are required for you to provide your services), or a potential customer (everyone else). If you're in Google's business then a competitor looks like, say, msn or yahoo, a collaborator looks like Internet Explorer, HP, Comcast, or the Electrical Utility, and Joe Sixpack, Brooks Brothers, Walmart, and Starbucks are potential customers.

You want your competitors to suck and be expensive -- so you can (relatively) be excellent and cheap AND you want your collaborators to be excellent, ubiquitous, and cheap or better yet free. For Google to make money, anything that makes computers, web browsers, computer networks, electricity, etc. better, cheaper, and more ubiquitous is a Good Thing. So giving away an excellent operating system actually makes perfect sense. Will they do it? Shrug. But I wouldn't start counting dollars or donuts.

Re:What can Google do

[Chosen Reject]

I just read that thread on ubuntuforums. Wow, you are a jerk and I hope I never have to help you out with anything. One post refers to using the Windows install cd to fix the MBR. That would have gotten you back into your windows partition, not ubuntu. They tried to help and all you could do was be sarcastically mean about it. And I quote:

I don't know where my install disc is. Again, I thought -- probably because of all the liberation/openness rhetoric of Ubuntu -- I wouldn't need Microsoft software to get Ubuntu to work. Guess that's not the case.

Like I said, you didn't need MS software to fix Ubuntu, it would have gotten you into Windows. I quote from you again:

I don't have a Live CD. Naive me, I thought that by downloading just the install disc, I wouldn't be locked out of both Windows AND Linux. But it's my fault, really. I should never have believed all that crap about "providing access to all".

Again with the mean saracasm. Go ahead and admit you were looking for defeat so that you could rant about it not working and prove to us all that it's terrible. I installed Windows and then Visual Studio and then Windows would give me nothing but a blank screen after a reboot. No seriously. It really happened. Pardon me while I make an announcement...

Windows should never be used because it never works with their own software!!!"

My one experience should do it. I expect the MS empire to start crumbling any day now.

What's that you say? It's only one experience? How about this: The first time I tried dual-booting I was unaware that you should install Windows first. I installed RH 7.1 and it worked fine so I went ahead and installed Windows on a seperate Hard-drive in the computer. A totally seperate hard-drive. And when I rebooted I got...wait for it...Windows only. Where did RH 7.1 go? I later found that Windows doesn't like to play nice with other non-MS OS's and share a boot record or even to bother looking for them. I hope you don't mind, but I will borrow a quote from you. It reads:

Sorry, but any OS that locks you out of all OS's for installing it does not have high "usability" and so forth.

There's more proof that Windows suffers from serious "usability" problems.

See, isn't it fun to be sarcastically mean to others. See what kind of wonderful responses it gets from people, especially those who honestly try to help you out with no recompense? That concludes today's lesson.

Check out my optimisim.

[deathbyzen]

Yay, Ubuntu with FireFox and the Google ToolBar?

Fucking Revolutionary!

Google will be setting the standard

[Anonymous Coward]

This, if any, will be THE Desktop Linux.

hope for other apps

[pyros]

Perhaps this also means they will port apps like gtalk and picasa to linux, albeit just to goobuntu. Although I'd probably still use kopete or gaim, since gtalk doesn't do any session encryption with the native client (plese join me in submitting feature requests and bug reports for every release of gtalk so that they'll consider adding it)

Hm...

[patrickclay]

"Is Google about to release this as an alternative to Windows?"

Could it be released as anything else?

If I were google...

[Parity]

My desktop linux would be a very specifically limited Linux for securely browsing the web from an unprivileged account, for use by cybercafes, etc., with a default search engine of google of course. They really don't have any business getting into the OS business as such, but the web-appliance defaulting to their pages might be another thing.

No!

[egarland]

Is Google about to release this as an alternative to Windows?

That's tot likely. What would be more likely would be releasing a dedicated internet hardware device running Linux behind the scenes that provides some combination of Internet based TV, VOIP, Browsing, and Email.

Branding, not technology

[truthsearch]

What'll make this "sell" isn't technology but brand. Name recognition counts for everything in big business. Just their name alone can sell a decent product. We know they'll have to make a decent, relatively simple, interface. But other than that their brand name is enough to make this a huge success.

Re:hmmm

[Anml4ixoye]

"This has been talked about for quite a long time and even supposedly seen but what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off? "

Actually, the question is, WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE A WINDOW'S KILLER FROM GOOGLE?!

How many times do we have to hear, "Google is seeding clouds! Is this the end of Microsoft due to a massive hurricane Google is developing in the Pacific?"

Guys, Google is a smart company. How would creating a Linux distribution even come *close* to being a Windows killer? And, more importantly, how would that make them any money? They're a public company, so if it isn't making them money, then why would they do it.

Good for Linux

[www.staff.ie]

The majority of the world either don't know what Linux is, or associates it with people like us(!)

If Google can make the installation simple, the desktop pretty, and break the "freak" tag that Linux has (and don't kid yourseldf - Linux is only for us freaks), then I think this is a great thing.

We should support this.

Re:virtualization?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds a lot more realistic. Many of Google's own applications don't even work on Linux.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[Ghostx13]

Yep, but you have to have expert knowledge of hardware and the OS that runs on that hardware. Google (as reported by netcraft) is the most visited site on the internet. Have you ever seen it down? Have you ever seen it "slashdotted"? No. This points to excellent hardware/software engineering.

Many large companies "roll their own" linux and write their own tools. Google is just taking that one step further.

Re:hmmm

[KingSkippus]

Oh, I dunno, but some must have also wondered what they could have done to make a search engine so special. After all, they certainly weren't the first folks to tread in that area.

I can think of a few things right off that Google can add to the mix:

• Standardization. What is the current standard distribution of Linux? Wow, take your pick, because there is none. If a company that specializes in the consumer market such as Google adds their name to a specific distribution and configured it for mass use, it would, I predict, stand a really good chance of becoming the Linux of Choice(TM) for most average desktop users.
• Improvements. Unlike most volunteer efforts and companies that have tried to date, Google has the financial power to throw as much money into their Linux distribution as Microsoft has to throw into Windows. All of those little things that drive average users absolutely batty in Linux could, in the very near future, disappear.
• Integration. Google has arguably made the computer usage experience massively better through such tools as the Google toolbar, the Google Desktop, Google Maps, Google Video, the search engine itself (duh), and other such stuff. Now imagine if a whole operating system is geared towards bringing all of these tools together into an integrated, easy-to-use package. Wow.

There's lots of other opportunities there as well. Google has a history of taking stuff that kinda sorta is already out there in some form and pumping it up on steriods to the point that it's really cool. I'm willing to think that they can do the same with their own OS as well. At the very least, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt that it won't be just the same ol' Linux.

The worst case scenario is that they put out something that absolutely sucks ass, and we all stick with our existing favorite distribution. No matter how you look at it, this is win for us.

A possible answer

[Weaselmancer]

...what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off?

Add their name to it.

That might not seem like a big deal, but I think it might be. Google is huge compared to most companies that put out a Linux distro. If they did this, they could very well become the standard.

And IMHO, that would be a huge blessing. The #1 complaint you see from developers outside the Linux world seems to be "there isn't a Linux standard". And I can kind of see their point - Windows doesn't suffer from the whole RPM vs. DEB vs. whatever problem. Some systems use devfs, and some don't. Each distro has different /etc structure for storing network settings. And so on.

But! If Google were to become the standard, we wouldn't have that as a problem anymore. Think of the possibilities! We might have more manufacturer supplied graphics drivers and more commercial software on the shelves for Linux.

And Google is big enough to make this happen. Go Google!

Re:A possible answer

[plover]

Yes, but Google promised us they won't be evil. Steve Ballmer said Microsoft is opposed to that.

First, to address your point, Google would only have control over their own distro (just as Red Hat, Debian, etc. have.) The GPL ensures they can't shut down others. And those others won't go away just because Google arrived. But they might voluntarily choose to do so.

Another "standard" distro would not be a bad thing. Sure, it's going to have name recognition which will be a shiny thing to attract an initial following. It'll also help corporate adoption (the new slogan could be "Nobody ever got fired for downloading Google" :-) But even if all it did was to consolidate the Ubuntu crowd with the Mandriva crowd under one googly umbrella, that's still a pretty powerful group of followers.

Think about the popular distros that are out there now. None of them are backed in any significant way by any large companies. (Sure, IBM has pumped money into linux, but they missed the boat by never marketing a Big Blue Distro to anyone other than mainframe shops.)

I think Linux will grow to the next step just by having a huge corporate backer. So far, the biggest corporate players all have their own unices to pimp, and have never pushed linux in a big way. Google is the only really big company in a position to pull something like this off successfully. And they have the added legitimacy of having built their empire on linux. Finally, people will expect great things from a Google distro. I think the market will take this distro very seriously.

Probably wouldn't matter if they did...

[ThinkFr33ly]

There are already alternatives to Windows which, in many ways, are better than Windows. (I'm sure many of you are saying DUUU right now, but I'm talking about Mac OS X, not Linux.)

Mac OS X is certainly prettier than Windows (and that's very important from a marketing perspective), and it has most of the basic applications that 95% of the people out there use.

Yet despite all of this, it doesn't succeed. Why? There are lots of answers to this question. Some involve Microsoft's market dominance and the fact it is a defacto standard. Some involve Apple's typically more expensive hardware. (Although this seems to be slowly changing.) Some involve the fact that Windows has a far larger software library available. Some involve people being more comfortable using at home what they use at work, and that is almost invariably a PC with Windows.

Whatever the reason, how does Google's OS overcome these? What about Google as a company makes us all think they could do any better? Sure, they have tons of money... but Microsoft will always have more, and they have a 20 year head start as far as market share goes.

Re:Probably wouldn't matter if they did...

[Fahrvergnuugen]

"Yet despite all of this, it doesn't succeed."

You're making the common mistake of using market share to measure success. I invite you to compare General Motors or Ford with Porsche. Porsche doesn't have 95% market share, they don't even have 5% market share - yet they are the most profitable car company in the world. Now this is an extreme example, but it's foolish to assume that because Apple doesn't have the majority of the market that they are a failure. Quite the opposite I think...

Re:Probably wouldn't matter if they did...

[birge]

Here's a reason I don't see cited often enough:

It's got far worse developer support than Windows. In the end, an OS is only as good as its apps. With Microsoft you get constantly developed, first-rate tools and new languages like C#. With Apple you get a barebones environment wrapped around GNU gcc, a 20 year old language with performance problems (obj-c) and a new chip architecture every few years.

If Apple would modernize its developer tools and quit making life miserable for developers with kernel changes and architecture switches, they might have more market share. But right now it seems they are more interested in the way their boxes look on the outside. The arrogance of Jobs claiming obj-c was better than C# doesn't give me hope that they'll improve any time soon.

Apple may be able to pull Adobe and Microsoft along (the former due to historical markets, and the latter due to monopoly concerns) but every time they pull an architecture switch, or screw up another API, they lose small developers.

In closing, if you want to know why OS X is doing badly in the broad market, just take a look at a copy of MATLAB running on Windows and MATLAB running on the Mac. Pretty window shadows aside, which would you rather use? It's all about apps.

Re:hmmm

[jcr]

WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE A WINDOW'S KILLER FROM GOOGLE?!

Probably because the world so desperately needs something to kill windows.

Mac OS X is a great alternative, but Apple's giving no indication of any intention to ship it on the generic x86 machines.

-jcr

Re:hmmm

[jcr]

what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off?

Maintain it? Finish it up? Come up with a decent GUI for it? Establish a list of officially supported hardware, so that getting sound working isn't a crap shoot?

There are all kinds of things a company with very deep pockets can do for an OS.

-jcr

Re:The only way...

[ceeam]

Windows XP 64-bit does not run 16-bit apps. No big deal, eh? But many, many, many titles have been shipped (and still shipping!) using older InstallShield. Guess what? These _installers_ are 16-bit apps. And installer not working equals to "this app does not run" for practically all users. Do you think XP 64-bit is an "alternative to Windows"?

Re:Author needs a new brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans really don't get irony, do they.

Attempting to overtake Windows?

[erroneus]

No, not by a longshot. We might speculate all day long, but I cannot imagine anything making a dent in Microsoft's hold... at least not yet and not with Google's influence... not yet.

If anything, I would guess it could be yet another free software offering to install at WalMart and Fry's stores competing more with Linspire rather than Windows. It could also just be a way of weening itself away from anything Microsoft. (I suggest this without knowing what the average Google employee desktop uses.)

If Google were to attempt to replace Windows now or even in the near future, it would fail miserably and tarnish Google's image. Now is not the time.

Why would anyone trust this?

[komodotoes]

With Google's habit of tracking and recording every bit of information it can get it's hands on (it's actually their *mission*), why would anyone trust a Google provided OS to allow privacy? They already track surfing habits through their toolbar and google-analytics, why is it a leap to think that they will use this to get even more marketing data?

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[MindPrison]

With Google's habit of tracking and recording every bit of information it can get it's hands on (it's actually their *mission*), why would anyone trust a Google provided OS to allow privacy?

Youll also have to ask yourself - why trust Microsoft with your privacy? Why trust anyone? Its healthy to be skeptical with anything big that will change the way you handle your data.

Personally I saw Google OS coming WAY before screenshoots where posted, but I had NO IDEA that Google would take Linux and create a Googlux (phun intended) out of it, that was kind of a surprise to me.

I must admit Id rather have Google becoming the next Major Operating System/platform than Microsoft, and my reasons for this are simple - more freedom in licensing because Google respect GPL and in fact support it. That doesnt make me less skeptical of the privacy issues surrounding Google though, you can trust that Ill always be breathing down their neck - and hopefully...so will you.

Basically - I welcome Google OS.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[Anonymous Coward]

For example... Rob Pike the world authority on searching and indexing, or Guido Van Rossum, who probably wrote some search engines in Python.
Google has been assembling people with diverse skill sets and portfolios. Look at all the papers written by people in Google, and you will see that their interests are far beyond search. My only surprise is that they havent hired the "Managing Gigabytes" people as yet.
Also, one of the main reasons Google is successful right now is the skill set diversity -- I would assert that AdSense algorithms, as well as Google File System, and MapReduce etc have something to do with their technical success.

Re:Author needs a new brain.

[bastardsquadmuzz]

*whoosh*

Brand Recognition

[db32]

Has anyone stopped to consider the impact this will have on the linux world? Average Joe computer user likely doesn't know anything about linux, if they have even heard of it at all. However Average Joe computer user has more than likely heard of Google and uses it quite frequently. If Average Joe is upset with Microsoft and their OS (which many of them are, even if they do just accept it as a fact of life) and hears that those Google folks have a replacement there is a good chance they will check it out. Sure there is a learning curve, but I have seen quite a few people that don't know much about linux or administration happily switch to Ubuntu because it lets them do all the basic things a computer is good for (Surfing, email, word processing, etc) and doesn't turn into a sluggish piece of junk after 6 months. This really could be a big deal if it catches on.

Re:Author needs a new brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't read the Register very often, now do you?

Brits are notorious for this. It's called subtle irony.

longshot

[BewireNomali]

"The origin of the word 'Goobuntu' is not clear, though it does not appear in online Zulu dictionaries."

Obligatory Stewie Quote: "that's funny to me."

Anyway, the idea that Windows desktop installations will be wholly or mostly eliminated isn't likely. So this means that Google is going after a minority stake in the marketplace. Apple stands a greater chance of offering resistance to Microsoft than any Linux distribution does.

Google could develop its suite of internet aps and make available seamlessly from anyone's desktop - this seems more intuitive to me because you avoid a litany of issues that come with the old school download - install method.

Frankly, isn't the download - install method really old school right now? Isn't that the whole point? Ubiquitous computing - permanent connection - no one has your source code - when patching you only have to apply once to your servers, etc?

I can't understand wanting to fight a war over the desktop when that war's been won already. Not only has the war been won, but the OS empire has grown stale and decadent - and will destroy itself.

I can't help but think that Microsoft is doing some smoke and mirrors play with google and has them spooked. First, they goad google into giving a billion to AOL so they could keep what they already have. Now they have Google developing a OS solution. Isn't that kind of like developing a [insert obsolete technology here] alternative?

A cohesive, easy to implement, networked suite of applications that run both on full-sized browsers and and on mobile browsers for those progressively mobile asian kids. Once Google can reliably get geographically useful ads pushed to a mobile, then they start eating the local advertising lunch. And once they become that pervasive an advertising tool, the game is over. Google wins. But they can't get distracted; Microsoft is fucking with them.

Re:hmmm

[wolfemi1]

How would creating a Linux distribution even come *close* to being a Windows killer?

Well, what does Linux lack from the point of view of the general populace?
1. Usability. Google should have this pretty well covered
2. Name Brand Recognition. Don't underestimate the ability of a name brand to push something forward. Google has this in spades.

I think Google might really be on to something. If they can manage to create a GNU/Linux-based distribution with the ease of use that Google is becoming famous for, there may well be a way to commoditize the operating system. Way to go, and it's about time. :)

Alternatives..

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Is Google about to release this as an alternative to Windows?

No, it's an alternative to OS X. No, wait, Solaris. DOS? Pen and paper?. In other news, McDonald's is experimenting with adding another slice of cheese to the cheeseburger. Are they about to release this as an alternative to the chicken sandwich?

The question is not "will this be an alternative to Windows" but rather "how will this affect the push towards a Linux desktop?" Will it further fragment the efforts or will it provide needed standardization? After all, standardization is a big part of why Windows remains successful. Windows provides a common platform upon which other things can be done. The amount of time looking for libs or recompiling or choosing between competing shells is minimized. If Google can build concensus and momentum then we're all better off (and I write this as someone who prefers Windows). If they come out with something too different or they can't build a backing then the adoption of Linux on the desktop will suffer.

Personally, I don't think they're interested in the desktop so much as they'd like to have something to support apps run on the server. Why install Open Office when you can click this icon and run Google's office right off their server?

Nope, can't happen

[Weaselmancer]

All they could do (thanks to the GPL) is add their touches to it. And for it to become a standard, they would have to specify that standard so other people could write to it.

And once they did that, any other group could implement it. It would be like Mandriva(Mandrake) vs. Red Hat. Both use RPM, but people will pick the distro they like. If you like the way Google does things, fine. Use their distro. If not, use some other compatible one.

And yeah, you'd get some people complaining about "those heavy handed Google goons" not setting up /etc the way they like or some other picayune point like that, but so what? The good that would come from this would far outstrip the occasional config gripe.

Also, just as food for thought, what if Google decided to drop 5% of their R&D into Wine? Just 2% then? The Wine guys have done miracles so far on a shoestring. Imagine what the result would be if Google paid a few of those guys to quit their day jobs and work on Wine full-time.

The results would be impressive. Probably amazing even.

It's for internal use only

[kerskine]

Just a guess, but it makes sense for Google to standardize on one desktop OS for everyone. Using Ubuntu as a base to build a Google-internal OS just makes sense. A number of other companies do the same thing - Cisco is a good example. It'll never see the light of day outside their offices because of the support cost.

Re:hmmm

[NetRAVEN5000]

Are you serious?

Are you aware that MS is trying to "fucking bury" Google? That's the whole point of all those MSN Search ads you see on TV.

As you said yourself, Google is a smart company. They're not a sitting duck. MSN Search sucks, IMO, but MS has a huge budget to throw into it to make it better - in the meantime Google has no way of striking back at MS - who already has MSN Maps, Encarta Online, MSN, MSNBC, Hotmail, and a multitude of other things.

Why would Google want their own Linux distro? Because their biggest fear is MS, and MS' biggest fear (other than Google) is losing their Windows cash-cow to Linux. They wouldn't do it to make money, they'd do it to ensure that they don't lose any money.

Look around you. MS knows Linux is a threat - why don't you? "Get the Facts", "Linux is a Cancer", "Let's Fucking Kill Google the Ever-Popular Linux Dot-Com", "Hunt down the Xbox users who mod their Xbox for Linux", "Let's hide the fact that Hotmail started out on open-source software", "Oh, we're funding a Linux lab but you're still supposed to think Linux is bad". . .

Or maybe...

[AntiDragon]

...It's a masterplan step?

Ok, ok...Bare with me here as I take you on a fantastic journey to the land of make believe...

What is Google's biggest threat? Microsoft. (Not that they'd admit it..)
What is Microsoft's source of power? Money and Marketshare (replace with "Monopoly" as appropriate).
What's the basis for this? Desktop share and Public ignorance of alternatives.

What is Google's power? Branding. Search engine aside, Google is riding a wave of buzz!

Sooooo...A link to a Google branded OS on the main search page...possible follow-up links to Ubuntu or other FOSS sites... Come next upgrade cycle, more users turn to non-Windows operating systems...

*Sigh* Well, I can dream, can't I?

OK, but then what does have high "usability"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"any OS that locks you out of all OS's for installing it does not have high "usability" and so forth"

So, if you're installing Windows on a computer that already has Linux on it, and it fails, does your Linux distro still work (without fixing anything first)?

When you have problems with Windows are the free Windows forums better than ubuntuforums.org?

I won't try to claim that any Linux distro has high usability, because that's a matter of opinion.
However, since Windows fails in the same two ways that Ubuntu does, what OS do you consider to have high "usability"?

The Next Microsoft?

[just_forget_it]

I'd be careful about singing Google's praises at this point. People tend to think that Google is a super-hero of sorts in the computing world. Sure they came up with some great stuff, but so did Microsoft (Ok, Microsoft came up with ONE thing, but it still revolutionized the industry) in the beginning. Remember, all the "Do no evil" chanting in the world doesn't change the fact that thay're a multi-billion dollar corporation, with an extremely over-inflated stock price I might add. Their job is to make more money first, period. That's why they're bowing down to China faster than a Vietnamese hooker (so much for "do no evil"). With an OS in their hands, they have the potential to do a LOT more big-brother type spying on EVERYONE, including Americans. Sure, competition is good, but when more than one monolith corporation exists in the same market, there tends to be a feeling of Mutually-Assured-Destruction. The two could form an alliance, and we'd be screwed for sure. Just look at the oil companies and their "competition."

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

If you've spent any time in an Apple store, you've encountered the fact that even home users care about having Office so they can bring work home with them, or whatever. Or the games they want to play, or the educational software they imagine will make their kids the next Bill Gates, or whatever.

Go to Best Buy, or Target, or Office Depot, or any other retailer of boxed software for consumers, and see how much will run on anything other than Windows. Hint: NONE.

That's a real barrier, and it's not just in the business environment.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[bigpat]

because Google has a great track record, but I don't think Google is the right company to get all excited about when we find they're working on Linux. IBM, yes, as they have extensive knowledge and experience working with both hardware and OSes.

IBM has been an important supporter of Linux in the enterprise for servers, but they haven't done much for linux on the desktop. And it is no wonder, IBM is built around enterprise consulting, big systems integrations and such. Google has been all about making it simple for people since the beginning. Like Apple, they excel because of their minimalist design philosophy which has made for some great very usable software.

Also, it is distinctly in Google's interest to undercut Microsoft's bread and butter OS sales with a good Linux desktop, so it will keep them focused. They don't need to make money on Linux to be successful, they just have to make Microsoft make less money on their core sales. This can be seen as a purely defensive move to take some of the wind out of microsoft's sails.

Re:hmmm

[ILikeRed]

I think it is taken from Microsoft's strategy book - how many times has Microsoft hurt a company by just saying they are planning on releasing a new product? Google does not even have to release a product, just the threat of it is too big for Microsoft to ignore, and so Microsoft will be torn into another direction and have less focus on competing against Google in search....

Frankenstein say, "Google Good. Ubuntu Bad."

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would google tarnish their image and shake their investors with this move? Afterall, unless you're running some archaic kernel/GNU suite stable enough for a server box only, all linux distros (including Ubuntu) are awash in bugs and instability in comparison to Windows (as a desktop); flash/mozilla cpu spikes, "beta" hal/dbus quirks, laptop IDE device burning, video/audio codecs, et cetera.

For those who can read between the lines, this is just an investor pump to keep the stock ticker moving upwards. No news is bad news in the financial world, and the energetic creative Google image relies upon always "being on the move". I wouldn't even consider this a "trial balloon", but just as the article cites "as a hobby by their staffed developers on the weekend for possible in house use only" with the added benefit of dangling market carrot sticks before the public.

If google wanted an OS, they'd develop it from scratch and not rely/lag on third party developers like Mark's team, as good a job as they do. They would, however, have their own. A google OS is worth more to their image than all their tools combined to date. Why on earth would they partner with Microsoft or Ubuntu or anyone else? That's just plain market folly...

Re:hmmm

[Christianfreak]

Realistically, and I say this as a desktop Linux developer myself, Linux is missing a metric fuckton of things that I'd class as absolutely central to being a workable desktop

And since your answers are so full of crap you either don't bother to use the system you develop for or you're just a troll ... but whatever I'll "inform" you anyway.

# Driver API.

NViDEA provides binary drivers and has an installer to do the compiling if it can't find a compatable kernel. Their installer is GPL. Slap a graphical front end on it and then you no longer have a problem. Your second point is the same as the first and has the same answer. If you want binary drivers compile them as modules. Look someone has already given you a free installer to do it.

C++ support Then get apps from the vendor or compile them on the system with glibc ... or fix glibc yourself if you don't like it.

No easy install/uninstall

As opposed to what? Windows XP? Ubuntu doesn't need a graphical install. I think it asks you like 3 questions then copies files and reboots on it its own. If you are so caught up in eye-candy for installers the use say: RedHat/Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva, or Lindows ... they have graphical installers. And since when does an OS need an uninstaller. Several distros (including Ubuntu!) have a live CD if you want to give it a test run. Last I checked Windows doesn't come with an uninstaller if I don't like it either!

The install thing is mute anyway. People don't install the OS the barrier to Linux is getting OEMs to install it and support it and for all the old windows apps to run on it.

No credible DRM support

Linus says he doesn't mind having it. So develop it. Some people don't care because we don't all want it.

Re:hmmm

[ratboy666]

Just a few comments -

Driver Support: not centralized, and easy to do. AS LONG AS THE DRIVER IS DISTRIBUTED IN SOURCE. Binary distribution can cover a few of the kernels out there. Lets take a look at nVidia and VmWare as binary drivers, with a source supplied front-end. They "Just Work". A completely binary driver IS problematic.

And this is one of the "features" of Linux vs. Windows. If you WANT "binary drivers that Just Work", go with Windows.

C++ support: it does work. No, a single binary MAY NOT WORK. *Unless* you also distribute the needed libraries. Nothing AT ALL is preventing you from doing that. These libraries can and should even be installed privately for your binary-only application. Someone updates the system library? Doesn't affect you.

No easy install/uninstall: Sounds like you are carping about the Linux systems themselves. As far as your BINARY APPLICATION goes -- keep it in a single directory (tree). Uninstall? Remove the tree. You want to get fancy? Combine that with bundling into a RPM.

No credible DRM support: Say What? "DRM support" is a problem of the Media Supplier. Name a "DRM" format that is popular that Linux doesn't support... DVD CSS. And how is this managed? mplayer? Oh, so there IS support.

As to your application... Linux offers filesystem encryption (3des, etc.). Other crypto functionality. SSL, ssh, gpg. Locked memory.

Let me outline a possible "DRM" solution for you (assuming you ARE a Media Supplier). Sell someone a physical DVD with data on it. Encrypted with 3DES or AES 128/256. Key not provided, but a media reference tag.

Application has a "root" component (for locking), or uses Role Based security (not so common). Application uses SSL (or ssh) to establish a link to your server. Coughs up user name, invoice number, and media tag (over the encrypted link). Server verifies, and coughs up the decryption key. Decryption key tossed into locked memory (thus the root requirement). Decryption key used to decrypt Media.

Other implementations are, of course, possible. How is the digital data protected after it is decrypted? There are methods -- but these are not supported in ANY current OS. (not Linux, not Windows, not Solaris). As to basic DRM? Linux is just as useful as anything else.

Ratboy.

Re:hmmm

[mad.frog]

C++ support: Then get apps from the vendor or compile them on the system with glibc ... or fix glibc yourself if you don't like it.

Given that the point of the grandparent was binary compatibility, compiling the app yourself isn't an answer.

Not to mention being completely unacceptable for my mom. (Maybe your mom understands the concept of makefiles. Mine doesn't.)

Did you even read the parent post?

the "magic" of the Google brand

[khallow]

IMHO, the value of the Google brand is vastly overrated in Slashdot comments. To stereotype a little, there's a lot of comments claiming that Google's very name will insure success for any enterprise especially the matter of creating a Google-branded OS. Somehow, the merely mention of Google's brand will bring customers running to an as yet unknown product. It will overthrow the shackles of Microsoft. Why? It is Google. You do not need to ask.

Far bigger brands than Google have failed to push product. Do we recall Ford's Edsel or the "New" Coca Cola any more? Further Google is not that big a brand. Perhaps most people kinda sorta remember it. But you can bet that most of those associate that brand with the niche market of web searches not providing a new OS. Frankly, IBM has far more weight here.

Finally, is there any reason to believe that Google's brand will have the same impact ten years down the road when this hypothetical OS would compete with MS? It's not even clear to me that Google will stay in business that long. Recall that Google itself is a bit over seven years old.

Re:hmmm

[IamTheRealMike]

And since your answers are so full of crap you either don't bother to use the system you develop for or you're just a troll ... but whatever I'll "inform" you anyway.

Nice. Why don't you go "inform" yourself? In the past I've written an entire software installation framework on Linux, a binary portability environment, modifications to the dynamic linker, patches for Wine, ALSA, GNOME and a bunch of other projects I forget, and me and my team pretty much wrote the book on Linux binary compatibility.

NViDEA provides binary drivers and has an installer to do the compiling if it can't find a compatable kernel. Their installer is GPL. Slap a graphical front end on it and then you no longer have a problem.

No longer have a problem? This is insane ... you realise that the kernel developers make a sport out of breaking the nVidia drivers right? Having a source wrapper doesn't protect them from everything, nowhere near. For instance the 4k stacks fiasco.

Not to mention that this solution is light-years behind Windows 95 in terms of usability. What happens when you put the driver CD containing this magic source code wrapper in the CD drive? Nothing. What happens if you don't have developer tools and the kernel headers installed? Errors. What happens if the driver is more than 12 months old and the kernel API changed? Errors.

And finally what if you're a little company and Mr Kroah-Hartman smells blood? You get sued. This is about the most uninviting landscape for hardware developers imaginable.

C++ support Then get apps from the vendor or compile them on the system with glibc ... or fix glibc yourself if you don't like it.

Michael Meeks has already attempted to "fix" glibc, and his work was ignored. This is the modus operandi of the glibc people, and as a result a generic patch he wrote to solve many of the symbol fixup and performance problems that plague Linux (eg OpenOffice startup time) is now a SuSE specific file format extension. Yay standards.

And for what it's worth many of the C++ problems are GCC related, not glibc. But Michaels work would have alleviated the symtoms.

As opposed to what? Windows XP?

As opposed to every other program in the world that users don't already have but might want to try.

Linus says he doesn't mind having it. So develop it. Some people don't care because we don't all want it.

Explain to me how to build a DRM system for an operating system in which you have no guarantees about the way it works. Now, you can't built a 100% perfect DRM system ever, but you can get close enough that it's worth doing and Windows is pretty good at it these days (and will get better as hardware support starts appearing for it). But Linux can't mount credible competition in this area. If there was a Red Hat music store or something then it wouldn't matter so much - the iTunes DRM is fairly weak, but it doesn't matter because Apple are simultaneosuly platform and media provider. But Linux is just a platform, so it doesn't have that luxury.

Re:hmmm

[IamTheRealMike]

C++ support: it does work. No, a single binary MAY NOT WORK. *Unless* you also distribute the needed libraries. Nothing AT ALL is preventing you from doing that

I guess I should have elaborated, go read this section of the page and then read the ELF section as well. If you understand what's written there you'll see the problem - the lack of a stable C++ ABI is not fatal in and of itself, though it does cause major pain, but combined with the lack of predictable symbol scoping it means it's impossible to reason about the interactions between a binary (any binary, even a C based one) and the rest of the operating system.

For instance, if a game written in C++ loads a private copy of libSDL (C), then it may crash because libSDL may dlopen libaRts (C++) for audio in KDE, and STL inlines in libaRts will collide with the equivalent inlines in the game itself despite libstdc++.so symbol versioning. That'll probably cause a crash or hang.

This is a "do not pass go" type problem. It means any program, no matter how bug-free or what language it's written in, can potentially crash in undebuggable ways in certain legal system configurations. It's broken by design and the relevant people either ignore the problem or don't see fixing it as a priority.

Other implementations are, of course, possible. How is the digital data protected after it is decrypted?

I was thinking of something like the Windows Secure Audio Path. The problem with your SSL scheme is that the program which renders the audio/video can be trivially turned into a decryptor just by redirecting audio output to a file. Now you can do this with Windows XP too but it requires running the OS under a virtualizer like VMware (but not VMware as IIRC the drivers for that aren't signed for SAP compliance) which emulates commodity hardware with SAP signed drivers. Setting one of these up is a bit of a pain and most users won't be able to do so.

For your Ashlee Simpsons and the like maybe somebody somewhere will do so and put it up on P2P for some reason, but for more obscure stuff this sort of thing can make it very hard to find (and anti-virtualisation code in Windows/hardware itself could seal that off too), which would make the analog hole the only way forward. And realistically not many people bother with that either.

What don't you understand

[iONiUM]

Honestly, I'm only going to respond to a few things in this post to try and show you why Linux will never be on the desktop in its current form.

And this is one of the "features" of Linux vs. Windows. If you WANT "binary drivers that Just Work", go with Windows.

Just Work. Do you know why people want things that Just Work? Because it's a pain in the ass if they don't. Why can't drivers work? Don't give me bullshit about it not working with other kernels, I don't care, and neither does everybody else who just wants to use a computer. If it's not doing it now, figure it out. I don't care if it's not a binary, I don't want to see it compile, and I don't want compilation errors, or an error telling me to go get gtk or some other library.

No easy install/uninstall: Sounds like you are carping about the Linux systems themselves. As far as your BINARY APPLICATION goes -- keep it in a single directory (tree). Uninstall? Remove the tree. You want to get fancy? Combine that with bundling into a RPM.

Maybe after I "get fancy" I can get a GUI too, huh? Nobody knows what a tree is, nobody can manage directory structures, and why the hell should they have to? Make a fucking install/uninstall screen, have it manage it itself. Or just copy OSX, and have everything in a .app file which can be dragged to the trash. I was hoping the Linux community could come up with something more original though, and certainly something more "fancy" than "oh, just delete the directory it's in". Good work.

Actually that's all I'm going to say, it's frustrating to see people who think like this. You can use bash? Great. vi? Great. Emacs? Wonderful. Nobody cares, windows is popular because nobody cares, and maybe you should understand that. No? Then don't bitch about Linux not being used.

I'd use it if KDE was the dominate environment

[Bushido Hacks]

Before I use the Google distro of Linux I would like to see a few things:

1. KDE should be the dominate environment. Even Linus likes KDE more than GNOME.
2. Google needs to understand the difference between Linux and BSD if there are some things they don't want to share, BSD should be the way to go. However, with consumer loyality at an all time high (Thank you Google for reminding the government who is a bigger miserable failure than the rest of us!) Google can continue to practice their "Don't be evil" attitude if they have nothing to hide.
3. Google can find to use SSH on port 80. The only time-share I want is a secure shell on the internet that is not blocked because it is on port 22. The same can be said about an IRC client.