Slashdot Mirror
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.
I think it's a waste of Google talent. They should concentrate on data collection, aggregation, and dissemination tools.
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)
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.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
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.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
"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.
Random Musings
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
With a Google name on it, Corporate acceptance will be easier to sell, than simply "Ubuntu"!!!
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.
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?
NeverEndingBillboard.com
"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...
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
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
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
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.
...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?
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
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.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
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.
!hoD
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.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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?"
t 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.
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/StrategyLe
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.
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.
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.
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.