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

hmmm

[Fusen]

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?
Also a more worrying question,would you see ads incorporated?

Re:hmmm

[michrech]

I dispute this claim.

You would have to have a company behind a distro that would set it up to be as simple to install software/hardware as possible.

Yes, we have a few of those. Here is the problem. Most hardware makers absoloutly refuse to create drivers for linux (I can understand why) and, since they won't release their own drivers, they also will not release info for 3rd parties to MAKE drivers (for various reasons).

It may be "good enough" to you, myself, and others who are already familiar with linux, but the vast majority of the public who might actually try it once would run into one piece of hardware that didn't work and give up on it for good (this has already been seen on MANY occasions, even complained about here on slashdot!)

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Um, I think you forgot

3. Running all the applications, some of which are critical to business processes, which only run on Windows, like, um, MS Office, for one?

If you believe Open Office, or some other knockoff, or half-assed open source replacement for any other Windows-only application I might think of, is enough to cause people to totally change their Windows-buying habits, you are out of touch with reality.

Firefox, from what I hear, is an eminently usable Web browser, and Internet Explorer is hardly critical to most Web applications. Yet, only a relatively small fraction of users make the effort to switch.

Take a case where something like Microsoft Excel VBA macros or Microsoft Project is playing a daily role in a company's actual function of making money, and how eager will people be to switch to something else, just for the warm feeling they can get from using the Linux distribution du jour?

Re:hmmm

[IamTheRealMike]

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 (note; we're not even talking competitive here, we're talking workable). For instance:

• Driver API. Centralised driver development doesn't work - period. Assume the existance of a totally awesome vendor who is happy to release GPLd drivers with their new widget. They put a penguin on the side of the box. They immediately get their ass sued off by people who buy the widget, plug it into Goobuntu or whatever, nothing happens and for some reason they aren't satisfied by the explanation of "Well it'll Just Work in 12 months when the driver has been accepted upstream, been merged with your distros kernel patches, and you upgrade your OS". They want it to work now damnit, and Windows/MacOS can do this so why can't Linux?

• More driver stupidity. Not every program people run on Linux is GPLd today, and nobody tries to force them to be so. It's obvious to many people involved with Free software that the victories come when developers see why open sourcing their work is beneficial and choose to do it of their own free will, not when their arms are twisted into it. Yet the kernel developers do exactly this for drivers, and threaten (or actually do) sue random vendors who distribute binary drivers (except not nVidia, as that'd cause mass civil war). Worse, the kernel developers are getting more militant not less. This is simply not a tenable situation for desktops which deal with far wider variety of hardware than servers. In its current state Linux can never be a desktop kernel, unless you redefine "desktop" so far it loses all meaning.

• C++ support. It doesn't work. It's unbelievably slow, the glibc developers refuse patches to fix it, and is only reliable as long as you use "pure" binaries built with the same compiler that everything else is. This makes robust binary distribution of C++ apps impossible and as nearly every large desktop app is written in C++ this is a problem. Just try distributing a C++ application on Linux without getting all N^2 distros involved or requiring the user to know what a compiler is. Hell, try distributing any application at all without getting distros involved. And for all kinds of reasons centralized software distribution is a big usability and political nono.

• No easy install/uninstall - if you're comfortable with partitioning etc then you can get Fedora installed without too much bother, but Ubuntu doesn't even have a graphical installer, and as far as I'm aware no distro today offers an easy way to remove it and put Windows back to 100% disk usage. Who in their right mind would try a program that ate 10gigs of disk space and didn't come with a way to uninstall it?

• No credible DRM support. Every major company that deals with media uses it, Microsoft and Apple support it and Linux sucks at it. This effectively freezes Linux out from the upcoming world of legal online media (music/video stores etc).

I could go on ... unfortunately there's a general attitude of "who cares" in the community with regards to most of these issues so they aren't getting fixed or even talked about. Without these fundamental things I don't see how Linux can ever be a credible general purpose consumer desktop OS. The best you might get is a closed-box, unupgradable "console" type machine. But I wouldn't class that as a competitor to Windows or the Mac.

Not to sound cynical

[Spazntwich]

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.

Google is good at... gathering and indexing information. I don't see a Google Ubuntu being much more than Ubuntu with bundled linux versions of their various apps.

Another Google lets-see-if-it-sticks project

[Viol8]

Google has many fingers in many pies right now, presumably trying the
chuck-it-and-see-if-it-sticks approach. No doubt this is another of
those types of projects. If it works they'll hail it as a true MS rival,
if it doesn't it'll quietly get put down in a back room a year from now
and forgotten about.

virtualization?

[vijayiyer]

What if Google is planning on combining this with a virtualization product so that it can be installed under Windows? Your average user is not going to be able to replace Windows. However, Google could release this as a "security zone" which people would install on top of Windows. That, combined with perhaps an improved UI and a suite of desktop software may get a more typical user to install it.