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

[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.

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.

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:hmmm

[Xymor]

Image that, "relevant ads" delivery directly to your desktop.

Re:hmmm

['nother poster]

Well, under the improvements catagory, I want Google, or someone, to pay off whoever needs to be paid off to allow font rendering hints to be legal un the U. S. I use Linux on all but one of my computers at home, and my biggest gripe is that web pages and documents don't display as prettily as under Windows. Yes, this is fairly minor, but it bugs me. I want the function and flexibility that I get from Linux, and I want pretty too.

Re:hmmm

[Lehk228]

it would be a strategic move if they could, to break MS's back.
Microsoft is trying to move in on Google's market and is likely to continue to exploit their OS monopoly in orer to do so. IE defaults to using MSN search. therefore anything google can do to sabotage the dominance of IE or windows will help protect them in the future.

Re:hmmm

[dfsiii]

Also note how the article has little fact to it - but just a whole bunch of hearsay combined with the author's analysis of the supposed implications of this product...

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Actually, the question is "why the fuck can't anybody use apostrophes correctly?"

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

Google are beating Microsoft in other markets. Google tend to produce high quality products. This would put them in direct competition with Windows.

And, more importantly, how would that make them any money?

Microsoft, one of their competitors in the search engine market - their core business - has a monopoly on the desktop. The USA government has made it clear that Microsoft can do whatever the fuck they want and get nothing but a slap on the wrist. This is a very real business risk to Google. Diversifying the operating system market reduces that business risk.

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. :)

Re:hmmm

[vertinox]

They're a public company, so if it isn't making them money, then why would they do it.

That is a good question.

Microsoft lost money the Xbox. So why did they continue with Xbox 360?

Because they are trying to gain market dominance regardless of price.

Google might try the same thing. In the end, it is far better for a company to acheive this than simply try to get a profit in short term quarter earning reports.

Re:hmmm

[maxwell demon]

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

By distributing through a virus which automatically replaces Windows with Linux :-)

Re:hmmm

[JeanBaptiste]

i think grandparent post was kind of dumb, but i dont have any modpoints so i guess i'll respond.

as much as everyone (myself included) wants it to be, linux is not ready for the corporate desktop. and thats where it needs to be.

and as much as i love the open source model, linux is not going to be on the corporate desktop without backing from someone like microsoft, IBM, or google. heck, even IBM lost the OS market with what was at the time a superior product.

as a linux fan I view this as a very very very good thing.

Re:hmmm

[tolan-b]

Really? What distribution are you using?
In all the Gnome distros I've tried the sub-pixel rendering is beautiful. I'm pretty sure that's using hinting isn't it?

Re:hmmm

[Threni]

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

Linux has been good enough as a replacement for Windows for a while now. It just needs a marketing push. A Linux with google behind it might give it a chance, and perhaps would encourage games developers - a segment sorely needed if non-business people are to be seriously persuaded to kick the Windows habit.

Re:hmmm

[tdemark]

Google hasn't seemed to have a problem with releasing products that have no discernable source of revenue.

They plan on making it up in volume.

- Tony

Re:hmmm

[Telastyn]

Because Microsoft isn't a multi billion dollar company because they hold a tiny market share... Taking even a meager 5% of their business means you're profiting more than a billion dollars. And google is one of the only, if not the only company with both the technical skills and the marketing clout to realistically accomplish it.

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". . .

Re:hmmm

[kesuki]

under integration you forgot to include gmail, i know you said etc.... still, email and calendar functions are critical for desktop users. perhaps google, knowing what a decent sized orginization needs in terms of tools to allow the office to work together more fluidly will be able to better integrate those functions into a 'desktop' linux than some people who've never had to manage that kind of workload.

Re:hmmm

[BewireNomali]

the difference is that xbox games are a formidable revenue stream - and thus, while losing money (mostly because microsoft brute forced their way into the market instead of catching it on the upswing) they can justify their investment because the Xbox has steadily gained marketshare - coming into the gaming market and quickly holding down the no. 2 position and displacing Nintendo. further, the XBOX live service is the only one of its kind and thus has a lot of upside - especially for other kinds of content delivery and management. So there is significant and undeniable upside to the Xbox investment. Admittedly, its the kind of gamble only an obscenely rich company can make... and a ballsy one at that.

Now, a google OS. What does it solve? What does it get them? especially if they're giving it away for free? If they give it away for free - corporations won't use it. Corporations are all about accountability - and having Microsoft around as an expensive and pervasive fall guy is a proven business model. Google can't afford to give away that kind of support - so no way corporations use it.

Please point to the kind of OS inertia in the markplace that indicates the opportunity for a dynamic paradigm shift in OS installments. I don't think one exists. The OS marketplace is mature.

Re:hmmm

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

A dead chinese guy once said, "let every action provide you with some advantage or remove a disadvantage." Open Source software is primarily developed by and for users. The license is designed as a feature that provides an advantage to users, rather than as an anti-feature that provides a disadvantage to customers, as with closed source software.

Google, like every other big contributor to open source software, probably wants to use it. Thus they take the work of others and improve it and customize it and give it back. They benefit by having a better OS to use internally and everyone else benefits from their changes. Google benefits from the features and bug fixes others contribute.

A Google sponsored Google desktop does not make money, it saves money. It is also a reasonable strategic move to help mitigate MS's potential to illegally leverage their desktop monopoly to dominate the online services market.

Re:hmmm

[harrkev]

Google tend to produce high quality products. This would put them in direct competition with Windows.

Huh? If Google makes "high quality products" that would put them in an entirely different market than Microsoft.

Now, if Google starts making bloated, insecure, and consumer-hostile products, then they could take Microsoft on head-to-head.

Re:hmmm

[eheldreth]

I belive it was the beloved Mr. Balmer who declared war on Google with the eternal words "I'm going to f$cking bury google". May the best side win.

Re:hmmm

[el_womble]

Google can do Linux the biggest favour it can: branding.

Look at the big players in Linux:

• RedHat
• Novel/SuSE
• Ubuntu
• Gentoo

Say any of those names in a pub/bar and people will look at you like an alien has jumped out of your mouth.

Lets look at the identifiable brands in computing:

• Microsoft: They're the problem
• Apple: They've already gone BSD
• Dell/Sony: Are hardware not software, and would inevitably make their Distro proprietary (see Apple)
• Google: Its so crazy it could just work

Google are so huge, that googling is almost as accepted as a verb as hoovering or xeroxing. Just by mentioning that they might be releasing a competitor to Windows they will hit every business newspaper in the world.

To a certain extent it doesn't matter how good their distro is. If its based on Ubuntu its 95% there. If its pacakged with Google Earth, Picassa, gMail branded Evolution, a Blogger front end and Google Talk its up there with the big boys. If they can perform the ultimate trick and get Wine working as well as Rossetta does, then its an OS X beater.

Better than all of that, a home brand name supporting linux gives hardware and software developers something to target. If they can focus on one platform rather than all of them, and know that it will be hitting consumers not geeks, that can only be good for Linux.

Why is this good for Google?

Providing a distro that connects, by default, to their web services means that the penetration of their advertising is increase.

A web based company needs as many people on the web as possible. People who are polluted by viruses and malware arn't happy web consumers.

Share holders. If I was a major share holder of Google, I'd want to know why we weren't competing head on with Microsoft. Whilst Microsoft are the dominant OS, they control peoples initial perceptions of the web: Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, Hotmail and Outlook.

Do no harm. Its in their mission statement. Supporting Windows doesn't exactly fit into that category ;)

Re:hmmm

[drgreg911]

I wouldn't say Google is known for ease of use. They're known for being very clever and creative, not for being great UI designers.

Re:hmmm

[grcumb]

"Google is seeding clouds! Is this the end of Microsoft due to a massive hurricane Google is developing in the Pacific?"

I think I have your answer. 8^)

Re:hmmm

[jozeph78]

What does brand name fashion have to offer that unbranded clothing does not. Branding. Worthless? Of course! Does is sell(at premium none the less)? Of course! If it were free would it still be as popular? Now there's a question, but I digress. Either way adding the Google name to an OS will greatly increase the rate of acceptance. Everyone can use Google. New users choose to struggle through learning Windows in fear learning Linux wouldn't provide as much benefit. Stamp Google over the Linux tag and I these same people will struggle to learn Google(Linux) instead of Windows. If it were a Google version of Windows I assume it would have very comperable impact.

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

[jarich]

Now, a google OS. What does it solve? What does it get them? especially if they're giving it away for free? If they give it away for free - corporations won't use it. Corporations are all about accountability - and having Microsoft around as an expensive and pervasive fall guy is a proven business model. Google can't afford to give away that kind of support - so no way corporations use it.

Sounds like you've just debunked the RedHat business model! ;)

Except that RH is making money... there's nothing that would keep Google from following the same model. Free to use, support for a fee.

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

[NetRAVEN5000]

"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."

No. I would probably never switch, and certainly there will never be a distro to suit everyone's needs/wants. Mandrakesoft and SuSE have already tried - they've done wonders for ease-of-use, but they hinder the power and control that many Linux users want over their system.

If you really think that there could/should be a "one size fits all" Linux distro, I think you should read this thread. Basically some guy had a similar idea as you (his idea was dropping support for certain distros and focusing on the "main" distros) and criticized some of the differences in all the distros, and everyone chewed him out for it.

That said, though. . . I really am all for Google making their own distro, if that's what they are going to do. I may or may not use it, who knows (personally I like Slackware), but if some people do prefer Google OS over Slackware or Ubuntu. . . fine by me.

Re:hmmm

[jarich]

It's all about "Cover Fire". Read about it on Joel's site. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000003 39.html

Re:hmmm

[VolciMaster]

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?

I can think of one big thing. The Google File System. They already run some form of Linux on their servers, and the GFS runs on that. If they released an edition of the file system for Ubuntu, it might make server farms and data-intensive applications in 'normal' enterprises more attainable.

I can easily envision IT departments moving to a distributed environment, rather than specific servers, or even clusters, that users log into, store their work, etc.

Re:hmmm

[banditski]

I hate M$ as much as the next /.er, but isn't "Integration... Now imagine if a whole operating system is geared towards bringing all of these tools together into an integrated, easy-to-use package. Wow." what Microsoft already does (or tries to do) reasonably well??

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you new?

Google makes so much money from advertisments its bording on insanity. All these "free" services are more then paid for by the ads they run. Thats the revenue source.

Re:hmmm

[michrech]

IBM didn't "lose" the OS market. They screwed themselv's out of it with horrible marketing (mainly) and choosing to partner with MS. That MS backstabbed IBM then left didn't help, either.

Re:hmmm

[hawkbug]

"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."

From what you hear?!?? It's free, runs on any OS you would want it to, and it's a small easy download. Why wouldn't you try it for yourself?

Re:hmmm

[jZnat]

Although I fully support any effort Google puts into widespread usage of *nix systems, there are a couple organisations that are way ahead of you (and Google) when it comes to your three points: freedesktop.org has already been and continues to standardise the desktop frontends and backends so that your desktop environments will work great together and not even your typical Windows user would get confused by it. Then there is KDE who have made such huge advancements in your fancy-shmancy integration and synergy that I'd be more worried for Apple that they won't be the holder of the "fanciest desktop environment as perceived by the general public" award anymore. Of course, there is GNOME, and although it's become a very good desktop environment for beginners to computers or those who just want things to work, it does have many artificial limitations in how you can control it, so I recommend KDE to those who want any sort of control over their GUIs.

Re:hmmm

[morgan_greywolf]

Your assumption seems to be that this GoogleOS would be targetted at business.

From the screenshots I have seen I would say that Google is targetting mostly the home user.

As surprising as it may seem to you, not everyone needs compatibility with existing Windows apps. Furthermore, the addition of another OS to the marketplace probably won't, nor does it necessarily have to, spell the end of Windows.

It's not the like there needs to be just one OS for everyone. That line of thinking is reserved for Microsoft employees.

Re:hmmm

[ceoyoyo]

So why do you suppose third party developers don't like to develop drivers for Linux? Is it because it's harder? Nope. It's because it's not a big market. So third parties don't release drivers for Linux because few people use it, and few people use it (according to you) because there aren't drivers for everything for it.

The grandparent mentioned that Linux is ready, it just needs a marketing push. Suppose a big enough company, with enough commitment got behind Linux and started pushing it... hard. More people start using it, despite the lack of drivers. Google pressures third party hardware manufacturers to start providing drivers or let Google themselves do it.

The grandparent is correct. Google might fit the bill, and they might not.

Re:hmmm

[Skreems]

Interesting... my impression of google products so far has been that they started well, and quickly lost touch with what people like out of desktop applications.

**** Google Search: awesome.
*** GMail: pretty cool, especially now that they've finally added a delete button after 2 years of customers bitching at them. Still has some major lacking features, and hasn't had any major changes in its entire lifetime. Feels like it's stagnated.
*** Google Personal Homepage: blatant ripoff of MS's start.com, and not as good as the new live.com setup. Pretty decent, nothing special.
** GTalk: overly simplistic interface, and likes to add jerry@some-random-guy-I-emailed-once.com to your contact list. Doesn't support connectivity with other jabber domains by default, which was one of the cool points of the protocol to begin with.
** Google Desktop: cluttered, not incredibly useful.
* Orkut: pure crap.

Like just about every company out their, they have a pretty hit-and-miss record in my book. They have one really standout product, and then the rest have varying levels of interface and design issues. It seems like they're fantastic at apps where you can get away with a really minimalistic interface, like Search, but when you get to something where you actually WANT a more rich interaction model, they get a bit lost.

Re:hmmm

[Fishstick]

>the vast majority of the public who might actually try it once would run into one piece of hardware

Unless they partner with someone to build, install and sell/support complete systems (where the hardware is a uniform, known quantity).

Wonder how people would react to a Google PC at WalMart/Target for like $199 (Linspire flop aside).

Re:hmmm

[Giggles Of Doom]

I would be one of those people. Linux is a cool OS, OSS is a great idea, but I coulnd't get my optical audio to work, so I ditched it.

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Why wouldn't you try [Firefox] for yourself?

Because of simple inertia? I use Netscape 7 on Windows, and Safari on Mac OS X, unless some web site forces me to use Explorer on either. I've worked this way for a few years, and hey, if it ain't broke, don't mess with it.

I download lots of software recreationally, but it tends to be other kinds of open source projects; improving my web browsing experience doesn't seem worth the effort.

Re:hmmm

[colmore]

Google Desktop - Boxed edition, $49.99, with install/live DVD, Google manual, and 1 year customer support.

Charge a small fee for OEMs selling their computers with the "Google Supported" logo.

Google as default homepage, with pre-installed google applications. Google gets to develop for a client that is completely open to it, none of the B.S. that comes with writing software on a closed platform.

Frankly I'd love to see this. If my mom, friends, and siblings were all on an easy to use Linux distribution (and thus installing applications only from a package repository rather than downloading whatever free app has the biggest flashing banner) my life would be many times better.

No more Outlook worms, no more closed Office files, no more...

I mean just imagine what it would mean for the workings of the market if a big chunk of home users were on an open & free platform? If the majority of the software on the desktop was GPL?

My favorite would be no more 90% IE users on the web. Those of us out there who write DHTML have been waiting for this since that dark day in oh... was it 97 or 98 when IE 3 became the standard browser for AOL, and suddenly your job involved writing documents that you know would be read by BROKEN software. Well it's almost 10 years later and the damn thing is still a broken standards incompliant mess, and I still have to write around its bullshit instead of using the nicer CSS2 features. When the IE userbase becomes small enough that I can start just posting an "Internet Explorer is broken, please download a working browser to properly view this webpage" disclaimer, I will be a happy happy man.

Re:hmmm

[Odin_Tiger]

Yes, itegration is a marvelous and novel concept we should all be pushing for. What great genius Google has for trying to become an OS manufacturer with it's own software integrated into the system, which is totally unlike Microsoft and it's Internet Explorer...

Re:hmmm

[HuguesT]

You got that backward, or you must be a time traveller from about 1994 or so.

Most hardware companies today, in the x86 world, actually *are* happy to provide drivers or docs, or simply don't go out of their way to obfuscate protocols & designs. As a result Linux and the BSDs work quite well on the vast vast majority of the PC hardware out there. This has gotten to the point where on a random desktop PC out there one has far fewer difficulties in getting Linux to make all the hardware available in the box than Windows XP. This has been my consistent experience for several years now. Try it some day. This is fast becoming even true of laptops, and this is most definitely true of hardware that is only a few years old.

The few companies that don't pursue a Linux-friendly policy are simply slowly but consistenly being driven out of the market or forced to change their attitude. Look at what happened to ATI.

One only starts having real difficulties outside the straight x86 world, for example trying to get Linux to run well on an Apple Laptop is difficult. It mostly works, but for example Wifi won't, and this is indeed due to a company that has a Linux unfriendly attitude (Broadcomm). However even they have closed-source drivers for their x86-compatible hardware.

Yes I speak from experience, I can give you any number of instances where I tried to install Windows on some PC only to find out that there were no longer any available driver for such and such part of the machine (a modem, an ethernet adapter, the USB driver etc), when Linux had no qualms.

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:hmmm

[evil_tandem]

I completely agree. I think the big thing here is money. Right now Linux developers have to deal with the fact that microsoft pays people to work on windows 8+ hours a day. Like it or not, using linux i often get a sense that they are always struggling to release features that i've had in windows for quite a while, and by the time they get there, the rest of us have already moved on.

google could provide the financial means to be pro-active in this game. i always imagine that the tipping point where linux would become a serious competitor would be if/when an average user sits down and thinks "wow, i wish windows could do that."

command lines and multiple desktops are great for the power user. but the average user *obviously* doesn't really care.

Re:hmmm

[vertinox]

If they give it away for free - corporations won't use it.

Oh you mean like Internet Explorer?

Re:hmmm

[4D6963]

Come up with a decent GUI? Wow, well, now I'd really like to see a GUI made by Google and that could rival with Gnome (forget KDE, not that I want to argue about which is better again tho)

Re:hmmm

[michrech]

Unless they partner with someone to build, install and sell/support complete systems (where the hardware is a uniform, known quantity).

Wonder how people would react to a Google PC at WalMart/Target for like $199 (Linspire flop aside).

They'd probably react by saing "Wow. What a good deal. I'll take the copy of Windows from my crappy malware infested PC at home and stick it on this computer!" Would you like to know why? NONE OF THEIR SOFTWARE WILL RUN (easily, without need to setup Wine or some other emulation).

Listen. I like linux as much as the next guy (my laptop has Gentoo installed and I operate/maintain at least 6 Gentoo servers. Unlike you and seveal others, however, I realize what needs to be done before linux can "be a replacement/viable alternative" to Windows.

Re:hmmm

[femtoguy]

They don't have to do anything. Simply threatening is enough to keep Microsoft paranoid, and that's what Google needs. I think that Google just has people trying to come up with crazy new ideas, and then leaking them to try to get Microsoft to do extra work trying to keep up.

Re:hmmm

[BuR4N]

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

What would the change be if Bill and Steve switched market shares?, pretty much nothing....

Re:hmmm

[AxelBoldt]

Corporations are all about accountability - and having Microsoft around as an expensive and pervasive fall guy is a proven business model.

These corporations should read an EULA one of these days. Hint: Microsoft is not liable or accountable for anything.

Re:hmmm

[michrech]

Yes I speak from experience, I can give you any number of instances where I tried to install Windows on some PC only to find out that there were no longer any available driver for such and such part of the machine (a modem, an ethernet adapter, the USB driver etc), when Linux had no qualms.

I'd also call you a liar, right to your face, without a smile on mine. I've been a tech for 13 years (this year would be my 14'th). I know for a fact that with places like driverguide (or the plethora of copy-cats) that it is *almost* impossible to *not* find a driver on the very small chance that the OEM hadn't archived it somewhere on their web page.

The few companies that don't pursue a Linux-friendly policy are simply slowly but consistenly being driven out of the market or forced to change their attitude. Look at what happened to ATI.

Yes, lets look at ATI. I'll use the Gentoo forums as an example since I frequent those, however I've found plenty of the same results via google. Just search for ATI and look at the problems (and successes). My own laptop, with the ATI x200 chipset, had problems. The driver that other people posted worked on this very laptop, let alone this chipset, failed to install (I forget the *exact* error, but it had something to do with my chipset not being supported by the driver!).

Is ATI pushing crap software to try to sour the linux market? I doubt it, personally, but it is possible. Assuming they aren't, it underlines a HUGE problem with linux. One install, even on identicle hardware, will be different enough from another to break a driver such as the one ATI releases (and I've seen similiar stories with the closed nvidia driver).

Now, I don't recall stating that the state of hardware drivers for linux was dire (as you seem to have read from my post), however, it isn't anywhere NEAR good enough a landscape for linux to even THINK about 'taking over'.

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.

Re:hmmm

[NetRAVEN5000]

I don't get what you're saying.

Google still won't gain anything by just sitting there and letting MS develop their search technologies. However, they will have quite a defense against MS if they can suddenly whip out an entire OS seemingly out of nowhere and get many people to switch over, much like their support has gotten many Windows users to switch to Firefox. If they can suddenly remove MS' pride and joy out from underneath them, then MS will have to do an "oh shit" and retreat to find a way to get its Windows users back.

Re:hmmm

[xtracto]

Establish a list of officially supported hardware, so that getting sound working isn't a crap shoot?

I think what Google should do, if they want to *really* compete in the Operating Systems market is to provide a complete PC solution like Apple. They should create a set of PC systems (like apple different Macs) and sell them with their GooUbuntu. That way the problem of linux unsupported hardware will be thrown out.

Just imagine if they make the GooPC available at Wal*Mart and other retailers for a pretty low cost (I think they have the capability of buying PC components *without* the Windows tax, like Apple).

Re:hmmm

[ceoyoyo]

According to me? Hardly.

Sorry, that was just to refer to your post. I agree with you on that point, and I think a lot of others do too. I think configuration and GUI is also an issue though, although installation has been cleaned up to the point where it's actually a lot better than Windows.

The problem with drivers not working across kernels is a problem. Suppose for a minute that some big company comes along and puts out a real, backed by a big company standard. Stabilizes things a bit. ATI and nVidia constantly release drivers for Windows and OS X. The regular user wouldn't be switching kernels... they'd use the one that came with the version that Google distributed. Just like they do with OS X.

I mentioned it's not, backed up the claim, and got negatively moderated by a bunch of linux fanbois.

This is Slashdot and that's the way public moderation worked. Consider yourself lucky... I once had the pleasure of taking a course where your peers (classmates) graded everything. Like Slashdot moderation that actually makes a difference in reality.

in spite of what you and the other idiots want to believe

I'm sorry, I mistook you for one of the six or seven people here who don't take disagreement as a personal attack and reply with silly insults. My apologies. Please stop reading here. Oh, I think I'm supposed to say something like "yor momma."

I don't understand why you don't think a push by a big enough company would turn Linux into a viable competitor for Windows. Apple turned Mach into a good mainstream OS and it's been constantly gaining market share. It might really take off if someone releases a really good Windows emulator for the new Intel Macs. MS themselves did pretty well against the then-dominant IBM and their DOS. Lots of people, particularly security conscious businesses, are getting pretty fed up with Windows and would love to use something else. Google Linux isn't going to come out tomorrow and conquer Windows the next day but Linux is also gaining market share. A nice big company behind it to clean up the rough spots, put some pressure on hardware developers, add some stability and put it on TV might do some pretty significant wonders.

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....

Re:hmmm

[Black Perl]

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.

Why should I have to go to Best Buy or Target or Office Depot, when I can download my apps right from the OS menu?

Install Ubuntu 5.10 and see just how easy it is.

The "real barrier" you speak of is the mindset that you have to go to a big-box store and buy your apps.

Re:hmmm

[cabazorro]

Interesting indeed. I have a more simplistic approach.
A growing company has two commonly known paths of growth:
Horizontal growth: Acquire competition and related products. You make tires? Acquire other
tire manufactures and products/services.
Vertical growth: Acquire chain of production: You make tires? Acquire all bussiness from the
raw products (rubber) to the sales and installation.
In Google's arena clearly it has no real competition, just spoken (like the iPod). So there's
no real horizontal growth potential there.
So the logic path is HORIZONTAL growth. Produce not only the search engine, but the computer and the OS and so on. Ipod succeded at horizontal growth with the music so google is basically making a search engine service and ones to own the-whole-chain which make sense considering considering the software and hardware requs to produce a "Google-Client Gizmo". Hey! how a bout a Wi-Fi portable Google Client: Let's call it "GPal"!!??

Re:hmmm

[knuckledraegger]

Take Ubuntu, refine it, shrink it and optimize it to run in a browser. Google Thin Clients. Imagine your office from anywhere you can get to Google. Imagine your entire desktop indexed on google Servers...

Re:hmmm

[michrech]

I don't understand why you don't think a push by a big enough company would turn Linux into a viable competitor for Windows. Apple turned Mach into a good mainstream OS and it's been constantly gaining market share. It might really take off if someone releases a really good Windows emulator for the new Intel Macs. MS themselves did pretty well against the then-dominant IBM and their DOS. Lots of people, particularly security conscious businesses, are getting pretty fed up with Windows and would love to use something else. Google Linux isn't going to come out tomorrow and conquer Windows the next day but Linux is also gaining market share. A nice big company behind it to clean up the rough spots, put some pressure on hardware developers, add some stability and put it on TV might do some pretty significant wonders.

That'd be because I believe it'd take a push by THE INDUSTRY as a whole to get linux 'mainstream'.

MS "did pretty well against the then-dominant IBM and their DOS" by introducing false errors into the current version of Windows. They screwed IBM over again (just like they screwed IBM WRT OS/2. IBM's marketing didn't help either, but MS certianly didn't make things any better).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a big push by a company as large as Google won't help linux. I'm just being a bit more realistic than others as to how FAR it will help.

Re:hmmm

[GigsVT]

It's not insurmountable.

The computer industry has, in the past, dropped things like a hot potato when they started to suck.

Really I think Windows has become the sole exception to this rule so far.

Monopolies have a way of collapsing under their own weight. The biggest mistake is thinking that your situation is different somehow from all the rest throughout history. That's how it always happens, cocky until it's too late.

So in 2000 I predicted the major fall of MS in 5 years. I may have underestimated the time frame a little, but I still think it's coming. In the last 2 years MSFT has underperformed the market. Revenue/employee at MS is falling. IE has lost the browser monopoly. The signs are there. MS is getting into trouble.

A small nudge over the cliff could send MS in a downward spiral. I don't know if I should make another time-frame prediction, but the next 5 years could be pretty interesting for MS.

Re:hmmm

[pcgc1xn]

I think the major thing holding back Linux from the desktop is hardware support.

A Google OS (or any new OS) is going to be a very hard sell...
I also think that the new OS deal is a hard sell. Joe 6pack does not know or care what OS is on his machine, and there is no way that he is going to change it.
J6: "You are asking me to repaint my car & change some of the controls around, and then my scanner won't work any more?"
Geek: "Yes"
J6: "Why would I?"
Geek: "Because then it would be more secure"
J6: "Secure?, will my camera still work?"
Geek: "Maybe"
J6: "Can I still run my favourite program X?"
Geek: "No, you will have to find and learn something else"
J6: "No thanks - if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Now when purchasing a computer Joe 6 pack is faced with 2 choices:
Windows - costs slightly more, runs everything albeit slighty erratically at times, can plug any consumer device into it
Google - slightly cheaper, sketchy device support, all different programs to learn (even if they are free), claims to be more secure.

The other question that you need to look at is WHY does google want to release it's own OS.
1/ To spend a lot of money to piss off Microsoft
2/ To increase the number of ads that Google can serve users & therefore increase revenue

1, while probably quite appealing, can be acheived more cheaply by Sergei walking up to Bill the next time they are both at some event and kneeing him in the bollocks.
2 is why Google is in business. This implies that GoogleOS will want constant internet connection in order to serve those ads. What does this imply for laptop & dial up users? More importantly what does this mean for your data?

You currently trust all of your searches to an advertising company. Would you REALLY trust all of your data to an advertising company? Would you trust your companies data? I wouldn't.

Re:hmmm

[Gulthek]

You've never used ubuntu (or gentoo) linux before eh? All the apps and toys and stuff you could want just waiting for you to tell it to download.

Yes, it will mean that PC games don't work. Oh well. There are many many many many many people who don't use their desktop computers as gaming consoles and want to: surf the web, check the email, play the solitare.

Re:hmmm

[Radres]

What about Google Maps/Earth? Google Image Search? Google Groups?

Re:hmmm

[khallow]

Share holders. If I was a major share holder of Google, I'd want to know why we weren't competing head on with Microsoft. Whilst Microsoft are the dominant OS, they control peoples initial perceptions of the web: Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, Hotmail and Outlook.

My take is that it's a bad idea to compete "head on" with Microsoft. And unprofitable to boot.

Re:hmmm

[zipfaust]

Hey,

If they could to do Linux what Apple did to Next & BSD. I'm be all for it. :) Or better yet, I'd love to see them resurrect the BeOS platform. It's a shame that Be never caught on/had a chance. :(

Re:hmmm

[imess]

Did you not realize that the so-called google os screenshots you have seen are nothing more than an ugly xp theme?

Re:hmmm

['nother poster]

Many distros have a U.S, and a non-U.S. version of the distributions. TMany of the Non-U.S. versions have hinting turned on, but the U.S. versions can't due to patent encumbrances.

Re:hmmm

[KingSkippus]

You're absolutely right. I love my GMail account, and I've gotten a whole bunch of other folks using it, too. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. Oh, wait, I do have mod points! (But since I've posted, I can't mod this particular thread...)

Re:hmmm

[KingSkippus]

By "standard," I didn't mean to imply that it would be any more or less official than any other version, or that people wouldn't still use alternative distributions. What I meant was that it would have the vast majority of "market share" (or installations, or whatever measure you want to use).

Re:hmmm

[Cro Magnon]

Linux has apps to satisfy 90+% of anyone's needs, but that last 10% is a problem. Where is the Tax software? For that matter, where is a Quicken work-alike that can DL info from my bank?

Re:hmmm

[mattyrobinson69]

sound is a piece of piss in most linux disto's. Windows, however is awful if it *decides* not work. Ive had sound work on debian etch, kubuntu and iirc freebsd recently, out the box, and gentoo only required a modprobe

*yes, windows makes a concious decision not to work

I happen to think the kde gui is better than xp's too.

Re:hmmm

[Arandir]

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

So what? Apple has been an alternative for decades. Yet people keep saying they don't have any choice but to use Windows. Why, are they stupid? On your next computer, just go buy a Mac. It's almost like you guys WANT Microsoft to be a monopoly. "No! You can't switch! Don't you know you don't have a choice!" Sheesh.

Here's the biggest reason people aren't switching to the Mac: They don't think they can. After spending thousands of dollars on proprietary Windows-only software, they think their locked in without a choice. They bought a real expensive Photoshop for Windows, and don't want to buy another real expensive Photoshop for Mac. Mac on generic x86 won't help the problem, because it still won't run Windows software natively. It could run it via an emulator, but you can do that right now with Macs, so what's the difference?

The only advantage with Mac on generic x86 is that you can dual boot it. But Windows people don't dual boot, that's the province of geeks.

Re:hmmm

[KingSkippus]

Yes, and the idea is a pretty good one, if done right. It's one of the few things that I give Microsoft a lot of credit for. That's one of the things that make Linux generally frustrating. (Yes, I know that some people argue that it's one of the good things about it.) Generally speaking, most applications are blissfully ignorant of everything else running, or provide some really basic (i.e. barely useful) level of communication.

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

[NetRAVEN5000]

Well I'm just saying, though, that there's a high possibility that only Windows users will switch and not current Linux users who already have a distro they like and are comfortable with.

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

[KingSkippus]

Take a deep breath... Integration by itself is not a bad thing. As I said before, it's something thing I give Microsoft a lot of credit for getting right, at least conceptually.

Who here likes the Search box in Firefox? (raises hand.)

Re:hmmm

[Arandir]

1. Usability. Google should have this pretty well covered

Linux with KDE or GNOME on a well integrated distro already has this covered. In many cases, Linux sytems have MORE usability than Windows. We've got that problem licked. There's still a lot of usability work to be done, but that's because we don't want to settle with "good enough" like Microsoft has done.

The biggest perceived "usability" problems with Linux have nothing to do with usability. Hardware drivers and their related configuration, for example. Or dual booting for another. Dual booting Windows XP and Windows 2003 is actually more difficult than dual booting Windows XP and SuSE Linux.

Re:hmmm

[dekemoose]

Corporations don't see Internet Explorer as a seperate entity from Windows. They turn on the computer and it's there.

Nice try, but bad analogy.

Re:hmmm

[KingSkippus]

Of course there's potential for evil! However, they have a really good reputation for not going down those kinds of paths. As I said, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt that they won't deliberately screw us all over. Certainly more benefit of a doubt than Microsoft.

Re:hmmm

[cabazorro]

OOps I meant VERTICAL growth! Google has already saturated the HORIZONTAL growth.

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?

Re:hmmm

[DerekLyons]

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

Considering the interface problems that both Maps and Mail 'shipped' with... I wouldn't be so certain of this.

Also, given Google's slow trend towards 'evil' [1], I'm not certain their OS would be any better than Redmond's.

[1] A recent Pontiac commercial states "want to know how good we are? google us!"... And shows the Google home page (and the appropriate disclaimers), thus trading on Google's reputation for accurate and relevant results - which a google on Pontiac doesn't provide. The first result is the corporate home page, and the rest are either Classic Pontiac collecters clubs or the City of Pontiac.

Re:hmmm

[Anivair]

Apart from having some of the best programmers in the world at their disposal, not to mention the ability to pay a lot of people a large amount of money to perfect this distro (something ubuntu does not currently do. though some of the ubuntu programmers may be on payroll, it will be small potatoes next to a google salary)? And apart from having one of hte biggest names in computing? Having used ubuntu for quite a while now (since it came out) I think it's the single best chance linux has against either mac or windows. It's solid and easy to use and operate. If my mother can use it, anyone can. I've seen ubuntu shut up naysayers for a while now. Also, now to come off like a fanboy, but are we actually going to say that we think there's somehting google can't accomplish? I have yet to see that proved.

Re:hmmm

[Changa_MC]

No, Integration would be providing clear standardized APIs so that quicktime et all would work seamlessly under Windows. Not including Windows Media Player(TM) into the OS.

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

[DerekLyons]

Share holders. If I was a major share holder of Google, I'd want to know why we weren't competing head on with Microsoft. Whilst Microsoft are the dominant OS, they control peoples initial perceptions of the web: Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, Hotmail and Outlook.

If I were a major shareholder (and assuming shareholders had any power at Google, they don't), I wonder why Google was going head-to-head with Microsoft. Google is an advertising company - not an OS or application company.

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Good for you.

Meanwhile, the 90% of computer users who aren't like you will continue to use Windows.

The barrier to Linux "killing" Windows is NOT you, and it's not me either, but thanks for your suggestion. I don't feel like spending my free time and my cash to get a computer to install Ubuntu on (so I can do what, again?); I use Windows at work and OS X at home, and have plenty of other things to do with my free time.

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.

Re:hmmm

[Paul Carver]

Who here likes the Search box in Firefox?

Not me. Mozilla had it much better with a single box that could handle url or search with ease. I know there's a workaround for Firefox, but it doesn't work 100% of the time and it has to be set up on each machine. I use way too many computers.

I still end up typing search terms in the Firefox URL bar from time to time and then have to copy and paste them to the search box

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

I actually used Gentoo once, when I had a 64 MB Pentium II computer with nothing better to do.

Then, hours later, I discovered that swap with a slow hard drive is not fun, and that the graphics card only supported some incredibly low resolution, and that it wasn't actually much fun. So I did something else. Someday soon, I might cough up $200 for one of those bargain bin PC's and start bizarro Linux kernel hacking, but I haven't.

Listen, I don't buy software at Best Buy, etc., and never claimed to. I just check every so often when I'm in the store, and EVERY TIME, I see that nothing there works on anything but Windows.

Will you people stop suggesting that *I* simply need to try Ubuntu/Gentoo, whatever, then I will be convinced that Linux is "ready" to kick Bill Gates in the ass? I can find my own way to productivity and entertainment, and know the difference. But *I* and *people like me* is not equivalent to *enough people to make a dent in Windows popularity*.

I happen to recognize this. Every dweeb who says "$NEW_OSS_RELEASE is how Linux will kill Windows, Yay!" apparently has not.

Re:hmmm

[Anivair]

wow, that was a lod of half educated crap if I've ever heard it. Check any online review you like. Openoffice is just as full featured as MSoffice and in many ways it is more full features (try writing a math paper in office sometime). It also has the added benefit of containing a lot of free software that MS would be charging you about a thousand dollars for. And let's be clear . . . I work in business . . . we use open office . . . works just fine. I'd love to see some of these theoretical horror stories. You're right, firefox is a fine browser. And go take a look at the numbers. the number of people who make the switch is hardley that small a fraction. Further, if IE were removed from every windows computer in existance today and replaces with firefox, the same number of people who have NOT switched would never notice. I fail to see, then, how you have made a point there. And excel macros work just fine in openoffice. If you're doing somehting particularly complicated with it then you might have to do it a different way, but it is still somehting you can do. Anyone who can learn one complicated macro can learn another. People forget that the reason windows is so familiar is because it's all most people have ever seen. If you walk into the office on day one and sit down at a linux machine you'll learn it and it will be every bit as intuitive as wondows is for most of the button pushing monkeys out there. Really. Any claim made to the contrary is outright childish. Any OS is easy if you learn it, it's as simple as that. the fact that you don't remember your windows learning curve doesn't mean it wasn't there. it just means that you didn't know what you didn't know.

Re:hmmm

[HankB]

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

Any other release/spinoff will not keep Bill Gates awake at night. Microsoft is already going off in a zillion different directions and in some of these directions, Google competes. This might just be a red herring to divert Microsoft's resources away from the area that Google is really interested in. Google doesn't actually have to produce the distro. All they have to do is convince Microsoft that they can or might.

Re:hmmm

[jaaronc]

That's because you ignore the ads. The first ad you see when you google "Pontiac" will be for KBB.com, and when you click on it and enter your zip code, the site will have Pontiac pre-loaded, presumably to tell you how good Pontiacs are. But besides that, I fail to see your point. Google'r reputation is that they provide an accurate and relevent view of the internet. If there's nobody out there saying just how good Ponitac is, that's not Google's fault, nor is it Google's fault that Pontiac claimed that there were. How is any of this a "slow trend towards 'evil'"?

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

And excel macros work just fine in openoffice. If you're doing somehting particularly complicated with it then you might have to do it a different way, but it is still somehting you can do. Anyone who can learn one complicated macro can learn another.

I see, so I can go through all the risk and effort of switching, and I have, what only a 5%, 10% chance of my critical apps breaking? (Yes, I know Windows/Office upgrades have a similar risk, but I don't like those either.)

And, I gain, what, exactly? The $50 Dell probably charged my company (but won't give back if I chose Linux) to install Windows on my work laptop? The warm feeling from being part of the Linux jihad? Respect from my fellow cavemen? The ability to post on Slashdot with moral superiority? What?

Re:hmmm

[McDutchie]

Driver API. Centralised driver development doesn't work - period.

Yes it does, as long as the driver is distributed in source. But even closed-source NVIDIA seems to manage fine - they just put a source code wrapper around their binaries. Installed fine for me on 'unsupported' Slackware.

More driver stupidity. Not every program people run on Linux is GPLd today,

Neither is every driver . Your innuendo about kernel developers threatening to sue is just that.

C++ support. It doesn't work.

BWAHAHA! Try to tell that to the developers of the preferred Linux desktop environment, KDE, which is entirely written in C++. And I'm not even mentioning such non-working programs as Firefox and Inkscape. <smirk>

No easy install/uninstall -

I guess formatting a partition isn't easy enough for you?

No credible DRM support.

Praise the Lawd for that.

Now I've done my share of troll-feeding for the day. Bye!

Re:hmmm

[Rolgar]

They could even give give away the updates for free. How many people would buy a system that would never go out of date?

They could allow you to install on as many machines as you want. If they don't care about box sales, they could even allow you to copy the disks and distribute them yourself. Even if they don't get money, they'll make sure Microsoft won't, or at least make Microsoft change their price, support, or install policies.

They could actually support the companies that make software for Linux instead of competing with them the way Microsoft does. Sure, software makers probably won't be able to make money making an Office clone since many already exist, but you I don't think anybody will be making a free TurboTax considering the annual updates (barring a tax overhaul by Congress).

They could give their OS and support to schools and charities for free, and have the schools recommend students make their next computer purchase with Linux in mind. If a student buys a computer, their school gets a discount on their next computer purchase.

Develop wiki-e-textbooks and activity guides with the collaboration of the best teachers and writers in the country, and distribute them free to every school, so every school would have the best textbooks in the country at no cost. Have DRM-free e-books that integrate seamlessly with the school software, so that every student would have a portable copy of their books.

I'm sure the bright folks at Google could have even better ideas than these, but there is your start.

Re:hmmm

[justins]

Damn. That looks like a crappy toy.

Re:hmmm

[I_redwolf]

You're talking out of your ass.

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?

First and foremost having a Driver API is pointless as has been pointed out by numerous people time and time again. Sadly you make it seem like windows users can buy whatever "widget" and just plug it in. We all know that isn't true and most "widgets" come with the appropriate drivers for said widget. Secondly, If the manufacturer hasn't updated the driver or provided a driver for the latest kernel then so be it. It's no different than anything else. You buy a widget for win95/98 then don't expect it to work with 2000/XP unless its extremely basic.

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).

Distribute binary drivers without source? Without access to source, but you still are using GPL code? It's normally called violation of the GPL.

Is Nvidia breaking any rules? No, they abide by the rules. So what are you talking about? It's ok for vendors to violate the GPL?

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.

Performance I won't comment on it, Glibc developers refusing patches I won't comment on because we all know at the end of the day it boils down to support of code, support of diff platforms and one could go on. However binary distribution of C++ apps impossible? Give me a break. You speak as if upgrading the core components of a system are a daily tasks for the user. We have packages for that and the distribution compiles the code and makes a binary package for the distribution!!! See, thats easy. If you're favorite software has been updated then wait for your disitribution to update it. No different than having to wait for Office 2009! Same thing.

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?

Are you kidding me? Does ANYTHING allow you an easy way to remove windows/linux/whatever and put Windows back to 100% disk usage? Are users really doing this? Linux is a program that eats 10 gigs of disk space? What ever happened to LiveCD's? They no longer exist? Have you seen the Windows Installer? What in gods name are you saying?

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).

Name a media format Linux cannot play; name one.

You could go on, i'm sure. You could go on spouting off untruths and general crap. Don't get me wrong there are items of contention when it comes to opensource and frameworks. One could only hope there were a company or distribution that took c

Re:hmmm

[ratboy666]

ELF supports symbol versioning. And that's what is supposed to take care of these issues. That's what Solaris uses.

Why isn't it used? I really don't know (I am an ex SUN staff engineer -- can't really comment on Linux or GNU designs). ELF is a proven technology, for projects in the million+ LOC range.

However, what part of private libraries wasn't clear? That would include the application support libraries. Your versions. Indeed, statically link the thing -- its a binary. I really don't see the big deal here.

This controls "accidental collisions" completely. Now, if you WANT to use dynamic libraries, and want to control versioning, and DON'T want to use the native approach to it, and are trying to develop a huge application (which seems to be your position) -- use separate process spaces and dynamically load what you need into each one. Again, no collisions. And no big deal.

The ELF loader is trying to build an image for you, with everything specified, and trys to reuse already loaded bits. And that's ALL it does. It really is the job of the application developer to deploy the application correctly.

----

As to the "SAP" thing. The idea is that the data remains encrypted until the very last possible moment. As an example, the audio driver (signed) generates a public/private key pair, and hands the public key to the application, which then uses that to encrypt the data which only the audio driver can decrypt. Of course, the audio driver can't be (pre-load) tampered with because it would then fail its signing (where the signing private key is not available).

That's the thing in a nutshell. The "trusted" component is the key management -- specifically the secret driver signing key (for this particular embodyment (sp?)).

So, go out and get a (or make a key pair). Modify the Linux loader to allow signing by wrapping the driver object.

That would be it. Total Linux kernel change -- minor. Of course, getting that into the mainline may be difficult (although there is NOTHING in there that isn't open source). There is still a problem, though -- the kernel debugger. There would have to be a way to disable debugging on a signed module. Which there isn't (because of virtualization technology). Until something is put into the processor core itself. Still, DRM support itself (at least effective against most developers and all users) is easy.

Anyway, Linux is HEAVILY used in "DRM" environments -- embedded systems (video), etc. Arguably, more so than Windows. And, on a consumer OS level, it is EASIER to incorporate DRM into Linux.

Feel free to use the design outlined here. Nothing that isn't SOP in the security world. The hardest steps are to (1) convince people that a "signed driver" is a good thing and (2) to get a key or circuit embedded on the processor. (1) is done, thanks to Microsoft, and (2) is done, thanks to IBM Thinkpads. Keep that private signing key secret, and tada! DRM.

Ratboy.

Re:hmmm

[foxylad]

# 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?

It is true that the Ubuntu installer is not graphical, but it is still one of the best - Linux On Laptops is overflowing with stories of Ubuntu "Just Working", detecting wireless networking, displays etc flawlessly. Personally I'm not phased by the fact that the install is character based - I can still see exactly what is going on.

And you forget one of the major aids to Linux migration - live disks. You CAN try out Ubuntu on your Windows machine without even touching your hard disk. It's a bit rich to be complaining about Linux not cleaning up after itself when Windows refuses to play at all!

I'd really recommend you try the latest Ubuntu live disk. I think you'll be suprised how easy it is, and it is entirely risk free - just pop out the CD and reboot back to good old familiar Windows.

Re:hmmm

[Deliveranc3]

Offer a central server system?

For dynamic ip processing, application downloads, maybe even file storage. Central update and driver location.

You know everything microsoft.com does + everything free software can do = teh win!

Re:hmmm

[cojsl]

The other issue is Windows specific apps. If Intuit doesn't produce a Linux version of Quickbooks, it's a deal killer for most of my small business customers. The pain of migrating to a new platform and set of apps still exceeds the cost/security/maintenance improvements of OSS

Re:hmmm

[Fallingcow]

Yes, but there are huge categories of products that don't work on Linux, or don't work well. Ubuntu's APT frontend can't get you everything.

Lots and lots of USB devices don't work. Lots of wireless net devices don't work, and many of the ones that do are hard to configure, even on Ubuntu.

Few commercial games run natively on Linux, and even with Cedega only about 15-20% of the stuff on store shelves can be expected to work.

"FreeHolidaySnowglobeScreensaver.exe" and the like don't run on linux.

It's a chicken/egg problem, but it's still a problem, at least as far as real acceptance in the home market is concerned. Few commercial software apps work on Linux, and there aren't drop-in replacements for many of those apps in the OSS world. It's not the "mindset that you have to go to a big-box store and buy your apps" that's the issue here; even if they were available through an online interface, they still wouldn't work on Linux.

Re:hmmm

[Risen888]

Oh, what a bunch of flamebait and bullshit. "(3 year old open source app) isn't quite as good as (this other thing that MSFT has had 15 goddamn years to develop)! Open source is DOOOOOOMED!

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

What is with the lack of reading comprehension today?

I didn't say OSS was "doomed." GCC is still here, Linux is still here, none of this is going away. Perl, etc., etc.

The parent was claiming that two, and presumably only two, things were standing in the way of the Linux steamroller, and as soon as Google makes those two things go away, bye-bye Windows.

I point out that there is a third, crucially important barrier to widespread replacement of Windows, and suddenly I am an ignoramus, who should just try Gentoo or Ubuntu, and download all my software, or just switch to Open Office, spouting flamebait or bullshit.

If anybody wants Free Software (or Open Source) to actually replace anything, they should understand the reality behind the thing being replaced, not some geeky caricature of how things *might be*.

Is realism too much to ask for?

Re:hmmm

[jcr]

I'd really like to see a GUI made by Google and that could rival with Gnome

That would be shooting far too low. The NeXT look and feel was a fine choice when Gnome set out to emulate it, but to come up with something really good, it's necessary to try for something beyond the current status quo. This is also why Visix Galaxy was such a disappointment.

-jcr

Re:hmmm

[Koatdus]

Here's the biggest reason people aren't switching to the Mac: They don't think they can. After spending thousands of dollars on proprietary Windows-only software, they think their locked in without a choice.

Well in my case it the choice was more price then anything else. Apple hardware is just too overpriced for what you get. I paid about $800 for parts to build a kickass athlon system and $0 to install OpenSuSE 10. Is my system as fast as a G5? I don't know...but it is pretty darn fast.

Where am I going to get a top of the line Apple for $800? The Apple GUI is pretty but not pretty enough to pay $1999 for. (cheapest G5 on Apples web site) SuSE also looks pretty good and found all my hardware with no fuss. There are also thousands of free programs I can download and install with a few clicks. My kids also love SuSE. They are both under 10 and have their own login's, passwords and desktops which they have no problem customizing and setting up they way they like. They use OpenOffice and Firefox, and are hooked on SuperTUX and Neverball.

I also get a "talked down to" feel whenever I deal with Apple. To me they seem to treat their users like a bunch of idiots that are too stupid to know how they want to do things and have to be led around by the nose in the "one true way."

Just for example my daughter got an IPOD Shuffle for Christmas. We were at her Grandmothers house when she got it so I installed ITUNES on Grandmas PC, purchased a Hilery Duff album, Downloaded and reflashed the OS on the shuffle because it was horked from the store, and put the music on the Shuffle for her. So far so good, everything working fine. When we get home I figured that I would be able to just plug the IPOD into my wife's windows PC and move the music to her disk drive for playing on ITUNES there. No. The IPOD is already "associated" with another pc, do I want to wipe it and "associate" it with this one? NO. I don't want to associate it with anything, I just want to drag and drop the music that I payed $10 for onto my wifes pc so I can burn it to cd. After fiddling around for a while I just said "forget this" and plugged the IPOD into my SuSE machine. "ding" USB stick pops up on the desktop, double click, drag files from USB stick to SMB share on wifes PC., DONE!

THAT is what I call a user friendly machine.

I then plugged the IPOD back into my wifes pc, opened ITUNES, "associated" it ( it did wipe the music) imported c:\shared the directory that had the music in it, (AFTER IT HAD TO CONNECT TO THE INTERNET AND MAKE ME VERIFY THAT I WANTED THE MUSIC I HAD ALREADY PAYED FOR TO PLAY ON THIS PC!!!!!!!!!!!!) and drag the music back onto the IPOD along with some other songs I ripped from CD for her. I don't know, I have a bad taste about the whole thing. My daughter is happy since she is now in the "in crowd" that has an IPOD but if I ever get around to buying an MP3 player for myself it will be something else. Probably something that plays both MP3 and Vorbis but even if it just plays MP3 it will not be an IPOD. Like everything else from Apple they are overpriced and too restricted. Without any research a quick look on the CompUSA web site shows Shuffles starting at $99 and other brands starting at $49.

Re:hmmm

[Risen888]

I point out that there is a third, crucially important barrier

No you don't. You point out that after three years (or five, or two, depending on what project we're discussing), OpenOffice (to take a random example) is only, what, 80% as good as MS Office, which MSFT hasn't been able to perfect given a nearly infinite amount of money, time, manpower, and undisclosed OS-linking gimmickry. I'm not even going to discuss Firefox v. IE, because that would lower this whole dialogue to the point of absurdity.

Whatever barrier you're pointing at, I don't see it.

Re:hmmm

[legirons]

"They plan on making it up in volume."

It's not that strange is it? How much did AOL and the rest use to pay to put icons on the default Windows desktop? And Google's business is advertising. People are paying $2/click for adwords on google.com and we're struggling to find a way that they could profit from skinning someone's entire desktop?

Remember we're only taking the cost of modifying an OS and distributing it on the net -- they don't exactly need to make much per install for it to be worthwhile.

Not that I know what they're thinking. If I were google, I'd leak rumours of a GoogleOS, just to scare the crap out of Microsoft. Although that would rather be sinking to their level.

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Whatever barrier you're pointing at, I don't see it.

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

Admittedly, the barrier could be overcome, but only if EVERY significant Windows app had a replacement that ran with sufficient compatibility to allow pain-free migration of documents and custom applications, or even just some compelling real-world advantage that more than compensates for the pain of change.

That is a HUGE barrier. The rest of my comment was an unsuccessful attempt to forestall all the "Open Office is good enough (...except for those pesky VBA macros that make up custom applications...and Project...)" or "GIMP is just fine for me (except if I wanted the UI to be comfortable for Photoshop jockeys.)" I.e., NOT pain-free compatibility.

Yet even people like you are only willing to claim 80% on the "as good as" scale, where the barrier is something like 98% in FILE OR UI COMPATIBILITY. Not "oh, you'll get used to it, eventually", or "It's different because it is much, much better" or "no one really needs that feature, anyway," or "many open source volunteers given years of additional time will improve things eventually" because all of that is still PAIN, in exchange for which there is no NET GAIN.

The point of the Firefox example, is even when something IS much better, and has a virtually painless migration route, most people STILL DON'T MIGRATE.

Re:hmmm

[uhmmmm]

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

Would this be the same vast majority of the public which buys a pre-packaged computer, preloaded with windows, including drivers, and who never touches the drivers, and likely wouldn't even know how to?

If so, then all that's needed is a company to sell pre-packaged computers, preloaded with linux and the drivers for whatever linux-friendly hardware it has. No, I think the real problem is applications. Particularly games. Sure, all the games I play may exist for linux, but there are plenty of people out there still tied to windows for games or other applications.

Re:hmmm

[ChunderDownunder]

• Standardization. The corporate standard has been RedHat. Commercial vendors, Oracle comes to mind, distribute software as rpms. Sun recommends RedHat as a build environment for the JDK. Aside from that, people like diversity. Now as far as standardization goes, LSB has had little impact because the distros have largely agreed to disagree. Ubuntu is already becoming a distro of choice because of free CDs and online forums. Their goals were to produce a universal friendly desktop and based on gnome. KDE users created their own - again people like diversity.
• Improvements. Google are already contributing to Linux development through their 'Summer of Code' initiatives. Fixing all the little quirks in Linux is a goal RedHat and Novell are investing in heavily. Google may provide more funds but Linux won't suddenly become 'useable' just because Google has their own distro.
• Integration. My web browser has a little text box which, by default, is linked to Google's search engine. But I must have missed the rest of the quantum leap in usability of which you speak. :) Google will provide integration of their products, sure. But these services are driven by advertising revenues. I, for one, don't welcome subliminal advertising through integrated desktop software.

Re:hmmm

[AusIV]

Yes, but a vast majority of Google's free services give another place to run ads. Searching, GMail, News, Froogle, and Local promote ad revenue, Google Earth has free versions and versions that you have to pay for, and Desktop has corporate versions that sell for big bucks. I'm sure I've missed a few, but just about everything google makes has some way of increasing profit. I have no doubt Google could make a Linux OS profitable, but I'm sure if they really are developing an operating system, they intend to profit from it.

Re:hmmm

[sudorm]

"I guess formatting a partition isn't easy enough for you?" I think most people that read slashdot know how to format a partition but the reason the parent brought this point up is how many of our parents or non-techie friends know how? Very few if any is my guess. I know mine can't.

Re:hmmm

[Arandir]

A) You can get a Mac Mini for $449. This is perfectly adequate for most users. Need for diskspace? Just plug in another drive. The GUI and most apps are fast and responsive. You only notice the limitations of the slower CPU when you're running CPU intensive apps like the compiler.

B) You're running OpenSuSE, but the discussion is regarding Windows alternatives.

Re:hmmm

[Toby_Tyke]

I really think you're missing the guys point. Let me try and explain.

My wife is a graphic designer. She uses Photoshop at work. Now lets say that GIMP is every bit as good as Photoshop, and has all the same features (which I don't believe is true, but what the hell, just for arguments sake lets pretend). It still isn't Photoshop though, so if she were to switch, she would have to learn a whole new UI. It would no doubt take her at least a month or two to become as fast and proficient with GIMP as she is with Photoshop. And that's just one app. Bear in mind that she would also have to learn how to use every single other app, as well as a whole new OS.

And at the end of all that she would gained what, exactly? All that extra effort and learning, to be able to do her job as well as she was already doing it, and no obvious advantage. And if you're going to start talking about cost savings, remember that someone has to support all this software, and you would have to factor in all those costs as well.

Now I use Linux. I'm typing this on Linux. But I do not pretend that it is right for everyone, in every situation. I certainly do not think Linux is ready to wipe MS off the desktop.

Re:hmmm

[Timmmm]

The "real barrier" you speak of is the mindset that you have to go to a big-box store and buy your apps.

The *real problem* is that in linux in order to get midi to work (presumably a reasonably common and simple task in windows) I had to:

a) Download sfxload
b) modprobe snd-seq-midi
c) sfxload CT4MGM.SF2

And even then rosegarden only plays the first note of a piece of music.

I guarantee that 95% of computer users could not do that.

Linux still has serious configuration and missing GUI issues.

Lets look at the complexity of some other common tasks:

- Reinitialise network connection:
==Linux: Shell-> "cd /etc/init.d; ./networking restart"
==Windows: R-click connection->repair connection (or something similarly obvious).

- Choosing the third sound card for the desktop
==Linux: K menu->control centre->sound & multimedia->hardware->"Override device location: 'plugwhw:2,0'"
==Windows: Similar, but you get to choose "Sound blaster Live!" from a list instead of having to pluck 'plughw:2,0' from the aether.

- Getting audacity to use the third sound card
==Linux: Impossible
==Windows: Already done!

I could go on but I think my point is clear. No doubt someone will say "Ah but you can download 'qsfxload' from to make that easier" anyway.

I would do this: install windows, and linux from scratch. Set them up how you like them and record how many times you a) used the shell and b) had to write something like 'ao=alsa:device=hw=2.0' rather than selecting "Soundblaster Live" from a list.

Windows easily wins.

Re:hmmm

[JetJaguar]

While you are right that there is a significant amount of inertia involved in getting anyone to switch from another OS, you're argument against it is a little flimsy. I use Solaris, Linux, and OS X at work and I use linux at home. I don't use windows. Ever. I have plenty of other things to do with my free time. Meanwhile, I don't care wtf the other 90% of users are doing. Probably trying to find drivers for their hardware that didn't come with their OS. I don't have time for that.

Re:hmmm

[ldj]

Sorry to hear that you're trapped by your own unwillingness to investigate alternatives. I couldn't bear to leave myself reliant on others to define my future tools and applications. I guess some are born to lead and explore, but most are predisposed to be followers. I'll be watching for you to be coming grudgingly down the well-worn path someday.

Re:hmmm

[crowdofone]

thanks to mike for providing a deeper explanation of the things i always thought were screwed with linux but never knew exactly why. so much of those comments was spot on. surely one of the most interesting posts on ./ in a while.

Re:hmmm

[Gwwfps]

Are those screenshots real? The second one seems to have at least two Windows icons in it...

Re:hmmm

[Chuck Chunder]

I'd also call you a liar, right to your face, without a smile on mine. I've been a tech for 13 years (this year would be my 14'th). I know for a fact that with places like driverguide (or the plethora of copy-cats) that it is *almost* impossible to *not* find a driver on the very small chance that the OEM hadn't archived it somewhere on their web page.

You'd be a cock then.

I have a USB webcam which is reasonably old but is functional. There isn't a Windows XP driver for it. IIRC correctly there is a Win2k driver that you can try and shoehorn in (if you ignore several warnings) but it doesn't work properly. The manufacturer doesn't make that model any more so doesn't care about XP compatability.

Support for any old bit of hardware (I guess the term would be "legacy") isn't great in Windows world either. The main difference is that Windows normally comes on a new computer with supported hardware without having to worry about too many legacy peripherals.

Linux often doesn't have that luxury but still does a pretty good job of "just working" in an ever increasing subset (I'd expect a clear majority) of cases. Both my USB scanner (canon) and USB printer (HP) worked straight after plugging them in on my Ubuntu box at home. On my laptop I had to install drivers (and before I plugged in the hardware IIRC otherwise it would futz things up).

Re:hmmm

[zopf]

Also, there's this cute little project called WINE that emulates most business-oriented programs well enough to work on most flavors of *nix.

Re:hmmm

[Skreems]

Maps is the only product of theirs that I think measures up to Search. Earth they bought fully formed, so that doesn't count as much... Image Search I count as part of the search engine, but that's quite good too. Groups I'm not so impressed with the interface either. And again, Maps is one of those where you are doing one specific thing: "Show me this place" or "show me the route between these two places". It performs exactly 2 functions. Groups, where there's a lot more stuff they need to let you do... not as good.

I really think they have some excellent interface designers, but they try to take the "minimalist" thing too far in cases where they shouldn't. Google Talk is an excellent example. It's way, way too simplistic to be an effective communication tool for me. It takes way too much choice away from you, and doesn't allow nearly enough tweaking. Maybe it will improve over time, but so far I'm not impressed by their efforts at more interactive applications.

Re:hmmm

[roguenine19]

The problem is, most people don't see it that way. They've been brought up to think that nothing in life is truly free. If someone offers them free software, they'll either think a) it's crippleware b) it's full of malware or c) it's inferior to what they could get from a store. I know if I gave my mother the choice between two pieces of software: one FLOSS, the other off at Best Buy, she'd take the latter every time. And her choice would probably be easier to use and not as buggy.

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

I think you seriously overrate the limits on your practical freedom. Your "lead and explore" line is particularly arrogant. Is downloading the same distro as everyone else really "leading"? Is watching the results of apt-get or a ./configure; make; make install really "exploring"? Are you single-handedly determining the direction Open Office is taking? Redefining what software can do to solve real problems? Or, as most slashdot denizens, are you pretty much waiting for the next point release along with all the other consumers? Is Linux really "exploring", or is it simply repaving the same roads that Solaris and other proprietary Unixes laid out?

I have just as much liberty to use Linux as you do. The reality is, however, that Free Software does *not* meet all the needs of all the people, and the warm fuzzies do not compensate for the real shortcomings in various open source applications that prevent them from replacing proprietary, commercial alternatives, whether for Windows or otherwise.

I'm one of the folks who shed a tear every time I see a glimpse of marvelous software environments like Symbolics Genera, and the huge potential that there was for software; and are brought back to Earth by the realization that UNIX is not a thousand times better than it was in 1985 when RMS wrote the GNU manifesto, although our computers are nearly a thousand times faster and more capacious. We still use xterms and emacs in our X Window system, still peer at man pages to look at command-line options for ls.

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

The argument isn't that I haven't happened to switch, and that Linux should change to suit my whims; just that there are real barriers in the Windows ecosystem that favor Microsoft's continued dominance, and a real lack of non-political, non-warm-fuzzy, actual software domination that makes Linux really inevitable on the desktop. My workplace environment has several critical (unfortunate) dependences on MS that would take something like 100 man years or more to port to Linux.

Yes, Apache, emacs, and various ultra-subsidized things like Eclipse make free software a useful and valuable proposition, but it isn't going to displace Windows unless something much *more* earth-shaking than a Google Linux distro happens, or MS really screws up and slowly pisses their advantage away because Bill G.'s focus drifts and his successors blow it.

Re:hmmm

[KingSkippus]

• Standardization. The corporate standard will probably stay something non-Google-related on servers. I can't imagine that Google will put out a distribution that has any kind of server-side software worth note other than what's necessary to run desktop Linux. On corporate desktops, I suspect Windows will remain the standard because it's so damned entrenched right now, and I doubt that corporate bigwigs would like any kind of advertising model that Google may include with their desktop distribution. Who knows, though, maybe Google will be able to work something out so that it will take over corporate desktops.
  
  However, I disagree that people like diversity. I mean, computer geeks may like diversity, but the public at large all want the same thing. I know that if any of my non-computer-expert family members and friends uses a computer that they're not used to, they're freaked out if an icon isn't right where it is on their own machine at home. The more that one distribution can take market share, the more likely people will jump on its bandwagon and use it. Hell, I can imagine Google tweaking their distribution so that all of your desktop settings are stored at http://settings.google.com/ and you can log into your friend's computer and have your icons right where they are on your computer at home! Why do most people buy Windows machines these days instead of a Mac? Honestly? Because most other people have Windows machines, not Macs, and they want to have the same thing their friends, family, workmates, and neighbors have. After all, the software that people use 99.9% of the time (e-mail, Web browser, office suite) is available on both platforms.
  
  
• Improvements. There's a huge difference in sponsoring amateurs to write code and throwing a non-trivial budget at hiring professional developers to write code. Don't get me wrong, I admire RedHat's and Novell's efforts, but I just think that Google as a company is in a lot better position to get the job done.
  
  
• Integration. That was kind of my point, the tools right now aren't integrated, but Google has the power—and the opportunity, if they're serious about releasing a desktop OS—to make them integrated. Shoot, some more ideas off the top of my head would look nice in a bulleted sub-list, don't you think? Here are some wild thoughts of how Google applications can be integrated with, oh, say, GMail as a simple example:
  
  
  • Your contacts all have a map with directions to their house on their contact page.
  • You can view pictures of this person stored on your computer
  • Find files this person sent to you that you've stashed (and probably forgotten about) somewhere on your machine
  • Call this person using Google Talk
  • Shop for this person a birthday gift. (Because his birthday is in a week!)
  • Have a link from a Google video clip that you really liked to "Send this to... (select contact)"
  • ...and so on.
  
  Seriously, those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure the clever folks at Google probably have tons more clever ideas that I would probably never dream of. (If not, hire me, Google. Seriously.)

Re:hmmm

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Most hardware makers absoloutly refuse to create drivers for linux

Often, it's not the hardware manufacturers that are at fault - if you want a driver to have continued support in Linux, you either need to:

- Continue to maintain it as the kernel changes (as there is no stable ABI)
- Have it included in the kernel source tree (so that it is oficially supported)
- Hope that the community keeps the module up to date

Quite simply, drivers written six years ago for Windows continue to function just fine in Windows XP, and most continue to work fine in Vista as well. The same cannot be said for Linux.

Getting a driver included in the kernel tree is a political uphill battle - Broadcomm can attest to that. Their BCM5700 NIC, popular in OEM systems and servers, already had an (extreemely buggy) module, so when Broadcomm tried to get their much-better-supported, GPL module (tg3) included, it simply wasn't going to happen.

RedHat still does not ship the tg3 driver out of the box, and the end result is that everyone with a BCM5700 NIC can't properly change duplex settings (many businesses force to 100 full because of buggy autonegotiation) or have the fun of random NIC lockups (a notable bug in the kernel driver resulted in locking the hardware, only solved by removing power from the system; the bug stood unresolved for almost 9 months).

Indeed, in terms of friendlyness to outside driver development, Windows is actually far more open than Linux. Simply read some of the statements that Linus has made about not wanting to keep a stable ABI to prevent binary modules (and similarly prevent open-source modules that compile accross a wide range of kernels), and you'll understand that this is very much an "exclusive" club, not the open environment that it proports to be.

Re:hmmm

[ceoyoyo]

That'd be because I believe it'd take a push by THE INDUSTRY as a whole to get linux 'mainstream'.

I disagree. Someone with a bit of clout needs to put forward a Linux distribution that's actually meant to BE a mainstream OS. Red Hat sort of does that, but doesn't seem to have the resources to really do it well. Corel sort of tried but didn't put a whole lot of effort into it, and it was probably a lot premature. THEN the industry will have a viable alternative they can go with. Of course it's not going to take over any significant fraction of the market right away. It will grow, like Firefox has been. A few percent at a time.

MS "did pretty well against the then-dominant IBM and their DOS" by introducing false errors into the current version of Windows.

I think Windows has enough real errors in it today that lots of people are actively desiring an alternative. Nobody needs to make up any false errors. MS PR hasn't exactly been positive either. Every virus or annoying adware or trip to the computer store to pay $100 to get your computer cleaned off is an advertisement for the competition. Every credit card number stolen and network brought to it's knees by spam bots makes some IT manager wish he had an alternative to Windows.

Sure if you think that Linux is ever, no matter who is backing it, going to one day slay the Windows dragon then you've been playing too much D&D. It will chip away a bit at a time. Unfortunately, I think without some kind of major backing Linux will reach a saturation level. Without some sort of recognized and trustworthy company will decently deep pockets to stand behind it, it probably won't penetrate the market all that far. Companies will pay extortionate rates for some peace of mind (someone to blame if something goes wrong). People tend to use at home what they have to use at work.

Re:hmmm

[arodland]

"Perfectly adequate for most users" maybe, but still not sensible for almost anyone, because if you were buying the hardware from someone other than apple you could get twice the processor power, twice the RAM, and twice the hard drive for that price -- or you could get similar functionality for $150 less.

OS X is decent, but it's not really that hot. It's really pretty comparable to, say, Windows XP, except that it comes with bash. And the UI seems designed to confuse. I think the KDE team has executed on most of Apple's ideas better than Apple has. And then there's performance issues. Have you seen how slow fork() is on OS X, or how pathetically it manages its disk cache. I suppose it isn't really worse than Windows, but there are plenty of unices that do better, including modern Linux. So other than a few apps from unenlightened vendors who think that "Mac only" is better than cross-platform, what do you gain?

Re:hmmm

[IamTheRealMike]

ELF supports symbol versioning. And that's what is supposed to take care of these issues. That's what Solaris uses.

Yeah it's supposed to, but on Linux it unfortunately doesn't. The implementations of symbol versioning are slightly different between Solaris and Linux (the Solaris one is IMHO better), and also Solaris has what's known as "direct fixup" using the -Bdirect switch. This is what Michael Meeks has implemented for Linux, but the glibc developers won't accept the work.

However, what part of private libraries wasn't clear? That would include the application support libraries. Your versions. Indeed, statically link the thing -- its a binary. I really don't see the big deal here.

On a fairly, hmm, dare I say it - primitive? - desktop like Solaris statically linking everything is possible. On more modern desktops like Linux things tend to break in subtle ways when you do that: for instance, statically linking GTK+ or Qt will break theming, and statically linking libSDL won't work because it still dlopens other system libraries in order to load audio plugins. To change *that* you'd have to hack the SDL source yourself and what's the alternative? Embed libArts, and with it most of KDE, into your game? Not going to happen.

Dynamic linking is really hard to avoid these days, and besides, the faults occur because raw ELF (without Sun-style direct fixup extensions) tries to emulate static linking semantics! If ELF had been designed right from the start then this would never have been a problem.

So, go out and get a (or make a key pair). Modify the Linux loader to allow signing by wrapping the driver object.

There are a couple of problems here, really: firstly how can the userspace media player prove that the kernel has not been tampered with? With Windows this assumption is implicit - it's proprietary and closed source which makes anything except trivial modifications very hard. So, very smart coders can write rootkits that wrap syscalls, but actually patching out or modifying SAP is much more difficult. When you have the source code it becomes a lot eaiser. Secondly, how can you reconcile the idea of a kernel which cannot be modified at all (without requiring revalidation/resigning) with the idea of open source?

Anyway, Linux is HEAVILY used in "DRM" environments -- embedded systems (video), etc. Arguably, more so than Windows.

YEah sure but in those cases (TiVo etc) it's protected and re-enforced by custom hardware. I was thinking of generic PCs.

Re:hmmm

[tolan-b]

Do you mean separate actual distributions? Like different ISOs?

Because I've never seen US-specific ISO, or do you mean that it's not installed if you don't choose the US during the installation? Because if it's the latter then I don't see how that would help, as they're still distributing the code...

Re:hmmm

[ldj]

The only reason I responded as I did is because your comments come across as whining about having no control over the way things are. I guess I'm either more optimistic than you or more willing to work towards making a better future. It's similar to those who complain about the government, but never vote, claiming that it doesn't make any difference anyway. If everyone acted in that manner, there indeed would be no change. Same with the software industry. If we all acted in the manner that your comments suggest, there would be no Linux, no Open Source software, etc.

As to your suggestion that my "lead and explore" comment was arrogant, I won't get into the details of my software development career, because it's not particularly impressive. But I have done my share of Open Source development, and I advocate the implementation of Open Source software in my job on a regular basis. Also, I've introduced several friends to Linux and helped most of them convert their systems at their request. So I would say that I am much closer to the "lead and explore" end of the software usage spectrum than most, including you, based on your comments. One doesn't need to be a lone explorer. There's plenty of room for more to step away from the flock and build, support, and advocate improved tools.

Bottom line is, I saw your comments as condoning acceptance of the status quo, with implied criticizm of those who dare to suggest that the status quo could change in favor of Open Source software sometime in the near future. I tend to think that such change is indeed possible, and I plan to do my part to make it happen.

Re:hmmm

[cloakable]

Like restarting whenever you update?

Re:hmmm

[ratboy666]

Yes, I don't understand why symbol versioning in Linux doesn't follow the Solaris model. So goes life, I guess. What I do is pick specific distribution, and use it as a base (last time it was Redhat 9). And its GNOME, baby (for me). Maybe I have been lucky with my projects.

----
Back to DRM.

We can use "wrapped keys". The implementation of the crypto needs to be known. The generation and encryption of keys is centralised. The wrapped key may then passed around through software that may be comprimised. We then need to secure the central key generator, because that is our vulnerability. We have to "trust" something... This component can have a hash generated, and compared to known values (has been done that way), etc. Eventually, leads to a "secure hardware key manager" that is the trusted element. Generally, the entire kernel is "trusted" from the application standpoint.

How do I reconcile this with Open Source?
Any driver can still be modified -- but if it needs to participate in a secure operation, it must be signed. Thats all. Applications do NOT need to request driver security.

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

It's obvious you have no ability to tell anything about me from my post; I've been using command lines for the last 25 years, without fear or fright. Actually, I find Windows from a user point of view to be a nightmarish, barely documented maze of DLL's with needlessly cryptic 8.3 names, impossible to reliably distinguish from viruses and malware in the Task Manager.

For the Nth time, this is not about *me*, it is about the commercial reality that there are apps in Windows that businesses depend on, whose functionality is *not* painlessly replacable by free software substitutes, or even proprietary substitutes that run on Linux. Microsoft knows this very well, and the Linux zealots need to recognize the same reality if they are to have any success at all at changing that reality, as opposed to pronouncing every year to be the "year of Linux on the desktop." My company is not going to spend hundreds of man years porting a Windows-locked system into Linux for no net gain, no matter how much UNIX/Linux skill I or my co-workers have, just as many people will not take the twenty painless twenty minutes it takes to switch to Firefox. There are plenty of people here who think that the choice of Windows was short-sighted, but those are the breaks.

Re:hmmm

[jarich]

If MS is worried about a Google desktop OS, then the resources that could otherwise be dedicated to search (or other Google strongholds) will be otherwise occupied.

If Google releases a desktop OS, it would be a huge distraction to MS. Google doesn't need to have a long term profit strategy for the desktop OS. It could simply be cover fire to keep MS occupied while Google moves on another front.

Re:hmmm

[labratuk]

The required 'features' you give are the exact things that drove me away from windows. Non standardised vendor drivers. Vendor drivers that don't share a common configuration/access subsystem. Vendor drivers that deliberately restrict functionality. Vendor drivers that only work with a whitelist of hardware. Poorly written drivers that don't get updated and don't allow people to continue development.

Poor software installers. Software that doesn't have any sort of update mechanism. Software that defeats the whole point of dynamic libraries by using their own private bundled version. Installers that just overwrite the current version of a library on your system to ensure that everything 'just works' (yeah, we all love that phrase). Software which opens security holes because of these actions.

Centralised software distribution solves all these. It is the future. Development is where the distributed model comes in.

C++ support. It doesn't work. It's unbelievably slow

KDE is a very fast desktop, even on my main PC which is six years old. It's written entirely in C++. This is where I'm starting to smell the bullshit.

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.

Skype manage it quite well.

unfortunately there's a general attitude of "who cares" in the community with regards to most of these issues

These issues aren't getting 'fixed' because it's an attitude of "You're wrong.". Everyone's heard what you have to say (believe me) and most have failed to take it on board for a reason.

Re:hmmm

[McDutchie]

[re: formatting partition]
how many of our parents or non-techie friends know how? Very few if any is my guess. I know mine can't.

True. But those parents or non-techie friends wouldn't have installed an operating system on their own anyway -- neither Windows nor Linux. They use what comes preinstalled or get their geek friend to install it. I think if someone can install an operating system, they can format the partition to get rid of it.

Re:hmmm

[Risen888]

Now lets say that GIMP is every bit as good as Photoshop, and has all the same features (which I don't believe is true, but what the hell, just for arguments sake lets pretend).

I agree. Not trying to say it is.

And at the end of all that she would gained what, exactly? All that extra effort and learning, to be able to do her job as well as she was already doing it, and no obvious advantage.

I disagree. Expanding one's skillset is always an advantage.

And if you're going to start talking about cost savings, remember that someone has to support all this software, and you would have to factor in all those costs as well.

The newest professional version of Photoshop is selling on the Adobe website for $650. Six-five-oh. That buys a lot of support.

I certainly do not think Linux is ready to wipe MS off the desktop.

Nor do I, nor do I think it necessarily has to. I think it's ready to compete, and the barriers that are still there are mostly (but not entirely) marketing-related.

Re:hmmm

[Risen888]

That's ridiculous. You're saying that to compete with Microsoft, applications must look and act exactly like their Windows counterparts. Several thousand Apple stockholders would beg to differ.

Re:hmmm

[FooBarWidget]

BWAHAHA! Try to tell that to the developers of the preferred Linux desktop environment, KDE, which is entirely written in C++. And I'm not even mentioning such non-working programs as Firefox and Inkscape.

You don't understand the issue here. Mike did not mean that C++ the language is unusable. He means that C++ binary compatibility is a hell. A C++ binary built on one distro can fail on the other distro because of things like C++ ABI incompatibilities and the way glibc handles symbol conflicts. See this for a technical introduction about the C++ ABI incompatibility problem, and this for more technical information about C++ problems, and this for technical information about problems in ELF.

Notice that I mentioned the word "technical" several times. So yes we know what we're talking about. If you don't believe us, feel free to proof read our technical documents and proof us wrong.

Re:hmmm

[FooBarWidget]

However binary distribution of C++ apps impossible? Give me a break. You speak as if upgrading the core components of a system are a daily tasks for the user. We have packages for that and the distribution compiles the code and makes a binary package for the distribution!!! See, thats easy. If you're favorite software has been updated then wait for your disitribution to update it. No different than having to wait for Office 2009! Same thing.

That isn't the point. Try running a C++ binary, which was compiled on distro X, on distro Y. If you're lucky, it works. If you're not lucky, it crashes for mysterious reasons. This is caused by C++ ABI breakages and ELF symbol conflicts.
See this for a technical introduction about the C++ ABI incompatibility problem, and this for more technical information about C++ problems, and this for technical information about problems in ELF.

Notice that I mentioned the word "technical" several times. So yes we know what we're talking about. If you don't believe us, feel free to proof read our technical documents and proof us wrong.

Anyway, that was just to prove you that the C++ binary problems exist and are real. Now to my following (also very important!) point:
Open source software DO need to be able to distribute cross-distribution binaries.
The need to distribute cross-distribution binaries isn't specific to proprietary software, as too many people seem to believe. Normal users don't, and shouldn't have to, care about compiling. It is their right - after all, they may have a legitimate reason to not learn it (too busy with work, for example). Therefore, the ability to easily install applications (without compiling!) is a good thing. But for that to happen, it must be possible to run a binary on multiple distributions! This implies that we cannot rely the distribution to take care of *all* the packaging. Its simply not possible, there is not enough manpower for that. I'm not saying that distributions should not package software, but it should be possible for the upstream (open source!) developers to distribution binaries (for their open source software!).

Notice how I keep emphasizing open source. Too many people associate "proprietary" with "evil" so I'm trying hard to point out that open source software needs to be easily installable too! Upstream open source software developers should be able to create binaries that run on multiple distributions!

Sigh, I should write an article about all this some time. A few years ago I thought working on an installation framework and the binary compatibility problems is enough. The past year I've realized that we're also fighting against a culture problem - namely a culture which believes that open source software doesn't have to have binaries that run on multiple distributions and that compilation is acceptable for everyone, even people like my mom.

Re:hmmm

[Arandir]

You have completely and utterly missed the point. Is Mac OSX an alternative to Windows? YES! YES! YES!

This isn't about whether or not *you* like Macs. It's not about whether or not Mac Mini's are aoverpriced. It's not about whether Aqua is better than KDE.

Mac Mini's with OSX are affordable alternatives to Dell's with MS Windows. Thus, there is an alternative to MS Windows. Period.

Re:hmmm

[arodland]

It's overpriced, but it's affordable? It's an alternative but there's no reason to choose it?

Re:hmmm

[IamTheRealMike]

Huh, well it seems to me that centralised distribution causes all kinds of problems that end users hate. Just go read forums where people are struggling to understand why they have to wait 6 months to get some feature they were waiting for.

KDE, for what it's worth, has had terrible problems with C++ performance and uses a variety of evil hacks to work around it like kdeinit, which completely breaks SELinux. Prelink partly fixed some of the issues, eventually, but prelink doesn't work for dlopened code which makes up the bulk of something like OpenOffice. Just go read the various articles written by KDE developers analysing startup time of apps if you don't believe me.

Skype don't manage it at all, they're pretty much a textbook example of why it doesn't work properly. For one, go look at the relative complexity of the download pages for Windows, MacOS and Linux. For another, go see the problems people had getting Skype stable on various flavours of Ubuntu, Fedora etc. I think for a while it did not even install on Ubuntu Breezy. Now go read up on the Firefox/SCIM crashes, the game/SDL/aRts crashes etc that I have documented - they exist and are a problem.

Re:hmmm

[I_redwolf]

That isn't the point. Try running a C++ binary, which was compiled on distro X, on distro Y. If you're lucky, it works. If you're not lucky, it crashes for mysterious reasons. This is caused by C++ ABI breakages and ELF symbol conflicts.

What causes the abi breakages and elf symbol conflicts? Would it be that a package belonging to one distro is different from the next distro. You aren't making any valid point here. I've read the autopackage stuff pretty extensively before deciding to make a package for GnomeMeeting aka Ekiga with it and low in behold. GnomeMeeting and the libs it requires are for the most part written in C++. Autopackage couldn't handle creating a openh323 package because of whatever bug. This is another discussion however. Back to C++ ABI breakages, you are arguing about two pieces of software glibc and gcc. If one is compiling with GCC these are things they should be aware of. YES there will be ABI breakage. As you, i've come to disagree with several things regarding the breakage and the seemingly ideoligical change of what is supposed to work no longer working and/or vice versa; et al. This still doesn't make your argument on incompability valid in any manner.

Notice that I mentioned the word "technical" several times. So yes we know what we're talking about. If you don't believe us, feel free to proof read our technical documents and proof us wrong.

Technically you are trying to fix something that Autopackage or your methods will not fix. So pissing up a rope isn't something i'd get into. Originally I thought the idea of autopackage was excellent but after realizing that it just won't work I stopped wasting my time. It's a good idea, it just won't work in this current environment. Unless you start to take the reigns of many different subsystems and stick them into one framework you are bound by. In essence you'd be doing what Apple is doing now.

Anyway, that was just to prove you that the C++ binary problems exist and are real.

According to you, yes. Which obviously leads into your very important point...

Open source software DO need to be able to distribute cross-distribution binaries

I humbly disagree. It would be nice though.

The need to distribute cross-distribution binaries isn't specific to proprietary software, as too many people seem to believe. Normal users don't, and shouldn't have to, care about compiling. It is their right - after all, they may have a legitimate reason to not learn it (too busy with work, for example). Therefore, the ability to easily install applications (without compiling!) is a good thing.

There are many package installers for whatever distro; What you are suggesting makes no sense the way things are going. Distributions have become so specific that trying to create cross distribution binaries just makes no sense. Well, unless you can control the above. As I previosuly stated. Autopackage is a good idea, it just will not work without you either making your own distribution, which would defeat the whole purpose. Or, getting everyone to place nice and accept all your patches for unification. Which would no doubt work for you but break alot of other things. Again, I thought about this myself whilst reading over autopackage sometime ago and i'm certainly no laymen when it comes to the topics you speak of.

This implies that we cannot rely the distribution to take care of *all* the packaging. Its simply not possible, there is not enough manpower for that. I'm not saying that distributions should not package software, but it should be possible for the upstream (open source!) developers to distribution binaries (for their open source software!).

Nothing is stopping any open source devleoper from distributing binaries for their open source software unless you consider the state of things stopping them. In which case, you'd have a point but as this is the third time i'm saying. I don't believe any one person or even company for that matter has the resour

Re:hmmm

[FooBarWidget]

So basically what you're saying is that Autopackage is the wrong solution because incompatibilities between distros exist?

Autopackage aside, my entire point was that incompatibilities like that *shouldn't* exist. Too many people take the incompatibilities for granted, that is the problem. They think the incompatibilities is something natural, something that shouldn't/can't be fixed, something that is acceptable. In other words, a cultural problem, not a technical one. Its not that things cannot be fixed - they can, look at Michael Meek's glibc patches. Its that the community don't recognize the problems -> for example: Michael Meek's patches was rejected/ignored.

Unless the distro people and many people in the community recognize that the incompatibilities are unacceptable, things won't get fixed, and I'm afraid Linux will not succeed on the desktop until that happens. For instance, one of my classmates, who recently installed a Linux distro, complained about how hard it is to install software on Linux.

Re:hmmm

[I_redwolf]

Its not that things cannot be fixed - they can, look at Michael Meek's glibc patches. Its that the community don't recognize the problems -> for example: Michael Meek's patches was rejected/ignored.

It hasn't been out and out rejected. Meeks has been making his case regarding support for it and it'll either be accepted by Ulrich eventually or not. If it compromises the stability and operation of GlibC it won't get in. If the patch will break alot of situations, it won't get in. If it's ugly.. won't get in. One could go on. Just because you and your people are candy happy you get x% of performance doesn't mean the patch doesn't have to be tested/explained/verified to work under X conditions before its accepted into something like GlibC. Which could take a long long time. So please, stop bringing up Michael Meeks and his patches; christ.

Unless the distro people and many people in the community recognize that the incompatibilities are unacceptable, things won't get fixed, and I'm afraid Linux will not succeed on the desktop until that happens. For instance, one of my classmates, who recently installed a Linux distro, complained about how hard it is to install software on Linux.

If you want Linux on the desktop here's what I recommend. You get a copy of the coreutils/tools you need and FORK them. Add all the little patches that you want, throw in all the goodies. Build up some decent framework, build out the api's for kde/qt gnome/gtk and use it. Problem solved. Stop bitching about Linux on the desktop because people like me? kernel developers, gcc hackers, linux users from inception.. even newbie die hards.. DO. NOT. CARE. I use what works and if it doesn't work I either hack it to my satisfaction or move to something that does work.

Linux suceeding on the desktop? I don't care. Your mom can't make a partition? I don't care. You can't burn a cd without the command line? I don't care. If you care; do something about it. Stop bitching.

Re:hmmm

[FooBarWidget]

"If the patch will break alot of situations, it won't get in."

The C++ ABI breakage broke many, many, many things, and got in. So I'm not convinced that this is a valid argument to reject it.

That side, from what I've seen: Michael Meek's patches are not rejected, but ignored. That's even worse than rejected. His fixes aren't only about some x% speedup, but also very low-level things like sanatizing ELF symbol conflict resolution. His patch wasn't reviewed, it was tested, it wasn't discussed - but ignored.

Do something about it? I already do. And that is exactly why I'm "bitching" - but I prefer to call it constructive criticism.

Re:hmmm

[Omnifarious]

I don't want DRM support in any way, shape, or form. I will not use any piece of software which has it. It is flat out wrong. And I firmly believe that a good selling point for Linux as a consumer platform is complete lack of support for random people to come in and tell them what their computer is allowed to do in the privacy of their own home. My computer is mine. It is not someone else's policeman.

That being said, you have a lot of interesting points. It would be nice if the driver API stabilized. But I do not want binary only drivers for the same reason I do not want DRM. But a stabilized API would make decentralized driver development much easier, and I think that's a good thing in and of itself.

As an aside, I use the nVidia drivers, but under a lot of protest. And if there is a 3D accelerator out there that comes within 80% of the performance and has Open Source drivers, I will switch to it even if it's twice the cost.

It would also be nice if the issues you mention in glibc and C++ could be fixed. I'm not completely sure how that could be done for C++ because of inline functions that may rely on the intimate details of the implementation o a class. But I'm interested in your ideas. I'd also like to know the nature of the startup time problems and the refused patch to gcc. I've had a patch to gcc refused as well (the transcoding for EBCDIC in iconv is broken) for no particularly good reason.

Re:hmmm

[Omnifarious]

Also, if a maintainer is refusing good patches and generally not doing their job, then someone should just become the maintainer instead. That's what Open Source is about. Maybe glibc needs to be forked again.

Re:hmmm

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

And is Apple anywhere near the goal of eliminating Windows marketshare? The Mac gossip sites still can't figure out which single-digit marketshare Apple will achieve this year.

I like Macs, and use them. I use PCs at work, but have *never* bought a PC with my own money.

Apple has the same problem as Linux; the PC marketshare they *currently* have is, in part, maintained only by the continued support MS gives for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint.

Note that Visio, Project, and Access are not on that list. Note that developing VBA applications on Macs is significantly less convenient (no Intellisense! no custom controls!) on Macs than on Windows.

People have just as much trouble switching to Macs as they do Linux, without (up till recently) the hope that something WINE-like could offer speedy emulation.

To switch to Macintosh, businesses would still have a substantial barrier to porting their apps AND they would have to give up the large-scale availability of PC hardware solutions for a single source.

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.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[Fallus Shempus]

Google is good at... gathering and indexing information.

... on some fairly specialised hardware, running a modified OS (IIRC)

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:Not to sound cynical

[Spazntwich]

I'd say undertaking the feat of making a desktop version of Linux that's every bit as easy to use as Windows XP (as the article states) would be more than one step farther than rolling your own distro intended for server use.

By your logic, sir, Google might as well just take the concept of the automobile one step farther and create flying cars.

That wipe your ass for you.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[mrchaotica]

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.

Google is good at usability, too* -- remember how their uncluttered search page was "revolutionary" when it first came out?

Besides, even if it is just Ubuntu + Google apps, wouldn't it still be a good thing?

*Google Earth notwithstanding...

Re:Not to sound cynical

[rizzo420]

aren't google's servers all running linux? aren't they all heavily modified customized? does google ever go down? sounds like they've got some good software and hardware engineers working for them... i think they know what they're doing.

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:Not to sound cynical

[gnuLNX]

"By your logic, sir, Google might as well just take the concept of the automobile one step farther and create flying cars."

Agreed. Now when can I expect my promised flying car!!!

Re:Not to sound cynical

[Spazntwich]

It wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would be another boring Ubuntu repackage.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[oliderid]

Exactly

Developping a new OS is like reinventing the wheel. You base your project on existing solutions and you move forward. You don't try to develop everythig from scratch.

The future lies in web services and possibly few niches OS based applications, IMHO.

All they need to do is to guarantee that "Free" or non MS OS/browser exist. (ie: Firefox, macOS, and so on). Then MS won't be in a position to dictate anything (like during the browser war).

They should support as much as they can alternative like Firefox.

It simply means that Google received too much money. They are wasting it.
I guess their next project will be to develop an open source CMS...

Re:Not to sound cynical

[WeAreAllDoomed]

All they need to do is to guarantee that "Free" or non MS OS/browser exist. (ie: Firefox, macOS, and so on). Then MS won't be in a position to dictate anything (like during the browser war).

just the browser isn't enough.

with microsoft controlling the desktop they can decide what the new user sees when they turn on their new PC. if MSN is "good enough", and hotmail is "good enough", and microsoft's mapping application is "good enough", that's a large number of people who could have gone either way ending up on the microsoft track by default.

that's a huge advantage for MS and a disadvantage for google.if google can crack MS's desktop dominance by providing dirt-cheap, virus-free pc's preconfigured to access google's excellent suite of services, that's to their benefit, and the benefit of everyone except microsoft and its toadies.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[marco.antonio.costa]

I think theyre gonna do what no other distro bothered doing. A nice, working out of the box, easy to install and configure Linux distro. With all google tools nicely built in.

You snooze, you lose, everybody else. Thank god for the GPL and LGPL, though. Less risk of another monopoly rearing its ugly head.

I think this would be a good thing to give average joes another choice in OSes.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[dbzero]

What better way to gather information than to have control over the operating system. Geeks love Google. Who cares if the OS phones home periodically. Google is a helpful and friendly company--web 2.0 ++ (embrace and enhance). :)

Re:Not to sound cynical

[mrchaotica]

It would be another boring Ubuntu repacking with a well-known brand name that could incite the masses to try it.

Re:Not to sound cynical

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

"By your logic, sir, Google might as well just take the concept of the automobile one step farther and create flying cars."

Agreed. Now when can I expect my promised flying car!!!

And when will I get to see Bill Gates homeless and shaking his fist in the air, shouting "Damn you Google, and your flying cars for destroying Microsoft!"

Re:Not to sound cynical

[ninkendo84]

Google is good at... gathering and indexing information.

Google is also good at hiring whoever they want with experience in any field they want experience in. Look what they did to Microsoft. They could just hire every open source developer they can get their hands on and say "Work on the same thing, and we'll pay you truckloads of money."

Re:Not to sound cynical

[andrew_j_w]

Of course Google goes down; it goes down all the time only it's only parts that fail and the rest take over seamlessly.

I'm not sure about how much you can extrapolate from being good at massive datacentres to being being good at single PCs running a wide range of hardware.

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:Not to sound cynical

[BaseSequence]

does google ever go down?

I don't know. How long has Google been married?

Re:Not to sound cynical

[michrech]

aren't google's servers all running linux? aren't they all heavily modified customized? does google ever go down? sounds like they've got some good software and hardware engineers working for them... i think they know what they're doing.

OOOORR.. they have lots of redundancy.

Not saying that they haven't done everything they could to make the OS they are using as robust as possible, but it's not ALL software...

Re:Not to sound cynical

[justins]

IBM, yes, as they have extensive knowledge and experience working with both hardware and OSes.

Yeah, they really knocked it out of the ballpark the last time they played the consumer OS game. Remember OS/2?

And in Redmond

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer throws a chair.

Re:And in Redmond

[jb.hl.com]

You joking? This is sofa throwing material, dude.

Re:And in Redmond

[thelem]

I'm surprised Microsoft have any working chairs left, the number Ballmer is reported on here to have thrown.

Re:And in Redmond

[digitaldc]

And Gates just fired off an email about their upcoming Open Source version of Windows that will pack in twice the features and speed as Goobuntu.

Re:And in Redmond

[owlstead]

But it was swallowed by the anti-spam measurements from Redmont, who are trying to uphold the October 2006 deadline set by Bill for removing all spam from the internet.

Re:And in Redmond

[xenocide2]

If Ballmer throws a chair and there are no employees to hear it, does it make a sound?

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

[nappingcracker]

Waste of talent or not, this is a very good thing.

Having such a hot and well known company pick up Linux is very good. Especially when it pickus up a LiveCD distro that anyone can pop in and play with linux. This will introduce MANY people to linux, for no other reason than having the Google stamp on it.

Excellent!

Re:Google OS

[AnalystX]

Yes. That would be 20% of their time, not 100% of their wouldn't it? What I'm saying is if Google adds one more OS to the fray, what are the chances of it getting 1% or even 3% of the OS market? I'm not going to switch my OS for anything Google puts out because I don't see an OS as "their thing." They have no tradition, no roots, and most of all, no claim to anything unique in the OS world. However, I would me very inclined to use any database tools they come out with such as replacement for Microsoft SQL Server. I know they have a unique perspective on data storage so I would more than trust them in that area.

Re:Google OS

[Bert64]

You could say microsoft have no roots, tradition or claim to anything in many markets they have entered...
Your example of SQL server is a prime one, a few years ago MS didn't even offer a database for sale. This was the domain of Oracle and IBM. Not to mention MSN, which is trying to barge in on an area which really is google's "thing".

Microsoft's "thing" is BASIC interpreters.

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.

Re:Google OS

[AnalystX]

I could say that, but Microsoft has at least provided something unique with SQL Server: ease of use. With that said, I generally don't like to use Microsoft technologies because most of them are bad copies of something else, with very few exceptions.

Re:Google OS

[Clujo]

Wow. Manage to find every possible negative, ok? Too bad you broke it into regular sentences and what not. Would have sounded better as one long run-on. Which people are shunning solid products? Oh, forget it.

Re:Google OS

[Sen.NullProcPntr]

They should concentrate on data collection, aggregation, and dissemination tools.

That could be what this project is for. Everyone is assuming this is for public distribution but it could be for internal consumption. I'm sure Google will make it publicly available under the GPL. But the goal may be to have a uniform distribution with all the tools that Google employees need day to day.

Re:Google OS

[Fezzick]

Google wouldn't need to create a new file system, but instead build off of ReiserFS, which is an amazingly flexible file system which can be extended through the use of plugins. Significant progess in searchable filesystems for linux (ala Spotlight in OSX) has already been made through the Beagle Project. This seems like a natural area for Google to get into...

So maybe building a full blown distro that competes against Redhat and Suse is unlikely... but I could definitly see Google making major feature enhancements in the linux desktop search realm.

Re:Google OS

[wildebeasts]

Taking this "what if" a step further, Google could be the only brand capable of pulling off a major interface/paradigm shift in desktop computing. I'd like to see a google desktop thats not a desktop at all and a db-file system that works as a LifeStream instead of a giant filing cabinet. This would be the first such shift since xerox invented the window/desktop/file/cabinet metaphor for personal computing in the 70's. And with Google's focus on indexing and classifying.... it could just work. To see one example of the sort of thing I'm talking about check out http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/freeman/lifestreams.h tml

Re:Google OS

[nappingcracker]

Besides, Linux zealots shun capitalism anyway.

Fuck the zealots, it is the rest of capitalist/materialist Ameriworld that needs to hear about other operating systems. If the zealots would figure out that they need the "idiots" to actually gain marketplace, then there would be some serious desktop competition and both windows/ and *nix would benefit. Point is -- my mom knows of google, she will now hear of linux. Lots of people are hyped up about Ubuntu, good, anything that gets people hyped about linux.

People seem to shun solidly engineered products and years of experience, and switch to the newest and latest obscure fad distributions that are released by some drunken geeks in a dorm room, like Ubuntu.

Yah, drunken geeks are more popular than engineers, they figured out what the vanilla public wanted, and people are psyched about it. Who cares how, or why, as long as people are switching, its all groovy.

BTW, .rpm was good at teh time, but all else sucks when compared to portage. Say what you will about gentoo, the portage system is the greatest installer/package manager ever. Thats why microsoft hired the founder and main developer of gentoo and portage.

some, more, commas, to, even, out, the, ,mi,x,,,,,,,

Re:Google OS

[bigjerkboy]

IBM has gone down the tubes man! You are so right!!! Novell is posting increased sales. DO you ever look at the stock price of Novell or Red Hat? Novell's SuSe is almost all GPL code. Red Hat makes its money on support. And Ubuntu is backed by a billionaire, Mark Shuttlecock. YOu are a bit of an ass or maybe just a troll.

Re:Google OS

[Bert64]

No, not ease of use, merely an interface which is more familiar to people experienced with windows...
Having come from a unix/oracle background, mssql is quite an alien an unintuitive interface to pick up the first time, in contrast with MacOS (including 9 and earlier) which is reasonably intuitive and easy despite being completely different to unix.

Re:Google OS

[owlstead]

What, *all* of them? I think the way Google tries to get things done is to get a few very good (well paid) talents working on a specific problem. If you've got the right people, you don't need a lot of them. It seems that they are trying to do the same for all their segments. Even as account manager for the Netherlands, you need at least a degree, be fluent in many languages and have a working record - besides wanting to move to Dublin.

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.

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

[lpangelrob]

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.

If it doesn't work, there's always Beta! :-D

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

[OctoberSky]

presumably trying the chuck-it-and-see-if-it-sticks approach.

Microsoft uses a similar approach, but thier apporach involves chairs and Steve Ballmer.

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

[dR.fuZZo]

Google has many fingers in many pies right now...

I'm not familiar with that euphemism, but I think I see what you're getting at.

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

[NetRAVEN5000]

This is because Google encourages its employees to work on projects that don't particularly have to do with what they're currently working on for their job. So they've all got these little "side-projects" that they work on, and if a bunch of them all like what another is doing, they work together on it and eventually they try to make it part of Google. That's how GMail started out, I hear.

Hold your horses everyone!!

[gasmonso]

First, the Google PC at Walmart and now this. I heard that Google is going to buy Windows and release it free to everyone including Office!

http://religiousfreaks.com/

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

[NetRAVEN5000]

Maybe Google will partner with Ubuntu. Although I doubt it - probably they'll work together on some stuff or use each other's source (as many other distros sometimes do) but more than likely they're going to be working towards different things. Plus, Google probably wouldn't want to discriminate against other distros (I prefer Slackware myself, but I have no problem if Google wants to support Ubuntu - others might though.)

As far as Google's plans for Linux. . . I don't think I'm far off when I say "make Steve Ballmer eat his words for saying he'll 'fucking bury Google'". ;^)

Re:What can Google do

[tolan-b]

Well there's this thing called Open source see....

But more to the point, Google have plenty of resources to plough into development and whatnot. They also have one hell of a name for themselves.

I doubt they'd fork Ubuntu though, most likely they'd work with Ubuntu and provide a branded version.

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

[PhoenixPath]

lmao..

So based on *one* user's account we should all flock away from Ubuntu....to what?

Yeah, that's intelligent. It didn't work for you, so it obviously sucks.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with you messsing around during installation (which I will admit is *way* too easy to do.).

Look...it idn't work for ya on the first try. Hell, Windows doesn't work for lots of people on the first try. This does, in no way, reflect on the quality of the distribution.

Now... If you could post evidence stating it was unbelieveably common for this to occur, it might be different. But one user's account is no way to judge ... anything.

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

[JabberWokky]

I doubt they'd fork Ubuntu though, most likely they'd work with Ubuntu and provide a branded version.

That's pretty much the idea behind Ubuntu... the goal was things like Edubuntu (and Kubuntu). I think Mark said at one point that he wishes the base Ubuntu didn't use Gnome and there was a base Ubuntu and a Gubuntu, although I can't cite and it may well be misattributed.

--
Evan

Re:What can Google do

[wvitXpert]

The only thing usefull I can think of that Google could do with thier vast recources is make linux be able to run Windows applications. Other than that it would be just another flavor, so here hoping!

Re:What can Google do

[jZnat]

Just wanted to mention that your "mod parent up" post turned into something far more insightful than the parent, so congrats on breaking /. tradition! :P

Re:What can Google do

[MrByte420]

Ever heard of CentOS?

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

[jZnat]

He said he'd Fucking Kill® Google; get your facts straight. :P

Re:What can Google do

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

More to the point, what does Google plan to do that Ubuntu isn't already doing?
Market share and penetration. Joe User still knows nothing about Linux; most home users outside the IS community are only peripherally aware that it exists. Now picture the google.com home page -- which has a whole bunch of users, needless to say -- saying something like "Click here for a more secure computer."

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

[smurfsurf]

Google does not manage to offer reasonable email support for their own stuff (tried several times for some of their offerings), so I would not hang my expectation on that too high.

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

[Richthofen80]

Maybe google could wrangle major software developers to develop a version of their popular software product for Linux. Like, say , Photoshop.

Re:What can Google do

[davez0r]

also, joe average doesn't use products from corel, sun, or novell. he does, however, use IE to look things up on google.

Re:What can Google do

[Chemicalscum]

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

Port the Google Desktop to Linux on it ?

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

[InsaneGeek]

In corporate environments I'd say that Sun was/is as big as Google is in official corporate acceptance.

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

[NetRAVEN5000]

"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google."

Big difference - he still used "bury" in the same quote.

Re:What can Google do

[carrier lost]

The impact of having a Google-branded linux distro could be huge.

Excellent insight. I'd like to add that the current tech business climate is pretty much shark-like. Not so much in a predatory fashion, but from a survival point of view: businesses must keep swimming forward or die.

So what if a Google/Linux distro doesn't work out? Google is in a life-and-death struggle with Microsoft, the meanest company to ever come down the pike in the tech world. And, there's a million tinier sharks circling, waiting to disembowel the loser. In that kind of environment, Google absolutely has to try and gain any type of advantage possible over Microsoft.

We're at kind of a stand-off right now, as MS tries to regroup from antitrust actions worldwide. It too, must push forward on numerous fronts (XBox, MSN, Mobile devices), or risk being buried by the relentless advance of technology.

MjM

Re:What can Google do

[Irish_Samurai]

That is kind of comparing Apples to Oranges, and I haven't had similar experience.

AdWords has some decent support, from what I have experienced, and the phone support has always gotten the job done for me. I guess mileage may vary.

But, looking at the products that Google's competing with right now, I don't think they need to have this type of support. I don't really know another online advert system that has supperior suport. They seem to be on par with industry standard for those products.

Google analysts are smart enough to realize that support is a major part of competing in the OS marketplace. If they want to be succesful they will have to step up the support as it pertains to this product.

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

[serutan]

I agree 100% with theStorminMormon, except in regards to competition. Yes it would be a great thing, but I think it will be short-lived in this case. Microsoft has lost most of its ability to compete. It's one of those big, mature companies that should be mostly buying smaller companies and merely owning and branding them. Instead it's still trying to act like a young company and innovate, which is difficult to do at that stage in a company's life.

One reason is all the backward-compatibility baggage Microsoft has to drag along. Another is the sheer inertia of any large organization. Every new thing MS does involves training thousands or millions of people -- sales reps, service techs customers -- not to mention the bureaucratic process of getting the relevant people in the organization to agree on what to do and how to do it. The more people you have involved, the more communication and decision-making overhead. Google is still a much smaller organization with a much smaller existing product base to deal with, and seems to be run by people who are still in the gung-ho creative stage rather than the dig in and keep what you've got stage. I personally think they're going to blow MS away.

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

[danpsmith]

Maybe Google can get my laptop to support over 800x600 in X-server...

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]

I agree with the "keep swimming" mentality. Business is a lot like an ecosystem with ever changing resources and climate: adapt or die.

As part of that adaptation I really think that the whole PC-centered computing model is not going to last as the dominant player. Sure, you can't just take away everyone's PC and give them all thin clients. Power users need their own sandboxes, and many people need the mobility that you can only get with a self-sufficient laptop. But the current usage of computers in, for example, the service and retail industries is incredibly inefficient. I see linux/open source as being part of a tandem push with a shift to thin-client computing for these types of environments. If all you do is word processing, excel, etc. there's no reason why you should be paying the hardware overhead associated with a full-blown PC, the licensing overhead associated with stand-alone OS and office software, not to mention the maintenance associated with distributed PCs when you could save in all of these arena's by switching to linux/open source/thin client.

That's the way of the future. Not in a zero-sum PCs are going to die (PCs will never die) but in a growing-pie the thin-client niche is going to explode paradigm.

-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

[alcmaeon]

OK, a better question might be: "What can Google bring to Linux that IBM, HP, and Dell couldn't?"

I suspect the answer is: "Not much."

Re:What can Google do

[azpenguin]

Google has something those other companies don't have - recognition from computer users who aren't tech savvy. If someone needs to find something online, they think to themselves, "I'll Google that." Many are using GMail. The ones using IE have the Google Toolbar. They've got Google Desktop installed on their machines. They know and trust Google, and that's where Google has its best chance of succeeding if they go down this route. But it will still be an uphill climb. Installing an OS is no trivial task for average users who won't do something like that unless the coimputer just isn't working. Now if Google gets an OEM to sign on, that's where you could start seeing significant uptake, especially if it leads to a $199 machine. And not one of the cheap, Wal-Mart Lindows machines - something by someone who people already trust.

Re:What can Google do

[sootman]

The companies you mention either did Linux as a dying gasp but didn't have enough resources (Corel*) or because it was the only way they could deal with the threat to their proprietary offerings (Novell, Sun) but their hearts really weren't in it. (Besides, none of those three had/have one-tenth the name recognition among the public that Google does.)

I think a Google Linux for the masses would be the greatest thing ever. They have the resources to make software packaging and delivery easy, they've got lots of cool apps & services they could deploy and integrate, they're smart enough to know how to make a good, clean, easy-to-use UI, they've got the resources to extensively test and then certify application compatibility (i.e., MS Office under Wine or CrossOver) and most importantly, it's a brand that everyone from a CEO to a PHB to a mail room guy knows and trusts.

What's holding back Linux adoption now? Fragmentation, and the main support options are from companies that techs swear are great but that PHBs have never heard of. Even if a manager did listen to his techs and investigate Linux, what would he see--a bunch of distros with odd names and support from a bunch of companies that come and go, none of which he's ever heard of. Google could change all that.

Ubuntu is a great distro--pretty, simple, works on lots of hardware. But it has a weird name and no particularly compelling features that would draw most Windows user. For every huge plus (no viruses!) there is an equally huge minus (my favorite old game doesn't work!). Google could change all that, too.

Basically it comes down to this: if there's one company that a) could make Linux work, b) has a compelling reason to want Linux to be a success among the masses, and c) has a name people respond positively to, Google is it. They could become a major force in both the home and the office. Google can pull it off. I really hope this rumor is true.

* Corel really could have been great. If they could have made a clean desktop and bundled NATIVE versions of Draw, PhotoPaint, and WordPerfect, it would have been awesome.

Re:What can Google do

[rufty_tufty]

Perhaps they could add proper codec support so we would have a media player that works from the get-go (ubuntus doesn't because of legal ramifications)

They could push for better driver support so I can use my camera with my home desktop instead of having to bring my camera into work to get the photos off it, or borrow my friend's apple laptop (Canon DC350D)

That'd be my little bit of polish on the Linux system I'd like to see

Re:What can Google do

[Overly Critical Guy]

"Sir, I'd recommend we use Goobuntu."

"Goo-what?"

"Goobuntu."

"Goomba? What is this? Why can't they just call it Linux Pro?"

"Sigh..."

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

Maybe you didn't really read my other posts. Google is a radically different company from IBM, HP and Dell. First of all there's the obvious difference: Google doesn't sell hardware (I'm aware IBM has moved away from that too, but they still sell a lot of servers).

What's more important, however, is the customer base. Sure, you're average consumer may go pick up a dell or an HP at the store (or online). But by and large those are tech companies. Everyone's heard of IBM, but who uses IBM services consiously everyday?

This might be the clearest way to get you to understand the huge cultural difference between Google and the others: is there a new word in the common English vocabulary from Dell? From HP? From IBM? Google is far newer than any of those companies and it has already infiltrated our very language (eg "My professor seems weird. I'm going to go Google him and see if I can find anything.")

Once you realize this you start to realize that Google reaches ordinary people while IBM, HP and Dell don't even really reach the whole techie-crowd. What linux or mac afficionado gives a rats ass about Dell's new XPS line? Does IBM matter to someone doing video editing? But EVERYONE uses Google.

So if Google opens up a linux distro you've got a straigh shot to not just some sub-set of techies, but pretty much every human being that uses the internet. You've got an established relationship with EVERYONE. That's quite possibly the most valuable asset any company could imagine for a new product or service of any kind. The difference between what Google has to offer linux and what any other tech company has to offer linux can not be relegated to "not much" by any rational human who really thinks about the issue realistically for more than 5 minutes.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[chainy]

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

You mean like Windows does?

__
Chäïnÿ

Re:What can Google do

[thsths]

> 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.

While I agree with the general problem of getting an improvement included if it doesn't have the right taste for the community, this problem could have easily been avoided (or rather forseen). Firstly, GNOME people not known for being very open to suggestions. I think writing in C takes some kind of a calling, and that determines the people that you get.

Secondly, Sun are not especially experts on usability, either. OpenView was impressive, but how long ago was that? Ever since we have seen clunky graphics and poor performing apps coming of out Sun, so why should anybody listen to them? The technology might be great, but the usability just suffered over the years.

So: no surprise here.

Re:What can Google do

[carrier lost]

"a tandem push with a shift to thin-client computing"

I had forgotten about that dynamic. But I think the service and retail industries are already using Point of Sale machines which by nature don't include word processing, spreadsheet, image manipulation, etc software.

And I don't believe in the imminence of convergence in the home, either. Although it's inevitable, I think the various entities (video from camera, audio from CDs, movies from DVD, TV from HD/cable/satellite) are still too different as to discourage the "one to run them all" machine.

In other words, someone buys a WebTV appliance, and then finds out they can't play a DVD on it, or view pictures of the grandkids, or record a tv show. The adaptability of your basic ATX bus-based PC is still its biggest feature, USB notwithstanding.

In the long run, you're absolutely right. In the short term, and the timeframe Google must be concerned with, the PC is every bit the battleground it was 10 years ago when Netscape got dunked.

MjM

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

[bigjerkboy]

WHy bother with MS Office? I know it is a big standard around big business, but Open Office/Star Office can handle most things and displays most office docs. Google could help force the Open Document Standard down M$'s throat ( along with Mass. ).

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

1. Service industries. I work in an insurance brokerage. We all have Windows PCs. No one does anything but email, word process (a tiny bit) some excel work, look at pdf documents, surf the web, and there's one database program we use for contact management. What a waste of resources. The same goes for law firms, travel agencies, etc.

2. Retail industries. Some retailers have a simple cash register, but a lot of retailers (like my local mechanice) have full-blown PCs running Win2K with internet connection to run their software. Maybe they don't have MS Office, but they're still in a position to save a ton of money by shifting to thin clients (provided someone sets up an app server they can access) and avoid windows tax, virus vulnerability, etc. Futhermore a lot of retailers that have more kiosks (like restuarants) are not happy with their current set up (and I've been to many of those that have Dells set up for all the point-of-sale stuff). Hell, even hospital emergency rooms trundle around Dell PCs on carts to enter medical info in for all of the patients.

I'm not talking about convergence. There's always a temptation - whenever there's a market instability - for people to go crazy and overcompensate. In my opinion that's all convergence is - hype and overcompensation.

But the fundamental market driver here is inefficiency. Any service based office with 25-50 pcs could afford an app server and thin clients instead of PCs. They've got 25 PCs sitting on desktops running at what - 4% CPU usage? I'm a power user and I hardly ever get my RAM usage above 35%. That's just inefficient and it's that inneficiency that reveals the potential niche for thin-client solutions. Just as the fact that I can get Mandriva for free and do practically everything my windows box does that's work related (but for Windows I have to buy the OS and office software). That's inefficient - and so the potential for improvement is obvious. That's not hype - that's just a realistic assessment of the current market.

-stormin

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

[dusik]

User: I think my hard drive is corrupted! Help!
Tech support: fsck it!

Re:What can Google do

[Mantorp]

> Goobuntu (what a ridiculous name)

Better than the possibly incindiary Gookubuntu if they went the Kubuntu route.

Re:What can Google do

[InsaneGeek]

Again I said corporate world adoptance not end user, market value != corporate adoptance. Redhat/Suse have been around for how many years with a corporate product and they have extremely hard time getting acceptance; and you expect Google to come in and just automatically have adoptance in a corporate environment????

Other than their name what benefit are they bringing to for more corporate adoptance? In reality it's just another distro, another variant of the same stuff nothing really earth shattering here.

Re:What can Google do

[Anivair]

check wine and crossover office. Linux already does this. For that matter, there are almost no windows programs that do not have (better) linux counterparts, save video games. And I've seen plenty of games run on linux. Now, I agree that it could be easier to do in most distros, but that's a different complaint.

Re:What can Google do

[Cro Magnon]

Tech support: "What browser are you using?"
User: "IE"
Tech support: "You don't have to scream, I was just asking a question"

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.

Re:What can Google do

[carrier lost]

"Any service based office with 25-50 pcs could afford an app server and thin clients instead of PCs."

Oops! You are absolutely right. I forgot that everyone out there with a PC on his desk isn't a programmer like me.

:)

So, where were we? Do you think that Google's PC will herald the beginning of the long-prophesied retail/service return to thin-clients?

MjM

Re:What can Google do

[justins]

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.

Apple's hurdled both of these barriers, with a really usable interface and worldwide positive brand recognition. Coincidentally, they've got a trivial fraction of the OS market and that fraction is barely growing fast enough to track the growth of the market as a whole.

Maybe it helps Google if they can do it cheaper? Otherwise, I don't see what their unique advantage is.

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's going to be a "Google PC". At the most I could see them offering some custom linux OS back to the community to be sold on Dell (or HP, etc.) PCs like Mandriva and other are currently trying to do.

But do I think this is part of a general trend back towards the return to thin clients? Absolutely. The fact is that the mainframe never died - and that's essentially the same model as the thin-client model. The market got carried away with PCs as they got cheaper and cheaper and everyone bought them. But the fact of the matter is that PCs waste huge amounts of energy, cost a lot, break down a lot, and generate huge amounts of waste when they are eventually disposed of. Thin clients just make too much sense not to come back.

As I said - they're not going to totally replace desktops. Programmers especially need desktops. I wouldn't want to part with mine. Laptops - as portable self-contained units - are also not going away.

But the industry is moving towards a utility-model for business computing and I think it's smart. Thin clients are more durable, cheaper, and (in conjunction with app servers) allocate resources more efficiently. Giving every employee in a service industry a PC is like giving every postal worker an 18-wheeler. It just doesn't make sense because 18-wheelers fit a different niche than those little postal jeeps.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[MikeFM]

I still see a Google Computer in the future too. They need an OS for it and Linux needs a major push to put it in every home. Google could do for Linux what Apple hardware does for Mac OS. Hardware support and branding.

Re:What can Google do

[MPHellwig]

Yup, asked them, it was Apple ...

Re:What can Google do

[Phisbut]

I searched for the user 'UbuntuDupe' at the ubuntuforums and read the post you made ... http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=122473/

You should probably ask people for help in the right tone ... and try not to say how bad ubuntu is in every other reply you make.

When people(who use ubuntu), are trying to help others in whatever way they can (for free), read posts like that with all the negativity, they won't really feel like helping.

The funniest thing is that the conversation ends when they all realize that the problem is a faulty hard drive. Flaming Ubuntu for hardware failure, that's rich.

Re:What can Google do

[ichimunki]

You forgot Poland.

Er, I mean, you forgot: Access, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Visio, .NET, C#, and for a non-MS example, Acrobat.

Plus, Internet Explorer is a complete misnomer. It's a web page viewer. Let me know when it can do email, nntp, ssh, sftp/scp, or any of a hundred other typical things you do on the internet.

As for Linux, most of those applications are sensibly presented in Gnome (and probably in KDE, too).

Re:What can Google do

[diegocgteleline.es]

what does Google plan to do that Ubuntu isn't already doing?

Make linux a real desktop OS?

Seriously....

Re:What can Google do

[FooBarWidget]

Good usability? Every time I read a Linux article I see tons of "+5 Insightful" posts claiming that Linux is nowhere near being ready for the desktop.

Re:What can Google do

[ZephyrXero]

You could very well be right, but if they really are working on a desktop distro, I don't think they'd suffer the same fate. Corporate mentality is the issue...those other guys had it, while Google already seems to think differently. As while those guys tried to jump into the Linux/OpenSource game, Google was founded off it. I think Google's much more open approach to their workers and their projects along with it's history could prove to be the right mix this time ;)

Re:What can Google do

[alcmaeon]

"Maybe you didn't really read my other posts."

Well, I'm not some StorminMormon fanboy, if that's what your asking, so, no, I didn't read all your post to try to decipher the one post I responded to. But I did read the one in which you said:

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.

Now you certainly appear to be saying that "IT service companies" can sell the GoogleOS to their customers. I don't know about you, but as a home user, I don't rely on IT service companies to sell me my desktop OS, so I made the natural assumption you were talking about their customers being businesses.

To which I pondered what Google could bring to the table for businesses that IBM, HP, and Dell couldn't.

Now your point is that because "googling" has become a slang verb, people will buy their OS. By that rationale, Xerox should be able to launch a Linux distro and spank MS too because people "xerox" copies all the time. It can't, and it won't. Neither will Google.

You and I are techies, we like hardware and software and we post on here about technical aspects of these items. To most people, "Windows" is not just a piece of software that runs on a computer, it is the computer. I ask people what browser they use and they tell me "Windows." I tell them Mac software won't run on Windows and they can't understand it becuase to them the Mac runs "Windows," ie, it isn't DOS so it must be Windows.

Windows is far more entrenched with just about every segment, than is Google.

Re:What can Google do

[Pentavirate]

I want stand alone mapping software for my Ubuntu laptop. No dice. Wine hasn't worked for anything I've tried to install with it. I can usually get it installed but it never works right.

Re:What can Google do

[TallMatthew]

Clearly this guy isn't the sharpest stick in the shed, but his rant raises a valid point.

Why is it that he felt he could be successful creating a dual-boot machine the first time out of the box? Besides his misguided belief in his own cluefulness, something in the installer must have encouraged him that it would work. Dual booting a machine is a fairly complex undertaking, particularly if you're ignorant to things like master boot records and 1024 cylinder limitations. It takes some experience to manage partitions in that configuration. You can hose your box really easily. I know I did the first time I tried to dual boot.

Trying to find the sweet spot between usability and configurability is what Ubuntu faces in their battle to create a more friendly Linux desktop. This is exactly the kind of thing they'll need assistance with going forwards.

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

Apple's OS is weighed down by it's hardware. This isn't a problem for Apple. They have a higher profit-margin on hardware than software, and so they prefer to grow their OS only as fast as they can grow their hardware penetartion into the market. It's not bad, but it's definitely slow.

Google has no hardware. That's the big difference between the two.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[phlamingo]

Hobbyist.

If "hobbiest" were a word, it would mean something like "the most hobby". Or, maybe, "having the most hobbs."

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

Now you certainly appear to be saying that "IT service companies" can sell the GoogleOS to their customers. I don't know about you, but as a home user, I don't rely on IT service companies to sell me my desktop OS, so I made the natural assumption you were talking about their customers being businesses.

That's actually not a very good conclusion. I run one such IT service company. I don't actually sell AVG Free anymore than I would sell a GoogleOS. But I do get paid rather well to come to people's houses and run virus scans and such and the fact that I can offer to install AV software for no additional cost helps a lot. If I can offer to install some cool new OS for no additional cost that would also help in the same way. I don't charge for the software, I charge for the expertise. That's what I mean when I talk about IT moving to a service-based as opposed to product-based industry.

Now as for the difference between Google and HP, Dell, etc. it again comes to service companies. Your average user knows squat about OSs, but your average small business owner is a little better informed and much more highly motivated. If I come up to a small business user (and this is speaking from experience) and say "hey - I can help you out by saving you money while giving you better IT service" they are interested, but they want to know why they should trust me. Now if I say "because HP backs it" that's about as good as "Google backs it". But what free software or hardware has HP given me that I can then offer to the small business (not for resell, but as value-added to service)? Nothing. Same goes for Dell and IBM.

But GoogleOS - assuming it's free like Gmail and everythign else Google has done - is fundamentally different. It gives those with expertise a free tool with which they can augment the value of their services to those that can't take advantage of the free tools themselves. If a small business has a competent techie they don't need me - they can do it their own. But most service small businesses have neither a good techie nor the money to hire one.

That's the fundamental shift. The tools become free, the services become the value. This is the opposite of the old model - where the tools were the product and the service was an afterthought. In my opinion the new model is more accessible to small and medium sized businesses and eventually even large-scale businesses. That's why IBM has switched to consulting. It's not like I'm alone in seeing this - it's part of an emerging trend.

Currently Windows is not set to compete with this new business model. In the process of converting I think they will lose a lot of market share.

Make sense?

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[CAIMLAS]

Er, no. "Useability" is not an issue with Linux. The main technical issue with linux is application compatibility. MS has a mindshare monopoly on "productivity" software (Access, Project, Excel, Word), and there's little chance of that changing anytime soon.

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

I couldn't disagree more. I'm a relatively agile techie. I code a bit, have a comp sci minor, like to try new technology, and have no trouble with mac or windows. However I never did manage to get wireless networking up and running on my SUSE install. Nor could I ever get Firefox updated on my Mandriva install. I didn't spend huge amounts of time working on it - but the fact is that if I can't figure out how to get the install program to run in 30 minutes it's not as useable as windows.

On the other hand I love OpenOffice and think it's poised to start eating away market share from MS Office. I know I'm goign to get my company switched over to it relatively soon. The droves will really start to move over when the next iteration of MS Office comes out - in my opinion.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[drew]

If the name of IBM isn't enough to get some corporate credibility for Linux, I don't think Google is going to do much better. Let's face it, Linux lack of popularity on the desktop may be due to a lot of reasons, but lack of corporate backing isn't one of them, anymore.

Re:What can Google do

[Burz]

GUIs and Wizards are prerequisites, certainly. But FOSS systems now have plenty of those.

What they lack is a common standard for API and installation. Give developers a way to code, test and package for one environment; Then users will have a way to download/buy software packages that are self-contained and independantly distributed.

And what about installing drivers?

If users can't do these things then all the wizards in the world won't change our very fancy thin-client model into a workable desktop.

Re:What can Google do

[cp.tar]

Goobuntu (what a ridiculous name)

You're right.

They shouldn't have gone with Ubuntu in the first place.
Gentoo would have been a much better choice. Goontoo actually sounds cool.

Re:What can Google do

[electroniceric]

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.

This is an interesting angle, but I think it overlooks a big problem that desktop Linux has. Windows really cemented its hold on the market somewhere between Windows95 when Microsoft made the Windows/Office/WindowsServer platform an integrated productivity environment. It was just what corporations wanted - a network setup where you knew you could plug in the pieces and they'd pretty much work together. As icing, once a decent number of businesses bought in, you also knew you could get people to run the network. Since that's already been deployed and most businesses have structured a lot of their IT operations around, there's only a few compelling reasons to uproot the whole setup, such as

a) A large reduction in cost. Basically this means giving it away for free, and charging less than MS for product support. In this case Google is well positioned, as it's basic strategy is to commoditize/demonetize a variety of products in service of driving ad revenue. Or perhaps they can partner with Novell to provide the support. In any event, the point is to make the product a viable choice for free.
b) A vast improvement in reliability or security. Linux as a platform is indeed more secure than Windows, but frankly I don't think it's as head-and-shoulders above Windows as people boast, particularly as Microsoft gains experience with Windows Update. In a controlled environment like a server, Linux is still much more secure and deconstructable than Windows, and this is working in its favor. And unless something changes, people appear willing to weather the storm with Windows.
c) The new environment somehow allows for new and compelling deployment methods (VPN/remote sessions over any broadband - anywhere, or wicked easy app deployment, etc.), coupled with low cost. This is an area of big opportunity. Your choices are present: Citrix or Terminal Services, and both are pretty expensive. If Google made it really easy to do a TermServ style deployment, with a slick Windows client, that could drive adoption of Linux. I've definitely given serious thought to deploying this way. Problem is, where does Google drive ad revenue this way? And then there's the application base. There's plenty of good and great end-user apps out theere for Linux, but they are not as consistently easy to deploy, update, and often to use as their Windows counterparts. Goobuntu could make a decent dent in this, given the maturity of Firefox, OpenOffice, and a number of other tools.

Basically, the OS for use on corporate desktops is mostly a settled question, barring something radically new coming along. I think there are opportunities for Google around desktop Linux, but it's not as cut and dried as trying to get people to replace Windows wholesale. And I follow Cringeley in saying that Google should not devote a lot of money to challenging Windows on its home court, as this is surely a loser.

Re:What can Google do

[sperm]

AFAIK, IBM has NOT promoted a Linux desktop...They are strong supporters of Linux (RedHat and SUSE mainly) on the server, and that is doing very well thank you (growing faster than Win servers).

Re:What can Google do

[Thomas Miconi]

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

Whatever Apple did that FreeBSD wasn't already doing ?

Thomas-

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

I wholeheartedly agree. Goontoo is kind of cool. On the other hand, Goobuntu is a little better than some of the possible alternatives:

GooHat
GooSE
Goondriva

Alright, fine. Goondriva is actually also pretty cool (not that Mandriva would appreciate a free alternative since they're trying to sell theirs now).

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[legirons]

"what does Google plan to do that Ubuntu isn't already doing? ...|... How about live person tech support on the phone?"

I thought that sounded weird (the idea of a consumer Linux distro not offering phone support), so I just visited Ubuntu's website:

Support options, Premium package, "Phone support: Yes". $250 for 1 year of phone support for desktop PCs.

They also act as backup for other support options (such as local computer shops) who can answer simple questions themselves, and refer to Canonical for anything they don't know.

Most Linux distros have phone support now, I was tempted once to phone Mandrake (now Mandriva) but I got an answer from their paid support team via the web interface instead as it happens. I'm pretty sure that Suse, RedHat and all the rest will let you phone them if you pay for the person's time.

(Just as an order-of-magnitude reference, I googled "Microsoft support", and people are advertising "as low as £10 pcm", which is about $210 per year. I would look on support.microsoft.com, but I really don't have the bandwidth at the moment...)

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

I like your analysis but I think you're leaving a few things out. I think there is a possibility for wholesale migration from windows to linux in the near future because of Windows Visata and Office 12.

Large corporations are probably not likely to want to give up their in-pace infrastructure. But individual users (non-techie/gamers) and small/medium businesses have a much less-vested interest in maintaining windows. And the looming hardware requirements of Vista are ridiculous. Of course no one HAS to move to Vista on day one (nor should they!) But the bad press is out there and it's going to highlight the fact that Windows is resource hog and going with Windows is like stepping on a hardware treadmill. Similarly, the fact that it will take more training to get employees up to speed on Office 12 than it would to get them up to speed on OpenOffice (starting with Office 10 or 11) is going to further highlight the escalating costs of a Windows environment.

What needs to happen, however, is that there need to be service companies that will outsource the IT work for small/med businesses and even individuals to facilitate the change. It's like the old adage "it takes money to make money". In this case it takes money (specialists) to save money (taking advantage of linux/open source/thin client efficiencies). IF those types of businesses spring up, then there's the potential to see a sudden increase in linux penetration at the bottom of the pyramid - home users and small/med businesses. This spike in linux penetration will, in my opinion, prove sufficient to start a self-sustaining, wide-spread adoption of linux.

Again, I don't see this as an end to MS. It's not so much a question of linux vs. MS, it's a question of the old distributed PC version vs. web and server based computing. It just so happens that as people move to web and server based computing they incremental cost to them of ALSO moving to linux will be relatively low compared to the incremental benefit of linux/OS in addition to server-based computing.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[TheLearnerX]

The cool thing to do these days is to yell "UBUNTU!" then punch someone nearby in the arm.

Re:What can Google do

[Irish_Samurai]

Yeah, my research into the support was pretty shallow. But I do know that Microsoft offers free tech support for desktops for the first two calls.

I really have no idea if Unbuntu has on demand phone in support or if you have to wait for them to call you back. But on demand is really what end users want.

But, I'm not really a Linux guy - so I'm not all that knowledgable on the subject. I have been itching to try it out, but I really don't have the time to try and set up a machine. I also don't have time to configure things I really don't understand.

Re:What can Google do

[robfoo]

Internet Explorer is a complete misnomer.. Let me know when it can do email, nntp, ssh, sftp/scp

Not really. You can 'explore' the web (which *is* the internet to most people), but I'm not sure how you 'explore' the internet via email or ssh..

Remember Netscape Navigator? Or even KDE's 'Konqueror' - Conqueror,Navigator,Explorer.. all have connotations of exploring, finding out stuff, that kind of thing. Which is pretty much what most people use the web for, I think.

For complete misnomer, you can't get worse than Access. I've had people ask me if they need MS Access to get on the internet (seriously). Back in the windows 3.1 days most people I knew thought it was a 'modem program'.

As for the others (Excel,Visio,Acrobat..), just remember 'Google' didn't mean 'search the web' before google.com became popular. 'Google' wasn't even a proper word!

Re:What can Google do

[legirons]

"But I do know that Microsoft offers free tech support for desktops for the first two calls."

That doesn't sound dissimilar to Ubuntu's support prices then, assuming the Microsoft definition of "free". Which isn't surprising - the cost of a call centre doesn't change much just because of your product's choice of license.

"I really have no idea if Unbuntu has on demand phone in support or if you have to wait for them to call you back."

"Response time 4 hours" apparently - we're just guessing now, but I expect there are various options from different companies.

For home users, I would have thought that calling the vendor is pretty low on their list of fun things to do anyway. Certainly if it were me, I'd want to call the local shop or repair guy. And it sounds like that's what Ubuntu is encouraging, by providing support to those shops when they need it.

"But, I'm not really a Linux guy - so I'm not all that knowledgable on the subject. I have been itching to try it out, but I really don't have the time to try and set up a machine."

The best trick I found so far was removable hard disk caddies. You can try 10 different distros in turn on your second disk until you find one that installs flawlessly and seems generally amiable, and if anything fails, or if you want to do something else for a few days, you just put the other disk back and reboot to whatever your previous OS was. Very useful when anything fundamental in Linux isn't working and you want to ask someone on the internet what to do about it. Plus the hassle you save by not fscking around with formatting partitions and dual-booting.

Alternatively, have a second PC handy. e.g. you can get a Mac Mini for about the cost of a used cheeseburger and run web browsers, MS Office, Adobe stuff, and all the rest on that while playing with Linux on your PC. It can even do the internet connection, which makes Linux much easier (no internal winmodems or broadband USB modems to make your life difficult, just tell it to use the Mac as a gateway).

"I also don't have time to configure things I really don't understand."

Me neither, but I haven't noticed any obvious differences between operating systems in this area. It's not like kcontrol isn't a widget-for-widget copy of Windows configuration for example...

I've not had to edit any textfile configs on Ubuntu, if that's what you mean. The trick is probably to dump any distro which fails to configure the graphics properly the first time -- it's not worth the frustration if an installer leaves you fighting with xfree86 just to get a graphical desktop on your first install.

Re:What can Google do

[Recovering Anonymous]

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

That not exactly what Novell is doing. They're using Linux to replace the Netware OS and migrating services (NDS,iPrint,ifolder, etc.) to the Linux platform. After 6.5 (maybe 7.0 I'll have to double check) there will be no more Netware OS. NDS is still going strong. NDS != Netware OS just as Active Directory != Windows 2000 Server.

Re:What can Google do

[Toby_Tyke]

WHy bother with MS Office? I know it is a big standard around big business

You just answered your own question.

Re:What can Google do

[electroniceric]

Hmmm.. I can't say I disagree that the potential is there. I probably could have taken our 10-person biotech to the Linux desktop but for a couple factors:
1) Our CEO is an early adopter, and wants all the features she knows in Outlook, plus things like compatibility with Treo's. Linux is a year or two behind on that.

2) Our main database is built on Access (against Postgres). As a longtime small business database developer, I can tell you that there really isn't an Access-killer out there yet, and Access as a starter database product is incredibly useful. OOCalc is also distinctly less mature than Excel (which, IHMO is by MS' best product, and a groundbreaker to boot). We're scaling well past Access size now, and I'll have a choice of platforms for my clients, but it's awfully hard to kick that

3) A Windows domain to handle logon is still a fair sight easier to set up than a full Kerberos/NIS/other *nix authentication scheme. I hope Novell will step in here, as the benefits of having a truly open standards-based login system are substantial.

You are spot-on that it will take specialists, and in particular it takes systems and network administrators. They're there, but the pipelines for Windows admins are still much fuller. If I were starting a business with none of these requirements pre-existing, I could well have chosen to go Linux. And I agree with you that there will be a decent number of SMB's who take advantage of Vista's launch to do just that - esp. in Europe, where you have additional resentment of Microsoft.

And certainly among home users, Goobuntu could get a lot of traction quickly if it brought a starter PC down to $300-$500 w/ monitor and shipped with a comfortable setup for browsing the web via Google's services.

Re:What can Google do

[smittyoneeach]

Or, possibly, shorthand for 'most hobbit-esque', which would at least fit some stereotypes of FOSSiles.
I, for one, am hard at work balding myself out of this hirsute category.

Re:What can Google do

[WindBourne]

Actually, all those companies that you listed tried Linux while they were on their way down. IMHO, They pulled Linux down, not the other way around. Companies like IBM have been moving to it (more at server than desktop), while at their peak and are getting their money's worth. In addition, companies such as Redhat did quite well. Considering that Google is going up, I am guessing that ppl will like what they see and Linux will make some major inroads into the desktop. I would also guess that the google desktop will be much more than what you are suggesting.

For some odd reason CEOs do not like to think hard when the company is doing great. About the only one that I have seen do that is Jobs, Gates, and the whole of Google. I am waiting for AOL to announce a Linux client (not a desktop) about 6 months prior to being bankrupt or being bought for 2 million.

Re:What can Google do

[theStorminMormon]

I think we're in agreement on all these issues. The negatives that you point out are not going to go away in my opinion - and explain why MS will continue to have substantial market share for the forseeable future. People that use the more advanced features of MS Access, Excel, and Outlook not going to be able to find alternatives.

But at the same time there are a ton of small businesses that don't use Access at all (or very, very little) and that have no idea what kinds of things you can do with Outlook and the Exchange server and for whom Calc will work just as well as Excel. Those are the guys that could benefit from Linux right now, but aren't adopting because they lack the help of specialists and have an aversion to untested software solutions.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

[labratuk]

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.

If you want an example of Sun 'usability', look at the Java Desktop System. (You'll probably be able to find a review somewhere)

Re:What can Google do

[antoinjapan]

Well wake him up

Re:What can Google do

[AKAImBatman]

There are two reviews of them here and here.

Usabilty on JDS is actually quite high. I have no idea why you use that as a bad example when such great examples like OpenView exist.

Re:What can Google do

[Bing Tsher E]

Don't bring up the topic of twenty billion dollars, however.

Re:What can Google do

[Bing Tsher E]

Plough in massive amounts of cash and resources.

Ummm, maybe twenty billion dollars or so. Hmmm...

Re:What can Google do

[afaik_ianal]

email, nntp, ssh :D.

But seriously, there's not much you can't do it a web browser in a pinch.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually tried any of these links in IE :).

Re:What can Google do

[o517375]

Ubuntu brings the OS to the computer while Google brings Ubuntu to the browser. Yes, that's the difference. The whole OS is browser-based. The user has a long list of programs from which to choose and they all run from what looks like a desktop through the browser. The user never even has to close the browser again to look at windows again.

Re:What can Google do

[MarkJenkins]

> 1024 cylinder limitations No such limitation for grub. It can boot anything, anywhere.

Re:What can Google do

[biovoid]

Plus, Internet Explorer is a complete misnomer. It's a web page viewer. Let me know when it can do email, nntp, ssh, sftp/scp, or any of a hundred other typical things you do on the internet.

It's incredibly well named. To most people, the web IS the internet, and IE is the "internet explorer". It's only a misnomer to someone who understands what nntp, ssh, sftp/scp, etc are. That kind of person who does "a hundred other typical things" on the internet is in a tiny majority.

Re:What can Google do

[biovoid]

Of course, I meant minority. ;)

Re:What can Google do

[hardwareman]

Nitpick, I know - but I don't belive that Linux is supposed to replace NDS aka eDirectory. Rather, I'd think that it is supposed to replace/complement the Novell OS as such.
Makes sense since the Novell OS at least up til ver 5.0 ran directly on top of DOS (often FreeDOS or DR-Dos).

Re:What can Google do

[guisar]

What google can do, is encourage other businesses to stop refusing to support Linux. This is a BIG deal- picture Mr. and Ms Walmart who bring home a new Linux based PC to their kids for Christmas. They hook it up to the cable modem, something doesn't quite work out and they call the Cable company, "umm, I'm sorry we can't help you as you are not using Microsoft Windows". That's a bummer and it happens with cable companies, DSL, hardware, etc. We as consumers are usually in an untenable position as the company is usually a monopoly so they really don't care about our opinion. Only another big business can exert the pressure needed to resolve this on a large scale.

Re:What can Google do

[ichimunki]

That kind of person who does "a hundred other typical things" on the internet is in a tiny majority.

Nonsense. The vast majority of internet-connected users use the internet for mail. A significant portion also use it for IM. There is a web browser out there (Mozilla) that supports these two functions (unless you want to split hairs and insist that IM and IRC are not the same thing). In any case, the nomenclature "internet explorer" is misleadingly broad. It should be called "web browser" since that is all it does.

Re:What can Google do

[ichimunki]

I think the reason people think the web is the whole internet is more a function of the name "internet explorer" being misleading than anything else. I don't have a problem with the word "explorer", but they didn't call it the "world wide web explorer" did they? As for Netscape, "Navigator" might be a bit vague, but it doesn't imply that it is for the whole internet now does it? Not only that, Navigator was bundled with email, chat, newsreaders, and all kinds of other stuff at some point, no? Isn't slimming down the Mozilla monster to just doing web browser the whole raison d'etre for Firefox? So, in fact, if Netscape had called it "Internet Navigator" they would have been more correct than Microsoft was in naming IE as they did.

In any case, the GGP's point was that MS used safe, sensible names and that Linux names were ridiculous. This is clearly not the case. A great number of MS' names have been and still are nonsensical. They are only acceptable in the same way that Google is acceptable now because they are the clear market leader. At least on the Linux side a lot of the names are clever acronyms or abbreviations of some sort.

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.

Re:Google will be setting the standard

[Slashcrap]

This, if any, will be THE Desktop Linux.

You may already be aware of this, but it looks like you hit the "submit" button too early. You completely missed the bit of your comment where you explain why you feel that Google will be better at producing a desktop Linux than anyone else.

On the other hand, if that was supposed to be the whole comment, can I suggest that you try digg.com? I think you'll find that they not only welcome, but posistively encourage content-free one liner posts from cretins.

This has been a public service announcement.

Re:Google will be setting the standard

[jedidiah]

THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. Most of the pieces are already there. Mainly what's missing in Linux is the pervasive 3rd party vendor support and being preloaded by OEMs. Neither of these has squat to do with the percieved ease of use of the product. Google is a big name on the desktop and as such might provide a suitable marketing push. They are not a dying has-been like Corel. So it might be more convincing.

Plus, it is in their interests to hit Microsoft where they live.

This is simply a matter of "kill or be killed" for Google. They know that if they don't act, Microsoft certainly will.

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)

Re:hope for other apps

[pyros]

wjhy wold they ? they are busy selling the frequency analysis of your IMs to advertoisers and rsearchers

They run the server, they can snoop even if their client allowed SSL/TLS connections. In fact, I believe using SSL/TLS is required for any 3rd party client to connect, so the server already supports it. The data is decrypted when it reaches the server, and reencrypted before leaving the server if the recipient is using SSL/TLS. The purpose of SSL/TLS is not to keep google from having read access, it's to prevent someone between you and google from snooping. As long as they control the server, I don't see any reason to attempt to encrypt things so they can't read it. If they wanted to they could log all your packets and run a distributed brute force on their 10k+ node cluster. The only way I would feel secure is to use signed and encrypted OTR messaging on a server I control.

invite to goobuntu

[GillBates0]

plz reply with invites.

kthx

Hm...

[patrickclay]

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

Could it be released as anything else?

Re:Hm...

[Bazzalisk]

Yeah, feasibly it could be released as an alternative to MacOS.

Or indeed an alternative to the many preexisting Linux distros.

Re:Hm...

[ArsonSmith]

I think it'd be nice to have a Linux that was really an alternative to Windows. Right now there are several distrubutions that are great alternitives to UNIX, but only a few that are similar to windows.

Re:Hm...

[uradu]

> Could it be released as anything else?

But of course--the Goobuntu toolbar: an entire OS as an IE toolbar.

Shouldn't that be...

[zenmojodaddy]

GNoo/Linux?

welcome

[moochfish]

i, for one, welcome our new Goobuntu overlords

Re:welcome

[Kiaser Zohsay]

In Soviet Russia, distro googles YOU!

No, wait...

In Soviet Russia, google distros YOU!

No, that's not quite it either ...

In Soviet Russia, Goobuntu googles YOUR DISTRO!

Okay, maybe there's not one here after all.

Re:welcome

[mad.frog]

In Korea, only old people use Goobuntu.

Name of Distro

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnoogle.

Re:Name of Distro

[OneSmartFellow]

Surely that is Gnuogle

Re:Name of Distro

[rmsmith]

Googlix!

Re:Name of Distro

[Assassin bug]

How about GnuGoo?

Re:Name of Distro

[CptPicard]

GoogOS.. GooOS? Had they decided to re-brand SuSE, we'd probably be seeing a GooSE Linux. And surely their OpenOffice.org version will be called GoogOOo.

Re:Name of Distro

[SpeedBump0619]

Great Idea!

So good in fact that someone at google already registered it.

Re:Name of Distro

[barefootgenius]

Goggle would be better.

Re:Name of Distro

[TekPolitik]

Gnoogle.

How about they strip Gnome, put in KDE and call if Kanoodle?

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.

Re:virtualization?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:virtualization?

[mrcdeckard]

good point, but i why wouldn't the average user be able to replace windows? the average user i see mainly surfs the web, manages their music and photos, maybe does some word processing.

it makes perfect sense for google to release a web-orientated OS that ran their apps.

search engine. check
mail. check
blogs. check
maps. check
photo organizer. check

i think the only thing missing is google office.

mr c

Re:virtualization?

[Cro Magnon]

*cough*Quicken*uncough*

Unless they can get gnucash (gnooglecash?) to connect to my bank.

Re:virtualization?

[0xABADC0DA]

Why just virtualization? put a kernel and small initrd on windows' ntfs and it can mount a normal linux disto from a loopback file. Then you can dual boot, run linux as a user process, run in vmware-player, etc. The killer app would be a linux user distro that people can run like an app, wich a big "replace Windows" button that booted into it as the full os. You could even store user data in a separate loopback file and ship updates to the OS using rsync.

Re:virtualization?

[ajs]

I woud be surprised by that.

Rather, I would expect to see this marketed as a "Google appliance" in a hardware + software pair. We know that they are working on distributing the core hardware on which Google Search runs into widely ranging datacenters around the world. Offloading some desktop processing to diversely located hubs would explain some of the reasons for that. I could see Google developing a suite of desktop tools which take advantage of those compute resources in ways that no software-only vendor could.

When it comes to Google, it seems the only mistake you can make is thinking small.

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.

Re:If I were google...

[altoz]

Interesting idea. If you think about what google would want for the future, maybe they want lots of specific web-appliances instead of this all-in-one machine called the desktop pc.

I'd bet they're going to combine this with some sort of desktop recycling program so that you can have different machines do different things.

Re:If I were google...

[chundo]

Yeah, that's the only thing that really makes sense. Google's strength is its network computing infrastructure. It's in the position to do what Oracle mistakenly thought they could do years ago - "the network is the computer". Bandwidth is cheap now; the only smart business decision for them in this area would be to provide a standards-based, thin client OS to connect to their online services (Google.com, Gmail, GTalk, Blogger, Maps, etc).

Think about it. What software has Google released? With the exception of software obtained through acquisitions (Picasa, Earth), it only releases web-based software (Gmail, etc) or lightweight clients to more effectively use its internet-based services (Google bar, Google talk, Google desktop).

So assuming this rumor has any merit, you'll probably see:

• A much-simplified version of Ubuntu
• Possibly a new filesystem
• Lots of development focus on Firefox

And hopefully:

• Increased attention to Vorbis and Theora

In the short term that may mean they are targeting the internet kiosk market, but I think in the future Google expects all computers to effectively be "internet kiosks".

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.

Re:No!

[hchaput]

There is no indication that Google would use this to get into the hardware business, and there is every reason why Google would distribute this as a Windows alternative. If they sold it, they could easily get a slice of the Windows pie. If they gave it away, they would control the desktops of millions. Apple gives away iTunes, and it's a decent jukebox, but the expense of giving this away is far outweighed by the money it generates bringing people to the iTunes Music Store. Now imagine the same philosophy applied to the entire OS.

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:Branding, not technology

[khallow]

I disagree. I think there's plenty of historical examples of products backed with big brand names (eg, Ford's Edsel, Coca Cola's "New Cola") that fizzled. Ultimately, if this OS becomes a serious product, then it needs to offer some compelling advantage to its potential users. Frankly, just having a clean, simple interface isn't good enough, not even if it meshes seamlessly with Google's online search tools.

The obstacles are pretty high. Windows has the most applications. Virtually everything intended for the desktop can run on it. Almost everyone is familiar with the Windows interface. And finally, almost everyone uses Windows now for the desktop. Switching will take work.

I think the whole issue is irrelevant however. This really isn't evidence that Google is going to produce an OS and compete with MS on that level. Google simply doesn't have the labor to produce a competitive OS, and there's little reason to. Creating tools that are platform independent seems more useful and just as likely to undermine Microsoft's market position with less cost and more benefit to Google.

Re:Branding, not technology

[justins]

But other than that their brand name is enough to make this a huge success.

Yeah, it worked so well for IBM and OS/2! And Apple's a really well-respected worldwide brand, I'm sure everyone will switch over to Macs pronto.

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:Good for Linux

[lonesometrainer]

What's so bad about people like us?????

Re:Good for Linux

[Chris Burke]

Are you telling me that "Ubuntu" isn't a house-hold name? Blasphemy!

Re:Good for Linux

[gnuLNX]

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.

The installation is dead simple. Quite a bit simpler than windows in fact. The Desktop is pretty (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). Now the freak tagline...that is another matter entirely.

Re:Good for Linux

[justins]

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.

Well that's clearly the wrong attitude to take around here.

Wave your freak tag high!

Great news!

[concept10]

I saw this reported some where else last week, but I thought it wasn't true.

As a supporter and user of Ubuntu GNU/Linux since the first release, Warty I am pleased. More resources thrown at this distro is great news. Currently Ubuntu Breezy 5.10 works perfectly on my two machines (including P4 laptop) and Ubuntu has a great philosophy and community, along with great progress with making the Linux desktop experience better for everyone.

I wonder what exactly Google could bring to the table to help further along this great gem.

Will the google tools work on Linux now ?

[flyingace]

What is interesting to me is not that they are making a new version of Linux. It is the possibility of Google pack tools, being ported over to Linux. If this is true, their plithora of tools provided by google might finally start working on Linux (read: Any Linux).
Tools like google-Earth, desktop search(GDS), picasa are sure welcome :)

Goobuntu

[sucker_muts]

Goobuntu? I certainly hope that won't be the final name.

Imagine someone's face when they hear I'm going to put some goob on their hard drive... :-D

Re:Goobuntu

[oever]

google-linux.com is still for sale.

Re:Goobuntu

[Kesch]

Goobuntu. That's the new Firefox porn browser extension isn't it?

I agree with parent, they probably could find a better name.

Re:Goobuntu

[plantman-the-womb-st]

The only name that makes sense to me if Google is getting ready to roll out an OS (which I doubt) would be "Plex".

"Plex OS, by Google" would be it's formal name I'd bet.

And in other news ...

[richg74]

Wall Street analysts have made a sharp upward revision in earnings forecasts for manufacturers of office furniture, citing an unexpected upsurge in demand for chairs in the US Pacific Northwest.

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

[robnauta]

Google has a great search engine, a decent advertisment business, and some sideprojects like gmain, google photo, google earth etc to burn some extra cash. Apart from that, the main asset that Google has is money, loads of money. And isn't the point of 99% of the people that are opposed to Microsoft that MS has too much money and a virtual monopoly ?
If Google Linux becomes a standard, don't we then get what we least want, an OS controlled by a large company with billions of dollars that can muscle any opponent off the market ?

Re:A possible answer

[dotpavan]

true, you showed the pros, and the cons? Once they become the standard, or choice, then what about the other small distros that bring forward new ideas and creativity? They would inevitably get killed, killing in process the very essence of variety and creating a monopoly..

Re:A possible answer

[OverlordQ]

There *is* a linux standard, ever hear of it?

Re:A possible answer

[Weaselmancer]

I sure have, and I think it's a great idea. But how many distros actually implement that standard? Now, what if Google reads it and pushes that as the base for their standard? It would cease being a standard, and become the standard.

Can you see how this could be a seriously great thing for Linux development? I sure do.

Re:A possible answer

[rizzo420]

monopoly over something that's free to use and make changes to? i think you need to explain a bit more...

at least in the linux world, there could be something new and better, and those linux users who don't like what google's doing can just use some other distro. those that do can stick with google. and those who don't know much about anything, it probably doesn't really matter. google has been pretty good at staying on top of the new cool stuff. i'd be all over that.

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.

Re:A possible answer

[Merle Darling]

GPL Vader finds your lack of faith disturbing... (psst, it's ok, i don't buy it either. just don't tell these /. loonies)

If a Google OS did become a de facto Linux standard, fine by me. Linux could use some standardization, if Google wins there then everyone wins. I'd still probably ignore it and use Windows and FreeBSD though. =)

It's not like Google could gain a monopoly on desktops in general without damn nice Windows compatibility and lots of application developers anyway, and if they managed that you'd have GPL Vader dressing up as Santa to drop the code down your chimney. I imagine it would be hard to found a monopoly on GPL'd software if you actually follow the license.

What would be hilarious is if they wrote their own software for Linux from scratch and released it under a proprietary license.

Re:A possible answer

[JabberWokky]

But how many distros actually implement that standard?

Pretty much all the major ones. Everybody from debian to SUSE, including Conectiva, Mandrake, Red Hat, TurboLinux and others. LSB is a good Linux standard and pretty easy to achieve.

--
Evan

Re:A possible answer

[plover]

But Google can't be "The One True Evil."® Microsoft's already trademarked that slogan! :-)

Re:A possible answer

[mattyrobinson69]

devfs isn't even in the later kernels. (almost?) every distro with a modern kernel uses udev now

Re:A possible answer

[superdude72]

Think about the popular distros that are out there now. None of them are backed in any significant way by any large companies.

And why do you suppose that is?

Re:A possible answer

[plover]

And why do you suppose that is?

Because all the other technology players have had their own flavor of OS to pimp. Sun has Solaris, IBM has AIX, HP has HP/UX, etc. Google is one of the few major "technology" players that has no ties to any particular major technology!

So Google has a blank slate, and the market is eagerly waiting for them to write on it. That is why the distro is likely to gain a lot of initial followers.

Along with the Google name, however, comes epic amounts of bandwidth and storage. You'll quickly realize you'll need only one host for apt-get: googlix.google.com. Users will come to expect everything will be there, and that everything they make available will work together as configured.

And that's going to push the long term acceptance way up.

This distro is likely to be successful simply because Google says it will be. And yeah, that is a bit frightening.

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...

[jcr]

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

Define "succeed".

-jcr

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

[ThinkFr33ly]

I would define success as gaining any significant market share. Most people agree that 10% of a market is a milestone. Mac OS X has been out for nearly 5 years now, and it still hovers at under 3%.

One could also define success as being able to support a company financially. Without the iPod, Apple would be in serious financial trouble.

Lastly, one could define success as being the dominant player in terms of market share.

Clearly, OS X doesn't do any of these.

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

[jcr]

Without the iPod, Apple would be in serious financial trouble.

iPod is about half of Apple's revenues these days, and without it, Apple would still be a multi-billion dollar company.

-jcr

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...

[ThinkFr33ly]

You can be a multi-billion dollar company and still be in plenty of financial trouble. Do you honestly think it was just a coincidence that Apple's stock was hovering around $10 a share for years, and then all of a sudden they shot up to $80 a share right when the iPod was released? Come on. At any rate, you're completely missing the point of my post.

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

[gnuLNX]

And some of it has to do with the people Apple markets it's products to. Macs have alway's appealed to a certain kind of person. That is their business strategy. They charge a premium because you get the Mac "experience".

I think you will see quite a few new Mac sells with the recent move to intel chips. Every development house worth it's own salt will start porting their apps to Mac. This will be good for Apple and Linux...and quite bad for microsoft. Yeah microsoft will still dominate, but they will loose more and more market share to Apple and Linux over the next few years.

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

[ThinkFr33ly]

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.

Good point, but I'm not sure it really applies. Porsche certainly does target the same people that General Motors or Ford targets. Porsche is a niche market.

Apple, on the other hand, would love to target Windows users. This is clear from their advertising campaigns like the famous "switch" campaign. I don't see Porsche saying "go head, switch from your mustange to a new 911." Different markets... much different.

Appple has a very loyal fan base, but they have a lot of trouble expanding that fan base. Google would have the same issues. That's my point.

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

[jcr]

Do you honestly think it was just a coincidence that Apple's stock was hovering around $10 a share for years, and then all of a sudden they shot up to $80 a share right when the iPod was released?

You're compressing several years together there. I joined Apple immediately after the iPod was released, and my stock options were under water for about a year and a half. The iPod helped, but Apple was already a turnaround story with the iMac alone, and the titanium powerbook was a major boost.

-jcr

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Google and many people here on Slashdot would love for Linux to gain a larger market share. It will gain a larger marketshare if Google creates their own Linux version because Google will use it internally. It will also gain a larger market share because Google will demand vendors working with them support it and because Google will make improvements that make it more usable.

This is unlikely to gain them a lot of market share, but it will make a difference, and a lot of companies and organizations around the world are realizing that they too can save money by moving to Linux. Google brings the same thing that most of them are bringing, although in larger quantities, and they bring a lot of good PR.

That said, I don't think Google is planning to dethrone Windows. I think they are planning on saving money, and the potential to provide a strategic advantage versus one of their main competitors is just a minor side benefit.

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

[eheldreth]

I think apple's success is it's worst enemy. So many people know the apple name and just know apple is "Diffrent". My dad is a good exapmle. He is looking at replacing his current laptop(which never leaves the desk) in a couple months. Being tired of constantly cleaning spyware and virii off his machine I suggested an apple. He told me that he did not want that because he knew it was diffrent and wouldn't work like windows and his software wouldn't run. I explaned that it was diffrent but not harder and let him use my power mac. I also let him use open office and now he is all set to order his mac mini.

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

[jimwelch]

With Microsoft you get constantly developed, first-rate tools and new languages

ROFL! While the analyst of Apple is accurate, this evaluation of M$ kills me.
First Rate tools!
New languages!
constantly developed!

Embrace, extend, extinguish is my evaluation of M$.

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

[cobar]

Porsche is nowhere near the most profitable automaker in the world. According to their financial report, Nissan made upwards of $3.6 billion in 6 months last year with a profit margin of over 10%. In the same time frame, Porsche made a mere $336 million on $4 billion in sales.

The fact of the matter is that Ford and GM have been hamstrung by overly costly retirement plans and a number of poor decisions (like focusing too much on the SUV market). GM pays out a tremendous amount of its revenue in retirement/health plans for baby boomers that worked there after WW2, and I would assume Ford has similar obligations. If they were to replace those with plans with ones that similar to what Porsche offers, GM would probably be making a few billion a year.

Apple may be profitable in their own right, but eeking out a 5% niche in the market is never going to make you a ton of money. In addition, the majority of their profits come from iPod sales (where they have 50%+ of the market) rather than computer sales. Up their pc sales to 10 or 15% and Apple is suddenly going to making a lot more money.

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

[Enrique1218]

Yeah, I agree with main gist of his statement. Though I sure the Mac OSX division is not a failed project but a success, they have been slugging it out in the OS market for 22 years and only command a small market percentage. They arguably, at present, have better OS than XP but it is difficult to change the mindset that XP is standard. So, I can't imagine a viable strategy to take on Microsoft in its key market with technology that can compete with Vista with an OS that is given away for free. Google like any other company needs revenue. Besides, we are thinking too much in a box. The desktop OS may not be as important as embedded OS for devices, phones, cars, or server OS for an ever expanding Internet

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

[IamTheRealMike]

Cars aren't platforms.

Nobody who buys a Porsche cares what other people drive. If anything they like being "exclusive".

Everybody who buys a Mac implicitly cares what other people use, because if more people used what they used, they'd get more apps and maybe cheaper upgrades.

That's the key difference that makes Apple unsuccessful and Porsche successful.

There is another way to look at this. If producing your own OS+Hardware combo was such a ragingly awesome business model, I suspect Apple would have competitors by now. After all, whilst building a modern desktop OS certainly isn't easy, it's easier now than it's ever been before as there's so much code out there already written in the form of Linux components (eg FreeType, Xgl, Cairo, GTK+ etc). Just swap the ones you don't like out, write your own, go. Yet, nobody does this, nobody even bothers to try and compete with Apple, the last company that did - Be - went bust almost immediately despite having at the time a well regarded, perhaps even 'superior' desktop OS.

I think the reason is that it's actually a very stupid business model, and that Apple pursue it only through sheer bloody-mindedness ... given the vast investment required, huge competition and saturated market, you'd have to be insane to create a new business doing what Apple do. Regardless of how fashionable Apple may be, the basic economics of computing don't change, and the Macs numerical lack of success reflects that.

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

[ZenFu]

Porsche is nowhere near the most profitable automaker in the world. According to their financial report, Nissan made upwards of $3.6 billion in 6 months last year with a profit margin of over 10%. In the same time frame, Porsche made a mere $336 million on $4 billion in sales.

That's operating profit, not total profit. Although you stated that Nissan had 3.6 billion over 41.billion (8.7%) versus Porche's .336 over 4 (8.4%), Nissan's number is operating profit (which may not include overhead) versus the Porche's number, which is net pre-tax profit. But, enough of that.

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

[birge]

Glad I could amuse. :-) Seriously, as much as I dislike MS, I have to admit their developer programs are very good, and their dev software is probably better than anything else out there. Do you really disagree that Visual Studio is not pretty darn good? And C# is certainly new, though perhaps you don't like it. And I believe Visual Studio has been on a pretty regular update cycle. I'm not sure what there is to factually disagree with, except that perhaps you think that the tools aren't 'first rate'.

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

[IamTheRealMike]

Successful is one of those words that isn't very useful as it can mean so many different things. I was using a business-related definition which is "profits:investment ratio is attractive". If you spend $10 billion on something and only make $1000 profit after 20 years, then I'd regard that business as unsuccessful despite it being profitable. Obviously the figures aren't that bad for Apple, but scale appropriately and you see the problem (and costs of developing OS X+apps alone are likely in the billions range).l

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

[jwhitener]

I suppose it depends on what your definition of success is, and from what perspective you are defining it from.

From Porsche's standpoint, their goal is probably to make money. They have succeeded.
From an end users standpoint, the average joe, his goal is to get from point A to point B with a comfortable, affordable car. In that regards, Porsche has failed.

Linux/Windows is no different. The sacrifices that an average user would have to make to 'afford' Linux (less compatibility, drivers, time learning/installing, etc..) are not worth the effort. In this regard, no matter what you think of the tactics invovled, Windows has, and is, "winning".

sort of

[zogger]

IF, and a big if, google released a linux distro, I wouldn't see it as an alternative to windows directly as much as an alternative to all the other already released linux distros. Indirectly it would be, at least in the initital stages. Later on it would be of course. There's a dozen or so top distros, then hundreds of smaller ones. And we also have macosx and solaris, both backed by big companies. None of them, or even collectively, have made it beyond 5% or so desktop market penetration compared to windows, even though they exist. The main problem is, none of the big hardware vendors wants to take much of a chance on any particular linux distro because they don't want to support a subset, with no guaranteees the project might be abandoned, etc. With google on the other hand, you could see the big vendors "taking a chance" on at least a parity linux offering.

Re:sort of

[DerekLyons]

IF, and a big if, google released a linux distro, I wouldn't see it as an alternative to windows directly as much as an alternative to all the other already released linux distros. Indirectly it would be, at least in the initital stages. Later on it would be of course. There's a dozen or so top distros, then hundreds of smaller ones. And we also have macosx and solaris, both backed by big companies. None of them, or even collectively, have made it beyond 5% or so desktop market penetration compared to windows, even though they exist.

Indeed. I was looking at the OS stats for BOINC the other day - the one place you'd think that geeks (and by extension Linux) would rock and rule, would be in support of a large science effort.

Linux accounts for around 9% of the total CPU cycles available to BOINC, other UNIX distro collectively about 3%.

Did anyone else...

[scovetta]

think the article title meant that Google ran *their business* on Ubuntu desktops?

Re:Did anyone else...

[Lonesome]

Wow, someone finally got it....

Goobuntu is the internal workstation release, customized just enough to work in the environment.

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"?

Poll idea

[Caspian]

The name "Goobuntu" sounds most like:

(1) A sinful dessert.
(2) A Final Fantasy monster.
(3) A Swahili word meaning "booger".
(4) Baby babble.
(5) A natural companion to "sed", "awk" and "grep".

Re:Poll idea

[z0idberg]

(6) CowboyNeal

Re:Poll idea

[Xeth]

(6) The sound CowboyNeal makes when punched in the gut

Re:The only way...

[HalB]

MacOS is an alternative to windows and it doesn't meet any of your criteria. There's a big difference between an "alternative" and a "replacement".
    The PC world isn't what it used to be. Tons of people don't upgrade the hardware in their computers, they don't want to mess with the hassle of it. They just want something cheap that works for email, web surfing, chat, solitaire and yahoo games, not every program under the sun. Add Walmart and Google AdWords and you have a business model.

no no no

[calgaryjer]

It's gonna be Goonix...no Goobuntu

..and I thought

[mmThe1]

that it were the OS companies that were moving to "web as a platform"...

One question

[Billosaur]

Will it be available in China?

Re:One question

[SashaM]

Will it be available in China?

Yes, but only as Goobentu.

Re:Author needs a new brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans really don't get irony, do they.

Muddle of thoughts about google

[Aqws]

I don't see why google wants to create a whole new distro, why can't they just work on software that will make all distros better. Before you start talking about Google having it's fingers in too many pie, I think it should be noted that they are carefull to maintain a certain amount of their time to their main business, a different amount to spin-offs, and the other 20% to whatever a developer feels like. This is one of the ways google stays great. Considering how in Gnome(Ubuntu's Gui) everything starts with G, I wonder if they will call everything Goo-. I wonder if they will make their own Goo-ey.

Btw, I heard that they are also working on a robot that makes hamburgers.

Re:Muddle of thoughts about google

[megabyte405]

Except that the G naming scheme is quickly dying out, since it's not very memorable. Haven't used KDE in a while so I'm not sure if they still do K everything, but thank goodness there's very little X-everything being used commonly as a desktop app.

Re:Muddle of thoughts about Google

[jimwelch]

I've not seen the screen shots, since Ubuntu offers both Gnome and KDE, which is Google using? I assume (guessing) that the G stands for Google, not which version of Ubuntu they are using.

Would be an Interesting Turnaround

[DiscoNick]

Microsoft tried to beat Google at their own game with their new search systems, it would be funny if Google becomes a threat to Microsoft's age-old game of operating systems and office packages. They've got the financial backing and positive reputation.

Re:Would be an Interesting Turnaround

[Snowgen]

Microsoft tried to beat Google at their own game with their new search systems, it would be funny if Google becomes a threat to Microsoft's age-old game of operating systems and office packages. They've got the financial backing and positive reputation.

But when it comes to financial backing, Microsoft has far more than Google does. Last June, Google's total assets were $4 Billion. Microsoft has almost that much in cash, and another $37 Billion in short term investments. In a financial war, my money would be on Microsoft. And one must remeber, that for the majority of people out there, Microsoft, too, has a good reputation. Money can pay for good press, afterall!

Google Earth?

[Geeky]

All I want is Google Earth for desktop Linux.

(Oh, and Photoshop, but that's another story...)

Re:Google Earth?

[eheldreth]

Yea, I like google earth but havn't been able to run it since I switched to OSX. I always enjoyed looking at how many geocaches where in diffrent areas on google earth.

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.

Re:Attempting to overtake Windows?

[hchaput]

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.

What if they gave it away? What if they told PC manufacturers they could ship with it at no charge? What if they gave away a nice installer available on the web for anybody to install over Windows?

Linux is a better OS. People hate Windows and are dying for an alternative. What if Google made a better OS that ran everything you needed to run, and gave it away for free?

Why? Look what the free iTunes does for Music Store sales. Now imagine being able to control the entire OS.

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:Why would anyone trust this?

[ashSlash]

No problem. We might choose to reject Goobuntu on account of the concerns you've raised, but perhaps our own preferred distros will benefit from the increased awareness and uptake of Linux.

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[MerlinTheWizard]

Why trust anyone? Right... but as wary as I used to be towards Microsoft, I think this Google mania could very well end up making Microsoft an alternative to Google. And not the other way around. Google is currently doing stuff that even Microsoft hasdn't dared doing. And yet they are getting away with it, partly thanks to this wacky GPL thing. Don't get me wrong. I love GPL. For truly "open" projects. I may be wrong, but I just think Google has found a way around privacy and monopoly issues by using tools that were normally made for non-profit purposes. This is, of course, only my opinion. I'm starting to envision that one day, some of us will hope Microsoft never goes out of business... whereas we used to pray for the exact opposite at one point.

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[Kjella]

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?

You trust what you can see the code of. Assuming it's still running Linux, install logging in the kernel. You'll see what it touches, see what it sends (unless it sends mysterious encrypted packages, which would raise enough flags as it is). It's not much of a secret what they already do (if you care). I imagine they'll do what they seem to be doing already, offer a great service and see who is willing to give up what for what. Unlike spyware companies, google's philsophy seems to be on a win-win basis, you give them marketing data, they provide you with value-added services.

If you don't want them, fine. I have no toolbar, I type "g searchterm" to search so I don't need it. I only allow per-session cookies which are cleared on exit. Google seems to be working great all the same. I imagine it is the same with Goobuntu - if the masses are giving up their privacy, it's because the masses want to. If people want to move into glass houses too, let them. As long as they aren't being decieved about what they are doing, and I haven't got the impression that is the case. Fscking indifferent perhaps, but that is another story...

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[alnjmshntr]

Isn't it obvious? Microsoft aren't in the business of marketing, Google are. What are MS going to do with your information? Sell it to someone? The risk/reward in that scenario is stupid for MS. But for Google, getting hold of your surfing habits would be extremely valuable to their business.

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[Woy]

"Basically - I welcome Google OS."

You must be new here.

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[McDutchie]

Isn't it obvious? Microsoft aren't in the business of marketing,

You have got to be kidding me. They will even go so far as to spam for you and have been doing so for years.

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[McDutchie]

"Basically - I welcome Google OS."

You must be new here.

Yeah, obviously that should have been: "I, for one, welcome our new Google OS overlords."

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[MindPrison]

Isn't it obvious? Microsoft aren't in the business of marketing, Google are. What are MS going to do with your information? Sell it to someone?

You are joking, right? Microsoft is indeed all about marketing. Any company as big (or wanting to be as big) as Microsoft would have to deal with marketing on a global scale to get results on a global scale. Microsoft would LOVE to get to know their customers, and you think they dont? How do you know?

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[alnjmshntr]

Of course MS do marketing... but we're talking about something far more sinister than getting to know your customers. The ability to profile many people in a very generalised fashion is something of enormous importance to Google, since they can sell this information/the results to the highest bidder in the form of targeted advertising. There is no way that you can compare this to to MS "getting to know their customers".

Re:The only way...

[dubbreak]

Well currently linux (ubuntu in particular) supports more of my desktop hardware than Windows xp x64. Actually it supports all my hardware that xp sp2 supports but the drivers seem more stable (any issues I've had with windows being stable lately has been 3rd party drivers).

The area that is still lagging behind is wireless drivers, but that is fixed by buying something that is supported (takes some research but not a lot of $$$). The broadcom wireless in my cheapo laptop works under ndis wrapper, but not as well as I'd like.

If it were BSD-based...

[PornMaster]

If it were BSD based, would it be GooS/X?

Re:If it were BSD-based...

[zenmojodaddy]

That sounds too much like Goo Sex to me, which means that one of us is a pervert. Unfortunately I'm not sure which.

Re:Author needs a new brain.

[bastardsquadmuzz]

*whoosh*

google + linux =

[illuminix]

More functionality is good, right? It's obviously not going to jump out of the box and replace Windows, but it will be a good next step for damn sure. Google has a lot of power and influence now, and I, for one, am giddy that this massive corporation is so pro-linux. Google has developed some pretty radical stuff.. If you're in to linux, how can you not be excited (or at least curious) about what google + linux distro = ?

I use gentoo + fluxbox myself, but I have a lovely vmware window waiting to try it.

Re:hmmm... Well, umm, by...

[davidsyes]

LOOSENING ms hegemonic, emperial grip on the software market, thereby creating and opportunity of release and fresh air for Google AND others to create service-based product or income streams.

Would be quite a relief for MANY innumerable entities I am sure.

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.

This could be good for some

[szembek]

This could be good for growing the number of Linux users out there. The only reason I say that is because there are a lot of people out there who aren't complete nerds, and don't know much of anything about Linux, but they are heavy internet users and enjoy computing in general. This audience might not be brave enough to try and install a Linux distro on their own for fear that they'll screw something up. However if there was a link to install a flavor of Linux on Google.com it might tempt them. Furthermore this demographic might be more likely to trust a large company that they've heard of when it comes to their OS, i.e. Microsoft, Google..... whereas they have never heard of mandrake, red hat, ubuntu, or whatever. Now obviously I'm not saying that expert users are going to go install this because they trust Google, you could probably argue the exact opposite, but I do think that these sort of wannabe geeks might try installing Linux if it was provided through a known site to them.

make sense for internal use

[hey]

Why would Google (and any company competing with Microsoft) want to run Windows internally?!

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?

Free OS with the Google file system (GFS)?

[gelfling]

Including the sparse failover functions? Screw Windows, I'll replace Sun and AIX!!!

second derivative

[bcrowell]

Er, that's GNU/Goobuntu.

But seriously, Ubuntu itself is based on all the hard work of Debian. Making a derivative of a derivative distro seems goofy to me. And we have no reason to think Google can make Linux suddenly become an appealing option on the desktop for the average user. Actually a lot of the problems with Linux on the desktop have to do with the nature of open source itself, e.g., the inability to force everyone to accept a decision, which has led to Linux's goofy, inconsistent GUIs for different apps.

Fits with Google's strategy

[propagandize]

I know that Google seems to have "strategies" instead of "strategy." But if you look at Gmail, Maps, etc., these are web based apps that have the bells and whistles usually reserved for desktop apps. So, if they can provide an OS to run them on, you quickly have a completely MS-free web-box. The dumb-web-terminal never quite took off, but now that web apps are richer, maybe some version of it will rise again.

Replacing Microsoft on my family's desktops

[r0ckflite]

What it takes to get MS and all the virus checking stuff out of my house:

1. web browser - ready
2. itunes (my wife is an addict) - Not sure if this works via WINE. But works on MAC
3. WOW (my kids are addicts) - check
4. wordprocessor, spreadsheet (Open Office, close...) - check

That is all my family needs.

I've recently switched to MAC. So I can honestly say that Microsoft is barely holding on to the other 3 desktops in my house. Apple or Linux, it's pretty much a done deal. As each piece of hardware wears out, it's being replaced by non-MS at this point.

Re:Replacing Microsoft on my family's desktops

[WhiteWolf666]

Willing to spend a little $$? Do you need iPod support in iTunes?

iTunes is 80% there on Codeweaver's Crossover Office. iTunes 5.0 works great, and iPod support works with caveats.

iTunes 6.0 is being worked upon.

http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/na me?app_id=134
http://www.codeweavers.com/site/compatibility/brow se/name?app_id=134;issues=1

iTunes is definitely not one of those apps that "just works" under Wine, but you can force it.

It really depends on your needs; do you just need a music organization app that looks like iTunes?
GTKpod is pretty similar, and I find Amarok to be superior to iTunes, except for the lack of music store.

I sold my girlfriend on the instant lyrics, album art, and band information, stuff that amarok just handles better than iTunes.

I would suggest allofmp3.com, simply because A)It is 100% legal, B)It's significantly cheaper than iTunes, and C)I disapprove of the existing Intellectual Property rights regime, and allofmp3.com is a wonderful end-run around it using a Russian legal loophole that's quite elegant. Importation into the U.S. is legal, except if you are using the music for public peformance. I'll quote:

(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to-- ....
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; or ....
(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable.

YMMV, of course. I'm not an actual lawyer, and none of this has been tested in court, anyways. But they do accept payments regularly for MP3s, and I haven't seen the RIAA going after them (yet).

Also, they actually provide music in a better format than iTunes. Default, non-drm 192kbps MP3s. You pay by the meg ($0.02 per meg). You can choose from MP3, WMA, OGG, MPC, or AAC, and you can select whatever bitrate you want, up to 384 kbps, I believe. Of course, you don't get one integrated portal for music, but you do get music in your format of choice, sans-DRM, at a significantly better price, one that I think is much more in-line with the economic realities of online distribution.

BTW: When you say "Check" after WoW, you are aware it works great under Cedega, right?

Re:The only way...

[michrech]

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"?

No, I don't believe XP 64bit is an alternative. I don't recall where I said it was, either.

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.

Re:Nope, can't happen

[IANAAC]

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.

Actually, there are a couple of commercial versions of Wine out there that are already being worked on full time. The problem isn't throwing programmers at it full time. The problem is getting the literally thousands of programs that people want to properly work under Wine. Cedega's doing a decent job of getting games to work. Codeweavers' doing a decent job of getting office-type apps to work. There are SO many little programs that people have come to use and depend on that just aren't important to these two fairly major camps.

Unrelated, but I used to wish that Codeweavers (or some other group) would concentrate on some of the nice audio/midi apps out there, such as Sonar or Cubase. Now I'd just prefer an app like Rosegarden (or anything else that may crop up) to incorporate all the features I like into their own app.

Re:Nope, can't happen

[bugg]

The problem isn't throwing programmers at it full time. The problem is getting the literally thousands of programs that people want to properly work under Wine.

If only full time programmers could somehow help get programs to work under wine...

Trillian?

[creepynut]

Am I the only one who noticed that the article mentions that they plan to bundle Trillian? Trillian is not available for Linux. I can only assume they were referring to GAIM.

Re:Trillian?

[jimwelch]

Actually if you look up Google Pack http://pack.google.com/, which has Trillian, it is for M$ XP only!

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:It's for internal use only

[TheLoneCabbage]

this was my first thought as well, but Google does have a tendency to commit improvments upstream. It certainly wouldn't hurt them to release any improvements they may make.

Google is a large and complex organization, with intense IT demands. I think it will be very usefull to see what Google does to make Linux as a desktop practical for wide deployment.

Re:The only way...

[Lehk228]

Google has enough talent to "finish" WINE as well as adding a layer to accept almost any windows binary driver if needed (obviosly a system would run slower using an extra software layer to interface with drivers, but slowing down your computer a few % points is better than losing functionality outright.

Re:awesome

[fitten]

this will rule.

Probably not far off from the truth. I can easily see how it will impact other distributions (distracting from them, for example, especially from the 'user' perspective). From the 'common user' standpoint, Google is a very recognizable brand name. While geeks (like me) may choose a distribution based on other criteria, the unwashed masses will most likely make a beeline for a Google branded distribution if there were ever a reason for them to finally commit to switching over from Windows. This is both good and bad. It is good in that a strong brand recognition is associated with Linux, but it is also potentially bad in (at least it can be frightening to think ) that Google will become a power in the Linux world (maybe even *the* power) based on the number of users it might get and how much influence it decides to wield.

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

[davidsyes]

Google is making a proof of concept here. They design an LTPS-like desktop that can be remotely managed. This could appeal to companies or organizations that need to continue using legacy (cheap, good, working, no-need-to-upgrade) hardware.

If Google can pull off a GoogLTSP coup, then they could do sort of what Slashcode does for people wanting to use their own internal user service.

If Google provides web-enabled copies or services of OpenOffice.org and other office tools, then it will be a matter of time for ms to see the writing on the wall and start writhing.

Re:Author needs a new brain.

[Randolpho]

Yes, we do, but apparently you missed my own, as did the Slashdot Moderators.

Perhaps I should just put a big "ATTENTION: JOKE INTENDED" in front of my posts from now on.

Web tablet?

[twocents]

My guess is that they are tinkering with a distro for a Web tablet, a 'next great thing' that hasn't really caught on fire as of yet.

Ughhh, to hear the words 'Ubuntu' AND 'blog' all day long makes my skin crawl.

Thinking about it. . .

[oneandoneis2]

I reckon Google bringing their expertise in search into Linux could make for some interesting possibilities, actually:

Blog post on the subject

Essentially, they could bring a "Spotlight"-like functionality to Linux, tie it into the package manger, and leverage their partnership with Sun to get a really easy-to-maintain desktop. . .

This is their Linux distro for internal use

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to post anonymously, and I won't say *how* I know this --
(which I know lends zero credibility to this post)...

But Goobuntu is being developed for internal use by Google's Linux-using employees.
Makes a lot of sense if you think about it, no?

The wild speculation on this thread amuses the hell out of me.

I'm sure that the Google engineers working on it will spin some of their work back to the community though -- so it should benefit everybody, despite being meant for Google's internal consumption :)

goobuntu for the goobox

[iamcadaver]

How can you all not see this? "desktop" is quickly coming to mean "tv-top"
Google has been moving toward organizing the world's information, and providing it in the living room, not the office desk. Google video, phone, music, book, photo, map, weather... just about everything myth's got right now plus more.

If I nailed this one, and google is watching, do I qualify for an interview? I've been linux only since '98, mythTV hacker since 2k1, and ubuntu lover since warty.

The first step of a Goog OS

[Cro Magnon]

is to get the damn thing on my PC. A PC that has barfed on Fedora, SuSe, and Ubuntu. Unless Google can succeed when those others failed, no dice!

Re:The first step of a Goog OS

[WhiteWolf666]

Recent Fedora, SuSE and Ubuntu?

Did you try turning ACPI off? (Non-standard implementations of ACPI on weird (esoteric) hardware is the primary cause of Linux not booting) :)

most likely for internal use

[SuperBanana]

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?"

I agree...the rabid Google-fanboyism is really getting on my nerves, especially since I don't see much in anything Google does, to be impressed by. Google maps, for example, wowed me with the drag-around map, but I can't save addresses. The magic is very much gone from Google Mail. They can't even get the branded search to work right (broke a month or so ago, still hasn't been fixed, returns a fraction of the total results.) They're falling very heavily into the same hole Apple did years ago, getting their fingers into every little cookie jar. Anyway, getting off on a tangent, sorry...

How would creating a Linux distribution even come *close* to being a Windows killer? And, more importantly, how would that make them any money?

Well, it wouldn't be a Windows "killer" for the public, it'd be a Windows "killer" for them internally. If they can lower licensing costs and have easier to maintain, more secure desktops...that sounds like a pretty big win to me. Training issues are largely moot- many of the kinds of employees that would appeal to Google already know Linux, and they don't exactly have a shortage of resumes coming in the door.

Here's hoping they don't fork it...contributing everything back to Ubuntu/Debian, and just changing logos et al on their internal version.

Re:Poll idea "Banshee", anyone?

[davidsyes]

Maybe they should call it "Banshee", and let the name survive release. It indeed would be a hell ride for mshaft...

Killer app?

[WhiteWolf666]

Google Linux Live CD/DVD.

Includes:
OpenOffice.org
Firefox
Flash
Xine (with *licensed* DVD support)
Evolution
Opera
GNOME
Google Earth for Linux
Picassa for Linux
Hello for Linux
Google Desktop for Linux
Google Talk for Linux

Free!

Optionally avaliable for $25, with a combination USB flash drive/802.11g wireless card. Free access to Google Wi-Fi.

Run the live CD, it tests all your hardware, if everything is determined to be compatible (wireless, etc. . .) it'll install directly to your drive.

That addresses 80% of users right there, while "saving" them from all the security hassles of Windows. Google can run an update service, and dump newer versions of these apps right on to people's systems.

Then Google can become one of the world's largest software stores, too; (like Linspire) think iTunes for Software, only have it all served by Google, and be designed to work on the Google Linux distribution.

Sure; it won't be slick as OS X. But it'll be way, way slicker than XP. And think about Google's expertise; Google is good at serving lots of customized data. No one will run a better network package management system that Google, especially if Google only has to contend with ONE "stable" version of OS. They could permit other users to access their software, but it would be unsupported; if you wanted it to guaranteed work, you'll be restricted to the Google distribution, which will be tamper resistant (think root account disabled by default, administrator only enabled for power users, requirining a specific interaction with Google (please submit a request to poweruser@gmail.com if you want your system to be unlocked).

Re:Killer app?

[boule75]

This distro would be natively configured to run on a USB key, possibly launched from inside Windows or Linux or whatever x86 compatible machine around, and all data would be stored and natively accessed from anywhere through http to mydata.google.com => the user's data is on the network, any PC next door is used for its CPU only through broadband.

Special services offered for SMEs.

Special offers for confidentiality ?

Re:Killer app?

[Stickney]

"Google Earth for Linux
Picassa for Linux
Hello for Linux
Google Desktop for Linux
Google Talk for Linux"

When I see these things, I will embrace Google as my own....
Until then, gmail and my personalized homepage are very nice, but I have little hope.

Re:Killer app?

[Lodragandraoidh]

You might be onto something. There are indications that Google is in the process of building out a backbone network. What better way to deliver such a system than via a dedicated network?

Would it be a leap to say Google is pushing quickly towards a 'tipping point' - where they offer services at such a value proposition that businesses and the public can't refuse to move from a Windows-centric model to something novel?

Certainly food for thought.

Goobuntu?

[PhoenixPath]

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

Um...duh? Cuz it's a combo-word "Google" and "Ubuntu"?

Idiots. The rest of the article is probably based on the same deep fact-checking.

Sounds like the joke...

[DocStoner]

... so the chief asks the explorer, "Death or Goobunto?"
The explorer replies "Death".
To which the chief shouts "Death by Goobunto!".

Why doesn't Ubuntu partner with Debian?

[mangu]

It seems more likely Google would partner with Ubuntu than snapshot their product and start wandering off in their own direction

By your logic, most of the Linux distros wouldn't exist. The point in free software is exactly that: anyone can fork a new project, if a need for improvement is perceived. Maybe Google needs something the Ubuntu community isn't willing to do, or maybe Google feels the changes they want wouldn't interest the Ubuntu community.

Re:Author needs a new brain.

[ShineyMcShine]

no they don't (get irony).

Re:GooGentoo

[JFitzsimmons]

LOL!

Sky Parths, Truth Shines Through

[smittyoneeach]

TFA:

The Goobuntu.com domain has been registered in the past couple of days, though presumably not by Google. It now redirects to a Cuban portal. Perhaps Google will have to think of a new name for the system before they launch it to the wider public.

Open Source Software and Google both stand revealed for the Communist plots they are!
Let every real God-fearing American instantly reject this nefarious Marxist subterfuge!

My Google Shopping List for Desktop Dominance

[cpu_fusion]

If I were Google I would use my massive market capitalization to acquire two companies that would help insure the success of this push:

1. Novell for a "secured" distribution and the experience to back it. Novell is shipping AppArmor in OpenSuse 10.1, and it's quite nice (and finally open as well as free). Another alternative might be Red Hat, for its pioneering work in SELinux.

2. VMWare, for control of "VMWare Player". Users aren't going to uninstall Windows overnight, but they may be happy to launch a Google "machine within a machine". If you haven't tried VMWare Player, check it out, especially the Browser Applicance. Yes, hardware based virtualization is coming, but most people won't be throwing their old hardware away for quite some time, as it is adequate for web browsing and word processing. One of the first things a Google acquired VMWare should do is expand their platform to the Macintosh.

I think those two acquisitions would cement a way to deliver and secure a Linux platform.

Google goons... hmm.

[nortcele]

And yeah, you'd get some people complaining about "those heavy handed Google goons" not setting

It will be called Goonix! Alas, someone (not Google) has already registered the goonix.com domain.

Doogell

[wile_e_wonka]

In other news, Google recently purchased Dell, the world's largest manufacturer of personal computers. The combined company will be called Doogell (the 'e' pronounced similarly to that in 'Dell').

And in other other news, Google plans to purchase General Motors, General Electric, my house, and 2 of my children.

Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro

[RossyB]

So Google are producing a Ubuntu-based distribution. This isn't news as most large companies do this (hell, my last job had 10 staff and we were about to produce a Debian customisation). Google used to use a Red Hat distribution but are have been switching since at least November last year according to https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/dulug/2005- November/016656.html.

I'll eat my dog if this ever is released to the world as a "consumer" distribution, designed to take Windows marketshare.

Re:Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll eat my dog

Wow. Most of us aren't flexible enough to pull that one off.

Re:Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro

[RossyB]

Not that, my dog.

Re:Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro

[Dhalka226]

Aww, but he's adorable! You MONSTER!

On the other hand, probably tastes like chicken.. *shrugs*

Re:Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro

[RossyB]

He may look adorable, but trust me, *he* is the monster!

Re:Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro

[Russ Nelson]

Poor doggie!

Well, if google is going to move to OS..

[Skythe]

they may as well do it now. You know, with vista at the gates and all.

"In Beta" jest.

[oscartheduck]

Who would have thought it would take Google of all companies to finally take Linux out of Beta?

oh hell yes

[Danzigism]

such great news.. despite the people with sand in their vaginas about Google and Linux, this is going to most excellent.. much like everything else Google has done in the past.. i've been waiting a while for Google to develope something other than apps and web apps.. it'll give us a clear understanding on what google is really capable of..

another thing to take in to consideration, are companies like Adobe.. now that they see a huge name like Google, developing their own flavor of Linux, will other software giants start developing brandname software for Linux?? Because if I can run the Adobe CS on my Linux box, you can kiss anything microsoft related goodbye..

Would you trust them?

[beforewisdom]

I guess since it wil be open source someone can discover if Google builds any nonauthorized information gathering into the system, but with all of the stuff in the news about Google would you trust an OS, for your privacy, from Google?

Spiffy

[umbrellasd]

I'm wondering when gaming consoles will have these same services on an HDTV. Tivo/VOIP, Web, Email, games. One of the games would have to be Quicken, though.

I don't see much indication that Google has the experience or inclination to play ball in the hardware market, though. They might partner with someone to do it, but their whole focus has been in software.

In some ways, I think gaming consoles will ultimately be what topples M$ as they evolve toward a more multi-purpose consolidated media device in the home. Of course, people say it will come from the computer end, but the cost model for consoles is pretty compelling to a consumer because vendors are subsidizing very nice hardware and recouping the cost in software revenue. That's not the model that computer hardware is designed around (everything is components and the software and hardware vendors are loosely couples).

Anyway, I don't think Google would go the device route at this point. Might be interesting if they partnered with a console company to bring all that functionality to an HDTV though.

Why would Google want to offer an OS ?

[farzadb82]

Well... I think the answer is simpler than it looks. I would think that revenue from Ad Sense, etc. is all secondary to this project. My thought would be that Google wants to create an OS that it will distribute for free, on the basis that unused CPU cycles are "donated" back to Google to use for its own internal processes (ie. indexing, crawling, etc.). Think about it, Google would have the worlds largest distributed parallel computer crawling and indexing away at their command all for a cost of near peanuts to what it would cost to build by purchasing all the necessary hardware.

The myth of the corporate desktop

[Dan Ost]

The myth of "The Corporate Desktop".

There are lots of corporate users that run Linux on their desktops. There are lots of corporate users who could use Linux, but don't know about it, are afraid to switch, or don't think it's worth the effort. There are also coporate users who simply couldn't do their job if they were forced to run Linux.

Don't tell me that Linux isn't ready for the corporate desktop just because there are people who won't or can't use Linux. I don't use Windows at work...does that mean that Windows isn't ready for the corporate desktop? Of course not.

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"?

Goobuntu Flash Drive

[RailGunSally]

This might be the goods. Grandma buys a Google-branded flash drive from Wal-Mart and plugs it into her crotchety old win95 box and viola! She can take it to the kids' houses and have her environment follow her around. She's got a bunch of AJAX apps running local CGI when she's offline and syncing up with her Google account when she connects to the world. The apps access OpenOffice libs to render and edit M$-docs. The jump drive appears as a data drive under M$-Ware and even has the same AJAX utilities with the same look+feel and syncing capabilities. Grandma just plugs in and goes. She can boot from the drive or just use it under the Billyware or whatever. Done right, she would neither know nor care about the OS layer. She surfs the net and sends electronic greeting cards via email. That's the extent of Grandma's computational skill set. The whole environment fits in Granny's reading glasses case. Life is good.

Google

[certel]

As far as Google working on this, they immediately gain market share because people are such die hard fans of Google. Ubuntu is clearing going to benefit from this and so is the opensource community. As stated earlier, all of a sudden, linux becomes 'trusted' with the Google trademark. Good move for Google and the opensource community.

Does this mean...

[Bravoc]

We'll finally get a frick'n Google Earth client for Linux?

Ballmer throws a chair

[NetRAVEN5000]

While screaming "I'm going to fucking kill GOOBUNTU!"

Seconds later, Bill walks in and places a box of Kleenex on Ballmer's desk.

I can't believe no one asked this

[BRSloth]

Does it run Linux?

Will Not Happen

[supra]

Two things that guarantee such a thing will not become a product for general distribution:
1. Lack of complete and seamless multimedia support
2. Support infrastructure

I'm sure many will want to argue with #1, but don't kid yourself. Linux doesn't support the most popular formats completely, and the integration w/ the system and browser is not seamless.

The real question here is...

[Churla]

How will Google make money off this. They are a publically held company, if they go on too many jaunts into the world of producing non profitable things shareholders who have catapulted the stock price up will rebel. I see a few ways to make money here.

A) Put ads on the desktop

B) Charge for the OS - A sure fire way to make all those Ubuntu people REALLY happy.

I do not pretend to underestimate the amount of clout the Google name has. But how much of that clout will be used in ways which don't violate the "Dont be evil" rule?

$100 laptop project?

[mpcooke3]

Could this possibly be related to the $100 laptop project that google is involved in.

Contrary to many people who have laughed at the idea of google getting involved in an OS project, the $100 laptop project could result in a fairly large install base of Goobuntu. No doubt it will also involve the installation of a lot of google desktop stuff(crap?) and the viewing of the odd Adwords advert...

Although Google is no longer looked on quite so favourably I'm still quite excited at the prospect of a major Linux push in developing countries. So I say Go Go Google! :)

Matt.

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

Why? Just about everything's online nowadays. Most people use their PCs for - what? Web surfing, e-mail, maybe a couple games. . . all of which can be done online.

And I still have yet to see a computer that can't run Linux. Even my TV Wonder Pro (which there is no ATI driver for) works with Linux.

Google will make a Windows killer...

[HerculesMO]

when their operating system is as secure as Linux, but works like a Mac. Easy folks, easy easy easy.

Simplicity is at the core of Google.. Linux is a bit complex for your 'average' joe -- regardless of how much the zealots on /. disagree.

Re:longshot (install method is old school)

[jimwelch]

Apple stands a greater chance of offering resistance to Microsoft than any Linux distribution does.

Why? You fail to say what Apple has that is so great.

Frankly, isn't the download - install method really old school right now?

Only if you ass-u-me everyone can afford always-on internet or works/lives/travels where it is available and never fails. (rural, poor, travel) You also have to trust your provider and the web for security, availability, staying in bussiness.

If they are making a window manager, sign me up

[sycomonkey]

Debian is acceptable, and Google knows how to make a decent UI, so if they're writing their own window manager for this, this could be the best linux ever. Too few details to get excited about, but the concept has potential.

Re:If they are making a window manager, sign me up

[jonr]

Just about what I was going to say. If Picasa and Google desktop are anything to judge by, Google OS could finally make Linux usable.

Re:If they are making a window manager, sign me up

[lachlan76]

Umm WHY? What is it about current window managers that isn't acceptable?

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:The Next Microsoft?

[esampson]

Ok, Microsoft came up with ONE thing, but it still revolutionized the industry

Err...what was the one thing you're referring to? DOS? Microsoft didn't really come up with that. Bill Gates bought it from Seattle Computer Products, and it really wasn't revolutionary. It was pretty much a copy of CPM.

Re:The Next Microsoft?

[just_forget_it]

Actually, you're both wrong. I was referring to BASIC.

Re:The Next Microsoft?

[esampson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_programming_lan guage

Microsoft did not invent basic, though Bill Gates did write QBASIC for the Altair (QBASIC later found its way into DOS) and while BASIC did revolutionize computer science at its time (about 20-25 years prior to QBASIC) you really can't credit Microsoft with that.

Re:The Next Microsoft?

[just_forget_it]

But he brought the basic language to the home desktop computer. Before that, the Altair was nothing more than a toy.

Re:The Next Microsoft?

[esampson]

Even after the advent of QBASIC the Altair never got beyond being a hobbyist's toy. Would it have been as successful without QBASIC? Probably not, but I still think it's a stretch to credit QBASIC with revolutionizing the home desktop computer industry.

If you are really looking for the 'killer app' that revolutionized the home computer industry I would probably go with VisiCalc by Dan Bricklin in 1979. It took the home computer from being a toy and gave it a function that many people had a use for.

Re:The Next Microsoft?

[just_forget_it]

Well i'll concede that my use of the term "revolutionary" was a bit of a stretch. MS did come up with QBASIC, and it was good. It was the one of the few things they came up with on their own.

Re:The Next Microsoft?

[esampson]

Yeah. I'll definitely agree with that.

Origin?

[PFI_Optix]

From TFA:

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

Please please please tell me they were kidding.

But...

[theurge14]

If what you say is true, it will have to supplement Windows, otherwise the first thing out of Joe Sixpack's mouth when he gets this "backend system" will be "Where's Word at?".

Re:But...

[egarland]

You are assuming it will be sold as a "PC" and not an internet apliance or set top box. Nobody turns on their cable box or XBox and wonders where Word is.

Re:But...

[theurge14]

Well then I suppose this may be the appliance they also put their "iTunes-killer" on as well.

So many Google rumors to remember to tie in...

Re:But...

[egarland]

Well then I suppose this may be the appliance they also put their "iTunes-killer" on as well.

YES! Forgot that one. And they'll include Google Office too.

Obvious nickname...

[neutralstone]

"The Goober". (:

Pure speculation

[HoaryCripple]

I saw a few comments about how Google is a public company and how would making a new distribution make them any money. A Google branded linux has instant brand recognition, and corporations/individuals looking for a Microsoft replacement are more likely to trust this brand name. Google could then decide to sell support to those who indeed install the Google branded linux operating system.

Could well be an MS killer

[PhysicsPhil]

Lots of posters are wondering what the big deal is. How can a Google OS possibly kill Windows? I would argue that it doesn't have to kill Windows to hurt Microsoft. Microsoft loses money on virtually all of its operations except for two cash cows: the Windows OS and Office. Those allow MS to lose loads of cash on other stuff (TV things, Xbox, search engine wars, etc).

If a Google OS forces MS to lower the prices on Windows, it destroys a critical source of free cash that MS uses to wage war in other areas. Google may have well decided that, in addition to serving as useful advertising, a Google OS may be just the thing to put MS on the defensive. It hurts Microsoft's cash flow, presents a real threat to their financial operations and prevents them from attacking Google's own profitable areas.

Re:longshot (install method is old school)

[BewireNomali]

Apple has an operating system with trusted mindshare for stable and easy computing. Linux does not. Hence uphill climb.

Re: the ass-u-me comment. Trust my provider: like other commodities like power, water, gas, etc? To not go out of business? like the aforementioned utilities? Security? You walk the streets believing in law enforcement without actually seeing a cop, don't you.? Not going out of business - like your cell phone company? I don't understand what you're asking.

Re assuming that most can afford it and or lives in a place where it's available: urban centers in the US alone gives me 50 million users. In China, urban centers alone gives me 300 million potential users. the mobile connection is ALWAYS on, buddy. Maybe you ass-u-me no change in the marketplace so you see it as it is now.

Re:The only way...

[michrech]

It's a very good thing you and your obviously limited exposure to computers is not representitive of how things really are.

My laptop didn't even work properly in linux (HP z2000 series) untill HP released a BIOS update to fix the clock problem. Your own post shows that linux is fairly good at supporting OLD hardware. Just google for "nvidia linux" or "ati linux" and look at all the posts that complain about NEW hardware not working properly (yes, this isn't the best example, but it is still good).

Linux needs to come a LONG way to even come close to what XP is today (As far as usability goes for the end user WRT installing hardware) which was my point all along (Before I got moderated overrated flaimbait!)

Do One Thing

[AeroIllini]

From Google's Ten Things:

2. It's best to do one thing really, really well.
Google does search. With one of the world's largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we've been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service already considered the best on the web at making finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of users. Our dedication to improving search has also allowed us to apply what we've learned to new products, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Maps. As we continue to build new products* while making search better, our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas, and to help users access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives.

<snip>

* Full-disclosure update: When we first wrote these "10 things" four years ago, we included the phrase "Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat." Over time we've expanded our view of the range of services we can offer -- web search, for instance, isn't the only way for people to access or use information -- and products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. This doesn't mean we've changed our core mission; just that the farther we travel toward achieving it, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus (to be replaced, of course, by more blurry objects).

A full Googlized version of Ubuntu only makes sense if it was geared explicitly toward search: much like Apple's Spotlight on steroids. But that can be accomplished with an application, not a full-blown operating system. Google is not interested in building a product if it does not align with their core mission, which is search. They have no interest in destroying Microsoft completely, they do not want to get into an OS war, and they certainly don't want to start diversifying to the point where their "One Thing" becomes "One Thing In Each Market." They want to do search, and do it well.

Google also does not want to replace the infrastructure in any given market; that's too much hassle. They just want to work within it. Notice, they have no interest at all in entering the cell phone or PDA market, but they certainly make their products work very well with existing technology in those markets. I think the same will hold true of OSs: they don't want to REPLACE your OS, they just want you to search with Google FROM your OS, and hopefully click on some AdWords along the way. If that means integrating their search directly into the OS so you don't have to open a browser (a la Google Desktop) then that is a step toward their goal. Replacing the entire OS is unnecessary complexity.

My guess is that the OS is being developed exclusively for inhouse use, since Google has only confirmed its existence, not it's purpose. Everything about releasing this Goobuntu to the public is pure speculation on the Register's part. Companies roll out custom OSs for inhouse use all the time; even companies using Windows have IT departments that build their own images to propegate out to the client machines, customizing which services and programs will be available. That's a "custom OS", too.

A softer, kinder Linux...

[RyoShin]

If Google is working on an actual OS, and not just something to work in the background of, say, a cybercafe computer, then this may be the push Linux needs to become a major Desktop player.

Not that many people know about Linux. A lot of people know about Google, to the point that "google" has become a verb ("search for"). If someone suggests putting a Linux OS on a computer, the common man will be unsure and wary of it, knowing little about Linux, despite how much it's used regularly. However, say you want to put a new OS from Google on it, and a lot of people will open up. After all, they're used to the Google web search interface, a well made, easy-to-use thing. Surely they can make an OS, too.

If Google does it right, a lot of people will migrate. "Goobuntu" (which is a stupid name) will be a gateway drug, as it were. Those who are fine with what Google offers in its OS will stay there, while those more interested in digging deeper will move on to other distros.

Google's main hurdle is being user-friendly. Yes, yes, I'm sure you can get exactly the same result for $X_COMPONENT in Linux as you do in Windows by putting $REALLY_COMPLICATED_STRING in at the command line/terminal, but regular users will be easily confused by that. Hell, most won't even want to know about the command line/terminal. A sleek interface where most common tasks are either easy to do by the user, or done automatically, is what will push this forward.

And, if the user just has to go into the terminal line, make the commands easier to understand and more intuitive. Move instead of mv, delete instead of whatever is there now, list instead of ls, find instead of grep, help instead of man, etc. With the processing power we have these days, short (and unintuitive) commands really aren't necessary, and if anyone wants the Linux desktop to experience growth, they need to go.

I know that I, in my limited knowledge and use of Linux, routinely get frusturated having to search (I mean, man -k) again and again for a simple command.

Only time will tell, however.

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[mad.frog]

And, if the user just has to go into the terminal line, make the commands easier to understand and more intuitive

If the user just has to go into the terminal line, Goobuntu would be a dismal failure.

Really.

Repeat after me: normal people never, ever, ever ever want to deal with the command line.

Requiring command-line use for anything -- even installation, config, administration, etc. -- give a failing grade on the "Mom Test".

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[superdude72]

And, if the user just has to go into the terminal line, make the commands easier to understand and more intuitive. Move instead of mv, delete instead of whatever is there now, list instead of ls, find instead of grep, help instead of man, etc.

Is learning to type "move x y" really any harder than learning "mv x y"?

Microsoft's renaming of the wheel to make it more user friendly ("Microsoft Motility Assistant") actually makes their products less intuitive. Take one concept that was already well established by the time Internet Explorer was released: the browser cache. A nice, clean metaphor that encapsulates what the thing does succinctly. So do they call IE's equivalent the browser cache? No! Someone thought cache was too esoteric a word, so they called it "Temporary Internet Files," losing the metaphor and muddying up the concept. Then there was e-mail filtering, a well-established concept with a metaphor that is easy to understand. So did they call their equivalent a filter? No! They called it "Message Rules." WTF? Why do I need to have rules about my messages? How does this make anything easier?

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[fiddlesticks]

> if the user just has to go into the terminal line, make the commands easier to understand and more intuitive. Move
> instead of mv, delete instead of whatever is there now, list instead of ls, find instead of grep, help instead of man,
> etc.

alias ?

from a (bash) shell

$ alias move='mv'
$ ls bar
bar
$ move bar fooo
$ ls bar
ls: bar: No such file or directory
$ ls fooo
fooo

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[arevos]

With the processing power we have these days, short (and unintuitive) commands really aren't necessary

It was never about processing power. Unix commands are short because they're faster to type.

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[hacker]

"Repeat after me: normal people never, ever, ever ever want to deal with the command line."

I guess your definition of "normal" differs from mine.

But here's the real problem... hardly ANYONE wants to use the mouse all the time. It sucks, its slow, its an enormous waste of motion and screen space when tracking from corner to corner (like OSX's braindead way of undocking the application modality to the top of the screen. Bad, bad move.).

Until EVERY application and EVERY OS option (clipboard, opening menus, etc.) is 100% accessible via the keyboard (as well as the mouse), then the shell will still ALWAYS be faster to do some operations.

Just because you hate opening a shell, doesn't mean the rest of the Unix and Linux world do. I can do most things faster than mousers, including the time required to open a shell and execute whatever command it is I need. I've tested this with dozens of people who complain that the "commandline" is useless, and consistently proven them wrong, on even the simplest of tasks.

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[RyoShin]

Again, that works fine for those who actually know Linux.

Regular users aren't going to bother taking the time to alias all of the commands (assuming they're ever able to find out about alias); they'll just migrate back to Windows. After all, being Linux, it will most likely be free, so they've lost only time.

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[RyoShin]

That's backwards. The plebian would find "mv x y" to be harder to learn than "move x y". It's easier, because it's expected, and the mind will associate the word with the action, because the word is familiar.

Everyone who speaks English uses the word "move". People are told to "move" files all the time. So, if someone quickly flips through a command line manual (I'd be surprised if the common user does even that) will remember that "move" moves files, but rarely will they remember what "mv" does. Yes, you could sound it out, but there's too large a margin of error.

And, even if they're not sure how to use it, they should be able to type "help move" and get an easy explanation with lots of examples (leave the technical stuff and option list until the end.)

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[mad.frog]

But here's the real problem... hardly ANYONE wants to use the mouse all the time.

I guess you've never met my mom or dad.

the shell will still ALWAYS be faster to do some operations

Likewise, you've probably never seen the speed at which my parents can type.

Just because you hate opening a shell, doesn't mean the rest of the Unix and Linux world do.

Fine, but I wasn't talking about the "Unix/Linux" world. I was responding to the grandparent poster, who was positing this as an OS for the "common man".

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[hacker]

Likewise, you've probably never seen the speed at which my parents can type.

Then Linux isn't for your parents. Don't try to make Linux into something it isn't.

Sure, it CAN be made into exactly that (i.e. Lycoris), but it isn't like that out of the box. Linux should never be "dumbled down" by default to satisfy a minority of a minority of Linux users. There are Linux distributions for elementary school children, and the same distribution can be made into a powerful developer workstation.

Its not the OS that matters, its how you configure it.

Give your parents an OSX machine or XP Home Edition and they'll be fine; they're all about the mouse.

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[RyoShin]

Just because you hate opening a shell, doesn't mean the rest of the Unix and Linux world do.

This one statement sums up most common bad idea I've seen when people talk about making *nix desktops for the masses: "It works just fine now, we don't need to change it."

"I understand these weird shortenings and what they do. We don't need to change it."

"I know how to install new drives and hardware through a series of text commands. We don't need to change it."

And that's just it. It works fine; hell, it could work great, but only for the Unix/Linux world.

If anyone wants the *nix desktop to gain ground, they have to realize one main thing: They have to leave the *nix world to do that.

Unix/Linux people are fine with terminals and command lines, because they are used to that and forced into it.

Unix/Linux people are fine with having to do a million little tweaks to get their OS to work with their equipment, because they are used to it and forced into it.

Windows people and, somewhat, Mac users, have had and want none of this. At least in the U.S., to make any signficant desktop growth, you have to pull people away from Windows. If *nix can't automatically handle all of the tasks that Windows does, if *nix requires a thousand tweaks when installing an external USB drive, if *nix forces you to use the command line to do a few uncommon, but not rare, tasks, Windows users will get frusturated and move back to Windows.

That's why Windows survives. Yes, it's one huge security nightmare. Yes, it often crashes. The populace knows this, and are fine with it, because Windows takes care of most OS tasks for them automatically, so they don't have to deal with "that complicated stuff".

Also, Windows people love the mouse. Why bother remembering a hundered keyboard shortcuts when you can easily move the mouse to a little icon or a menu and click?

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[mad.frog]

Don't try to make Linux into something it isn't.

Don't tell me: tell the grandparent poster that I was responding to.

His comment: "If Google does it right, a lot of people will migrate. "Goobuntu" (which is a stupid name) will be a gateway drug, as it were. Those who are fine with what Google offers in its OS will stay there, while those more interested in digging deeper will move on to other distros. Google's main hurdle is being user-friendly."

I'd say this falls squarely in the camp of Passing The Mom Test, which IMHO means No Command Line, Ever.

Linux should never be "dumbled down" by default to satisfy a minority of a minority of Linux users.

You're entitled to your opinion, but if the grandparent poster's suggestion came to pass, they would probably become the clear majority.

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[be-fan]

normal people never, ever, ever ever want to deal with the command line

That's a bit overstated. When I do tech support for me dad, he prefers it when he can get away with me telling him simple command line statements instead of the horrendous "okay, um, find the thing that looks like a hat, and click, no, I said a hat, what you don't see a hat?"

Re:A softer, kinder Linux...

[xenoterracide]

it is getting more plug and play. udev, is seeing to that. but the real problem is hardware manufacturer's only developing driver's for windows. if google was releasing it's linux. they might have the power to push manufacturer's to give us driver's. Gnome and KDE (either one) should be plenty ready for those point and click user's. Shell's shouldn't be changed however as that would alienate the old timer's and it would get crappy like dos, and for the original poster, if we replace grep with find? pray tell what do we replace find with? locate? then what do we replace locate with? search? don't change command's it wouldn't be pretty. I would shun a distrobution and so would many if they did that. create a utility for making aliases in the .bashrc if you want that.

Re:The only way...

[Cro Magnon]

I sure don't want my documents or Quicken files online!

And while Linux can RUN on almost all PCs, installing it can be a PITA, and some things *cough*sound*uncough* might not work.

Google's New Project

[1 (smarterThanYou)]

Apparently they're working on a GooI.

ERP

[jaweekes]

To me the main problem is ERP, HR and accounting software. Office is no problem now, and email is easy. Linux has some really good replacements, but ERP, HR and accounting software are mainly Windows based. OK, Oracle will run on anything, but most companies do not use, or want to use Oracle. Apart from that, ADP is Windows, and most accounting software is pushed by the CPA's, so they use Windows too.

This to me as an IT guy is the main problem. Get ERP, HR and accounting on Linux, and most companies in the world will jump on it. Until then Linux will not get over 10% of the market.

Flame on...

No OS X on non-Macs

[hchaput]

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

Indeed, they are highly motivated to never, ever release OS X for non-Macs. Apple is a hardware company. They make much more money from a Mac sale than an OS X sale. MS makes its money from software, without any hardware to sell with it. It's no surprise that Google would want a slice of that pie. And, like Apple, they are using a solid open-source operating system and making it usable.

Google OS helps Dell sales. If it runs on Macs (and why wouldn't it?), it will also help Mac sales, so expect Apple to embrace this project. The only person this hurts is MS.

99.999% probable

[Julian Morrison]

...that what they're building isn't a general OS, it's an in house standardized desktop distro. An OS by Google, for Google. Not for outside release!

Seriously, these are the smartest people in the world, why would they waste effort on an obvious loss?

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:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

I call bullshit. I still have yet to see ANY computer, new or old, that doesn't work with Linux. My brand-new Dell laptop works with Linux, my desktop PC works great with Linux - and always has (and, yes, it has this "new" technology - it's got a GeForce FX 5500, and no, I've never had any problems with sound on it except on some *VERY* old laptops) and I even play DOOM III on Linux online with a framerate of about 30fps and fine sound. The problems people have with the nVidia or ATi drivers are always either their own stupidity or a problem with the drivers. Or a problem of software conflict. NOT a problem with Linux itself.

Also, the fact that your laptop didn't work with Linux "untill HP released a BIOS update to fix the clock problem" tells me that the problem was with your computer, not with Linux. And how does my previous post show that Linux "is fairly good at supporting OLD hardware"? I didn't even mention any hardware except my TV Wonder Pro which isn't even a year old - I just got it last summer.

Users will be known as.... Goobers.

[simetra]

Thanks, I'll be here all week... be sure to tip your waitress.

Ugh.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So GoogleOS looks like Windows XP, but with annoying transparency and Google's name plastered everywhere? No thanks...

This is just the first step...

[greginnj]

Why is Google putting together a distro? Because it's the first step in a longer-term plan.

Note that Google recently hired away a Microsoft engineer who believes that Microsoft no longer knows how to ship software and believes in the web-services model. He was one of the principal architects of Hailstorm.

Here's what I see Google doing:

1. Create a usable, simple, Google distro that the masses can use for web/email/etc.
2. Market the hell out of it until they get a certain viable user base.
3. Start equipping a few thousand public libraries with a few Google Distro machines each, and monitor their usage
4. Here's the key step: in all high-bandwidth installations, CONVERT THE GOOGLE DISTRO MACHINES TO DISKLESS TERMINALS with the same UI.
5. People get used to having 'their' desktop available to them in multiple locations, spanning a disked install with networked-synched customizations to the diskless terminals.
6. The era of disk-based installs of OSs dies a well-deserved death.
7. Profit!!

If you think about it, a lot of Google's products (Gmail, the Google Toolbar) are introducing portable features. A new OS distro that they can eventually deploy as a diskless terminal version for high-bandwidth locations is the next logical step. And there will be more tears in Redmond when that happens.

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

I wasn't talking about posting documents or Quicken files online, thank you very much. I'm sure these "Google PC's" that will be running "Goobuntu" (or whatever) will still have a hard drive.

Plus. . . I don't know why everyone thinks sound is such a big issue in Linux! I haven't had sound problems since I first tried Linux back around Y2K. Also, many distros are fairly simple and straightforward to install (and actually from what I hear Ubuntu is fairly well-known for this).

Consider This

[carrier lost]

The biggest cost of a Windows PC is rapidly becoming the Operating System itself. Google can undercut Microsoft by "adopting" a distro and selling a branded PC. This would go a long way towards slowing the MS advance.

Microsoft, Google's biggest natural enemy, is fueled by the unnaturally high price of its products.

Google needs to fight Microsoft on the OS front for two reasons:

1. To pinch MS' income stream
2. To keep MS from using its desktop to steer customers away from Google's business

Google has the marketing arm to push the product, the credibility to attract buyers and the cash reserve to handle problems.

The way I see it, this absolutely has to be done; to ignore Microsoft's desktop dominance is foolish and to assume they won't use it to unseat Google is suicidal.

MjM

"Goobuntu"

[frogstar_robot]

I suspect that once again more is being read into Google's actions than what they are really going to do. I recall their was quite a bit of speculation and excitement when Google and Sun announced a joint project. It turned out to be nothing more than an offer to install Google Toolbar when Java is installed on Windows. It is a good move for Google but nothing to write home about.

As long as speculation is allowed, perhaps they are going to release some sort of "Safe Browsing" system. If it were something like a VMPlayer image then it would require very little effort on end users' parts. A Google-branded replacement for VMware's "Browsing Appliance" is what I'm thinking of.

Even that is probably far more exotic than what they are really up to. Another possibility is a set of packages that easily installs on Ubuntu that gives quick access to things like GMail and perhaps a browser toolbar. Ubuntu probably has a enough mindshare that the minimum effort those packages would take would yield a decent return.

Whatever it is, I doubt it will be mind-blowingly fantastic or any sort of stick in MS' eye.

Resources!

[LWATCDR]

"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?"
Google has a lot of the best and the brightest to throw at Linux. I like Ubuntu and use it on my desktop but what have they done in usability? They use Gnome and frankly have one of the worst color schemes on the planet.
I like Gnome but I feel it is FAR from prefect.
Ubuntu is nice and is okay to install but try to play MP3s or videos without editing a text file first.
Google could do a lot.
I think this a myth but Google could do a lot with Linux. Maybe this is just someones side project. We will see.

Re:The only way...

[michrech]

I call bullshit. I still have yet to see ANY computer, new or old, that doesn't work with Linux. My brand-new Dell laptop works with Linux, my desktop PC works great with Linux - and always has (and, yes, it has this "new" technology - it's got a GeForce FX 5500, and no, I've never had any problems with sound on it except on some *VERY* old laptops) and I even play DOOM III on Linux online with a framerate of about 30fps and fine sound. The problems people have with the nVidia or ATi drivers are always either their own stupidity or a problem with the drivers. Or a problem of software conflict. NOT a problem with Linux itself.

Speaking of bullshit, I'm going to have to put my hip-waders on. Your shoveling plenty of it. You are so contradictory in your above paragraph, it's insane. "I have yet to see ANY computer, new or old, that doesn't work with linux" out one side of your mouth while the other says "except for some very old laptops or sound".

It works great for you. Great. It doesn't for THOUSANDS of other people. The fact that the clock in my laptop was not correctly supported is a DRIVER issue with LINUX. People with sound that won't work under linux is a LINUX issue. The fact that you seem incapable of understanding this is not my fault and will, in the long run, hurt linux (if shared by enough people, and from what I've seen, it has been.)

"WAPI" not "Woohoo!"

[cnerd2025]

Its all about the Windows API. For anything to become a Windows killer, the API must be extended nearly perfectly. For machines running on x86 or AMD hardware, this is simple. The API must only run pipes from the Windows system calls to the comparable Linux system calls. When there are no system calls, the machine just runs like it should. However, other hardware adds another complexity, although that can be solved relatively efficiently (a la Rosetta). Instructions can be translated across architecture at the machine level and then execute the code natively. Obviously this would run (O)2n versus (O)n on a native machine. It wouldn't really be emulation, because the entire processor and memory structure would have to be "emulated".

Why the API, you may ask? Because the API is what gives Windows its power. Now how can I be so sure? Because most Windows users out there admit that they really dislike using their computers. But they keep coming back to them. Why? Because Windows runs the programs most users want to run. In fact, Microsoft has taken great pains to ensure the WAPI runs almost completely backward compatibly, even building in certain performance "bugs" (improving them so they run efficiently) simply so that applications that worked with Windows N will work for N++. If the popularity of an OS depended upon security, efficiency, process management, and the other technical details that we geeks care about, Windows would have died before its birth. Bill Gates' genius came from marketing, in which he persuaded all the IBM-clone companies to license Windows. Then, once a solid legion of PCs had been produced, the Windows API became ever important. Windows was always a fairly "popular" operating system, but it really took off with Windows 3.1, which led to the infamous Win95. The relative ease of use, requiring little to no DOS experience, and built in software packages, such as Works, all contributed to the overall attractiveness of the system. With the legions of developers salivating at the opportunity to pounce at all those IBM-clones, the Windows API provided the foundation of Microsoft's continued growth. What's the result? 90% (guess-timate) of the world's computers run Windows OS. Mac, Linux, and other various flavors of Unix make up the remaining 10%, along with obscure systems like OS/2 and Amiga and mainframe systems, running very old software and systems.

The WAPI isn't easy to fall. Most notably, WINE, the application for Linux and various x86 Unix boxes to run Win32 apps, is a fairly good match for Windows, but has definite bugs to be ironed out. WINE has some problems like rendering windows not completely obeying the Windows API (like QuickTime). If Google hones in on the API issue, they will be in like Flynn. To live in a post-Windows world, we need to adequately match the Windows API. We all know how far superior a Linux or Unix experience is to Windows. We also must realize that Windows is king for a reason, and to behead the king, we need to beat the king at his own game. Google is the first company to be zealous enough to really attempt a coup. Apple is too proud (though I love Apple and am running a Mac right now).

My reaction to this news about Goobuntu is, well, "WAPPPPIIIII!!!!"

If I was Google, I'd offer secured VNC access

[Colin Smith]

To a distributed datacentre on top of a nicely distributed filesystem. I wouldn't bother releasing a linux *distribution* if I had N thousand machines that I could run Linux desktops on. Run common applications like word processing, accounts, web, basically anything you can run on your machine just now.

Suddenly people can sell dirt cheap little $20 VNC data access devices. Have adverts scroll across the bottom of the desktop when people have logged in.

GOOG to exhibit at SCALE 4x

[irabinovitch]

Google's Dan Kegel will be speaking at SCALE 4x on the subject of Linux on the Desktop. Google will also be exhibiting at the show.

Re:The only way...

[Cro Magnon]

Also, many distros are fairly simple and straightforward to install (and actually from what I hear Ubuntu is fairly well-known for this).

And yet, my computer chocked on Ubuntu (and RedHat and SuSe). They CAN be simple and straightforward if you're lucky. They can also fail.

Are you MAD! Re:hmmm

[jackDuhRipper]

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

Forgive the ad hominem-iness of this, but that's among the most ridiculous and / or soft-balliest tosses ever seen here on Slashdot (that's saying something ...).

Three things that immediatly come to mind are 1. billions of US$$, 2. some of the most brilliant and directed engineering minds and 3. humoungous gobs of clout of several stripes (e.g. marketing; visibility; corporate).

Regarding the "trust" it'd bring to GNU/Linux as a platform, allow me to play Devil's Advocate and say it would also bring out the foil hats: would a running a GoogleOS mean they have deep knowledge of your search and other online activities, but also of your application preferences and usage patterns, even the specifics of your local docs, log files, etc?

For my own use and reasons, I would not have an issue with this presuming this the Value of this (speculative) OS outweighed the privacy concerns AND said privacy concerns were fully documented and published.

It's all moot until something actually comes out of Google Labs for use by the public; presuming there even is "Goobuntu / Goonux / GNUgle" work going on, who's to say it's not intended for Internal Use Only?

(I see there's been quite a good, informed dialog sparked by this initial question while I've been thinking / writing / spell checking (silly me ...); forgive the -1 Redundancy)

It's for the hamburger-flipping robot.

[santiago]

This has been leaked before by none other than Bill Gates.

Why Ubuntu?

[God of Lemmings]

Why ubuntu and not something.... better?

Or is there something of ubuntu that I'm missing. It default configuration seems
incredibly sluggish when compared to Suse 10 or even MS's crap, especially when
launching new applications. Is there some way to fix this?

I saw those screenshots last September

[theurge14]

And I saw them here.

I doubt this is any more than a crude WindowBlinds mock-up skin.

Google & Ubuntu at SoCal Linux Expo

[MrMorph]

Both Google and Ubuntu will be exhibiting at the Southern California Linux Expo February 11th and 12th at the Radisson hotel at Los Angeles Airport. In addition both Chris Dibona and Dan Kegal from Google will be speaking at the show.

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

Oh, I'm shoveling bullshit? Sorry if I speak from experience. I guess I bullshitted my way through all my computer experience. The day I find another PC (ie, other than my old 266MHz Dell) that doesn't work on Linux or whose sound doesn't work on Linux, I guess I'll eat my words. I have yet to see one, though - when I fixed my dad's laptop with Knoppix, the sound worked, when I fixed all the other Windows computers in the house with Knoppix, the sound worked, and when I installed Slackware, Mandrake, Redhat, Fedora, SuSE, Icepack Linux, and many other distros on my desktop the sound - and 3D acceleration - worked.

Way to misquote me, too. I didn't say "except for some very old laptops or sound", I said that I never had any problems with sound except on some very old laptops.

The fact that your laptop's clock didn't work with Linux but worked after you updated the BIOS means that the BIOS was broken, not Linux. Otherwise Linux would've not worked even with the patched BIOS.

And when did I say it was YOUR fault that Linux didn't work on your laptop? I said it was the BIOS' fault.

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

Did you burn it yourself, or did you purchase it? And if you burned it, did you try running the option to check the CD to make sure the data wasn't corrupted?

Also, what hardware were you using? Those are all commercial distros, and they probably focus more on new hardware than old hardware.

what can Google do?

[metamatic]

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

If you select Chinese for the UI, it logs all your e-mail and web browsing and sends a copy to a central server for indexing?

Beagle and Dashboard

[po_boy]

Excellent. Now maybe I can figure out how to get Beagle and Dashboard working.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/5729?wlg=yes

Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

[chrisd]

Goobuntu is our internal desktop distribution. It's awesome, but we're not going to be releasing it. Unless you work here it wouldn't work anyway. If you haven't tried ubuntu, you should, I have the regular one running on my laptop and it really is fantastic. I'd say it was debian done right if I wanted to start a debian flame war. Also, know that Google getting into the Red Hat business would be kind of dumb, and it would distract from our moon teleporter and cold fusion projects

Chris

Re:Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

[Russ Nelson]

our moon teleporter

AHA! I KNEW there was a reason for Google Moon. So have you chosen the location for the moon base station yet?
-russ

Re:Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

[gstein]

You should know better than to ask. It's hush-hush top secret. Feh. Chris shouldn't have even mentioned it. He's being reprogrammed right now to better follow his Google Overlords' wishes. Too bad. I kinda liked him.

Re:Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

[Lilkeeney]

If you want to see what the moon is made of zoom in all the way.

Re:Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

[bobmilkman]

I wonder if google has plans to take over Ubuntu's sister project, http://www.kubuntu.org/ that is KDE based? And what would they call it? Gooooookubuntu?

Re:Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

[basotl]

While it would be cool if Google released it's own OS commercially .... I highly doubt it will in the near future. I'd wait to see if Ubuntu adopts GPL 3. With Googles heavy investments in it's DRM dependent services it would need a Linux distro without GPL 3. But on another note... this does make a nice semi-endorsement for Ubuntu. I just ordered that distro the other day and I'm anxious for it to arrive. I'm using a satelite connection in Iraq so downloading it was out of the question.

Re:Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

[LibrePensador]

Since when is Google afraid to step on anyone's toes?

I mean, you compete head-to-head with Microsoft.

A google-supported desktop Linux distribution would literally change the world for the better and would provide an incredibly captive market. Who wouldn't want to use google tools when you give them an incredible platform for free?

So, please rethink your strategy. You should also evaluate a KDE-based distribution such as OpenSuse as it is my professional opinion that it is the best desktop in existence currently and what all fifty employees use at my non-profit.

What would you want in it?

[DdJ]

I'm dreaming I know, but here's what I'd want in it:

1) PAM module to authenticate against GMail's account database.

2) The backing store for GMail is made available via WebDAV, much like Apple does with DotMac.

3a) When you log by booting a Goobuntu Live CD, your WebDAV folder is mounted as your home directory.

3b) When you log on to a system that's installed on a hard drive, it syncs it with a local disk image instead. When you log out, the synced disk image is encrypted immediately, and deleted after enough time without use.

4) I want a browser interface for some of the stuff in there, for when I can't get to a Goobuntu box. Much of this is already covered (bookmarks, mail), but I'd like more (contact list, documents).

Then, I could have a desktop machine at home, a laptop, and a Live CD. I could log in to any of them and have the same environment, with all my content ultimately stored on (and indexed by, sure) Google's servers. A buddy could come over and just use it. I could go to a buddy's house and just use his system. And so on. And if I'm at a kiosk at a conference, I can still just bring up a web interface and get some things done.

(While I'm at it, can I have SyncML too?)

Re:What would you want in it?

[hacker]

(While I'm at it, can I have SyncML too?)

Not if you want it to be "Free" (as in beer or software)

Here's an excerpt from the license:

"Implementation of all or part of any Specification may require licenses under third party intellectual property rights, including without limitation, patent rights (such a third party may or may not be a Supporter). The Sponsors of the Specification are not responsible and shall not be held responsible in any manner for identifying or failing to identify any or all such third party intellectual property rights."

Basically it leaves the litigation angle wide-open, and the license is intentionally murky and unclear. "failing to identify..."? That means there might be IP in there, or not, and they're not responsible if there is. Its too tied up in Pumasoft patents and IP.

Stay away from it, no respectable GPL project or company is going to go near it.

Re:What would you want in it?

[wolf369T]

I want an OS running in a browser, (using AJAX?), so that I can access it from anywhere.

Don't get excited about IBM either

[Sux2BU]

It's true that IBM has extensive knowledge and experience in the OS area, but the problem with big blue is that desktop (consumer) Linux will probably never be a priority. IBM's business model is based around two things: business hardware and consultants. Because consulting is a major part of their business they don't have much incentive to improve the usability or ease of install for Linux. Instead, they'll focus their efforts on stuff that helps them in the server market: portability, performance, reliability, etc. Don't get me wrong, this does help Linux, but not in a way that results in it being preinstalled on a consumer desktop or laptop.

"Goobuntu" on Google

[copdk4]

764 hits (total)
http://www.google.com/search?q=goobuntu&hl=en&lr=& start=10&sa=N

7 hits (English only)
http://www.google.com/search?q=goobuntu&hl=en&lr=l ang_en&sa=X&oi=lrtip9

It would be interesting to see the rise in # of hits over lets say next 1-2 month on this FUD..

Re:"Goobuntu" on Google

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1= goobuntu&word2=googlix

Googlix wins! (for now...)

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.

What's in it for Google?

[Asklepius M.D.]

As stated in other posts, Google's focus is SEARCH. So why an OS and why linux? I can think of several reasons. First, MS is trying desperately to encroach on Google's search dominance. Regardless of your opinion of their probability of success, they can cause a great deal of harm to Google just by competing (to say nothing of the litigation that is sure to come out of it). MS gets most of their revenue from the desktop market, and they are using this money to fund their invasion of Google's turf. By "legitimizing" linux with the Google name (and any other intra-corporate agreements Google uses to promote their OS) Google is able to cut the legs off MS's financing machine and gets their biggest rival to go on the defensive. By using linux, Google is building on something that many people have heard of, and the free (as in beer) release of the OS ensures rapid encroachment onto MS's market share. Second, there will be ads, but they won't affect us. Google knows the importance of staying friendly with the techie community. By releasing their OS under the GPL, they make the "geeks" happy with fresh code for their favorite distro and the ability to modify Goobuntu to eliminate ads. Grandma and Grandpa, however, along with most computer users, won't want to bother with these modifications, giving Google a great increase in advertisement dissemination. Unlike AOL, Google knows that unobtrusive advertising is less likely to be rebelled against en masse. (Besides, how many users still use AOL ads nonwithstanding?) So the geeks and corporations get to protect privacy and tweak and tune to their hearts content, but the other 90% of society gets added to google's ad base. As far as a SETI-style use of spare processor cycles....I doubt it will be a "standard" part of the OS, but I certainly could see one of Google's developers setting something like this up on casual Friday! Long story short, it won't kill MS overnight, but it will put Redmond on the defensive. They'll actually have to be innovative on Vista++ just to maintain whatever remnant of the market they're left with after Goobuntu's release. Google doesn't want to be evil, but that doesn't mean they can't show a little business acumen. Google tends to release things that benefit both the public and their own interests at the same time. I see no reason to expect otherwise from a Google/Linux OS.

Re:The only way...

[Cro Magnon]

Burned Ubuntu, purchased the others. And the hardware was brand new, which is probably the problem. I had installed RedHat, Suse, and even Slackware on older boxes with no problem. But not on my "latest and greatest" box.

Google Ubuntu-based distribution

[this great guy]

I'll eat my dog if this [Google Ubuntu-based distribution] is released to the world as a "consumer" distribution, designed to take Windows marketshare.

Thanks to Slashdot, your post is archived.
I predict this will happen.
History will prove me right.

See you soon,

Re:The only way...

[michrech]

Oh, I'm shoveling bullshit? Sorry if I speak from experience. I guess I bullshitted my way through all my computer experience. The day I find another PC (ie, other than my old 266MHz Dell) that doesn't work on Linux or whose sound doesn't work on Linux, I guess I'll eat my words. I have yet to see one, though - when I fixed my dad's laptop with Knoppix, the sound worked, when I fixed all the other Windows computers in the house with Knoppix, the sound worked, and when I installed Slackware, Mandrake, Redhat, Fedora, SuSE, Icepack Linux, and many other distros on my desktop the sound - and 3D acceleration - worked.

I guess it's a good thing that YOUR experience and YOUR hardware are exactly like what the rest of us have?

Bullshit, through and through.

Way to misquote me, too. I didn't say "except for some very old laptops or sound", I said that I never had any problems with sound except on some very old laptops.

It was your own quote, which you just re-stated. You must think I have "stupid" tattooed across my shiny forehead.

he fact that your laptop's clock didn't work with Linux but worked after you updated the BIOS means that the BIOS was broken, not Linux. Otherwise Linux would've not worked even with the patched BIOS.

And when did I say it was YOUR fault that Linux didn't work on your laptop? I said it was the BIOS' fault.

You have absoloutly NO IDEA as to why the clock was broken. It could very well have been something in linux that wasn't working properly OR HP's fault. Regardless, LINUX didn't work properly (That isn't to say it didn't work at all. With some kernel options, it worked better but the clock was still drifting.)

I also don't recall saying that you said (shesh!) it was my fault linux didn't work. Nice attempt at shifting the subject, though!

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

Hmm, I find that really strange.

Maybe they're on DVD, and your new box can't boot from DVD? I know my laptop has trouble booting from DVD.

This could easily be a Windows replacement.

[ErichTheRed]

With so many investors mesmerized by Google, slapping the name on a Linux distribution might finally give it enough credibility for businesses to consider a full desktop OS replacement. The choice of Ubuntu isn't an accident either...it's by far the best at supporting things like plug-and-play hardware and all the other stuff that makes Windows easy to use for people.

The best thing they can possibly do is choose a single set of applications and stick to it. No regular user wants to run or learn to use three office suites, nine media players and 50+ text editors. Google could choose one vendor, plow huge amounts of money into the project and finally force some standardization in the Linux world. That's one of the chief complaints I hear from corporate IT people about Linux...their people just want one tool to get their work done. Microsoft accomodates this by maintaining IE, Office, Media Player, etc. and making sure they play well together.

Re:This could easily be a Windows replacement.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I think if anyone has a shot of making Linux mainstream, it would be Google. Personally, I don't think it matters whose behind it. Putting a new skin and a few novelty features in front of a Linux core hasn't proven at all successful in fazing Windows, I don't see this one as making a difference. The fact that Google is simply building off of Ubuntu suggests they are not making THAT much of an effort. Google really should start off with their own distro from scratch, actually implement some of their search technology into the Linux core rather then as window dressing.

But its true. The way to make Linux successful is to standardize it, remove the hundreds of GNU applications with cryptic names that all start with gnu, install a small set of well used and proven applications, get rid of the development modules and compilers that the average user will never need, and simply make Linux idiot proof (like brainless install/uninstall features for software and drivers).

Lastly though, people are missing the point in why Windows is successful. Games! Video gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry, and as long as there is like a 100 to 1 ratio of PC to any other OS version of a game out there, PC's running Windows will continue to dominate. You could make a Linux desktop that excels as a multimedia server, secure Internet appliance with the power of Google behind it and have equivalent copies of every Windows office application, but without solid gaming support, no other OS will compete against Windows. This is the sole reason why OS X isn't outselling Windows and why Goobuntu won't succeed in the long run as well.

It's not Goobuntu, it's...

[Topper1234]

A version of the increasingly popular Ubuntu desktop Linux distribution, based on Debian and the Gnome desktop, it is known internally as 'Goobuntu'.

Surely the real name is 'Goobuntu Beta', right?

not that simple

[penguin-collective]

There's something wrong with drivers on Linux, but there's something wrong with drivers on Windows and OS X as well. On Windows, many drivers that get shipped with hardware are already outdated by the time they reach the customer. And OS X supports a lot less hardware than Linux. On the whole, the Linux driver situation is pretty good relative to other systems, it's just that drivers suck everywhere.

The other points you observe are that binary-only distributions of anything (drivers or apps) are not well supported. That's deliberate. People who work on open source software believe that it is the economically more efficient model for the software business. That belief is no more and no less religious than your or Microsoft's that software should be binary only and proprietary. May the better business model win.

Re:not that simple

[IamTheRealMike]

Logic error - binary does not imply proprietary. After all, aren't most .deb files you download binary themselves? Aren't nearly all autopackages packages of open source software, in binary form?

Re:not that simple

[penguin-collective]

The logic error is yours: .deb binaries don't have problems with versioning; the only people for whom binary distribution is a challenge is people who want to distribute binaries outside of a distribution, and that's almost always people who are trying to distribute proprietary software. If something is good, useful, and available in source form, it will make it into distributions.

Re:not that simple

[IamTheRealMike]

Not at all, go take a look at the projects that use autopackage. Developers from projects such as Inkscape and AbiWord have said they feel their project benefits from this form of software distribution.

The error is still yours - binary distribution does not imply proprietary. Even if autopackage did not exist and most 3rd party binaries were proprietary, correlation does not imply causation.

There is one diff between the Google brand...

[1tsm3]

and all the other tech companies that you mentioned. All those tech companies were big names in the IT field. Average Joe didn't know jack about them. Google on the other hand is a brand name that even Average Joe knows about. THAT is what I think might help here. I'm not saying it's gonna be a success because of the Google touch, just saying there is a lot more value to this brand than the other brands you mentioned.

Re:The only way...

[Cro Magnon]

No, it booted. IIRC (it was almost 2 years ago now), RH hung in the middle of the install, Ubuntu installed but didn't recognize my monitor, and Suse found the monitor but not the sound or network card.

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

"It was your own quote, which you just re-stated. You must think I have "stupid" tattooed across my shiny forehead."

No, the quote that I used in my previous post was what YOU said.

I said, "I've never had any problems with sound on it except on some *VERY* old laptops"(meaning that Linux worked fine except for the sound) - which YOU somehow misconstrued to mean that I never had problems with Linux "except for some very old laptops or sound" - which are two very different things. I said the first one, YOU made up the second one.

"You have absoloutly NO IDEA as to why the clock was broken. It could very well have been something in linux that wasn't working properly OR HP's fault. Regardless, LINUX didn't work properly (That isn't to say it didn't work at all. With some kernel options, it worked better but the clock was still drifting.)"

Hmm. . . if it's broken before you patch the BIOS, and it's fixed after you patch the BIOS. . . maybe it's the BIOS causing the problem? Plus, I'm pretty sure I remember reading in the Linux configure tools about a work-around for broken BIOSes (meaning that the BIOS, NOT Linux, is broken) - which I would assume is what you mean when you say it worked better "with some kernel options".

"I also don't recall saying that you said (shesh!) it was my fault linux didn't work. Nice attempt at shifting the subject, though!"

You implied it when you said "you seem incapable of understanding this is not my fault" when you were talking about Linux not working.

pussyfooting around

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope Google isn't pussy footing around. Apple's Mac OSX (Darwin on top of what amounts to FreeBSD) is proof that a Windows killer can be created by a commercial entity other than Microsoft with open source software.

I think it is a mistake for Google to use anything GPL based, though. They should do what Apple did and use a BSD derivation, they tend to be lighter weight and it obviously has the potential to become something much more, as Mac OSX has proven. And, the BSD minimalism fits in with Google's image better than Linux which is rather feature bloated. I would suggest OpenBSD, since its rather secure and lightweight. Toss a Windows emulation layer (Wine) in, a customized BSD kernel and Google's own window manager/desktop environment and you have a product.

It's the presentation layer that needs to be impressive to pull people in. It needs to feel stable, useful, productive, pretty, and yet simple.

Games, music, browsing, downloading, development, movies, word processing, drawing and design, and various other tasks are things people are looking to do with a PC.

XMMS is a great alternative to WMP and WinAMP on unices, it *can* be stylish and plays lots of formats, even has visualizations. It's based on the original X11Amp which WinAMP was based on. Firefox is hands down the best browser in the market right now, and has been ported to every platform. Azureus is the best bittorrent client at the moment, and its Java so its platform independant. For other networks, there are similar appications for unix-based systems. GCC is a great, and so is Java, and Python which all exist on Linux/BSD, and Eclipse is a nice portable IDE that can work with many languages though it was made originally for Java, it's great to do C/C++ development with. And, KDeveloper is nice too, and there are others like Emacs and Rhide. As for movies I'm not sure because I haven't used linux/bsd in a long time but I'm sure there is something. Abiword and Openoffice can read Microsoft word formats, excel documents, etc. Gimp is almost as good as Adobe Photoshop, I guess, I've always preferred Photoshop though. There are also various CAD tools available, and Blender. However, nothing beats Maya, 3DSMax, Lightwave, Softimage XSI. Though, I think there are unix ports of some of these, cause unix boxes make good render farms.

Games is a rather big problem for unix systems right now, nothing can change that.

Re:The only way...

[michrech]

This is out of hand. You have changed what I said on several occasions to fit into your arguement so you can continue. I'm finished with you.

Re:tax software

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Keep in mind, however, that "demand" in this case means "people willing to cough up US$30+ per install, usable for only one year, and a hassle to use for more than one return."

Not "willing to download free, open-source knockoff".

I think the only way Linux folks will be seeing tax software any time soon is through their web browser; which probably counts as a win for Linux, anyway. Tax software folks probably prefer the web browser versions because it saves the cost of physical boxes and stock-keeping.

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

The "2 years ago" might explain it - a lot's changed since then. In fact, IIRC the Ubuntu project was still in its infancy then.

Media

[verloren]

Perhaps they're modding it to be a home media server in a box (with Google providing the box if you don't want to be bothered) that can also act as a standard desktop at the flick of a switch. That would tie in with Cringely's ideas for all the dark fiber they're buying up and their current moves into more traditional media, as well as past speculation about them buying into TiVo. Imagine a nice Google appliance in your living room that does everything that TiVo, bittorrent, {insert media craze here}, etc. promise but don't quite achieve, supported by the initial purchase price plus actually useful advertising. And if you don't want to buy the box, which isn't a revenue stream anyway, just slap LiveGoobuntu on your generic box.

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

I haven't changed what you said at all. But ok. . .

Fear

[flyinwhitey]

Google is doing this because they're smart, and they realize how dangerous it is to be competing with MS and relying on them simultaneously. They've learned the lesson that MS will do anything it can to crush competitors, so why take a chance that Vista will become incompatible with Google someday.

Distro Watch - Debian Centric

[xtronics]

Rather interesting that 4 of the top 10 are either Debian or Debian based -- The heart and soul of freedom software. Goobuntu will only futher this trend.

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.

Re:What don't you understand

[cortana]

keep it in a single directory (tree). Uninstall? Remove the tree.

Nobody knows what a tree is, nobody can manage directory structures, and why the hell should they have to? ... Or just copy OSX, and have everything in a .app file which can be dragged to the trash.

That's exactly what the person you were replying to said.

Re:The only way...

[Cro Magnon]

Yes, Ubuntu had just gotten out of beta IIRC. Admittedly, I haven't tried Linux for awhile, in part because Windows doesn't suck nearly as badly as it did in the Win9X days, and partly because of all the trouble I had in the beginning.

But the real test of a Google Linux isn't whether a slashdot geek can install it. The real test will be if Joe Sixpack can either install it, or easily get a pre-loaded box.

Re:virtualization? No, partition resizing

[ragoutoutou76]

Ubuntu installer can resize ntfs & fat32 partitions to make room for ubuntu... works pretty well.

LSB Desktop

[Burz]

ISVs generally don't like Linux.

Some of them went through a phase where they ported apps for Redhat 6.x - 7.x and declared their product as "Redhat Compatible". Ostensibly anyone shopping for 3rd-party software for Linux was supposed to look for "Redhat Compatible".

The problem was that Redhat broke binary compatability way too often, and this turned developers off to "Linux". Other distros also proved popular over time, and they had differing package formats and criteria that needed to be observed; targeting "linux" became increasingly difficult. So the corporate defacto-standard failed.

The LSB Desktop standard should be finalized later this year. If we start to see RPMs targeted at "LSB Desktop 1.0" then I would consider it a success.

Last Freedom

[kgutter]

Oh ! ok now even google want a piece of linux,you know why because , linux is becaming most popular desktop, daily i see ppl moving to linux , no matter what obstacle they face initially,in return what they get is freedom from viruses,adwares,malwares etc wares. If google keeps with the philosophy of linux , i do not mind , but if they try to dictate terms then they can go and fuck themselves. Google use to be a good search engine(site) , but now it only gives spam,but it is the only search engine(site or watever). So, wat will happen to other distros, will they loose out to google.

The answer is...

[MyOtherUIDis3digits]

Bundling. It will take a hardware company to take Linux to the mainstream. What percentage of Windows users could do an install of Windows, much less Linux? They use Windows because that is what came on their pc. Once the OS becomes all crufted up, as it will inevitably do, they go buy another computer.

IBM is doing great things in pushing Linux in the server market. Now we need a desktop equivalent to that. IMHO, Wal-Mart should try this again. I know it didn't go over well the first time, but I still see them along with a cheap hardware supplier as the best answer for pushing Linux into the mainstream.

Provide a cheap computer that gets you on the web, gets your email, lets you look at pictures and listen to music, play a few timekiller games, and you've made 90% on the home pc users happy. Linux is ready for the desktop, and once it's a easily available alternative (already on the new computer) it will begin a new era of personal computing for the masses.

Wow!

[ratboy666]

I don't complain that people don't use Linux. Why on Earth should I care? Windows makes me more money, anyway.

I am writing from the perspective of a developer.

Yes, the application installer will be a GUI for you. Have you ever seen a modern RPM installer?

As to my driver contention -- have you seen the nVidea and VmWare drivers? They "Just Work". My contention was that AT LEAST partial source is needed under Linux to achieve this end. My contention is that if you are unwilling to do this, go with Windows!

And, in future, don't ascribe bias to me.

Ratboy.

Re:Wow!

[skubeedooo]

I remember trying to get nvidea drivers working on fedora not so long ago (fedora 3?). It involved changing runlevels and recompiling the kernel. Oh, and I had to do this twice because for some reason it didn't work the first time - something to do with versions. I wouldn't really class that as "Just works". Now I wouldn't be surprised if i took a very suboptimal route to installing the drivers, but if it's not going to come packaged with the OS nor the hardware, there are always going to be a lot of people who get lost.

Re:Wow!

[Bandraginus]

But the VmWare drivers don't "Just Work". Everytime my Suse 9.3 desktop upgrades the kernel, VmWare breaks. So every month or so I have to do the re-compile jig, checking that I've used the non SMP kernel headers, etc, etc.

This is not user-friendly.

There's an opportunity for someone...

[Kazoo the Clown]

All you have to do is get a full-featured window manager and graphics/GUI API going using something really fast (which means something that DOESN'T use streams-hamstrung protocols like X11 does, such as DirectFB) to handle the graphics, and KDE and Gnome will start gathering the dust they so richly deserve.

If Google were to do this, the Linux desktop would most definately be in business.

Google to offer Spotlight?

[scarlac]

What can google do to Linux?

A lot. Really a lot. If I am to think what Google generally do to UI design and mix that up with Linux, you get an incredibly usable graphical Linux distribution (assumably with Gnome, since they focus on simplicity like Google).

What's Googles main product? Now think of what Apple did with Spotlight. I bet there are engineers that would _love_ to do some work on linux that enabled better search.
In my opinon, "Beagle" has a loong way to go. It's nice, but the GUI, as it is now, doesn't really speak in favor of productivity if you ask me - more like "look, cool technology preview". But then again - I've never seen Beagle actually work properly, even on distros that ship it per default.

But let's see. If Google does half the good in Linux they do in many of their other projects, linux users are in for a treat (me being one of them). In a way - I think of Apple being *nix + [Graphics-Guru-Google], so I'm excited, how 'bout y'all?

Re:The only way...

[NetRAVEN5000]

I think "Joe Sixpack" would be able to. It seems you've had a very different experience, but I've never had much trouble with Linux - and when I first gave Linux a shot I started out with Mandrake which is/was considered more for the "average" PC user (which is how I was back then - maybe a little more computer-literate than average, but I had no Linux knowledge whatsoever). Back then there were very few sites to go to for problems though, and even fewer people who knew anything about Linux. But Mandrake was easy enough to use that I really didn't need too much help.

So I'm sure now - 7 years later - we've got the stuff to make it easy enough for "Joe Sixpack". My guess is that Google will go for a LiveCD, and then have the option to do a hard-drive-based install.

...told ya...

[Pirulo]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127091&cid=106 31039 Comment on 10/26/05

Hang on

[LesPaul75]

The Google OS doesn't need to run Windows apps right away. They probably don't even want to go down that road at all... If people really want to run Windows apps on "Goobuntu," then let them install a Windows emulator. This is all just guesswork, but this OS is probably going to be targetted at people who just want to do stuff on the web, e-mail, blog, whatever. There's no need for Google to jump into direct competition on every level all at once. Start by appealing to the average (non-Slashdot) user... Give them something that plays solitaire, browses the web, checks e-mail, displays the family photo album, and plays MP3s. And remember that all of that can be done from a very thin client, which is probably what they're shooting for. As other posters have suggested, they could basically make this whole thing run from a CD, with all the apps on the web. Imagine having a PC with a single 120GB hard drive, and actually having 120GB available for your data. Yeah, it's not really a huge selling point, but it is definitely possible.

There IS no effective standard for Linux.

[Burz]

Look at the other replies to your post...

Not one of them seems to mention LSB or their upcoming introduction of the LSB Desktop standard.

Do not count on a corporate defacto standard either. Redhat played such a role for a couple of years and failed: Much of the initial participation from ISVs eventually evaporated.

Not being released

[everphilski]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175746&cid=146 09148

internal use only.

Drivers

[ChunderDownunder]

Well, for a stable driver API, NexentaOS is debian running on top of OpenSolaris instead of Linux.

Similar end user experience to ubuntu; different kernel.

As NexentaOS matures it might become the platform of choice for OpenOffice and Java. (Hint: all Sun products.)

CompareSoft

[Russ Nelson]

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.

CompareSoft

This week's Google rumor

[stinky wizzleteats]

Browsing through the posts on this topic, it appears to me that most seem to think this is for real.

Why?

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.

Google Deny Goobuntu distro plans

[NicksMyName]

According to this quick follow up from ArsTechnica Google have denied plans to distribute Ubuntu. According to the article a company spokeswoman said: "[w]e use Ubuntu internally but have no plans to distribute it outside of the company."
Next rumour please!

Winduubuntoo

[TheRon6]

This could possibly be the most disturbing image I've ever seen. Am I the only one who recognizes this symbol... the red, green, blue, and yellow squares all put together... it sort of looks like a stain glass WINDOW. So much for "Don't be evil." http://www.kernelnet.com/fotos/googleos1.jpg

interesting stats

[zogger]

thanks for the link! Neat to see all the older OSes and the commercial unixes. There's even some 95 holdouts! Too bad though, I don't see any Mac classic there.

But ya, back to the point, I think linux adoption has hit a very hard plateau now (hit it around two years ago really), there's just too much fragmentation, reinventing the wheel, etc for any large vendors (whole computers or various peripherals and the big gaming guys) to take it seriously for a mainstream desktop offering. If some company like google releases a polished distro, and makes noises like they are in it for the long haul, it would create a "standard" where no other "standard" exists now, despite all the attempts. Some company like Dell looks a linux and shrugs, they would have to support dozens badly or one sort of badly and still be taking a big risk and dropping cash for no apparent gain. On the other hand, if Google did it, that would be something they could count on for their support measures, and they would at least seriously consider it.

huge market

[dbcad7]

Your post modded funny, but one of the reasons Google (and others) have agreed to bend to demands of China is that it is a huge market. To have a cheaper (or free), but nice alternative OS would be very attractive to them, I would think. I know that there is already Red Flag Linux that is specificly targrting China, and I seem to recall that TurboLinux was also heading in that direction. China as a "consumer" country is growing at a very fast rate. The population of China is like 1.3 billion (that's a lot of potential customers)

Hey, it isn't that bad!

[deek]

Thought I'd throw my opinion on the points you raise, based on my observations ...

• 
  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
  

Actually, I've been quite pleased with the driver scene with Linux. The few drivers I need, that don't come bundled with the kernel, have been a breeze to install. Mind you, this comes with kernel 2.6, which seems to have the infrastructure to build drivers without kernel source. For example, I need to install drivers for my wireless LAN (madwifi drivers), wireless internet (iBurst), graphics driver (ATI), and BIOS system management (tp_smapi).

Sure, it isn't as convenient as windows, in that you still have to do a make, make install. But at the same time, it's worked very reliably. I can't tell you the number of headaches I've had trying to get some drivers working in Windows. That seems to be the story with Windows ... when it work, it works really nice, but when it doesn't work, it is hell on earth to figure out and fix. Linux seems to take the middle road ... making the easy things a little harder, but the hard things easier.

• 
  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.
  

Well, speaking as an end user, like I said above, I'm quite happy with the driver situation in Linux on my PC. Almost everything is catered for with the kernel, and the few external drivers I need, work flawlessly. Yes, I use Linux on my desktop, even at work. As a desktop, it works wonderfully for me. I can read my exchange email via Evolution, I can read and edit Word and Excel files with OpenOffice, I insert my USB mouse, keyboard, hard drive, and flash stick, and it's picked up on automatically, I can access windows shares, remotely mounted (although this took a little bit of work to set up, but now works automatically).

As far as binary drivers are concerned, I can't recall any developer that has sued a vendor because of their binary drivers. Can you list examples?

• 
  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.
  

I'm not a C++ programmer, but I have heard of the changing binary ABI under Linux, causing many headaches for older programs. So you've got a good point here. All I can say, is that hopefully the ABI has stabilised now with the latest gcc, and it should be compatible from now on. I don't know too much about this scene.

• 
  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?
  

Geez, what operating system comes with an uninstall?! That's the f

ask what Linux can do for Google

[daniel23]

If the parent is funny (as the mods decided to mod it when I wrote this) let me add another joke.
Though it's actually meant as a quite unfunny question.

From the grandparent down its all about "What can Google do to foster Linux on the desktop" and "What would GoogleOS(hypoth.) do to corporate adoption of Linux on the desktop" and the likes.

Lots of wishful thinking and some handsfull of salt to go with it. Fine.

But shouldn't the first question point to Google's interests? Like, erm, "Don't ask what Google can do for Linux, ask what Linux can do for Google". Sorry for that. But Google _is_ a huge entity and investigating their interests and potential benefits of introducing a GoogleOS distribution may help more to clarify the issue than argueing the topic from the other end.

Google Desktop Linux

[bobcote]

Will it be self-censoring for some of our favorite totalitarian regimes?

Re:The only way...

[MarkJenkins]

Rejoice, freedom is on the way.

Re:More like "-5 Hare Brained"

[ratboy666]

I contract for a living. Device drivers are one of the things that I do. And, believe it or not, each vendor does abstract. Even for Windows.

Also, the "line in the sand" issue. The original poster was talking about C++ library interdependencies. Two different versions of the same library, for instance, one used by the application, the other by something the application uses. Etc.

And where do you want to draw the line? The original poster was lamenting that a binary only C++ application that would work fine on one distribution may fail on another, or (almost randomly) fail if other software had been loaded. And sure, he is right. I just pointed out that the line IS the application to OS barrier, and to ensure that all application parts are correctly supplied, presuming that you want to distribute a binary only application.

And for Linux, the boundary between the OS and the application is the "syscall" interface. IT IS NOT GLIBC.

And the boundary between a driver and the OS -- Linux doesn't HAVE a DDI.

Now, I will make a suggestion. If you want a vendor that supplies C++, OS, libraries and drivers, *with* a DDI, go to Microsoft.

If you want the same with a Unix flair, able to execute "Linux Binaries", go to SUN and use Solaris 10.

Ratboy

Go away!

[Builder]

If you're going to come in here arguing with reason, logic and facts then you can just sod off! We like our arguments emotional, uninformed and blinkered by hatred thank you very much!

Nah, seriously - well said :)

I figured it to be a rumor but...

[16777216]

I asked a bunch of people who use MS Win "If Google made a GNU/Linux distro would you switch?"
Over half said yes I would say that even 75% said yes.
And Why?... "Because they would make it easier to understand and we trust them." was the general answer.

Re:Google linux maybe slashdot news? Huh....

[chawly]

And I want to welcome them oo2. Has anybody noticed that you can now buy a more than adequate PC for less money than Windows + Office ? I take that when you say "ooperating system overlords" you imply Linux plus Open-Office 2 (oo2)?

Re:More like "-5 Hare Brained"

[Burz]

The article is about Desktop Linux, specifically a Ubuntu derrivative, and doesn't concern the strict definition of Linux as a kernel.

There are two ubiquitous use-cases on desktop PCs: Install applications and Install drivers. Steps that include compiling and fretting over compiler versions don't match up with customer expectations for servicability, except where the PCs are used like thin-clients in an institutional setting.

How your message has anything to do with addressing the above concerns of desktop users is beyond me. Perhaps you are declaring a lack of interest in 'Linux' providing an alternative to the exceedingly dangerous Microsoft monopoly. Good for you; that's an interesting opinion you have (which, by the way, is no basis for telling people to 'go somewhere else').

If you want the same with a Unix flair, able to execute "Linux Binaries", go to SUN and use Solaris 10.

Would you even know what a Mac was if it landed in your lap? Was your suggestion offered in the spirit of being helpful? Or was this taken as an opportunity to look down your nose at a Desktop Linux advocate? The above quote makes me wonder.

My suggestion to you is to read up on LSB, LSB Desktop, Project UDI and OSDL's Project Portland so you at least have a clue when discussing the concept of an "operating system" in this context.

ajax gnoogle

[mattr]

I would not mind if Goooogle came out with an AJAX or even ActiveX (ouch that hurt) front end renderer for X so you could have a linux system on a Google partition and run everything nice and secure between there and wherever here is, on whatever size and shape device you are using at the moment. Then they should also buy into those e-ink guys too.

Re:The only way...

[dubbreak]

thanks for the link :D

Re:More like "-5 Hare Brained"

[ratboy666]

I am very aware of the issues. No, I do NOT like "UDI" (and I am very familiar with it, thanks).

Solaris has a well defined DDI, and ABI. It uses symbol versioning, and has very good binary application support.
It ALSO runs Intel x86 binaries.

Windows has a defined DDI, and a (arguably looser) defined ABI. It does not use symbol versioning, but relies on Microsoft (and beta) testing).

Linux has a well defined ABI, a reasonably defined GLIBC interface and loose C++ library interfaces. No DDI at all.

I will let you slot in OS X into this picture yourself (I am not a fan or supporter of Apple, for other reasons).

For desktop deployment of general applications, my own preference is (in order); Solaris, Windows, Linux.

For custom (low volume) applications: Linux, Solaris, Windows.

For server applications: Solaris, Linux, Windows (especially now that Solaris has dtrace and containers).

When I refer to "Linux" above, I am actually refering to a distribution. The distributions I recommend clients code to are Redhat Enterprise, and SUSE (server *or* desktop deployment). It is possible to deploy a "Linux Binary LSB compliant" application across a wider range of targets -- but you need to apply a lot of library isolation, and control.

Ratboy