Slashdot Mirror


GoogleOS Scenarios

ReadWriteWeb writes "Read/WriteWeb offers 3 scenarios for a GoogleOS and suggests it could be less than 6 months away. They say it may be a web based desktop (aka WebOS), a full featured Linux distribution, or a lightweight Linux distro and/or BIOS. They predict that once Microsoft's Vista rolls out, it will present a direct threat to Google's Web properties and so therefore Google will start a more punchy strategy — pushing Firefox and some form of Google OS in order to nullify Vista's potential impact."

4 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Google OS by MeNeXT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Linux/FreeBSD, Gnome/KDE, OOo, Firefox, Gaim, on Wii and PS3. At $50 a CD just the Wii with 4 million units to be released by the end of the year it would be a killing.

    They wouldn't need to develop it just negotiate with Ubuntu. It's easier to maintain than Windows.

    I've even sent Nintendo an email last year. To bad I don't have the finances to fund this.

    --
    DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
  2. My wishos by cucucu · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I wish Google (or someone) did the following OS:
    • My computer image is hosted somewhere, is always with up to date software, upgrades are tranparent
    • There are a lot of access tiers:
      • An ajax based command line for pro users.
      • Google spreadsheet and Google docs let you browse and edit the files in your desktop
      • Specialized software lets you login with remote desktop or X windows or whatever

    • I can run servers on my computer
    • If I don't the provider can park my image while I'm not logged in
    • They provide a database if I want to run a server

  3. The Thin Client by Slipgrid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the way that Google will go is to make thin client apps that will run on any old computer. They could use a simple file system to install on peoples old and insecure desktops to secure them, and have something to run Firefox or whatever client will access their products. And they will have all their other apps put together in a nice form or package. Whatever file system people install on their desktops will allow them to install third party software.

    Really it's a hard sale for most people. Do you want all your info, or say just all your email, documents, video, and whatever else (depending on what products they create) on Google servers. Does Google want to compete with M$ in this arena? Of course the Google OS would be free as in beer with labels. I'm not sure.

    I think the more likely scenario would be a Google OS for Servers. To be sure, they are using a custom file system, and they have that down pat. An end-user product is less likely. If it isn't perfect, they likely won't release it.

  4. Re:Indeed, given Google's horsepower by jomegat · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's what I think they're doing. It explains the data-center-in-a-shipping-container phenom. I also think that's why they're partnering with Sun - Sun will make the thin clients.

    They'll make them cheap enough (or subsidize them). It's a compelling set up. Consumer Joe buys a thin client for $100, plugs it into his broadband connection and connects to apps running on a terminal server in the shipping container nearest his home. For less than the price of Vista or a new PC, he satisfies all his computing needs. He never has to install any software. He never has to worry about viruses. The terminal server is maintained by professional sysadmins. The heavy lifting is done in the shipping container, so the thin client is relatively "future proof". All the client ever has to do is run an X server, and that requires a fairly fixed set of resources.

    The only thing I'd worry about is privacy. Maybe they'll let Joe use a thumb drive to store his data. Or maybe Joe doesn't care about his privacy. Google then has control of the desktop, so ads are not limited to the web browser. We'd better hope they stick to the "Do no evil" thing.

    --

    In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.