Slashdot Mirror
Google Announces Chrome OS, For Release Mid-2010
Zaiff Urgulbunger writes "After years of speculation, Google has announced Google Chrome OS, which should be available mid-2010. Initially targeting netbooks, its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security — which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas! The Chrome OS will run on both x86 and ARM architectures, uses a Linux kernel with a new windowing system. According to Google, 'For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform.' Google says that this new OS is separate from Android, as the latter was designed for mobile phones and set-top boxes, whereas Chrome OS is designed 'for people who spend most of their time on the web.'" The New York Times' coverage is worth reading, and there are stories popping up all over the web.
That's GNU/Chrome, thanks.
This is excellent news, because a commercial vendor with *lots* of clout will - finally! - push Linux to OEMs. Like Android, they really want to go after the OEM market with this one. Don't be fooled by the "it's mainly for web browsing" spin - You might not run AutoCAD or Photoshop yet (or ever) on it, but apps (especially HTML5 enabled apps) for home users will follow, targeting the XP/Vista Home Edition user types. And this would be sweet for corporate desktop deployments -- no virus hassles, little to update, most stuff stored on the server (assuming they get offline support sorted out well, of course).
Fingers crossed that Google's "Linux" will have more polish than what's there in distros so far. Microsoft "love our licensing or leave" and Linux distros "we're open source so live with the flaws" will then both be on notice.
Interestingly, Chrome OS is apparently a bare-bones Linux + a "new windowing system" + the Chrome browser.
I can't wait to see what the new windowing system is. I'd really like to see some innovation there, much like OSX created an amazing GUI layer on top what is essentially Mach/BSD. The challenge to Microsoft aside, this will be a wake-up call to Gnome/KDE. The good news is, because this ought to be open source, the OSS community can really get behind this and improve other products.
And oh, anyone else notice the irony that the Chrome _browser_ for Linux seems largely like an afterthought right now? Still, way to go, Google.
Go somewhere random
There is no mention of X anywhere, and hopefully there will be no X.
*fingers crossed*
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I wonder if they have Google Native Client in mind when they say they're going to re-engineer security from the ground up? Very cool technology.
Buying stocks in companies that make chairs.
Chrome OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security does not imply Windows cannot deliver in these areas. It's just an alternative operating system, and has yet to prove itself. The summary sound rather, well, dumb.
I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences, but suit for yourself. I'm sure there's a positive side of this story too, but I let that to another user.
Chrome is a nice operating system, but it could do with a decent web browser.
I mean, Google should maintain sanity within the Chrome OS ecosystem by making sure it does not fragment (read morph) into what we have in Linux land -- a deplorable situation.
This also puts more pressure on Google. They should now beef up their online application presence. To me, I find Google Docs still wanting compared to the competition.
The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application. I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end. Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff. (Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"All Web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite Web technologies," the company said.
Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".
Also, while it appears that many are finding the news of the new Google Chrome Linux OS a cause to celebrate, I would advise quiet optimism at best.
They are yet to release Chrome for anything other than Windows.
A complete Chrome OS may still be somewhere in the (rather) far future.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
This is an interesting move, though I'm not sure how much of an impact Google with have on the market except for stealing select geeks and hipsters who don't have enough money to buy Macs. There's a long way to go to unseat Microsoft. Google should be careful not to become everything everyone hated about Microsoft. They're a lot more "evil" than they claim to be, what with monopolized the world's information and knowledge.
Speak up, fella. I'd like to hear the other 99% of the software industry to hear that.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
"its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security"
Pick any two.
I wonder if Google will allow native development on Chrome OS? It should be easier to write for than Linux itself is. First off, they have their own windowing system, and that probably means they have done something with sound as well. I wonder if the windowing system is based on a drawing stack that is hardware accelerated? I wonder if you will be able to print?
I really hope they don't force you into writing in Java for it.
And I wonder if they will offer Chrome OS as a VM type of solution that you can buy for Windows?
This is my sig.
This is what Novell should have done 15 years ago.
It's funny that new things are "made by google", but for crap like the ffmpeg violation they had Daniel Berlin and some other person defend google in person. We'll just have to wait and see if this is just another Picasa, Google Aps, GWT, Android, etc.
Chrome browser isn't available for linux.
Chrome OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security does not imply Windows cannot deliver in these areas. It's just a still non existent operating system, and has yet to show anything other than a blog post about its future. The summary sound rather, well, dumb.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It's been obvious for ages that this is what they should be doing. I so hope Microsoft suffers badly because of this, and tries to reposition itself as a company which survives on the basis of how good .net development, sql server etc is, and not because they pretty much bludgeon hardware (and software) manufacturers into supporting their ridiculous string-and-sticky-tape operating systems.
I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences, but suit for yourself. I'm sure there's a positive side of this story too, but I let that to another user
But just imagine, that your operating system's event viewer will cheerfully announce that it identified great new places with that brunette oral porn you've seemingly been interested... just when the wife logs in!
This is my sig.
... Will it run Crysis?
Really, I'm looking for an alternative to Windows for PC gaming, and WINE doesn't cut it. Not by a long way.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
How is this going to be different from other Linux distros and associated GUI revamp projects that have sprung up promising "we're going to be better than Windows! Really!" over the years?
How do they plan to allow "web applications" to access the local filesystem in a standards-compliant fashion?
Sun had solved all these problems, but Microsoft embraced and extinguished it.
Computers need to get better. People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up. They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them.
They are trying to fill a niche of an OS that boots fast and is basically just a browser. This OS will have a desktop with some online favourites... and that might be just what you need on a NETbook..!
:-)
Gmail already looks like a standalone app on Windows with Google Chrome and Offline enabled, you get a nice icon on the desktop. And when you click it it loads in a second, instead of the several minutes my Outlook used to take to even be barely useable. The choice is clear, sluggish native apps are becoming obsolete, and lightweight online apps are becoming more and more reliable. And when you only use these kind of netapps, why bother installing a bloated OS. This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.
On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64.
Deep pockets versus deeper pockets. Google's market cap is $125b and Microsoft's is $200b. Not long ago, the gap was larger. Falling PC sales have taken a bite out of Microsoft's revenue. They recently had their first down quarter in their history.
Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though. In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b. Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.
See: MSFT and GOOG
.
Google is probably the only company in the world that can generate excitement about a new OS, and making an open platform will encourage software developers to write apps for it. Hasn't that been one of the big complaints, the lack of software for Linux?
Many have tried taking down Microsoft. All have failed. Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath. Perhaps not. Exciting times, these are.
So google is doing something different. Build an OS from scratch that does not assume huge available horsepower. This will be the future for the average consumer. I know that everyone will say that the corporate market wants MS, and the employees want a similar machine, but I have a lot of people buy their machine for their use, not to do work. And if the Apps are free, then MS lose their advantage through corporate licensing.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - isn't it ??
No matter how scary google's power is the main things are that:-
1) They are using Linux
2) They WILL make deals with computer manufacturers to get the OS preinstalled.
3) They will opensource the code
The only people who should fear this O.S is MS and existing Linux distros - although the competation and the opensourcing of the code will benifit the entire community.
I'm sure MS will still be the best at saying 'Have a nice day' and flipping CD's.
Do you really want an advertising agency to have complete access to your OS?
Microsoft would be better, IMHO.
OTOH, google is up front about their use of your personal data. They use it anyway they like for any purpose. good to know.
The problem, folks, isn't an OS. The problem, folks is
that the venture money whores can control whatever
market they want through their credit dominence.
They are our lords and masters in this sense (ugh).
Google is just as bought and paid for by the money-whores
as any other large corporation. This is just the money-whores
pretending like there is competition. Meanwhile they
can issue stock out of nothing and buy up companies
and put all of the software folks out on the street.
The problem, folks, isn't MS vers GOO, it is
that you can not work on projects and products
without going through the HR mafias.
Companies who make all their money from
Government contracts where they supply 'temp' help
have CEO's that make millions. This is all public
money, folks. Why aren't the people in
washington talking about this inequity?
Google, that was blessed by the large money
is just as anticompetitive as msuck.
It is a good day for all of those Chrome kernel hackers out there who have spent years examining, tinkering with and often cursing the name of the Chrome kernel. But it is OK, deep down they know that the Chrome kernel is one of the greatest of all human achievements. Its OK guys, feel free to take a day off and have a cold one, you deserved it. Yes, the Chrome kernel is something that we will tell our wide-eyed grandchildren about.
I think this is really good news for Linux but I'm going to hold off on breaking out the party hats and balloons for a little while. My main reservation is that it sounds like Google is changing a lot of the basic infrastructure. I'm sure they have studied all aspects of their proposed changes in detail but I'd like to see their reasoning as to why it needs to change. What we have at the moment is not perfect but it's understood and has been shown to work fairly well for many years.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen them team up with Ubuntu and produce a truly world class operating system there. Starting almost from scratch and developing a completely new windowing system seems like a very hard way to enter the market. I suppose though is you are going to re-develop a major portion of a Linux distribution the windowing system would be the place to do it. I've got nothing particularly against X but it feels clunky and stuck in the past.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Typically Google tends to announce out of the blue a completed new innovative service or product. Google Chrome for example was announced and released in a matter of 1-2 days. I suspect that because of MSFTs heavy investment and advertising of Bing, Google might feel the need to retaliate. They may have been planning a Google OS for a while - I personally have been expecting this move for years - but they may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum.
They are saying that it will be another year before being on Consumer goods. That is a long time. Hopefully, they make it available in a developer format before then (compilers, dev tools, etc). While it is targeting the net, they would be wise to have net apps developed before initial release.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1) Dump X11 and all its 1950s cruft. its just NOT APPROPRIATE
2) provide porting guidelines for people who wish to make/convert native applications for chrome OS, for those things one doesnt want to do on the web (DVD replay/ripping, video editing, photo editing, online backup clients, scanner/printer utilities
3) provide an app-store for the above in the android model (unregulated, accessed through a software client)
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software. No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem. You locked to google. Why would I want this? Technical Linux people aren't going to want it. Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system. And everyone, will want to be able to run the apps they want, not only google approved ones. All this pain just for browser? This seems to be built on the dream of a thin client that runs nothing but a browser and all software is web software. It's an old dream, the world only needs five real computers, etc etc. Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have. I want to run what I want, how I want thank you very much Mr mainframe. If I'm right about the web app stance, this is a stupid idea come up with by people who think they can see the future but aren't looking at the past. The best google could have done is done yet another standard Linux distro, with X in some form, so they can tap into the existing software ecosystem. They can quality control the software with a repository. That way they can take advantage of much of the existing Unix software. Then they can use their brand, and Linux speed, security, software base, etc etc, to make it big in the OS world.
...this means the OS will be forever in "beta"...
I'm sure this OS will have Chrome, and for offline use, Google Gears will be part of the OS.
Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11. Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux. This is my number one showstopper for linux. Google OS may be as slim as it wants to be, if the video drivers slows it down, no one will be happy.
Their only hope for mass adoption is in getting this onto a lot of new computers. Most people aren't going to install this on a system they already have up and running. Given the blanket licensing agreements Microsoft has with most of the big OEMs, this may be impossible. Their best bet is in the ARM camp.
Anyone else kinda wish they'd actually made an entirely new OS?
It wont go anywhere unless there is APPLICATION support...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license, that was used "by mistake" in the Chrome browser first?
-Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage?
-Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company, primarily living off collecting/categorizing data?
:)
If Google are running the OS, the chances of being able to stop adverts with an Adblock-plus-like extension are slim, and even running your own local proxy or editing the hosts file might be impossible!
This is what we need, some serious competition and a big brand behind Linux.
I can't wait to see this and would really like to develop for it.
Great stuff, and many congratulations to Google :)
-Will the Chrome OS licensed with the standard Google license, that was used "by mistake" in the Chrome browser first?
-Will the Chrome OS give me targeted ads on the desktop/taskbar/whatever based on my OS usage?
-Can one trust his/her computer and data to an OS/Web application system that was made by a company, primarily living off collecting/categorizing data?
:)
Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?
Speaking as a web developer, I think it sucks as a platform. HTML is not a very efficient way to generate output, supporting various DOM and Javascript implementations is a real pain and there are so many cases where a web application is not the best tool for the job.
That being said, I certainly do believe it's the best way to deliver information and applications to our customers, but most of our internal business processes and applications would be better to do without.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
If you can't understand why this matters then I think you can't be helped.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So does this mean that, to port OpenOffice, or half the FOSS apps in existence over, they will need to get rid of GTK and QT, and reimplement everything in AJAX? Holy crap, that's scary. I hope that it just marketing run amok, and that they will confirm compatibility with existing GUI applications.
.
But still, I wonder if this would promote better AJAX interoperability. I don't care who's to blame, I just want javascript that doesn't have to be developed twice; once on Firefox, and then "tweaked" to become functional on IE.
MS bought NCSA Mosaic? -- I don't think so! They bought Spyglass and renamed it IE after. Mozilla and Fire Fox are the direct descendants of Mosaic via Netscape.
Let's see now.
It's Linux! And you can only run the web browser on it! Because, you know, if all you want to do is surf the web, and the stuff you need to do all runs on the web, then it doesn't matter if it's Linux or Windows!
Oh, wait, you mean I can't do that? Oh, um, how do I get updates on this thing? Oh, um, that doesn't work quite the way I want it to.
Can I return this thing and get one that works like a normal computer I'm used to?
Why do you need pixel level access? Just ensure your scripts can deal with a large enough screen real stat and of you go.
As for filesystem, you are joking, right? Your data will not be in your local computer, or it will be synched by an application outside your browser.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... Google would not exist.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about SplashTop, Presto, and all the instant-on Linuxes that provide much more than just a browser in just 3 secs? And that's with a real web browser *with* extensions, and, well, whatever you want to install on it. http://tech.xlab.si/?p=717
That's what we need. A built in comfy chair working environment that just works.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
which kind of implies that the current No.1 OS doesn't deliver in these areas!
No, it does not. You are doing it.
The fact that you are right that it does not deliver in these areas (my p.o.v.) does not change that.
Learn your logic.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Will it support Internet Explorer? Seriously this could be a propaganda coup for Microsoft. The layman who does not understand open source or the fact that Microsoft would be free to produce a version for explorer for any open OS . I can imagine some M$ lawyer saying "why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you can't even run explorer in the Chrome OS".
Ah! How times change and how times remain all the same.
Microsoft has well known since the Netscape days that the Web could make the OS completely irrelevant.
Which is why they promptly moved to kill Netscape (please, save to yourselves the comments about how crappy Netscape Navigator was, the crapyness of that software was an important contributing factor to the demise of the company, but the smoking gun was to be found in the office of Bill Gates himself.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So, lemme get this straight. Every time WebKit, or an application that runs WebKit, gets exploited... there's a security hole in my OS?
Not to mention, this is supposed to be Chrome running on Linux? And Google doesn't even have a Linux release of Chrome?
I haven't used Chrome because of the aforementioned fact (if it isn't downloadable from Google's Chrome page it's not an official Google Chrome release) but if it's anything like Firefox I know what I can expect: random crashes, memory leaks, incompatible plug-ins, late security releases... Hmm. I wonder what other OS this sounds like?
Google is using open source for his interests, and against the community.
They are taking everything but does not return a proportionate contribution. Just note how they take the kernel, but avoid to contribute to the GUi arena. This will fragmentate even more the free software landscape, and Google it's the only one wining here.
Google is using open source to try to close the internet. The Linux kernel and basic related utilities should be set under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP!
What's in a sig?
Why?
Yeah, but only if they hired me to be the chief architect. ;-/
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
No mention of Power PC? What am I going to do with all my old Macs? 8-o
(And no mention of Coldfire, either. :-/)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Others may, but I wouldn't. Mac OS was bad enough on a Mac...no way in hell I'd want to experience it again on a PC (even if it was free).
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
Lots of comments here are (rightly) skeptical that individuals will download a new OS. But that's probably not Google's main intended audience. Running on PCs is a happy (if necessary) side effect of the Intel-dominant world. The most basic and original function of an OS is to mediate access to the hardware. Windows got where it is today by 'owning' the hardware ecosystem, from the original IBM PC through all the gazillion peripherals, Intel iterations etc etc. Then they cemented leadership by pushing the app suite (Office) that is the de-facto standard for business. If you want to challenge Windows you have to tackle the hardware problem. It's only recently that open-source has had the critical mass to address this. And it's in the past 12-24 months that new classes of hardware have begun to emerge to challenge the PC. So my guess is that Google sees the planets aligning, and are aiming NOT at displacing Windows on the classic PC platform, but creating a free and viable alternative for all the new classes of hardware they hope we'll be migrating to...netbooks, tablets, uber-phones, embedded, whatever. Disruption! Love it.
...when will it come out of Beta?
I for one am happy on one hand that GNU/Linux will be getting a little bit of mainstream exposure, but I think it is really dumb to do it like this, ie, making everything so damned proprietary. You always need the element of choice in Linux, that is one of its main draws, but on the other hand, a degree of standardization is absolutely necessary for widespread adoption. I think Google would do very well by adopting some of the standards already out there rather than confusing the field even more with a new window manager. Why not just use Gnome for the Window manager? If we are going to bring new users in, we need to have a degree of standardization.
Oh, and I would like to preemptively strike down the elitist "let the n00bs use Windows" arguments, I would like to make a case for why we would all benefit from a greater market share.
The first is obvious -- wider adoption means greater hardware and software support. I am forced to keep a Windows install on my desktop to run ProTools. It sucks. I would much rather run ProTools on a machine that can recognize more than 3 GB RAM, and that does not need an anti-virus program. If Linux had a 30% market share (or Hell, even 10%) Digi would be forced to create a Linux version of ProTools. The same with all of the hardware issues we all have, many more devs would be forced to create dedicated Linux drivers. The only objection I can see from this are those who hold stock in Tylenol.
Another thing that needs to be considered is that n00bs are GREAT at crashing systems and finding bugs. Anyone who doesn't know this clearly has never worked in IT before. If we adopted a (opt-in, of course -- we don't want ) error reporting system to automatically upload log files from crashes, the community would be able to ferret out all sorts of issues. This is not even to mention the "n00bs" who will go on to become Linux gurus, many of whom probably never realized that they were as interested in computers. I know that before I converted to Linux, my computer was simply another tool. If it weren't for the extremely user-friendly nature of Ubuntu, I would have never gotten into it. I am certainly not a guru yet, but I am doing everything I can to absorb as much information as I can and do everything I am capable of to help the community.
Finally, simply getting the idea into the heads of the masses that open-source works would be a monstrously good thing. It would create pressure on all aspects of the tech world (and beyond), to adopt open policies. Devs would be pressured to create open source drivers (I'm looking at you ATI and NVidia), and even paid software would become increasingly open source as customers began demanding it.
Sorry for the long rambling post, but the main point here is that I think Google is frakking up big time in some of the specifics of their implementation here, but I really like that they are getting GNU/Linux and OSS out into the mainstream. Only good things can come of that.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Um. No. Why would I?
My exposure to ipod and itunes taught me to avoid apple in the future, can't see what the fuss is about - mediocre UI (not terrible; just mediocre) and automatic behaviors that I hate but can't turn off (whenever I plugged in my ipod to recharge, on-the-go playlist got reset if itunes was present, for example). That was the old ipod to be sure (gen 5 I think), but rather than buying the touch I'll wait for the competition to deliver a comparable device that obeys _me_ (give Android another half a year or so).
Writing this from Ubuntu - set this laptop (Samsung Q35) up as a dual-boot with XP Pro, but still haven't faced up to the hassle of making all the hardware work on Windows (bloody drivers, won't even recognize ethernet), while Ubuntu just works. Who wants OSX?
Sometimes he feels the need to reminisce about old days.
2010 is finally the year of the linux desktop ?
Actually, I would.
I've got one of these latest and greatest machines (water cooled Core i7 and EVGA Classified) but:
1) Linux doesn't run any apps I want, like games. If my priorities were different I might use it instead, but odds are I wouldn't have a high end machine unless I was doing calculations. FWIW I run Fedora on my netbook.
2) Initial investment into the OS X hardware is too great to just "try" the OS. However, I would drop $150 or whatever the cost of a license is these days to get more familiar with it. I'm an IT guy, and a few of my users have Macs. I don't know how to get much done since I haven't used Mac OS since 1998 or so. Everything semi-complex I do requires me to use Google. Hell I had to google search how to boot from a CD since it's not like other Intel PCs. There was no "Press (ESC/F10/F8/F12/DEL/Vendor's Obscure Choice) for Boot Menu"
Yes, I could go the hackintosh route, which I might come Snow Leopard. I would prefer to be legal on my software usage though.
I think this new OS will face the same hurdles that prevent me from running linux: No Itunes, no espn360 and no streaming from Netflix.
I would dump windows in a heartbeat if I could just get those running seemlessly on Linux. And by seemlessly, I mean not having to run wine and jump through a bunch of hoops to get version X of this or that to run...
Right now only Apple and Microsoft get you these things.
Well my hope is that any PC or Netbook OEM who supports ChromeOS will have to write kernel drivers for all their own hardware and only buy from suppliers who aslo support linux. I hope this will also provide impetus for third party devices like printers, cameras, etc, etc to provide OEM supported linux kernel drivers. While I am imagining utopia, instead of binary blobs, maybe they will even be willing to give out specficiations so other people like BSD can make drivers too.
I hereby name it Chromix. /.
You heard it here first - on
Can't wait to download it and take it for a spin.
I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
aaaa aa aaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa
aaaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa aa aaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa
aaaaa aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa
aaaaa aaaaaa aaaa aaaaa aaaaaa
aaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa
GOOGLE, I KNOW YOU READ THIS.
AT LUNCH YOUR SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PLAY
EVERY SINGLE PC GAME OUT THERE!
OR YOU FAIL!
Thank you.
aaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aa
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
"I for one am happy on one hand that GNU/Linux will be getting a little bit of mainstream exposure, but I think it is really dumb to do it like this, ie, making everything so damned proprietary
'Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code'
The function of a web "OS" (including WM, kernel, system processes) for a browser-centric appliance are as follows:
Network connectivity and configuration (plus rendezvous support?)
CUPS support?
Window management
2d/3d hardware acceleration (don't forget Google's http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/)
Filesystem, sound, video codec support
User device support:
- HIDs (multitouch?)
- printers?
- webcams?
- cameras?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
I don't mind the UI thing. I guess this is a movement to ease the implementation of web applications in the Google sense, I mean, Google Apps.
This could yield a new "write()" function with an URL instead a FileID and something like that. Bye bye XX century, hello (XXI century) world
If so, those are really good news.
pardon?
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
For years, we have been hearing about how you don't even need an OS any longer, and how a browser is enough. There is a queue of usual objections to this idea:
Well, for the first time, I believe that an internet-only OS is now possible. Most of these objections are dwindling. Peopel backup their files online anyway, so the fear of having someone else in control is going away. How many people have all their bills, passwords, etc. stored on a gmail server somewhere? 3G has made internet access almost ubiquitous, and web apps are getting a lot more sophisticated - enough that webmail is powerful enough for almost the most hard-core email users.
This may actually work now, whereas, even 2 years ago this would have seemed absurd.
Whilst I'm a bit surprised they won't be using X (effectively eliminating any chance of running local existing X applications that won't have a good Web equivalent for a long time), one thing that might be quite nice is if the OS did all its system administration (and user configuration) via a Web interface. This would mean shipping a Web server (possibly with an embedded scripting language - python, PHP, whatever) - though that could be fired up on demand I guess - and has the added benefit that remote admin becomes a doddle too.
Personally, I think Google have to push this to OEMs to bundle with netbooks - Linux has never had a "fully blown" OEM push (Dell and HP horribly hide their Linux offerings) before and pre-installation is the only way Windows users will ever migrate to another OS, since 95% of Windows users have never installed an OS before.
Google's brand awareness is massive and if the OS is slick enough for Joe Public and bundled virtually for free with netbooks from big OEMs, then this might just take off. The inability to run any local pre-existing graphical apps (Windows, Linux or Mac) might be a bit of downer though.
"Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?"
No.
>> OS X is as much Unix as AIX, Irix, or Solaris is
/.
Except that it makes you think your dick is growing bigger and bigger since you started using OS X.
At least, that's what I think happens reading all the fanbois on
Crap Now their going to say that Mikeysoft will create the Explorer OS, where the browser is the OS.....Oh wait nevr mind
"Typically Google .. may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum"
.. somewhat similar in functionality to Google, except 'more' is spelt an uppercase 'M'. 'Google announced their very own browser project called Google Chrome' Sep 2008
A search engine
Google: Web, Images, Video, Maps, News, Shopping, Mail, more
Bing: Web, Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps, More
All Your Base Are Belong To Us
Math
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.
Really? So who is going to stop me from running all those applications that are already available out there (and open source) on my own machine? I will not adopt a web app unless it has advantages large enough to balance out the fact that it needs internet connectivity to work AND that any information I put in it is irrevocably out of my control.
An important feature, y'know.
If it's open source and has a unified API, you're overlooking the fact that this is now real competition to Windows. Brand name? Check. R&D budget? Check. Third party support? Check. Linux kernel? Check. Imagine Canonical with billions of dollars.
Hell, if it's actually a brand new WM this will probably take the top distro spot the day after release. Just providing developers with a consistent platform that requires the investment of one working computer and an internet connection is pretty appealing. Even if it sucks for Linux diehards, the competition will change the landscape for Microsoft and perhaps even Apple.
Imagine an advertising campaign: "Is your computer broken? Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS. After making room on your hard drive, it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet, play Solitaire, and write letters with it's included office suite. Once it's loaded, you'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you'll never have to worry about data loss again."
Yeah. Some eyebrows were just raised in Redmond and Cupertino.
My exposure to ipod and itunes taught me to avoid apple in the future
Actually iTunes makes a *little bit* more sense on OSX.
But I'm with you - I don't know why the Apple crowd think everyone automatically agrees it's the bee's knees.
I know a few people who've installed OSX on Dell laptops, incidentally.
Sorry, but Google have lost their CompSci mind on this one, most likely to placate MBAs who have taken the place over.
I specifically have issues with the following statement from the Google OS Blog:
"However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web."
Yeah. And most OS's in use today were also designed when there were not graphics cards as well. The exception to this is Microsoft, who tightly coupled the OS to a GUI.
Now any decent CompSci grad knows tight coupling is an extremely bad thing, so the decision to pursue an OS tightly coupled to the web (which we all know means Google's version of the web), will be a disaster.
My hope is that by Google using it's muscle to kicking the Nettop manufactures to allow Linux to reach down deep for device initialization then boot and/or resume times will improve in a way that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coreboot (was LinuxBIOS) have been unable to do: mostly due to manufactures non-cooperation.
And if these patches are GPLed they can either go into the main Linux kernel, or be patched into any other distro for that device.
I think the big minus will be *if* it is relatively "locked" into cloud services and leaves local applications out of the picture. The big plus is that many drivers for Linux laptops could potentially be developed. I wrote more extensively about this in my blog: http://freeplannet.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-as-in-operating-systems-chapter.html
I feel like a retard making a post like this, but mod the parent up.
My Sig: SEGV
I don't recall any mention of the GNU userland. Just the Linux kernel. In fact, it looks like Google is trying to trim it down as much as possible, which probably doesn't involve GNU at all -- just Linux, Google's new "windowing system" (even if they mean to extend X, X is not part of GNU), and Chrome. Don't indiscriminately apply meaningful labels.
I'm sorry if I can't get too excited about what is essentially vaporware at the moment.
Wake me up when they actually ship some code or product, in the meantime it's just some sort of marketing drivel probably designed to take the wind out of Windows 7 or Cloud OS's sails.
But until I see an actual product, I'm not going to get overly excited.
From the announcement it sounds like Google's plan is go to with sealed hardware, starting with netbooks and moving up to laptops/desktops, as written in the announcement, "Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware...". For this happen, either the new Google OS will have to have the same base of drivers that Microsoft does (which is far greater than most Linux distros), or it will use locked down systems that require Google branded hardware. The latter seems more likely. Since Apple has a similar model and mantra ("it just works"), I believe the Apple will be harmed the most by Google's entry into the OS market. I don't think Apple will lose marketshare, but Google's entry will guarantee that Apple will become a niche product.
"The web" is basically an application framework. You write applications in JavaScript, with HTML and CSS as a display layer. Web applications currently can't do some things "native" apps can (let's see, simple access to the HD, hardware acceleration and similar things), but they're catching up fast.
Complaining about web apps is like complaining about .Net/Mono apps or Java apps. It doesn't really matter how the apps you use are written, as long as they do what you want them to do, and do it well. As the "web framework" becomes more advanced, the difference between web apps and native apps will become smaller and smaller until it will eventually go away entirely.
Complaining about an application's underlying framework is kind of stupid (like all the Mac people whining about how they don't want to use Carbon apps).
This sounds like a perfect fit for the Crunchpad
Already been done:
http://www.thinkgos.com/
http://toastytech.com/guis/gos.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS_(operating_system)
Canvas. Gears. Next question?
Yet another Linux Distro! Just what we've all been waiting for!!
For the same thing that gets MS in trouble with the bundling of the browser in with the OS and by extension trying to get around it by the browser essentially being the OS?It sounds to me they want to dominate the netbook arena with their product and in the end it will only run the applications that they "approve" sounds suspiciously like what people rail against MS for constantly these days.But then I suppose antitrust lawsuits and the monopoly word is only thrown around when its a "bad" company.
a vector scene-graph API so that I can store the entire sequence of drawing commands in things like OpenGL vertex arrays in the GPU's memory
I'll translate it for you.
its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security
Oh... I'm sure if you push the envelope and try to do all the things you can on your Windows box, you can negate all these advantages. Users are much more resourceful than we imagine.
Ask me about my sig!
I would like to use Gmail just like I'm using any dekstop application. The favicon is already available, and the HTML title-tag says at least something about the title of the application. However, the favicon is often too small to appear in an application launcher that renders the icons around 48x48 pixels size.
One solution is to make a database of web applications containing the address, the title "Gmail" and also a high quality icon. This is how an user would make an application available:
* Right click a 3x3-icon app launcher, it flips around, and the rest of the screen dims down
* Available applications are displayed on the sides of the screen and can be dragged onto the launcher--who needs the app store?
I have two conserns for web applications at this point; privacy and low-latency access to the hardware for professional audio and video editing. While I'd love to use a web app to do something creative, I'd love it even more if I had complete control of my data. An encrypted cloud could solve this-or-it could be made possible to save the data locally.
Recording audio requires direct access to the hardware, and that can't be done with your typical JavaScript, HTML and Ajax programming at this time. Maybe with Silverlight, but that's out of the question for obvious reasons. We will hopefully get to that day where will be possible, and I think streaming, caching and even distributing applications by using BitTorrent might eliminate the need for software upgrades.
I see no reasons to separate how web applications of today and desktop applications are presented on the screen. Instead of living inside a tab in the browser, web applications should be treated like native desktop applications.
(I am curious. I do not mean to challenge your statement. I have used neither Vista nor Windows 7.)
I've been in so many flamewars that it wouldn't matter to me if you were... :-) One of the good things about getting older is learning to take online stuff less personally. When I get to the point that I can read anything without getting ticked off or angered by it, I feel I will have accomplished something in life.
Ok, as to why I like Win7 better than XP. These are not in any order...
1) I've never actually been a great XP fan. XP was always a bit too cute for me. So, for me, a Windows that looks more professional and not so cute, but still feature rich, is nice to see.
2) Improvements in common dialogs are huge. I'm a developer. I work with files a lot. Having a good common set of file dialogs in all applications is a really nice touch. I think Vista's dialogs were better than XP because the search was nice and the left hand side of "important" stuff was welcome. For Windows 7, the addition of the library feature, basically, allowing you to put your own sets of folders onto the common file dialog is an absolute godsend. It allows me to organize files by work activity, so, I can have whatever paint program, development software, ftp software, whatever, all have a common entry on the file dialog for my website, for example. I love it so much that I dread even using XP or Linux for not having this feature.
3) The explorer.exe doesn't lock up as much in Vista or Win7 as it did in XP. Like, when the PC wakes up, or gets busy, Explorer.exe on my machine can go out to lunch. I've not noticed this as much as in Win7.
4) I love the inclusion of the Office 2007 Ribbon Bars into the Windows 7 distribution. I'm reading a lot about how it works in the SDK and I'm excited about using it in an application that I'm working on.
5) Native 64 bit Windows in the mainstream. Yeah, I know there was a 64 bit Windows XP out there. I had it. But it was so rare that you really couldn't write for it. Since most vendors are now defaulting to 64 bit Vistas and will probably default to 64 bit Win7, I think we will thankfully be able to write for 64 bit native mode and that to me is a wonderful thing. I know high level languages are in vogue but for a tinkering thing, to me, I like getting in there and doing a bit of assembly language stuff.
6) Reading ISOs out of the box. Linux has had this feature now for, geez, it seems like a decade, but Windows never put it together. Now Win7 has. It's just nice to be able to do it without digging around for some cheesy utility.
7) The Windows 7 taskbar. I like the way window are stacked up. I like the inclusion of Gnome style rearranging of icons. I like the way they have pushed off all the dozens of icon notifications into the shell tray onto their own little land. I like the OS/2-esque Workplace shell ability to make your own folders off of the task bar.
8) Native API enhancements. There's Direct2D, DirectWrite, DirectX stuff. There's stuff in there for user space threads that I was used to making fun of Linux for back in the day but suddenly it appears the Linux people had a point. There's NUMA awareness in threading. Some of this stuff has dribbled out but having it all in one Windows distribution makes me more confident that I can use that feature.
That's what I can think of, off the top of my head.
This is my sig.
I disagree with you over the need to rewrite X11. I think it needs to be replaced altogether. Looking at OS X it is clear that their replacement for X11 has really been a strong factor for their growth. Plus, replacing X11 will do away with the "is it kde or gnome?" bit and let developers develop for a single unified platform rather than bicker about standards and features.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/X_Window_System ready up and RUP
Wouldn't "Goonix" be a better name?
I can't fathom why apple chose to create another windowing system rather than use X. I can't fathom why Chrome OS would not use X. X is frikken awesome. Nothing else does what it does and it does everything others do. And it's free. Why the hell not use it? Just to be less featureful?
...
Seriously, when are people going to realize that Google stopped not being evil quite a long time ago.
If Chrome simply ends up another polished Linux distro (albeit backed by a mammoth company), will we really be any better off than today. Why is this OS discussion always reach the lowest common denominator of Windows vs. Linux (I'm lumping OS X in here too)? Why can't some innovative startup out there put forth a viable 3rd alternative that truly turns the computing world upside down? People are disenchanted with M$, intimidated by Linux and don't want the proprietary platform of OS X.
The market is ripe for something truly fresh. It does not sound like Chrome is the answer. I don't care of it is open source or not. I want it to be cheap, fast, easy to use, and stable. My guess is that anyone coming up with something like this would end up in court with M$ at some point over some sort of M$ application support built into the OS for cross-platform compatibility. The whole OS world just really seems stale.
"You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
I haven't seen any mention of Windows application compatibility. This OS is going to need that if Google really intends for it to compete with Windows, otherwise it's going to be just another Linux distribution (Ubuntu on steroids with a big company behind it) or a niche Netbook/cheap laptop OS that can just check email and surf the web (ummm....Android on steroids?). To do the level of Windows application compatibility and integration they'll need to compete, I think they'll need to fork Wine and make development move faster than it has over the years and integrate it tightly to the OS.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
I'm hoping that a linux distro (which is what this basically is) with google behind it will encourage hardware manufacturers to support it, rather than requiring all sorts of hellish tricks to get my bloody headphone socket working! Especially if mainstream sales points start selling PCs with the Google Chrome OS.
A project like Compiz Fusion might perhaps get bought up by Google if they like any of the technology.
The problem with 3D desktops is that a lot of the code is in Python and optimized for ease of development rather than for speed.
3D desktops are just a few polygons and textures. Your modern mobile phone could, in theory, do it without breaking a sweat. But the back end of things probably needs to be rewritten and optimized a lot.
So is uninterrupted power supply.
Yet, they come with BOTH batteries AND that electricity trans-mutie-fying-thingie-cable-box you plug into the power socket.
What are they afraid off? Why don't they just make those things to run on solar power or something. Sun is always on, right?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Have you forgotten about how msft apps love to "phone home?"
When it comes to privacy, and security, it is hard for me to believe that any company could possibly do any worse than msft.
A 21st century dumb terminal! Now if you'll excuse me I have to go. I'm expecting a call from 1975...
How to monetize Google Chrome OS:
- short Microsoft stock
- long Google
- write a book on Chrome OS
- add "10 years of Chrome OS experience" to your resume
- offer PowerPC and other processors support
- register lots of Chrome OS-related URLs
OutputLogic
The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application.
So stop whining, and don't use it.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Hooray for MS will die in a fire! I think this is the most awesome news ever. Google + Linux + Anti-Microsoft? I think the only thing that could improve this news is a further announcement that the default wallpaper for the new OS will include a kitty.
Will they force the OS to un-integrate the browser from the OS, or ship with an (E) edition without a browser or give a popup that allows alternative browsers to install? I sure hope so to make things fair all around.
When they say "new windowing system" it sounds suspiciously like "this aint X buddy". Which means alot of linux software (for the desktop) wouldn't run on it anyways.
on the plus side, it probably means that google will push hardware makers down in to the "create some kernel modules" route (even if its a route similar to the one nvidia have adopted).
Interestingly, i blogged about an OS I thought would be perfect for google (also linux based) http://pjrlost.blogspot.com/2009/07/desktop-os-that-google-could-do.html that was more along the lines of "consistent user experience" and a fully fledged OS.
The other thing that worries me is that google say things like "... need open source community ..." and then bring us something like wave - "... need open source community help ..." and i have yet to meet someone who is a FOSS dev who has access to the sandbox. So far its only been people at google or people sleeping with people at google. That was such a huge disappointment for someone who's a keen dev and was really impressed with a video... reminds me of the lovely vapourware concepts of not-so-long-ago
Chrome OS will be released this year, according to Google's announcement. It just won't come stock on any netbooks until mid 2010.
or else!
This is just another thing for google to rub it's own queries.
I can't wait for facebook to release their own OS next, based on dreamcast
No actually this is cool, this is just what everyone has been expecting and hoped for.
Will chrome be the default browser? Will it be installed on the OS by default.
Do technology issues recur every 20 years?
Cell Phone OS's = 80's desktops
Google OS = Microsoft in the 90's
EOL
Looking forward to what it is going to be. But it seems like from what I read in ComputerWrold, ArsTechnica, and OSNews it seems like it will be online all the time, what if I am traveling and I am on the plane or in the middle of nowhere, then what? Am I going to be able to work as if there isn't a problem and then I can sync up when I do connect up to wifi? Those are some questions I have but I am more than sure it will be answered before it comes out.
When I put on my tinfoil hat and look at this, I have to applaud Google â" this has been planned for ages â" four years minimum. The long view that this would have required is masterful.
1) gOS - Started in the beginning of 2007, it is a Linux distro which uses Enlightenment as its window manager and a host of Google Apps right on the desktop. It currently sits #21 on Distrowatchâ(TM)s top 100.
2) Mozilla - Google is responsible for 90% of their funding. Firefox (and to a lesser extent) Thunderbird have been eating IE & Outlook's lunch for quite some now.
3) Chrome - Released about a year ago, has tweaked the performance non-stop, and has done a lot of minimalist approaches.
Personally, I think Chrome OS will be gOS 4. It will feature a heavily tweaked E20 (You read that right - I donâ(TM)t think Enlightenmentâ(TM)s sudden release schedule is a co-incidence) which will use the current chrome palette, tabs for desktops and google widgets. Firefox & Thunderbird will be HEAVILY integrated/rebranded with the google online apps and will sync all the time for your calender, news & mail. The Gooffice suite will probably utilize a minimal browser window with the apps on the hard drive but will feature the same sync features that the rest of the apps have.
Is it crazy? Yeah, no doubt about it, but if this was really planned that way, I think Microsoft is in trouble.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
I bought a "thin client" Linux widget in late 90's for my parents. They liked it because they could just get on the web which was all Mom really needed. With a dialup modem built-in but it was good enough at th time, I recall it was a black box that booted from CD-ROM can't even recall the name now. So there is nothing new here. What was one recent iteration of this old idea of a fancy dumb terminal I think it was Zonbu? And in the many years that I've been hearing some new & improved thin-client web device was going to eat everyone's lunch and wow the world it still hasn't happened. I sincerely doubt that the GoogleBox will succeed any more deeply than the Audrey or any preceding attempt.
...now it would not surprise me if this 'new windowing system' turns out to be not much more than the skia graphics library with mostly Chromium on top. Google makes a big deal about running their browser-based apps off-line, they create a browser which has javascript execution speed as one of its main selling points, they integrate their gears 'framework' in their browser... There are many examples of browser-based interfaces out there on the web, go and look for them to get an idea of what is possible. Writing a 'window manager' using HTML/CSS/Javascript is dead simple...
And of course it all makes sense. They plan to target two processor architectures, x86 and ARM. That would mean all apps for this OS need to be compiled for those two architectures, unless... the apps are written in some higher-level language... like javascript... using gears...
--frank[at]unternet.org
Back when telephones were new, no-one quite knew what they were for. One company came up with a music service. This was before radio, so the idea of piping music to your home was radical. This may seem absurd to us now, but it isn't: radio went the other way. It is entirely possible that we could have built a world where we listened to high-fidelity music by phone, and spoke to our friends by radio. Even in the early 20th century the phone companies didn't get it: they ran campaigns trying dissuade housewives from chatting over the phone, believing that the technology was for Important business use (a few brief, high-cost calls instead of lots of cheap long ones).
I remember when people though computers were giant calculators. Then the computer became personal: it could do your books, teach the kids arithmetic, and keep track of your recipes. (Though why anyone you would want to keep their recipes in a computer was never clear). The hardware companies tried to sell to everyone, but they weren't quite sure how to do it: the truth is, most people had no real need for a computer.
Computer technology isn't personal anymore. It's social. The PC is a phone, not a calculator. That's why everyone needs one. That's what driving development of the technology. Ours is not the only possible path: computers could have remained high-cost devices for use by individuals to produce things or do business. But that was the path not taken. This changes what computers are.
To you, desktop applications may seem superior on the basis of their technical merits. Fair enough. Hollywood seems to see computers and the net as a new broadcast medium, like television, for which the current infrastructure has significant technical failings (privacy, QoS). In their case I hope their vision is never realized. But for many people, these visions are irrelevant. No matter the quality or polish of the applications, no matter the convenience of video-on-demand, for them the technology is technically inferior if it does not fully support communication and social activity. For them - and for me - the cobbled together infrastructure of the Web is far superior - technically superior - because for us it is above all a medium for communication.
Let me welcome Google on behalf of the millions waiting for this from quite a long time.
All things have a sequel this sounds like javastation 2.0.
Will the Chrome OS have drivers for all current hardware perihperals? Like my 6 yr old HP AIO? Or my Mogo BT mouse? Will normal users need to "compile" drivers (shudder)? Will the OS even have a compiler?
Talking about a WEB OS is all great - as long as you can control ALL the hardware. If the Google OS tells me that 1) it can only install on certain Netbook models and 2) it will work only with certain peripheral hardware, it's already a failure in my book.
.... it just needs to do the things a browser needs which means: fonts and the [input] tag.
That's it!
Can't Google come up with a better that differentiate their products, like "Cyborg OS" or "Goobuntu"? Because now, whenever a conversation involving Chrome comes up, we would have to ask "the OS, the browser, or Element 24?"
Really. Take a look at it.
GWT DatePicker
See the example and the code.
No HTML or Javascript whatsoever. Only CSS needed for styling.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
I can swear I hear chairs being thrown around. Sounds like it's coming from the NW US.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
I'm hoping Google Chrome OS solves my biggest annoyance with my linux netbook(an EEE PC with ubuntu netbook remix): network startup time. It's great that my machine can wake in 15 seconds, but that does me no good if it can't get an IP address from my wireless network for about 2 minutes. In this respect, windows was much better, it took about 30-40 seconds to wake and get an IP address. It's also possible that Canonical will solve the problem for me, but I consider it unusable right now.
Google Chrome OS, dazzle me: I want to see it written entirely in JavaScript.
OutputLogic
They promise to only inspect every other packet.
So this sounds great and at first I was like "yay on my laptop" but then I was thinking:
1) Can i install my windows apps? There are plenty of apps Google can't/won't simulate. Let's see - my dive watch has proprietary software. World of Warcraft (due to size not even feasible) and other games. Sure they can do an office suite, financial suite, and other utilities but there is so much more.
2) What happens if your net connection goes down? Does that mean your computer becomes a pretty expensive paperweight?
These things are concerns. If Google can acknowledge both items (e.g. yes we can install our latest and greatest computer games and if the net goes down we can still use non-net programs) then it would be worth it for me to switch. Otherwise i will be using windows and mac people will use OS-x
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
It's funny, but the New Google, with its penchant for Being Evil(tm) with regards to collecting consumer data in every nook and cranny of your online life, Embracing and Extending in browsers, and now OSes starts to look a lot like Imperial Redmond during the days its legions strong-armed PC manufacturers the world over and crushed competitors like eggs, usually by buying them.
Any single entity with this much market power is bad. That power will be abused for profit, it's how the world works. So I, for one, do not welcome our new Google overlords.
You can write a program that runs in a web browser but does not store its data in the cloud. Use HTML + JavaScript + Google Gears (or HTML5 offline storage), and you essentially have a Desktop app.
Yes, JavaScript is slower, because it is interpreted, not compiled. But the race among web browsers for faster JavaScript has closed the gap. Witness, Chrome Expriments for some fun demos of the surprising things a browser can do.
Yes, JavaScript has been known to be hard to deal with. But that is almost completely because of different implementations by different browsers. Actually, the fault is almost entirely Internet Explorer. The difference between writing JavaScript for Chrome and Safari and Firefox is tiny compared to the difference between them and Internet Explorer. Even IE 7 and 8 continue to botch things that others have down.
But the jQuery library (and others) have smoothed a lot of those inconsistencies and given JavaScript programmers a more uniform API (thank you, those who have worked on these!).
JavaScript as a programming language is actually quite nice and elegant --- the way you write objects and arrays and the dot notation for calling methods and how everything is an object --- it looks a lot like Python.
Maybe I'm being div, but won't this imply that the machine should be online 100% of the time? What if I'm in the middle of nowere, can't I play a quick game of gnu-mines or something? :)
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
...continue to welcome my soveriegn overlords... Google.
They have pwned my soul for the past 6 years!!!
Calling any runtime an "operating system", whether it actually implements and exposes a full menu of OS APIs and subsystems, is worse than an error, it's a sin.
I blame Microsoft. If the DOS-based Windows could be called an OS, anything could.
Why would google want to fragment and damage Linux?
..
They built their business using Linux and today Linux powers most of their infrastructure
Fragmenting Linux/FOSS would in turn damage them also.
Both Chrome and Android use Skia, It's opensource already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skia_Graphics_Engine http://code.google.com/p/skia/ "Skia is a complete 2D graphic library for drawing Text, Geometries, and Images."
Google was a pretty decent search engine, it's a shame they have decided to go toe to toe with MS on MS's core business, something MS will not compromise on. I'm going to miss them. At least we soon won't have to listen to the Google fanboys anymore.
Hope they'll release the SDK soon!
They have become Microsoft!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I don't like to pay for things with my money...
Mod me down I don't care but this could be a linux killer - it will be competing with the traditional Linux distro as well as OSX and Windows, yet none of you have really pointed this out in a suitably /. style self righteous fashion.
Linux has been a viable laptop and desktop operating system for about a decade, infact it is now really good on the desktop, is free, fast, stable, secure with a growing application ecosystem, yet Linux has utterly failed to take over the world only has 1-3% desktop market share (ok - depending on who you ask).
Do you really thing that a decade from the release of ChromeOS it's market share will be low single digits?
I say in a matter of months the market share will surpass that. Following that there is a damn good chance MS is going hemorrhage market share in a way that's without precedent in OS history. Unfortunately traditional Linux distributions X+KDE/Gnome/etc are going feel the hurt also. Consumers looking for a free-os switch from OSX/Windows are going to be gobbled up by Google.
In a short space of time Chrome will do what Linux has epically failed to do the last 15 years, and that is to market itself to the masses while taking a big bite out of Microsoft.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Wake me up when I can play World of Warcraft on it without jumping through hoops and editing random files.
There was a topic on here about how the stripped-down version of Windows for developing nations could only run a handful of applications at one time, and the outcry was incredible. Now, Google comes out with Chrome, an OS that can only run ONE application - Google's own web browser - and they are the new savior from Microsoft.
P.S. I'm a Mac user, so when I think the Google fanboism has gone way too far, that's pretty bad.
....because microsoft quit developing IE for Mac years ago. Still waiting for the propaganda coup. MS got in trouble because the leveraged their near monopoly on the OS to crush Netscape. Google doesn't have a monopoly on the OS...they don't even have an OS yet.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
That's GNU/Chrome, thanks.
Err no, not necessarily they only said they would use a linux kernel and a custom windowing system just big enough to launch Chrome. No mention their of GNU tools at all.
I'm speculating here, but this might just be an OS with no terminal mode (under normal operation) at all. just the browser thanks, and if you need to do system operations, well there's a web page for that just point to localhost://settings or some such. As I recall the Linux kernel does have its own http server module. It doesn't get used normally but it could be.
read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
I programmed for the Atari 2600 and cad that I am, drew graphics on the screen without any client-server abstraction and worse yet, without an OS (or even a frame buffer).
Not terribly relevant to today's environment perhaps, but you should be careful where you point your "inherently"'s.
Just installed ubuntu on my home computer after learning it was based on debian and after using umpteen zillion different distros over the years. Everything just works. For real. I can finally see no reason not to recommend it over windows to the average home user who doesn't want to play games. That is, I'd recommend it to anyone (grandma included) considering a mac as a money saving no-brainer. Because of the lack of spyware/adware/viruses I put it as actually more user friendly than windows. Ubuntu on home pcs does everything worthwhile Chrome OS might. Google ought to just fund development on apps that don't require windows like it's done with web browsers and not bother with 'Chrome OS'
...
My understanding of free speech laws in most liberal democracies is that most of them give large grants of power to the government of the day, so that they can squelch free speech if they feel it's necessary in the public interest. The most famous of these laws are the German laws banning holocaust denial, or laws in India about speech that "inflame inter-religion tensions". I understand why these countries take these positions, but it does bring about a chilling effect. Countries with specific traumatic histories are not the only ones, even relatively liberal Canada and Sweden have had similar cases.
I'm not sure how Portugal's constitution guarantees freedom of speech. For example, Section II Article 37 grants freedom of expression, but I'm not sure if the government can frame laws to curtail it to maintain public order, for example. (Most European countries have such laws on the books and have used them on a number of occasions).
By contrast, in the US, any law the government tries to pass can be challenged if it violates the 1st amendment -- it isn't something the government of the day can "work around". Libel laws do exist, but are notoriously weak because the law deliberately skews in favor of free speech.
I'd be pleasantly surprised to find many countries which grant similar levels of protection to speech (including speech that may be unpopular).
Go somewhere random
Mac OS (X I'm assuming, however the parent may mean system 8) follows almost no logic and sacrifices functionality and security for looks. Why would anyone in their right mind want that.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
We are all screwed. As bandwidth increases, and people become continually used to having their data online (gmail, gdocs, dropbox) there is no more need for operating systems besides the kernel and windowing. Every application that you need can run from something that access the internet, and obtains data necessary to render the app from the cloud. All data will be in the cloud. Even now, in its early stages, there are impressive photoshop-like online apps with good responsiveness. The last bastion that still needs an OS is games, but that limitation too is dead. I can't think of any application that isn't amenable to cloud computing: incremental data updates, with potentially a lot of computation being done in memory (games and whatnot) or on large amounts of data (movie encoding), all of which gets done on the hosting side. Only the updates of progress and GUI need to be sent to the client. The only exception I can think of is processing of large amounts of data that is local (for example, plugging in a camcorder and wanting to encode the movie). In that case, the data will be sent to the cloud if bandwidth is high enough eventually, or else a small (few gig) harddrive could easily substitute and you can work on your new data as it is being transferred online. Once computers become less powerful though, this won't be viable so it will be first transferred online.
Think about it. There are millions (billions?) of computers everywhere, holding parts of data, much of it redundant, processing computations a small portion of the time. The rest of the time it sits idle, most likely taking up energy for sleep mode. In the future, there will just be large hosting sites, constantly being used by everyone. No wasted disk, no wasted CPUs doing nothing.
As I see it, computers will become glorified screens, a GPU, and drivers for the physical stuff (cameras, etc., although one can envision those devices using the internet directly as always-on-internet becomes ubiquitous). All the bulk from CPUs, cooling, etc. will be gone. All data and applications will be in massive host sites, containing everything. Computation will be done remotely too, so if you need a huge cluster to run calculations, you have it.
Here are my predictions, benefits, and why we are screwed:
- No more backing up. Data will be distributed across the world and backed up.
- Patches, upgrades, etc., long a bane of administration and especially games, will be gone. One app that everyone runs.
- And hence... no need for an IT budget besides the cloud fees. No more small shops with a patchwork of bad policies and worse admins.
- Piracy is dead: Once applications are hosted, there is no such thing as pirating. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as verifying who is using the app. It'll be tied to the computer, but it'll still be impossible to verify that you're not letting a friend use your login to run the app.
- Getting all the processing you can, all the time, will be dangerous as presumably you will be charged for processing being done. For example, fork bombs might become costly! There has to be some mechanism of letting the user throttle how much he is charged for. Everybody has access to cluster computing though, which will be awesome.
- Security: Application separation will be total. Definitely there will be no inter-app memory accessing, and preferably each application will only have access to its own sandbox in terms of data. For inter-app sharing, maybe you will be able to specify what pieces of data can be access by what program?
- At first, I thought Google would position itself as the gateway to everything, but this is not possible. Anyone can make a new operating system now (with the linux kernel), simply provid
at the moronic retards who trust an operating system from Google. You've got to be effing kidding me.
I mean, it's not like they're going to be collecting data and tracking usability habits of the os users and selling that information to the highest bidder.
I mean, it's not like they're going to hand over all that data to the government whenever uncle sam hands over some pathetic court document that kind of demands that its right for google to do so.
Please...I use as little google products as I possibly can during my internet use.
I would hope the tech community is a little bit more intelligent than to trust this spy-ware bullshit from 'do no evil' inc.
If I understand correct then Google-OS will do everything with web-apps and put my data in the cloud - no thanks !
My data is only safe on my encrypted disk and backup where I have full control.
And there are just too many situations where I have no connectivity.
Call me old fashioned but I want my data AND my apps on my local disk and work without dependence on connectivity.
I, for one, welcome our new overlords
Goonix anyone?
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
E17 will be out, it's 1.0 version in the end of 2009, would it be the next great windowing system? it's powerful, beautiful, fast and light. 100Mhz cpu 64mb ram that's all what you need!
If Google plan to have this installed on netbooks, it will actually have to have reliable hardware support, which is the one thing I've been looking for from Linux all these years.
It used to be browsers used the native windowing system to popup a new window all the time. Then they put some security in to stop this being so annoying. Then they switched to mainly just opening a new 'tab' themselves (which doesn't involve the WM). Finally getting ride of the WM all together and managing their own dialogs seems the next logical step.
In fact browsers already include WM functionality in order to embed plug-ins into their own layout.
Has anybody got a version of IE written as a Google App so I can run it in the Chrome OS?
thanks
Minimal kernel, just enough OS around it to boot an X server, thus providing anything that understands X11 upwards to run on the "cloud" and use the Xterm to get the GUI in front of the user. At the time the cloud was the various Unix boxen dotted around the campus and when I was a lad, there were still some X11R3 servers around.
When the NC came out (remember them?) we went up a layer of abstraction and it was the JVM that provided the framework, and at the client end this sat on top of what was effectively still an Xterm.
And now the framework is Web 2.0 and the JVM (presumably - couldn't see a mention of that in any of the articles I looked at, but maybe it's just assumed?) - a new level of abstraction and so X may or may not be the middle layer of the stack doing the actual graphics and HCI stuff. Doesn't really matter.
So: Better abstraction, due to layers on layers; longer distances and larger more complex apps thanks to explosive Internet growth and Moore's law. But none of this is actually NEW.
Anyhoo, I'm off to eBay to see if I can find myself a nice 19" colour Tektronix... and you GET OFF MY LAWN.
"... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
so what about programs like photoshop, can i still edit my photos?
Or video editing, can i still run some 'lightweight' video editing software for my home movies?
What will the killer app be that will cause this to disrupt the desktop OS lead by Microsoft? If there is none, then it will be like Linux in the desktop market (something of interest and for hobbyists).
I see a bigger impact in the embedded, kiosk-type, and netpc market. Considering the purchases that Intel has also made into this realm it will be interesting to see if both will buddy up.
NOT:
"Is your computer broken? Just stop by your local Starbucks or Staples and pick up your free copy of Google OS. After making room on your hard drive, it will load a new and secure operating system that will allow you to browse the internet, play Solitaire, and write letters with it's included office suite. Once it's loaded, you'll have the option of recovering data and backing it up online for free so you'll never have to worry about data loss again."
BUT:
"Is your computer broken? Just stop by your local electronics store and buy a brand new netbook for $200, with everything included. Works first time. Log onto GMail and away you go"
Netbooks (low end) are incredibly cheap, and Google is aiming to fill the "throw away" niche. 10 years ago cell phones were expensive, now you get them with cereal packets. Mark my words: for simple web browsing / editing / email, this will be the killer app. Yes, of course you will still need a brute PC to do you CAD / accounting / complex documentation / video demuxing / $FAV_APP; but this is a DIFFERENT MARKET.
Bring it on, I can't wait.
When you look back at Google Gears, you realize how important this piece will be for the next ChromeOS.
-- bzg
Because this one will be a distro backed by the marketing clout and the manpower of a 125-billion-dollar corporation. Who have clout with OEMs and governments. Who have enough drones for programming a decent printer driver or providing non-snarky support.
You mentioned the one thing that nobody else (browsing at 2+) got: this is going to be linux distro that will have to support all printers, as google have the muscle that has been missing in other linux distro vendors. Unless google create a new printing system, or sell a notebook OS that can't print to most people's printers, the printer vendors will be forced to play along and supply linux printer drivers. I can't see google (with their cash and clout) release an OS for notebooks that has a "(limited) supported printer list" - if they go for this for real, then linux suddenly has that OEM muscle that's always been lacking.
Webcams, wifi etc. probably won't benefit as much, as they tend to be builtin, but if google seriously want to release a mass-market OS, we'll suddenly see a huge improvement in linux printer drivers, even if google have to pay the OEMs for it.
Almost every big site these days seems to have a google analytics link so even if your not a google-a-file your browsing history is probably being recorded, even with cookies off it is not rocket science for a web site to log your ip address and put 2 and 2 together for when you do have to switch on cookies eg to do banking or read web mail. So we block all google web links (eg make them 127.0.0.1 in our hosts file) and I renew my routers ip address regularly and I'm invisible again.. but what if google owned the whole stack... I for one prefer the browser and OS separate [ diddn't Microsoft get a small slap on the wrist for integrating the OS and browser? ]
www.boznz.com Simple solutions to complex problems.
First criticism on Google's claim that their the end-users of their new OS will not be bother by viruses and malware:
http://www.googleblogos.com/