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.
While there is no mention of a kernal, it does appear to use a Linux kernel:
"The Chrome OS will run on both x86 and ARM architectures, uses a Linux kernel with a new windowing system." :-P
From the horse's mouth:
Go somewhere random
Even with just a browser, you need multiple windows. When an AJAX command tells the browser to pop up a new window, the browser uses the native windowing system to pop up a new window. You also need windows for multiple browser instances, tabs, menus, and other fun stuff. It's not turtles all the way down.
"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." Funny what you can learn from TFA.
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.
Google has recently been active in directfb.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You're wrong. It is a Linux distribution. Distributions can differ from eachother as much as they please. That's the fucking beauty of it so don't even begin to undermine it, troll. And don't compare Unix variants to Linux distributions, that only shows how little you know about the subject.
I am the lawn!
Google has recently been active in directfb.
http://directfb.org/index.php?path=Projects%2F%2B%2BDFB
++DFB
++DFB is an advanced version of DFB++
It's an incompatible fork with fundamental changes.
Applications no longer deal with interface pointers. The classes wrapping around interfaces are used a container for an interface pointer, providing garbage collection the "direct" way 8-)
Good grief.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Ironically, Google all but owns Firefox. Google's contributions account for almost 90% of Mozilla's revenue. Excellent article on it here.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Considering Leopard on Intel is UNIX certified, the latest version of OS X is as much Unix as AIX, Irix, or Solaris is.
This
"Another window manager just dilutes the current pool....."
It isn't 'another window manager', it's a new windowing system. Don't think X11+KDE/Gnome, think Apple CGL+Quartz.
You do realize that X memmaps the video memory into its memory space? This gives it some rather crazy numbers for RAM usage even when it's running thin. Especially with modern cards having 512MB of video mem or more.
Otherwise I do not disagree with your general statements. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually the network transparency is what I really don't like in X. I don't get why it is in there. I would argue most people don't need it. Either because they are running servers without any X or simple desktops. While there certainly are cases where remote desktop access is useful, I really think other solutions like VNC are far superior to X there.
The network transparency costs practically nothing when running local apps (it uses shared memory) and, despite your apparent inability to have ever used X11's network transparency, a lot of us, do, all the time. I use it every single day. Right now I am sitting in front of a machine that has windows from applications running on four different machines, all of which seamlessly integrate into the desktop so that, unless you happen to know which applications are running where, you'd think they were all local apps. I've used VNC. It's not a good solution compared to X11's elegant network transparency. Just because you don't happen to use it doesn't mean there aren't a great many people who do use it regularly.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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
You say "single socket" as if all of the X clients were contending for a resource. Every connection accepted by a server (any server) creates a new file descriptor in that process. There's no more a problem with a "single socket" in X11 than there is in any other server.
Moreover, unless all of your applications are running over the network, they're almost certainly using shared memory rather than file IO (through the socket) for display. Your entire characterization of X11 shows how little you know about how it works.
This is just details, the fact of the matter is that Microsoft, Apple, and even Be had much faster methods of accessing video hardware and displaying things on the screen. Whether or not it's constrained to a single socket, it's constrained to a socket model and thus the filesystem IO interface. The network transparency would be wonderful if we still had our graphics hardware in separate boxes from our servers, but Google is making a desktop system. DRI/DRM are not really broad enough for modern graphics hardware, anyway. If Google is clever, they'll use their muscle to start from scratch, providing a sane opengl accelerated driver model, like Apple. X's architecture is probably at the peak performance-wise of what the open source community can make it do.
What, you mean framebuffer? Yes, it exists, but it's extremely slow. If there are games that use it, I still wouldn't characterize it as being "for games". OpenGL under X11 is definitely the preferred setup for accelerated video.
It's better, but it's not WDDM... this is just the best of what's currently available. Any graphical application from video playback to 3d will always perform better on Windows than Linux on the same hardware. It doesn't matter whether you're using OpenGL or Direct X, they just have a proper display model for the desktop. The last thing the linux community needs is people trying to pull X into another decade, making it now almost 30 years out of date.
Tell me, what kind of backwards logic makes the X server be the display and the X client be the application?
Logic that accounts for two facts; that computers can have multiple users, and that they can be networked. SSH lets you run arbitrary command-line applications on remote machines. To do that with arbitrary graphical applications - emphasis on "arbitrary", i.e. not re-writing every graphical app as a GUI client & back-end server - you need something on the local machine to which the remote machine can send display commands, and for proper integration with graphical apps running on the local machine, ideally that same something should be catering for both. So.. you run a display server, and anything that wants to display graphics - locally or otherwise - connects to it. Simple.
Like a lot of things in the *NIX world, it stops seeming backwards when you discard a few assumptions: that a computer is only used by one person (or that everyone who uses it is happy to share the same account), and that a keyboard, monitor and mouse will always be plugged in. These assumptions have kept Windows out of many a server room for years.
However, the difficulties of writing user-friendly software outside the "comfort zone" these assumptions provide have kept Linux out of many a living room for just as long. It's not impossible, though, and the situation is improving rapidly.