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.

Comments

Uh huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's GNU/Chrome, thanks.

Re:Uh huh.

[beowulfcluster]

"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.

Re:Uh huh.

[BobZee1]

They are going to open source it. (second paragraph): http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

Re:Uh huh.

[merrickm]

I imagine this is the sort of thing you'd try to sell not so much to individual users but to businesses- a business with a lot of employees on doing work on computers that has everything it needs its employees to do as a web app (or could have everything as a web app after, perhaps, paying Google to help them set that up) installs this thin-client OS on all their employee workstations and, assuming it works as well Google hopes, cuts down on IT headaches.

Re:Uh huh.

[suso]

Why read the article when people can reply to my comment with the relevant details. ;-) Actually, just so that I don't sound like a complete ass, I read the MSNBC article before coming here this morning and it didn't mention anything about open source, but of course why would it I guess. I would think the Slashdot summary would have mentioned that as it would be a VERY important point.

If they do make it fully open, that would be awesome.

Re:Uh huh.

[Lord Bitman]

By the standard reasoning for that, it's more like Chrome/Linux

Re:Uh huh.

[TropicalCoder]

3) Try to get people to download it, install it alongside or replace their current OS (how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS?

It has a lot more potential on the desktop than you suggest. Imagine dual booting between Windows and the Google Chrome OS. You could boot nearly instantly into the Google OS to browse the web in complete security. The Google OS could also run from a VM for secure web browsing as well. Windoz users becoming routinely p0wned will be a thing of the past.

Re:Uh huh.

[tverbeek]

They're offering it to OEMs (specifically notebook OEMs). It's the same strategy they're using with Android, which seems to be working OK so far.

Re:Uh huh.

[Darkness404]

Thats because its not going to be released till 2010 so the source code is going to be available later this year because right now its an in-house project.

Re:Uh huh.

[julian67]

"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.

Re:Uh huh.

[Povno]

Actually the more I think about it the more I am beginning to believe that it might not be so difficult to at least get people to try it.

Google is everywhere; home pages, search bars, browsers, phones (more will come I'm sure) and has even become a synonym for the word "search". Google it and you'll see. :)

Alternatives to Windows do not exist for the average user because they are not common knowledge. If you say Linux to someone they are oblivious. If you explain it you loose them more. "So... it's like Windows then right?" And since they have it... why bother. Same thing with BSD or any other alternative. Google has the resources to put it out there. And if people are willing to try an OS because it is made by Google, then they have opened themselves up for alternatives. Thus becoming aware that they exist. And what's to say, they won't explore more if they feel that Google's Os isn't right for them?

We always say it's a preference. But the majority of average users don't have the luxury of preference. Windows is all they know.

Re:Uh huh.

[postbigbang]

Great. I'm sure current applications will be compatible, nothing will break, all the libs will support the compiles, and so on.

This is not to put down any effort to get rid of X11, rather, my guess that cross-operating system application porting will once again go to hell, cause conditional compiles, and much Zantac consumption.

Re:Uh huh.

[RiotingPacifist]

GNU/linux/!X11/webkit/chrome ftw

Re:Uh huh.

[zeromorph]

They could have just invested in Canonical and Ubuntu, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

Why Canonical and not any other Linux company, I mean (K/X/Ed)Ubuntu is great, (most of my computers run Kubuntu or Xubuntu), but Google has a particular objective: directing as many as possible users to Google products, this is clearly not the goal of Canonical.

And besides, diversity is good, the goal is not to supersede one monoculture with another - Ok, Google is not the first address as far as diversity is concerned, but still.

Another window manager just dilutes the current pool of people trying to do KDE and Gnome.

It's not that the two are the only players in the FLOSS field, and probably they are not even the best for the specific requirements of netbooks. Fluxbox, Enlightment, or even something like Sugar are much more lightweight and might be better for the functions required. Or even Google has something new and exciting to offer. Anyways, I even doubt that the KDE and Gnome guys actually wouldn't appreciate other ideas being tested.

Re:Uh huh.

[maraist]

Well, the UI is the most resource intensive aspect Linux from my perspective. Conversely, the java VMs on android are probably it's greatest resource hog. Windows and MAC have more "optimized" UIs, whereas most things on Linux UI are X-based which means most communication is serialized through a single socket and much information is stored redundantly in the app and the X-server. Hell, in recent versions of Fedora I have a problem where my X-server grows to over a gig of RAM even when all windows have been closed. I hate the fact that I have to log-out/in-again because of mem-leaks in either X or gnome (can't determine which). Ironically, I still prefer gnome over Mac/Windows UIs in terms of it's expressiveness / adaptability to my needs.

So it makes sense to provide OS hooks for an alternate UI mode.. Hell there's dedicated VGA mode for games in existing Linux. Gnome/KDE are not light-weight (though X can be), and I can't imagine how you could retool them to be. Much less how you could to this in a way that supports existing KDE/Gnome/X apps.

Remember, we're talking the slowest possible hardware above cell-phone-grade that we're talking about here. Big screen and keyboard, but essentially a cell-phone/PDA on the backend. I wouldn't be surprised if the browser is required to be full screen like on a cell.

Further, there is a serious argument to be made about low-performance devices and the lack of desire to store sensitive / loosable information on them. Viruses + hardware failure + hardware upgrade means losing your data. While some people avidly setup backup strategies, it's applied with lesser diligence to lower-end devices. And if you're buying on the cheap, than backup solutions cost extra thereby defeating the point. Why buy a $100 netbook then have to buy a $90 external backup hard drive?

I'm not saying this isn't valid, I'm saying that there are massive groups of people that are affected by quality-control issues and migration strategies of software vendors including MS, and google is allegedly attempting to obviate that aspect entirely by making low-cost devices 100% online.

I do see a valid use-case.. 3'rd world, poor US citizens, virtually every high school/elementary school.

Of course google is merely trying to promote it's online dominance and we should take pause. But other than the OS, I'm not sure that this ties your experience to google (though maybe their search engine/user-profile - but anti-trust will eventually kick in).

Re:Uh huh.

[Serious Callers Only]

Great. I'm sure current applications will be compatible, nothing will break, all the libs will support the compiles, and so on.

Why would any of that concern Google?

They'll be offering a cut-down OS, probably with a new windowing system based on Android, which offers opportunities to develop web apps in the future which truly span the gap between connected desktop apps and web apps. They won't be concerned with porting existing Linux apps over, and neither will their users, who will be buying a netbook to use google mail, some sort of IM app and the internet, and not much more.

It's not even clear if you'll be able to write binary apps for the system at all (they mention web apps and nothing else). Supporting Linux apis would just slow them down, and it probably won't be X based anyway.

This is a foundation for a new generation of apps which aren't beholden to binary APIs controlled by the likes of Microsoft. In parallel with Chrome it lets them dictate the future of web/desktop integration, and start really pushing HTML5 features, and online/offline integration, rather than being continually held back by Microsoft's attempts to hobble the web and tie it to Windows.

Re:Uh huh.

[Freetardo Jones]

And by "OK" you mean there are not a single released netbooks that is running Android but one or two announcements of ones to come?

Re:Uh huh.

[mjjw]

No, it's Chrome/Linux. GNU/Linux imples Linux + GNU apps. So GNU/Chrome would imply GNU ecosystem with Chrome. I doubt this will be the case. We will see the linux kernel with Chrome technology on top. This is similar to how Andriod works AFAIK.

Re:Uh huh.

[Raumkraut]

But that's okay, because it'll be a beta.

Re:Uh huh.

[pmocek]

Actually, it should be Chrome/Linux, right? GNU/Linux is an operating system consisting of various GNU utilities used with the Linux kernel, and it sounds like this will be various Chrome utilities used with the Linux kernel.

Re:Uh huh.

[PainKilleR-CE]

The main thing Google has going for them in this is the same one that Microsoft has going for them:
When someone asks 'where do I get an application to write my important documents? spreadsheets? email?', Google can say 'We have that for you', just like Microsoft does, instead of saying 'You can go here, here, there, over there, or somewhere around there to get that'. People like the answers to be simple, and Google is famous for being simple.

Further, since Google claims to be making the browser the focus of the OS, the interface will already be familiar to most of the users, even if the window dressing is a little different from what they're accustomed to (and really, isn't that the case for most users with Microsoft trying to push XP off the side of the road?).

I don't think this will be the end of the road for Microsoft, but I certainly think it has the chance at being more successful in the Netbook space than Linux has been so far.

Re:Uh huh.

[trum4n]

...RTFA

You must be new here.

Re:Uh huh.

[Kadin2048]

This is not to put down any effort to get rid of X11, rather, my guess that cross-operating system application porting will once again go to hell, cause conditional compiles, and much Zantac consumption.

All of which matters ... not at all. The whole purpose of the device is to run ONE application, the browser. Everything else is there to support that.

I suppose they'll have to design some other applications, to manage machine-specific configuration (WiFi settings, etc.) but maybe they'll just do that through a localhost web interface as well.

Google doesn't care if it's impossible to build standard applications on it; actually from their perspective it's probably a plus if you can't. (And I expect they'll probably lock it down to make it intentionally hard to do.) Easier to support.

Based on what's been made available so far, the device is squarely targeted at people who do all their work in the browser, or could start doing it. It's essentially a thin client to Google's web apps.

Re:Uh huh.

[AKAImBatman]

I have a problem where my X-server grows to over a gig of RAM even when all windows have been closed.

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. :-)

Re:Uh huh.

[Hel Toupee]

I was thinking that option 2 is probably their best bet. Strip down an open-source virtualization package and package it with an image of their new OS (virtualbox comes to mind, but there's no USB support in their open-source variant). Make it all up into a nice installer that installs the virtualization software and does all the heavy lifting configuring it. This eliminates the need for an optical drive that so many netbooks do not have. To your last point, for large-scale adoption, open-sourcing an OS is not necessary. I'd be willing to bet that less than 5% of users of an OS care that it's free to change and make derivative works of. 95% or more would care that it's free-as-in-beer. The true killer OS is one that is functionally equivalent to the current leader (MS Windows), but cost-free (or even less costly that Windows). That's a tall order, because for much of the population, the cost of Windows is included with the computer when they order/buy it. When it gets old/slow, they go out and buy a new one, and the newest version of Windows is included with that one as well. They don't specifically see the cost, so they assume there is none.

Re:Uh huh.

[ClosedSource]

"This is a foundation for a new generation of apps which aren't beholden to binary APIs controlled by the likes of Microsoft. In parallel with Chrome it lets them dictate the future of web/desktop integration, and start really pushing HTML5 features, and online/offline integration, rather than being continually held back by Microsoft's attempts to hobble the web and tie it to Windows."

Yes, I can see it now: "Error: You need the Chrome Operating System to view this web page"

Re:Uh huh.

[Kadin2048]

I think he means "OK" in that it's currently running on a smartphone that you can go out and buy today, and has sold about a million units so far.

Re:Uh huh.

[MeatBag PussRocket]

Google has one thing that Canonical and Ubuntu even red had doesnt, broad household name recognition

Re:Uh huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm skeptical that Google would be able to get people to try it

They can always do what Microsoft did to get people to use Windows, and what Google already did to get people to use Android on the G1: have it be pre-installed.

You buy the machine, you turn it on, and you're running the software that somebody wants you to. Problem solved.

Re:Uh huh.

[postbigbang]

If it's just a browser drone, then why not use something still slimmer? It doesn't take much in a kernel to run a single application, in fact 64K ought to do it with room to spare-- save rendering jpgs and video.

Bah--- they're not going to support much at a zero cost anyway. It's a community-support ecosystem at best, and trying to teach mom at worst.

This is why it will fail: in reality, it's stupid as you describe it compared to Ubuntu, Xandros, and even wiggy Linux or even Android builds. There is no value as you describe it, unless it's the prospect of throw-away netbooks, and the world has a recycling problem as it is.

Re:Uh huh.

[icannotthinkofaname]

Imagine the stereotypical average user actually having any comprehension of what you're talking about. If the average user was that computer-savvy, Windows users wouldn't get routinely p0wned to begin with.

Re:Uh huh.

[warrior]

Not all of us like KDE and Gnome. Although they have innovated in some areas, they're otherwise both just attempts to make an MS clone. While this might be the right thing to make "Linux on the desktop" succeed, it's not what some of envision as the future of computing or even how we'd like the current state of computing.

I've been a Linux user since 1996 and I've watched the entire "Linux on the desktop" debacle unfold. It's sad to see that the /. crowd has changed from the attitude of "these MS clones are crap, desktop Linux should be something better" to "ho hum, this is how it should be, why innovate"? Back when this was just "Rob's page" you would've been flamed into oblivion for that public show of affection for KDE/Gnome.

Who are you to tell Google what they can and cannot build? It's about time someone put a face on the Linux desktop other than that of an MS clone. Hopefully it's not just a new window manager but a new window system. X, while great in its day, has run its course. I'd like to something fresh that builds on the concept of using modern graphics hardware to do all the heavy lifting for the GUI instead of clever CPU-intensive hacks on top of Xlib**.

You don't like Google's vision for Linux on netbooks. What's your alternative vision?

** I've written many apps with Xlib. The underlying ideas/primitives that X uses for graphics ops are obsolete so doing anything "cool" (and sometimes useful!) requires using crufty extensions rather than calling routines that are a "natural" part of the system.

Re:Uh huh.

[rdavidson3]

Why buy a $100 netbook then have to buy a $90 external backup hard drive?

How about storing the data on the cloud instead?

Re:Uh huh.

[jamstar7]

OK, from glancing at TFA, looks like they're gonna push this for new computers first, build up some user base. Interesting. Whether or not they'll offer it later as a download is uncertain, but they'll release the source code for it since they're claiming open source. Makes me wonder what proprietary hooks they'll have into it though.

Sounds an awful lot like a bare bones Linux machine with the new Chrome window manager to me. All they have to do is write the window manager and installer, they can use readily available components for the stuff under the hood. Be interesting to see if they release the window manager to the rest of us to play with, might be worth checking out as an alternative to KDE & GNOME.

No doubt Microsoft will offer a cut down disc of XP or maybe even 7 as an 'upgrade path' to these machines...

Re:Uh huh.

[postbigbang]

I'll take innovation. What's being offered here is nothing new, however. And if you read an implication that I like KDE or Gnome, you left with the wrong impression; I think both have their problems.

Applications rule, and operating systems should do their best, along with their now 'required' window managers to aid people in using the applications.

You believe that there is vision here. There is nothing more here than Google pimping its own substandard, buggy, occasionally unreliable applications based on its browser. Sound familiar?

Let Google burn as much $$ as it wants on this; I get the feeling it's just a first step anyway. Long ago, I used X, Motif, and a lot of stuff that while advanced for its era, was butt ugly to configure, use, and code to. Blah.

NeXtStep was a bit farther down the road, then MacOS started looking decent and consistent, and Microsoft tried and failed and tried again. Branch to KDE, GNome and lighter weight wms and UIs.

So, who am I to tell Google what to build? Fucking Google like many other cultclubs is getting pretty damn big for its britches. I'm that lowly schmuck called the coder, the end-user, the civilian. I know: customers don't count.

I thought Schmidt was mad when he tried to save Novell. Now he's still doing the Quixote Dance at Google. Schmidt isn't stupid. Follow the money, as at the end of the day, that's what Google has to make its shareholders happy about. So where is that money coming from? Free app/OS use? No--> it's about logging and tracking what we do, and enhancing the 'experience'. There is no other revenue stream.

So you can drool over a lightweight netbook OS (Microsoft is in the middle of a campaign to deny netbooks even exist) that uses an enhanced experience online bunch of half-dead 'office' apps, or you can stop watching this train wreck and get on with your life.

Re:Uh huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I fear it might NOT be GNU/Chrome. Since they are already creating a new windowing system, what's to say they won't drop the GNU core altogether? After all Android is in top of Linux without any GNU toolchain.

This, ladies and gentlemen, would be the first real fracturation of Linux: one on top of GNU and one on top of ChromeOS.

This is potentially dangerous for Linux.

AC

Re:Uh huh.

[slim]

Google has a particular objective: directing as many as possible users to Google products

That is of course true. But I think the OS will further that aim in a more subtle manner than the obvious.

I think that right now, they're just pushing for mass acceptance of web apps as a mainstream mode of computer use. Even if it's other people's web apps. They can grow the pool so it's big enough for everyone to play.

Of course they'd prefer you to use Google Docs over some competitor's web word processor; and most people probably will do. But if only for regulatory reasons - and not looking evil - they'll coexist with such competitors.

The second way they can win, is that if some startup invents a web app that Google's not doing, they might well choose to host it on Google App Engine.

Re:Uh huh.

[Hognoxious]

Or problem caused, depending on how you look at it.

Re:Uh huh.

[Enderandrew]

KDE is far from a MS clone, and offers vastly more innovation that what MS is offering at the moment.

There is also a backlash in the KDE community when anyone suggests implementing or copying a MS feature.

Have you even used KDE?

Re:Uh huh.

[drodal]

I think that GNU will be able to take credit for all the libraries that applications (like the browser) will use. So even if there are NO applications (save the browser) things like printf()
and random() and ctime() etc... are libraries that will probably be the GNU versions....

So Chrome/Linux/GNU might be appropriate.

Re:Uh huh.

[Enderandrew]

It is open source. You'll be able to download it and install it as you like, whether or not Google packages it or not.

Re:Uh huh.

[Enderandrew]

Actually it is just Chrome or Linux. On my Windows box, 95% of the software on the box isn't made by Microsoft. I don't call it Adobe/Windows or Firefox/Windows or Blizzard/Windows, etc. That is ridiculous. Windows is the name of the OS, just as Linux is the commonly used name for Linux, even though Linux is technically only the kernel.

RMS claims he isn't all about ego, but he draws logos where Tux is small and the GNU logo is huge, and he insists that GNU be put before Linux. His argument is based on ego rather than logic and I refuse to buy in.

Re:Uh huh.

[smoker2]

Well you go off and play with your linux only box then. Oh what, you can't because there are no utilities ? Shame. Without userland, there is no OS.

Re:Uh huh.

[MSG]

most things on Linux UI are X-based which means most communication is serialized through a single socket and much information is stored redundantly in the app and the X-server.

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.

Hell there's dedicated VGA mode for games in existing Linux.

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.

Re:Uh huh.

[Freetardo Jones]

Only about a million? That's peanuts. Symbian phone have sold around an average of 17+ million phones per quarter last year.

Re:Uh huh.

[thetoadwarrior]

They could have just invested in Canonical and Ubuntu, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

They could have but since when has competition for anyone been a bad thing?

Re:Uh huh.

[gbarules2999]

You don't like Google's vision for Linux on netbooks. What's your alternative vision?

Ratpoison!

Re:Uh huh.

[Marsell]

What decade do you live in, man? The 1980s? :/

http://www.xfree86.org/current/mit-shm.html

Also, I used to use X on a 486/66 with 16MB RAM -- and it worked comparable to Win95, which was quite good. My mp3 player has far more juice and memory than that machine did, let alone a netbook.

Please don't take about things you don't know about as if you do.

Re:Uh huh.

[malevolentjelly]

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.

Re:Uh huh.

[maraist]

This is categorized under explicit backup strategies, whereby most people don't have one or wouldn't know how to go about doing it.

Re:Uh huh.

[Enderandrew]

And my Windows box without other software is pretty useless as well. But we don't call it Adobe/Windows or Mozilla/Windows.

Just the same, we don't call it GNU/Linux.

Next time, read my post, and respond with something coherent that relates or don't respond at all.

Re:Uh huh.

[rdavidson3]

Then how about Google giving everyone cloud space when they install the OS to use as a backup. And if / when they reinstall the OS or do a timemachine, it should be able to connect to the cloud and retrieve and restore whatever is there.

Google should be able to make this easy for people to utilize, and require little or no knowledge of CLI or other cludgy Linux interfaces to backup to or restore from the cloud.

Re:Uh huh.

[DragonWriter]

Remember, we're talking the slowest possible hardware above cell-phone-grade that we're talking about here. Big screen and keyboard, but essentially a cell-phone/PDA on the backend. I wouldn't be surprised if the browser is required to be full screen like on a cell.

I would be, since Chrome OS, while the initial platforms will be netbooks, appears, from the news coverage, to be intended for markets ranging from netbooks up through traditional laptops and desktops. And I'm not sure I'd characterize, say, an Atom-powered netbook or nettop as "essentially a cell-phone/PDA on the backend".

Further, there is a serious argument to be made about low-performance devices and the lack of desire to store sensitive / loosable information on them. Viruses + hardware failure + hardware upgrade means losing your data. While some people avidly setup backup strategies, it's applied with lesser diligence to lower-end devices.

Well, I think that depends on what you mean "lower end"; I'd expect a greater percentage of smartphone users have the phone's data backed up on a traditional desktop or laptop computer than the percentage of traditional desktop or laptop computer users that have that computer's data backed up elsewhere.

Re:Uh huh.

[jamstar7]

It is open source. You'll be able to download it and install it as you like, whether or not Google packages it or not.

Depends on how much proprietary cruft they put into it, and whether or not the Chrome Desktop plays well with X.

Re:Uh huh.

[Enderandrew]

The entire OS will be open-source. So you can compile the whole thing. X isn't an issue.

People removed the Google-specific proprietary portions of the Chrome browser and started building "Iron" from the Chromium trunk. I imagine the same will happen with the OS right away.

Re:Uh huh.

[MattBD]

I'd imagine it probably uses GTK+, since that's what the Chrome browser uses on Linux, and why would Google make it artificially hard for themselves by having to maintain two Linux versions of Chrome? Still, one thing's for sure - Linux definitely won't be saddled with a shoddy version of the browser, which is advantageous to any Linux user.

Re:Uh huh.

[vectorious]

I suspect GP means Android on phones, which is being offered to phone companies and is doing ok, after a slow start.

Re:Uh huh.

[Freetardo Jones]

It's at the bottom of the list for all major mobile OSes. We must have different notions of "OK" because I consider being last place to be doing pretty poorly.

Re:Uh huh.

[vectorious]

In its target market of smart phones it has several major releases, and they appear to be making the news. One might say that OSX mobile is on fewer phones than Android, and has a tiny market share, both of which are true, but in its target market it is still making a splash. Anyway the point was that the OP was probably not talking about netbooks, but phones, which still stands.

Re:Uh huh.

[maraist]

I think we're in general agreement, except that I think the chrome-OS goal is to treat ALL local data as cached or potentially cacheable server-data (i.e. google-gears). Then you're relying on the web-app vendor of your choice's backup strategies.

Though thinking it through, the big remaining issue is data-privacy.. It would be almost impossible to use a netbook in a eyes-off mode. Even if Google promised they wouldn't look at certain data, there's always the NSA or worse, china (I'm thinking global markets here).

Re:Uh huh.

[Freetardo Jones]

In its target market of smart phones it has several major releases, and they appear to be making the news.

Whoop de doo. Making the news doesn't mean much if something like the 3G S can sell in one weekend almost as many phones as you've sold in almost 8 months.

One might say that OSX mobile is on fewer phones than Android, and has a tiny market share, both of which are true, but in its target market it is still making a splash.

Except that that is a false statement. iPhone OS powers far more phones than Android does.

Anyway the point was that the OP was probably not talking about netbooks, but phones, which still stands.

Except the point doesn't really stand since the adoption of Android by phone makers is glacially slow.

Re:Uh huh.

[marcosdumay]

Well, since it replaces X11, compatibility won't be an issue.

Now, we'll probably be able to run it at the same time as we run X11. If it is any good, it may be interesting to have Chrome at CTRL+ALT+F8 :)

Re:Uh huh.

[RaymondKurzweil]

** I've written many apps with Xlib. The underlying ideas/primitives that X uses for graphics ops are obsolete so doing anything "cool" (and sometimes useful!) requires using crufty extensions rather than calling routines that are a "natural" part of the system.

Understand that extensions are a natural part of the system. The X11 protocol was designed with the support for extensions from day one. A lot of the original X people knew that a lot of core X was woefully inadequate or behind the times from the very beginning. People knew that text handling in X was crap. People knew that core X rendering was extremely limited the day it was released.

The unfortunate story of the X extension system has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with commercial politics. The idea of X from a political standpoint, was a miserable failure.

The fact that text in X wasn't really even improved that much until the turn of the century, nearly 15 years, is a testament to that.

I'd like to something fresh that builds on the concept of using modern graphics hardware to do all the heavy lifting for the GUI instead of clever CPU-intensive hacks on top of Xlib**.

Thjs comment sounds like you came out of a time warp from 5 years ago.
A lot of this is done. Features like the RENDER extension can be implemented with hardware acceleration in the X server, and in fact they are in many cases. That is what things like EXA and UXA are for. AIGLX was implemented to allow acceleration of eyecandy that requires server support.

Things aren't perfect, mainly due to the realities of non-technical implementation issues including the fact that hardware vendors either can't (NVIDIA) or won't (Via) play ball and that volunteers that aren't employed by Intel or Redhat are mainly interested in scratching their own itches.

I don't see Google changing this fundamental property in any regard, by the way. While they might make some interesting things for certain hardware they're interested in, and I welcome that, they are simply not going to change the status quo for support. A graphics utopia that makes everyone happy is impossible. Who cares?

Re:Uh huh.

[vectorious]

Sorry, I meant on fewer phone types, not fewer actual units. And in the market for phones as a whole OSX is still tiny. My point was to correct your statement about netbooks and redirect it to phones, and that still stands, albeit with your qualifications about the success of Android on phones. I realise that this is /., but I am sorry you felt it necessary to be sarcastic rather than constructive - I was trying to add to the debate, but I clearly failed.

Re:Uh huh.

[anthonyfk]

I can imagine a lot of typical average users wanting a way to watch porn without messing up Windows.

Re:Uh huh.

[Matrix14]

Nah, VMs are definitely penetrating the public consciousness. I know plenty of non-tech savvy people who have Macs and use VMWare to boot Windows.

Re:Uh huh.

[dirtyhippie]

Actually its not. Android doesn't use libc, and I suspect this won't either (nor will it use X). I suspect few gnu tools will actually be used. Linux will be used because it supports a good chunk of devices and is a "good enough" kernel. gcc and other compiler tools will probably be used too. Maybe the standard binutils and/or findutils (if you can figure out how to get a command prompt open on the thing) - but I doubt there will be much GPL code beyond that.

Re:Uh huh.

[BikeHelmet]

I frequently visit a computer club of novice computer users over age 60, to help out with stuff like "How to get your pictures off your new camera.", and "How to organize files."

Recently the topic of operating systems came up, and I was surprised that at least 50% had heard of other operating systems, and even understood that a Mac != Windows != Linux.

But I must admit, there are people that don't want to learn anything about their own PC. They just want to hit the magic button so music plays, so to speak. ;)

Re:Uh huh.

[w0mprat]

[fake] Steve Jobs says:

First of all, nobody seems to appreciate how goddamn hard it is to make an operating system. You don't just wake up one day and fall out of bed and make one. Not even the smarty pants kiddies at Google can do that. These things take years. Decades, even. Ours started out 20 years ago, at NeXT. You could say it goes back to 1977, with the BSD guys. Heck, you could even say it goes back to 1969 with Dennis Thompson and Lionel Ritchie. Even Windows is -- what? Twenty years old? Something like that. For that matter, look at Linux. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I'm sure you fucking freetards will find something to correct -- but I think Linus Tordalv started working on Linux back in 1991 when he was a high school student in his native Denmark. That's nearly twenty years ago, and the shit still doesn't run right.

http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html

Also: see my sig

Re:Uh huh.

[MSG]

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.

Unless you have numbers to back it up, that is an assertion, and not "the fact of the matter". Many benchmarks have shown that OpenGL on Linux is faster than Windows in some configurations. I can't say "most", since I don't have numbers either, but objective benchmarks of both native OpenGL applications and even applications running under Wine do show that X11 is not only acceptable, but faster than Windows. Do you have anything to back up your assertions, or are you just spouting off about your subjective experience that the GNU desktop software feels slow? The latter is something a lot of people complain about, but it's not actually X11's fault.

Whether or not it's constrained to a single socket, it's constrained to a socket model and thus the filesystem IO interface.

1: You completely missed what I said. Locally run processes don't use the sockets; they use shared memory.
2: While file IO and socket IO both use read() and write(), there's no "filesystem" layer involved in socket IO.
3: There's nothing actually wrong with socket IO, even if it were being used. Which it's not.

DRI/DRM are not really broad enough for modern graphics hardware, anyway.

Again, do you have any idea why not, or are you just repeating complaints that you've heard other people make? Did they have any details about why DRI wouldn't be a suitable design?

Any graphical application from video playback to 3d will always perform better on Windows than Linux on the same hardware.

That is far from true. I won't say that X11 is always faster than Windows, and I don't have enough data to say that it's usually faster than Windows, but there are many benchmarks that show that it is sometimes after than Windows. Your belief sounds like it's founded on "common knowledge" rather than actual measurements. You're way off base.

Re:Uh huh.

[koreaman]

A lot more comes with a standard Windows install than a kernel. Two different shells with all the necessary built-in command-line utilities (these are shell builtins in Windows and separate programs on GNU/Linux... doesn't make a difference really), a web browser, a simple text editor, a simple word processor, a window manager and desktop environment, a file manager, a video player, a great many drivers, C and C++ graphics libraries, the .NET framework, games... need I go on?

Windows is actually functionally much more than pure, raw "GNU/Linux", and comparing that whole package to a kernel and things sky-high in userland like Photoshop to "GNU", which consists in part of programs like "cat" and "ls", is silly.

Re:Uh huh.

[Daniel Phillips]

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.

If you're using IE I guess you might be left out in the cold, but IE users will be used to that by now.

Intentionally breaking compatibility with IE would be an excellent way to ensure the project bombs and fades away as a footnote. Another excellent way to ensure failure would be to support _only_ web apps or apps written to Chrome's API. Sorry, but people expect a computer to work like a computer, and that means support a full range of applications, not just web apps. Well so far, what have we got, a blog post and rebranding Linux as Chrome? Remember Java desktop, how's that working for Sun? Advice to Sundar Pichai and friends: if you want the open source community on board, burying the community's own "trademarks" in favor of your own is not a good start. Second bit of advice: if you can't run Openoffice on it, it's a toy. So better start figuring out how to do that, or at least make it easy for the community to do it for you. Third nugget is, be careful who you allow to represent Google to the community

Re:Uh huh.

[MSG]

Firefox runs faster on Windows

There are certainly benchmarks that indicate so, but they're primarily javascript benchmarks, not graphics intensive benchmarks. The consensus among the experts is that this is because the compilers used on Windows are generally better at producing fast code than gcc, and also that the Windows builds of Firefox used guided optimizations, while the Linux builds do not. This has nothing at all to do with X11.

Flash runs faster on Windows

I don't know if that's true or not, but pointing out that a program which was ported to X11 and is generally known best for poor quality is not an indication of problems in X11. Flash isn't well done on GNU/Linux.

As I've been pointing out in this entire conversation, you seem to be blaming X11 for perceived slowness in desktop applications. Despite what you've heard, X11 isn't the cause.

Re:Uh huh.

[nagnamer]

Google has one thing that Canonical and Ubuntu even red had doesnt, broad household name recognition

Some even call it "Internet", like my aunt.

Re:Uh huh.

[Serious Callers Only]

Intentionally breaking compatibility with IE would be an excellent way to ensure the project bombs and fades away as a footnote.

I doubt they'd intentionally break compatibility with IE, but if IE intentionally breaks compatibility with Google stuff, they don't have to care anymore, as there are plenty of viable alternatives. If you use IE and that happens, the correct people to complain to are Microsoft. The same couldn't be said when it had 90% market share, but IE is becoming less and less important.

Another excellent way to ensure failure would be to support _only_ web apps or apps written to Chrome's API.

Looks like this is exactly what they intend (only web apps, though not only ones written to Chrome's API, only ones written to HTML5), so I guess they've failed already, for people with your requirements for a netbook.

Second bit of advice: if you can't run Openoffice on it, it's a toy.

You are again mistaking your requirements for those of most people. Many people would be happier with google docs than open office, so long as it worked offline too.

PS I'd drop the 'toy' name-calling if you want people to take you seriously.

Re:Uh huh.

[tiggertaebo]

..to browse the web in complete security.

this, and this from TFA:

And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

are quite scary really. Are Google honestly claiming that the whole thing is (and will remain) completely invulnerable to any attacks? And people are believing this? Yeah.... Good luck with that.

I'm not denying that it will probably be fairly secure out of the box - after all the less functionality something offers the easier it is to secure, but to claim "complete security" is just foolish.

Re:Uh huh.

[howlingmadhowie]

Google has a particular objective: directing as many as possible users to Google products

call me naive, but i don't have this impression of google. my opinion is rather that google's objective is to have fun with cool technologies. to keep that going, they need money of course.

Re:Uh huh.

[howlingmadhowie]

this should be voted 'informative' and not 'troll'

Re:Uh huh.

[tverbeek]

Their OEM strategy for Android is for the smartphone market. By "OK so far" I mean that multiple OEMs have committed to using it, products are starting to appear, and it's developing both buzz and sales. Note that I didn't say "already a huge success!" or something of that sort; I said exactly what I meant and I meant exactly what I said. The fact that it hasn't been released on a netbook (yet) - as you apparently were hoping/expecting - says nothing about the actual strategy they're pursuing.

Re:Uh huh.

[zevans]

How many did Symbian sell in their first year? Apples with apples please...

Re:Uh huh.

[hab136]

Imagine the stereotypical average user actually having any comprehension of what you're talking about.

The "powers-on instantly" and "doesn't break" part they'll understand.

Re:Uh huh.

[DrVomact]

It isn't 'another window manager', it's a new windowing system.

I'm confused. I thought the new product was an operating system. An operating system provides fundamental services (like hardware I/O, filesystem, process management, etc.) Only Microsoft thinks that an operating system is the same thing as a GUI.

Re:Uh huh.

[DrVomact]

This is a foundation for a new generation of apps which aren't beholden to binary APIs controlled by the likes of Microsoft.

I'm confused...how are you going to create an operating system that runs applications without having a "binary" API? Or did you mis-type "proprietary"?

Re:Uh huh.

[DrVomact]

All of which matters ... not at all. The whole purpose of the device is to run ONE application, the browser. Everything else is there to support that...Google doesn't care if it's impossible to build standard applications on it

Ok, I don't like the picture I'm getting of the new Google "operating system"— indeed, it doesn't seem to be an operating system at all, but some kind of low-level software that supports only Google's peculiar notion of what kind of applications should run on people's computers (probably mostly their applications). That is not an operating system in my book, because I think of operating systems as a general purpose layer of software that supports basic computational services such as device drivers, hardware I/O, filesystem, file I/O, etc. and provides a way to run applications. Operating systems are—or should be—application-neutral. Even Microsoft allows anyone and everyone to write applications that run on their OS. If the Google thing will only support a very narrow range of "web" applications, then this is an extremely restrictive and ultimately disastrous model.

I was excited when I first heard about it; now I'm re-evaluating my previous belief that Google is run by really smart people.

Re:Uh huh.

[julian67]

"An operating system provides fundamental services"....that the user simply shouldn't need to know or care about. Here's what the consumer of a Chrome OS netbook needs to know: how much time do I have left on battery? Am I connected to the www? That's it. Everything else pertinent to the end user is outsourced to Google's distinctly non-free servers. It's all happening elsewhere. If the OS is reliable (it should be, being built on well tested technology and *relatively* simple) then local maintenance and admin issues won't exist.

Re:Uh huh.

[gig]

The API for Chrome OS is HTML 5, the same API for Safari and Firefox and every W3C-compatible Web browser. It has local storage and works offline and is much more than a new version of HTML 4.

Re:Uh huh.

[badkarmadayaccount]

Let me introduce you to something.

Re:Uh huh.

[franki.macha]

You Sir, are naive. :)

Re:Uh huh.

[zsau]

Firefox runs faster on Windows

Mozilla's fault. (I doubt Google cares about this, though.)

Flash runs faster on Windows

Macromedia's fault.

hardware video acceleration is available and stable on Windows...

Driver writers' fault.

this is no fault of the Linux kernel, it's just awkward to step around X. These three issues pretty much represent the crux of what is important on a netbook. Thus, we should assume that X is not fit for the job.

It's got nothing to do with X. X11 has more users than Google Chrome OS has. At best, one can assume third-party software writers will care as much for an X11-based Google Chrome OS as they would for an independent Google Chrome OS (meaning they have to port three times). It's hard to see how you could rationally conclude they'll care more for an Linux-based Google OS that uses its own graphical system, then they'd care for a Linux-based Google OS that uses X11. It's also hard to see how you could rationally conclude it'd be easier for end users to deal with a Linux-based Google OS that can't run Linux software, then a Linux-based Google OS that can run Linux software.

If Google's not using X11, they're going to have to be really careful about making sure people don't talk about Linux and Google Chrome OS in the same sentence, except as a contrast. Otherwise people are going to be wondering--Firefox and OpenOffice.org and Skype and Pidgin and whathaveyou all run on Linux. Why don't they run on this Linux (yet)?

(Plus, as far as speed's concerned, when it comes down to it, X11 is plenty fast enough for a netbook. For chrissake, who's going to run something that needs instant responsiveness on a netbook?)

Re:Uh huh.

[malevolentjelly]

It's got nothing to do with X. X11 has more users than Google Chrome OS has. At best, one can assume third-party software writers will care as much for an X11-based Google Chrome OS as they would for an independent Google Chrome OS (meaning they have to port three times). It's hard to see how you could rationally conclude they'll care more for an Linux-based Google OS that uses its own graphical system, then they'd care for a Linux-based Google OS that uses X11.

Driver writers might have the benefit of both a more stable and consistent driver API to work with and a larger expected userbase. Hardware providers will give higher priority to Chrome OS because it is a higher profile OS with a larger anticipated userbase. It is more important, in short. I suspect it will render any home-oriented Desktop Linux moot within months of release.

It's also hard to see how you could rationally conclude it'd be easier for end users to deal with a Linux-based Google OS that can't run Linux software, then a Linux-based Google OS that can run Linux software.

There are no successful or popular desktop linux distributions, so the lack of common linux software should be no issue. Google's online apps outstrip the popularity of open source linux software to such an extent that this will be a nonissue for the web-centric home users Google is targeting.

If Google's not using X11, they're going to have to be really careful about making sure people don't talk about Linux and Google Chrome OS in the same sentence, except as a contrast. Otherwise people are going to be wondering--Firefox and OpenOffice.org and Skype and Pidgin and whathaveyou all run on Linux. Why don't they run on this Linux (yet)?

You will not be running Firefox on Chrome OS, because the Chrome Browser is the basis for the desktop environment. You will likely be using Google Docs for your office suite and something talk-oriented for IM. Application developers like Skype will likely find a way to get their application running on the Chrome OS, since it will be larger than Desktop Linux. I think you vastly overestimate the popularity of linux for home users, so the lack of a "familiar" environment will only inconvenience a small number of users, comparatively. Third-party software developers don't take linux very seriously. They will have much more reason to take Chrome OS seriously. Besides, the interface for Chrome OS applications is supposedly the web-- web-centric companies can deploy on this operating system on day one.

(Plus, as far as speed's concerned, when it comes down to it, X11 is plenty fast enough for a netbook. For chrissake, who's going to run something that needs instant responsiveness on a netbook?)

The web is an extremely rich media environment. In the best adapted netbook-based linux distributions (such as UNR and Moblin) on an atom-based netbook, you can not attain smooth video watching a youtube video. It doesn't matter whose fault this is; it is unacceptable. Responsive media is essential for a home use platform, because home users' computing is centered around media. That means things like X11 and pulseaudio have no place on a desktop computer.

Re:Uh huh.

[zsau]

The fact that Google will have a larger potential market than Linux currently has is a point I've accepted. When I'm doubting is that software developers will treat Google Chrome OS as anything other than a platform they need to port "good enough" software to. So by combining two (different!) markets Google and Linux could both benefit! And that Google were fools when they said their product is based on Linux if it can't run Linux software, and they're going to have to stop doing that!

It doesn't matter whose fault this is; it is unacceptable.

Why will Adobe et al fix this for Google Chrome OS, but not for Google Chrome OS (as well as Linux/X11 people)? That's my question. X11 isn't incapable of being fast and smooth, it's just that the drivers and software need to be (re)written. It's the same either way! Many people at Google run Linux and will continue to do so after Chrome OS is released, so at best it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Google's online apps outstrip the popularity of open source linux software to such an extent that this will be a nonissue for the web-centric home users Google is targeting.

I only have internet access about three-quarters of the time I'm trying to do work (and when I have it I often achieve less work than in the quarter of the time I don't...), and surely I'm not unrepresentative. Maybe it's the fact that I try to do (uni) work on my laptop that makes me unrepresentative...

You will not be running Firefox on Chrome OS, because the Chrome Browser is the basis for the desktop environment.

I wouldn't. But there's enough people who switch to Linux and insist on using Firefox even though it sucks donkeysballs when there's browsers on Linux which don't. I'm not the Firefox-OpenOffice.org-etc type,[1] so I'm trying to judge a group I'm not: but you're probably right in that the sort of person who installs Ubuntu/has someone install Ubuntu onto their computer to make it work when Windows dies, but then assumes they will have access to the same (free) software they were running on Windows, is not the sort of person who will be buying these Google Chrome OS machines. I don't know ... (and I don't plan on buying one).

[1]: I'm the has-run-Linux-for-10+-years, writes-patches-to-his-regular-software-to-make-sure-it-works-for-him type. Linux seems amazingly more popular now than it did when I started using it, so that might make me overestimate it today, but it seems like many people who choose to use Linux now don't necessarily understand the costs/benefits switching OSes have. But they do know Linux runs their software--i.e. Firefox and OpenOffice.

Re:Uh huh.

[malevolentjelly]

The fact that Google will have a larger potential market than Linux currently has is a point I've accepted. When I'm doubting is that software developers will treat Google Chrome OS as anything other than a platform they need to port "good enough" software to. So by combining two (different!) markets Google and Linux could both benefit! And that Google were fools when they said their product is based on Linux if it can't run Linux software, and they're going to have to stop doing that!

First off, porting software is a situation google appears to be out and out avoiding by doing a "web-centric" OS. I don't believe Chrome OS will have a native execution environment exposed to developers, but that's just a theory. I have a feeling Google is putting this system squarely in the cloud. It's probably why they are able to make sweeping claims about the security of their system. No native execution = fewer casual exploits.

Why will Adobe et al fix this for Google Chrome OS, but not for Google Chrome OS (as well as Linux/X11 people)? That's my question. X11 isn't incapable of being fast and smooth, it's just that the drivers and software need to be (re)written. It's the same either way! Many people at Google run Linux and will continue to do so after Chrome OS is released, so at best it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

X11 is so overly complex for what it actually accomplishes in the desktop space that it might actually be cheaper and more elegant to wipe it out and start from scratch on display. As it stands, both Windows and Mac have display layers with superior multimedia performance. Better driver API's and GL integration could go a long way in spurring linux driver development for display. Adobe's flash isn't slow on linux by choice, it's simply not as fast of a display layer as windows offers and there's no "right" way to accelerate it. In linux, compatibility vs performance is a thinner tightrope vs. windows where there is a robust and standard way to accelerate things for display (DirectX).

I only have internet access about three-quarters of the time I'm trying to do work (and when I have it I often achieve less work than in the quarter of the time I don't...), and surely I'm not unrepresentative. Maybe it's the fact that I try to do (uni) work on my laptop that makes me unrepresentative...

This is definitely not the right OS for you. I personally won't be running it, either.

I wouldn't. But there's enough people who switch to Linux and insist on using Firefox even though it sucks donkeysballs when there's browsers on Linux which don't. I'm not the Firefox-OpenOffice.org-etc type,[1] so I'm trying to judge a group I'm not: but you're probably right in that the sort of person who installs Ubuntu/has someone install Ubuntu onto their computer to make it work when Windows dies, but then assumes they will have access to the same (free) software they were running on Windows, is not the sort of person who will be buying these Google Chrome OS machines. I don't know ... (and I don't plan on buying one).

Anyone who is able to effectively use Ubuntu could be considered an expert user. It's not that Ubuntu's usability paradigm is *hard*, it's just that it doesn't adhere to its own principles strictly. When things fail on Ubuntu, the process of solving the problem is often way more obscure and complicated than on Windows or especially Mac. I think Google Chrome OS will kill Ubuntu as a casual OS, but I think hardcore linux users will not switch to it- it has nothing they want.

[1]: I'm the has-run-Linux-for-10+-years, writes-patches-to-his-regular-software-to-make-sure-it-works-for-him type. Linux seems amazingly more popular now than it did when I started using it, so that might make me overestimate it today, but it seems like many people who choose to use Linux now don't necessarily understand the costs/benefits

Re:Uh huh.

[Calindae]

Entirely correct. And this proves completely that the naysayers over at Engadget are wrong about Chrome OS just being another player in the crowded Linux field. If Google is smart, and I have a feeling they are, then they will make this a new beast altogether, one that doesn't rely on the past (i.e. Microsoft's decades old tech, as the OP pointed out).

Competition is good, baby!

[bheer]

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.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[cheetham]

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

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[bheer]

From the horse's mouth:

Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple -- Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[bgarcia]

I don't see anything saying this is Linux or uses any Linux-derived kernal.

From the Official Google Blog posting:

The software architecture is simple - Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[yossarianuk]

It 100% does use a linux kernel - read from the horses mouth

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/

"Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple â" Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."

This is what the world has been waiting for....

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I remember someone talking about this, citing the lack of standards when it comes to doing anything GUI-wise in linux which is slowing development. If this OS really does ditch X etc then Google have a clean slate on which to design the browser.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MichaelSmith]

Google says the software architecture will basically be the current Chrome browser running inside âoea new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.â

link

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[tjstork]

The challenge to Microsoft aside, this will be a wake-up call to Gnome/KDE. The

Well I hear you about Gnome. It seems like they have just run out of gas.

I think the problem with KDE is that they woke up too much. KDE 4 seems like a project where they have genuinely bit off more than they can chew. They got so caught up in the big picture and the big rewrite that they seem to have actually regressed at the details level. I've ripped Gnome and KDE's file dialogs on my own site... way behind the times.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[tcr]

From Google's blog :
  Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple -- Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel
 
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[wisty]

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.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[suso]

So then really this Chrome OS will be a Linux distribution. Technically right?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MrHanky]

Who cares whether they care? They will care to make it useful on real hardware, and that means improved hardware support.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[je ne sais quoi]

I can't wait to see what the new windowing system is.

You and me both, but I'm a little confused. What do they mean by "windowing system"? Are they doing a rewrite of X11, or do they mean they are designing new window decorations and widgets (e.g. gtk or qt), or do they mean the whole desktop environment (e.g., kde, gnome)?

If it's a replacement for X11, why are they doing that? I could see that maybe X11 has too much legacy code and really isn't designed to be the most efficient for a single screen laptop where you don't need an X windows server per se, but on the other hand, I can't imagine that they are going to need something that can outperform X11 for gpu intensive applications like gaming development. I'd love to be wrong about that last bit though. Whatever they mean by it though, it'll be nice to see.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[wisty]

Doesn't this sound a lot like iPhone 1.0, when SJ told developers to use "Safari" as the app framework?

Still, I guess nobody does web dev like google.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[larry bagina]

Google has recently been active in directfb.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[slim]

Yes, but one without X.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jellomizer]

Maybe. But not really.

Most distributions of Linux follow a lot of common standards.
Similar directory structure. Similar Apps installed...

If you just take the Linux Kernel then just build an OS on top of that you would have something dramatically different then a Linux Distribution.

Lets look at OS X. OS X is based off a Unix Kernel. But it isn't much of Unix Distribution. Apple just left Unix compatibility so they can market it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[noundi]

That's correct.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[VJ42]

If it's a replacement for X11, why are they doing that? I could see that maybe X11 has too much legacy code and really isn't designed to be the most efficient for a single screen laptop where you don't need an X windows server per se, but on the other hand, I can't imagine that they are going to need something that can outperform X11 for gpu intensive applications like gaming development. I'd love to be wrong about that last bit though. Whatever they mean by it though, it'll be nice to see.

It's a replacement for X; Chrome OS is aimed at netbooks, so they're going for lightweight and speed. No gpu intensive applications involved.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Bralkein]

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.

Well I don't know about GNOME and KDE, they certainly appear to be putting a lot of effort in seeing as how GNOME are forging ahead with their fancy new desktop UI and KDE basically just released their new desktop system which they continue to improve. You have a point though; GUI-type stuff on Linux continues to be a source of disappointment and it would be really great to see if a big player like Google could really come along and shake things up with a radical new approach, all being open source to boot. I've always suspected the underpinnings were at fault (sorry X, I love you but still) so maybe Google's new system could even be useful for GNOME and KDE too! I guess we'll just have to wait and see :)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jipn4]

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 OS X GUI layer is essentially NeXTStep on a revised Display Postscript. It's slower and more resource intensive than X11, its graphics is targeted primarily at desktop usage. Where is the innovation?

X11 has been innovative from its inception, and it continues to be amazingly innovative today. For example, the kinds of visual effects Compiz delivers effortlessly and cleanly are much harder to achieve in OS X.

this will be a wake-up call to Gnome/KDE

What exactly do you think will be the "wake-up call"? Both Gnome and KDE have non-X11 backends, but people don't use them because there really is no benefit associated with getting rid of X11.

A non-X11 backend may make sense for Chrome OS because Chrome OS probably needs less functionality than X11 provides and it makes writing drivers easier. But in terms of innovation and functionality, X11 is second to none.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[noundi]

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.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[elrous0]

I hereby dub thee the ee cummings of /.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Seth Kriticos]

I really don't think they will replace X11. It's a stable and effective windowing system, and it also consumes low amount of resources (my N800 also runs one perfectly fine, and that's a 400MHz ARM with no GPU). It is also really powerful on appropriate hardware (with wine I can perfectly well play games of the newest generation without speed penalties). X11 is also quite uniform between Linux platforms. It also just provides the bare minimum to communicate with the hardware and display graphic primitives on the screen. The problem with X11 is that it is a very old design and an extreme pain to develop with directly because of the API 'aesthetics'.. but it would be much much harder to replace it with something from scratch. My guess is that Google will go on top of X11 and write a window manager (program that manages running windows, adds decorations, bars, icons etc..). Then tightly integrates this with their browser. Well, let's see what happens.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

No gpu intensive applications involved.

You mean like Flash, playing HD video or Google's own O3D and Google Earth?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mdm-adph]

Just a small point -- feel free to ignore this -- but you mean a DHTML command. :P

An Ajax command can have a DHTML callback that opens a window, but the Ajax command itself just communicates with a server.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[agentultra]

But in terms of innovation and functionality, X11 is second to none.

Amen.

It does have it's own challenges (being somewhat difficult to configure on its own for non-technical users), but the flexibility it affords is awesome.

... and it's a server too! Maybe if we'd spent the last 15 years working on a standard X11-like network protocol instead of hacking stateless application GUIs out of scripted marked-up text, we'd have a more useful Internet than we do now. But I digress.

Loves me X, I do! :)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Hal_Porter]

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.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[contrapunctus]

Actually I'd be more worried about privacy. Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[suso]

Nope, its a Linux distribution because it uses the Linux kernel. What you are used to is many GNU/Linux distributions. But there are other distrubtions out there. Gentoo is very different from a lot of other Linux distributions, but it still falls into the GNU category because by default it comes with most of the stand GNU utilities.

Someone needs to make a chart or something.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MBGMorden]

Any company with sense only really cares about making more money. The trick is to find one that can make money by making you happy so that you willing give them the cash for a service you enjoy, rather than just siphoning it off because there's no other option for you.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[PopeRatzo]

If you just take the Linux Kernel then just build an OS on top of that you would have something dramatically different then a Linux Distribution.

See, but that's OK.

OS X is based off a Unix Kernel. But it isn't much of Unix Distribution.

That's OK, too.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[noundi]

Nobody, but a lot of people opened their mouths and now there's diharrea all over it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Xabraxas]

You just can't win in the software world. People bitch when you create new features because there are still issues to be fixed but people also bitch when you just just fix bugs because they want new features! Personally I'm not begging for many new features in GNOME right now and I think the KDE fiasco was a mistake. I hope GNOME gets it right when they start on GNOME 3.0.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[PopeRatzo]

google dont care about Linux

So?

its only a means to earn more $$$ and gain more 00 (thats eyeballs)

Will someone please explain "capitalism" and "google is a public corporation" to this young man?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Fred_A]

The software architecture is simple â" Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."

This is what the world has been waiting for....

Finally, it's about time we moved on. X is dead, all hail Y !
Or is it finally Berlin ^H^H^H^H^H^H Fresco ??

Oh wait, X works fine after all and is being actively fixed.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MBGMorden]

I'd wager they're replacing X11, because frankly it's a legacy ridden inefficient way of doing a GUI. Linux lives with it because it kinda sorta works and there's just not enough momentum to do anything differently, but ideally you don't want to use it for a primary desktop UI. X11 works nicely as a way of running applications remotely on a seperate system. For any other use it's long in the tooth. When Apple had a chance to start from scratch with their own Unix did they use X11? Of course not. They rewrote a proper windowing system and then a seperate X11 server to run on top of it for those few apps that were too stubborn to port to the native windowing system (rootless X11 servers exist for Windows too).

I'd wager that google will do much the same. A new graphics system with some type of X11 system as an installable option.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[orasio]

Right, but If we call this new OS, the "Google" OS, then we have to go back and call every other Linux distribution, "GNU" OSs. I'm OK with that.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[voidptr]

Considering Leopard on Intel is UNIX certified, the latest version of OS X is as much Unix as AIX, Irix, or Solaris is.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Xabraxas]

I've always suspected the underpinnings were at fault (sorry X, I love you but still) so maybe Google's new system could even be useful for GNOME and KDE too! I guess we'll just have to wait and see :)

I think you're going to be severely disappointed when Google does release their display system for ChromeOS. It doesn't need to do much (just display a browser or prism application or whatever) so I can't imagine it being very advanced. It's more likely going to be extremely lean and simple, without many options. Perhaps it will use something akin to the card system of the Palm Pre. In other words don't expect something that is going to be useful to 90% of the Linux desktops already out there.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mwvdlee]

If Chrome OS is essentially a thin client OS build around a webbrowser... how is it any better than any other operating system?
Does it offer anything to make the web experience better than using Firefox on Linux or the Chrome browser on WinXP?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Fred_A]

The problem with X11 is that it is a very old design and an extreme pain to develop with directly because of the API 'aesthetics'.. but it would be much much harder to replace it with something from scratch.

But there are dozens, if not hundreds of libraries which address that particular problem. I don't think anyone talks to X directly any more, it would be a bit like programming in assembly.

And an awful lot of the legacy crud of X seems to be replaced nowadays (although that's still work in progress I suppose). So we'll presumably end up with old compatibility stuff and the new standard interfaces.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Flea of Pain]

A chart? Please. This is /. We all know that people only respond to car analogies.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[PitaBred]

Why replace X11? There are other windowing systems, and if they're creating it as a webapp running OS, they have no reason to make it do anything other than what Chrome needs, and nothing more. Maybe some GL acceleration, tight tying of Chrome's drawing code to the video drivers, and that's about it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[xlysogenx]

Java?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[contrapunctus]

No-one forces you to use it.

Really? Thanks. It's still an important thing to discuss. I can't bring myself to install anything made by google on my mac because of the sneaky hidden way it installs the updater. I can't imagine I'll ever trust an entire OS. I don't care if it's open source and if someone will clean it. Might as well install a clean linux distro to start with.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Svartalf]

X11 isn't GPU intensive. It's not even really RAM intensive.

It is, however, more complicated than needs be for an embedded device type application as it's network centric and all that comes with being a client/server system.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[BeardsmoreA]

You mean like http://www.y-windows.org/ ?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[rho]

Interestingly, Chrome OS is apparently a bare-bones Linux + a "new windowing system" + the Chrome browser.

The only thing that interests me is how ebullient people are about something that they know nothing about, simply because it's got Google's name on it.

As Ted Dziuba put it, Google's very good at selling ads. Supporting actual customers? Not so much.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Tweenk]

I think they might be looking into something like Wayland: a very trimmed down X server built on top of DRI2. I agree that replacing X11 is completely unrealistic, and there is no reason to do so: it works quite well and is portable. There is even an X server for Windows in the PuTTY distribution that can run remote X clients over SSH, and most apps work without a hitch.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mopower70]

So VMWare ESX is Linux?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[noundi]

Sad that this idiot is abusing the system and there's nothing one can do. This person probably didn't like to hear the truth and began to burn any post I posted.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[beelsebob]

I'm pretty certain that replacing X11 is exactly what they're after. It took a horrible amount of contortions to squeeze compositing into the X11 framework, and even then it was a gigantic hack. I'm pretty sure they'll be writing their own compositor from scratch.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jabjoe]

Glad to hear some sane X11 commenting. There is much uninformed X11 hate around.
Most people that complain about developing on X are talking about XLib not it's replacement XCB, so it's a bit unfair...

At the moment I have this sinking feeling the do mean an X11 replacement. This would separate ChromeOS from being just another distro, it won't be able to run many apps, only ChromeOS apps. I think that is what they want. They might bring out the usual false Unix hater X11 arguments, but I feel that's what it really will be. It's a way of locking down a Unix, like Apple before them. :-( Yer, someone no will do a X11 for ChromeOS, but the fragmentation will be done.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mattwarden]

They used the wrong term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_manager#X_window_managers

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ByOhTek]

I'm guessing it's more about how you said it than what you said. You are not inaccurate, well the "troll" part is an assumption and could be inaccurate, don't assume malice when ignorance is suitable, but the main points are correct. But phrasing something rudely as you did doesn't server to help anyone any better than a more polite phrasing, and in most cases it actually does a worse job.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[tjstork]

You just can't win in the software world

No one escapes. For years Microsoft lead Linux in the driver's department until Linux settled on a driver model and stuck with it. Now, Microsoft redoes their driver model, which honestly needed to be done, but broke compatibility with a bunch of stuff, and now, they are the bad guys for not having enough drivers. So, pretty much, on the same exact issue, compatibility with legacy drivers versus innovation in the kernel, both Linux and Windows have been on both sides.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jopsen]

You and me both, but I'm a little confused. What do they mean by "windowing system"?

They probably mean that they are going to do a window manager...
My guess is that they give MatchBox tabs e.g. no freely movable windows... If they can then do it better than Ubuntu did it, then maybe they've got a change...

But What about package management, are they doing their own... Personally I hope not :)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[beelsebob]

Uh? OS X is *very* UNIX like. So unix like that it's certified as such. It's probably closer to what you might refer to as a "normal" UNIX environment than many others in fact. Open Solaris is *much* further away than OS X is -- it even disposes of the normal UNIX permissioning system, along with many other things.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Yvanhoe]

Could it be the comeback of the framebuffer mode ?
They don't really want a windowing system, methinks. All they need is to open Chrome in fullscreen...

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MrHanky]

It does. And Google already has Gadgets, the equivalent of Apple's dashboard widgets, which can run under KDE 4 and probably (as they use Chrome's WebKit engine) will run under the Chrome OS as well.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jabjoe]

I feel Apple did this as much to lock applications in to just their platform more than anything else. The technical reasons given I feel are old unix hater fluff to justify it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Tim4444]

If you just take the Linux Kernel then just build an OS on top of that you would have something dramatically different then a Linux Distribution.

An OS in any other clothes is still the same OS. Consider if someone took a Windows Kernel and built a new UI for it. It might not look like Windows but I'm sure there'd be some Redmond lawyers willing to call it what it is.

Most distributions of Linux follow a lot of common standards. Similar directory structure.

If you move "My Documents" in Windows or reorganize the registry you'll break a few apps but you won't have a new OS.

Similar Apps installed...

All desktops have similar apps installed: web browsers, text editors, networking tools like ping. That doesn't mean they're all running the same OS.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Fred_A]

You mean like http://www.y-windows.org/ ?

From that page :

I've got tired with the state of desktop GNU/Linux. Most of the problems that I see with it can be traced back to the underlying window system, X.

I regularly see a number of problems with desktop Linux, having been using it for 15 years or so, but few of them had anything to do with X11. A number of them had to do with ALSA, or CUPS or broken APIC or DPMS support. X worked fine for me. Especially its keyboard management which let me enter exotic characters much more easily than on any other platform, Windows or MacOS (the latter being by far the worst).

Also :

In-server widgets means there can be exactly one current language, one complex input method system for languages that require them, and one set of accessibility features.

This has fail written all over it. You definitely want several current languages in many cases.

I don't think this project is going to gather many followers.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Nerdfest]

Could their recent mention of releasing NeatX, an open source NX server, be related to this?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[gentlemen_loser]

Don't be fooled by the "it's mainly for web browsing spin"? It seemed pretty clear to me. Google's direction all along has been to move applications from the desktop to the web (which in many cases, in my opinion, is a stupid idea).

Google actually states: '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.'

Their comments about giving developers the largest user base of any platform are complete bullshit. Web developers already have that user base and not every application should be ported to run in a browser. At first, I cringed a little when I heard that they were getting pulled into an anti-trust investigation. Now I feel better about it. I have always had an uneasy feeling about an advertising company being able to gather and broker as much information about someone as they do. For Christ's sake, they archive, search, and use your EMAIL to develop more targeted ads. The idea that my entire OS could/would gather everything it could on me scares the crap out of me.

I realize I am sort of rambling, but I have two main points:
1) Not every app belongs on the web. In fact, most do not.
2) I am not comfortable with an advertising company being so in control of all of our private data. An earlier commenter pointed out what a big "win" this would be for corporations looking to deploy thin clients. How much of a "win" will it be to have Google searching, indexing, and archiving all of your company's sensitive documentation, all in the name of building better advertisements?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Eravnrekaree]

An OS cannot claim to support standards when it does not support the X Window System standard which assures that all GUI apps can run on an OS without needing to port the app. Why Google did not simply use X is beyond me, we dont need yet another proprietary OS. I wouldn't touch Chrome, sounds like hype and violates its own claims of standards conformance. The POSIX support is probably shoddy too.,

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[LKM]

While it is technically a Linux distro, it's not what you would expect if somebody told you it was a Linux distro. Typically, if I say "Hey, look at this Linux distro", you expect a Linux kernel, X, and probably KDE or Gnome. People don't typically call Android a Linux distro, either.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[RiotingPacifist]

so tivo is a linux distribution?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[cashman73]

Hate to point this out, but didn't somebody else already come up with an operating system that was tightly integrated with their web browser? That worked out so well for them!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[suso]

Technically, yes. But its a specialized environment. Like Tivo is. By chart I mean it would be cool to buy a large poster that showed where Linux has been used and it would have a large category for GNU/Linux distros, but it would also show all the various ways Linux has been embedded or used in different ways, on phones, in Chrome/OS and so on. It would be educational and insightful to see.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Eravnrekaree]

Well, these are myths about X. First X does not have "Legacy" code. Code is not like milk where it goes sour after a certain amount of time. Code that is decades can still be perfectly good and in fact newer attempts to implement the same things implementing by older code can actually result in buggier code of poorer quality. X is actually pretty efficient and does not use a lot of memory compared to other GUIs. The core X engines probably use somewhere in the area of a few megabytes.

X also has an extension mechanism where the protocol can be extended to keep up with new features and developments. X is a pretty capable system, and keeps up with all of the most recent needs of GUIs. It also has assured backwards compatability and has become sort of an API standard, so you could always count on an X application running on any X server without having to worry about compatability issues. The network transparent design allows for things that are unthinkable on windows, like running programs on one computer and displaying to another, and displaying programs from several user to one X server, etc.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[noundi]

So what's your point? Really no flamebaiting, what's your point? I stated the truth, you stated that people in general are idiots assuming things they haven't confirmed. Where do we go from here?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Alanis Morissette]

And oh, anyone else notice the irony that the Chrome _browser_ for Linux seems largely like an afterthought right now?

Me, I did!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[iangoldby]

To me, it sounds a bit like Chrome OS is an operating system where the browser is the OS. It's not yet clear whether Google expect all applications running on Chrome OS to be web applications. Let's suppose the answer is 'yes'...

In that case, perhaps they don't really need a windowing system at all. What if the graphical interface of Chrome OS is to be a web browser that displays itself as a single window in a simple frame buffer?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[amirspamable]

I agree X11 is old thats why we have Wayland http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/03/2217216

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[EraserMouseMan]

Yea, it's good that Apple will finally have some competition. Now the iPhone/MacBook crowd who only use their computer for dicking around on the Internet and checking email will have another choice that doesn't involve paying for the Apple logo. Of course without that logo you won't be officially in the club anymore. But since allegiance to Google's latest innovations has the same anti-MS/elitist vibe can't we create a new Apple Club "Associate Member" status?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Serious Callers Only]

I really don't think they will replace X11. It's a stable and effective windowing system, and it also consumes low amount of resources (my N800 also runs one perfectly fine, and that's a 400MHz ARM with no GPU).

Does Android use X11?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[DuckDodgers]

All Linux distributions have a Linux kernel, by definition. Most have X. But there's a decent number that skip without KDE and GNOME. There are at least half a dozen competent window managers that are not nearly as feature-rich as KDE or GNOME but great for running on hardware that would choke on the more resource-intensive pair.

I don't mean to denigrate the hard work done by the KDE and GNOME teams. They were decent a decade ago and are excellent today. But one of the territories where Microsoft's grip is weak is cheaper hardware. I think it's intelligent for Google's OS to tackle this first. I also think it's a place where KDE and GNOME have the least to offer.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[LKM]

My guess would be that they are replacing X with something much simpler. Presumably, they don't really need moving windows, client/server detachement, network transparency and other things. All they need is one huge window with a browser inside, and perhaps a way to show alerts or popups.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Scootin159]

Once fully loaded, I doubt. The biggest gains will be in how quick you can go from power off to fully loaded in your web browser. My iPhone is significantly less powerful and has many less features than my desktop, but there are many times at home that I find it's quicker to just grab my phone and look something up than to power up my whole desktop PC.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[larry bagina]

Look at Core Image Filters and Core Animation.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[TooMuchToDo]

Vmware ESX/ESXi uses a Linux kernel to load additional code, which is pretty cool considering it only has a 32MB footprint on disk.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[slim]

so tivo is a linux distribution?

By any rational definition, yes it is.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[electrosoccertux]

I know there is a largely CS-dominated crowd on this site, but many of us are intelligent EEs and did have some programming in college. If you could explain why doing it this way is so bad, or different, and why they might be doing it that way, that would great.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[usman_ismail]

Who cares whether they care? They will care to make it useful on real hardware, and that means improved hardware support.

Actually because of google's size hardware vendors will gradually stop supporting other distros'

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Darundal]

Performance/security, if you RTFA or think about it logically.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that you called out a troll, it's that you're clearly a douche.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[LKM]

My point is that there's a difference between what a word actually means, and how people use that word, and that it's kind of pointless to start flamewars over this.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Ikonoclasm]

That will be a very good question. On the other hand, is it really anti-competitive when the product being sold is the hardware with that specific browser? The OS has traditionally been the platform from which everything else was launched. With Chrome OS, they're essentially turning the browser into the platform and the OS is secondary in importance. I think they've got a pretty good argument that the browser is more important than the OS on the hardware, which is very different from the MS IE bundling.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[clone53421]

Probably where you called him a troll for being wrong on the internet, I'm guessing.

Now someone can insert the obligatory XKCD reference...

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Eli Gottlieb]

Yeah, well there's a reason X11 had its own chapter in UHH.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[noundi]

Agreed, no flamewar. So which would you consider to be a Linux distro? Anything with a Linux kernel or Linux kernel + X + KDE/GNOME (or another variant, you're free to define). I'm honestly curious to know.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[clone53421]

Rants about down-mods are usually down-modded further. They're almost inevitably off-topic, and they're usually fairly inflammatory (flamebait and/or troll).

What's sad is that your original post, the one that got a down-mod, is now moderated at +5 Informative but since then you have, let me count... four, no five down-modded (and more or less appropriately so) comments below it which serve very little useful purpose.

Just a suggestion – let the moderation fix itself. The post to which you replied is moderated -1; your post is moderated +5... can we leave it well enough alone now?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[noundi]

You're the problem sir. There is no -1 douche and there is no -1 disagree. You can have whatever personal opinion you want about me, I really don't care, but don't ruin Slashdot for the rest of us. Thanks.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jgostling]

It did work quite well for them. Got them to over 90% browser market share. Now if Google Search starts working slower for the other players we have a new shiny antitrust suit on the works.

Cheers!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[macbass]

Lessee, from one monopoly to another - that's a choice?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MrHanky]

So fucking what? What distro is supported by which hardware vendor anyway? None of them! So nothing will change!

People like you really need to be beaten with a cluestick until you're unable to form your idiotic opinions.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[instagib]

Given that X11 comes from code that in the past had to run on slow processors and scarce RAM across many Unix versions, I also don't think effectivity is Google's major motivation if they replace it. More probably, they want something more simple, with less features, so maintenance will be less costly for them. Especially when they offer a supported version of ChromeOS for businesses.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[GargamelSpaceman]

If they open source it, and give it away for free ( as in freedom ), I think that makes them immune from antitrust issues.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[slim]

Actually because of google's size hardware vendors will gradually stop supporting other distros

That makes things nice and easy for other distros, doesn't it? If you ArbitaryDistro supports all the hardware Google's OS supports, then any hardware manufacturer that promises Google compatibility, is effectively promising ArbitraryDistro compatibility.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Hal_Porter]

I don't like the idea of releasing something with an software interface which is clunky and then releasing something else with a new and incompatible 'better' interface. Think carefully before you release an interface and then support it forever. Otherwise no one will use your stuff.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[usman_ismail]

Amazing what 20s of googling can turn uo.

http://www.linux-netbook.com/acer-aspire-one

http://www.trustedreviews.com/laptops/review/2008/06/14/Asus-Eee-PC-901-20G-Linux-Edition/p1

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[abigor]

OS X is a certified Unix, and it's got little to do with marketing. It was built that way. Read up on the history of OS X's development.

You normally make insightful posts, but this was a really dumb thing for you to say.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Coryoth]

It is, however, more complicated than needs be for an embedded device type application as it's network centric and all that comes with being a client/server system.

Yes, the last thing I would want on a netbook that's internet focused and wanting to use applications over the network rather than entirely locally is some sort of network aware display system. That would just be stupid.

Now talk of slimming down the chattiness of X over networks (as seen in NX) I will listen to ...

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jipn4]

Look at Core Image Filters and Core Animation.

I have. They are the obvious, plodding, boring software engineering solutions to image filtering and animation--not even invented at Apple. And in order to use them, applications usually need to be modified. Now have a look at what Linux compositing window managers manage to do, without any kind of modifications to applications.

I have an iMac on my desk, right next to my Ubuntu machine. For a brief while, Apple had the lead on desktop effects and usability, but these days, the OS X interface seems dull, limiting, and cumbersome to me.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Big Boss]

Remember, they are targeting lightweight machines here. One notch above cell phones processor/memory wise. Not powerful computers like we commonly run Linux on these days. ARM chips with ~128Meg of RAM. Gnome and KDE simply can't run in that environment, though X11 itself could. It might not offer anything you can't get with Firefox+Linux or Win+Chrome on a powerful machine. But it can offer a very snappy version of that on low power computers. If you don't need the speed and RAM of a big notebook or desktop computer, but do mostly web browsing and email, a cheap, slow CPU with long battery life might be the way to go. Not really targeted at most /. user types. More like their mothers. Another plus is that being Linux based, none of the current Windows malware/viruses can infect it. Not that they couldn't write new malware I suppose, but if they properly use the UNIX security model, it should keep down the background infections. The (l)user in question would have to provide the admin password and such.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[drakaan]

IHBT...

you forced me to read and reply to the post you mentioned. You're a very emotional person, it seems....either that or an artful and clever troll.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

I think they won't "replace" X11 because it's more of a network framework with minimal windowing capabilities than it is a windowing framework. Once you take X11 out of it's historical context, it really isn't a very good architecture for a windowing system.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[DraQ]

http://webconverger.com/ uses http://dwm.suckless.org/

DWM is a "new" lightweight Window Manager.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[drakaan]

That's correct...albeit a BSD distro with nice eye-candy

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[gbjbaanb]

one man's 'clunky' interface is another man's 'horrible, broken, unmaintainable, must-be-rewritten-from-scratch' interface. The reality is that its almost always good enough for its purpose assuming you are prepared to work with it and not assume that everything needs to be 'fixed' by changing them to your preferred programming model.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

"But in terms of innovation and functionality, X11 is second to none."

But the main driving force behind network transparency was the particular ecosystem that X was developed for: Centralized processing and relatively dumb terminals. Once computing power is decentralized, you're left with a system that unnecessarily couples networking and windowing.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[gbjbaanb]

as its Google, and they want to reuse their apps on Chrome, this new windowing app will be heavily based around javascript and html. I doubt it'll be 3d opengl windows, or anything like the old desktop system, instead I think it'll be more like each window is a cut-down browser, one without bookmarks and tabs and so on. They'll have to create a new navigation system (but I imagine bookmarks will feature in there), and you'll be able to dock and stack windows (which may appear with tabs on the top)

They'll still need a lightweight OS to display those 'browser' windows, and X is good enough for the task. If they want to improve it with a framebuffer approache, then that's fine too - as a developer for this new platform, you'll be writing HTML for the gadgets and putting 'code' in java or javascript applets. I hope there will be a native application API (ie C/C++ based applications that can be invoked from the "browser" directly), but if its got any Android heritage, such integration will be limited.

I can't see them creating a cut-down Linux distro for netbooks. Not when they want their apps running on the netbook to work on the internet in Chrome too.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like turtles.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

"An OS cannot claim to support standards when it does not support the X Window System standard which assures that all GUI apps can run on an OS without needing to port the app."

There's lots of standards that aren't supported by operating systems that claim to support standards; why should X be the deciding factor?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MrHanky]

And? What kind of special hardware support is there in the distributions they use that isn't in all the others? None. Hardware support is not distribution specific, you drooling moron.

Yeah, replace your brain with Google and then complain when they will make hardware vendors stop supporting Linux distributions. It's only your imagination, idiot.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[AlXtreme]

As Ted Dziuba put it, Google's very good at selling ads. Supporting actual customers? Not so much.

As much as I enjoy Ted's monday rant on El Reg, he's a few years behind the times with such a statement.

Gmail, Docs, Chrome? Actual users, and with Apps they turn into actual customers. Even though I don't use Google's stuff myself, they seem to be doing quite well. When they fsck up it is mentioned on slashdot, so they aren't fooling around too often (it's still news).

Perhaps they'll go the OEM route like they did with Android, in that case supporting customers wouldn't be their main concern.

Either way, it will be sweet seeing a large player push Linux back into the netbook market. It was horrifying to see such a linux-friendly market get swamped by MS in a matter of months, to the extent that now it's nearly impossible to get one with Linux pre-installed...

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[FilthCatcher]

So all google has to do here is not illegally impose economic sanctions on any OEM that tries to ship the inevitable Firefox build with their netbooks.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[PDHoss]

"... no virus hassles..."

You are adorable.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Blakey Rat]

One of the best reasons for replacing X11 is that laptops *aren't* single-screen devices. In fact, laptops are much more likely than desktops to have to hot-swap monitors, and that's something that, currently, X11 handles like ass. (If it handles it at all, which from my experience it doesn't.) Meanwhile, OS X and Windows are perfectly fine with hot-swapping monitors.

In short, replacing X11 would make laptops much *more* useful, not less.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Khashishi]

Maybe, fast boot time?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MikeBabcock]

Not being a standards follower of FHS or freedesktop.org doesn't change whether a Linux based OS is a Linux distribution or not.

This is a full OS distribution based on a Linux kernel, that makes it a Linux distro. I can't easily use Ubuntu packages on my Fedora box, but that doesn't make either of them less Linux.

In general though, I probably agree with your thinking in that I hope Google doesn't call this a Linux distro because I don't want to confuse people who think they could go from this to another distribution or vice versa easily.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Amiga Trombone]

I don't think uniformity with other Linux distros is a consideration here, and objectively it might even be a disadvantage if they're trying to get developers to target a specific standard. Think OS X - it's built on FreeBSD, but virtually no vendor targets it as such, they target OS X specifically, which is why you don't have the confusion of applications you have in the Linux world. Starting from a clean slate might have some advantages. I'm guessing they might retain X11 as an optional feature that runs on top of whatever windowing system they come up with, similar to what Apple does with OS X.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[DragonWriter]

To me, it sounds a bit like Chrome OS is an operating system where the browser is the OS. It's not yet clear whether Google expect all applications running on Chrome OS to be web applications. Let's suppose the answer is 'yes'...

In that case, perhaps they don't really need a windowing system at all. What if the graphical interface of Chrome OS is to be a web browser that displays itself as a single window in a simple frame buffer?

While I suspect that the assumption that the application model is going to be dominated by browser-rendered apps, I doubt they'll go "single window". I can very easily see something where Chrome is the only user-facing truly native application, but where, just as with desktop Chrome on conventional OS's, they fully support multiple windows, dragging tabs out to do make new windows (or dragging tabs in to collapse multiple windows into one), etc.

For netbooks, single-window might be sufficient, but it seems from the coverage very clear that Google sees netbooks just as a stepping stone, so I doubt very much that they are aiming this in a way that it will be just barely good enough for netbooks, and not suitable for anything else.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[trjonescp]

Seems pretty obvious to me. They're just going to write a new window manager so all window decorations look like those Chrome currently uses. Right now Chrome sticks out like sore thumb on any operating system you use.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[DragonWriter]

Right, but If we call this new OS, the "Google" OS, then we have to go back and call every other Linux distribution, "GNU" OSs.

Why? I would think that if we call a Linux distribution put together by Google that includes components beside the Linux kernel (whether developed in house by Google or open source components from third parties) selected by Google and marketed by them under the Chrome OS brand as a "Google OS" and as "Chrome OS", then we would call an OS with the Linux kernel and other components selected by, say, Canonical and marketed under the Ubuntu brand as a "Canonical OS" and as "Ubuntu". We wouldn't call it a "GNU OS" or a "Ruby OS" or a "MySQL OS", just because it includes open source components from those sources, just as we aren't calling "Google Chrome OS" names based on where it acquired third-party open-source components.

Sure, if GNU created its own Linux distribution (or, say, released the HURD), calling that a "GNU OS" would be analogous to calling Google Chrome OS a "Google OS", but that's a different story altogether.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ByOhTek]

Yes, stop trying to defend your actions and justify them, instead look around and see what YOU did that caused the issue.

You are trying to blame the problem on everyone but the primary cause. Yes there are other issues, and you aren't the only one contributing to the issue, but it if weren't for your initial contribution, and your (apparent) inability to accept that you could do something less than perfect, then you wouldn't get all the downmods.

Notice how even the people that say things that side with you on at least part of the issue, side with you only with certain caveats and reservations. Either we are all idiots or you are making/have made a mistake. Well, it could be a bit of both I guess. Think about it before just responding.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[PainKilleR-CE]

I wouldn't mind them doing this if they permitted Chrome to do some tiling. There's nothing I hate more than running everything full screen.

Then again, we're talking about netbooks, and I guess there's less of a point to tiling windows on a 10" screen.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Zoidbot]

It's also the ONLY way Linux is going to get anywhere near a reasonable share of desktop usage. The mess created by Ubunutu/Redhat/KDE/Gnome and everyone else doing their own thing, is what has killed Linux's desktop adoption.

Having a ChromeOS, which is opensource, yet single set of API's is a fantastic idea. I'm just Annoyed Opera did not persue their plans for this several years back (or did they?)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[weicco]

I'm not sure how things are in X but in Windows everything you see is a window. Tabs are just windows inside a window (inside a window). Even buttons are windows inside a window. You can circumvent that by drawing the whole sh*t by hand (like Winamp) but that's somewhat hard to do and especially hard if you need to implement something like drag'n'drop.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MBGMorden]

Maybe, but as a pretty heavy user of both Mac OS X and Linux (and Windows), I can honestly say that the feel and smoothness of the Mac OS X GUI blows x.org out of the water. Comparing the responsiveness and smoothness of the two is just night and day.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Elwood P Dowd]

The only reason they might replace X11 is to better fit whatever security model they use. And even though it is not resource intensive, they may be using such a small feature set from their windowing model that they want a slimmer install.

Back when Compiz was in its infancy or nonexistent, didn't there used to be a few compositing projects for Linux that could either run inside of X11 or on its own console? I would not be terribly surprised if they went with something that light weight.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Rysc]

X is one of the few things on which most people in the Linux (and BSD) world can agree. Why change that?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[spitzak]

You don't need a windowing system. If the browser can draw all over the screen, it certainly can draw it's own windows and window borders.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Hognoxious]

I don't see why another windowing system is a good thing.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

I read about a fork of Xorg a year or two ago that sounded really interesting, but haven't heard anything since. I wonder if Google is using it. I think I read about it on Phoronix but the name escapes me. Anyone?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[DragonWriter]

You don't need a windowing system. If the browser can draw all over the screen, it certainly can draw it's own windows and window borders.

And the code it uses to do that is, in fact, a windowing system.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[IntlHarvester]

Google doesn't have any way of inserting advertisements into your network X11 applications. :)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[chammy]

Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?

If they're really going to release the source code this won't be much of a problem, assuming they don't do something dumb like proxy everything through their own server or something.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

Ubuntu in their kernel applies patches for instance that include code to write to Sony Memory Stick Duo cards. It isn't in the mainline kernel, and sadly I haven't seen another distro include these patches. So hardware support for that is distro specific. I haven't touched Gentoo in years, but they had distro specific patches that added support for certain Promise cards.

Sometimes a specific distro develops patches themselves for specific hardware support. The Eee PC has distro specific patches for the hardware on the Asus Eee PC.

I'm sorry. Who is the drooling moron?

Don't throw around insults when the facts don't support you.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[CdBee]

You're quite right. Android isn't a distro. android is linux DONE RIGHT

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

Does Google spend money on the Summer of Code? Do they profit directly from it?

Do they hire guys like Andrew Morton and tell him his entire job is to work on Linux at Linus' discretion?

Is Google's entire company built upon Linux?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[nschubach]

I'm going to venture that they will still have Xorg as the graphical interface. There's no sense recreating that. It sounds as though they are just creating a window manager that runs on top of Xorg, like Gnome/KDE/XFCE/*box/Enlightenment/et al do currently.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

Have you tried a build of KDE 4.3 trunk?

http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/KDE:/Medias/images/iso/KDE4-UNSTABLE-Live.i686-1.2.95-Build2.1.iso

Honestly, give it a spin for a day or two. I loathed KDE 4.0 and 4.1, and I'm starting to come around.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

Svartalf's point, that I agree with, is for the average desktop, the client/server model of Xorg doesn't make sense.

Xorg can't hit release dates, ship features they're promising, and is somewhat of a legacy mess. Thankfully they broke it into modular bits, but no one seems to be working that hard on Xorg. I think Canonical, Novell and Red Hat would be benefited by throwing some support into the Xorg upstream development

There is a little bit of promise in Xorg land these days with KMS, DRI2 and such, but Xorg is far from perfect for a 21st century desktop.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Cederic]

When I think Linux distro I think Slackware or Yggdrasil. Hell, I still have a CD with Yggdrasil on it.

KDE and Gnome are pretty new additions to the world of linux distros.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[nschubach]

There are already a few "charts" out there.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[nschubach]

I can't think of an appropriate combination of ASCII pictures to represent capitalism in a way which he could understand (without having to explain it all later in parenthesis.)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[drodal]

even if there is only one application. You still need a windowing system. When a browser developer wants to communicate something to a user, say a javascript call called the function "alert()". It's the windowing system itself that puts up that alert box up. Even if the windowing system were just a huge library that got complied with the browser (dumb  I know) it would still be there and be a windowing system. so yes there needs to be a (hopefully, lightweight) windowing system. Even if it only runs one application (or became part of the application)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[SpinyNorman]

No - it's almost certainly NOT a Linux distribution, because a Linux distribution is not just any old pile of crap that includes the Linux kernel.

It's meaningless to call something a Linux distribution unless it at least provides enough of the userspace stuff (glibc, pthreads, X, etc, etc) that you have a hope in hell of running a Linux app on it.

There's zero indication, certainly not from Google, that the Chrome OS will support Linux apps, so it's meaningless to call it Linux.

Given the copious hints Google provides about security, both x86 and ARM support, having some parts in common with Android - this all in addition to it's main feature of simply being able to boot fast and run a browser - the most reasonable guess is that the only form of native app support it'll provide, if any, will be some form of managed code.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[orngjce223]

That already exists; it's called Splashtop Browser. Of course, that's commercial and proprietary and requires certain hardware, so even Google OS is an improvement.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[bheer]

Google doesn't actually index email or show ads on Google Apps Premier Edition, unless the paying organisation (typically an ISP) consents.

Also, since this'll be open source it'd be trivial for you to remove any problematic bits from the code. That said, a company would have to be very very stupid to sneakily grab sensitive data. And Google's not stupid - even when their apps have stored private user data, they've been very up-front about it (Google Toolbar, Google Desktop) and the privacy-unfriendly features had to be consciously turned on by the user -- it was not the default.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[bheer]

We don't yet know if Google will use/support X or not. Give them a chance to ship some code. That said, imho they'd be better off without X -- it's not the best choice for a netbook. OTOH, they'd have to reinvent less with X, so maybe a tweaked, optimised X isn't out of the question.

> An OS cannot claim to support standards when it does not support the X Window System standard

Lots of OSes have shipped without X support - the original OSX and Windows come to mind. You can get X servers as add-ons for both. Even if Google chooses to ship Chrome OS without X, the fact that it's open-source and built on a Linux kernel means that someone will probably come up with X for it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[gbarules2999]

That's because Microsoft was a monopoly. Google isn't quite a monopolist, at least, not yet.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[slim]

I think I recall a graphical browser for DOS, which contained its own windowing system.

Dark days, dark days.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[bheer]

Google doesn't have a monopoly on OSes - it has a minuscule share of the market in mobile, which is the only OS market where it sells a product. It has a large (85%+) market share in Web Search, but Bing these days is pretty good (yes, shock, horror, I said something nice about Microsoft) so if Google's share bothers you, use Bing instead. Or Yahoo. Or anything else, really.

As for web mail (Gmail etc), Google's 3rd behind Yahoo and Hotmail. And importantly, Google haven't used their monopoly in search to squeeze out competitors in other markets (which is illegal), they've gained market share in things like webmail by offering a superior product -- you have to recognise that Gmail with its 1GB storage really set people thinking about "the cloud" in a whole new way.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[drodal]

<quote>
At the moment I have this sinking feeling the do mean an X11 replacement. This would separate ChromeOS from being just another distro, it won't be able to run many apps, only ChromeOS apps. </quote>

Im sorry and don't mean to flame but, it will run all the HTML 5 applications in the world! ALL of them It's not meant to run Linux apps. No you won't be able to start up "GNOME 4 or more"

It will run ANY HTML 5 application. Lamenting that it won't run X applications is Backward looking.

Think HTML 5 CSS 3 Javascript. DHTML AJAX....

from a googles press release http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

<quote>We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds.</quote>

Can you imagine how nice it would be to be able to boot in few seconds.....

Not just wake up from sleep mode like a laptop, but to boot and load the start page in a few seconds......

Who cares about running linux apps on this thing, get a PC if you want that.

I want to know the weather this morning in 10 seconds. Not 3 minutes to boot, login and find the page. I want to know if the traffic is bad for my commute in less than a minute.

I want to hear about some important news event in seconds (like Iran or Michael Jackson) while it's still fresh. (although finding a slashdotted website faster than other computers
isn't the end goal for all of us).

I don't want to run old clunky linux apps......

We obviously have different goals in mind.......

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[drodal]

They do make billions every month. So I guess that didn't bankrupt them.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mdm-adph]

Aye, the word is far, far overused. Most people talking about Ajax are really just talking about DHTML, like you say.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[gmuslera]

Speed? Simplicity? Trading app switching for tab switching? One of the reasons people put to say that "linux is hard" is too much choices. This move could make default windows installation giving too much choices. In some way, is putting netbook approach to the maximum, maybe not even having a hard disk, all is browser, and cloud.

If you want to compare it with something, dont go desktops, think in the instant-on alternatives, linux in bios of some netbooks for fast booting and net accesibility.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[bheer]

Please. The X/Gnome/KDE trinity that passes for the GUI solution on Linux these days is a joke. OSX's Graphics APIs blow them away. And I'm not even a Mac fanatic.

I'd really like to see more experimentation with Unix/Linux graphics than sticking with X because it's proven (aka, it's the only system available). Apple has shown that it's possible to build a top-of-the-line Graphics subsystem that satisfies even professionals _on Unix_, and they did it without using X. If that's not a hint that X is probably the wrong path, I don't know what is.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[malevolentjelly]

I wouldn't say we "have" Wayland.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[curunir]

1) Not every app belongs on the web. In fact, most do not.

Why is everyone assuming that an OS built around a web browser won't be able to run apps installed locally? Google was one of the first large companies to venture into the offline mode for their web applications with Gears and has been a strong supporter of the offline storage capabilities in HTML 5.

I'd be willing to bet that the Chrome OS encourages developers to use web technologies, but also allows them to package them in some way that gets installed locally and run with data stored locally. Sure, it will be trivially easy for applications to include web content, but it won't be a requirement. And if they do it right, they can also make it really easy for applications to update themselves. This strikes me as an interesting idea in that it will blur the lines between a desktop and web application since they're both implemented with the same programming languages/paradigms. They've already done this to a certain extent with GWT by giving developers of web applications a toolkit similar to what's available to native application developers. This seems like a similar effort to bring developers the ability to create native apps using the same technologies they currently use to create web applications.

The whole things strikes me as similar to WebOS on the Pre. Like that platform, there will probably be JavaScript APIs to access capabilities of the local hardware not normally available to web applications. One foray they've already made into this area is their O3D API which allows web pages to take advantage of hardware graphic acceleration. If you look at some of the demos they have available, I don't see any reason to believe that it won't be possible to write CAD, image manipulation (i.e. Photoshop) or even games using web technologies. And those are the commonly-cited examples of applications that don't work as web applications.

I see this is as yet another effort on their part to make web programming the dominant programming paradigm. The more applications are developed in this way, the easier it will be for Google to allow developers to embed their services into applications. Google has been very successful in getting adoption of their embedding APIs in websites and I gather they'd like to do the same thing when it comes to desktop applications.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Magic5Ball]

Might as well install a clean linux distro to start with.

Which you would have to inspect in its entirety to verify that it has no nasty features anyway.

I'm not sure how open source Google stuff changes the chain of trust situation, unless you already have a complete code audit of another OS and desktop environment and it's cost prohibitive to do another on Google's.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[MrHanky]

Most distros use some patches for their kernels, and all of them use their own kernel configuration. That doesn't mean a hardware manufacturer 'supports' those distros, it's the other way around. It's not Sony that supports Ubuntu, it's Ubuntu that compiles their kernel with Sony Memory Stick Duo support. That's a fact. Now fuck off.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[malevolentjelly]

The OS X GUI layer is essentially NeXTStep on a revised Display Postscript. It's slower and more resource intensive than X11, its graphics is targeted primarily at desktop usage. Where is the innovation?

You're right, it's much slower until you try to display video or graphics with it, then it's much faster... not to mention a lot less awkward to program for.

X11 has been innovative from its inception, and it continues to be amazingly innovative today. For example, the kinds of visual effects Compiz delivers effortlessly and cleanly are much harder to achieve in OS X.

You mean 16 year olds can't add plugins to OS X's visual effects framework? The reason you don't see the same plugins is because Compiz has the fashion sense of a 92 Toyota Tercel with 24 inch spinning rims. I've gotten smooth desktop acceleration with my windows moving smoothly on a Powerbook G3 400 with an ATI Rage 128 w/ 8mb of VRAM on Mac OS X Tiger. And you know what? The window management was smoother, lighter and more stable than it was on Ubuntu on a modern Nvidia, ATI, or Intel graphics solution. Compiz is awful, DWM on Vista or 7 makes it look pathetic on the same hardware, with its superior graphics capability and performance, and reduced memory usage. Compiz is not just bad... it's ridiculously awful compared to what Microsoft and Apple provide. So I hope you're kidding, I really do.

What exactly do you think will be the "wake-up call"? Both Gnome and KDE have non-X11 backends, but people don't use them because there really is no benefit associated with getting rid of X11.

How exactly do you "get rid of X"? Does an equivalent even exist on Unix? It sounds like no one does it because no one wants to rewrite the display paradigm on the platform.

A non-X11 backend may make sense for Chrome OS because Chrome OS probably needs less functionality than X11 provides and it makes writing drivers easier. But in terms of innovation and functionality, X11 is second to none.

You're right, it's second to none, it's like fifth. Functionality? What the hell are you talking about? Apple and Microsoft have full network desktop solutions that outperform X (Microsoft's uses less bandwidth, even) and they even offer you direct video hardware access locally. Not only is your display not constrained through a slow and awkward filesystem IO layer, but you also get fast network display access. They beat X both at what it now does (display graphics) and what it was written to do (display graphics over the network). Where do you get this? What can I do with X that I can't do more efficiently in Windows or Mac?

Please, someone present me with some awkward corner case that no home desktop user would ever care about and tell me why writing graphical applications on UNIX is still like listening to an oldies' station.
 

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[DragonWriter]

X is one of the few things on which most people in the Linux (and BSD) world can agree. Why change that?

Because the target of Chrome OS is mainly people who aren't in the Linux (or BSD) world.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[grotgrot]

Any legacy code in X is also very lean. 15 years ago my ~40 person office ran a server on HP/UX (proprietary hardware, not Intel stuff). It was the DNS nameserver (internal and external), mail server (external facing), usenet server and who knows what else. It ran X for the gui with the various programs all being statically linked as a single binary (switching on argv to decide which program to be). All of this was done in 4MB of RAM (yes megabytes). The CPU in my current computer has a 4MB cache!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Xabraxas]

Have you tried a build of KDE 4.3 trunk?

I don't really care for KDE anyway so no I haven't. That wasn't really the point though. It doesn't matter if it works perfectly now. It was rather stupid to go about the 4.0 release the way they did. It should have never been labeled a *.0 release. I don't care what kind of disclaimer the devs gave. It was obviously a ploy to get some people to use it, it worked and it pissed people off. Now KDE has a problem where no one knows when stable really hits. Did it hit already? What version number? Is EVERYTHING working that worked under KDE3? If not then is it really stable? I just hope GNOME doesn't do it this way. They need to have everything in place when 3.0 drops. None of this half-done shit, waiting for release after release just to be able to achieve things we could do years ago on GNOME 2.x.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[rho]

Gmail, Docs, Chrome? Actual users, and with Apps they turn into actual customers.

All of which are free and/or beta, giving Google the nice out "Hey, it's beta/free? WTF do you want?"

I think a lot of Slashdot users have gotten their excitement over Linux On The Desktop (Finally) confused with Google's ability to deliver such a product. Wishes do not make good substitutes for extensive experience. Which is not to say that it can't happen, but I'm not yet prepared to accept that Google shits rainbows and baby giggles based on a blog post.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[VulpesFoxnik]

The article already said it would be open source.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

Was 3.0 stable and feature rich? Was 2.0 stable and feature rich?

The release notes were clear in what features were included. It did not claim full feature parity with 3.5.9.

Don't claim this was an evil ploy to lie to you and trick you into using something you didn't want to.

I have 3.5.9 and 4.0 installed side by side. I basically never really went into the 4.0 session because it lacked features I wanted, but I integrated 4.0 apps into my 3.5.9 session.

Gnome has never once had a release with all the features I want. I doubt they ever will. Given a choice between the two, I GREATLY prefer KDE.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[inotocracy]

How much of a "win" will it be to have Google searching, indexing, and archiving all of your company's sensitive documentation, all in the name of building better advertisements?

Ever hear of Google Desktop? I see that on just about every business PC I've come across.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Hyppy]

The antitrust problem was that they were using a near-monopoly (operating systems) to unfairly influence a separate market (web browsers). If they didn't have a near-monopoly on operating systems, then it wouldn't have been much of an issue.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[RedK]

Except that unnecessary coupling like you call it comes at 0 cost. X11 doesn't suffer from being network transparent. There is nothing to be gained by throwing out its greatest strength.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jipn4]

But the main driving force behind network transparency was the particular ecosystem that X was developed for:

All major window systems are client/server architectures now: OS X, Windows, X11. X11 simply was designed that way from the ground up.

Once computing power is decentralized, you're left with a system that unnecessarily couples networking and windowing.

Just like Windows and OS X, X11 uses IPC, not networking, when the client and server are running on the same machine.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Homburg]

When Apple had a chance to start from scratch with their own Unix did they use X11? Of course not. They rewrote a proper windowing system

But Apple didn't start from scratch - they started from Nextstep, Steve Jobs's earlier Unix GUI. Note that Nextstep isn't that much newer than X, and it shares some of the things that often get criticized in X, like the client-server architecture.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[doshell]

It says a lot about the world that no other nation yet has the 1st and 2nd amendment.

This is totally offtopic, but regarding your current signature, I'd like to let you know that there's at least one other nation in the world (Portugal) that has an article in its constitution equivalent in content to the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution. And I'm sure there are a lot more that also do.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[doshell]

Also, since this'll be open source it'd be trivial for you to remove any problematic bits from the code. That said, a company would have to be very very stupid to sneakily grab sensitive data. And Google's not stupid - even when their apps have stored private user data, they've been very up-front about it (Google Toolbar, Google Desktop) and the privacy-unfriendly features had to be consciously turned on by the user -- it was not the default.

As soon as you hand off your data via HTTP to an application running on someone else's server, what guarantee do you have about the code that runs there?

I don't think the parent was referring to what Google applications do locally --- he/she was referring to what they do remotely. They may promise they don't do (and won't ever do) anything with your data, but you still have to trust what they say, and many people (like me) are not willing to trust them that far.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[LKM]

If somebody said something like "Hey, check out this Linux distro", I would expect an operating system running on a desktop or laptop computer with the Linux kernel and X. Something like Ubuntu Netbook Remix would not surprise me, but if somebody showed me webOS and called it a Linux distro, that would surprise me, even though it technically is a Linux distro.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

"Except that unnecessary coupling like you call it comes at 0 cost."

Unless you consider poor design to be a cost.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

I don't see how MS Windows' windowing system could be described as a "client/server architecture". Could you elaborate?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[larry bagina]

bwahahah +10 burn!!!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[larry bagina]

Which linux compositing window manager works at the view level, not the window level, without any kind of modification to the application?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ozbird]

Now if Google Search starts working slower for the other players we have a new shiny antitrust suit on the works.

No, that's just Vista. Everything works slower on it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[AlXtreme]

All of which are free and/or beta, giving Google the nice out "Hey, it's beta/free? WTF do you want?"

Not with Google Apps. Google will happily take your money ($50/user/year) for Gmail/Docs et al and you can hold them to their SLA. It isn't a great one, but it's good enough for quite a few businesses and organizations. No 'Beta' label for the last few years. I offer Apps to clients wanting Exchange-like functionality, together with 'real' alternatives (Zimbra).

I'm skeptical about Google, just like you. Hell, I run my own mail servers and avoid using Google search. However with them handling Android the way they do (and doing so, pushing out Linux to to millions of phones) leads me to believe they can open up markets for Linux and FLOSS in general to gain significant ground.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jesset77]

It's meaningless to call something a Linux distribution unless it at least provides enough of the userspace stuff (glibc, pthreads, X, etc, etc) that you have a hope in hell of running a Linux app on it.

I, for one, am happy calling a "Linux distribution" any distribution of software which provides a user interface backed by a linux kernel. What you are describing, one would assume would be a "Gnu/Xorg/Pthreads/Linux/I-wanna-run-my-XYZ-software" distribution.

Otherwise, your semantic complaint sounds equivalent to MS-fanboys popular battle cry "It's not really an OS unless it runs all of my Windows apps and games." I am not the only person who is interested to see X's dominance in the FOSS GUI ecosystem get challenged. X is bloated and old.

Over the past decade, I have tried numerous linux distros (Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu, et al) with numerous window managers (Gnome, KDE, XDM) on the same hardware as M$ counterparts (Win 98/2000/XP/7RC). On a new install or after video hardware upgrade, the X options always leave me needing to edit xorg.conf either from the CLI or from an eyeball bleeding 60Hz video mode on CRT's. Also, I have never seen a single GUI element.. from a window to a menu to a button to the cursor itself.. render any faster, smoother, or more reliably in X than it does in Windoze. (XDM ties at drawing empty boxes as fast as Win7 Aero can swoop blurry, frosted glass onto the screen. I do not count this as a win.)

Now let's add Android and MacOS/Quartz into the comparison. On comparable hardware to a windows machine, these Linux based, X-liberated offerings provide an even smoother and more responsive user interface experience than Windows.

I would like to point out that Linux GUI distributions have negligible desktop marketshare today. I would like to point out that M$ has tried like gangbusters to surrender it's marketshare wholesale to Linux by bullying it's customers into the non-option of Vista (most of whom can not afford to burn dough on a Mac) for THREE YEARS STRAIGHT now. I submit that X's inferior performance is a big reason for this failure to launch.. combined with the proprietary windows hardware drivers problem, and the FOSS developers disincentive for refugee lusers sullying their sacred OSen.

Now, Google is claiming to back a project which might get lusers off of Windows, and into a snappy OS based on Linux, but with none but corner case support headaches for FOSS developers. As long as Google can crunch the driver problem (which, would we not all benefit from that?) I am significantly confused why so many people are butthurt over X being passed up here.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the proof ? I checked git repository of
DirectFB and didn't find any google reference.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jesset77]

I don't see why another windowing system is a good thing.

Because we haven't found an intersection of "FOSS" and "doesn't sucks" yet? ;D

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[SpinyNorman]

Odd rant - totally unrelated to the point being made.

By common usage "Linux" refers to the whole thing, not the kernel, however much more correct that would be.

I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing that Chrome's not Linux. It's just not - that's all!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[gondwannabe]

when is the last time you had to roll back a driver on your mobile phone? how long does it take to boot your tv? google seems to understand that the fun we've had with the PC hobby has run its course... the world is ready for the long-promised, yet to be delivered computing appliance... finally, with mobile broadband and web applications, it's all possible... for most users and most tasks, the browser can be the interface... the operating system can just quietly disappear... geeks are hostile because their skills are all about mastering the PC... everyone else just wants to email, browse, tweet and connect... Google have the market power and resources to provide the needed ecosystem to make this a reality... If they can really execute this strategy (and there are holes in their current services you can drive a truck through!) the world will be theirs...

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[RedK]

Wait, something that provides benefit without a performance hit is poor design ? Maybe you should just understand it before you bash it. X11 is not poorly designed. It provides remote and local display, does the local part without cost, is extensible to support emerging technologies while remaining backwards compatible... What is poor about the design of it all ? Or are you basing all your assumptions on one implementation of it that was poor (XFree86) ? Maybe you should differentiate between the different implementations and the protocol itself.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jesset77]

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.

I don't see this as an irony. I see this as an: "Damn! It's hard to make Chrome work on GNU/X11/Linux! WTF? *research*research*research*... wow, you know it will be easier to replace X11 than it will be to port Chromium into it. D:

Sure, there are other goals being met here: "yay we make an OS nao!" // "yay, our OS has an excuse to initially be incompatible with applications which do not display our ads!" But as for myself, it's all about "Yay! die X11 you bastard, die a painful death! ;D" and "Yay! More commercial investment in FOSS OSen to weaken the Windows monopoleh!"

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jesset77]

But...... they can't get Chromium to run right on X. Solution? To much fanfare, replace X.

If they do replace X, and their replacement is a modular FOSS software project, I would love to see it made available in other distrobutions to compete with X.

You can moan about "X haters" all that you want, but if you do not wish to have competition it implies that you know your project is inferior.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[fabs64]

A layer of abstraction decoupling your system from the communication technology used with an overhead of 0 is poor design?

Shit, I need to re-read basically every software engineering book I own and re-evaluate career choices.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

Design isn't the same as features.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

"A layer of abstraction decoupling your system from the communication technology used with an overhead of 0 is poor design?"

Are we still talking about windowing systems? Because I don't see anything about it in your description.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jesset77]

The worst idea I am personally aware of is the assumption that just because "everyone" seems to agree on a particular point, that it means that the point must be right.

Specifically, false consensus is a dangerous beast. Do not rely upon it.

The loudest and most powerful developers all swear by X, therefor all influential Linux distros and popular Linux Apps rely solely upon that monoculture.

How do the users feel about X? I can't say for certain; they don't even know what X is. All I can say is that they definitely aren't using it. They massively choose Windows or Macintosh instead. Tellingly, it is much simpler to get users to download, install, and use free Firefox on Windows or even Mac than it is to get them to download, install and use a free OS.

I cannot say that I trust Google's privacy choices either, but they seem to recognize that most people want to get to their Email quickly and that most of the user interaction and effort required by modern OSen is a distraction from actually getting their job done.

Now, we'll just have to wait and see how well they can deliver upon their core promises. I don't know, perhaps it will fail to meet it's goals. Bitching that X isn't one of it's goals sounds disingenuous to me, however. I am reminded of Ron Paul supporters flaming me for choosing not to vote. Nobody owes your software product any patronage, people can use or develop whatever they would like. If you want Google using X, maybe stop flaming them and name calling on the one hand, and on the other hand put forth some effort to demonstrate that X (or whatever you are trying to sell them on) will actually meet their needs. They do not appear to believe that is true and you don't seem to want them on board anyway, so do us all a favor and STFU.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

I just assume any corporation that large has separate teams that don't even really talk to each other.

For instance, a Microsoft evangelist once told me that the Outlook team is part of the Office team, and tied the Office release schedule. Even worse, they have minimal planning and communication with the Exchange team which is in a different division.

Google is a business that runs on Linux, but when they decided to develop a web browser, the chief developers were Windows-only guys who admitted they knew nothing about developing portable code, or developing on Linux.

The people who discussed an OS internally, have probably been doing so secretly on their own, without telling the whole company about it. Just like Chrome was fairly quiet for the first 2-3 years.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[fabs64]

You can gather what I'm talking about based on the context of what I was replying to.

In this case I was pointing out that if your server (X) allows for a transparently interchangeable IPC layer depending on your needs then most people would consider this to be *good* design and an example of a low degree of coupling, not high.

Keeping in mind that a display system is inherently client-server and it needs to have SOME model for IPC of course.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[jesset77]

Google is a business that runs on Linux, but when they decided to develop a web browser, the chief developers were Windows-only guys who admitted they knew nothing about developing portable code, or developing on Linux.

No, I think it's more fair to say that Google is a business who's servers run on Linux CLI, but they use Macintosh primarily and Windows secondarily as their workstations. Yes, I am lacking a citation there.. I can't easily find one in a quick search either way, but I get my data from the only Google employee I've ever chatted with, corroborated by the Google story on 60 minutes showing exclusively OSX workstations.

Given that, if they use Mac for their desktop (and sink money into that vertical hardware stack) instead of reveling in all of the power and TCO of Gnu/Linux/X11, there must be a disincentive. If the (allegedly) smartest CS minds on the planet can't be bothered to compile their own kernel, why should I?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mjayde]

Google's direction all along has been to move applications from the desktop to the web (which in many cases, in my opinion, is a stupid idea).

Yes, this has been my thought all along as well ever since Google Apps came to light.
My beef with this movement is that they're moving solved problems of an OS into the browser app. Scheduling, security, performance, I/O, you name it... and for what? I'll give them platform-agnostic applications, but at what cost?

Can you imagine a world consisting of only javascript apps... -shudder-

The layers of abstraction are completely wrong...

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[BikeHelmet]

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.

They're fighting tooth and nail with all those X/Gnome bugs. It's not surprising they decided to go completely around the issue.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[BikeHelmet]

It already works slower in IE... but that's IE's fault, for not displaying until it has all the data.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[BikeHelmet]

Speed, security.

It'll probably boot almost instantly(15-30 seconds), as opposed to ~45-60 seconds(Ubuntu), or 30-45 seconds(XP).

Remember: The target is Netbook hardware.

And if you reduce the number of installed and running services/programs, the number of attack vectors is significantly reduced. If they design it right, to hack it you have to hack the browser.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[BikeHelmet]

(And the browser is hopefully in a sandbox :P )

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Nevyn]

I can honestly say that the feel and smoothness of the Mac OS X GUI blows x.org out of the water

Here let me fix that for you:

I can honestly say that the feel and smoothness of the Mac OS X GUI with the Apple drivers for the Apple Hardware blows x.org with the OSS drivers, on undocumented hardware out of the water.

FYI I have yet to hear anyone knowledgeable say that X.org is slow for any reason other than driver quality. HTH. HAND.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[PitaBred]

There are framebuffer drivers already. X can easily be replaced, but the applications that run on it are less so.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Tokerat]

"The Chrome OS will run on both x86 and ARM architectures, uses a Linux kernel with a new windowing system."

This has been done before with BSD.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Nicolay77]

X bloat predates the GPU.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Yfrwlf]

Cowabunga!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[zen-theorist]

Umm its open source, there's a good chance the community will modify the code for the privacy freaks. Google/Bing SRWare Iron for details.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Daengbo]

Except for the "open source" part. (Yes, I know that parts of OS X are open, but Google's going to do the whole stack.)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Flipao]

Actually I'd be more worried about privacy. Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?

Of course Mr Ballmer, sure, I can't think of a greater danger to privacy than a lightweight, open source OS.

Of course if your concern is aimed at Google in general then (as always) competition is just a click away.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[zwarte piet]

and will be intellectual property of Google inc

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[NightFears]

Hate to point this out, but didn't somebody else already come up with an operating system that was tightly integrated with their web browser? That worked out so well for them!

Why is this insightful? The Google's OS is free, so the browser won't be used to promote it. It's also free software, so anyone, including their competitors, can change it and ship it with their products.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Hal_Porter]

I think I'd be cautious and preserve any interface indefinitely. That being said I'd also be cautious about exposing an interface in the first place for exactly that reason.

The current trend for refactoring, where people spend most of their time rewriting code they've already written once and usally manage break compatibility to boot seems to me to be disasterous.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[RedK]

And one-liners aren't proof of that what you say is the truth.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Xabraxas]

Was 3.0 stable and feature rich?

Yes.

The release notes were clear in what features were included. It did not claim full feature parity with 3.5.9.

I already addressed that. No one cares.

Don't claim this was an evil ploy to lie to you and trick you into using something you didn't want to.

The devs said as much. They said if we don't name it 4.0 then no one will use it because of the beta tag.

Gnome has never once had a release with all the features I want. I doubt they ever will. Given a choice between the two, I GREATLY prefer KDE.

Good for you. I don't care. I just made the point that I hope GNOME doesn't fuck up their 3.0 release like KDE fucked up their 4.0 release. Can you even tell me what point version of KDE4 will be the completed version?

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Enderandrew]

Now you are just outright lying.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[contrapunctus]

it's not like windows is better whith the crapload it sends back when it calls home and having to "authenticate" my computer or allowing me to play my files. it's my fucking computer. I'll do what I want on it. so calling me ballmer is so in bad taste since I try to work my life not to give MS money. I even chose not to buy a ford because it had sync in it. competition is not just a click away. look how many sites run analytics for example. mabe it's a tor away:)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[ClosedSource]

Hey, we found some common ground after all!

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Flipao]

You're trying to spread FUD about a company whose entire business plan rests on the fact that its customers trust it.

As far as I'm concerned, you are Steve Ballmer.

If you're so concerned about privacy then go after Twitter or Facebook, who know everything millions of people do daily, or Valve or Blizzard, who track all kinds of user trends on their services. Not to mention Microsoft, who want to run your life, and make you pay for it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[contrapunctus]

Go fuck yourself

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mooncaine]

Yes, this is essentially the "thin client" scam: we'll take away the independence and control that you get from having your own computer, and make you reliant on access to the network, reliant on continual upgrades that you pay for, and reliant on other people to do no evil with the files and personal information you'll be forced to share on the network.

What do you get in return? A slightly smaller machine that you can't open or fix. You'll be reliant on someone else for those things, too.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[badkarmadayaccount]

It is usually understood GNU/Linux, under Linux distribution. Like Yoda, speak I. This weed, it is good. So, per GNU/Linux standards, ChromeOS ain't a distro. It is a new OS, which happens to use the Linux kernel, but nothing more. Sorry.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[badkarmadayaccount]

Tell me, what would you prefer for a mission critical server. Now tell me, do you give a flying fuck about certification, or do you want a good quality OS? Possibly POSIX compliant? With some simple and useful basic utilities? Nothing overly complicated? That's UNIX. Not a fuckton of paperwork like others claim.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[badkarmadayaccount]

You don't read TFWebsite often, do you? That project has been dead since 2004.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Fred_A]

You don't read TFWebsite often, do you? That project has been dead since 2004.

Maybe he's a slow programmer. :)
I'll wait until 2015 before I form a definitive opinion.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[badkarmadayaccount]

http://www.microxwin.com/ seems interesting, no if some good soul would clone under the Apache license the proprietary kernel module, we'd be all set for a new high-performance gaming platform. :)

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[orasio]

Well, you are late to this discussion.
The whole idea is that most "Linux" distros were not much more than the GNU package slapped with the Linux kernel. But people kept calling the package "Linux" even if "Linux" had nothing to do with the packaging, or with programming of the most part of the system.

GNU does have its own "Linux" distribution. It's called Debian, and a subset of it + QA is called Ubuntu. gNewSense also.
And I don't think your Hurd reference fits in your argument.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[DragonWriter]

GNU does have its own "Linux" distribution. It's called Debian

Debian is not GNU's distribution. It is distributed by the Debian Project, not the GNU Project; it just happens to include GNU tools, the GNU Hurd as a kernel option (along with FreeBSD and Linux kernels) and, when using the Linux kernel, the project uses the name "GNU/Linux". But it's not GNU's distribution. (Though when it uses the Hurd kernel, one calling it a "GNU OS" would be analogous to calling OS's that use the Linux kernel "Linux OS".)

It's called Debian, and a subset of it + QA is called Ubuntu.

Ubuntu isn't a subset of Debian + QA, since many things are included in Ubuntu (some that originate from Canonical, some that originate elsewhere) that are not included in Debian at the time they are included in Ubuntu.

gNewSense also.

gNewSense is also not a subset of Debian. It is a downstream distro of Ubuntu with a Debian-like strong stance against non-free software, which if Ubuntu was a subset of Debian wouldn't have much of a point.

And I don't think your Hurd reference fits in your argument.

You seem to have missed the entire point of my argument, then.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[mini me]

But it isn't much of Unix Distribution.

Funny, considering that OS X is officially a UNIX distribution, while Linux is not.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[Guy Harris]

Open Solaris is *much* further away than OS X is -- it even disposes of the normal UNIX permissioning system, along with many other things.

To which "normal UNIX permissioning system" are you referring? Solaris might have ACLs in addition to permission bits, but 1) that's "in addition", not "instead of" and 2) OS X also has ACLs in addition to permission bits, so that's presumably not it.

Re:Competition is good, baby!

[improfane]

It could be a command wrapped in AJAX to or from the server, telling the client to open an application. We do not know the implementation so it's best we do not comment on it. DHTML command makes no sense.

Please let there be no X!

[A12m0v]

There is no mention of X anywhere, and hopefully there will be no X.

*fingers crossed*

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Churla]

It would make more sense for this to use an adapted version of the Andriod GUI rather than X.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[SpooForBrains]

Re Ken Thompson's quote ... I'd LOVE to see what KDE and GNOME could give me without X present. It's very strange, I removed them from my machine, and none of my desktop environments would run! What's up with that?

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Mad Merlin]

You seem to be one of those people that irrationally hate X without any good reason. Care to elaborate?

Re:Please let there be no X!

[TheRaven64]

How to spot the people who have never done any graphics programming below the level of a high-level widget toolkit: They complain about X11 yet, somehow, never specify what is wrong with it, or if they do then it's with quotes from The UNIX Haters' Handbook which haven't been relevant for 15 years, or by citing a post by the author of Quartz, which hasn't been relevant for 5-10 years. A modern X11 implementation gives you:

• OS-independent remote display (e.g. show a GUI on a Windows machine or a Mac from your *NIX netbook).
• Backwards compatibility with apps written in the '80s.
• Off-screen rendering and caching.
• Accelerated compositing (e.g. for fast antialiased text drawing and for translucency effects).
• Fast partial-redraws of windows (very important when compositing over a network).
• Good OpenGL integration (including network transparency).
• A standard mechanism for adding extensions, so new features can be added without breaking backwards compatibility (most of the features of X11 that you use today are implemented as extensions).

The only serious improvement I've seen suggested over the X model is to provide a vector scene-graph API so that you can store the entire sequence of drawing commands in things like OpenGL vertex arrays in the GPU's memory. While this is a nice idea, it would require a radical redesign of all existing GUI toolkits and applications to be used to its full capability.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[MrMr]

Yes let's replace X11 and C with a proprietary layer on top of java.
That'll make everything work.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Sir_Lewk]

Yeah. I'm beginning to get the feeling that all of these people railling against X11 have very little clue what they are really talking about.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[jabjoe]

I guarantee, if you can do local apps, someone will do a X server for compatibility. Why not just include as default unless you don't want to take part in the large world of X apps.
If you are bothered about the client/server overhead (which is debate in itself, but for me that's microkernel vs monothithic), push for a X that doesn't have client/server (like MicroXwin or XDirectFB), at least not by default.

X suffers much critism, much of it at XLib which XCB is meant to replace. But X has survived to date, and what's happening in Wayland and Gallium3D I find very interesting. Plus, I find X forwarding from the desktop really useful for the craptop. ;-)

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Razalhague]

Or perhaps they're thinking of doing it the same way as Windows; the hardware manufacturer provides the drivers.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Svartalf]

Actually, they could adopt DirectFB and gain most of what they're needing for ChromeOS. It has a simpler acceleration framework, already has example drivers, and works precisely as needed for that application- and it wouldn't be too hard for someone to come up with drivers for select GPUs as needed. Moreover, you can layer X11 back on top of it later and do it nicely.

It would require more resources than keeping xorg, yes. But a ton more...nope. And the "little gain" is somewhat debatable as well.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[MrHanky]

I'll elaborate for him: He's read something like it in earlier comments, and thought re-stating it would give him an automatic +1, interesting.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Raffaello]

A modern X11 implementation gives you:

• OS-independent remote display (e.g. show a GUI on a Windows machine or a Mac from your *NIX netbook).

As long as by "OS-independent" you mean "equally ugly and user unfriendly on all platforms," then, yes.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Eravnrekaree]

What the hell are you talking about? have you ever used Compiz? Its more attractive than any Windows desktop Ive ever used.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Sir_Lewk]

Wow. That has absolutely nothing to do with X and everything to do with what you are asking X to display. Should I call MacOSX ugly because one time I opened up goatse on a mac?

Thanks for proving the GP's point.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your opinion will probably change once you reach your 15th birthday.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Xabraxas]

Maybe I missed the joke but X has nothing to do with sound.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[A12m0v]

For your reading pleasure:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041010180516/http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html
http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=10127
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/X_Window_System

BTW, I use Linux/X/GNU/Fluxbox

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Anonymous Coward]

A standard mechanism for adding extensions, so new features can be added without breaking backwards compatibility (most of the features of X11 that you use today are implemented as extensions).

This makes UNIX Haters' Handbook criticism completely relevant.

X can be coerced into doing many things that people want. You can do many things people want in Visual Basic 6.0 too, it doesn't mean it is something anyone would want to depend on if there was any alternative.

X is crap, crap has been worked around with ugly hacks to do what it should have been doing since day 0.

Just like permissions on POSIX, X is a blatant case of Stockholm syndrome. Unix permissions suck from a security standpoint and X11 sucks both as a window manager back end and as a network windowing system, no matter what you have come to believe.

I will concede that there isn't any alternative and that none is likely to ever appear, but that doesn't make X11 any better.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Coryoth]

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.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[TheRaven64]

It doesn't cost anything. Every modern windowing system is a client-server design. Clients send drawing commands to the server and the server controls the display hardware. X11 lets you select the IPC mechanism, you can either use shared memory and local sockets / pipes (like any other display server) or you can use a network socket. A few examples of when I've found network transparency useful: When only one machine in the lab had a CD burner, I could run the CD-R software on that machine while someone else was using it and displaying the GUI on my machine. I also use it when I play music on the machine connected to my amplifier, so I can display the GUI on my laptop. There are lots of cases where network transparency is useful, and this is only going to increase as people have more computers and better network access. VNC has worse performance than X - particularly when you add something like NX in as a cache - and doesn't let you forward a single application easily.

It is just that I think programs with limited set of features are easier to modify. And ability to change is essential for future proof software.

So you're in favour of X11 then? It separates out policy and mechanism, so you can easily replace the window management or compositing strategy without modifying the core protocol. It has a simple extension mechanism, so you can add support for new features easily. Examples of features added via this mechanism include shared memory support, OpenGL, compositing, shaped windows, and so on. X11 lets you add new features easily without breaking backwards compatibility.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Buelldozer]

Brings to mind that quote "People who don't understand Unix are condemned to repeat it, poorly." It's not quite the same situation with X, but it's close.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[zulux]

I remember in the late 80's being horribly shocked to find out that X added 64K of overhead to a simple "Hello World" app.

Nowadays, 64K is lean and mean.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Blakey Rat]

And yet, you still can't hot-swap external monitors with a laptop.

People don't care about all the cool stuff you've listed that it *can* do, people care more about the extremely basic stuff that it *can't* do (and that every other OS has had figured out for ages.)

Re:Please let there be no X!

[malevolentjelly]

Oh my god, dude. Do not read the documentation on the modern WDDM... it will break your heart. You're like a child whose puppy died at the vet and no one has broken the news to you... you're still.. just thinking that he lives on a farm somewhere.

I can't believe you think these features are advanced enough to brag about.

Do yourself a favor and boot up Windows on your box and watch a video... enjoy the effortless sound support, and smooth video acceleration. Or activate DWM and move your windows around, watch them not tear... watch the compositing layer not crash. Start up a game and be entranced by what modern graphics hardware is capable of!

Why, you've just listed off a bunch of really basic implementations of hardware acceleration, really life support for X to make it not seem ancient, and yet they're just words. When it all comes down to it, it underperforms in almost any metric of display performance... you can't port games to it, you can't easily accelerate flash on it. It's the reason JavaFX came out on Windows and Mac first, despite the fact that Sun is a major UNIX vendor.

What else is there to say that hasn't been said? It's still constrained through the filesystem socket layer... so you'll always be making more syscalls when performing basic drawing commands. DRI is not broad or extensible enough to take advantage of advanced features on modern graphics hardware, and DRM is fundamentally flawed. It will have to be redesigned if you are ever to get the entirety of OpenGL working.

If you think X is "impressive" because you are able to fire cryptic commands into the CLI and get windows to pop up on different machines, then you need to stay away from discussions on linux for the destkop and restrain yourself. Your corner case is irrelevant on modern hardware, it's difficult to use, and it's people like you who are keeping UNIX from ever having modern display capabilities with your antiquarian usage habits and loud activism thereof. Just keep using X and let regular users have an at least comparable or competitive display system on the linux platform. Let go!

Re:Please let there be no X!

[leoval]

Well, I use both all the time and I must say that VNC is superior to X11 network transparency in one important instance: if the connection between client and server goes down, the whole session is gone. Any applications using the now unreachable X server are killed and of course any unsaved data is lost. That one reason just pretty much rules out using X11 over a remote link like a VPN connection from home to work.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[pH7.0]

"OS-independent remote display (e.g. show a GUI on a Windows machine or a Mac from your *NIX netbook)."

remote x need high bandwidth and low latency networking. Especially round trip issues. So it works OK on LAN but suck on the internet.
Most users use vnc and or nx anyway. Anything is faster than remote x on internet. If X did it right the first time there is no reason anyone would ever need nx.
(NX is basically a roundabout way to get around X's problems/bugs/limitations to make it works in real live situation. It's written by people really use X and know all the low-level problems. Amount other thing X protocol is very verbose, often send redundant and repetitive parameters over the net. NX try to cache/compress/delete those parameters to save bandwidth)
BTW, Google just release Neatx, an Open Source NX Server
http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2009/07/releasing-neatx-open-source-nx-servier.html

remote X's #1 problem is round trip delay. To solve that problem, browser use client-side javascript. So X need some sort of server-side scripting. I'm sure Google Chrome solve that problem already!

 

"The only serious improvement I've seen suggested over the X model is to provide a vector scene-graph API so that you can store the entire sequence of drawing commands in things like OpenGL vertex arrays in the GPU's memory. While this is a nice idea, it would require a radical redesign of all existing GUI toolkits and applications to be used to its full capability."

Bingo. OSX did it.
overall X's #1 problem is toolkit. Anyone still use Xt? On X everyone write their own toolkits. "radical redesign of all existing GUI toolkits" is easy to do if there is only one standard toolkit.
Similarly X have multiple window manager, so any real improvement require radical redesign of all existing window managers.

pH

Re:Please let there be no X!

[lennier]

"Brings to mind that quote "People who don't understand Unix are condemned to repeat it, poorly.""

The same claim is often made for Lisp, but the Lisp Machines didn't run Unix.

Do Lisp and Unix spin eternally in a sort of co-recursive loop, like Vi and Emacs?

Re:Please let there be no X!

[jesset77]

The network transparency costs practically nothing when running local apps (it uses shared memory)

Using shared memory in order to pretend you are talking across a network when you are not, compared to not wasting any time or resources on the irrelevant, is a real and a significant cost. X11 fanboys are allergic to KISS.

Right now I am sitting in front of a machine that has windows from applications running on four different machines

I... have to ask why, of course. If you can run an app from machine Q and have the bandwidth to put the window on your local machine, what on earth are you doing that you couldn't just run the app on your local machine? Are you trying to control resources at remote locations or something? Is this effort so vital to the core principals of your OS that every window has to pretend to be doing this and burn (cheap, but still exhaustible) resources just to pretend to be behaving this way all the time?

unless you happen to know which applications are running where, you'd think they were all local apps.

Well, that throws your "from any OS, to any OS" argument out the window. I've used Cygwin to test running an X .. um .. client? server? on my Windows machine so I could launch apps hosted on a Debian machine in the past. I could certainly tell which windows were which. The GUI elements were different, the clipboard did not transfer over, and the save/open dialog boxes showed me the foreign drive arrangements. Quite vertigo inducing really, so I never made that mess part of a complete breakfast.

Just because you don't happen to use it doesn't mean there aren't a great many people who do use it regularly.

I am sorry to have offended all twelve of you then by suggesting that MY personal CPU has better things to do than wasting millions of it's 1.6 billion cycles per second on the off chance I might start doing what you do. X11's inefficiencies make memory-resident quick starters look like child's play. :P

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Anonymous Coward]

[X11 is] still constrained through the filesystem socket layer...

I hardly know anything about the internals of X11, and even I know that this is completely false and has been for years. Even back in the 90's, X11 had no such limitation.

When you are remoting X11 over the network, it goes through a network socket. Fair enough.

When running on the same computer, X11 can run though a *NIX domain socket, not the same thing at all and much lighter weight. But, X11 usually just uses shared memory. No performance hit for the remote networking stuff when you are not using it.

I'll say it again: no performance hit for remote networking stuff when you aren't using it.

And, these days, Windows drivers have similar functional decomposition, where there are various parts to the driver and they communicate through shared memory.

Given that you are so wrong about this, I mistrust your expertise on all your other claims.

And your insulting ad-hominem tone was pretty special there too. You were wrong on the facts, but hey, at least you were obnoxious too.

By the way, I love how the original post mentioned that he runs modern games at full speed on Linux using Wine, and you used gaming as an example of how Windows spanks Linux.

The icing on the cake is that I have read many posts by TheRaven64 and the man knows what he's about.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[ibi]

Those "cryptic" commands are one of the few advantages that Linux desktops have at the moment. Right now I'm using a Ubuntu machine which displaying applications from a nearby Suse Enterprise laptop and often displays distant (via NX if its over a VPN or straight remote X otherwise) apps from various servers running other Linux variants.

The inability of OSX or Windows to this sort of thing actually matters in an enterprise setting. Whatever issues X has supporting games matters somewhat less. And seeing as Linux is hardly going to beat XBox et al in the games area, maybe the enterprise would be a good place to focus?

Re:Please let there be no X!

[malevolentjelly]

The inability of OSX or Windows to this sort of thing actually matters in an enterprise setting. Whatever issues X has supporting games matters somewhat less. And seeing as Linux is hardly going to beat XBox et al in the games area, maybe the enterprise would be a good place to focus?

Have you never used VNC or RDP? It doesn't matter, anyway. This is off-topic. We're talking about a casual home user web-centric operating system. You fit precisely into the category of people who are using X for what it was built for. It fails miserably at what Google is trying to do with their cute little home OS.

X fails when you are using Linux as an alternative home desktop operating system. It succeeds when you're doing network-transparent applications the "X way."

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Martin Soto]

2001 came and went. Now in 2009, Linux machines are perfectly able to hot swap monitors. It's good to live in the future, isn't it?

Re:Please let there be no X!

[TheRaven64]

Bingo. OSX did it.

No it didn't. OS X uses the same rendering model as X11 with the Render and Composite extensions. Every window in OS X's window server is just an off-screen pixmap, just like X. The window server then composites them together. The only difference is that OS X hard-codes the compositing policy into the window server, while X11 separates it out into a compositing manager, making it easy to replace.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Blakey Rat]

Please.

I tried the latest Ubuntu release, and I couldn't even change the DPI setting without rebooting. (Given, I didn't try hot-swapping monitors, but I figured if it was shitty enough that it couldn't change DPI on-the-fly it was probably shitty enough to fail at hot-swapping monitors also.)

Re:Please let there be no X!

[pH7.0]

"The only serious improvement I've seen suggested over the X model is to provide a vector scene-graph API so that you can store the entire sequence of drawing commands in things like OpenGL vertex arrays in the GPU's memory. While this is a nice idea, it would require a radical redesign of all existing GUI toolkits and applications to be used to its full capability."

...

No it didn't. OS X uses the same rendering model as X11 with the Render and Composite extensions. Every window in OS X's window server is just an off-screen pixmap, just like X. The window server then composites them together. The only difference is that OS X hard-codes the compositing policy into the window server, while X11 separates it out into a compositing manager, making it easy to replace.

Quartz use a PDF like vector object model. With Quartz Extreme the whole thing is GLSL running on GPU. X itself don't have anything like that and have to use addon like Cairo. Since most X apps don;t use Cairo, even if there is a GPU accelerated Cairo, most apps don;t get any speed up.

Don;t know what's wrong with X? Read "Papers and Talks by Keith Packard":
http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/

Re:Please let there be no X!

[TheRaven64]

You really have no idea how Quartz works, do you? Quartz does not store the vectors. Like X11, you can draw to an off-screen buffer using vector commands. The result is then a pixmap (a Picture object, in X11 terminology) which is then composited to the screen.

Quartz Extreme does not use GLSL at all, it just (like X.org) uses hardware-accelerated compositing. QuartzGL (formerly Quartz 2D Extreme) accelerates drawing text by storing the glyphs as textures and then compositing them in hardware. You will notice two things about this. Firstly, that it is not enabled by default in OS X 10.5. Secondly, that the XRender extension does exactly the same thing when the hardware supports it, and is used for text rendering by most modern toolkits.

Don;t know what's wrong with X? Read "Papers and Talks by Keith Packard":

I've read them. If you read them all, then you'll know that most of the later ones are about how they solved the problems identified in the earlier ones.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[Riven.exe]

How to spot the people who have never done any graphics driver programming. They speak how perfect X11 is but most likely they use nvidia/ati video drivers that basically re-implement whole X. Yes, on one screen device without hardware composition X is usable, but try watch full screen video without tearing with Compiz enabled.

Re:Please let there be no X!

[pH7.0]

So to you Quartz is just a Compositor.
In general, the term Quartz or Quartz technologies can refer to almost every part of the Mac OS X graphics model from the rendering layer down to the compositor. In this use, the term covers Core 2d, Core Image, PDF Kit, Core Animation and Core Video as well. https://developer.apple.com/referencelibrary/GraphicsImaging/idxQuartz-date.html

OTOH, X is "just a protocol".

Don;t know what's wrong with X? Read "Papers and Talks by Keith Packard":

I've read them. If you read them all, then you'll know that most of the later ones are about how they solved the problems identified in the earlier ones.

Yes but a lot more still need to be done.
Keith identified a lot of X's problems can't be solved at X's level and should be fixed at "above xlib" or whatever. Some of them freedesktop.org is working on. some were lost. e.g. color management system.

Keith also talk about compressed image transport.
Today, to display a jpeg file, an x client (eg firefox) decompress the jpeg and send the decompressed image to remoteX. If X is used oven ssh, the image will get jpeg decompress and compressed by ssh and decompressed again at remoteX...
While XIE is dead, I'm sure Google Chrome OS will get it right.

Native Client

[Fzz]

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.

Re:Native Client

[shutdown -p now]

That thing is x86-specific, and they mention ARM. So, probably no.

Re:Native Client

[Fzz]

If I recall correctly, Native Client is x86 specific because it uses segmentation to go fast. I believe you should be able to do the same thing with paging on ARM, but I'd expect there to be some performance penalty.

Hold on a sec...

[mc moss]

Buying stocks in companies that make chairs.

Re:Hold on a sec...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Beat you to it. I bought stock in the company which affixes pub furniture to the ground.

Re:Hold on a sec...

[Archimonde]

Ha! I got both of you because I bought the hair growing and transplant industry! Those bald heads at MS can't afford to lose any more hairs.

Re:Hold on a sec...

[YourExperiment]

I bought shares in Google, and sold shares in Microsoft.

Huh?

[GF678]

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!

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.

Re:Huh?

[tjstork]

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.

Oh, don't beat around the bush. I'll come right out and say it. I think Windows 7 is fast, safe, and simple to use. I have Vista, Win7 and Ubuntu 8 on my machine, each with its own drive, and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu, Win7 runs rings around both, and is easier to use than either. I do not think I have enjoyed using Windows this much since NT first got the Win95 shell.

Re:Huh?

[neumayr]

The summary says that this Chrome OS's "main selling points are speed, simplicity and security". That's different from focus.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the "current No.1 OS" (and all others too, actually) doesn't deliver in all those areas - just one of them. Which, in most cases, would probably be simplicity, which in turn implies the other two.

Re:Huh?

[rallymatte]

Well, you may be right, it might not imply that, but it's still true that it cannot.

Re:Huh?

[Mojo01010011]

Agreed, the summary seems overly excited about an unproven product... How long will the Chrome OS be in beta? 4 years? 5 years?

Re:Huh?

[Aladrin]

Actually, it does imply that Google thinks Chrome OS is better in those areas than its competitors and it's using those points to sell the product. If it wasn't better, it would be foolish to use those as selling points because the competition will simply make a chart that shows their own OS is better than everything Chrome is advertised for. That's really, really simple marketing.

Re:Huh?

[noundi]

The summary sound rather, well, dumb.

It's a selling pitch, get over it. The logic goes: the world is full of idiots and scarce on brains. Hire the brains, sell to the idiots.

Re:Huh?

[donaggie03]

How is this a troll? Parent was not rude or stating anything offensive, he simply gave an opinion, based on personal experience, which contradicts an assumption made in the summary. How many times do we have to explain that the "Troll" moderation does NOT mean "I disagree!" Someone needs to L2Moderate.

Re:Huh?

[Artifakt]

Any time anybody introduces any new product, it's safe to infer they think that the competition isn't unbeatably perfect for all customers. If I plant a grove of Winesap apples in an area where nobody is growing that particular variety, it's fair to assume I think there's demand, or my product will meet some as yet unmet need. That doesn't "kind of imply" that I think Gates Orchards is selling unsafe Golden Delicious or overly complicated Granny Smiths. The summary sounded as though somebody has an ax to grind.

Re:Huh?

[agentultra]

It's easy to make that claim. Especially if what they deliver really is tailored to netbooks. No need to ship it with a gargantuan kernel full of drivers. It might be smaller, faster, more secure because it literally is smaller and thus supports a smaller range of hardware.

Re:Huh?

[tjstork]

How is this a troll? Parent was not rude or stating anything offensive, he simply gave an opinion, based on personal experience,

Thank you. I explicitly wrote "I think" to indicate that the following was an opinion.

Re:Huh?

[dazjorz]

I actually think they mean Android, since that's also targeting netbooks and was also made by Google. (Other than that, an OS focusing on speed, simplicity and security isn't big news nowadays, is it...)

Re:Huh?

[EraserMouseMan]

Yea, it's good that Apple will finally have some competition. Now the iPhone/MacBook crowd who only use their computer for dicking around on the Internet will have another choice that doesn't involve paying for the Apple logo.

Of course without that logo you won't be officially in the club anymore. But since allegiance to Google's latest innovations has the same anti-MS/elitist vibe can't we create a new Apple Club "Associate Member" status?

Re:Huh?

[Fred_A]

its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security

- Our chief selling point is speed... speed and security. Our two selling points are speed and security. And simplicity. Our *three* selling points are speed, simplicity and security... and openness...
Our *four*, no, *Amongst* our selling points are such diverse elements as, speed, simplicity...
Wait, I'll do this again. (exits)

- I didn't expect yet another Google Beta

Re:Huh?

[characterZer0]

What makes it better?

(I am curious. I do not mean to challenge your statement. I have used neither Vista nor Windows 7.)

Re:Huh?

[TooMuchToDo]

Windows 7 is also going to cost $100-$200 USD. Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free.

Re:Huh?

[RiotingPacifist]

It might be smaller, faster, more secure because it literally is smaller and thus supports a smaller range of hardware.

Funny because a linux distro can fit support for 90% of windows devices and easily fit in 3G which is about a third/quater of your average windows install, oh and most of that space comes from apps, the kernel(10M)+xorg+managemnt apps(what windows gives you) easily fit inside 1G.

Re:Huh?

[darkmeridian]

The x64 versions of Windows Vista and 7 have beat the pants off of any Linux desktop that I've used. I want to try x64 Linux, but the driver support isn't there yet. For all the doubters out there, get four gigs of RAM and install x64 Windows Vista or 7 RC1. You'd be very surprised at how quick, stable, and snappy the experience is.

Re:Huh?

[HerculesMO]

Nobody's going to buy Windows 7 off the shelf other than nerds or gamers, and everybody else will upgrade when they upgrade their PC.

Re:Huh?

[TooMuchToDo]

If you're a business, and you have large swaths of users that can do everything through the web (Email access, docs, etc.) and still have Linux in the background in the event you need something like an IM client locally, a free OS wrapped together nicely like Google Chrome OS is going to be very compelling. Especially in this economy.

Re:Huh?

[tjstork]

The x64 versions of Windows Vista and 7 have beat the pants off of any Linux desktop that I've used. I want to try x64 Linux, but the driver support isn't there yet

Just out of curiosity, what driver is that you are missing in x64 Linux? In my case, Linux x64 supports my Silicon Image SATA controller and no 64 bit Windows does because the only driver out there is unsigned. So I installed my Win7 on an ATA drive, which is somewhat discomforting.

Re:Huh?

[Xabraxas]

You're joking right? 64-bit Linux has way less issues with driver compatibility than does any version of 64-bit Windows. I can't even think of a driver that doesn't work on 64-bit Linux.

Re:Huh?

[Bertie]

Hang on, most of Chrome was built on stuff other people did too. Webkit and the V8 Javascript engine aren't Google's work. So you can't really claim that Google outdid Microsoft from a standing start in a year, because Webkit's been under development since, ooh, the mid-nineties, and I don't know how long V8's been worked on.

Re:Huh?

[Buelldozer]

Try using a Cisco softphone with a Logitech headset on Win7. Your enjoyment will rapidly decrease.

Re:Huh?

[ClosedSource]

To be fair "Troll" and "Flamebait" are used by Slashdotters of all persuasions for posts they disagree with, not just Linux zealots.

Re:Huh?

[VGPowerlord]

It really does help if you have your 64-bit drivers downloaded in advance.

I know I did.

Then again, my home machine is an HP machine, and it had a 64-bit drivers download page.

Re:Huh?

[bartosz.broda]

You're joking right? 64-bit Linux has way less issues with driver compatibility than does any version of 64-bit Windows. I can't even think of a driver that doesn't work on 64-bit Linux.

Yeah, he is joking or trolling. Installation of drivers under x64 Linux is far easier then on 64-bit Windows (for me even 32-bit windows fetch-the-driver and install procedure is tiresome comparing to just-works Ubuntu way). But there is some stuff that works with Win64 and not with Linux, i.e., I didn't manage to have audio over HDMI on Ubuntu (which "just worked" in Vista x64).

Re:Huh?

[indi0144]

Well Running almost the same config as the GP (Win XP x86 + Ubuntu 9.04 x86 + Win 7 x64) I can say that win 7 is faster than Xp but not as much a Ubuntu in part because Win 7 is optimized for Multicore and, well, using more than 4Gb of RAM. Ubuntu may be faster but it has been a LOYAL PITA to set up the nVidia driver to work reliable on an embedded GeForce 8200 (even installing the latest from nVidia drivers site) It's not fault from the Ubuntu guys it's nVidia's fault but still I can't use my Ubuntu OS as long as I want, next time I'll choose ATI looks good in the future.

After installing Win 7, Windows Update found all the drivers needed and installed them so after the first reboot I had a very fast and stable OS. It's easy to set up, easy to admin, have a nice resource monitor and looks rather nice (looks matter for us the design guys who have to show our desktops to our clients, the same as Compiz had helped me to "sell" some Ubuntu installs). Even using and embedded and kinda old GPU lets me use Aero, which is by the looks more responsive and customizable than the Default XP GUI. Not every thing is joy, the usage of RAM in idle it's 900 Mb, It does not play nice with my AV, Nod32, keeps asking me to install one. I don't trust MS because it's too soon to know if Win 7 ends up being a trap with this massive RIAA lobbying (?).

For the guys like me that have to use some kind of windows, 7 it's worth the upgrade, but if you can make Linux to work flawless on your PC and do not need Win only Software running at full performance you should go Linux NOW! Best tool for the job isn't it?

Re:Huh?

[furby076]

Welcome to /. Do you realize how many posts get modded down and when you read it there is nothing trollish about it? It is modded down because the mod disagrees with the sentiment. /. even tells people to mod up more then mod down but some mods are just trolls themselves. It's a crying shame.

That's why i tell mods to mod me down. I post crap anyhow so who cares if it gets modded down. Save the positive points for the good posts :)

Re:Huh?

[furby076]

Windows 7 is also going to cost $100-$200 USD. Google Chrome OS is going to be.....free.

$49.99 for the upgrade.

I'd like to see google chrome OS run your favorite high-end game. What happens when you lose connection to the internet...enjoy working in your office environment...oh wait.

Chrome OS will have it's advantages - mainly netbooks - but it has a lot of hurdles. 1) can it accept mainstream programs that won't be in the cloud and 2) what happens when someone loses internet connection

Re:Huh?

[TooMuchToDo]

What percentage of the market is a high end gamer? What percentage of the market are casual users? You're on Slashdot, so you probably have a good idea. If I'm in an office environment and lose my internet connection, I'm not getting email anyway. And if I *do* want to keep working, I'm using apps that use Google Gears or some other local storage/app solution. Times they are a changin'

Re:Huh?

[Enderandrew]

I am running Windows 7 on a Phenom X2 quad-core box and it pretty slow.

I admit I like the new taskbar a whole lot. Instead of just useless thumbnails for multiple explorer windows, now I can mouse over them to "peek" at them.

That being said, I've had a lot of trouble with 7. And at the end of the day, people still call me to clear spyware and viruses off their Vista boxes all the time. I am extremely reticent to call any version of Windows secure until I see real world evidence of a Windows box on the internet with real world use that is pretty secure. Sure I can install third-party anti-spyware or anti-virus apps, browse with Firefox, disable apps, use a HOSTS file, etc. to minimize risk. But I'm talking about Windows out of the box.

As for comparisons with Ubuntu, I'm the minority that loathes Gnome and loathes Ubuntu. I too prefer Windows to Ubuntu. KDE on openSUSE is another story.

Re:Huh?

[Enderandrew]

In all fairness I think the two week promotion is still going on where you can preorder Windows 7 right now for $49.99. I actually preordered a legal copy.

I love me some Linux, but I like Windows 7 as well.

Re:Huh?

[Enderandrew]

I can't even install Vista x64 without making my own install DVD with RAID drivers packaged in. I can't get any printer drivers period for my printers in x64 land.

Everything works for me out of the box in x64 land with Linux. I've been running 100% x64 in Linux for about 6 years now with no hassles.

Re:Huh?

[Enderandrew]

Didn't the Chrome browser leave beta right away.

Re:Huh?

[gbarules2999]

Eh. I didn't like Windows 7 that much. I actually prefer Vista, as long as the machine is powerful enough. That bottom taskbar pisses me off to no end (there's a reason why I didn't buy a Mac, Microsoft). But they both bury options under dozens of menus that I can't navigate very quickly yet, even after several months, which is odd considering how quickly I adjusted to XP (after upgrading from 98), Gnome and KDE.

Probably just growing pains, but I can't share your enthusiasm.

Re:Huh?

[Xabraxas]

Yeah, he is joking or trolling. Installation of drivers under x64 Linux is far easier then on 64-bit Windows (for me even 32-bit windows fetch-the-driver and install procedure is tiresome comparing to just-works Ubuntu way). But there is some stuff that works with Win64 and not with Linux, i.e., I didn't manage to have audio over HDMI on Ubuntu (which "just worked" in Vista x64).

While that may be true it has nothing to do with the actual distinction between 64-bit and 32-bit. 64-bit Linux is well supported by applications and drivers alike to the point that I don't even notice I'm running 64-bit. You're constantly reminded in Windows that you're running 64-bit because half the hardware that is supported under Win32 isn't supported under Win64.

Re:Huh?

[bigngamer92]

Nobody expects the Google beta. Since most of them died yesterday.

Re:Huh?

[zuperduperman]

I too like Win7, my only complaint is that I think Microsoft is charging about double what they should be for it. So what really interests me about this announcement is that it throws the gauntlet down to Win7 in the netbook space and *I hope* will give Microsoft a serious rethink wrt pricing. They're going to have to really justify every dollar extra they add to the price of a netbook when Google is out there with a product that is not only free but actually superior in many ways (superior meaning: instant on, zero viruses, etc. etc.).

Re:Huh?

[ignavus]

I have Vista ... and Ubuntu 8 on my machine, each with its own drive, and while Vista is a tad bit better than Ubuntu...

I have Vista and Ubuntu on a Lenovo X61 laptop. Vista is as slow as molasses - all gloss and frustration. Booting, updating software, and general operation is a pain. Ubuntu boots fast, works fast, updates fast. And has a vast array of free software to install.

Vista is more than a tad worse than Ubuntu.

Re:Huh?

[Nicolay77]

I totally agree with you!!

Windows 7 Rulez!!

(Really guys, this is the only way to get rid of IE6, please support Win7)

Re:Huh?

[furby076]

What percentage of the market is a high end gamer? What percentage of the market are casual users? You're on Slashdot, so you probably have a good idea. If I'm in an office environment and lose my internet connection, I'm not getting email anyway. And if I *do* want to keep working, I'm using apps that use Google Gears or some other local storage/app solution. Times they are a changin'

Has nothing to do with high end gamer. It could be your 5 y/o kid playing with his learning game. It could be you working on your wedding invitations. At work - oh god - yea lose internet connection normally and you just don't have external e-mail...based on this computing now you won't have internal e-mail, access to be able to work on your documents....work productivity just got shot in the face with a 12-gauge.

Times are not really changing. Your points just killed your intent:
1) Losing internet connection with cloud computing = losing more then just access to things outside of your home or office
2) To avoid scenario one you need to install local apps (e.g. OpenOffice, MS Office, MS Exchange/Outlook, Thunderbird, etc).

Unless Internet connectivity can be 100% gauranteed then cloud computing will remain in the cloud. Once they can gaurantee 100% Internet connectivity there are privacy issues we have to think about.

Re:Huh?

[TooMuchToDo]

Have you never heard of Gears? It's not horribly complex to write web apps to remain usable locally when an internet connection fails, depending on the app.

Fear

[chord.wav]

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.

Re:Fear

[Mauzl]

Its open source. Where is the risk?

Re:Fear

[introspekt.i]

Developers' time = $$$

Re:Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

The positive aspect is that even giant soulless corporations have decided that open source is in their best interests. Maybe once the spyware is stripped out there will be some small thing of use to us left.

Re:Fear

[tolan-b]

The OS is OSS but Google want to essentially make the OS a thin wrapper around web based apps. Google's web apps are proprietary, closed, and datamine the crap out of your usage and personal data.

So although there will probably be some positives for OSS from this, perhaps some more drivers for the Linux kernel, on the whole it's going to do little for real FOSS adoption.

Re:Fear

[MadFarmAnimalz]

I'm sure there's a positive side of this story too, but I let that to another user.

I'm looking forward to leaked Microsoft emails about deliveries of fresh pants to Ballmer's office.

Re:Fear

[castironpigeon]

There's got to be some give and take. It's all speculation right now, but we possibly get an OS that's fast, simple, and secure and they (Google) possibly get to generate revenue from it in some way. Would you really expect a corporation like Google to sink so many resources into this and then expect no return on it?

Take some comfort in the fact that because this OS has to start out as the underdog it has to earn a foothold in the market. This means that Google would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing something blatantly evil with it.

Re:Fear

[albedoa]

I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences You wouldn't run an OS from a company who knows exactly what you, as a consumer, want in an OS? Okay...

Re:Fear

[cinnamon colbert]

thanks
I think we should have a pool as to when google becomes the new borg for the majority of /.ers - I'm guessing may 2010

Re:Fear

[bigsteve@dstc]

Google's web apps are proprietary, closed, and datamine the crap out of your usage and personal data.

The parts of the Google webapps that run on your web browser are delivered to your web browser as Javascript and HTML. It should not be hard to figure out what personal information they send to Google. Besides, if the Chrome OS is really open, you should be able to run webapps from someone you trust rather than Google's web apps.

... on the whole it's going to do little for real FOSS adoption.

But most people don't understand about, and mostly don't care about computer security, privacy, etc. So, why would they suddenly care about what Google does? If the Chrome OS fails, it probably won't be because of privacy concerns. A more likely scenario is that that MS will lean on OEMs to not preinstall Chrome OS.

Re:Fear

[dirvine]

This is an interesting issue, the OS may be OSS but if Google does not open source it's apps then the platform as delivered cannot be considered an OSS solution outside normal marketing doublethink.

I imagine Google could easily Open Source most of it's apps though as there only access to the Google back end therefor not giving away any bigtable, map reduce, pagerank secrets etc.

I am interested in how it can be made malware and virus free unless it's a read only OS and therefor either storing all your cache, data either in RAM and loosing it, or on Google servers or similar ? That could be a privacy nighmare for them but I would assume Google are way smarter than that and can employ some cool technologies in this privacy area to. Meanwhile has anyone an idea how they can be malware, virus free ? (you can get memory resident viruses per session even on a read only OS and ... (add your own and also ... here)

Re:Fear

[dirvine]

Yea that would be like the madness of giving us free search, no way would they do this !

Re:Fear

[Krneki]

Ehm, I guess you are not running M$ or Apple.

Re:Fear

[chammy]

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.

Re:Fear

[MBGMorden]

That's ok. As long as a solid FOSS foundation (Ie, apps) is provided I'm sure that we can get some good apps built by third party FOSS developers. Firefox and/or OpenOffice.org already run snappier and better on Windows or Mac compared to on Linux. If Google can provide an open source Linux-based platform with the polish of Mac OS X then it could do wonders for the FOSS world.

Re:Fear

[tolan-b]

It's only the UI that works in your browser, *all* the data the app works with lives on their servers. At best you'll be able to keep a subset on the browser for offline use, but as soon as you go online again it'll re-sync with the back-end. Just look at GMail Google Docs etc. Basically if you use them then all your data are belong to Google.

Regarding take-up, I wasn't really saying that privacy would be an impediment to adoption, if that were the case then Google wouldn't be where they are now. I was just saying that to me, as someone who cares about FOSS, it's not a very interesting development. Of course this is speculation for now, I may eat my words when we see it in its final form. :)

Re:Fear

[tolan-b]

Well I think that everything that can possibly work as a Google web app won't be provided in another form. I wouldn't expect to see a full suite of OSS apps pre-installed.

I hope I'm wrong though ;)

Re:Fear

[MBGMorden]

I wouldn't expect much of anything PRE-installed. I'd expect a slew of nice downloadable apps though. Most of the software I run on my Windows and Mac machines is OSS, and most of the time the whole environment seems better. The backend has the consistency and direction afforded by a single company developing with a goal oriented mindset, and the individual applications benefit from the OSS model of development.

Re:Fear

[bigsteve@dstc]

I'm aware that GMail etc (currently) store your data on Google's servers. If that concerns you, don't use these webapps. My point was that if the Chrome OS is open source, people will be able to avoid using "nasty" Google webapps.

Re:Fear

[Hadlock]

So comment those parts out and recompile. It's going to be open source you big baby.

Re:Fear

[DragonWriter]

I wouldn't run an OS from a company who's business is knowing your consumer preferences

You might not, but, given that (while less successful than Google) Microsoft also sells ads (including search ads) and collects consumer preference data and uses it, the vast majority of the computing market obviously will. So I don't see that as big barrier to Google succeeding in the OS market.

Re:Fear

[tolan-b]

Only if someone ports all the regular apps to it. It's going to be running a custom UI at least. Of course that's possible as it's OSS, but it's far from guaranteed to happen.

Chrome is the new Emacs?

[deadbeefcafe]

Chrome is a nice operating system, but it could do with a decent web browser.

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[Marcika]

Chrome is a nice operating system, but it could do with a decent web browser.

I'm sure Firefox will be one of the first big applications ported onto this "new windowing system" in ChromeOS... They wouldn't want ot miss this marketing opportunity!

(And it would be a good idea, actually - having a decent web browser that blocks all the ads that Chrome won't.)

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[elrous0]

Ironically, Google all but owns Firefox. Google's contributions account for almost 90% of Mozilla's revenue. Excellent article on it here.

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[Anonymous Coward]

(And it would be a good idea, actually - having a decent web browser that blocks all the ads that Chrome won't.)

Privoxy - It's better than Ad Block Plus - it blocks ad streams to flash sandboxes (hulu) as well as text ads (adsense). And bonus points: it works on all browsers that allow connection through a proxy... which includes chrome.

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[dmdavis]

I'm hoping they'll make a web-based version of firefox to run within Chrome. That way, no matter where I am, I can connect to and use my web browser.

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[howlingmadhowie]

Google all but owns Firefox

you know, i don't think the word 'owns' means what you think it means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[Fnkmaster]

My theory is that diversity in web browsers actually helps Google's position. A browser monoculture of Internet Explorer allows Microsoft to wield their monopoly, gives them advantages in developing next-generation web applications, etc. A bi-culture of IE and Firefox was better than that, but still seemed to spur less innovation than a truly competitive landscape. Since Safari and now Chrome have become mainstream the pace of development in web applications have picked up immensely, bringing browsers to the point where Google can eventually wield their position of dominance in search engine traffic to feed up much more sophisticated web applications to browsing web users.

They don't necessarily need all those people to be using Chrome or Firefox or any browser in particular, in fact, strong standards and an ecology of excellent browsers competing in the market will ultimately be in their best interests.

But it is still a rather interesting thing that a company that exerts so much influence over Firefox would use a completely different engine for their branded browser.

And I do realize that there are some technical reasons that their process model works better with the Webcore engine, and that the process model ultimately works better with heterogeneous, powerful web applications that Google wants to deliver.

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[Rocketship Underpant]

That's okay; "ironically" doesn't mean what he thinks it does either. ;)

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[MBGMorden]

You know, I don't think you know what the qualifier "all but" means when put in front of a word.

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[synthesizerpatel]

inconceivable!

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[ocularDeathRay]

that reminds me, I need to get to work on my viOS. everything you ever do you will have to hit esc esc : and then a series of cryptic one letter commands.

for example esc esc : psd! would post this message to slashdot with no preview

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[hkmwbz]

Except AdBlock Plus is not owned by Google or Mozilla.

Re:Chrome is the new Emacs?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Throw this in and the jokes write themselves.

Google should not screw this up...

[bogaboga]

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.

Re:Google should not screw this up...

[Real1tyCzech]

Too right.

This is the *web* people. Scripting is in it''s element here. Why is there no macro/scripting support in Google Docs? The formatting options are extremely limited and it's slow as heck. They *really* need to work on this space before they even consider building an OS around their apps.

Gmail was amazing. Blew everything else out of the water and forced them all to play catch-up. Docs? No such luck. They *really* (I cannot stress this enough) need to make their Google Docs as revolutionary as Gmail was before they should even devote a moments time to this.

They started out right: Get *everyone* using your products (GMail). They needed to take over most commonly used apps...and everyone uses mail. If they could have continued this by adding a mind-blowing chat, doc, spreadsheet, etc, they could have had 90% of what most users do with their PC's locked up. Power it through their own browser "desktop" and once that sinks in, no-one willc are what powers the "desktop" anymore.

*sigh*

Wish they'd done it right. They could have snuck up on OSX/Windows without so much as a whimper and then effortlessly replaced them.

Re:Google should not screw this up...

[RiotingPacifist]

Whats so bad in linux land?
Yes there are a million options and if you use certain distros (looking at you fedora and ubuntu) you get half-baked versions of lots of them, but if you want a full-baked solution its there (debian does pretty well), sure its not a shiny as vista/os X but its faster & more secure!

Re:Google should not screw this up...

[slim]

Why is there no macro/scripting support in Google Docs?

Because you haven't signed up as a tester.

The web is NOT the OS

[syousef]

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.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[bgarcia]

You forgot to tell us to "get off your lawn".

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[VJ42]

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.

So then don't use it.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[dintech]

Given Google's history, I'm betting it will run Java apps.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[hagnat]

you know, no one is forcing you to use it or any other google app

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[slim]

Given Google's history, I'm betting it will run Java apps.

Nah. I bet it's GWT all the way. Develop in Java on a "real" OS; see that compiled into Javascript that's deployed as the app.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

The web is not the OS. The web is...the web.

The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.

I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.

I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.

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.

Technology grows, changes, advances - this is especially true in IT. If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you'd be able to run a word processor through a web page. Just plain was not going to happen. Now we've got Google Docs, which has some issues, but mostly works.

These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.

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.

Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS? Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS? Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?

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.

Other people, obviously, disagree.

I'm not a big fan of Google Earth. It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me. I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time. Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.

The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days. And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance. This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.

And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear. There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[schon]

That reminds me, who is going to sue Google for distributing their OS without choice of browser... United States vs Microsoft

Yeah, because that case wasn't really about a monopolist illegally leveraging their monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in a second market, right? It was solely because of the US law stating that you have to provide an alternative browser with your OS!

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Larryish]

Get off his lawn you damned kids!

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[mcwop]

Which begs the point does this OS need an internet connection to be useful? While I think ubiquitous web connections will someday be here, we are not there yet. As a result, I need my mobile computer to be able to work offline. Not clear to me if that is the case with this OS. Seems odd that Google isn't just trying to use Android or Moblin with Chrome - maybe they are doing that.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[TomRK1089]

Wait, how are you going from Java source, to Java bytecode, and then magically to JavaScript? I think I missed something here, because despite the names, those are two very different languages in implementation. (Scope in Java versus "every variable is global" in JS just for starters)

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Artifakt]

The web is not the OS, but for a product aimed first at netbooks, the web is more important than for a product aimed at stand alone PCs.

The web is not the OS. but the less a person plans on running workware, bulk data storage, or games, the more the web apps are all that they need.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[slim]

Wait, how are you going from Java source, to Java bytecode, and then magically to JavaScript? I think I missed something here,

Yes, you missed what GWT does.

With Google Web Toolkit (GWT), you write your AJAX front-end in the Java programming language which GWT then cross-compiles into optimized JavaScript that automatically works across all major browsers. During development, you can iterate quickly in the same "edit - refresh - view" cycle you're accustomed to with JavaScript, with the added benefit of being able to debug and step through your Java code line by line. When you're ready to deploy, GWT compiles your Java source code into optimized, standalone JavaScript files.

GWT overview

This is what Google uses to write apps like Docs, Gmail, Wave, etc.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[agentultra]

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.

But.. but... I don't know how to program anything else! The web is the future! FUTURE!

In all seriousness, I basically feel exactly the same way. I've been building 'web applications' for companies for years because that's all they're hiring people for. It sometimes surprises me that it ever works at all. The sheer number of brittle components all hobbled together... there are so many weak points where something can go wrong. It just makes for one big headache after another. X11 is a server and has been delivering stateful GUIs across the network since the early nineties at least! It amazes me, the amount of technology we have today, and what we've chosen to do with it. It could have been so much more, but instead the worst possible solution won out the day... and now a whole generation of developers have no exposure to anything else.

Is everyone seriously impressed that we're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications? Is this the future? Really?

I'm with you on this one.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[maxume]

You could have just searched on "GWT", it does not use magic:

http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[stuntpope]

And now you can do it in Python with Pyjamas.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[timster]

You should Google for "GWT". But it's more Java source cross-compiled to JavaScript.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[TomRK1089]

Aha, misread GWT as AWT -- that explains a lot. Obviously I need more caffeine before I should be allowed to comment on /.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Tangent128]

Two words: Google Gears.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[bigsteve@dstc]

95% of users don't care whether stuff on their computer is applications, web applications or blue cheese. The just want the computer to be cheap, fast and easy to use for looking at websites, reading their email, writing documents and things like that. The way I read it, Chrome OS is aimed this 95%.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[mattwarden]

So don't use it. But I'd like to check it out.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Pascal Sartoretti]

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.

Keep in mind that this is intended for netbooks, not "real" machines. When I am traveling, an excellent browser covers 80% of my needs; if you add VLC, it jumps to 98%...

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Itchyeyes]

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.

Good for you. I'm certain that Windows, OSX, or anyone of the dozens of Linux distros out there will serve you well for years to come. For the rest of us who already spend a good 3/4+ of our time using a browser, an announcement of an OS that might move beyond paradigms established well over 20 years ago, let alone from a company that actually has the resources to pull it off, is generally something to sit up and take note of.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Raffaello]

Yes, things move on. But please be aware that there is a whole class of applications that are simply inappropriate for cloud computing. For example, try any of the existing web based image editors on a large image (the sort a professional photographer routinely works with 35MB+). Although the server on the other end of the connection might be able to do the requested image manipulation, transferring a full screen window's worth of the transformed data (~4MB) over the network means this app is inherently slow compared to running it locally on even a laptop of modest speed (where displaying a full screen window from a buffer is essentially instantaneous).

It would seem that the logical, non-hype direction in which to move is a hybrid where some computing, the results of which are *not* large data sets, would be done remotely (i.e., in the "cloud") while computing which results in large data that must be displayed on the client (e.g., large image editing) is done locally. This suggests that augmenting existing desktop platforms with more cloud capabilities, or augmenting existing web-app platforms with local computing capabilities would be the proper superset that covers all bases.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[dan_sdot]

This is nonsense. Web based applications are certainly only going to become more common... but your implication that soon everything will be over the web is silly. The right tool for the right job my friend.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Raffaello]

It amazes me, the amount of technology we have today, and what we've chosen to do with it. It could have been so much more, but instead the worst possible solution won out the day...

Those wanting profit will always seek out the largest mass market, which means lowest common denominator solutions. Just as DOS and Windows were the LCD suckage we loved to hate in the desktop era, web apps are the LCD suckage we love to hate in the internet era.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[norminator]

These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.

I don't think you have to wait a dozen years... I'm sure that none of these options are equal to the full power of Photoshop right now, but with the direction things are going, it could happen before too many years go by: http://lifehacker.com/5307419/five-best-online-image-editors

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[gentlemen_loser]

The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.

Web, you keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Of the technologies you listed above, the following: email, ftp, and instant messaging all fall squarely under the term "Internet", not web (although some of them have a web front end grafted on). Arguably, live video, games, and television fall into the same category. Word processing is something that should have been left on the desktop. Photo galleries, in terms of sharing data, are good candidates for the web. Flash should just die already and I wish forums were still mostly in Usenet.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

Yes, things move on. But please be aware that there is a whole class of applications that are simply inappropriate for cloud computing. For example, try any of the existing web based image editors on a large image (the sort a professional photographer routinely works with 35MB+). Although the server on the other end of the connection might be able to do the requested image manipulation, transferring a full screen window's worth of the transformed data (~4MB) over the network means this app is inherently slow compared to running it locally on even a laptop of modest speed (where displaying a full screen window from a buffer is essentially instantaneous).

Sure, currently doing editing of a large image on the web doesn't make sense. For exactly the reasons you outlined.

But 10 years ago it didn't make much sense to run a word processor on the web.

Things change.

It would seem that the logical, non-hype direction in which to move is a hybrid where some computing, the results of which are *not* large data sets, would be done remotely (i.e., in the "cloud") while computing which results in large data that must be displayed on the client (e.g., large image editing) is done locally. This suggests that augmenting existing desktop platforms with more cloud capabilities, or augmenting existing web-app platforms with local computing capabilities would be the proper superset that covers all bases.

And that is, more or less, what I'm suggesting. Not necessarily your specifics here... But that the web will evolve. That your client will evolve. And in another 10 years the web won't look a thing like it does today.

And, at that nebulous future point, it may make perfect sense to edit a 35+ MB file through a web app.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[LKM]

It doesn't really matter that the two languages are different. Just like you can compile C to assembly, you can compile Java to JavaScript if you want to. Not sure what GP was talking about (maybe GWT), but it's certainly possible.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

This is nonsense. Web based applications are certainly only going to become more common... but your implication that soon everything will be over the web is silly. The right tool for the right job my friend.

I never said anything about soon.

Nor did I say that everything would be run over the web.

But technology marches on. Just as it now seems ludicrous to install a building-sized monstrosity full of vacuum tubes to add a few numbers together... It may some day seem ludicrous to tie your software and data to a single piece of hardware.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.

Web, you keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Of the technologies you listed above, the following: email, ftp, and instant messaging all fall squarely under the term "Internet", not web (although some of them have a web front end grafted on). Arguably, live video, games, and television fall into the same category.

But that is exactly my point. The web isn't just http/html anymore.

Folks don't care that their email is actually transmitted from one server to another through SMTP. They just go to Yahoo or Google or Hotmail or whatever and type out a message. They don't care that the file is actually downloading using FTP, they just click on a link and watch a progress bar. They don't care what protocol GTalk or MySpaceIM use, they just type words and they show up on the other end. They don't care that their data is sitting in a MySQL or Oracle or MS SQL database somewhere... They just click a button, and their pictures show up. They don't care where a server is physically located, or what OS it is running, they just type in a URL and there it is!

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[martas]

buzzword overdose... need... stomach... pumped!

good post, though. completely agree.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[walterbyrd]

I don't think you understand. This is not supposed to complete replace your desktop. It's something between a 3G cellphone and a laptop. You can run your business while you are sitting around waiting at the airport. Are of your files are easily accessible online. Use an online service, like Xero, for accounting and you probably don't need msft for anything.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[businessnerd]

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

Isn't that the point of Chrome OS, though? If Google really felt that you should be doing everything as a web-app, then they would just keep pushing Chrome browser and you would not need an OS. The way I read it, Google made Chrome Browser for web-apps, and Chrome OS for everything else. If you want to run native applications, then go right ahead (assuming your application has been ported over). Or, if you don't like it, just don't use it. I don't like Windows, so I don't use it. It's that simple.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[sydb]

So you're saying that usage of the word Web will expand over time to include lots of other things that aren't really Web? And then the common useage of the word will become accepted? No shit Sherlock. It's not a new phenomenon, but it doesn't actually change anything, and people who understand the difference between Web (HTML/HTTP) and RTSP or FTP will continue to use them appropriately.

No, we're not going back to the dumb terminal days. It's to useful to be able to do stuff without some third party dictating if/when/how we can do it. Some stuff will move but it's going to be the same kind of non-revolution that Web 2.0 has been for normal people.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Jeema]

I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.

Too bad! Every application from now on is a web app! And every coffee grinder and toaster from now on is USB compatible!

Just accept the new world order and stop pointing out things that don't make sense - you'll be much happier.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[The End Of Days]

Is everyone seriously impressed that we're creating stateless GUIs to remote applications by scripting marked-up text inside increasingly bloated and resource-hogging third-party applications? Is this the future? Really?

No, this is the present. You can tell because it's happening now as opposed to some point after now.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[fahrbot-bot]

The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.

Close. Technically all that is the Internet, of which the "web" is a part. Now many parts of the Internet (a small number you enumerated) may be accessable via the web, but most are still separate parts. I've used the Internet since it was the ARPAnet, and while the great majority of its users now interact with it mainly via their browser, the "web" is but a small part of the whole in actuality.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Buelldozer]

So if the OS is the browser and it strongly guides the users to your applications what's the functional difference?

Microsoft OS > Microsoft Browser > Microsoft Applications

Google OS > Google Browser > Google Applications

It may not play out like that but the potential is surely there.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[powerlord]

Allow me:

"GET OFF OUR LAN!

Darn kids with their Meta-This, and their Web X-dot-Oh that!

What's wrong with tables? And Notepad! THAT was the height of web development!

Been downhill every since!"

Better?

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[ftobin]

It's important to remember that one big advantage that web applications have over traditional desktop applications is that they connect and integrate with the entire network of the web better. Traditional applications tend to behave a lot like flash applications do: they work well on their own, but tend to be closed in terms of integration with their environment. Going forward, integrating with all other applications and information available on the internet will continue to be a key driving force.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[ClosedSource]

"Yeah, because that case wasn't really about a monopolist illegally leveraging their monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in a second market, right?"

Actually, you're right. It wasn't about that. It was about players in the second market trying to limit competition.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

So you're saying that usage of the word Web will expand over time to include lots of other things that aren't really Web? And then the common useage of the word will become accepted? No shit Sherlock. It's not a new phenomenon, but it doesn't actually change anything, and people who understand the difference between Web (HTML/HTTP) and RTSP or FTP will continue to use them appropriately.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if I need a driver update for my video card I go to a website, do a search, click a button, and download it. It does not matter to me what particular protocol is used behind the scenes to actually transfer the file. You can pick whichever one makes the most sense for your particular infrastructure. You could use an HTTP transfer, or FTP, or BitTorrent, or one of those weird custom downloader applications like Adobe. But, ultimately, the way I'm actually acquiring the file is over the web.

The web isn't replacing those protocols... And the word isn't being used incorrectly... The web is becoming an abstraction layer.

In general day-to-day use, it really doesn't much matter what filesystem I've got on my HDD. Sure, each one has its strengths and weaknesses... But as far as basic utility goes, the OS abstracts all that away from me. All I see is a directory full of files. I can open them with whatever I want, save them, copy them, rename them... And it really doesn't much matter whether the disk is NTFS, FAT, EXT, ZFS, a RAID, a SAN... All that underlying stuff is abstracted away.

No, we're not going back to the dumb terminal days. It's to useful to be able to do stuff without some third party dictating if/when/how we can do it.

I've got a lot of clients who are trying very hard to get back to the dumb terminal days. They're using terminal services and virtual machines to try to centralize things, instead of having data and applications floating around on individual workstations.

I've also got a number of home users who are happily using on-line data storage or backup solutions so they don't have to worry about losing data if their hardware dies.

Some stuff will move but it's going to be the same kind of non-revolution that Web 2.0 has been for normal people.

You may not have noticed... But the whole web 2.0 thing is kind of a big deal.

A big enough deal that traditional print newspapers are having a very hard time making money these days.

During the recent conflict in Iran about the only information available came from blogs, Twitter, and like kinds of web 2.0 sources.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.

Close. Technically all that is the Internet, of which the "web" is a part. Now many parts of the Internet (a small number you enumerated) may be accessable via the web, but most are still separate parts. I've used the Internet since it was the ARPAnet, and while the great majority of its users now interact with it mainly via their browser, the "web" is but a small part of the whole in actuality.

Incorrect.

I'm not talking about HTTP. I'm talking about the web.

The web is no longer a single protocol or standard. It isn't just HTML transmitted over HTTP. The web is the collection of things that a person can do/view/use/get with a web browser such as Internet Explorer or Firefox.

Arguing that the web is only HTTP is like claiming that a human being is only skin, because everything else is hidden underneath.

I'm not claiming that the web is the Internet. The two are not the same thing. They are not synonymous. I can fire up a game of EVE: Online and play with other people over the Internet without ever touching my web browser.

But watching a video on YouTube is part of the web, and sending an email with Gmail is part of the web, and downloading drivers from Dell is part of the web, and chatting with someone on MySpace is part of the web - regardless of what underlying protocols actually make it happen.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[nbates]

Don't you understand it... Google developers are counting on the parent to use this OS, without their support they are doomed... doomed!

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[mcwop]

Informative, would mod u up if I could.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[schon]

So if the OS is the browser and it strongly guides the users to your applications what's the functional difference?

Are you familiar with the phrase "you're missing the forest for the trees"?

Google doesn't have an OS monopoly, so therefore any comparison to the MS antitrust trial is completely irrelevant.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[DragonWriter]

So if the OS is the browser and it strongly guides the users to your applications what's the functional difference?

The legal difference is that whether it is illegal to leverage your position in one market to gain ground in another often depends on, in addition to the method used, whether or not your position in the first market is a monopoly.

Microsoft was not charged with "tying a browser to an OS", they were charged with (and convicted of) illegally leveraging their desktop OS monopoly to push out competition in the browser market by tying a browser to an OS and using various means to prevent other browsers from being distributed by OEMs with the OS.

Without the OS monopoly, there would have been no crime (the reason for this, is that without the monopoly, there would be real competitive alternatives to the OS, so consumers could avoid the lock-in created by Microsoft's tying efforts by going with one of the competing OS's.)

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[VGPowerlord]

AWT? AWT?! Has anyone used AWT in the past 10 years?

Seriously, Swing and SWT superseded AWT a looooong time ago.

GWT is newer, but specifically aimed at web apps.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[TomRK1089]

Ooooh man you have no idea. I'm working with another guy here at university, maintaining this application started back in 99. It's terrible.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[VGPowerlord]

The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is

I may be a power user, but I have a feeling that I'm in the majority for at least some of these:

email

I use GMail. I access it via IMAP using Mozilla Thunderbird 2.0.22 and find it's a much better user experience than the web version. However, I'll give you this one simply because most people these days seem to use webmail these days.

ftp

Uh, what? Maybe you use your web browser to download from FTP sites, but last I checked browsers sucked at ftp uploads.

Filezilla is a nice, free FTP app that even supports ftps and sftp.

live video

Really? I don't recall my web browser having access to my quickcam*.

* I'm lying, I don't have a quickcam, but it still wouldn't have access to it. Even Flash requires my explicit permission to be able to access it, however if you're talking about a flash app, I've replied to flash separately farther down.

instant messaging

On my home computer, I usually have Pidgin, Skype, Steam, and Xfire running. None of these are web-apps.

All the major IM networks still have their own clients: AIM, Windows Live Messenger, YIM, etc...

word processing

I know this one is the minority. Like it or not, Microsoft Office is the most widely used word processor in the world. Personally, I use OpenOffice, but like I said... I'm a power user. Of course, neither of the apps I mentioned are web apps.

photo galleries

I don't do photo galleries, but my mom does. She uses Windows XP's Slideshow to view them.

However, a good many people do use the web for photo galleries, so I'll give this one to you.

forums

duh, of course these are web apps.

flash, games, television

Bad choice. Flash Player is native code and doesn't require a web browser to run as long as you have a Flash player app.

Oh, and of course most of the games and television that you watch over the web are done in Flash. There are exception, such as abc.com's video is done as a browser plugin.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[fahrbot-bot]

But watching a video on YouTube is part of the web, and sending an email with Gmail is part of the web, and downloading drivers from Dell is part of the web, and chatting with someone on MySpace is part of the web - regardless of what underlying protocols actually make it happen.

Granted, of course, but the parent listed things like email, ftp, instant messaging, all of which are NOT part of the web. Yes they can be accessed via the web, but they are not a part of and, in fact, pre-date "the web". Furthermore, not everyone prefers to access those things via a browser -- for example, I generally use Thunderbird, not Gmail.

Yes the "web" is a collection of things, but I would hesitate to roll everything into that collection and call it all the web. In keeping with the original post, the web is not the OS, nor is it the Internet. Perhaps many (most?) people interact with the Internet solely via their browser, and protocols that can be *also* used via a browser (like FTP), but I don't. As a long, long (damn, I'm old) time Unix SA I often view things not just through a rose-colored browser window...

I see your point, but am personally reluctant to generalize to that extent.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[IntlHarvester]

Remember in the early days of "the web", most of the interesting content was not located on HTTP servers. So the "web" aspect was the ability to tie all of this FTP or Gopher or whatever content together with hypertext. That is, "the web" was the connections, not the resources.

So I would agree with the GP that "the web" has assimilated most of the old stand-alone internet applications/protocols, even if it hasn't technically become those applications.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[bgspence]

So, I guess I can't sell you a netbook.

A netbook is NOT a PC.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[gbarules2999]

I'm sure that none of these options are equal to the full power of Photoshop right now

The million dollar question, of course, is if this matters. Do people need that power of Photoshop? Answer that and you have the web's cloud future.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[agentultra]

that integration is an effect of data being stored on publicly accessible servers and is not a virtue of "web applications" alone. I agree that the Internet should be more ubiquitous if possible, I just believe that the technology stack we've chosen to implement it is feable and silly.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[DarksideDaveOR]

It's the future, simply because it's easier. Deploying a web app is quick, easy, and requires surprisingly little expertise, and most of the time, companies assume it's a short term solution, so the inevitable failure points can safely be ignored.

My work is essentially glorified web development (and in c#/asp.net, too... don't judge me). I have enough programming training to be aware of the advantages of developing "real" applications, but they take longer and require more expertise, and with the web option available and easier, it's the route more and more applications will be taking.

If you want to "fix" this problem, you're going to have to invent some kind of interpreter that can take web apps and make them into something else, without affecting how they work at all.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[cstacy]

The web is not the OS. The web is...the web.

The web isn't what it used to be.

Technology grows, changes, advances - this is especially true in IT. If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you'd be able to run a word processor through a web page.

In the field of computers, technology also forgets things and loses major winning things, and goes off on weird stupid side-trips.

The GUIs in browsers, and their performance, is not suitable for a wide class of applications. I am familar with Google apps and am not especially impressed by them.

Distributed storage and other web services are nice, but should not necessarily be tied to a conventional browser.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[agentultra]

Writing a "Hello, World!" script is trivially easy. Programming today isn't as technically difficult as it once was. I can write full desktop applications in the same high-level language I write web applications and servers in. However, once you get past the tutorials in your books, nothing is ever easy. Expertise is necessary to progress beyond amateur.

This isn't a technical problem. The solutions have been there before this problem came to be: irc, nntp, ftp, sftp, ssh, vnc, x11, http, etc. This is more of a stigma. Using the browser as a delivery platform for interfaces to networked applications was a work-around to proprietary OS vendor lock in. Delivering cross-platform applications was once a very daunting task, even for seasoned programmers, and made very little sense to businesses: who wanted to maintain a new version of the same software for every possible mainstream OS? But that has become a problem of the past and in the meantime the work-around has become the norm. That's the real problem: a generation or two of new developers simply don't know anything else.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[syousef]

You forgot to tell us to "get off your lawn".

Don't you mean get off the web. Everything is the web remember.

It's not about being old or being a luddite. It's about applying some goddamn common sense.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Nerdposeur]

These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense

Maybe. But I'd bet that the most computation-expensive apps will always run locally. It just doesn't make sense to add the extra round-trip to a server.

Now, maybe they'll run locally inside the browser, at the rate the Javascript engines are speeding up. We'll see.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[syousef]

The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.

That's fine. The web is fantastic for content delivery and for filling out forms. But the web is also trying to be my photo editor, my scientific application, my spreadsheet, my hardcore games machine, my flight simulator....you get the idea.

The web is not suited to every damned thing.

I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.

I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.

Of course I get a choice. I get to vote with my feet. If I don't want to use a new web based version of something, I simply don't (at least for home and personal use).

Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS? Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS? Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?

Nope. The web is not the OS. The entire attempt to enmesh the two is a grave misunderstanding of what the OS does. The web is an interface. The OS communicates with the hardware. Getting rid of the window manager and marrying simply removes options and possibilities and it does NOT give you anything beyond what you already have when you launch a web browser through your window manager. The entire paradigm is totally ridiculous.

These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.

No, it won't! It's just adding another layer of complexity. What you need for graphics editing and design is access to an interface that's able to quickly talk to the hardware and present dynamic content without going back and talking to a server half a world away. We already have that. Creating a web centric window manager browser hybrid and then circumventing the need to talk back to the server so that the content can appear as dynamic is a STUPID way to do it.

I'm not a big fan of Google Earth. It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me. I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time. Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.

Well you lack imagination. Google Earth was at least innovative. It allows you to bring up satellite imagery of most of the globe - something we didn't have before. Gmail though is just another mail app. There were plenty of web mail applications before GMail and they didn't have big brother retention policies like GMail. Google Docs is a stupid idea. Putting every application on the web is simply a security risk, and you become dependent on software you no longer have any control over should you wish to access those documents.

The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days. And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance. This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.

Yes and another word for thin client is dumb terminal. You no longer have a powerful computer at your disposal - you have a "dumb" terminal, and you'll eat what you're fed and like it - you have no alternative. What's more the control of the server is no longer with you or your organisation - it's with a handful of megacorps. It's a foolish trade off that in the long run can only end in tears.

And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear. There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.

Sorry but I'm not about to compete in the enslavement of the computer user.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense

Maybe. But I'd bet that the most computation-expensive apps will always run locally. It just doesn't make sense to add the extra round-trip to a server.

Now, maybe they'll run locally inside the browser, at the rate the Javascript engines are speeding up. We'll see.

That's assuming that you've got enough hardware to run something computation-expensive in front of you.

What if your multifunction cellphone/webcamera was able to use a fully-featured web-ish version of Photoshop?

I'm not really suggesting that it'd be a good idea to try to run Photoshop on some tiny little 3" screen... But isn't the whole point of moving things onto the server to at least partially alleviate the workload of the client? So you can have absolutely crappy hardware in front of you, and still get real work done.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Ephemeriis]

The web is not the OS. The web is...the web.

The web isn't what it used to be.

Technology grows, changes, advances - this is especially true in IT. If you go back a dozen years or so there was no way in hell you'd be able to run a word processor through a web page.

In the field of computers, technology also forgets things and loses major winning things, and goes off on weird stupid side-trips.

The GUIs in browsers, and their performance, is not suitable for a wide class of applications. I am familar with Google apps and am not especially impressed by them.

Distributed storage and other web services are nice, but should not necessarily be tied to a conventional browser.

Just about every single response to my post has been along the lines of "I'm looking at current hardware and software offerings and it's crap, I can't imagine things getting any better." Does nobody have any imagination anymore?

Look at the early versions of Windows, or Mac OS, or X-Windows... They were crap too.

Think back to when a computer filled an entire building and could only do simple math.

Certainly, right now, the web isn't a terribly good platform for applications. And I'm not debating that. But look at the Google Apps and compare that to what was on the web back in 1999. In only 10 years there's been incredible progress. To claim that there's no possible way the web will ever be a good platform for applications is just silly.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[koreaman]

Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?

Been there, done that.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Allicorn]

I'm certain it needs an Internet connection, yes, though really the PC that doesn't these days is a rare beastie.

I suspect that Gears ( http://gears.google.com/ ) or similar is to be used to allow DHTML applications delivered over the web to persist and function when the network connection is removed.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Zontar The Mindless]

"every variable is global" in JS

Bzzzzzzzzzzt -- wrong.

Scoping rules in JavaScript are very simple: Global variables are global, local variables are local.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[mbowen]

The way to think of this is through the migration path of desktop applications. All you have to do is imagine that Chrome OS windowing is widgety, like Adobe Air with that level of cool look and feel. If it's that good it will be a huge success. That's because what Google understands is that software engineering is undergoing a revolution - people are developing applications at scale for the web, not for the IT data center, mainframes, or for desktop PCs.

Think about it. If you were going to start a software development company today that you expect to have a million customers, it would be nothing like Autocad, or Teradata - a company that expects to ship a set of CDs to an IT department to install on their servers with InstallShield. You wouldn't be debugging the software for different hardware configurations and writing a huge document about minimum hardware requirements. No. You would be thinking about owning your own private cloud, the software never leaves and you attract subscribers.

With desktop computing, you had your own disk and your own word processor. That was WordPerfect, you collaborate with no one. Remember? Then you got the read only web, you paid your ISP for disk and used Dreamweaver to FTP your words up to your provider. Then you began to collaborate and you used Cold Fusion to manage content in a shared space. Now there's TypePad where the entire process is hosted for a service fee. All the software and all the disk is not owned by you but you collaborate with everyone. Just like you don't own Slashdot's disk or software.

The point is that software development in the abstracted web allows you to ... well you already know this. So the right widgets to manage your cloud disk are all you need, that's what a cloud OS needs to have. The right tools to give you the ability to manage and control your space in the new paradigm. And for programmers a set of APIs that allow you to connect to massive cloud subsystems instead of things like USB peripherals.

Re:The web is NOT the OS

[Buelldozer]

No, but they're close to a monopoly for online APPLICATIONS so the MS Antitrust trial is possibly relevant. If they 'enhance' their online apps to entice people to use their OS then it's the same thing, only reversed.

Again, I'm not saying that they're their now but it's seeable.

Automatically or automagically?

[denzacar]

"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.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[tcr]

"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".

That's a valid point...
In some cases, I guess they'll use Gears for limited offline access.
(much like I read recent Gmail messages on Android while underground on the subway...)

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[slim]

Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".

Correct, but Google is betting the farm on almost ubiquitous internet access. Gears and HTML5 allow offline modes, but if you're planning to be offline for long periods, I don't think you're part of their market.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[Ephemeriis]

From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".

For testing purposes I routinely run web applications from my local machine.

While this product is currently non-existent and talking about capabilities doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, there's no good reason why you wouldn't be able to run web applications from local storage if necessary.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[Otto]

Since Chrome the browser has Gears basically built in, and they offer a fairly comprehensive API for that sort of thing with GWT ( http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ ), then yeah, Gears is going to be a big part of making "Applications" for this thing.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[ReeceTarbert]

"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".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've noticed that Google doesn't mention cloud computing once in the press release, so what if the applications could also be hosted locally?

Think about it: if you run a web server and an SQL server on your computer, web applications don't really need an internet connection -- and of course the moment you move the back-end online, the very same application can be used "on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux" (as per the same press release).

RT.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[LKM]

A lot of Google's web apps run just fine while offline.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[denzacar]

So what are you suggesting?

a) That Chrome OS will be built around a web&SQL server, just so Google's apps which are built for online use could run, while Win, OSX and other -Nixes will require either to be connected online or to install a significant amount of bloatware just so the user could use their word processor?
b) Apps will be offline for Chrome OS only, while the rest will have to go online to use them?
c) Some combination of the above.

Either one of those seems kinda like jamming a problem on the already existing solution.
Solution being - screw the web. Have apps run just fine without it, not making them NEED the web to run or having huge chunks of virtual servers and whatnots running in the background.

Just because they are a web company, they don't have to force web into every aspect of their business.

 
Then again, from the original blog post you could only glean that they plan to run apps through the browser - not how they plan to do it.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[quantum bit]

While this product is currently non-existent

*cough*

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[Ephemeriis]

While this product is currently non-existent

*cough*

I am aware of Google Gears. But the Chrome OS, which is what this entire discussion is about, does not yet exist.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[coop0030]

Depends on your definition of "automatically". From what I hear, there is this little prerequisite called "internet access".

If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine Google has already thought of this obvious issue. In fact, I bet Google Gears would fit in quite nicely in the Chrome OS. It seems to work well enough for offline access for a few of their apps already.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[molnarcs]

But in the meantime, it's excellent marketing - the news is everywhere, it made it to the BBC headlines, it's on NYT, etc... Now if you consider that 99% of pc users never heard about Chrome before...

Also, you probably won't need to stay online all the time to do what you usually do on your PC. Lots of apps have nice web interfaces run locally from your computer in a browser window. VLC has a web interface, some music players, dvd authoring software, etc. Even Google Docs could use a local client running in Chrome that synchronizes with your online account when net connection is available.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[jrothwell97]

What's to stop them bundling an Apache and MySQL server, denying access to everyone but 127.0.0.1, and running the apps locally from that server?

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[DragonWriter]

I am aware of Google Gears. But the Chrome OS, which is what this entire discussion is about, does not yet exist.

Google is unlikely to take an OS from "does not exist" to "full public release" in less a year (with "release open source code" even sooner), so given the mid-2010 announced release date and later-this-year plan for letting the code see the outside world, I suspect that Chrome OS exists in a fairly developed form already. But none of us (excluding Slashdotters who happen to work at Google) have yet seen it.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[rliden]

Unless something has changed recently Google has yet to release any of their "desktop" apps as native Linux software. If I understand it right they all run under a specially compiled WINE. So when you run Picasa or Google Earth they sit on top of that WINE instance. I always hated how they integrated with the file system and the rest of the OS. It just felt clunky to me. I haven't used Linux as my primary OS in a couple years now so maybe that has all changed.

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[AngryDill]

Not quite correct. Picasa was ported using winelib; however Google Earth is a native Linux binary using the QT toolkit for portability. I can't say what Google Desktop for Linux uses.

-a.d.-

Re:Automatically or automagically?

[badkarmadayaccount]

You just reinvented X11, congrats. Now throw in WeirdX and XMLVM with the javascript backend, embed emacs, and you will have solved Xzibit's computing needs.

Web schmeb

[MadFarmAnimalz]

For application developers, the web is the platform.

Speak up, fella. I'd like to hear the other 99% of the software industry to hear that.

"its main selling points"...

[prbt]

"its main selling points are speed, simplicity and security"

Pick any two.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[CountBrass]

It's main selling points are speed, simplicity, security and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[karstux]

I don't think so. Simplicity often implies efficiency, which leads to speed. Simplicity can also mean a lean, clean architecture, which is conductive to security. As much as I like "pick any two" memes, this probably isn't one of them.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[arth1]

Considering that it appears that this will run in a Linux guest VM on top of your regular OS[*], I think the "speed" option has already been removed.
As for simplicity, one can't argue with that. Until one leaves the Pareto box and truly need something that doesn't apply to 80% of the population. Like SOCKS5, very large fonts or technical (as in technical, not as in call centre script reading) support.
And security -- well, a VM is, unless paravirtualized, a safe sandbox, so to a certain degree, this is true. (But if you enter your PII in the sandbox, it will be vulnerable inside the sandbox, of course.)

[*]: Judging by Google's vague statements, it doesn't appear to be meant as a bare metal OS, but something you add on top of what you have. ICBW.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[hansraj]

It's main selling points are speed, simplicity, security, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and penguin parts.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[bgarcia]

Judging by Google's vague statements, it doesn't appear to be meant as a bare metal OS, but something you add on top of what you have. ICBW.

What were you reading that made you jump to that conclusion?

It seems pretty obvious that this will be Chrome on a new windowing system on a linux kernel, developed for use on netbooks. There's no need for a VM, and they don't plan on having people download this - it will be the preinstalled software for low-end netbooks.

This should have dramatically lower memory requirements than Windows XP, and it will run on non-x86 processors. This will allow for the development of much cheaper netbooks!

Re:"its main selling points"...

[slim]

Judging by Google's vague statements, it doesn't appear to be meant as a bare metal OS, but something you add on top of what you have. ICBW.

Bare metal - specifically netbooks at first.

I'm sure you'll be able to try it out in a VM or from a live CD or whatever.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[blind biker]

It's main selling points are speed, simplicity, security and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Did you just describe a typical Jesuit?

Re:"its main selling points"...

[R2.0]

Whoosh...

Don't watch much Monty Python, do we?

Re:"its main selling points"...

[flibuste]

This will allow for the development of much cheaper netbooks!

Sorry, I fail to see how a notebook will be less expensive using Google OS. You assume every notebook has "Windows XP" or some such on it. The reality is notebook manufacturers SELL you a non-free OS which bumps the price of the notebook. You can make your notebook cheaper by not fitting it with expensive softwares that have free (as in beer) equivalents...That works well

Re:"its main selling points"...

[teknopurge]

This should have dramatically lower memory requirements than Windows XP, and it will run on non-x86 processors.

I've had version 3.0 of browsers eat up 1.7 Gigs of RAM before crashing. Windows ME never even needed that much, and ME was a POS...... If you think this thing is going to run better than any existing app then I have some waterfront property to sell you. Keep in mind google is once again not innovating, just cobbling together existing design patterns/software/hardware.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[bgarcia]

This will allow for the development of much cheaper netbooks!

Sorry, I fail to see how a notebook will be less expensive using Google OS. You assume every notebook has "Windows XP" or some such on it. The reality is notebook manufacturers SELL you a non-free OS which bumps the price of the notebook. You can make your notebook cheaper by not fitting it with expensive softwares that have free (as in beer) equivalents...That works well

...and Chrome OS is exactly that - a free equivalent to XP + IE. Google won't be charging for this, if that's where you were confused.

Furthermore, Chrome OS will run on ARM chips. They are cheaper than x86 CPUs. They are much less power-hungry than x86 CPUs, which translates into either longer battery life, or smaller (& cheaper) batteries. And the minimal OS running underneath Chrome should have lower resource requirements than WinXP, allowing less memory and smaller hard drives to be used.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[slim]

I think the GP's point may have been that Asus and others already sell netbooks preloaded with Linux. Indeed, for a while all the netbooks ran Linux not Windows.

However, just maybe the great unwashed are scared of 'comes with Linux', but not scared of 'comes with Google's new thing'.

And just maybe by being very aggressively targeted at being an OS to host a browser, and almost nothing else, it'll be particularly friendly on the hardware - for good battery life and performance.

Re:"its main selling points"...

[badkarmadayaccount]

The tracing JIT or whatever used in Chrome is kinda tied to x86, IIRC. A Javascript frontend for LLVM is gonna be easier than porting it, methinks.

Should be an easier platform to write for

[tjstork]

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?

Re:Should be an easier platform to write for

[ducomputergeek]

I don't really see what the whole problem people have with Java these days. Especially for GUI desktop apps. Is it as fast as native code on any given platform? Maybe not from a technical perspective, but with todays hardware and ram it's fast enough. Plus it is, for the most part, write once run anywhere. Again, we're talking about things like business apps that maybe interfaces with a database. The companies I know that had built their internal apps in Java didn't have any problems when Vista came along. Those who were using .Net/C++/VB/etc. kept XP around.

We needed a desktop app to interface with our web platform. We really didn't want to code and maintain 3 versions of the code. If we went that route we would have supported Windows and maybe Mac. With Java, we wrote once, and it does run on Windows, Linux, Mac, and FreeBSD. (Granted with Mac you have to go into the command line and tell it to use Java 1.6 and it's intel only). We only have to maintain one set of code. Makes it a lot cheaper and easier for us.

In fact, I hope Google does support Java. It makes our lives much easier.

That being said, there are places and applications where JAVA fails miserably and it's not the magic hammer that works for every job. But what it does do, it does well enough to work.

Re:Should be an easier platform to write for

[markkezner]

I don't think that the Linux kernel, the windowing system, hardware accelleration, or even Java (in some cases) will be relevant to an application developer for this platform. Based on the Official Google Blog, developing for this platform will not be too different from developing a web app, which may or may not run on a local web server.

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...

Re:Should be an easier platform to write for

[_avs_007]

Plus it is, for the most part, write once run anywhere.

Actually, in terms of the UI, I found the exact opposite to be true... I wrote some stuff for a lab demo a while ago, and used the same JVM version from the same JVM provider, on both Linux and Windows. (In this case, Sun). Anyways, I found that the windowing behavior to be completely different between linux and windows, despite using the same version JVM from the same company. For example, in windows, if you clicked on a component inside a container, the component got the event dispatch. On Linux, the container gets the event dispatch. I used to have a whole bunch of rants when I ran into these kinds of issues when trying to target Linux and Windows at the same time, that others joked that I should've realized it was "Write once debug everywhere".

Re:Should be an easier platform to write for

[Allicorn]

I wonder if Google will allow native development on Chrome OS?

TFA:

For application developers, the web is the platform.

Doesn't sound like it.

There... fixed that for you...

[denzacar]

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.

bring it on

[Threni]

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.

Re:bring it on

[gtall]

Yeah, but by announcing it now for future delivery in 2010, MS will have plenty of time to sour the reception of the OEMs that Google thinks it has lined up. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2010, Google finds no OEM willing to ship their new OS. I hope I'm wrong but then Ballmer is very predictable.

Look on the bright side...

[tjstork]

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!

That's all well and good, but...

[L4t3r4lu5]

... 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.

Re:That's all well and good, but...

[introspekt.i]

Well if this is real, then you have a chance for it. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:That's all well and good, but...

[slim]

Rich Leadbetter at Eurogamer really laid into the OnLive concept. But he seems more convinced by Gaikai.

Me, I think both could work - although I'd be surprised if most people could acheive 60fps / 720p

Yawn, another distro?

[KE1LR]

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?

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Reapman]

Other then one is being built by one of the largest tech companies on the planet? Besides this wouldn't be the first *nix/BSD based OS succesfully targeted to the consumer market...

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[neumayr]

Hm, market force?

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Marcika]

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?

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. Who have a halo shinier than Apple in the eyes of most consumers.

This will be for Linux what MacOS X was for BSD (but with more code contributed back, hopefully).

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[AdamWeeden]

Because IMHO, Linux "usability" vs. Windows is a chicken and egg problem that Google may be able to solve. Linux has grown in leaps and bounds in terms of usability in the last decade. Some stuff is more difficult to do in Linux than in Windows, but many things are easier. The reason though why Linux doesn't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch. This is the reason why I still use Windows. Why don't companies port their apps to Linux? Not enough marketshare. So now we have a feedback loop where no one wins except Microsoft. However, Google is in a strong position to convince companies to bring their software over and convince customers to switch to Linux using their market influence to act as collateral on the risk.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[An Onerous Coward]

You're right. This will be no different.

It will also be way better than Windows.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[jimand]

It's different because it's Google. I see your free email address is @gmail.com, not @hotmail.com. You've bought in to Google at least once already.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Johnny Loves Linux]

>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?

The difference is this: Joe Six Pack has never heard of Ubuntu much less Linux. Everybody on the planet who has internet access knows about Google. So if google announces the creation of something called.... an...Operating...System(tm), then the Joe Six Packs pay attention. Never mind that it's the same OS that us Linux users have been using for years. There's nothing wrong with Linux. It's getting Joe Six Pack to change his frame of reference to realize that he's much better off with Linux that is the real problem. And it's going to take an entity like google to accomplish that small miracle.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Ephemeriis]

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?

Google.

Google has the manpower, money, mindset, motivation, and brand-name to potentially make this work.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[mcwop]

I just added a Dell Ubuntu Netbook to my quiver of Macs. No problems in doing so, use cross platform apps, or easily found a substitute. I will say the one main issue is my iPhone and iTunes.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[kaiser423]

The fact that it's google? Seems like a pretty big key to me...

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Zero__Kelvin]

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?

It isn't. This one will be better than Windows too ...

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Anonymous Coward]

Money. Lot's of Money.

As they say.... money moves mountains.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[4D6963]

Because Google is a giant and they've got everything it takes to pull it off unlike everyone else who tried before? Emphasis on the word giant, you can ask the first person you see in the street what's Google and they'll know.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Xtravar]

I'm feeling lucky.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[RiotingPacifist]

Why don't companies port their apps to Linux?

Because most linux users will accept slightly (or moderately) inferior OSS apps over ports of closed apps. It's not just the low market-share that stops it, its the unreceptive market too.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[SilverHatHacker]

The reason though why Linux doesn't gain more marketshare is because people can not bring the apps they are used to over when they switch.

When netbooks first came out, people said "Oh, look, Linux would be perfect for that!" So they started selling netboosk preinstalled with Linux. Why didn't they go over as well as we expected? Sure, everything you should do on a netbook, you can do on Linux. But since the netbook's target audience doesn't understand computers at all, they complained "Why doesn't $APPLICATION work on this piece of junk Linux? I want Windows!"
I don't see this being any different, just because it's got Google. Even worse, people will buy it and say "Where's my Firefox? I don't understand this!" and take it back. If a full-featured distro didn't make it, I don't think a Google/Web-only distro is gonna have a chance.
I can't wait to be proven wrong, though.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[IntlHarvester]

I tend to agree with you. Just because a device is targeted purely towards internet use doesn't mean people don't want to use Outlook, or AOL Messenger, or Acrobat, or their crappy printer. Even though Google has some decent web apps, I don't think we're at a stage where people are ready to give up their native applications.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[VGPowerlord]

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

[citation needed]

Why exactly would Google have clout with OEMs? How many computers have you seen that ship with Google Earth, etc...?

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[Allicorn]

Doesn't even really come down to the term "Operating System" for ol' Joe there does it? It'll be the choice of "A Windows Computer" or "A Google Computer". Most of the Joes out there have already had long enough to achieve a state of constant mild annoyance at their Windows Computer and so might well jump at the chance to try a Google Computer instead.

Re:Yawn, another distro?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Quit pushing OS X as a successful consumer UNIX. It's success is almost exclusively because Apple is pushing it with their own hardware. If the licensed NT's POWER port from M$, and threw a new skin/UI on top, it would still sell like hotbread.

Pixel-level access?

[michaelmalak]

What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access? Flash? Java? Introduce new capabilities to Javascript?

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.

Re:Pixel-level access?

[slim]

What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access? Flash? Java? Introduce new capabilities to Javascript?

How do they plan to allow "web applications" to access the local filesystem in a standards-compliant fashion?

I think HTML5 is meant to be the solution to all of these - or the HTML5 panel has decided it's not necessary.

Re:Pixel-level access?

[Joseph Lam]

ain't those things what HTML5 is aiming to address?

Re:Pixel-level access?

[TheRaven64]

What do you need pixel-level access for? OS X, for example, doesn't provide any trivial APIs for doing this; the closest you can come is generating an off-screen bitmap, drawing into this, and then compositing it to a window. Even then, the window may be scaled by the window server before being composited on the screen. If you just mean 'arbitrary drawing' then take a look at the canvas tag.

Web applications can already read and write files using Google Gears to explicitly load and save files. Accessing arbitrary files is not recommended for web applications, but they can store an arbitrary amount of local data with HTML 5.

Re:Pixel-level access?

[tepples]

What do you need pixel-level access for?

Photo editing, for one. I'm envisioning a flow that looks like camera -> crop and color correct on subnotebook PC -> social networking site.

Accessing arbitrary files is not recommended for web applications, but they can store an arbitrary amount of local data with HTML 5.

But then how does one move files from a camera to HTML 5 local data?

Re:Pixel-level access?

[LDoggg_]

What do they plan to do to grant pixel-level access?

You can do this today with dojox.gfx and it's completely open source. You can use simple calls that are implemented differently on different browsers. On firefox and others your drawings are rendered in SVG, in IE its VML, on others its HTML5's Canvas.
Canva's event model isn't as nicely integrated with the DOM as SVG and VML, but you can pretty much draw things cross platform.

Pure javascript, no plugins required.

Re:Pixel-level access?

[slim]

Photo editing, for one. I'm envisioning a flow that looks like camera -> crop and color correct on subnotebook PC -> social networking site.
[...]
But then how does one move files from a camera to HTML 5 local data?

I don't know, but I bet HTML 5 addresses it somehow. There's a bit in the Google Wave video, where they drag and drop from a Windows directory into a Wave, and it uploads first the thumnails, then the full image. They say it's the only part of the demo that requires Gears, but that they're working to add support for that kind of thing to HTML 5.

I agree that getting media off a camera and onto the Web is something people will demand. I suspect that in the world Google envisions, the workflow will be:

camera -> scale down + upload in browser -> edit on photo editing site -> social networking site

... doing the absolute minimum 'smart' stuff locally. I only included local scaling down because at current consumer broadband speeds uploading a realistic number of 12MP photos isn't practical.

Re:Pixel-level access?

[Allicorn]

Graphics:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)

Filesystem access:
http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/
http://gears.google.com/

Point is, there won't be much local filesystem access. Read the blog post again.

The software architecture is simple â" Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform.

..and..

They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files

Google expect all your data to be stored on their servers. All. Local storage is only a convenience in that it can act as a buffer that keeps things running while your're on the subway or otherwise temporarily offline.

Most importantly..

For application developers, the web is the platform.

That's it right there. There is no "native Chrome app", and local filesystem access is meaningless when the whole user experience takes place on a webpage. There is only the web.

[disclaimer: I'm not claiming this is a good idea! ;-) ]

Fast web OS needed!

[thijsh]

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. :-)

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[smallshot]

I haven't tested it, but moblin seems to be close to what you want already, you just need a netbook...

http://moblin.org/

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[prcko]

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.

Lately, this confuses me a lot. NATIVE, LOCAL applications are actually slower and more sluggish then networked, script-based apps. I mean, shouldn't the native, local apps be far more superior to scripted Internet-based apps when it comes to speed and response time; no matter how much you can optimise the rendering and script engines? It doesn't seem logical to me, anyways...

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[Mr.Intel]

snip

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.

Until fast, reliable, wireless internet access is available 24/7 in 90+% of the industrialized world, web-based OSes will never penetrate the market far enough to displace Microsoft. Why bother installing a bloated OS? Because it runs my stuff (games/cad/graphic design/etc) offline. More to the point, the target hardward for this is netbooks, which means crappy, slow, small SSD drives. Limited storage means they will want to GoogleDocs my data, which means I have to have internet to get my data, which means it has to be fast, because my 1.5 GB cad drawing loads slow on gigabit networks and an 8 core portable workstation. Yeah, they're not necessarily targeting the power users (for now), but it illustrates the point that this OS is naturally limited by multiple factors. Add to that the fact that Microsoft won't give up market share quietly and Windows 7 is a disaster in the making... we'll see a lot of turbulence in the portable market for years to come. End result may be positive, if Microsoft is pressured into performance (much like Intel was back before the Phenom days). Personally, I don't see a GoogOS making that much of a splash.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[Canazza]

I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64

yes, but lets hope it doesn't emulate the application loading times of the C64... Batman anyone?

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[Aphonia]

Asus, Lenovo both employ "Splashtop" which does this. And a lot of machines have quick startups from hibernate/suspend modes, so the "bloated OS" really may not bother people as much as people think it is - when is the last time you rebooted your machine? Plus, people may use those email clients such as outlook and what not for more than just their email - eg. syncing with windows mobile.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[thijsh]

yes, but lets hope it doesn't emulate the application loading times of the C64...

Ahhh yeah... I remember the tapes took especially long:

Press play on tape...

loading ...

loading ... Some exiting splash screen in between...

loading ...

Now please reverse tape and press play to enjoy another 10 minutes of loading...

Good times! :-)

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[somenickname]

On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)

I've never understood the fascination with startup times when suspend/resume is such a more useful alternative. However, Moblin does indeed boot in 5 seconds (even in a VM) and, I will admit, it's actually pretty cool to see it.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[thijsh]

Yeah, I was dependent on Outlook for syncing too... But Google finally has some exchange support! I now sync my calendar with google with mobile internet push technology. When I enter a new appointment in a browser I see it appear on my mobile within a minute (and the other way around too), no ActiveSync crapping up my computer needed!
Outlook be damned!

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[thijsh]

Suspending is no valid alternative for me. I have a laptop with 4Gb memory and my harddisk is encrypted with TrueCrypt. Suspending and resuming takes much longer than just shutting down and staring up.
The startup time of my laptop isn't totally wasted, I just enter the password to let it boot and go get some coffee in the morning. But when i'm done working I want to get *out*, not wait over a minute for the great dumping of the memory to disk.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[somenickname]

I'm not sure why suspend/resume times would be slowed with 4G of RAM and an encrypted disk. Now, hibernate/thaw times might be slowed but, suspend/resume is basically just turning off the computer except giving some power to the RAM. Although I'm not running with an encrypted disk, I have 4G of RAM in my laptop and it resumes in about 5-10 seconds and has the added benefit of keeping the disk cache in tact (which both shutdown and hibernate do not do). Although, I have no idea how long it takes to suspend. I just shut the lid and and walk away.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[thijsh]

You must be working from a terminal client, the browser speed is often much slower, and Outlook is preloaded in the server with an exchange backend, not loaded from the local disk.

And lightweight means:
Gmail in Chrome - 50Mb RAM + 1-2% CPU usage
Outlook - always >500Mb + often 100% CPU for no apparent reason

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[thijsh]

Yeah, I meant hibernate, suspend-to-disk or any other name of your liking (there are too many ambiguous terms). No that it really matters, a lot modern OSes use a combination of suspending and suspending-to-disk, so even if you just suspend it will also suspend-to-disk just in case... and I have to wait for it to finish if I take my laptop with me.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[dcherryholmes]

Moblin is off to a good start, but the lack of apps in the repos currently keep it from being a serious option *for me*. If you are satisfied with the browser and some IM, then it is already an excellent option, even in its current rough state. If I could get Comix and pppd (for tethering my cell phone) on it easily, I probably would already be using it as my full time OS. And, yes, I know that compiling is an option. I tried to compile a few things and quickly found myself running down dependency after dependency, and gave up. That kind of time investment is not what I'm looking for in a netbook.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[slim]

I just use stand-by. It only takes a couple of seconds to sleep, and waking is almost as fast (although if you undock while it's sleeping, it churns a bit to deal with that as it wakes).

I put it away in stand-by mode. If I don't wake it within a certain time period, it automatically hibernates. Ideal.

Though not as ideal as something that also boots quickly!

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[LaminatorX]

In the case of the hosted app, if the host environment (browser, python, or what have you) has already been loaded into memory, initialized its interpreters and rendering engines and so on, it can have something of a leg-up compared to a local/native app starting cold. Vista's memory hungry cache scheme is in part an attempt to address this issue.

A well designed local/native app should smoke a remote app in theory, but in practice people like MS have been allowing bloat to run unchecked for a decade now, while the net-app crowd has been optimizing (out of necessity) for efficiency. The huge javascript performance improvements from the latest generation of browsers is an example of this. MS may have sped up js rendering in IE, but VB.NET and the like have moved in the opposite direction more often than not.

If your browser is already running, when you log into gmail, all you wait for is the client side code (much of which is probably already in your cache) and the actual data to be displayed. When you turn around and launch an app like Outlook, it has to load a whole bunch of shared libraries and re-instantiate its database before it can even think about showing you your old mail, let alone checking for new. As a previous poster pointed out, Outlook will actually load faster accessing an Exchange server than a local mail repository because it doesn't have to start up its own database just to show you your mail.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[RiotingPacifist]

how can a local application compete with powerful servers, it takes my pings 20ms to get to google and back, on old computer (42,000rpm drive) can take a similar amount of time to read its disks (14ms worst-case 7avg), but the processing by google can be nearly instant. Say i want to do 4 things at once that all require small amounts of disk access e.g listen to music,browse the web, im friends, have my email client running, on my computer the disk will spend 7*4=28ms running around touching these files, if i throw this all to google they probably have what i want stored in ram and the whole thing will take 20ms.

Obviously this isn't entirely fair as most OSs will cache files and unless your using fsync too much (stares at firefox) you don't have to wait for the disk read/writes, but this is basically why internet-based apps can compete.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[flibuste]

All that is nice and well but bloated web application happen and will happen. There is no difference between a web application and a "native" one if they are coded bloatedly - they will act bloatedly. And a bloated javascript app is just as horrible as any other.

Which is the case of a lot of M$ apps as there's a decade of legacy crap under the hood.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[Kristoph]

Indeed, and I would wager that they will push this OS on cheap netbooks sold through telecom providers with a subsidy. So you'll be able to get the device, the OS and the applications for free, with $29 a month on 1 or 2 year plan or something like that.

(Google will get all your data so it can show you ads.)

]{

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[LaminatorX]

Absolutely. A crappy network app will be even worse. Those who have been successful in the net-app space have been aggressively optimizing for efficiency to prime themselves for net-book and smart phone clients, thus do not have the luxury of bloat.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[slim]

On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)

You mean, 1 second to the desktop/command prompt but 5-10 minutes to any usable application? :-)

Not sure about the C64, but on the BBC Micro some software was distributed as a ROM chip. Booting to the BASIC prompt was about a second, then type '*WORD' and you were in the Wordwise word processor instantaneously.

This is what we need! Apps in ROM!

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[caluml]

on old computer (42,000rpm drive)

Crumbs. You need to be careful of that drive. It could well disintegrate, and fly apart and kill you.

Re:Fast web OS needed!

[dangitman]

This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.

There's an entire "netbook industry" now? I thought netbooks were just a product put out by the computer industry.

This recession is a good time to strike

[MarkEst1973]

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.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[Anonymous Coward]

one thing I notice in your comment:

MSFT [google.com] and GOOG [google.com]

easy to see where google has the upper hand.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[WindBourne]

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.
True, but MS's expenses and commitments are SO much higher. They have their hand in just about all areas of IT and fighting on all fronts (and slowly losing on nearly all fronts except for possibly X-box).

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[maxume]

That $17 billion is after expenses and commitments are paid for.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[4D6963]

Perhaps Google is finally the David to slay Microsoft's Goliath

Google is no David, it's more like another giant finally stepping on the Goliath's turf and coming to kick his ass while he's ailing. It's a battle of titans, and while Google is a bit smaller than Microsoft, Google is doing better than ever, Microsoft isn't doing so great. You mentioned the recession, Google wants to offer what Microsoft failed to even realise they should have done, for free.

Microsoft has the marketshare, but Google has the rest of the advantages here. The 2010s should deliver a pretty epic battle in the consumer-level OS department, and I'd venture to say that the landscape will look quite different 10 years from now, both in the marketshare and in what OSes will actually do.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[Itchyeyes]

This brings up the point of how exactly does Google pay for this OS? I think a lot of people are assuming that since everything else from Google is free, so will this be. But shareholders may not be so keen on Google giving away something that consumes as much resources as an OS, and users aren't going to be eager to adopt an OS that's constantly pushing ads into their face. The easy way out would be to only distribute it to OEMs who aren't going to balk at paying for it.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Microsoft is going after Google's windpipe (search revenue) by releasing bing and now Google goes after Microsoft's windpipe (OS or more importantly OS . hegemony). Exciting times indeed.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[Zothar42]

Microsoft's pockets may be deeper, but if the open source developers of the world like what Google is up to, Google could potentially have way more resources available for its efforts than Microsoft does.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[DragonWriter]

But shareholders may not be so keen on Google giving away something that consumes as much resources as an OS

There is a reason that when Google had its IPO, the shares had much less voting power than the shares held by its pre-IPO shareholders. Google has been designed to avoid the pressure for short-term results that plague public companies. (There still is pressure, because short-term results will affect the ability to secure capital for new ventures, but Google's management probably faces a lot less of this kind of pressure than that of most publicly trade companies.)

The easy way out would be to only distribute it to OEMs who aren't going to balk at paying for it.

Alternatively, they could, once it makes some inroads among users and developers as a free OS, sell commercial support (possibly including commercial versions with additional features, though contracted support itself is probably more important than extra features here) to enterprises, while keeping the main consumer version completely free.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[thinkloop]

if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.

Practically speaking, I don't think MSFT's pockets are deeper. Sure they make/have more money, but are they going to shutdown XBOX, Zune, Office, SQL Server, CRM and Exchange just to compete with Google? Mano e mano I'd say they have about the same amount of cash to burn.

Re:This recession is a good time to strike

[w0mprat]

What's your point? All they are really developing is a streamlined user land API, the kernel space is from Linux, the browser is existing stable code. All the difficult stuff that takes hundreds of millions of dollars is already done. It gets cheekier: the OSS community is going to do the heavy lifting ^H^H^H^H help out developing the thing, add additional features, port all the utils nerds want/expect, and third parties will write a metric assload of apps for it.

What we're looking at is a Tesla Motors momment -

1) Take a existing volume production rolling chassis (lotus elise)
2) Give it batteries in and a motor.
3) ????
4) Profit / Take a steaming dump all over automakers 100x larger than you.

A Google OS momment:
1) Use linux kernel + your custom user space that finally GIFR (Gets It F*g Right) + existing browser.
2) (There is no "????")
2) Profit / Deliver a crushing blow to the gonads of your nemesis (+ nice new nerd toy for the FOSS lads)

Infact, Google has little else to do -compared with an entire OS from scratch- but polish it and market it.

Microsoft: Google is not as stupid as you look.

no one provides speed at the low end

[fermion]

The emphasis for the past decade or so has been to deploy increasingly complex OS that can take advantage of the increasingly capable hardware. Both MS Windows and Mac OS X require a microprocessor in the 1.5 GHz range and 2 GB if ram and graphics coprocessor to run well. The problem is that computers from 5 years ago is good enough for the average person, so there is some reluctance to spend the money for these machines. So MS tries to continue the trend with a MS Vista, and people rebelled. Is the average person going to spend a couple hundred dollars more to get a prettier UI when XP seems to work just well. Mac OS X has gotten away with it because Apple are supposed to be expensive, and Apple has spent the past several years optimizing, so it runs well on older hardware. However, OS X for iPhone is not so good, and does not run well on the first iPhone.

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.

Re:no one provides speed at the low end

[An Onerous Coward]

I imagine that, with improving virtualization technology and ever faster bandwidth, we could reach a point where the guts of many computers could be moved into the cloud. All you'd really need is something with the horsepower needed to receive your inputs and display the resulting images. A device like that could be magnificently tiny.

Re:no one provides speed at the low end

[Raffaello]

As long as you live in the fantasyland of zero network latency...

Re:no one provides speed at the low end

[An Onerous Coward]

That can be overcome. I looked over Google for any long-term trends in network latency, but all I could find is that the Internet2 network has remarkably low latency. So "fantasyland" may just be "the future", which I find strangely appropriate.

Another thing to think about is that, since it doesn't matter where the computing is going on, there's no reason not to migrate the virtual server to a node that is near your connection.

Lastly, the importance of latency is very application-dependent. I'd guess that, today, it's nearly good enough for everything but gaming.

Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[yossarianuk]

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.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[introspekt.i]

Meh. Just because it uses/runs on the Linux kernel doesn't make it

a) An automatic hardcore Microsoft competitor for the desktop. See Linux
b) Good. I for one am a bit perplexed by adding yet another layer of indirection on top of the hardware to make it "better" ala "web technologies" for desktop computing. Not only are we adding more crap for computers to run. We're putting them on crappier computers and automatically calling them better. Sure netbooks have their uses (I think, i dunno, I don't use them, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt), but there are still plenty of users that require a bit more power and use from a system that I have yet to see the web provide in an acceptable form. Sure you can do video editing on the web, and photo editing, but.....ugh.
Though I wouldn't be suprised if this all caught on like wildfire and everybody switches to a netbook..change isn't always for the better.

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 hardly think the existing user base of distros like Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, is going to make a rampant switch to Google's nix OS.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[characterZer0]

If they open source it, most of the existing Linux distributions will be happy to use the code.

Debian will still appeal to the purists.
Redhat will still appeal to businesses.
Gentoo will still appeal to the obsessive tinkerers.
Most distros have carved out a market.

Ubuntu is the only one I see being hurt.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[EvilNTUser]

This is not what I have been waiting for by a long shot. We "Linux fans" use Linux as a means to run GNU, not buzzword webos UI.

"Linux" is becoming a marketing gimmick. Us starting to call it GNU/Linux has never made more sense.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[ais523]

I hardly think the existing user base of distros like Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, is going to make a rampant switch to Google's nix OS.

I don't think that's the issue; it's more that Chrome OS makes it a lot less likely that 'mainstream' Linux distros will ever re-become a standard install on netbooks, thus denying them one rather good opportunity to get market share and thus public awareness.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[SpinyNorman]

This appears to have little to do with Linux other than the fact it uses the Linux kernel & drivers.

From the Google announcement it uses a "new windowing system" (sounds rather like Android, although they it's something different).

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

There's no mention of it being based on X (I'd assume it's not), Qt, or GTK, so there's no reason to assume that it'll support existing GUI based Linux apps, or Linux apps at all for that matter.

They may support some form of "native" apps as opposed to web-based ones using standard web-based standards that will also work in other browsers, but I'll bet that it's only in some highly restricted constrained environment given the new windowing system and security claims. Maybe you can write native apps using Java and some new Google GUI/etc APIs (or maybe they just ported whatever Java uses for GUI nowadays to sit on top of their own API). Given that they are targetting ARM as well as x86 I doubt there's any native code support.

What's the betting there'll be an app store for it too.

I don't think this is Google-branded Linux for the masses - it's sounds more like Android. Probably a managed code environment using a brand new (or Android?) windowing system, that happens to run on the Linux kernel. Heck, it may be JUST for web/browser-based apps, although I doubt it.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[slim]

This is not what I have been waiting for by a long shot. We "Linux fans" use Linux as a means to run GNU, not buzzword webos UI.

Strange to me on two levels.

(1) So what exactly are we waiting for? We already have GNU on Linux. So we're happy, right?

(2) I also run GNU on Windows (via Cygwin), and on OSX. Does this mean Linux has no point (hint: no)

"Linux" is becoming a marketing gimmick. Us starting to call it GNU/Linux has never made more sense.

I don't think it's a marketing thing at all. In all likelihood Chrome OS marketing won't push the word Linux at all. Just like TiVo doesn't mention Linux in its ads.

Rather, if you need a kernel for a new OS, Linux is a pragmatic one to choose.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[The End Of Days]

Are you seriously trying to make an argument that there is no place for low-power easy-to-use computers because some people might need really powerful machines? Are you a believer in one size fits all to the point that you can't allow anything you wouldn't personally want to exist?

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[flibuste]

With my Linux fan cap on, as a personal opinion, I'd say that on top of adding noise to the OS market, a new effort for an OS still based on Linux seems like a waste of efforts where said efforts could be directed to successful projects that are live and kicking such as Ubuntu. Unfortunately, the motivation is clear: add PROFIT to the set of librairies the OS implements.

I am also not sure the average household laptop consumer really needs yet another OS to get confused with. In that matter, the switch to Google OS coudl well not happen as Google could plan, by lack of will from your dad and gran'ma (who are the real targets, not us, tech savvy folks).

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[EvilNTUser]

Strange to me on two levels.

(1) So what exactly are we waiting for? We already have GNU on Linux. So we're happy, right?

In an ideal world, I really wouldn't care what anyone else uses. However, people sending GNU users documents in proprietary formats and using proprietary communications protocols force our hand in this. We must gain more market share in order to help ourselves get acknowledged. This is why "Linux on the desktop" is so important.

If, on the other hand, an incompatible system that happens to use the Linux kernel becomes popular, we have gained nothing. GNU will still be left out in the cold, and that's really what we're all using here, even if we call it "Linux".

(2) I also run GNU on Windows (via Cygwin), and on OSX. Does this mean Linux has no point (hint: no)

No, it means Linux has a point to me, but not you (?). If you run GNU on Windows, we can still communicate, and are thus both fundamentally happy, even if we might disagree about whether our kernel needs to be Free. Not so with the hordes of users who use Word and Skype. If Word used ODT and Skype some VoIP standard there wouldn't be any OS wars apart from profit.

Although, that said, I also believe that storing everyone's data in webapps on a major scale is extremely dangerous, so in this particular case there's also a philosophical reason to want to warn others for their own benefit, rather than just self-interest.

I don't think it's a marketing thing at all. In all likelihood Chrome OS marketing won't push the word Linux at all. Just like TiVo doesn't mention Linux in its ads.

Ah, but there are two different target audiences. Using the Linux kernel will make a lot of moderately technically inclined people think that it's a good choice even if it's just the kernel on a closed device. Have you noticed how many non-geeks are impressed by OSX running on the iPhone even though none of the features are exposed to the end user?

Rather, if you need a kernel for a new OS, Linux is a pragmatic one to choose.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean we need to embrace it. Google's design decisions are an attempt to fragment the FOSS community for their benefit.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[shutdown -p now]

I'm amazed at the amount of negative responses from Linux fans... This is what we have all been waiting for - isn't it ??

I don't think so. What's unexpected about this announcement is that it looks like Google is essentially just using the Linux kernel, and throwing pretty much everything else away and rolling out their own, effectively dismissing a lot of FOSS and Linux desktop development in the last 15 years (KDE/Gnome, for example).

It won't end up being "Year of the Linux desktop". It will be "Year of the Google desktop", with Linux relegated to a tiny footnote, as is already happening with Android.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[arekmenner]

There's a strong possibility that they will not, in fact, open source the code.

Remember when Chrome was announced as open source, and all we got was Chromium, a broken hobble of a mess that breaks whenever you open a new tab in default Ubuntu?

Remember when Android was open source, but then it turned out that it was released in 3 different levels of open sourcyness (Really could have just retrofitted open sourcedness, but I like this one better)? And, big surprise, the totally open source version is pretty gimped.

That being said, I still welcome Chrome OS to the market. A new OS and a new window system will always mean at the very least new ideas, and especially because it's being made solely for netbooks, I think there's a lot for everyone to learn.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[yossarianuk]

Chromium is still very much in development... And what ever your view on ChromeOS it could be so worse...

Imagine if it were Microsoft doing it !

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[Hadlock]

It might mean better linux driver support for hardware beyond Nvidia and ATi. At least apple-level support (which isn't much, but it's something).

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[yossarianuk]

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.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[EvilNTUser]

Because they want to control the platform with their webapps, and want to do ad targeting. If they mainly contributed code to existing projects like for example Nokia does, they wouldn't be in control anymore.

Re:Mcdonaldsoft rival at last!

[badkarmadayaccount]

Mainstreaming of program specializers is going to rock the world, methinks...

Yes, indeedy.

[Steauengeglase]

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.

Great

[squoozer]

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.

Re:Great

[HikingStick]

I find it ironic that the same arguments many have used to support Windows-over-Linux over the years are now making their way into reasoning against other new technologies:

What we have at the moment is not perfect but it's understood and has been shown to work fairly well for many years.

It just goes to illustrate what I've said all along: It's not a question about which technology is better. It's about which technology is established in business. Any time you face an entrenched user base, you really need to present compelling reasons to make a change. It took years for Linux to do that in the server market, and it is still strugling in the consumer market. Google's vision is admirable, but I wonder if they factored in the possibility that it won't just be Microsoft that opposes the Chrome concept, but perhaps every "traditional" Linux distro team on the planet.

Re:Great

[squoozer]

I think you are perhaps missing the point a little. It's not that people support Windows it's that they don't see any huge benefit to moving to another operating system. It's as if they are sitting at the top of a hill and you are asking them to walk down into a valley and back up another hill. Unless the view from the other hill is a LOT better they just aren't going to do it.

I switched to Linux because I'm a software developer and there are some real compelling reasons to switch but that isn't the case for the vast people.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of Chrome. I suspect that it will go absolutely nowhere fast. The only chance it has is OEM installs but unless it's amazingly well polished people will just choose MS because it's simpler to get all their applications working on it.

Re:Great

[HikingStick]

I agree with you fully. I was just suprised to see the 'I don't think will go that route because what we have works' argument thrown out in front of the Chrome OS, since that's a common mentality used by those who don't see a reason to leave M$.

A (rushed) move to counter bing.com?

[levicivita]

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.

Re:A (rushed) move to counter bing.com?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

No. To release an application on an existing platform, you can take the complete the project and then announce it path. But to release an OS and hardware that runs that OS, you need to coordinate with OEM vendors to make and test the OS. Further you need driver support from peripheral manufacturers too. So a new viable OS could not be completed and released. OK. Apple can do it with its obsessive attention to secrecy and a relatively small skunk works team. Not google with its size. So it has to pre announce, show some commitment to lure in the OEMs.

The timing of the release is to pre-empt or slowdown the migration of people going from XP to Win7. Vista was a huge misstep by Microsoft. People balked and are holding back upgrades. But at some point people will start buying Win7 machines. Now there is another reason for people to hang on to XP while waiting for Chrome. Win7 reportedly is not a resource hog and is capable of displacing XP from netbooks. So this announcement is meant to forestall large scale market penetration of Win7 into netbook market.

Re:A (rushed) move to counter bing.com?

[Xtravar]

Man, I wasn't too excited about this until you made me realize that this means improved drivers for linux.

Taking a while

[WindBourne]

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.

My hopes for Chrome OS

[CdBee]

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)

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[Xabraxas]

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

Why dump X and then make it possible to run native applications that require they be ported? Wouldn't it be so much easier to just provide a root-less X server and instantly make native applications available? It sounds like a lot of work to port everything to a new windowing system when providing a root-less X server would achieve the same thing without having to port individual applications.

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[dudeman2]

Google is going to follow the model used by Mac OS X - ship your own next generation windowing system, then follow up with a rootless X window manager for compatibility with all the apps that are out there.

I am not a regular OS X user so I'd like to hear from those who use it daily; do you find yourselves running X apps frequently, or are you running Cocoa apps exclusively?

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[larry bagina]

The iTunes app store has 50,000 apps. Every one needed to be written from scratch or ported to an environment that has only been in existance for a year and a half.

Apple is once again circling the drain. Maybe they should hire Michael Dell as CEO so he can shut down the company and return any leftover money to the shareholders.

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[Xabraxas]

There is a huge difference between porting complex applications like media players and creating an application that farts on command.

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[Big Boss]

My primary desktop is a Mac Mini. It works great with X11 apps, but I don't use them often. Everything I have wanted to do has had a Cocoa version available so I just used that. Even OpenOffice has a native version now. It is nice to have X11 available if I want it though.

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[Calithulu]

The same is true for me on the Macbook. I use X from time to time, but for the most part there are native versions of what I use (such as open office). I think GIMP is the one exception, but to be fair I just pulled the binary off of a linux box, I didn't check for a native version.

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[CdBee]

Most of the crap that users suffer from on Linux (ugly toolkits, outdated desktop models, crappy graphics performance) is down to it being too easy to keep legacy stuff going

Google are doing the right thing, the same thing Apple did to UNIX - fresh start, clean slate, force everyone to re-evaluate and do things right.. then and only after a few years maybe consider adding a rootless X-server (I believe it was OSX 10.3 that finally had X as an install option?)

Otherwise we'll just end up with another crufty X+KDE+Firefox+VLC+OpenOffice same-same BORING CRAPPY UNIMAGINATIVE BLOATED linux distro.

which would be a failure, which is the fate of any distro not backed by an ancient and revered name(SuSE, RH), or a millionaire (shuttleworth)

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[broken_chaos]

[...]for those things one doesnt want to do on the web (DVD replay/ripping, video editing, photo editing, online backup clients, scanner/printer utilities

Honestly, I'm not sure this is in Google's agenda. Not unless there's persistent advertising in the OS, or persistent watching of your every move.

I don't trust Google. I would never run a 'vanilla' version of Chrome OS - only something compiled by the community or that I compiled myself. I don't mind Google knowing what I search for (considering any search engine would know that, no matter who it was) - but I do mind being tracked on internet sites not owned by them (I block Google Analytics - and other similar services), and I'd certainly mind them knowing what I'm doing offline.

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[TheBig1]

I run some X11 apps (notably Gimp and Wireshark, among others less frequently). There is enough native software that I don't need to do it often. While it is a bit of a pain (different LnF, etc), overall it is not too bad.

Cheers

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[Xabraxas]

Google are doing the right thing, the same thing Apple did to UNIX - fresh start, clean slate, force everyone to re-evaluate and do things right.. then and only after a few years maybe consider adding a rootless X-server (I believe it was OSX 10.3 that finally had X as an install option?)

Considering the amount of backlash against cloud computing in general I don't think you'll find many people agreeing with you that this is the "right thing" to do. I don't think many developers are going to care to port their application to another platform either. No doubt you'll get people to write new applications and port some existing ones over but it's far fetched to think this is somehow going to change the way things are done on a standard Linux distro. No one is going to throw the baby out with the bath water just because Google doesn't use X. There is a lot invested in X and the new acceleration architctures that are being actively developed are far and away more advanced than something Google can come up on its own with in a short amount of time.

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[CdBee]

The people 'doing' distros now are on the wrong path. I don't care what they think of Chrome-OS and I don't care if they bring their substandard software with them to the party.

thats the beauty of fresh starts. Shake out enough bad ideas and you shake out the people behind them too.

the 'Distro' tradition has led to a plethora of near-identical products doing the same thing - copying windows, badly, on a 40-year out-of-date concept thats overloaded with bad or irrelevant ideas, then adding bloat to the point that nowadays VERY FEW distros actually use less RAM than an equivalent Windows install. even Xubuntu now states a requirement for 384mb, and thats just laughable. XFCE was designed to be lightweight FFS

Re:My hopes for Chrome OS

[Xabraxas]

The people 'doing' distros now are on the wrong path. I don't care what they think of Chrome-OS and I don't care if they bring their substandard software with them to the party.

Ok well I was replying to the comment about porting old applications to a new windowing system, which still seems pointless to me.

Why would I want this?

[jabjoe]

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.

Re:Why would I want this?

[slim]

Google's ambition is that you don't use local apps. You use a web app. Preferably their web app. Some of the Chrome Browser's features are there to blur the line between "web page" and "app" (e.g. "create application shortcuts").

I think the vision is that a punter can walk into a shop and buy a netbook that boots to the browser in 5 seconds. The punter might just want to browse the web and use webmail -- so he's happy. If he wants office apps - Google Docs is there (and so are its competitors).

They're pushing for the browser to be a platform where literally any kind of app can be written.

That's their vision. Whether they make it happen, whether the market actually wants this, it'll be interesting to see.

Re:Why would I want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't want this, you self-centered asshole. This OS is not intended for Linux zealots. Never was. It simply gives portable devices a web browser in the cheapest (reused kernel) and fastest (stripped down to run just a browser) way possible. There are people who would find this useful. You aren't one of them. I'm OK with that, and I know a lot of other people will be too.

Re:Why would I want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

and the technical linux people market is how many % of the market?

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?

normal users will be getting it with a new machine, not installing it themselves. normal people already don't get to "run a lot of apps they want" depending on what machine they chose - buy a windows PC and you don't get iLife, for example. buy a Mac and you don't get to run ... most games :-)

Thing is, we don't want to be controlled, never have.

how did you think MS got to the market share it has now?

you're looking at it all wrong. ease & speed of adoption + demand is a LOT more important than "current market players". primary evidence being the iphone - before the iphone introduction, number of iphone apps was zero. look at how many there are now. just because there aren't really the kind of "web based apps" out there that can make you imagine what life would be like with a primarily web-based-app ecosystem doesn't mean there won't be, if Google can put enough machines out there in the hands of enough people.

Re:Why would I want this?

[Tweenk]

No X server wipes out being able to run most of the GUI software in the ecosystem.

I really doubt they will remove X. They may not use X.org, but not using the X11 protocol would make life much harder for them. Most probably they will have a trimmed down X server that works very close to the hardware like Wayland, with an API built on top of the X11 protocol but hiding its complexity.

You locked to google.

Even if they won't have X (which I think they will use), they will open source their display system, so it will be possible to write a perfect emulator that passed the display calls to X.

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.

I have reason to believe this is what they've done. While for Android it makes little sense to support existing apps because they weren't designed for phones and most often just don't work very well with small screens and/or touchscreens, it makes a lot of sense for netbooks.

Re:Why would I want this?

[nloop]

I think making Yet Another Linux Distro would be a death sentence for it. Who was the first to try that? Corel? Many have, all have failed. It would be relegated to the niche Ubuntu already has.

The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it? Apple. Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on. I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS's using its kernel, and probably have a similar port ability. Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook. Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma. It requires a complete rewrite.

I also think this is going to take the concept of an "app store" to the desktop, which you could certainly argue against, but google is not going to pigeonhole the OS into only web apps. I'd bet body parts this will support Java and some form of native code.

I think it will be an interesting blur between smartphone and laptop functionality, for netbooks. Them saying it is for netbooks is admitting it will not replace a full fledged OS, don't be afraid, other options will always be there. They aren't even aiming at replacing them.

Re:Why would I want this?

[abe ferlman]

Honestly, if it's running a linux kernel, with just a quick download you can get X windows and run every app you want anyway, and I wouldn't be surprised if Google had some sort of X emulation available for just this purpose within their OS for adventurous users. Just getting the kernel out there means people can run linux apps, meaning the install base grows and that's good for everyone who would like to see a change in Microsoft's market dominance.

Re:Why would I want this?

[4D6963]

Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.

This thing will be pre-installed, no need to install it. You'll buy an ARM netbook (then undoubtedly desktops) with Chrome OS on it.

Re:Why would I want this?

[JerryQ]

I think the answer lies in the "I" in your question.

I believe there are millions of people out there (I teach a bunch of them for free on winter evenings) who only want a browser. They want to browse, email, skype and maybe upload their pictures to a picasa like environment. If they ever need word processing, google docs will be fine, if the connection is down, they'll happily wait. they don't want to think about viruses, malware, blackhats etc etc. They want an appliance, like their kettle or toaster, you switch it on, you use it (straight away).

The boot sequence, the wait while anti virus messes around, and windows updates, are all irrelevant to these people, to these people modern computers are as easy to drive as a Model T Ford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxb5R4rSgxE .

You may quite understandably and reasonably, never use it or have use for it, but for a whole lot of people, this is just what they want.

Re:Why would I want this?

[jabjoe]

You say that but Corel was my introduction to Linux. I left it then because I was only interested in 3d modelling and 3d game programming at the time. The Linux then isn't the Linux now, now my younger self we be quite happy with Linux just as my current self is.

I don't think you need to closed done a Unix system to make it so grandma can use it. Anyone can use Ubuntu, sure it's not quite as productized as OSX, but that's because it's not got the money behind it, not because it's open. Dumming and closing down the whole system for grandma when she is only just about getting to use a web browser anyway? HELL NO.

If Google have taken out X and are creating a new locked in Unix system I will think MUCH less of them both technical and morally. My gut says Google are trying to do an Apple, but I hope I'm wrong. MS must be crossing their fingers for another Unix war, if there is, again they win and we all loose.

Re:Why would I want this?

[logixoul]

Normal users won't dare install any thing called an operating system.

No, they'll just get it with their netbook.

Re:Why would I want this?

[Burz]

The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it? Apple.

That's because Apple have made it an attractive platform for writing applications. They have a rich set of relatively stable APIs and ABIs.

On a typical Linux distro (Ubuntu too), you can't just write a program and expect it work work on anyone else's Linux desktop. How will your teachers, friends or associates try out your Linux programs without encountering dependency hell? And then there is the question of wildly varying system defaults.

The whole idea of "Linux desktop" being discussed for long years here and on other FOSS sites is a total red herring. There is no well-defined, easily-targetted Linux desktop platform. NONE.

Which is why Apple called their new OS "Mac OS X' and not "Apple BSD". Similarly, Google uses "Android" and not "Android Linux" etc.

As for Google's new offering it seems hardly worth calling an OS if a person cannot install their own software on it. It's a thin client.

Re:Why would I want this?

[jabjoe]

and the technical linux people market is how many % of the market?

I think technical linux people are the people normal people go to ask about Linux. If they say it's bad, it won't help it's PR at all.

normal users will be getting it with a new machine, not installing it themselves. normal people already don't get to "run a lot of apps they want" depending on what machine they chose - buy a windows PC and you don't get iLife, for example. buy a Mac and you don't get to run ... most games :-)

If non-game Windows apps didn't matter much, more people would buy Macs. Besides this isn't what I want. I think they should be able to buy what ever computer they want and be able to run any software. I want them to compete properly. Both Mac and Windows lock you in! Software should run on more then one type of OS!

how did you think MS got to the market share it has now?

People not understanding the problem with monopolies and they do in fact have a option. People in fact not even caring about computers at all or what the nerds say, if they see it "working" that's enough for them. But now the world is getting more technically savy, more people are waking up and saying hang on a minute! We all loose in this kind of monopoly market.

you're looking at it all wrong. ease & speed of adoption + demand is a LOT more important than "current market players". primary evidence being the iphone - before the iphone introduction, number of iphone apps was zero. look at how many there are now. just because there aren't really the kind of "web based apps" out there that can make you imagine what life would be like with a primarily web-based-app ecosystem doesn't mean there won't be, if Google can put enough machines out there in the hands of enough people.

Keep the faith. I just see this whole thing as a re-run of the old thin client "future". It wasn't the future then, I'm not convinced it will be the future now. Then, as now, it wasn't just about performance, but control.

Re:Why would I want this?

[fyoder]

Technical Linux people aren't going to want it.

I'm a technical linux people. All I need on a netbook are a browser and a shell. If it's cool and runs on cool hardware it could very well be an option. What you describe is what I want on my desktop which is a different beast and one I don't think Google is targeting with this.

Re:Why would I want this?

[Dryth]

The target for Chrome OS seems to be Netbooks.

Most of the Linux vs. Windows discussion with respect to Netbooks tends to ignore how crummy the default Linux distros have been so far. The Eee PC as an example, it's distro is slow, ugly, and probably burned a lot of Asus' resources creating and maintaining it. More important, every non-system-management app could be implemented as an HTML5 application.

Savvy users would install their own distros, but they aren't the target audience for Chrome OS. The target audience is people wanting a simple internet machine, and the benefit for the rest of us is one more person independent of Microsoft.

Re:Why would I want this?

[swb]

Where does the punter get the ubiquitous web access? Is he buying the Chrome Netbook from a cell carrier (at a discount) with a 2 year contract for EVDO/3G access? Is he expected to already own that kind of data dongle? What does he do where there's no coverage or all the visible 802.11 APs are locked down?

IMHO the big breakthrough from this new "OS" has to be offline web access where you sync your apps and some of your storage between the device and "the web". Maybe in 2020 internet access will be cheap and ubiquitous enough that an XTerm-network-access kind of "computer" makes sense, but in 2010 it's extremely limited. It works at the iPhone level where data demands are limited now, but it gets harder as you climb the application sophistication ladder and you need continuous fast access to the server end.

I can see why Google has been pushing hard for open spectrum and open access rules, but until you get down that road it makes a device that REQUIRES interactive, high speed internet access seem a little speculative.

Re:Why would I want this?

[thinkloop]

This is not your grandpa's thin client. Imagine you had your desktop exactly as it was, with the slight modification that it would back itself up silently to a server of your choosing. Then if you bought a new computer, or used someone else's computer, you could login into your account, have it rebuild/resume your saved state, allowing you to continue running your apps locally. Wouldn't that just be better in every way? That's where Google's going, and why they are pursuing something as costly are gargantuan as building an OS. Otherwise, they would just continue to build for the browser.

Re:Why would I want this?

[BlackSmithNZ]

"This is a Linux distro that can't run any non-google-SDK software"

 

I think you missed the whole point of the web thing.

 

Don't like google search and really want to you yahoo, bing/live/whatever today? Go ahead and bookmark a new URL and use it.
Don't like gmail; there are plenty of alternatives.
Don't like google apps? Go ahead and use Zoho or whatever you like.

 

You can run any non-google web-based software you want; including my companies analysis software that used to be restricted to Windows desktops, but now runs on all OS's thanks to our move to the web.

 

Hell of a lot easier to open a different URL than installing VM's or re-booting into another OS, to run some software that happens to use another API.

 

  In fact I really like the idea of having a basic Linux kernel (free with the hardware) that boots up ChromeOS from flash in a few seconds and allows me to quickly and securely browse, do webmail etc; a big percentage of what most people use their computers for on a regular basis. My kids for instance play flash based games & pretty much only use our Windows XP home computers as a dedicated Firefox launcher - though XP gets in the way when it takes 2 minutes to wake up & be ready to use.

 

At the same time, I still need the ability to boot different (VMs?) off that kernel, so when I need native software for speed/richness of UI/security, I can fire up instances of Ubuntu/Eclipse for dev work, or Windows/Photoshop etc. And if a zero day exploit takes down ChromeOS, all my work environments are safe.

 

For others like my parents, who never back up email, photos or buy/install software other than anti-virus crap that slows their machine to a crawl I would love to get them to run Chrome of something that gives them what they need & nothing more or less.

Re:Why would I want this?

[dewatf]

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? ...
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. </quote>

The reason you want this is because you sitting a coffee shop and want to something quickly without booting Windows7. Google have a vision of the thin client, and it is an old vision, but these days there is fast wireless and the software available to do it and the sales of netbooks indicate there is a lot of demand for the idea.

Google can't use Linux/GNU/X11/KDE/Gnome because it has already failed in the Netbook environment. It is too bloated and overly complex for doing simple stuff and no one but a Linux geek can get it to work. While X11 isn't that bad it is based on an out-dated local server/client model, the sever runs as root and it is not easy to develop for. If want to add to X you end up with complexity and diversity of a multitude of libraries and the whole KDE/Gnome thing. This makes Linux a difficult environment to develop for (as Google complained about with Chrome), unless you have lots of keen volunteers doing all the work. Very few commercial businesses have seen any profit from in getting into the Linux desktop.

Vista was a debarcle and has also failed in netbooks since it is way too bloated. Apple haven't bothered with the net book market at all relying on the iPhone. I would have thought Google would go with Android, but they have obviously realised that while it works for PDAs and phones it won't scale up.

The Netbook winner so far has thus been Window XP, with ASUS doing very minor business with Xandros!
Thus Google is dependent mostly on XP to run the platform they want -- that is hardly nice or secure. Microsoft's plan is for a plethora of versions of Windows 7 offering one platform from PDAs and Netbooks up to servers. If Google doesn't want to be dependent on Microsoft they have a problem.

So first Google designed a browser to be fast and secure and that runs applications twice as fast on XP as Firefox. Sure it it is a memory hog but how much does 1GB of RAM cost these days? . Second Google have announced a replacement for Windows XP on netbooks just before Microsoft replace it with Windows 7 and everyone starts talking about how complete Microsoft's domination of the market will be. A bit of old fashion FUD to make up for the fact that Google are 12 months too late with delivering something to compete with Windows 7.

The idea that Chrome OS will be some replacement for or compete with the Linux development environment is just wrong. Google have simply seen a gap in the market and want something fast and secure that manufacturers will install on netbooks for surfing and web applications and that will stop Microsoft gaining complete dominance. So they are cobbling together something from what they have as quickly as possible.

Personally a cheap Netbook that I can use to surf, email, watch the Tour de France on and use to play online bridge with, all of which all only requires Chrome with Flash 10, without Windows 7 sounds good to me.

Re:Why would I want this?

[dazjorz]

Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook. Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma. It requires a complete rewrite.

What the censor is this bullcensor? Grandma never learned about C:\Program Files. Why the censor would she need to learn about /usr? Nowadays, most Linux distro's come with shiny GUI's which do most of the work for you, and everything like finding documents is made *much easier* than it is on Windows now. Especially for grandma. People need to learn the difference between "difficult" and "need to get used to it". And saying a complete rewrite is needed because grandma doesn't understand /usr is... Absurd, to say the least. Get out of your Linux From Scratch shell and start using modern distributions...

Re:Why would I want this?

[Guy Harris]

The one company to really take a unixish kernel and succeed with it? Apple. Many of your arguments could have been made about OS X and the BSD kernel it is based on. I suspect this will be similarly non recognizable to the other OS's using its kernel, and probably have a similar port ability. Taking all the obvious unix-like parts out of it really is required to get your grandmother to use it on her netbook. Think about explaining /usr /lib /etc to grandma. It requires a complete rewrite.

You are aware that Mac OS X has /usr and /etc and, although it doesn't have /lib, it does have /usr/lib, right? And, yes, they are used by parts of the system. (Heck, just about every process on the system uses /usr/lib/libSystem.dylib.)

OS X didn't "[take] all the obvious unix-like parts out of [Darwin]", it just didn't require the average user to know about them. (Is Ubuntu "relegated to a niche" because it hasn't done as good a job as OS X does at that? Or is there more to it than that?)

Re:Who then competes with Google?

[howlingmadhowie]

Google has the clout to get it pre-installed, so it could have a huge effect on the market.

But surely...

[curmi]

...this means the OS will be forever in "beta"...

Re:But surely...

[hansamurai]

Gmail and Docs are out of beta! Welcome to the future, man!

Re:Google = No privacy

[arb phd slp]

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.

That's a legit argument for being wary about Chrome on my primary computer, but don't think people use their netbooks the way they use a full laptop or a desktop.

All the Google Technologies rolled into one

[plazman30]

I'm sure this OS will have Chrome, and for offline use, Google Gears will be part of the OS.

Re:All the Google Technologies rolled into one

[grepppo]

Nobody has mentioned Adobe Air yet. I suspect this will run in much the same way..

Drivers?

[checkup21]

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.

Re:Drivers?

[yossarianuk]

The main video driver I use in Linux is the non-oss Nvidia one - this is faster on Linux than on XP for me (gefore 8500) in every game (that has linux and winblows versions).

At work I have an intel 915 onboard (crap) videocard - the latest driver from Intel (which is in the kernel) again is faster (3d performance - benchmarks,etc) in Linux than windows....

Re:Drivers?

[mjwx]

Biggest problem in the linux world is the weak support from vendors for their video hardware and the not so up to date X11.

This is debatable, up until you get to the enterprise world and pay A$8000 for an entry level IBM X3650, then you have superior Linux drivers. Linux is a server OS so the best drivers are still for server hardware. Only in the last 4 years has Linux seriously looked at the desktop, compare Linux from 2004 to 2008 to Windows from 1985 to 1989 and you'll find Linux has moved faster.

Windows in vmware on linux feels snappier then native linux.

Quantity snappier? You specify that it's a feeling, is it similar to the feeling that someone has walked over my grave? Can we have a point of reference please.

VMware server under Linux is far superior then VMware server under Windows, 15% more transactions per second (approx) for a VM running Win2K3 and MSSQL05. Of course VMwares own ESXi Server blows them both out of the water. All of my tests are done on server hardware.

When we are talking about driver support, the vendor is the one at blame not the OS. Intel did the best thing it could for Linux video support with its integrated GPU's, they open sourced the drivers. Ubuntu 9.04 runs faster then XP on my old lappy (Cel 1.6, 1 GB, Intel 915 IGM) and a lot faster then Vista basic on my new lappy (C2D 2.1, 2GB, Intel X4500) with Compiz turned on. ATI is in the process of opening their GPU Spec's.

Can't fight the status quo

[deuterium]

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?

Re:Can't fight the status quo

[yossarianuk]

I'm very glad they have chosen Linux for the kernel - They will be able to spend much more time effort on the UI/desktop and I'm sure they will put their own patches in the kernel

Why recreate something that exists now?

Creating a OS kernel from scratch is not an easy task - if it was everybody would do it .

Re:Can't fight the status quo

[deuterium]

Yeah, it's certainly more efficient. It makes sense. It'd just be interesting to have an entirely new OS to play with, rather than simply a new window/interface system.

I'll be happy if they come out with a nice IDE for it, though.

just like all other non MS OSs...

[night_flyer]

It wont go anywhere unless there is APPLICATION support...

Re:just like all other non MS OSs...

[walterbyrd]

It supports google apps, which are good enough when you are mobile.

All Your data belong to us

[Shinatosh]

-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?

Love it, brilliant, excellent news :)

[WhiteFluffyChest]

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 :)

The one thing that could derail this would be....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?

Web Is (not) The Platform

[TheNinjaroach]

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.

Re:Web Is (not) The Platform

[immakiku]

Speaking as a web developer and user, I agree. I think the distinction we have to make is that HTML is not the best format for application delivery, while the web itself could potentially deliver applications very well. If there could be a different vision of a thin client, it would be one which uses a standard designed specifically for this purpose. The problem with that is it doesn't already have Gmail, Google Maps, etc. all ready to be used out of the box.

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of X tunneling over SSH, which already exists, so my point has already been disproved (by lack of use).

Re:Web Is (not) The Platform

[flibuste]

I am in the same opinion, with an addition: if the web is the best way to deliver information, why does this delivery has to happen in one god application called "Teh Web Browser". I think the web browser should die, and other UI paradigms are required to make this delivery happen, and really innovate.

Google OS promises to be less than innovative, which is annoying as it just adds noise to the existing.

Re:Web Is (not) The Platform

[claytongulick]

I agree with you for HTML, but IMHO Adobe Flex is one of the nicest languages/platforms I've ever developed in. I love it, I'd prefer to do all my UI work with it now and far into the future.

I know slashdot tends to dislike flash, but Flex is the best platform for developing business app UI's I've ever seen.

IT is Google's distro.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you can't understand why this matters then I think you can't be helped.

ummm...

[sorak]

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.

Re:Huh? (Double HUH?)

[Anomylous Howard]

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.

Re:Good luck blocking adverts

[slim]

It's meant to be open source...

You don't.

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

If money was everything ....

[jotaeleemeese]

... Google would not exist.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Innovation??

[marjancek]

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

USP: build in the comfy chair as well

[Kupfernigk]

That's what we need. A built in comfy chair working environment that just works.

It does not imply that!

[Hurricane78]

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.

Will it support Internet Explorer?

[Chrisq]

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".

Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?

[EdgeyEdgey]

I think the Windows/IE bundling issue was a monopolies issue
Can you have a monopoly if you give something away for free?

Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?

[rliden]

The question isn't whether it will run IE. The question is will it run any other browser (Firefox, Opera, Konq, or any XUL based browser) but Chrome without those browser projects having to completely rewrite their apps. The question is how easy will it be to install a third party browser?

I think it's important to point out the difference in browsing capabilities between Firefox and Chrome. I use Firefox specifically because ABP and NoScript allow me to easily control the browsing experience. Chrome doesn't offer that capability and Google doesn't seem interested in making it easy for third party developers to implement that functionality, especially not like Mozilla has. If we can't install our browsers of choice then we are locked into Google's internet experience, surfing how they want us to, collecting the information they want from us, and controlling how and what applications can function.

Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?

[gbarules2999]

"why do you complain about Windows coming bundled with explorer and not Chrome when you can't even run explorer in the Chrome OS".

Google then grabs the board game "Monopoly" and chucks it at the lawyer, then turns to the jury and says, "Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."

Re:Will it support Internet Explorer?

[microbee]

Microsoft is welcome to port IE to Linux.

Netscape all over again.

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

Stop Google before the damage is too serious

[12357bd]

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!

Re:Stop Google before the damage is too serious

[slim]

Just note how they take the kernel, but avoid to contribute to the GUi arena.

Sounds to me like they're contributing a whole new lightweight OSS GUI layer.

I do agree that their model is all about promoting their non-free software (the proprietary stuff they run on their servers). But on the other hand they're doing nothing to prevent people from writing competing web apps.

The Linux kernel and basic related utilities should be set under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP!

I'm not sure how that would help. We don't hear of many modifications to the kernel or basic utils, being hoarded by the people who write them and run them on their servers.

Re:Stop Google before the damage is too serious

[quixote9]

Google is using open source to try to close the internet

Exactly.

Google is in the business of selling ads. Tracking clicks to sell ads, storing data to mine so they can sell ads, and on and on and on.

If you think that's harmless and don't care. Fine. It should be your choice to be owned by Google. But what I don't like is that I can see a future where it is not my choice not to be owned by them.

Re:Stop Google before the damage is too serious

[The End Of Days]

I was with you in your fight against the evil corporation until I got to the word "fragmentate" which exploded my head. You lost a follower right there.

new OS?

[reiisi]

Yeah, but only if they hired me to be the chief architect. ;-/

x86 and arm?

[reiisi]

No mention of Power PC? What am I going to do with all my old Macs? 8-o

(And no mention of Coldfire, either. :-/)

Re:x86 and arm?

[sadler121]

Google is OSS'ing the source, so you will be free to compile a version for PPC ;-)

Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

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).

Don't focus on installing the OS

[Abroun]

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.

Re:Don't focus on installing the OS

[slim]

Lots of comments here are (rightly) skeptical that individuals will download a new OS.

And yet...

My dad has a Windows laptop that's suffering from inexplicable slowdown syndrome -- my meagre Windows skills couldn't fix it (full defrag, adware and virus scan) and the only solution I can think of is a full Windows reinstall.

He might be wary of a live USB drive of an ordinary Linux distro (even though it would be perfect).
But something with the warm and fuzzy feeling of Google's blessing, even if all it gives him is a fast boot and a browser; that might be enough.

Re:Ironic?

[Xabraxas]

A beta is, and has been available for months now.

Mixed Feelings

[thisnamestoolong]

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.

Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..

[ZmeiGorynych]

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?

Does this mean

[Moabz]

2010 is finally the year of the linux desktop ?

Re:Does this mean

[powerlord]

2010 is finally the year of the linux desktop ?

No, 2012.

That's what the Mayan calender was actually counting to.

Re:Does this mean

[cyfer2000]

linux desktop forever!

Re:Does this mean

[migla]

Depending of the definition of "Desktop", maybe 2010 (or 2011 or later) will be TYOTLD, technically. What will the "Google desktop" be like?

Maybe it will be a clean and simple thing that isn't anything like how I see a "Desktop".

If it is an simple appliance-like thing, it's not for me (but for Cletus and Mom and many others). That's ok.

So, then two new questions arise:
1. What will we call the Desktop as we "power users" see it? (Maybe power-user desktop").

2. Is "the year of the Google desktop" a good thing for "the year of the power-user linux desktop"? I think it probably is.

Am I making sense? I don't know.

Re:Does this mean

[RazorSharp]

I think so. People believe in Google, most who have used the web have also used some sort of Google product. It's not like Red Hat or Ubuntu or something that Joe Shmoe will disregard because he's never heard of it. And it will be CHEAP (which probably means on sale at Wal-Mart).

I bet they'll profit by licensing it to hardware vendors. Basically the license will say that you have to pay up if you sell hardware but for personal use you can download for free.

I hate to be a cliché Microsoft-basher but this really put a smile on my face, I've been waiting for Google to do this for years. It's companies like Microsoft that fuel all my socialist sentiments but fortunately their competitors - Google, Apple, Nintendo, and IBM (yeah, I said it) - they remind me of the merits of capitalism. Non-evil cunning can win :D The sad part is that Google is the only one of those companies I mentioned which hasn't been corrupted by power. The other three did the right thing because their backs were against the wall.

Re:Does this mean

[sys.stdout.write]

God damnit, you made me chortle coffee all over myself at work.

Google + Linux = OEM Linux Drivers

[HighOrbit]

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.

open-source proprietary OS

[viralMeme]

"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'

web OS function

[fulldecent]

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?

Chrome OS = Posix + Google Gears

[roger_pasky]

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.

OS == Browser

[MobyDisk]

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:

• Where are my files stored?
• How do I edit documents
• What if I don't have internet access where I am?
• Web mail clients just aren't as good

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.

Re:OS == Browser

[SpinyNorman]

Nowadays you can certainly be a thin-client to web-based apps, and use web-based storage.

But that doesn't mean you don't need an OS.

An OS provides a high level abstraction and interface to the hardware. Things like:

- Processes/Threads
- Memory management
- Hardware access (device drivers: network, keyboard, mouse, screen...) / Device drivers
- File system (minimally for the OS/drivers itself, even if you were mostly using online storage)

None of that is going away, even if all you want to do is be able to launch and run an app. like Chrome (the browser).

In this case the "OS" (hardware abstraction) may also also include a Java VM since they are targeting multiple CPU architectures (x86, ARM).

Re:OS == Browser

[Jeema]

Yes but existing computers already offer this functionality. A browser-OS would offer less functionality than a current OS. And let's be honest, it isn't that hard to start up Windows/MacOS/Linux and open a browser, so the usability issue is mostly a non-starter.

So getting back to the main point: why would anyone want a computer that offers distinctly less functionality than their existing one?

Re:OS == Browser

[MobyDisk]

Why would anyone want a computer that offers distinctly less functionality than their existing one?

Price.

Web-based admin night be nice

[rklrkl]

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.

Re:Web-based admin night be nice

[slim]

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)

Ever fired up the options menu in Google Desktop? It just tells your default browser to open a new tab and connect to http://127.0.0.1:4664/blah

I think an embedded Web server at the heart of this OS is a fair bet.

Re:Web-based admin night be nice

[Chris_Mir]

Why stop with system administration through a web interface. Basically all types of applications, like their own office suite, could run through the web interface. Through a specialized local webserver, named application server, local and remote applications could run transparently for the user, Google could choose to store the most basic software units of their office suite at the clients computer for basic off-line usage (don't know if that is already a provided functionality). Think of a window manager with browser capabilities embedded.

Re:Web-based admin night be nice

[sorak]

Well, if the applications use web based technology, then wouldn't it make sense to include a php interpreter in there somewhere?
.
Or maybe they'll come out with Google Registry ( http://google.com/registry ), which will allow you to flub up your system or add spyware from anywhere one earth. It's truly innovative.

Re:Web-based admin night be nice

[Chris_Mir]

And on top of that, this application server could implement cloud computing transparently to the user.

Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..

[yossarianuk]

"Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?"

No.

Re:Epic Fail

[Tweenk]

Oh, um, how do I get updates on this thing?

I agree with the description of your post as an "epic fail": Normal people do not give a shit about updates until beaten repeatedly over the head with a metal pole, or their computer explodes.

Re:Who then competes with Google?

[4D6963]

Because Microsoft is just begging to lose some of its desktop/netbook OS marketshare, and Google wants to be the one who'll catch it all. Don't underestimate a) how huge the name/brand "Google" is these days and b) how to most people the computer is now mostly a device to do web stuff, thus making the compatibility/legacy aspect of Windows much less relevant.

If all you ever use is web browsing/e-mail/YouTube/instant messaging then not only you don't need an expensive OS that always gets viruses and malware but you might as well have the OS done by the same guys who made your search engine, your e-mail service and run YouTube. Google just gets how web centric things are getting and how people would rather not spend hundreds on an OS and not waste anymore time keeping the thing running smoothly without having malware running amok through your data.

MSFTs momentum :)

[viralMeme]

"Typically Google .. may be rushing to get some attention and to curtail MSFTs momentum"

A search engine .. 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

Google: Web, Images, Video, Maps, News, Shopping, Mail, more

Bing: Web, Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps, More

Re:Epic Fail

[Saint Stephen]

Generalize much?

Pwn3d OS

[SleeknStealthy]

All Your Base Are Belong To Us

I do get a choice

[js_sebastian]

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.

Re:I do get a choice

[Ephemeriis]

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.

Certainly you can run whatever the hell you want. And if you're content with your hardware and software as-is then you really don't need to worry about any of this. But, ultimately... In a long-term kind of view... Technology is going to do what technology does - change.

I'm sure there were sysadmins complaining that they didn't want everything to be a goddamn workstation app back in the day. I'm sure they were very happy with their mainframes and their teletypes.

Now, mainframes still have their place, and I'm not going to claim they're useless. There are certain applications where that kind of reliability is absolutely necessary. But the days when absolutely everything (including simple email and spreadsheet applications) ran off a mainframe are long gone.

Technology marches on.

In a few years you may have one hell of a time finding a boxed copy of software to purchase. You might have a very hard time finding source code to download and compile. And even if you run it off your local machine, you might find all your software running through a web UI sitting on top of a local LAMP stack.

I'm not saying this is a certainty. And I'm not saying the IT police are going to break down your door and haul away your legacy equipment. But in 10 or 20 years it might be very difficult to buy a computer that isn't just a glorified thin client.

Re:I do get a choice

[js_sebastian]

Technology marches on.

I'm sure it does.

In a few years you may have one hell of a time finding a boxed copy of software to purchase. You might have a very hard time finding source code to download and compile. And even if you run it off your local machine, you might find all your software running through a web UI sitting on top of a local LAMP stack.

Why? the web is not a good model to develop for, from a developer's perspective. In fact, it sucks bigtime. It's a bunch of hacks hacked toghether. The only advantages are portability (and, as you mentioned, you can have that with a local LAMP stack), and, from a vendor's point of view, control. Now from the user's point of view, that same control is a downside. If you think of open source software, the same distinction applies, and I haven't seen this kill off open source.

But in 10 or 20 years it might be very difficult to buy a computer that isn't just a glorified thin client.

Why? when a cheapo, low end machine will have enough computing power to run all the fat apps anyways? I'm not saying that noone will make the transition, I can see the software maintenance cost advantage in a controlled/corporate setting, but to say that web apps will wipe out desktop apps is way wrong IMO.

Most software has been commoditized by open source (and other freeware), and the "oh but now it's on the cloud" argument isn't going to unspill that jar of milk.

Re:I do get a choice

[Ephemeriis]

Why? the web is not a good model to develop for, from a developer's perspective. In fact, it sucks bigtime. It's a bunch of hacks hacked toghether. The only advantages are portability (and, as you mentioned, you can have that with a local LAMP stack), and, from a vendor's point of view, control. Now from the user's point of view, that same control is a downside. If you think of open source software, the same distinction applies, and I haven't seen this kill off open source.

You're underestimating the laziness of end-users and the convenience factor.

There are some wonderfully full-featured mail clients out there, but webmail is still popular. There are some great free word processors, but folks still use Google Docs.

If all your applications and data live on the web, your client becomes truly disposable. That's what makes thin clients and terminal servers so popular. If a home user can move all their data and applications on-line, so they lose absolutely nothing when moving to a new piece of hardware or reloading the old one, they're going to jump all over it.

Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily suggesting that in a corporate environment you'd be handing your data over to someone else. Today you buy a license for some software and install it on a few dozen machines... Maybe in a few years you'll buy a license for some software and install it on a single server, and then log in to it from dozens of machines running a web browser.

The obvious benefit is to centralize storage and processing. You don't need to worry about Joe backing up the documents on his workstation because they already live on the server. You don't need to buy beefy workstations for every employee, and then see much of that power go unused, because they're all running off the server.

We're already seeing this centralization happen with terminal servers, virtual machines, and SANs. Moving it to the web would just be a means of standardizing the UI.

Why? when a cheapo, low end machine will have enough computing power to run all the fat apps anyways? I'm not saying that noone will make the transition, I can see the software maintenance cost advantage in a controlled/corporate setting, but to say that web apps will wipe out desktop apps is way wrong IMO.

Assuming, of course, that you can still get your hands on a cheapo low end machine to run all the fat apps. How easy is it to find one of those vacuum-tube based monstrosities these days? Do they have mainframes at your local Best Buy?

Folks are going to manufacture and sell whatever it is that people are buying. If everyone's buying cheap little netbooks that do little more that provide a web browser, that's what will be available.

Most software has been commoditized by open source (and other freeware), and the "oh but now it's on the cloud" argument isn't going to unspill that jar of milk.

And now we can commoditize the whole mess. Doesn't matter what kind of computer you have... Doesn't matter what browser you're running... Doesn't matter what OS you have... As long as you can load a web page, you can run the software. Even from your cell phone.

Re:I do get a choice

[js_sebastian]

Folks are going to manufacture and sell whatever it is that people are buying. If everyone's buying cheap little netbooks that do little more that provide a web browser, that's what will be available.

My point is that the cheap little netbook, or the cheap, low-end desktop computer, has enough power (and then some) to run all the fat applications, (except for very specific things), and probably comes pre-installed with a full suite of them. PCs do not get less powerful over time, and with all the research going into power efficiency the computing power-per-watt is increasing pretty fast...

Doesn't matter what kind of computer you have... Doesn't matter what browser you're running... Doesn't matter what OS you have... As long as you can load a web page, you can run the software. Even from your cell phone.

Portability is good.. but java is pretty portable as well (in fact, probably more since i think Java VMs have more consistent behavior than browsers). Plus, it is less inefficient, and less unpleasant as a development environment.

Yea, but can I play WoW on it?

[axl917]

An important feature, y'know.

Re:Yea, but can I play WoW on it?

[LDoggg_]

Sure. "yum install wine" or "apt-get install wine" or "google's pointy and clicky installer to fetch wine"

Personally I hope they just pick rpm OR deb and the other distros just drop the unused one. Two package formats is a case where competition isn't helping linux.

No vision

[copponex]

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.

Re:No vision

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Imagine Ubuntu without OpenOffice (this is strictly a "web surfing distro", remember?).

Checkmate.

Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..

[slim]

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.

Google has finally jumped the shark

[MrData]

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.

Re:Google has finally jumped the shark

[matt_martin]

Damn I was going to post the exact same title !
WTF are they doing chasing an increasingly irrelevant, high maintenance, low-margin business?

I would've expected Google to be smarter than this. Maybe it is a joke.
Hey, my machine completely locked up - 'net connection must be slow again...

My judgemental image for the day - Fonzie and his Chrome-plated motorcycle flying over the shark pool.

My hopes for Google Chrome OS

[Zoxed]

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.

MOD PARENT UP

[EvilNTUser]

I feel like a retard making a post like this, but mod the parent up.

Vaporware

[Sosarian]

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.

What is "the web"?

[LKM]

"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).

Crunchpad, anyone?

[iperkins]

This sounds like a perfect fit for the Crunchpad

Linux Kernel + Google Cloud

[shirque]

Already been done:

http://www.thinkgos.com/

http://toastytech.com/guis/gos.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS_(operating_system)

Uhm...

[LKM]

Canvas. Gears. Next question?

Hurray!!!!

[oblivionboy]

Yet another Linux Distro! Just what we've all been waiting for!!

Speed, Simplicity, and Security

[InsertCleverUsername]

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.

Web apps should be treated like desktop apps

[AlexanderTe]

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.

Re:Web apps should be treated like desktop apps

[slim]

I would like to use Gmail just like I'm using any dekstop application.

Use the Chrome browser.
Go to GMail.
Click the page menu (top right)
"Create application shortcuts..."

Google wants you to use web apps as if they're normal desktop apps. When you launch these shortcuts, Chrome will skin the window to look more like an app and less like a browser.

Re:Web apps should be treated like desktop apps

[AlexanderTe]

Then the question would rather be if there are going to be any non-web applications for Chrome OS.

Re:Web apps should be treated like desktop apps

[slim]

Then the question would rather be if there are going to be any non-web applications for Chrome OS.

Expect it to be pretty much 100% browser apps, with Gears providing offline mode.

*Perhaps* a text editor.

Why I like Win7 better than XP

[tjstork]

(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.

Google + Unix = ...

[umundane]

Wouldn't "Goonix" be a better name?

X is pretty dang good

[GargamelSpaceman]

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?

Re:X is pretty dang good

[julian67]

"I can't fathom why apple chose to create another windowing system rather than use X....." Because they prefer to drive and manage their own development as far as possible, and not be subject to the success or otherwise of yet another 3rd party, especially one that doesn't regard Apple as any more important than all the other contributors and distributors? Because if they used a free windowing system on top of a free base they wouldn't have much of a proprietary product?

Re:X is pretty dang good

[jamstar7]

I can't fathom why apple chose to create another windowing system rather than use X.

Cause it's getting old and dodgy, and with the newer video cards, a lot of X can be dumped off into the card?

Re:X is pretty dang good

[quanticle]

X is freakin' awesome? Are you kidding me? Tell me, what kind of backwards logic makes the X server be the display and the X client be the application?

Re:X is pretty dang good

[mangobrain]

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.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[Orange Crush]

X is great, but that doesn't make it the best choice for every particular purpose. Google wants the bare minimums to get a machine booted and showing a web browser. Every second counts.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[lennier]

Also I presume they had all this technology inherited from NeXT, which did not use X as its window manager.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[julian67]

window manager does not equal windowing system.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[dirtyhippie]

Not to mention they needed composite style effects way before anyone even thought of putting them in X.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[mangobrain]

You may not share that netbook - I probably wouldn't either. Nor would I be likely to connect to it remotely and run graphical apps from it, as netbooks typically aren't very powerful. Connecting from it to other machines to run *their* apps - such as my office desktop over a VPN, for example - does, however, sound pretty plausible.

Admittedly the performance of raw X over the Internet leaves (in my experience) something to be desired, but throw in compression technologies such as NX and it is eminently usable. (I wish something like that would find its way into X proper.)

Also, it may not be obvious at first, but X actually has a lot of similarity to the concept of web apps and the use cases for Chrome OS. People are using browsers to host the user interfaces of applications in which most of the data storage & heavy lifting is done remotely - sound familiar? Compared to X, though, there are some key differences: browsers have very good caching and compression, especially if you consider the HTML required for a typical web app compared to the weight of the X commands necessary to render a comparable GUI; and responsiveness is improved by running a lot of the UI logic locally in JavaScript, something the X architecture can't really do.

If browsers had been *designed* from the ground-up for this job, instead of stiffing developers with a lacklustre widget set, massive cross-browser compatibility problems and no common rules for UI layout & design, I can actually imagine something like Chrome OS working very well. In reality, though, browsers *weren't* designed for this, and servers don't have perfect up-time. I think "Web 2.0" gives us a glimpse into what applications might look like if developers *did* sit down and split every graphical app into a client & server, and the concept isn't entirely without merit; I just don't think the tools that have been co-opted for the purpose are the right ones for the job.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[kinnell]

X is freakin' awesome? Are you kidding me? Tell me, what kind of backwards logic makes the X server be the display and the X client be the application?

A server provides services to a client. In X windows, the display provides services to the application. Therefore the display is the server and the application is the client.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[GargamelSpaceman]

Every second counts, which is a good reason to use X. It's already coded. They're not going to be able to code a whole windowing system quicker than they could tweak/configure X.

Re:X is pretty dang good

[Orange Crush]

I was referring to bootup of the finished OS, not development time.

Re:Ironic?

[A12m0v]

I'm posting right now from Chromium running on Linux/X/GNU/Fluxbox
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux/

Why is it always Win vs. Linux?????

[motherpusbucket]

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.

Windows App Compatibility?

[Goody]

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.

Re:Windows App Compatibility?

[nilbog]

That's silly. You don't have to support Windows apps to compete with Windows, nor would you want to. The idea is to start from the ground up with a better system. Google said that old operating systems were designed for an era before the web, and that they wanted to make something that is designed around all the new technologies. Furthermore, they said apps would run in your browser and therefore be cross-platform compatible.

They have exactly zero interest in enabling users to run Windows applications.

Re:Windows App Compatibility?

[Goody]

OK, so every business and home user that currently runs Windows applications to do things other than browse the web will drop their applications and flock to this new OS? Banks will use web based financial applications. Architects will drop AutoCAD and use web based CAD systems. GIS users will migrate to Google Earth. I don't think so. It's unrealistic to think anyone can compete with Windows without application support, because the OS is nothing without applications and many of the applications can't be easily recreated in browser applications. If they have zero interest in enabling users to run Windows applications, this will simply be a yet another Linux distro or a web browser and email OS, nothing more...and it won't compete with Windows.

Re:Windows App Compatibility?

[jojisan]

I believe you would have to have some sort of compatibility layer to gain the traction you would need in businesses.

Lots of small companies that have lots of computers that dual as the email / application tool, so having something that can run quickbooks or myob or any other windows software as a client and or thin client would be a must. There are vast amounts of cad software, electrical diagram software, plc programming software that are windows only. Not only these type of applications, but how many countless apps are written with windows api's for the scientific community. Then you have all the thin client apps that business's have spent millions on, like PRM software and Inventory software for small businesses that don't have the traditional server or have a small windows server. In order to compete with windows, you have to do what windows can do. Many control panel shops, cnc shops, small retailers, the list goes on and on, use applications tied to the windows api, you can't rewrite everything, and most of these companies wouldn't want to spend money on a new pc that can't run the pre-existing software tools they need to use to do business. The people are already trained on that specific gui / platform. Just because you can create an equivalent web app for UPS doesn't mean that you can create a web app for everything.. Can you imagine trying to do a large PLC project on a web based tool, and then the internet goes out for what ever reason. You'd be dead in the water because you wouldn't be able to get at the file to upload it, and you wouldn't be able to run the program needed to upload it or make changes. They might have zero interest in enabling people to run windows applications, but purchasing isn't going to buy a computer with an OS that can't do the job its intended for. Pushing out little widget applications and helpfull informational tools is great for a web browser, but having an OS that can't run quickbooks, cad, outlook, and other windows programs isn't going to give it the mind share that gave windows the marketshare to begin with. Until the OS can flawlessly run windows based apps from the Hard Drive as well as from the web it won't gain the necessary business traction. Web based applications are great, but they only preform certain functions and can't be depended upon to be mission critical. I can't see a business trusting its accounting or R&D designs to a webapp. Now having an OS that could run a windows based application through a browser, in protected memory so it doesn't crash the OS, that might be something.

Re:Windows App Compatibility?

[Ash-Fox]

OK, so every business and home user that currently runs Windows applications to do things other than browse the web will drop their applications and flock to this new OS?

I suspect some will, but not all. Not even Microsoft has achieved that.

Re:Windows App Compatibility?

[Danzigism]

that's why there's Google Sketchup.

Re:Windows App Compatibility?

[Goody]

Google's apps are interesting, but for the most part they are toys. Google Earth could be considered a GIS tool, but it lacks a lot of features found in common programs like MapInfo and Esri. Sketchup could be considered CAD, but it's just not an AutoCAD replacement. The spreadsheet application and word processor in Google Apps is sufficient for simple documents, but they just don't have the features of M$ Office or OpenOffice (though I would think Google will package OO with their OS). If Google wants to take this "let them eat cake" attitude towards established Windows applications thinking web apps or even open source applications are fine, they're not going to compete with Windows.

Re:Windows App Compatibility?

[Danzigism]

I definitely understand where you're coming from. Interestingly enough though, programs like Google SketchUp are slow becoming an industry standard. I have a few architect friends that love the Pro version simply because you can get instant 3D renderings that normally take hours to render based off raw CAD data. To top it off, SketchUp exports and imports CAD files. As far as GIS is concerned, there are a decent amount of opensource applications out there. My wife is the GIS expert so I wouldn't be able to say whether the apps are any good, but its a start. If Google's OS is going to be based off Linux and GIS and CAD apps are a concern of the majority, I don't doubt for a second that they will focus a bit of their developers' time to fixing the problems people have with current Linux solutions.

Hardware Support

[kazar636]

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.

Re: internet access is a given.

[denzacar]

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?

Microsoft = No privacy

[walterbyrd]

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.

Just what I needed!

[Jeema]

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

[OutputLogic]

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

little baby tears

[uberjoe]

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 Witch is Dead!

[kcghost]

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.

Re:worst. security. idea. EVER.

[walterbyrd]

Um, in case you didn't know: ms-windows, and especially msie, have been a total security train wreck for the last 10+ years. As to reliability, I have far less trouble with firefox than msie. Also, firefox has far more useful features, especially when you consider the plugins.

Firefox is far from perfect, I am sure the same goes for chrome, but msie has been a complete disaster in terms of reliability, security, features, and support for standards.

interesting and slighly worrying

[pjr.cc]

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

Will be released this year

[nilbog]

Chrome OS will be released this year, according to Google's announcement. It just won't come stock on any netbooks until mid 2010.

Goo-sturbation

[junkfish]

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

Something is puzzling me...

[motang]

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.

Crazy Talk

[MonsterTrimble]

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.

A new windowing system...

[knarf]

...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...

Re:A new windowing system...

[JYD]

I am willing to bet the primary language used for writing new apps on Chrome OS would be Java, given what Google did with the Android SDK.

Re:A new windowing system...

[knarf]

That would actually surprise me given that Java does not play a role of any importance in Chromium, nor does it figure in Google's online presence. Given the performance of v8 (the Javascript VM in Chromium) there would not be much of a performance gain to be had from going to Java instead of Javascript. Then again it would not be the first time I've been surprised - maybe I should become an analyst for Gartner?

Computers are *communication* devices

[Geof]

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.

Re:Computers are *communication* devices

[agentultra]

I won't argue that the Internet is not important as a communication medium. I think that's another point all together. It is very effective at communicating information.

My point was that the interface to that transmission medium could be better. What we have instead of a phone receiver is something more akin to a rube goldberg mechanical turk. The message you were intended to receive might not be what you actually receive and depending on what kind of mechanical turk you have on your end; it may crash or behave unexpectedly.

Of course, the core functionality is all still there: data can be stored and shared on publicly accessible servers. Stateful and stateless protocols can be built to interact with that data. Just because you don't load up a web browser with a tonne of HTML/CSS/JS just to view which friends are online doesn't mean it's not a social communications platform anymore.

Re:Computers are *communication* devices

[lennier]

Excellent point.

I'm wondering what might happen if, as a transitional stage, we took Javascript in the Web browser as a given and then had a rethought protocol over or replacing HTTP which distributed persistent/cached Javascript objects rather than pages. Like AJAX, but all the time, without even the overlaying concept of 'page'.

I suppose that still wouldn't work without some way of creating a DOM; but if we had a standard form of representing XML in JSON (like S-XML does for S-Expressions)...

I'd love to have some kind of standardised publish/subscribe push protocol over TCP, akin to HTTP but purely data-based, and automatically taking care of issues like version tracking, querying and resending if an update is missed, and sending source-code objects which can do computation (preferably pure-functional for safety, but untyped - if you have the source code/parse tree you can do your own type checking, and more).

There are so many applications today - email lists, instant messaging, message queueing, Facebook, Twitter - which all sort of implement roughly generalised 'publish/subscribe' but do so at the application level, incompatibly, that it seems like a simple standard store/forward data/compute block protocol would simplify things enormously.

Re:Computers are *communication* devices

[Optic7]

Excellent post. The same thing happened to radio (the ultimate predominant use of the technology not being envisioned at its inception). They didn't really think of broadcasting to the general masses until a long time after it was invented - it was originally thought of as a two-way point-to-point communications medium.

Re:Who then competes with Google?

[slim]

What makes this not necessarily evil is that it merely propogates a tool that makes web apps easy to access.

Google then competes with all the other software-as-a-service providers, to be the one that users choose. They have the slight advantage, presumably, of shipping the OS with default links.

Build a better web word processor though, and perhaps you can get some of their market share. (You might even be able to host it on Google App Engine and leverage their authentication / contacts / etc infrastructure)

The "new windowing system" doesn't have to do much

[hey]

.... it just needs to do the things a browser needs which means: fonts and the [input] tag.
That's it!

Bad naming scheme

[JYD]

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?"

Look at GWT. You won't code HTML and Javascript

[egghat]

Really. Take a look at it.

GWT DatePicker

See the example and the code.

No HTML or Javascript whatsoever. Only CSS needed for styling.

Re:Google = No privacy

[quixote9]

Do you really want an advertising agency to have complete access to your OS?

That can't be said loud enough or often enough. What boggles my mind is that a common attitude seems to be "Privacy? Who cares? I wasn't using it anyway. Give me one-click dancing hamsters."

Although I don't think M$FT would be better. Merely different. What's better is user-controlled software. We have that somewhere, don't we? Out in the garage maybe?

What's that noise?

[krygny]

I can swear I hear chairs being thrown around. Sounds like it's coming from the NW US.

Dazzle me

[OutputLogic]

Google Chrome OS, dazzle me: I want to see it written entirely in JavaScript.

OutputLogic

Rest Easy!

[ThatsNotPudding]

They promise to only inspect every other packet.

Sounds great but

[furby076]

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

Microsoft 2.0

[slyborg]

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.

Browser app != Cloud app

[Art3x]

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.

Online only?

[holiggan]

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? :)

I for one...

[hurting now]

...continue to welcome my soveriegn overlords... Google.

They have pwned my soul for the past 6 years!!!

It's Microsoft's fault!

[argent]

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.

Google needs Linux to do well.

[yossarianuk]

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.

Skia

[pH7.0]

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."

I'm going to miss Google.

[alcmaeon]

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.

And the metamorphosis is complete!

[Snaller]

They have become Microsoft!

But will it be free?

[Calindae]

I don't like to pay for things with my money...

Linux Killer! I feel queasy

[w0mprat]

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.

Re:Linux Killer! I feel queasy

[kamatsu]

So what? You are confusing Linux, which is in Chrome OS, with the popular Linux/GNU/X11/Blahblahblah stack that everyone uses at the moment... The Linux Kernel will still be there, and the entire OS will be open source. If Google's operating system takes over, then, so what? it's a victory for OSS. Certainly some parts of our typical linux stack could be improved tremendously.

World of Warcraft?

[Morbidsoul]

Wake me up when I can play World of Warcraft on it without jumping through hoops and editing random files.

OS-X doesn't run Explorer either

[Radical Moderate]

....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.

Re:Uh huh

[kzieli]

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.

Sorry I broke your inherency

[ClosedSource]

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.

[ot] Free speech laws

[bheer]

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).

Re:[ot] Free speech laws

[doshell]

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 [wikipedia.org] and Sweden [wnd.com] have had similar cases.

I totally agree with you in this matter. Freedom of speech in order to be effective must not contain "exception clauses"; otherwise it is far too easy to fall down a slippery slope.

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).

Note that I'm no expert on the Portuguese constitution, but my interpretation is that the freedoms granted by article 37 (or any other article, for that matter) can never be infringed by any law (see Part IV, Section I). However, rights can be suspended in a "state of siege or emergency", though only for a limited time, under strict guidelines, and certain rights (including freedom of conscience and religion) cannot be infringed (article 19). As far as I know, this has never occurred since the current constitution is in force.

I don't know how the US stands *constitutionally* in this regard, but I'm going to speculate that if the installed powers wanted to curtail basic rights in a time of great distress (war, terrorist attacks, etc) they would have no trouble doing so, even if that amounted to bypass any kind of legislation or "constitutional promise". I believe the situation is similar in any democracy of the world...

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 don't see how the US is different, in that regard, from any other constitutional democracy; one of the explicit purposes of a constitution is precisely to prevent the government from passing certain kinds of laws.

Re:[ot] Free speech laws

[bheer]

I don't know how the US stands *constitutionally* in this regard, but I'm going to speculate that if the installed powers wanted to curtail basic rights in a time of great distress (war, terrorist attacks, etc) they would have no trouble doing so, even if that amounted to bypass any kind of legislation or "constitutional promise". I believe the situation is similar in any democracy of the world...

The first amendment (in fact, the bill of rights) is notoriously difficult to work around in the US. There is not enough recent history of martial law being imposed (indeed, it can't be invoked except by Congress) but even when a "state of emergency" is declared, the bill of rights doesn't go away. New Orleans found that out after confiscating guns post-Katrina. Note that neither WW2 nor 9/11 affected the First Amendment in any way.

Now, reading about censorship in Portugal I do see that it's done a great job in ensuring freedom of speech. However, I wonder how it can reconcile that with imprisoning people for insulting national symbols (including other countries' symbols). Surely, this must be unconstitutional?

Re:[ot] Free speech laws

[doshell]

The first amendment (in fact, the bill of rights) is notoriously difficult to work around in the US. There is not enough recent history of martial law being imposed (indeed, it can't be invoked except by Congress) but even when a "state of emergency" is declared, the bill of rights doesn't go away. New Orleans found that out after confiscating guns [nraila.org] post-Katrina. Note that neither WW2 nor 9/11 affected the First Amendment in any way.

I'd say the Guantanamo affair is proof that 9/11 has provided a way to get around the Bill of Rights (though not specifically the first amendment).

Now, reading about censorship in Portugal I do see that it's done a great job in ensuring freedom of speech. However, I wonder how it can reconcile that with imprisoning people for insulting national symbols (including other countries' symbols). Surely, this must be unconstitutional?

In my interpretation of the constitution, it surely is unconstitutional. I actually find it very silly to legislate respect for the national symbols; I'm not obliged to love my country just because I live in it. I don't know if anyone has challenged that law yet.

Re:[ot] Free speech laws

[bheer]

> I'd say the Guantanamo affair is proof that 9/11 has provided a way
> to get around the Bill of Rights (though not specifically the first amendment).

Given the reaction to Guantanamo, I'd say it hardly provided a workaround. The Bush administration was hounded by critics until the very end, and even Bush admitted he wanted to close it (and given the troubles Obama's having closing it, I'm inclined to agree that it's complicated).

Also, Guantanamo is a very specific legal hack. It takes advantage of the fact that non-US citizens do not have rights outside US soil. American citizens could not get sent there without the government breaking the law.

Re:[ot] Free speech laws

[doshell]

Given the reaction to Guantanamo, I'd say it hardly provided a workaround. The Bush administration was hounded by critics until the very end, and even Bush admitted he wanted to close it (and given the troubles Obama's having closing it, I'm inclined to agree that it's complicated).

So it's okay if the constitution and the bill of rights are violated as long as everything turns out OK in the end? Go tell that to the people who were tortured there. Guantanamo is most definitely a workaround, even if it stops to be one someday.

Also, Guantanamo is a very specific legal hack. It takes advantage of the fact that non-US citizens do not have rights outside US soil. American citizens could not get sent there without the government breaking the law.

I have no words to express how that argument still shocks me today, even though I've heard it countless times. People who use it seem to think that all that matters are legal definitions. Guantanamo is freaking occupied by American forces. It was leased to them. It is as American as soil can be, in any sensible meaning of the word. And come on, non-US citizens? I am a non-US citizen. If I visit the USA and get murdered, mugged or raped there, does that mean the law gives me no protection? I'm not sure if I'll ever want to visit your country.

Look: please don't get the idea that I'm trying to spite you, or start a pissing contest, or anything like that. I just find it mildly curious that your signature claims the USA is a "freer" nation than others, and at the same time you fail to realize that all those granted freedoms are promptly papered over by your government whenever it suits them. Judging by our conversation, you do seem to be intelligent enough to not fall for that.

Re:[ot] Free speech laws

[bheer]

> I am a non-US citizen. If I visit the USA and get murdered, mugged or raped there, does that mean the law gives me no protection?

No, that's precisely the point. A person who's in the US, even illegally, has many rights. But what about a non-US citizen on non-US soil? Does he enjoy American civil rights? The law never thought to consider this case, and that's exactly why they put foreign detainees in Cuba.

_Normally_ laws are made for a country's own citizens and applied on its own soil. That's why Guantanamo is a (legal) hack in the precise Comp.Sci sense of the word -- using existing rulesets to do something 'legal' but icky. A bit like Duff's Device, if you will.

Guantanamo does something any right-thinking citizen would say "waitaminnit, that's just *wrong*", but still it's legal because people no one thought to write a law against it. However, the bigger point about Guantanamo is that the US populace's moral sense still evidently works, because now people started saying "well, if there isn't a law against it, there should be". That's what ought to give you some cheer.

Re:The one thing that could derail this would be..

[mjwx]

Mac OS for PCs. Wouldn't u love that?

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.

I want my data AND my apps on my local disk

[datadefender]

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.

Google + Linux?

[therufus]

Goonix anyone?

Excellent news

[dugeen]

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.

Things Change!

[_32nHz]

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.

IE Google App?

[DjDanny]

Has anybody got a version of IE written as a Google App so I can run it in the Chrome OS?

thanks

We've been here before - X terminals

[zevans]

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.

Photoshop or heavier wieght programs?

[cdpage]

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?

From Google Gears to ChromeOS

[hartur]

When you look back at Google Gears, you realize how important this piece will be for the next ChromeOS.

Printer drivers

[illtud]

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.

TinFoilHat = On

[UK Boz]

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? ]

Re:MS can't do this, but Google can

[kamatsu]

It's far more likely the OS will be like android in that browser-based apps are on equal footing with the rest of them, certainly no restrictions on what apps you can run. it'll be running the linux kernel so debian could still be hacked onto it if you tried hard enough.