Slashdot Mirror
Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral
Al writes "Technology Review has a feature article that explores the business strategy underlying Google's decision to develop its Linux-based operating system, Chrome OS. Writer G. Pascal Zachary argues that Eric Schmidt has identified a sea-change in the software business, as signaled by Microsoft's recent problems and by the advancement of cloud computing. Zachary notes that Larry Page and Sergey Brin have pushed to develop a slick, open-source alternative to Windows for around six years (with the rationale that improving access to the Web would ultimately benefit Google), but that Schmidt has always refused. While developing Chrome OS is a significant gamble for Google, Zachary believe it will exploit Microsoft's historical weakness in terms of networking and internet functionality, forcing its rival to better serve Google's core business goals, whilst initiating its own steady, slow-motion decline."
Microsoft like SEGA will survive after it's core product ends. Microsoft makes a lot of tools, these will still be used and profitable once Windows is gone (the thought of now more windows makes me giddy though)
I will gladly bet that Microsoft will still be a highly profitable company in twenty years. The fallacy of this write as with many other prognosticators is that the game is zero-sum. This is false. IT is growing and will continue to grow as long as there is an economy to support.
Microsoft likely will need to reposition itself in the market as Google grows. However, Microsoft will be a big player for at least another generation and likely many more.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
In Australia, does the MS death spiral go counter-clockwise?
I don't know the tech details of ChromeOS yet, but I get the impression it's mostly if not entirely net-based. I think that's going to leave Microsoft with a fairly comfortable marketshare even if it takes off because, to some extent, many people want *their* files and *their* processing to be solely under *their* control. There's something to be said for having your own house with your own yard and fence versus living in an apartment building with millions of other people. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Unless Chrome is going to take on Windows 3.0, I think that's stretching a wee bit...
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Chrome OS Designed To Start Microsoft Death Spiral
Hopefully that's not their primary goal. Remember, if your primary goal isn't to do something positive for the customer then it ain't gonna work.
... you've got a long way to go. You also need to consider that everyone is using something right now and you need to convince die hard Linux fans to leave their loyal distro of choice and follow you onward. That's just as important to success as targeting Windows, I would wager. Me, personally, would be impressed if you can get better hardware support and either work around Flash or pinch Adobe into supporting Flash on Linux. Those would be huge and I think would be highly decisive.
... nobody wants another Duke Nukem or Hurd where we're perpetually waiting and cracking jokes about it.
Luckily I know that there's a bit more to Chrome OS than Microsoft death threats. It's a nice thought but
Also, I'm glad they didn't break this news six years ago when they started thinking about it
My work here is dung.
Not that I'm a Apple advocate, but Apple has had a far superior OS to Windows for the last 8 years, and they've barely dented the PC market. If OS X can't change the Windows mindset, Chrome sure as hell can't.
Chrome is just a shiny object in Sergei's eye. It won't have an impact outside the geek arena.
John
Google: Buy our OS, it'll run on any computer and you can buy the speed you need.
It seems likely that this will be Google's new market once Chrome and the cloud are developed further. Microsoft and Apple will most likely follow suit.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
So will Chrome OS be required to support IE?
Truth is Windows will be around for a long long time, even if not on the home business, there is just too many corporations relying on windows for it to sink. I do believe the user base at home will decline heavily (Free Product vs Highly priced crap), but the corporate business wont trust a Google OS for many years to come. Big companies (Banks specially, I work at one) are very slow adopters.
Microsoft has been in a death spiral for years. It is the corporate equivalent of the undead :)
But seriously, Google are too big. Real paradigm shifts are brought about by small, agile organisations with a massive idea. Like mammals taking on the dinosaurs.
apt-get search will have advertisement on the right side
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Have you not learned yet? You've been screaming doom and destruction at MS for years now and it still hasn't even made so much of a dent. I'm glad that Google is entering the OS market - having another competitor, and one with a history of excellence that google has is a good thing. However, this is not going to start the death spiral of any thing, just like the chrome browser isn't killing any of the major players off.
These sensationalist headlines do not belong here.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
If MS starts making software for other OS-es than thier own, they can live happily ever after, can't they? Its one but biggest money maker is its Office suite. If they port that to other OSes than Windows and OSX they will stay in business, if they do it right.
-- Cheers!
It is geated for appliances, not general-purpose computers.
Now I will grant that most of what people do today would be easily fulfilled by an appliance. And we would all be far more secure with appliances that could not be subverted by botnets, viruses, trojans, etc. An email/web appliance would satisfy 99% of home users and probably could be slightly extended with web applications to work for 50-60% of business users as well.
So who is building the hot new appliance? Nobody. All previous email appliances have died, mostly from a lack of functionality. Today people see a very false progression from a full-function appliance to a "real ocmputer" as being a short leap, so why not take it? The reality is the appliance with limited (or zero) local storage and no ability to install software (or trojans, viruses, botnets, etc.) would be much, much better for everyone using the Internet.
Could you make an appliance immune to phishing? Probably.
OK, so Chrome OS would be great for an appliance... except nobody is even contemplating building an appliance today. With the thousands (millions?) of Windows-based x86 applications out there for our general-purpose computers, who is going to displace Microsoft? An OS with a rich API, multimedia capabilities and access to the full capabilities of a computer? Or an OS where the API is a browser and nothing else?
Sorry, but Chrome OS might be OK for a netbook. Maybe. It has no place on a desktop computer.
It's a good article, and well-worth reading. But it bears only a marginal resemblence to the teaser headline CmdrTaco has slapped on it...
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Is ultimately a fad. I do not see any real utility in giving control of my software and security to a third party company. In fact, just the opposite. Given Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo's dubious record for security, I and many other savvy computer users will not be welcoming our Cirrus overlords any time soon. It definitely holds little value to business and industry because they like to retain control over there information and rightly so. The disadvantage of going back to centralized computing is placing all your eggs in one basket: one intruder comprises a system and has gained, quite literally, the keys to the castle. It often shocks me to see how many people use twitter, facebook, and their ilk - just blindly eschewing their own privacy because something looks cool. This follow the crowd mentality, "sheeple," if you will is not a good a thing. It is amazing what information one can glean from these sites and if any become compromised, we open ourselves to identity theft on a scale unimagined.
I can't count the number of companies that have made the same claims only to be crushed by the Microsoft Juggernaut by simply having better PR and marketing. In fact the Bing marketing blitz over the last month has been very visible and well put together. Google search is remarkable but some of its functionality is not at all intuitive for the lay-searcher. Microsoft is trying to take advantage of that and if there's one thing Microsoft IS good at it's marketing.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Click here to start on page 1. The link in the summary is for page 2?
for their cloud and cell phone products
and Google's products are routinely left unpolished in the usability arena unlike Apple and MS. i gave up trying to scan my photos into Picasa and went back to one of Microsoft's free apps or one of the ones in MS Office. the google desktop has been banned in a lot of companies for its ability to kill MS Exchange and Blackberry Enterprise Server. Android is seen only on brand x cell phones where no one cares what the model is. iphone and pre seem to get the cool branding.
If Chrome OS is like any other Google product then Apple and MS have nothing to worry about.
I've been using Windows since DOS days in the early 80's.
I'd say I'm moderately skilled with Windows.
Nevertheless, I've tried a few different Linux distros - first Knoppix, then OpenSUSE, then Ubuntu G, then Ubuntu H.
Mainly I've quit bothering trying to use Linux, despite it running much faster than Win on any comparable hardware, and despite my personal PREFERENCE to move away from the ever-hungry machine of MS's licensing dept (oh, so I get to pay you every YEAR now?)...
Why?
1) simple laziness. Not really interested in climbing a learning curve at 41. Got better things to do with my time.
2) mimic Windows ease of use in terms of installs. If I want to install a program that's not on the "add application" list of programs that I get from whatever install server is my default, it should be no more complicated than downloading a file, and running it. If there are dependencies, add them to the damn install file.
3) much better automated hardware detection and support. I want to install a USB device? The OS needs to recognize the device and install drivers, or at least tell me where I need to go to get them. I was sick of DIP switch settings and dicking around with config files in DOS...I don't want to go back to that.
4) here's the killer: build in an invisible WINE-like function. Let me run native apps, and I'm sure they'll be faster. But if I want to run WoW and they don't have a linux client? Let me run it with the performance hit of some sort of shell, but let it RUN.
That said, the main hesitations for me are twofold:
- that installing Stepmania on a linux box for my kids to play on was absolutely AGONY. It wasn't just a matter of downloading, extracting, and double-clicking the Stepmania icon.
- I'm unwilling to adopt an OS that means that I can't play the entire bookshelf of computer games next to me without major screwing around. Yes, I do go back and play a fair number of Win95 games, as well as current cutting-edge ones.
So, I don't think my experience is that odd; if they want me to try ChromeOS, there's what I'd need to see.
-Styopa
If Google passes the line between privacy and convenience, we will read some horror stories about it and it can actually lead to some very interesting developments like FSF getting into the future drama as it will be based on Linux.
We may end up reading things like "World's first spyware OS" right here, on Slashdot. We may see FSF or Linus openly protest it.
Google thinks everyone buys their "not evil" kind of slogans and design software based on it. Someone should remind them that those times are over. Also, being open source won`t change a thing. If it gathers your location and posts it to Google servers, it won`t matter if it is open source or not. Even if they hire (!) rms to code it, it won`t matter.
It's first place is on that older computer that you built from parts that you are going to put in your parent's home or kid's desk. It's an excellent OS for a machine that's locked down so the user doesn't install something bad, but needs basic access to the Internet.
Once all the parents and children are using the machine, they'll want newer machines with ChromeOS preinstalled instead of paying the Microsoft or Apple tax.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Chrome OS is just Linux with Google's feature-lacking Chrome browser slapped on it. linux has made no real significant dent in the desktop or notebook space, why would anyone think a few marketing words added to that would make any real difference or be any real threat to Microsoft?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can you tell me what the hell is wrong with these people? I recently installed Windows 7 64bit and figured there is no 64bit flash for Windows. It makes IE 64bit pretty useless. Adobe gave up all things in hand to code a 64bit plugin on that anarchic compatibility hell (compare to OS X and Windows) and it somehow works and yet they manage to put Adobe to some unrelated discussion with falsified information.
Wonder if it has some deeper reason like some dirty PR campaign.
..to make Slashdot postings increasingly irrelevant. Can we ever get through a morning without another tired anti-MS post?
They've been running their own flavour of Linux at Google internally for a few years now, so it only made sense they would release it as a packaged OS sooner or later.
I suppose that's just too mundane for news though.
No, but it sure makes the summary less linkable.
Google OS, Defeat Windows? Sure, right up there with oh..you know..Linux defeating Windows too...
It'll happen as soon as RedHat or Suse become household names and Linux gains 40% of the everyday consumer market share with stores like Best Buy having half their software isles filled with software that runs from a command line or KDE/Gnome GUI.
Oh that's right, no one outside of slashdot, the silicon valley or the tech industry who is a joe average consumer has any interest in using anything other than Windows or Apple OS. The only way to defeat that would be to create an OS that could do everything that both Windows and Apple OS does as well as run everything that the both of them can run - NATIVELY, but you won't ever have a third party created that because both companies rely on too much proprietary garbage.
Ave Molech Setting
Do you really expect anyone to believe that the cost of the computer is the cost of your computing?
Intelligent people who also factor in other costs often end up choosing Macs as the TOTAL low-cost alternative.
I bought a Mac for my wife, it is by far the cheapest solution because I spend zero time fixing it for her.
Judging by the headline, I suppose Google wants to turn all PCs into dumb terminals therefore stagnating all consumer PC makers and suppliers' margins by de-emphasizing local hardware (consumers would only need netbooks afterall). Somehow I think the collective ingenuity of companies who depend on local hardware and software will not bow to Google (this includes Intel, Dell, Apple, etc., etc.). Just like Android, I'm sure it's not exactly what the rumor mill speculates. I'm hoping it's just another OS choice for consumers, and nothing more. Choice = good.
I still say "Google Linux" will give linux name brand credibility. Corporations will start to look at it. Other IT vendors, both big and small, will be able to add to it, and market it as being however thin or fat as you need. m$ took proprietary hardware out of the picture, and gave us a proprietary OS on commodity hardware. Isn't the next logical step a commodity OS on commodity hardware?
There really haven't been that many attempts at a wide-market OS overall. Not even if you start before Microsoft. I suspect most people here could name the major players off the tops of their heads.
Now if you're talking overall products, well you brought search into it and doesn't that kind of argue against your point?
I saw this opinion piece in PC magazine earlier this year. These companies excel in their main domain, but flouder in the others.
Does Photoshop CS4 run on Chrome OS?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
brands with a solid base of customers who care nothing about the underlying mechanics of their products. Both can make any changes they wish in the blink of an eye and it would make no difference to the majority of the customers at all. ... Micrix http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4727267.stm
Just like Apple did.
As Bill Thompson has observed with the financial resources of either it take about a year to produce for example
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
For a company that wants to take on MS, arguably a total monopoly that has cracks, they are doing things wrong. They need to port all of their apps to Linux SOON. I know, I know, they want Web Apps. BUT, they have items like Sketch and Google earth that should run better and faster on Linux if they have ANY hope of taking on MS. Also, the commercial versions MUST be cheaper on Linux than on Windows. Without that, they are simply spinning their wheels.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Year of the Google Desktop!
It ain't the kernel that's slow and bloated about either Windows or Linux.
I don't really understand TFS' contention that Chrome is a "gamble" for Google. It is uncertain, of course, whether or not Chrome OS will become popular, erode MS' margins, and so on; but "gamble" has the connotation of being high stakes and the stakes just don't seem that high.
The browser portion of Chrome OS is a project Google is working on anyway, so that doesn't represent an additional cost, Linux is free, with only customizations costing money, MS is trying to eat Google's lunch anyway, so upsetting them further has not additional cost, Gears, NaCL and other browser extension projects are also being worked on anyway, so they don't cost extra.
I'm not saying the cost is zero, obviously it isn't; but the cost isn't huge(either or in proportion to Google's resources) and, even if the project fails, much of the engineering effort is directly applicable to other, already successful, Google projects. I'm just not seeing the "gamble" here...
Ignored by the press and most younger users is the value of time.
When you are less than 35 or 40, it seems like you have time for everything and time forever. Not true.
Once you look at the time required to support an OS rather than get significant work done, your perspective changes.
If your work is only email & web work, fine, use the cheapest laptop that works.
If you use Creative Suite, 3D modeling in any manner of appls or intensive audio-video, forget "cheap" hardware, as it is NOT cheap in that mode.
Well over a dozen friends have switched to Macs in recent years & everyone has done it to limit lost time.
At their core, Microsoft has always been much more interested in applications than in systems software and that's why they have historically been slow to recognize paradigm shifts in the user space...such as when the internet appeared and they were late in providing tcp/ip for Windows. Microsoft originally provided applications development tools and backed into providing systems software only when IBM wanted an OS (DOS 1.0) for their then-new PC. Microsoft has released several new iterations of Windows but their heart has never been into it like it has been for Excel or Halo 3. The biggest reason that people still buy Windows is because it runs Microsoft Office and a big part of 'updating' Windows is to ensure that the newest Office will only run on the newest Windows. So...taking the long point of view, it might be that Windows (but not Micrsoft) is looking at a setting sun but Microsoft will always be very strong in applications and applications development...because that's what they do well.
Everything's relative. Compared to Windows, the Linux monolithic kernel is extremely lean and lightweight, because it is separated from the upper layers of the OS.
Microkernels aren't the answer if you botch the rest of the OS architecture - Windows NT being the shining example of this. When designing something new from the ground up instead of using a proven code base as your foundation, you vastly increase the chances of doing just that (botching the rest of the OS architecture.)
People have been bashing the Linux monolithic kernel architecture for "bloat" since the early days of the Torvalds vs. Tanenbaum flamewar. Look where Tanenebaum's "oh so superior" OS has gone in the past decade and a half compared to the "bloatware" Linus released.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
You know what keeps me in the Windows world, the one thing nobody else has attempted, a freakin 3d api that would compete with Direct X.
Until that day comes, you can keep your linux crap.
If you thought Microsoft was bad, Apple had a closed ecosystem, and Comcast Cable was an obnoxious monopoly, visualize a world where your netbook running Google's OS is permanently tethered to Google's servers.
Note, for example, that there is no workable ad blocker for Chrome. (AdSweep was discontinued due to lack of interest.)
Google observes that Windows is too complicated, slow and bloated. But another big bloated monolithic solution such as the Linux kernel doesn't seem an answer. Why don't they go with a microkernel architecture based on something such as Minix 3? We've known for years the potential advantages of microkernels: smaller, simpler, more robust.
You've just got yourself tied up here already. NT is probably the most popular microkernel architecture in the world. What makes it "hybrid" is pretty minimal... it's a lean mean high-performance microkernel. A lot of what still made it hybrid has gone away in NT 6.
I don't think Chrome OS has a shot in hell in outperforming Windows 7 or Mac OS X at any media application aside from the Chrome Browser itself. Google simply lacks the organization and expertise to create something like DirectX or CoreVideo, or any of the advanced mature media frameworks available in the big name desktops. If they really had that capability, it would have started peaking out in Android, which lacks all sorts of hardware acceleration features that Win CE and iPhone OS offered. It's very web-ish.
Let's be clear: we're talking about an in-development environment that will essentially be a web browser running on a framebuffer on a linux kernel with a lean non-gnu stack. It's not a general purpose OS. It's going to grab a small chunk of the super-casual market such as netbooks, probably defeat any desktop linux in existence by an order of magnitude, then fall flat on its face in front of anyone who needs to get serious work done or produce attractive documents or edit media, from housewives to students to professionals.
What we're looking at isn't a juggernaut but a curiosity. I anticipate it's going to kick ass for people who only use their web browser, though. It'll really simplify things for them and offer them an extremely fast boot-to-web experience. I think it will succeed in what it's trying to accomplish, but it's just far too small in scope.
And even the potential for formal verification to prove that it really is bug free, something that Windows and Linux are far too large to ever accomplish.
What sort of verification would you be talking about? We're talking about a desktop environment built out of WebKit, so I think their potential security will be lower than what Windows offers... I think they're banking on the fact that they likely won't offer a native execution environment outside of Native Client. Of course, this is assuming Native Client isn't just a modern ActiveX waiting to be exploited upon deployment.
The main disadvantage I've heard is a perception that a microkernel architecture by necessity imposes a performance penalty. The ability to survive buggy driver code has a flip side in the supposed overhead required to jump in and out of user space whenever the microkernel calls on these drivers.
There are modern pure microkernels out there which perform blazingly fast... Green Hills INTEGRITY is an example. They've gotten around a lot of these little problems in a brilliant way. The open source community is trapped within debates from the early 80's, it's really big world outside of UNIX. Microkernels beat Monoliths on every front aside from brute simplicity. Monoliths can be "elegant," but linux is anything but. Compared to the gnu/linux ecosystem, Windows is extremely well organized and clearly architected.
Google is not looking to innovate in the operating system market, clearly. They're simply doing what so many desktop linux distributions failed at when trying to make a casual OS. They're using Linux because it'll save them time writing difficult boot and driver code and ultimately save them money. They're not writing their own kernel because they're not really going to compete with Windows. I don't think Google really has what it takes to create a serious new kernel, anyway-- or even clean up Minix enough that it performs competitively.
My final
Barack Obama is way ahead of you.
Keep up that talk, as the worse it seems, the more secure Obama and the Democratic party will be in 2010 and 2012. The trouble is that you're betting all of the Republican political hay on "the economy is going to fall apart", but it won't, and besides most people still blame the Republicans for getting us into the this trouble in the first place.
In the end, you're betting against the American Worker, good luck with that.
I believe that a fairly quick turn around now that housing and oil have corrected, and it looks like we will have missed the "10% jobless" mark just barely. In typical recessions jobs (re)growth tends to lag, but this recover will have the addition of a the stimulus package which is just starting to create new jobs and the census which will be creating a million more jobs soon. We should be mature in the economic recover by maybe a year from November, just in time for the Republicans to bleed some more senate seats, I don't care to who; maybe someone can restart the old Whig party.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Linux is superior to Windows in many ways. OSX is also superior in many ways.
It's nothing to do with the OS. There are two factors that drive change. Price, and features (and by features, I actually mean the software you can use on it. The OS is worthless on its own to an end user.)
OSX (or the hardware that runs it) is more expensive, so that keeps many users, and big business out.
Linux may be free, but there's no truly viable MS Office alternative, nothing that matches Exchange, there's no professional level Photoshop, there's nothing to edit videos with, nor post processing, good luck doing complex audio work. Sure you can browse the web, and do many things, but not at the convenience/utility level that you can in Windows. If you work in an office environment, you'd have to be a zealot to use Open Office, and you'd struggle to get your corporate email and meeting system working. If you are a creative professional -- Linux is completely worthless. Sorry, but it is. I wish that were not the case, but there's no professional-level creative apps for Linux.
And that's is why there's been no year of Linux so far. End users don't care about the OS that much, they care about what they can install on it. Of all the programs available for Linux, few are of comparable quality to those available to Windows or OSX.
And this will be the case for Chrome OS too -- at least in the short term.
Visual Studio is quite OK, but at the moment pretty much Windows only. If Windows suffers a serious loss of market share, Microsoft might have to create Mac or Linux versions ;-)
This said, I think many people overestimate how fast this might happen. Windows is pretty entrenched on the desktop (and laptop) and won't be displaced there easily.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The biggest problems with computer systems is configuring them, and once you do configure them, cloning that configuration to another system.
Chrome will need to do two things:
1) Make Chrome nice and shiny like the Mac OS, Vista, and Windows 7
2) Make it bullet proof and easy to configure and deploy.
They need device drivers for almost everything, and support for making drivers easy to build, debug, and to find. Make a system configuration easy to examine, modify, clone, and combine with the configurations of other systems.
Do that, and Windows is toast. Personally, I'd like to see more than just an OS that beats Windows. Linux really mostly does that already.
I think that the real game changer for Operating Systems will come from a complete redesign of an OS from the ground up with an eye on cheap memory, cheap disk space, fast communication between components in a computer system. I can envision an Operating System mostly stripped of functionality but provides connectivity to the various components in the system. Applications bring their own "file system" implementations to manage bulk storage provided by the OS. Interfaces to Applications provide the means to publish public views, but file structures private to the application would be sealed by the application rather than the OS. Why do we expose the guts of every application, other than to save disk space, which we squander anyway? An Application and the files you use to run your application are all a public view should expose.
Mice and keyboards are inputs to a application, but why must it be local? Why can't my mouse scroll from one computer system to another? Cut and paste between computer systems? We have the bandwidth, we have the connections. A desktop should be a means to show a view, but not necessarily of an application on my system. Maybe I need to run an application somewhere else. And lastly, why should an application have to be "ported" between a Mac or Windows system? Only because applications get wound around the functionality these OS's provide. However, mostly this is only a few megabytes of code. Cut the OS functionality accessed by an application (and allow the application to use various sets of libraries instead) and the effort to make a Windows application or Mac application or Linux application gets drastically reduced.
The real key to moving people into a cloud computational environment is making all the effort of configuring a system also move easily over the network. Microsoft can't really do that because they are tied into proprietary which is protected largely because it is hard to configure a computer system. Let's see what Google does.
Chrome isn't going to be that, but one can always dream.
Look where Tanenebaum's "oh so superior" OS has gone in the past decade and a half compared to the "bloatware" Linus released.
While I agree with the rest of your post, this example is just wrong.
Minix adoption has nothing to do with the architecture, and everthing to do with the license and Tannenbaum's goal, which was a simple OS to use for education.
Up until recently Minix's license was almost hostile to commerical exploitation, and Tannenbaum himself refused patches and feature requests that would make Minix more than an educational tool.
It really had nothing to do with the architecture, and everything to do with the personalities of the people behind the projects.
If Google is serious about developing a new OS, they're going to have to release hardware to run it. Why? To circumvent Microsoft's death-grip on the personal computer market, for one thing. If people remain convinced that they must have a PC, and it remains difficult to buy a computer that does not have Windows bundled with it, then Microsoft will keep raking in bucks, and the pre-installed MS OS will act as a barrier to unsophisticated users who want to run Google's OS.
Of course, the new hardware does not have to be a personal computer. Indeed, I think it's likely that the Google OS won't run primarily on devices like the personal computers of today. That's because the PC is on the verge of extinction. One hardware platform for Google OS is obvious: phones. Netbooks is another. And then there's e-book readers and game consoles. In fact, Google may never enter the PC marketplace if they agree with my hypothesis that the PC is about to go: most people want appliances that connect them to facebook, the web in general, e-communication (email is old-fashioned, you know), entertainment media, games and whatever else that's available out there. Light business applications needed by individuals can be run on a server (owned by Google, probably). Most people just don't need a computer—all they need is a thin client to connect them to services.
Would that kill Microsoft? It would pound some nails into their coffin...but it won't necessarily be fatal—they still have their huge business market. However, that market may change also: a workgroup or intranet "cloud" composed of central servers and thin clients makes a lot more sense than maintaining tens of thousands of PCs in a large corporation, or even hundreds of PCs in a smaller one. Will the corporate cloud be a Microsoft cloud? There's arguments for this: corporations are more concerned with the security of their data, so are less likely to trust it to some server outside their firewall. Corporate IT departments are highly conservative, and like to deal with known quantities—i.e., vendors they've dealt with before.
The question is how quickly Microsoft will adapt to the change. They have to stop thinking in terms of pumping out new operating systems, and start developing client/server networks and applications that run in such an environment.
If I'm right, and business turns back to the corporate mainframe/client model, then there will be many opportunities for vendors other than Microsoft to sell their solutions to businesses which want to save some money, or perceive value in the competing system. Businesses will no longer be locked into software as part of a hardware purchase in which there is no real choice of operating systems, as they are today. The best-case scenario—from Microsoft's viewpoint—is that we go back to something like the days when IBM dominated, but did not wholly own, the business IT market. There will be vendors to compete with Microsoft, just as there were DEC and Amdahl.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Windows has Office, Photoshop, web browsing and email, and a huge pile of big-name games from big-name vendors.
MacOS has Office, Photoshop, web browsing and email, Final Cut Studio, and a (very, very) few of the big-name games from the big-name vendors.
Linux (Ubuntu, Chrome, etc) has OpenOffice, web browsing and email.
Not intentionally trolling here, but the fact is that not everybody is a web or software developer. Every modern OS has a basic suite of internet access and media playback apps, but the fact is that people buy windows machines for a few reasons - it's What They Know, They Don't Know Any Better, and Their Game Or Application Doesn't Run On Anything Else* being the most common.
Bottom line, if all you need is a browser, a mail client, media software and a text editor... you can be OS Agnostic. You can choose whatever works best for you. Chrome could work for you as well as Mac OS X or Ubuntu or whatever.
If you're a gamer, a graphic artist, or do any sort of 3d modeling, Linux isn't on the table... and neither is the idea of running your application in a web browser.
From what I've read, I'd be able to do with Chrome what I can do with every other current OS on the market. And there's a LOT I won't be able to do with it.
So. What's the killer app? What compelling reason is there to use Chrome when everything out there already does web and email while giving me productivity ability that still doesn't exist on linux?
Disclaimer : I was seriously thinking on getting a netbook until I got my iPhone, at which point a netbook seemed pretty irrelevant. I was looking at Hackintoshing a Dell Mini 9, as the price is right and it would give me the applications I want to be able to use on the fly - stuff I can't do with the iPhone, but stuff I wouldn't be able to do with ChromeOS, either.
* File format tie-in is a big one here - I can't move to linux even if I wanted to thanks to my productivity hinging on (literally) hundreds of gigs of .psd and .max files. Switching to a 3d app that isn't Max or a pixel-pusher that isn't Photoshop would incur hundreds of hours of work cleaning up and retexturing models, environments and source documents for the new app, to say nothing of the learning curve.
They're the Energizer Bunny of the computer world, even if they have to steal or assassinate their competition to keep going.
The reason stealing and assassination worked in the past was because Microsoft was competing with overpriced, closed source competitors: they cloned stuff from their competitors and then drove them out of business by undercutting them.
Good luck trying to do the same with Chrome OS and other open source projects. In fact, the absolute best thing Microsoft could do for their competitors is to copy Chrome OS and ship it.
So, Microsoft, please do "steal" Chrome OS. I don't even mind if you modify it a little.
Why is it than whenever there's one of these death to microsoft articles, no one brings up DirectX?
Are there any decent games for a Mac since Oregon trail? Are there any 3D games for Linux that don't look like Tron?
All the games that matter ARE zero sum. Telecoms. There were only so many cell phone buyers. Once they all had phones, the cell phone business shrank to replacement only and the telecoms business collapsed. Computers. Pretty much every desktop that is going to have a PC has one now. That business has gone to replacement only. If it weren't for virus infections making people throw their PC's away every couple of years, the desktop PC business would have dwindled to a very low ebb. Notebooks. The same thing will happen.
And so on and so on. Of course IT will not GROW forever, any more than the economy it serves will grow forever. It will stagnate. The fresh mammal businesses will fluourish to an extent, and the dinosaur businesses will implode and die off.
Given a ridiculous continuing population explosion, capitalism cannot long continue in recognizable form either. Stripped of idealistic verbiage, capitalism is about greed, and as the pool of flesh outstrips any possibility of supplying enough STUFF, the stink is going to get bad as vast numbers die off in order to support a shrinking percentage having their luxuries. It doesn't take much insight to see that open source initiatives, tapping a vast pool of talent who contribute for no direct recompense, will bury the traditional capitalist software models.
As far as Microsoft being around in a generation, it's getting hard to visualize ANY of the existing capitalist entities lasting that long. I suppose the NAME could survive, in the form of a "Microsoft open source distro", or something, but it would be nothing like the present capitalist dynamo.
I think Microsoft is going to equally likely cause Google's death spiral. I'm already getting used to BING and hell I talked about BINGing something the other day. Google's key differentiator - providing information -- can be replicated.
I think that it's very likely that Google's first mover advantage could get trumped the usual Microsoft way.
Admittedly, i've not following much about the chrome OS past the initial blog post but there are a few things about the original anouncement that bothered me (in a linux unfriendly way) and they all start with "... new window manager ...".
The reason is simple, lets say you wanted to write an OS who's most important reason for existence is to be a web browser. Thats kinda exciting, but what could you could out of all this? X. Bear with me here. If you were a coder tasked with this little beauty, what would you be thinking? "I could do all this in chrome and get rid of x.org all together" especially if your targeting specific hardware platforms. The reason I think this is plausible is cause of google's own blog posts about the "nightmare" that is coding apps for linux distro's (i.e. multiple versions of this and that).
So what do you do? you take chrome, drop all the X/gtk/gnome code, add a little code that can talk directly to a video hardware interface in the kernel, add a little windowing code, add a dbus interface (think about that, that allows you to control almost all of the hardware on a linux machine), perhaps even add a little thing to talk to network manager seeing as how well that actually would control multiple types of networking interfaces these days. Add a small javascript routine to handle initial login stuff (for multiple users) and an audio control panel and we're done here, we have our web OS. The best part is? Its light, its fast, and it comes with none of the hideous chunk of code that is X/Fonts/Gnome/GTK/etc. Chrome already has a fairly basic file system browser - little effort to make it a bit more friendly and it'll function perfectly ok (you'll be doing some of this if your writing your own windowing stuff anyway).
The interesting one is games, something MS has dominated with no end in sight on the desktop and its the hardcore gamers that they all pitch to (EA, Blizzard, etc). Sure, take ipod style games and probably wouldnt be too hard to make them a web-deliverable (either a binary app coded for the google windowing platform or something that runs with "native client" or o3d or something), but hard core (you know, the ones that come on MULTIPLE dvd's these days?) are out of the question pretty much. Or perhaps they are not? remember a story a little while ago about pay-per-progression games? i.e. you get the game platform and it contains the basic content but you pay for new content as you progress through the game - that may lessen the pain of the multi-dvd games somewhat - again, speculation.
Also consider what apple did with the ipod/iphone. We have a system where by you cant even code for their platform without getting their SDK, if google were writing their own window manager, and its not X (by the way, thats my assumption, i've not seen anything to confirm that) and you could seriously do a very similar mechanism within chrome OS - i.e. a windowing platform thats licensed. I doubt google will go down that track, but there is an interesting tie-in with the way they handle android and its apps that could follow a similar path - i.e. SDK readily available - software distribution to handsets controlled by google. who's to say the jvm in android wouldn't make its way into chrome OS as well (Very likely really)...
just my 0.02c. In someway's i'd love to see it - i.e. an X replacement thats viable - but if your just aiming to do the bits above i mentioned, theres ALOT of things most window managers, systems and SDK do (i.e. widgets and stuff) and google just wouldn't need.... Then again, maybe we will all start coding web apps as desktop applications and tie it all into gears so you can run off-line as well... That wouldn't suck i dont think...
Only time will tell where it goes...
If like so many before them Google adopts a business the hinges on MS death spiral they will eventually learn that there is no money to be made in MS demise. There can be only one out come. They will fail to respond to real threats to their core business and come to realize that even with MS gone or diminished their own profits will not increase. I as a loyal Google customer want my needs to be served regardless of what happens to MS (which btw I do not care to use).
by absolutely no one, i hearby declare a moratorium on the phrase "cloud computing". at least on slashdot, i hope
the problem is, you aren't talking about anything when you use the phrase "cloud computing". you can talk about a specific software service on a specific channel, and what exactly is being serviced and for what reason and the implications of this service. then you have a concrete, valid topic of discussion
but when you say "cloud computing" you are referring to nothing in particular and therefore nothing at all. everyone knows what vague promising concept you are referring to when you use the phrase "cloud computing". we get it, we're excited by vague, promising big ideas out there on the edge too. science fiction is full of such ideas. emphasis on the word "fiction"
so at some point, you need to have a truly technical discussion, and drop the hype. much like real clouds, you're just full of hot air when you mention "cloud computing", at this point
now roll up your sleeves and get to realizing it and get into technical details, or you are just wasting our time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Cool!
We live, as we dream -- alone....
The point of Chrome is not for people to switch to Chrome. Nor is it to write killer apps unique for Chrome. The point of Chrome is to make Microsoft start writing web apps, and moving away from desktop. It's like luring the shark out of water to compete in your territory on the land. Google lives on the Internet, and Chrome OS is the Internet OS, that will hopefully move Microsoft to the Internet even more than they have (Office online, Windows Live etc). And more of Microsoft services online, the better it is for Google. Since Google are the king of Internet and in effect are making Microsoft compete with them outside of their core competence (desktop). And having to compete with Google online, takes away resources from desktop.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Its not just a new remix of Debian or Fedora - most people seem to be missing what could be potentially huge: Chrome will replace Xorg, and maybe also GNOME and KDE with something new.
I assume they wouldn't bother unless it will be superior to all of these, i.e. smaller, faster, more stable, and easier to code for.
Maybe it will even run games better, and maybe even include a directX-type graphics subsystem? Or maybe finally get OpenGL implemented correctly?
Hm, I bought a Mac Pro when they first came out 3 years ago. I don't understand how yours came to age twice as fast as mine...
Nowhere in the fucking article are there the words "death" or "spiral." Nor anything about MS getting killed or something.
Nice editing job.
Google good, Microsoft bad.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Unlike the earlier lumbering beasts, the Microsoft Dinosaur sees the little furry creatures running all around its ankles and knows that the Asteroid O' Doom is coming. And, it is doing its darn best to be prepared.
Microsoft tried a complete takeover the Internet in the 1990s and the early part of the 21st century, but failed. However, they came awfully close in succeeding.
Microsoft now sees a bigger threat to its core OS/Office franchise. When hardware prices drop low enough, the cost of the Windows OS itself, not to mention the cost of the Office software becomes relatively expensive. Who wants to pay $100 bucks for an OS on a $300 computer?
Microsoft sees the biggest threat is Linux and Web 2.0. Linux is free which makes it a rather interesting OS if you're a PC manufacturer building that $300 computer. Shall you charge $400 and offer Windows, or maybe just charge $300 with some OS based upon the Linux kernel?
The challenge to the Office franchise is not Open Office, but Facebook, Twitter, and Email. Most users no longer write paper letters (thus a need for a word processor). Now, they simply email or update their Facebook page. The price of the "Student" edition of Windows Office keeps dropping faster and faster, but sales in non-commercial settings are still slowing down.
But, Microsoft still has some tricks up its sleeves: SharePoint.
SharePoint is a collaborative environment that allows users to track, update, and create various projects. You can create a workflow, notify users when documents changes, and even build websites. Businesses love it. And, it uses exclusively Windows and even integrates tightly with Microsoft Office. Businesses love it.
However, if you're a Mac user, you are left out in the cold. It's much like what happened to the Mac business environment when Microsoft stopped updating Word for the Mac, and Mac users no longer could read their fellow coworkers' Word documents. And, don't think Linux users get any better treatment. By going the SharePoint route, businesses lock themselves into that Microsoft monopoly a bit longer.
And, because many computer users use their personal computer to access their work environment, they may now be forced to use Windows too. You think about buying that sleek little MacBook Pro? Think again! You can't use it to access your SharePoint projects.
So, thanks to SharePoint, Microsoft is breathing a bit more life in its dominate OS and Office market.
Pardon my rant- When is all this crap about "SaaS" and -pardon me while I choke on this over used phrase- "Cloud Computing" going to end? Who in the He11 would want their OS running on someone else's hardware? Who would want their data stored somewhere else? Who would want the possibility of the data overlords going through their stuff? Anybody who opts for this deserves what they get. Why the push to get computing out of the hands of people and in to the hands of people who can manipulate things?
"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer"- Jack Thompson
Google ISN'T too far off the mark.
Microsoft hasn't really done anything groundbreaking in regards to user interface (and even a lot of core functionality) in a pretty long time. The only thing more dated than their desktop and server OS's are their mobile devices. That said, they've got the best toolchain in the business and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't used it, period.
I read this though as "Google is more poised to become a bigger monopoly than Microsoft ever was". Google is a corporation that will inevitably become more and more focused on their shareholders. Since they set the bar that they want to do so many things "for free", all you can expect is that they'll continue to find new and possibly disturbing (in a security/advertising sense) ways to make money off their users if and when they can push Microsoft off the pile.
But Microsoft definitely is pretty vulnerable right now. They haven't been able to generate real excitement about any of their product releases with the masses for many years now. Apple and Google have that mojo, and Microsoft just doesn't. Microsoft seems to be growing into the new IBM in a lot of ways. Hating on Microsoft though just doesn't seem to make sense much anymore...at least not for a developer. The monopolistic stuff they used to be accused of is pretty much being done by everyone now, and Microsoft spends more of its resources on making really nice tools for development at the expense of innovation on their product lines. My hatred grew back when they wanted to squash all competition while providing flakey, inadequate development tools...now they're just trying to keep up with the latest trends while the old underdog companies like Apple and Google have kind of grown into what I really didn't like about Microsoft in the first place.
Please bear in mind that I say the following as a major linux fan. I have two homebuilt linux computers at home- one a server running Mandriva, the other a workstation running Kubuntu- and a linux netbook as well.
Unfortunately, these predictions of Windows' imminent death on the desktop at the hands of ChromeOS remind me of the predictions that 'next year' will be the year of linux on the desktop. Desktop linux, whatever its merits, is most likely doomed to be the monorail of computing. The monorail, you may recall, has been described as the transit system of the future; always has been, always will be. I suspect that the same could be said of linux: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.
At the same time, nobody in the linux world to this point has had anywhere near the market penetration of the Google folks, so things may be different this time. But past is precedent, and, in the past, linux hasn't made it on the desktop.
-Z
Last I heard about this OS is that it has been announced, not developed. At this point, it is their wish that it will be what they claim.
LOOGLE
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Like everyone, I enjoy a big fanboy post. I'm not too fussed who you are in favour of - personally, I'm split down the middle. I use Linux and Windows where they are best applicable. In a work environment I don't see them as competitive. DNS, SFTP etc servers are Linux, Windows handles the desktop. GPO does a great job in an enterprise environment.
For anyone who has actually worked in a real "work" (corporate) environment, I would ask: "What would your job be like if MS/Windows ceased tomorrow"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Chrome OS will be nothing more than an elaborate browser unless major software companies port their software over.
I'm not holding my breath...
The only clouds I or anyone I know will be computing are the clouds from a bong.
Cloud computing is for fanboy tools who are feckless clueless idiots gullible enough to entrust whats left of their privacy and personal time as their online apps hang and fail while sucking their souls until they are lifeless.
Beyond the cloud, chrome could be successful in a niche sort of way since they are competing against the McDonalds of computing and like McDonalds, MS will weather, endure and even thrive if not outright prosper no matter what the geek crowd thinks.
You fail to realize YOU are not the norm, thank god!
After all MS is a platform that works and has worked and all the linux, open source fanboy whining here cant change that.
What I would recommend for you all, get out the bong and compute some clouds for a new perspective, you sorely need one.
What I think Microsoft will continue to dominate at is Office apps. MS Office has always beat Google Docs for usability and with the introduction of web-based MS Office products I think Microsoft is already preparing to capitalize on its strengths.
The EOL for Microsoft Office 2007 is 2015 I believe. What killer features is Microsoft going to offer in that time frame? Why upgrade at all? Products like KnowledgeTree already provide the needed document management features around existing documents and even if Microsoft moves further in that direction (Sharepoint) the space is already well catered for. Microsoft Office has some insane utilization figures in the Fortune 500 companies - it's effectively 100%.
We're at the point where we don't need to upgrade our hardware every two years to remain current. Companies are moving to 3/4/5 year replacement cycles on hardware and may even push beyond that. Each year extra on existing hardware reduces the MS Windows income. Some companies have started to investigate OpenOffice.org/Symphony/Google Docs instead and ANY that move in that direction are depriving MS of future revenue.
Besides Office, (and windows which as mentioned I think has a limited lifespan left), they also are prime supplies of development tools (Visual Studio) and SQL Server. In the future I see ports of SQL Server to non-Windows platforms, as well as more shifts in Visual Studio towards developing web-based applications.
Porting SQL Server to a non-Windows platform would be interesting because that would almost certainly involve a Linux port. What are the alternatives? Mac OS X server farms are few and far between. The principle database platforms these days are Linux, AIX, Solaris, z/OS and p-series. Oracle and IBM both have heavy and extensive presence on these platforms. It's tough to see how SQL Server could displace enough entrenched customers to make the port plus support actually make a profit.
Visual Studio is an interesting issue but again, that would be entering a crowded marketplace. Also the number of developers is considerably less than the number of people who need an office suite, so even if the profit margins are high, it's not going to be a massive cash cow.
Now, I don't think that Microsoft is going to shut its doors in the next ten years. However, I doubt the company will be wielding anything like the influence it does today.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I have a G1, and if Android is an example of what Google can do for an OS then I don't think anyone really needs to worry.
load "$",8,1
This is what one of Microsoft's Open Source competitors had to say about SharePoint:
Microsoft has found a way to create ties between SharePoint and its more traditional products like Office and Exchange. Companies can tweak Office documents through SharePoint and receive information like whether a worker is online or not through tools in Exchange. These links have Microsoft carrying along its old-line software as it builds a more Internet-focused software line.
"SharePoint is saving Microsoft's Office business even as it paves the way for a new era of Microsoft lock-in," said Matt Asay, an executive at Alfresco, which makes an open-source content management system. "It is simultaneously the most interesting and dangerous Microsoft technology, and has largely caught its competitors napping."
Microsoft has managed to undercut even the open-source companies playing in the business software market by giving away a free basic license to SharePoint if they already have Windows Server. "It's a brilliant strategy that mimics open source in its viral, free distribution, but transcends open source in its ability to lock customers into a complete, not-free-at-all Microsoft stack - one for which they'll pay more and more the deeper they get into SharePoint," Mr. Asay said. Microsoft's SharePoint Thrives in the Recession [Aug 7]
SharePoint is the hottest selling server side product for Microsoft ever.
In its next iteration, SharePoint will have "stronger ties to the corporate search technology Microsoft acquired in the $1.2 billion purchase of Fast Search and Transfer. Best Buy uses the Fast technology today to provide on-the-fly pricing information to customers performing product searches on its Web site."
The Net Applications global market stats for July are out. The weakness of Linux and FOSS in these stats is startling - and if you were looking for evidence of a real "death spiral," this would be a good place to begin.
Operating System Market Share [Rounded]
XP 73%
Vista 18%
OSX 10.5 3%
Linux 1%
OSX 10.4 1%
W2K 1%
Win 7 1%
Browser Version Market Share
IE 6 27%
IE 7 23%
FFOX 3 16%
IE 8 12%
FFOX 3.5 5%
Chrome 2%
Safari 2%
Country Level Weighting
This is great for computing, fresh ideas will help the market, but there are way too many Windows Apps that are just too central to business for this switch to happen overnight. Eventually, most all of the software world will be open source and you might get a lot of mainstream users playing with Chrome OS on their household PC's but again, until it's fully compatible with the top apps out there, or the open source world replaces those top apps with open source versions in the professional sector this revolution you guys are imagining will just be a pipe dream.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/technology/companies/17blue.html
I.B.M.â(TM)s earnings per share rose 18 percent in the second quarter. Net income was $3.1 billion, a 12 percent increase from a year earlier.
I.B.M.â(TM)s software business, Mr. Loughridge said, is on track to generate $8 billion in pretax profit this year, compared with $2.5 billion in 2000, while the big services business should produce about $8 billion in profit this year, compared with $4.5 billion in 2000. The two units are expected to account for about 85 percent of I.B.M.â(TM)s pretax profit in 2009.
Microsoft would love to be that profitable; instead, after MS announced their large loss for the first quarter of 2009 they stopped issuing profit forecasts for the rest of the year.
I think Chrome OS is just starting for Google. They will create a huge system for PC's.
should be able to run Windows software as well as use Windows drivers. ReactOS has a better chance of starting that Microsoft death spiral than ChromeOS. People still need to run the OS on legacy hardware and run legacy software with the new OS.
Which is why Windows Vista failed and why Windows 7 Pro and up have that XP virtual machine.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Linus should put the Linux kernek under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP, otherwise Linux risk to be bypassed by Google.
There's no excuse to not to user the internet enabled version of the GPL license for any program that could be run on a server, starting by the kernel.
Google takes from open/free source, but does not return any significant portion of his technology. No state of the art ocr processing, no decent image indexing, nor textual search technology, etc ,etc. They are releasing only the portions that does not represents any thread to his bussines (ie: tesserac & ocropus for OCR).
The next target is the kernel, let's at least protect-it under the AGPL.
What's in a sig?
Back when BBS' and FidoNet were hot stuff. That quote still makes me chuckle today. ;) Dang, I'm old. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It's not WINDOWS that forces businesses to keep buying new versions Windows... It's OFFICE. Cross suite compatibility is never complete, so document conversion and retraining are WAY to expensive to justify changing office suites, even when it's 'free'. And that includes Outlook (and subquently Exchange).
Sure, windows has some nice services (domain login's, etc.) but that's not enough to cement it into the heart of business.
It's their DATA.
If you're going to replace windows, your replacement better run OFFICE.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
All over the web, there are stories about the IE-killer, the Firefox-killer, and, yes, the Microsoft-killer.
Everytime I read these stories, I know that the author is a small-minded person, who is incapable of coping with the complexities of marketing, personal preference, and technical needs. Or, he is yet another drama llama, catering to small-minded readers.
Boys and girls, if you've read much of what I post, you will KNOW that I don't like Microsoft. In fact, I despise Bill Gates. But, there is nothing on the market that is going to kill Windows, or kill Microsoft. No matter HOW GOOD ChromeOS is, no matter HOW MUCH Linux improves, no matter how many new arrivals on the scene might be, there will still be a market for Windows.
I would LOVE to see Windows reduced to about 20% market share. But, killed off? It isn't happening, any more than Linux is going to be done away with.
Microsoft death spiral. What nonsense. What is most likely to happen is, Chrome will indeed eat into Microsoft's cash flow. But, there are living people with working minds over at Microsoft. They will adapt, and they will respond. I have no more idea than the next guy HOW Microsoft will respond, but they will pick up the pieces and go on. That huge, multi-billion dollar company isn't going to dry up and blow away in any of our lifetimes, just because Google has come out with the "NEXT BIG THING!"
CmdrTaco and anyone else posting these stories is just engaging in baseless FUD.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Ok, therein lies the biggest misconception of a Mac. It doesn't "quickly go obsolete."
You can see this effect by searching ebay or the like for old Macs. They retain a high resale value for quite some time...
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Can you name any real world markets that are 'regulated' solely by the 'price mechanism'?
I have a hunch Chrome OS is more about taking on Apples tablet, which introduce a more or less full fledged OSX install which, and mark my words here, will be locked down just like the iPhone and it's App store. Spiffy interface and a killer App store will mask the gilded cage your in and the total utter control Apple will have over your computing experience. Popsci has a excellent write up on how the Apple Tablet could ruin computing. http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadgets/article/2009-08/how-apple-tablet-could-ruin-computing
/.ters here Chrome will not be killing Windows, barely chewing away some market share around the fringes.
Could they go further, possibly introduce an App Store for their desktop OSX platform, oh but to use it you have to accept EULA that gives them a kill switch for your applications?
Apple is close to the unique position of being arbitrarily make something illegal on their newest computing platform. That is if, of course, they suceeed in making Jailbreaking outright illegal. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal Yes it's ok to be disturbed.
This no doubt worries Google. Google really does not like any barrier to getting their applications and projects to the market (have you noticed too?). Apple could shut them out of a platform on a whim. They don't like that risk.
Oh wait, it has happend, with Google Voice.
As established by intellegent
In the PC world Apple has a small market share, but they own 70% of the smartphone market. Google's response to this was Android and Android Market which has done wonders to free up the smartphone market, Microsoft certainly wasn't up to the task this time around.
Apple Tablet would no doubt sell like hotcakes and you can bet Apple netbooks will follow soon after. Chrome is an attempt to get their first, stop a repeat of the iPhone market domination.
I'm waiting to see if I'm wrong.
I've suspected Google really has something up their sleeve with Chrome OS. You get the impression they've only just started on this, but it's also obvious it has been in development in secret for a long time, the announcement timed only to take a little thunder of Microsoft. I would go so far as to say the two were developed in paralle, perhaps even had working code perhaps a year before Chrome went BETA.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
"Chrome designed for Online OS to Challenge Apple" would be far more accurate.
Pure Net connection devices are already proliferating and with Apple set to enter the fray, it will get far more intense for the OS that delivers the best look, feel and ease of use. Maybe Google has a big edge over Microsoft, but NOT over Apple.
If Chrome can do it, great, more power to Google.
Apple has already shown in spades that it can create a superior online device OS that doesn't restrict the end users ability much (given the physical form factor of iPhone), and that consumers will buy it by the tens of millions each year. Apple already has the vertical integration from programming tools, OS, hardware design, chip design, manufacturing systems & consumer image to support a new form factor device, and there is no question they are ready to deliver a device with no OS creation at all.
Google seems to be setting itself up to compete with Apple not Microsoft.
I'm posting this in Chrome, so ChromeOS should be excellent for posting anti-MS comments on Slashdot. I won't need Windoze anymore. Can't wait. It's even spell checking this post (not that I pay attention to all those little red squiggles).
I thought Vista did that? :)
Seriously tho, Microsoft isn't going anywhere as a company. Even if you took the desktop market totally away from them ( which wont happen ) there is still the server and app space.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I figured it would be free. It would be connecting to their 'cloud' that will cost $, either directly via payments or indirectly via advertisements.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Something that obviously appeals to most kids (= future market) is gaming. I can't resist to wonder what would happen if Google got into gaming and broke the de facto DirectX pc gaming monopoly. Besides that i think it's obvious someone at Google needs an OS to sync their Android data with. Damn i'm so 2000, i keep forgetting about the cloud!
I will admit that major OEMs may be more likely to pre-install Chrome OS than a typical Linux distro simply because of the Google brand name, but other than that, what advantages will Chrome OS have over any decently configured Linux distro?
My strong suspicion is that the critical/shiny bits of Chrome OS may be closed source only and designed *not* to run on non-Chrome OS Linux distros to provide "added value". For example, will the Google OS kernel be fully open source or will have a magic closed source module that provides, say, a /proc/google special file that cats out some crypto string that can only be decoded by again closed source code embedded in the desktop/Google browser etc.? Without a proper crypto string, the app then simply refuses to run (yes, it could be binary hacked to bypass this, but it's messy doing that on all binaries and future updates).
If Google don't close source part of their OS (BTW, close sourcing the Chrome browser only may not be enough, since that's runnable on other Linux distros), then surely Linux can run (or imitate) the best bits of Chrome OS themselves anyway?
"The last three laptops I've bought have all been sub-$400."
So that's, what, "sub-$1200"? I prefer to buy *good* laptops so I don't have to buy one every 18 months.
Per year, you're probably spending more on cheap stuff than I do on "expensive" stuff. I think I've spent about $2500 on computers since 2001. That's a couple of current laptops and a pretty damn pleasant silent - and *fast* - desktop for non-trivial audio work. It *all* still works well (though the battery on the older laptop is pretty much toast).
I don't often make comments but don't write Microsoft off to early LOL. What sometimes amuses and enthralls me is that most give Bill Gates all the credit for Microsoft's success. The real man behind Microsoft is firmly in control at this point. When Bill first hired Steve Balmer Steve observed that Microsoft needed more people. Bill said NO but Steve went out and hired more people anyway. He's been a major force behind Microsoft's success from the day he was hired. He may throw chairs but he's a force to reckon with. There is no question that a great part of the world in 10 years will be thin client but that takes servers... MS will likely be around making money for a lot of years.
Microsoft's new OS is going to be called Aluminum, it will be polished so it will be shiny like Google's ChromeOS but not perform anywhere near as well under real world conditions.
You mean something like this? I'm betting that the reason they created it was at least partially motivated by the need for it in Chrome OS.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaltura - there you go
And when you think about it, if you have fast enough connection, it does make at least some sense - video editing is something that does require high CPU power, but only in short "bursts" (which fits nicely with shared server farm) / you don't do it very often.
One that hath name thou can not otter
competition just make Microsoft more strong - cause they will know what is worth
I really wish them to be better, their products to be faster and secure
I understand they want all to have - but most important thing is to be a second layer of PC - to be its OS - secure, fast, reliable and oriented for business and for users - because users after work - have to deal with something known
third layer as services could be done by third parties
blah blah blah blah blah blah I wish I were cool blah blah blah blah blah
The CB App. What's your 20?
Of course what I want to happen is wishful thinking as well. Having a 3rd major operating system available to the world will force Microsoft AND Apple both to clean up their acts. And hopefully, maybe google instead of trying to launch its own home media gaming system will instead bring gaming back to the PC where it belongs.
And this has been another installament of Captain Obvious!
And none of it will really matter because you won't be able to play all the cool games on it....
TuxRacer only takes you so far ;P
Sure, Google wants to hurt MSFT, and MSFT will retaliate where it hurts Google the most, search advertising revenues.
Google is every bit as reliant on Google.com search advertising as Microsoft is with Windows + Office. Just as Chrome OS is a bit of a long shot, so is Bing.com against Google.
No one really wants to see monopolies in any industry, that includes Microsoft in OS's and Google on the Internet. It'll be an interesting competition to watch, and I'm sure we haven't seen the end of it.
And I'm sure I'll be modded to hell for daring to say this, is why in the nine hells would Linux geeks want their OS to be "jack of all trades and master of none" when they have GOOD markets in which they can dominate? The server market is a GOOD market, the enterprise business desktop is a GOOD market, why would you want Linux to suck by trying to run it on all the craptastic hardware floating around?
I mean you don't see Apple trying to take on the Dells of the world, or compete with MSFT in the low end,why? Because they have a GOOD market niche and are making a nice profit where they are, that's why! The amount of work needed to get Linux to support the myriad of cheap chinese crap just being sold today is truly staggering, much less the tons of Windows only cheapo hardware released in the last 5 years. So why bother?
Instead of trying to force Linux to fit into a world where it really doesn't fit (the Windows home desktop) why not instead capitalize on the strengths of Linux and stick to where the money is at? If you want Linux to fit with Windows Home Users then CLI has to die, which will automatically get the geeks screaming for even suggesting it. But the Enterprise markets have admins that LIKE CLI, and have no problems running it. The same with servers. And both markets have much nicer margins than the home desktop.
So instead of constantly putting out this "year of the Linux desktop!" BS, or trying to bend over backwards to dumb down the UI enough that it will work for Windows Home users (News Flash: as long as CLI is the main way to fix problems in Linux it won't be ready for home users) why not take a page from the Apple playbook and simply not try? You have 2 markets where the CLI-centric and process centric layout of Linux is a real strength. These two markets also have MUCH fatter margins and are much more likely to pay support contracts than Windows desktops. So why not simply spend the limited resources on making Linux the baddest server and enterprise OS that it can be, instead of this craziness? Because unless CLI is completely removed from Linux, and the UI is so filled with hand holding and wizards that it would make RMS cry, then it just won't work for Windows Home users. Instead you could be like Apple and dominate your niche and watch the money trucks roll in.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
A little tidbit of information on the Chromium source code review site has revealed the primary processor for Chrome OS to run on will be an ARM Cortex A8 CPU, which raises some interesting questions about Googles aims for the product.
See more here:
http://www.omattos.com/node/9
Have you seen their current release list? Their core franchises are failing to get traction (Sonic, Phantasy Star, Golden Axe, Virtua Fighter). As a Sega fan since the Master System era I'm sad. What started their death? Bad decisions from the Saturn era and relentless competition from Sony? Yeah, but also they lost their President. When he died, they lost direction and focus. Well, Bill Gates has more or less retired, and he's not gonna live forever...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A little tidbit of information on the Chromium source code review site has revealed the primary processor for Chrome OS to run on will be an ARM Cortex A8 CPU, which raises some interesting questions about Googles aims for the product.
See more here:
http://www.omattos.com/node/9
more or less. As a tech, I can tell you that the only thing end users hate more than computers is backing them up. End users don't understand what goes on inside a computer, but they do understand that every aspect of their lives depends on them. So they're constantly stressed and worried about it crashing and it being their fault. It's all in marketing. Make the end users feel blameless for dataloss and NetOSes will sell like hotcakes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you are going to claim that Dell is cheaper than Apple, here's an opportunity to make some money. I'll paypal $100 to the first person who can find a Dell laptop that is cheaper than Apple and matches it's features.
While this could be construed as trolling, I write this in good faith to demonstrate that Mac's have features no other manufacturer can touch.
Don't forget to include
* Obviously, screen size, HD, Memory, CPU, etc.
* Booting as a Firewire Hard Drive in Targeted Disk Mode
* Optical Audio In and Out
* Honest to god 7 hour battery life (or even 5 hours if 7 hours is too hard to find at Dell)
* Gigabit Ethernet
* A power cord that safely comes out when a 3-year old child runs into the cord
* LED Backlit display
* Sudden Motion Sensor reducing Hard-Drive damage if you do ever drop it
* Preinstalled with a Malware/Viruse free OS (Linux certainly qualifies)
Sure, you could argue that YOU don't value these features. I never said you did. But I do (some of them, anyway), others do, and we're willing pay for them.
A lot of the web office apps are free, yet Office costs $99 for the student/home edition.
Three seat license.
With student ID and 0.5 credit hours MS Office 2007 Ultimate is yours for $60. The Ultimate Steal
If your employer participates in Microsoft's Home User programs Office is free for the price of S&H the disks.
If you can afford a printer, you can afford MS Office.
Anyone saying that GoogleOS will beat Windows on the desktop is dreaming.
Google OS will simply be another Linux distribution. The reasons it will fail on the desktop against Windows is the same reasons mainstream Linux distributions fail(unfortunately). 'Fail' can be defined as not attaining a large desktop market share.
Software also has a form of evolution, there is generation(s)? of mainstream developers that are accustomed to making software for Windows, it's a standard. The API's are dug into their psyche... an OS is nothing without applications.
To take on Windows, what Google should have done is bought out ReactOS(wink wink).
You mean something like this? [google.com] I'm betting that the reason they created it was at least partially motivated by the need for it in Chrome OS.
It's nice, but is it really of the same scope as DirectX or Core* in Mac? I mean, this is just a 3d api for the web. Let's be fair.
Writer G. Pascal Zachary argues that Eric Schmidt has identified a sea-change in the software business, as signaled by Microsoft's recent problems and by the advancement of cloud computing.
Google didn't identified anything, they just have enough cash to fund long-term such project. And is not a head-on assault on Microsoft grip on the OS market, but rather a typical asymmetric warfare operation. Any dollar Google pours into Chrome OS, even if it doesn't defeat Microsoft, it makes them hemorrhage maybe another $500-1,000. If Google can fund Chrome OS long enough the loses of Microsoft will become harder and harder to justify in front of their board and ultimately in front of their shareholders.
It's very similar, strategically, with the asymmetric warfare strategy facing the American troops in Afghanistan.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
Google has the cart before the horse. We don't need a replacement for the O/S nearly as bad as we need a replacement for the browser. We need a new "browser" that is designed from the ground up to be an applications platform. AJAX/HTML/Javascript/CSS is just awful - both for the developer and the user. It's a bigger house of cards than the Windows registry. I doubt even Bjarne Stroustrup could design anything as bad. So get us a decent browser platform designed for apps and then cloud computing can take off. The O/S will then be replaceable and Google can own the friggin universe since they're the King of the Cloud. And then we'll have finally reached that state of nirvana where the O/S is essentially irrelevant and therefore immune to monopolies. Google ... get us something to replace the browser. You may be the only one that could do it. Please, pretty please.
It's premature to pronounce Microsoft's death. After all, they didn't get where they did by playing fairly. Windows and M$ Office are so entrenched that it takes a lot to convince people that other solutions just might work for them.
It's difficult to get people to even consider OpenOffice.org for example. So, what I do is open up the office suite in front of them and start working, and casually mention that I don't use Microsoft Office (even though I own multiple "licenses" for every version since Office 95). They're usually skeptical about the fact that it is free so then I explain what OpenOffice.org is, and that it's not like there isn't a company backing it, and that if they need assurance of support from a big company, they can always buy the commercial version (StarOffice from Sun). I've successfully migrated quite a few larger clients to OpenOffice.org and most of them haven't looked back.
I usually run Compiz-Fusion with a Vista skin, so I show them the 3D desktop and because of the skin I run, it looks familiar to them. They start to grasp that maybe Windows is not the be-all, end-all of business computing.
Once you get to that point though, they start asking about more open source solutions. Now, for some clients who WANT to go all open source, it just isn't possible. Needs such as AutoCAD, custom medical apps, Quickbooks, and so forth often block their moving away from Windows. However some clients are considering moving to Macs, because even after spending money on antivirus and anti-spyware solutions, they still get occasional infections. One such client is on Filemaker and OpenOffice, so they are seriously considering replacing all of their PCs with Mac minis. One question I am often asked "but does Macintosh/Linux/etc. network as well as Windows?" That is an ironic question, because truth be told, networking has always been Microsoft's achilles' heel. However, the NT family of operating systems does make networking easy to set up the basics. Set up time is usually quicker on Windows; it's the maintenance and the more complex network design that gets tricky and expensive. However, the other OSes network better than Windows, usually offer much greater throughput, far lower downtime (without redefining "downtime" to not count "maintenance windows" as downtime), and cost less due to the lack of need for "client access licenses." Linux also completely lacks any artificial limit of the number of active connections to a workstation. The end result is a lower TCO leaning toward Linux, but it's usually difficult to convince Microsoft shops of that. They've been fed the kool-aid for so many years that it takes a lot to educate them.
Getting customers to take the splash into an OS such as Chrome isn't going to happen overnight, and with the multi-front threats facing their monopoly, don't expect them to play fair. Don't expect Microsoft to sit still. Expect them to leverage their patents on prior art (XML documents for example), to maintain proprietary technologies despite their claims of interoperability (such as Silverlight), and continued FUD concerning the lack of warranties or companies backing open source - despite that their Microsoft product EULA expressly disclaims all warranties and liabilities.
The FUD will continue and grow on all fronts, and they will continue their monopolistic tactics in order to fortify their monopolies.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Wait - For - It...
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
a fad, you say? ...
I'm sorry to point out the obvious erroroneous assumption, but "savvy" does not well describe the human race.
Neither does it well describe business, where at least in theory, it should occur more often.
Businesses are still run and operated by humans, so sometimes things get better, sometimes worse.
Humans blindly eschew their own self-interest (privacy, income, health, enjoyment, peace of mind) on a rather regular basis.
We do this for many reasons: laziness, greed, fear, ignorance
"Sheeple" out-number you and your savvy friends, my good friend.
Better you learn to milk them - they're not going to disappear any time soon.
And if you ignore them, they'll sure as shit drag your "savvy" ass down to their level,
or destroy you in the process.
We all welcome our X-flavoured-overlords, because we don't WANT to think any more, we don't WANT to take
responsibility for our own lives and decisions, and we WANT to believe horseshit - witness the
enormous "successes" of the advertising industry. dare I mention the word "religion" in this context too?
Not to mention, we all want to take advantage of that "great bargain" that incidentally requires the loss of
some of our privacy or some "calculated risk" of losing the whole sheband.
Like you trust those faceless individuals at the bank with your money.
Your give them the keys to your castle willingly.
What shocks me, is otherwise intelligent people like yourself being "shocked" by the blatantly obvious
shortcomings of the "modern human", but only in respect of things you consider "beneath" what you consider a "normal" intelligence..
"Cloud computing" is no fad - it will remain in one form or another so long as humans exist.
It's called "cooperation", "outsourcing", "specialisation", "economies of scale", all manner of other things depending on your context.
Look at the web's DNS servers - there are a number of them now, sure, but don't you remember the days of configuring
"EVERY" addressable machine on the network individually? Tedious work it was. Let's "share" that critical info, and "let someone else" control it and manage it, even though it is system-critical information.
We "cloud-sourced" the DNS data, the address book, and you personally use it without consideration, I'm sure.
Are you one of the "sheeple"?
Yes. Yes you are. So am I.
Learn to accept the limitations of others and yourself, and then try to move beyond them.
I agree that those who blithely show their day's photos on their holiday should not be surprised that a burglar helps themselves
to their house assets while they're away. But they will be surprised, or will fake surprise, because they didn't think, and probably
didn't want to think, of the natural consequences of showing EVERYONE that they're drunk in Thailand for 2 more weeks at least
and that the apartment is probably unoccupied and unattended - goodbye, stereo, tv, wii, music collection, jewellery box...
Just wait until the insurance industries make these consequences more "real", and the "sheeple" will respond in kind, when they
are not reimbursed for their stolen goods and trashed apartment. Maybe (though I wouldn't count on it) the "sheeple" will respond
to this new stimulus. We can only hope and try to educate them - they make the world less safe for all of us.
There, but for the grace of the FSM, go I. And you too. Be nice.
Its not a death spiral. its just an undocumented feature.
I hear ya on the whole BBS thing. The geographic proximity and subsequent real-life meetings was one of my favorite things about the scene back then. Most importantly, the local BBS scene was where I met the vast majority of my past girlfriends. Sure, I met my current girlfriend through the internet, but life is a lot easier when the girls you meet online live in the next town over vs. the next country over (my girlfriend's Canadian, I'm American).
My own anecdote is that the DVD player is crap - I've found 3 DVDs that freeze the player and one so far that crashes the OS! How is that possible in a microkernel architecture?
Anecdotes I've heard include: an earlier MBP can rarely come out of sleep mode (sounds like Sony laptops), and one guy had major problems with external USB hard drives.
Doesn't sound that stable to me!
Statistically significant? Maybe not, but if it happens then it happens! Windows XP has been much more stable for me than those problems. But y'know I don't blame the OS for application problems. (DVD player came with the machine, so it is still Apple's fault, right?)
And the Apple computer management UI is for sh*t. They need a new organizational structure so something, *anything* is in a place that makes sense.
8-PP
Hmm...
If you use the proper software, using X-Windows over a network is okay.
I use the 'nx' package which intelligently caches X window's requests. It needs to be installed on both machines.
As an example, my workstation is 'jupiter', and I run big applications on my development machine 'saturn' (faster processors, more RAM, and RAID-6). In a terminal on jupiter I type in:
nxssh -Y saturn
and from the terminal I can run an X-windows applications like Eclipse which has quite intensive GUI usage. Performance is quite reasonable.