Slashdot Mirror
Chrome OS and Android "Will Likely Converge" In the Future
xchg writes "When Google first announced that the company would be pursuing development of two distinct operating systems, many questioned Google's motivation. 'Google executives, including CEO Eric Schmidt, have downplayed the conflict ever since, asking for time to let the projects evolve. And a few days after Chrome OS was revealed, Android chief Andy Rubin said device makers "need different technology for different products," explaining that Android has a lot of unique code that makes it suitable for use in a phone and Chrome has unique benefits of its own. But Brin, speaking informally to reporters after the company's Chrome OS presentation on Thursday, said "Android and Chrome will likely converge over time," citing among other things the common Linux and Webkit code base present in both projects.'"
Kernel: Linux
WM: Chrome
GUI kit: HTML + CSS
Media player: Flash and OGG
Graphics library: WebGL
Application store: The internet with Google Gears
Coding language: Javascript
Backup: automatic online gratis storage
Need I even say more? Yes;
Chromium needs semantic file management and a better use of tabs (WM's that can only display fullscreen Windows sucks) and the ability to hook up an extrenal storage device and a one-click-offline-backup-solution and a better way to store webapps offline with Gears.
Okey... 'nuff said. If there is anything that could on the long run kill proprietary, monoplies, vendor lockin, etc, etc. then it is Chromium.
Not that I would make it my primary OS is the near future, but it will be installed on my netbook for sure...
Here be signatures
I wonder if this means Android will converge towards a more standard Linux, or if Chrome will converge to become less standard. Or if they'll keep the unique aspects of each and just try to unify stuff like browser code. I don't really fancy a phone that can only run web apps, or a "PC" that can only run Java apps compiled to a weird byte code! I don't really like the way Android has reinvented all of userspace, whereas at least Chrome builds on existing code a bit more. But they are solving different problems, which perhaps explains *some* of the differences...
If Google shareholders take windfall profits now and try to mature the company early, they will be killing exactly what makes it innovative. It is not in the long term interests of Google to do that. Remember long term? Before we had day traders and similar idiots trying to turn everything into a casino, we had companies like IBM that were hugely innovative and came up with things like relational databases. Real innovation requires long term commitment and a great deal of luck. You make your own luck by funding people like Cobb, or Mandelbrot, and wait for them to lay golden eggs. Can't do that if the shareholders are whining that they want all their (unearned) profits out, now.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The article seems to assume Android and Chrome OS will converge into a single product. That is one possible way for converging. But another possibility is that they would be built from the same code base, but still have a different UI for different size devices.
That's Maemo, not Android.
Deleted
Wrong. Chrome is an OS which (currently) runs on the Linux kernel. A kernel is not an OS -- pleae see Debian, which runs on Linux, FreeBSD, or even Hurd kernels.
Caveat Utilitor
Google has had the foresight to cut their losses before...
I have an Android phone. It was a gift from Google. Admittedly, it was an early version so maybe Android 2.0 looks better, but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project. I'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
In truth, Google is not a technology company. Really. HP, Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, Dell etc are technology companies: people pay them for products which are the fruits of research and development.
Google is not a technology company. Google is an advertising company with a sideline in email hosting. That's where their money comes from.
If you look at the technologies you listed, with the exception of Java, almost none of them was made profitable by the company that invented them. I don't know why companies who can afford really serious, advanced "blue sky" R&D so frequently fail to commercialise it, but it's really common.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
Really? I don't see anyone claiming that it should be called Linux/Chrome...
I demand that you call it GNU\Linux\Chrome!
SSC
don't confuse google chrome (the browser) with chrome (the OS).
are you suggesting that google share holders are not pleased? huh.
Both seem very limited and aimed at cellphones essentially. So it does seem they have huge overlap.
I was hoping Chrome OS would be more functional than Android (sort of lightweight Linux replacement) but it seems the opposite. It is just a browser. Yawn.
I really can't see the point of maintaining two cellphone "OS type" products.
What do you mean, "the self-cannabilising overlap"?
Android is a production product that must be stable, reliable, and operate within the constraints of consumer mobile devices today.
Chrome OS is an R&D platform for emerging markets and technologies.
You don't couple your production product with your R&D platform for a market that does not yet exist, unless you want both of them to fail.
The good news for Google is that by talking so publicly about their R&D products, and giving you the opportunity to comment on them, for every one comment like the above trying to second-guess Google, there are a thousand people who are excited and continue to be amazed at what the combination of Google and mobile device technology are making possible, and will make possible in 2-5 years.
Okey... 'nuff said. If there is anything that could on the long run kill proprietary, monoplies, vendor lockin, etc, etc. then it is Chromium.
How on Earth would having all your applications running remote on Google Gears kill your "lockin"? If anything it makes it worse.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
A new desktop 'paradigm'? Care to explain how that relates to X11 (and more to the point, how X11 prevents this new paradigm)?
Google is not a technology company. Google is an advertising company with a sideline in email hosting. That's where their money comes from.
Someone owes me a refund on past purchases. I'm probably not the only one.
How true! Instead of trying to confuse things and try to hitchhike a ride on Linux success, people who try to prepend a GNU/ on everything should study history and learn where this "operating system" definition started.
There was a time when every computer was dedicated to running a single program at a time, it often took hours to switch from one program to the other. In many computers configuring hardware to run different tasks involved plugging patch cords into sockets.
An "operating system" was the software that let the computer hardware be shared among different users with less hassle. In that context, the equivalent of what was initially called an operating system would be a set of device drivers and a task scheduler, exactly what Linux alone does.
Of course, language evolves and what was called an "operating system" in the 1960s would not be the same thing today. But that should be for the people to decide, the GNU/ trolls are very obnoxious in trying to force an usage that the general public never came up with spontaneously.
When was this, and who is this "we" you're referring to?
At the very least, the userland api to the system services has been considered a part of the OS since day 1.
Also, microkernels don't include such things as device drivers and protocol stacks, which run in userland. Are they not part of the OS?
At first, everybody is predicting:" OMG Linux will own the desktop! We need KDE 4.x and Gnome 3.x and it is all going to even let your mom operate her computer much easyer than the shitty last incarnation from Microhell!" Etc, etc.
Then when Linux actually gains marketshare, people start to complain. "Oh noes! Not all Linux users are kernel devs anymore! OMGz0rs! When did people forget to man or infor this or that and why do people get so dumb that they can't even convert high level code to assembly and turn it to 1's and 0's with their bare hand, using an assembler! OmG it get's populair!"
Well duh, elitist prick. When you drive your car to a garage because you can't replace your engine yourself, the guy who does that for you won't be complaining about that fact that you cannot do that yourself. "Hey why don't you read the manual on how to replace your backseat yourself! How can people be so stupid that they cannot even replace their own chairs?!"
Here be signatures
Semantics. It's true that Google doesn't make most of its money selling technology as a product. However it's also true that technology has been the most critical factor in their success. Why was Google search better than Altavista, or Gmail better than Hotmail, or Adwords more scalable than Overture, or Google Maps better than Mapquest? It boils down to better technology. So why not consider them a technology company?
Stumbled upon? My friend, they didn't trip over it in a forest clearing. They CREATED it.
And to prove it wasn't a fluke, this was after CREATING pagerank, the algorithm that won them the status of most used search engine in the world.
Credit where credit is due. Google is where they are for being innovative. They weren't just lucky.
First, physically replacing stuff in your care requires special tools and a shop in a lot of cases -- stuff that most people don't have just chilling in their garage. Every linux system comes with the tools to code the Linux system. Secondly, the guy in the car shop is getting paid a fair bit of money to do the work, whereas the people coming into IRC or on forums demanding help are never going to pay for that assistance, often ask in the wrong place, and are frequently rude and demanding about the free help they're getting.
Hell, if you poke around Ubuntu forums, half the time one person has a problem and then there are naught but 50 responses all going "me too!" and no actual solution in site. It's like AOL. There have always been new people coming into the community, but when it gets to the point where the newbs outnumber the established people, it tips the balance in a really weird way. Maybe it's "for the better," but I liked things just fine the way they used to be.