Slashdot Mirror
Google's Chrome OS To Launch In Fall
Kidfork writes "On Wednesday Google's vice president of product management said that this fall Google will launch Chrome OS to compete with Microsoft Windows. More than 70 million users already use the Chrome Browser, and Google expects at least 1 million users of the OS by day one of release."
No, no. That was at a time when Microsoft wasn't doing the "correct" thing for a large corporation and filling Washington with lobbyists. Much as people may hate Microsoft, they were shockingly apolitical (and progressive in matters of equality, e.g. gay employment rights) before Clinton saw a way to try to squeeze them.
Google caught on to that early and are already sorting out the troughs.
Applefan,
(1) Monopolising behaviour is not the same as having "an effective monopoly" - indeed, MS didn't have an effective monopoly either. Read your Sherman.
(2) MS didn't "require" IE for its browser under Windows.
(3) In the late '90s, check out the share of Windows desktops and compare with today's share by Google of the search market.
It _IS_ Linux, fscktard...
Here be signatures
Except it's open source.
Wait, Google's servers (where the data is stored) are open source? Can I audit their deployment too?
And it can't suck up any information you don't enter.
What? Afaict, your argument reduces to, "It's secure because at least if I want to keep something private they don't force me to give it to them." Similarly, every government guarantees freedom of expression because they can't do anything about internalised expression (dreaming?), I guess.
You might want to check over your shoulders whenever you go out in public to make sure nobody is following you - you never know, they may find out what brand of toilet paper you buy, or see what type of films you enjoy watching at the cinema!
Ah, the second prong on the anti-privacy trident. When it's not, "If you have something to hide, you shouldn't be doing it," it's, "actually I've decided you have nothing worthwhile to hide anyway!"
You were as forced to buy the Microsoft OS then as you are to use Google today. Giving away your OS/browser on your home page is akin in today's terms to supplying a browser on the install CD. "But you have to consciously install it!" I hear you retort. Well, do you have to consciously install Google Apps? And, if not, does it count as always installed, or never installed? The point is, whether it's installed is a technical point only relevant to admin/developers - what matters is how available it is.
Not crying for MS, just applying standards evenly. Unfortunately they became much more political after the anti-trust nonsense, which was to the detriment of business in general. This decade barely recognises a difference between corporation and government, and the MS anti-trust trial was just bringing MS in line.
I see I got modded down for mentioning Apple, who is really the initiator of the client end of the current wave of disposable/cloud computing. For the record, Jobs sucks and is far worse than MS, and it's a shame that people feel the need to mod down when they disagree rather than arguing their point.
Windows changes so Microsoft can make more money. This is why MS is worth billions, and you, presumably, are not. Nor are the FreeBSD developers.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any more good guys left in the Desktop OS Wars, all the good guys turned to bad guys.
Apple, Was going to be more open with OS X then they slowly closed everything off. Early to Mid Last decade it was actually a good balance between an open platform and a closed platform and taking the advantages of both. Apple then Locked things down so much that it is no longer friendly and now apple is trying to close off and dictate to its developers that just makes me sick to my stomach.
Linux, I'll probably be marked as a troll for this, but the Linux community hasn't been much good either... Over the past decade they seemed more fixated on the idealism of open source vs. actually making good software. Back in the late 90's and early 2000's Linux was showing a lot of improvement in its system. Then the community decided to fight against the closed source libraries and making people fear installing those "Non-Free" Drivers. Closed source developers for Linux have been more and more ostracized for not making their products open source. I don't think the Linux community turned evil, but I think they need a real kick in the pants to get them off of their high horse and working on improving the system. Their old chants about Linuxs stability and security are getting more and more outdated. And there hasn't been much improvement in a lot of the system design. If I were to take linux back in 1999 and compare it with today. Ill probably go oh, cool it now has wireless internet support and better USB... However in terms of ease of use and UI... It finally reached Windows 98 levels.
Microsoft, the typical bad guy... However Windows 7 is actually a good OS. It looks like Microsoft may have actually done something right. But long term I don't want to keep Microsoft on my Favorite OS list. It just seems wrong, like I am taking a drug or something.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sounds like a double standard to me.
Basically, Microsoft is not allowed to compete by law.
Microsoft never was a monopoly.
Is Google a monopoly?
Apple?