The problem isn't actually with the system. It's actually with users who cannot and will not adopt any method or organisation over their own files. Admittedly, the default folders most programs obnoxiously set complicates things, but the proof of the pudding is when you ask someone where their files are and they give you a helpless stare. Sometimes they have been using computers, and these very files, for years. yet they have absolutely no idea what a file is, where their files are, or even of their existence outside of the context of the exact program that manipulates them.
This is true, and in a way the "File->Save" UI reinforces it. You type in a name, you don't think about where the CWD is, and when you "File->Open..." all your documents are there.
Sun's old OpenWindows had a nice UI which might have helped with this. The text editor app had an icon in the corner representing the file you had open. To save, you dragged that icon to a file window. To open, you dragged an icon from the file window on to that part of the text editor. It means your save is not separate from your filesystem.
I don't think so. How many times have you heard someone say: "Put that paper in the file" or indeed, "Put those papers in the folder". You'll find people are more likely to say: "Do you have those files?", or "What's in that folder?".
We *may* have stumbled on a US vs UK issue here. Where the rest of the world sits, who knows?
Definitely in the UK, you would go to a stationer's and buy a "file" in which to keep paperwork. "Put that paper in a file" is something you'd expect to hear, and is exactly equivalent to "Put that paper in a folder".
Question: Do you call these manila folders "files" when they are empty? Or does the concept of a file include the contents as well as the container? When you go to an office supply shop, do you buy files or folders?
They are almost synonymous. So someone with a non-computer background won't intuitively know which one is supposed to contain which.
In computer lingo:
a file is an entity that might be analogous to a wad of paper (e.g. a word processor document), but might not (e.g. an MP3)
a folder is a container for zero or more files
So it's completely unintuitive.
I think the word 'file' has its roots from the days when a 'record' was still a fundamental concept. So a 'record' is a sheet of paper, a 'file' contains a bundle of records.
I prefer 'directory'. At least then it doesn't push a false analogy on an already confused mind.
On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64.:-)
You mean, 1 second to the desktop/command prompt but 5-10 minutes to any usable application?:-)
Not sure about the C64, but on the BBC Micro some software was distributed as a ROM chip. Booting to the BASIC prompt was about a second, then type '*WORD' and you were in the Wordwise word processor instantaneously.
I think the GP's point may have been that Asus and others already sell netbooks preloaded with Linux. Indeed, for a while all the netbooks ran Linux not Windows.
However, just maybe the great unwashed are scared of 'comes with Linux', but not scared of 'comes with Google's new thing'.
And just maybe by being very aggressively targeted at being an OS to host a browser, and almost nothing else, it'll be particularly friendly on the hardware - for good battery life and performance.
Google has a particular objective: directing as many as possible users to Google products
That is of course true. But I think the OS will further that aim in a more subtle manner than the obvious.
I think that right now, they're just pushing for mass acceptance of web apps as a mainstream mode of computer use. Even if it's other people's web apps. They can grow the pool so it's big enough for everyone to play.
Of course they'd prefer you to use Google Docs over some competitor's web word processor; and most people probably will do. But if only for regulatory reasons - and not looking evil - they'll coexist with such competitors.
The second way they can win, is that if some startup invents a web app that Google's not doing, they might well choose to host it on Google App Engine.
What makes this not necessarily evil is that it merely propogates a tool that makes web apps easy to access.
Google then competes with all the other software-as-a-service providers, to be the one that users choose. They have the slight advantage, presumably, of shipping the OS with default links.
Build a better web word processor though, and perhaps you can get some of their market share. (You might even be able to host it on Google App Engine and leverage their authentication / contacts / etc infrastructure)
one thing that might be quite nice is if the OS did all its system administration (and user configuration) via a Web interface. This would mean shipping a Web server (possibly with an embedded scripting language - python, PHP, whatever)
Ever fired up the options menu in Google Desktop? It just tells your default browser to open a new tab and connect to http://127.0.0.1:4664/blah
I think an embedded Web server at the heart of this OS is a fair bet.
This is not what I have been waiting for by a long shot. We "Linux fans" use Linux as a means to run GNU, not buzzword webos UI.
Strange to me on two levels.
(1) So what exactly are we waiting for? We already have GNU on Linux. So we're happy, right?
(2) I also run GNU on Windows (via Cygwin), and on OSX. Does this mean Linux has no point (hint: no)
"Linux" is becoming a marketing gimmick. Us starting to call it GNU/Linux has never made more sense.
I don't think it's a marketing thing at all. In all likelihood Chrome OS marketing won't push the word Linux at all. Just like TiVo doesn't mention Linux in its ads.
Rather, if you need a kernel for a new OS, Linux is a pragmatic one to choose.
I just use stand-by. It only takes a couple of seconds to sleep, and waking is almost as fast (although if you undock while it's sleeping, it churns a bit to deal with that as it wakes).
I put it away in stand-by mode. If I don't wake it within a certain time period, it automatically hibernates. Ideal.
Though not as ideal as something that also boots quickly!
Actually because of google's size hardware vendors will gradually stop supporting other distros
That makes things nice and easy for other distros, doesn't it? If you ArbitaryDistro supports all the hardware Google's OS supports, then any hardware manufacturer that promises Google compatibility, is effectively promising ArbitraryDistro compatibility.
I would like to use Gmail just like I'm using any dekstop application.
Use the Chrome browser. Go to GMail. Click the page menu (top right) "Create application shortcuts..."
Google wants you to use web apps as if they're normal desktop apps. When you launch these shortcuts, Chrome will skin the window to look more like an app and less like a browser.
Photo editing, for one. I'm envisioning a flow that looks like camera -> crop and color correct on subnotebook PC -> social networking site. [...] But then how does one move files from a camera to HTML 5 local data?
I don't know, but I bet HTML 5 addresses it somehow. There's a bit in the Google Wave video, where they drag and drop from a Windows directory into a Wave, and it uploads first the thumnails, then the full image. They say it's the only part of the demo that requires Gears, but that they're working to add support for that kind of thing to HTML 5.
I agree that getting media off a camera and onto the Web is something people will demand. I suspect that in the world Google envisions, the workflow will be:
camera -> scale down + upload in browser -> edit on photo editing site -> social networking site
... doing the absolute minimum 'smart' stuff locally. I only included local scaling down because at current consumer broadband speeds uploading a realistic number of 12MP photos isn't practical.
Lots of comments here are (rightly) skeptical that individuals will download a new OS.
And yet...
My dad has a Windows laptop that's suffering from inexplicable slowdown syndrome -- my meagre Windows skills couldn't fix it (full defrag, adware and virus scan) and the only solution I can think of is a full Windows reinstall.
He might be wary of a live USB drive of an ordinary Linux distro (even though it would be perfect). But something with the warm and fuzzy feeling of Google's blessing, even if all it gives him is a fast boot and a browser; that might be enough.
Just note how they take the kernel, but avoid to contribute to the GUi arena.
Sounds to me like they're contributing a whole new lightweight OSS GUI layer.
I do agree that their model is all about promoting their non-free software (the proprietary stuff they run on their servers). But on the other hand they're doing nothing to prevent people from writing competing web apps.
The Linux kernel and basic related utilities should be set under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP!
I'm not sure how that would help. We don't hear of many modifications to the kernel or basic utils, being hoarded by the people who write them and run them on their servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh, ooh!
35 year old men don't play golf. I mean, I'm 35 and I know a few 35 year olds, and none of us play golf.
Shower gratitude on me for my unique insight. Better sell all your shares in the golf industry.
I have seen commercial firewalls that use a wall of fire as their icon.
The problem isn't actually with the system. It's actually with users who cannot and will not adopt any method or organisation over their own files. Admittedly, the default folders most programs obnoxiously set complicates things, but the proof of the pudding is when you ask someone where their files are and they give you a helpless stare. Sometimes they have been using computers, and these very files, for years. yet they have absolutely no idea what a file is, where their files are, or even of their existence outside of the context of the exact program that manipulates them.
This is true, and in a way the "File->Save" UI reinforces it. You type in a name, you don't think about where the CWD is, and when you "File->Open..." all your documents are there.
Sun's old OpenWindows had a nice UI which might have helped with this. The text editor app had an icon in the corner representing the file you had open. To save, you dragged that icon to a file window. To open, you dragged an icon from the file window on to that part of the text editor. It means your save is not separate from your filesystem.
I don't think so. How many times have you heard someone say: "Put that paper in the file" or indeed, "Put those papers in the folder".
You'll find people are more likely to say: "Do you have those files?", or "What's in that folder?".
We *may* have stumbled on a US vs UK issue here. Where the rest of the world sits, who knows?
Definitely in the UK, you would go to a stationer's and buy a "file" in which to keep paperwork. "Put that paper in a file" is something you'd expect to hear, and is exactly equivalent to "Put that paper in a folder".
Question: Do you call these manila folders "files" when they are empty? Or does the concept of a file include the contents as well as the container? When you go to an office supply shop, do you buy files or folders?
Well, here's the Filing and Archive supplies page for staples.co.uk.
Notice you can buy lever arch files, box files, flatbar files, suspension files, as well as plastic folders and square cut folders.
I went to staples.com, and noticed that the products are called "file folders" throughout.
Really. Someone gives you a confused look, throw a couple manila folders in their face and ask them to put paper in them.
Here in the UK at least, many people would call those manila folders "files".
And since when have you called paper "file"?
In meatspace:
They are almost synonymous. So someone with a non-computer background won't intuitively know which one is supposed to contain which.
In computer lingo:
So it's completely unintuitive.
I think the word 'file' has its roots from the days when a 'record' was still a fundamental concept. So a 'record' is a sheet of paper, a 'file' contains a bundle of records.
I prefer 'directory'. At least then it doesn't push a false analogy on an already confused mind.
On a side note: I can't wait until a new OS finally achieves the startup times of the good old trusy Commodore 64. :-)
You mean, 1 second to the desktop/command prompt but 5-10 minutes to any usable application? :-)
Not sure about the C64, but on the BBC Micro some software was distributed as a ROM chip. Booting to the BASIC prompt was about a second, then type '*WORD' and you were in the Wordwise word processor instantaneously.
This is what we need! Apps in ROM!
I think the GP's point may have been that Asus and others already sell netbooks preloaded with Linux. Indeed, for a while all the netbooks ran Linux not Windows.
However, just maybe the great unwashed are scared of 'comes with Linux', but not scared of 'comes with Google's new thing'.
And just maybe by being very aggressively targeted at being an OS to host a browser, and almost nothing else, it'll be particularly friendly on the hardware - for good battery life and performance.
I think I recall a graphical browser for DOS, which contained its own windowing system.
Dark days, dark days.
Google has a particular objective: directing as many as possible users to Google products
That is of course true. But I think the OS will further that aim in a more subtle manner than the obvious.
I think that right now, they're just pushing for mass acceptance of web apps as a mainstream mode of computer use. Even if it's other people's web apps. They can grow the pool so it's big enough for everyone to play.
Of course they'd prefer you to use Google Docs over some competitor's web word processor; and most people probably will do. But if only for regulatory reasons - and not looking evil - they'll coexist with such competitors.
The second way they can win, is that if some startup invents a web app that Google's not doing, they might well choose to host it on Google App Engine.
What makes this not necessarily evil is that it merely propogates a tool that makes web apps easy to access.
Google then competes with all the other software-as-a-service providers, to be the one that users choose. They have the slight advantage, presumably, of shipping the OS with default links.
Build a better web word processor though, and perhaps you can get some of their market share. (You might even be able to host it on Google App Engine and leverage their authentication / contacts / etc infrastructure)
one thing that might be quite nice is if the OS did all its system administration (and user configuration) via a Web interface. This would mean shipping a Web server (possibly with an embedded scripting language - python, PHP, whatever)
Ever fired up the options menu in Google Desktop? It just tells your default browser to open a new tab and connect to http://127.0.0.1:4664/blah
I think an embedded Web server at the heart of this OS is a fair bet.
This is not what I have been waiting for by a long shot. We "Linux fans" use Linux as a means to run GNU, not buzzword webos UI.
Strange to me on two levels.
(1) So what exactly are we waiting for? We already have GNU on Linux. So we're happy, right?
(2) I also run GNU on Windows (via Cygwin), and on OSX. Does this mean Linux has no point (hint: no)
"Linux" is becoming a marketing gimmick. Us starting to call it GNU/Linux has never made more sense.
I don't think it's a marketing thing at all. In all likelihood Chrome OS marketing won't push the word Linux at all. Just like TiVo doesn't mention Linux in its ads.
Rather, if you need a kernel for a new OS, Linux is a pragmatic one to choose.
I just use stand-by. It only takes a couple of seconds to sleep, and waking is almost as fast (although if you undock while it's sleeping, it churns a bit to deal with that as it wakes).
I put it away in stand-by mode. If I don't wake it within a certain time period, it automatically hibernates. Ideal.
Though not as ideal as something that also boots quickly!
Actually because of google's size hardware vendors will gradually stop supporting other distros
That makes things nice and easy for other distros, doesn't it? If you ArbitaryDistro supports all the hardware Google's OS supports, then any hardware manufacturer that promises Google compatibility, is effectively promising ArbitraryDistro compatibility.
Then the question would rather be if there are going to be any non-web applications for Chrome OS.
Expect it to be pretty much 100% browser apps, with Gears providing offline mode.
*Perhaps* a text editor.
Why is there no macro/scripting support in Google Docs?
Because you haven't signed up as a tester.
I would like to use Gmail just like I'm using any dekstop application.
Use the Chrome browser.
Go to GMail.
Click the page menu (top right)
"Create application shortcuts..."
Google wants you to use web apps as if they're normal desktop apps. When you launch these shortcuts, Chrome will skin the window to look more like an app and less like a browser.
Photo editing, for one. I'm envisioning a flow that looks like camera -> crop and color correct on subnotebook PC -> social networking site.
[...]
But then how does one move files from a camera to HTML 5 local data?
I don't know, but I bet HTML 5 addresses it somehow. There's a bit in the Google Wave video, where they drag and drop from a Windows directory into a Wave, and it uploads first the thumnails, then the full image. They say it's the only part of the demo that requires Gears, but that they're working to add support for that kind of thing to HTML 5.
I agree that getting media off a camera and onto the Web is something people will demand. I suspect that in the world Google envisions, the workflow will be:
camera -> scale down + upload in browser -> edit on photo editing site -> social networking site
so tivo is a linux distribution?
By any rational definition, yes it is.
Lots of comments here are (rightly) skeptical that individuals will download a new OS.
And yet...
My dad has a Windows laptop that's suffering from inexplicable slowdown syndrome -- my meagre Windows skills couldn't fix it (full defrag, adware and virus scan) and the only solution I can think of is a full Windows reinstall.
He might be wary of a live USB drive of an ordinary Linux distro (even though it would be perfect).
But something with the warm and fuzzy feeling of Google's blessing, even if all it gives him is a fast boot and a browser; that might be enough.
Just note how they take the kernel, but avoid to contribute to the GUi arena.
Sounds to me like they're contributing a whole new lightweight OSS GUI layer.
I do agree that their model is all about promoting their non-free software (the proprietary stuff they run on their servers). But on the other hand they're doing nothing to prevent people from writing competing web apps.
The Linux kernel and basic related utilities should be set under the Afero GPL v3 license ASAP!
I'm not sure how that would help. We don't hear of many modifications to the kernel or basic utils, being hoarded by the people who write them and run them on their servers.
My exposure to ipod and itunes taught me to avoid apple in the future
Actually iTunes makes a *little bit* more sense on OSX.
But I'm with you - I don't know why the Apple crowd think everyone automatically agrees it's the bee's knees.
I know a few people who've installed OSX on Dell laptops, incidentally.
Rich Leadbetter at Eurogamer really laid into the OnLive concept. But he seems more convinced by Gaikai.
Me, I think both could work - although I'd be surprised if most people could acheive 60fps / 720p