Thread: Chrome OS Announced

I'm not surprised...

Entry on the official Google blog
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/...chrome-os.html

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010
....................
Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel

There's a lot of competition out there now
General purpose Linux distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse, etc.)
Specific netbook distros (Intel's Moblin, Google's Android, Ubuntu NBR, etc. and now Google's ChromeOS)

I think, all in all, I'm happy about this

I hope this "new windowing system" is built on top of an existing toolkit (QT or GTK+), rather than a custom toolkit

I'll certainly be keeping an eye on the Kernel staging tree and Linux-Next for ChromeOS stuff

I don't think Windows will be passed up any time soon. Macs are still too expensive for a lot of people, and it will never be the year of the Linux desktop because most people are just clueless.

And to be honest, I think the Chrome OS isn't that great of an idea. I'd rather have all my stuff on my own computer, not on google's servers.

I must say I agree with Demon Parasite here, on all accounts.

Well, if people are clueless, then Firefox has a problem

It doesn't advertise
It's up against a pre-installed competitor
people (these clueless people) have to make a choice to use it over IE

Yeah, Firefox will never get anywhere
Oops.....

Anyway,

people may be apathetic in the short term
but most are not stupid
show them a better service, and they'll come

Windows is starting to collapse in parts of Europe now
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-FR-dai...80701-20090708

I'd want to extensively read the ToS before I'd use Chrome... IIRC Google has problems with privacy and whatnot.
I don't want my every move on my computer being monitered by a farm of servers and supercomputers.
No thanks.

Originally Posted by Ynot

Well, if people are clueless, then Firefox has a problem

It doesn't advertise
It's up against a pre-installed competitor
people (these clueless people) have to make a choice to use it over IE

Yeah, Firefox will never get anywhere
Oops.....

Anyway,

people may be apathetic in the short term
but most are not stupid
show them a better service, and they'll come

Windows is starting to collapse in parts of Europe now
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-FR-dai...80701-20090708

Are you saying Firefox isn't already really popular? Firefox actually has a bigger marketshare than IE7 in the EU right now. It was pretty close to IE7 before, but then IE8 split a few % of the share and put Firefox ahead. And Firefox does advertise. Don't you remember seeing sites with "This site is best viewed in Firefox" plastered everywhere? Plus, a lot of people get it from their friends in the "My internet stopped working so my friend put this 'Firefox' on it" way. Firefox is doing great, and it's only been getting more popular. Opera and a lot of the other small browser are the ones who need to advertise and get more market share.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

I'd want to extensively read the ToS before I'd use Chrome... IIRC Google has problems with privacy and whatnot.
I don't want my every move on my computer being monitered by a farm of servers and supercomputers.
No thanks.

Google is actually very good with privacy. I remember one case where Google refused to turn over a person's information, when Yahoo and Live would happily give out the information. There are never real people seeing your information with Chrome, just a machine that processes it.

What I'm saying is, your quote is wrong

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

it will never be the year of the Linux desktop because most people are just clueless.

As these same "clueless" people took it upon themselves to install Firefox
Firefox, as you rightly point out, is eclipsing IE

These "clueless" people just need to see, first hand, a sizable benefit and they'll switch browsers / office suites / OS's / any other software

It won't happen all at once
nothing ever does

I'm sure there's people out there now who wonder why IE is laughed at - it's all they use
but as time goes on, more and more people will switch

same with OS's

In all fairness, most companies preinstall Firefox. Three of my family members just got new PCs running Windows, all of them had Firefox preinstalled. My father's even had it as the default browser.

I see Windows' marketshare going below 50% by 2011. More and more corporate users are refusing to use it, and people will learn to use OSX because all the businessmen are.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

More and more corporate users are refusing to use it, and people will learn to use OSX because all the businessmen are.

They're having a hard time getting businesses to stop using XP and move on to something else, most businesses use some form of Windows.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I see Windows' marketshare going below 50% by 2011. More and more corporate users are refusing to use it, and people will learn to use OSX because all the businessmen are.

Most businesses go from Window to Linux, I think, and not to Mac. Mac and Windows aren't really all that different. If you're gonna invest in a change, why not change to something that's free and open, as opposed to more of what you've got.

A lot of businesses already use OS other than Windoze, and at some point (deny it or not, it will happen) the majority of computer users will not use it. I think a big problem is lack of developers (i.e. Linux ). If Google can get a ton of people developing for their OS (especially the bigger companies), they should have no problem converting people. Like it or not, you will see Windoze fall in popularity. Micro$oft should try to stick to one thing; they cannot maintain their OS and all of the other products they create so easily when competitors are approaching.

The issue is resources

No 1 company has the resources to effectively maintain & enhance an OS

75% of all Linux Kernel development is done by commercial companies
Obviously the large Linux vendors top the list (Redhat @ 10%)
but the sheer amount of companies doing their bit is staggering

At times, it seems MS has problems just keeping up with the security holes on their products, let alone enhancing products

Anyway,
As I said, I'm hopeful for the Google Linux distro
I just hope they keep to the spirit of the GPL, and contribute back

Window's problem is rotware. They didn't fix their problems when they had the chance because they didn't have to. During the time of Windows 95 and 98, Mac OS was horrible and Linux was still in it's infancy. They don't change anything, they just pile things on top of it. Almost every major software product gets completely rewritten every third release. Windows hasn't changed since Windows 95.

It'll be nice to see something brand new on the Linux kernel. Ynot, Qt is a library, not a window engine. I have a feeling that they will do something new, X is already 15 years old.

I doubt this is real, but:

I think that's a skinned version of the Linux that Google already uses internally.

x.org is also very mature, which is good
btw, X11 is 22 years old (1987)

I don't really see them implementing a custom X11 protocol
They could, but it'd be a lot of work for little end-user benefit

better for them to follow Intel & AMD's lead and get involved with x.org - you get more bang for your buck by joining in development on an open project, rather than going off on your own

It's possible, Google likes to use the best preexisting technology. I think they'll use X11's network transparency features, but write their own window handling layer. The windowing engine of X11 is outdated compared to Aqua and Aero.

That screenshot is hilarious. Very obviously a bad mockup.


I think this has promise, but I agree that I would want to very carefully peruse the ToS, after the Chrome browser's ToS.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

A lot of businesses already use OS other than Windoze, and at some point (deny it or not, it will happen) the majority of computer users will not use it. I think a big problem is lack of developers (i.e. Linux ). If Google can get a ton of people developing for their OS (especially the bigger companies), they should have no problem converting people. Like it or not, you will see Windoze fall in popularity. Micro$oft should try to stick to one thing; they cannot maintain their OS and all of the other products they create so easily when competitors are approaching.

Originally Posted by khh

Most businesses go from Window to Linux, I think, and not to Mac. Mac and Windows aren't really all that different. If you're gonna invest in a change, why not change to something that's free and open, as opposed to more of what you've got.

Even as a Linux user, I think it's not very good for businesses. A lot of businesses use programs made specifically for what they're doing, and taking the time to rewrite the programs is just not worth it. Business is not just word formatting, there aren't many things a business can do with Linux aside from servers, which is better than Windows/Mac.

And I don't see why they would switch to Macs, because they're more expensive. It's not worth spending more money, then spending more time just to rewrite their applications for the Mac. I don't see the point in switching from a business standpoint, to either Linux or Mac.

Also Exhalent, I see you still like saying M$, but if I remember correctly, you dual-boot Vista still. Why is it that you bash a company and then use their products?

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

Even as a Linux user, I think it's not very good for businesses. A lot of businesses use programs made specifically for what they're doing, and taking the time to rewrite the programs is just not worth it. Business is not just word formatting, there aren't many things a business can do with Linux aside from servers, which is better than Windows/Mac.

And I don't see why they would switch to Macs, because they're more expensive. It's not worth spending more money, then spending more time just to rewrite their applications for the Mac. I don't see the point in switching from a business standpoint, to either Linux or Mac.

Also Exhalent, I see you still like saying M$, but if I remember correctly, you dual-boot Vista still. Why is it that you bash a company and then use their products?

Not sure what businesses you are talking about. A very high percentage of checkout computers at places like Lowe's, Home Depot, and even grocery stores like Kroger use Linux or FreeBSD, or SUN. Hard to tell which, usually, as they have their own branded programs (and sometimes strange KDE themes) running.

Originally Posted by Man of Steel

Not sure what businesses you are talking about. A very high percentage of checkout computers at places like Lowe's, Home Depot, and even grocery stores like Kroger use Linux or FreeBSD, or SUN. Hard to tell which, usually, as they have their own branded programs (and sometimes strange KDE themes) running.

A lot of places I've been to, I see Windows computers. Like airports, schools, and some stores.

Ah, okay. I think it's a bit more balanced than you might expect, though. Several large libraries across the country are using Linux on their public computers, even. It's pretty cool, actually.

I also see BSODs in those places.

From a business standpoint, Macs are cheaper. They last longer, they require less maintenance, software for it is cheaper, and they don't need to buy virus protection.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

From a business standpoint, Macs are cheaper. They last longer, they require less maintenance, software for it is cheaper, and they don't need to buy virus protection.

I think I've read that mac viruses are getting more common.

Also, my public library use mac >.<

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I also see BSODs in those places.

From a business standpoint, Macs are cheaper. They last longer, they require less maintenance, software for it is cheaper, and they don't need to buy virus protection.

I doubt you've seen a BSOD on an airport screen before that isn't on a photoshopped picture. Do you really think Windows just BSODs randomly for no reason at all? I haven't seen one in a very long time, they aren't very common anymore. And when you do get them, they at least give you the information to figure out what happened and try and fix it, unlike Macs which simply tell you that your computer has encountered an error and needs to shut down or whatever.

Originally Posted by khh

I think I've read that mac viruses are getting more common.

Also, my public library use mac >.<

They are, there are more botnets going around, and there aren't many security applications for Mac or Linux. I think that once Microsoft "falls" and the other computers become just as mainstream and it evens out, they will also become "virus-ridden" which seems to be a huge complaint people have with Windows.