OSDev.org

On the positive side it would force Google to put as much effort into Chrome on Linux as it does on Windows.

However, you have to keep in mind that Chrome OS will not use the X windows system, so they'll need yet another, separate port for it. So while system calls should remain the same, it doesn't mean they'll support the majority of linux distros (the ones that use X) too much better (though they probably will).

JackScott wrote:Or at least, not the future for us. But it will work fine for my Dad, who does absolutely everything online already. There will always remain a need for local processing somewhere. An operating system design must take this into account. Who is going to compile our kernels?

Google might have the motto "do no evil", but I think the fact they want to take over the world (of computing at least) is fairly apparent now.

I think local processing power will also become extinct. Why can't kernel compilation be done locally? Your PC could be a server from which servers which host compilers, will access your PC, read the makefile and compile your kernel. Update of the compiler would be something you would not have to do. Besides, you will be able to get a more comprehensive report over your compilation errors. You could even find out a probable cause for some logical error that is there in your compiled code. You will not have to assume that your compiler will always compile right.

Creature wrote:I was actually pretty excited about it, but then I read it's going to be based off a Linux kernel and then I thought: "Great, just what we need, ANOTHER Linux distribution.". They should really try to make something original. Linux distrubutions are just... distributions, Windows is something on its own (doesn't look like Linux at all) and Mac OS X is a nice GUI on top of a BSD kernel. So we have all these Linux distro's, Windows, and Mac OS X which at least tried to be original by wrapping a BSD kernel. Why can't Google be original too and create something new? I know it takes a lot more time, but still, I think they should do something original .

I think linux is just the kernel. Although it is great, its work lies at a lower abstraction level, where it only provides the facilities to build a great user interface. The user interface design is still a lot to do on the google's part.

xvedejas wrote:

Creature wrote:I was actually pretty excited about it, but then I read it's going to be based off a Linux kernel and then I thought: "Great, just what we need, ANOTHER Linux distribution.". They should really try to make something original. Linux distrubutions are just... distributions, Windows is something on its own (doesn't look like Linux at all) and Mac OS X is a nice GUI on top of a BSD kernel. So we have all these Linux distro's, Windows, and Mac OS X which at least tried to be original by wrapping a BSD kernel. Why can't Google be original too and create something new? I know it takes a lot more time, but still, I think they should do something original .

Why are you so obsessed with originality? In business, it's wise not to re-invent the wheel. Google isn't making an operating system for a hobby, they're making it to be a good operating system. Linux is a great kernel and a perfect starting point. Why waste money and resources on developing an entire new kernel is there is one sitting right there for them to use?

It won't be like any other linux distro anyways; google's using their own light-weight windowing system, so there won't be any X server, for instance. I wonder how this will affect porting applications...

Yes, I understand your point and it's also what I meant. If they had to do an entire kernel from scratch, they had to spend way more money and put time in the kernel itself as well. Still, I think there are too many Linux distro's already. Google never makes a product to get a few users, they always aim for a whole group of users (usually taking them away from Microsoft: Hotmail -> Gmail, Bing -> Google, Windows Search Bar -> Google Toolbar or whatever it's called, etc.). The only people Chrome OS would get most likely is people that like Linux and perhaps some from Windows.

Getting Windows and Microsoft off the throne is another discussion, but seeing as Google wants their own OS, I doubt they will get a lot of people since for a regular computer user, it brings up the note: "My Windows applications and the programs I'm used to don't work on Google Chrome OS.". Another discussion would be if WINE or emulators are a viable option, but remember, if a regular computer user doesn't get something to work quickly (or at all), they will get frustrated and go back to Windows.

I think Google will have to come up with a damn good strategy to get people to switch to Google Chrome OS. IMO they have already succeeded in it multiple times before (look at Chrome, Gmail, etc.), but Google has yet to prove itself in kernel land.

I don't think the aim of Google's OS will be to unseat anyone. It seems like it is primarily designed to be used on netbooks, either as the primary OS or a secondary OS that loads very quickly. For example my motherboard has a stripped down version of Linux written on a flash chip that has nothing but a web browser but boots very quickly. That is probably one of their targets with a Chrome OS.
Windows is already awful for netbooks (takes up too much memory, takes too long to load, etc.) so I think that is a battle where Microsoft is sitting out, unless there are any plans for a version of Windows 7 optimized for netbooks.

I doubt they will get a lot of people since for a regular computer user, it brings up the note: "My Windows applications and the programs I'm used to don't work on Google Chrome OS."

This hits the nail on the head. The problem isn't that it's impractical - bandwidth and web applications are definitely ready for such a concept. The problem lies at the core of what users do on their computers. I think Google has misread their audience a little - whilst there are people who definitely use computers for casual browsing and email, the majority of users do more than that. Google Chrome OS is the kind of OS you'd have on a second or third laptop, devoted to that purpose

The fact is, this won't replace Windows or Linux, at least not in the near future. What if I want to play a game? Write some code? Use my computer when I'm not on the internet?

xvedejas wrote:In the future, all people's computers will be running webservers automatically anyways, so they can access their content through their web browser as well as run applications on any machine while still having it do all processing on their own computer

What's the point of haveing php files on your own machine, and then have a web server load them before a web browser interprets them? Perhaps you could have a shel which presented a single user interface for the execution of both local and web applications; not to mention browsing.

JohnnyTheDon wrote:I don't think the aim of Google's OS will be to unseat anyone. It seems like it is primarily designed to be used on netbooks, either as the primary OS or a secondary OS that loads very quickly. For example my motherboard has a stripped down version of Linux written on a flash chip that has nothing but a web browser but boots very quickly. That is probably one of their targets with a Chrome OS.
Windows is already awful for netbooks (takes up too much memory, takes too long to load, etc.) so I think that is a battle where Microsoft is sitting out, unless there are any plans for a version of Windows 7 optimized for netbooks.

Wasn't Microsoft going to make one of the versions of Windows 7 especially for netbooks?

So what? Trends change all the time. Someone's great idea for an OS might have been something hot yesterday, but today is a new day.

We get a new OS, people change, markets change. Some want it, some don't. There's no 'ultimate' operating system. I personally think it's just hillarious that people choose sides and fight wars over something that hasn't even been released yet. The real truth is, no matter what company/individual you are, and no matter what product you come up with, there will always be a million naysayers just because they think they're fine with the way things are (even tho they're really not) and they don't like changes.

Man, I could only imagine what the popular response would be if internet was this widespread when Xerox (or whoever) came up with the GUI. Flame wars everywhere.

My point is, new system coming out. Like it? Adapt to it. Don't like it? Ignore it. No need to start hating the ones that are different..

Malevol3nt wrote:So what? Trends change all the time. Someone's great idea for an OS might have been something hot yesterday, but today is a new day.

We get a new OS, people change, markets change. Some want it, some don't. There's no 'ultimate' operating system. I personally think it's just hillarious that people choose sides and fight wars over something that hasn't even been released yet. The real truth is, no matter what company/individual you are, and no matter what product you come up with, there will always be a million naysayers just because they think they're fine with the way things are (even tho they're really not) and they don't like changes.

Whilst I am quite happy to slag off Linux (because it desrves it) I am not fighting any wars over Chrome; just commenting. An operating system such as Chrome sounds as if it going to be will be fine for anybody who primarily uses their computer to surf the net, but not for anybody else. In particular, not for corporations.

Creature wrote:

JohnnyTheDon wrote:I don't think the aim of Google's OS will be to unseat anyone. It seems like it is primarily designed to be used on netbooks, either as the primary OS or a secondary OS that loads very quickly. For example my motherboard has a stripped down version of Linux written on a flash chip that has nothing but a web browser but boots very quickly. That is probably one of their targets with a Chrome OS.
Windows is already awful for netbooks (takes up too much memory, takes too long to load, etc.) so I think that is a battle where Microsoft is sitting out, unless there are any plans for a version of Windows 7 optimized for netbooks.

Wasn't Microsoft going to make one of the versions of Windows 7 especially for netbooks?

It looks like they're putting a lot of crippling limits on the hardware specifications of computers you are using it on. Apparently they were origionally planning to force you to run only three applications at a time. So I think google's OS will be welcome in the netbook market.

yes, or win XP will stay there on the netbooks as it has

Engadget.com podcast were they speak about Chrome. Though might be interesting.
http://podcasts.aolcdn.com/engadget/pod ... st_154.mp3

I know how to get chrome os now.

- Install the chrome web browser
- Add chrome.exe to your startup folder.

Seriously, this "OS" is kind of pathetic. How well do you think photoshop or GIMP will work in javascript?

Native code FTW

BTW, didn't MS integrate IE into the windows shell with IE4?

And then the department of injustice crapped all over them.