OSDev.org

dude101 wrote:BTW, didn't MS integrate IE into the windows shell with IE4?

And then the department of injustice crapped all over them.

Yeah but since Chrome OS would be free I assume all those money hungry agencies won't be able to get big fines out of Google for it, so they most likely won't even mess with them.

frank wrote:

dude101 wrote:BTW, didn't MS integrate IE into the windows shell with IE4?

And then the department of injustice crapped all over them.

Yeah but since Chrome OS would be free I assume all those money hungry agencies won't be able to get big fines out of Google for it, so they most likely won't even mess with them.

True, but Google has money and the EU wants money.

dude101 wrote:

frank wrote:

dude101 wrote:BTW, didn't MS integrate IE into the windows shell with IE4?

And then the department of injustice crapped all over them.

Yeah but since Chrome OS would be free I assume all those money hungry agencies won't be able to get big fines out of Google for it, so they most likely won't even mess with them.

True, but Google has money and the EU wants money.

The EU is also bloodthirsty enough to demand that M$ sell a version of windows with no Media Player in the EU, as well as fining the corporate giant.

Yes but Microsoft is making money off of Windows, which allows them to use the anti-trust and encouraging competition excuse. If Google didn't make any real money from the distribution of the OS itself then I don't see how they can be forced to pay anything regardless of what they do or do not bundle.

OT:
My biggest problem with the the EU is why haven't they gone after Apple? Isn't Safari present on every Apple computer? Did Apple add a choose your browser option since the last time I've messed with them? Also how are you supposed to download another browser if you don't have a browser to begin with?

They tried to go after Apple because of the dominance of iTunes and lock-in with the iPod.

No point in going after them for bundling Safari with Mac OS X, because Mac market share isn't high enough to justify it.

I'd like to see them forced to let users choose other search providers besides Google and Yahoo! but I'm biased.

Honestly I think the OS would only take off if we several decades into the future where wireless charging and wifi are available anywhere. And dont forget, the more Google sticks its nose into everyone's life the more open it is to random lawsuits.

Keep in mind this is targeting a specific group of people, i.e those that just want to surf the internet, whereas Windows 7 is more for the people that want basically a large PDA or tiny computer, depending on how you look at it. I think that if they can play their cards right, then it will be a reasonable base OS that they can perfect and build on in the years to come.

OrOS wrote:

Why can't Google be original too and create something new?

What weed are you smoking? Google has tons of original projects - including their massive infrastructure. And ever heard of that thing...what was it...ah, Android.

He's talking about the OS design, not Google's originality itself

>3 month old threads should be locked.. T_T

Heya!

I just wanted to add a few comments on this topic. =]

Firstly, ChromeOS actually makes very little changes to the Operating System. just consider the Cache in the browser similar to "Apt" or any other package manager, HTML instead of GTK as the widget set, Javascript instead of Python (or other). And with HTML5 on the way (Altho im sceptical myself) and targetting "web applications", having local storage access in the browser, better "offline" applications, faster applications etc, you can see why google are doing what they are with chrome.

However, That said. I personally feel its going in the wrong direction. I believe that the features of the web that make the web so great, should really be implemented into an operating system (bottom-up) instead of implementing a web browser as the operating system (top-down).

While the differences are small (tho its not out yet, it remains to be seen how small!), I believe it removes too much choice.

Should every application have to fit within one (Web browser specified) window? Should a window always be rectangular? How is application dependencies going to be handled? (E.g. running an application, but only half of it is cached. You try and run a function that is unavailable)?

All of the above points relate to HTML, but another good point to make is that HTML/HTTP/Web Browsers have to mechanisms to allow users or developers to change or choose there toolkit or processing language the application uses (Something similar to the "#!/bin/python" or "#!/bin/bash" etc at the top of files). What if I WANT to use GTK? I could patch the web browser to support it, but would mean the user's of the application would have to run the patched browser version.

Speed is never the issue in this day and age, While compiled and machine languages are great, Javascript (or Python or any interpreted language) will in the near future be able to offer the same computing tasks to users, with very little user noticeable differences. Even the <canvas> tag is aimed at accelerated 2D and 3D rendering.

I look forward to ChromeOS, but I cant see it doing very well (pfft but what do i know?). I think only the brand and having the OS come with hardware will be "selling it" for google, hell, i've seen 5 billboards now advertising "Google Chrome". Its not going to be easy for them. As you guys know, OS design needs a hell of alot of thought

MikeyB

I think the problem with feasibility with web applications replacing native ones is HTML and Javascript can only go so far...

Trying to make a simple calculator for the web that behaves as well as a native calculator is very difficult and requires a lot of javascript hacking(in my mind, javascript is definitely not intended to be a language capable of implementing an entire application.. though it can)

I say the web needs 2 things. Something more expressive than HTML, and a way to use a scripting language other than javascript(while being portable)..

I say if X had limited support for client-side code execution and could be used securely and compressed(very well) then it would suite the next generation of thin clients...

@earlz, your example chose is the one i use to point out how web 2 will work, its so simple and OS Dev's should look forward to the day it comes, and mark my words it will come and soon.
The way it will works is this, you send the numbers to the server, it does the calculation and sends the result back.
Now we all know you can do this on any PC, but its a simple example of how it will work.
Now lets show a more interesting example, how many hobby OS would like to do voice recognition on there OS ?, i bet most would, but thats almost impossable using the none web 2 method, but now google offer a free service, where you send it a small voice recording and it sends you back the word or words.
This is how device like the i-phone do voice recognition, every os developer should go and search google for 'dashboard widgets', 'screenlets', 'webgadgets' etc.
Remember geeks do not chose what will be the next trend in OS design, its the common people and business, the common mass who live most of there online lives on facebook, etc, as soon as they take a photo they upload it to facebook, they lose there phones or change there laptop so fast that data is safer online.

I was laughed at when i pointed that web OS's are the way things are going, now google has payed a group of smart people, to come to the same conclusion, who laughing now ?.

You can make big money if you get in now, remember how google works, you input data (keywords) it goes to google server, looks it up in its data base and sends you the results ( the same as the calc example), now you need to do the same for other services.

A example that would be good for hobby OS's, would be server that converted html pages to plan text.

earlz wrote:I think the problem with feasibility with web applications replacing native ones is HTML and Javascript can only go so far...

Trying to make a simple calculator for the web that behaves as well as a native calculator is very difficult and requires a lot of javascript hacking(in my mind, javascript is definitely not intended to be a language capable of implementing an entire application.. though it can)

I say the web needs 2 things. Something more expressive than HTML, and a way to use a scripting language other than javascript(while being portable)..

I say if X had limited support for client-side code execution and could be used securely and compressed(very well) then it would suite the next generation of thin clients...

Javascript is one of the nicest scripting languages around (If were comparing the language alone - I'll admit others win the usability front on libraries).

Browser javascript, on the other hand.... (This is why you use jQuery!)

Owen wrote:

earlz wrote:I think the problem with feasibility with web applications replacing native ones is HTML and Javascript can only go so far...

Trying to make a simple calculator for the web that behaves as well as a native calculator is very difficult and requires a lot of javascript hacking(in my mind, javascript is definitely not intended to be a language capable of implementing an entire application.. though it can)

I say the web needs 2 things. Something more expressive than HTML, and a way to use a scripting language other than javascript(while being portable)..

I say if X had limited support for client-side code execution and could be used securely and compressed(very well) then it would suite the next generation of thin clients...

Javascript is one of the nicest scripting languages around (If were comparing the language alone - I'll admit others win the usability front on libraries).

Browser javascript, on the other hand.... (This is why you use jQuery!)

I guess but you can only go so far... Making a calculator in GTK or similar native graphical toolkit is trivial. Making a calculator in javascript is.... a pretty big little undertaking for a simple example. (especially if you add in AJAX)

And @Dex, No this is not what I am saying..

I'm saying the next Web 3.0 stuff will be a hybrid. Like the workload is split between the server and client, and programming a calculator is trivial, but you could go two options. You could send the input data to the server, or you could process it client side.. using the same language on both sides if preferred, and the transfer of data is seemless, if not transparent...

Basically my idea is to have access to something as powerful as a native graphical toolkit on the client side along with being able to execute the same language as the server uses and do it seemlessly.

The graphical toolkit is completely independent of the language! I've used Qt by Javascript, and it is lovely. If it had the libraries of languages like Python, it would be brilliant, and one of the most productive environments around.

JavaScript is awesome because it is basically a Lisp with Java syntax and OOP support