Google Chrome OS

[Zeroth]

Google IS making an OS:
Offical Google Blog
New York Times Coverage

Holy... o.o

Although I wonder just how much of Linux they're using. And how polished it will be. Google has been inconsistent in the quality of their apps in the past.

[ecookman]

ooh cool. I heard that they made a mobile OS android or something like that, but a full blown OS?! WOW. what doesn't google do nowadays.

@ your last comment, yea me too

[saltpro15]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSS!!!!!!!!!!

that is freakin sweet! The only question I have is will it replace ubuntu?

[DtY]

"Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips"
Are they counting x86_64 in that?

I guess this means that chrome, the newest "open source" web browser will be coming to Linux soon.

[rdrake]

DtY @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:33 am wrote:

I guess this means that chrome, the newest "open source" web browser will be coming to Linux soon.

It already does, it just sucks.

Dox.

[apomb]

I was going to post this earlier. It has some overlap with android, but apparently its a little more powerful for running on netbooks and up.

[DtY]

rdrake @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:15 am wrote:

DtY @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:33 am wrote:

I guess this means that chrome, the newest "open source" web browser will be coming to Linux soon.

It already does, it just sucks.

Dox.

Oh wow. They could have made that more obvious, maybe have a link to download source next to download for Windows and nothing else.

[Insectoid]

Hmm. from what I read, it will just be a web browser OS. After all, with Google trying to own the internet, why bother making it do anything else?

I don't doubt that it will have various standard applications built in, but other than that, it'll just be a laptop that does nothing but download and display internet pages. A modern cell phone will have more capabilities.

[apomb]

possibly insectoid, possibly.

but also, this might be a good thing for developing countries?

anyone else got ideas for cheap, low-power requirement computers?

[Dan]

Theres a few reason why i don't think this is a good thing, or at least not that excting:

1. It's not an OS, it is going to be a new window manger for linux that only runs chrome.
2. This likey means no port of chrome (by google) for linux that is useable in X.
3. There online aps are a move back to thin client/mainframe type system with is bad for a few reasons:


a. It's slower unless the application invloes some extermly cpu or ram instive work (witch google aps don't).
b. It's less reliablale, if your internet goses down or there server goses down you can't use your word editor.
c. You lose all control of the sotware. The window manger might be open source but there is nothing stoping google from discuting there online based aps, forcing users to pay for them, or slaping ads all over it.
d. You can't use it when you don't have an internet connection.


4. Google has a bad history for not respecting users privacy (at least in terms of colecting data on them). If all your aps are web based and by google thats alot of info they could be colecting on you.
5. It sounds like this new window manger will only run chrome, meaning no firefox or other browsers. A window manger aimed at web apps could be intresting but it sounds like they are locking it down to chrome only.
6. There is no point. How is this any better then me installing chrome on windows or on linux with X (if there was a working port for it). In fact it just limits what you can do. If you want light weight it would be better to run an existing minimual window manger and a combatale free open source browser.
7. Making an OS (or window manager) just for one application is nuts.
8. I just don't like chrome to start with :p

On the other side there are a few good things about this:

1. It will piss of microsoft and apple. Witch is postive as more comptiontion is noraml good for the consumer.
2. It is open source and free so at the very least we are geting yet another linux distro and another window manger.
3. It is chrome on a linux kernel even if it is not for X, it might make it easyer to get a port working for X.
4. This could work well in cases where you have almost no local resoruces, such as booting off a live cd and there is no hard drive and almost no RAM or CPU as everything will be a web app. However even my netbook has enought of all of those to run open office fine.
5. It might be a gate way for peoleop to switch from windows to linux and it means another company with alot of resources getting behind the linux kernel.
6. Watching RMS freak out about this (can't wait for a vid about it).

[rdrake]

Dan @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:30 pm wrote:

Theres a few reason why i don't think this is a good thing, or at least not that excting:

1. It's not an OS, it is going to be a new window manger for linux that only runs chrome.
2. This likey means no port of chrome (by google) for linux that is useable in X.

There is already a port of Chrome to Linux, it's just incomplete and sucks. It sounds to me like Google has a nicer port of Chrome to Linux and just hasn't made it available to the public.

Dan @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:30 pm wrote:

6. There is no point. How is this any better then me installing chrome on windows or on linux with X (if there was a working port for it). In fact it just limits what you can do. If you want light weight it would be better to run an existing minimual window manger and a combatale free open source browser.

I think the idea is to let the user have access to their web applications in an instant. My Ubuntu install takes 20 seconds to boot up, and about 20 more seconds for X to start.

Dan @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:30 pm wrote:

3. It is chrome on a linux kernel even if it is not for X, it might make it easyer to get a port working for X.

As they say in the world of X, ""we provide mechanism, but not policy." The window manager sits on top of X.

Dan @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:30 pm wrote:

6. Watching RMS freak out about this (can't wait for a vid about it).

If you every come across a video/audio clip/document of him freaking out over this, please send it along. It'll be hilarious.

[Dan]

rdrake @ 8th July 2009, 5:24 pm wrote:

Dan @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:30 pm wrote:

Theres a few reason why i don't think this is a good thing, or at least not that excting:

1. It's not an OS, it is going to be a new window manger for linux that only runs chrome.
2. This likey means no port of chrome (by google) for linux that is useable in X.

There is already a port of Chrome to Linux, it's just incomplete and sucks. It sounds to me like Google has a nicer port of Chrome to Linux and just hasn't made it available to the public.

This is why i had the "by google" in the ()s. Also the reason google has given for not porting it them self is that there are to many window systems, i would assume this means there google os port is not going to work on X.

Quote:

I think the idea is to let the user have access to their web applications in an instant. My Ubuntu install takes 20 seconds to boot up, and about 20 more seconds for X to start.

It still has to boot the linux kernel and then boot there window mangment system and chrome. I don't see how this would be faster then using a light weight browser and windows mangments system that are allready in existcen.

Quote:

As they say in the world of X, ""we provide mechanism, but not policy." The window manager sits on top of X.

My understand is this would replace X not run on top of it. I could be wrong but then it would seem to be even more pointless if this is more of a KDE/gnome replacment. Why not just realse chrome for linux and not make it it's own distro?

[Zren]

Dan @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:50 pm wrote:

My understand is this would replace X not run on top of it. I could be wrong but then it would seem to be even more pointless if this is more of a KDE/gnome replacment. Why not just realse chrome for linux and not make it it's own distro?

Google needs a reason to make the OS. Honnestly, chrome for Linux is nice, but no matter what, it will have problems. If they spent all that time just to please linux users (quite frankly, not a very large portion of the user base), then all Google would gain is Linux programming expirience, and a slightly larger and hapier userbase.

Instead, why not invest even more time into an entire operating system, exploring other fields of work such as the kernel and window management/gui, and end up with an entire computer, branded for Google operations. With probably, Chrome as the default. Getting rid of Microsoft's key lifeblood. However, Chrome OS computers would most likely only have techies as early adopters (who'd already played with chrome already).

Quote:

It's less reliablale, if your internet goses down or there server goses down you can't use your word editor.

Unless they extend Gears to include entire applications.

[rizzix]

Dan @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:50 pm wrote:

Quote:

As they say in the world of X, ""we provide mechanism, but not policy." The window manager sits on top of X.

My understand is this would replace X not run on top of it. I could be wrong but then it would seem to be even more pointless if this is more of a KDE/gnome replacment. Why not just realse chrome for linux and not make it it's own distro?

Gnome and KDE are desktop environments. Metacity and KWin are (default) window managers for the Gnome and KDE desktop environments. Google intends to create their own Window Manager. This perhaps could fit in with the Gnome desktop environment to give a Gnome-Chrome experience. Popular combinations now-a-days are Gnome-compiz, Gnome-xmonad and Gnome-awesomewm.