Google's Chrome operating system

probe

Today's FT has an item on Google's plans for a Linux based operating system launch. It will be aimed at everything from netbooks to full-sized desktops and will be available pre-installed "from multiple PC makers" from the second half of next year.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86b864c0-6b87-11de-9320-00144feabdc0.html

Khannie

Nice.

"Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel"

Sounds good to me.

Sully

Sounds interesting but a "back to basics" operating system will take a long time to kick off and becoming any compeditor to Microsoft - apart from techies of course. When will see a Beta?!

Blowfish

Interesting. Having Google's weight behind it is probably something that Linux could do with.

It's fairly ironic though that the Linux version of Chrome hasn't even been released, yet they want to base an entire OS around it.

Khannie

Blowfish wrote: »

It's fairly ironic though that the Linux version of Chrome hasn't even been released, yet they want to base an entire OS around it.

Good point. At least we know that it'll be very heavily developed when that does happen though.

justsomebloke

however in Europe will this be an OS built around an internet browser that can't actually come with that internet browser due to the anti competitive nature of it, as seen with windows?

Khannie

Shipping with a browser is not anti-competitive. Windows ships with internet explorer.

Sully

Khannie wrote: »

Shipping with a browser is not anti-competitive. Windows ships with internet explorer.

Thought this has changed in Europe with Windows 7?

EvilMonkey

A crippled Linux distro that only lets you install web apps, eh no thanks google.

justsomebloke

Khannie wrote: »

Shipping with a browser is not anti-competitive. Windows ships with internet explorer.

it won't in windows 7 though due to the EU not letting it so this should come under the same restrictions

Khannie

Wow. Didn't know that.

But sure ubuntu ships with firefox.

Blowfish

Joe the Santa wrote: »

it won't in windows 7 though due to the EU not letting it so this should come under the same restrictions

That was more about the fact that they were abusing their dominant market share in the OS market to 'force' market share gain for IE in the browser market.

Since Google OS wont be dominant in any market at the start, there'll be no issues shipping it with Chrome.

EvilMonkey

Sully wrote: »

Thought this has changed in Europe with Windows 7?

Blowfish wrote: »

That was more about the fact that they were abusing their dominant market share in the OS market to 'force' market share gain for IE in the browser market.

Since Google OS wont be dominant in any market at the start, there'll be no issues shipping it with Chrome.

But they are dominant in web search, will they be allowed to link to google search or have it as the default in chrome?

joe_chicken

Blowfish wrote: »

Since Google OS wont be dominant in any market at the start, there'll be no issues shipping it with Chrome.

So what happens when they do become dominant?

Great point Joe the Santa, just goes to show how ridiculous the European ruling was.

turgon

Blowfish wrote: »

It's fairly ironic though that the Linux version of Chrome hasn't even been released, yet they want to base an entire OS around it.

Maybe the idea is to have Chrome OS as the only Linux based OS able to run Chrome, thereby eliminating competition from other Linux distros who would argue their distros are effectively Chrome OS + other stuff. ]

Edit: maybe not...

An Fear Aniar

I would not want a computer that I cannot use without an internet connection. I think the whole cloud idea is stupid.

.

EvilMonkey

joe_chicken wrote: »

So what happens when they do become dominant?

Great point Joe the Santa, just goes to show how ridiculous the European ruling was.

The European ruling didn't tell them to take IE out Microsoft decided to do that by themselves. They just wanted the option of not installing it, since most OEM PC retailers will include IE or another browser It wont really make a difference.

Anyway back to google this is just another platform for them to put ads on.

EvilMonkey

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I would not want a computer that I cannot use without an internet connection. I think the whole cloud idea is stupid.

.

I'm sure they would make it work offline.

Blowfish

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I would not want a computer that I cannot use without an internet connection. I think the whole cloud idea is stupid.

.

I think that's the crux of it. If it's essentially a Linux kernel with Chrome on top and not much else, it's not going to keep the OSS people happy.

If it's a full fledged Linux OS with a focus on Chrome and a few other Google-y bits, but still keeps the full power of the Linux-ey bits too, then it'll be pretty good.

liamo

As I understand it, the EU told MS that they must offer choice! That is, upon starting Windows for the first time, the user should be offered a choice of browser to install.

Rather than having to offer Firefox/Opera/etc to Windows users, MS wanted to ship Windows 7 with no browser installed at all. I believe that the problem with this is that the only way (for most people) to get a browser onto the PC would be to install IE via Windows Update.

MS has been tried and convicted of abusing their position of strength in the market place. If they played fair and by the rules there would be no need to impose restrictions on what they do.

I believe Google is also facing an anti-trust case but this is related to search. But just because MS has been told to unbundle IE from Windows, it doesn't follow that Google must also do the same with a brand new OS.

In fact, thinking about it a little further, that doesn't even make sense really. What they're doing is distributing a Browser not an OS. The browser has to run on top of an OS so they built one. This is completely different to building a browser into an OS which is what MS did. Of course, they then had to reverse this in Visa & W7.

Of course, if Google do become dominant in this area and if they do abuse their position of power in the marketplace then, yes, most definitely they should be dealt with. However, let's not get ahead of ourselves - it's only just been announced; it hasn't even been released yet!

Anyway, enough of my ramblings. I'm looking forward to seeing how this works out for Google and what their new OS is like. Whether or not I end up using it, competition in the marketplace is good for the consumer and I welcome any new entrants!

JPA

If the OS is free can it be considered anti competitive to include a browser?
Or anything else they want?

EvilMonkey

JPA wrote: »

If the OS is free can it be considered anti competitive to include a browser?
Or anything else they want?

Is it free if you pay for it by looking at their ads

matrim

The way I saw this was similar to the quick boot linux distros that they are shipping with some systems now. I know this is aimed at netbooks but the concept seems fairly similar to me i.e. A lightweight distro with the basics you need for browsing the web

An Fear Aniar

This article pretty much nails the reasons why this OS is not going to make much of a dent in Microsoft's market share:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/09/dzuiba_google_chrome_redux/

Some choice quotes:

Ah, yes. Corporate IT workers everywhere have to port decades of esoteric business logic codified into Excel macros to Google Spreadsheets, but the real problem is, what are they going to do after lunch?

Run business apps over a faulty network instead of from your hard disk? What could possibly go wrong? Can I buy an extended warranty with that?

.

Khannie

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I would not want a computer that I cannot use without an internet connection. I think the whole cloud idea is stupid.

90% of a computer is feckin' useless without an internet connection IMO. Linux especially. Internet connections are now _everywhere_. Hell, I had one in my feckin' hut in the arse end of the jungles of Northern Thailand last year.

Khannie

That article is gas. I lol'd hard in the oifig.

Poulgorm

Google are serious players. One thing they always get right in their software packages is the interface - ref Chrome, Sketchup, Gmail etc. All their software is light and fast. Everybody says that Linux is basically a more sound OS than Windows - but the interface lets it down. Google will simplify it, slim it down, cut out the stuff that is not required by users (e.g backward compatibilty with 286s) and get away from typing in commands. Even the Ubuntu interface is awful - any non-techie try to install Lotus Symphony in Ubuntu? Not possible.

Microsoft, watch out. They are out to get you. Won't happen overnight, though.

Blowfish

Poulgorm wrote: »

any non-techie try to install Lotus Symphony in Ubuntu? Not possible.

Doesn't it come as a .deb file. If so, it's just a matter of dowloading, then double clicking.

Skrynesaver

I see this as a potential offering to ISPs, hosted Google apps (w. gears for offline work), hosted Google mail etc...

Reduces a cost centre for ISPs (mail etc) and they may even get a kickback on the ad revenue their users generate.

I foresee mass layoffs in ISP mail infrastructure in 2-3 years

turgon

Wont an "OS" based on the Internet eat up your download limits? Ive had Ubuntu 2 or 3 months and I think Ive been fined for exceeding the 10GB/month quota.

ntlbell

turgon wrote: »

Wont an "OS" based on the Internet eat up your download limits? Ive had Ubuntu 2 or 3 months and I think Ive been fined for exceeding the 10GB/month quota.

WTF has using ubuntu got to do with your monthly BB cap?

turgon

ntlbell wrote: »

WTF has using ubuntu got to do with your monthly BB cap?

Nothing, of course, except that it seems Ubuntu downloads more from the net than Windows between software and updates etc. But my point is that if Google OS is principally based on the net, then the downloaded GB's per months will go up. Its is quite possible people will break their limits and be fined and/or be forced to upgrade. So your free OS isnt so free anymore.

ntlbell

turgon wrote: »

Nothing, of course, except that it seems Ubuntu downloads more from the net than Windows between software and updates etc. But my point is that if Google OS is principally based on the net, then the downloaded GB's per months will go up. Its is quite possible people will break their limits and be fined and/or be forced to upgrade. So your free OS isnt so free anymore.

It might be based around some web based apps.

i.e. instead of MS office using googles online office and gmail instead of outlook etc etc

but the amount of traffic apps like this generates is relatively small and if these small apps are causing one to go over there BB cap then they should really consider giving there ISP the boot 10gb caps on BB access is pretty pointless.

An Fear Aniar

Since you're not going to be installing apps on your hard drive, you're not going to be downloading much anyway, you'll be mostly uploading. Unless you want to torrent movies or something.

.

probe

The Chrome browser and Google apps gives one lots of functionality without Chrome being an operating system as it stands.

The big problem with Google and Chrome browser is their tendency to breach privacy. The Chrome browser has a serial number. Google owns doubleclick - the all over the place third party cookie merchant. With email and banking and everything else one does, they are building up a total profile of your mind and lifestyle.

Taken to its ultimate conclusion, a "google hosepipe" feed is a threat to democracy. While Google looks like an e-ad agency, AT&T and their competitors looked like phone companies until the Sep 11 excuse arrived on the scene. They then started providing an illegal real-time feed to who calls whom and when to government agencies while Bush & Co launched its oil grab on Iraq.

If they get their hands on your operating system.... the possibilities are limitless. One might as well be using Windows. Windows ME with no firewall and a 1 Gbits/sec connection to the internet, with all your company's date exposed!

Chrome is one Linux distro I would think carefully before installing.

Parser

"Google Chrome OS is Google Chrome bundled with a Linux Distribution".

I've read that a few times on a few different websites. A fundamental lack of knowledge on how computers, operating systems and software works.

It should be:

"Google Chrome OS is a Linux Distribution bundled with Google Chrome".

You see an operating system comes before higher level software like a web-browser.

I'm going to get a stripped down Linux Distro, install Firefox on it, get Firefox to start automatically once Linux has booted and call it "Mozilla Firefox OS".

Oracle

From the Google Chrome (browser) for Linux page:

* An early developer channel version is available, but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD IT... unless you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable and potentially crashing software, and don't mind that it doesn't support Flash, YouTube, printing or some privacy options.

Yeah, whatever you do DON'T DOWNLOAD IT... but just in case you want to, we've provided a handy link to the download page. :rolleyes:

marco_polo

turgon wrote: »

Wont an "OS" based on the Internet eat up your download limits? Ive had Ubuntu 2 or 3 months and I think Ive been fined for exceeding the 10GB/month quota.

Since the size of an ubuntu installation is probably 2-3 GB max, and even a major Kernel update would probably weigh in at around the 100MB mark, forgive me if I am a little sceptical that Ubuntu requires 10GB of updates a month. :rolleyes:

turgon

marco_polo wrote: »

Since the size of an ubuntu installation is probably 2-3 GB max, and even a major Kernel update would probably weigh in at around the 100MB mark, forgive me if I am a little sceptical that Ubuntu requires 10GB of updates a month. :rolleyes:

Well when I installed Ubuntu 9.04 I had 110 mb of software updates to install right away. But your probably right. It was just a question I threw out for the sake of discussion, please forgive my insolence.

marco_polo

turgon wrote: »

Well when I installed Ubuntu 9.04 I had 110 mb of software updates to install right away. But your probably right. It was just a question I threw out for the sake of discussion, please forgive my insolence.

Hmm I think I was a bit blunt yeesterday, apologies. But I would be amazed if more than a couple of a gigs came down the line even if you installed practically everything possible.

On the topic of the thread, this sounds like the worst idea ever from Google.

liamo

marco_polo wrote: »

On the topic of the thread, this sounds like the worst idea ever from Google.

The author of this article explains why it's a great idea.

The summary?
MS releases Bing. threatening Google's search business.
In response, Google announces Google Chrome OS to distract MS and make them concentrate on protecting their own OS and Office software business.

Made sense to me.

turgon

I think people will be attracted by the branding. Trying to sell Google OS will be a lot easier than Linux. When it comes to standard computer users they seem to be very skeptical of things or brands they havent heard of, and Google will soothe that somewhat imo.


I dont know if you could convert Google OS users to regular Linux users though.

Parser

liamo wrote: »

The summary?
MS releases Bing. threatening Google's search business.
In response, Google announces Google Chrome OS to distract MS and make them concentrate on protecting their own OS and Office software business.

Made sense to me.

Why do Google and Microsoft even try to compete?

One makes good internet applications, one makes good operating systems.

Microsoft are **** at internet apps, weather it be search engines, the stupid and pointless silverlight, or internet explorer.

Google have no real expertise is operating systems and will just be using a Linux distro with google branding all over it.

generalmiaow

Its interesting to see how the technically minded users of the internet have already splintered into pro- and anti- Chrome OS users. I don't really mean the good people of this thread who have opinions, I'm talking about the raging fanboys of other websites.

It's an unreleased product for a market that doesn't exist yet, it will be free yet obviously optional, and people have already decided they either love it or hate it and are defending or criticising it in huge heated flamewars.

EvilMonkey

Parser wrote: »

Why do Google and Microsoft even try to compete?

One makes good internet applications, one makes good operating systems.

Microsoft are **** at internet apps, weather it be search engines, the stupid and pointless silverlight, or internet explorer.

Google have no real expertise is operating systems and will just be using a Linux distro with google branding all over it.

So are google they usually buy them.