SuperSite Blog

Pingback from  Introducing the Google Chrome OS | The Software Nook

I like Chrome but for very limited online tasks, none of them getting email. Its ugly, lackluster, and featureless. All it is is fast, and when I have a bad connection its very useful. If they have an OS based on Chrome I'm not that interested, certainly nothing for Microsoft or Apple to worry about.

Whats truly interesting (and innovative in my opinion) is that, as with Chrome, Google takes a very low-key approach to helping users do what they want to do.  They show the way with their products, and if their innovations are adopted by other competitors (Firefox & IE, for example) it's a OK, as long as the end user benefits.

And...MS is responding (actually preempting):

“Gazelle essentially leverages the existing mechanisms of operating systems and tailors them to the needs of Web applications.”

blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft

Hmmmmmmm.

Maybe I won't upgrade from XP after all and just wait to see what Chrome OS turns out to be.

Much like Android, people will briefly hail this as the second coming simply because of the "G" word... and then realize that, at least initially, there will be no compelling reason to use or want it.

The real question this OS raises is - do we need desktop applications anymore?

If not, there really is no need for Windows (and maybe even the mac).

For the time being, maybe the question is a bit more limited - is there enough people out there for whom desktop applications are unnecessary?  

I have to say, I'm beginning to wonder whether desktop apps are necessary today for most people, at least for the PC or laptop form factor.

More about Gazelle (Google is like Apple -- everything they do gets press, even when other companies have been doing the same work already):

>>Currently, browsers don’t offer resource management for devices; they do not manage access to devices or provide a consistent, systematic way of allowing access or managing sharing when Web-site principals are contending for the same resource. For example, browser plug-ins handle access to devices such as Webcams, printers, or game accessories. But how the device is accessed and controlled is up to the plug-in author. Furthermore, plug-ins can interact directly with the operating system and are not constrained by the browser’s security policies. Thus it is possible for plug-ins with conflicting policies to access the same device.

In the Gazelle model, the browser-based OS, typically called the browser kernel, protects principals from one another and from the host machine by exclusively managing access to computer resources, enforcing policies, handling interprincipal communications, and providing consistent, systematic access to computing devices.<<

And the biggie:

>>“I would like to see Web applications achieve function and quality parity with desktop apps,” Wang says. “That’s the ultimate goal of this research.”<<

research.microsoft.com/.../gazelle-062909.aspx

"Google Chrome OS is a new project, separate from Android"

"Because we're already talking to partners about the project"

Obviously not to the already existing partners that are investing millions in Android development for netbooks.

"Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS."

"People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up....They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files."

(as long as Google has the same level of access to your data....)

How much speed do they want to bombard you with xxx # of ads anyway?

So long as data is stored in Google's datacenters, security is not going to be an option.  Google just wants all of your data because, as you may or may not know already, their revenue stream comes from data collection and advertising.  They don't go out of their way to develop these applications for the good of their health or for some philanthropic "web community" project.  They're in it to make money.  They way they make money is by collecting usage and personal information and selling it to advertisers.  The internet will turn into "Newspapers 2.0", and Google will be there, leading the race to clog up the tubes.

"people will briefly hail this as the second coming simply because of the "G" word... and then realize that, at least initially, there will be no compelling reason to use or want it."

Kind of like gOS (initially designed to be a Linux to run Google Apps on Gears), or Android, which is still half-baked, incomplete beta-quality software.

Well, the bunker buster bomb just landed in Redmond.

If anyone here thinks MSFT isn't worried, you're fooling yourself. How long does MSFT think an expensive (up to $319.99!?), multiple-version (six, including upgrades), insecure (Gumblar, anyone?) OS like Windows 7 is going to last when the vast majority of people just want Internet and email access?

So Google is going to challenge Apple and Microsoft. I didn't anyone had the cajones. (Huge grin.) Since Apple won't lower their prices or fix their security issues, Cannonical doesn't make the necessary changes to make Ubuntu a prime time player, and Microsoft screwed up with Windows 7 prices while beating a dead horse with XP, its time to put my money where my mouth is.

I've always said someone needs to challenge all three companies, and I'm more inclined to help Google than to allow the status quo between both companies. I've been waiting for someone to step up and Google has not disappointed me.

So I'm going to throw my hat into this. Whatever beta or whatever is going on, I want to be apart of it. If they can build a better Linux that ready to challenge both OSes, I want them to try. Its clear that Cannonical makes good strides with Ubuntu, but they clearly aren't going far enough. So, Google, I'm with you. Lets see what you can do. Maybe if Microsoft, Cannonical, and Apple each get a kick in the balls, the insanity of high OS prices, lack of interoperability, and even higher hardware prices will finally come to an end. All the incompatibilities between the three OSes might also come to an end.

With technology getting cheaper and cheaper, if this is a free OS with the Google touch, shaking up OS world like a Google version of Celestial Being would be a pleasure. So I for one am going to commit to this new Google Chrome OS. I've been living in the fringe with Windows 7, lets see what the new kids can do.

Paul, thank you so much. Kudos for passing this on. I wonder how many Windows, Apple, and Cannonical fans will follow suit? They've shown competence with the browser, so game on!

How exactly is this really a new OS? It's simply Linux with Chrome accessing Google websites. I can do that now running Ubuntu with Chrome - or better yet, Windows 7 with Chrome - or better yet, Windows 7 with Firefox. Wait... I am doing that now.

It sounds like the Chrome OS is only special (and minimally so) if you have a netbook that is always online. If for some reason you can't be online then you are screwed and you basically have an open-source brick in your hands.

I'm glad Google is doing this - competition is always welcome, as is innovation. However, is this really the best that Google could come up with? Chrome running on top of a rebranded, stripped-down Linux? Where's the innovation in that? That's exactly what Asus did with the first Linux-based EEE PCs more than 2 years ago.

Let's face it, Google is only getting huge press with this announcement because they are Google, not because this is any kind of ground breaking innovation. But I hope they do a good job with it because it will only serve to push Microsoft harder to innovate and become more competitive price-wise.

>>It's simply Linux with Chrome<<

I suspect you have vastly minimized the work that Google has planned and is working to release.

blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett A very good and sober initial perspective.

Personally, I don't see much difference between this and ExpressGate, which has been shipping with ASUS main boards and products for years now - to no effect.

@BladRnr:

Gumblar affects Google searches.

I bet Google is advertising for websites that serve it too.

Tip:  Don't use Google.

LOL!

@sub:

I couldn't tell if that was total sarcasm or not, until I could confirm it with the last sentence:

"They've shown competence with the browser"

When big news breaks that everyone is hyping up, you write an article opposite of the stream to bring yourself eyeballs.

It will be a long time before this replaces anything I use.

If all people needed was internet and email, Ubuntu would be huge.

And as someone pointed out, this is just like your normal computer running a browser. Only without any extra functionality. So it's like the computer you're using right now, but not as good.

Ooooooh, futuristic.

Been there, done that:

www.thinkgos.com/.../index.html

Wae, does this news mean you'll finally be done with this "computer shop" business you've got going on in the basement?

Ocean: According to Google's own press release, "The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web."

So it IS simply Linux running Chrome and all the good stuff is in the web-based applications not in the OS itself. Could I not just access those same web apps using Chrome, Firefox, Safari or IE on any other operating system? I really don't see where there is any operating system innovation here.

I do think this announcement would have been a much bigger deal if all Microsoft had for netbooks was the 8 year-old Windows XP and the resource-hogging Windows Vista. Then Microsoft would have been in deep trouble. However, Windows 7 is a great netbook OS - online OR offline.

I'm just disappointed that Google did not really rethink what an OS should be, as they claim. They simply took an existing code-base, tweaked it for their performance needs and slapped their browser on top of it. I really hoped they would completely develop their own revolutionary OS from scratch.

Paul, I thought you banned these jacka$$es

"The real question this OS raises is - do we need desktop applications anymore?"

*snort* That's ridiculous. The answer is a loud and obvious "yes". There's no way in the foreseeable future that you're going to be able to run an application such as FinalCut as a web-based app.

However, for basic word processing, Internet browsing, simple photo management, etc., it's already possible.

"Paul, I thought you banned these jacka$$es"

Clearly not, since you're still here, "waethorn".

>>So it IS simply Linux running Chrome <<

How did you get that from the press release?  Its just a vision statement, a high level overview.  There are no details that backup your statement.  

@kenmcnamnee: "However, is this really the best that Google could come up with?"

Of course it is the best they could come up with.  Can you image the manpower involved in designing a new OS that works with all of the various types of hardware out there?  It would be near impossible for Google to design something new when standing on the shoulders of others is so easy.

For me, personally, the desktop and it's apps that run locally are important.  I'm not a fan of "the cloud" and it's revolution.  It's my uneducated opinion that the desktop as it is today will not fade away, not in business at least.  

I dont know.

Google just has a lousy track record in really standing behind their stuff. They always seem to be off onto there next thing before they really refined the old products.

Way too ADD for me.

Maybe a Palm/Google/Ubuntu joint venture OS that ran on old hardware, and didn't try to play like a replacement for Windows or OSX?

Much like the impending year of Linux, the outright replacement of local applications that can take advantage of the full capabilities of the OS is not going to happen any time soon.  No doubt, improvements will be made to make it more of a reality, but for the time being, you still need an underlying OS.  So I actually agree with lotsa.

And until we actually get reliable and speedy Internet access available to everyone that currently has a computer, the promise of a browser OS will take years and years to pan out.  We are no where near that.  However, Google has the media in a frenzy, and admittedly, this is a good first foray, although I fail to see how this is so significantly different than Android.

"If not, there really is no need for Windows (and maybe even the mac)."

Why is the Mac any different in this instance?  If what you are trying to convey is true, it is actually the other way around, since Windows is usable on a much wider swath of hardware

@waethorn

Here's how stupidly easy Gumblar infects a Windows PC running IE and the typical MSFT way of doing things that allows this to happen within their OS code(from Rixstep):

"Now right away you might realise you've never heard of files with the extension CHM. And that would be because you're not stupid enough to run Windows. CHM files: an actual Microsoft de novo invention - an invention they not only use but actually didn't steal for once. And it shows.

CHM files are 'compiled' HTML files. Only Microsoft would come up with something so stupid. Only Microsoft would attempt even here to corrupt open standards. CHM files are normally application 'help' files but of course can be used for anything.

Such as spreading malware such as Gumblar.

The name 'sqlsodbc.chm' evidently really exists on Windows systems. The name implies it has something to do with SQL and also with ODBC (open database connectivity - one of the ways Microsoft temporarily lured people away from Unix at the end of the last millennium).

But the file can evidently be corrupted. And this is where your warning lights should start blinking and your sirens start screaming.

Look at that path location again. C:\Windows\System32. That's the Windows 'system' directory. That's where all the really important files are located. Something like your /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and (on Mac OS X) /System.

Now see if you can get into any of your own Unix system directories. Just see if you can obtain write privileges without escalation. Nope. Won't work. Now look at that Windows scenario again.

This makes it clear a rogue process was able to modify what's supposed to be a crucial system file.

Now a compiled HTML file might not be what you'd regard as 'crucial'. But it shouldn't be executable either. And in fact no one should be allowed to even breathe hard on anything in an operating system's inner sanctum, no matter what it is.

Besides: a CHM file is not an executable - to make it executable on a 'good' system like Unix would require changing file permissions. But that's obviously no big deal on Windows.

The final insult comes when you realise those lusers got Gumblar on their systems through a 'drive by download' attack - all they did was visit an infected website. There were no buttons to click - it was all 'automatic'.

And they typically didn't notice a thing."

Once again, Windows is dreadfully insecure.

de Silentio: "It would be near impossible for Google to design something new when standing on the shoulders of others is so easy."

Yes, just like Chrome is based on webkit. All I'm saying is that I'm disappointed that Google has turned out to be just a repackager of other people's good ideas. Personally, I don't look forward to a future in which new software ideas are simply rehashes of existing ones. I had hoped that Google would do something exceptional with a new OS, but really it's just another Linux distro.

"Can you image the manpower involved in designing a new OS that works with all of the various types of hardware out there?"

No, but I'm sure Microsoft can

"How did you get that from the press release?  Its just a vision statement, a high level overview.  There are no details that backup your statement.  "

Simple logic.

Need a quickie OS? Take the Linux kernel, slap a shell on it, and brand it with "custom" wallpaper.

There are 1000s of examples of this in the Linux world.

@Ocean:

From Paul's WinInfo: "It's based on the Linux kernel, Google says, and will feature a new windowing system that runs the Chrome browser"

What I find interesting is that Google isn't claiming that this OS isn't out to compete with Windows, like they did with Chrome.

Last, I don't know the technical differences, but I don't think this OS is comparable to the Gazalle Project that Microsfot is involved with.  Gazalle, from what I understand, is a browser that handles resource management, where Google's OS seems to have the Linux Kernal for that.

>>There are 1000s of examples of this in the Linux world.<<

This is something different that 999.9% of those Linux distros.  In fact, it sounds like it will be as different from Linux as Mac OS is from BSD.

Pauls article is up.  It's full of Apple bashing (no surprise there).

"The final insult comes when you realise those lusers got Gumblar on their systems through a 'drive by download' attack - all they did was visit an infected website. There were no buttons to click - it was all 'automatic'.

And they typically didn't notice a thing."

Once again, Windows is dreadfully insecure."

Dont go to suspect website then.

99% of these types of sites are either porn, warez, or have a .ru at the end of their address. You wont have this happen on cnn.com or Winsupersite.

You can do stuff like this with any OS...IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

Ocean, link?  I can't see any link to Paul's article.

cesjr said: "I have to say, I'm beginning to wonder whether desktop apps are necessary today for most people, at least for the PC or laptop form factor."

My company is still using a business system written in 1994 in RBase. I was talking to a supplier yestereday who's company is still on a 1972 IBM Mainframe. You want us to make a jump all the way to Chrome OS, good luck.

@Master,

"Dont go to suspect website then.

99% of these types of sites are either porn, warez, or have a .ru at the end of their address. You wont have this happen on cnn.com or Winsupersite.

You can do stuff like this with any OS...IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT."

Really? Can you give an example of a web site that will infect a Mac? I'd like to see a web site that will do a drive-by download infection of a Mac and I'm willing to be a test case.

Just post the URL.

@Master3

You're right. But that's not my point. Did you not read how MSFT can't write decent code because they allow almost anything to access the System32 folder? That's my point in this argument. MSFT never learned the lessons that Unix OSes already knew 20 years prior. They produced a buggy, poorly written OS pre-Internet and now they are paying the price as they have been since 1995. It's not about what could happen, it's about how insecure, expensive and taxing Windows is, and that MSFT is losing their advantages  when compared to, in this example, Chrome.

"Really? Can you give an example of a web site that will infect a Mac? I'd like to see a web site that will do a drive-by download infection of a Mac and I'm willing to be a test case.

Just post the URL."

Oh settle down!

I meant you can infect any platform if the user is stupid enough to allow it.

Now go hug you Mac. Geesh!

Yet another Linux distro? It's it ironic how the Linux people talk in a negative way about the many versions of Windows followed how many version of Linux there are tailored to the mass... Hmm...

I'll give Chrome OS a spin but I'm happy with Windows.

@Master,

Thanks for clarifying. Of course, -any- OS can be infected if the user stupidly types in a password allowing it. WIndows machines can apparently be infected by visiting a web site, which was sure news to me. I'd have to call that bad design, and I still have difficulty believing that it can really happen...

Pauls article:  windowsitpro.com/.../google-to-take-on-windows-with-new-os.html

Why hasn't Paul discussed Gazelle?

"Paul, I thought you banned these jacka$$es"

"Clearly not, since you're still here, "waethorn"."

And you never fail to show your lack of class.  Maybe you should go back and study a bit harder.

@BladRnr:

Your example means nothing.  Compiled help files have been depracated by Microsoft and Windows Vista doesn't include support for them.

Likewise, the permission escalation point only applies to Windows XP.  Windows Vista doesn't have that issue.

"WIndows machines can apparently be infected by visiting a web site, which was sure news to me."

So can OS X, which was proven 2 years in a row by CanSecWest.

I think Ars nailed it.  It sums up my thinking on the matter:

>>All of that would tend to suggest a Chrome OS could wind up occupying a niche. But that may be perfectly fine from Google's perspective. At the moment, Chrome also occupies a relatively small niche, but it has helped change perceptions of what a browser should do in terms of sandboxing processes and isolating plugins. If the Chrome OS can help change consumer perceptions about the utility of online applications and cloud storage, it could be a big success for Google, even without wide adoption. <<

arstechnica.com/.../googles-chrome-os-coming-to-netbooks-in-late-2010.ars

@Waethorn,

""WIndows machines can apparently be infected by visiting a web site, which was sure news to me."

So can OS X, which was proven 2 years in a row by CanSecWest."

Same request as I made to Master3: Post a URL that demonstrates this, otherwise it is YATVWNRWE, "Yet Another theoretical vulnerability with no real world example".

Apparently there ARE real world examples of drive-by infections on Windows, the question is whether there is an analogous example that will infect a Mac?

The Ars comments have some interesting takes on this.

>>My take is that there simply won't be any other applications. It's a stripped down driver / kernel / wm stack designed strictly to get the browser up and running. No desktop. No start bar. And so on. You turn on your computer, you're in Chrome.

There'll need to be some device-specific stuff, like configuring networking. That'll be implemented as local web apps, using Gears.

In short, everyone keeps seeing "OS" and thinking Windows / Linux / OSX. Chrome OS simply won't play in that space. If you need Photoshop or cutting-edge games, it won't be the OS for you. If you can do what you need in a browser, from email to productivity apps, it'll be super lightweight, very fast, and very secure (well, as much as web apps are).<<

Ditto this blog post:

>>The clear push from Google to get people on the net shows that Google wants to grow its revenue base by increasing the revenue base of the whole Internet advertising industry (with ~70% market share, is there any other significant way?). This also shows a long-term commitment from Google towards the Internet. <<

"And you never fail to show your lack of class. "

Um...I wasn't the one who used the phrase first, "waethorn". You've been running a master course on classlessness since you first popped your ugly head out of the soil on this site.

"You wont have this happen on cnn.com or Winsupersite."

Don't be so certain. "waethorn" has been known to link to malware in the comments forum, classy person that s/he is.

"If they can build a better Linux that ready to challenge both OSes, I want them to try. Its clear that Cannonical makes good strides with Ubuntu, but they clearly aren't going far enough."

Huh?  

Here is the downright truth of it all.  Ubuntu is a great OS, especially in its current form.  OS X is a great OS, and so is Windows 7.

The KEY difference between them is applications.  Its ALL ABOUT the applications.  

Windows is king, because there is not ONE single area of work/fun/ or whatever where Windows does not have an application that can do well.  

OS X is second, because many Windows apps are also on the OS X, Office, Adobe apps, Quickbooks, etc.  Also for some key areas Apple makes some great apps, iLife, and Final Cut are leaders in their respective classes.  However in some areas OS X trails, like say CAD programs.  AutoCAD for Windows has no equivalent on OS X.

Linux has no commercial applications support, beyond FireFox.  Everything is home grown or lags behind commercial apps.  This is to be expected since the makers of these applications do it for no money and have no staff and no resources to pull it off.  Gimp is ok, but its NOT photoshop.  CAD programs, accounting programs etc are just not there.  OpenOffice, not bad for free, but its not Office.

So until the majority of applications run from a browser, Ubuntu and Google OS are going to be a second or third choice for the vast majority of computer users.

@Ocean: "Why hasn't Paul discussed Gazelle?"

He has, if you mean in relation to the Google OS, I already explained that in a previous post, they are not related.

"And you never fail to show your lack of class.  Maybe you should go back and study a bit harder."

That is the irony right there.  Weelittlethorn you are as classless as they come.  Why dont you just post another link to malware like you did once.  Or wait until Steve Jobs is out sick again to make negative comments about him dying.  Or better yet give some fine reviews of fast food, and how Rotten Ronnies is so good in Canada.

@Ocean "Apple, in particular, has experienced strong growth in recent years, although that growth has largely stalled over the past quarter"

Yeah good old Apple bashing.  Funny I have been reading that Apples numbers are really good, especially compared to the PC market.

Of course Paul makes these ridiculous comparisons, Windows sold vs Apple computers sold, when the rest of the IT press will compare Apple computers sold vs HP and others.

www.appleinsider.com/.../demand_for_apples_13_macbook_pro_may_be_outpacing_supply.html

www.appleinsider.com/.../apples_mac_shipments_rebounding_sharply_in_recent_weeks.html

"Here is the downright truth of it all.  Ubuntu is a great OS, especially in its current form.  OS X is a great OS, and so is Windows 7.

The KEY difference between them is applications.  Its ALL ABOUT the applications."

Spot on. The vast majority of users don't even really know what an "OS" is. The just want the damn computer to WORK.

The people I know who claim to like Windows and who aren't "OS war" advocates as in this forum, basically don't use Windows. They live all day in one or two applications. The apps do what they want and that's that. If anything, Windows is the thing that screws up the operation of their apps and the less they deal with it, the happier they are.

Some Windows apps are clunky and hard to use, especially older ones with that hideous "window in a window thing", whatever it was called. Truly awful. Windows programs tend to be very modal; compare changing IP settings on Windows and OS X. Linux apps tend to be highly inconsistent in user interface, and the "user inteface" sometimes seems like a cruel joke. These are, however, minor points compared to the existence and ubiquity of apps that do whatever it is that the user needs.

You basically make a case for buying a computer and OS that will run the most apps. With OSX you get native versions of most things (Autocad is a good counter-example), you get all the Unix/Linux stuff you care to play with, and you get Windows via Bootcamp, Crossover or VMWare to fill in vertical market apps that OS X doesn't have.

To go back to actually topic, I don't see Google OS as a threat to mainstream operating systems, but I think it will erode Windows at the margins, especially at the low end. It may really be "just another Linux", but it is a Linux with Google's clout and money behind it. That's different, and it will have some success in some areas.

You wanted some examples of live, in the real world Mac malware, then look no further:  blogs.paretologic.com/.../mac-security

It does show an important thing, which is very true as it applies to Windows as well.  Most malware uses a social engineering aspect to convince the user to run something.  I can avoid most malware on even a pre-SP2 XP installation.  The Vista kernel, which is so derided in these parts, is actually very secure.  The deprecation of CHM files that Wae mentioned in response to BladRnr's ridiculous quoting of a very anti-MS web site, is just one example of the security improvements that MS has made.  The most recent media reported exploit in DirectShow is also not valid on Vista.

Users will ALWAYS be your weakest link.

BladRnr is obviously RobertsJoe.

Well, this would be amusing if it weren't so, so, so very old and tired.

What we basically have here is Google pretending that they're creating something by offering yet another Linux but this time with application windows replaced with their Chrome browser so you can't use local apps. Wow.

Every few years some company decides that what personal computer users REALLY want is to give up control of their applications and their data and switch back to a dumb terminal running applications hosted on that company's servers. IBM tried it, SUN tried it a couple of times, Oracle tried it as well, Netscape tried it and now Google wants to try it.

Sometimes the hubris of these "centralized control is a good thing as long as I get to control it" people is so predictable that it's stopped being even amusing.

For that matter, even that ultimate control freak Steve Jobs tried it with the initial iPhone and said nobody needed local apps and developers should all stop asking for a native SDK for the iPhone. But even Jobs had the sense to take one look at the results and run screaming into a 180 degreen turnaround so fast it made the industry wonder what had happened.

One quick way to spot to see how serious Google is about this will be to see how many actual Google senior executives (or even employees) will drop their existing computers and replace them with a stripped down browser-only Linux. If SUN and Oracle and IBM are examples with their "terminals are good for people like you" products, all of them will find a reason why they can't switch yet.

But, hey, perhaps there really is a niche for a subset of the computer users who run Linux who also want less options of what to run on their computers than a Mac user. I figure that's at most 3.5% of 1% of the market...

"I wasn't the one who used the phrase first, "waethorn"."

Of course not "losta".  Not under your current login that is.

@mikegalos - Your second, third, and part of the fifth paragraphs hit the nail on the head...the rest of your post was just you being the "anti-anything that is not Microsoft partisan" that we all know that you are.

--tayme

"You've been running a master course on classlessness since you first popped your ugly head out of the soil on this site."

LOL!  You never fail to impress us with your lack of wit.

I'd rather have see more of robertsjoe on here than you.

@Lindy:

You still suck at IT.

Mike, as Ars said:

>>Chrome also occupies a relatively small niche, but it has helped change perceptions of what a browser should do in terms of sandboxing processes and isolating plugins.  If the Chrome OS can help change consumer perceptions about the utility of online applications and cloud storage, it could be a big success for Google, even without wide adoption.<<

I wonder...will Google have anti-trust problems? MS did when they integrated IE into the OS...what about an OS that only boots to the Chrome browser? I would think that is a problem.

--tayme

And then theres this:

>>Blogger Robert Scoble has posted a message on his FriendFeed account, hinting at a Microsoft announcement next Monday, related to Google's OS.

In the posting, Scoble notes "why did Google announce Chrome OS this week? Well, of course, Microsoft has a big announcement coming on Monday (I'm embargoed)".<<

OT:  A Pro-Bing Article:

www.nytimes.com/.../09pogue.html

For those who are interested in history (and why you should start thinking about shorting your Google stock) here's a little background...

In television shows there almost inevitably comes a time when the show decides that they are sufficiently popular or important to give up on their premise and start catering not to their audience but to either a new audience they want to attract or to the egos of their key performers. The mark of this is "very special episodes" or episodes where a cast member "has to" sing or when they have a cast member do a water ski jump over a shark tank.

In the computer industry there are two equivalents.

For application vendors it comes when one or more of their founders decides that they want to kill off Office by building or more frequently acquiring additional applications to build their own suite. The results are predictable.

WordPerfect tried it. Anybody here use WordPerfect as their word processor lately?

Ashton-Tate tried it. The results can be seen in what market share is left for the formerly dominent dBase franchise.

Lotus tried it. The company that owned spreadsheets is now a minor division of another ghost of its former self, IBM.

And that particular shark jumping was even tried by a systems house, Novell. I guess that proves you can even have hubris so massive you can cross the systems/applications boundary.

On the systems side of the industry the shark jumping moment comes not by saying "let's build an OS to compete with Windows" because that's actually very difficult (IBM, Apple and SUN have all tried multiple times and failed miserably multiple times). The way systems houses jump the shark is to say, "There's no need for an operating system any more. We're going to make Windows irrelevant by moving the programming layer above the OS". This is tied to their odd belief that people (not people like them but people they hold in some contempt like their end users) don't want an OS, they'd really prefer a variant of the old terminal model. And so they launch a "new" product line which will move these "users" over to something better suited to their percieved lack of skills.

IBM was built on it and fell back on it by crippling their PC line when it began to kill the System/3x family.

SUN tried multiple times (most famously with SUNray terminals)

Oracle decided that users didn't need an OS and pushed a line of processors that ran Java natively (and a mini-OS to go with them)

Netscape renamed their LiveScript to JavaScript, teamed up with SUN and started raising prices on their browser as the first step in replacing native apps and the underlying OS.

In each case, the company (IBM, SUN, Oracle, Netscape) never recovered.

So, in short, today Google announced their plans to move into the arena of shark jumping. And, I'd bet there are people dancing and popping champagne in the executive offices at the Microsoft campus.

Ocean

The rumors of what's being announced early next week are all over the Internet. (Scoble doesn't exactly have an exclusive here)

Let's just say that the terminal/server model will be dealt a big blow next week yet again.

Boy you don't just blow hot air, it's sizzlin' red-star type fusion.

Again:

>>If the Chrome OS can help change consumer perceptions about the utility of online applications and cloud storage, it could be a big success for Google, even without wide adoption.<<

Just like Chrome...

@tayme:

Google would need monopoly power for it to be an issue, at which point they would likely be required to offer alternative browsers to have connections into the OS similar to how the Chrome web browser would.  Google wouldn't like that very much because they lose control of all of their extra background information collection opportunities, as well as their search defaults.

Of course, it's probably in Google's better interest that they don't achieve critical mass in the market.  It'll never happen anyway.  By the time Google even has the opportunity to achieve a modest amount of marketshare, Microsoft will already have their own web-based operating system platform available, and businesses (the major chunk of the market) will have embraced theirs instead.

As mikegalos says...what harm was done to the consumer in the MS case? I agree with him on that point and think that Google would be treading on thin ice with this...plus, another point that I agree with mikegalos on is that dumb terminals are a thing of the past...not the future. People want control of their apps and especially their data...and I'll say it again...it will be a long time before regulated industries are even remotely allowed to look at something like this...<tinfoil_hat>unless of course, the current administration at any given time, has been bought and paid for by the darling company at any give time...</tinfoil_hat>

--tayme

"Of course not "losta".  Not under your current login that is."

I only have one login, "waethorn", and it's the same one I've always had. Once again, you're wrong. No surprise there.

"By the time Google even has the opportunity to achieve a modest amount of marketshare, Microsoft will already have their own web-based operating system platform available, and businesses (the major chunk of the market) will have embraced theirs instead."

You forgot the next paragraph:

"And partisans like Me and Mikey will embrace it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, conveniently forgetting how they pooh-poohed the concept when it didn't carry the Microsoft brand."

"I only have one login, "waethorn", and it's the same one I've always had."

Oh so you do have DID then.

Lotsa

I'd suggest you look up the difference between Microsoft's S+S (Software plus Serivces) model and the "let everybody use a terminal" SaaS (Software as a Service) model espoused by Google and other centralized computing companies.

If you don't understand the difference you'll be very confused over the next couple of years.

@losta:

You're just as much as a$$ as always.

Businesses don't trust Google.  It's as simple as that.

If anybody can get over the issues of "cloud computing" in the business world, it'll be Microsoft.  They already have their hooks into business processes, so if anybody understands business, it's them.  Google?  No - they do what they want, and businesses don't trust them.  Apple?  Definitely no.  Sun and IBM?  Somewhat, but they aren't what they claim to be, nor are they what they used to be.

Microsoft knows business more than any other software maker.  Try to wrap your mind around that losta.  Go ahead and cry a little if it makes you feel better, I really don't care what you think one way or another.

"OT:  A Pro-Bing Article:

www.nytimes.com/.../09pogue.html"

Yep, and it's currently "above the fold" on the NYT web page. Of course, Pogue is a charter member of the iCabal, an Apple suckup, total shill, hates Microsoft, etc. Or....maybe not. Maybe Paul is the one who sees the world through distorted lenses.

http://www.thinkgos.com/cloud/

"Cloud" is a failure.  They haven't had any major vendors sign on to it, and it hasn't been released yet.  If you want to see another reason for a failure, it's in the icon set in the screenshots - they still have a launch point for Windows.  I guess that proves the point - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  If you can't replace Windows, embrace it (Boot Camp, anyone).

Google's Chrome OS will be the same.

Dop! Here's another Linux based OS...

Is there somebody that can do real OS here??

- Apple don't write their OS anymore, They do a Unix(FreeBNC) UI Shell.

- Ubuntu, gOS, Android, and all these variant are Linux Shell...

- And now Google Chrome OS... Another Linux UI Shell.. And based on a Web Browser !!! Dop!!!

Is there a company that really do new OS here?? Is there only Microsoft that do real OS from A to Z??

Also, Waethorn is right!! Cloud computing will be a failure... Do you know a lot of people that want to let transite all there secrete personal document  stuff on a foreign company server?? Not me!!! Never!!

Sorry but, I NEVER want my Computer OS to be not "designed in an era where there was no web"... My OS  is a thing and the Web is the outside and I want it like this ... There is a life out off the Web... don't forget this...

Based an OS on a Web browser... What we can ear... I think I will begin to develop my own OS based on a Toaster... Imagine browsing the web with the sweet smell of toasting bread.... hmmmm ... Rediculus...

"Let's just say that the terminal/server model will be dealt a big blow next week yet again"

Really?  How so Mike?  

We are nothing but VDI or TS for 98% of our users.  All of them have Wyse terminals.  No way we are going to go back to PC's.

I think that there's merit in what Google's doing only in the sense that competition is good for everybody.

But yes..it will become very apparent next week that Microsoft hasn't been standing still.

If GNU/Linux is free software and meets their requirements then why the hell are people bashing them for wanting to use it? That's like saying every bus operating company has to build separate roads for their buses. Their success will be determined by the usefulness of the product they make, so let them make it however they want to make it and see what comes out at the end.

"If GNU/Linux is free software and meets their requirements then why the hell are people bashing them for wanting to use it?"

I can hear people saying "this is the year of Linux" referring to Google's Chrome OS next year.

In 2011 people will forget that they said that (I'll be happy to remind them >:)  ), and the world will have moved on.

EricoF3

Unfortunately your analysis is correct. Virtually nobody produces new operating systems anymore. Microsoft's Windows NT is the newest architecture out there and it's 20 years old. (Luckily it was pretty much state of the art 20 years ago)

Pretty much everybody else stopped bothering when they tried to write a modern operating system and failed (Apple, IBM, AIM Alliance) or didn't bother and fell back on licensing ancient tech like Unix or Unix clones.

That's one of the real tragedies right now. If you are a systems level software architect coming out of a graduate program these days and want to work in operating systems you either work for Microsoft or you end up tweaking yet another patch on top of an OS core design that was written when your parents were in elementary school and a 10 character/second teletype was hot technology. (And, no, this is NOT a place where old and established are good)

Very sad for an industry that prides itself on being nimble and being able to create a new generation of products every 3 years or so.

Pingback from  links for 2009-07-08 | Acervus

So, what's up with Apple fans touting the number of iPhone apps on one hand and the lack of apps on a cloud OS like Chrome on the other?

It's obvious Shark.. It's the pathological loathing of anything to do with Microsoft.

History lessons by @miguelgalos is like taking a history lesson from Holocaust deniers. It's fictional, and only in their small, sad little world.

@tayme: "I wonder...will Google have anti-trust problems? MS did when they integrated IE into the OS...what about an OS that only boots to the Chrome browser? I would think that is a problem."

They won't have any trouble. They are not evil, unlike Microsoft. Besides, I'm sure if Microsoft wanted to include IE in Chrome OS, they could (that's a joke for all your humourless Microsoft drones)

Yeah sure... This is the Linux year!!!! there is 12 persons that use Linux in the World.... But this is the Linux years... Fine...

The problem is not these companies don't do good software!! Apple does an amazing Unix UI shell(MacOS X)... Ubuntu does an amazing Linux UI Shell (Ubunto)... Google does an amazing Linux UI micro shell (Android) and they will do an amazing Linux UI shell (Chrome OS) ... But they are not doing OSs!!!

This is the same thing if you decided to put a bran new body design to replace the old body on a 1971 Dodge Charger !!! This is great for you... But you are not doing chars!! You just doing car bodies!!

And you cannot expect to do concurrence with the real car companies... Don`t forget ... YOU ARE JUST DOING BODIES... NOT CARS...

And Mike Galos is right, Linux and Unix are really Old stuff.... Really Really really old stuff... We need new technologies here... Moon calling the earth... Somebody...

Dooooop!!

robertsjoe is right here!!!! If Microsoft had problem with antitrust about integrating there browser in there OS... What about basing an OS on a browser...

There's a problem here...

In french we are saying "Ce qui est bon pour pitou est bon pour minou"...

Finally... How a serious company like Google can expect getting more popularity with another Linux UI shell then all other companies add....

Google have to stop wasting there time with this kind of *** and write a real OS... Maybe they are stoked ... May be they are still trying to disentangle how to implement virtual memory, like apple... lolololol

Even though most people will hate to admit it, Google now competes with Apple in one more area. Does Eric Schmidt (and the other guy, I guess) leave the room when they talk about Chrome, OS X, or the iPhone? Maybe he stays back for discussions about the iPod. This is like Microsoft having two members on the IBM board.

"Maybe he stays back for discussions about the iPod. "

Oh, and Microsoft bashing. Of course.

I love it when you drones get all worked up about the press Google and Apple get. Like I've said before, people don't give a toss about Microsoft. They are the new IBM.

shark

"Does Eric Schmidt (and the other guy, I guess) leave the room when they talk about Chrome, OS X, or the iPhone? "

Well, according to Fake Steve Jobs really, really good article at fakesteve.blogspot.com/.../lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html , "Chrome. It's a joke. I mean, literally, we laugh about it, except when Eric is around. But as soon as he leaves the room we all go "Chrome!" and just burst out laughing. "

I know I wouldn't feel comfortable having my data sitting on google's servers, what about privacy & security issues for starters.

So Google is finally more and more showing its true face and its true ambition, become the new Microsoft.

Anyway, this wannabe O.S will have a very limited, if at all, appeal as it will rely heavily on internet to be really usable.

Sure some would say that because chrome will have support html 5 then it will enable to use web apps in disconnected mode.

However what is a point of using a web apps in disconnected mode ?

Isn't the smartclient model a much better concept for application which can both be used online and offline ?

So this OS would be very limited and almost completely unappealing.

However because it is from Google it will generate a lot of buzz and could make Ballmer panic. The good news is that this panic could push Ballmer to refocus on Operating Systems and other core Microsoft Business and this can only positive for Microsoft.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this comment sponsored by the Canadian Educational System:

"Oh so you do have DID then."

WTF are you talking about, "waethorn"?

"They won't have any trouble. They are not evil"

That sounds like a great defense in a courtroom.

Judge:  "How do you plead on the monopoly practices charge"

Google's lawyer RJ:  "Not guilty your honor.  My client is not evil, unlike Microsoft."

Judge:  "How did you make this determination?"

RJ:  "Steve Jobs told me.  He has my liver, you know?"

Judge:  "OK, given the evidence presented to me, case dismissed!"

Pingback from  Google OS &laquo;  Microsoft Central