WinInfo Daily News   |   Windows IT Pro
in

SuperSite Blog

An Operating System for the Cloud

You have to be a paid subscriber to read the full article (or just purchase the print version, or pay online per article) but MIT's Technology Review has published a fascinating article about Google's Chrome OS efforts by none other than "Showstoppers" author G. Pascal Zachary. Here's a peek.

Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, said no for six years. Google's main source of revenue, which reached $5.5 billion in its most recent quarter, is advertising. How would the project they envisioned support the company's advertising business? The question wasn't whether Google could afford it. The company is wonderfully profitable and is on track to net more than $5 billion in its current fiscal year. But Schmidt, a 20-year veteran of the IT industry, wasn't keen on shouldering the considerable costs of creating and maintaining an OS and browser for no obvious return.

Finally, two years ago, Schmidt said yes to the browser. The rationale was that quicker and more frequent Web access would mean more searches, which would translate into more revenue from ads. Then, in July of this year, Schmidt announced Google's intention to launch an operating system as well. The idea is that an OS developed with the Internet in mind will also increase the volume of Web activity, and support the browser.

Google's browser and OS both bear the name Chrome. At a year old, the browser holds a mere 2 to 3 percent share of a contested global market, in which Microsoft's Internet Explorer has a majority share and Firefox comes in second. The Chrome operating system will be released next year. Today, Windows enjoys around 90 percent of the global market for operating systems, followed by Apple's Mac OS and the freeware Linux. Does Google know what it's doing?

Going after Microsoft's operating system used to be hopeless. When I covered the company for the Wall Street Journal in the 1990s, I chronicled one failed attempt after another by software innovators to wrest control of the field from Bill Gates ...

So for Schmidt to finally agree to develop an OS suggests less a technological shift than a business revolution. Google's new ventures "are game changers," he now says.

What has changed? Google has challenged the Microsoft franchise, further diminishing a declining force. The latest quarter gave Microsoft the worst year in its history. Revenue from its various Windows PC programs, including operating systems, fell 29 percent in the fiscal quarter that ended in June. Some of the decline stems from the global economic slowdown. But broad shifts in information technology are also reducing the importance of the personal computer and its central piece of software, the OS. In many parts of the world, including the two most populous countries, China and India, mobile phones are increasingly the most common means of reaching the Web. And in the rich world, netbooks, which are ideal for Web surfing, e-mailing, and Twittering, account for one in every 10 computers sold.

Good stuff. If you're in a bookstore, grab the October issue and check it out.

Comments

 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

<sigh> yet another article telling us how wonderful terminal/server computing is and that we little people really all would be better off if we would just user terminals and leave real computers to people like the author.

Been there - many, many times over the last 35 years since the PC revolution started with Ed Roberts and Bill Gates.

For a start on why this is bull shitake (as Guy Kawasaki would say) check out Ted Nelson's Computer Lib from 1974 (or the reprint from 1987). In particular check out the sections on CyberCrud.

September 27, 2009 10:59 AM
 

Waethorn said:

"Good stuff. If you're in a bookstore, grab the October issue and check it out."

Or, you know, just find the stolen-word copy scanned on Google's page for free so you don't have to pay the author his dues.

September 27, 2009 11:07 AM
 

kadarzsolt said:

let's seen now:

Chrome Browser:

1. Users install Chrome

2. Users see that there are no add-ons/extensions and some plugins don't work (silverlight)

3. Users find out there are no AD Blockers for Chrome

4. Users stop using Chrome browser

Chrome OS:

1. Users buy netbooks with Linux based Chrome OS

2. Users will not find common apps for it

3. Users will tire of all the adds displayed is the built-in browser

4a. Users will find ways to install Firefox with ad blockers, making the OS not profitable for Google

4b. Users will demand Windows (as they did with the early netbooks)

5. Google will stop developing the OS

September 27, 2009 11:34 AM
 

Balthazar9 said:

"For a start on why this is bull shitake..."

Why are you M$ sycophants so afraid of tiny bit of competition?

Without it you would have never seen you beloved ZUNE-HD

Without it you would continue to use your beloved IE6 service pack zero

Without it you would continue to use FAT filing system

Without market based competition Stevie baby B. would be far more bloated, arrogant, and pompous than he displays publicly or privately.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

September 27, 2009 12:57 PM
 

Balthazar9 said:

"Users will not find common apps for it"

Cloud computing -->

en.wikipedia.org/.../Software_as_a_service

September 27, 2009 12:59 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Balthazar9

This isn't about "competition". It's about centralizing control of computing and giving the user less choices and less control.

It's always interesting to see that the people proposing terminal/server computing every few years have two things in common:

1) They like the idea of somebody (preferably them) controlling what all those "users" can and can't do

2) They never seem to think that a limited terminal is the right solution for them but it's a great choice for some lesser group

When one of these control-freak bozos starts off with, "I've switched away from a personal computer and now only use a [terminal|SunRay|JavaStation|browser]" let me know. Up until now, every single initiative always has a "while it's not a good choice for me..." clause in it. And that's the sign of somebody who is just a little too self-important to be trusted with telling other people that they know better.

September 27, 2009 1:15 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Balthazar9

Of course, if you want to prove me wrong, feel free to give up every single local app and just use a minimal browser/JScript system for a month or two. Remember, that includes ALL the computers so no cheating with using local apps on your phone or on a media center or mp3 player.

Or are you one of those people who thinks this is a great solution for somebody else?

September 27, 2009 1:17 PM
 

Delmont said:

Blath,  why the name calling? Good way to win people over to your side of the conversation.

September 27, 2009 1:23 PM
 

Evox said:

In my personal opinion what this really comes down to is how grossly overblown the tech industry believes cloud computing is going to be. While I agree that part of our online lives has and will continue to go to the cloud I also believe that people will continue to value the local user experience.

Once (if) this transition to the cloud takes place just wait for the first time a major server failure, or worse, a business failure, leaves everyone's stuff floating, inaccessible in the cloud. Once the lawsuits die down and companies are terrified to be responsible for people's stuff, and people are terrified to store stuff in the cloud, at most we'd be split between a cloud based and local based solution.

September 27, 2009 1:30 PM
 

An Operating System for the Cloud | The Software Nook said:

Pingback from  An Operating System for the Cloud | The Software Nook

September 27, 2009 1:33 PM
 

Twitter Trackbacks for An Operating System for the Cloud - SuperSite Blog [winsupersite.com] on Topsy.com said:

Pingback from  Twitter Trackbacks for                 An Operating System for the Cloud - SuperSite Blog         [winsupersite.com]        on Topsy.com

September 27, 2009 1:35 PM
 

runner7775 said:

I think all of the cloud computing talk is coming from people who don't know what the regular computer users want.  I read a lot of people who say that most people only need a web browser and very little else.  It may be very true that all we NEED is a web browser and a few local apps for office work.  But, it's not what I WANT.  I want to be able to do a lot more than surf the web and edit documents(play games etc).  I think that many regular computer users would agree with me.  

September 27, 2009 2:04 PM
 

Waethorn said:

@kadarszolt:

Don't forget that Chrome installs in the user profile space, and doesn't follow proper Windows security conventions, by installing in the Program Files folder, making it near impossible for IT people to monitor or manage.

I know a couple of business that have banned downloading of Chrome as part of their policy, but unless the download sites (and all their mirrors) are totally blocked, the users can still install the software without administrative rights.

September 27, 2009 2:15 PM
 

Balthazar9 said:

“It's about centralizing control…”

But Mike, freedom is an illusion; a fairytale written by those in control feeding the masses. Your ISP, Cable, Satellite, TiVo, Telco, HMO, IRS, DRM, RIAA, credit reporting agencies, etc… knows everything about you.

You and I control what? I can’t get Win7 winExplorer to behave itself without aggressively hacking of the registry thereby voiding my EULA.

September 27, 2009 2:59 PM
 

Balthazar9 said:

“I think all of the cloud computing talk is coming from people who don't know what the regular computer users want…”

That kind of users wants it all and it must be super duper dumb down simple.

That kind of user will never read a book like this: http://is.gd/3Jkk6

September 27, 2009 3:17 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

So, Balthazar is now responding with the hypocritical "people like you don't really need control or freedom or privacy" response that Google and SUN and Oracle always use to justify trying to roll back the personal computing revolution to something they can control.

I take it that means he doesn't want to take me up on the suggestion that he, personally, live with only a browser. But I'm sure he thinks it's a fine idea for "other people".

September 27, 2009 3:22 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Balthazar

Ah, yes...

"That kind of users"

Not people like you or me.

Removing freedom and control and privacy is only for those unnamed, faceless "That kind of users" who must be protected from themselves by well meaning corporations who only have their best interests at heart.

I think we all see where this is going (partly because we've seen it so, so, many times before over the last 35 years)

September 27, 2009 3:24 PM
 

gfryesc1 said:

is it legal to re-print paid content like that?

September 27, 2009 3:51 PM
 

Waethorn said:

"is it legal to re-print paid content like that?"

Ask Google.  They do it all the time.

September 27, 2009 4:37 PM
 

Balthazar9 said:

Mike,

Privacy and computing freedoms are much akin to our democracy. A theoretical construct best left to endless debate within academic circles. In our REAL world, whether it’s the oligarchs of Wall Street, the oligarchs of big Pharma writing Obama’s health care package or the closed proprietary systems of MS and Apple, freedom is an illusion.

Can I live in a web-browser? I maintain large kernel machines, neural networks, SWARMS and other artificial intelligence systems. In my home I have 16 xp machines dedicated exclusively to the SETI@home project. BUT most people need nothing more than a web browser and simple word/photo editor. Google’s OS will be a hit!

September 27, 2009 4:47 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Balthazar

In other words, "That kind of users" should be happy with whatever their betters feel they should be given.

You're really doing a wonderful job of demonstrating the glass-house antidemocratic elitism that keep rearing its head every few years.

Luckily, all that mindset has managed to do is stir up a few bad writers' headlines and waste a few billion dollars on products designed for these imaginary "kind of users" who, in the end, don't feel particularly kind toward that condescending "gift".

September 27, 2009 5:03 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

grryesc1

Actually whether they charge or not for the content doesn't change their rights as the creators of the content.

If Paul's excerpt is a short "fair use" clip then it's acceptable whether the publication costs nothing or thousands of dollars per issue.

Likewise, if the excerpt was more than a short "fair use" clip than it is a violation if the owner has retained their rights.

I can, for example, give away content but not grant any rights to copy it. (Perhaps I want to control context of the article or I want the ad revenue). On the other hand,

September 27, 2009 5:05 PM
 

Waethorn said:

"In my home I have 16 xp machines dedicated exclusively to the SETI@home project."

You just countered the argument for cloud computing then.

September 27, 2009 5:23 PM
 

An Operating System for the Cloud - SuperSite Blog | OnlineTalkers - Let technology do the talking said:

Pingback from  An Operating System for the Cloud - SuperSite Blog | OnlineTalkers - Let technology do the talking

September 27, 2009 5:51 PM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Waethorn

No. He's all along said that the terminal/server model, lack of control and lack of privacy wasn't somethine HE should have to deal with. Those are things he reserves for a lesser "kind of user".

September 27, 2009 5:57 PM
 

rr0de74@live.com said:

Terminal Server, VDI, cloud computing.  I see this more and more in corporations.  

90% of the users at my company have a Wyse thin clients with Wyse OS.  They either get a TS session (75% of them) or an XP VDI on VMware.  Both are totally locked down, users cant install anything.  The can hardly go anywhere on the Internet because they are blocked by a proxy.  We use thinapp to deliver 98% of the applications they use on a VDI or a TS session.

If thinapp delivered those apps to a VDI or TS session on say Ubuntu, we could save a lot of money.  The users would not care as long as they had the apps they needed to do the job.

Stuff is changing.  Now for consumers its a whole different story.

September 27, 2009 8:01 PM
 

Backup77 said:

@waethorn

Excuse my ignorance but what is the SETI@home project?

September 27, 2009 11:04 PM
 

lketchum said:

I sit across from business people of about every stripe each day, and while all want the flexibility to be able to access information and exchange it freely from any place, to any other place, not a one of them is interested in an entirely terminal play. Not one.

As a builder of turn-key solutions that leverage a distributed computing model and federations of systems, something we've been doing for over a decade, we see the great benefits in federations of services, software and platforms, but there is no way in the world a purely terminal play in Google's hands is going to happen.

Guys like Paul who install a lot of new systems are the only ones that are into the whole pure cloud play - it works for them. The rest of the world does not work like that at all.

Finally, there is a deep and growing scrutiny among business people about Google. The real issue is that Google does not see what they are doing as being wrong, or potentially harmful. A great many out here do not trust them, or their interpretation of the word "evil" and they are not willing to trust Google, or any other similar party with so much.

September 27, 2009 11:29 PM
 

kadarzsolt said:

please DO NOT confuse enterprise and consumer scenarios.

Google is more interested in the consumer  side, as there is a lot more ad money in this segment.

Corporate will not buy unmanagable netbooks with Chrome OS.

... and DO NOT forget that there were netbooks sold with "Cloud Computing" OS: early ASUS EeePCs had Linux distros with browser, IM client and a small set of apps. Nowadays they almost exclusively ship with Windows XP Home. Great future for Chrome OS...!

September 27, 2009 11:36 PM
 

robertsjoe said:

What?! No post about Google's Chrome plugin for IE? That's big news and will have a large impact.

September 28, 2009 2:59 AM
 

timiteh said:

Again this debate about cloud computing O.S.

What is even funny is that Google is trying to find ways to use web apps in disconnected mode while there exists a very interesting concept of apps working on normal O.S with similar capabilities: smart clients.

Thus i think that normal O.S builders such as Microsoft should focus on drastically improve smart clients development capabilities to counter Google and its online apps/web browser obsession.

September 28, 2009 4:52 AM
 

timiteh said:

This of course assuming that there is even a significant need to counter Google.

September 28, 2009 5:15 AM
 

LuxZg said:

Here are my thoughts, though in general you can read Mike's posts, as I agree with them. Anyway:

- Google wants to hold all data on their servers - no company will allow it, and no consumer should either; always have a local copy, and don't let anyone hold your sensitive info

- Google offers "cloud computing" but makes apps that can work while disconnected - so that's not cloud anymore

- freedom may be illusion, but when I'm not networked, I can do on my PC whatever I want. Hack it, crack it, burn it, delete system files, whatever, and no "big brother" will ever stop me at doing any of it. And no big brother can get my data unless I give it to them. And data that is my own, will stay my own. And I will never have a situation as it is happening with DRM music stores last few years, where they go out of business and people are left feeling like huge suckers. So it may be illusion, but when it's in the cloud I've got no control over it AT ALL, and when it's on my hard drive I can still do main things like replication, security, and free use.

- competition is good, and I'm all for it. but Chrome OS is destined to fail. Consumers will use it very little just the same way as any linux distro (and Chrome OS is just another linux distro)

- cloud computing will keep living, but only as a "sidekick" to normal PC computing. Sure, one day PC will become "sidekick", but that day is still years away, and by that time many new things will happen which will make current Google Chorme OS irrelevant

- I don't need to pay a fee each day/week/month for my PC computing, and I don't have to look at ads all day long while I work. And with cloud computing you can pick one of those two, but you'll be doing either one or other. There won't be truly "free" computing in cloud. And I can buy a PC now, and use it next 5 years and pay nothing extra. I can use free OS and free apps, or even if I use Windows OS (which OEM sold me with my computer) I can run all other apps for free. And even if I need some paying app, it will cost me less than same service in cloud unless I change computers every 24 months.

I could write more, but there is no use. In near future you will keep using PC and you will keep using Microsoft OS in 90% of computers.

And just a little offtopic... What will happen with all the @HOME projects if we turn to cloud computing? There is no more "surplus" processing power being idle.. Do you think that Google will "donate" their idle processing power to free projects? Nope, that would be like donating a whole supercomputer center to charities.

September 28, 2009 5:22 AM
 

LuxZg said:

@robertsjoe - good find about that plugin. I just wonder, isn't adverticing it as a plugin a bit - lying to general public? I mean, you go to page and it asks "you need to install google plugin to browse this page faster yadayada" You think, ok, I've got google toolbar (perhaps), I've got flash plugin, java plugin, why not add google plugin if it will make my browsing faster in Gmail. you install it and... gone is your IE compatibility. Gone is compatibility with your office apps. Gone is the activex compatibility needed by many sites. So what, do I install a flash plugin for chrome after it or for IE? If it allows you to switch on the fly from IE rendering engine and webkit, hey, I'm all for it! Give me 5 tabs in same browser frame, and make 3 in IE engine, and 2 in webkit, I'm happy, google happy, everyone happy. But lock me into WebKit only, and I'll sue your ass!

September 28, 2009 5:33 AM
 

rr0de74@live.com said:

"A great many out here do not trust them, or their interpretation of the word "evil" and they are not willing to trust Google, or any other similar party with so much."

Funny I see, in corporations, that Microsoft is viewed this way...more and more.

September 28, 2009 7:05 AM
 

LuxZg said:

rrode, but companies still Microsoft enough that they "know" that if some data is on their (company) servers inside local network, that Microsoft isn't browsing through it.

On the other hand, Google's main thing is browsing through your data (mail, documents) so they can serve you valid advertisments. But who are they to keep a database of keywords that were gathered from company's internal documents and e-mails?

And who can guarantee that Google storage is 100% safe... as there is nothing 100% safe, specially true for a service that is open to so many outside connections.

September 28, 2009 8:20 AM
 

gfryesc1 said:

hmm, mikegalos, I guess the question is what is 'fair' in 'fair use' means.  And likewise, your definition of 'short' is awfully ambiguous.  Hard to even tell what percentage Paul actually copied.  Awfully slippery legalese for what appears to be a copyright violation by Thurrott.  

Though I will say it's always a pleasure to get you talking out of your butt.  You're second only to Paul in this talent, the shill-master himself.

September 28, 2009 8:49 AM
 

gfryesc1 said:

mikegalos, from the very site that Paul lifted it:

Technology Review is protected in its entirety by copyright. No material that appears in the magazine or online may be reprinted in whole or part without permission.

If you would like to syndicate Technology Review magazine content on a regular basis please contact our partner Tribune Media Services.  

www.technologyreview.com/.../permissions.aspx

don't worry, I made sure their contact knows all about the reprint:

Jennifer Martin

Email: jmartin@wrightsreprints.com

Tel: 877-652-5295, ext 104

September 28, 2009 8:51 AM
 

Waethorn said:

"Excuse my ignorance but what is the SETI@home project?"

The extreme opposite to cloud computing, where computing is done on PC nodes, but the owner of the PC doesn't do anything with the data.

September 28, 2009 9:42 AM
 

Waethorn said:

One of the biggest problems with cloud computing is that the business that uses it as a service has little to no say over maintenance windows, whether prescheduled or not.

On a self-hosted solution (cloud or client/server), the IT people in charge can do maintenance around the business schedule.

This is one of the areas where businesses have to look at cloud computing, and one of the major detractors for corporate customers.

September 28, 2009 9:48 AM
 

Waethorn said:

"He's all along said that the terminal/server model, lack of control and lack of privacy wasn't somethine HE should have to deal with. Those are things he reserves for a lesser "kind of user"."

LOL!

Next thing he'll be doing is recommend that people be required to have a computer operating license before they can buy one.

September 28, 2009 9:51 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

gfryesc1

Actually, "fair use" is the correct term defining how excerpts may be used from copyrighted documents. If you want to appear less ignorant, perhaps you should look it up.

The current use of the fair use doctrine as it applies since the passage of DMCA has not been resolved in the courts yet especially in the case where the material has been published in both electronic and non-electronic media.

.

September 28, 2009 10:15 AM
 

lketchum said:

take a look at how Microsoft/Bing IMMEDIATELY anonymize search quesries - forever breaking any ability to cross-correlate requests to other stores of data linking back to the requestor.

Google does the opposite and mines and associates requests with other data. Question is, "what" other data and how well developed is the profile?

September 28, 2009 10:26 AM
Acceptable Use Policy

About pthurrott

Paul Thurrott is the guy behind the SuperSite for Windows. Way behind. :)
SPONSORED LINKS FEATURED LINKS

Calculate your savings nowSee how SAN is 57% cheaper than DAS over three years Free CDs Offer Fundamental Content for IT ProsAre you up to speed on the latest technologies and solutions? Don't miss out on your chance to get up to speed quickly on fundamental, in-depth information on some of the hottest topics in our library of content. Let Your Users Reset Their Own Passwords: Free Download Try a 30 day free trial of Desktop Authority Password Self-Service – it provides an easy-to-use, robust system for allowing users to reset their own forgotten passwords or locked accounts. Exchange Server 2010: Deploying Unified Communications - Virtual conferenceDecember 1, 2009 - Free Registration. Build your Unified Communications future on a strong Exchange Server 2010 foundation. Get Windows IT Pro & Mark Minasi’s Favorite Power Tools GuideOrder Windows IT Pro now and get "More of Mark Minasi's Favorite Power Tools"--a in-depth guide to the most useful Windows commands --FREE with your paid order! Subscribe today, and save 58% off the cover price! Migration, Virtualization, Availability, and Desktop ManagementRealize the importance of a workload optimization strategy...it can affect your bottom line! Deep Dive into VMware vSphere, eLearning SeriesJoin John Savill to explore the major functionality capabilities of the vSphere virtualization platform, including identification of the changes from ESX 3.5.
Windows IT Pro |  Subscribe |  Register |  FAQ for Windows |  Media Kit |  WinInfo News |  Europe Edition |  About Us |  Contact Us/Customer Service |  Affiliates/Licensing
SQL Server Magazine |  Office & SharePoint Pro |  WinDevPro |  asp.netPRO |  IT Library |  Technology Resource Directory |  ITTV |  IT Job Hound

© 2009 Penton Media, Inc.     Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Reprints and Licensing