Google OS already here, with hardware?! Well, sort of.

[zridling]

So far this has been an exciting year for operating systems, among them OpenSolaris, but for now this Fall brings another surprise, a Linux-based Google computer, or gOS sold by Wal-Mart for under $200.



Everex, a longtime personal computer vendor, has unveiled its latest PC featuring Ubuntu Linux-based open-source productivity software and Google-based Web 2.0 applications. The package does not include a monitor, but does include a keyboard, mouse, and stereo speakers. For graphics, it uses a VIA UniChrome Pro chipset on the motherboard. This, in turn, uses 64MB of system memory. The computer's pre-installed and linked Software includes Mozilla Firefox, gMail, Meebo (a browser-based IM client) Skype, Google Documents & Spreadsheets, Google Calendar, Google News, Google Maps, GIMP, Blogger, the Xine Movie Player, and OpenOffice 2.3.

[kalos]

I would like to see Google developing OS...

[Darwin]

Yeah, I doubt that they'll take the plunge anytime soon, but it would be nice to see another major player on the OS scene. If nothing else, it would give people something else to argue about!

[Josh]

Thats just it, would I want GoogleOs? Would it run what I already use or would I have to adopt new software and programs that dont offer the same functionality as what I use now? It would have to have some very compelling reasons for me to swap to it.

[Darwin]

Good point, Josh. This is the stumbling block for me switching full-time to either Mac OSX or Linux. Congrats on joining the "Kilo Club" btw

[f0dder]

I'm not sure I'd be superhappy about a "google OS" - they already have a searching monopoly, would you want the to (potentially) get an OS monopoly? They're big enough that they could get a working OS together and smoke both MacOS and Linux, and since most people think of them as The Good Guys^TM, they could get some real momentum... and then...?

[mouser]

I think they would make a really nice OS..

And then would come the dawn of built-in-desktop advertising.

Free programs for your pc, but your desktop background wallpaper, screensavers, and toolbars, would all be full of ads.

No thank you.

[Darwin]

Hadn't thought of that angle, mouser, but now that you've pointed it out, it's a bit scary. Kind of like the RFID rage with retailers who are champing at the bit to be able to id returning customers (through their cell phones, credit cards, drivers licences, etc.) and pull up their last 3 purchases from a database and provide targeted advertising on monitors throughout the store. Minority Report meets 1984. Scary.

[Carol Haynes]

I think they would make a really nice OS..

And then would come the dawn of built-in-desktop advertising.

Free programs for your pc, but your desktop background wallpaper, screensavers, and toolbars, would all be full of ads.

No thank you.

-mouser (November 04, 2007, 03:12 PM)

A bit like Windows desktops on new pre-installed systems ...

[Lashiec]

A Google OS... that's the new tech meme that the so called 'tech journalists' had been feasting on for all these months. It's clear that they don't know much about technology, just like the whole Web 2.0 craze and its dream of thin clients and FAT servers...

But you know, there's something called 'OS' in Google. Here it is

Darwin, soon we'll need this

[Darwin]

Lashiec -thanks for the link, a very interesting read (the author wasn't kidding when he or she stated that although the RFID Guardian appears simple in concept it is in fact quite complicated in practice. Very impressive). The days of tinfoil hats for all of us aren't far off!

[kalos]

I don't think it's sensible to treat in a negative way any attempt to develop an OS
GoogleOS not only should be welcomed, but it should be demanded as well

however I doubt that any other company will easily manage to become as mainstream as Microsoft
Microsoft achieved through disputable practices the ultimate domination in computer world and this cannot be easily done with other than disputable practices (they can do it only if they are genius)

me for myself, I surely need better desktop than XP, better programming languages than C, better file system than NTFS, better compression format than RAR, better OS than takes the 100% out of given hardware, etc

I am sure many of these exist or can be developed, but we need to combine them, to develop them further and then a good manager to promote them

[Josh]

You see, the problem with google making GoS is this. We already have several linux distributions which work, do so fairly well, and are pretty easy to use. The only problem for the consumer is that there are far too many of them. Its like the beginning of the software age. Companies had to spend thousands of dollars training people on specific packages of software because each company used a different one. To be marketable in that age, you had to know whatever product the company you were applying for was using.

That is the problem with Linux. Yes, choice is good, however, too many choices is also counter-productive. The linux community needs to realize this and focus their efforts on one specific distribution. Google would be the perfect engine to focus this effort, however, I don't see many of the dedicated users for X distro showing support for a "merging" of sorts.

[kalos]

I don't really consider linux distros as "choices"
to me, they are all pretty much the same
most of them are IT students' university projects or some enthusiasts' hobbies

if you mean the main linux distributions (debian, gentoo, etc) I still don't think they aren't different enough to consider them as choices (maybe choices are linux and bsd eventualy)

to sum up, what I consider as choices in linux, are: KDE or Gnome (desktop), pacman or apt (package manager), ext3 or JFS (file system), etc etc

I don't know if you understand me, but linux distros that are the same but they differ in the software and tools that accompanies them, don't seem as choices to me

LFS is a good example for what I am saying
it enables you to choose different components and create your own distro

so, what we really need, is not new distros but new components
we need different ideas in software, not a different combination of existing components

there are some trully new OSes out there (eg SkyOS), now that's what I consider a choice

so when I imagine of a GoogleOS, I definately do NOT imagine it as a linux distro

I imagine GoogleOS to work in a revolutionary filesystem that with decent write/delete/find speeds, innovative features, without the limitations of the current filesystems

I imagine GoogleOS to be much more customizable than winxp, with an integrated OS-level ability to customize it and not with external utilities and scripts (eg autohotkey, strokeit, alternative shell, etc)

I imagine GoogleOS to have a simple and flexible file hierarchy, not as linux hierarchy

I imagine GoogleOS to introduce new file formats and new software algorithms

ofcourse such project seems enormous, but Google is very powerful and it has what it takes to dominate OS field in the future

[Josh]

How are linux distros not considered choices? I can count, from memory, at least 12 different distros which can all be considered major players in the market. Yes, software might be similar on each, but it is not the same. The update package manager for one distro is not the same as on another. One uses apt-get or a gui alternative, one use rpm, another uses some custom scheme. There is no set way. This is just ONE example of the inconsistencies that exist among the major linux players. For the OS to be taken seriously, google will have to make something that all of the linux fans can jump behind and support. Without support going towards one major distribution, linux will never be more than a tech geeks hobby.

[Carol Haynes]

I agree with you Josh but I don't think it is going to happen.

Personally I think a good compromise solution would be for Linux distributions to be clearly aimed at specific applications, for example Workstation, Software developer, Server etc., but within those categories aim for consistency between distributions - ie. use same folder structures, have a common approach to software installation and removal. Where they could diverge is the choice of software installed automatically but at least anyone using a particular type of Linux distribution (say workstation) would have a common starting point. It would also be really useful if a common installation system could be developed so that all distributions use the best of the installers out there and make it easier to install and troubleshoot installation problems because the process is common to all distributions (at least in terms of interface, vocabulary). Finally a removal of geek speak from the whole process would make Linux inifintely more attractive to the majority non-geek market.

This would all save large groups of people constantly 'reinventing the wheel' too as each distro type has largely the same aims!

[Josh]

Carol, not to side track here, but I never once thought that you and I would agree on any particular topic. Cheers  ;-)

[f0dder]

Carol:

[Carol Haynes]

Carol, not to side track here, but I never once thought that you and I would agree on any particular topic. Cheers  ;-)

-Josh (November 05, 2007, 07:06 AM)

Eh? Don't we always agree   

Carol: (see attachment in previous post)

-f0dder (November 05, 2007, 07:11 AM)

LOL !! true - very true (but then I did say similar in the first line!)

[Edvard]

hmm... Google OS is Ubuntu based.
So it's not really a New operating system, just Google schmarm slathered on top of the current touted-as-easy-to-use Linux distro.
So what's the difference?
The Name.
If anybody named Joe Schmoe is going to trust a Linux distro AT ALL it'd better have a major brand name on it. Microsoft, Google, Adobe, you get the idea. I bet average folks would even take a second look at Sun's offering if they called it JavaOS and shilled it through Wal-Mart.

[Armando]

...a major brand name on it. Microsoft, Google, Adobe, you get the idea...

-Edvard (November 05, 2007, 12:17 PM)

Novel... and soon even Ubuntu for that matter.

[Lashiec]

Guys, one remark: gOS does not have anything to do with Google, other than bundling direct links to their services, something it can't be discussed as Google have more major online services than anybody.

And there is a customized Google OS, based on Ubuntu, and used internally at Google, but I doubt it would go farther than having it branded.

But the true OS I talked before was presented today.

[zridling]

The difference among distros [to me] is much like the difference among various versions of Windows. They've shared the same desktop environments for the past ten years, starting with Gnome. Installers or package managers still work virtually the same, and there are really only two for the major distros (open up the manager, select the checkbox to install, remove, or update — incredibly simple). Linux, Solaris, and BSDs have much in common — all are free and open source operating systems, and they each use many of the same open source packages available on the Internet.

Instead of looking at the 600+ distributions as confusing, focus instead on the major distributions, whichever one best suits your needs. For most folks, that's Windows! However, I would definitely buy this computer for a school-aged kid as an entry machine. You could always slap XP on it later if you wanted.

[nontroppo]

Has anyone ever sullied their eyes to see what kind of HTML code Google serves us all (beware, only for the strong of stomach!). It is the ugliest, most hack-ridden inefficient mess you'll likely see outside of Myspace. Any organisation capable of such fugly shoddy code must not be allowed near an OS, ever...    

[iphigenie]

I dont think we need another monopolistic, all-your-stuff-belongs-to-us company

Google is the next MS and I can feel the backlash mounting with every new announcement they make.

I only opened a google account this week and on a one-off address to claim the £10 discount on google checkout. It was such a bad experience compared to almost anything I won't repeat it again (took 20 minutes for a simple payment with abundant turning-in-circles moments)

So yes, in a way it might be welcome that some brands help make alternate OSes more mainstream, but I'm not sure google taking too much of an involvement in too many open source projects is a good thing. There's already a lot of criticism about google's influence over firefox and any ad blocking that can be done in there I dont want my OS to be hijacked too.

Its strange but I trust MS more than I trust Google. I feel I know where they are coming from. Of course as they try to be more like google that might change.

PS: my distros of choice still are
- bsd
- slackware
and not because i am an idealist but because I like clean and controllable...

PPS: opensolaris is really sexy!