Google to produce new open-source OS

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Fnaar

Smutmaster General
Location
Thumberland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8140594.stm
Bye bye Microsoft?
I'm a big fan most of google's products (I'm sure the business itself has faults, but I'm not talking about that). The Chrome browser is very good, the Android phone is excellent (and integrates v. well with gmail, tasks, contacts etc) and the open-source nature means constant tweaks and improvements and the availability of some truly excellent free apps (amongst all the inevitable pap).
I reckon if this open source OS comes off, it could change a lot of things... no more paying through the nose (potentially, I've always been able to get stuff from work, but you get the idea) for MS stuff...
what say you, oh computer-minded cyclists?
 

simon_brooke

New Member
Location
Auchencairn
Fnaar said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8140594.stm
Bye bye Microsoft?
I'm a big fan most of google's products (I'm sure the business itself has faults, but I'm not talking about that). The Chrome browser is very good, the Android phone is excellent (and integrates v. well with gmail, tasks, contacts etc) and the open-source nature means constant tweaks and improvements and the availability of some truly excellent free apps (amongst all the inevitable pap).
I reckon if this open source OS comes off, it could change a lot of things... no more paying through the nose (potentially, I've always been able to get stuff from work, but you get the idea) for MS stuff...
what say you, oh computer-minded cyclists?

It's Linux with a new graphical shell.

Ubuntu already produce a good Linux that's ready for prime time and for non-computer-literate users; I'm not altogether persuaded it's a good plan to introduce more market fragmentation. OTOH, graphical user interfaces have been pretty much stuck in a hole with no significant innovation since the Xerox Star machines of the early Eighties. The OLPC project with its Sugar GUI proved that it was possible to think out of the WIMP box, and is, to my mind at least, the most interesting thing in user interfaces for decades. Android, which is also fundamentally a graphical shell on top of Linux, also has some interesting ideas, as does the version of Mac OS (fundamentally, BSD) running on the iPhone.

If 'Chrome OS' turns out to be just another take on a WIMP I'll be very disappointed. Linux is a very good free kernel, but it's still fundamentally a clone of an OS which was designed fifty years ago for use on machines infinitely less powerful than those we use today. Google could have taken over the remains of BeOS, which was a genuine attempt at something new and interesting, or built something entirely new from scratch. They have the resource. If they haven't done that, then at least I trust they've done something new and interesting with the user interface.

We don't need another consumer Linux. We've already got several, and everyone would benefit if the market would consolidate around one of them.
 
simon_brooke said:
We don't need another consumer Linux. We've already got several, and everyone would benefit if the market would consolidate around one of them.

I'm in two minds about this. In one way, the plethora of linux flavours is refreshing. I admire the creativity and experimentation. In another, so much divided effort is surely wasteful. If the minds that produced many of the less popular linux offerings could unite behind a half dozen of the more mainstream, those half dozen (or less) might advance at a tremendous rate.

If the OS isn't costing the end user anything as such, it's their choice whether it is taken up and becomes a success I suppose. Limiting linux to a few varieties could prove just that: limiting.

A bigger issue IMO is what software will run on any new OS, Google's included, in a world where MS products dominate and people are so familiar with them.
 

Mr Pig

New Member
simon_brooke said:
We don't need another consumer Linux. We've already got several, and everyone would benefit if the market would consolidate around one of them.

But isn't that exactly what Google OS might do?

The problem with Ubuntu etc is that joe public is scared to try them and sticks to what he knows, Windows. Even putting a big familiar name like Google onto an already existing OS might be a big help in getting it more widely used. And once it's popular with the general public I think the rest will take care of itself.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
beats me why people get excited about mere operating systems. If it doesn't interoperate with Windows on corporate networks the take up will be social domestic and pleasure use only. Like it or not Windows is the de facto king of the hill as far as corporate servers and networks are concerned with the overwhelming number of bums on seats being connected to Windows and Active Directory. open source has failed to penetrate this as, amongst other reasons, it's interoperability just doesn't cut it in the judgement of the majority of those who make that call. Perhaps we are all irrational?

YMMV
 

yenrod

Guest
> Google to produce new open-source OS

Anything thats smaller and quicker is a winner by me - I think there are already or one out already as a friend of mine had it but I cant remember what it was called..!

At least it'd free up hard-drive space !!!!

It says in the metro paper they want to have you get on the net in seconds of switching it on!
 

yenrod

Guest
Anything that shakes Microsoft from the sitting petty pose (strong situation in the comp. market) is great by me too
 
Personally, I shelled out £65 for XP (OEM) and it's worth every penny and I wouldn't want to change unless something even better came along.
 

HJ

Cycling in Scotland
Location
Auld Reekie
Chances are it will Google's Chrome OS will turn out to be the latest iteration of the thin client "network computer" running Google apps off the Internet...
 

Carwash

Señor Member
Location
Visby
GrumpyGreg said:
...Like it or not Windows is the de facto king of the hill as far as corporate servers and networks are concerned...

I would dispute that. It very much depends what the server's for - and how much patience the sysadmins have for e.g. Exchange's 'little eccentricities'. ;)
 

derall

Guru
Location
Home Counties
Personally I couldn't care less what OS I am using. It's the apps I use day to day that are important, and as long as they work I'm happy. I've used Mac OS 9, OS-X, Microsoft from MS-DOS 6.22 through to Vista, SuSE Linux / Gnome, and FreeBSD. They all work, they all act as a platform for apps. Mac OS 9 was a bit flaky for stability when the P-RAM got cluttered, otherwise I've never had major stability problems. Currently I'm using Vista and hey, it works, I know where my files are and it allows me to run apps. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter to me.
 

Davidc

Guru
Location
Somerset UK
GrumpyGreg said:
beats me why people get excited about mere operating systems. If it doesn't interoperate with Windows on corporate networks the take up will be social domestic and pleasure use only. Like it or not Windows is the de facto king of the hill as far as corporate servers and networks are concerned with the overwhelming number of bums on seats being connected to Windows and Active Directory. open source has failed to penetrate this as, amongst other reasons, it's interoperability just doesn't cut it in the judgement of the majority of those who make that call. Perhaps we are all irrational?

YMMV

Windows is king of the workstations. Unix is the king for serious servers. Windows is only for little toy servers.

If Google cause a large scale move to Linux and open source I'm sure the only people crying will be employees of Microsoft.

This computer came with Vista business. I soon upgraded** it to XP. Vista could be the reason Google succeed!

** I think there's a misprint in the instructions, they've written down instead of up.....
 
Top Bottom