Google OS

[CharlieMopps]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124702911173210237.html

[Trippy]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/

[schild]

Why is this a branch of Chrome and not Android?

[IainC]

Why is this a branch of Chrome and not Android?

Because this way they generate a whole bunch of pre-emptive 'Google defeats Microsoft' headlines.

[fuser]

Well the window manager is kinda chrome but they haven't said what they are using for the display yet (custom inhouse rendering or x.org), or filesystem. The kernel is linux so I don't see this whole "we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS ". Nor do I see it as real competition to Windows as all the media is saying. There's no mention of any windows compatibility(binaries/active directory/.net/mono) and the ad revenue stream is pretty much a no go for me.

But honestly if they have their shit together it might acually help the linux presence. Linux is so disjointed that for any progress there's different forks or codebases of the same application (eg: gtk/qt/compiz/beryl/x.org/xfree), which ends up slowing down progress while dev's fight it out. Atleast now there's one big company with money behind it to say "no.. fsck you this is what you get".

Side note, so will Mozilla foundation be up in arms over Google now?  

[CharlieMopps]

Microsoft had better lower the price of windows pretty quick. What they are currently charge borders on ridiculous. Google OS is most likely going to be free... So I don't see Microsoft being able to get away with any more than $50 per seat.

[NiX]

Google isn't releasing a Windows alternative right away. I don't think I'd be willing to replace my Windows with an OS that is currently slated to be just for netbooks and geared towards surfing the net faster.

[CharlieMopps]

Yes... But the majority of people buying computers today are buying them for the sole purpose of surfing the net. Those same people want cheap laptops. So you take Google OS + Google Apps and put it on a netbook, and you now have a device that sells for $200 and does everything most computer users want. So the only reason anyone would buy windows at that point would be to play 3D games.

[NiX]

People are also prone to buying more than they need under the premise that you don't want to be caught without the necessary software/hardware. I'm just saying, MS won't lower their prices over this.

[AutomaticZen]

Yes... But the majority of people buying computers today are buying them for the sole purpose of surfing the net. Those same people want cheap laptops. So you take Google OS + Google Apps and put it on a netbook, and you now have a device that sells for $200 and does everything most computer users want. So the only reason anyone would buy windows at that point would be to play 3D games.

Familiarity also counts, otherwise the Linux flavor netbooks would probably be selling better.  MSi and Ubuntu have both confirmed that Linux-based Netbooks get returned a lot mroe than XP-based ones.

We have done a lot of studies on the return rates and haven’t really talked about it much until now. Our internal research has shown that the return of netbooks is higher than regular notebooks, but the main cause of that is Linux. People would love to pay $299 or $399 but they don’t know what they get until they open the box. They start playing around with Linux and start realizing that it’s not what they are used to. They don’t want to spend time to learn it so they bring it back to the store. The return rate is at least four times higher for Linux netbooks than Windows XP netbooks.

“We don’t know what the XP return rates are. But I will say that the return rate is above normal for netbooks that offer open-source operating systems,” Carr echoed. Carr highlighted a few reasons why Ubuntu-running netbooks are returned more often. “Unclear selling is happening, typically online. The customer will get their netbook sent to their home and they imagine to find something like a Microsoft desktop, but they see a brown Ubuntu version. They are unwilling to learn it and they were expecting to have Windows.”

Carr stressed that, in these cases, it doesn’t even matter how good or bad the Linux OS is. These customers just don’t want to try something new. “We said a long time ago, we didn’t want to make a Windows clone. It has a different interface especially with the Ubuntu Netbook Remix. We think it’s a better way but it’s not the same way people are used to. That unfamiliarity can take a while to learn and there is an education that has to be stressed.”

The average consumer doesn't care.  By God, it better look like Windows.

[Righ]

Well the window manager is kinda chrome but they haven't said what they are using for the display yet (custom inhouse rendering or x.org), or filesystem. The kernel is linux so I don't see this whole "we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS ".

I will make the bet that they are writing a complete GUI and window manager for Linux and not using X11 at all. So it won't be an OS but a GUI. The OS part of Linux is fine for both consumers and lightweight devices. X11 is not. They say right there that they aim for you to be using the web in a few seconds from turning the machine on. So that's certainly not X11 then.

[Engels]

I dunno, you can 'browse the web in minutes' with Ubuntu live CD, so I don't think that would be the determining factor. That said, OS X is essentially a *nix with a polished GUI and that has done well. Does the graphics rendering on OS X have any roots in X11?

[schild]

I can't think of a modern ANYTHING where you can't "browse the web in minutes."

[Gets]

"This announcement is huge," said Rob Enderle, industry watcher and president of the Enderle Group. "This is the first time we have had a truly competitive OS on the market in years. This is potentially disruptive and is the first real attempt by anyone to go after Microsoft.

Guys! This OS that hasn't been created yet and about which we know nothing about is a Windows Killer!

[Engels]

Quick, call McQuaid for a presser!

[UnsGub]

OS are not really about UIs.  Almost all of the effort and difficulty goes into supporting\interfacing with the 3rd party hardware.  Apple solves this by resticting the hardware to their own and charging\profiting for this.  If Googles goes into the hardware business they could do something in a few years.  If they want to run on the wide range of PC hardware it will be more then a few years as thousands of drivers are needed.  Advertiser turned driver writer is challenge that will provide stories for years.

[Righ]

I dunno, you can 'browse the web in minutes' with Ubuntu live CD, so I don't think that would be the determining factor. That said, OS X is essentially a *nix with a polished GUI and that has done well. Does the graphics rendering on OS X have any roots in X11?

They're talking about seconds, not minutes. OS X uses a compositing engine called Quartz upon which is built a new interface called Aqua. You can run X11 on Mac OS X, but the default GUI doesn't use it.

OS are not really about UIs.  Almost all of the effort and difficulty goes into supporting\interfacing with the 3rd party hardware.

That's nonsense. A modern "OS" as is leveled at the consumer (as in this case) consists of a package of software that includes kernel, device drivers, system applications, network stacks, user interfaces and typically some 'essential' user applications. Device drivers are actually trivial. They may involve specialist and somewhat arcane programming knowledge to implement, but they're much easier to develop than most of the user-facing interface code and consequently have a shorter development cycle.

[HaemishM]

I'm 100% positive Microsoft is not bothered by this news in the slightest.

[Teleku]

I'm 100% sure your wrong.

Its not going to have a big effect on them for awhile, but its just a stepping stone.  If they can bring out a net book OS that does everything everybody does on notebooks anyways, for free (instead of paying for all of Microsoft's crap) its going to start hurting revenue.  And then they can work further on releasing a robust desktop OS.

This isn't about what damage is going to be done to them in 2 years, but what the implication is 6-7 years from now.  Microsoft will see that and will start taking steps to address it.

[Mrbloodworth]

The real trick will be getting manufacturers to install it on new machines, or this wont matter. Its the only reason the world uses IE, and quite possibly windows at large.

OS are not really about UIs.

Windows very name was because of its UI. There was no UI before.

"Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager (subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."

[CharlieMopps]

Familiarity also counts, otherwise the Linux flavor netbooks would probably be selling better.  MSi and Ubuntu have both confirmed that Linux-based Netbooks get returned a lot mroe than XP-based ones.

But Linux is TERRIBLE in the hands of the inexperienced. I can't think of a single Linux distro I could install on my mothers computer and go home unworried that she would just be calling me back in 20min. In fact, I doubt I'd bet out of the house before she wanted windows back.

But she knows google. If they make it user friendly enough (and lets admit that's what google is best at) then they may very well have something. I'm not saying it's going to kill windows... I'm saying it might, if done correctly, cost Microsoft a lot of market share.

[Lantyssa]

Windows very name was because of its UI. There was no UI before.

"Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager (subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."

Do you mean GUI?  An OS without a UI better be an AI, or it's pretty useless.

[Soln]

I don't see how slapping your brand on top of a linux distro can be called an OS. 

G$$gle is the new M$FT in more ways than one. 

[schild]

I don't see how slapping your brand on top of a linux distro can be called an OS.

OS X is just a GUI slapped on BSD.

I fail to see the difference.

G$$gle is the new M$FT in more ways than one.  

Saying things like that makes me want to kick you in the teeth.

[HaemishM]

This isn't about what damage is going to be done to them in 2 years, but what the implication is 6-7 years from now.  Microsoft will see that and will start taking steps to address it.

What do you think they've been doing for the last 6 years?

The XBox line - an Internet enabled entertainment box for your living room.
Changing the licensing on all their desktop apps to essentially make them subscription apps as opposed to one-off purchases.
Windows for Mobile devices.

Windows has been maneuvering themselves away from the desktop and onto network apps for years. They've successfully fended off every other version of Linux out there for the business market. When OS X is the most successful *nix variant, and the best they can do with OS X is what 3-4% market share? You really think Microsoft gives two shits about a Googly Linux for Netbooks?

[Righ]

OS X is just a GUI slapped on BSD.

The Aqua GUI and Quartz compositor run on the Mach-like XNU, which the OpenStep API and shell environment also run on, and they borrow heavily from the BSD design. The GUI doesn't run on BSD.

/pedant

However it does demonstrate that most of what is wrong with putting Unix in untrained hands has to do with its traditional interfaces and not the kernel or libraries. Obvious enough to techies, but Apple's implementation probably sold the idea to more than a few senior managers.

[Prospero]

Windows has been maneuvering themselves away from the desktop and onto network apps for years. They've successfully fended off every other version of Linux out there for the business market. When OS X is the most successful *nix variant, and the best they can do with OS X is what 3-4% market share? You really think Microsoft gives two shits about a Googly Linux for Netbooks?

With the netbook marketshare growing so fast you bet their bippy they're scared. A device manufacturer can have one of the biggest tech names in the industry behind them and they have to pay next to nothing for the OS. That is going to allow them to compete nicely against the Win7 netbooks that have a 75-100 OS cost built-in to the price.

You ask Joe Schmoe "You want Ubuntu on your netbook?" and they are going to look at you like you have a communicable disease. You say "You want Google Chrome on that?" and I suspect you will get a much better response.

Google also has the money to sweeten the pot for device developers. Ubuntu, not so much.

[stray]

If they're building a new window system, that means a whole other slew of other shit for the interface.. So that makes it significantly different than other Linux distributions as well. I think this would make it more like OSX than typical Linux flavors. Bypassing X, GTK, and other typical gui technologies in the open source world. These things shape the linux world more than the kernel actually!


That all that said, I don't really give a shit about netbooks.

[waffel]

Surfing the net faster? Really? Jumping from 56k to cable is surfing the net faster, changing your OS? I doubt it.

[Ingmar]

IMO if Microsoft is scared of something Google is doing, it is Google Wave, not this. Google Wave has serious potential to eat a bunch of Exchange's market share within a few years. This netbooks-only-for-now OS stuff is farther down the road and who knows if netbooks as we know them will even be in the picture by the time it becomes a real battle?

[Ingmar]

Surfing the net faster? Really? Jumping from 56k to cable is surfing the net faster, changing your OS? I doubt it.

Chrome loads pages faster than other browsers (although FF3.5 is close to it on benchmarks), that's likely what they're talking about.

[waffel]

I can honestly say I've never had a problem with a webpage loading too slow that wasn't the fault of the server. Its not like my OS is making my firefox chug down to a craw when I try to load an 'image intensive' website.

[NowhereMan]

When you're dealing with notebooks and the like where processing power is more sparse and you've got less RAM then every little helps and indeed can be more noticeable.

[IainC]

I can honestly say I've never had a problem with a webpage loading too slow that wasn't the fault of the server. Its not like my OS is making my firefox chug down to a craw when I try to load an 'image intensive' website.

The main thing with Chrome (the browser) is that each tab is its own process which speeds up web apps significantly and also means that starting up Bejewelled won't make your other pages load more slowly while the browser deals with that. Additionally if something crashes, it only brings one tab down and not the whole browser.

[Morfiend]

I have been saying to my friends that I think the OS is going to basically become a browser, and everything is going to be done in a cloud. This seems like the first step towards that.