Can Google Learn from Microsoft's Mistakes?
Posted 14 July 2009 - 06:24 PM
Posted 14 July 2009 - 07:17 PM
"The distro sucks though, its a crippled ubuntu with a dock."
now by "Dock" im guessing youre refering to gnome-destop's bar and menu. because im not aware of any other features|
gOS and any other Linux OS is the re-invention of the wheel. Linux, because of its nature, of being community maintained, is constantly change. growing and being improved.
the IDEA of cloud-based OS. is in one word, INSECURE. PERIOD.
Everything you do, or will do, will be stored remotely, on some other host, meaning what ever you do from typing that essay in the middle of a college classroom, to figuring finances in a Company Payed hotel room in Bangkok, china. is stored in a VIRTUAL environment. a place where the brightest minds of the web have shown before, if its not stored locally, its capable of being spoofed.
that being said, thats not the only point. this makes any Cloud-based os, nothing more than a THIN-CLIENT, running on most likely over-powerd hardware.
I dont know about you, but the idea of not being able to run a game, application or store large amounts of data locally, scares me more than the chance of some one swiping my laptop.
i can encrypt my drives, use obscure passwords for my accounts, and store important files on REMOVABLE drives, rather than locally.
if stolen, the last thing i would be worried about is if there going to steal my credit card info, when they can do that, with Cain and Abel.
ever heard of NAT and ARP spoofing?
anyone with a decent enough laptop can get on a network, use it, and redirect youre traffic through there laptop. Logging everything from a Yahoo Chat with youre family, to youre banking password(using fake SSL certificates, that appear real to youre browser. because the issuer is youre PC rather than the real issuer)
all this leaves me with the question, Why?. Why not work off from something that works, Contribute to something that works, and make something that "Just Works" that can be shared from platform to platform. rather than trying to reinvent the platform to meet THERE needs.
Profit... and thats the kicker, Microsoft(next to apple) has dominated since the 90's the largest share of the Operating System market. Offering usually the best service for devices for the price.
the only thing google is offering is a browser, and will most likely charge for it.
why not build a linux distro, thats small enough to run off a thumb-stick(Key) drive and have nothing but there Chrome browser!? be the same affect, in a FREE package... because when they can claim they have made a BETTER wheel, thats Identical to another wheel. then they can say its a Google product...
Posted 14 July 2009 - 07:58 PM
Posted 14 July 2009 - 08:34 PM
In a Essence, microsoft is guilty of copying. but so isnt nearly every other company. Lynx, Netscape, both the earliest of browsers. Lynx text based, Netscape Supporting images.
everytime you open youre browser, youre opening a Clone, in a essence. every time you turn on youre PC youre using a clone of either Unix or Dos that has been improved apon.
MAC = BSD = UNIX
Windows 7 = Windows Vista = Windows NT = MSDOS = DOS = QDOS(86-dos).
Yes, innovation requires a base. Microsoft has to worry about "Reinventing the wheel" they tried to with Vista, and look how upset the Commercial sector got!
With that said, i still stand by my previous post, why this is a Commercial intrest waste. its a browser OS, AKA its a thin client. NOT A OS, a SKELETON OF A OS.
Posted 14 July 2009 - 09:16 PM
What a hilarious rant! That's exactly what ChromeOS is - a lightweight, free, open source, Linux-based OS which is optimised for running the Chrome browser.
Posted 14 July 2009 - 11:17 PM
Not to conterdict youre previous comment, but... " That's exactly what
ChromeOS is - a lightweight, free, open source, Linux-based OS which is
optimised for running the Chrome browser."
1. ChromeOS is NOT GPL code, and is running and Qoute "operating system built on top of Linux" Which in the land of Tech qoutes, could mean anything from there intentions of using a old kernel (1.2 from the 90's anyone!?) which was not written under the GPL and can be Commercialised and Linus Torvalds did not license it,
2. "optimised for running the Chrome browser" Chrome OS as qouted by CBS and quite a few other news agency's, will be ONLY a Browser and web tools, NOTHING will be localised. a stripped "Linux" OS containing a browser....
4. Pricing has not been released yet, but check Inquirer, they claim google has intentions of selling it to OEM's for $37. Which by my Reclection, GPL states you cannot CHARGE for the software, only for service.
Which brings me to...
5. Google has cliamed most of there products are "open Source" for years. Wheres Andriods Source? Wheres there Search-Engines API source? ive yet to see complete sources for them. Yes Chromiums source is availible, but is Very difficult to cross-compile due to optimisation for Win32 Not POSIX. Yes, its POSIX complaint, but so isnt Windows Media Player for Mac. i see how smoothly that runs...
Posted 15 July 2009 - 12:16 AM
1. You have no idea what license ChromeOS will be released under so how can you categorically state that it's ' ? It will probably follow the Android model of an overall ASLv2 with enhancements to the kernel released under GPLv2 but no-one knows for sure. Google has stated quite clearly that it will be free though:
To suggest that they would use an ancient kernel from the 90s - and in the process have to write/rewrite drivers for all the hardware they'd need to support - is ridiculous. They'd be much better off starting from scratch if that was the case.
2. I don't consider CBS a reliable source on technology matters but I believe that the statement '
3. Again, believe Inquirer if you will but it's highly unlikely that they will sell it for $37, which is a price even Microsoft would be prepared to match for larger OEMs. I still think it will be free like Android.
4. You can download the Android source code from here: http://source.android.com/download
Posted 15 July 2009 - 05:56 AM
First of all I have to ask if you actually got your hands on a copy of Chrome OS. My guess would be a plain "no." So please in future articles about upcoming technology, use better modifiers -- "Chrome OS, on the other hand, [apparently] has a lot going for it." That sounds much better.
Secondly, if you want a lightweight, secure, fast, web-centric netbook they already exist. Of course, you have to do a lot of tweaking, but I have seen a netbook running Ubuntu that only had a browser, email and IM's. Booted in less than 10 seconds, obviously secure since it's Linux, the only thing it could do is access the web, so I guess that makes it web-centric. Nothing that Google is doing right now is new, but they're definitely packaging it that way, and releasing little enough information about it to make it sound interesting.
Posted 15 July 2009 - 10:12 AM
OK, while I am not a big fan of Microsoft (or M$ or Microsuck if you prefer) I think that the author is ignoring a couple of key points in his article to make his point more valid.
Other sources have pointed out that Windows 7 runs better than Vista on ALL hardware. They have even said that Windows 7 runs better than XP on MOST hardware including netbooks. Hardly a sign that Microsoft is continuing to bloat their OS.
With regards to addressing architectural flaws in their OS, when they made the single biggest improvement in this area, UAC (love it or hate it it is the same thing as SUDO in the much vaunted Linux OS), people pitched a fit to end all fits. Admittedly, it was a somewhat flawed implementation because it didn't give enough information to understand what you were allowing or preventing from happening, it was certainly an improvement over the previous incarnations.
I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't have faults. There are faults aplenty, but they do learn.
Also the author has ignored that fact that Google has stated a couple of times not that they are running Linux under the hood. It's not a new OS. It's a new distribution of Linux, just like Android. It's more a new environment than a new OS. Nothing groundbreaking here.
I do agree that trotting out a whole other distribution when Android is pretty well baked is kind of silly, but hey, if they just said that they were extending Android onto the netbook, it wouldn't have quite the WOW factor.
Posted 15 July 2009 - 03:56 PM
What if you knew that the OS you were designing only had to support a browser? You could ditch the desktop environment and write a new, lightweight, optimised windowing system (with a very thin desktop environment layer), get the boot time down to a few seconds instead of 10 and significantly improve performance. This is my understanding of what Google is trying to do.
I don't think Ubuntu has anything to worry about - I doubt this type of OS will appeal to current Ubuntu users - so you Linux users should be happy with this news. After all, Google has a lot of resources and any enhancements/improvements they make to the Linux kernel will have to GPL.