The Linux blowback is crazy to me. Follow my logic here (because the first sentence seems crazy but I think it makes sense in the end):
Chrome is not really a Linux Distribution. Sure they're using Linux. Why not? It's a core that's well tested and does everything they need it to do. But the very reason they're picking it is because they don't care about that part of the equation.
They're using Linux to jump right to the part they're interested in which is a Web OS.
But they aren't trying to be another version of Linux or any Desktop OS for that matter. They're just using Linux as a stable infrastructure to build their OS on top of. So it's not a Linux distribution in the traditional sense. Meaning it's not really a replacement for anyone who was interested in a Linux netbook.
Its still going to use the Linux kernel, and that makes it Linux I think, though we're messing with semantics.
Regardless, I agree with your view that the blowback is ridiculous. The more people that are using free software, the better for all of us. I think people are irrationally tied to the Microsoft brand and any comfortable step away from that is nothing but a good thing.
I am excited that a big-name like google is doing something like this. It means I likely have to worry less and less about good drivers for more hardware.
The more people that are using free software, the better for all of us.
but if the entire point of this exercise is to build a thin client gateway to google's web-based applications, which aren't open source, are you really gaining anything?
Thin clients are likely to be a viable market, so I expect multiple OS vendors to create them. Some will be open source; some will be closed source. If morally opposed to Google's closed source server side apps, one is free to go to other sites. Are you suggesting boycotting Google's open source project because they operate other apps that are closed source?
Are you suggesting boycotting Google's open source project
no, i don't think i suggested anything like that.
a computer running google's operating system is going to be reduced to just a kernel and web browser, so while that is a "gain" in terms of open-vs-closed software running on your actual cpu, the fact that you'd have to use google's web services to actually do anything useful on the computer means you lost everything you just gained since you are now using much less free software.
of course you can use the browser to use other websites, but then we're not really talking about google's operating system, are we? now you're just using a small portion of it (the kernel and browser) and making your own operating system of sorts (but if you wanted to do that, why not just run a regular linux/bsd distribution in the first place?)
On using the kernel I guess I made an assumptions that I should have been clearer on.
My assumption, based on their limited press, is that Google won't be allowing/encouraging local applications (other than I'd assume Gears/HTML5 local storage apps). If Google allows for local apps then there's really no point to what they're doing.
So my theory is that it really will matter because programmers won't have access to the underlying OS.
I'm not clear on this -- how can it be open source without allowing programmers access to the underlying OS?
Also, I would be surprised if the OS doesn't allow for running any local apps but you may be right.
Also, I guess some Linux folks (like myself) are upset because we wanted to see a full-on competitor to msft with Google branding, i.e. Goobuntu. There have been rumors for years about a Google-branded Linux distribution coming out and its a bit disappointing that its not the whole hog.
Good point about the irrational reliance on brand names. You mention Microsoft, I could mention Google too, but as long as it helps to dilute this reliance, I think it is healthy. Let a hundred brand names bloom.
The situation with linux drivers is much better these days than just a couple of years ago. I do agree it may help, but it is not so critical as it used to be.
Agreed, but I'm not going to forget how bad it was even 2 years ago when wifi & graphics drivers made for a pretty rough experience.
I agree, though, we've come a long way already but at the same time I would be happier if I knew for sure it would never happen again, especially with peripherals. As far as I know, a lot of consumer level hardware (like multifunction printers) are still sold with Vista drivers only.
Beyond drivers as well we'll see if Adobe can work on Flash for Linux to make it as fast as Windows, etc.
You can't run Linux software on it - that is, software designed to be run on a normal Linux system.
Thus, its not a Linux distribution. They could just as easily have chosen ChorusOS or vxWorks or some other kernel .. the only advantage they have in using Linux is the fact that Linux runs on tons more hardware than anything else ..
Google OS will, I'm sure, be really great for the average netbook customer. However, the people who use Linux for the increased privacy, customization, and individuality aren't going to find any of that in Google's apps. So I think the OS will be hit for its target market, but expecting it to "destroy" any other part of the market is quite silly, IMHO.
I think they're looking to create a new market for a web centric cheap netbook where developers can rely on the fact that their web app will run perfectly across any number of Chrome OS based machines.
I would imagine that this thing won't even be marketing the fact that it's Linux based when it hits Best Buy...
>"The strength of its brand, and its reputation as a company that builds sleek and easy-to-use products, means it could steamroll over the other Linux candidates, said Joshua Martin, senior analyst at the Yankee Group."
Not to mention that it might actually be sleek and easy to use.
Chrome OS isn't competing with Windows or Linux, in the same way the iPhone OS isn't competing with Windows. They are for two different types of device, bought by different markets for different reasons.
Chrome OS and iPhone are both about operating systems for small, portable, constrained devices. Chrome OS will power miniature web browsers, while Windows and distros like Ubuntu will power full-fat machines for real work.
Basically, Chrome won't be a mini-Windows or a mini-Ubuntu, but a maxi-Android.
This will be good for linux I think. Ubuntu is doing a good job making a desktop competitor linux flavor but the Google name and power will push through nix based OSs to desktops. How can linux supporters be mad about this.
They're not looking to put it on desktops -- they're looking to put it on dedicated appliance web browser devices.
Also, no-one will know that this has anything to do with linux. People will just see the Google label, and they'll call the product 'Google' without realising that it has anything to do with linux; linux will just be a plumbing detail.
Personally, I don't think this will impact desktop devices at all.
Chrome is not really a Linux Distribution. Sure they're using Linux. Why not? It's a core that's well tested and does everything they need it to do. But the very reason they're picking it is because they don't care about that part of the equation.
They're using Linux to jump right to the part they're interested in which is a Web OS.
But they aren't trying to be another version of Linux or any Desktop OS for that matter. They're just using Linux as a stable infrastructure to build their OS on top of. So it's not a Linux distribution in the traditional sense. Meaning it's not really a replacement for anyone who was interested in a Linux netbook.
It's a third option not a Linux replacement