Comments on: Google Chrome operating system planned for second half 2010

By: Joel McLaughlin

Joel McLaughlin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:50:22 +0000

Actually I am going to do a post on why Chrome OS is probably just another Linux distro. Sure, the interface may be different than any other OS but you still need a kernel. You still have to interact and abstract the hardware. You COULD deal with not being online all the time by making everything work through Google Gears, but last I checked people also want to do things like play music and unless there are some new services deployed by Google, that won’t be included.

As online and in the cloud as Google is, they still realize there are offline things people want to do too.

By: jkj1962

jkj1962 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:42:25 +0000

Regarding the “offline” bit….OK with Gears you apparently get copies of the docs and apps stored locally on your device.

http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2008/03/bringing-cloud-with-you.html

“As long as I have an Internet connection, every change I make is saved to the cloud. When I lose my connection, I sacrifice some features, but I can still access my documents…even when I’m offline (the goodness that Google Gears provides). When my connection comes back, my documents sync up again with the server.”

OK, that sort of makes sense. It looks like they’re using the reverse of on-line backup. Instead of the documents being local and backed up to the ‘net, they’re on the ‘net and backed up locally.

In terms of “giving Microsoft a big run for their money”, they’ll have to sell it as “this is a better way to work, period” rather than simply “better than/less expensive than Windows”. Sell the cloud concept first, with the OS comparison secondary.

By: Michael Anderson

Michael Anderson — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:41:58 +0000

I think Google looks at Gears as ‘offline Web based’ so it would actually flow pretty well as Wayne said.

By: Christopher Spera

Christopher Spera — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:47:16 +0000

You may be right, Wayne; but the way I read the articles on ZDNet, I think I’ve read it right. If they truly do reengineer the OS as a web-based platform, the questions that I and jkj1962 asked are legitimate. (altho the implementation of Gears would solve a lot of the “what do I do when I am/can not connected…)

By: Wayne Schulz

Wayne Schulz — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:18:30 +0000

I think the point is that Google can give Microsoft a big run for their money. As to running off the Internet I think they’re going to boot from a Linux based system then I bet many of the icons, etc will go to the Internet when available and Google Gears when disconnected (which is built into Chrome already).

By: Michael Anderson

Michael Anderson — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:15:27 +0000

As Wil Wheaton just tweeted … isn’t there already an open-source alternative for netbooks?

By: jkj1962

jkj1962 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:24:57 +0000

“The Web as an operating system”? How? Would you HAVE to be connected ALL the time? What happens if you can’t connect for some reason? Do you just have a very fancy paperweight?

No, methinks it will be on top of Linux as well, with extensions that are web-based. Better have plenty of bandwidth.

By: Christopher Spera

Christopher Spera — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:11:41 +0000

The problem here is that they are proposing a RADICAL paradigm shift that, if taken to the point they intend it to be taken to, will require a hardware paradigm shift to implement. They are looking for an instant on, non-disk based “operating system” that boots the device, but requires the cloud for apps, storage, and communications.

My basic issues and concerns with cloud computing still stand: what happens if you can’t get to the cloud, for what ever reason (connectivity problems, remote locations, or even, hey…I have to turn the wi-fi/3G radio off because I have to get on a plane)? To an extent, Joel, you’re right, but if we take it to the level your’re suggesting, it is NOT going to work, as it relies TOO heavily on the current paradigm. They want something that breaks away from the paradigm that was initially created with DOS/Windows/Apple back in the late ’70′s/early 80′s. To do that, they have to go “back to formula” and reinvent a “better” wheel.

Yes, they have to come up with some kind of file system, and some kind of kernel so that the device does in fact, “boot;” but really all they want is some kind of local file system to hold that “kernel,” graphics sub-system so the display works, and device drivers for what ever is hanging off the device. All else is going to rely on the cloud.

In order to make all of this work, they aren’t going to have to get buy-in from the enterprise; but from consumers. If THEY buy into it, then yes… MS AND Apple will have to radically rethink what they do, how they price it, how they market and present it, etc. However, this goes way beyond what Wayne (and Google) originally relate.

But that’s just me…

By: Joel McLaughlin

Joel McLaughlin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:12:11 +0000

I don’t think Google is going to use the Web as the OS. How could you? In order to even load a browser, you will need a kernel and some basic things like filesystems. It’s possible, but you’d still need some code on a flash drive or disk somewhere.

What I DO think will happen is Chrome OS will be based on a Linux kernel(you need a kernel after all and Linux has the support they’ll need). Then, they will have Chrome on it. Hopefully, instead of writing their own graphic engine they will use Xorg and then use a established environment like Gnome or KDE. Google does not have to reinvent the wheel. The wheel is already there. They just have to make it better than all the other wheels out there. That’s a tall order.