Tuesday, February 9, 2010 18:39

Google's new OS

Cheta Nwanze

July 9, 2009 07:39PMT

I feel like a prophet.

You see, in September of last year when Google released the Chrome browser, I wrote an article explaining best as I could at the time that Chrome is not actually a browser, but an Operating System that has been optimized for the internet based Google Applications. The announcement of the impending development of Google Chrome OS a few days ago has only confirmed what I said back then. One thing I must point out though is this: they are more than likely already making use of Google Chrome OS in the Google headquarters...

Now what might this Google Chrome OS portend? Would it give Micro$oft Windows a run for its money?

Inasmuch as I am a committed Linux user (I switched to Ubuntu with Ubuntu 5.04 all those years ago and have never looked back), I am looking at this Google ‘innovation' askance. According to Google's blog, this operating system is being made for this era when there is a web. That, in my view, is the first flaw in the Operating System. The whiz-kids at Google seem to think that everyone is online all the time, but even for those people with access to constant, proper bandwidth, you are not online all the time.

Nowadays the computer is much more than just a tool, it is the hub of home entertainment, and a lot of the entertainment related applications run better locally than off of a network no matter how good your bandwidth is. On my computer I have a music library of some 14 000 songs and growing. I also have a video library of some 200 movies. How does an online OS cope with all of this? I know that Google Gears has made an effort to bridge the online/offline worlds, but there is still no Google App that satisfactorily plays my music like Amarok does (I'm a KDE head), or iTunes if Window$ or OS X are your kettle of fish. What would be the equivalent of VLC for Chrome OS? Then you have that sect that actually drives the hardware market to new advances, gamers. Will Unreal Tournament run off a cloud? My answer to that is no.

Google talks about the need to have a browser being immediately available upon boot, but there are Linux distributions that already do that. And with other distributions, you can set up your system such that the browser opens up on boot. Slackware will boot up in 5 seconds flat.

Then there is the thorny issue of privacy.

If the bulk of the OS's work would be online, the user would need somewhere to store his files. That place obviously would be the Google servers. Would Google have the decency not to look at what their users are up to and try to make capital out of it? This has been an issue in the past with Microsoft, and even Google, and this is an issue that won't go away. The only thing that stands in Chrome OS's favour here is that it is open source, so a lot of people would look through the source code, and if there is any foul play, the red flag would go up immediately.

In any event, I think that The Guardian and just about everyone else were right (they echoed me!) that this is a blatant play for Micro$oft's share of the OS market, and it is about time too. While my Linux evangelist days are behind me (everyone can use what he/she wants), I still look at people who are locked into Window$ with a lot of sympathy.

I would not exchange what I currently have for the pain of constant defrag, viruses, Trojans, spyware, etc, etc, then having to pay on top of it all! I mean, why would anyone with half a brain chose to run Windows by default? My laptop was purchased at the Selhurst Park, and the first thing I did was to blow away the Vista that came with it. I have had no problems since...

On the upside for Chrome OS, it will be based on Linux, and since the source code would be readily available, it won't be long before we see a proper OS based on Chrome OS. That sounds a half decent idea, but that is theory. Unless you live in a parallel universe where internet access is free and runs superfast all the time, an online OS simply won't work.

Back

Dear reader.
While we value your feedback we have to moderate them, so your comments would appear in a maximum of one hour. Please feel free to return and read through again after another user may have replied to what you have said.
Please note that 234NEXT.com bears no responsibility for what readers post, and is not liable for any form of impersonation.

Reader Comments (9)

Posted by Yosh on Jul 09 2009

Good insight. I never looked at it from the whole 'run off the clouds' angle. Now it makes much sense what the Google OS is all about. Unless they decide to tweak the whole point of it all.

Posted by Jeremy on Jul 09 2009

Those people at Google are clever clogs, lets not forget. Your point about online-offline is spot on. However, what if an entirely new conception/architecture pops up, which erodes the distinction? Definitely, I doubt very much that the OS-to-come will be operationally bandwidth dependent, even though the system would be cloud-based. Solving that paradox is what those bright young minds are probably doing right now... In a way, it is simply a re-run of the ancient Gates/Ellison fight in the early 1990s, before Oracle became a boring corporate...

Posted by Ani on Jul 09 2009

Why won't Unreal Tournament run off a cloud. The advent of Massive Multiplayer Online Gsmes (MMOG) e.g. World of Warcraft, definitely makes the Internet the gaming platform of choice. Don't bet so boldly against the guys from Google. If Chrome OS can effectively utilize the 'cloud' you may be shocked by the results.

Posted by hiren on Jul 09 2009

I dont think so, google chrome Operating system will have facility to play those high desearving ram game, this OS said will have the core programing like linux. If this operating system will support all the softwares same as windows then, it can take bussiness from microsoft. thats what ladies and gentlemen i am talking about.

Posted by V Dosunmu on Jul 10 2009

It is obvious that all of you are looking at this google issue from an IT point of view, remember that for every computer geek there are 10,000 computer literate people. The ratio of windows OS to all other combined OS out there is 1000:1 (globally) . I am talking worldwide. Now are you telling these people to who barely know what an OS is to drop what they learnt with in school and basically their computer lives and start using some Chrome stuff. Their first question to you will be how much will this chrome computer cost me. The 3rd world is just starting to enjoy the Windows Global Village and now they have to start learning something new? Remember google is going into this venture for profit not sake and not to show they can tople the technology Goliath of the world.

Posted by Tundey on Jul 14 2009

I have a whole brain and run Windows (Vista no less) by default. Does that invalidate your entire article? You mention defragging, viruses and trojan horses like those are Windows-only security issues. Regardless of the OS you run, defragging is a fact of life for hard drives. As for viruses and trojan horses, you get more for Windows because a) Windows has more footprint. You may not like it but there are more Windows installations than any other OS. Second, viruses these days are spread via the web. So if you are using an unsecured browser carelessly, you'll get malware. Anyway, as long as Google's goal is to be a niche player (i.e. netbooks and the like), their OS can survive. Provided they clear all the antitrust roadblocks Microsoft ran into with IE and Windows. 'Cos you know Google will bundle chrome with their OS. And it'll probably require Gears for offline access.

Posted by Chxta on Jul 14 2009

Tundey I'd have agreed with you that you had a whole brain except that you stated that defragging is a fact of life for hard drives. Any Linux, OSX, BSD or Unix user would take issues with that, and automatically conclude that actually you have less than half a brain, which means I shouldn't even bother explaining why viruses and trojans don't do well in Linux which so happens to have by far the largest footprint in the server space...

Posted by Tundey on Jul 17 2009

Linux has the largest footprint in the server space. Arguable but let's assume you're right. How many times do you surf the web on your company's servers? Probably not very much. How many times do you read your email on the server? Again,probably not very often. And those are the 2 easiest ways viruses and malware attack. Now which OS has the largest footprint in the user space? Windows. Which is where most user's activities takes place. Especially non- expert users. Talking about defrag, all hard drives get fragmented. You may claim that your *nix OSes manage it better but fragmentation is a fact of life with hard drives. Back to the whole brain issue, why do you proponents of *nix seem to think your merely using *nix makes you smarter? Or that everyone that uses Windows must be dumb. How silly and juvenile!

Posted by Folusho on Aug 21 2009

Tundey and Chxta, i must contribute to you arguments albeit without necessary taking sides. I have tasted both worlds (linux and windows) and i enjoyed both but, the issue is the popularity in the "less enlightened......" they would jump at windows (especially since most systems come preloaded with it anyways) regardless of the advantages of linux, which has unfortunately been classified as a geek OS and for those of us that enjoy the status of being called pros, we have not encouraged a larger market share for linux (or any other OS for that matter), about Chrome, i certainly think that Chetas opinion of the operating style of Chrome is inaccurate. I have had the privilege of looking under the hood of chrome browser and it is nothing like i have encountered, and simply put any brain/s that cooks up something like that will not leave room for slacks (application interoperability with other OSes, User friendly UI and generally every other thing that makes windows rock including games!) it is not certainly a web based OS more like one that makes the internet an easy glide and also a Developers haven. So you guys have not seen anything yet!