Google Chrome OS.

[Lenny]

In a move that is going to result in a multitude of voices decrying Google, they've announced that they're developing on operating system for personal computers (netbooks, laptops, desktops). It'll be called Google Chrome OS, is aimed at small, low-cost netbooks, and should be on sale by mid-2010.

Google is developing an operating system (OS) for personal computers, in a direct challenge to market leader Microsoft and its Windows system.

Google Chrome OS will be aimed initially at small, low-cost netbooks, but will eventually be used on PCs as well.

Google said netbooks with Chrome OS could be on sale by the middle of 2010.
"Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS," the firm said in its official blog.

The operating system, which will run on an open source license, was a "natural extension" of its Chrome browser, the firm said.

Possibly the most interesting part of Chrome OS is that it's designed with the internet in mind (it'll be the first OS which is truly web-oriented) and will probably be the first OS which will have the ability to interface with the cloud properly (that is, it will be built in rather than a patch, which I can see MS doing).

"We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds," said the blog post written by Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management, and Google's engineering director Linus Upson.

Both men said that "the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web" and that this OS is "our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be".

To that end, the search giant said the new OS would go back to basics.
"We are completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates.

"It should just work," said Google.

Now that's going to be very interesting - I'm half-wondering if they're going to make use of the famous Chrome sandbox (for those not in the know, it's what makes Chrome so secure - rather than things being run directly in Windows, or Linux, or OS X, Chrome runs everything within its sandbox - a security mechanism for separating running programs. I believe it's the Google Chrome sandbox which contains comments alluding to reverse-engineering Windows in the source code).

I'll leave it here for now (must pop down to the bank to shout at them), but I'll give one final comment:

As soon as I've got my affairs in order, I'm going to start my preparations for a life under our Supreme Overlords - I can't wait!

BBC NEWS | Technology | Google to launch operating system

 

[Lenny]

I've just read the official announcement on the Google blog, and my dreams are coming true!

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

It is indeed an OS for the cloud - the apps it will run are web-based (sure, there'll be a few on the desktop, but precious few), which I think will be accessible on the desktop via Google Gears.

 

[J-Sun]

I want to preface that I'm not yelling at you but you raise the issues I am yelling about. This stuff is so ridiculous, IMO. We've already done the "dumb terminal connected to boss man's big iron" in the 50s-70s and it sucked. Yet here we go again but even worse. They can take my personal computer from my cold dead hands.

Hands that have five fingers each, by the way. I have no desire to type with my thumbs.

And like I really want my data hostage to a "cloud" and network outages and want to turn my computer into another ridiculous monthly fee like cable or the net itself.

(And, yes, I'm aware of the irony of running a Unix-like OS but Microsoft had just become unbearable and Linux is a blast, even if it's got a lot of stuff that amounts to cruft for a single-user machine.)

 

[Lenny]

You'd never guess it, but the cloud is something I'm really looking forward to. Similarly, the webtop is an idea that greatly appeals to me, though I'd much prefer a browser integrated with the desktop to a desktop within a browser.

In its infant stages, I'm not going to bother with the cloud that much - security issues, and general usage issues will make it completely unsuitable for proper work, but after a few years, I'd make full use of it - store some data, use the apps and generally promote it.

With Google behind the helm, I think we'll be saved a lot of the issues - they've got such a massive infrastructure in place that actually works, which takes us almost half the way there, and they're a company that (so far) believes in "free".

Saying all of that, I'd never surrender my machine - it's my most prized possession in the world, and always will be. I could never surrender myself to a thin-client connected to the cloud (or even a fat-client connected to the cloud)! I agree completely with your statement, "They can take my personal computer from my cold dead hands.". My use of the cloud will involve periodic uploads of specific data from my physical hard drives to the cloud, and vice versa if I've done any work. As much as it would be nice to immerse myself in it completely, it can never be the same as my machine.

Some may suggest turning my machine into one of the servers that makes the cloud (a personal server, of course), but I'll just laugh at them.

Still, I do look forward to it. I'll just have to buy a bigger desk so I can put a dumb terminal next to my machine.

EDIT: Realising I've completely forgotten the Google OS here, I'm doing an edit.

To me, the netbook craze is weird. Yes, it does make sense (a portable machine designed specifically for browsing the internet, and built to accommodate that single function), but I don't see the point - why shell out £300 on something that simply browses the internet? Not only that, but on an eight-inch screen...

The Google OS is perfect for the netbook market, but I can't see it lasting for more than a couple of years (I imagine the netbook market will be replaced* by then anyway) before a distribution is released for the proper machines, which is when I suspect the cloud will really start to take off.

*My hope is that net tablets will be in full production in a couple of years, and will replace netbooks. And if the true cloud (which to me is not just data storage, but the complete running of applications on servers - all the processing and resources are handled by the server rather than the [thin] client) is really around when they come out, then manufacturers can get away with the most basic specs.

Yeah - I don't like the idea of netbooks, but net tablets have me hook, line and sinker. What can I say?

 

[J-Sun]

With Google behind the helm, I think we'll be saved a lot of the issues - they've got such a massive infrastructure in place that actually works, which takes us almost half the way there, and they're a company that (so far) believes in "free".

Well, that's another part of it, in that I don't like Google like many do.

My use of the cloud will involve periodic uploads of specific data from my physical hard drives to the cloud, and vice versa if I've done any work. As much as it would be nice to immerse myself in it completely, it can never be the same as my machine.

Makes sense, but I just worry about a tipping point. If the cloud actually becomes successful enough and enough people don't care about their PCs, then the economics of the thing may make it easy for manufacturers to say, "PCs aren't selling - we're phasing them out to focus our resources on our thin clients to maximize the upside of our future prospects for marketdroid slogans". And then I'll have to rely on dumps and soldering irons or something. So I tend to feel a need to advocate against the cloud.

Still, I do look forward to it. I'll just have to buy a bigger desk so I can put a dumb terminal next to my machine.

Okay.

Also EDITing, since I only saw your edit after I posted this:

To me, the netbook craze is weird. Yes, it does make sense (a portable machine designed specifically for browsing the internet, and built to accommodate that single function), but I don't see the point - why shell out £300 on something that simply browses the internet? Not only that, but on an eight-inch screen...

Yeah, I can see that, too: a dedicated surfing machine makes sense but you can get that with an old used laptop (or any old machine if you don't care about portability). Like you say, paying a lot of money for a feeble system for a restricted purpose just doesn't, erm, compute.

 

[Lenny]

I think that's going to play quite a large role in whether Google can succeed in their "Google everywhere" vision, and bringthe cloud to the world - if people like them. There are people like me who can't wait to feel the Google whip on their back, and will embrace everything they do (well, I'll take myself out of that, actually - I like what they do if it's something I like), but there are those who don't like Google, and question why they're doing it.

It's fine if Google have a following around the globe of people who want them to carry on doing what they're doing, but if they can't convince everyone else then we've got a problem... though on the other hand, this could well force Google to put even more work into it, so that they can prove to those who don't follow them (Gods, it sounds like Twitter! I feel dirty. ) that what they are doing is in the interest of everyone.

I can't see MS or Apple doing it well - yeah, it might be flashy and non-conformist, or be a PC, but both companies will force customers to pay through the teeth to get it.

Linux might have a crack at it, but only the hardcore nerds and geeks will run with it. On a side note, Google Chrome OS could be a good thing for Linux, as it runs on a Linux kernel. Indeed, the Google servers run on a modified version of Linux, and if Google Chrome OS and the Google servers were linked (it would make more sense for Chrome OS to be an extension of the Linux on the servers) then Linux might get their big-time break. But not as big as if Google publicly backed and distributed a Linux distro, rather than create their own (which makes sense business-wise, but not technology-wise).

Erm... lost my train of thought...

Nevermind, onwards!

Sadly, I can see where you're coming from about the PC industry atrophying. I don't even think the core of enthusiasts and people with money would keep it going, either. Can you imagine budding programmers compiling over the cloud?

On the plus side, the server industry would grow tremendously! The day of the personal computer might see it's sunset, but what about the day of the personal server? With the right bit of coding, you could run your personal server as a personal computer, or at least get a virtual machine up and running. Maybe by that point, virtual machines will be advanced enough for us not to know the difference.

Now that would be a thing of beauty! Imagine it - connecting to a complete virtual machine over the cloud! All you'd need is a monitor (or two), a mouse and keyboard, and a modem.

---

Quick question - I can't decide whether you work in the industry, or if you're an enthusiast (sorry if I cause any offence with the latter!). So the question is: Industry or enthusiast?

I'm more of an enthusiast at the moment, but my degree is Computer Science, and I hope to enter the industry as a programmer some time in the future (maybe after a Masters and PhD, if I'm lucky).

 

[J-Sun]

I think that's going to play quite a large role in whether Google can succeed in their "Google everywhere" vision, and bringthe cloud to the world - if people like them.

I think that's true for Google but I think the cloud has people as diverse as IBM and O'Reilly on the bandwagon - IBM's into the services and O'Reilly likes new tech that results in new books/web activity, and so on.

There are people like me who can't wait to feel the Google whip on their back

LOL. Well, as long as you're clear on that.

I can't see MS or Apple doing it well - yeah, it might be flashy and non-conformist, or be a PC, but both companies will force customers to pay through the teeth to get it.

Apple maybe because their marketing machine appears to be infallible.

Linux might have a crack at it, but only the hardcore nerds and geeks will run with it. On a side note, Google Chrome OS could be a good thing for Linux, as it runs on a Linux kernel. Indeed, the Google servers run on a modified version of Linux, and if Google Chrome OS and the Google servers were linked (it would make more sense for Chrome OS to be an extension of the Linux on the servers) then Linux might get their big-time break. But not as big as if Google publicly backed and distributed a Linux distro, rather than create their own (which makes sense business-wise, but not technology-wise).

It may be a good thing for the Linux kernel devs because it will keep them supported, occupied, and happy, but it may cause the Linux kernel to become less important in terms of conscious mindshare - it'll really just be the thing inside the Google stuff. And, more importantly to me, it'll wreck the Unix userspace. Google's apparently replacing all of that - it'll be even less Unixy than Mac's OS X. And they're getting rid of the X Windows System which is kind of ironic as it's a networking graphics display system. So, yeah, I'd rather have seen Google getting behind a Linux distro (except that it likely would have been a Debian or a Red Hat kind of distro) but they have no reason to do that.

Erm... lost my train of thought...

Me, too, but it's all good.

Nevermind, onwards!

Sadly, I can see where you're coming from about the PC industry atrophying. I don't even think the core of enthusiasts and people with money would keep it going, either. Can you imagine budding programmers compiling over the cloud?

On the plus side, the server industry would grow tremendously! The day of the personal computer might see it's sunset, but what about the day of the personal server? With the right bit of coding, you could run your personal server as a personal computer, or at least get a virtual machine up and running. Maybe by that point, virtual machines will be advanced enough for us not to know the difference.

Now that would be a thing of beauty! Imagine it - connecting to a complete virtual machine over the cloud! All you'd need is a monitor (or two), a mouse and keyboard, and a modem.

That is some interesting conceptualization there. Thing is, I require a physical hard drive - not to mention the CPU, et al.

Quick question - I can't decide whether you work in the industry, or if you're an enthusiast (sorry if I cause any offence with the latter!). So the question is: Industry or enthusiast?

I'm more of an enthusiast at the moment, but my degree is Computer Science, and I hope to enter the industry as a programmer some time in the future (maybe after a Masters and PhD, if I'm lucky).

Wow - good luck with that path. For me, I'm definitely... well, "enthusiast" isn't always the right word, but "unprofessional" certainly is.

 

[Wiglaf]

Let me see if I understand this correctly, you are talking about my apps and files sitting on some fool I don't know's server?

What the ___ is the "cloud"?

 

[J-Sun]

Yep, IMO, you've about got the essence of it, right there. The "cloud" is just the buzzword to sell 60s style computing to the 00s.

If you'd be interested in a much longer winded but no more accurate definition than yours, here's a cloud computing article.

 

[Lenny]

The cloud is the future!

Currently, if you work on something on your computer and take it to another computer, the second computer needs the same program (or something that does the same job) to allow you to carry on working on your file. You also need to physically transfer the file - e-mail, USB pen, floppy disc, or saving it onto a server that both computers can access (that is, saving a copy onto the server, as the original file will still be on your computer).

The cloud aims to make things easier - everything is stored on a server somewhere (which is part of the cloud. Note that these servers do not belong to "some fool", but rather someone like Google) and is accessed over the internet, as are the applications you use (they're all web-based, which means that they run over the internet in your web browser, allowing you to access them from anywhere in the world).

The processing (CPU) and resources (RAM, processing time, hard drive space, etc) are all managed by the server,so the web-based applications you used do not use any of your computer's resources, but rather the server's that they are based on This allows the lowest spec computers to run any application on the cloud - have you ever tried running something like Photoshop on a really old computer? You'll find that it's very slow, it freezes a lot, and is generally unusable. Now imagine if Photoshop was web-based - that same computer would be able to run Photoshop perfectly, because it is not the computer that is running it, but rather a very powerful server. Am I making sense?

The cloud basically aims to make everything web-based (storage of files, applications, the running of the applications, etc.), allowing you to access them anywhere in the world, and through the lowest spec computer you could ever imagine (the days of having to upgrade RAM and hard drives will be gone, as it will all be in the cloud - your machine is there only as a terminal which accesses the cloud. It does none of the work itself).

Obviously there are security concerns, and connectivity issues, but that's because it was early days. Look at the internet, for example. Did it begin in its current form? No - it was insecure, unstable, and the infrastructure was inadequate and non-existent for the most part. But today? It's grown so much that most things are done over the internet. The cloud is the logical progression.

I find the whole thing completely fascinating - the article J-Sun linked to is a great read, if you can stomach dry, technical gibberish (saying that, it's only Wikipedia). I've got a few PDFs from various companies saved on my hard drive which lays out their interpretations of the cloud. The latest one I downloaded was from Sun.

 

[Highlander II]

Jumping in on the 'why netbook' discussion... b/c I have one... and here are my reasons:

1) I didn't have the cash available at the time to throw down for a full laptop to replace my desktop (which is a crotchety dinosaur that's aptly named 'GregoryHouse'), but I could chunk out $300.00 for a netbook - plus, the netbook had XP rather than Vista - which is a big win IMO. =) So, now I have portable internet w/ XP.

2) laptops are heavy. netbooks are about 2lbs at most. (This is important b/c I have back and shoulder issues and no way could I tote around a 7lb laptop for long periods of time.) I need something super lightweight and portable, plus the netbook will be more convenient for hauling to classes when I go back to school. So, between that and my Livescribe Smartpen (which I love!), I'm all set.

However, this 'google OS' thing is intriguing. Now I have visions of being highly ambitious and getting a nicely built laptop to replace my desktop, putting a Linux system on my desktop (b/c it needs a serious rebuild) and then, maybe using Google OS on my netbook... but, that's in the distant future of a time when I have money. =)

 

[Highlander II]

The cloud is the future!
The processing (CPU) and resources (RAM, processing time, hard drive space, etc) are all managed by the server,so the web-based applications you used do not use any of your computer's resources, but rather the server's that they are based on This allows the lowest spec computers to run any application on the cloud - have you ever tried running something like Photoshop on a really old computer? You'll find that it's very slow, it freezes a lot, and is generally unusable. Now imagine if Photoshop was web-based - that same computer would be able to run Photoshop perfectly, because it is not the computer that is running it, but rather a very powerful server. Am I making sense?

I've snipped Lenny's post, but wanted to comment on it (sort of as a whole, but this is the most relevant portion) -

I'm so amused b/c this sounds like an old 'mainframe' based system with a heck of a lot more power. Sort of 'everything old is new again' -

I'm not that 'techy', but I've worked on mainframe systems (they are cludgy and slow most of the time and so so limited) - and I've worked on web-based systems (even been involved in some system transitions) - so, the idea seems both 'new' and 'old' and amuses me. =)