Google Chrome OS can do things Good OS can not? Or do I miss something?
 

From here:

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

Here is how these two distros? a bit similar?

Good OS is described like this.

read more here:

http://www.thinkgos.com/gos/features.html

Seems they are building something very similar to Chrome OS?

The difference is the Chrome browser integration?

I know almost nothing about computers and software so if I totally flunk this then I apology.

some here in Sweden says that other linux distros will suffere while Microsoft maybe create something similar or give their Windows 7 for free to small netbooks.

It's all mostly marketing-speech. The reality is that both are Linux+some tweaking. So, in fact, just another distro :)

Hi,

I really think it's more than just another Linux distribution. Google has the resources available to make a OS that could be one of the best available.

I do like the fact that they are using open source as the basis of their new OS.

... for what they have designed it for. I Doubt whether it's going to be a particlularly good distro for a server;).

Given what they've announced so far it sounds like it will be a lightweight Linux distro that runs Chrome in a new window environment. Yawn. They can do ALL of that today with the possible exception of the new windowing environment. If they replace X, then ChromeOS might be interesting. If they just make a new window manager like Fluxbox, Blackbox, XFCE, etc., then in all likelihood, ChromeOS will be a HUGE disappointment.

Personally, I suspect that the overblown hype around ChromeOS will doom it from the get-go.

Hi,
I agree but no one (google included) has set the target to include the server world for Chrome. You've got Slackware for that. :)

Chrome is the browser that will be used on a Linux based OS to service system needs of a general public.

I wished they had use a BSD kernel like FreeBSD. If they do, *BSD could get a lot more hardware support than it has currently, especially with obscure peripherals and built-in wireless chipsets. That's the biggest showstopper from me choosing BSD as a main OS - not anything else, but supported hardware on my laptop (and I guess a lot more people will have my experience especially with newer hardware). On the other hand, with the BSD license, they could simply do a Microsoft: take all the code and give nothing back. But they MIGHT conceivably have benefitted *BSD considerably.

We need more choices in the OS arena, seriously.

There are enough Linux distributions for everybody out there. A different kernel might have actually made me excited about this.

In defence of google, I have to say Linux in general might yet benefit out of google's entry into the OS world as in getting more exposure, but if they restrict themselves to a niche, I doubt whether the desktop user specifically will gain anything. There will be a lot of indirect gains though. Let's remember that every time a big corporation enters Linux, we have benefitted indirectly as a community - the slow and steady increase in hardware support for Linux is one of the most tangible returns.

Google Chrome OS will use the Linux kernel so basically it will be another distro. Is that a good thing? Most likely, because Google has name recognition and it will come preinstalled on hardware from a few companies. The biggest concern would be whether it calls home. Will it actually be any good or will all of the hype build up people's hope only to get just another linux distro? Only time will tell and from all of the blog articles it looks like we have a year or so to wait.

Anything that brings linux to more people is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

Hi,

Business choice on Google's part. More widely usage of Linux vs BSD therefore wide acceptance, debug and even program base. That's the advantage of M$ over the other OS, linux included here. The GNU doesn't hurt things either from the Linux standpoint. You have to remember the BSD model weighed on their decision to go with Linux.


Not with the massive support of one of the worlds largest corporations behind it. Why re-invent the wheel? A stable kernel that has world usage along with a support mechanism that functions and continues to improve.

We are all shooting in the dark. 'If' is a powerful word for just two letters. Acceptance of another OS by the general public by a icon like Google would be more likely than if you or I would release one. Google has the base first to provide the means to the public. RH had it but their model was not broad enough of a scope to challenge M$. Google will have to provide a OS that meets the public's recipe. They won't have the burden of compatibility that M$ must meet since M$ won't change. Sure M$7 will be the new door but that one could already be closing. :)

As for the benefits by corporations entering Linux, what happened to Novell? What about DEC? IBM is a totally different representation. IBM understood the open source model therefore did contribute. Sun did see the writing on the wall and the means to challenge M$ in certain areas. Apple is a totally different flavor so why didn't we see a major gain? :)

Everyone uses the term 'Google'. That trademark is forever as long as they don't screw up. What a driving force.

So did Apple

I think that herein lies the difference with Google producing their own distro.

IBM, DEC, Sun, Novell: all are big names in the world of corporate IT, but don't have particularly strong brand recognition for the general public. Apple is a little different, but these days, perhaps, associated more with the iPod and iPhone. The Mac is a niche product.

Google, on the other hand, is one of the strongest brands in the IT world. "Comes with Linux" is not a big selling point for the average computer user. They know the "Windows" name, it is at least familiar. "Comes with Google Chrome OS" is likely to be different. It is a name that all internet users (and a large part of the rest of the population) will be familiar with.

So (IMNTHO), even if Google weren't to do much in terms of the development of Linux itself, there is the potential that they will play a strong role in getting Linux and FLOSS into the home and probably even into the classroom.

Why people are looking at the under-lining OS and not at the bigger picture is beyond me. Forget that it's a Linux base - it doesn't matter. It could be any OS, that's not the point.

It's only Linux as it's what Google knows, and it's free (hence the OS will be free).

It's about taking Google to the next level. It's about (in their eyes) a seamless integration of mobile and netbook and therefore mobility IT. They have hit the mobile market (just taking off) and now they are hitting the netbook market.

Someone mentioned that it's hardly going to be a good server OS - well, that's because it's not aimed at the server market.

This is nothing to do with Linux, just like VMWare is nothing to do with Linux, it's all about adding a functionality ontop of a free, stable OS which consumers want and will buy.

So it is just another distro of Linux? Yes it is, in the same way that VMWare is just another distro of Linux (yes i know what people are thinking - however the service console in VMWare is a rather important part, read essential part, of making ESX work). It's all about adding functionality to attract a mass consumer market to it. And given the brand name and major bucks behind it, this "could" be a big change in the OS market.

And more importantly to Linux, open up the market to other OS's other than Windows (and by other markets, i mean the mom and pops who just blindingly buy any hardware with a MS OS installed).

they are making their own gui for chrome-os so it will probably be like mac os x.

mac os x is based on the bsdi kernel (liscensed as darwin) and apple made their own non-open source menu for it.

I guess the most important part is that instead of having a big HDD and downloading everything on that HDD instead one have an OS that is integrated with the Chrome browser and all teh applications are on the Google servers. So bookmarks will be saved on google and not the HDD and pictures and texts and music and movies are saved or linked to from within your Desktop at google?

Isn't that the biggest difference.