>> http://www.jconline.com/article/20090708/NEWS09/90708007
> 
> No, actually not.

...which is kind of my point. ;-)

> The Internet (the master source of information - the
> one that's never wrong) told me that the Chrome OS will just be another
> desktop environment for Linux.

The article above states the same thing.

> Which is reasonable, it's probably pretty
> much easier than carving the whole OS from wood and they'll get theier
> part of OS-markets pretty much faster. But they should call it Linux if
> they really base it on Linux (due to the license Linux is using - AFAIK
> license is one of the main reasons OSX is based of FreeBSD).

Indeed. Google aren't the sort of people you'd think of doing a real OS. 
 From what the article says, this is a trivial Linux front-end. (Indeed, 
I suspect it's probably going to consist of little beyond an ordinary 
Linux distro with Chrome instead of a real desktop manager.)

The article states "Google is going for Microsoft's financial jugular 
with this move". Erm, no, not really, no. This is aimed at netbooks; why 
would M$ care about that? It's not where they make their money. Perhaps 
it's where they might *like* to make money some day, but currently every 
single netbook I've seen is running Linux anyway. (Unsurprising, given 
that the whole point of a netbook is to be as cheap and nasty as 
possible, and Linux is free...)

Looks to me like an excuse for somebody to write a news article. It *is* 
a slightly odd more for Google though... [Hey, I guess they know a thing 
or two about usability?]

Post a reply to this message