 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.jconline.com/article/20090708/NEWS09/90708007
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.jconline.com/article/20090708/NEWS09/90708007
No, actually not. 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. 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).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> much easier than carving the whole OS from wood
... which Microsoft is already doing in their own project for low-cost
computers ...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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.)
It's actually even more limited than their Android OS, because it won't
support Java (just Javascript via the Chrome browser). Not to mention,
it won't come with either KDE or Gnome, so there goes most of the Linux
software right off the bat.
Not to mention, they'll do everything possible (from what I've read) to
keep you from running any real applications other than the Chrome browser.
It's an extremely specific OS, with one purpose only, and as such it
will only be usable on Netbooks.
> This is aimed at netbooks; why
> would M$ care about that? It's not where they make their money.
MS is, I believe, selling XP licences for Netbooks for quite cheap.
However, that's only a stopgap measure until W7 is released.
> 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?]
So was releasing the Android OS, or the Chrome browser. If you look at
what they're doing, though, they're slowly taking over every part of
your life.
First, they managed search for you. Then, it was email. Then driving
directions. Then documents. Then calendars and schedules. Then chat.
Now, with the Chrome browser, they handle your online interactions (I
use it and, apart from a few minor squibbles, I quite like it). With
the Chrome OS, they'll completely control your computer.
Google: Microsoft Done Right (tm).
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not to mention, they'll do everything possible (from what I've read) to
> keep you from running any real applications other than the Chrome browser.
...
> Google: Microsoft Done Right (tm).
Hmm, so company A includes its browser in its OS and gets fined and told to
remove it. Company B includes its browser AND actively prevents any other
browser running - hmmm.
Can you imagine if MS said Windows 7 would only run MS software?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.)
>
> It's actually even more limited than their Android OS
...which I also haven't heard of...
> so there goes most of the Linux software right off the bat.
Indeed. It's supposed to be a "new OS".
> Not to mention, they'll do everything possible (from what I've read) to
> keep you from running any real applications other than the Chrome browser.
>
> It's an extremely specific OS, with one purpose only, and as such it
> will only be usable on Netbooks.
I think the idea is that if somebody buys a netbook for the sole purpose
of accessing the Internet, Google are going to make sure it's
ludicrously easy to access the Internet. Think about it: the more
limited the functionallity of a device, the easier it can potentially be
to use.
Think about all those games consoles out there; these are basically
normal "computers" which lack the ability to run anything but games. A
netbook is basically a single-function device in the first place.
>> This is aimed at netbooks; why would M$ care about that? It's not
>> where they make their money.
>
> MS is, I believe, selling XP licences for Netbooks for quite cheap.
> However, that's only a stopgap measure until W7 is released.
Sure, but they make their real money from desktops and servers, not
netbooks.
>> Looks to me like an excuse for somebody to write a news article. It
>> *is* a slightly odd more for Google though...
>
> So was releasing the Android OS, or the Chrome browser. If you look at
> what they're doing, though, they're slowly taking over every part of
> your life.
Not *my* life, buddy. ;-)
> First, they managed search for you. Then, it was email. Then driving
> directions. Then documents. Then calendars and schedules. Then chat.
> Now, with the Chrome browser, they handle your online interactions (I
> use it and, apart from a few minor squibbles, I quite like it). With
> the Chrome OS, they'll completely control your computer.
OK, let's examine that...
- Search. Everybody knows Google does search.
- Email. I've heard some people apparently use it, but I don't.
- Driving directions. Presumably you're talking about Google Maps and
Google Earth?
- Documents...?
- Calendars...?
- Chat...?!
Clearly I'm missing something...
> Google: Microsoft Done Right (tm).
Not really. Microsoft gains customers by illegally preventing choice.
Google does it by producing a superior product. The former is illegal,
the latter is the intent of any respectable business.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not really. Microsoft gains customers by illegally preventing choice.
> Google does it by producing a superior product. The former is illegal, the
> latter is the intent of any respectable business.
Err no, the intent of *any* business is to make money. Making a superior
product is just one way to do that, there are lots of opportunities to make
money without having the superior product (eg do you see low cost car
manufacturers trying to make their cars as high quality as really expensive
ones?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not really. Microsoft gains customers by illegally preventing choice.
>> Google does it by producing a superior product. The former is illegal,
>> the latter is the intent of any respectable business.
>
> Err no, the intent of *any* business is to make money.
Sure. But *respectable* business do this by legal means.
> Making a
> superior product is just one way to do that, there are lots of
> opportunities to make money without having the superior product.
Such as...?
[OK, *one* way is to make a product of the same quality and charge a lot
of money for it. Sometimes this makes a product more desirable -
depending on what it is, obviously...]
> (eg do
> you see low cost car manufacturers trying to make their cars as high
> quality as really expensive ones?).
No, but if you make a cheap car that's inferior to all the other cheap
cars, you're not going to make much money I suspect...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Err no, the intent of *any* business is to make money.
>
> Sure. But *respectable* business do this by legal means.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a large company that has not done
something illegal at some point. Sure, if a company secretly uses child
labour or uses some toxic chemical to save money then they lose my respect,
but if they decide, completely openly, that having a fine instead of sharing
code with competitors is going to be more profitable, that just seems like a
business decision to me.
>> Making a superior product is just one way to do that, there are lots of
>> opportunities to make money without having the superior product.
>
> Such as...?
Making an inferior product that you can sell for a lower price.
Building up a brand image so that you can charge more for the same quality
products.
Placing your selling points in better locations than your competitors.
Advertising more than your competitors.
Buying your competitors.
Providing better customer support than your competitors.
> No, but if you make a cheap car that's inferior to all the other cheap
> cars, you're not going to make much money I suspect...
So long as you can sell it a bit cheaper than the others you would be
surprised...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
