×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Reveals Chrome Hardware Partners

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the because-they-can dept.

Google 343

nk497 writes "Google has announced the hardware partners for the Chrome OS — so we can expect to see netbooks running the operating system next year from the likes of Asus, Acer, and HP, as well as Toshiba. Dell didn't seem to make the list, at least yet. Google also said it had teamed up with Adobe, which could mean Google is looking to include the Acrobat.com web-based software suite in some way."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

343 comments

Noooo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635053)

Anything but Acrobat, king of the bloatware!

Re:Noooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635143)

Anything but Adobe, king of the bloatware!

Fixed it!

fr1st p0$t for gnaa and rikhard stawlman (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635577)

8==C=O=C=K=S=L=A=P==D~~ [www.gnaa.us] fp for gnaa gay nigger association of america and rikhard stawlman

Air (5, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635075)

Google also said it had teamed up with Adobe, which could mean Google is looking to include the Acrobat.com web-based software suite in some way."

I am thinking more among the lines of Adobe AIR and seamlessly linking the Google OS platform with the AIR API.

Re:Air (5, Interesting)

darkvad0r (1331303) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635111)

I'm guessing this has more to do with flash than anything else. Maybe we'll finally get a flash plugin that doesn't suck on linux

Re:Air (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635431)

Not just Linux - I want one that doesn't suck on Windows!

(As of a recent version, the plug in crashes, taking out my browser. So I have to use IE - and now websites like YouTube have the cheek to tell me I should use a "modern" browser. I would if they used a standard that didn't crash on a modern browser!)

Re:Air (1)

darkvad0r (1331303) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635607)

Well, this won't get you anything for windows since chrome OS is linux-based...
On second though, it IS gonna get you something for windows: yet another alternative

Re:Air (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635113)

Especially on ARM, which it is my understanding is limited to Flash 7. This would allow them to provide a more "real" web experience on an ARM netbook.

Re:Air (0, Offtopic)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635199)

btw
FP hohoho

Re:Air (0, Offtopic)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635247)

btw
F5 hahaha

you got beat by 3 minutes for First Post.

Re:Air (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635831)

In fairness, GP did write an FP-speed post in the browser he's using -- in Air. The rendering, network transport time and logging of the activity by Adobe cost him first place.

Re:Air (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635371)

How about just plain old Flash? Adobe has yet to release a stable 64b linux Flash player. The hacks to make the 32b version work on 64b linux are rather poor, too. I'm sure Google would want to use 64b linux for their Chrome Window Manager, but that would be a hard sell to consumers with flaky Flash support.

Re:Air (1)

Logic (4864) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635515)

Interesting. 64-bit Flash has been working just fine for me, albeit slow and memory-hungry. But that's a "feature" of the 32-bit version too. ;)

Re:Air (1)

Kilz (741999) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635519)

How about just plain old Flash? Adobe has yet to release a stable 64b linux Flash player. The hacks to make the 32b version work on 64b linux are rather poor, too. I'm sure Google would want to use 64b linux for their Chrome Window Manager, but that would be a hard sell to consumers with flaky Flash support.

Pure fud, the linux 64bit plugin works just as well as the windows flash plugin. The work arounds to install a 32bit plugin have not been needed for a long time.

Re:Air (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635585)

Releasing desktop OS without ability to play YouTube videos, for example, would be really stupid. Also, Skype (or Google replacement?) will need Flash too. I can't see that working on JavaScript. Then there are existing apps (Gmail) that use Flash for some functionallity.

Re:Air (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635833)

Or, they could just provide OGG Youtube videos.

Re:Air (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635881)

Actually, getting flash working on 64 bit linux is even easier than getting google gears working. (Incidentally, anyone else notice that gears STILL isn't out for FF3.5? Their excuse for not doing testing during the RC is that they'd have to make too many builds. Fail, fail, fail. Also, STILL no gears for 64 bit linux, you have to get a third party xpi every time there's an update. Fail, fail, FAIL!)

Re:Air (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635481)

why can't an open source version of the flash library be created?

Re:Air (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635775)

I agree. Essentially for RIA's they're limited to AIR, Silverlight and JavaFX. Somehow I think Silverlight from MS didn't figure in their plans, JavaFX is Suns and pretty new, so the only logical choice would be AIR (sonce adobe probably competes less directly with google)

Technically, since according to google, "for the developer, the web is the platform" (or something like that) it shouldn't really make a difference - a website is a website is a website... I think it doesn't sound good - almost like devs are going to be boxed in to using certain SDKs to build apps(kind of like MS? :) )

From personal experience, "Adobe" and "free and open" seldom go together (just look at how they treat the PDF spec). I'm very interested to see how this will pan out, but right now it looks like they are in such a rush to get this out that they are just "partnering" with various players so they can cobble together all the ready made bits and pieces and end up with an OS (or a steaming ad-infested pile of faeces).

Resource wasting software included (-1, Redundant)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635077)

Google also said it had teamed up with Adobe
So we can expect major bloatware installed on the systems? Makes me wonder what Dell isn't on that list yet. I'm also wondering if Google is teaming up with Symantec.

Marketing..... (5, Interesting)

ITJC68 (1370229) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635099)

Is this just smoke and mirrors. From what I have read this is Linux with a custom GUI on the front end. Depending on how they market it and which distro it is built from will probably dictate how far it goes. I use the *buntu and Suse variants of Linux on a daily basis. Unless this offers any real advantage I won't move to it even it I purchase a netbook with it I would probably format and load Ubuntu on it.

Re:Marketing..... (1, Offtopic)

MancunianMaskMan (701642) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635137)

I was hoping for this "custom gui" to be something innovative at a deeper level, such as a replacement for "X" rather than a replacement for "gnome/kde" or the window manager. That might be more than just marketing hype.

Re:Marketing..... (4, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635391)

Unless this offers any real advantage I won't move to it

The real advantage it offers is that Google, a company that the average end user has heard of, is pushing it. There's also half a chance that the OS will be user-friendly enough for the average end user not to run screaming from, unlike most Linux distros. Hell, they may even be able to use it without ever having to see a command prompt.

All this means it's actually in with a chance of competing with Windows on the desktop.

Re:Marketing..... (2, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635421)

It's a linux kernel, not necessarily a distribution in any meaningful sense. They could simplify it to the linux kernel, loader, some libraries, and chrome executable. I suppose they would need a shell, scripts, and helper apps for network config and dhcp, but For a browser-based internet device, 99% of a standard linux distro is irrelevant.

Re:Marketing..... (2, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635467)

Like OS X is just "Next with a custom GUI on the front end"?

Obviously we'll have to wait and see what they release. But I fail to see how starting from an existing OS means that they aren't bringing anything new, or that they're relying on marketing. And even better, they'll be giving their new OS back to the open source community.

Unless this offers any real advantage I won't move to it even it I purchase a netbook with it I would probably format and load Ubuntu on it.

Right, but to be blunt, those of us who do this are such a minority that I doubt Google are worried about that factor. The competition is Windows 7 (and perhaps to a lesser degree, netbooks that are shipping with Linux preinstalled).

Re:Marketing..... (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635499)

Is this just smoke and mirrors. From what I have read this is Linux with a custom GUI on the front end.

Which is exactly what will make it better than any current Linux distributions. As long as the windowing system sucks a bit less than X11, we should be very happy!

Re:Marketing..... (0, Offtopic)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635819)

From what I have read this is Linux with a custom GUI on the front end.

If they're happy with that, they'll fail bigtime. If they really want something big, they'll port the Haiku base system to the Linux kernel or something.

I'm serious. The sheer number of abstraction layers between the bare metal and a typical Linux GUI application is astounding. The kernel itself has drivers, file systems, schedulers, etc., then there's glibc (horribly bloated in itself, and probably destined to remain so for compatibility and portability), then glib and X (don't get me started on that one), then you finally get to make some choices: OO or not? GTK or Qt? GNOME or KDE? If Qt, v3 or v4? Do you want Python with that? Java? How about sound? Alsa, pulseaudio, jack, gstreamer, xine?

And here's the fun part: a typical desktop has all of these, because there is no standard, and every choice excludes some vital application you absolutely must have to be a decent distro (Amarok, K3b, Firefox, Pidgin, whatever).

Now, compare this to the Haiku API: Simple, clean, use it and you have everything you need. The result? You get a usable desktop in 5 seconds under VirtualBox. How long does your OS take to boot up?

I would absolutely love this (3, Informative)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635109)

Just today, I gave a presentation created with Google Docs. WIth the right background and font colors, it was virtually indistinguisable from our usual company its PowerPoint template. Combining all the Google stuff together and you have a situation where you hardly need local storage. So, I'd give the Chrome OS a hearty welcome, even though it might offer too much limitations for others. I've given up my office suite, my IMAP and SMTP server and my webmail. For me personally, it's perfectly usable in business.

Re:I would absolutely love this (3, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635189)

Re:I would absolutely love this (3, Funny)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635335)

Thanks for your absolutely heart-warming post! I enjoy the support this board gives me! I have a talking, pink pony which just configured my Linux laptop its WiFi! :D

Re:I would absolutely love this (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635747)

You are such a bitch.... now I have to clean milk and cereal out of a macbook keyboard and keep a smile on my face and a can do attitute... :)

Re:I would absolutely love this (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635253)

You're saying "it was virtually indistinguisable from our usual company its PowerPoint template" like it's a good thing.

Re:I would absolutely love this (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635793)

Well, I work at an not-for-profit scientific institute, so we don't have snazzy PowerPoints with moving objects, sounds and icons that match the house style. So it is actually not a bad template :-)

Re:I would absolutely love this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635347)

Just today, I gave a presentation created with Google Docs.

You'd absolutely love this, would you? Would you love it when Google Docs goes down, or your internet connection stops working, when it's time to give your presentation?

you have a situation where you hardly need local storage

When the inevitable happens as above, you'll suddenly wish you had local storage, and local applications.

Re:I would absolutely love this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635621)

That's what Google Gears is for.

Re:I would absolutely love this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635783)

Not for nothing, but if in the theoretical future we have moved back to the dumb terminal / networked data paradigm of the past, won't everyone at the meeting pretty much understand that when the system is down, the system is down?

Admittedly, in the current climate, not having local solutions to Internet outages seems shortsighted. But when it becomes the norm, nobody's gonna be on your back about it.

In the future, this'll be a straw man argument.

Re:I would absolutely love this (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635817)

It's not about who's "gonna be on your back about it" - this isn't about school and the dog eating your homework. It's about people who want to try and do their work.

If I can't do work (either at business, or for pleasure), I'm not annoyed because "someone might be on my back about it", I'm annoyed because I can't do the work.

Re:I would absolutely love this (5, Interesting)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635455)

How does your company feel about you keeping the presentation data on Google servers?

Re:I would absolutely love this (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635459)

My presentations are usually outside my office. Relying on a working internet connection for them sounds like a a major PITA to me, considering how much effort is usually involved for accessing a corporate LAN.

Re:I would absolutely love this (1)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635507)

Presentations are not too bad, the spreadsheet is mediocre, and the word processor is abysmal. Unfortunately, most people would want to use the word processor. As a prof, I do use the spreadsheet regularly, shared among the TAs of my class to log assignment and exam marks. As it allows shared editing, I always have the latest grades input from the TAs for the class. I don't have to try to get individual spreadsheets and try to integrate the data at the last minute, hoping that everybody's names list match (even when provided... there are ALWAYS changes to the number and order of the names at then end of the semester on each spreadsheet). So it is useful, in a very limited context. What's more, Google episodes of no connectivity have clearly shown the severe limitations of cloud computing. And I'm not event talkign security concerns here. OpenOffice will remain my primary office suite for teh foreseeable future, thank you very much. And besides, isn't Byzantine OS doing exactly what Chrome OS is supposed to do? Why are we reinventing the wheel again?

No Intel or AMD ? (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635123)

Does that mean that Google OS will target ARM based architectures ? I would say so as they are befriending Qualcomm and Texas Instruments.

Re:No Intel or AMD ? (5, Informative)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635213)

These are partners that make computers sold to consumers. Intel and AMD make CPUs that go into those computers and (AFAIK) don't make computers themselves, which is why they are not on this list. Also, they have already announced that they will support both x86 and ARM processors.

Re:No Intel or AMD ? (0, Redundant)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635267)

Yesterday's blog post did mention ARM, yes.

Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips

what is Google's strategic intent here? (4, Insightful)

museumpeace (735109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635131)

all the press coverage yesterday characterized google's OS ambitions as an attack on MicroSoft or a counter attack in light of Bing. But to me, an open source OS enhanced for web-top uses sounds mighty like an attack on Intel/Moblin. After all, ARM processors are to be supported too from the little I have read of google's plans.

Re:what is Google's strategic intent here? (5, Interesting)

museumpeace (735109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635155)

btw, I should have linked the Moblin pages...there is a LOT of activity on their email feed for independent developers. http://moblin.org/ [moblin.org]

Re:what is Google's strategic intent here? (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635517)

SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work

I took that as a personal offense sir /offtopic

Re:what is Google's strategic intent here? (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635393)

Cheaper netbooks with Google branding on them, to drive you to Google search.

Non Windows netbooks with some unheard of Linux distribution have been a flop, they want to see if the Google brand can sell them, and if it does, they want the buyers looking at Google ads.

Re:what is Google's strategic intent here? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635453)

The OS wont have x11 so you are limited in what conventional apps you can run OO (not much chance), abiword/gnumeric/koffice all have plenty of their own problems to sort before porting, so what office suite will this ship....google-office, compete with ads.
same goes for mail clients, thunderbird/kontact/etc are all huge projects porting to run without X will be a pita....gmail to the resuce
OFC people will eventually port thier apps and thier are alternatives (yahoomail, livemail, etc), but if we've learnt anything from IE still having a huge marketshare its that most people stick to defaults. Google won't even need lock-in, they have default-in.

moblin is a conventional desktop shrunk down for use on a netbook, chrome is a web browser+web apps expanded to make an os for netbooks, both compete on netbooks but just like this isn't really an attack on anything its just an attempt to capitalise on the demand for cheap, long life netbooks.

Re:what is Google's strategic intent here? (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635763)

What I see it as is a commercial developer friendly version of Linux.
Odds are that it will.
1. Have an app store for people to sell apps. Yea the web based apps is all cool but I think that side of it is being over blown.
2. Will have Flash and codec support without having to get it from a none US repository. Google will pay for the rights.
3. It will come pre-installed for aunt Tilly.

The one thing I wonder about is will Google fork the Kernel and add a stable driver binary interface? If so will we soon see a lot more hardware support for Google Linux than traditional Linux.

Adobe? I thought they said security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635133)

I guess there goes that bullet. Let users decide to support Acrobat.com, not have it bundled.

I'm tired of seeing Adobe propped up for anything other than Photoshop and the rest of the Creative Suite, minus Adobe Acrobat. PDF is a bad format and Acrobat makes it far worse.

Adobe makes software that can make very good pictures, but to say they're secure in anyway is a joke and just terrible for the system. I wouldn't doubt that their online offerings are similarly flawed.

... so are they evil NOW? (5, Insightful)

gun26 (151620) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635139)

So Google's doing their own OS and partnering with Adobe, the purveyors of the biggest, buggiest and least secure bloatware on your computer. Great. Given the business Google is in - advertising, and the more of it the better - they're likely to take steps to make sure that all those slippery users out there do their patriotic duty and view all ads sent their way, no matter how obnoxious. Is there even an Adblock for Chrome?

Re:... so are they evil NOW? (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635535)

, the purveyors of the biggest, buggiest and least secure bloatware on your computer

You are thinking of Symantec.

Will Chrome OS be any different... (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635149)

...as compared to this [startforce.com] ? If not then Google will have a hard time convincing me to switch.

Re:Will Chrome OS be any different... (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635241)

Yes. Everyone's heard of Google already and many are using it. Google will be different sheerly because everyone else will be using it and it'll be better supported by both the company and random people you know or meet. Also, you know Google isn't going anywhere for a long, long time.

Re:Will Chrome OS be any different... (3, Interesting)

The J Kid (266953) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635463)

Also, you can phone up your bank, if their site's not working for you and scream:
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN, YOU DON'T SUPPORT GOOGLE?"
and they'll get with the Google.

Try that with StarForce..

Re:Will Chrome OS be any different... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635561)

Also, you can phone up your bank, if their site's not working for you and scream:
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN, YOU DON'T SUPPORT GOOGLE?"

Truly, spoken like a man who has never tried phoning up a bank and getting hold of anyone above the level of "mindless drone".

Re:Will Chrome OS be any different... (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635811)

You just don't have enough money for the bank to care about you (Neither do I).

If someone with enough money calls in, or someone higher up in the bank wants it, I would think it would happen.

Re:Will Chrome OS be any different... (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635465)

It's very neat, btw, and sorry for the ignorance but whats the primary language used to create an OS on a website like this? Ajax? Java? Firebug Shows me a lot of Java but, just plain Java???

I think the Google OS would be more like an "Hipervisor" and WebTop mix, You don't need to launch a browser the OS is the browser.

Down with G$$GLE (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635171)

The G$$GLE-borg wants to take away our freedom with their shitty corporate crapware. Thank goodness for Microsoft, I support the feisty Microsoft freedomware guerillas against the evil G$$GLE empire!

Re:Down with G$$GLE (0)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635239)

The name is Google, not GSSGLE.

Re:Down with G$$GLE (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635333)

When they sell your habits, like MS its G$$gle.
Its $ when your the customer not the consumer.

Re:Down with G$$GLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635339)

It's pretty clear he's just starting out at this. Cut him some slack.

You don't think sllort or Lover's Arrival, The was knocking them out of the park at their first at-bats, do you?

Dell's netbooks (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635201)

Dell's netbooks are overpriced anyway. Seriously, I went shopping for one recently and their netbooks seemed crazy expensive compared to asus, acer, et. al.

Re:Dell's netbooks (0, Flamebait)

kaaposc (1515329) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635309)

Aren't you ready to pay for brand? (*cough*iPhone*cough*) ;)

Re:Dell's netbooks (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635653)

'cept for the fact my iPhone costs me half as much as any other comparable device (on a contract) with a fuckload more value in the plan.

The rest of Apple's products, on the other hand...

Re:Dell's netbooks (2, Informative)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635583)

Dell's netbooks are overpriced anyway. Seriously, I went shopping for one recently and their netbooks seemed crazy expensive compared to asus, acer, et. al.

I do not know about Dell, but Acer machines have the fame of being completely craptastic. I stopped using/trusting Acer computer after having to provide service to 486Dx which had very crappy cases that seemed more like bad quality lego's. Or the other "stylish" black computers which were a completely piece of shit. I think Acer lack of quality may be only surpassed by that of Sony (which, may not be as bad due to quality but more because of the use of al lthose close formats)

Acrobat, huh (4, Informative)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635263)

Google also said it had teamed up with Adobe, which could mean Google is looking to include the Acrobat.com web-based software suite in some way.

Umm, no. Flash.

Re:Acrobat, huh (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635495)

wait you mean its more likely that a web based os that will need flash to provide a rich web experience, will partner with the makers of flash for their flash technology, rather than the web-services which will surely be available to anybody with a webbrowser anyway?!

Re:Acrobat, huh (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635697)

Doesn't matter. Based on the number of security exploits found in Adobe software over the last couple of years, I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be allowed to write software for public consumption anymore. It seems that every week there's another PDF or Flash exploit out. If Google is promoting the OS based on how secure it is, they may want to develop their own Flash and PDF viewers.

Please! Make it light on resources Google (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635303)

Would be nice to have a Linux desktop with a full set of features thats light on resources as it seem to be a thin client for cloud hosted apps and not so much into native apps. Adobe AIR / FLEX would be nice (inb4 Flash is teh sucks), maybe Google can push Adobe to release some CS apps ready for Linux or at least WINE optimized, THAT would be so fkskng AWESOME.

As the yesterday's article here noted, Google is doing a complete GUI from scratch, so, do it light Google, my Thinkpad A21 would be happy as many many old PC's. Yes, I know there are alternatives for Lite-Linux-Distros but the thin client is what I'm really looking for here.

How Many Years....? (5, Funny)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635359)

For how many years will the Chrome OS stay in beta? Place your bets.

Re:How Many Years....? (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635435)

Heh, hopefully like most Google apps it will stay beta nearly forever. That way the news reports will say "Google's beta OS trouncing gold Windows 7."

Re:How Many Years....? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635841)

3 days ago just called, they want their outdated disbelief that Google apps will ever go out of beta back.

People Failing To Grasp Chrome Just Like Android (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635403)

One just has to look at the silly posts back when Android was announced and all the inane and irrelevant garbage spewed about the goddamn iPhone and if Android was an 'iPhone killer'.

With every major cellphone maker coming out with Android phones and demoing their custom interfaces and software built on top of Android and Windows Mobile virtually forgotten about, you would think people would wise up and grasp how huge this move by Google is into the netbook market.

Failing To Grasp? Slashdot's Specialty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28635469)

iPod: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

What technology or product has Slashdot ever NOT failed to grasp?

Re:People Failing To Grasp Chrome Just Like Androi (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635555)

Don't worry - in a year or two, Apple will finally release a netbook, and then we can hear people branding Google OS as being "An Apple nEtbOok [or whatever it'll be called] killer".

WTF, Google. You're teaming up w/Adobe, too? (4, Insightful)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635427)

Google also said it had teamed up with Adobe, which could mean Google is looking to include the Acrobat.com web-based software suite in some way.

First off, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if anyone is teaming up with Adobe to include Adobe web stuff that it's not going to focus on Acrobat but on Adobe Flash, Adobe AIR, and that whole ecosystem.

That out of the way, what the Flippety Friggery, Google?

You're building a new OS based on the Linux kernel + Chrome Browser, which is cool because these are both high-quality Free Software projects. But then you wander off and sidle up to Adobe instead of working with Free Software such as Gnash [gnu.org] .

This seems like a repeat of the situation with the ARM folks. Gnash has had ARM support for several years, but instead of the ARM people collaborating with Gnash to get full Flash support on their processors, the ARM people worked with Adobe to make a whole new port to ARM [slashdot.org] , instead.

Now Google is working on a slick new OS and has an amazing opportunity to have the whole thing be Free Software. Gnash is getting very mature, and with support from a organization like Google it could easily become the best Flash player on Free OSes, if not on all OSes.

C'mon Google: Team up with Gnash and other Free Software projects and make Chrome OS one for the history books.

This is not good for free software (4, Insightful)

FourthAge (1377519) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635543)

From the perspective of the user, what is worse than being dependent on non-free software such as Flash?

Answer - being dependent on non-free software that only runs on someone else's machine as a remote service. The goal of Chrome is to replace customer lock-in to Windows and Office with lock-in to Google's "software as a service". Since customer data will be held hostage by Google, along with the only applications that can read it, no "Openoffice" or "Linux" will be coming to rescue the user from this lock-in. But hey, it's Google, they won't "be evil", right? (hollow laughter).

I am unsure why other free software advocates are supporting this idea, unless the enemy of Microsoft is automatically our friend.

Re:WTF, Google. You're teaming up w/Adobe, too? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635879)

Google is a giant. It partners with other giants, not with little independent reverse-engineering projects.

Adobe (1)

iVasto (829426) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635443)

Maybe if Google partners with Adobe we will finally get decent flash support on Linux, especially since Google owns Youtube. The current flash plugin is horribly inefficient for Linux.

Re:Adobe (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635651)

For the iPhone, youtube sends h264 video directly, no flash, and a better user experience. Seems like That would be a better approach for Google.

Hardware Software Partners - Bad (1)

skrimp (790524) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635493)

Hardware partners smacks too much of our (US) current cell phone situation. If you want the coolest hardware you have to go with this carrier. If you want the best service you have to go with substandard phones on another carrier.

Color Scheme (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635525)

Fortunately the open nature of this OS will lead to custom GUIs because using traditional Google primary colors for an OS is just butt-ugly. It reminds me of how cheesy Windows XP looks. Maybe I'm just spoiled with the suave look of OS X. I won't use Chrome as a main OS, but I'm going to familiarize myself with it so I can push it on all my anti-Mac friends. It's funny, they use Windows because they don't like Apple (price) but they all use Google for something. I doubt the ugly GUI would bother them, they use Windows ;)

Re:Color Scheme (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635635)

(And therefore demonstrating the stereotype that people buy Macs for the looks...)

Fifteen seconds spent in the preferences makes XP look perfectly fine for me.

priority (2, Interesting)

gintoki (1439845) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635563)

The chrome OS is all well and good but I'm not even gonna bother with it unless there is an easy way to get playback for all media formats. Since its a product from google that is targeting the mainstream I doubt they are gonna leave the codecs in the repository.. Hopefully it comes with media playback capability as standard. This probably will be a very crucial factor in determining if users stick with it or not.

Google is not making an OS... (1, Insightful)

cjjjer (530715) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635681)

All Google is doing is making a new windowing environment for Linux, sounds like just another distro to me. But I guess with all the distros out there it would not generate much hype if they just said "oh we are building our own distro".

It's all about the FUD and you guys are eating it up, I would have thought that the Linux fanbois would have figured that out by now.

Re:Google is not making an OS... (2, Insightful)

Reapman (740286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635855)

Just like OSX is nothing more then a distro of BSD? If someone (say Google) makes "just another distro" that actually brings Linux out into the mainstream, then I'm all for it. What's the harm of it, anyways? Google's releasing the source code so can't really understand how this may be evil. I must be missing the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt angle.

Re:Google is not making an OS... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28635877)

Yeah right, and Apple didn't make an OS, it was just a "windowing environment for Next".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...