paulmac84 writes "The Register reports that Google is working on a version of Ubuntu, known internally as Goobuntu. Google has confirmed it is working on a desktop linux project, but declined to supply further details, including what the project is for. Is Google about to release this as an alternative to Windows?"Update: 02/01 00:11 GMT by SM: chrisd is the first among many to point out that this is just more fodder from the Google rumor mill and isn't something they are currently planning to release.
This has been talked about for quite a long time and even supposedly seen [google.com] but what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off?
Also a more worrying question,would you see ads incorporated?
"This has been talked about for quite a long time and even supposedly seen but what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off? "
Actually, the question is, WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE A WINDOW'S KILLER FROM GOOGLE?!
How many times do we have to hear, "Google is seeding clouds! Is this the end of Microsoft due to a massive hurricane Google is developing in the Pacific?"
Guys, Google is a smart company. How would creating a Linux distribution even come *close* to being a Windows killer? And, more importantly, how would that make them any money? They're a public company, so if it isn't making them money, then why would they do it.
You would have to have a company behind a distro that would set it up to be as simple to install software/hardware as possible.
Yes, we have a few of those. Here is the problem. Most hardware makers absoloutly refuse to create drivers for linux (I can understand why) and, since they won't release their own drivers, they also will not release info for 3rd parties to MAKE drivers (for various reasons).
It may be "good enough" to you, myself, and others who are already familiar with linux, but the vast majority of the public who might actually try it once would run into one piece of hardware that didn't work and give up on it for good (this has already been seen on MANY occasions, even complained about here on slashdot!)
3. Running all the applications, some of which are critical to business processes, which only run on Windows, like, um, MS Office, for one?
If you believe Open Office, or some other knockoff, or half-assed open source replacement for any other Windows-only application I might think of, is enough to cause people to totally change their Windows-buying habits, you are out of touch with reality.
Firefox, from what I hear, is an eminently usable Web browser, and Internet Explorer is hardly critical to most Web applications. Yet, only a relatively small fraction of users make the effort to switch.
Take a case where something like Microsoft Excel VBA macros or Microsoft Project is playing a daily role in a company's actual function of making money, and how eager will people be to switch to something else, just for the warm feeling they can get from using the Linux distribution du jour?
Your assumption seems to be that this GoogleOS would be targetted at business.
From the screenshots [trippmd.com] I have seen [popoever.com] I would say that Google is targetting mostly the home user.
As surprising as it may seem to you, not everyone needs compatibility with existing Windows apps. Furthermore, the addition of another OS to the marketplace probably won't, nor does it necessarily have to, spell the end of Windows.
It's not the like there needs to be just one OS for everyone. That line of thinking is reserved for Microsoft employees.
Go to Best Buy, or Target, or Office Depot, or any other retailer of boxed software for consumers, and see how much will run on anything other than Windows. Hint: NONE.
That's a real barrier, and it's not just in the business environment.
Why should I have to go to Best Buy or Target or Office Depot, when I can download my apps right from the OS menu?
Install Ubuntu 5.10 and see just how easy it is.
The "real barrier" you speak of is the mindset that you have to go to a big-box store and buy your apps.
Realistically, and I say this as a desktop Linux developer myself, Linux is missing a metric fuckton of things that I'd class as absolutely central to being a workable desktop (note; we're not even talking competitive here, we're talking workable). For instance:
Driver API. Centralised driver development doesn't work - period. Assume the existance of a totally awesome vendor who is happy to release GPLd drivers with their new widget. They put a penguin on the side of the box. They immediately get their ass sued off by people who buy the widget, plug it into Goobuntu or whatever, nothing happens and for some reason they aren't satisfied by the explanation of "Well it'll Just Work in 12 months when the driver has been accepted upstream, been merged with your distros kernel patches, and you upgrade your OS". They want it to work now damnit, and Windows/MacOS can do this so why can't Linux?
More driver stupidity. Not every program people run on Linux is GPLd today, and nobody tries to force them to be so. It's obvious to many people involved with Free software that the victories come when developers see why open sourcing their work is beneficial and choose to do it of their own free will, not when their arms are twisted into it. Yet the kernel developers do exactly this for drivers, and threaten (or actually do) sue random vendors who distribute binary drivers (except not nVidia, as that'd cause mass civil war). Worse, the kernel developers are getting more militant not less. This is simply not a tenable situation for desktops which deal with far wider variety of hardware than servers. In its current state Linux can never be a desktop kernel, unless you redefine "desktop" so far it loses all meaning.
C++ support. It doesn't work. It's unbelievably slow, the glibc developers refuse patches to fix it, and is only reliable as long as you use "pure" binaries built with the same compiler that everything else is. This makes robust binary distribution of C++ apps impossible and as nearly every large desktop app is written in C++ this is a problem. Just try distributing a C++ application on Linux without getting all N^2 distros involved or requiring the user to know what a compiler is. Hell, try distributing any application at all without getting distros involved. And for all kinds of reasons [plan99.net] centralized software distribution is a big usability and political nono.
No easy install/uninstall - if you're comfortable with partitioning etc then you can get Fedora installed without too much bother, but Ubuntu doesn't even have a graphical installer, and as far as I'm aware no distro today offers an easy way to remove it and put Windows back to 100% disk usage. Who in their right mind would try a program that ate 10gigs of disk space and didn't come with a way to uninstall it?
No credible DRM support. Every major company that deals with media uses it, Microsoft and Apple support it and Linux sucks at it. This effectively freezes Linux out from the upcoming world of legal online media (music/video stores etc).
I could go on... unfortunately there's a general attitude of "who cares" in the community with regards to most of these issues so they aren't getting fixed or even talked about. Without these fundamental things I don't see how Linux can ever be a credible general purpose consumer desktop OS. The best you might get is a closed-box, unupgradable "console" type machine. But I wouldn't class that as a competitor to Windows or the Mac.
Driver Support: not centralized, and easy to do. AS LONG AS THE DRIVER IS DISTRIBUTED IN SOURCE. Binary distribution can cover a few of the kernels out there. Lets take a look at nVidia and VmWare as binary drivers, with a source supplied front-end. They "Just Work". A completely binary driver IS problematic.
And this is one of the "features" of Linux vs. Windows. If you WANT "binary drivers that Just Work", go with Windows.
C++ support: it does work. No, a single binary MAY NOT WORK. *Unless* you also distribute the needed libraries. Nothing AT ALL is preventing you from doing that. These libraries can and should even be installed privately for your binary-only application. Someone updates the system library? Doesn't affect you.
No easy install/uninstall: Sounds like you are carping about the Linux systems themselves. As far as your BINARY APPLICATION goes -- keep it in a single directory (tree). Uninstall? Remove the tree. You want to get fancy? Combine that with bundling into a RPM.
No credible DRM support: Say What? "DRM support" is a problem of the Media Supplier. Name a "DRM" format that is popular that Linux doesn't support... DVD CSS. And how is this managed? mplayer? Oh, so there IS support.
As to your application... Linux offers filesystem encryption (3des, etc.). Other crypto functionality. SSL, ssh, gpg. Locked memory.
Let me outline a possible "DRM" solution for you (assuming you ARE a Media Supplier). Sell someone a physical DVD with data on it. Encrypted with 3DES or AES 128/256. Key not provided, but a media reference tag.
Application has a "root" component (for locking), or uses Role Based security (not so common). Application uses SSL (or ssh) to establish a link to your server. Coughs up user name, invoice number, and media tag (over the encrypted link). Server verifies, and coughs up the decryption key. Decryption key tossed into locked memory (thus the root requirement). Decryption key used to decrypt Media.
Other implementations are, of course, possible. How is the digital data protected after it is decrypted? There are methods -- but these are not supported in ANY current OS. (not Linux, not Windows, not Solaris). As to basic DRM? Linux is just as useful as anything else.
Oh, I dunno, but some must have also wondered what they could have done to make a search engine so special. After all, they certainly weren't the first folks to tread in that area.
I can think of a few things right off that Google can add to the mix:
Standardization. What is the current standard distribution of Linux? Wow, take your pick, because there is none. If a company that specializes in the consumer market such as Google adds their name to a specific distribution and configured it for mass use, it would, I predict, stand a really good chance of becoming the Linux of Choice(TM) for most average desktop users.
Improvements. Unlike most volunteer efforts and companies that have tried to date, Google has the financial power to throw as much money into their Linux distribution as Microsoft has to throw into Windows. All of those little things that drive average users absolutely batty in Linux could, in the very near future, disappear.
Integration. Google has arguably made the computer usage experience massively better through such tools as the Google toolbar, the Google Desktop, Google Maps, Google Video, the search engine itself (duh), and other such stuff. Now imagine if a whole operating system is geared towards bringing all of these tools together into an integrated, easy-to-use package. Wow.
There's lots of other opportunities there as well. Google has a history of taking stuff that kinda sorta is already out there in some form and pumping it up on steriods to the point that it's really cool. I'm willing to think that they can do the same with their own OS as well. At the very least, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt that it won't be just the same ol' Linux.
The worst case scenario is that they put out something that absolutely sucks ass, and we all stick with our existing favorite distribution. No matter how you look at it, this is win for us.
...what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off?
Add their name to it.
That might not seem like a big deal, but I think it might be. Google is huge compared to most companies that put out a Linux distro. If they did this, they could very well become the standard.
And IMHO, that would be a huge blessing. The #1 complaint you see from developers outside the Linux world seems to be "there isn't a Linux standard". And I can kind of see their point - Windows doesn't suffer from the whole RPM vs. DEB vs. whatever problem. Some systems use devfs, and some don't. Each distro has different/etc structure for storing network settings. And so on.
But! If Google were to become the standard, we wouldn't have that as a problem anymore. Think of the possibilities! We might have more manufacturer supplied graphics drivers and more commercial software on the shelves for Linux.
And Google is big enough to make this happen. Go Google!
All they could do (thanks to the GPL) is add their touches to it. And for it to become a standard, they would have to specify that standard so other people could write to it.
And once they did that, any other group could implement it. It would be like Mandriva(Mandrake) vs. Red Hat. Both use RPM, but people will pick the distro they like. If you like the way Google does things, fine. Use their distro. If not, use some other compatible one.
And yeah, you'd get some people complaining about "those heavy handed Google goons" not setting up/etc the way they like or some other picayune point like that, but so what? The good that would come from this would far outstrip the occasional config gripe.
Also, just as food for thought, what if Google decided to drop 5% of their R&D into Wine? Just 2% then? The Wine guys have done miracles so far on a shoestring. Imagine what the result would be if Google paid a few of those guys to quit their day jobs and work on Wine full-time.
The results would be impressive. Probably amazing even.
what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off?
Maintain it? Finish it up? Come up with a decent GUI for it? Establish a list of officially supported hardware, so that getting sound working isn't a crap shoot?
There are all kinds of things a company with very deep pockets can do for an OS.
Google can do Linux the biggest favour it can: branding.
Look at the big players in Linux:
RedHat
Novel/SuSE
Ubuntu
Gentoo
Say any of those names in a pub/bar and people will look at you like an alien has jumped out of your mouth.
Lets look at the identifiable brands in computing:
Microsoft: They're the problem
Apple: They've already gone BSD
Dell/Sony: Are hardware not software, and would inevitably make their Distro proprietary (see Apple)
Google: Its so crazy it could just work
Google are so huge, that googling is almost as accepted as a verb as hoovering or xeroxing. Just by mentioning that they might be releasing a competitor to Windows they will hit every business newspaper in the world.
To a certain extent it doesn't matter how good their distro is. If its based on Ubuntu its 95% there. If its pacakged with Google Earth, Picassa, gMail branded Evolution, a Blogger front end and Google Talk its up there with the big boys. If they can perform the ultimate trick and get Wine working as well as Rossetta does, then its an OS X beater.
Better than all of that, a home brand name supporting linux gives hardware and software developers something to target. If they can focus on one platform rather than all of them, and know that it will be hitting consumers not geeks, that can only be good for Linux.
Why is this good for Google?
Providing a distro that connects, by default, to their web services means that the penetration of their advertising is increase.
A web based company needs as many people on the web as possible. People who are polluted by viruses and malware arn't happy web consumers.
Share holders. If I was a major share holder of Google, I'd want to know why we weren't competing head on with Microsoft. Whilst Microsoft are the dominant OS, they control peoples initial perceptions of the web: Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, Hotmail and Outlook.
Do no harm. Its in their mission statement. Supporting Windows doesn't exactly fit into that category;)
Goobuntu is our internal desktop distribution. It's awesome, but we're not going to be releasing it. Unless you work here it wouldn't work anyway. If you haven't tried ubuntu, you should, I have the regular one running on my laptop and it really is fantastic. I'd say it was debian done right if I wanted to start a debian flame war. Also, know that Google getting into the Red Hat business would be kind of dumb, and it would distract from our moon teleporter and cold fusion [google.com] projects
More to the point, what does Google plan to do that Ubuntu isn't already doing? The Ubuntu project has already made good progress in terms of usability and so forth; why would Google want to mess with a good thing? And once they rebrand Ubuntu, why would Ubuntu continue to offer their internal updates?
It seems more likely Google would partner with Ubuntu than snapshot their product and start wandering off in their own direction. Ubuntu could definitely use the human and network resources Google has to offer, but I don't see them just handing over all their work and letting Google take over, nor does it make sense for the two to start competing with one another.
Mod the parent up. It's simplistic, but it's incredibly true. There are two barriers to linux pretty much wiping away MSs stranglehold on the OS market. The first is the actual usability of the linux distros. Google can help with that, but it will probably be incremental over the existing efforts.
The second major barrier is something that linux can't really overcome on its own, however, and that is credibility. The impact of having a Google-branded linux distro could be huge. Google is one of the most well-known brands in the world. Techies may be happy to choose between Ubuntu, SUSE, Mandriva, and the huundreds of other varieties of linux but to the average man or woman on the street the choices of distros make the move to linux doubtful. Having a Google-branded distro would be like a huge signpost reading "this is safe" that would encourage droves of people to try linux out. Of coruse - most people aren't going to reinstall the OS on their desktop, but it opens the opportunity for IT service companies to come in and say "you know that Google OS you've been hearing about? We can install it for you."
For private users this is not such a big deal. But for small to medium sized (non IT) businesses - many of which outsource their IT - this could be huge. These companies want to save money on IT and they don't care very much about the nuts and bolts. If Linux is cheaper AND they feel it is safe and credible - they will switch. A lot of them already know that Linux is cheaper, but they don't have the expertise to verify how stable and/or easy to use it may be so they go with the safe option: Windows.
Goobuntu (what a ridiculous name) totally changes this equation. Suddenly Linux is cheaper AND trusted. The reprecussions could be huge. Not just for Google-linux, but really for all the desktop distros.
Note that I'm not saying this will end Windows at all, but that it will end the Windows monopoly. Windows is good at what it does. The market doesn't need a new monolith - it needs real competition. That's the great part about linux and open source. If you've got open standards than transitioning the software won't kill access to the data. So the companies and individuals aren't as locked into their software. And with hundreds of distros to choose from - and several close competitors at the top - we are looking at the dawn of REAL competition in the market. And that competition is what we want.
The second major barrier is something that linux can't really overcome on its own, however, and that is credibility. The impact of having a Google-branded linux distro could be huge.
Or Google's brand could be devalued by the move.
I hate to say it, but Corel, Novell, Sun Microsystems, and several other large companies with good reputations have tried this. The result has always been the exact reverse of what was expected. Instead of Linux being risen up, the company is dragged down. Next thing you know, the company is ejecting Linux faster than you can say "What happened?"
The problem (I think) is a lack of corporate control. Linux has always been a hobbiest's OS. When big companies come in and start trying to help improve areas where they feel Linux is lacking, there's often a lot of pushback. For example, the Sun GNOME engineers have often complained about how hard it was to get many of their usability improvements into the main trunk.
It's not so much that one side is right and the other side is wrong (though arguments could be made both ways), but rather an extreme culture clash. The corporates say, "Our customers need this, do it" while the hobbiests say, "I think this is a cool feature, I want to work on it, you should know more about XYZ if you want to do ABC."
Google isn't stupid. I'm betting dollars to donuts that their new desktop is nothing more than a cool network configuration tool or kiosk type scheme. Meanwhile Google will continue to benefit from all these boneheads who continue to think that they're doing a consumer desktop. Mark my words: This isn't what people think it is.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday January 31 2006, @12:40PM (#14608274)
Corel was on its last gasp and tried to use Linux to pull it out of its tailspin.
Sun used Linux as a platform for Java and they were in trouble, not because they supported Linux on the desktop, but because they were still pushing million dollar servers over cheap Linux and WIndows servers.
Novell is now using Linux to replace NDS and it is working for them.
IBM hasn't branded Linux, but its a HUGE supporter of Linux. Not going down any where.
The companies you mention either did Linux as a dying gasp but didn't have enough resources (Corel*) or because it was the only way they could deal with the threat to their proprietary offerings (Novell, Sun) but their hearts really weren't in it. (Besides, none of those three had/have one-tenth the name recognition among the public that Google does.)
I think a Google Linux for the masses would be the greatest thing ever. They have the resources to make software packaging and delivery easy, they've got lots of cool apps & services they could deploy and integrate, they're smart enough to know how to make a good, clean, easy-to-use UI, they've got the resources to extensively test and then certify application compatibility (i.e., MS Office under Wine or CrossOver) and most importantly, it's a brand that everyone from a CEO to a PHB to a mail room guy knows and trusts.
What's holding back Linux adoption now? Fragmentation, and the main support options are from companies that techs swear are great but that PHBs have never heard of. Even if a manager did listen to his techs and investigate Linux, what would he see--a bunch of distros with odd names and support from a bunch of companies that come and go, none of which he's ever heard of. Google could change all that.
Ubuntu is a great distro--pretty, simple, works on lots of hardware. But it has a weird name and no particularly compelling features that would draw most Windows user. For every huge plus (no viruses!) there is an equally huge minus (my favorite old game doesn't work!). Google could change all that, too.
Basically it comes down to this: if there's one company that a) could make Linux work, b) has a compelling reason to want Linux to be a success among the masses, and c) has a name people respond positively to, Google is it. They could become a major force in both the home and the office. Google can pull it off. I really hope this rumor is true.
* Corel really could have been great. If they could have made a clean desktop and bundled NATIVE versions of Draw, PhotoPaint, and WordPerfect, it would have been awesome.
More to the point, what does Google plan to do that Ubuntu isn't already doing?
How about live person tech support on the phone?
Google has the resources to fund this, most Linux distros don't. I believe red hat live support is for their Enterprise products, not desktop, althogh I could be mistaken.
And before anyone starts crying "look at all the community support", I will respond with "look at all the end users who don't know what your talking about, what to search for to get help, or even describe the problem other than the effects."
A manned call center is just for that, especially if google incorporates a secure remote control capability so experienced Linux heads can fix the problem on callers machines themselves. Imagine how many more entry level jobs would be created for Linux guys by that initiative alone?
Also, they have the manpower to GUI and Wizard up EVERYTHING within a reasonable timeframe. If google manages to create a non-tech friendly method for configuring the really cool parts of the OS, then they will have created the road for droves of converts.
because Google has a great track record, but I don't think Google is the right company to get all excited about when we find they're working on Linux. IBM, yes, as they have extensive knowledge and experience working with both hardware and OSes.
Google is good at... gathering and indexing information. I don't see a Google Ubuntu being much more than Ubuntu with bundled linux versions of their various apps.
aren't google's servers all running linux? aren't they all heavily modified customized? does google ever go down? sounds like they've got some good software and hardware engineers working for them... i think they know what they're doing.
because Google has a great track record, but I don't think Google is the right company to get all excited about when we find they're working on Linux. IBM, yes, as they have extensive knowledge and experience working with both hardware and OSes.
IBM has been an important supporter of Linux in the enterprise for servers, but they haven't done much for linux on the desktop. And it is no wonder, IBM is built around enterprise consulting, big systems integrations and such. Google has been all about making it simple for people since the beginning. Like Apple, they excel because of their minimalist design philosophy which has made for some great very usable software.
Also, it is distinctly in Google's interest to undercut Microsoft's bread and butter OS sales with a good Linux desktop, so it will keep them focused. They don't need to make money on Linux to be successful, they just have to make Microsoft make less money on their core sales. This can be seen as a purely defensive move to take some of the wind out of microsoft's sails.
what if they make a good "database" style filesystem for user documents and release it before vista ships. remember Google has quite a bit of experience in automatically classifying and searching documents.
A linux distro where you never have to go hunting for a file you want would be quite attractive to the many people who don't have good PC organizational skills.
Google has many fingers in many pies right now, presumably trying the chuck-it-and-see-if-it-sticks approach. No doubt this is another of those types of projects. If it works they'll hail it as a true MS rival, if it doesn't it'll quietly get put down in a back room a year from now and forgotten about.
What if Google is planning on combining this with a virtualization product so that it can be installed under Windows? Your average user is not going to be able to replace Windows. However, Google could release this as a "security zone" which people would install on top of Windows. That, combined with perhaps an improved UI and a suite of desktop software may get a more typical user to install it.
My desktop linux would be a very specifically limited Linux for securely browsing the web from an unprivileged account, for use by cybercafes, etc., with a default search engine of google of course. They really don't have any business getting into the OS business as such, but the web-appliance defaulting to their pages might be another thing.
Is Google about to release this as an alternative to Windows?
That's tot likely. What would be more likely would be releasing a dedicated internet hardware device running Linux behind the scenes that provides some combination of Internet based TV, VOIP, Browsing, and Email.
What'll make this "sell" isn't technology but brand. Name recognition counts for everything in big business. Just their name alone can sell a decent product. We know they'll have to make a decent, relatively simple, interface. But other than that their brand name is enough to make this a huge success.
(1) A sinful dessert.
(2) A Final Fantasy monster.
(3) A Swahili word meaning "booger".
(4) Baby babble.
(5) A natural companion to "sed", "awk" and "grep".
No, not by a longshot. We might speculate all day long, but I cannot imagine anything making a dent in Microsoft's hold... at least not yet and not with Google's influence... not yet.
If anything, I would guess it could be yet another free software offering to install at WalMart and Fry's stores competing more with Linspire rather than Windows. It could also just be a way of weening itself away from anything Microsoft. (I suggest this without knowing what the average Google employee desktop uses.)
If Google were to attempt to replace Windows now or even in the near future, it would fail miserably and tarnish Google's image. Now is not the time.
With Google's habit of tracking and recording every bit of information it can get it's hands on (it's actually their *mission*), why would anyone trust a Google provided OS to allow privacy? They already track surfing habits through their toolbar and google-analytics, why is it a leap to think that they will use this to get even more marketing data?
With Google's habit of tracking and recording every bit of information it can get it's hands on (it's actually their *mission*), why would anyone trust a Google provided OS to allow privacy?
Youll also have to ask yourself - why trust Microsoft with your privacy? Why trust anyone? Its healthy to be skeptical with anything big that will change the way you handle your data.
Personally I saw Google OS coming WAY before screenshoots where posted, but I had NO IDEA that Google would take Linux and create a Googlux (phun intended) out of it, that was kind of a surprise to me.
I must admit Id rather have Google becoming the next Major Operating System/platform than Microsoft, and my reasons for this are simple - more freedom in licensing because Google respect GPL and in fact support it. That doesnt make me less skeptical of the privacy issues surrounding Google though, you can trust that Ill always be breathing down their neck - and hopefully...so will you.
Just a guess, but it makes sense for Google to standardize on one desktop OS for everyone. Using Ubuntu as a base to build a Google-internal OS just makes sense. A number of other companies do the same thing - Cisco is a good example. It'll never see the light of day outside their offices because of the support cost.
So Google are producing a Ubuntu-based distribution. This isn't news as most large companies do this (hell, my last job had 10 staff and we were about to produce a Debian customisation). Google used to use a Red Hat distribution but are have been switching since at least November last year according to https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/dulug/2005- November/016656.html [duke.edu].
I'll eat my dog if this ever is released to the world as a "consumer" distribution, designed to take Windows marketshare.
You're making the common mistake of using market share to measure success. I invite you to compare General Motors or Ford with Porsche. Porsche doesn't have 95% market share, they don't even have 5% market share - yet they are the most profitable car company in the world. Now this is an extreme example, but it's foolish to assume that because Apple doesn't have the majority of the market that they are a failure. Quite the opposite I think...
hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Also a more worrying question,would you see ads incorporated?
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the question is, WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE A WINDOW'S KILLER FROM GOOGLE?!
How many times do we have to hear, "Google is seeding clouds! Is this the end of Microsoft due to a massive hurricane Google is developing in the Pacific?"
Guys, Google is a smart company. How would creating a Linux distribution even come *close* to being a Windows killer? And, more importantly, how would that make them any money? They're a public company, so if it isn't making them money, then why would they do it.
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
They plan on making it up in volume.
- Tony
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if Google starts making bloated, insecure, and consumer-hostile products, then they could take Microsoft on head-to-head.
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
You would have to have a company behind a distro that would set it up to be as simple to install software/hardware as possible.
Yes, we have a few of those. Here is the problem. Most hardware makers absoloutly refuse to create drivers for linux (I can understand why) and, since they won't release their own drivers, they also will not release info for 3rd parties to MAKE drivers (for various reasons).
It may be "good enough" to you, myself, and others who are already familiar with linux, but the vast majority of the public who might actually try it once would run into one piece of hardware that didn't work and give up on it for good (this has already been seen on MANY occasions, even complained about here on slashdot!)
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
3. Running all the applications, some of which are critical to business processes, which only run on Windows, like, um, MS Office, for one?
If you believe Open Office, or some other knockoff, or half-assed open source replacement for any other Windows-only application I might think of, is enough to cause people to totally change their Windows-buying habits, you are out of touch with reality.
Firefox, from what I hear, is an eminently usable Web browser, and Internet Explorer is hardly critical to most Web applications. Yet, only a relatively small fraction of users make the effort to switch.
Take a case where something like Microsoft Excel VBA macros or Microsoft Project is playing a daily role in a company's actual function of making money, and how eager will people be to switch to something else, just for the warm feeling they can get from using the Linux distribution du jour?
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
From the screenshots [trippmd.com] I have seen [popoever.com] I would say that Google is targetting mostly the home user.
As surprising as it may seem to you, not everyone needs compatibility with existing Windows apps. Furthermore, the addition of another OS to the marketplace probably won't, nor does it necessarily have to, spell the end of Windows.
It's not the like there needs to be just one OS for everyone. That line of thinking is reserved for Microsoft employees.
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
That's a real barrier, and it's not just in the business environment.
Why should I have to go to Best Buy or Target or Office Depot, when I can download my apps right from the OS menu?
Install Ubuntu 5.10 and see just how easy it is.
The "real barrier" you speak of is the mindset that you have to go to a big-box store and buy your apps.
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I could go on ... unfortunately there's a general attitude of "who cares" in the community with regards to most of these issues so they aren't getting fixed or even talked about. Without these fundamental things I don't see how Linux can ever be a credible general purpose consumer desktop OS. The best you might get is a closed-box, unupgradable "console" type machine. But I wouldn't class that as a competitor to Windows or the Mac.
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Driver Support: not centralized, and easy to do. AS LONG AS THE DRIVER IS DISTRIBUTED IN SOURCE. Binary distribution can cover a few of the kernels out there. Lets take a look at nVidia and VmWare as binary drivers, with a source supplied front-end. They "Just Work". A completely binary driver IS problematic.
And this is one of the "features" of Linux vs. Windows. If you WANT "binary drivers that Just Work", go with Windows.
C++ support: it does work. No, a single binary MAY NOT WORK. *Unless* you also distribute the needed libraries. Nothing AT ALL is preventing you from doing that. These libraries can and should even be installed privately for your binary-only application. Someone updates the system library? Doesn't affect you.
No easy install/uninstall: Sounds like you are carping about the Linux systems themselves. As far as your BINARY APPLICATION goes -- keep it in a single directory (tree). Uninstall? Remove the tree. You want to get fancy? Combine that with bundling into a RPM.
No credible DRM support: Say What? "DRM support" is a problem of the Media Supplier. Name a "DRM" format that is popular that Linux doesn't support... DVD CSS. And how is this managed? mplayer? Oh, so there IS support.
As to your application... Linux offers filesystem encryption (3des, etc.). Other crypto functionality. SSL, ssh, gpg. Locked memory.
Let me outline a possible "DRM" solution for you (assuming you ARE a Media Supplier). Sell someone a physical DVD with data on it. Encrypted with 3DES or AES 128/256. Key not provided, but a media reference tag.
Application has a "root" component (for locking), or uses Role Based security (not so common). Application uses SSL (or ssh) to establish a link to your server. Coughs up user name, invoice number, and media tag (over the encrypted link). Server verifies, and coughs up the decryption key. Decryption key tossed into locked memory (thus the root requirement). Decryption key used to decrypt Media.
Other implementations are, of course, possible. How is the digital data protected after it is decrypted? There are methods -- but these are not supported in ANY current OS. (not Linux, not Windows, not Solaris). As to basic DRM? Linux is just as useful as anything else.
Ratboy.
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno, but some must have also wondered what they could have done to make a search engine so special. After all, they certainly weren't the first folks to tread in that area.
I can think of a few things right off that Google can add to the mix:
There's lots of other opportunities there as well. Google has a history of taking stuff that kinda sorta is already out there in some form and pumping it up on steriods to the point that it's really cool. I'm willing to think that they can do the same with their own OS as well. At the very least, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt that it won't be just the same ol' Linux.
The worst case scenario is that they put out something that absolutely sucks ass, and we all stick with our existing favorite distribution. No matter how you look at it, this is win for us.
Parent
A possible answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Add their name to it.
That might not seem like a big deal, but I think it might be. Google is huge compared to most companies that put out a Linux distro. If they did this, they could very well become the standard.
And IMHO, that would be a huge blessing. The #1 complaint you see from developers outside the Linux world seems to be "there isn't a Linux standard". And I can kind of see their point - Windows doesn't suffer from the whole RPM vs. DEB vs. whatever problem. Some systems use devfs, and some don't. Each distro has different /etc structure for storing network settings. And so on.
But! If Google were to become the standard, we wouldn't have that as a problem anymore. Think of the possibilities! We might have more manufacturer supplied graphics drivers and more commercial software on the shelves for Linux.
And Google is big enough to make this happen. Go Google!
Parent
Nope, can't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
All they could do (thanks to the GPL) is add their touches to it. And for it to become a standard, they would have to specify that standard so other people could write to it.
And once they did that, any other group could implement it. It would be like Mandriva(Mandrake) vs. Red Hat. Both use RPM, but people will pick the distro they like. If you like the way Google does things, fine. Use their distro. If not, use some other compatible one.
And yeah, you'd get some people complaining about "those heavy handed Google goons" not setting up /etc the way they like or some other picayune point like that, but so what? The good that would come from this would far outstrip the occasional config gripe.
Also, just as food for thought, what if Google decided to drop 5% of their R&D into Wine? Just 2% then? The Wine guys have done miracles so far on a shoestring. Imagine what the result would be if Google paid a few of those guys to quit their day jobs and work on Wine full-time.
The results would be impressive. Probably amazing even.
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Maintain it? Finish it up? Come up with a decent GUI for it? Establish a list of officially supported hardware, so that getting sound working isn't a crap shoot?
There are all kinds of things a company with very deep pockets can do for an OS.
-jcr
Parent
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the big players in Linux:
Say any of those names in a pub/bar and people will look at you like an alien has jumped out of your mouth.
Lets look at the identifiable brands in computing:
Google are so huge, that googling is almost as accepted as a verb as hoovering or xeroxing. Just by mentioning that they might be releasing a competitor to Windows they will hit every business newspaper in the world.
To a certain extent it doesn't matter how good their distro is. If its based on Ubuntu its 95% there. If its pacakged with Google Earth, Picassa, gMail branded Evolution, a Blogger front end and Google Talk its up there with the big boys. If they can perform the ultimate trick and get Wine working as well as Rossetta does, then its an OS X beater.
Better than all of that, a home brand name supporting linux gives hardware and software developers something to target. If they can focus on one platform rather than all of them, and know that it will be hitting consumers not geeks, that can only be good for Linux.
Why is this good for Google?
Providing a distro that connects, by default, to their web services means that the penetration of their advertising is increase.
A web based company needs as many people on the web as possible. People who are polluted by viruses and malware arn't happy web consumers.
Share holders. If I was a major share holder of Google, I'd want to know why we weren't competing head on with Microsoft. Whilst Microsoft are the dominant OS, they control peoples initial perceptions of the web: Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, Hotmail and Outlook.
Do no harm. Its in their mission statement. Supporting Windows doesn't exactly fit into that category
Parent
Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us. (Score:5, Informative)
Chris
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems more likely Google would partner with Ubuntu than snapshot their product and start wandering off in their own direction. Ubuntu could definitely use the human and network resources Google has to offer, but I don't see them just handing over all their work and letting Google take over, nor does it make sense for the two to start competing with one another.
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Insightful)
The second major barrier is something that linux can't really overcome on its own, however, and that is credibility. The impact of having a Google-branded linux distro could be huge. Google is one of the most well-known brands in the world. Techies may be happy to choose between Ubuntu, SUSE, Mandriva, and the huundreds of other varieties of linux but to the average man or woman on the street the choices of distros make the move to linux doubtful. Having a Google-branded distro would be like a huge signpost reading "this is safe" that would encourage droves of people to try linux out. Of coruse - most people aren't going to reinstall the OS on their desktop, but it opens the opportunity for IT service companies to come in and say "you know that Google OS you've been hearing about? We can install it for you."
For private users this is not such a big deal. But for small to medium sized (non IT) businesses - many of which outsource their IT - this could be huge. These companies want to save money on IT and they don't care very much about the nuts and bolts. If Linux is cheaper AND they feel it is safe and credible - they will switch. A lot of them already know that Linux is cheaper, but they don't have the expertise to verify how stable and/or easy to use it may be so they go with the safe option: Windows.
Goobuntu (what a ridiculous name) totally changes this equation. Suddenly Linux is cheaper AND trusted. The reprecussions could be huge. Not just for Google-linux, but really for all the desktop distros.
Note that I'm not saying this will end Windows at all, but that it will end the Windows monopoly. Windows is good at what it does. The market doesn't need a new monolith - it needs real competition. That's the great part about linux and open source. If you've got open standards than transitioning the software won't kill access to the data. So the companies and individuals aren't as locked into their software. And with hundreds of distros to choose from - and several close competitors at the top - we are looking at the dawn of REAL competition in the market. And that competition is what we want.
-stormin
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Insightful)
Or Google's brand could be devalued by the move.
I hate to say it, but Corel, Novell, Sun Microsystems, and several other large companies with good reputations have tried this. The result has always been the exact reverse of what was expected. Instead of Linux being risen up, the company is dragged down. Next thing you know, the company is ejecting Linux faster than you can say "What happened?"
The problem (I think) is a lack of corporate control. Linux has always been a hobbiest's OS. When big companies come in and start trying to help improve areas where they feel Linux is lacking, there's often a lot of pushback. For example, the Sun GNOME engineers have often complained about how hard it was to get many of their usability improvements into the main trunk.
It's not so much that one side is right and the other side is wrong (though arguments could be made both ways), but rather an extreme culture clash. The corporates say, "Our customers need this, do it" while the hobbiests say, "I think this is a cool feature, I want to work on it, you should know more about XYZ if you want to do ABC."
Google isn't stupid. I'm betting dollars to donuts that their new desktop is nothing more than a cool network configuration tool or kiosk type scheme. Meanwhile Google will continue to benefit from all these boneheads who continue to think that they're doing a consumer desktop. Mark my words: This isn't what people think it is.
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun used Linux as a platform for Java and they were in trouble, not because they supported Linux on the desktop, but because they were still pushing million dollar servers over cheap Linux and WIndows servers.
Novell is now using Linux to replace NDS and it is working for them.
IBM hasn't branded Linux, but its a HUGE supporter of Linux. Not going down any where.
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Corel
2) Novell
3) Sun Microsystems
4) Google
Now, ask that person which companies they have heard of and what those companies do. A strong brand name is a very powerful thing.
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a Google Linux for the masses would be the greatest thing ever. They have the resources to make software packaging and delivery easy, they've got lots of cool apps & services they could deploy and integrate, they're smart enough to know how to make a good, clean, easy-to-use UI, they've got the resources to extensively test and then certify application compatibility (i.e., MS Office under Wine or CrossOver) and most importantly, it's a brand that everyone from a CEO to a PHB to a mail room guy knows and trusts.
What's holding back Linux adoption now? Fragmentation, and the main support options are from companies that techs swear are great but that PHBs have never heard of. Even if a manager did listen to his techs and investigate Linux, what would he see--a bunch of distros with odd names and support from a bunch of companies that come and go, none of which he's ever heard of. Google could change all that.
Ubuntu is a great distro--pretty, simple, works on lots of hardware. But it has a weird name and no particularly compelling features that would draw most Windows user. For every huge plus (no viruses!) there is an equally huge minus (my favorite old game doesn't work!). Google could change all that, too.
Basically it comes down to this: if there's one company that a) could make Linux work, b) has a compelling reason to want Linux to be a success among the masses, and c) has a name people respond positively to, Google is it. They could become a major force in both the home and the office. Google can pull it off. I really hope this rumor is true.
* Corel really could have been great. If they could have made a clean desktop and bundled NATIVE versions of Draw, PhotoPaint, and WordPerfect, it would have been awesome.
Parent
Re:What can Google do (Score:5, Insightful)
How about live person tech support on the phone?
Google has the resources to fund this, most Linux distros don't. I believe red hat live support is for their Enterprise products, not desktop, althogh I could be mistaken.
And before anyone starts crying "look at all the community support", I will respond with "look at all the end users who don't know what your talking about, what to search for to get help, or even describe the problem other than the effects."
A manned call center is just for that, especially if google incorporates a secure remote control capability so experienced Linux heads can fix the problem on callers machines themselves. Imagine how many more entry level jobs would be created for Linux guys by that initiative alone?
Also, they have the manpower to GUI and Wizard up EVERYTHING within a reasonable timeframe. If google manages to create a non-tech friendly method for configuring the really cool parts of the OS, then they will have created the road for droves of converts.
Parent
Not to sound cynical (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is good at... gathering and indexing information. I don't see a Google Ubuntu being much more than Ubuntu with bundled linux versions of their various apps.
Re:Not to sound cynical (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not to sound cynical (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM has been an important supporter of Linux in the enterprise for servers, but they haven't done much for linux on the desktop. And it is no wonder, IBM is built around enterprise consulting, big systems integrations and such. Google has been all about making it simple for people since the beginning. Like Apple, they excel because of their minimalist design philosophy which has made for some great very usable software.
Also, it is distinctly in Google's interest to undercut Microsoft's bread and butter OS sales with a good Linux desktop, so it will keep them focused. They don't need to make money on Linux to be successful, they just have to make Microsoft make less money on their core sales. This can be seen as a purely defensive move to take some of the wind out of microsoft's sails.
Parent
And in Redmond (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And in Redmond (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:And in Redmond (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Google OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google OS (Score:5, Insightful)
A linux distro where you never have to go hunting for a file you want would be quite attractive to the many people who don't have good PC organizational skills.
Parent
Another Google lets-see-if-it-sticks project (Score:5, Interesting)
chuck-it-and-see-if-it-sticks approach. No doubt this is another of
those types of projects. If it works they'll hail it as a true MS rival,
if it doesn't it'll quietly get put down in a back room a year from now
and forgotten about.
Re:Another Google lets-see-if-it-sticks project (Score:5, Funny)
If it doesn't work, there's always Beta! :-D
Parent
Re:Another Google lets-see-if-it-sticks project (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft uses a similar approach, but thier apporach involves chairs and Steve Ballmer.
Parent
invite to goobuntu (Score:5, Funny)
kthx
Shouldn't that be... (Score:5, Funny)
Name of Distro (Score:5, Funny)
virtualization? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were google... (Score:5, Insightful)
No! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's tot likely. What would be more likely would be releasing a dedicated internet hardware device running Linux behind the scenes that provides some combination of Internet based TV, VOIP, Browsing, and Email.
Branding, not technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Poll idea (Score:5, Funny)
(1) A sinful dessert.
(2) A Final Fantasy monster.
(3) A Swahili word meaning "booger".
(4) Baby babble.
(5) A natural companion to "sed", "awk" and "grep".
Re:Poll idea (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Attempting to overtake Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, I would guess it could be yet another free software offering to install at WalMart and Fry's stores competing more with Linspire rather than Windows. It could also just be a way of weening itself away from anything Microsoft. (I suggest this without knowing what the average Google employee desktop uses.)
If Google were to attempt to replace Windows now or even in the near future, it would fail miserably and tarnish Google's image. Now is not the time.
Why would anyone trust this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would anyone trust this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Youll also have to ask yourself - why trust Microsoft with your privacy? Why trust anyone? Its healthy to be skeptical with anything big that will change the way you handle your data.
Personally I saw Google OS coming WAY before screenshoots where posted, but I had NO IDEA that Google would take Linux and create a Googlux (phun intended) out of it, that was kind of a surprise to me.
I must admit Id rather have Google becoming the next Major Operating System/platform than Microsoft, and my reasons for this are simple - more freedom in licensing because Google respect GPL and in fact support it. That doesnt make me less skeptical of the privacy issues surrounding Google though, you can trust that Ill always be breathing down their neck - and hopefully...so will you.
Basically - I welcome Google OS.
Parent
It's for internal use only (Score:5, Insightful)
Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll eat my dog if this ever is released to the world as a "consumer" distribution, designed to take Windows marketshare.
Re:Probably wouldn't matter if they did... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yet despite all of this, it doesn't succeed."
You're making the common mistake of using market share to measure success. I invite you to compare General Motors or Ford with Porsche. Porsche doesn't have 95% market share, they don't even have 5% market share - yet they are the most profitable car company in the world. Now this is an extreme example, but it's foolish to assume that because Apple doesn't have the majority of the market that they are a failure. Quite the opposite I think...
Parent