Google Working on Desktop Linux 785
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.
hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Also a more worrying question,would you see ads incorporated?
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.
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.
virtualization? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will the google tools work on Linux now ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Tools like google-Earth, desktop search(GDS), picasa are sure welcome
sort of (Score:2, Interesting)
Would be an Interesting Turnaround (Score:2, Interesting)
google + linux = (Score:2, Interesting)
I use gentoo + fluxbox myself, but I have a lovely vmware window waiting to try it.
Re:hmmm (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, the question is, WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE A WINDOW'S KILLER FROM GOOGLE?!
Actually, the question is "why the fuck can't anybody use apostrophes correctly?"
How would creating a Linux distribution even come *close* to being a Windows killer?
Google are beating Microsoft in other markets. Google tend to produce high quality products. This would put them in direct competition with Windows.
And, more importantly, how would that make them any money?
Microsoft, one of their competitors in the search engine market - their core business - has a monopoly on the desktop. The USA government has made it clear that Microsoft can do whatever the fuck they want and get nothing but a slap on the wrist. This is a very real business risk to Google. Diversifying the operating system market reduces that business risk.
Free OS with the Google file system (GFS)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not to sound cynical (Score:2, Interesting)
Developping a new OS is like reinventing the wheel. You base your project on existing solutions and you move forward. You don't try to develop everythig from scratch.
The future lies in web services and possibly few niches OS based applications, IMHO.
All they need to do is to guarantee that "Free" or non MS OS/browser exist. (ie: Firefox, macOS, and so on). Then MS won't be in a position to dictate anything (like during the browser war).
They should support as much as they can alternative like Firefox.
It simply means that Google received too much money. They are wasting it.
I guess their next project will be to develop an open source CMS...
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux has been good enough as a replacement for Windows for a while now. It just needs a marketing push. A Linux with google behind it might give it a chance, and perhaps would encourage games developers - a segment sorely needed if non-business people are to be seriously persuaded to kick the Windows habit.
Killer app? (Score:4, Interesting)
Includes:
OpenOffice.org
Firefox
Flash
Xine (with *licensed* DVD support)
Evolution
Opera
GNOME
Google Earth for Linux
Picassa for Linux
Hello for Linux
Google Desktop for Linux
Google Talk for Linux
Free!
Optionally avaliable for $25, with a combination USB flash drive/802.11g wireless card. Free access to Google Wi-Fi.
Run the live CD, it tests all your hardware, if everything is determined to be compatible (wireless, etc. .
That addresses 80% of users right there, while "saving" them from all the security hassles of Windows. Google can run an update service, and dump newer versions of these apps right on to people's systems.
Then Google can become one of the world's largest software stores, too; (like Linspire) think iTunes for Software, only have it all served by Google, and be designed to work on the Google Linux distribution.
Sure; it won't be slick as OS X. But it'll be way, way slicker than XP. And think about Google's expertise; Google is good at serving lots of customized data. No one will run a better network package management system that Google, especially if Google only has to contend with ONE "stable" version of OS. They could permit other users to access their software, but it would be unsupported; if you wanted it to guaranteed work, you'll be restricted to the Google distribution, which will be tamper resistant (think root account disabled by default, administrator only enabled for power users, requirining a specific interaction with Google (please submit a request to poweruser@gmail.com if you want your system to be unlocked).
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
Re:hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
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!)
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?
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.
Would you trust them? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would Google want to offer an OS ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Goobuntu Flash Drive (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not to sound cynical (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure about how much you can extrapolate from being good at massive datacentres to being being good at single PCs running a wide range of hardware.
Do One Thing (Score:3, Interesting)
A full Googlized version of Ubuntu only makes sense if it was geared explicitly toward search: much like Apple's Spotlight on steroids. But that can be accomplished with an application, not a full-blown operating system. Google is not interested in building a product if it does not align with their core mission, which is search. They have no interest in destroying Microsoft completely, they do not want to get into an OS war, and they certainly don't want to start diversifying to the point where their "One Thing" becomes "One Thing In Each Market." They want to do search, and do it well.
Google also does not want to replace the infrastructure in any given market; that's too much hassle. They just want to work within it. Notice, they have no interest at all in entering the cell phone or PDA market, but they certainly make their products work very well with existing technology in those markets. I think the same will hold true of OSs: they don't want to REPLACE your OS, they just want you to search with Google FROM your OS, and hopefully click on some AdWords along the way. If that means integrating their search directly into the OS so you don't have to open a browser (a la Google Desktop) then that is a step toward their goal. Replacing the entire OS is unnecessary complexity.
My guess is that the OS is being developed exclusively for inhouse use, since Google has only confirmed its existence, not it's purpose. Everything about releasing this Goobuntu to the public is pure speculation on the Register's part. Companies roll out custom OSs for inhouse use all the time; even companies using Windows have IT departments that build their own images to propegate out to the client machines, customizing which services and programs will be available. That's a "custom OS", too.
A softer, kinder Linux... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that many people know about Linux. A lot of people know about Google, to the point that "google" has become a verb ("search for"). If someone suggests putting a Linux OS on a computer, the common man will be unsure and wary of it, knowing little about Linux, despite how much it's used regularly. However, say you want to put a new OS from Google on it, and a lot of people will open up. After all, they're used to the Google web search interface, a well made, easy-to-use thing. Surely they can make an OS, too.
If Google does it right, a lot of people will migrate. "Goobuntu" (which is a stupid name) will be a gateway drug, as it were. Those who are fine with what Google offers in its OS will stay there, while those more interested in digging deeper will move on to other distros.
Google's main hurdle is being user-friendly. Yes, yes, I'm sure you can get exactly the same result for $X_COMPONENT in Linux as you do in Windows by putting $REALLY_COMPLICATED_STRING in at the command line/terminal, but regular users will be easily confused by that. Hell, most won't even want to know about the command line/terminal. A sleek interface where most common tasks are either easy to do by the user, or done automatically, is what will push this forward.
And, if the user just has to go into the terminal line, make the commands easier to understand and more intuitive. Move instead of mv, delete instead of whatever is there now, list instead of ls, find instead of grep, help instead of man, etc. With the processing power we have these days, short (and unintuitive) commands really aren't necessary, and if anyone wants the Linux desktop to experience growth, they need to go.
I know that I, in my limited knowledge and use of Linux, routinely get frusturated having to search (I mean, man -k) again and again for a simple command.
Only time will tell, however.
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.
This is just the first step... (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that Google recently hired away a Microsoft engineer [slashdot.org] who believes that Microsoft no longer knows how to ship software [microsoft-watch.com] and believes in the web-services model. He was one of the principal architects of Hailstorm.
Here's what I see Google doing:
1. Create a usable, simple, Google distro that the masses can use for web/email/etc.
2. Market the hell out of it until they get a certain viable user base.
3. Start equipping a few thousand public libraries with a few Google Distro machines each, and monitor their usage
4. Here's the key step: in all high-bandwidth installations, CONVERT THE GOOGLE DISTRO MACHINES TO DISKLESS TERMINALS with the same UI.
5. People get used to having 'their' desktop available to them in multiple locations, spanning a disked install with networked-synched customizations to the diskless terminals.
6. The era of disk-based installs of OSs dies a well-deserved death.
7. Profit!!
If you think about it, a lot of Google's products (Gmail, the Google Toolbar) are introducing portable features. A new OS distro that they can eventually deploy as a diskless terminal version for high-bandwidth locations is the next logical step. And there will be more tears in Redmond when that happens.
Re:Killer app? (Score:2, Interesting)
Special services offered for SMEs.
Special offers for confidentiality ?
"WAPI" not "Woohoo!" (Score:3, Interesting)
Its all about the Windows API. For anything to become a Windows killer, the API must be extended nearly perfectly. For machines running on x86 or AMD hardware, this is simple. The API must only run pipes from the Windows system calls to the comparable Linux system calls. When there are no system calls, the machine just runs like it should. However, other hardware adds another complexity, although that can be solved relatively efficiently (a la Rosetta). Instructions can be translated across architecture at the machine level and then execute the code natively. Obviously this would run (O)2n versus (O)n on a native machine. It wouldn't really be emulation, because the entire processor and memory structure would have to be "emulated".
Why the API, you may ask? Because the API is what gives Windows its power. Now how can I be so sure? Because most Windows users out there admit that they really dislike using their computers. But they keep coming back to them. Why? Because Windows runs the programs most users want to run. In fact, Microsoft has taken great pains to ensure the WAPI runs almost completely backward compatibly, even building in certain performance "bugs" (improving them so they run efficiently) simply so that applications that worked with Windows N will work for N++. If the popularity of an OS depended upon security, efficiency, process management, and the other technical details that we geeks care about, Windows would have died before its birth. Bill Gates' genius came from marketing, in which he persuaded all the IBM-clone companies to license Windows. Then, once a solid legion of PCs had been produced, the Windows API became ever important. Windows was always a fairly "popular" operating system, but it really took off with Windows 3.1, which led to the infamous Win95. The relative ease of use, requiring little to no DOS experience, and built in software packages, such as Works, all contributed to the overall attractiveness of the system. With the legions of developers salivating at the opportunity to pounce at all those IBM-clones, the Windows API provided the foundation of Microsoft's continued growth. What's the result? 90% (guess-timate) of the world's computers run Windows OS. Mac, Linux, and other various flavors of Unix make up the remaining 10%, along with obscure systems like OS/2 and Amiga and mainframe systems, running very old software and systems.
The WAPI isn't easy to fall. Most notably, WINE, the application for Linux and various x86 Unix boxes to run Win32 apps, is a fairly good match for Windows, but has definite bugs to be ironed out. WINE has some problems like rendering windows not completely obeying the Windows API (like QuickTime). If Google hones in on the API issue, they will be in like Flynn. To live in a post-Windows world, we need to adequately match the Windows API. We all know how far superior a Linux or Unix experience is to Windows. We also must realize that Windows is king for a reason, and to behead the king, we need to beat the king at his own game. Google is the first company to be zealous enough to really attempt a coup. Apple is too proud (though I love Apple and am running a Mac right now).
My reaction to this news about Goobuntu is, well, "WAPPPPIIIII!!!!"
GOOG to exhibit at SCALE 4x (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:If I were google... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, that's the only thing that really makes sense. Google's strength is its network computing infrastructure. It's in the position to do what Oracle mistakenly thought they could do years ago - "the network is the computer". Bandwidth is cheap now; the only smart business decision for them in this area would be to provide a standards-based, thin client OS to connect to their online services (Google.com, Gmail, GTalk, Blogger, Maps, etc).
Think about it. What software has Google released? With the exception of software obtained through acquisitions (Picasa, Earth), it only releases web-based software (Gmail, etc) or lightweight clients to more effectively use its internet-based services (Google bar, Google talk, Google desktop).
So assuming this rumor has any merit, you'll probably see:
And hopefully:
In the short term that may mean they are targeting the internet kiosk market, but I think in the future Google expects all computers to effectively be "internet kiosks".
Re:What can Google do (Score:2, Interesting)
What would you want in it? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) PAM module to authenticate against GMail's account database.
2) The backing store for GMail is made available via WebDAV, much like Apple does with DotMac.
3a) When you log by booting a Goobuntu Live CD, your WebDAV folder is mounted as your home directory.
3b) When you log on to a system that's installed on a hard drive, it syncs it with a local disk image instead. When you log out, the synced disk image is encrypted immediately, and deleted after enough time without use.
4) I want a browser interface for some of the stuff in there, for when I can't get to a Goobuntu box. Much of this is already covered (bookmarks, mail), but I'd like more (contact list, documents).
Then, I could have a desktop machine at home, a laptop, and a Live CD. I could log in to any of them and have the same environment, with all my content ultimately stored on (and indexed by, sure) Google's servers. A buddy could come over and just use it. I could go to a buddy's house and just use his system. And so on. And if I'm at a kiosk at a conference, I can still just bring up a web interface and get some things done.
(While I'm at it, can I have SyncML too?)
This could easily be a Windows replacement. (Score:3, Interesting)
The best thing they can possibly do is choose a single set of applications and stick to it. No regular user wants to run or learn to use three office suites, nine media players and 50+ text editors. Google could choose one vendor, plow huge amounts of money into the project and finally force some standardization in the Linux world. That's one of the chief complaints I hear from corporate IT people about Linux...their people just want one tool to get their work done. Microsoft accomodates this by maintaining IE, Office, Media Player, etc. and making sure they play well together.
Re:What can Google do (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't sound dissimilar to Ubuntu's support prices then, assuming the Microsoft definition of "free". Which isn't surprising - the cost of a call centre doesn't change much just because of your product's choice of license.
"I really have no idea if Unbuntu has on demand phone in support or if you have to wait for them to call you back."
"Response time 4 hours" apparently - we're just guessing now, but I expect there are various options from different companies.
For home users, I would have thought that calling the vendor is pretty low on their list of fun things to do anyway. Certainly if it were me, I'd want to call the local shop or repair guy. And it sounds like that's what Ubuntu is encouraging, by providing support to those shops when they need it.
"But, I'm not really a Linux guy - so I'm not all that knowledgable on the subject. I have been itching to try it out, but I really don't have the time to try and set up a machine."
The best trick I found so far was removable hard disk caddies. You can try 10 different distros in turn on your second disk until you find one that installs flawlessly and seems generally amiable, and if anything fails, or if you want to do something else for a few days, you just put the other disk back and reboot to whatever your previous OS was. Very useful when anything fundamental in Linux isn't working and you want to ask someone on the internet what to do about it. Plus the hassle you save by not fscking around with formatting partitions and dual-booting.
Alternatively, have a second PC handy. e.g. you can get a Mac Mini for about the cost of a used cheeseburger and run web browsers, MS Office, Adobe stuff, and all the rest on that while playing with Linux on your PC. It can even do the internet connection, which makes Linux much easier (no internal winmodems or broadband USB modems to make your life difficult, just tell it to use the Mac as a gateway).
"I also don't have time to configure things I really don't understand."
Me neither, but I haven't noticed any obvious differences between operating systems in this area. It's not like kcontrol isn't a widget-for-widget copy of Windows configuration for example...
I've not had to edit any textfile configs on Ubuntu, if that's what you mean. The trick is probably to dump any distro which fails to configure the graphics properly the first time -- it's not worth the frustration if an installer leaves you fighting with xfree86 just to get a graphical desktop on your first install.