Google chrome OS

Currently reading:
Google chrome OS

I have used Google Chrome once..

Never really got the hang of it..

Switched back to Firefox after some time..
 
Google Chrome is a great browser although does have some issues with print formatting (compared to SeaMonkey)

I wish Google the best of luck with a new O/S (y)
 
Its an interesting project, (the browser is excellent) its just I cant see them competing against MS. 99% of the worlds PC software is for Windows, and I cant see Linux based OS's competing with this, even with Wine, which can only work with about 25% of simpler software (not the stuff I use for engineering at uni or games)
 
Google is making some bold claims about it being the first OS to not suffer from viruses and worms. I'd be curious to see how they manage that.

They also claim its not linux and it's not Android. Personally I don't see where it fits. There have been netbooks running Android already. Why not just push out Android with a bunch of drivers for netbooks. That would meet the fast boot, new architecture requirements and be quick out the door as well.

There isn't enough info available at the moment to really figure out what this new chrome OS is and how it will be different.
 
They also claim its not linux

"The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. " - http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

It is Linux (y)


As for viruses - well Linux has next to nothing compared with Windows and none of the malware written for Linux has spread significantly in the wild. This is down to 2 reasons:
1. Linux is inherently more secure.
2. Windows being much bigger is obviously the bigger target by those wanting to cause maximum damage. This might change over time as Linux becomes more popular.

Most people are unfamiliar with Linux, certainly it is a minno on the desktop from but it is in fact very popular given its open and portable nature running on anything from web servers, home routers and sat nav devices.
 
"The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. " - http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

It is Linux (y)


As for viruses - well Linux has next to nothing compared with Windows and none of the malware written for Linux has spread significantly in the wild. This is down to 2 reasons:
1. Linux is inherently more secure.
2. Windows being much bigger is obviously the bigger target by those wanting to cause maximum damage. This might change over time as Linux becomes more popular.

Most people are unfamiliar with Linux, certainly it is a minno on the desktop from but it is in fact very popular given its open and portable nature running on anything from web servers, home routers and sat nav devices.

Linux Kernel. Ok, that's different to what I was reading the other day. It stated it wasn't a linux base. I'm even less interested in it now. What the world really doesn't need is yet another linux distribution.

I'd dispute that linux is inherently more secure. There are plenty of holes in varying parts of linux, as there are in any operating system. If/when the linux desktop share gets something close to windows then we'll see the same sort of problems.
 
Also, google, stuff the new linux based os. Just release Android for netbooks :)
 
"The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. " - http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

It is Linux (y)


As for viruses - well Linux has next to nothing compared with Windows and none of the malware written for Linux has spread significantly in the wild. This is down to 2 reasons:
1. Linux is inherently more secure.
2. Windows being much bigger is obviously the bigger target by those wanting to cause maximum damage. This might change over time as Linux becomes more popular.

Most people are unfamiliar with Linux, certainly it is a minno on the desktop from but it is in fact very popular given its open and portable nature running on anything from web servers, home routers and sat nav devices.
Spot on (y)

I'd dispute that linux is inherently more secure.
'Inherent' in that it is a cleaner designed O/S. Program execution requirements are more demanding than Microsoft O/S's which are historically tied due to compatibility demands of the past.

If/when the linux desktop share gets something close to windows then we'll see the same sort of problems.
Did the 30111987 not suggest that might start to happen :confused:
 
Spot on (y)

'Inherent' in that it is a cleaner designed O/S. Program execution requirements are more demanding than Microsoft O/S's which are historically tied due to compatibility demands of the past.

Not sure I follow you? Yes, linux was a clean sheet design not the evolution of an existing product with the influence of 1000's of people but I'm not sure how the historical legacy of windows affects its program execution? Can you explain?

Did the 30111987 not suggest that might start to happen :confused:

Indeed. I was sort of agreeing.
 
yes but at least with Linux the likes of YaSt are good at establishing what you need and quietly getting on with it. With legacy Windows one app would overwrite a dll with a different version - breaking something else.

Have you had this happen recently? I've not seen this since Windows 95 days. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a windows fanboy, I'm just curious if this is still happening or if its established mindset that hasn't changed.
 
Not sure I follow you? Yes, linux was a clean sheet design not the evolution of an existing product with the influence of 1000's of people...
Well, Linux is a derivation of Unix with a desktop like front end which pre-dates even MS-DOS. The key distinction being that Unix itself has been a favourite with University graduates almost since it's inception.

....but I'm not sure how the historical legacy of windows affects its program execution? Can you explain?
In a single word - compatibility

When Gates sold MS-DOS (as it was later to be called) to IBM it was, by standards of the time, a pretty crude O/S which is the likely reason IBM allowed Bill to keep the licensing rights - a simple act which would nearly bring IBM to their knees in years to come.

Microsoft's power has always been its user base and for that reason it has been forced to maintain compatibility with existing application software. Admittedly they've tried to break away from the past but the history will always remain.
 
Have you had this happen recently? I've not seen this since Windows 95 days. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a windows fanboy, I'm just curious if this is still happening or if its established mindset that hasn't changed.
Yes it has happened to me recently - for a client who wanted his old app on his new PC.
Only today did I find a piece of software that wouldn't install unless I turned off UAC in Vista! Shame on you o2 (n)
 
Yes it has happened to me recently - for a client who wanted his old app on his new PC.
Only today did I find a piece of software that wouldn't install unless I turned off UAC in Vista! Shame on you o2 (n)

I feel your pain. I'm an o2 customer. They suck.
 
Back
Top