4 ms·

Its still going to use the Linux kernel, and that makes it Linux I think, though we're messing with semantics. Regardless, I agree with your view that the blow

by htsh 17y ago

Its still going to use the Linux kernel, and that makes it Linux I think, though we're messing with semantics. Regardless, I agree with your view that the blowback is ridiculous. The more people that are using free software, the better for all of us. I think people are irrationally tied to the Microsoft brand and any comfortable step away from that is nothing but a good thing. I am excited that a big-name like google is doing something like this. It means I likely have to worry less and less about good drivers for more hardware.

cema 17y ago
Good point about the irrational reliance on brand names. You mention Microsoft, I could mention Google too, but as long as it helps to dilute this reliance, I think it is healthy. Let a hundred brand names bloom. The situation with linux drivers is much better these days than just a couple of years ago. I do agree it may help, but it is not so critical as it used to be.
- htsh 17y ago
  Agreed, but I'm not going to forget how bad it was even 2 years ago when wifi & graphics drivers made for a pretty rough experience. I agree, though, we've come a long way already but at the same time I would be happier if I knew for sure it would never happen again, especially with peripherals. As far as I know, a lot of consumer level hardware (like multifunction printers) are still sold with Vista drivers only. Beyond drivers as well we'll see if Adobe can work on Flash for Linux to make it as fast as Windows, etc.
there 17y ago
The more people that are using free software, the better for all of us. but if the entire point of this exercise is to build a thin client gateway to google's web-based applications, which aren't open source, are you really gaining anything?
- RK 17y ago
  Possibly better driver support.
- Raphael 17y ago
  Thin clients are likely to be a viable market, so I expect multiple OS vendors to create them. Some will be open source; some will be closed source. If morally opposed to Google's closed source server side apps, one is free to go to other sites. Are you suggesting boycotting Google's open source project because they operate other apps that are closed source?
  - there 17y ago
    Are you suggesting boycotting Google's open source project no, i don't think i suggested anything like that. a computer running google's operating system is going to be reduced to just a kernel and web browser, so while that is a "gain" in terms of open-vs-closed software running on your actual cpu, the fact that you'd have to use google's web services to actually do anything useful on the computer means you lost everything you just gained since you are now using much less free software. of course you can use the browser to use other websites, but then we're not really talking about google's operating system, are we? now you're just using a small portion of it (the kernel and browser) and making your own operating system of sorts (but if you wanted to do that, why not just run a regular linux/bsd distribution in the first place?)
TomOfTTB 17y ago
On using the kernel I guess I made an assumptions that I should have been clearer on. My assumption, based on their limited press, is that Google won't be allowing/encouraging local applications (other than I'd assume Gears/HTML5 local storage apps). If Google allows for local apps then there's really no point to what they're doing. So my theory is that it really will matter because programmers won't have access to the underlying OS.
- htsh 17y ago
  I'm not clear on this -- how can it be open source without allowing programmers access to the underlying OS? Also, I would be surprised if the OS doesn't allow for running any local apps but you may be right. Also, I guess some Linux folks (like myself) are upset because we wanted to see a full-on competitor to msft with Google branding, i.e. Goobuntu. There have been rumors for years about a Google-branded Linux distribution coming out and its a bit disappointing that its not the whole hog.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by htsh 17y ago

cema 17y ago

Good point about the irrational reliance on brand names. You mention Microsoft, I could mention Google too, but as long as it helps to dilute this reliance, I think it is healthy. Let a hundred brand names bloom. The situation with linux drivers is much better these days than just a couple of years ago. I do agree it may help, but it is not so critical as it used to be.

htsh 17y ago
Agreed, but I'm not going to forget how bad it was even 2 years ago when wifi & graphics drivers made for a pretty rough experience. I agree, though, we've come a long way already but at the same time I would be happier if I knew for sure it would never happen again, especially with peripherals. As far as I know, a lot of consumer level hardware (like multifunction printers) are still sold with Vista drivers only. Beyond drivers as well we'll see if Adobe can work on Flash for Linux to make it as fast as Windows, etc.

there 17y ago

The more people that are using free software, the better for all of us. but if the entire point of this exercise is to build a thin client gateway to google's web-based applications, which aren't open source, are you really gaining anything?

RK 17y ago
Possibly better driver support.
Raphael 17y ago
Thin clients are likely to be a viable market, so I expect multiple OS vendors to create them. Some will be open source; some will be closed source. If morally opposed to Google's closed source server side apps, one is free to go to other sites. Are you suggesting boycotting Google's open source project because they operate other apps that are closed source?
- there 17y ago
  Are you suggesting boycotting Google's open source project no, i don't think i suggested anything like that. a computer running google's operating system is going to be reduced to just a kernel and web browser, so while that is a "gain" in terms of open-vs-closed software running on your actual cpu, the fact that you'd have to use google's web services to actually do anything useful on the computer means you lost everything you just gained since you are now using much less free software. of course you can use the browser to use other websites, but then we're not really talking about google's operating system, are we? now you're just using a small portion of it (the kernel and browser) and making your own operating system of sorts (but if you wanted to do that, why not just run a regular linux/bsd distribution in the first place?)

TomOfTTB 17y ago

On using the kernel I guess I made an assumptions that I should have been clearer on. My assumption, based on their limited press, is that Google won't be allowing/encouraging local applications (other than I'd assume Gears/HTML5 local storage apps). If Google allows for local apps then there's really no point to what they're doing. So my theory is that it really will matter because programmers won't have access to the underlying OS.

htsh 17y ago
I'm not clear on this -- how can it be open source without allowing programmers access to the underlying OS? Also, I would be surprised if the OS doesn't allow for running any local apps but you may be right. Also, I guess some Linux folks (like myself) are upset because we wanted to see a full-on competitor to msft with Google branding, i.e. Goobuntu. There have been rumors for years about a Google-branded Linux distribution coming out and its a bit disappointing that its not the whole hog.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]