Google Operating System planned

[chubster]

no

If you use a binary from Windows, you need a License. If you think you can use Windows Live free on Linux then you are mistaken. You are only entitled to use Windows Live or any other "free" product of Microsoft if you have a Windows License. That is just the way it is. They snooker you big time, read the fine print.

 

[EtienneK]

Strangely enough, it's actually quite nice here. How is the heroine addiction going... oh wait, or you were a bit closed minded before trying it?

Did you just compare trying a new OS to trying out heroine?...

:erm:

 

[d0b33]

If you use a binary from Windows, you need a License. If you think you can use Windows Live free on Linux then you are mistaken. You are only entitled to use Windows Live or any other "free" product of Microsoft if you have a Windows License. That is just the way it is. They snooker you big time, read the fine print.

Yet this oke is a paid "developer"

you'd think they'd be aware of things like licenses

 

[porchrat]

Went and took a look at the Google blog (here is a link for those with a crippling fear of search engines: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html).

Chrome OS will definitely use a Linux kernel at the very least with a new windowing system on top...oooooooh.

I somehow imagined something more drastic when I read the whole "completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS" bit. It is going to end up as another Linux distro. Not that that is a bad thing, just that all the sensationalism surrounding Google rethinking "what operating systems should be" seems unjustified.

 

[Crusader]

Well if they can get Linux to have the ease of use that Windows has then they will a good chance to take a large cut of the market. The average person don't want to worry about mounting stuff or compiling binaries etc.

 

[eltherza]

Did you just compare trying a new OS to trying out heroine?...

:erm:

Of course not, I used an extreme example to show that being 'open minded' isnt always the best of approaches to situations and being 'closed minded' can actually be better. It has nothing to do with trying out OSes but a direct response to your reply. Hope that clears the confusion.

 

[chubster]

Well if they can get Linux to have the ease of use that Windows has then they will a good chance to take a large cut of the market. The average person don't want to worry about mounting stuff or compiling binaries etc.

Well, if you have used a distro that is sourced based. You would realize there is not really much to it. Just as you would select to install an application of X, all that it does is, the scripts are already in place to adapt the source for your specific hardware/architecture. Not only does it compile for architecture but also adds optimizations based on it. The user do not really have to think, although it could help.

Since the past few years, hal and udev systems made mounting disks a no brainer. If your window manager wasn't setup to implement a method/application to catch udev events or hal events. Try reading the distro's howto. There are so many options thanks to the beauty of open source and GNU/Linux.

Hope you get it to understand your Distro.

 

[Rouxenator]

Linux is very easy to use and in many cases it feels nicer than windows.

The problem is that it does not like running binaries nativley so double clicking something you downloaded is not guaranteed to run. It also does not run windows binaries that easily and this is a requirement most computer users have without even realizing it.

The key here is binary compatibility. Once Linux has that then you can run anything on it.

At this stage the linux highway only allows certain cars on it and many cars have to be specially built on the highway before you can drive it.

 

[chubster]

The problem is that it does not like running binaries nativley so double clicking something you downloaded is not guaranteed to run. It also does not run windows binaries that easily and this is a requirement most computer users have without even realizing it.

The key here is binary compatibility. Once Linux has that then you can run anything on it.

At this stage the linux highway only allows certain cars on it and many cars have to be specially built on the highway before you can drive it.

Hang on, are you saying that most applications written for Windows 3.11 are still working on Windows Vista/7? No because the application had to adapt to the new version of Windows. The same thing will have to happen to the Vendors that supports alternative OS.

Unfortunately that will never materialize because of licensing (Microsoft). The task is set on the user to find the open source alternative to the win32 binary.

Mono is getting there to making .NET applications run on Linux, still a lot of work is required and if Microsoft is not pooping in its pants again because of patent infringement BS. Trying to run Microsoft Office on Linux? Then if you are willing to pay for Microsoft Office, you might as well buy Windows, or buy a licensed product like CrossOver. The cheaper alternative would be to use an alternative product that has a different licensing scheme and you need to be willing to go through another learning curve.

It is truly a mind set change. Microsoft got most people into believing we can't live without them.

 

[Tux]

At this stage the linux highway only allows certain cars on it and many cars have to be specially built on the highway before you can drive it.

With the right tools you can also run most microsoft cars on it. can you say the same of your beloved Microsoft [-]virus[/-] windows?