Google Working on Desktop Linux

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

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?

Re:What can Google do

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.

Re:What can Google do

With a Google name on it, Corporate acceptance will be easier to sell, than simply "Ubuntu"!!!

Re:What can Google do

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.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

Just wanted to mention that your "mod parent up" post turned into something far more insightful than the parent, so congrats on breaking /. tradition! :P

Re:What can Google do

not really IMO, compare ms names to linux names:

Linux:
The Gimp
Konqueror
Gnome
KDE
Ubuntu
Ogle
Gedit
etc.

Windows
Internet Explorer
Photoshop
XP
Vista
Notepad
Media Player
Outlook
etc.

Which set of names do you think appeals more to business types or to the average user?

Re:What can Google do

Tech support: "What browser are you using?"
User: "IE"
Tech support: "You don't have to scream, I was just asking a question"

Re:What can Google do

You forgot Poland.

Er, I mean, you forgot: Access, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Visio, .NET, C#, and for a non-MS example, Acrobat.

Plus, Internet Explorer is a complete misnomer. It's a web page viewer. Let me know when it can do email, nntp, ssh, sftp/scp, or any of a hundred other typical things you do on the internet.

As for Linux, most of those applications are sensibly presented in Gnome (and probably in KDE, too).

Re:What can Google do

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.

Re:What can Google do

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.

Re:What can Google do

I see it a little differently. First of all large companies haven't been entirely dragged down by Linux. I don't think IBM is going to jetison it any time soon, for example, and I think that Sun still has high hopes for Star/Open Office.

But the problem is that large companies have tried to laterally transplant linux into the marketplace. This won't work. What Google could do here that is radically different is start to build a groundswell of support. Think of it as politics. Large companies are like well-funded small-interest groups, Google is starting a grassroots campaign. If you want to get a specific earmark, go with the small-interest groups. But if you want to make fundamental changes in politics - or in in IT - you need a grassroots movement.

By convincing individual users - in business, academic, or private capacity - that linux is safe to use Google could start just this kind of grassroots momentum. This spreads to small and medium businesses and retail (why use Windows to run cash registers with a few bells and whistles?). That kind of broad market penetration means that the employees of large companies will be able to transition more easily to linux - so eventually IBM, Sun etc. start to get what they've been gunning for as well: mainstream adoption of linux.

Of course a lot of companies are going to find out that Windows is better for them than Linux. That's really what we want to have happen, however. Instead of politics we may actually get a more open market where people have genuine choice and therefore there's genuine competition.

Google can contribute to this process in ways that IBM, Sun, Novell, etc. never could because Google is visible to ordinary non-techies in their day-to-day lives in ways those tech giants aren't.

-stormin

Re:What can Google do

One difference: Find the most non-tech person you know who still uses a computer. Now, give them a list of company names as follows:

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.

Re:What can Google do

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.

Re:What can Google do

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?"

All of these companies were in a downward slide and tried to save themselves by jumping on the Linux bandwagon. They weren't trying to build a credible Linux by using their shiny aura, they were trying to bask in Linux's shiny aura.

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.

My guess is that the problem faced by SUN is that they know jack, diddly, and squat about usability. The GNOME team is, basically, a bunch of folks trying to clone Mac OS X and the KDE team is a bunch of folks trying to Clone Windows; while this is hardly ideal, it's a heck of a lot better than trying to do whatever Sun thinks is a good idea. I fondly remember Sun fanbois trying to explain to me why it's a GOOD thing for focus to follow the mouse pointer.

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."

What does this have to do with anything? If Google wants to build its own Linux distro it can do whatever the heck it wants and so can hobbyists.

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.

There's a nice discussion of business strategy 101 here http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLet terV.html which goes something like this: every other business out there is either a competitor (someone who does what you do), a collaborator (someone who offers services that complement your services or are required for you to provide your services), or a potential customer (everyone else). If you're in Google's business then a competitor looks like, say, msn or yahoo, a collaborator looks like Internet Explorer, HP, Comcast, or the Electrical Utility, and Joe Sixpack, Brooks Brothers, Walmart, and Starbucks are potential customers.

You want your competitors to suck and be expensive -- so you can (relatively) be excellent and cheap AND you want your collaborators to be excellent, ubiquitous, and cheap or better yet free. For Google to make money, anything that makes computers, web browsers, computer networks, electricity, etc. better, cheaper, and more ubiquitous is a Good Thing. So giving away an excellent operating system actually makes perfect sense. Will they do it? Shrug. But I wouldn't start counting dollars or donuts.

Re:What can Google do

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.

Re:hmmm

"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.

Re:hmmm

Google tend to produce high quality products. This would put them in direct competition with Windows.

Huh? If Google makes "high quality products" that would put them in an entirely different market than Microsoft.

Now, if Google starts making bloated, insecure, and consumer-hostile products, then they could take Microsoft on head-to-head.

Re:hmmm

Um, I think you forgot

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?

Re:hmmm

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.

Re:hmmm

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.

Re:hmmm

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.

Re:hmmm

And since your answers are so full of crap you either don't bother to use the system you develop for or you're just a troll ... but whatever I'll "inform" you anyway.

Nice. Why don't you go "inform" yourself? In the past I've written an entire software installation framework on Linux, a binary portability environment, modifications to the dynamic linker, patches for Wine, ALSA, GNOME and a bunch of other projects I forget, and me and my team pretty much wrote the book on Linux binary compatibility [autopackage.org].

NViDEA provides binary drivers and has an installer to do the compiling if it can't find a compatable kernel. Their installer is GPL. Slap a graphical front end on it and then you no longer have a problem.

No longer have a problem? This is insane ... you realise that the kernel developers make a sport out of breaking the nVidia drivers right? Having a source wrapper doesn't protect them from everything, nowhere near. For instance the 4k stacks fiasco.

Not to mention that this solution is light-years behind Windows 95 in terms of usability. What happens when you put the driver CD containing this magic source code wrapper in the CD drive? Nothing. What happens if you don't have developer tools and the kernel headers installed? Errors. What happens if the driver is more than 12 months old and the kernel API changed? Errors.

And finally what if you're a little company and Mr Kroah-Hartman smells blood? You get sued. This is about the most uninviting landscape for hardware developers imaginable.

C++ support Then get apps from the vendor or compile them on the system with glibc ... or fix glibc yourself if you don't like it.

Michael Meeks has already attempted to "fix" glibc, and his work was ignored. This is the modus operandi of the glibc people, and as a result a generic patch he wrote to solve many of the symbol fixup and performance problems that plague Linux (eg OpenOffice startup time) is now a SuSE specific file format extension. Yay standards.

And for what it's worth many of the C++ problems are GCC related, not glibc. But Michaels work would have alleviated the symtoms.

As opposed to what? Windows XP?

As opposed to every other program in the world that users don't already have but might want to try.

Linus says he doesn't mind having it. So develop it. Some people don't care because we don't all want it.

Explain to me how to build a DRM system for an operating system in which you have no guarantees about the way it works. Now, you can't built a 100% perfect DRM system ever, but you can get close enough that it's worth doing and Windows is pretty good at it these days (and will get better as hardware support starts appearing for it). But Linux can't mount credible competition in this area. If there was a Red Hat music store or something then it wouldn't matter so much - the iTunes DRM is fairly weak, but it doesn't matter because Apple are simultaneosuly platform and media provider. But Linux is just a platform, so it doesn't have that luxury.

Re:hmmm

Just a few comments -

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.

Re:hmmm

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

I guess I should have elaborated, go read this section of the page [plan99.net] and then read the ELF section as well. If you understand what's written there you'll see the problem - the lack of a stable C++ ABI is not fatal in and of itself, though it does cause major pain, but combined with the lack of predictable symbol scoping it means it's impossible to reason about the interactions between a binary (any binary, even a C based one) and the rest of the operating system.

For instance, if a game written in C++ loads a private copy of libSDL (C), then it may crash because libSDL may dlopen libaRts (C++) for audio in KDE, and STL inlines in libaRts will collide with the equivalent inlines in the game itself despite libstdc++.so symbol versioning. That'll probably cause a crash or hang.

This is a "do not pass go" type problem. It means any program, no matter how bug-free or what language it's written in, can potentially crash in undebuggable ways in certain legal system configurations. It's broken by design and the relevant people either ignore the problem or don't see fixing it as a priority.

Other implementations are, of course, possible. How is the digital data protected after it is decrypted?

I was thinking of something like the Windows Secure Audio Path. The problem with your SSL scheme is that the program which renders the audio/video can be trivially turned into a decryptor just by redirecting audio output to a file. Now you can do this with Windows XP too but it requires running the OS under a virtualizer like VMware (but not VMware as IIRC the drivers for that aren't signed for SAP compliance) which emulates commodity hardware with SAP signed drivers. Setting one of these up is a bit of a pain and most users won't be able to do so.

For your Ashlee Simpsons and the like maybe somebody somewhere will do so and put it up on P2P for some reason, but for more obscure stuff this sort of thing can make it very hard to find (and anti-virtualisation code in Windows/hardware itself could seal that off too), which would make the analog hole the only way forward. And realistically not many people bother with that either.

Re:hmmm

> How would creating a Linux distribution even come *close* to being a Windows killer?

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.

Re:hmmm

I dispute this claim.

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

Google hasn't seemed to have a problem with releasing products that have no discernable source of revenue.

They plan on making it up in volume.

- Tony

Re:hmmm

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.

A possible answer

...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!

Nope, can't happen

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.

Re:A possible answer

Yes, but Google promised us they won't be evil. Steve Ballmer said Microsoft is opposed to that.

First, to address your point, Google would only have control over their own distro (just as Red Hat, Debian, etc. have.) The GPL ensures they can't shut down others. And those others won't go away just because Google arrived. But they might voluntarily choose to do so.

Another "standard" distro would not be a bad thing. Sure, it's going to have name recognition which will be a shiny thing to attract an initial following. It'll also help corporate adoption (the new slogan could be "Nobody ever got fired for downloading Google" :-) But even if all it did was to consolidate the Ubuntu crowd with the Mandriva crowd under one googly umbrella, that's still a pretty powerful group of followers.

Think about the popular distros that are out there now. None of them are backed in any significant way by any large companies. (Sure, IBM has pumped money into linux, but they missed the boat by never marketing a Big Blue Distro to anyone other than mainframe shops.)

I think Linux will grow to the next step just by having a huge corporate backer. So far, the biggest corporate players all have their own unices to pimp, and have never pushed linux in a big way. Google is the only really big company in a position to pull something like this off successfully. And they have the added legitimacy of having built their empire on linux. Finally, people will expect great things from a Google distro. I think the market will take this distro very seriously.

Re:hmmm

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.

-jcr

Re:hmmm

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 ;)

Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.

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

Chris

Not to sound cynical

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.

Re:Not to sound cynical

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.

Re:Not to sound cynical

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.

And in Redmond

Ballmer throws a chair.

Re:And in Redmond

You joking? This is sofa throwing material, dude.

Re:And in Redmond

And Gates just fired off an email about their upcoming Open Source version of Windows that will pack in twice the features and speed as Goobuntu.

Google OS

I think it's a waste of Google talent. They should concentrate on data collection, aggregation, and dissemination tools.

Re:Google OS

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.

Another Google lets-see-if-it-sticks project

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.

Re:Another Google lets-see-if-it-sticks project

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.

If it doesn't work, there's always Beta! :-D

Re:Another Google lets-see-if-it-sticks project

presumably trying the chuck-it-and-see-if-it-sticks approach.

Microsoft uses a similar approach, but thier apporach involves chairs and Steve Ballmer.

hope for other apps

Perhaps this also means they will port apps like gtalk and picasa to linux, albeit just to goobuntu. Although I'd probably still use kopete or gaim, since gtalk doesn't do any session encryption with the native client (plese join me in submitting feature requests and bug reports for every release of gtalk so that they'll consider adding it)

invite to goobuntu

plz reply with invites.

kthx

Shouldn't that be...

GNoo/Linux?

Name of Distro

Gnoogle.

virtualization?

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.

If I were google...

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.

Re:If I were google...

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:

• A much-simplified version of Ubuntu
• Possibly a new filesystem
• Lots of development focus on Firefox

And hopefully:

• Increased attention to Vorbis and Theora

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".

No!

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.

Branding, not technology

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.

Good for Linux

The majority of the world either don't know what Linux is, or associates it with people like us(!)

If Google can make the installation simple, the desktop pretty, and break the "freak" tag that Linux has (and don't kid yourseldf - Linux is only for us freaks), then I think this is a great thing.

We should support this.

Re:Probably wouldn't matter if they did...

"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...

Re:Probably wouldn't matter if they did...

Here's a reason I don't see cited often enough:

It's got far worse developer support than Windows. In the end, an OS is only as good as its apps. With Microsoft you get constantly developed, first-rate tools and new languages like C#. With Apple you get a barebones environment wrapped around GNU gcc, a 20 year old language with performance problems (obj-c) and a new chip architecture every few years.

If Apple would modernize its developer tools and quit making life miserable for developers with kernel changes and architecture switches, they might have more market share. But right now it seems they are more interested in the way their boxes look on the outside. The arrogance of Jobs claiming obj-c was better than C# doesn't give me hope that they'll improve any time soon.

Apple may be able to pull Adobe and Microsoft along (the former due to historical markets, and the latter due to monopoly concerns) but every time they pull an architecture switch, or screw up another API, they lose small developers.

In closing, if you want to know why OS X is doing badly in the broad market, just take a look at a copy of MATLAB running on Windows and MATLAB running on the Mac. Pretty window shadows aside, which would you rather use? It's all about apps.

Poll idea

The name "Goobuntu" sounds most like:

(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

(6) The sound CowboyNeal makes when punched in the gut

One question

Will it be available in China?

Attempting to overtake Windows?

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.

Why would anyone trust this?

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?

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

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.

Basically - I welcome Google OS.

longshot

"The origin of the word 'Goobuntu' is not clear, though it does not appear in online Zulu dictionaries."

Obligatory Stewie Quote: "that's funny to me."

Anyway, the idea that Windows desktop installations will be wholly or mostly eliminated isn't likely. So this means that Google is going after a minority stake in the marketplace. Apple stands a greater chance of offering resistance to Microsoft than any Linux distribution does.

Google could develop its suite of internet aps and make available seamlessly from anyone's desktop - this seems more intuitive to me because you avoid a litany of issues that come with the old school download - install method.

Frankly, isn't the download - install method really old school right now? Isn't that the whole point? Ubiquitous computing - permanent connection - no one has your source code - when patching you only have to apply once to your servers, etc?

I can't understand wanting to fight a war over the desktop when that war's been won already. Not only has the war been won, but the OS empire has grown stale and decadent - and will destroy itself.

I can't help but think that Microsoft is doing some smoke and mirrors play with google and has them spooked. First, they goad google into giving a billion to AOL so they could keep what they already have. Now they have Google developing a OS solution. Isn't that kind of like developing a [insert obsolete technology here] alternative?

A cohesive, easy to implement, networked suite of applications that run both on full-sized browsers and and on mobile browsers for those progressively mobile asian kids. Once Google can reliably get geographically useful ads pushed to a mobile, then they start eating the local advertising lunch. And once they become that pervasive an advertising tool, the game is over. Google wins. But they can't get distracted; Microsoft is fucking with them.

make sense for internal use

Why would Google (and any company competing with Microsoft) want to run Windows internally?!

Free OS with the Google file system (GFS)?

Including the sparse failover functions? Screw Windows, I'll replace Sun and AIX!!!

It's for internal use only

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.

Killer app?

Google Linux Live CD/DVD.

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. . .) it'll install directly to your drive.

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 [e-mail] if you want your system to be unlocked).

Sky Parths, Truth Shines Through

TFA:

The Goobuntu.com domain has been registered in the past couple of days, though presumably not by Google. It now redirects to a Cuban portal. Perhaps Google will have to think of a new name for the system before they launch it to the wider public.

Open Source Software and Google both stand revealed for the Communist plots they are!
Let every real God-fearing American instantly reject this nefarious Marxist subterfuge!

Calm down dear, it's just an internal distro

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.

"In Beta" jest.

Who would have thought it would take Google of all companies to finally take Linux out of Beta?

Would you trust them?

I guess since it wil be open source someone can discover if Google builds any nonauthorized information gathering into the system, but with all of the stuff in the news about Google would you trust an OS, for your privacy, from Google?

Why would Google want to offer an OS ?

Well... I think the answer is simpler than it looks. I would think that revenue from Ad Sense, etc. is all secondary to this project. My thought would be that Google wants to create an OS that it will distribute for free, on the basis that unused CPU cycles are "donated" back to Google to use for its own internal processes (ie. indexing, crawling, etc.). Think about it, Google would have the worlds largest distributed parallel computer crawling and indexing away at their command all for a cost of near peanuts to what it would cost to build by purchasing all the necessary hardware.

Or maybe...

...It's a masterplan step?

Ok, ok...Bare with me here as I take you on a fantastic journey to the land of make believe...

What is Google's biggest threat? Microsoft. (Not that they'd admit it..)
What is Microsoft's source of power? Money and Marketshare (replace with "Monopoly" as appropriate).
What's the basis for this? Desktop share and Public ignorance of alternatives.

What is Google's power? Branding. Search engine aside, Google is riding a wave of buzz!

Sooooo...A link to a Google branded OS on the main search page...possible follow-up links to Ubuntu or other FOSS sites... Come next upgrade cycle, more users turn to non-Windows operating systems...

*Sigh* Well, I can dream, can't I?

Do One Thing

From Google's Ten Things [google.com]:

2. It's best to do one thing really, really well.
Google does search. With one of the world's largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we've been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service already considered the best on the web at making finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of users. Our dedication to improving search has also allowed us to apply what we've learned to new products, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Maps. As we continue to build new products* while making search better, our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas, and to help users access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives.

<snip>

* Full-disclosure update: When we first wrote these "10 things" four years ago, we included the phrase "Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat." Over time we've expanded our view of the range of services we can offer -- web search, for instance, isn't the only way for people to access or use information -- and products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. This doesn't mean we've changed our core mission; just that the farther we travel toward achieving it, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus (to be replaced, of course, by more blurry objects).

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...

If Google is working on an actual OS, and not just something to work in the background of, say, a cybercafe computer, then this may be the push Linux needs to become a major Desktop player.

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.

Users will be known as.... Goobers.

Thanks, I'll be here all week... be sure to tip your waitress.

This is just the first step...

Why is Google putting together a distro? Because it's the first step in a longer-term plan.

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.

"WAPI" not "Woohoo!"

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

Google's Dan Kegel will be speaking at SCALE 4x [socallinuxexpo.org] on the subject of Linux on the Desktop. Google will also be exhibiting at the show.

What would you want in it?

I'm dreaming I know, but here's what I'd want in it:

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.

With so many investors mesmerized by Google, slapping the name on a Linux distribution might finally give it enough credibility for businesses to consider a full desktop OS replacement. The choice of Ubuntu isn't an accident either...it's by far the best at supporting things like plug-and-play hardware and all the other stuff that makes Windows easy to use for people.

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:The only way...

Windows XP 64-bit does not run 16-bit apps. No big deal, eh? But many, many, many titles have been shipped (and still shipping!) using older InstallShield. Guess what? These _installers_ are 16-bit apps. And installer not working equals to "this app does not run" for practically all users. Do you think XP 64-bit is an "alternative to Windows"?