Google Plans to Unveil PC Operating System

I strongly agree with this.

Microsoft OS has had very poor OS security implementation in its design from the beginning, and security has taken a back seat to other priorities.
Now Microsoft is closing doors which should have never been open to begin with, both security vendors and neophytes are asking for new doors to be open.
This is not the right way to go.

 

In the thread I linked to, the "whiners" you refer to are skilled security professionals. The facts they cited, relative to Vista-64's security problems, are just that ... facts. In response to which, you offer the same boilerplate I read from M$ blogs & blokes. No facts -- just M$ boilerplate. Bah!

So you are amused. How condescending can someone get? Okay, giggles -- if you have any credentials or anything to offer besides sarcastic boilerplate, I would enjoy reading it.

No offense -- TRULY I would like to read your factual basis.

 

The problem is, people seem to think that those "facts" are absolute without bothering to think about what they mean. As long as it's a "fact", then everything's okay.

So let me ask you this question. The developers of those security programs are essentially saying that their program is unable to gain absolute control over the operating system. Now please tell me: why is that such a bad thing?

 

I'm afraid I can't agree with this widespread attitude that MS is trying in any way to eliminate any third party security applications as a carefully planned strategy per se. People have been complaining for years about how MS couldn't care less about their users's security, and now not only they have to pay huge antitrust fines (for things that belong to them) but they have to play good Samaritan to people who have made their livelihood out of their weaknesses.

If Tzuk gives up developing Sanboxie for x64, it's his problem. If Xiaolin of Malware Defender has the same attitude, well he should do something else in life.

I believe that Google is the only organization that can take on MS even in the their own turf, for many reasons: they have the brains, the infrastructure, the experience, but above all they want to make money like MS.

I was enjoying having Vista x64 (I still have an image that could be ready in 7 minutes); I went back to Vista x32 only because I find Shadow Defender essential for my browsing habits, and unfortunately currently it doesn't run on x64. I can wait, but I don't blame MS for that.

 

Are you sure about that? I spent a long evening this week removing some rogue anti-malware from a Vista 64-bit laptop. Thanks to PatchGuard, of course, no rootkit was involved. It nevertheless required MBAM, SUPERAntiSpyware, HijackThis, and a manual HOSTS file cleaning to get the job done.

 

The developers of Sandboxie, Malware Defender, DefenseWall, and, I assume, Shadow Defender face the same PatchGuard obstacle. It's not possible to provide the same depth of protection now available for 32-bit Windows.

 

To all,

A number of posts snipped. Let's keep the OT chatter to a minimum and focus on the topic, not the posters.

By the way - my own read is that many of you have really missed the underlying message here. The OS doesn't matter, it really doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. Unless you're an OS groupie, you use these devices for the application space.

If the entire application space had developed in a manner to be truly OS neutral, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The perfect OS is one you don't know about. Sort of like we tend not to discuss system differences at a chip component level - it doesn't matter aside from some specific performance traits that may accrue (performance, power consumption, etc.), but even then we don't delve into the mechanics of it (the designers do, users don't).

Look at the emerging devices out there:

• Netbook PC's - lots of flavors in Linux and Windows flavors. Extremely low cost, primarily for surfing and light text based tasks. Linux grabbed hold on the OS side until MS decided to win the race to the bottom and savage the OEM cost/seat of the OS. At that point it was an easy choice for vendors and consumers - go with the familiar and known. No downside, possible upside cobranding. However, based on the tasks that most of these machines are really suited for, the OS choice simply doesn't matter.
• Go much smaller - to the iPhone. It's basically a super mobile netbook in slate tablet format. Do most users even know that Mac OS-X is the operating system? No, it's kept behind the curtains where an OS belongs. It could be OS-X, or Windows, or Linux - you don't know and you really don't need to know.
• Look at more focused - the Kindle from Amazon. It's actually a Linux device. Does that matter? Do any Kindle users actually know this? No..., but you don't buy a Kindle to rehash rants on an OS, you buy it to read content.
• Look at emerging - the CrunchPad. A pure content delivery device. It happens to use a Linux variant as well, but that doesn't matter because you won't see it. Like the iPhone and Kindle, it's a pure content delivery engine.

In the early days of computing, platform flexibility was critical due to the initial price of entry. You needed to be able to recast usage of the tool to make it cost effective and with that generation of hardware and software, it wasn't seamless. You needed to be able to deal with OS level tasks. That need will remain for some time due to the need to serve past legacies (think of it as the tyranny of the installed base). However, a coming generation of devices appear to be trying to break with that past, and they can due to cost. At a certain price point, and I won't pretend to know what it is (maybe $300, maybe less, perhaps a bit more), task focused content delivery engines become realistic. They don't have to do everything since they don't cost a bundle. Example - I own plenty of PC's, but could see myself picking up a Crunchpad on release. My wife already has a Kindle - and loves it. She had no idea what OS she's using, nor does she care.

Google Chrome OS may be important (or not), but its not due to eliminating bloat, aiding security, or any of the other points raised above. It's due to the fact that absolutely nobody purchases or uses these devices to get close to the OS, they use these devices to achieve goals (read, write, communicate, etc.) and none of those goals are OS centric or OS based. The OS gets in the way. If you can eliminate that issue of focus, you win.

At least that's how I see it...., of course I could be wrong.

Blue

 

Another take on Googles OS.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43156/141/

 

Not to mention, for your dining and dancing pleasure.... Let's all take a deep breath and get some perspective.

Obviously, opinion is.... ummm..., somewhat polarized



Blue

 

Hi


More News Re.. Google OS

Hardware Makers Support Google OS : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8141964.stm

 

Those bloggers looked like their CV 's ware turned down by google .So much hate ,or $ !

 

Amen.....

 

That guy is way off-base. For example:

Why does he think one "can't do real work" on Linux? I have used Linux exclusively for years and I use it for *everything* -- from listening to music, watching movies on my big LCD, mixing audio, writing books, doing office work, keeping books, browsing, email, programming, burning and ripping DVD's, etc. This notion that "Linux is just for fun" is completely ludicrous. Only M$ shills claim this.

Huh? So Google is going to own Linux and destroy all other distros? I have a feeling this guy barely even knows what Linux is nor does he know what these three letters mean: GPL.

Google is not going to "take over Linux." They will have Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, IBM and others to go through first. And even if they were to destroy those companies, they can *never* own Linux. It's impossible due to the GPL.

I think the M$ fanboys are worried because they know there is no way to compete with FLOSS. Actually, they have always known this, but Linux has remained less than 1% of the desktop market (even though it dominates servers). Now, with Google in the fray, Linux has more corporate backing. That's a bad thing for M$.

 

Posts of this kind always amuse me. Fanboys are so blinkered, and those who refer to Microsoft as M$ expose their inherent prejudice rather than an abliity to think clearly. Concepts like GPL and 'distros' and technical advantages or disadvantages are a complete irrelevance. It's all about 'market'. You say it yourself - Linux has a mere 1% of the desktop market, and Linux can be regarded as nothing but a failure in the desktop market. You may not like what this guy has written, but at least he addresses issues of consequence.

 

Google's Chrome OS: Maybe Not a "PC" OS After All is the closest popular press coverage to my own view.

Chrome OS vs Windows vs OS-X vs Linux is fighting the wrong battle. That views this effort as a general purpose OS. I just don't see that. I also don't see the pure cloud/web based view that's out there as well. Too similar to a mainframe based world, with many of the same issues. Now...., web based plus content mirrored locally finesses a lot of these issues, as would the simpler pure web delivery vehicle.

Kindle/iPhone/Crunchpad/netbook - this is a potentially large space that really doesn't require a full blown general OS, it's still evolving (and therefore still open to be claimed), and focuses almost exclusively on pure content delivery (be it web/music/short video/etc.).

Blue

 

Saying that first sentence means you didn't actually get his post (that part at least), nor the GPL. And Linux is not a failure on my desktop, it works far better than XP does, and that's what matters to me above everything.
But sure i'd wish it had a bigger market for it, so i can get even better software and the World to benefit from it as i do, besides the fact that competition will make Windows better.

 

My view is simply this has great potential to be IE killer.

If I can avoid things like Sandboxie, AV/AS updates and Prevx if I use this, then I am buying this instead of buying a new PC.
When I want to go to my bank website, I can use my Windows PC.
When I want to just read news, watch video, or play online radio or games, then I definitely will use this.

I can easily envision that 98% of the time I will be using a device based on this Google OS to use web in the future.

 

Ahhh, it is kind of worrying to see arguments passing by on old metafore context. IT COULD BE A SECOND CHANCE OF THE THIN CLIENT OS! - OF SEAMLESS DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING - OF POCKET PRESENCE (of tokens) VERSUS PRIVATE PCs (owning hardware and OS-ses).

Some IT professionals have fought fiercly for the lean desktop PC, where the network was the OS. The dream a simple and light OS on the desktop, which only connected to applications, applets, services on the net.

I would only need a smartcard, with my settings, preferences and my token/calcutor to encrypt all my data and mail which was send over the public network (web).

Helas it did not work out this way, why: commerce.

I really enjoy to see that the netbook is the revival of the lean desktop, and that google e-commerce is the force beheind the revival of the thin client OS.

I know for sure that Public Private encrypted mail and data transfer solutions of the past will be polished up again.

I will enjoy my ultra light netbook with a thin client OS. I will pay for the encrypted mail service so my friends can decrypt my data and mail, I will pay for the annomyous surfing service. I will pay for encrypyed data storage

The cost benefit:
- problably none, the cost of anomyous surfing, safe mail and data encryption add ons will cost me as much as a windows OS + Office aps

The usage benefits
- no hardware worries
- no worries of data loss
- no security worries
- only a personal token/calculator/smartcard to carry with me (possibly usable through my smart mobile phone, for even stronger security send the private decoder over a different network, yeahhhhh)
- hopefully the very battery effficient netbook or hand held will be obsolete in a few years, only public access points

Cheers

 

While I do not use Linux its not because I don't want to, its just that I can't seem to find the time to do so. I think the problem with it is you need to learn to use it, how to make it go so to speak. And not only that but you have to decide on a distro, and you have to dig to find the programs, and then you have to figure out how to make them work. Certainly not insurmountable obstacles but.........

I bet there are lots of Windows users who would love to try a Mac but that too would mean learning a new system, so they stay put with what they already know.

Inertia is a very powerful force. Just look at the keyboard layout. How bizarre that we are still using a keyboard layout that was designed to help prevent the typewriter keys from sticking. To in fact slow things down because when you typed too fast the typewriter would jam up.

I think this is a/the major reason Linux has such a small share of the market,,,,and why IE and MS maintain such a large share of their respective markets. Inertia,,,,,,,,the first out of the gate has a distinct advantage,,,,all others have to play catchup.

Me, I am rooting for google, it would be nice to see MS have some strong (or rather more since Mac is a strong competitor) competition.