An unofficial blog that watches Google's attempts to move your operating system online since 2005. Not affiliated with Google.

Send your tips to

November 13, 2008

Will There Ever Be a Google OS?

Here's Andrew Morton's answer to this question. As you probably know, Andrew Morton is a lead developer of the Linux kernel and a Google employee since 2006.
The resources required to develop and test kernel/base apps/windowing system are quite massive. Particularly the "test" part - the Linux developers and distros are completely dependent upon hundreds of thousands of end users to test our code on the millions of different hardware combinations out there.

The only other organisation which has the sheer resources to develop an OS for general PC hardware is microsoft plus their thousands of ISVs and IHVs.

I'll let you work out the rest :)

In other news, Chromium Blog announced that Google runs "more than 9100 individual tests, typically 30-40 times every weekday" for Google Chrome. Not to mention that millions of people test each version of Google Chrome on different software/hardware configurations.


  1. Why in high heaven would they use KDE? Uggh, its so windows-ee, why would you do that to that poor dog! Gnome all the way!!!

  2. The OS in the image is some version of Red Hat and not Ubuntu. Tag the image as Goo(re)d Hat :D

  3. They already have an OS, Android. Which will probably come to netbooks and other low cost, low power computers in the next year or so.

  4. Yes, it's called Android. Doh! - What a stupid article title.

  5. Android. It already runs the most important "apps" (i.e. Google and GMail).

    New PC operating system development (like Windows 7) is about as exciting and significant as BIOS update.

  6. Guys guys, don't hassle, Google OS already exists its juts not in the way everybody would recognize it as a traditional OS.

    Just sit and think a bit, how many of Google's tools do you use or depend on in you're everyday life?

    Google is slowly becoming a integral part of everyday life for anyone who is using a computer, and becoming a must have element to operating a computer so in a way it is becoming a platform independent os.

  7. I think Chrome is what passes as a Google OS. They are so much Web-as-a-platform, all you need is a browser that is capable of "running their apps". Why would they need a full-blown PC OS? They are shifting the OS paradigm toward the browser.

  8. Exactly, they are changing the way you must think of a OS. If you got a browser, you can use all of Google's tools, if they could integrate a the workings of a site i once saw, who emulated a desktop via you're browser you could forget about normal OS.
    Just need to remember the name of the site

  9. Let me tell you why Google will never have a successful operating system. It's for the same reason that none of the Linux operating systems will ever REALLY make it... The people who work with Linux are in their very own little world.. They really couldn't care less if some dope can sit down to a computer, load an operating system, and have a conventional computer, and live happily ever after.. They don't want a novice to be able to run the system without lessons and advise from the die-hard Linux nerds.. If they would (but I know they won't) develop a system that behaves a little more similar to Microsoft.. like how you download drivers, like developing more of a "point-and-shoot" with your mouse, instead of writing a bunch of gibberish in a command line.. I've tried Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Fedora, PC Linux, Suse.. and ones I can't even think of right now... Unless at least some of you Linux nerds change, you'll always be working alone in your small world of computers.. probably being glad, deep down, that you work with a system that not just anybody can use.. Enjoy it...

  10. The anonymous poster above is dead on. I'm a relatively net Linux user, and although I consider myself skilled with computers, trying to install and run Linux was a pain. There are very few people who have the skills to run, let alone install, Linux.

    Once someone figures out a way to make Linux as easy as Windows to use, then I'll jump on the major-market bandwagon. Until then, Linux, nor any other OS save possibly Mac has any chance of challenging Windows.

  11. I disagree with the last two. I'm also a new Linux user and fairly skilled with computers. I've done a couple of installations on my main laptop (new harddrive), an installation on our home desktop and an installation on an ancient laptop I found in the closet. The installation is clear and straight forward (and fast). I've done a couple of reinstalls of XP, it is more than unpleasant (call MS to be treated like a criminal, take MANY hours to download SP2).

    And as for the command line. It does scare me. Used it a couple of times. Nothing went wrong, it was just outside my understanding. Luckily, I haven't needed it since the 1st month. And now that I know better, I probably could have avoided it with all the other options.

    Mac could never challenge windows. In fact, Apple exists by the grace of ms. But then again it's a smart business arrangement: one dominates the arena with bully tactics, the other holds a small margin but probably makes as much money because of the price they charge for their toxic garbage. All millionaires win while the silly masses bicker.

    MS and Apple don't want you to choose Linux. They're not part of the equation. In fact, they're probably not exactly sure why Linux is still around. No billion dollar ad campaigns or clever logos. There's no sexy package to buy from your local computer store. There has been no attempt to eliminate all competitors. But here it is. The growing choice for small businesses and schools. The choice of financial markets (except London). The choice of Hollywood for creating their movies.

    I think it's important to promote Linux. It's not the evil king. It's the choice of freedom (open source). It's the choice of innovation (run any computer no matter what the hardware). It's the choice for the environment (no need to toss the old, just get a new, free operating system).

    MS and apple aren't choices. They're just what's there. Take a look at them for what they're worth. Very little to you and me. Join the community (nerds and normal people alike). Dictators don't like assembly.

    Thank you.

  12. i think that you need to look at it from the user down instead of from the system up. people really don't care. if all the programs you use are google apps and you use them with the chrome browser, who cares about the underlying OS as long as it is stable and secure.

    but people use there pc for a lot more things and they're not web based. i think 90% of what we do behind a pc is browsing, listning to music, watch movies, write/read mail/documents and play games.

    google got the mail/documents, browsing and covered. They have movies covered partly with youtube, but a real platform to watch tv and hollywood movies is missing. google maybe gonna buy Valve Software? then they just need a itunes killer and the google OS could be on it's way

  13. @anonymous:
    "Once someone figures out a way to make Linux as easy as Windows to use, then I'll jump on the major-market bandwagon."
    I've been fixing PCs for a while (about 2 years), and I can assure you installing Winow$ is a PITA. You're stuck looking at the monitor for about an hour and a half, just clicking the dozen dialogs that pop up.
    I admit linux installation is a bit obscure, but once you read ONE good tutorial, you can install at least Ubuntu with your eyes closed. Think about the first time you tried to install window$... Did you born knowing the installation process?

    And google ain't likely going in a cross-platform direction with chrome... There are no package nor sources available for lunix, just M$ and Mac crap. Even if you go to the linux section of the chromium site all you see is a warning saying "This doesn't work on linux"...

    ;) Peregrino

  14. I don't think it will happen anytime soon for the simple fact that Google wants to make their platform all online.
    The internet is their wiring, their servers the base unit.
    When the backbones of each grid all get updated with fibre in the next couple decades, this will become more of the norm, because the speeds will be much faster.

  15. Isn't Google OS just Google Open Software, like Chromium...

  16. The issue of testing is fundamental of course. That is why I found so fascinating that Google organized an entire conference on Automated Testing:

  17. Why can't you people understand that Linux will never make it, because it is too damn difficult to install, use, etc. I fix PCs too, and let me tell you that 90% of people don't even know how to double click well. That is why windows is so popular because it is EASY as 123. Linux has everything except that special ease of use.

    Being easy for a technician is not enough, you need it easy for the average joe. Btw using a Command line to use an OS, is completely out of the question (ever), come on most people can barely navigate a GUI let alone a CLI.

    Regarding Google OS, I agree that Chrome is google's OS of the future. Google just need more apps with more features (case in point Google Docs needs more features). and people need to upgrade their Internet links (maybe using fibre in the future). Then we will have a Google OS.

  18. PCS -- "I fix PCs too, and let me tell you that 90% of people don't even know how to double click well."

    Well then I posit you this: If someone can't even double click properly, then that someone will be able to install and use Linux just as well as they would be able to install and use Windows. That is to say, they won't. So if it's all the same to the end users, why not go with a more stable OS that is free? (For the purpose of making my point, I am ignoring any benefit gained from commercial technical support that supposedly comes with a paid-for OS.) Windows has a CLI too, but how often do people use that? (Ok, unfair comparison, but my first point still stands.)

    quartertone (Linux user/admin 6+ years)

  19. I'm the first anonymous writer saying that Linux will never be a successful operating system, because.... blah-blah... Very interesting comments came back. But, I have a thing or two more to knock about Linux... If you've installed Linux, how long did you work on figuring out the partitioning?? How many times did you reinstall the operating system?? How many printers did you have to go in search of a driver for?? How many times were there no drivers available for your particular printer?? How about your scanner??? How about figuring out the drivers so you can play your DVD's.?? Your music?? How well did your Starcraft game work on Linux.?? How about your other games?? How many downloads have you made with Linux that you never figured out what the heck went wrong?? Again.. the trouble with Linux is the contentment of those who have spent the time to figure it out....the contentment of those that don't really have anything serious they have to use a computer for. Those who have it figured out seem to have only contempt for those who aren't willing to do it the way they did. Sorry, dude.. It's easier for me to pay a hundred or two for a Windows XP OS.. especially if I figure my time is worth anything... But, I will admit.. Linux is interesting to play with.. You just can't take it seriously, as of yet... When they REALLY want the public to accept Linux, they'll come up with hundreds of changes and improvements...

  20. Anonymous said: "If you've installed Linux, how long did you work on figuring out the partitioning??"
    Answer: Mint did it for me so no time.

    "How many times did you reinstall the operating system??"
    Answer: One install was all it took. Again Linux Mint.

    "How about figuring out the drivers so you can play your DVD's.??"
    Answer: Played right out of the box. I did nothing except put the dvd in the drive.

    "Your music??"
    Answer same as DVD.

    "How many downloads have you made with Linux that you never figured out what the heck went wrong??"
    Answer: none.

    I plugged my Mint box into my router with an ethernet cable and fired up Firefox with no issues. Most of what I did I did with no problems. I did have to reinstall the newest Flash player but I had to do that with my XP computer as well. Programs are super easy. They are all in one place from inside the OS or from Mint's website.

    Mint is incredibly easy to use. It is a derivative of Ubuntu. I did not answer some of your questions because they did not apply to my install. I was building an internet (mostly) machine. I replaced Windows ME with Mint. I would take a Mint install over reinstalling XP any day. I am not a computer expert by the way. just a guy with a high school diploma that plays with computers from time to time.

  21. @Anonymous:
    You have a point there with linux. But that's just because everything is still being developed just for windows.
    There are some distros like Ubuntu that does everything for you and the GUI is really nice!
    Maybe we just have to wait a couple of years for linux to catch up with drivers and makers to understand that linux is now a part of the equation ;)


  22. I use Chrome/Google applications for everything teaching related except student marks, for that I use OO. My point is that the OS, for some people has already shifted to the web. Hopefully Google will get some servers in Canada, or the US will get rid of the Patriot Act b/c universities and government are required to keep private info (i.e., student numbers) on internal servers.

  23. let's hope not..

    no one needs to surrender low level control to google..

    we already have linux, thanks

  24. @ Anonymous : November 14, 2008 3:22 PM PDT

    Sorry, but i don't believe you have even used any Linux recently.
    I don't even nearly count myself as a Linux savvy user, and even i have never came across any of those things you mentioned, even drivers. (Seriously, partitioning?? my sister that failed Computing even knows this stuff)

    The whole Linux driver absence issue is slowly becoming a non-issue each year.

    In fact, i would go as far as saying that Vista has worse driver support than most Linux distros, specifically pre-SP1.

    The reason Linux isn't as popular as Windows, OR Mac, is due to failed advertisement.
    But who exactly is going to advertise it?
    That is the question, and if answered, solution to Linux being "unpopular".
    Oh, and of course that Windows is so cemented into most peoples lives that they (seriously) think that other operating systems are programs for Windows... Macs, even with advertising, can't beat Windows.
    Look what happened when word spread of Ubuntu, it has became pretty damn popular due to word-of-mouth over the year, so much so that Dell offer it as an OS now. (Dell as an example, several others are now doing it i believe)

  25. Hunnter, I COMPLETELY agree.

    Vista took such as step BACK with compatability with programs and drivers that I had to swtich to Ubuntu in order to get my programs, games, and drivers to work! Compatability isn't an issue anymore, with microsoft's Vista security policy.

    As for ease of use, I taught my girlfreind how to use Ubuntu linux in 30 minutes. She's about as average with computer knowledge as it comes. All she does is upload pictures and surf the web, and the occasional word processing for her college courses. She now refuses to use windows.

    The average joe can learn linux easy with distros like Ubuntu. The problem is, people just don't want to sit down and do it, even if it only takes an hour or so.

    Hopefully when this computer illerate generation dies off and the new generations that rely on computers come up, linux will be a fighting force. However, while the majority of people who buy and own computers are rather computer illerate, this will not happen.

  26. Ok, I have to agree with the first anonymous. I am both a computer tech and a programmer. This is not a mater of waiting for people to "die off." Windows as had years of having to deal with the general public, dealing with customers, finding out how people think, to structure things for intuitive designs that make sense to the general population. They don't have to install it; it comes installed on 99% of the computers out there. All of the apps Linux users are so psyched about are equivalent to things MS had ten years ago. And those same apps have 10x more bugs in them than MS ever had in any of their stuff, yet MS catches all kinds of crap for the bugs they have. No one ever calls on the carpet the "bugs" Linux has because as open source, the app is constantly evolving. MS wouldn't make it 10 days if it offered products like that.
    I don't want to be totally down on Linux. Linux does some things very well, especially in the server area. There are a lot of things I don't like about windows and when a viable OS comes along, I'll be happy to give it a shot. I was kind of hoping it would be Google, and probably a lot people were too or there wouldn't be the curiosity brewing about it. And Linux has come a long way. As noted by James, at least one distro seems to have figured it out with Ubuntu philosophy of intuitive user friendliness. They still have a ways to go, but it is a good start. I did not have the same luck with Ubuntu as James seems to have, it did not install correctly on the 2 machines I tried to install it on. Video cards were not supported (2 different cards) and I had no GUI. Now, we use Linux at work. SUSE 10 through SUSE 10.3. They install fine as long as you except all the defaults, if you want ANY of the bells and whistles, then it is not so straight forward. I tried other distros on my own time, same thing. Even after you get it installed things just don't "work", you have to mess with everything: "The gizmo that came with the distro doesn't work with the widget it is supposed to work with, better to download a newest one. Opps, that gizmo doesn't have a RPM or work with YAST, I'll have to compile it from scratch." Even when you do get it working it doesn’t do half the stuff you would expect it to. That includes music and DVD players. One doesn’t create play lists right, a large chunk of stuff out there doesn’t support mp3 format because of licensing issues so you have to use some strange format they do support, but most people have never even heard of. Half the stuff that is out there for the Linux OS are graduate student projects that were turned over to the Open Source Community for other people to maintain and mess with. Which is fine, if that is your thing... But, the average user is not going to put up with stuff like this…

    Here is the point I think Linux people seem to be missing: People don't want to screw with stuff all the time. They just want it to work. And they don’t want to learn some cryptic command line interface ether. The point in using a computer is to make life easier for your self not have to waste time messing with things that are getting in the way of accomplishing the actual job you are trying to get done. If someone is writing a book, they don't want to load an operating system, screw with the operating system to get it working right, mess with YAST, mess with the command line, load a word processing app, screw with that to get it working properly, then write the book. They don't care about tech details, much less want to be bothered by them. They want to open a new box, pull out a computer, press the "on" button, and start typing. They don't have to think about it, it just works. They do not want to screw around with the computer. A computer is a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself, and they don't want to mess with it. This doesn’t make them computer illiterate, they are choosing which OS to be literate on, they are choosing MS because MS has had to deal with the public for years, and know how to design a GUI. They want uniformity, familiarity, standard design; it cuts down the learning curve for learning new apps which boosts their personal productivity, cuts down on stress. I see the next generation using computers too. They tinker with Linux for a bit, but they always go back to using windows, for all of the above reasons. This is not dieing out. When an OS has mastered the ease of use MS OS does it will have a chance. I’m all for it. This is not a “free” software issue. People will pay money just so they don’t have to mess with things.

  27. I think a good point to make here is that "trash talking" open source proponents such as Linux, Firefox and Google will do "end users" no good. It has been these groups that have pushed MS to attempt to make better things (IE, Vista Aero, maybe Windows 7). Keep an open mind to open source, share it with friends and make thoughtful, constructive criticism to the people that matter. Unfounded criticisms on a blog such as this may only deter people from trying new possibilities and spurring the creativity that makes a beautiful, stable, safe and easy to use program.

  28. I'm the "original" (first) anonymous.. back after a few days... LIke I said in my post, I've installed many different Linux operating systems, and I've given up on each one of them.. After seeing Mint Linux talked about here, I'll have to try it... One thing that bothers me is that I've kind of been accused here of not knowing what I'm doing with computers and it being no fault of an operating system if I can't figure it out... Just one minute... I've installed almost ALL of the MS operating systems over the last few years.. I started with Windows 95, came up all the way through Windows 98, Windows ME..on through Windows 2000 and am now working with XP... I haven't tried Vista. Now, I'm an old fart.. but, I've figured out partitioning.. I've repartitioned hard drives a hundred times... mostly for the fun of it..FAT-16...FAT-32 ...NFTS... I've installed each of these operating systems numerous times...uwing various partitioning.. Point being.. I'm not totally ignorant. But, I have yet to make a good, clean install of a Linux system, and then been satisfied with its performance... There has always been something wrong or something I didn't like. Again..I don't want to mess with command line garbage.. I guess I'm a little too old and set in my ways for that... But, MY MAIN POINT IS..."There is no desire by the majority of Linux nerds to make it easy. You put these nerds in a corner and if you press them too hard, they'll just start saying stuff like, "Maybe, if you're so stupid, you'd be better off just sticking with Microsoft.." Well, that's where I am, Bub... Anyway, I ordered a Mint Linux CD and I'm going to give her another whirl..

  29. You are right Mattro. The phrasing of my comments were overly harsh, and I apologize. If you took it as trash talk, I am sorry for my manner, but it should be noted if I was on a windows blog and they were “speaking poorly” of Linux I would be just as vocal in my defense of you, and Windows could learn a lot from the Linux community too, especially in the area of the user configurability of the apps / OS for advanced users (that is one of my pet peeves). As a programmer, I am OS neutral, I really don’t care one way or another. OS’s are tools to me, platforms used to get work done, use the right tool for the right job. As for the commentary being unfounded, well while my criticism may have been harsh or overly dramatic, and I am sorry for that, I don’t think the spirit of it was meant to be mean nor were the comments inaccurate, I will stand by what I said. Look, in college, it was like there was a holy war between the 3 main OS out there. I wish I could say that was just college, but it’s not. If I was speaking ill of Windows here, maybe I’m wrong, but except for a few people here like myself, I don’t think anyone would have blinked. I am not saying Linux stinks and no one should use it, I’m saying this is an opportunity, and all the superiority attitudes, on both sides needs to go away. This is NOT a marketing thing, and or a computer ignorance thing, which seems to be common thought in the community. People are aware of who you are. You really don’t understand the power you have here. You could really kill MS if you really wanted to. But you will have to make some really big philosophical choices / changes to do it. First, you have to decided if you want to be a cryptic arcane OS that a few Geeks (Geek is not derogatory term here, it is a good thing) smile knowingly at themselves while they hit some strange control-Alt-F5-BackSpace key sequence that only they will be able to fully comprehend, while they configure some servers in the back room –Or- You want to be an OS that is main stream, used and loved by everyone. They are mutually exclusive. If it is the former, you are there. And that’s great. If it is the latter, you could eat up large chunks of MS market share and force MS to do the things you want. Excellent examples of this are the apps Mattro mentioned: Firefox, Google, etc.
    If you want to be the OS everybody knows and loves there some things you will have to do:
    1) Stop hating windows and learn from them. Yes MS is the 800 lbs gorilla on the block, but you guys have an advantage here you are not taking advantage of: Know thy enemy. MS has spent uncounted, boat loads of cash researching what makes sense to the average Joe. So... You don’t have to... All you have to do is look objectively at what they found. The first step in designing any product (and you need to look at your stuff as a product) is taking a look at what your competition is doing, and do it better. Maybe Ubuntu is doing that now... We’ll see.
    2) Standardize.
    a. You need to standardize a lot more of what you are doing. Does that have to be standardized from distro to distro? Maybe, but I’ll probably say “no” but that is up to the community and what the item in question is. But within a distro? Definitely. At the very least within major revision numbers. I don’t want to lose the forest for the trees here but you may be asking “What am I talking about?” One example: File structure. If you are a user using a program or a developer making a program where does it go in windows? Under programs. Why? Because it is standardized and has been that way forever. Of course this is just one small example here, but I have seen distros completely change file structures for minor rev .2 to .3. As a developer, if you write a simple install script that puts things in to the correct folders for you under rev .2, well it doesn’t work under rev .3 now. Even if the program is just fine. Yeah, I know there are other ways to handle that, but that is not the point. And from the user perspective, the average user doesn’t want to track “where did they put that widget now?” stuff. By the way, not to belabor the point and distract from the greater issue but there are Open Source .orgs that talk about this. It is not just me. An OS can be stable in many ways, no crashes are one, you guys have that nailed; stability in design is another. Change for the sake of change is instability.
    b. If you really want the average main stream user to work more with the command line interface (or even some GUI apps that require some knowledge of it), if you are serious about it, become more user friendly, standardize it. Make the command line arguments mean the same things across the board: ex. someBinary –a where “a” means “all” (or something) and "a" means “all” everywhere. Maybe even name them something that makes sense and denotes what it does (“grep?”). I know this may not be practical for every single app out there, but 90% of the stuff it would, and your man pages would be much simpler. This could probably be done with a simple wrappers around the code until the community catches on. It doesn’t have to be that complicated.
    3) The last thing (and from the developer stand point the importance of this cannot be understated). I know you guys are the valiant coders working part time for your open source apps, out there. I know it is tough, long hours, when it is just you or a small band of people, with limited resources trying to build or maintain something: it is an act of love. You want more help? You guys want to increase the code base? Want help keeping up with driver development? (or any other development?) I’m going say something really radical here so strap in... You have to get rid of the communal idea evil corporations are coming to get you and realize you are tying the hands of the developers who are willing to help you, but can’t. You HAVE to get rid of the GPL... Replace it with something like WOL. You really have to understand how this works: I am a developer for a corporation. We need some code that does something. I gratefully find some code on the web that is exactly what I need. It is GPL. I can’t use it without giving up all the company’s proprietary code. Company’s need proprietary code to stay in business. So they can pay their employees, so their employees can have a home and feed their dog. I can’t use it. I have to waste time reinventing something someone else already has. On the other hand, if I could use it, without the GPL restrictions, I would incorporate that code in to what I’m doing. While I’m doing that, with the time I gain by not having to reinvent the wheel, I’m more than likely to be developing more code that makes the original code better in some way. If it is not proprietary, then it is no skin off my nose to upload that back to the repository where I got it. Why not? You helped me, I appreciated it, I’ll help you. Companies have to write drivers and things all the time. You guys would really benefit from this. Yes, I know the Lesser GPL is better than the GPL for this sort of thing, but you *really* should check out his site: The guy who wrote the Wide Open License (WOL) gets it. I’m talking about a paradigm change here. The way of thinking about all this stuff above. The GPL is fine for academia, and some people who don’t mind working for free in their spare time in the basement, but for everything else... Well, you are burdening yourselves with not getting the help you need, and end user who is willing, but can’t use your GPL stuff and so feels the community doesn't benifit them, so why help out? This is really holding you back....
    There needs to a philosophy change here, if you really want to do it, be main stream, it is within your power to do it. Your stuff could come out of the tech closet and be great. You really could give MS a run for their money. You don’t need marketing, people already know who you are. I have an idea they are watching and waiting right now... You have to look at people out there not as the “ignorant masses” but as potential customers (I know it’s free, but bare with the idea), a problem with an OS or an app is NOT the persons fault for not “getting” your design, it is YOUR fault for not providing a widget that meets their needs.
    Look, I hope this was taken in the spirit it was intended, I may be plain spoken, but I am not trying to trash you and I mean that. Maybe this is a bitter taste, but it *is* constructive criticism for what it worth. And I wish you well. Good luck, really. And like Anonymous #1, I will also be giving Mint a shot with the next computer I get. :)

  30. Linux is a toy. Nothing more.

    3ds Max? Not on Linux.

    Adobe Photoshop? Not on Linux. (STILL no Raw support in Gimp)

    Adobe After Effects? Not on Linux. (Jashaka is junk)

    Adobe Flash? Nope.

    Cubase? FL Studio? Reason? Nope.

    Yeah, Linux is awesome if you want to be terribly unproductive. And don't mention Wine, even you Linux guys know it's garbage. And it just proves that without yet *another* app, Linux still isn't ready to be mainstream yet.

  31. Wow, a lot of linux trashing here. You guys are being just silly, I use Ubuntu every day, and I've never had to open the terminal except for curiosity.

  32. Wow, I was thinking of going to ubuntu, I have and hate vista. I really want XP back, but thought about changing to Ubuntu because its free. After reading all that stuff - I dont think I will. I think Im stuck with vista unless I cough up cash for XP.

  33. Internet this, Internet that. A Google OS doesn't necessarily have to be associated with the Internet, but obviously seeing that about 99% of Google Applications on the web it would obviously be integrated into the web. A Google OS is basically inevitable for Google to consider, let alone develop. Why was Google brought up in the first place? To combat Microsoft.

  34. The first step for Google to create an OS would be to develop something like FanBox. With Google Apps and everything.

  35. I just tested out FanBox. It is so unresponsive and some of the applications are dead, such as the Web Browser and FanBox messenger. The Web Browser comes up with a blank page named "Untitled", and the FanBox messenger won't let me log into Google Talk.

  36. They already have a Google OS, haven't you seen it yet? Open your eyes, it is everywhere. Cmon, you can do it, THINK....

  37. I am so sick of people saying "There's already a Google OS". Is it embedded in your computer like Windows or Mac? No. Just because people use a lot of Google Products, doesn't mean its an OS, they are web applications!

  38. Linux has a long way to go.Remember the first operating system of microsoft (I can tell u it was sucks).We have to be patientient.Many property of vista come from linux & gnome right now (I know microsoft guys mess it up) but still important point to remember.

    By the way, how many operating system is compleately free for noncomercial organisation and home users? How many operating system can be configured compleately what your style?

    The only problem is many hardware manifacturer still doesn't support linux and I know One day everythings gonna be fine.

    Thats the difference between who you are and who you wanna be.ıf u really happy to have got.Then you can keep going on but if you wanna more.You gonna choose the linux, trust me.

  39. And one more thing.Google doesn't build new operating system.They made a other distribution of linux.It's not a big deal.

  40. Guys we have all strayed from the discussion, its not a linux, windows battle.

    The discussion is about how google is approaching the OS distribution market.

    Like i said in my previos coments. in a few more years the way people look at OS is gona change.

    Google is just making it so that to do you're work you don't really care what lays below you just need a browser and you have all the tools you need to work.
    OS are just gonna become the means to manage the hardware some type of "Advance BIOS" in the means you know its there and does his work and is transparent for the user.

    I myself have seen many OS come and go i have been working with pc's since monochrome screens and punch cards.

    But like a previous comment said in then all you want to do is type and have everything done in less steps as possible.

    And what is gonna be more simpler to some one to be able to work on a centralize system from anywhere you go.

    Take google docs for example, imagine you been able to access you're documents any where anytime and have the tools to work with them on hand and you don't need to worry of the hardware or software that lies below.

    I support them to 100% only need a few more tools and i myself will be able to let of MS Office by example.

    Sorry is my fraces seem kind of incoherent but my English is not the best, working on improving it.

  41. shhhhh! bill gates wallet tells the story.

  42. Google is best in everything so why not os.

  43. Will anyone help me to know who is the no 1 competitor of Google?

  44. above Person no. 1 competitor is Microsoft also Facebook is coming up.

  45. Linux is free but hard as hell to use because I'm not that great with computers. Windows 7 is really easy to use and was also free (torrent). Google is all free too. I would love to see Chrome become a fully web based operating system. Maybe a hybrid of Android and Chrome possibly on whatever comes after the tab craze.