Submitted by “Earlier this week Everex launched the gPC TC2502, which is a sub-USD 200 PC sold at a major US retailer, but what makes this unique is that it runs the gOS. The gOS (GreenOS) is designed to be a conceptual Google Operating System that is based upon Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon. Though this is not the conventional GNOME desktop environment but an Enlightenment E17 desktop is used that is heavily modified and reflects a green Google theme. The gOS provides easy access to Google services such as YouTube, Google Product Search, Google Calendar, and Google Maps. Also a click away are other web services such as Wikipedia and Facebook. This isn’t a pure Internet desktop but Xine, Skype, OpenOffice.org, and other applications are available for this Linux LiveCD. We’ve been trying the gOS out for a while and it’s a rather nice slim desktop Linux distribution that would be perfect for Internet cafes and other public places.” More screenshots.
Its green.
Supergreen!
– Gilboa
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116/quotes)
gOS… hmm. Yeah, I guess Google is beating itself over the head for not releasing a Google OS/copyrighting the name… It looks like some unknown company has beaten Google to it’s own OS. This could potentially be big.
Unless, of course, Google goes against the grain starts an operating system from scratch, and doesn’t simply tag a Linux distro with the “Google” name and call it “gOS”. Oops, already done.
Well, congrats to Everex. They had a good idea, “beat out ” Google, and are selling it at Walmart, for goodness sakes. Genius.
I doubt Google would sell any operating system they design, like mostly everything else it would be ad supported. In that regard, this is saving them money. They’re getting the ad revenue, but they don’t have to put forth the development effort.
I do find it interesting that Everex chose a perpetually beta window manager for such a commercial product offering. Maybe because it offers the advanced yet simple graphical look and feel similar to KDE4, but keeps configuration out of the users way beyond even Gnome?
I also find it interesting that Everex is opening up their work so fully. I definitely respect it, but at the same time I wonder if they’ll be able to maintain dominance in their own software’s market if it takes off. Anyone can build a system and throw their operating system on without Everex receiving a penny. I doubt anyone is going to be particularly interested in Everex’s hardware, much like Apple.
I have always found it curious how google continues to grow while raking in billions in revenue and yet we are willing to ascribe “genius” to those who could not possibly achieve the same by borrowing from google’s success. I’m not saying gOS isn’t a great idea, and it looks absolutely fantastic.
How many times do we have to hear how “stupid” google is for not releasing it’s own OS. google seems to be doing just fine. or isn’t it?
is it just me or did someone deliberately take off the word “tube” to get the “f u” effect?
Its not just you.
This has reminded me of every single alternative desktop we’ve ever seen since the JavaStations and Network Computer. They’re just clueless as to how to put together an all encompassing desktop. Putting together a loosely integrated desktop full of separate components, and then trying to sell it to a ‘niche’ market, is just not going to fly.
People have been telling us for years that there are niche markets where these alternative desktops can go. What happened? PCs got cheaper, and people continued to use Windows.
Yep. Without a task bar and a start button, it just not all encompassing.
Stop being an idiot; here is Joe average; Joe average takes home the computer, he has some games and applications he wants to load on. The don’t work. Sends the computer back to the store because it is ‘broken’.
The end users don’t care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft.
“””
Stop being an idiot
…
The end users don’t care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop.
“””
Stop being an idiot. 😉
Home users != The Desktop
Linux’s next frontier is the business desktop, where it works quite well. As an administrator of Linux business desktops, I can speak from experience. The challenges are different. Hardware and software support are factors. But it makes a huge difference whether you have a hundred desktop boxes being administered by one skilled admin, or Joe (I’m so computer illiterate… tee hee!) Stupid administering his home botnet node^W^WPC.
It helps if one is willing to compromise a bit. Crossoever Office running IE, deployed in a small number of strategic locations, goes a long way towards fulling in the gaps which are left. And if I have to deploy the occasional Windows box for a special purpose app here and there, that’s really not so bad, since they are still running a Linux desktop via NX.
The end users don’t care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft.
You just don’t get it. The gPC surfs the web with a better interface to all of Google’s tools than Win out of the box, has a powerful Office Suite included. Plays movies on DVD and MP3’s out of the box. For most home users that is everything they want. You just have to make sure you tell them it won’t run the latest Windows games – for some home users that’s an advantage. Keeps the kids from wasting their time on your computer.
Actually the gPC sounds like it provides a better out of the box experience than a cheap Windows Vista Home basic system costing a lot more.
“The end users don’t care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft.”
or do what Apple has done
You’re right. There is nothing stopping, however, someone from grabbing an operating system – lets say Solaris. Have a machine with Intel x3100 + CPU etc. Grab the OS, integrate a desktop, lets say GNOME, heavily with the operating system – to the point that it is actually one and the same.
From there, create a good selection of middleware. Create an iLife and iWorks package. Work WITH hardware companies rather than announcing jihads against companies who aren’t willing to opensource drivers. Work WITH middleware companies to get their applications working on your operating system – if it means slipping a few bucks under the table, then do it.
People sit around thinking that making a workable alternative to Windows as some sort of thing akin to landing a man on mars. Its not that hard. The problem is that every time someone comes up with a ‘*NIX for the masses’ (outside of Apple), its either run by an out of touch geek who has no grounding in reality or some MBA wizzkid who is amazed at the most minor enhancements – declaring every alpha/beta a ‘Windows killer’.
Edited 2007-11-04 16:32
I couldn’t agree with you more.
For a long while now I’ve been waiting for some company to come along, create its own custom version of Linux integrated perfectly with its own hardware, and make a killing. This could be that moment.
Of course, this is just one niche market. There’s still a huge potential out there to build custom Linux machines that tap into other markets. My top picks are music production, video editing, and 3D modelling. Sure, all three of these capabilities at once (and more) would be nice, but to be realistic, getting a Linux machine to do just one of these things *really well* would be quite a feat. Priced right it could outsell an all-purpose machine despite its limitations.
Edited 2007-11-04 17:04
I was hoping maybe HP, and when I heard Dell, I prayed that maybe they would hire 500 programmers and get them working on a “Dell OS” which was exclusive to their hardware. It would be a great proposition – and they have the money required for the investment.
Linux/BSD/Solaris – anything really would do the job; the problem as I see it, there isn’t a company willing to make losses off the project for 4 years before it turns a profit – Apple has been the only one willing to do that in the case of MacOS X; it made no profit for the company, it was sucking profits in each quarter, but in the end, as we see today, it all paid off.
Or even just general purpose desktops. End users have very easy requirements to meet. The problem is, there are very few applications in the opensource world which are great.
Take gimp for example – who on earth designed it? they need to be given a publi flogging. Anyone worth their weight in salt will tell you that they should have modularised the core of the code; various rendering/transformation modules, then from there, combining them and building front ends. The net result? you have a common back end which can be shared amoungst different applications; you have a photo editing front end; add webcore/java scripting back end, combine with the existing, and create a web development front end. Rinse and repeat.
Its hardly rocket science modularising the code in such a way to allow a large number of projects to share a common set of back ends. The problem is, again, no one wants to do it in the GIMP community – the net result, *NIX suffers from the lack of quality applications.
Why in the world would a company like HP or Dell pay “500” programers to do an OS, when they are doing just fine as they are? More so to work on an OS they could not “sell”…dream on, it is NEVER going to happen. Reality is companies like HP and Dell are quite happy to be selling Windows based machines, in fact it is much more lucrative market. The only reason companies such as IBM and HP to some degree have been replacing Unix with Linux is simply because they no longer have to maintain a larger staff of programmers when they can get people to do it for free.
The whole Dell/Ubuntu thing was no big embrace of OSS, but merely targeting a segment of users who would chose this product merely because it had Linux, regardless of the quality of the product, or price. The whole joke is that for about the same price of this Dell Ubuntu laptop, I got an HP 17”, dual core, 2GB memory, 3 yr warranty…FOR LESS! To even come close to what I got in terms of specs, you pay over $300 more just to have an OS you could easily have downloaded for free. It does not take a genius to figure out they merely are targeting Linux fanboys.
The reality with this gOS is a machine that is really only targeted to the lowest segment of the market. Even then, as someone earlier pointed out, in all actuality this is not that great of a bargain compared to the similar Vista desktop for $100 more than includes a monitor. The real joke of these crappy Wal-mart junk is my brother just bought for himself a HP with AMD 3800+, 1GB RAM, 250GB SATA, GeForce 6150, VHP, DVD+RW, for $334.
Take gimp for example – who on earth designed it? they need to be given a publi flogging. Anyone worth their weight in salt will tell you that they should have modularised the core of the code; various rendering/transformation modules, then from there, combining them and building front ends. The net result? you have a common back end which can be shared amoungst different applications; you have a photo editing front end; add webcore/java scripting back end, combine with the existing, and create a web development front end. Rinse and repeat.
What in the hell are you talking about mister arm chair programmer? GIMP _is_ already modularized into a series of libraries. GIMP itself uses several dozen other external libraries from other projects. Other applications could use them if they wanted to bring it as a dependency, but GIMP’s functions are pretty specific to GIMP and would only be usefuly if one were writing a photo manipulation tool.
In my experience, most code is too domain specific to worry about code sharing (at least not prematurely). It just winds up causing overly complex interfaces for no good reason.
Sidebar: You do realize that GTK+ used to be a library developed for GIMP (GIMP Tool Kit) right? GTK+ is only shared by every other GNOME application and tons of non-GNOME applications. Yeah. No code sharing going on there.
I’m also not sure what web development, webcore (not even sure what this means) and javascript has to do with GIMP. GIMP is for editing raster images not for making your coffee in the morning.
You are not understanding what he is talking about. GIMP may use a slew of external libs but the program itself is not well built. Case in point, colorspace management, cmyk support, etc. These are things which have not been implemented into GIMP, not because the demand isn’t there but because the program was written in such a way that it can’t be extended without a lot of work. This is the programmers fault, they should have thought ahead and made the program modular enough to extend without having to put in a lot of work, especially considering the lack of developers that they have, they should have put in the work early, to save them some trouble later.
When he means modular he is talking about modular design. The GIMP should split the backend from the UI, among many other things that is frankly holding the gimp back. If this was done then the GIMP could have been used for any purpose, could have been implemented into other apps, and still be a competent Image editor.
Think about it like this, Apple’s Logic is a great pro audio application, but the real beauty of the app is that its backend (the parts that actually handle audio) can be used in other apps without a total re-write, for example Garageband uses the Logic backend for audio. Another example is the latest version of the program has a totally different UI, yet the backend has changed very little and pretty much handles audio in the same way. The GIMP can’t do that, it wasn’t built modular enough for the app to progress without a major overhaul. The same exact concept as Logic can be used for the GIMP if the app were written better. Complaints about the UI would be null, because creating your own UI would be almost trivial.
Edited 2007-11-05 19:44
I do understand what he’s talking about. It’s bunk. It’s the typical user perspective of programming I always get. The idea that just by being modular (which doesn’t really mean anything specifically) it will magically solve all programming problems. It doesn’t. In fact if you go crazy creating too many layers, you wind up with a problem worse than if you had too few.
I don’t care how well you separate the backend from frontend (even if the backend is a bunch of servers that communicate with the the frontend with IPC mechanisms) writing a new frontend will _not_ be trivial. At best it will be easier. In fact, the GUI code tends to be the most bloated and complex.
The reason the GIMP doesn’t have the high color space options is that the image processing code wasn’t written with that in mind. The code still has to be rewritten regardless of where the layer boundaries are. It doesn’t happen by magic. Key assumptions made early on are the problem. Modularity isn’t going to save you from this. Corollary: plan on throwing out the first prototype, because you will.
Apple’s Logic isn’t even a relevant example. You’re talking about image processing in GIMP (which would be your precious backend) and then comparing it to replacing the UI which is an entirely orthogonal issue. The UI in the GIMP isn’t what prevents those features from being added. If Logic’s backend could only sample audio with 4bit resolution at 10Hz, you’d have to rewrite that too. No amount of modularity is going to save you there.
Frankly all this is moot because all the crap people keep complaining about is supported in the GEGL libraries that will replace the composting and processing layers in GIMP for the 2.6 release. The hard part was writing GEGL. Integrating into the GIMP will be the easy part. Any other application can use GEGL. In fact, GEGL has it’s own cli interface to it which is more or less a development tool at this point. Of course, there was nothing stopping anyone from using the GIMP as a backend for a different application in the first place.
In almost any common usage scenario (web publishing and other non-print use cases) the GIMP is better than good enough as is. That is what we’re talking about right? The mythical average Joe user? Average Joe doesn’t need Photoshop.
I do understand what he’s talking about. It’s bunk. It’s the typical user perspective of programming I always get.
If you don’t have an architecture that makes it straightforward enough to add new features, you simply aren’t going anywhere sweetheart.
In fact if you go crazy creating too many layers, you wind up with a problem worse than if you had too few.
Errr, yer, and? That’s not the point being made here. Coupling and cohesion. Go and look it up.
…writing a new frontend will _not_ be trivial.
So what? If you haven’t separated the back-end from the front-end, enough then dealing with the front-end will be that much more difficult because the back-end is in there somewhere.
In fact, the GUI code tends to be the most bloated and complex.
It might be for you, but it isn’t for other people. The reason why is because all the hard work goes into the logic which makes developing your front-end that much easier. It makes it that much easier to change as well.
The reason the GIMP doesn’t have the high color space options is that the image processing code wasn’t written with that in mind.
Errr, yer. They didn’t think of this and didn’t plan ahead.
The code still has to be rewritten regardless of where the layer boundaries are.
Errr, no. Given some thought into your architecture most things don’t have to be completely rewritten. That’s always a bad idea.
Key assumptions made early on are the problem. Modularity isn’t going to save you from this.
Key assumptions made early on in one monolithic piece of software will cause you problems. Everyone else will merely replace the individual components in their system or modify them slightly in a sane manner.
Apple’s Logic isn’t even a relevant example. You’re talking about image processing in GIMP (which would be your precious backend) and then comparing it to replacing the UI which is an entirely orthogonal issue.
You missed the last twenty years of computing and the lessons learned by people like Netscape – reuse code as much as possible and rewriting things will make you bankrupt.
If Logic’s backend could only sample audio with 4bit resolution at 10Hz, you’d have to rewrite that too.
That’s why you don’t hard-code stuff ;-).
Frankly all this is moot because all the crap people keep complaining about is supported in the GEGL libraries…
So they are going trying to modularise the whole thing then? Hint: Modularity is important, but what’s important in making it work is the thought that has gone into what you separate. The proper place for much of GEGL is in a underlying programming toolkit used by other people ;-).
The hard part was writing GEGL. Integrating into the GIMP will be the easy part.
Errr, yer?
Any other application can use GEGL.
Not quite, no, because it’s one monolithic library with base functionality that is replicate elsewhere.
That is what we’re talking about right? The mythical average Joe user? Average Joe doesn’t need Photoshop.
The ‘Average Joe’ comment is the sort of bunk I always get, especially when it comes to Photoshop and the GIMP. Krita has had CMYK support for ages, and it has had it and other features precisely because the developers have paid attention to their development tools and architecture. Most things have been reused from a base toolkit and layers within the system – which can be used by a multitude of other applications and the desktop itself so they don’t have to rewrite it ;-).
I recommend a good systems and analysis book, as well as a programming one, before you get another interview – if indeed you ever do.
Edited 2007-11-05 23:41
First, I’m not your sweetheart mister.
You seem to be mistaking my refutation that the GIMP isn’t poorly designed and is indeed modular as some some admission that I think modular design is bad. Reading comprehension 101 please.
You’ve obviously never looked at GEGL because it’s not a single monolithic library. Just a quick scan of the Makefile.am will tell you that. Even if it was, it would make absolutely no difference. Whether I call f() from liba or libb is immaterial and has nothing to do with modularity. All that affects is memory overhead and the number of flags you have to pass to the linker.
Really, this all has f–k to do with why GIMP doesn’t have these features? The real reason is that nobody that wants them is willing to implement them. They just show up on the mailing-lists can IRC channels whining/demanding them. This is a volunteer project people. If you want it, get busy or pay someone else to.
Stop proclaiming yourself an expert on a code base to which you’ve _never_ even taken a passing glance. Of course, being an VB “programmer”, C might be a little over your head.
You seem to be mistaking my refutation that the GIMP isn’t poorly designed and is indeed modular as some some admission that I think modular design is bad. Reading comprehension 101 please.
You don’t understand it though. The GIMP is poorly designed and is not modular – hence why GEGL has actually come about. Logical fallacy. However, GEGL is still a large monolithic library that doesn’t share much itself, so it isn’t really going to help that much.
This has contributed to the GIMP’s lack of features, simply because they’re just not easy to add without affecting everything else. You’re rather chasing your tail there.
You’ve obviously never looked at GEGL because it’s not a single monolithic library.
Yes it is.
Can you tell me what toolkit GEGL is written with that has base graphical functionality available to, and used by, other applications and desktops (apart from some cursory usage of Glib which doesn’t count)? It’s not enough that you just include a large monolithic graphics library and call it ‘reuse’.
Abstraction should also make things easier to program, as well as providing components that allow you to change and add new features easier. It’s just an awful API to work with:
http://www.gegl.org/api.html
The core of GEGL should probably be in GTK as a bunch of decent, straightforward interfaces that everyone can reuse for free.
Really, this all has f–k to do with why GIMP doesn’t have these features?
Because without the right architecture, they’re extraordinarily more difficult to add. Other applications have many features it has taken the GIMP years to add. This goes to the root of what you don’t understand.
The real reason is that nobody that wants them is willing to implement them.
It’s the usual excuse, but the reason why people are unwilling to add features that lots of other software has is because it’s too much effort to do. If they took less effort to do, people would be more likely to add them and would more likely have the time to add them – no?
Stop proclaiming yourself an expert on a code base to which you’ve _never_ even taken a passing glance.
I never proclaimed myself as an expert. I certainly have taken a passing glance, but it’s rather difficult to explain what’s going on to people who don’t know that modularity is about more than just ‘front-ends’ and ‘back-ends’ and that reusing code takes forethought, time and effort and is logically linked to the functions you wish your application to perform and the base stuff everyone wants to be able to do.
Of course, being an VB “programmer”, C might be a little over your head.
I’m not a VB programmer sweetheart (have used some on and off though as well as C, C++, Java, Python, Ruby and a few others), but I do know people who use it because it’s right for the desktop systems they are producing.
I do find it rather astonishing that anyone has missed the concept of code reuse over the past twenty or so years. I recommend a good systems and analysis book, because this has nothing to do with showing your dick in public about C versus VB (which is the typical response from a C-oriented programmer to something he doesn’t understand).
I was hoping maybe HP, and when I heard Dell, I prayed that maybe they would hire 500 programmers and get them working on a “Dell OS” which was exclusive to their hardware.
So did I in a way. No such luck. Alas, the vast majority profess to creating a genuine Windows alternative, but they simply have no clue what’s involved in doing it – and Microsoft knows that. Squeal ‘lock-in’ all you like, but there’s much more to it than that.
Edited 2007-11-05 20:20
Stop being an idiot; here is Joe average; Joe average takes home the computer, he has some games and applications he wants to load on. The don’t work. Sends the computer back to the store because it is ‘broken’.
Sounds like Joe is broken. Short of genetic engineering, I don’t think we can do anything about that.
The end users don’t care how you wrap Linux, until it has the level of hardware and software support as Windows, its not going to go anywhere near the desktop. Either face reality and fix up the, quite frankly, garbage opensource applications or admit defeat and hand the market to Microsoft.
I don’t think hardware support is relevant here. The box comes pre-configured with the operating system.
As to “software support”, the relationship is backwards. The operating system doesn’t support the software, the software supports the operating system. If the vendor for the software package won’t port to Linux/BSD, it’s not some technical deficiency on their part.
In any case, this product would work perfectly fine in the role the article suggests.
Yep. Without a task bar and a start button, it just not all encompassing.
Clearly you’re clueless as to what binds a desktop and its applications together. Don’t worry. You’re obviously not the only one.
I cannot see how or why this whole thing is any different to what we’ve had before.
Edited 2007-11-04 12:49
Clearly you’re clueless as to what binds a desktop and its applications together. Don’t worry. You’re obviously not the only one.
Enlighten us ol’ wise one.
Enlighten us ol’ wise one.
Sadly, I’m going to tell you to have a look at Windows. Look at how you can program within Windows in an environment such as Visual Basic and start reusing elements of the office suite and desktop in your own applications. Look at how various elements of the desktop and MS Office are available via APIs to each other, and how both use as much as possible and can be used by others. Can you do that with gOS? No, you can’t.
On a far simpler level, I doubt that when you change the theme or colours on this gOS desktop environment (if you even can) that the theme and colours of Open Office or any other application would change as well.
It’s called integration, and few get it. You don’t have to particularly wise to get this at all ;-).
Sorry but noone that recommends Visual Basic could be taken seriously
.net – sure, they have a point, as does Java. I would prefer the latter using RCP.
Sorry but noone that recommends Visual Basic could be taken seriously
I’m afraid you might want to get yourself a job 😉 and look around at what an awful lot of companies are using to develop software with. There is an absolute ton of classical VB around (hence the uproar when Microsoft basically abandoned it), and no one is moving wholesale to VB.Net any time soon (VB.Net is useless anyway because it gives up what made VB actually useful – simplicity without the esoteric parts of OO programming). It’s fashionable to make snide remarks about VB, but they’re usually made by people who haven’t used it, don’t know how to use it and are somewhat cut off from reality. An awful lot of organisations use VB and various components to integrate applications with their office suites, create spreadsheet output etc. etc.
.net – sure, they have a point, as does Java. I would prefer the latter using RCP.
It’s impossible for anyone who recommends Java and RCP to be taken seriously. It’s still a very long way from being a straightforward RAD environment for anyone to use – and it doesn’t have Open Office plug-in components or anything rich that’s ready to use. You get that from Microsoft.
That’s somewhat off-topic though.
The issue still stands. Whatever you use, there are components available within Windows, and Office also, that bind everything together in an integrated way. When you change your theme and colours in Windows the changes are instantaneous, and no one has to make excuses such as different toolkits being used as to why it doesn’t happen.
Whining about this won’t make a difference. This gOS is the latest in a long line of alternative desktops over the past seven or eight years that offers nothing new at all.
Edited 2007-11-05 20:19
An awful lot of organisations use VB and various components to integrate applications with their office suites, create spreadsheet output etc. etc.
Oh look, I work in a Microsoft only shop and we use Microsoft tools for everything. Oh my. What a surprise. Like you have a choice.
I’ve worked in several different mixed shops, and nobody really gave a flip about VB. In fact, in the last few years, I can’t recall a single case were we deployed an application that wasn’t a webapp or java applets disguised as one.
Popularity isn’t a technical argument, but if you want to go there, Java wins.
The issue still stands. Whatever you use, there are components available within Windows, and Office also, that bind everything together in an integrated way. When you change your theme and colours in Windows the changes are instantaneous, and no one has to make excuses such as different toolkits being used as to why it doesn’t happen.
Is this supposed to be an important design requirement? Who is this important to? Fashionistas?
Oh look, I work in a Microsoft only shop and we use Microsoft tools for everything. Oh my. What a surprise. Like you have a choice.
Nope, I most certainly don’t work in a Microsoft shop at all. However, many clients and companies I have worked with do use VB – and it’s because it is good at what it is good at and it’s why many simply haven’t moved to .Net. Sorry to burst your bubble there.
I’ve worked in several different mixed shops, and nobody really gave a flip about VB.
You haven’t been very far. VB is used in an awful lot of companies out there.
I can’t recall a single case were we deployed an application that wasn’t a webapp or java applets disguised as one.
That’s because that’s what you picked – presumably because you thought that was the right way to go.
Popularity isn’t a technical argument, but if you want to go there, Java wins.
Regarding the desktop side of things? Sorry sweetheart. No.
Is this supposed to be an important design requirement? Who is this important to? Fashionistas?
Nope. It’s about making a point as to what a desktop is, what it consists of and what binds it together. It’s important because of usability, consistency, familiarity and it’s the only way you will ever get anyone to write any applications for your desktop.
If you think that it is OK for a desktop to have a fragmented look and feel, a fragmented set of applications, a fragmented toolkit and a fragmented set of development components then you are just never going to get it.
Which is kind of my whole point really.
I will always confuse the name with GEOS. Besides, a Google OS would have to run on BSD, since that’s what they use.
Anyways, if the selling point is that it’s a Linux distro that comes with premade shortcuts, then I doubt we’ll see much of it after this.
I’m pretty sure they use Linux at Google. At least last I heard.
ha, little did you know they are MSs single largest licensee for Server 2003
That doesn’t necessarily mean that its the only stuff they use. Google is a large company they most likely have to support many employees that use Windows as their os. You are not going to admin a windows network with linux/bsd you are going to use windows server because itss the best tool for the job. I doubt that Google uses windows server for their backend stuff though. Last I heard they use an array of servers that run linux on them.
ha, little did you know they are MSs single largest licensee for Server 2003
Unfortunately unlike Slashdot you can’t be marked up funny. But here it is just to clear up what Google really does run on:
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=google.com&position=limited&loo…..
Yeah. I think Yahoo are the ones that primarily use BSD in their backend. I might be wrong though.
I was looking at the screenshots and I saw Gnome and standard applications like Firefox, etc. The only difference to Fedora or Ubuntu was a couple of icons that link to online google applications. Not much of an alternative OS. Just Linux/Gnome with a couple browser links.
Really? I didn’t see Gnome at all. Have you used Gnome?
Have you used Gnome?
If you look really carefully you will see Nautilus being used in Spatial mode as a file manager. It just has a custom theme applied to it and a couple Python-GTK applications to enhance the GUI.
How you can get an OS just like this:
Create some desktop links to open Firefox or Seamonkey browser in new tabs. Right-click and create a new laucher or add a launcher to the Panel. Set a pretty icon by copying the Gmail logo. Add your other Google web applications. Then set the command to (old-school mozilla users substitute seamonkey for firefox):
firefox -remote “openURL(http://gmail.google.com,new-tab)”
I have a screenshot of all this icon launching goodness:
http://markbokil.org/images/gmail-launcher.png
Edited 2007-11-04 03:09
It’s based on Enlightenment 17, not Gnome. It doesn’t use Nautilus at all. I think the file manager is Entropy tho I’m not sure. Anyway, do your research next time 😉
It’s based on Enlightenment 17, not Gnome
Whether is is Gnome, XFCE, Enlightenment or Fluxbox is not the topic of discussion. I had just mentioned it was not anything new. If you know it is Enlightenment then this just further adds to that evidence. I was just using it as an example. Ahh, the pickiness of forum posting when it goes off-topic…
Awww buff…it’s OK to admit you were wrong…truly it is…
Awww buff…it’s OK to admit you were wrong…truly it is…
It was just a guess when I looked at the site. If you feel better I was wrong about mistaking an image for Gnome that was Enlightenment. I hope I can get over it. It is such a big one. The whole point is that it was nothing new. A couple GTK apps with a green theme – revolutionary!
Well wrong again, quite a few of the apps are actually EFL (Enlightenment Foundation Libraries) apps.
Whether is is Gnome, XFCE, Enlightenment or Fluxbox is not the topic of discussion. I had just mentioned it was not anything new. If you know it is Enlightenment then this just further adds to that evidence. I was just using it as an example. Ahh, the pickiness of forum posting when it goes off-topic…
The topic is the gOS distribution of the Linux operating system. What Window Manager/Desktop Environment it uses is very relevant to the discussion. Stop obfuscating the issue. It is not picky to insist on factual correctness.
I was looking at the screenshots and I saw Gnome and standard applications like Firefox, etc. The only difference to Fedora or Ubuntu was a couple of icons that link to online google applications. Not much of an alternative OS. Just Linux/Gnome with a couple browser links.
RTFA – the gOS is using Enlightenment e17 not GNOME. OK there is at least one distro out based on e17.
What is new is selling an e17 based interface orientated towards interaction with Google services, on top of the latest Ubuntu, preinstalled on an entry level PC. That is innovative.
..or simply a Google Linux distribution? I was expecting to read about a homegrown OS that Google developed. _Is_ this anything more than a repackaged Ubuntu?
All it is is simply a repackaged version of Ubuntu with E17 as the default window manager. There is nothing new, exciting or even innovative about this OS except for the theme. I honestly didnt think I would ever see a theme that was uglier than the RISCOS interface. I was wrong.
maybe it’s not google, but just google’s product???
nah, not from this crow…
reference:
http://www.fsckin.com/2007/11/03/interview-with-gos-founder-linux-f…
What is great about gOS isn’t the distribution itself but Enlightenment. gOS clearly shows that e17 and its development framework have alot of potential. With e17, you get a really performant desktop (unlike Gnome/KDE) and believe it or not, more eye candy.
I lost faith in KDE4 already. I think alot of people should do like me and show interest in e17. gOS is just the beginning. I’m sure the devs of gOS/e17 could make the most amazing and functional desktop within a year. The technology is there. What they need now is your interest.
By the way, the font rendering in gOS is the best I’ve seen so far.
Edited 2007-11-04 03:20
I always thought that e17 had a lot going for it. The problem I see that they have been hampered with is slower development. I am not that aware of the development process, but I will take a guess that it may just simply come down to the number of people available. Hopefully this may help some, maybe even Google might assist in spreading the word about e17 to draw in more developers.
I am kind of surprised that they did pick e17 to run off of Ubuntu. Although I have no complaints, it does seem strange that Google wouldn’t just re-brand so to speak Ubuntu/Gnome and release that. Not to knock e17 at all, but Gnome is a much more finished product than e17.
Lastly I am surprised that they do not offer a special webcam that will simply monitor your every waking move, kind of easier than scanning your e-mail and tracking your every move Google (sorry, I find Google to be just an annoying entity).
Google is in no way involved in the project. The link between Google and gOS is that gOS developers used Google applications as parts of their system. Oh, and this green pc too.
They didn’t use Gnome or KDE because they put a slow-ass 1GHz or so VIA CPU in there, but they still want the performance to be snappy.
Many people get this wrong on forums. The word alot is not a real word. It is two words as in a lot.
A comment from fscking Linux:
Actually “maarten kooiker” is right on the money the same PC comes with a 17″ monitor and 1Gb of RAM for $300. the gPC starts at $199 + the cheapest monitor – $134.98 + another 512 MB RAM (cause the gPC only comes with 512 MB) $25.87 for a total of: $359.85… Almost $60 more that the windows PC so can someone explain to me why this is such as good deal?
Balmer’s right. Linux TCO is higher than Windows.
I’m hoping this is sarcasm. TCO has nothing to do with the home consumer, and you’re comparing hardware costs between two vendors. In your example, the operating system has absolutely nothing to do with the prices you are comparing. Apples to Oranges.
What do you mean by two vendors? They’re all Wallmart’s.
this more looks like “hey Google, we have a Linux distribution with Google all over it.. please buy us..”
possibly only interesting part is Enlightenment.
“The gOS (GreenOS) is designed to be a conceptual Google Operating System”
Says who? Because whoever says that is an idiot. It is an eMachine clone with Firefox shortcuts on the desktop. It has nothing to do with Google.
The manufacturers website didn’t say that they were trademark-infringing goofballs, so maybe it is just the reviewer making this trash up.
I downloaded the ISO and played with it some. Its just a stripped version of Ubuntu with the perpetually beta E17 desktop and some internet shortcuts to various Google Apps web pages.
it’s just another useless linux’s distribution!
Edited 2007-11-04 10:24
Like it says in the article (although some commentators here don’t seem to read the actual articles at all before writing their off-topic negative comments… Seems to be rather common phenomena among OSnews commentators these days..?), gOS could be quite good “for Internet cafes and other public places”. It’s probably relatively fast and probably has rather low system requirements, no bloat that is not needed in internet cafe kind of use. The looks are not bad either. This could develop to become a good product for internet cafes.
(see, writing comments that are positive and not off topic is not really that difficult if you just try a little – like read the actual news article before commenting…)
Edit: It is also good to see Enlightenment E17 technology in some real practical use at last instead of being only a desktop in constant development used by a few developers and geeks only.
Edited 2007-11-04 11:00
How long will it take before Google sends these guys a cease-and-desist letter for copyright enfringement? I mean it’s way more obvious than Windows vs. Lindows, don’t you think so? Are these guys serious?
Are you a complete tool? Does Google have “g” copyrighted, or the title “green”. Believe it or not, you can’t capitalize a letter, which is why businesses and products pop up all over with the “i” prefix.
“g” means “green” officially, but in real life, every one knows it’s intended for Google, especially the desktop being particularly Google-centric, the “G” logo is very similar to the Google “G”, the big Google search in the upper-right corner, links to Google Calendar, Gmail, etc…It even has “Google” in its slogan, LOL…
Well I may be wrong, but I’m fairly certain that Google doesn’t mind the automatic web traffic. After all, it does make them money, and they already give away all the services this OS links to. That’s an important point too; the OS developers set up links to the various Google services but do not install any Google software, and even if they did it would surely be okay with Google as they give away all the software they develop.
Beyond that, the Everex website even has a disclaimer that they are not affiliated with Google. I’m sure that’s just extra added legal protection and probably unnecessary, but it’s there all the same.
It has icons to google services along with icons to many non-google services. How is this google centric?
It seems this whole “Google OS” thing is something the reviewer dreamt up since Everex never states this anywhere.
It’s a lower case “g”. They all look pretty much the same and even then Google does not have an exclusive right to preface their products with a “g”. I Could create a product called gBrowser or gModem or gWhatever as much as I want.
Really? Since when does “The Alternative PC for the Masses” have “Google” in it?
“Really? Since when does “The Alternative PC for the Masses” have “Google” in it?”
http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/shot800…
Too bad that’s not the product slogan.
What’s most interesting to me isn’t so much the actual operating system, but the fact that they are marketing them in Wal-Marts. Doing a quick search on the Walmart website, I found that it’s not quite available in our nearest Walmart, but is in the next one over. Because it is a Linux operating system, I’m hoping Walmart will have at least one on display instead of just stacking them near other computers, or they will get a *lot* of returned computers from buyers who were not aware of what they were getting. I agree more with it’s usage as better for an internet cafe or something of the like than a general consumer PC at Wal-Mart.
Side-note: Didn’t Linspire use to have Linux PC’s in Walmart that didn’t go so well?
Just like Google they have logged every search you have made since the first time you used it.
Nothing like a big brother operating system to make sure the minions are in line.
NO thanks and no thanks to big brother.
Not that I don’t believe you, and in fact I am downloading the ISO as I type this so I can try it out myself…but would you mind posting something to back up that claim? Call me naive, but I find it hard to believe that a company who markets themselves as friendly to the open-source community would do something like that.
What did you see that made you come to the conclusion that your searches are logged, apart from the cookies and history that are always logging every web session of nearly every browser on every operating system? Is there a special “Joe User is searching for this” secret log hidden in the filesystem? If so, how did you find it? Sorry for all the questions but I am intrigued and I want to find this myself.
This thing is just a few megabytes too big to fit on standard 80 minute CDRs. My current drive/media doesn’t seem to be able to overburn the extra needed amount without errors. Maybe I’m just too anal and/or poor, but I think it would have been awesome if they could have shaved it just a tiny bit so it would fit on a CD by default! I guess now that HD/Blu-ray is up and coming, I should finally get around to buying a DVD burner!
Well they actually state on the download page that you will need to burn it to a DVD. I also feel that it is a waste of a DVD though, just to burn ~28MB beyond a regular CD.
Well, it could be better if they integrate it with the mozilla prism proyect.
I like the interface, and Ubuntu based distros are the way to go!…now, to go where? ^_^
Is there a formal release ?
Linux distribution. Nothing new…
I think a google/Linux OS would be really good for Linux in general, sticking “Download Google OS Now for FREE” on the homepage of google.com would generate alot interestin a short period, maybe more than some OS’s have in years.
Edited 2007-11-05 09:19
It wouldn’t really do much for Linux, since the average person isn’t going to install an OS. They get it preinstalled when they buy a PC.
‘The gOS provides easy access to Google services such as YouTube, Google Product Search, Google Calendar, and Google Maps.’
– Great, if you happen to use google, for your mail, your search etc. Where’s my link to yahoo mail?
‘perfect for Internet cafes and other public places’
– I don’t know where OSnews visitors find their internet cafes, but the ones near me all run Windows. I’ve never seen one that used anything else. Probably because the people that work in them are students surfing the internet with IE when you go in there (not geeks browsing OS News) and wouldn’t know what to do if their was a problem with a computer except click on Start->Restart. That’s why (in my opinion) this ain’t going anywhere. As for ‘other public places’, most of computers you seen in public places run in some sort of kiosk mode where you don’t even see the OS (which is normally windows).
Another thing I think is that people who go to internet cafes to check their email generally don’t care about OS, the only people who do (looking at the comments and arguments in this thread) are to busy trying to get points for their profiles at os news, and fighting over whether it’s Gnome or Enlightenment they can see in the screenshots. Who cares? If this ever makes it into an internet cafe near you, the people using it certainly aren’t going to.
Google has an operating system called “gOS”. It’s Ubuntu plus e17 plus a number of links pointing to Google applications. It’s neither revolutionary nor in any way beautiful.
e17 might be a smart choice because it is fast. Apart from that? Its development process is really, really slow, and it cannot at all compete with Gnome or KDE.
What remains? Ubuntu, some icons, and … ah, Google. If it wasn’t for “Google” noone would care less for that ugly desktop.
I for one, welcome our new gOS overlords!