Google to launch OS

Jakg

Just to point out - Chrome OS suggests Cloud based, the "proper" hardware based OS will probably be Android - people have already got Android running on Netbooks...

[Deleted User]

Marty_J wrote: »

If Apple really wanted to kill Microsoft, they would just release OS X for PCs and that would be the end of that.

And if you believe that, you're a fool.

gooner045

anewhope wrote: »

And if you believe that, you're a fool.

I wouldn't say he is a fool, but his complete bias to anything Apple related, is getting a tad annoying.

I tend to skip his biased opinions now.

Actually it was a foolish statement he did make tbh

RobertoMoir

Marty_J wrote: »

Apple haven't been trying to kill Microsoft. They've just been trying to make piles of cash.

yep

Marty_J wrote: »

If Apple really wanted to kill Microsoft, they would just release OS X for PCs and that would be the end of that.

The end of what? The making piles of cash? The end of Apple? I do hope not... i love my iphone, mac mini and my macbook pro even if they are a little expensive. I hope apple don't listen to your idea to commit business suicide.

You do realise that supporting OSX on all PC hardware is much more complex and therefore costly than supporting it on the carefully chosen and "blessed" combinations that apple sell themselves, right?

kwikbreaks

Rich44 wrote: »

If this is open source then surely if it gets popular then the hackers that are out there are going to find security holes even more easily than they do with Windows

Open source software tends to be far more secure than proprietory because surprisingly the number of good guys looking for possible loopholes and producing patches to fix them exceeds the number of bad guys looking and trying to exploit them.

Linux/Apache is the most commonly used opsys/webserver combination on the internet and both are open source. Microsoft with their sloppy inefficient proprietory code don't come anywhere near either for security or reliability.

[Deleted User]

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Open source software tends to be far more secure than proprietory because surprisingly the number of good guys looking for possible loopholes and producing patches to fix them exceeds the number of bad guys looking and trying to exploit them.

Being open source is in no way indicative of the knowledge, skill or quality of the people involved in the project. Software design needs structure, direction and consistency which too many open source projects lack. Take a look at the code for OpenOffice, it's a shambles. I certainly get the impression that too many people have taken a microcosmic approach to the small part they have been involved in without having an awareness of the overall impact.

Linux/Apache is the most commonly used opsys/webserver combination on the internet and both are open source. Microsoft with their sloppy inefficient proprietory code don't come anywhere near either for security or reliability.

Indeed Apache does have the majority of market share, but the Windows Server line is stable, efficient and well performing. Neither is impervious to intrusion, as any server facing the outside world is at risk.

kwikbreaks

Agreed that just because a piece of software is open source doesn't mean it is good. I tried OpenOffice and on low grade hardware (such as this netbook) it performs very slowly.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the suitability of MS software for webservers because I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

For anybody still interested in Chrome OS there are a few more nuggets in this article on the register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/08/google_operating_system/

Jaffa.

kwikbreaks wrote: »

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the suitability of MS software for webservers because I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

It would make more sense for Google to make a web/server OS seeing the internet is their market, like it made sense for them to make a web browser.

Marty_J

RobertoMoir wrote: »

You do realise that supporting OSX on all PC hardware is much more complex and therefore costly than supporting it on the carefully chosen and "blessed" combinations that apple sell themselves, right?

Of course it's more complicated, but Apple don't have to support OS X on all PC hardware. They just have to support it on a small range of computers from Dell or whoever.

If people think being able to buy a computer running OS X for £299 from PC World wouldn't hurt Microsoft, then they're the ones being foolish.

Not that Apple would ever be interested in doing such a thing; they make enough money as it is without the added hassle. Their business is making computers, not hurting Microsoft.