Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s not-so-secret new OS

techspecs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 561 posts

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#551

Post by pswilson14 »

iainmerrick wrote: post #505
pswilson14 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of factions in Microsoft fighting for control is interesting to me from a historical perspective - do you have any books or sources I can read to get the full story?

I don't have any detailed links handy, but it's definitely common knowledge that this is the case (or used to be, anyway). Manu Cornet's comic captures it well: http://www.bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts/

I'd agree it's common knowledge, but I love reading detailed accounts of that kind of thing. Cheers anyway!

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#552

Post by flukus »

lmm wrote: post #539
flukus wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that another example of manufacturers not supporting their hardware? Are the windows/FreeBSD drivers still maintained or do they just still work?

I think I quoted the wrong line. They're not maintained, but they still work because Windows and FreeBSD have stable driver ABIs.

WebGL and webusb make that a big security risk.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#553

Post by lliamander »

mcguire wrote: post #508
lliamander wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the glee of the first time I got an X-Window application to run over the network. I was so confused though because the "x-server" is the software you run on your client machine.

You and the Unix Hater's Handbook authors. There is a small terminology issue here: a "server" is a program that offers services to remote "client" programs. The clients make requests and the server responds to them. A client program will make a request like "allocate me a chunk of the screen and put these here bits in it", or "let me know about any of these events that happen". The server manages the screen and noti…

This made me laugh (in a good way).

I agree, it actually does make total sense - but that doesn't mean I won't get confused :).

My only prior exposure to "GUIs over the network" were web applications, where the roles are essentially reversed. That is, the part responsible for accepting user input and rendering the UI is the client (the browser), and the part that performs the application logic is the server.

I naively assumed that X would work the same way, but it wasn't too hard to unlearn that misconception.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#554

Post by mastazi »

nitemice wrote: post #534
mastazi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> developers seem too reluctant to get on-board too Might be limited to your specific environment though. As a counter-example among the people I know there are far more .NET devs than the total sum of iOS/Mac/Android devs.

I'm not referring to .NET. I know tonnes of people getting on board to .NET train. I'm referring to the UWP apps. Nearly no one seems to be getting on board that.

> I'm referring to the UWP apps.

Then I have to agree with you; UWP will go the way of Windows RT & the dodo, unless MS forces it as the main dev paradigm (which seems unlikely).

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#555

Post by pier25 »

macintux wrote: post #17
pier25 wrote: post #9

We definitely need a universal OS for all our devices and I really believe Google is in a great position to get us there. It would really surprise me if Apple got there first. Tim lacks vision and will keep on milking iOS even if the iPad Pro is a failure as a laptop replacement. Windows is still king in the desktop space, at least as far a user base goes, but it's terrible on tablets and phones. MS has all the tech…

You may "definitely need" a universal OS but I'm far from convinced I do. I don't buy that a finger and a mouse/trackpad pointer are equivalent input devices. One obscures the display and is imprecise. The other, well, isn't. I'm fine with a different server OS than desktop. I see no compelling reason why I need a single OS for all of my personal devices.

The UI is but a small part of an OS or an application.

It's obvious that the UI has to be different depending on the device, input, etc.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#556

Post by pier25 »

macintux wrote: post #218
skj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You listed windowing/UI concerns. And, while they may commonly come bundled with the OS, they're not the same thing.

They're a platform concern. Not only does the OS UI reflect the input method, every single application you run does as well. A touch-optimized application will be clumsy and primitive when using a mouse; a mouse-optimized application will be miserable when using a finger. If an application can be written once for both, often it'll be a poor compromise or only properly support one of the two input methods. Look at how…

Again, the problem is pretending to use the same UI for all input methods. And I agree that is a mistake.

But what if you could use the same language and frameworks on all devices? The same tools (IDE, code editor, compiler, etc)? That's what I'm referring to.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#557

Post by pier25 »

macintux wrote: post #475
skj wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a single platform for all our devices: mobile, tablet, desktop, etc, is a mistake. The word platform means more than just the OS and includes the entire L&F/experience with the UI. I think a single OS for them all is fine. Consider gnome+linux vs android+linux. They're both linux, and they're not the same platform.

By that definition, I could argue Apple got there years ago by using the same core kernel and frameworks for OS X and iOS. That's clearly not what the original poster was arguing.

iOS and macOS are much more different than a change of UI.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#558

Post by pier25 »

vlunkr wrote: post #19
pier25 wrote: post #9

We definitely need a universal OS for all our devices and I really believe Google is in a great position to get us there. It would really surprise me if Apple got there first. Tim lacks vision and will keep on milking iOS even if the iPad Pro is a failure as a laptop replacement. Windows is still king in the desktop space, at least as far a user base goes, but it's terrible on tablets and phones. MS has all the tech…

Does Tim lack vision, or does he just not share your vision? You might think we "need" this but not everyone agrees. Combining Chrome OS and Android is uninteresting to me, since I wouldn't be able to develop on it or really do any of the things I use a computer for. Unless they plan to really build on it and attempt to compete with more mature desktop operating systems.

He lacks vision, not because he doesn't share my vision, but because of everything he has done in Apple. That's not to say he is a bad CEO, he isn't IMO, but he is only polishing the same ideas from 10-15 years ago. I'm not even arguing that's a bad thing per se, it's just how things are.

Also, I really don't see how a developer could argue against the notion of having a single language, API, IDE, compiler, etc, for working on all devices.

> Combining Chrome OS and Android is uninteresting to me, since I wouldn't be able to develop on it or really do any of the things I use a computer for.

Time will tell.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#559

Post by pier25 »

stephentmcm wrote: post #13
wmccullough wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible on tablets and phone? Phones I can agree with but the surface line is getting to be really solid. I've been an iPad guy for years and my next tablet will be a surface.

A surface isn't a tablet, it's a laptop with a touch screen. I've tried them and they are really nice as laptop but they fallback to a finger hostile UI way to often to be called tablets.

Indeed. The tablet aspect is pretty mediocre.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#560

Post by pier25 »

Sanddancer wrote: post #193
pier25 wrote: post #9

We definitely need a universal OS for all our devices and I really believe Google is in a great position to get us there. It would really surprise me if Apple got there first. Tim lacks vision and will keep on milking iOS even if the iPad Pro is a failure as a laptop replacement. Windows is still king in the desktop space, at least as far a user base goes, but it's terrible on tablets and phones. MS has all the tech…

We don't need a universal OS. I'd go as far to say that a universal OS is bad. A universal OS leaves no place for experimentation, no place for different UI concepts, no place for people to customize things to the way they want. Would you really want every shirt to look the same? Every refrigerator, every door? Style is important.

People usually confuse an OS with a UI.

Obviously different devices need different UIs.

Post reply on HN