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

Google Chrome OS and How the Web Went Nuts Over It

dailygyan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: Google Chrome OS and How the Web Went Nuts Over It

#11

Post by aj »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #6
aj wrote: post #5

Good sum up. Amazing amount of hysteria. Especially liked the comment by The Register on Techcrunch.. NB. Wanted to comment, sucky comment box, did not bother trying to figure out why it is wonky.. Simply gave up.

I don’t see what’s amazing about the amount of hysteria. Let’s be honest with ourselves here this news is entirely entertainment at this point. Google gave virtually no concrete facts, specs, etc... So no one could have any of their important decisions influenced by this even if they wanted to. This whole news meme is based entirely around idle speculation for entertainment’s sake. Basically people are getting riled…

Heh. You probably misunderstood my post. I essentially agree with you. By hysteria I meant that everyone is getting oh so excited about chrome without too much detail calling it the windows/office/full scale OS killer

Re: Google Chrome OS and How the Web Went Nuts Over It

#12

Post by aj »

noamsml wrote: post #7
aj wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very hard to get all the hardware makers to create drivers (or create them yourself) for your OS. Wrong. They are using the linux _kernel_ which does NOT include drivers for all (or any) hardware devices! Also wrong. Many applications exist that already run on Google Chrome OS. They're called webapps. That's sort of the point. That's sort of the point that you did not get. A lot of apps are NOT available as a we…

> Wrong. They are using the linux _kernel_ which does NOT include drivers for all (or any) hardware devices! Ugh. The kernel includes the drivers either in the kernel image itself (hence monolithic) or (more likely these days) as modules, most of which are part of the vanilla kernel source. ANYONE who's ever compiled a kernel knows this, because it's right in the config menu — which drivers to include and which not,…

Ugh. The kernel includes the drivers either in the kernel image itself (hence monolithic) or (more likely these days) as modules, most of which are part of the vanilla kernel source. ANYONE who's ever compiled a kernel knows this, because it's right in the config menu — which drivers to include and which not, which should be part of the image and which should be modules

Right I'll go tell NVidia/ATI to shut down their driver department and dust out my 15 year old dot-matrix printer. And please note, this is not from the perspective of the Chrome OS but from the point of kernel including all the drivers which it honestly cannot. There are a LOT of hardware devices/printers whatever. If the kernel included drivers for ALL the hardware available out there (how about the zillions of cheap chinese devices) then I think it would be bloated even more than Windows! What I do accept is that the kernel does include generic drivers for essential hardware (VGA or generic video drivers, k/b, monitor, mouse/touchpad etc)

it may be possible at some point in the future to write a good image editor for the web using HTML5 canvas.

Sigh.. That was just an example. There are a lot other tasks that users expect out of a even a basic system that say windows/linux netbooks CAN do that chrome (from what information is available) will not be able to.

They said the Linux kernel (which apparently includes more than you thought it does). They didn't say only the linux kernel. I imagine glibc (or eglibc) stays. In fact, I suspect most of the GNU devland libraries will be present, if to be used only by OS developers and not by app developers.

From the official announcement: The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform.

The announcement clearly states: The basis is clearly the kernel. Assuming it as targeted at consumers, I doubt glibc or the various compilers or development libraries never to be used by the consumers will be included. And the last sentence, The platform for app developers is the web. It is not targeted at OS or app developers so it would not make sense to include those libraries.

Re: Google Chrome OS and How the Web Went Nuts Over It

#13

Post by noamsml »

aj wrote: post #12
noamsml wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong. They are using the linux _kernel_ which does NOT include drivers for all (or any) hardware devices! Ugh. The kernel includes the drivers either in the kernel image itself (hence monolithic) or (more likely these days) as modules, most of which are part of the vanilla kernel source. ANYONE who's ever compiled a kernel knows this, because it's right in the config menu — which drivers to include and which not,…

Ugh. The kernel includes the drivers either in the kernel image itself (hence monolithic) or (more likely these days) as modules, most of which are part of the vanilla kernel source. ANYONE who's ever compiled a kernel knows this, because it's right in the config menu — which drivers to include and which not, which should be part of the image and which should be modules Right I'll go tell NVidia/ATI to shut down thei…

1. The kernel doesn't include proprietary drivers (though I suspect Chrome OS's kernel will), and may not include some obscure drivers, but it does include drivers for lots of hardware makers, and not generic ones, but specific ones (ipw* and atheros, ... wireless cards, intel video, OSS nvidia and ati drivers, etc etc etc)

2. You keep assuming that because they say the linux kernel they mean only the linux kernel. You mentioned printing — why do you think CUPS won't be present? Also, I didn't say app developers would use glibc, but the chromium port will use it.

Re: Google Chrome OS and How the Web Went Nuts Over It

#14

Post by tjogin »

noamsml wrote: post #8
jacquesm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First of all, nobody seems to appreciate how goddamn hard it is to make an operating system. You don't just wake up one day and fall out of bed and make one. And even that is total nonsense, I wrote my own os about 15 years ago, it took about a year to get it to work. It is definitely possible to write an operating system, if an individual can do it a company with the resources of google could certainly do it (but t…

I think he means "good OS that works on lots of machines well".

Having an OS work on lots of machines is not really a requirement of a good OS.

While they needn't go the Apple route with all-proprietary machines, they neither need to go the Microsoft route and have it run on everything.

Maybe a middle of the road approach is best for this niche of the market.

Re: Google Chrome OS and How the Web Went Nuts Over It

#15

Post by noamsml »

tjogin wrote: post #14
noamsml wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means "good OS that works on lots of machines well".

Having an OS work on lots of machines is not really a requirement of a good OS. While they needn't go the Apple route with all-proprietary machines, they neither need to go the Microsoft route and have it run on everything. Maybe a middle of the road approach is best for this niche of the market.

If it's sold in boxes, it should work well on many machines, otherwise it's going to get bad publicity, but you're right that if it's bundled with machines, it only needs to worry about some hardware (though it still needs to worry about all peripherals).

Re: Google Chrome OS and How the Web Went Nuts Over It

#16

Post by tjogin »

noamsml wrote: post #15
tjogin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an OS work on lots of machines is not really a requirement of a good OS. While they needn't go the Apple route with all-proprietary machines, they neither need to go the Microsoft route and have it run on everything. Maybe a middle of the road approach is best for this niche of the market.

If it's sold in boxes, it should work well on many machines, otherwise it's going to get bad publicity, but you're right that if it's bundled with machines, it only needs to worry about some hardware (though it still needs to worry about all peripherals).

It's not going to get bad publicity if it works well on the hardware it's supposed to work well on. The OS is meant for netbooks remember?
Post reply on HN