Off-Topic > Off-Topic - Tiny Tux's Corner

Google OS

<< < (2/3) > >>

jpeters:

--- Quote from: Jason W on July 09, 2009, 12:28:40 AM ---
On  a related note, I found that Opera with Youtube videos uses 35% of my cpu on my 800mhz box, while Firefox plays the same videos using all of the cpu along with some skipping.  Seems that Opera uses ~30% of the cpu usage of Firefox in the same flash video setting.   Just a tidbit of info that may help.

--- End quote ---

Hm...don't know why that is.  I compared Opera with FF_3.5  on my Dell laptop, and both have about the same cpu usage. ... somewhere in the 50-70% range.  I also use links quite a bit...mainly because of the speed.

curaga:
My own thoughts are that this might be enough for web-centric users, or to show the general public one doesn't need Windows to use the 'net.

For my own use it would be way too limited, not only having access merely to a browser, but also that I don't really trust Google. The fact it will have Chrome, which knowingly calls home...

alu:
share your mind curaga, google looks suspect, and i don't need to be restricted to one provider even if it would be just in order to browse or check emails

samedirection:
I think that this announcement is great news for the Open Source movement. 

How exactly can vendor lock-in occur? or restriction to one provider?  The OS will be open source.  There will be forks of the project  within days, and totally new "based-on" distros and extensions within months.   These projects will do whatever their teams have the resources to pull off, and that will certainly include making a basic build platform on which to build existing code.  Quite interestingly for us, they'll all (apparently) be starting from a 'small / quick / light' base. (by some definitions of those words!).  If Google succeeds at getting OEMs to install it, you'll be able to buy a lot of of very cool (light but modern) hardware without any Windows tax, and---just like any of us would now if we bought a Linux netbook---you'll be able to upgrade the OS on that hardware to whatver distro of Google OS, or TinyCore 5.4rc3 you want. 

I could imagine that there will be some interesting work done in the process of building a Linux system up from such a minimal base that will help TinyCore.  In a similar way to how we now benefit from, say the Puppy Linux community's work to help Xvesa be usable on newer hardware.

The 'new windowing system' may even turn out to be of interest to TinyCore. 

Whatever the capabilities of the original release (which I suspect will be more than just a 'browser on a stick'), the impact of the OS will go far beyond that.  I'm suprised Richard Stallman hasn't come out with accolades.  I think this is the real beginning of what he's fought for all these years.  Finally we can have proper re$ources working together with us little guys, to make free (re-distributable, changable) software that anyone can use. 

Sure, there could be ways to lock users in, (burning the OS in as unchangable firmware is the only one I can think of), but nothing I've heard so far gives me any reason to think this is anything but a Very Good Thing for those who use and advocate Open Source / Free software.  Or?

curaga:
Vendor lock-in would start with the new windowing system - how would you run say Firefox on it? FF supports X, like all other standard unix apps for decades. Likely anything for X won't run on it, requiring porting per-app.

Of course the OS itself won't likely try to prevent hacking it, even those that do fail. But vendor lock-in is effective if only skilled people can make a change; if there is no way for a normal user to install another browser inside the OS itself, it is lock-in.

So, it will take more than a few days for forks with other GUI apps. Command-line stuff and kernel modifications might come sooner.

Re good for open source - I think so too that the net effect will be positive.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page