Possibility Of A Google Os ?

[cyborgxxi 0]

Really, a google OS isn't what is needed.  What is needed is a free OS that is as easy to use and work with as microsoft's Windows(for the normal tasks that a normal noob will do on a computer), but without the downsides and pitfalls of both windows and linux in its current form.

 

Linux could get there, and I look forward to trying out ubuntu linux/gnoppix to see if they have moved things that direction.

1064282604[/snapback]

Hey I agree with MTF too!! It's not smart people you need... you need to have dedication and a good plan to make your Operating System worth while. For example, maybe some features are like:

 

1. Free-to-use

2. Benefits of use

3. Open-source

4. Stuff that enpass the big operating systems out there

 

So simply, how can it be better than the big operating systems, like Windows and Linux? Mac?

 

But if Google doesn't want to do it, then that's fine Many times, though, I wonder how they get funded.

[twitch 0]

In order for Google to come up with an O/S that people would invest or download if it was free, would take a considerable amount of dedication and effort.Google's somewhat relaxed and happy-go-lucky is a very hard 'business karma' to have, as businesses often come with stress and hard times. To get the team to go from being relaxed in their approach from designing web applications, and now desktop applications, to building an O/S would be a big step. It would almost ruin the karma of the company, and may prove to be a downfall, if they were to dedicate themselves to it.However, if they were to maintain their approach and slowly, but surely, step on Microsoft's toes, I wouldn't be surprised if Google took over some smaller organisations, like the FreeBSD and accompanying Linux Kernel Platforms, and brought them under the wing of Google, to fight Microsoft's domineering power in the war of the O/S.I think that in the near future, we may even see Google realising a shell to Microsoft Windows Vista, which puts the users into a flexible and more stable environment within Windows. I would also expect them to do this for Linux.

[inconnu1405241515 0]

You are not going to spend any money on a stuff you don't know what it will give you; I understand that's what the poll results so far inidicates, and I agree, too.A good question was asked earlier in this thread, as to how Google funds itself.Free as it may appear to you, they must and are making every efforts to secure enough income, invisibly and/or indirectly.Say there's a free-for-end-users OS; for example, it can have a forced advertisement show up every time you boot your machine, start an app, or simply just every XX seconds or minutes. They'll charge the advertiser instead of the end-user.For me, it is hard to imagine Google is willing to develop just another head-to-head, apple-to-apple replacement to existing OS's, with the only difference being the way it is charged for.I agree to twitch, Google may rather come up with a shell, plug-in, applications that will add-value to any existing platforms (which is basically an extention to what they do already today.)Otherwise, Google may launch an appliance type of thing dedicated to the Internet based activities like web-surfing, e-mailing, instant messaging, etc.If that's what you call an OS, why not?

[tiancongxin 0]

i don't think it possible that google will make an OS .Google 's major is internet service,post an OS is no sense.

[Jguy101 0]

If - make that when - Google makes an OS, I'm definaely not getting it. They actually store all searches, and even emails in GMails that have been deleted. Call me a privacy freak, but I don't want Google or any government watching my web habits. A Chinese reporter was recently sentenced to ten years in prison for forwarding emails to an American site he got from Chinese government officials telling him not to say too much in an article about the fifteenth anniversary of the Tianamen Square Massacre, after Yahoo! handed over information about his web use to the government.

[EvilNui 0]

I don't think that they will create an OS, since their main goal is to provide better ways of getting information around the world. At least, that is what they stated

And an OS would'nt really help to get information around the globe... only around your own Harddrive . Sure, some parts of an OS could help to further move in the direction of creating good ways of trading information, but much of an OS is for working/gaming for yourself or maybe for your company (probably not the gaming part ). And I think that wouldn't be something for google...

 

I hope you can understand my opinion as i'm not that good at presenting my informations

[warbird1405241485 0]

The people of google are smart, and they're probably smart enough to write an OS, but it takes more then that to beat Microsoft. Firefox and Opera are lots and lots better then Internet Explorer. But why do 90% of the people using a computer still use IE? Because Microsoft got a monopoly position. The sell IE with every copy of Windows and only people who use computers much and realy see the differences are willing to download Firefox or Opera. If Google would release there own OS and they could manage to sell it to many people maybe that would bring MS down, if nobody buy Windows anymore, there won't be much people buying other stuff from them too. If they do it right, they maybe kill Microsoft for ever. (computer independence day !!! :D )-=jeroen=-

[Sietze 0]

Google can make everything if they want and put time in it. Although I think they aren't gonna create a whole new engine, it will probably be based on an open source OS.

[pomjim 0]

Hmm, do you really think that once (or IF) unix ever gets good enough for most people it will remain free??? No effing way!!!

[organicbmx 0]

I could quite reasonlby see a google operating system. but i think it would probably be a very unix like system or a linux distro packaged with some closed source google features.correct me if im wrong but it would be fairly easy for google to make their own linux os [some people on this forum have/want to]. And then make a few programs and adapt ones they already own, intergrate these as closed source programs owned by them into their linux distro. they would create some kind of indexing search thing, intergrate gmail with the os, make their own simple browser with all google features built in, make picasia into a image and video browser/editor, etc.i can see them doing this and then using their exceptionally famous name and trying to get a manufactuer onboard and providing a very google ready, cheap pc for anyone.in my mind that could work, but im not sure if they are going to do it but all the hype recently about google surposedly announcing a pc then it not happening suggests they might be looking into that field.i think google and linux, togeather or seperate, will continue to make a big difference to computing in the next few years, so who knows?

[CaptainRon 0]

Well, i would like to quote a few things here...Firstly its nearly impossible to overthrow the WIndows dominance in a fortnight.Secondly, there are millions of software titles floating around for Windows, which surely wont be the case for Google OS.I won't get my favourite web browser, File sharing app, and my favourite game to run on that OS over night.Thirdly, not all of mine, or other people's hardware will be compatible with this new OS. Wht's the bloody use if i can't get my modem, AGP card and TV tuner to run on it?Fourthly, we see tens of new products floating around daily, but do we just change over to them all of a sudden? Ofcourse not! we stick to our old tried and trusted apps.Fifthly, it will be a tough deal to provide security with ease. People are ready to compromise security for ease! and thats an obvious fact... people should be able to use a thing in the first place and then they will be concerned about its security.Sixthly, many attempts have been made and rather all failed, to overthrow Microsoft Windows. No matter how much u hate MS, it is the easiest and friendliest of the lot. Even for a programmer, he doesn't have to go through the dilemma as to what base to use for developing the software, which is the case with Open source OS's. Like to build on GNOME or KDE etc. Look at SuSe Linux, they tried so hard and they came way far... but in the end they realised it didnt even matter :-pThey themselves accepted the fact that Linux couldn't be made as easy as MS Windows and finally open sourced the proprietary Distro.Seventhly, Windows is getting securer day by day. Look at Vista for instance. Even XP, when installed on an NTFS partition and when run using Limited user account, doesnt cater to any of the flaws addressed by SP2.Thats it i guess... it will be a fierce battle fought if ever someone rivals... and as far as google is concerned... it will just be a dream shot.

[CaptainRon 0]

Ok i m posting a real interesting article. It actually makes me wonder at times how Google is earning money. Probably even in their OS they will have adsense )Read it and comment on it.The Secret Source of Google's PowerMuch is being written about Gmail, Google's new free webmail system. There's something deeper to learn about Google from this product than the initial reaction to the product features, however. Ignore for a moment the observations about Google leapfrogging their competitors with more user value and a new feature or two. Or Google diversifying away from search into other applications; they've been doing that for a while. Or the privacy red herring. No, the story is about seemingly incremental features that are actually massively expensive for others to match, and the platform that Google is building which makes it cheaper and easier for them to develop and run web-scale applications than anyone else. I've written before about Google's snippet service, which required that they store the entire web in RAM. All so they could generate a slightly better page excerpt than other search engines. Google has taken the last 10 years of systems software research out of university labs, and built their own proprietary, production quality system. What is this platform that Google is building? It's a distributed computing platform that can manage web-scale datasets on 100,000 node server clusters. It includes a petabyte, distributed, fault tolerant filesystem, distributed RPC code, probably network shared memory and process migration. And a datacenter management system which lets a handful of ops engineers effectively run 100,000 servers. Any of these projects could be the sole focus of a startup. Speculation: Gmail's Architecture and EconomicsLet's make some guesses about how one might build a Gmail. Hotmail has 60 million users. Gmail's design should be comparable, and should scale to 100 million users. It will only have to support a couple of million in the first year though. The most obvious challenge is the storage. You can't lose people's email, and you don't want to ever be down, so data has to be replicated. RAID is no good; when a disk fails, a human needs to replace the bad disk, or there is risk of data loss if more disks fail. One imagines the old ENIAC technician running up and down the isles of Google's data center with a shopping cart full of spare disk drives instead of vacuum tubes. RAID also requires more expensive hardware -- at least the hot swap drive trays. And RAID doesn't handle high availability at the server level anyway. No. Google has 100,000 servers. [nytimes] If a server/disk dies, they leave it dead in the rack, to be reclaimed/replaced later. Hardware failures need to be instantly routed around by software. Google has built their own distributed, fault-tolerant, petabyte filesystem, the Google Filesystem. This is ideal for the job. Say GFS replicates user email in three places; if a disk or a server dies, GFS can automatically make a new copy from one of the remaining two. Compress the email for a 3:1 storage win, then store user's email in three locations, and their raw storage need is approximately equivalent to the user's mail size. The Gmail servers wouldn't be top-heavy with lots of disk. They need the CPU for indexing and page view serving anyway. No fancy RAID card or hot-swap trays, just 1-2 disks per 1U server. It's straightforward to spreadsheet out the economics of the service, taking into account average storage per user, cost of the servers, and monetization per user per year. Google apparently puts the operational cost of storage at $2 per gigabyte. My napkin math comes up with numbers in the same ballpark. I would assume the yearly monetized value of a webmail user to be in the $1-10 range. Cheap HardwareHere's an anecdote to illustrate how far Google's cultural approach to hardware cost is different from the norm, and what it means as a component of their competitive advantage. In a previous job I specified 40 moderately-priced servers to run a new internet search site we were developing. The ops team overrode me; they wanted 6 more expensive servers, since they said it would be easier to manage 6 machines than 40. What this does is raise the cost of a CPU second. We had engineers that could imagine algorithms that would give marginally better search results, but if the algorithm was 10 times slower than the current code, ops would have to add 10X the number of machines to the datacenter. If you've already got $20 million invested in a modest collection of Suns, going 10X to run some fancier code is not an option. Google has 100,000 servers. Any sane ops person would rather go with a fancy $5000 server than a bare $500 motherboard plus disks sitting exposed on a tray. But that's a 10X difference to the cost of a CPU cycle. And this frees up the algorithm designers to invent better stuff. Without cheap CPU cycles, the coders won't even consider algorithms that the Google guys are deploying. They're just too expensive to run. Google doesn't deploy bare motherboards on exposed trays anymore; they're on at least the fourth iteration of their cheap hardware platform. Google now has an institutional competence building and maintaining servers that cost a lot less than the servers everyone else is using. And they do it with fewer people. Think of the little internal factory they must have to deploy servers, and the level of automation needed to run that many boxes. Either network boot or a production line to pre-install disk images. Servers that self-configure on boot to determine their network config and load the latest rev of the software they'll be running. Normal datacenter ops practices don't scale to what Google has. What are all those OS Researchers doing at Google?Rob Pike has gone to Google. Yes, that Rob Pike -- the OS researcher, the member of the original Unix team from Bell Labs. This guy isn't just some labs hood ornament; he writes code, lots of it. Big chunks of whole new operating systems like Plan 9. Look at the depth of the research background of the Google employees in OS, networking, and distributed systems. Compiler Optimization. Thread migration. Distributed shared memory. I'm a sucker for cool OS research. Browsing papers from Google employees about distributed systems, thread migration, network shared memory, GFS, makes me feel like a kid in Tomorrowland wondering when we're going to Mars. Wouldn't it be great, as an engineer, to have production versions of all this great research. Google engineers do! Competitive AdvantageGoogle is a company that has built a single very large, custom computer. It's running their own cluster operating system. They make their big computer even bigger and faster each month, while lowering the cost of CPU cycles. It's looking more like a general purpose platform than a cluster optimized for a single application. While competitors are targeting the individual applications Google has deployed, Google is building a massive, general purpose computing platform for web-scale programming. This computer is running the world's top search engine, a social networking service, a shopping price comparison engine, a new email service, and a local search/yellow pages engine. What will they do next with the world's biggest computer and most advanced operating system?

[HellFire121 0]

google has been in the game for a few years now so yes they could make a new OS. But compatibility would be a problem unless they find a way around this. I might not buy a google OS because windows has been the only OS i have used and i have found it great, the next OS purchase for me would be vista when i get my new pc, but a google OS does sound strange...

[Sarah81 0]

I wouldn't be surprised if Google thought about, or even attempted, an OS. They've already proven that they're willing to branch out all over the Internet (from the search engine to e-mail to the chat software, etc.), so it's not like an OS would be totally unexpected of this company.Even so, I doubt that the thing would do very well. They wouldn't be able to lure many Windows users away because, hey, we're lazy and like having convenient access to just about all the good programs. Oh, and did I mention that we're lazy? *grins*But if Google came up with an open-source project, I can only imagine the sheer number of programmers who wound start tweaking/fixing/improving the thing.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Google is now making an OS (well, sort of. It's based on Linux)

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

xboxrulz