Wednesday, July 15th 2009
Gates Downplays Chrome OS
Google's recent announcement of the Chrome OS, a web-oriented operating system that aims to use practicality and speed as its USPs, created more than just a few waves in the IT world. The firm later added that Chrome was going to be a free software, and has the support of some of the biggest names in the industry. At the receiving end of a potential competitor both in the operating system and cloud computing businesses, undoubtedly is Microsoft.
In an interview with CNet's Ina Fried, Bill Gates took the liberty of commenting on this development and implied that the waves Chrome OS created, are but in a teacup. "There's many, many forms of Linux operating systems out there and packaged in different ways and booted in different ways," Gates said, "In some ways I am surprised people are acting like there's something new. I mean, you've got Android running on Netbooks. It's got a browser in it," he added.
Gates further went on to downplay Chrome OS saying that there's nothing much left to talk about it, since Google kept such a low profile on how it's going to implement the idea. "The more vague they are, the more interesting it is," he said. Google earlier announced that it wants its developer community to focus on web-based applications, rather than Linux-based ones, so the application has the broadest compatible platform base. Perhaps Chrome OS will then serve as the best client platform for these applications.
A similar statement came from Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, during Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans, who said that the Windows is the right approach, rather than a browser-centric OS such as Chrome. "We don't need a new operating system," said Ballmer. "What we do need to do is to continue to evolve Windows, Windows Applications, IE (Internet Explorer), the way IE works in totality with Windows and how we build applications like Office...and we need to make sure we can bring our customers and partners with us," he added. Both Ballmer and Gates stressed that having two major client operating systems isn't necessarily a positive thing. Google maintains that its Chrome OS will be consumer-ready by the second half of 2010.
Sources:
1, 2
In an interview with CNet's Ina Fried, Bill Gates took the liberty of commenting on this development and implied that the waves Chrome OS created, are but in a teacup. "There's many, many forms of Linux operating systems out there and packaged in different ways and booted in different ways," Gates said, "In some ways I am surprised people are acting like there's something new. I mean, you've got Android running on Netbooks. It's got a browser in it," he added.
Gates further went on to downplay Chrome OS saying that there's nothing much left to talk about it, since Google kept such a low profile on how it's going to implement the idea. "The more vague they are, the more interesting it is," he said. Google earlier announced that it wants its developer community to focus on web-based applications, rather than Linux-based ones, so the application has the broadest compatible platform base. Perhaps Chrome OS will then serve as the best client platform for these applications.
A similar statement came from Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, during Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans, who said that the Windows is the right approach, rather than a browser-centric OS such as Chrome. "We don't need a new operating system," said Ballmer. "What we do need to do is to continue to evolve Windows, Windows Applications, IE (Internet Explorer), the way IE works in totality with Windows and how we build applications like Office...and we need to make sure we can bring our customers and partners with us," he added. Both Ballmer and Gates stressed that having two major client operating systems isn't necessarily a positive thing. Google maintains that its Chrome OS will be consumer-ready by the second half of 2010.
134 Comments on Gates Downplays Chrome OS
Linux is still in usability hell for the non pc-literate. Not even uBuntu has broken that barrier yet. Close, but not quite.
And I've yet to actually find something that you click the "install script" to install. Not with default settings, anyways.
dpkg -i package is by far the best install method to date, but still too complex for the average user. The only reason Linux is as far as it is today with the idiot crowd, is because they're ale to pre-package -EVERYTHING- 90% of people need with the initial install, whereas OS X and Windows cannot.
linux is trash, useless to anybody with less then a phd in computer sciences.
your constantly stuck using command line for everything, none of the apps have the right names, oh yeah and installing spyware/addware/malware is just way to hard.....it should be automatic!!!
YAY dependencies?
Easy, and reliable to use.
After you decipher the 3 missing dependencies.
If you're having dependency problems, it's either:
A) You're trying to install an application meant for another version of Ubuntu.
B) The application you're trying to install wasn't correctly packaged.
C) Your install of Ubuntu has been damaged -- if you're trying to tinker with Ubuntu in a VM like it looks like you are, this wouldn't surprise me, as that's what VM's are for. :laugh:
What version of Ubuntu are you trying to run, and what program isn't installing correctly? I could probably help, but if you ask me, you should stick to installing applications found in Ubuntu's "App Store" (the "Add/Remove Programs" menu item).
The difference is Linux Mint packages any/every codec they can get their hands on including mPlayer and VLC with the Distro. uBuntu does not. The definition of "Dependency hell". I thought Linux was easy and user friendly?
DEBs work just like EXE's? Not so much. All I want is aTunes! Why am I restricted to Ubuntu approved apps?
turns out you need visual c++ runtimes installed (the 2005 version!!!) but good luck figuring that out, nowhere does it explain that and there are no online sources for help on the error.
it also effects a huge stack of other apps and games, hell visual basic errors are still common on little apps people make, saying you need some ocx or oxc or whatever file, again good luck as a noob figuring that out.
in one way linux(most distros) are better is that at least they tell you that your missing dependencies, unlike windows where u can spend hours/days/weeks trying to figuar out why that one app just wont run.
try it yourself, install kalonline without any visual c runtimes and see how easy it is to track down why the game crashes/wont work, I use it as an example because its 1. free, 2. easy to get 3. one i KNOW will give u hell.
then tell me windows dosnt have dependences.
However, 99% of the programs that need something come with an installer for an install that isnt network connected. (Especially games.)
All I can tell you is that the maker of aTunes is NOT packaging up his .DEB file correctly, because -- and this is just my own experience, YMMV -- in my four years now of working with Ubuntu, I've never had package dependency problems unless I was trying to install something that wasn't meant for the version of Ubuntu I was using at the time.
All I can tell you is to try posting a message on aTunes' message board (I'm sure they've got some kind of bug reporter), but don't worry -- the problem isn't caused by either you or Ubuntu, you're blameless. ;)You're not! :laugh:
However, just like when you install an unsupported app on a Blackberry or Windows Mobile (or crack your iPhone), it's up to you to fix your own problems by that point.
This is why the founder of Ubuntu (Mark Shuttleworth) keeps banging his head against the wall because people don't seem to understand that Ubuntu *is not a replacement for Windows* -- the practices and behaviors you're used to with Windows aren't going to be the same. You get pre-installed apps that do almost everything you need with Ubuntu (like, instead of trying to install a music manager like you are, try using the pre-installed Rhythmbox application) -- there's no need to get frustrated over installing things you find on the internet. ;)
cant tell you how many times i have had to explain to people on vista that they need to download and install the dx9 runtimes because some game they bought dosnt got the dx installer on it.....frustrating!!!
And if Linux wants to actually get somewhere, they need to be more like windows in ease of installing. I should be able to download just about any linux program, double click it, and it installs, regardless of the distro I choose to use. Until that happens, Linux is never going to gain meaningful market share.
Yes, some programs require dependencies, regardless of platform, that's a given. However, it happens a hell of a lot more in Linux. Whether you or meecrob want to admit it or not, it's a fact.
You're an enthusiast -- you have to be aware of the fact that the way you "like doings things" on a computer is NOT the way that most other people. Jesus, man -- there's a reason why IE is the most popular browser out there. People DO just want to use "what's already there."
2) NO. Ubuntu does NOT need to be more like Windows. :shadedshu You can't beat Windows on their own turf -- every good businessman knows this. It's been too long that they've held their monopoly -- they've got far too many people locked in.
You can't beat them -- you can only expand into markets that they don't already own.
3) Like I said, YMMV, but I've encountered just as much dependency problems on Windows as I have from Ubuntu over the years.
I think you can beat Microsoft at their own game (Windows). The problem is, your new OS would have to be pretty much 100% compatible with theirs. Microsoft will fight tooth and nail to make sure it won't. As such, to make an OS that can truly compete with Windows, you'll need about 60% lawyers, 20% marketing, and 20% development.
And you pretty much proved my point about competing with Windows. :laugh: The only players big enough to take them on directly, in their own space, don't find any worth in it.
Plus, with the changing nature of electronics today, I'd argue that it's not even really necessary -- give it 15 years. The idea of having to keep a "PC" constantly on a desk somewhere ("What, your computers were so big you had to keep them on a desk all the time? Or carry them around in a backpack?") is going to seem quaint.
People were pointing out Jobs looked ill at a keynote speech in June/July:
forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=496913
www.itp.net/blogs/87-is-steve-jobs-ill
Apple's shares started diving in late August:
www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1249070400000&chddm=100096&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:AAPL&ntsp=0
Those dates are pretty close.
Also consider that the bottom fell out of housing markets in late September. Apple was falling before the rest of them were.
As a reference, here's Microsoft:
www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1249070400000&chddm=98532&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:MSFT&ntsp=0
Still doesn't matter to me. The company that Jobs left in the 90's wasn't the same company that is today. Today Apple is a huge player in their markets (smartphones and PMP's) -- people are locked into their products. That will keep them going for years and years and years, even if Jobs dies and their products turn to junk.
Come on -- that exact same process has kept Microsoft in business for years. :shadedshu
2) I only mean more like Windows in ease of use, and especially ease of installation. But even more than that, Ubuntu itself needs to go the hell away, and quit screwing with Debian's standards, creating yet another standard. The last thing we need is another competing standard.
3) I flat don't believe you.
But then, it's not supposed to -- the founder himself has said this, time and time and time again. However, it doesn't matter in the long run -- the next generation of computing devices is already shaping up to be a non-Microsoft world, be it smartphones or tablet PC's (whenever the hell they finally get around to marketability :laugh:).
#2 To me, Ubuntu is just as easy and dependable at those things it was meant to do. If you're looking for it to do the exact same things as Windows, look elsewhere -- it was never meant for that.
About Debian -- Ubuntu is free to do with Debian whatever it wants, just like Debian is free to do whatever it wants with other GPL code. That's the way it works. Ubuntu's relative "success" (at least in the fact that we're sitting here talking about it) means, to me, that it's doing something that maybe Debian couldn't or didn't want to. :D
#3 Like I said, YMMV. For the things I do with Ubuntu (browse the web, watch videos, listen to music) I never have any problems. There's nothing to it. I've installed maybe 10 programs over the course of a few years, since I started with Ubuntu. For the things I do with Windows (install games, play games, update games) I have problems from time to time -- not a massive amount, but still a good bit more than Ubuntu.
However, I don't expect you to believe me -- I don't believe half the hardware specs people say they have on this site, either. :laugh:Dude -- I got this. Go take five. :p
mostly due to visual C and Visual Basic runtime liberys not being pre-installed or included in the apps installer, but you insist that dosnt happen, when others here Im sure have had it happen and seen it happen to other people they know.
OSX I have delt with on a low level, Apple dosnt tell people how to fix problems when you call them, 9/10 times tell you to reinstall the os because thats the easiest way to fix all apple related problems(has always been it seems)
Sure not alot of people currently use IRC, BUT every decent linux distro has it built in, and has info on how to connect so that you can get help when/if you need it, they also have forums despite the fact that most people dont use forums either.
and noobuntu(ubuntu) is trash, anybody whos had experience with a decent distro wont touch it, its a bastardized debian thats totally unoptimized and seems to be built by simply taking random apps and tossing their prebuild/compiled versions into a .deb for people to install, where other distros like VL tend to optimize their offerings.
Example KDE, it can be HORRIBLE and SLOW on some systems, I use to blame KDE for this, Till I tried it on VL, I was honestly SHOCKED, KDE was as fast as XFCE, same goes for gnome, the gnome build for VL is FAR faster and more optimized then the ones other distros use.....its shocking how much little things like attn to detail matter :P
well, you can go on saying that linux is worthless for the average user, I will just be happy Knowing that my dumbass father proves you wrong, hell he even got citrix setup without asking for my help(shocked me to.....)
honestly try VectorLinux6 or Wolvix or any other slack based distro and then try and say ubuntu isnt crap.