Google Sooner or later, it seems obvious that the computer operating system will come out. Android After the release, I was convinced that since they were able to develop an operating system for their mobile phones and release the system for free, why cannot they create one for the PC?
However, I expected that Google's final PC operating system would extend android to devices with larger screens-just as Apple applied OS X to the iPhone in turn. Apple reduced its PC operating system to only the basic core, and then developed a new set of handheld standard user interface libraries and applications. Program Interface. I assume that the PC version of Android OS inherits a similar process: the Core of the mobile version of Android OS is taken out, and then a set of user interface libraries and application interfaces for the PC are developed on this basis.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Google announced its own Chrome OS. The strange thing is that their announcement method: although Google's official blog title is Google Chrome operating system released 」 But in fact nothing is coming out of the box, or even none, let alone a video demonstration or any technical details. And their expected release date is "the second half of 2010", which can be used as a sample teaching material for smoke bombs.
I don't know the specific time schedule, but why do I have to announce it when it is clear that there are no more 8 characters? Why not at the Google Developer Conference six weeks ago, I/O? Or, why not wait until the developer is ready to release? I like facts and demonstrations, preferably coming soon. I don't like vague promises.
Online Software as native Software
This is very interesting and ambitious. All Chrome OS application platforms will be made up of online software. If a company is willing to develop such an operating system, it must be Google. Most of the initial comments on Chrome OS were completely positive, but one skeptical comment was about "online software is the only software. Nick midita of pcworld.com compared iPhone OS In the 1.0 age and 2.0 s:
Both users and software developers are eager for the so-called "Native software"-software designed for specific operating systems. For example? For example, iPhone. At Apple's 2007 Global Developer Conference (WWDC), Apple was talking about a "pretty perfect" way to develop applications for the iPhone: online software. When Steve Jobs talked about the power and potential of online software on the stage, many developers and users were moaning. They want more than just online software. They want real applications-software that can take full advantage of the iPhone's hardware and software technologies.
NARRATOR: In the 2007 WWDC keynote speech, what Steve Jobs said when describing how developers could develop online software for the iPhone was not "perfect", but a "perfect solution 」. I called it a stool sandwich 」. [NOTE 1]
Nick is right. Not only developers, but also users are eager for native third-party iPhone applications. For Google Chrome, the difference is that online software will be the native software of the Chrome operating system. Assume that all the default Google applications in the system are online software that we already know. This is the famous "Eating-your-own-dog-food" (eat your own dog food. Apple claims that online software optimized for the iPhone is a "perfect solution", but it is annoying that no built-in application for the iPhone is online software. They are all written in objective-C and cocoa touch-Apple's iPhone app sets high user experience standards-a high level that is not achieved by online software running in mobile safari (and ).
I speculate that Chrome OS will have specific application interfaces that allow online software to run on chrome in an optimal way. But who knows? According to Google's official description, Chrome OS's "application" sounds like a "webpage 」. Does it support inputting photos or videos from cameras? Again, I guess: Yes. But how can I store or delete the data locally? Servers managed by Google, the legendary "Cloud 」? However, there will always be some data that needs to be stored locally, because uploading videos (or even a full-size photo) on webpages is sometimes very slow and costly.
Because windows is running on every "Windows PC", Microsoft has made a transaction with most Device Driver developers, but Microsoft only solves the problem for themselves. Microsoft enables all devices to run Windows. No one said that Chrome OS would run on all devices, or even "run on most PCs. If Google says Chrome OS only supports new PCs specifically designed for it (their hardware drivers are specially developed to ensure compatibility with Chrome OS), I will not be surprised at all. In Google's poor Chrome OS FAQ, only the hardware partner is worth noting.
Chrome OS is not just "another version of Linux 」
The "thank you for Google, but we already have Ubuntu" (No Thanks Google, we \ 've got UBUNTU) written by reilai is another typical reaction to chrome:
Google decided to develop its own Linux version. Community Splitting can only be seen as reckless and self-forced behavior.
Compared to its own path, Google hopes to find a lever pivot on the basis of Mark Shuttleworth and its happy coding team's outstanding work, tie your horse to the Ubuntu carriage.
"Linux" means something different for different groups of people. At the accurate technical level, Linux is not an operating system. It is a "kernel" and can be used as the "core" of the operating system 」. But for most people, Linux means an operating system based on the Linux kernel. To be used as a desktop PC operating system, all Linux distributions are based on the same thing: GNOME changes based on the ancient X Window System, or KDE.
Ubuntu is the best distribution of almost all current Linux distributions, but the difference between Ubuntu and Ubuntu is only the concept of the same thing. The only important difference between Ubuntu and Ubuntu is gnome or KDE. And even if you choose these two different environments, after Microsoft's Windows, they are just a conceptual imitation. The "Desktop Linux" of X Windows, gnome, and KDE has hardly attracted any real attention. In the past, almost no one wanted them. Now there is no, and there is no future.
At this point, my theory is very simple. Earlier gnome and KDE cloned Microsoft's Windows user interface. Since then, they began to disagree. I would like to say that the default GNOME desktop in Ubuntu has exceeded Microsoft's Windows Vista in many aspects in terms of design and usability. But in essence it is still a Windows clone-the menu bar in the window, the window maximize/minimize/Close button in the upper right corner, the menu and button name use ugly single-character underline. At a glance, it looks like another theme is installed on Windows. Their idea is: If you want Windows users to use gnome or Kde, you must make it look like windows. But this is not a good way to switch people to a new product. People don't want to change to a new product that is almost the same as the current one, or just a little bit better. Only when new products are much better, better, or even better than the existing ones, will they not hesitate.
Therefore, I think that gnome and KDE both have encountered the unskillful Valley issue. Creating a conceptual framework that imitates windows makes it difficult for them to be different from windows. Without a clear difference, they cannot be much better. If you want to make a product that is much better than the existing one, you must make a lot of difference.
No matter what Chrome OS is, it will not become another Linux version. Yes, they use the Linux kernel, but they are developing new things on this basis. Linux to Chrome OS is like BSD to Apple's iPhone OS-that is, it is something that the end user cannot see, hear, or notice.
Any operating system that uses Linux as the kernel, whether TiVo or WebOS of palm, uses it as the underlying operating system (only within the scope of computer science ), instead, it completely gave up its user interface system. The following are the original statements in the Google statement:
Its software architecture is very simple-Google Chrome runs in a new windows system with Linux as the kernel.
From the user's point of view, the appearance, running and work of chrome will be different from that of windows. This is also why Google has the opportunity to achieve the popularity of ubuntu.
I understand that what I want to say must be a curse on Google employees. In addition to the intensity of smoke bombs, the release of Chrome OS reminds me of Microsoft: Name. Just like Microsoft uses Windows to represent both the PC operating system and the online software package-Google also uses chrome to describe two very different things.
A Web browser is completely different from an operating system, even if the operating system only runs the browser. Some of Google's recent behaviors have begun to mislead ordinary people into figuring out what Web browsers are. You can bet that if ordinary people cannot figure out what the browser is, they will be more confused about what the operating system is. Chrome does not help clarify this issue. Install chrome on a PC. If you do not like it, you can uninstall it. Chrome OS is installed on the PC. If you do not like it, you can uninstall it, and then you only have a blank hard disk. I'm not saying that people may mistakenly install the other one when they want to install it. I just want to say that these two completely different things should have obviously different names.
"Client-service" instead of "client-server 」
In the history of the computer industry, there have been many client-server systems: some of them are quite popular, while others are not. The idea behind all these systems is that your users have a lot of cheap client machines that connect to expensive servers, and most of the computing is done by servers. Complex tasks are almost entirely at the server end, managed by professional technical experts. However, a separate client machine is almost useless if it cannot connect to the network.
But there is a big difference here. The Chrome OS machine is not about connecting a thin client to a "one" server. It is about connecting thin clients to "many" or even "any" servers. One thing you can determine about Chrome OS is that it works well with Google's own online software. However, the web page is open, and Google is a strong supporter of the open standards. Therefore, everyone will have the opportunity to write online software for Chrome OS, and may be as good as Google's own online software.
At the abstract level, this concept is attractive. If all your data and software are online, you have nothing to back up. If you buy a new computer, there is no data or file to be transferred. You only need to log on to another Chrome OS machine and it will be all your data and software.
But in practice, how good can it work? Is it possible to use Chrome OS as your only computer? If not, how big is the "second computer" market? In particular, 1) when more and more people buy laptops as their preferred machine; 2) when more and more people buy iPhones, pre and Android smartphones? My answer is: this market is not very large. In short, Chrome OS can pass the "dog food test": Is this a machine that Google engineers would like to use?
I am skeptical about any new system or product if it is not intended to be used by its creators. For example, Gmail is the best web mail system, because it is not designed specifically for "typical" users, but for expert users including Google engineers involved in development. The iPhone is simple enough for almost anyone, but guess what phones are used by engineers and designers who have developed it?
If you are creating something, instead of using it for yourself, but for the imaginary virtual person, you will usually create something stupid. The future of computing may be moving forward as thin clients connect to network storage and software services, but I am worried that Chrome OS is too thin.
[NOTE 1] 119th sets of Southern Park are provided. The school needs to select a new mascot. The school provides two options: "sausage" and "stool sandwich. In the opinion of most developers, if the native SDK is absent, the option of "writing online software to the iPhone" is nothing more than a stool sandwich.