Google's answer to Java, Flash, Windows: Native Client

Rumors have abounded over the years about a Google operating system, perhaps based on the Ubuntu version of Linux widely used within the company, but on Monday the company revealed an open-source project that provides a different answer to the same problem: Native Client.

The reason I've been skeptical about Google releasing an operating system of its own is that the company has such a Web-based view of the world. But Web apps have limits, impressive gains of Google Docs notwithstanding, and Native Client is geared to address those.

"At Google we're always trying to make the Web a better platform. That's why we're working on Native Client, a technology that aims to give Web developers access to the full power of the client's CPU while maintaining the browser neutrality, OS portability and safety that people expect from Web applications," said Brad Chen of Google's Native Client team in a blog posting.

Google has a three-lobed mission: search, ads, and apps. It does well on the first two, but Web-based applications remain rough for most users. Native Client could change that if Google develops the project to maturity, convinces people to install it, and convinces programmers to write for it.

The software plug-in works in conjunction with various Web browsers but lets Web-based applications take advantage of a computer's significant processing horsepower. That puts it in a similar camp as Sun Microsystems' Java, Microsoft's Silverlight, and Adobe Systems' Flash, which, like Native Client, include a "runtime" foundation for running the software.

Although Native Client is just a research project at this stage, the move could have powerful long-term consequences for the battle to create the most compelling foundation for Web-based applications. The technology philosophically meshes with Adobe's hybrid philosophy of running applications both on servers and PCs.

So far, Native Client works on Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome on any modern system with an x86 processor running Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux, Google said.

[someguy999]

Interesting... no IE client... a bit surprised that they would just say... I'm going to hit MS in the IE stomach and just get them too....

[timber2005]

Eh? It seems the client is OS based, not browser based. From what I see on the website.

[Shankland]

@timber2005: It runs via the browser via a plug-in that's specific to the operating system. Thus Google's compatibility with both browsers and operating systems. From the story: "So far, Native Client works on Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome on any modern system with an x86 processor running Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux, Google said."

[timber2005]

Yeah I see that now. Sucks no 64-bit compatability either :(

[t8]

Looks like Virtual Machines or Virtual OSes are the future and the browser is the window, with the web as the network.

[test_tester8]

this is interesting

[test_tester3]

this is interesting

[tm_anon]

Yet another piece of software to download that does essentially the same exact thing. I'm just waiting until they all stop competing and start cooperating. I'll be waiting a long while

[Goodbye Helicopter]

when will people stop insisting everything needs to be web enabled?
all platforms already have the ability to have native apps that can communicate over networks
this is all retarded platforming.
we don't need more platforms, we need apps that are built for the OS we run, and that if needed happen to communicate remotely

[joetesta70]

Seems like a "me too" play. Hard to compete with Flash and Java is dying. Silverlight may be the only viable alternative....

[Penguinisto]

Newp - enterprises won't touch Silverlight because it's still too beta-ish and buggy.

Flash is usually avoided there too, but an enterprise will still stump for a license here and there for internal streaming media.

Java OTOH is alive and well in the enterprise. Most high-end and heavy web apps (Google, etc) use it very heavily.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Penguinisto wrote:

"Java OTOH is alive and well in the enterprise. Most high-end and heavy web apps (Google, etc) use it very heavily. "

It's also highly exploitable and insecure, which is another reason why enterprises are loath to have Java on their network systems as well.

All of them have issues. Google's past record of leaving things in beta, lack of support, and draconian control over content will not help them here.

[rapier1]

Java on the server side perhaps. Java clients can be a tough sell in a lot of places.

[captnbli]

"It's also highly exploitable and insecure, which is another reason why enterprises are loath to have Java on their network systems as well."? Come on, there are highly secure apps, including property transfers, available to the public written in Java. That comment is nuts.

[rapier1]

damnit, another damn platform that will fragment the space even more.

[loserguy3000]

I'm still waiting for Google to stop creating products and start supporting them. They create a lot - some better than others - but most are half-finished or beta-versions of software that's superior on other platforms. Is there any field (apart of search) where Google actually leads with a product of their own?

I love Google, but I'd rather they concentrate on what they're good at, and not continue to spread themselves too thin...

[Vegaman_Dan]

Another forking of the technology it seems. Let's see how many variations we can have.

Bleah.

[Penguinisto]

It's called choice, which is a good thing

(unless you think that the old System 7 UNIX is the only OS that should exist lest we 'fragment' the OS space...)

[Vegaman_Dan]

Penguinisto wrote:

"(unless you think that the old System 7 UNIX is the only OS that should exist lest we 'fragment' the OS space...) "

I was actually leaning more towards IRIX, or perhaps something running on a CBM :)

[rapier1]

Choice is a good thing for consumers. For developers it can be a nightmare. Having to support multiple versions of the same product in order to meet the needs of the user base as a whole is just damn annoying.

[nikola99]

Agreed. If your application is compelling enough, you should have no problems getting the client to download the plugin. I just hope it's not as cumbersome as Java...

[Commander_Spock]

Hmmmm...... Why didn't they just purchase the Source-Codes of the OS/2 Operating System from IBM; and, Bada Bling, Blah De Blah - MS Windows is history!

[Vegaman_Dan]

Thanks for posting. The topic wouldn't be complete without you posting about the Dead Sea Scrolls- or PS2 as you call it.

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "Thanks for posting. The topic wouldn't be complete without you posting about the Dead Sea Scrolls- or PS2 as you call it". There is one thing for certain "the Dead Sea Scrolls" (OS/2) civilization have an idea where they came from and know where they are today; but, it is a really bad sign when civilization appears not to know where it is going. So, party like it is Rocking New Year's Eve 1995!

[rapier1]

Damn, I thought they started giving you lithium. Didn't they start you on lithium? Someone really needs to look in to that. I tell ya, the state of this countries mental health care system is a national shame!

[zextron]

Isn't this something like Microsoft .Net framework?

[dhavleak]

Google's strategy is looking a little incoherent to me. Their main motivation to do any "platform" level stuff is to aid web apps - anything to get data in the cloud, search hits, serve ads. Makes sense so far.

Here's what I don't get -- Adobe and MS are already working on platforms (Flash, Silverlight) that have (or will soon have) a presence on all major browsers and OSes, and will be capable of running fully function applications inside a browser. And managed code is the way ahead for web apps -- easier to develop for, more secure, able to hide architecture details.

So what's Google even thinking with this approach?

[NickH]

Yikes. This is unlike Java, or .Net (or Silverlight), becuase is attempting to run native code in the browser - i.e. x86 code. I therefore have several questions.

1) Whats about none x86 platforms - mobile files etc. What about x64?

2) There is a reason that Java and .Net work the way they do - managed code in a sandbox. This starts to sound a lot like ActiveX controls to me. Do I really want native code launched in my browser. Nope.

3) What "platform" is exposed to the native code? It is OS specific, or what? Again, Java's VM (and also Silverlight) are cross platform.

What is this NativeClient's unique benefit? Its not at all clear.

[sal-magnone]

Great another VM/Client: I can add this to the list with the CLR, JVM, Silverlight, and Adobe. NO THANKS.

[zvonr]

Will not get anywhere, like 100s of other google projects ....

[hawkeyeaz1]

A (very) brief look at the code and it looks like it is something to the effect of (possibly using relicensed) QEmu or similar to VMWare. This solves the problem of storage, and guarantees safety (well, more or less) but allows 'native' execution at native speed, using any language you want, even existing programs (the old DOS games).

This does actually make sense, to give full access to a virtual machine, so apps can write to a HD, and you can transfer between them at *your* desire, not the apps desire.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Seems like a giant security vulnerabilty to me. If I were looking to exploit a system, this would be an ideal vector to use on any Mac, Linux or Windows PC.

[hawkeyeaz1]

@Vegaman_Dan: It wouldn't be a security hole anymore than running VMWare would be (if I am understanding things correctly about how NC works). Security researchers use virtual machines like VMWare daily to let the malware run it's course, then dissect the damage. There are (yet) to be any reports of malware jumping from a virtual machine to a real machine. Similarly, servers use virtual machines to add an extra layer of security, so if website XYZ is compromised, then the host computer is not. There are (yet) any reports of compromises crossing the VM/real machine boundary.

[ChrisLang]

The major problem we face a developers is the NEW broser wars. Google Friend Connect does not work in IE 6 and 7.

Facebook Connect crashes Firefox half the time and gets identified as a phishing site since it is not coded by Facebook. Developers have to use the libraries and hook it together themselves. This got Facebook blocked for phishing last week.

Not to mention most of these open in new windows and popup blockers will not open the new windows. What a freakin mess they have all made of what could have been really cool.

[daniel hobbs]

looking forward to seeing where this goes

[kapil561]

How is this different from Google Gears, i mean the goal is the same, isnt it. what am i missing.