No thanks, Google--we've got Ubuntu

Google's revelation that it will create its own operating system will bring just one reaction from operating system enthusiasts worldwide.

"Not another Linux distribution," they'll cry.

They'll say this because if there is one problem that the Linux and open-source community has suffered repeatedly over the past two decades, it's been fragmentation.

It was bad enough that the Unix operating system fragmented repeatedly through the 1980s and 1990s. Systems administrators (like myself, earlier this decade) were forced to learn several different platforms: Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, FreeBSD...the list was always growing longer.

But the hojillion different directions Linux has taken over the past several decades has even dwarfed that problem. Depending on what part of the world you live in, odds are that you (and sometimes the company you work for) have personally switched among different Linux distributions several times over the past decade, as one or the other gained prominence.

Personally, I started off using Red Hat, which split off into the official Red Hat version and a community edition dubbed Fedora. I toyed with Mandriva and Suse for a while, before settling on Slackware for some years, and then moving to Debian. Throughout that time, I've had to learn quite a few different package management, configuration, boot, and window management systems.

Of course, I have also used a variety of Microsoft operating systems and Apple's more focused Mac OS X and its predecessors.

Now, over the past few years, some of us had begun to believe that we could see a bright light forming at the end of that confused and heterogeneous tunnel. Out of the ferocious Linux distribution wars, one contender has emerged with the seeming strength to take on the rest--at least when it comes to the Linux desktop platform.

I speak, of course, of Ubuntu.

Mark Shuttleworth's juggernaut has, over the past few years, blasted through the Linux community like he blasted into space, drawing in all like some kind of monstrous black hole.

If you attend conferences like Linux.conf.au these days, where you used to see Debian and Slackware die-hards, you'll see a massive wave of Linux laptops proudly sporting Ubuntu paraphernalia. I switched the Linux half of my home desktop PC to Ubuntu four years ago, and my media center followed this year, as I said goodbye finally to the venerable Windows XP.

The growing dominance of Ubuntu (at least on the desktop, the server room seems to have been won by Red Hat) has delivered the Linux community a serious advantage in its ongoing war against the incumbent Windows and Apple platforms because of its ability to give software developers a single platform to concentrate on and polish to a degree not seen previously.

In this context, Google's decision to create its own Linux distribution and splinter the Linux community decisively once again can only be seen as foolhardy and self-obsessive.

Instead of treading its own path, Google should have sought to leverage the stellar work already carried out by Shuttleworth and his band of merry coders and tied its horse to the Ubuntu cart.

If Google truly wants to design a new "windowing system on top of a Linux kernel," there should be nothing to stop the search giant from collaborating openly with the best in the business. I'm sure Linus Torvalds would have something strongly worded to say about Google's plans to "completely redesign" the underlying security architecture of Linux.

There's no doubt Google has made moves in this direction with its pledge to open-source Chrome OS, the same way it did with several previous projects: the Chrome browser itself and its Android mobile OS.

But doubts still remain about those projects also. For example, where do they fit in between true open-source projects, maintained and supported by the community, and to what extent are they extensions of Google's online advertising empire?

Android is a great mobile operating system, second only to Apple's iPhone platform. But Google still controls most aspects of Android's development. Also, anyone using Android would have no doubt that the operating system ties in very nicely with Google's cloud offerings (for example, Gmail). But things are a lot trickier if you prefer Windows Live or other rival systems.

Chrome too, is a great browser that I use for much of my daily needs. But it's mainly still in Google's hands, and so those of us who prefer true competition to exist in the browser world take great comfort from the fact that Mozilla Firefox is completely independent and not pushing anyone's agenda.

Who are you going to trust and believe in? The noncommercial Ubuntu Foundation (and wider project), which has developed an open-source operating system second to none and virtually ended the Linux distribution wars? Or Google, which also makes free products (well, mostly) and packages advertising in (sometimes)?

You can e-mail Torvalds or Shuttleworth directly and get answers to your Linux questions, sometimes within minutes or hours. Try that with whoever is in charge of Android or Chrome development.

Google makes great products. But it's currently trying to tread a nice middle ground between completely embracing the open-source community and keeping control over software it has developed. That's an impossible path to walk and one that leaves it open to being criticized for the same sort of arrogance that operating system vendors have been accused of for decades.

Renai LeMay of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.

[wdowell]

I tried Ubunto, and though I am quite proficient on Windows - and have even done beta testing for Microsoft - i struggled with some relaitlvey simple tasks like installing a graphics driver. It was all terminal type script.

And much that it pains me to see everything "owned" by Google (though ok, it's open source, let's be realistic on which services will work best0, at least it will work.. and it should be usable for all.

[Maarek Stele]

your proficient in Windows, but you had trouble using Windows the first time you turned on a computer also. Linux is just something different, so you have to learn something new.

Put it this way, you can spend $800 for Photoshop, or use GIMP in Ubuntu for free. You can buy dreamweaver or you could install Eclipse for free (there is a windows version also).

You can always hear Linux users whistling "Anything you can do I can do better."

[shreeg]

I agree with you. I have had a similar recent experience after smoothly installing Ubuntu on a home desktop which I did, for lack of a good OS that is low cost or free. I have tried several other distros and have worked on Macs and Windows for many years now. None of the Linux distros come close to Ubuntu's level... but more below...

One of the most basic things such as supporting the D-link wireless usb stick required me to get Windows executables copied over and then install NDISwrapper and do stuff that a normal desktop person would not do. As a techie, this solution came through a few hours of googling and being familiar with unix it was not a big deal for me but for a non-techie this would be a support call or decision to pay for a good OS. Additionally, the Totem DVD player would not play out of box on installation and then I googled again only to find out that one has to additionally install restricted licensed packages (which is understandable ) to make flash, quicktime and xine player support. The Totem player would not play nevertheless and rendering coming out of the Xine player was abysmal. I went for VLC which had some additional deinterlacing configurational options to improve rendering but far from what I see on the Mac. And this was on a good graphics card. But I appreciate the effort the community has put in to make so many alternatives available for free.

I like a lot of things about Ubuntu but it's nowhere near as comparable today to the ease of use, rendering qualities, and overall quality level that Mac or Windows provide (no denying the fact that these OSs also have their own issues too). Lack of good quality Adobe Flash support in Linux in general is a problem. Hulu and YouTube videos looked awful.

But hey, cant complain 'coz its free :) and the others are anything but free. I'd in fact dole up $30-50 for an improved Ubuntu though, if they were to fix these issues and get on the competitive bandwagon. I hope they'd fire up some more of their folks to help them get there - I can tell'ya they are not that far from the finish line :)

[SergeM256]

I had similar experience with Ubuntu. As a former IT professional I am familiar with Windows and different flavors of Unix but researching and fixing all Ubuntu's problems was too much for me. Ubuntu doesn't work out-of-box. It would play some videos but not others, recognize some hardware but not other, show some weird fonts in Firefox, etc.

[umbrae]

@Maarek,

GIMP is no alternative to Photoshop. I used GIMP for over a year with a dedication to get it to work. If you only do simple things, GIMP works; however, if you do anything complicated GIMP is a mess. The UI is horrible and its tools are unpredictable. It has hope, but it is no equal replacement to Photoshop. For anyone that does anything professionally, Photoshop is worth the premium.

Eclipse was a much better example, but of course notepad is better than Dreamweaver. :)

[shinelikeitdoes]

Linux is still largely for people who are more interested in tinkering with their computers than actually getting things done with them. I realize it is powerful and has plenty of utility but it is just nowhere near ready for the average consumer desktop.

On top of that, while there are apps that can take a good stab at the utilities that have been geared over the years for other operating systems, many of them fall far short of the capability to really be suitable replacements. Most specifically in terms of this thread...you will not find a real designer anywhere - as in one who does it for a living, that could even pretend to get by with GIMP vs. Photoshop.

Those Linux users whistling "Anything you can do I can do better" are certainly whistling with a very limited scope in mind.

[john55440]

Just what the world needs, a Version 1.0 operating system from a company that specializes in search engines.

[freemarket--2008]

Umm, most of it's already out there. They're just booting into the Chrome browser basically.

[Pliskin1001]

nm...
I can't see the disadvantage of having another operating system

[c4s2k3]

I agree. Competition often drives innovation. Unless you believe that someday we should reach some kind of "nirvana" where only one consistent OS platform is available that everyone can use, I don't see whey there should be any objection. I for one, don't believe that kind of "one-ness" should be a goal.

[freemarket--2008]

Agreed. It will be nice to have a lap/desktop OS that boots as quickly as a cell phone. One can always have a second full OS as a multi-boot option.

[lazycat202]

let's wait and see

[dudesmiles]

ubuntu lololololololololololol! its been around for years and is still only used by super-tech nerds.

"Who are you going to trust and believe in? The noncommercial Ubuntu Foundation (and wider project), which has developed an open-source operating system second to none and virtually ended the Linux distribution wars? Or Google, which also makes free products (well, mostly) and packages advertising in (sometimes)?"

LOL! that argument might sway linux geeks but 99% of people dont give a hoot about open-source ethics. get out of your nerd IT bubble and maybe the "year of the linux desktop" might arrive.

Why be so cocky CNET ?

[servermaker]

I think google is being the cocky one my friend

[thelemurking]

but google has the balls to back it up ;)

more power to Google! maybe it this works well in the netbook environment, they might upscale it to desktops...

[myles taylor]

I disagree; I think that the Linux community needs a powerful and well-placed company like Google behind it in order to give it the edge it needs. Currently Linux is a niche product used by people who consider themselves technical. No matter how user friendly it gets, it won't make a serious dent until it becomes more mainstream and it needs an ad campaign and other things to do that. Putting a company like Google behind Linux will finally give them a fighting chance again Microsoft.

[KPXmjl]

My thoughts exactly.

[kelmon]

+1 from me.

[rsmattos]

That true, I'm with you. And I think the real benefit of having a player as big as microsoft on the other side is increased hardware support. If Google pulls this off, drawing the attention of regular users, it seems to me that hardware vendors will have to take linux seriously, and this is going to be even better for power users and linux vendors, like Canonical and Red Hat.

[trose009]

While your point is valid, I'm pretty sure the Google OS will do much more to boost Google than it will Linux.

The biggest problem with Ubuntu (and Linux in general) that I've seen is that I don't see it. Not once in my life have I ever seen a Linux commercial and if we're to believe Ubuntu is the savior of the open-source community, they could do a hell of a lot better job marketing themselves. What's the point in having something that's so great if few people know about it? If Ubuntu is so easy to use, let people know. If it's safer than Windows, let people know. If it's as rock-solid stable as it gets let people know. Big corporations use Linux, why not the common consumer? Well the common consumer doesn't know it exists.

Again, Google backing Linux can in fact boost Linux into the spotlight. I just don't think it's going to be NEARLY as big as a lot of people would hope.

[subslug]

"Currently Linux is a niche product used by people who consider themselves technical"

Let's just leave it like that can we?
For the majority of the Linux bashers on here to be able to use Linux, they'll have to dumb it down to a point where it will lose all of what makes it great right now.

I sort of prefer it to remain in the niche area, why should those of us who've invested time and effort into learning something be punished just so people who have to have point and click easy can play?

Ubuntu has come as close as anyone to pushing Linux over the edge into the world of the mindless, I sort of hoping Google fails. Those of you Linux users who favor this move by Google just think about one thing...it's obvious people don't like to learn new things or change their ways so the only option is to change Linux and believe me, this change may not be as great as you're thinking it will be.
Beware of what you wish for.

[forever4now]

Since the Chrome OS is based on the Linux kernel, you can bet all of the hardware vendors will be lining up to provide great drivers, if it is successful. That will be VERY positive for Linux, in general.

Besides, the Chrome OS will be open source, so it will likely result in a lot of great new concepts & technology circulating in the open source community. Merge that with the great stuff already being done with Ubuntu, Moblin & Android & some really awesome stuff should emerge, in the coming months/years.

[SDRebel_007]

I am actually looking forward to Google's OS. Google has always nicely surprised me. I love Chrome over any other explorer.
I don't agree with no thanks we've got Ubuntu.

[CrimsonCantab]

I must say, I'm also very curious to see how this turns out, and hopefully I'm not setting my sights too high. Chrome has really impressed me, mostly with it's performance and simple, sleek design. I'm hoping the OS will turn out similarly. It seems Windows, Mac, and Ubuntu are all getting a bit bloated, IMO. Let's see what Google can do.

I feel that CNET opinion in this matter flat SUCKS! Google has given us many, many useful applications, including the best web-based email and fastest web browser. The author of this article should be honored that such a huge and productive company is going to lend it's expertise and attention to this field. Google will bring open-source into the next generation and hopefully make it known and available to EVERYONE!!!! I applauded there effort, and I agree with "dudesmiles" in that the author should pull his head out of the "nerd IT bubble"

[danielbrashler]

I think it's all about the interface . . . Ubuntu really brought that together, and began automating it for users, and the more they do that, the more they'll succeed. I do think Google's intent is to do a similar thing, but with their own aesthetic and focus -- I'm betting they really want to make the browser the center of the interface rather than the desktop/window manager systems that Windows, Apple and Ubuntu already represent. I'm curious to see how much re-thinking they do.

[therobot]

yes I had Ubuntu (actually MINT) too and it does not like broadcom drivers that came with my laptop so I had to find a wireless usb adapter instead. Other than that things are fine.

[vames86]

Say what now? Ubuntu is a good OS but nothing compared to Windows. Applications define an OS, Ubuntu application database is meager at best and majority are just crap. Ubuntu need developer support and the mindset of 100% free software must be pulled from fanboys minds for that to happen,

[alaxsxaq]

Ubuntu, for all the good things that they've done for the Linux community, has yet to really make much of a dent in Microsoft's desktop monopoly. The opportunity was there with netbooks, but the results have been disappointing resulting in XP's dominance, Intel's forays with Moblin, talk of Android on the platform, and now Google's efforts with the Chrome OS. With a generic hardware platform that screams for a lightweight OS, Linux should have done well there, but the opportunity has so far been lost. Desktop Linux, though I personally use it, is mostly a non-starter for the majority of people - they've had a long time to get it right - where do you think waiting promises to get us?

[kymawilliams]

This is Google versus Microsoft for the desktop.

Linux fanboys are the only ones who are self-deluded into thinking they have a seat at the table.

[u2mr2os2]

Oh hang on, I've got this big list of Linux questions. Just sending to Linus and Mark.

[plbyrd]

Well, it's obvious that this is posted by a devout FOSS fanatic. Without Google there wouldn't be a single viable browser to combat IE, and without a browser then Ubuntu is going nowhere in a hurry.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds it! Oh well, what else should we expect from the hypocritical FOSS movement.

PS. Do you write these columns for free? Are you releasing all copyright? Inquiring minds want to know.

[polaris20]

"Well, it's obvious that this is posted by a devout FOSS fanatic. Without Google there wouldn't be a single viable browser to combat IE, and without a browser then Ubuntu is going nowhere in a hurry."

Chrome is nowhere near Firefox in deployment yet, and since Mozilla, not Google, develops Firefox, I don't think your argument holds much water.

I agree with this article. Ubuntu already is doing an excellent job providing a unified platform, and as much as I like Google products, I wish they would have just joined the Ubuntu bandwagon and developed for that.

[plbyrd]

@polaris20

I don't know if you're aware of it, or choose to ignore it, but Mozilla subsists almost solely on the stipend it gets from Google for making Google the default search engine. AOL/Time Warner basically spun it off and said "Good luck!" and their involvement ended when the Netscape branded version was scuttled.

Again, without Google neither Firefox nor Chrome exist. Apple wasn't the least bit interested in providing Safari for Windows until they needed it to get websites optimized for the iPhone.

[MadLyb]

And another Open Source project forks...

...again...

...what a surprise.

[mbryant32]

I disagree. Google has the name-recognition to help Open-Source operating systems gain more notoriety. Google is already producing great applications that are beginning to be used by corporations to effectively cut costs. Why wouldn't you welcome the name of Google? Those of you who pigeon-hole Google as "only a Search Enginge" haven't been paying attention.

[rsmattos]

I disagree... I don't think Chrome OS 1.0 will be the pinnacle of operating systems, just as android 1.0 was not for the cell phones. But I'm quite sure google will have an impact, at least as a good alternative, like Ubuntu is to Mac OS X and Windows. This might resolve a lot of the hardware compatibility issues, and that all I need. I don't really care if some people choose windows, as long as I'm able to choose too, without spending just 20 min to install the system and another whole day to make the hardware work.

[kcmodica]

Hasn't Google already tried GoS?