Comments on: No thanks, Google--we've got Ubuntu

If there is one problem the open-source community has suffered repeatedly over the past two decades, it's been fragmentation. Google is about to make it worse.

[DMAN3k]

What? No WebOS?

[kast5089]

The reason Google has to create another distribution is because the open source movement is so political about its projects. Try suggesting a new windowing system to Ubuntu developers. They'll scoff at the idea even though they all know that X.org is crap and GTK+ is a bloated, convoluted, developer-hating stagnant mess. Without its many language bindings, no sane developer would dare use GTK+. Qt is commercial at Google's level, and would support Nokia, so Google really doesn't have a choice.

I support them whole-heartedly. Maybe finally we'll get something built on top of the Linux kernel that is more than just a hodge-podge of half-finished open source hobbyist projects.

[fgfgVCV]

Anything that sticks a fork into Steve Ballmer's hide is fine with me. Google's Chrome is having a healthy impact on Firefox. I can only assume a Linux Google OS would have a stimulating effect on the other distros.

[subhajit_dasgupta]

The author complains about the need to be yet another Linux distribution. The answer is suggested by the following questions: Why create Solaris and AIX when there was already UNIX? Why even create Linux? Why create Ubuntu when there was already Red Hat? Innovation? Outlet for creative juices? Or improving/building upon what is already out there?

Really speaking, almost all of the above examples are really "accidents of innovation". You might have had the accident yesterday...why should that prevent me having mine today?

Finally, it's just too bad for system administrators to be at the mercy of what users want to use. Whatever would they do with their UNIX/Solaris/AIX/Linux/Ubuntu skills if more and more users started using Google's new OS tomorrow? The answer is best left to them.

Peace!

[Kwasiowusu]

Wait, what is Google's Chrome's market share on the world's desktops again?.
If Google's browser has already been a massive failure as far as market share is concerned, why on earth are we even wasting time even talking about a Google Chrome based OS?
And why should consumers, who have alrady rejected Google Chrome browser, suddenly turn round and use a Google Chrome OS, that is chock full of spyware, which logs everything you do and sends that info to Google servers where they can do what they like with it, like Google search engine already does?
Thanks, but no thanks.

[jessiethe3rd]

Finally - someone who sees it... FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLKS... Google = marketing company trying to be a software company. They should name this OS Spyware OS, their slogan should be, "We sell you to the highest bidder so you can get it for 'free!'"

[dudesmiles]

excuse me. you dropped your tinfoil hat.

[kgsbca]

I think what google will bring to the linux world is a faster, more efficient version, one that is quicker to start and easier for linux neophytes to customize. If they try to do that with other distributions, there will be the usual political issues that they will have to negotiate. In this case, google decides what it wants to do, and let's the rest of the linux world take whatever it wants to add to their distributions. A win for all linux users.

Fortunately, an x86-based version of linux, even from google, will be able to run thunderbird, so we won't get stuck with a crippled and completely useless POP3/IMAP mail client, like Android has. It's arrogant stuff like that that reduces my level of trust in google. The email client on the G-1 is so bad that I have to believe it is google's attempt to kill gmail's competition.

[tasehagi]

"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."

You are comparing "Linux questions" with "development" questions. So what you're saying is that Torvalds or Shuttleworth will answer my Linux development questions??? I don't think Linus T. has the time.

"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."

Mozilla Firefox is controlled by Mozilla, and is pushing Mozilla's agenda. They have an agenda you know. Both FF and Chrome can be modified and redistributed without the owner's approval. The only difference in this regard is that Mozilla is smaller then Google, and is completely open-source company...

[FF2009]

My whole issue with Chrome OS is privacy concern. It's FREE alright but it will be an ad supported..meaning Google Chrome OS will spy on your every movement. That's is exactly why I dont use Chrome Browser to begin with, after what they pulled from the first day they released Chrome.

We'll see what happens....tell then I will not abandon my Ubuntu :)

[fitzydog]

Ubuntu is becoming quite a standard in the linux world, but if Google doesn't base it off that, at least make it Debian compatible.....

[jessiethe3rd]

All hail the free OS... FREE is not FREE when your information is being shared and you are being marketed too on a level which makes other "OS's" look like a federal prison of information. Sorry but please tell me why I would let Google or another other web OS track all my work even in applications just so I can have marketers look at my content and sell me more crap. Sorry but I'll keep my PC information private and out of prying eyes. Free is never FREE - there's always some clause/hook in there to make money. Whether it's Google or any other OS - money will be made, revenue will be secured even if it means putting a fork in a different source of revenue for one company it always turn into a revenue generator for another. When people start realizing that nothing is FREE is when people will start realizing that it's best just to pay for the basics.

[thethain]

I think your missing one aspect of this. And that is Name recognition. Do you know what average joe on the street says if you ask him what he thinks about Ubuntu? "Is that some country in Africa?" Sure, Ubuntu has done a great job of uniting most of the 3.4% of the total desktop users who use linux. But how about actually going after more people. If Ubuntu's features are so truly great (and open source) then nothing should stop Google's OS from integrating them.

[DenverCalgary]

Maybe google should put their efforts toward ubuntu or another *existing* popular linux fork instead...

[slumbergod]

I just find it so hard to believe that people find Ubuntu hard to use. It is just different and takes an open mind to be willing to try. The problem with Windows users is that you've had m$ teach you one way to do something and you've not got the patience or understanding that there are other ways.

When IT colleagues tell me they won't install OpenOffice in their office because of the cost of retraining people I laugh. How hard is it to use Help?

Are people really so simple and impatient?

[jordanking34]

Yes, yes they are.

Yes people are that "well trained". People, in general, feel more comfortable with an appliance rather than a real computer. Canned applications with canned results. The gamers will go with whatever environment supports their virtual worlds - can't blame them it is fun. You just have to know when to put the game down. People have forgotten how to think for themselves and follow a herd mentality. Outside of gaming, there is no compelling reason to use Windows anymore. Driver support is very good - even the latest hardware - finding the driver might take a little time. Even Ubuntu doesn't have the latest and greatest right away. Virus and spyware are not problems - yet. Linux is not mainstream and most such authors target Windows for penetration. An additional benefit of Linux is the security model is different than Windows and inherently more secure. Malware will have a harder time penetrating Linux. Multimedia play / recording is not an issue in Linux, you just have to find the correct apps, and most importantly the correct Codecs - yes I had to learn this also before I got it right. Commercial DVDs will not play until you download the correct Codexs. Why are the Codexs not included with the initial install? I would like to see them included, however, this has to do with the free and open source license of Linux (Horay!!). The Codex, like NVdis grives are propritary binary drivers and must be installed seperately. Free of charge of course. For those unwilling to learn (it is not hard - just different), then pay pay pay.

[ITpsycho]

Yes - again - people are very, very impatient.

Oh, and to the guy freaking about codecs; just grab Linux Mint - (yep, another distro but it's okay since it's based on Ubuntu and Debian) - almost too easy, really, install is easier than Windows (even a parallel install is a breeze) and works great on both high and low end systems.

To all those who simply think that Google is in business to free the world of Microsoft, get a grip, please. Google, like the vast majority of businesses, is in it to be profitable, to make money and to keep it's shareholders as happy as possible. If along the way they can provide alternatives to the status quo, doesn't that just benefit everyone? The simple act of one organization providing competition benefits us - every one of us - don't believe me? Look at the stranglehold the cable industry (I include the phone companies in this as well) - the comptetition is almost nil in the vast majority of places in the US and as a consequence, we all pay vastly greater fees for cable service than we should - were the doors to competition open we'd get better products at better prices. Did Google sit on it's butt when word came out that Bing was stealing some of it's thunder? Nope, not at all - new competition (from Microsoft no less) into their domain caused them to relook how they could do things better and in the end we benefit.

So, congratulations to us, we have more OS choices and a new round of competition.

And no, I'm not a Linux or Microsoft or whatever geek/freak.

[jimdkc]

By stating that Ubuntu is "best of breed", you are pointing out the problem, not the solution!

Jim D.

[papa_bear]

Bravo! I tire so from Google's obsession to be a better Microsoft. I wouldn't call any of their products exceptional. Picassa is pretty good for a freebie, gmail is ok. I know some love it, I didn't get that from using it. The browser is fast but I'm happy with FireFox.

Great article, thanks but no thanks Google. We don't need an OS that will be in beta for 5 years.

[aaasolanki]

Exactly the same thought as mine when I heard about Google launching a Linux based OS - "Oh Damn. Not another Linux distro. Why don't those guys support Ubuntu and make it even better?"

And my jaw fell when I read the below. Is that really true? -
"You can e-mail Torvalds or Shuttleworth directly and get answers to your Linux questions, sometimes within minutes or hours."

[Unit91_Actual]

It amazes me how angry people get when EVERYONE doesn't prefer the OS you do.

[Thad Boyd]

So wait. Your argument is that people should stop creating new Linux distributions because there are enough already, and your basis for this argument is...that five years ago a new Linux distribution cropped up and became a game changer?

Your points about collaboration are well-taken -- while Webkit was technically open-source from day one, Apple took some goosing to actually put its innovations back into the community in a usable form -- but I really fail to see how a company with money and name recognition putting serious marketing and development dollars into its own vision of Linux is a bad thing.

[paul milligan]

It annoys me when people talk about fragmented Linux. In essence there is one kernel, one device driver for each hardware product, two desktops (gnome, KDE) and two principal methods for installing apps (apt and rpm / yum). For the terminally fundamentalist group you can build everything from scratch including the kernel.

Oh, and it's worked perfectly on 64bit hardware for years!

Many of the distro's are just other distro's in disguise (e.g. Mint). Imagine if windows was open enough to allow alternate ways of operating it, we'd call it a benefit not a disaster.

It takes at least 3 times the effort to for a windows user to master Vista as it does to get Ubuntu working, and 3 times the effort to learn office 2007 than OpenOffice; we go through the pain because we think it's the right thing to do!



Gentoo -because Linux wasn't difficult enough!

[jpmccloud01]

Ok, here's my take on this next OS war.

For one thing Chrome as a browser is plain great, it's simple yet straight forward handling is pure poetry.

2nd The Ubuntu Linux operating system is something I've been dabbling with and finally got to work on my Dell 4600 6 yr old comp and I have to say that I like it. It's colors and handling are very easy on the eyes and it works well from my CD drive, but seem to have a problem getting to work from my hard disk, but it's probably a dell issue more than a Ubuntu issue.

3rd Wright now Google has dropped a Mach truck on the internet and computer world with it's wanting to get into the OS wars. I'm laughing. This announcement has pretty much taken the thunder out of the MAC vs Windows argument and the rest of the Tech world is screaming fowl. What this does is get the Ubuntu world more jazzed up and makes the too big shots start to rethink what this announcement does to there upcoming releases.

In the end what it should have the the outcome of doing is make all the top OS's better for all of us as they do there best to compete even harder for our use of there systems.
Thats my take. Go Google go