Operating Systems Are The "Old Way," Says Google's Brin

If you have any doubts about what Google is trying to do with Chrome (its new "web browser"), let Sergey put them to rest. Reuters:

Google co-founder Sergey Brin said Chrome was designed to address the shift to using software from within a Web browser rather than as locally installed computer applications running inside Microsoft Windows or some other operating system.

"I think operating systems are kind of an old way to think of the world," Brin told a group of reporters after the news conference at Google's Mountain View, California headquarters. "They have become kind of bulky, they have to do lots and lots of different (legacy) things."

Read the full story here

Comments

[humbop]

Yeah, like we should trust some corporate conglomerate who has already demonstrated dubious stances on consumer privacy issues with all of our computing needs. Thanks, but no thanks. Talk about letting the foxes into the henhouse.

[twgbonehead]

This article presupposes what an "Operating system" is, and assumes that what Microsoft considers an "operating system" is the definitive norm.

I sincerely hope that Brin understands the difference between the Windows "operating system" and the "Other OS's" (for example, Linux).

Window's monolithic, proprietary, and obscenely gluttonous model is certainly the "old way", but to equate that with "operating systems" in general indicates an incredible lack of understanding, particularly for someone in Brin's position.

[Thorn2008]

Only a fool would put their productivity in the hands of google or anyone elses network server.

[Swerinjer]

The end user appliance may lose the OE or OS but the server serving the apps will require something to manage the demand, the commands, and the resources that allow it serve the apps. The OS is the intermediary between high level apps and users and low level resources (momory, disk, processor, etc...) and this may change in the future due to some new paradigm in computing but until then the OS is here to stay.

Also this concept of Google's is not new. Sun Microsystems stated long ago that the network is the computer.

[GrainOSand]

I am seeing double.

[RontTowns25]

OS will be around for at least another 10 years. The reason for this is that people have so much money invested in computers currently that run on destop-based OS's. This will not change overnight. Its not until a really good, cheap, and reliable cloud computer comes out that the web based os will really go mainstream. These cloud computers need to be able to support complex/heavy programs, which they are far from capable today. There's a ton of opportunity to take advantage of this next technological wave if you know where to start and how to get into the game... http://www.johnassaraf.com/challenge.php?s=hiac2008

[KillTheMessenger]

And what software in your really, good, cheap and reliable cloud computer will switch between the couple hundred tasks that one needs to program a heavily network centric cloud computing application? What code will set up the hardware interrupts, the software traps, the semaphores and the pipes that make the hard and software of your cloud machine tick? Who will keep the details about the graphics chip hidden from the application programmer and who will share the memory between threads so that nothing grinds to a halt and a single software bug can't reboot the machine?

May I venture to guess that that piece of software will be an operating system?

[Swerinjer]

lawl

[Sundialsvc4]

Your microwave oven has an "operating system" too. A pretty considerable one, actually. So does your portable phone.

Right now, all of us are using a computer ... it's located "at" a web-address called "www.huffingtonpost.com" and it's paid-for (more or less) by Arianna Huffington & Co.

Now... what if, instead, we were just "viewing content that we like." Adding comments to it. Reading it on "whatever, where-ever, when-ever." On any ol' thing that we picked-up off the ground someplace or walked up to in a hotel, store or mall. And our "stuff" was there, because our "stuff" is everywhere. And if we want to compute something, we don't know or care where-in-the-world that computing is being done.

Is there still "an operating system" in that appliance? Sure there is. But does it "matter," in the same way that "what is on 'our' computer does today? Nope. The OS has a "necessary" role but not a "central" one. It is now just "a node."

Wouldn't it be nice if you COULDN'T "accidentally leave 'your stuff' in the hotel room" anymore? It's coming. Fast.

[GrainOSand]

The end user appliance may lose the OE or OS but the server serving the apps will require something to manage the demand, the commands, and the resources that allow it serve the apps. The OS is the intermediary between high level apps and users and low level resources (momory, disk, processor, etc...) and this may change in the future due to some new paradigm in computing but until then the OS is here to stay.

Also this concept of Google's is not new. Sun Microsystems stated long ago that the network is the computer.

[KillTheMessenger]

Don't worry. There will be more work for OS developers in the future, not less.

[Sundialsvc4]

"Well, yes and no, Brin..."

It's true that any piece of computing hardware must have "an operating system" to control it. (Even your microwave oven has one... so, probably, does your toaster.)

But yes, operating-systems won't continue to have the monolithic, "We Are A Monopoly" status that we used to ascribe to them. That's because the essential role of "your" computer is obviously changing. "Your" computer is becoming much more of an appliance, or a portal. It might not even store "your" files.

There is, today, a vast over-supply of both computing-hardware and storage-space, with a vast worldwide high-speed network connecting them, one to the other, point-to-point. (That's what "The Internet" really IS...) These resources will very-soon be deployed on-demand. And when that happens, both information and resources will lose their sense of 'place.'

Get ready... "the 'web site' as we know it" is about to d-i-s-a-p-p-e-a-r...

[MetalCanuck]

The government wants to destroy the net, it better not disappear or people should come up with their own providers.

[KillTheMessenger]

"It might not even store "your" files."

The exponential price decay in flash memory and hard drives says otherwise, but who are we to actually listen to reality if we can believe religiously in a mantra that Sun and other server manufacturers with little to no earnings for the past decade have been chanting to their investors for years?

:-)

[walk0nwalls]

Hurry up with my Java apps Google

[Weathermaker]

All this talk about OSs doesn't bother me. If Google comes out with a computer w/o an OS or with a revolutionary OS, I'll take a look at it.

Cloud computing is what I have a real problem with. I know a company that does EVERYTHING with Google's online apps: email, product development, finances, etc. Sure, it's much cheaper and convenient, but if this catches on, do we really want to give a company all this power? Imagine what would happen when Google will keep and have the ability to look into say 80% of world's companies books, emails, patent work and such...

[nanotubz]

How about a Russian or Chinese hacker on their governments payroll using your credit.

[Politiking]

I am waiting for the day that Sergey Bean can produce anything without an Operating System. UNIX and Linux are Operating Systems Serg. How do you think you run your humongous Server Farm in Data Centers across the world if they don't run operating system.

How do you run Google then?! Virtual Vapor?!

Just because you are able to create a browser from WebKit Open Source doesn't give you right to give people the impression that Google doesn't use Operating System.

BTW, thank you for a very flat-chested browser. You have all the journalist fooled that when you create a vanilla browser and it runs fast that it is good enough.

Safari, Firefox, Opera, Camino, SeaMonkey, IE and others have more user interface features and functions than your plated Chrome.

[KillTheMessenger]

"BTW, thank you for a very flat-chested browser."

That could actually be the idea. We do not need another abomination like IE. Even Firefox is too complex for a lot of things and it runs out of steam really quickly so that one can't scale Web applications to any level that would be useful.

If Google understood that and they have found a way around the scaling problem, which I doubt, then we would be on to something. The reason why I doubt they have found a way around the problem is simply based on the notion that Javascript is a poorly defined "security by amputation" language which is Turing complete. The poor definition and amputation policy make it a nightmare to implement and use and the Turing completeness guarantees that one can always mess up the browser with it, no matter how well it implements Javascript to begin with.

[Swerinjer]

What you fail to mention about the Turing completeness is the back-end modification schema. Javascript as you WELL know contains real-time routines that compensate for any "poorly defined" language inherent in its framework.

I hope we can at LEAST agree on that much before we throw the baby out with the bath water.

[sifta]

Angry for some reason?

Obviously, he understands that computers systems run operating software. I understood him to say that the user of the "future" will not really need to understand or focus on the operating system, and will instead be able to do things without, perhaps, knowing what operating system it runs.

Already, if you are surfing with a web browser such as Firefox, it really doesn't matter too much to you whether it is running on Unix, Windows, MacOS, etc. as long as it works, no?

[KillTheMessenger]

Since the early 1980s only a fraction of real world users really understand what their computer does and how the OS works. Ignorance is bliss in computing since the first PCs made it into the market.

So what's the point? I don't see it. Users are OS agnostic. They are brand oriented, though. But that is a completely different breed of animal.

What Sergey wants is to establish Google as a brand. And he should because that is how you grow a company.

[43P04T34]

Embrace & Extend.

Microsoft can, and will, build proprietary extensions to Google's browser and offer what it calls a 'better' Chrome browser. Should take about 2 weeks.

[KillTheMessenger]

It will take about weeks to release, two years for the first patch that works and two billion dollars of wasted money to realize that nobody cares.

[Egalitare]

But, hey, it'll be fun, right? And just think of the new "Mac & PC" commercials it will generate.

[43P04T34]

So, Sergey, why did you produce a browser that requires an operating system?

Because you needed it, that's why.

And why did you produce a browser that only runs on two operating systems, and not on any others?

[jsarets]

Those folks who are parsing Brin's words to argue that an OS will always be necessary are missing the point.

The purpose of an operating system is to interact with hardware, share hardware resources among processes, and provide a runtime library for applications to interact with the operating system. Brin's point is that not that the responsibilities of the OS are being eliminated, but rather that they are be redistributed to different software components.

The hardware management and resource allocation will be pushed into a hypervisor that provides virtual machines to guest applications that are abstracted from the physical machine. The runtime environment will be pushed into the application, which will package its own stack of supporting libraries, often including a runtime virtual machine such as JVM or CLR.

Instead of delivering applications in the form of Windows installers, Mac app folders, and/or Linux packages, they will be delivered as virtual machine images for x86 hardware virtualization or for a paravirtualization architecture such as VMware or Xen. Essentially, each application will come with its own OS pre-configured and ready to run in its own isolated sandbox on the physical machine.

[RedDogBear]

Excellent comment. Its amazing the virulent reaction to this. People are always threatened by new ideas, even technically literate people who should be more open to it.

[KillTheMessenger]

Virtualisation is an idea of the 1960s that you could commercially buy for millions of dollars from IBM around 1972 in form of mainframes:

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/advantages/virtualization/features.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM/CMS

The main reason that VM were not used on PCs for the longest time is because Intel CPUs did not have the required hardware features to support it. Pure software VMs are practically worthless because they can not be made secure (i.e. programs can get around the boundaries which the software hypervisor tries to erect to separate them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization

So it's really only "new" for owners of crappy hardware. And before you call an idea new, you might want to look up when it was actually invented.

[twgbonehead]

No, people are repulsed by someone claiming to "re-invent" the model when, in fact, it's been around for a very very very long time, and pretty much the only system that doesn't use this model comes from Redmond.

Not to mention that the way this idea is being "re-invented" is to package it as "the only way you can do this is to let us control your apps".

Sad thing is, even though it's BS, every "pointy-haired boss" is going to rush to get all his people in line.

You're criticism shows that you're a bit out of your league, RDB.

[rnb]

And then when they have to interact, they'll run into a ton of unique issues that used to be solved with the OS concept. You might as well be suggesting that politics can be run in an ad hoc manner instead of a hierarchical one. Theoretically possible, but practically ridiculous.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Brin's point is that not that the responsibilities of the OS are being eliminated, but rather that they are be redistributed to different software components."

A hypervisor is nothing but a funny name for an operating system that is relatively agnostic of the next level of services. If you you call a cow a stallion, it still gives milk.

So now you run multiple virtual OS on the same hardware. What's the gain if you are not a data center with 24/7 IT on the run to fix problems? And you can't eliminate the classic OS functions like file IO and threading/signaling from inside your virtual machine because your applications depend on them. What happens instead is that by breaking the one global scheduler into multiple local ones, you increase the likelihood of scheduling conflicts because the virtual machines are either smaller by a hard assigned cycle limit or they can still block each other... cute.

And instead of making things easier to debug now you need to deal with the flaws of multiple OS at the same time. The ordinary user who can't even debug Windows or Linux will be really happy that they now have to debug Windows, Linux and a virtualization layer at the same time because that is SO MUCH EASIER than dealing with one at a time.

I really don't think that is what Google is trying to do. It is 180 degrees opposite from their customer experience philosophy.

[DRaymond]

So just when you thought that the march of technology had reached the point where the computing capacity had surpassed the ability of software to waste it...TADA! let's stack on another layer of virtualization and abstraction! So we have gone from having to ship the software to having to ship the software plus a bunch of runtime libraries to having to ship the software, libraries and abstraction layer to having to ship an entirely separate virtual machine!

Just think of the duplication of memory and processor cycles involved with all that duplication.

Lets be clear the only reason Google has for doing ANYTHING is to deliver more closely targeted advertizing at you. It is the only revenue model that they have. Like other commentators I am uneasy about 'cloud computing'. Sure it looks cheap until you look at the ramifications of having one company outside of your control have exclusive possession of your data, applications, e-mails, IM's and search history. One 'national security letter' delivered to their doorstep and the government has possession of everything about you without you even knowing it has occured. Not to mention if your internet connection goes out you can't do jack for the duration. And somebody hacks your password? You're toast.

[Vurz]

I know someone in IT whose job it is to massage code to work in a company's business systems.

The company, rather than hire the programmers it needs and building a system itself went outside the company for all applications.

Everything they get is late, buggy and full of security holes you could drive a tank through.

I expect cloud computing will be like that. And with Google's history of caving to governmental pressure your information wouldn't be secure anyway.

[WASanford]

Actually guys, I'm using Chrome right now. Huff's page looks better to me in this browser. I think Microsoft just might have a Tiger on its tail, bout time too.

[KillTheMessenger]

And you are running Chrome on top of which operating system? And the web is served to you by what server running on top of which OS? And the routers between your machine and the server are running what, exactly as a multi-tasking environment?

:-)

[MetalCanuck]

Hahaha:)

[wagadog]

Yah. If OS does not matter why can I not run Chrome on teh linux?

[BBackSoon]

My biggest problem with web hosted apps is about the time you get used to them they will change or disappear all together. I know that one day they will be here, but this is much like the slow adoption of digital photos because there is no paper you can hold in your hand.

[KillTheMessenger]

Just because an app disappears does not mean your data has to. Just like you would read most old newspapers on microfiche in the library instead of the actual print edition, does not mean the news has disappeared. In the past the data got lost when the reader (the application which created the data) became unavailable. We have half a century worth of science data that has been virtually shredded by the unavailability of old mainframes and their environments and it makes no difference that we still have the physical tapes and the disks.

We need to make sure this does not happen again. Therefor we need to get rid of the central position the application had in the past.

The data has to be holy, but the reader has to be ubiquitous and reproducible at virtually zero cost. This also means that losing the reader should not be seen as a catastrophe AS LONG as there is a replacement in place.

[DRaymond]

We've come a long way in that. Optical media is way more stable than magnetic and hard disks much more than floppy. XML has created a self-documenting lingua franca for data independent of the reading application. RAID arrays can provide a high degree of durability to live data.

But more than that my data is MINE, not Googles, and if it is sitting up on Google's servers I have no control over what sort of data mining is being done on it by Google (or the NSA).

[twgbonehead]

Like my Access databases, that I can't access because they got touched by someone with a later version, and now I can't load them unless I buy the upgraded version too.

That's been the MS model; upgrade OfficeSuite, make sure it can only save files in a format that previous versions won't read. That way, once the boss upgrades, everyone else has to buy a new copy, too.