Relating to my previous post about a possible Google OS, I just did a quick web search and found that today Google announced Google Gears, a new open source API browser extension to enable offline storage and retrieval for web apps. That's one of the puzzle pieces I mentioned, so I think that increases the chances a Google OS is in the works.
How's that for timing?
Labels: technology
I’ve had this hunch for a while that Google will eventually perform an end run around Microsoft and suddenly release a personal computer operating system of their own to compete with Windows. Compared to Windows, it would be very simplified and small, and would be centered around web applications. I would welcome such a product.
It’s interesting to speculate how a Google OS would work. It would obviously rely on access to the web and would presumably use Google apps like gmail, Google Docs & Sheets, and Picasa. I speculate Google would use either a brand new written-from-the-ground-up operating system or a modified variant of Linux. It would boot very quickly right into a web browser. The web browser would be like the “desktop” on Windows machines. All Google PCs would come with network access built-in.
The big question is whether the device would provide an offline mode. Especially for portable models, it seems like users might want to access their documents and emails even when they’re not connected to the Internet. But eliminating local caching would greatly simplify things and would even eliminate the need for a hard drive (the minimal local storage needed could be served with flash memory).
Here’s the really interesting part: the operating system would be free. Google would provide the OS without charge because it will be supported by advertising. While you’re using your applications, non-obtrusive ads will be displayed that are relevant to what you’re doing. The hardware would be very inexpensive. Because the OS is lightweight and most of the processing occurs on Internet servers, a minimal amount of processing power and memory is required. The typical low-end personal computer being sold today would be more than enough power. It could give back a purpose to all those older computers that today are feeling sluggish under Windows.
Labels: technology
I was very excited when I discovered congressman Ron Paul was running for President. As the most consistently libertarian congressperson (even though he's registered Republican), he has provided the only remaining shreds of hope our government may someday stop this ever increasing journey toward fascism.
Although I'm not sure we need presidential debates a full 19 months prior to the election, I am very pleased for a chance to see all the candidates get a chance on stage. It remains to be seen whether any third party candidates will have a chance to debate. But in the meantime, we have the next best thing: Ron Paul.
As has been well covered by now, there was a tense moment at the Republican debate earlier this week. In an answer about foreign policy, Paul responded that our interventionist policies have actually been a contributing factor to the terrorism we've experienced. Rudy Giuliani countered out of turn about how absurd and offensive Paul's remark was. The audience applauded wildly as Giuliani called for Paul's retraction and apology. My heart sank as I waited for Paul to cower and waver on his statement.
But he didn't! Instead he further explained what he said without backing down. It was the proudest moment I've had as an American for a long time. Finally, someone standing up to the truth. In post debate interviews, Paul continued to stick to his convictions and in some cases, even commented that Giuliani should apologize to him.
But here's why I think this could be a turning point: there's a lot of positive chatter on the Internet about Ron Paul, especially since the debate. I think the Internet may finally be ubiquitous enough to serve as a tool to unite voters who would have previously been squelched by the media and major parties. The press is much more influenced by the Internet than previously and all the interest around Paul will most likely spill over into major media. There is already plenty of evidence of that; it's just a question of whether it will have staying power.
Admittedly, Paul has a slim chance of actually becoming the Republican nominee, but if he can remain a force through the entire election cycle, it will be a huge breath of fresh air and could have major implications in determining the policies for the next decade. And we will have learned that there is still some hope for truth and common sense.
Labels: politics
I just saw someone extract that little slip of paper from a fortune cookie and it got me thinking, are the lottery numbers that appear on the reverse side randomly generated, and if so, do they properly cover the right range of numbers. It's conceivable that there is just a set of 100 or so fortune messages and that each of those is assigned to a specific sequence of lottery numbers (so that there is only a set of 100 or so combinations that would ever appear on a fortune cookie). If that's the case, then ever playing those numbers would be a bad idea because you'd have a good chance of having to share the prize with other cookie eaters.
One news article from 2005 seems to imply that the numbers are shared, but the way it's written it's not entirely clear.
Anyone out there have a reference to how the fortune cookie lottery numbers are generated?
Labels: miscellaneous
There's been plenty of negative sentiment about Windows Vista on the web, not to mention from people I come into contact with from day to day. I installed a beta version and found it unusable. I later installed the final version on my laptop soon after it was released. That lasted a few weeks, before I uninstalled it in frustration and went back to XP. I was strongly pressured into installing it at work and have been using it there for a couple of months now.
But I don't like it. I have tried to keep an open mind about Vista. But I am just not warming up to it.
There are plenty of compatibility issues. Vista supporters around me quickly remind me how it's still early and that those problems will be solved soon enough. OK, that's probably true, but I don't remember it ever being this bad with previous versions of the OS. I get the sense that a lot of vendors just don't believe in Vista, at least not yet. Or is it that Microsoft has forgotten how important the real user experience is in the end? When a user's device doesn't work, he doesn't care that it's really the device manufacturer's fault; to him, Vista is broken. And I basically agree.
But the bigger problem for me is that I just don't see Vista as giving me anything really useful. XP has been working wonderfully for me. What would I want to give that up? What compelling features does Vista provide that make me feel like I have to "upgrade"? I haven't found them yet.
And I'm left wondering if we'll ever see another operating system from Microsoft as good as XP.
Microsoft seems to be in decline. There are signs they are collapsing from the weight of their own bureaucracy. It's become increasingly difficult for them to release anything of great quality, let alone doing it on time. Many of their products no longer work together right out of the gate. And there's just so much bloat.
I predict the next great operating system will come from some other company. I think there's an opportunity here for someone to come out with a lightweight, superfast, rock-solid, Windows-compatible operating system that just does what we want. Just the basics. Let the developer community build add-ons. Sounds like a job for Google. Are they working on an operating system?
In the meantime, I find myself continuing to resist Vista. I do not intend to install it just because it's there. Why should I let Microsoft pressure me into "upgrading" when I have something now that works perfectly fine?
Labels: technology
Posts
