First of all, let me tell you I've never been excited about anything in a long time. 4 years ago, I made a post on my old blog re how I thought Google would eventually release their own OS. Obviously that didn't happen immediately, but I never gave up on the idea because it always made sense to me that they should. They certainly have the resources plus the following to get it going, and after 4 years they've developed even more web apps that a centralized app, such as an os, just to connect to these would make sense.

And to me, that's what it's all about. Which surprises me that so much news about Google's OS has it pitted against Microsoft, which is beside the point if not completely outside it altogether.

It reminds me of a Microsoft executive I know, who I once heard go on a long and rather arduous tirade about how Linux isn't for the desktop. It started off as a rant against his company's decision to forego MS Office (which I agreed with), but then segued into how linux / open source doesn't have a place in the work environment (which I deem as him not getting the point).

Forgive me as I intentionally digress, but I have to take a step back to address that, after which I get to my point: See, to me Linux or open source for that matter is a solution to the question: What about the rest of us?

I define computing as the ability to use technology (be it in the shape of a PC, a mobile phone, etc.) to access information relevant to our lives. Accessing information is vital in order for us to continue existing. Marketers need to know trends. Farmers need to know weather and crop details. The fashion industry needs to know what's hot or not. The real estate industry needs to know where people are moving. Car salesmen need to know which models are sturdy and which fall apart after a year, and so on. Knowing this information, you then go ahead and make vital decisions.

Microsoft's business is counter the 'what about the rest of us' way of thinking. We in the 3rd world countries need the information being connected to the Internet can provide but at the same time cannot cough up enough dough to pay for everything the way MS wants us too. MS like any good company would, makes business models for every step of the way - the creation, production, distribution and transmission of information. Mind you there is nothing wrong with that, but at the same time the number of people + the volume and variety of information out there that need to access and be accessed is way beyond the scope any one company can provide.

Hence for people who cannot pay for it (us in the 3rd world) and for people who do not like MS for whatever reason - alternative technologies is the way to go. Hence, the rise of Google and its ability to quickly access and compartmentalize information we need. Hence, the rise of an OS, and one that runs on 'cheap' computers at that, to even make this information easier still. And since Google's OS, in order to be successful, needs to accessible and easily available to everyone out there, hence the need for Linux and open source.

Google's OS is a step towards making the world's information even more easier and available to access. Not about beating MS. If it so happens this, in some way does 'beat MS' (although I'm not completely sure how), then so be it I suppose. At least that's how I see it from an open source perspective, and in that it makes far more sense than thinking it's to beat any one particular company.

Having said that however, I'd still have a few Google related thoughts on the issue:

• How would Adsense play into this? - I do not like how adsense has played into Youtube for example, with it's ads that get in the way of the screen. Will Adsense encroach onto my PC desktop space now?
• For use on 'netbooks and lower powered computers' - There is a very thin line between what powers a netbook and a newer PC these days. Most netbooks can power Windows XP pretty easily, so I don't buy into this idea that it's only for 'weak PCs'. I think Google should just drop that line altogether because it doesn't make sense and is possibly misleading. If it runs on a PC then it runs on a PC, period.
• Netbooks issue Part II - Another thought re the 'low end PCs'. From experience, all OSes eventually bloat. I know that Chrome OS is possibly planned to be just about accessing the 'net, but I can see how it can bloat as there's always a need for concessions re local issues such as hardware drivers or at least locally hosted browser related applications like Adobe's and others. In other words, you've still got to save something on a hard drive and as far as I can tell, this is still the most efficient way of storing and retrieving data, not to mention the most cost effective. From that perspective I can't see how you can make a 'just for netbooks' OS and not end up with one with regular OS and resultant behaviour (such as bloating).
• What about Android? - If Chrome OS manages to fulfill its role as a 'small OS for small devices (ie. netbooks)', then that sounds like Android to me. In fact, it looks like by the time they release this plus the time it loses 'beta' status, small devices such as smartphones and PDAs would have become so much more powerful so as to be able to run OSes like XP and yes, Chrome OS. No doubt someone's gonna try it, and if it works well enough why the heck not?
• Adobe and Games - There is a subset of users who are absolutely loyal to Windows for reasons outside of MS and Google altogether, and these are designers and gamers due to their religion like devotion to Adobe's products and CPU / video intensive gaming. I myself am hard put to choose Linux primarily because of my deep love of Photoshop. For Google to address this they need to get deep and dirty into dealing with these respective industries, which MS is way ahead of and has a firm vise like grip on. Does Google address this market or focus completely on just a streamlined Google application delivery machine?

Finally I firmly believe they should've done this earlier. Google should've released a nice, smallish Linux based distribution way earlier when they were still developing Apps and Gmail and the rest, so that it'd have progressed along forward in step with the rest of the apps they are building. I didn't see any reason they wouldn't have done it in 2005 and if that happened, we'd have a fairly seasoned stable version of a good OS by now.

Whatever happens though, it's still a good time for us consumers. Choice is always good and in an industry niche dominated by MS we are in for a treat. Like I said I've never been as interested about something as I am now in a long long time and that in itself is good. The coming month / year leading up to this product is going to be exciting.