Comments on GHABUNTU: 5 reasons why Google Chrome OS may not make it.

Hi A, lets hope the increasing number of Linux use...

2009-10-18T06:53:23.851Z

Hi A, lets hope the increasing number of Linux users brings about the much needed change from hardware manufacturers. Thx my friend. That game was really an epic one

Not all hardware is so unusable on Linux. What mak...

2009-10-17T22:41:19.809Z

Not all hardware is so unusable on Linux.
What makes Linux unbootable (and, therefore, unusable) are the ACPI/APIC especific BIOS, which search for a string identification of the OS. Usually they search for something ms windows like, thus crippling a Linux installation.
But with more users jumping on the Linux wagon, chances are the manufacturers will provide information and drivers to be inserted in the kernel.

BTW, congratz for your soccer team.

@Anonymous Thanks for pointing out the typo. Chrom...

2009-10-17T17:23:43.000Z

@Anonymous
Thanks for pointing out the typo. Chrome the browser in my view has in some ways lived below expectation given the kind of publicity it received when it debuted. It has made some strides no doubt, but it still has been largely a disappointment.

Chrome was released on 12/11/08 and has about the ...

2009-10-17T05:53:04.102Z

Chrome was released on 12/11/08 and has about the same market share as Safari. Not bad for a browser that hasn't been officially released on OSX or Linux, and still isn't a year young.

Hello Ruel24, You splendidly hammered the nail on ...

2009-10-16T19:18:45.094Z

Hello Ruel24,
You splendidly hammered the nail on the head. That is sure going to turn people away in droves. Google would have to work overtime if the hardware/kernel 'evil' is to be contained relative to Chrome OS. Excellent point my friend.

I can give you one reason why users aren't goi...

2009-10-16T18:44:15.401Z

I can give you one reason why users aren't going to jump on the bandwagon and install it: frustration.

I've outlined this problem in a comment on an IT blog. The problem is this: hardware and the kernel. The Linux kernel has to have support for a motherboard's chipset built into the kernel. Unlike Windows, where I can install Windows XP from a disk that was bought in 2001 on my Core i7 architecture machine with the Intel X58 chipset, I cannot install any Linux based system that doesn't have, at least, kernel 2.6.27. What does this mean? That's basically the same as if I was to try and install Red Hat Linux 7.2 on my machine and it's not going to happen. But it works with a very outdated Windows disk that does not get any support for the machine from the internet during boot, nor during installation - yet it works. When a user has new hardware, and the version of Chrome OS isn't new enough, it won't install. That means that users in droves will be frustrated and abandon it.

One of the biggest problems facing Linux over the years has been hardware support. It was, for a long time, the Achilles Heal of it. That has lessened quite a bit, but the fact that the Linux kernel still needs support for chipsets built-in to the kernel to even boot is a major stubling block.