Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't know where the folks responding to this statement by downplaying the significance of the OS by pointing to the increasing importance of the browser and the web in applications are getting this line of reasoning. It's a complete non sequitur.

Sure, web apps and AJAXian techniques may be putting a dent in domains formerly owned entirely by standalone desktop GUI apps.

But your browser is not going to implement your hardware device drivers, I/O subsystems, network stacks, filesystems, and, well, ${insert very long list of other ways in which the OS interacts with the fundamentals of the machine}.

To say, "Ah, well who cares, it's all about the browser now anyway" is really, really missing the point. Maybe Google Docs displaces Microsoft Office, but do you really think you're going to XMLHttpRequest your SATA driver, process scheduler, or IP routing FIB (forwarding information base) away?




The low-level aspects of an operating system are now available, for free, to whatever company wants them in the form of Linux. Both of Google's operating systems (Android and Chrome OS) are based on Linux. The Palm Pre is based on Linux. The fact is that even the device drivers, I/O subsystems, network stacks, file systems, and the X number of ways the an OS interacts with the machine are no longer significantly important.

What is important is how the OS interacts with the user. This is where Apple shines. This is also where Google is looking to shine as well. If the user experience can be provided entirely within the browser, why not?


The fact is that even the device drivers, I/O subsystems, network stacks, file systems, and the X number of ways the an OS interacts with the machine are no longer significantly important.

Because it is readily available in free form, it is no longer important, significantly or otherwise? Seriously?

Yes - it's become more commoditised. No, you can't just "replace" it with a browser. And yes, there is a qualitative distinction in degrees of hardware support and underlying engineering.


As you said, it has become commoditised. Is there really a qualitative distinction? Apple's operating supports Apple's hardware (Mac and iPhone). Linux claims great compatibility with most PC hardware and tonnes of other random equipment out there. Windows is Windows. Do you think the average person cares what file system underpins the iPhone or that Android and the Pre share an OS kernel?

But you are right, you can't replace an operating system with browser. However, you can treat the OS as just another layer in the stack in between the network card and the browser. It's even an interchangeable component -- swap out Linux or Windows or OS X and you have still have something that can push bits onto the net and run a browser.


In discussing whether hardware vendors should make their own OSs, if the low level is commoditised enough you don't need to replace it with a browser, you just need to pick the one that better suits you (e.g., Apple with FreeBSD).

As far as the user experience goes, non-Windows systems are still handicapped by hardware and software compatibility issues which are decreasing in relevance, especially for a hardware vendor who can ensure that at least the hardware it ships is fully supported in their OS of choice.


I'm also confused -- we're going to rip out an entire OS only to replace it with a web browser which is, by design, unobtrusive and supposed to operate like pretty much every other web browser. If you're going to do that, what is the point of developing the OS? You'd be much better advised to just ship Ubuntu and Firefox with a custom theme and the metaphorical serial numbers filed off. (Its a bad idea, but it strictly dominates the worse idea of writing your own OS and your own browser.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: