As the Bing assault hots up, what about Operation Chrome OS?

[v9designbuild]

In this week's edition of the Economist they ran a cartoon with an outraged Yahoo! sitting atop the shoulders of a belligerent Bing, both cudgel-bearing and incensed, standing on the palm of a club-wielding Neanderthal-like titan Microsoft, shouting, "We think it is wrong to have a market dominated by one giant!", to which the finger-pointing Palaeolithic Google responds, "Do a web search for 'operating system'..."

Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of next year and is open source. It is said to have a "lightweight" operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. It is said to include "speed, simplicity and security" as the "key aspects of Google Chrome OS", according to googleblog.blogspot.com. It is reported to run with a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel and involve the open source community.

Many are crying out for competition in the web search market but I haven't heard anyone talking about operating systems. Google is setting out its stall to solve what some people see as inherent problems associated with Windows: it has too much of an overhead and that it wasn't designed for web-based computing.

One of the major problems with Windows XP is compatibility and that of its drivers and that the new operating system can be downloaded on to any machine and it "just works". Users will then have a portable operating system.

Does anyone agree that we may be ushering in an era where the web is the rightful place to store all our files and documents and maybe use a pay-per-use system for accessing and using desktop software, which would benefit web-based systems like Chrome OS? If so, it could be revolutionary. Or is Google just creating a system that gets more of our data?

 

[djbaxter]

One of the major problems with Windows XP is compatibility and that of its drivers and that the new operating system can be downloaded on to any machine and it "just works". Users will then have a portable operating system.

If you are having a problem with driver compatibility with Windows XP, you are either running on an extremely old system or you sinply don't know what you're doing. If it's the latter case, take your computer to a reliable computer repair store and get it set up for you. Windows XP, while still a popular and stable OS, has been succeeded by Vista and now Windows 7, so the end of its support life is on the horizon.

Does anyone agree that we may be ushering in an era where the web is the rightful place to store all our files and documents and maybe use a pay-per-use system for accessing and using desktop software, which would benefit web-based systems like Chrome OS? If so, it could be revolutionary. Or is Google just creating a system that gets more of our data?

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that I'll trust Google or anyone else for file storage, the OS, or any other software. For one thing, remember that it's not just about trusting Google but also your internet service provider - with the model Google is proposing, if your ISP goes down, you no longer have a computer.

Additionally, we read reports daily of major websites being hacked. Why would anyone trust Google any more than anyone else in this regard?

Frankly, I can see Google developing a niche market for netbook owners but I highly doubt that people are going to leap on this concept in large numbers.

 

[Ron Bechdolt]

...There is not a snowball's chance in hell that I'll trust Google or anyone else for file storage, the OS, or any other software. For one thing, remember that it's not just about trusting Google but also your internet service provider - with the model Google is proposing, if your ISP goes down, you no longer have a computer.

Good point! I did not realize that was going to be the case.

 

[v9designbuild]

Not in a snowball's chance in hell...

If you are having a problem with driver compatibility with Windows XP, you are either running on an extremely old system or you sinply don't know what you're doing. If it's the latter case, take your computer to a reliable computer repair store and get it set up for you. Windows XP, while still a popular and stable OS, has been succeeded by Vista and now Windows 7, so the end of its support life is on the horizon.

The first thing I would like to say here is that I do not use Windows any more after a security breach as I don't trust its security, so there's bias afoot. The driver compatibility issue was taken from wired.com (Five Things Google’s Chrome OS Will Do for Your Netbook | Gadget Lab | Wired.com) and not from my own head as my knowledge of Windows, as I've said before, is shallow.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that I'll trust Google or anyone else for file storage, the OS, or any other software. For one thing, remember that it's not just about trusting Google but also your internet service provider - with the model Google is proposing, if your ISP goes down, you no longer have a computer.

First, all my client's web files are held by my ISP. Why not Word docs? This was a remark made by a colleague of mine (a technology writer) and I wanted to test its veracity. That was his idea and it didn't sound anything I've ever heard about before but it did seem "revolutionary" if true.

Additionally, we read reports daily of major websites being hacked. Why would anyone trust Google any more than anyone else in this regard?

You could argue that the hack on my PC was via my ISP. Do I trust them any more either? Ergo, do my clients trust me?

Frankly, I can see Google developing a niche market for netbook owners but I highly doubt that people are going to leap on this concept in large numbers.

This is the real bone of contention. Obviously, no one knows what this means at the moment but while arguments sway in favour of Microsoft's launch of Bing for reasons of "competition", why not apply the same reasoning to operating systems? Personally, I favour Linux-based, open source OS to a proprietary system like Windows. Second, the essence of this post was based on the cartoon that appeared in The Economist. Why would they use that space if there was not a belief of some new "offensive" in the market in terms of OS. I agree, initially it will only work with netbooks but that cannot be the final game plan: Google developing a new OS that will not work in "large numbers"? There must be something more to it than meets the eye here. Linux systems users are not generally "large number" users anyway and we have to take the relative impact into consideration, not widescale migration.

 

[v9designbuild]

Cartoon: The Economist

The comments aren't particularly enlightening but the cartoon is not half bad: : KAL's cartoon | The Economist

 

[djbaxter]

The first thing I would like to say here is that I do not use Windows any more after a security breach as I don't trust its security, so there's bias afoot.

While Windows security has been an issue in the past, at present it is as secure as any other and arguably now has a system in place to fix vulnerabilities more quickly than others. Apart from that, you are discussing an OS that resides on the net rather than on your PC. Do you not think that the possibility of hitting large numbers of people in a single action will not attract hackers and malware creators? Instant fame and fortune...

The driver compatibility issue was taken from wired.com (Five Things Google?s Chrome OS Will Do for Your Netbook | Gadget Lab | Wired.com) and not from my own head as my knowledge of Windows, as I've said before, is shallow.

I'd suggest you srop reading Wired then.

First, all my client's web files are held by my ISP. Why not Word docs? This was a remark made by a colleague of mine (a technology writer) and I wanted to test its veracity. That was his idea and it didn't sound anything I've ever heard about before but it did seem "revolutionary" if true.

I don't permit my ISP to hold any of my web files. I don't even rely on a single ISP (I have 3). And my Word docs are private and much more confidential than my web files, which are by design at least intended to be public. I do not use Google Apps and I never will.

You could argue that the hack on my PC was via my ISP. Do I trust them any more either? Ergo, do my clients trust me?

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the Chrome OS. However, I wouldn't make that argument at all. The hack of your PC was primarily due to incautious surfing combined with insufficient security. It has nothing to do with your ISP. As the saying goes, the fault lies securely between keyboard and chair. I've been running Windows since version 3.1 and before that DOS. I've never had a virus infection. But I keep my OS and anti-malware programs updated and running in real time and I don't furiously click away at anything that pops up on my monitor.

This is the real bone of contention. Obviously, no one knows what this means at the moment but while arguments sway in favour of Microsoft's launch of Bing for reasons of "competition", why not apply the same reasoning to operating systems? Personally, I favour Linux-based, open source OS to a proprietary system like Windows.

We already have competition in operating systems. You prefer Linux and you get to use Linux. Google's Chrome OS really isn't going to add to the competition, though, since it's just going to be in essence another "Linux distro".

Second, the essence of this post was based on the cartoon that appeared in The Economist. Why would they use that space if there was not a belief of some new "offensive" in the market in terms of OS. I agree, initially it will only work with netbooks but that cannot be the final game plan: Google developing a new OS that will not work in "large numbers"? There must be something more to it than meets the eye here. Linux systems users are not generally "large number" users anyway and we have to take the relative impact into consideration, not widescale migration.

I'm not sure of the point of your comments here.

 

[v9designbuild]

While Windows security has been an issue in the past, at present it is as secure as any other and arguably now has a system in place to fix vulnerabilities more quickly than others. Apart from that, you are discussing an OS that resides on the net rather than on your PC. Do you not think that the possibility of hitting large numbers of people in a single action will not attract hackers and malware creators? Instant fame and fortune...

I have no idea about the relative safety, only to say that the Mac is not attacked as much because of relative volumes. I have read the Mac is far less secure. But it really depends on the security of Chrome OS, which I understand will be very much tighter. It hasn't been launched yet, so how can anyone comment at this stage?

I'd suggest you srop reading Wired then.

Then who is the authority on Windows? Microsoft?

I don't permit my ISP to hold any of my web files. I don't even rely on a single ISP (I have 3). And my Word docs are private and much more confidential than my web files, which are by design at least intended to be public. I do not use Google Apps and I never will.

How can you run a website if there are no files uploaded to the server? My Word files are public domain, except those kept on my Mac which are personal or have sensitive data, all of which are password protected. And how can you use three ISPs for building websites? How can sites be found? Certainly not in three places all at once. I don't understand what you mean here.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the Chrome OS. However, I wouldn't make that argument at all. The hack of your PC was primarily due to incautious surfing combined with insufficient security. It has nothing to do with your ISP. As the saying goes, the fault lies securely between keyboard and chair. I've been running Windows since version 3.1 and before that DOS. I've never had a virus infection. But I keep my OS and anti-malware programs updated and running in real time and I don't furiously click away at anything that pops up on my monitor.

I was hooked into the corporate network, which has nothing to do with me personally. If some members of staff are "incautious" surfers it is really none of my business. Rather, it is the IT dept. that maintains up-to-date protection, which it does on a regular basis. If you think I somehow "furiously click away at anything that pops up on my monitor", you must think I have nothing better to do in running a busy web agency than that.

We already have competition in operating systems. You prefer Linux and you get to use Linux. Google's Chrome OS really isn't going to add to the competition, though, since it's just going to be in essence another "Linux distro".

Windows in competition with "Linux distro"? Never heard of it. Is there not the slightest chance that, in the future, Chrome could eventually "add to the competition"?

Re: The Economist.
I'm not sure of the point of your comments here.

My point is why the cartoonist at The Economist would have drawn that graphic and the Technology desk would have made reference to Chrome OS in its article if, as you argue, it will come to absolutely nothing?

Overall:
In all my time in London in publishing, I never worked on a single newspaper or magazine title that didn't use Mac. It is the industry's historic preference. But this issue is not about differentials; it is about whether the comments made in last week's Economist hold any value. Personally, and from my experience in journalism, this newspaper (as they refer to it) is second to none worldwide in its reporting. My former editor at the BBC agrees with me on that point. So, when I see a cartoon and an article that gets away from the factual reporting on the Microsoft-Yahoo! tie-up and presents information about what may happen between the two "titans", I listen. I have used Linux-based OS for years until being forced into a corporate PC network in Thailand - and I didn't like it.

Slightly off-subject but relevant is why Wall Street is still nervous about the deal in that Yahoo's share price has continued to tumble (see FT article), all to the bewilderment of Steve Ballmer.

I really don't see how you can completely write Chrome OS off at this stage. It is mere conjecture but makes for interesting reading. I don't believe that Windows 7 or its successor will be only OS platform for the 21st century. That, of course, is subjective, but just as Bill Gates saw the flatulent IBM knocked off its perch years ago, there surely will be space in the market for something new? Maybe, just maybe, that could be Chrome OS?

The reactions to my article have been mixed. Some think I am completely bonkers, while others show a little more sympathy to where I was headed (see SiteProNews).

 

[djbaxter]

Please learn to use the Quote function correctly.

I have no idea about the relative safety, only to say that the Mac is not attacked as much because of relative volumes. I have read the Mac is far less secure. But it really depends on the security of Chrome OS, which I understand will be very much tighter. It hasn't been launched yet, so how can anyone comment at this stage?

There is no OS that is invulnerable. As publicity about Chrome increases or its use increases, its vulnerabilities will be exploited, make no mistake about it.

Then who is the authority on Windows? Microsoft?

A source that doesn't give you misinformation to quote in your "articles". I only have your word for it that it was Wired. I'm merely informing you that you and your source, whoever that is, are talking nonsense if you claim that there are widespread (or any really) device driver issues with Windows XP.

How can you run a website if there are no files uploaded to the server? My Word files are public domain, except those kept on my Mac which are personal or have sensitive data, all of which are password protected. And how can you use three ISPs for building websites? How can sites be found? Certainly not in three places all at once. I don't understand what you mean here.

Clearly, which is why you probably shouldn't be writing those Sitepro News articles. ISP = Internet Service Provider. My ISPs provide the service which allows me to connect my computer to the net. They don't provide the servers for my websites.

Aslo note what I said previously: There is a huge difference between Word documents and web files: Word documents are private and often confidential; by nature, web files are designed to be public.

I was hooked into the corporate network, which has nothing to do with me personally. If some members of staff are "incautious" surfers it is really none of my business. Rather, it is the IT dept. that maintains up-to-date protection, which it does on a regular basis. If you think I somehow "furiously click away at anything that pops up on my monitor", you must think I have nothing better to do in running a busy web agency than that.

I don't care who was responsible for the security breach. My point is that its puerile to blame the operating system. A significant proportion of attacks on or infestations of Windows computers occurs through vulnerabilities for which patches had been available for months but where the fix was simply not applied. Should you blame the OS for that?

Windows in competition with "Linux distro"? Never heard of it.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was meant to be humorous. Tell me how much penetration has Linux achieved into the PC market, despite years of noise and thunder about how much more secure it is...

Is there not the slightest chance that, in the future, Chrome could eventually "add to the competition"?

How significant do you believe that will be? Why do you think a cloud version of Linux will be any more successful than one of the free standalone versions of Linux?

My point is why the cartoonist at The Economist would have drawn that graphic and the Technology desk would have made reference to Chrome OS in its article if, as you argue, it will come to absolutely nothing?

Are you seriously suggesting that I or anyone else should rely on the predictive and/or analytic powers of a cartoonist to draw conclusions about the future of operating systems?

Overall:
In all my time in London in publishing, I never worked on a single newspaper or magazine title that didn't use Mac. It is the industry's historic preference.

And the significance of that is????

But this issue is not about differentials; it is about whether the comments made in last week's Economist hold any value. Personally, and from my experience in journalism, this newspaper (as they refer to it) is second to none worldwide in its reporting. My former editor at the BBC agrees with me on that point. So, when I see a cartoon and an article that gets away from the factual reporting on the Microsoft-Yahoo! tie-up and presents information about what may happen between the two "titans", I listen. I have used Linux-based OS for years until being forced into a corporate PC network in Thailand - and I didn't like it.

The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are also both highly respected newspapers. But I don't use them as primary sources of either technological or health information. I get that kind of information from the scientific press. Newspapers provide second-hand information about science. And it's often misinterpreted and/or misquoted.

I really don't see how you can completely write Chrome OS off at this stage. It is mere conjecture but makes for interesting reading. I don't believe that Windows 7 or its successor will be only OS platform for the 21st century. That, of course, is subjective, but just as Bill Gates saw the flatulent IBM knocked off its perch years ago, there surely will be space in the market for something new? Maybe, just maybe, that could be Chrome OS?

I might win the lottery or inherit a billion dollars. I don't completely write that off. But I base my decisions on probabilities, not ephemeral possibilities. And again, Chrome OS is not new - it's merely a cloud variation of Linux. Why do I write it off? First, because I've yet to see Linux take over a significant portion of the market. Second, because I haven't see vast numbers of people flocking to Google apps. Third, because I don't think the average user is going to flock to an OS residing somewhere on the net no matter what it is.

The reactions to my article have been mixed. Some think I am completely bonkers, while others show a little more sympathy to where I was headed (see SiteProNews).

I'm aware of your "articles". Next time you quote me, please have the decency to provide full credit, including a link back to the thread where you lifted the quotes.

 

[v9designbuild]

On and on...

I must say, Minstrel, I do like like these exchanges. It brightens up my mornings.

Please learn to use the Quote function correctly

Yes, sir. Will try harder.

There is no OS that is invulnerable. As publicity about Chrome increases or its use increases, its vulnerabilities will be exploited, make no mistake about it.

Who said Chrome OS is invulnerable? I thought I said that the Mac was less secure but that Google is working on Chrome to improve security.

A source that doesn't give you misinformation to quote in your "articles". I only have your word for it that it was Wired. I'm merely informing you that you and your source, whoever that is, are talking nonsense if you claim that there are widespread (or any really) device driver issues with Windows XP.

You said not to believe Wired and to stop reading it, presumably because the author didn't share your views. The source has been clearly stated, so people can make up their own minds.

Clearly, which is why you probably shouldn't be writing those Sitepro News articles. ISP = Internet Service Provider. My ISPs provide the service which allows me to connect my computer to the net. They don't provide the servers for my websites.

That's pure pedantry, Minstrel, and please don't be so disparaging. We were discussing using the web for holding files. You said you didn't trust this and use three ISPs. Are you saying you use three ISPs to allow you to simultaneously connect to the internet? Odd.

Aslo note what I said previously: There is a huge difference between Word documents and web files: Word documents are private and often confidential; by nature, web files are designed to be public.

No, they're not. All of my packages are downloadable in Word/PDF. I don't want them as web pages. There is no difference between reading a web page and a Word doc with the same information.

I don't care who was responsible for the security breach. My point is that its puerile to blame the operating system. A significant proportion of attacks on or infestations of Windows computers occurs through vulnerabilities for which patches had been available for months but where the fix was simply not applied. Should you blame the OS for that?

Puerile? Doesn't that mean childish? Yes, I think it does. Anyway, the point is - and I have mentioned this above - that it's not the OS I am challenging. Mac, I believe, is far more vulnerable but is rarely attacked because of its relative volumes. If you have your way, it will remain like that, so I am happier to live without a bolt on the door if the burglars only steal from my neighbours.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was meant to be humorous. Tell me how much penetration has Linux achieved into the PC market, despite years of noise and thunder about how much more secure it is...

How can Linux attain "penetration" in the PC market when it's controlled by Microsoft? A case of an ill-timed sense of humour on my part, I agree.

How significant do you believe that will be? Why do you think a cloud version of Linux will be any more successful than one of the free standalone versions of Linux?

This is the essence of the argument. We don't know yet. Maybe a revolution is coming, maybe not. As I have said, it is not for you or I to judge at this stage. One can merely speculate.

Are you seriously suggesting that I or anyone else should rely on the predictive and/or analytic powers of a cartoonist to draw conclusions about the future of operating systems?

I am suggesting that The Economist journalists on the Technology desk (even excluding the cartoonist) are very much more versed in issues involving Google/Microsoft's profitability than the likes of you or I. All newspapers have to use their "analytical powers" to write about the subject. If only they'd done the same with the economy, eh?

In all my time in London in publishing, I never worked on a single newspaper or magazine title that didn't use Mac. It is the industry's historic preference. And the significance of that is????

Simply that the Mac was originally used as the machine of choice for "desktop publishing" and because that is my background and my preference. In this debate, it is largely irrelevant.

The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are also both highly respected newspapers. But I don't use them as primary sources of either technological or health information. I get that kind of information from the scientific press. Newspapers provide second-hand information about science. And it's often misinterpreted and/or misquoted.

That is way off, Mistrel. Way off. How can you possibly say that The Economist and the New York Times provide "provide second-hand information" and "misinterpret and misquote" technology issues and therefore should not be used as source references? The journalists at The Economist are making predictions about economic issues every week and have been doing so since 1843. And that includes companies like Microsoft and Google.

I might win the lottery or inherit a billion dollars. I don't completely write that off. But I base my decisions on probabilities, not ephemeral possibilities. And again, Chrome OS is not new - it's merely a cloud variation of Linux. Why do I write it off? First, because I've yet to see Linux take over a significant portion of the market. Second, because I haven't see vast numbers of people flocking to Google apps. Third, because I don't think the average user is going to flock to an OS residing somewhere on the net no matter what it is.

Why not? Do you think the offending article (article, not cartoon) in one of the world's most respected "newspapers" used "ephemeral possibilities" for its conclusions? It's conjecture on my part of interpreting what was meant and one that has sparked off this rather stimulating debate. Also, who said anything about "see Linux take over a significant portion of the market"? Certainly not me. Are you saying that The Economist is clueless about Google's finances and business models and that it should be left to the journalists at Microsoft Windows XP Magazine?

I'm aware of your "articles". Next time you quote me, please have the decency to provide full credit, including a link back to the thread where you lifted the quotes.

Why, for the second time, have you put the word articles in quotes. Isn't that a tad disrespectful? Please provide the urls of "articles" you have published so as to even up the balance. But point taken.

 

[v9designbuild]

An "unreliable" source

Are you seriously suggesting that I or anyone else should rely on the predictive and/or analytic powers of a cartoonist to draw conclusions about the future of operating systems?

I would point the finger of blame at the writer of Bingoo! I quote from this "unreliable" source: "Earlier this month, Google announced that it is developing a free operating system for personal computers called Chrome OS, thus mounting a direct attack on Microsoft and Windows. With the Yahoo! deal, Microsoft is now pushing into Google's heartland. The battle lines between the technology titans are becoming ever clearer."

 

[v9designbuild]

Open source surely makes sense in 21st century?

A significant proportion of attacks on or infestations of Windows computers occurs through vulnerabilities for which patches had been available for months but where the fix was simply not applied. Should you blame the OS for that?

This is old news, published in 2007 and, although many won't agree, it does go some way in reassuring myself that I'm not barking mad or dreaming. It's not that I have anything in particular against Windows, it's just that I believe in open source and that as technology advances over the next few years we will see more web-based computing. It's not an attack on the Windows OS per se.

The (full) article The future of Windows should be open source, bears out something of what I have attempted to argue:

"...Windows is slowly but surely becoming a dying breed. It may take a good ten or twenty years, but it will happen. Trust me on this one. But perhaps the most compelling reason why Windows should go open source is because of the Internet. Simply put, the industry is moving towards the Internet and local desktop programs, while still popular because of slow connection speeds, have their days numbered...More than Windows becoming obsolete, the desktop is becoming obsolete. As technology progresses and our toys become more advanced, instant access is key [that is what Chrome OS hopes to achieve]...With a future web-based OS or even an open source OS that people have modified, I may be able to have a slew of products capable of running my entire home OS...But alas, we are left with an operating system that will never go open source and a business model that has worked in the past, so surely, it should work in the future, right? It's sad to say, but unless Microsoft wakes up and realizes the current trend in the industry, Windows and Office as we know it, may meet an early demise."

 

[djbaxter]

You said not to believe Wired and to stop reading it, presumably because the author didn't share your views. The source has been clearly stated, so people can make up their own minds.

In fact, I had just a bit more time this morning that recently and I did check the Wired article you referenced. However, the article does NOT say that there is a problem with driver compatibility in Windows XP. Rather it says pretty much the opposite - that netbooks have issues with OS-X or Linux:

Five Things Google’s Chrome OS Will Do for Your Netbook | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Compatibility
Google says that ?[Users] don?t want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates.? One of the big problems with using anything but Windows XP on a netbook has been drivers. Try installing OS X on one if you don?t believe us, or any version of Linux not specifically designed for your model. If Google can come up with an OS that can be downloaded, dropped onto any machine and then ?just works,? we might just have the ultimate portable OS.

That's pure pedantry, Minstrel, and please don't be so disparaging. We were discussing using the web for holding files. You said you didn't trust this and use three ISPs. Are you saying you use three ISPs to allow you to simultaneously connect to the internet? Odd.

Don't be ridiculous. I have 3 ISPs - high speed cable (default) with dial-up as backup in the event there's a problem with cable in my home office, and a 3rd for my business office. And my websites are hosted on a server in Florida, nothing to do with any of the three ISPs.

Aslo note what I said previously: There is a huge difference between Word documents and web files: Word documents are private and often confidential; by nature, web files are designed to be public.

No, they're not. All of my packages are downloadable in Word/PDF. I don't want them as web pages. There is no difference between reading a web page and a Word doc with the same information.

I think my clients and many other people would take issue with your opinion. I very much doubt that they would like documents containing personal information stored on the web.

How can Linux attain "penetration" in the PC market when it's controlled by Microsoft?

In the face of bad or insecure technology, and given a choice of superior and more secure technology, people will in due course migrate to thr better technology. In one of your SiteProNews posts, you refer to me as a Microsoft "fanboy" (paraphrasing you here, not necessarily quoting you). I use what works best for a task. As one example, I continue to use Intuit Quicken for personal financial management, not Microsoft Money, despite that fact that my last two computer systems have come with Microsoft Money pre-loaded and free. Why is that? Because in my opinion Quicken is a superior product. So if Linux is really that much better, why has it remained an OS for hobbyists?

To claim that the reason is because Microsoft controls the market is circular nonsense. The world of internet technology is one of constant change, filled with examples of once dominant services or technology that have now disappeared or been reduced to 3rd or 4th place players in that market (e.g., Alta Vista, Yahoo). Arrive with a better product or service than currently exists and 99% of the time (unless you're Sony Betamax) you will prevail in due course.

I am suggesting that The Economist journalists on the Technology desk (even excluding the cartoonist) are very much more versed in issues involving Google/Microsoft's profitability than the likes of you or I. All newspapers have to use their "analytical powers" to write about the subject.

You obviously have more faith in the press than I do. I have seen too many examples of misinformation in topics where I have expertise to trust what I read in even the best newspapers or popular magazines. I take my information on sciene and technology from original soruces, not from journalists.

That is way off, Mistrel. Way off. How can you possibly say that The Economist and the New York Times provide "provide second-hand information" and "misinterpret and misquote" technology issues and therefore should not be used as source references? The journalists at The Economist are making predictions about economic issues every week and have been doing so since 1843. And that includes companies like Microsoft and Google.

See above.

Why, for the second time, have you put the word articles in quotes. Isn't that a tad disrespectful? Please provide the urls of "articles" you have published so as to even up the balance. But point taken.

Isn't quoting me without referencing the source a tad disrespectful? It's not what I consider to be ethical journalism, if such a thing still exists today.

 

[djbaxter]

For a related article on Google's "security", see http://affiliate-marketing-forums.5...w-shows-value-strong-passwords.html#post57711

 

[djbaxter]

Why Is Everyone Picking On Google? — Datamation.com

A story broke this month that Twitter had been hacked, and documents stolen. Then it turned out that in fact Google had been hacked -- a Twitter employee's Google Apps account was compromised, which was the source of the leaked documents. That event prompted wide-ranging questions about the security of the "cloud" in general, and Google Apps in particular.

 

[whiskymac]

I agree with all the above, so if you need any help with the techy stuff Im yer man.!!!
By the way whats an operating system then !
Dont sober up its scary oot there, mind you it a bit scary where i am too- wherever that is.
whiskymac

Interesting reading all the same