There already is a term for what the browser is becoming:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_environment" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_environment</a><p>Why are people arguing? Instead of applications running on X or in bash, they run in the browser. No need for arguments, or redefining anything.<p>p.s. I actually came up with this term, and then googled it, and found out that it already existed :D
I helped my neighbor by replacing IE and its default home page of MSDN with Firefox and google and adblock plus and bugmenot.<p>The next day he was super happy and his exact words were "Wow, it's like a whole new operating system!".<p>I was glad to help, found it a bit funny how a non techie gets the terminology all mixed up, but I didn't think anything of it.<p>Until today, now I'm thinking that a whole lot of people really do see the browser as the OS.
Too bad this language argument is covering a more interesting point made by one of the two critical articles linked ( <a href="http://www.drama20show.com/2008/09/02/chrome-hype-when-non-techies-blog-about-technology/" rel="nofollow">http://www.drama20show.com/2008/09/02/chrome-hype-when-non-t...</a> ):<p><i>Lots of incremental revenue to Google?<p>Like Google Docs, which Arrington last year wrote was “tearing the Office wall down”?<p>Or Google Checkout, which Arrington called “Google’s roundhouse punch to PayPal”?</i><p>The fact that Google gets 97% of their revenue from advertisement really puts the impact of all their releases back into perspective. Their browser is a welcome improvement on the browser market, but this might not be such a game-changing event.<p>And to put my comment into perspective now, I'm not better qualified than all these people blogging about Chrome and Google web applications in general; just noticing that desktop (compiled) software still sells. I would be very interested to see a global comparison between the revenues brought by the sale of software as (web) services and the sale of desktop software. I have a feeling Microsoft Office alone might bring more money than all web companies, though I would be glad to be proved wrong by actual facts :)
I'm not entirely convinced by this: the fact that the OS is still there and operating means that there's still a layer of abstraction. That's important not because it gets in the way, but because it helps out.<p>For instance, on OS X, the Command-Control-D shortcut to auto-define any word you're overing over. Or the universal spell-check. Things that make things easier for developers and users alike.<p>I think a part of it is the operating system in question. Some really do stay out of your way, and it makes the browser in question something of importance. Others are much more pervasive.<p>I said on another thread that I couldn't imagine using a desktop mail app until I got my Mac, because it wasn't until Mail that I had something that really felt like a part of the system. And from what I know of fellow Mac-using students, they all feel the same way. I know a lot of Windows students who use Meebo as their default chat. Linux users almost all use Pidgin or Kopete. Mac users almost always stick with iChat. On Windows, where Meebo is more accessible than downloading something new, the web will be used more often. With more well-rounded platforms, though, the web isn't seen as being quite so pervasive.
Hank Williams gets it right. The article at drama20show (which thamer links) looks on the surface like the kind of pedantry that tries to show how smart you are by showing how dumb everyone else is. By this narrow definition that limits the OS to just the kernel, neither Windows nor Linux are OSes. They each <i>include</i> an OS, but they also include one or more desktops and standard applications. Actually, the fact that there exists a distinct word for the kernel - that would be "kernel" - is probably evidence that there's a basic problem with the narrow definition.<p>BUT ...<p>This is all just another pointless semantics argument. It fails to see what's really going down here: Google wants folks to write their applications for Chrome. Not for Windows. Not for Linux. Not for Solaris. For Chrome. That's the point. And that's interesting: they want the platform for writing applications to be their browser.<p>Whether this means you can now call Chrome the operation system is beside the point.
I believe when people call the Browser the new Operating System, and the web a Platform, it's all about perception.<p>"Operating System" means something totally different to a lay person than it does to a Computer Scientist. Business will normally follow the lay person's perception if it helps marketing campaigns.<p>Here's what I believe, since business drives I.T., eventually the scientists may have to change their definition of the Operating System to agree with the perception of the public.
Alternatively, the phase may be given different meanings with one being it's technical definition.
Polymorphism :)<p>It should be acceptable to have the phrase bare both meanings, this is how language evolves, and develops.
OS are going to evolve. Some will see it as a regression...<p>Me I'm an old school, I like my apps running under my palms and not on a buzz word (The Cloud...) Having say that distributing and sharing are great features (of The Cloud).<p>I suggest a compromise. A virtual OS, like the blackberry! An OS that its entire API will be run on a virtual machine. It's like killing the middle man. Instead of writing a kernel and VM that will talk to its API, write a VM that directly talks to the hardware.<p>By doing so we can achieve a stable, secured OS which enable fast app development.<p>There are some open source projects out there that are trying to prove the concept...