Is stripped user agent data pointing to a Google OS?

Here we go again. It seems like just yesterday we heard the first whispers of a Google desktop OS, and products like Chrome stoke suspicions that the Mountain View-based company is setting itself up to invade the PC. Although Google insists that it's focusing on the cloud, since Android was announced, the feasibility of a Google-branded desktop OS has certainly increased. Now, market research firm Net Applications is reporting that it has seen a third of the traffic from Google's employees with intentionally blocked identification strings. This could be a real indicator that the big G is hard at work on a desktop OS -- or just a sign that folks at Google don't care to share their OS of choice. Hopefully, we'll be hearing more sooner rather than later, but feel free to chime in with your Google global domination theories and rabid speculation in the comments.

[Via Boy Genius Report]

[FoO @ Dec 7th 2008 8:14PM]

Chrome? You're using that as an indicator of a Google OS? I guess it must be based on the NT kernel then (;

[midiwall @ Dec 7th 2008 11:03PM]

Ummm... No. They're talking about the OS identifier strings that come along when a web client makes a request from an HTTP(s) server.

[Oli D @ Dec 8th 2008 2:34AM]

Chromes not even available on OSX yet...

What that suggests to me is that a Google OS will be only half baked..

[HighTeckRedNeck @ Dec 8th 2008 10:24AM]

Fo0, that makes no sense. If Google makes its own operating system, I would hope that it would be POSIX-compliant and run Linux apps, instead of having its own API's and having to start from scratch writing software for it ...but that is an entirely different issue from porting applications between operating systems.

[HighTeckRedNeck @ Dec 8th 2008 10:29AM]

I meant the snark to be at Oli D, not Fo0 ... My apologies, Fo0!

[Precurse @ Dec 8th 2008 11:34AM]

@HighTeckRedNeck

FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris (and others) are completely different beasts than Linux, yet can run Linux Binaries. Some things, like VMware, that require certain kernel features, don't work, but FireFox, Staroffice, etc all work

[Ben @ Dec 10th 2008 1:10AM]

Google already uses a customized FS for it's server farm operations, I'm sure it has a unbelievably customized version of linux as well. You can learn more about their operations here: http://blog.topix.com/archives/000016.html The article is a bit dated, circa 2004, but it gives you a nice picture of the state of their technology 4 years ago. My guess is that these obfuscated OS strings are being generated by machines running their custom OS for search testing purposes.

[iKrolm @ Dec 7th 2008 8:16PM]

This is even worse than the apple speculation...

[Jake Tobak @ Dec 7th 2008 8:21PM]

I remember some pretty outrageous speculation about some sort of "iPhone" way back in the day...

[scott @ Dec 7th 2008 9:00PM]

Apple make a phone?!

pshhhhhhhh

[loocas @ Dec 7th 2008 9:32PM]

Nope, just a brick with a touch-screen.

iPhone is their marketing thing...

[SonicEarth @ Dec 7th 2008 8:19PM]

Will it be Linux based?

[ProfessorKaos @ Dec 7th 2008 10:09PM]

Likely, but like all linux distro's without configuring Wine or Crossover, itll be another hard to fight with compatibility fest

[whiskey @ Dec 8th 2008 2:25AM]

Actually I remember that when this speculation started, Google said that they ran Ubuntu but modified it a bit... which led to the Goobutntu speculation strand...

I would really like to see the chrome errr... chrome (i mean the web browser's toolbar, titlebar and such) designs into gnome... Imagine the skinning possibilities?

But I think that this might not happen.

[Christy McGrory @ Dec 7th 2008 8:20PM]

Google? World domination? Don't be ridiculous. I mean just because #THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN INTERCEPTED AND THE USER HAS BEEN TERMINATED THROUGH MEANS OF FRIGGIN' LASER BEAMS. HAVE A NICE DAY# End of Message.

[Gus Gus the Great @ Dec 8th 2008 12:24AM]

If G-Mail is in beta now, I can't wait to see what it'll be like when it finally emerges. Maybe instead
of hotkeys it'll be a neural interface.

[Hüseyin Erkmen @ Dec 7th 2008 8:21PM]

It is to early to talk abour google os even chrome is beta and not stable.

[Jake Tobak @ Dec 7th 2008 8:25PM]

Google has a thing for betas, if Gmail ever leaves beta I'll... well, I don't know, but it'll be crazy.

[ProfessorKaos @ Dec 7th 2008 10:14PM]

when is a google product NOT beta? :P

[Jeff @ Dec 7th 2008 11:24PM]

I have this theory that Google's ultimate plan is to have all of their stuff come out of beta at once, and make a gigantic deal out of it.

[Mike P. @ Dec 8th 2008 12:27AM]

Naw, Google plans to keep everything in beta until the human race is completely reliant on their products (ever go a day without Google?!), then pull everything out of beta and charge for it.

Or demand world domination.

[JAmerican @ Dec 8th 2008 1:30AM]

I bet the OS will be called Google Beta.

[Taylor @ Dec 8th 2008 3:12AM]

Your spelling is not stable.

[Félix @ Dec 8th 2008 5:05AM]

"When is a Google product NOT beta ?"
I'm not 100% sure but I'd say it's when you stop using IT and it starts using YOU.

[Tarnation @ Dec 8th 2008 9:08AM]

I don't think a software developer ever makes a product that actually comes out of Beta. There is Beta, and Beta Release, they just worked a few more bugs out before releasing and then they patch it to get it in to final release. Hell look at 98 it didn't stop getting updates until after End of Life. This applies to all companies not just Microsoft, I am looking at you too Apple constant iPhone patches that we have to keep hearing even if all they do is add a pocket rocket app that causes the phone to vibrate at different frequencies and intervals.

[sjdurfey @ Dec 8th 2008 12:44PM]

my theory about why google keeps everything in beta is because software is never really "finished". there will always be an update of some sort, and bug fixes, especially web based apps. I dont think its meant to be used in the traditional way, but more as a tongue 'n cheek humor of the software industry.

[snowglyder @ Dec 9th 2008 1:06PM]

Web software should be considered "Beta" since new updates and features are constantly added, and nothing is actually "released" to be installed to receive those updates. Software should come out of Beta when it's ready to be released as a new version (1.0, 2.5, etc...), which would mean it has something to actually install.

[speedinguptostop @ Dec 7th 2008 8:24PM]

Everything Google does is permanently stuck in beta.


That said, gimme Google OS!!!

[Fruition @ Dec 7th 2008 8:25PM]

So... will I see relevant ads every time I turn on my PC? This notion actually frightens me, considering what most of my used disk space is comprised of.

[Theli @ Dec 7th 2008 8:45PM]

The exact same arguments were made before Android was released.
* Every single application would be filled with ads.
* You would have to listen to a 30 second ad before making a phone call.
* It would be in constant beta.

Well, version 1.0 was released, and there were no built-in ads.
So much for rumors.

[Fruition @ Dec 7th 2008 9:23PM]

Thank you for alleviating me. I was worried Google would discover my complete, and meticulously organized, collection of My Little Pony animated series episodes.

[murphy @ Dec 7th 2008 10:14PM]

the hell kind of porn is that??

[rock99rock @ Dec 7th 2008 10:40PM]

Well any kind or porn involving horses is alright by me.

[Mike P. @ Dec 8th 2008 12:29AM]

Horses/ponies don't really do it for me.

Unicorns all the way.

[Dan @ Dec 8th 2008 1:13AM]

I don't see that there would be ads in the OS - that's just totally unprofessional. I'm sure Google would make their money by signing deals with companies and preload tons of software on the OS (and of course all of Google's stuff).

[Decoy @ Dec 8th 2008 1:20AM]

Hilarious thread, one million internets each.

[dangerdaz @ Dec 8th 2008 7:30AM]

I ain't really into horse/ pony's/ unicorn porn, i prefer human porn.

Does that make me weird?

[rechnen @ Dec 8th 2008 10:55PM]

Rule 34 is alive and well.

[digitallysick @ Dec 7th 2008 8:26PM]

It would only make sense for them to create an OS , android is going well. Google created a web browser, and donated a lot of time etc to the wine project. My guess is it will run all the windows apps or most , through wine.

[birthday is 1990 @ Dec 7th 2008 8:28PM]

I wouldn't mind a decent free operating system. A few unobtrusive ads on unused portions of my desktop/titlebar don't annoy me much. My main fear is that since google ads are based on what you are doing, is that when I am watching porn I will see some pretty weird ads.

[derX @ Dec 7th 2008 8:35PM]

Good 'ol Google's just trying to expand your horizons.

[)law( @ Dec 7th 2008 8:32PM]

So you admit to watching porn? Well hey at least your honest

[misoup @ Dec 7th 2008 8:42PM]

It's not like watching porn is unnatural. I guess for the underage it is.

[birthday is 1990 @ Dec 7th 2008 8:57PM]

Actually, I think it's more popular for the underaged people.

[DeoWulf @ Dec 7th 2008 9:01PM]

"Birthday is 1990"... So, 18. Now how long have you been doing this, then?

And I'd consider it unnatural.

[)law( @ Dec 7th 2008 9:08PM]

Probably gone blind by now hehe

[Felix H. Cat @ Dec 7th 2008 9:49PM]

People watch porn. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Online sales alone amount to several billion every year.

[Jake Tobak @ Dec 7th 2008 9:28PM]

Paying for porn is unnatural.

[loocas @ Dec 7th 2008 9:29PM]

In my opinion, it's much better for a kid to watch porn than stupid violence on CNN or alike.

Or is there anyone who thinks that exposed brains are "safer" for a kid to see than a beautiful naked woman with a rather handsome naked dude doing it?

Right, there's "porn" and there's "pr0n", but still, less of an ill-impact than guns, blood and violence imho...

[loocas @ Dec 7th 2008 10:47PM]

Right... yankees, I forgot.

Feed your kids with war and shit like that instead of sex, but then don't be surprised at 14-year old having babies or worse, diseses, because of inapropriate sexual education.