\o/ Yay... Not too impressive at the moment, but if it goes 64 bit then I'm sold.

Cool

It sounds much more like a GNU/Linux distribution, with a specialised desktop environment. But it has pricked my curiosity, so I am interested to see exactly what they are trying to pull off. It does remind me of one of the Ubuntu derivatives, (the name eludes me,) where it boots to a simple desktop, with buttons for a browser/email/movie player.

If they work past the compulsory command line crap (or at least don't sell it as a frickin' positive) then i'll give it a shot.

I think most of the netbooks are based on very similar designs, so it should be relatively easy to provide the OS to manufacturers and to users as and through an all graphical installation.

I think we're possibly missing the big part of the news though:

They're legitimising a cheaper technology in a highly cost sensitive segment of the market for which Microsoft's only competing product is Windows CE.

EDIT: oh, and I guess it's good for the web in general if it pushes WebKit further, since it helps maintain the number of statistically significant rendering engines at three, hopefully avoiding a repeat of the "this site is designed only for Internet Explorer 6"-type times towards the start of the decade.

MacOS has this advantage, a limited set of hardware, so they can offer those features.

And hows this better than the many 'quick boot' systems already in place, e.g. the one embedded in all new asus laptops and being ported to a standalone program that provides web,email, skype, IM.

They've not suggested it is technologically, but I guess it's better for people that want to sell netbooks because it has the Google name — for me "do you want to pay a bit more for Microsoft or pay less and go with Google?" sounds a lot better than "do you want to pay a bit more for Microsoft or pay less and go with Linpus?". As a result, it's good for Google because it really kicks Microsoft in the teeth. Then it's better for you and I if it forces Microsoft to start tending more towards thin and light, optimised for common tasks than engineering everything with a requirement for Windows 3.1 compatibility. If whatever bloat and insecurity Windows still has is a result of its own earlier success (which I think it largely is) then a decent sized competitor coming along and proving that people don't necessarily care about that stuff any more is good for everyone.

Yeah, this seems like it's going to bring about positive changes.

I wonder if Google is setting out to make money from this venture by perhaps charging OEMs. That doesn't really sound reasonable though.

EDIT:
And by reasonable I mean counter intuitive. Supposedly it will be open source and freely available for everyone, so why charge OEMS?

I already don't waste time starting my browser to get my email.

Eh. It doesn't sound that bad to me, I guess, but I don't want my OS tied to the internet. If the 'net goes down, I can still remain productive/entertained with programming, watching movies, playing games, modding said games, etc.

I want to be able to start my car even if the battery is dead by using the hand crank at the front.

If anything, it should encourage cross-platform development and some type of application standards.