(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

So I dont know if anyone had read this... but here is where the saga starts:

ChromeBook Inventor
The individual did work at google, and Google was granted a patent based on some of his work.

So thats where the story starts... But then enters a ton of Google Employees who want to get their word in.

I dont know how long that thread will get... so I'll go ahead and post two parts I think are the most interesting...


it continues...

Hello,
LOL, I hit "publish", then saw your post..

Clearly "Guppy" is short for "GooglePuppy". Shows the genesis of ChromeOS, and how visionary Barry is.

I still have a copy of googleOS - I must dig it out and give it another whirl. I seem to remember feeling it was so much less capable than Puppy unless you had a high speed umbilical tying you to a good broadband link. Puppy was faster and could do things offline to...

Uh, excuse me, but BK did not invent the LiveCD, running from RAM, etc. Those ideas and techniques were around long before puppy was begun. Also, all the fuss above about a web-based or cloud-based OS is ridiculous -a bunch of desktop shortcuts which open web-pages does not constitute a web-based or cloud-based OS.

So what makes googleOS and chromeOS different to others then? Are they just something like terminal server sessions over internet?

But Google OS is not same as Jeff's Guppy is it?
AFAIK they named it ChromeOS and not Google OS
But Google OS was not guppy unless Jeff used that name
somewhere? Did he? we should have heard about Guppy
on our forum if it was a puppy even if stripped down?

Or did he manage to keep that secred up to 2013?

Here is his patent http://www.google.com/patents/US8239662
quote
A system for providing an operating system over a network to a local device is provided. The system includes a base image server, a preferences image server and an image loader. The system may also include a boot loader. A method for providing an operating system over a network to a local device is also provided. The method includes receiving a request for an operating system. The method further includes transmitting to a local device remotely stored base and preferences images that are configured for combination into a combined image. The method may also include the synchronizing the combined image with a cached version of an operating system on the local device.
Inventor: Jeffrey Nelson
/quote

AFAIK GoogleOs is something entirely other than Guppy.
if I am wrong then I do apology

It will be interesting to see where this all ends.

The patent I think may relate to something I think either a puplet or early puppy was able to do, involving booting over PXE. But that doesn't likely mean they stole it, as it has existed probably before and after Puppy.

Guppy may have been an internal distro for Google folk, but who knows. We'd need to hunt around the filesystem of the current google linux offerings, and their earlier versions which there is the possibility of containing puppy documentation that may have been purged later on.

However, Puppy is free software, hence other than maybe a few things, Google can do this. I think...

amigo wrote:Uh, excuse me, but BK did not invent the LiveCD, running from RAM, etc. Those ideas and techniques were around long before puppy was begun. Also, all the fuss above about a web-based or cloud-based OS is ridiculous -a bunch of desktop shortcuts which open web-pages does not constitute a web-based or cloud-based OS.

Exactly, which make this guys claim to having invented it even more ludicrous. As it seems now his claim to having 'invented' anything is based on him remixing puppy. Who knows how this will develop.

NeroVance wrote:However, Puppy is free software, hence other than maybe a few things, Google can do this. I think...

yes Puppy is released under GPL, so yes anyone can take it, change it and re-release it. But you cant them claim that you created it or that you 'invented' it.

Q5sys wrote:

NeroVance wrote:However, Puppy is free software, hence other than maybe a few things, Google can do this. I think...

yes Puppy is released under GPL, so yes anyone can take it, change it and re-release it. But you cant them claim that you created it or that you 'invented' it.

That is true. You may be able to claim you made the derivative, but you can't go claiming that you made what it's based off as well (unless you actually did make it)

In essentiality, They built it, but didn't build what it's based off, if it is Puppy based

And what is Puppy 'based' off of?

Q5sys wrote:Exactly, which make this guys claim to having invented it even more ludicrous. As it seems now his claim to having 'invented' anything is based on him remixing puppy. Who knows how this will develop.

I think what this guy is claiming is that his work on behalf of google formed the foundation of googleOS and ChromeOS and that others are taking the credit for that. He is saying that he put together the initial code that demonstrated the ability for googleOS to tap into online processing power and/or app delivery via an internet connection, and he is saying that this processing power/app delivery was based on google services and google storage.

(The fact that the patent seems focused on OS delivery rather than app delivery is likely to work against him...)

He appears to be wanting to take credit for kicking into life a google-funded team to develop this concept. He obviously wants the creative kudos for how far he took the project in it's early stages. (fair enough)

Seems to me this is about him tapping into google's revenue stream on the basis that he did the groundwork for their current OS, and that his patent based on that work was eventually granted. Now he has the patent he is probably expecting google to pay up but of course they will not want to admit any role he may have had in fostering the googleOS project. In any case, googleOS used someone elses browser, whereas chromeOS uses their own so I don't see him as being able to claim continuity and derivation.

Anyway, it seems to me that a person who was probably instrumental in shaping the early phase of googleOS used Puppy as his inspiration/model. Thats still a feather in the hat for Puppy

Barry Kauler has some legal rights

'Puppylinux.org' is established and maintained by people listed on this page and the 'Puppy Linux Foundation'. We and Barry Kauler have trademark claim to the name and typed drawing of 'Puppylinux.org' and 'Puppy Linux Foundation' as it relates to "Puppy Linux, an computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation", under Federal and International Common Law and Trademark Laws as appropriate.

Barry Kauler established the 'Puppy Linux Project' in January 2003, first website and product release 18-June-2003, and he has trademark claim to the name and typed drawing of 'Puppy Linux', 'PuppyOS' and 'Puppy' as it relates to "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation", under Federal and International Common Law and Trademark Laws as appropriate.

What you quoted is trademark. They protect Barry's right to the Puppy name and logo. That is someone else couldn't start calling an OS Puppy, or make derivative and claim it was Puppy OS.

It doesn't lay claim to any technology used in Puppy - which is covered by a GPL license. Means anyone and use and modify the technology, but not claim they invented it.

greengeek wrote:

Q5sys wrote:Exactly, which make this guys claim to having invented it even more ludicrous. As it seems now his claim to having 'invented' anything is based on him remixing puppy. Who knows how this will develop.

I think what this guy is claiming is that his work on behalf of google formed the foundation of googleOS and ChromeOS and that others are taking the credit for that. He is saying that he put together the initial code that demonstrated the ability for googleOS to tap into online processing power and/or app delivery via an internet connection, and he is saying that this processing power/app delivery was based on google services and google storage.

Yea except thats nothing new either. Since the foundation of the internet, storing files remotely was done. So thats nothing new. And neither is editing files that are stored locally. And neither is editing files remotely that are stored remotely. And even though this doesnt do it... neither is offloading portions of the OS remotely.
Anyone ever used a Thin Client before?

greengeek wrote:Anyway, it seems to me that a person who was probably instrumental in shaping the early phase of googleOS used Puppy as his inspiration/model. Thats still a feather in the hat for Puppy

Yes... if that part of the story doesnt get whitewashed away by the size and influence of google.

amigo wrote:And what is Puppy 'based' off of?

http://www.kde-files.org/CONTENT/conten ... 7722-1.png

Off of Gnu/Linux according to above chart.

Hi folks,

I'm Jeff Nelson. I saw your thread and thought I'd add my two cents.

First, let me say that I love Puppy. I've been using it for years. Even at Google, I used my modified version as my primary dev box for 18 months inside Google, because in my opinion it was vastly superior to Google's other internal operating system choices for engineers.

Puppy Ripped off by Google Developer??

I don't see how you think I "ripped off" anything.

First, other than a very small bonus for the patent (which is not a patent on Puppy btw) I never made a dime off this whole project. Second, Puppy is GPL and I didn't violate any terms of the GPL. Third, when Chrome OS was released, it was also open sourced.

Clearly "Guppy" is short for "GooglePuppy". Shows the genesis of ChromeOS, and how visionary Barry is.

Yes exactly. It's a Google naming convention to re-engineer an existing product and stick a "G" at the front. So Puppy becomes "Guppy".

My product manager and I quickly changed the name to "Google OS" as that was easier to pitch to management.

The patent I think may relate to something I think either a puplet or early puppy was able to do, involving booting over PXE.

To some extent. I don't want to go into any detail, as its certainly covered by the NDA I signed for Google. Google takes their NDAs and trade secrets very seriously.

Exactly, which make this guys claim to having invented it even more ludicrous.

yes Puppy is released under GPL, so yes anyone can take it, change it and re-release it. But you cant them claim that you created it or that you 'invented' it.

I definitely have never claimed to have invented PuppyLinux. In fact I didn't even bring up the name "PuppyLinux" outside Google - or any other technical specifics of the work I did at that time, that Google might consider covered by their NDA.

Some people are confused why the patent doesn't spell out "Chrome OS" or the full operating system. Patents are not product specifications or design documents. A patent only specify the construction of one small, unique feature that goes into a product.

I had actually written two patents for different features in the Google OS distribution, but Google apparently didn't follow thorough with filing the second patent.

I think what this guy is claiming is that his work on behalf of google formed the foundation of googleOS and ChromeOS and that others are taking the credit for that. He is saying that he put together the initial code that demonstrated the ability for googleOS to tap into online processing power and/or app delivery via an internet connection, and he is saying that this processing power/app delivery was based on google services and google storage.

Yes, thats a very, very roughly accurate summary.

I don't mean to say that I invented everything that goes into an OS, wrote the OS from scratch, or built the computer it ran on, etc.

Yea except thats nothing new either.

I know some commentors are claiming there's no novelty, because Marc Andressen invented the web browser... so... it's not new.

But thats like saying, Grog the Cave Man invented the wheel, so the Toyota Prius is not new.

There's still plenty of room for novelty and innovation in the software industry, despite the fact that related stuff may have occurred in the past.

Now that we have Microsoft at one end of the dipole and Chrome OS at the other end - I hope we will see even more entries into the consumer Operating System Wars. Certainly, I don't think the status quo of consumer operating systems (or web browsers for that matter) is particularly good.

I'm just glad I was at the right place, at the right time, and with the right mindset, to realize the product vision behind Chrome OS, and push Chrome OS through at Google back in 2007.

Having access to an excellent GPL open source Linux distribution like Puppy Linux was definitely a big part of that. And the PuppyLinux community, and Barry Kauler in particular, deserve my thanks.

- Jeff

PS - Now if you want a piece of the patent bonus that Google paid me for this project... I'll buy you half a beer sometime and we'll call it even.

I still have a copy of googleOS - I must dig it out and give it another whirl. I seem to remember feeling it was so much less capable than Puppy unless you had a high speed umbilical tying you to a good broadband link. Puppy was faster and could do things offline to...

I'm a little confused by this statement.

Unless you are a Google employee you couldn't possibly have a copy of the original "Google OS" (aka Guppy) distribution that I sent out to a company-wide, internal email list at Google.

Did someone else publish a Linux distribution they called "googleOS" perhaps?

Hey Jeff. If this is actually Jeff.

I quite understand Google being fairly secretive, even if massive enough to swallow YouTube and 'em up.

I kinda wonder if someone else claimed to have made a "googleos", I do wonder if they are thinking of "gOs" that was at one point used on some netbooks back in the day.

NeroVance wrote:Hey Jeff. If this is actually Jeff.

I quite understand Google being fairly secretive, even if massive enough to swallow YouTube and 'em up.

I kinda wonder if someone else claimed to have made a "googleos", I do wonder if they are thinking of "gOs" that was at one point used on some netbooks back in the day.

I agree that this was probably what the other poster meant. gOS tauted itself as, "An alternative OS with Google Apps and other Web 2.0 apps for the modern user." Even came bundled on the 'Cloudbook' back in the day.
They even went so far as to use the same stylized g for their logo.


More info can be found here: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=gos

Q5sys wrote:

NeroVance wrote:Hey Jeff. If this is actually Jeff.

I quite understand Google being fairly secretive, even if massive enough to swallow YouTube and 'em up.

I kinda wonder if someone else claimed to have made a "googleos", I do wonder if they are thinking of "gOs" that was at one point used on some netbooks back in the day.

I agree that this was probably what the other poster meant. gOS tauted itself as, "An alternative OS with Google Apps and other Web 2.0 apps for the modern user." Even came bundled on the 'Cloudbook' back in the day.
They even went so far as to use the same stylized g for their logo.


More info can be found here: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=gos

Oh my

I remember that thing, I wonder what became of that thing?