backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by SavagePotato.. on Jul 10 at 10:18 AM

Google finally ends long-term speculation, announcing a new Chrome OS

Google publicly announced it is working on a new Linux-based operating system aimed to compete against Microsoft Windows and Apple OS X.

Chrome OS is being designed by Google engineers for netbooks and is completely independent from its Android OS currently used on a growing number of smartphones.

"Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks," the company said in a blog post.  "Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010."

The OS itself is expected to make its debut sometime later this year.

Since Chrome OS will be available under an open source license, programmers can freely edit and modify the OS's code.  Furthermore, the OS will be designed for Intel and ARM processors, and could eventually transition away from netbooks to PCs and laptops.

The OS is specifically designed for users who use the internet heavily and won't be ideal for people who aren't connected to the internet often.  Google has said it would continue to launch new products and services in the cloud, including its own Gmail and Google Docs, but very few people expected an OS announcement.

Chrome OS will focus on speed, simplicity and security, and reportedly is a lightweight OS that will be able to boot up in just a few seconds.  Google hopes its interface will be simple enough for all users, with the GUI and user experience expected to be heavily Web-based.

Google is calling for help from the open source community to help work on the OS and iron out any bugs that may arise.

Many Google supporters said the company would eventually release a new OS -- wishful thinking, some analysts said -- but it appears to be a move that could move from netbooks to regular laptops.  Android, which is popular on smartphones, has led several manufacturers to begin using the OS on netbooks currently in development -- instead of porting Android over to netbooks immediately, it seems Chrome OS will help the void.

"We hear a lot from our users and their message is clear -- computers need to get better," the blog also reads.

Microsoft has long-ruled the OS market, but has faced increased pressure from Linux, and must now contend with yet another competitor.  Google has eaten into Microsoft's control of internet offerings, with its Google search engine, Gmail e-mail service, and other cloud-based services.

"We have a lot of work to do, and we're definitely going to need a lot of help from the open source community to accomplish this vision," the Google blog ends.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Calin on 7/8/2009 7:30:17 AM , Rating: 3
A larger developer base
Support from some big companies (RedHat, IBM, ...)
"company fair play" licensing (one can import BSD code and distribute a closed source product, one can not import Linux/GPL code and distribute a closed source product)
Support for Linux on computers ranging from small System on a Chip up to supercomputers and mainframes (BSD might easily run on SoC or supercomputers, but not as easily on mainframes due to lack of hardware specifications and hardware)
turnkey solutions for Linux, developed by large companies (IBM)

Also, BSD is not having a strong community - there are three important BSD variants in use, each with a specific focus (NetBSD for compatibility across different hardware platforms, OpenBSD as a security flagship and FreeBSD)

Also, there is the question of so many Linux kernel developers working on the Linux kernel under the umbrella of a large organisation (for pay), which suggest a faster pace of development

Mostly, Linux is "everywhere", while BSD is just a niche


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 8:10:13 AM , Rating: 5
But until someone at IBM gets a clue, as well as other "big" players figure this simple solution out...

Pay Adobe, Intuit and a couple of other companies to PORT the software to LINUX... duh. But the general issue with Linux is the support night mare for the flavors. KDE vs Gnome. ubuntu vs. redhat vs Google... and with MS helping to KILL the PC-Gaming market so they can sell Xboxes, then who NEEDS a "windows" computer anymore?

- Most people do work/play on the web.
- Open Office is free (yeah, I know - its NOT MS-Office 03/07)
- Game companies are ditching PCs for PS3s and Xbox360.
(seriously, want to hurt MS for hurting PC Gaming? Buy a PS3 instead)
- IE has lost enough market share that very few websites DEMAND IE.

An OS should be light, fast and simple. Windows7 is quite nice, its fast... and it maybe their last chance. If anyone used an Amiga, Version 3.0 was easily faster than 2.0 or 1.3. While it grew drivers and features, its memory management was improved.

Or how about the new OLPC? Their new 2.0 hardware design looks amazing. And its a simple interface, it too can be ported for adults, in a sense.

The true function of an OS is to launch applications and manage your data. Other than that, stay out of the way.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Jimbo1234 on 7/8/2009 11:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh, the Amiga. I had an A500 with an AdSpeed and later a GVP 68030 accelerator / HD / RAM combo addon. I am still amazed by its OS simplicity. Granted it was not designed for networks, etc., but I pretty much knew what every file on the boot partition was for, and what was necessary to get Workbench up in its bare essential form. I think you could make it work with only about 300K from a 880K floppy. Given that there was a 512K ROM, that's still tiny.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 2:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
I still have my A1000 (with 2MB of RAM - $800 in 1987), I had added a De-interlacer (allows the use of VGA monitors) and a 14Mhz CPU with 40mb HD. And my A3000 still works with a 100mb HD.

Remember, the Mac Emulator (not including the OS)was about 80k. Think of how much space (on floppy/HD) to make a GUI OS!

Remember AmigaDOS 2~3.0? Its boot menu, and HD setup? It was GUI to create and manage partitions. Also, if you wanted to be ODD, you can name your HDs anything. HD0: or POS1: etc. ;) Yeah, Windows, especially todays is cryptic, does things in the background to "improve" performance and require Gigs of cheap memory.

Well... 20 years after ADOS 2.x GUI setup... Microsoft has finally done it with Windows7. (Maybe Vista too - but I've never installed Vista from scratch)


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By MrPoletski on 7/9/2009 5:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
ATARI TOS 1.4 FTW!!!!!!1one


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 2:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Strange that this double-posted. Sorry.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Alexvrb on 7/8/2009 2:49:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
MS helping to KILL the PC-Gaming market so they can sell Xboxes, then who NEEDS a "windows" computer anymore?
Yeah, the guys who outpaced OpenGL and are on the verge of delivering a next-gen DirectX that has many enhancements, and they're the ones who are killing PC gaming? They're practically the only ones still driving PC gaming. OpenGL development seems to constantly stall in committee, they've fallen behind. Not to mention that DirectX 11 will also help standardize GPGPU programming, enabling more developers to tap into GPUs regardless of vendor, as long as they are DirectX 11 capable.

I'd like to see both Havok and PhysX running on DX11 for both AMD and Nvidia chips, for example (although in the case of PhysX that's up to Nvidia, so I'm not holding my breath).


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By PrezWeezy on 7/8/2009 5:42:53 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree that Microsoft is "killing" PC gaming. True less games that appeal to you may be available; however, that is not the result of Microsoft. That is a result of development cost. The truth is that XboX/PS3/Wii are standard platforms. You don't need to make the shading adjustable for different video cards. No tweaks to make sure it runs equally well on a $1,000 PC as a $5,000 PC. It's just cheaper to make a game for the XboX. That's not MS's doing, that's just economics.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By tviceman on 7/9/2009 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 1
You're wrong here.

For every single game that sells on the 360, Microsoft gets a royalty fee. These same games net Microsoft ZERO dollars when sold on PC. So lets say you have both a 360 and a great gaming PC. Elder Scrolls IV comes out. With mods, better graphics, and mouse/kb control scheme you will likely buy it on PC.

But lets say this game comes out on the 360 4 months in advance of the PC release. Your likelihood of purchasing it on PC just went down the tubes. And if this is a game you really, really want but don't have a 360, the chances of you buying a 360 just skyrocketed.

On the PC, Microsoft gets ZERO royalty dollars for software you buy (unless microsoft made or published it). On the 360, they get your money with every purchase you make.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Sazar on 7/9/2009 2:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying the FACT that you need a MICROSOFT Operating system to play the WINDOWS based games doesn't net Microsoft money?

Also, the video cards that we buy to play these games on our PC's typically run WHQL drivers which also net Microsoft money from licensing/testing costs.

Sure, the 360 probably makes more money per unit, but it is a complete solution. Microsoft's Windows platform is still THE cash-cow for the company however.

I don't think I am alone in waiting for cross-platform games such as FPS's and other games to come out on the PC because we know the experience will be better, the content richer and the MP superior in every way.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 8:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
But until someone at IBM gets a clue, as well as other "big" players figure this simple solution out...

Pay Adobe, Intuit and a couple of other companies to PORT the software to LINUX... duh. But the general issue with Linux is the support night mare for the flavors. KDE vs Gnome. ubuntu vs. redhat vs Google... and with MS helping to KILL the PC-Gaming market so they can sell Xboxes, then who NEEDS a "windows" computer anymore?

- Most people do work/play on the web.
- Open Office is free (yeah, I know - its NOT MS-Office 03/07)
- Game companies are ditching PCs for PS3s and Xbox360.
(seriously, want to hurt MS for hurting PC Gaming? Buy a PS3 instead)
- IE has lost enough market share that very few websites DEMAND IE.

An OS should be light, fast and simple. Windows7 is quite nice, its fast... and it maybe their last chance. If anyone used an Amiga, Version 3.0 was easily faster than 2.0 or 1.3. While it grew drivers and features, its memory management was improved.

Or how about the new OLPC? Their new 2.0 hardware design looks amazing. And its a simple interface, it too can be ported for adults, in a sense.

The true function of an OS is to launch applications and manage your data. Other than that, stay out of the way.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Lightnix on 7/8/2009 11:00:45 AM , Rating: 3
Until RTS's and FPS's on consoles stop sucking, the PC platform for gaming has a very long way to fall.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By SavagePotato on 7/8/2009 11:30:13 AM , Rating: 4
Do you believe your own BS at this point?

I get such a laugh every time morons like you come out with grandiose statements like "this is Microsoft's last chance!"

Wake up to reality, linux is still struggling for any coherence, mac is a joke, and a new netbook OS that is highly internet dependent isn't going to make your fantasy reality of Microsoft going under in the blink of an eye from 90% plus market share happen.

I think you should have don't stop believing as your theme song.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By mforce on 7/8/2009 12:15:59 PM , Rating: 3
I'm no MS fan but I've got to agree with this. We live and will live in a Windows world for some time now.
Having worked on one I think that yes , Mac is a pretty good joke, you could use it instead of Windows but seriously why would you want to ?
Linux is nice, I like it but it's not quite ready for the mainstream yet , it's getting there , sure but it will be some time before it does.
As for the whole internet and cloud thing I think it's a bit over hyped, I prefer many of my native apps and I prefer them running on my desktop not some cloud or something.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Suntan on 7/8/2009 12:32:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Linux is nice, I like it but it's not quite ready for the mainstream yet , it's getting there , sure but it will be some time before it does.


Personally, I really don’t care what OS I’m using, I tend to spend little time looking at the OS and more time looking at actual programs I’m using. I’ve played with Linux a couple different times over the last couple years, just to keep aware of what the different distros were doing.

I have to say that currently linux is great if you want to build machines with quasi-dedicated OSs for specific purposes (routers, media players, servers, etc.) but as a general purpose computer that replaces an MS computer, it really doesn’t have significant pull other than “It’s not an MS computer.” For the people that “don’t want” MS it works great. But for the general public, it really doesn’t offer anything that makes it better. And most of the “advances” that have been added in the last couple years to make it more consumer friendly have just been things that make it look/act more like MS Windows.

-Suntan


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By MrDiSante on 7/8/2009 7:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. On top of that, this particular iteration of the "Windows-killer" is going nowhere because of Google's mad desire to take everything off of the PC. Note that this thing cannot run ANY native code - EVERYTHING will be written for Chrome. That means in order to listen to music, watch a movie, process a word document, or do anything else you'd need to be connected to the internet. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe even in 5. Not today.

On top of that, as a developer, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than develop for browsers (although I end up doing it a lot anyhow). HTML/AJAX are impressive compared to web 1.0 technologies, but they are nowhere near powerful enough to replace all of your desktop apps.

I think this thing is going to be yet another carcass in the enormous pile of netbooks that have tried to take on Windows. Remember that despite Linux, a proper OS, being available for just about every netbook, Windows has 96% of the netbook market. This "Chrome OS" is a sorry mockery of a proper operating system that is less suited for netbook use than Android. Don't know what the suits at Google were thinking.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 12:26:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wake up to reality, linux is still struggling for any coherence, mac is a joke, and a new netbook OS......
Every few years I load up Linux and give it a try for about a year on a laptop or spare computer. My intention is to switch to it for my main OS and just run Windows inside a VM until I'm fully switched over to Linux. Linux is improved but I keep running into the same problems which keep me from fully moving over:

1. Installing a driver. Why isn't this simplified yet, it's a friggin driver?
2. Applications. Why are applications given names that make no sense whatsoever? Do three year olds write this sh!t?
3. Centralized management of OS functions. Why do I need 16 different apps to setup a wifi connection pre-installed when I load the OS? Why is one wifi setup in one location and 5 others in another location? Can't they all be listed under ONE location? Example: in Windows, if I want to use any network management apps I go to Control Panel/Admin Tools. In Linux, there would be 13 Control Panels, one named Control Panel, another named Admin Mods, another named Raped Goat, another named PARzChiclet... This is ridiculous.

I'd like to give Linux a chance but, Jesus, it needs to grow up and become an adult OS. I do admit, I prefer it for servers though as it can be stripped down to bare necessities. It's still a pain to tweak though.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 3:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want to use any network management apps I go to Control Panel/Admin Tools. In Linux, there would be 13 Control Panels, one named Control Panel, another named Admin Mods, another named Raped Goat, another named PARzChiclet... This is ridiculous.


Is it really Raped Goat? Man, the names they come up with! But yeah, after all these years, Linux needs to grow up. If you meet many of these talented people who work on Linux (many are NOT making a dime, mind you) they like being in the club of "Gods", in a sense. To use an OS that grandma can't handle.

But I've grown up on a "nix" OS in the 80s. AmigaOS is a consumer version of Unix... Hence, the worlds first multi-tasking OS for Personal Computers... God, using a Mac, MS-DOS and Windows 3~98 was is like "WTF!?"... okay, Win9x does Mult-task, but its strong ties to DOS shows. But AmigaOS was designed by 1 company and maintained to be designed for both a novice and power user. Not buy thousands of people all over the world who design for other programmers.

And its not needed. Even IF you're a power user, it shouldn't require 10~13 locations to setup a wireless network. That takes up time.

Linux is getting there... but I'd agree they have a long ways to go. And they have to ACTUALLY think about the bigger picture.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By The0ne on 7/8/2009 6:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's the geeks in these programmers. My co-workers are the same. Their revision makes no sense to anyone but themselves. I asked them many times to use a simple revision format but they laugh like I was crazy. Now imagine having to dig this correlation up and forward for the CO release and manufacturer. And yes, they code in linux.

Somehow, making things easy sometimes is just too much for them to consider >.>


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/10/2009 8:51:34 AM , Rating: 2
I see such things in "geekdom" all the time. Sci-fi, Anime, computers, etc. Its a "club" thing. In the end, the real value is small...

I'll give it to Bill Gates to think big... just think, their first OS, (DOS) they didnt even code/create. Just like most things they do... buy / repackage / re-engineer then sell.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 3:29:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you believe your own BS at this point?


Er... I didn't say its a fact... Vista blew chunks, Windows7 is easily a better OS. BUT in the real-world, people just want to browse. Unlike the 90s with Windows95~XP, we ran everything on the computer.

Just like in the 90s, we went to blockbuster to rent VHS tapes. While today we have OnDemand or downloads of videos and music to our cellphones and PCs.

How many home users care to spend $125~150 for MS-Office? If its work-related, the company should buy it. And a smart employee would have the company buy the computer too.

So if a typical person uses their CelPhone as their PDA. A browser for work & play... and browsers WORK the same on ANY OS... and people are printing less & less... and there are fewer and fewer games for Windows. Even enough that MS themselves ARE not supporting their OWN OS platform! Then what *IS* the point of having an MS-OS?

Its a fact about MS with their views on Windows Gamings. Halo3 and Gears of War2... hello? I bought gears for Windows... very good game. I play it in 1920x1200, easiy sharper than any xbox console. But MS stated "NO" for Windows.... gee thanks.

quote:
linux is still struggling for any coherence,


Really? NO, YOU DON'T SAY! Gee, I think I already brought that up. Linux is a serious OS. But as I stated, the various flavors makes things difficult. And a lot of Linux geeks *like* it that way, its their "club" - like back in the 80s and 90s when the avg Joe didn't use a computer.

But its really quite simple. They need to agree on an official Desktop PC Spec, which Utunbu is perhaps the best so that companies like Adobe knows that Install files and basic setup operations are the same on Utunbu, Chrome, Redhat, etc.

quote:
a new netbook OS that is highly internet dependent


Lets see... my Cel Phone operates great, not a WindowsOS. I have a Thinkpad notebook... which if it was worth it, I'd replace it with a netbook. I a much more portable computer that handle all my needs. On of my clients is actually replacing his 17" notebook with a 10" netbook.

If no games or specialized software is needed, then the OS becomes less important. With Linux, Mac, Celphones and even Amiga - a person can watch videos on Hulu & youtube. Use Google and other web-apps for word processing an even (gasp!) play games... the importance of MS goes down.

I didn't say MS is going under. They may last for another 10, 20 years or maybe 200. I don't know and I don't really care.

I'd like to see more gaming on the PC... higher res, details and power. Sure todays PS3s & 360s are powerful - but these guys expect these consoles to be "mainstream" for another 3 years! Our PC GPUs are already 3 generations ahead and DX11 is about to come out. But DX11 and whatnot means nothing if there isn't any major game development. The #1 game... WOW. And that'll work on any POS computer, which is why 10million+ people play it. No GTX 285 required. But something like Crysis has high demands, yet will work fine on todays $60 video cards.

The developers sees where the money is. Computer savvy users in which many are pirating or your typical human who only has a few buttons on his console?

This has ramifications. If PC gaming (I mean high-end 3D) dies, it would also effect consoles since they are using the experience and derivatives of PC hardware (CPU & GPU) to design the consoles. But if I have a PS3/PS4 plugged into a 50"+ TV to play games... why do I need to have a noisy and heat-generating $200 video card? Also, the demands for faster CPUs will reduce.

I'm playing with Windows7 on a 2Ghz AMD computer, it runs very good. Not quad-core / 8GB power system.

So with that... why do WE need Windows? With MS making software for all aspects of their OS (Office, paint, DTP, image manager, Firewall, AntiVirus, etc) - then these guys should start porting their software for Linux and Mac...

Not saying this WILL happen... like I SAID, Linux/GNU community have their issues. Its NOT the OS itself that is the problem. But its a possibility.

I still use Office 2000, it works 110% of my needs. I can get Office2010 for $100... but I see that as a waste of $$$. I give people OpenOffice 3.x and many find they don't require 100% or any MS compatibility... and its price is great... $0. (Yes, OpenOffice is NOT in the same league as Office2007/2010 - but for MOST home users, OpenOffice gets it done). If it Wasn't for Open Office, the Home/Student version of MS Office that sells for $100 wouldn't exist!

If MS actually loses Desktop market share... we WILL start to see the prices go down. World Wide... MS owns 90% of the market. Mac has 5%, Linux at 1+. Linux & Mac market share is growing. MS can only go down.... oh, and 66% of the Windows Market is STILL XP. Vista will never go over 25%.

As of NOW... the most expensive part for a PC that the end user buys, if building himself or from a small company is MS-Windows at $100~200.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By SavagePotato on 7/8/2009 4:05:24 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft isn't dominant in the market because of PC games.

The last PC game ever made could come out tomorrow and Microsoft would still be dominant in the market.

The majority of that market is and will continue to be business users.

Just keep on hoping for your big day and making grand statements like "this is Microsoft's last chance" I enjoy watching people make themselves look stupid with statements like that.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/10/2009 8:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
MS wont last forever. But they aint going anywhere soon. As long as Linux, Google and Apple keep picking pieces off, its better for everyone one, including us Windows users. And yes, I'll be buying Windows7... its a pretty good product.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By SavagePotato on 7/10/2009 10:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Smilin on 7/8/2009 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
MS killing the PC gaming market??

Please.

If MS sucks so bad at gaming why are there such few games for Mac and Linux? It's disproportionate even considering their low market share. Windows is an easy platform to develop on...especially for games.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 3:52:53 PM , Rating: 1
There will always be games being made for Windows. Especially those young programmers learning how to do program, etc.

Look at sales figures and the actions of the big companies.

Especially Microsoft. They screwed YOU and the rest of us.

Tell me when & where you can buy Halo3 and Gears of War 2 for Windows7 to prove me wrong. I'm not comparing PC gaming to Mac and Linux... I compared gaming to CONSOLES.


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By SavagePotato on 7/8/2009 4:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me why I would want to buy halo3 and gears of war 2 for windows.

Then tell me where you can buy every single MMO in development or currently out with the exception of final fantasy 11, and 14 for your console. Or perhaps where to find a compelling RTS game for them.

Could it be that consoles and the PC lend themselves to different styles of games and you can actually enjoy both without sounding like a butthurt forum tard whining about how you've been screwed?


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By nikon133 on 7/8/2009 4:49:22 PM , Rating: 3
Well... you can't get Crysis on consoles (and likely never will), while GOW 2 and Halo 3 will be available on PC... eventually. Like previous MS games - Halo 1 & 2, Fable, GOW... which MS did publish on PC, after letting XboX a bit of exclusivity.

Additionally, more (than before) console-exclusive publishers are turning to PC, and some mostly-console publishers are making more PC titles than ever. Also, quality of console ports is, on average, better than before:

- First (ever) Burnout game for PC
- Capcom games like Lost Planet, Street Fighter IV
- Square Enix is doing Final Fantasy XIII for PC
- Last Devil May Cry IV came on PC together with console versions
- etc etc

Plus... PC market is still king of the hill comes to MMO games - WOW, Conan, EVE...

It was much easier for Sony to get exclusive contracts when it was about PS2 and market share it was occupying, but when it comes to PS3, it is just not strong enough to command terms and conditions.

Nah, Pc gaming is far from dead. I actually think it is stronger than last couple of years. High percentage of pirating is a drawback and limiting factor in some developers' decision to make (or not) PC version of their games, but sheer number of computers out there does have it's lure.

How many PS3 consoles are out there, compared to number of game-capable PCs..?


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By The0ne on 7/8/2009 6:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's a bit stronger due to the limited genre that kids are into nowadays. Other genres have yet to be reborn. I'm seriously doubting SC2 or D3 will revitalize their genres. And while Kings Bounty is good I'm still hoping for a good HOMM type game with random maps and all. That's where the replay is with HOMM :)


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki