Or just taken out of context. Since both Android and Chrome OS run on Linux, a small userland, and a display server, maybe there is some effort within Google to bring these two more together to reduce maintenance cost.
Disclaimer: I don't know how much the code bases differ now.
Fairly substantially. ChromeOS is a fairly standard Linux distro under the hood, albeit with not using X11 or directfb for their rendering layer, while Android uses a different libc, rendering layer, etc.
> Smells like there is a lot of friction and uncertainty inside Google...
Since they didn't make announce their plans of merging operating systems (and thusly just wanted to reassure people that ChromeOS wasn't going away), why does it make it seem like there is "a lot of friction and uncertainty inside Google"?
Seems like you're making a huge leap with little information supporting such a claim. If you have more information than what is it?
> Confused public statments do hint at internal confusion.
Why is it a "confused public statement" because they didn't directly respond to the rumor? They most likely didn't want to. Do you have a criteria for what makes a "confused public statement" and any data showing that it correlates with "internal confusion"?
>Why is it a "confused public statement" because they didn't directly respond to the rumor?
Because the post is about the rumor. They say "hey guys, we heard there's a rumor. anyway chrome is awesome, so remember that. bye."
Making a full blog post about a question while avoiding an answer makes for a very confused statement. If you don't see how then I'm not sure I can help.
I don't have a source for confusion correlating with confusion.
> If you don't see how then I'm not sure I can help.
I think you're trying to see something that may not be there. The entire purpose of the blog post was to assure existing and future ChromeOS users that it wasn't going away and they did that. They didn't comment on the merger rumor itself but they addressed one of the major concerns many of the news outlets were discussing.
That's not confused at all. That's very controlled.
> I don't have a source for confusion correlating with confusion.
This is Hacker News, not reddit; come back with your data if you're going to make a claim about "confused" press releases indicating "internal confusion".
> They didn't comment on the merger rumor itself but they addressed one of the major concerns many of the news outlets were discussing.
No news outlet could seriously interpret 'merge' as 'cease to exist'. So they only addressed a secondary nonsensical rumor while ignoring the core of the issue. That leads to very particular and obfuscatory wording. Confused wording.
>This is Hacker News, not reddit; come back with your data if you're going to make a claim about "confused" press releases indicating "internal confusion".
So the standard of evidence is an impossible study that nobody would even want to run.
I can't assume that press releases have anything to do with what companies are actually preaching internally.
