Slashdot Mirror


Google Releases Source To Chromium OS

Kelson writes "Google has released the source to what will eventually become Chrome OS, and will begin developing it as an open source project like Chromium. The OS differs from the usual computing model by (1) making all apps web apps (2) sandboxing everything and (3) removing anything unnecessary, to focus on speed." Reader Barence adds "Google said consumers won't be able to download the operating system — it will only be available on hardware that meets Google's specifications. Hard disks are banned, for instance, while Google said it will also specify factors such as screen sizes and display resolutions. Google said it plans to officially launch Chrome OS by the end of next year."

19 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds dumb to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So basically it sounds like everything will be stored on Google's servers in some way to me. So everything I do they will know.

    I don't like it I like to control things that are mine!

  2. Um, Thanks But No by lenwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everything runs in the cloud? Hard disks are banned? Wow, they are aggressively pursuing their thirst for all of the world's data. No thank you.

    --
    -Chris (aka Lenwood)
  3. Google good, Apple bad ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it will only be available on hardware that meets Google's specifications. Hard disks are banned, for instance, while Google said it will also specify factors such as screen sizes and display resolutions

    How do we reconcile this with slamming Apple for trying to maintain 100% control over the OS/hardware combo?

    Norman ... coordinate.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Google good, Apple bad ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah and all webapps which everyone hated when the iPhone did it but this is Google so be prepared to suddenly have it become brilliant and the wave of the future. Hurrah for hypocrasy.

      More interesting (well, to me), is this is essentially a re-hash of the concept of thin client computing which Microsoft tried so hard to get rid of in the 90's.

      Everything old is new again.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Google good, Apple bad ... by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Help me out. Where can I download the source code to OS X and all the software components for a working Mac? Sure, I can buy Apple's official version of the OS on their official hardware, but where can I install it on my OWN hardware because I have the source?

      Apple is a bunch of tight assed control freaks. They build good stuff, but you must run it THEIR way on THEIR systems.

      Google builds good stuff, and they sell it on their systems or partners' systems, and you can STILL run in on anything you can make it work on, since they provide the source code.

      So, yes -- Google good, Apple bad.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  4. restrictions by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's open source, the only enforcement they'll have over things like hard drives being banned, screen size restrictions, only web apps, etc. will be control of their trademarks. If Chrome offers something sufficiently compelling that people want to run it on "noncompliant" hardware, or run non-web-apps, they will fork it.

  5. Going back to sleep now... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The OS differs from the usual computing model by (1) making all apps web apps [...]

    Well, I guess we were overdue for another well-funded attempt to flog the dead horse of thin clients again. I'd read the press release to see how many lines I have to scan before the first appearance of the word "convergence", but I feel too overwhelmed by indifference...

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Going back to sleep now... by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but your users probably hate them if they have to do any kind of real work on them. That is, anything that can't be done in a web browser at least.

      Go out and take a walk and ask people if they miss having a real PC. I bet they do. If they don't now, they will when the capacity for your servers approaches 80%, and then management will be unwilling to invest in more infrastructure. Then it will all fall apart when you exceed capacity and the number of complaints by users forces management to reinvest... in new desktop PCs.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  6. Re:Looks pretty shit by awitod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whoever modded you offtopic must really like Google.
    I have to agree.
    It seems they are getting a lot of press for a pretty underwhelming idea - a browser with direct access to the underlying hardware. wow

  7. Re:Looks pretty shit by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But this will be useful in some cases (3rd world education, your grandparents, etc) where all your need are webapps, like Gmail, Google Docs, etc. Not everyone needs a full blown OS and the hardware costs associated with it.

  8. Re:Looks pretty shit by should_be_linear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, because what Joe Sixpack needs is Antivirus, endless straem of updates, burning backups of mail and documents and restoring it later, and rest of that shit.

    --
    839*929
  9. Key Piece of Information (it's only for netbooks!) by NapalmScatterBrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is being targeted at netbooks and ONLY netbooks. They are expecting customers to be folks who already own a main computer for dedicated application needs.

  10. Re:Hmm.. by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, my old Amiga took about a minute to open a large jpeg. Just a few years ago it was common to use specialised hardware just to watch high quality video. Perhaps we're moving to an age were most PCs will be the spiritual successors to dumb terminals. They'll still be a hell of a lot more powerful than desktops of 15 years ago.

  11. Re:Looks pretty shit by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A hardware vendor can already put a tiny installation of Linux + X11 + Firefox or Chrome on small flash drive. Why make a new OS?

  12. Re:Looks pretty shit by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the 3rd world really have always-on mobile internet with unlimited data, such that all apps being webapps is a good idea?

  13. Re:Having watch the video press conference... by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For likely 90% of home users, this will be perfect.

    No way. A very large segment of home users need iTunes to sync with their iPod and iPhone, play video games, take photos off their cameras, work from home, etc.

    I'd say this is perfect for no more than 50% of home users. Of course that's still a big market, but not the vast majority.

  14. Re:Hmm.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sort of. It'll be more of a dual path(or, in practice, triple path) thing.

    If you want it to Just Work, you go to the store, tell the clerk you want a "google box" and go home happy.

    If you aren't all that hardcore; but know how to do a linux install and follow other people's fix suggestions in forums, there will presumably be one, or a handful, of third party builds that are broadly understood to work well on particular hardware, and somewhat less well on other hardware. If you own reasonably common hardware with the right chipset, and know how to use bittorrent, it'll pretty much be plug and go, albeit with a few techie steps.

    If you are hardcore, it'll basically be LFS with an interesting boot process and Chromium brower in the init script, and best of luck.

  15. Reminds me of something by Giuseppe+(ot) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "[Netscape will soon reduce Windows to] a poorly debugged set of device drivers." 1995, Marc Andreessen

  16. Re:Hmm.. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How quickly does gmail open for you, barring load times?

    3-5 seconds, tops.

    How quickly are emails sent? Have you ever seen the word "loading"?

    1-2 seconds to send an email. Yes, I've seen loading before. It lasts no longer than 5-10 seconds at a time, faster than it takes to load outlook.

    The answer is that loadtimes are not instant. How fast does someone else editing a google doc with you see updates? Not instant.

    How long does it take to load Outlook, or load Word? Send emails in Outlook? Have it load hundreds of emails? Not instant.

    There is an acceptable latency, but lots of things get around it which are also things that don't need good latency.

    That's why you build your webapp to handle latency properly. I've used Gmail on an Iridium modem in the middle of the ocean. And it works. Is it snappy fast? Not like a 100Mb/s pipe. But they have all my mail stored redundantly somewhere, which I can search from anywhere with an internet connection, from any device with a web browser. Data stored remotely but cached locally during use is a natural progression for applications, now that storage and data transmission is evolving quicker.