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."
I think most people will stick with Windows and proper GNU/Linux netbooks.
Just web apps? I guess I can take my old 8bit computer out of the closet, because we're returning to purely interpreted programs now. Hey look ma! That program that compiled occupied about 512K of RAM now takes 150MB, YAY FUTURE!!!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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!
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)
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.
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.
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.
This has always been my concern about cloud computing and moving toward web apps and online content. Honestly I don't think that the idea of turning our desktops into terminals will catch on, and I'm not really sure that advocates have considered the cost. You're really just moving the hardware requirements to the server side as far as I can tell. Plus, the necessity of perpetual highspeed internet connections...
If it's open source and available... couldn't interested parties compile it themselves. How are they going to ensure that it's not available for actual use?
Yeah, it really sucks.
I'm really hopeful that one day they will increase the size of hard drives, memory density, etc..
I know you Linux folks are ultra cheap and seem to think no new hardware has ben produced in ages, and thats cool. But really, if you ask anyone you know if they recently bought a new computer I'm sure they could give you a hell of a deal on that old P133 Packard Bell.
This is the infamous network appliance made real. The OS is a simplified kernel with a specific set of supported hardware with a simple interface and no on-system storage for data. All apps and settings are "in the cloud" i.e., on google's servers.
For likely 90% of home users, this will be perfect. A relatively dumb device that only runs a web browser to use web apps (googles or anyone else's provided their signed by google) to do their work.
It takes user-friendly to an extreme and makes everything just part of the web browser experience.
The root OS partition is read only and the selection of hardware is prescribed by google. You can download the source to hack it, but you can't make an installable image as you can't cryptographically sign it for their okay. They're only planning this to be a bought with hardware purchase.
Sound familiar? It should, it's basically the Apple experience made into a net appliance.
Something solid state would be my guess. It makes sense to refer to the new solid state drives as a "hard drive" since that is what its replacing but I feel the term "hard drive" is being used to refer to the drives that use platters and other mechanics.
Hard Disk Drive = HDD = Platters
Solid State Drive = SDD = Not mechanical.
The hypothetical "user" will never have a chance to download Google's OS and find it doesn't work well. Google has stated their intention of only providing it with approved hardware.
Now, because they have also announced that it will be OSS(except, presumably, a blob of trademarked logos and stuff), there will most likely be third party builds available; but the sort of people who download third party builds of OSS code can either RTFM beforehand to make sure that their stuff is supported, or deal with it like adults when their unsupported hardware turns out to be problematic.
enthusiastic linux base
Something tells me that's the exact opposite of what they're going for. You're delusional in thinking that Linux users have that much weight to throw around in the netbook market. This is the type of thing Jane doe will buy and enjoy it because it runs facebook just fine on cheap, energy efficient, small form factor hardware.
Similes are like metaphors
I plan to move our company to a "dumb terminal" model over the next couple of years. You say that the cost of hardware just gets "shifted", but this is not entirely accurate. I have roughly 60 users. Each machine must be spec'd to handle the biggest workload, even if that only gets hit during some small fraction of the day. For 99%+ of the day, I have a powerful machine doing very little. With a centralized model, I can smooth that out.
But that isn't the biggest reason I am going to this model. I have folks who can be working in our central office, satellite office, on the road, or at home. I need ways to give my workforce the flexibility they need to work anywhere.
From a cost standpoint, PCs are awful. Maintenance is generally more than the hardware costs. Software installation and configuration alone costs us about 1/4 of a FTE. By centralizing, I am expecting that number to drop by 2/3.
Now, granted, my network is either local, or connected by dedicated T-1's except for our road folks. So, while I think this is a great idea for my workplace, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for me at home.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
FTFA:
Boots from flash, be it built-in or external (think SD card), presumably. I'm sure someone will come up with a live CD/PXE boot eventually, though. Plus, it's an open source OS, so someone will eventually hack in standard SATA drivers and the like, if Google refuses to provide them.
I assume that by "don't allow people to download 'it'", they mean "don't provide a precompiled installer CD that(implicitly or explicitly) promises to actually work on actual hardware". Obviously, if it is an OSS project, there is nothing stopping people from producing 3rd party builds that do attempt, or even promise, to install on all sorts of hardware. However, those won't be Google's problem, so they have no real reason to care.
I assume that Google either believes they can get money from device makers or, more likely, has absolutely no interest in being on the hook for the fact that your broadcomm wireless running firmware XYZ.123 drops frames and repeatedly disconnects when used with WPA/TKIP, or whatever.
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.
Please, allow me to fix this for you.
. The reality is that if lots of people use anything cloud, it will not be able to be realtime or respond quickly. Latency and transmission requirements are astronomical for this method. Of course the selling point is less hardware for the end user.
Seen what happens to google wave when you hit about 100 people? Imagine the same for 100 thousand people.
Of course on the flip side, if people do the computations for you (aka owning a computer), you don't need as much server space, and people can actually maintain copies of their stuff, and not be limited by network capacity and network access. Latency is much easier to work on like that.
In order for google to get around that latency issue they will need to be able to have around 50ms everywhere on the planet, which simply isn't feasible because sometimes computing on an app might take more than 50ms to do.
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.
I suppose "they're being word-weasles" is one guess.
Combining the "no hard drives" rule with the "every app is a web app" rule, I'm more inclined to think they really do mean "no local random-access persistant mass storage devices"; they want this to be a client for their cloud services.
It's a lot easier to upgrade a datacenter
And harder to upgrade the last-mile pipe between the datacenter and the terminal, at least until other countries follow the lead of Finland and Spain in mandating a better-than-dial-up level of Internet service. If you're using a web-based operating system, you do not want to be stuck with 0.05 Mbps.
If you use x86, you've been running all interpreted code since the mid 90s - all x86 processors since the Pentium Pro are RISC processors with an on-chip virtual machine for the x86 instructions. This objection to interpreted code seems to be based on, well, nothing - why should we care what implementation strategy our software happens to be using?
Hard disks are banned
But not floppies!!
I new sticking with the Amiga all these years would pay off!! I finally have a use for all these "Floppy" disks!!
If the OS can't be downloaded, it's attached to the hardware 1-to-1.
The hardware can't cost a penny more than a netbook ($250-300) or we'd just get a netbook.
Removing the harddrive, or putting a small 4gb SD drive, will put it around $200.
$200: Meh.
$150: I'd rush the doors like a Walmart on Black Friday.
After finding this link: http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/security-overview
I'm impressed. I wasn't expecting that much in the way of security in this offering, but I'm actually pleasantly surprised by how much thought Google has put into this, both from remote attacks and local (stolen computer/device).
Three notable things:
I like is the fact that items that log on and use Google's authentication mechanism work online, and offline by using a local cached hash table.
The segmenting of the Web browser. This is something every Web browser should do, so one buggy plugin doesn't mean a completely rooted system.
Very well thought out boot path with initial key values stored in an unalterable chip. Next to a TPM boot, this is a good way to protect against corrupted boot attacks.
My only wish is that the device didn't use an Owner/user priv model. This is just fine for devices and home computers, but when you get to the enterprise where you have to have machines have a "master-root" user (usually an Active Directory) admin, there will be issues.
But only Google's cloud.
Say what you will about Windows, but I can install Chrome, Gears, and bam -- I can use Google's 'cloud' infrastructure.
ChromeOS? I can only use Google.
I'll stick with Windows for now.
On a related note, this is one of the most underwhelming releases I've ever seen. Way to blow the hype.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
expecting : reality :: vaporware : release
While I extensively use Google's products, I find that GMail is still wanting in terms of searching for email.
Here's why: You search for all mails containing some word...Gmail returns all mails having such a word with no obvious categorization. It would be better if it can return emails categorized as follows:
Those with attachments and what type of attachment it is, those sent last week, last month, last year, 2 years ago etc...those sent by who...and so on.
Right now, the interface sucks big time. Anyone agree? Yahoo does a better job at this.
Unlike traditional operating systems, Chrome OS doesn't trust the applications you run. Each app is contained within a security sandbox making it harder for malware and viruses to infect your computer. Furthermore, Chrome OS barely trusts itself. Every time you restart your computer the operating system verifies the integrity of its code.
The developers barely trust themselves to write secure code so they decided code will not be writen at all. Not trusting themselves with this even they have scrambled their passwords and erased their door access cards. Security has been further enhanced by all staffers being locked up in the basement behind a externally locked door. 6 weeks later the only issue is now is the smell.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Just like the early days of Linux.
Gmail wins mail.
Google docs provides a position in the office market.
Google Wave provides a shared, collaborative team synchronization system.
Google Voice provides a complete solution replacement for all phones.
Android positions Google in the handheld market.
Cell providers cut Google a sweet deal for ad revenue sharing (well documented already)
Cell providers cut Google a deal to resell wireless at their whim. (well documented)
Chromium OS excludes local storage, relies on cloud computing, ties to ubiquitous wireless data access resold by Google.
Screw the future. It's not "still coming." With Chromium OS, Google just implemented ubiquitous, disposable, always-on, wireless computing, collaborating, and calling for the masses, who need never again fear their computer breaking, their hard drive eating their data, or nearly anything else.
...and from this future there will be no escape.
Open source means just that; open source. The source code is readily available to anyone. It does not necessarily follow that configured, built, regression tested binary images are available for download. Of course Chrome OS is open source; it's based on GPL 2 Linux kernel, GNU libraries, Google's open source Chromium browser, which is in turn based on webkit, etc.; Google is obligated to make the source available for most of that and even the parts for which they are not obligated (it's not all GPL) they're providing anyhow. None of this means that the built binary images for any particular device must also be provided by Google.
If you have the wit to obtain the source, and configure, build and install the resulting images then you're free to do so.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Uh, anyone that has a netbook that they use for absolutely nothing but web browsing? Which, if everyone else is as disappointed with their netbooks as I am, should be a lot of people. Basically, if you have a computer that you do nothing but web browsing on - Chrome OS is for you.
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.
This basically opens up multitudes of possibilities for offline apps. If you can plug in a USB flash drive, why not a USB hard drive? If you can store and listen to music offline, why not video? And if everything runs in the browser, it just means that the API is javascript. You can do a lot with javascript.
Also, being open source means that forks can add whatever regular linux functionality they want.
I'm interested in what they're doing with X11. Anyone looked at the code?
Thanks for your brilliant retort without any supporting facts. I will throw out the whole strategy now.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Yes, you can: http://alt.org/nethack/soiled/
"[Netscape will soon reduce Windows to] a poorly debugged set of device drivers." 1995, Marc Andreessen
How quickly does gmail open for you, barring load times? How quickly are emails sent? Have you ever seen the word "loading"? what do you think that means? (hint: it's not referring to just processing).
The answer is that loadtimes are not instant. How fast does someone else editing a google doc with you see updates? Not instant. There is an acceptable latency, but lots of things get around it which are also things that don't need good latency.
It's also not about quantity of bandwidth. Latency is not bandwidth capacity. You can have 1TB/s but if your latency is >300ms, there are things it will not work for.
Also, please quit the "Typical use" phrase that comes about all the time. There is no definition of typical use that you can specifically define for anyone other than yourself, as everyone has different definitions of that phrase. "typical use" is entirely subjective. You can try your best to generalize it but there's a limit to how realistic and accurate it will be.
I think you're missing the kind of apps that will also have an issue. There are apps that are latency sensitive, and there are ones that are not. As an example, someone will notice packetloss/latency trying to load the slashdot homepage, but they don't notice the latency between when they hit submit on a comment and/or preview. The difference is whether what you are doing requires attention or not. In the case of "all apps to be online only", that will inadvertently catch a ton of applications.
Atari TOS on ROM-->MSDOS on Floppy-->Windows on HDD-->Chrome OS on SSD --> aLl yOuR bAsE iS bElOnG tO uS.
Will it have Java? I'm wondering because it's still the only way to do decent architecture-independent games without 100% CPU usage 100% of the time.
Or does it support the Native client stuff?
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.
Really, what does an OS need to do? It needs to manage the network, talk to devices and launch applications. That's it, isn't it? By specifying "no hard disk" Google is cutting out a major part of the device chat. Displaying a folder hierarchy is essentially a search, format and display application. They're good at that.
A large part of the Windows code is managing a large variety of devices, from displays to USB devices. If Google specifies the display format, then there's another large chunk of code dropped. The UI is an application, pointing devices are - devices.
Add an IP stack for the network and stick a security layer in somewhere, if you still need it.
By limiting configuration choices to those that have a broad appeal a *huge* amount of OS can simply go away. You have less local IO, less device chat, and no local disk latency to worry about.
People know how long their network takes to react, and will accommodate that. In contrast, a very thin OS will be very quick and will compare very favourably to a thick OS in response. And if most of the IO is server-side in the cloud, you won't see a lot of IO delays (source of most hangs) and response should be smoother overall, because servers tend to have the best IO controllers and enough spindles to stripe (not that Google would resort to actual hard drives!) Where's the beef?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Who said anything about my using Google? Actually I am looking at Citrix in a virtualized environment. The testing I have done shows it is a very viable alternative to what we are currently using.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Today users can still get at least *some* work done without being connected. This is another big step towards a single point of failure the likes of which we have never seen in entire human history.
I want my email accessible from multiple locations. I can check it at work, at home, on my phone, on the moon, etc.
Do I trust my ISP? Hell, no.
Do I trust companies like Microsoft, AOL or Yahoo who hand over my data to everyone on the planet? No.
Do I trust Google, who has fought court orders to protect my privacy? Yes.
Name a better alternative.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Welcome to the future, where we abandon decades of established desktop APIs for the web in order to return to the glory days of DOS, where everyone re-implements their own!
By the way, finding out Chrome OS is as reduced in its functionality as I feared is really disappointing. Why would anyone use this if they could install a Linux variant that can run things other than Google-brand web apps? And it can run them at native speeds instead of at JavaScript speeds?
It's just amazing to me how many top players in this industry are so eager to step backwards in progress without realizing it.
>I want my email accessible from multiple locations. I can check it at work, at home, on my phone, on the moon, etc.
>
> Name a better alternative.
Running your own IMAP server at home, accessed via SSL/TLS. Something which I (and many others) have done for over a decade.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
In other words, I should trust them with all my data. And probably be tied in forever. No thanks.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Install my own mail server and tape drive system which I must maintain whitelists and blacklists for, or let Google do the heavy-lifting?
Let me ask a better question. When Bush said he might start asking for search data on every user in the country, and then AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft preemptively was handing that data over, while Google was busy fighting court orders not to have over user data on Orkut users (who were in fact spreading kiddie porn), what has Google ever done once to suggest to me that I shouldn't trust them?
Or are you a member of the permanent tinfoil-hat brigade?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If the source is available today, what is the time until someone throws up a virtual image that I can run?
Tomorrow?
A dumb terminal with modern parenthood
No sig for the moment.
Because I like not having to configure each mail client on each computer I use, having my entire mail history available to me through a browser, and not having to worry about backing my mail up. The notion of a local mail client is quaint.
Because running a software interpreter means having the CPU do between 10x and 1000x as much work compared to running the same logic natively. It wastes battery life and limits the complexity of programs you can implement on the exact same piece of hardware.
Here's something that should be a real concern for geeks. Right now, the ordinary desktop users who don't really need a powerful computer are buying computers. This means that due to economies of scale, the cost of computers is relatively cheap. Imagine what will happen to the price of "powerful desktop-ish machines with full-featured OSes" if 90% of the computing market suddenly starts using these toys. Start preparing to go back to the days of $15,000 computers. Just saying. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I imagine you're aware of this, but with Linux, you could do all this for free. Citrix'll cost you a ton for client access licenses, and Linux has this kind of thin-client support built in.
Of course, you must be replacing a traditional Windows desktop-centric network, and I guess you have some need for Windows-only apps with no viable Linux equivalent. But don't you wish you didn't have that requirement? Maybe one of these days...
Interestingly, maybe ChromeOS will support a citrix client (or X / NX server). Maybe the new devices built around ChromeOS will make really nice thin-client terminals for more than web-only use. Not clear yet, but that could be enough of a niche to keep the hardware manufacturers onboard. Maybe even Wyse...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...