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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
A hardware vendor can already put a tiny installation of Linux + X11 + Firefox or Chrome on small flash drive. Why make a new OS?
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
Does the 3rd world really have always-on mobile internet with unlimited data, such that all apps being webapps is a good idea?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
"[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.
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
Price. No HDD and the ability to streamline components because it only does certain things cuts cost, which in turn cuts price. I can see people buying a "Web Tablet" that they already know all they intend to do with it is just what ChromeOS does, and then they have a normal computer for the real work. It's actually closer to the original "idea" of a netbook. A simple, inexpensive booklet that just does the internet.
Here's a cookie... *psst* it's MAGIC
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.
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.