Try Out Chrome OS In a Virtual Machine

itwbennett writes "Some very generous Alpha OS geeks have snagged the Chrome OS source code and compiled a version to share with the rest of us, writes blogger Peter Smith. 'The build comes in the form of a virtual machine, which means you'll need VMWare or VirtualBox running, and of course the image of Chrome OS itself. The folks at gdgt are distributing the latter, and they've set up a page with all the links you'll need. You'll need to create a gdgt account if you don't have one yet. The Chrome OS image is only a bit over 300 megs, so it's a fast download. If you need a little more handholding, TechCrunch has a step-by-step guide to getting Chrome OS installed and running using VirtualBox, and a Chrome OS torrent they link to.'"

Comments

Nothing to see here...

[Obispus]

It looks exactly like the Chrome/Chromium browser, with a few more desktop icons and a weird window manager.

The only novelty is that the lack of a "shutdown" option seems to be intentional; the local machine is supposed to be stateless in the sense that it commits all transactions remotely before announcing their completion. Plan 9 also tried to achieve that goal, at least initially.

Kudos to the people who put these images together, though--they've saved many of us significant time.

Re:Nothing to see here...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Well - the other thing that's rather cool is that it boots to usable system in less than 5 seconds (on the VM). For most OS's I play with, it's 30-90 seconds..

Not real Alpha

[Anonymous Coward]

I got really excited until I realised that this wasn't for the DEC Alpha processor. Shit.

Counterpoint

[symbolset]

There's a lot of handwaving about how Chrome is not Windows, how it won't let you use photoshop on the netbook, as if you would. Here's a hint: if you're trying to run Photoshop on a 10" screen, you're doing it wrong.

Look for disastrous reports from Gartner, Forrester and of course the Rob Enderle / Maureen O'Gara flackalyst duet on how Chrome is the worst thing since smallpox. These are your clues that this is the real thing. They said the same things about the When Google says they released the source, people build it and publish virtual machines the same day.

Netbooks are stepping up in performance, as this four-threaded model shows, and will soon be able to do many more things. Yes, VDI is starting to ramp. There is still a place for Chrome. It's the dead-simple desktop interface that many of the technology impaired need. It's a point on the graph twice the distance on the line from Debian to Ubuntu.

A bunch of people are going to whine it doesn't support disk. It's a next-generation operating system and solid state is the storage of the next generation. It has local storage - just not the slow kind you're used to. There is no more reason to support the legacy spinning disk on this platform than there is to support tape storage or floppy disk. Moving parts are so 2008.

Re:Counterpoint

[postbigbang]

Tho I'll agree about Enderle and O'Gara, there's not much to ChromeOS at all. Apps? Look to the web.

I already have browsers coming out my ears. I like doing some of my own processing on the fat multicores in my notebook.

Google still hasn't shown a real 1) educational 2) business case 3) entertainment or 4) porn case for ChromeOS. Any of those could drive it. Right now, it's just a lightweight ROM-able appliance and a Microsoft/MacOS/Linux killer looking for a spot marked X.

This is centrist computing at best, and a goofy attempt at targeting the bloat in all of the aforementioend operating systems. Snooze.

Re:Counterpoint

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While their initial plans don't mention it much, I suspect that(if they can get a decent initial launch as a basic consumer netbook OS), ChromeOS could be absolutely killer across a fair swath of the small business market.

Here's why:

In medium business to enterprise IT, there are a bunch of really useful abilities that are taken for granted. They cost a fair amount of initial effort and money; but once you achieve them, you are get the benefits on all client machines. Those are, centralized storage of files and configurations and centralized application of updates and policies. If some cube-dweller's computer dies, IT can shove another one at him, he logs in, and all his files and settings are right there again. Easy, standard.

On the small business side, they are lucky if they have real backups to recover from, never mind being able to treat client machines are more or less interchangeable, consumable parts.

Imagine, though, tying ChromeOS' interesting single sign in setup to Google Apps for business(with an interface for managing the ChromeOS preferences tied to your employee logins added to the ones used for parceling out file access and email accounts)... You'd get idiot-proof access to the same client-independent features, and automatic backups, and single sign on stuff that the big guys have, on cheap, common hardware, without any need for much local IT expertise.

Obviously, this would not be trivial, nor would it necessarily be possible immediately. Google would likely have to either partner with or duplicate and exterminate a number of business software outfits to expand their offerings sufficiently for this to be attractive. Worst comes to worst, they could use Native Client to bring particularly stubborn blobs onto the web. Also, since anything you can get on ChromeOS you could also get in your browser on a full machine, there would be nothing preventing businesses from using a mixture of chrome and full computers.

Re:Counterpoint

[vux984]

In medium business to enterprise IT, there are a bunch of really useful abilities that are taken for granted.

In this spare we already have Citrix, Terminal Servers, Roaming Access Profiles, etc. They've got a blackberry enterprise server hooked into their exchange server, and everyone uses outlook to schedule their meetings. The finance people want excel. The marketing group wants powerpoint. The graphic artists want photoshop. The CEO wants an imac on his desk.

Where does gmail and some watered down office apps fit into this? Seriously.

On the small business side, they are lucky if they have real backups to recover from, never mind being able to treat client machines are more or less interchangeable, consumable parts.

On the small business side, everyone has an ipod, and they run simply accounting or quickbooks, or some industry specific accounting/point-of-sale/CRM suite.

. You'd get idiot-proof access to the same client-independent features, and automatic backups, and single sign on stuff that the big guys have, on cheap, common hardware, without any need for much local IT expertise.

Except its missing a key feature: the ability to run the apps they rely on.

If you were starting a new business, and set out to only use stuff that was in chromeos you might make it. But for any established business shoehorning everything you need into whats available from google is outright absurd.

Just today one of my clients needed to download a 2.2GB iso image from a vendor in australia and burn it to DVDs. This is a trivial task most of us would take for granted. Can't do it in ChromeOS. They burned 5 copies and then ran some simple software that came with their printer to print attractive labels for the DVDs they'd just burnt. Can't do that in ChromeOS either.

Another client used some software provided by Fedex Courier to print out a bunch of shipping labels.

Another runs a VB6 app someone wrote to query data from the enterprise SQL server.

Another runs a C# app to decode the lathe parameters for cutting a proprietary contact lens design.
Another client.

It goes on and on and on.

Also, since anything you can get on ChromeOS you could also get in your browser on a full machine, there would be nothing preventing businesses from using a mixture of chrome and full computers.

Politics. Nobody likes getting the 'dumb terminal' when somone else got a 'full pc'.

Change to GNU/Linux/Chorome OS... Quick!

[imaniack]

before RMS crashes the party!

Re:Torrent?

[ZorbaTHut]

Why the hell not?

User confusion, really. Users are fragile and easily puzzled creatures. Every link you put on your website is a link the user can frantically flail onto and accidentally click. Then you end up with people on your forum asking why the OS isn't working. After all, they burned the file right onto the CD!

In the case of a beta OS meant to be run inside a VM, yeah, user competence is probably not a huge issue. In the case of an OS which is trying to be a mass-market OS, you want it to be as easy as humanly possible, and adding a torrent link to the homepage does not make things any easier.

ChromeOS is a Good Thing!

[a.ameri]

ChromeOS is a very good move for everyone involved. Remember, this OS and the devices it will run on are not targeting average slashdotters. I can personally vouch that I come across daily contact with people, business people not just teenagers, who don't use anything other than their browser. The worst aspect of a computer for them, is upgrading, updating all applications, viruses, malware, and general maintenance of the system. They nearly all fail in these, and after a year, they think their laptop is not usable anymore and go and buy a new one. They would LOVE this OS, and are they primary targets of it. Also, synchronisation between multiple computers is a bitch, that even they most fail at. And they hate leaving their documents here and there. Files and directories don't work for them, it's a broken metaphor for most people, and as much as love to organise my files in hierarchical directories, they simply don't care. They just want access to their information, when they need, as conveniently as possible.

I hate Web apps as much as the next guy on this forum, and even use my trusty IMAP client for fetching my emails from Gmail. But I can't deny that web apps are the future, specially when HTML 5 comes off age and becomes widespread. If you look back at what the Web looked like 5 years ago and compare it to now, you'll see that it will be irresistible in 5 years time. Have a look at http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ to get a taste of what we are looking at.

On a more general note, anyone who is comparing this to old failed projects based on thin clients, X terminals or net pcs, is missing the point. Yes, the technology behind this might be similar to those, but times are changing. On the one hand, people are getting used to ever-present always-available services. On the other hand, 3G is now widespread, affordable, and provides great utility for many. Laptops and phones are converging. 2007 was the year of netbooks, 2010 might be the year of smartbooks (running ARM processors). Smartphones are morphing into Internet tablets (e.g,, N900). These are very different, and interesting times.

Yes, this is cloud computing, and yes, it raises huge privacy issues. It is up to us the tech savvy crown to raise these issues and address them.

Slashdotters can always run their trusty Debian or Fedora or FreeBSD or on their computer. And they remain great choices. But Google is pushing applications to go online and cross browser. They are pushing for open source drivers. They are pushing for open standards and cooperation with upstream and downstream projects. This is a Good Thing (TM) for all of us, even if we are not the target consumers of this OS.

Define killer app

[Art3x]

I don't know about you, but long battery life to me would be a killer app. I think that the standard six hours or less shows a peculiar lack of any progress. Sure, I can go to a coffee shop with my laptop. But I can't relax at a coffee shop with my laptop. How long will a smart-phone CPU with a notebook-sized battery last, I wonder?

I also consider a boot time of less than 10 seconds a killer app. The standard 45 seconds or more that even Windows XP (old) on my Core 2 Duo (new) gives me is baffling after 25 years of the PC. (Really, its more like two minutes before it is really ready to give me attention.) If my computer shuts down in two seconds and boots in three, l wouldn't plan my morning around it: "Time to make coffee --- no, wait, start the computer before you make coffee, then it will be ready at the same time."

Security is also a killer app. Encrypted home directory + read-only root + twin root partitions + a lot of other things = a lot more peace of mind. What if my laptop is stolen? Well, at least they're not going to find anything on it. My house guest is asking me if he can borrow my laptop. If it's a Windows laptop, I (but admittedly not the average user) will do a quick mental check --- do I have anything private on it that he might see? Is he going to accidentally download a virus on it? Etc. Sure, I can do things so that it will be less of a problem, but it's a lot easier if the computer already is set up as much as Chrome OS is for sharing.

Now that I look at them, what do these things all have in common? A less-stressed user experience. I don't have to think as much as I used to about taking care of my computer. Sure, it won't run Final Cut Pro. But I say, you should have made these the priorities --- at least with some --- any of your models. Get battery life, boot speed, and security to where you would have expected to be in the 21st century. Then branch out to fancy applications. Which is exactly what will probably happen. Browsers are only getting abler.

Platform shift?

[mcrbids]

I've been waiting for the next platform shift. It's been moving towards cloud computing for about a decade, now, but aside from killing the client-server application, the Internet really hasn't caused any major change in platform.

We all still boot an O/S and run applications on the O/S, some of which are Internet-access applications. But it's struck me for some time that the browser really *should* be the next generation O/S. With plugins and all, Firefox is showing lots of signs, but it's just not stepping up to the plate - I guess the vision isn't quite there - the guys at Firefox still see the browser as a browser.

A decade ago, the idea of moving any kind of application "into the cloud" was a laughable concept that most people wouldn't dare touch. Nowadays, it's so common that perhaps 50% of all software development is now oriented around "cloud computing". I wouldn't be surprised if the number was even higher.

So Google's taking this trend to its logical conclusion: why bother with "local" at all?

It's an interesting take, and one that's sure to really upset the Winopoly if it's got any success at all. The flaws of the Winopoly are obvious and horrible - security woes too many to number, spam spewing from the many leaks, disks that crash, and an Operating System so big, complex, and cumbersome to work on that not even one of the wealthiest companies in the world can do much about it.

After investing untold billions into the Windows codebase, the result was Windows Vista/Windows 7, which is a bit prettier but certainly won't be introducing meaningful change. It might even be more secure, as much as something larger and more complicated is ever more secure than simpler, ancestral systems.

But Chromium takes us a whole new direction. My guess is that it *belongs* in a VM/application style software stack, where you can either run it alone on a netbook or something, or run it as a Win/Lin/OSX application. VMWare makes this a reality, even if it's never set up as an "application".

My guess? It's going to succeed, but in about 5 years' time. Google really needs to unify Chromium and Android. They should be virtually identical platforms. Microsoft is going the other way with IE - trying to pound the web, kicking and screaming, back into Windows proprietary extensions.

They *still* haven't figured it out...

Re:Platform shift?

[NickFortune]

Interesting post.

We all still boot an O/S and run applications on the O/S, some of which are Internet-access applications. But it's struck me for some time that the browser really *should* be the next generation O/S.

You're not the only one. IIRC, The reason Netscape had to die was that MS foresaw a day when the browser would supplant the O/S as the primary application environment. Having that sort of control in a non-MS company was unacceptable in itself, but having the browser also be cross platform and therefore capable of eroding MS' lock-in of operating systems generally... You can see how that idea would play in Redmond.

Firefox is showing lots of signs, but it's just not stepping up to the plate - I guess the vision isn't quite there - the guys at Firefox still see the browser as a browser.

Part of that may be intentional, in the hopes of not provoking MS as Netscape did. If Firefox doesn't try and encroach on MS primary domain, maybe the softies won't allocate too many resources to the "Destroy Firefox" project. That said, I think it's more likely a hold over from the original vision for the Phoenix browser (back before the name changes) when it was supposed to be an ultra-light, ultra-fast browser with all the heavy-duty code shifted out to add-ons. That was by contrast with the old Mozilla (now Seamonkey) browser, which still had a lot of the Netscape O/S convergence features in it, and which were largely considered to be bloat.

Personally, I'd sooner see Firefox move back toward to Phoenix model and shift more stuff out to add-ons than to see it adopt more of the features of a graphical shell. On the other hand, if they are determined to add everything but the kitchen sink (as sometimes seems to be the case), then I really can't see why they can't add a decent filer to the app - it would make life so much easier on occasion.

So Google's taking this trend to its logical conclusion: why bother with "local" at all?

Well, it's logical to Google. To the rest of the world, there are still issues with having your data stored on someone else's platform. What happens if your internet connection drops? What happens if the cloud service provider folds and takes your data with it? What happens if, in a decade's time they are bought out by BigEvilCo who leverage the vendor lock-in implicit in a cloud architecture and hold a decade's worth of your data to ransom?

"Local" has some compelling advantages.

Microsoft is going the other way with IE - trying to pound the web, kicking and screaming, back into Windows proprietary extensions.

They *still* haven't figured it out...

No argument there :)

Re:You're both missing it...

[vux984]

My babysitter is a nursing student, [...] She doesn't need anything but a basic word processor...

I suspect you are mistaken. Either that or you have found the only student on the entire planet that has neither a digital camera, nor an ipod. Both of which need a real computer, unless iTunes has a ChromeOS version or she likes uploading 4GB of photos into the cloud at consumer DSL speeds.

She is a self-described techno-idiot, and loves the idea of a cheap computer with limited moving parts.

I do too. They are called netbooks, and they've been around for a few years already.

It will replace terminals (either traditional dumb terminals or Citrix) in call centers, at least at first. These things literally run one and only one application all day long.

The call centers that have reached this point are ALREADY booting off a network image of a locked down OS running that one app in kiosk mode. ChromeOS offers nothing new or compelling here, the PCs they are already using are cheap as dirt and don't have any disk drives.

Plus even call centers run 17" and 19" screens. The staff are staring at that screen all day, they aren't going to use $100 netbooks.

But I do think that the availability of the Google platform and ChromeOS may push applications that have in the past been PC based onto the cloud.

Sure that's generically true. But LOTS of applications can't move to 'the cloud'. That lathe calculation utility I mentioned will NEVER be on the 'cloud'. That VB6 front end to the enterprise SQL will never be on the cloud, etc, etc.

The real story here, though, is that whether Chrome OS wins or loses, the web has reached the point that Bill Gates feared ten years ago: it is now "the platform" for many apps. [...] It will replace desktop PC's...

No. It won't. Desktop PCs will evolve. Some of the 'stuff' that is a "Windows application" today, yes, will become a web app and run in a suitable browser. But some won't. Some can't.

What happens to AppleTV and iTunes store sales when you just stream your movies and music off Amazon when you want to watch them? This technology is already here.

Will amazon let my kids stream Mary Poppin's 40 times for a one time cost? Will they let them do it on a plane? A boat? A minivan? Will it work on a trip to Mexico? And what happens if Amazon goes under?

Seriously, streaming is set to kill the rental video. I agree with that. But replace buying movies? I don't see it. Today we can't stream 1080p, a bluray disc is better than anything you can get streamed. Sure 20 years we'll have more bandwidth... we'll also have ultra-hd. And I bet in 20 years you still won't be able stream 1080p to your laptop in a van in the middle of the rocky mountains.