What Google's Chromium OS Is Reaching For

The real reason by sopssa · 2009-12-01 10:18 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Chromium OS is there so Google doesn't break GPL and other licenses. But it's also there to get some open source for their at no cost (*other than the maintenance cost inspecting patches and so on). Really, think about it. It's released full year before actually going out, giving the 'nice' image for open source developers and just waiting them to jump in. So that Google can cash in later (while still obviously keeping the Chromium OS open and free, because it doesn't hurt their bottom line and then they're compatible with GPL and so on)

It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down. There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again. The basic things you have running is basically Chrome OS, which nicely integrates you to Google services. And even before that, because in order to use the OS you will be required to sign-in with your Google Account. Yes, no local user accounts. Just your Google-wide account.

Re:The real reason by sabs · 2009-12-01 10:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Which from a Google standpoint makes perfect sense.
An OS that is basically one giant web browser, why would you need a local account.
I wouldn't run an Chromium machine, but I completely understand their design goals.
I also think that Cloud Computing is the worse idea in the world, but I seem to be getting shot down by the Myth-Makers. We'll have to see how it goes.
Re:The real reason by SnarfQuest · 2009-12-01 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Obviously, Google is planning on copying Scientology and making all of us their slaves. We will all be forced to view advertisements on web pages without ever being paid for our work.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Re:The real reason by ITJC68 · 2009-12-01 10:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

For some people that use those services this will be good for them. If and when it gets installed as a default OS for a laptop or netbook remains to be seen. I have been looking at the netbooks but couldn't stomach getting one with XP. 7 might be ok if they tune down its resource requirements or turn some of the eye candy off. Competition is usually a good thing but this is more of Google trying to stomp on Microsoft some as they have been trying everything to get into search more with bing and making it default on their browsers. When a user doesn't have a choice of OS, browser and search engine then we can all scream that it is a conspiracy.
Re:The real reason by Crudely_Indecent · 2009-12-01 10:46 · Score: 1

If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.
Chances are, with the project open sourced, this will be circumvented. Likewise, the restriction of no local users and no hard disks will most likely also be removed by the community.
That is, if the OS is worth running in the first place. I think I'll stick with my *nixes

--

"Lame" - Galaxar
Re:The real reason by mrsteveman1 · 2009-12-01 10:49 · Score: 1

I wish people would.....know something......anything....about the subject before making such statements.
Yes, in normal operation the system will heal itself, that's the point and it's what i expect the OS to do. You forgot to mention that there is a developer mode. You can install your own kernel, do whatever you want, and at most you'll get a warning that the system is out of spec or modified. They aren't locking anyone out of their own system, there's no TPM, and Google specifically says that one is not required to do what they're doing in firmware. Besides that the only app is the browser, and unless they're planning to completely remove extensions from the Chrome OS version, those will be there, and you can do quite a bit with them.
And the picture you paint of Google dangling some code out in public to get the community to do their work for them, is absurd.
Re:The real reason by Mongoose+Disciple · 2009-12-01 10:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

I also think that Cloud Computing is the worse idea in the world, but I seem to be getting shot down by the Myth-Makers. We'll have to see how it goes.
In some ways I think cloud computing is the new 'outsourcing projects to India' -- both are/were good for some things, but were / will be applied to a bunch of business cases that they really don't make sense for. Both have/will resulted in a lot of failed projects, not because they're inherently bad ideas, but because of myopically focusing on their strengths and ignoring their drawbacks.
Some people, if given a hammer, quickly see everything as a nail. Instead of learning the right lesson from the failures of this strategy, they just try to find a better hammer.
Re:The real reason by Enderandrew · 2009-12-01 10:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.
The core OS itself is being treated more like a piece of firmware than a traditional OS. You can update it. You can make changes to settings. You can install programs. But the core of the OS will repair itself if it thinks it is corrupted.
First off, Windows already does this. Secondly, this doesn't mean you can't intentionally change things. Lastly, since Chromium is completely open, you can remove this feature if you don't like it.
DRM stops you from making copies of material you own. This isn't DRM. It's a system recovery feature.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-01 10:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Chromium OS is there so Google doesn't break GPL and other licenses.
Despite mostly being flamebait this part of your post raises the question of why there isn't an equivalent to GPL for web applications. Don't tell me Affereo GPL because the AGPL only varies from the GPL by section 13 which says that if webapps include a method of retrieving source code it can't be removed, but it doesn't say that users of the software get the right to the source code like the GPL does, and it doesn't say that applications that build upon webapps have any obligations.
So the AGPL is really like the LGPL, not the GPL, and it should be renamed the ALGPL. It also means we don't have any equivalent to the GPL for web apps because the AGPL doesn't propagate across networks and it can be easily subverted by adding proprietary code to a network library.
Copyright-wise even Microsoft understand that there's no difference between the local PC bus and the network by saying the Microsoft Office (and most of their applications) can't be made available to the public internet. You can't sell a remote desktop version of Microsoft Office because they propagate licensing conditions to the network. Copyright licenses can go whereever copyright goes, and copyright exists locally or across networks.
What we should have is a genuine GPL across the network, not the AGPL. If people do make network software they need to be able to provide GPL-style freedoms across the network but right now there is no license for this.
Re:The real reason by blueskies · 2009-12-01 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I also think that Cloud Computing is the worse idea in the world
I think it depends on how you define cloud computing. If you keep it broad, it's like saying email is the worst thing in the world, because 90% of it is spam. 90% of cloud ideas are dumb are poorly implemented (or thought out), but it doesn't mean that there aren't uses for it to solve problems that are really hard any other way.
Do you think google should get rid of GFS and bigtable and move off their cloud to a more centralized datastore? I'm sure they can handle all of their data and computing needs without using a cloud....
Re:The real reason by Alarash · 2009-12-01 11:17 · Score: 1

But what if I want to load my PC with videos and watch them offline? What if I want to type some code in *my* favorite IDE? To me this OS looks nice in concept, but is really more like a glorified smartphone. One that can make only VoIP calls, I might add; which is fine by me, but not with any Mobile Operators - all of them block VoIP protocols on their networks. So even if in a few years SPs start offering affordable subscriptions with acceptable monthly transfer volume (read: unlimited), they might still block VoIP protocols because they want you to use your phone and charge your extra for it. One can hope that this will be a game changer for the market, but I don't see this happening before at least 5 years. Hell, you guys in North America still sometimes have a monthly transfer volume cap on your freaking DSL or cable subscription plans.
Re:The real reason by Tanktalus · 2009-12-01 11:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think you have it backwards. We already are without those restrictions simply by using another distro. This is taking GNU/Linux to a new architecture, a new way of operating. If you don't like it, there's still only about 20,000 other distros to pick from, so go there instead.
More likely is that any advance seen here would be added to the other distros post-haste. And that already is happening with chromium - the JS, rendering, and security models are already available on other distros before Chrome OS was even opened up, let alone released.
This is just Google entering the Linux-distro market in an Apple-like way: bundling everything (hardware, software) as a unit to provide a better end-user experience to their target market. If you don't like Macs, don't buy one. If you don't like Chrome OS, don't buy one. I know some people for whom this would be awesome. Just not me.
Re:The real reason by couchslug · 2009-12-01 11:26 · Score: 1

The user will have the choice to reject Google just as the masses moved away from AOL.
Remember when AOL dialup was a Good Thing because of their fast connection speeds, and that at the time their software sucked much less than it does now?
Beware hubris, for it provokes smackdowns. :)

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:The real reason by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-01 11:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

But what if I want to load my PC with videos and watch them offline?
HTML5 can be offline. The OS can take USB drives and you can browse to those drives from the browser, or from its own file manager.

What if I want to type some code in *my* favorite IDE?

It's the same issue with Windows vs OSX vs Gnome/KDE -- Some things aren't available and that's just how it is. There are prototype IDE's like Mozilla Bespin for the web but they're self-admittedly primitive. It will have Flash and there are based remote-desktop facilities for arbitrary desktop software on other machines, or perhaps people will be able to introduce native software to the desktop.
Re:The real reason by Runaway1956 · 2009-12-01 12:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

"It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down."
Sometimes common knowledge isn't all that accurate. No matter WHAT you don't like about ChromeOS, you can fix it. The source code is available. Recompile for whatever architecture you want, use common Linux drivers, modify the conf files to your liking. The same thing has been done with Slackware, Suse, Debian - there is really nothing new here.
Given a kernel and a browser, you can do just about anything you want under the hood. Do it!! It's open source!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:The real reason by droopycom · 2009-12-01 12:51 · Score: 1

We've got to fail before we can learn the lessons.
So far there are not enough projects in the clouds to fail and learn from.
So yes a lot of people is going in the cloud and they will see whats there... Many will fail, the one that dont maybe awesomely rewarded (or not)
Re:The real reason by droopycom · 2009-12-01 12:57 · Score: 1

AOL never really had an application platform. Merely a content platform.
I contend that its much easier to switch from one content platform to the other (eg: from AOL or compuserver to WWW) than to switch from on application platform to the other (eg: windows to MacOS)
Re:The real reason by obarthelemy · 2009-12-01 13:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mmmm, so far, we've learned that
1- we can't trust the cloud for availability: gmail outages....
2- we can't trust the cloud to not lose our data (sidekick fiasco)
3- we can't trust the cloud with our confidentiality (all those SSID heists and others)
What more is there to learn ?

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Re:The real reason by FlyingBishop · 2009-12-01 14:04 · Score: 1

But Google is a content platform. There are two places where it is not strictly a content platform: search and maps. But those things are non-trivial. In E-mail, chat, and docs, you can trivially export from Google and import into something else. There's no equivalent application that has a good support of tags - but that's what makes Google superior, and if you really need tags and can't handle a translation to folders, don't leave Google.
Now, the tinfoil hats will likely say that Google can lock up your data at any time, but I expect some legal recourse should that happen. There are a variety of universities and other organizations that entered into a contract with Google under the understanding that their data would be open. Since I started using Google when my alma mater made the switch, I think there'd be an argument to be made there.
In any case, that's just paranoia until Google does anything.
Re:The real reason by znerk · 2009-12-01 14:24 · Score: 1

Is something wrong with using the actual GPL for network-capable/aware/dependent applications? Even web apps could adhere to the licensing, unless I am missing something...

--
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Re:The real reason by lennier · 2009-12-01 14:26 · Score: 2, Funny

"What more is there to learn ?"
4- we can't trust the cloud to launch nuclear missiles.
Ok turns out we can trust it for that just fine.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:The real reason by pseudonomous · 2009-12-01 14:51 · Score: 2, Funny

I think it will turn out to be a bigger mistake when we learn (for a very brief instant) not to trust cloud to NOT fire nuclear missiles.
Re:The real reason by brogdon · 2009-12-01 15:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mmmm, so far, we've learned about traditional desktop software that
1- we can't trust desktops for availability: my PC needed repair last fall.
2- we can't trust desktops to not lose our data (my hard drive crashed that one time)
3- we can't trust desktops with our confidentiality (some spyware dudes haxored me once)
What more is there to learn? Clearly desktops can never work as a business model.

--

This tagline is umop apisdn.
Re:The real reason by obarthelemy · 2009-12-01 15:21 · Score: 1

1- you can swap PCs, you can't swap the cloud. I always keep an old PC in a closet for such emergencies.
2- You can do backups - and should. We've learned you can't trust the cloud to do backups.
3- I'll concede 3, for the general public, adn because OS maker do such an horrible job of making their OSes secure for the general public. I personally never got hacked, maybe because I'm behind a firewall, don't have admin rights as a matter of course, and don't download and run just anything. The only virus I ever got was when trying to ressuscitate a friend's HD. Actually, got caught twice with that one.

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Re:The real reason by Z34107 · 2009-12-01 15:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're correct as far as saying that web apps could use the GPL or other licenses. However, I believe the problem is that the GPL only covers distribution, and an app sitting on your server and your server only is not being "distributed."

--
DATABASE WOW WOW
Re:The real reason by drfreak · 2009-12-01 17:02 · Score: 1

Do you think google should get rid of GFS and bigtable and move off their cloud to a more centralized datastore? I'm sure they can handle all of their data and computing needs without using a cloud
Maybe, but I would rather not use something that bursts and shoots its data everywhere when it is saturated. Oh wait, did I take the "cloud" metaphor too far? :)
Re:The real reason by nomagnettowomen · 2009-12-01 17:32 · Score: 1

I have a device like this. It is in my pocket when I am at work and at my bedside when I sleep. It is my iPod. It has a non-Windows operating system and a non-traditional user interface. It has a ton of applications, and around half of them need the internet (is that pronounced "c-l-o-u-d" now?) It has more than a few games, which seem to consume a similar amount of user-lifetime-hours that the fancy graphics intensive games consume. It runs google apps - I can edit google docs, and see google maps, and check out google earth. I didn't know I wanted one until my wife gave it to me, now she might divorce me because I love it more than her. Although not perfect (can't print, devoid of flash games, typing could be improved), it proves that there is a market for the kind of handy internet appliance that keeps being advertised as the Next Big Thing. My point, and I did indeed have one, is that this market cares less about OS features than the average reader of /..
Re:The real reason by rtfa-troll · 2009-12-01 17:34 · Score: 1

Do you think that your developer mode system will be allowed into their key services where they have content they wish to protect? When they start DRMing things they will lock you out of those services.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:The real reason by srhill · 2009-12-01 18:13 · Score: 1

Go ahead. Stop using any Google services for 24 hours. On a work day.

See? You're already a google-junkie. Just wait, any time now you'll attach that Google neural-cloud-adword-gmail-access thingy to your brain-stem (Google Think(tm) Beta). It will sound like a good idea at the time too.
Re:The real reason by rtfa-troll · 2009-12-01 19:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The clever thing about ChromeOS is that it's completely useless. That is to say as a stand alone independent system. ChromeOS without Google will be less than Windows without applications. None of the source code for the Google apps hosted on their servers is available to you, so your proposal will only do you good as far as Google allows you to use their services. Nobody knows, yet, what that will be.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:The real reason by DeBaas · 2009-12-01 21:01 · Score: 1

2- we can't trust the cloud to not lose our data (sidekick fiasco)
If all new technology was abandoned at the first problem or fiasco, we'd still be hunters and gatherers
(now sitting back to see if this turns into a discussion if we would even have made into becoming hunters and gatherers to begin with ;-)

--
---
Re:The real reason by micheas · 2009-12-01 21:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

1) I can't move from amazon web services to go grid? even if I the data synced?
Even so, when Gmail was down I could get my email from gmail. (only the web frontend was broken, IMAP and POP3 were still available.)
2) Initial outlay to do off site backups is so much higher if using UPS instead of doing it over the wire. Initial setup time is longer on the cloud,
The lesson is not don't use the cloud, the lesson is do not use closed non-portable data storage formats.
3) Did you check to see if there is a wire going from your keyboard to your ethernet card?
Some Dell laptops shipped that way.
Saying you have never been hacked is just asking to be made a fool of. All you know is that you have seen no evidence of being hacked. If you are running snort, aide, and tripwire, that evidence may leave very few attack vectors unmonitored.
Most users notice that cloud services are so much more reliable than services run by the in-house it department.(You know you are getting things somewhat reliable, when you no longer think twice about turning off the primary server in the middle of the work day,because, no one will lose more than a couple minutes work at worst case, and you have about an 90% chance of nobody noticing.)
The idea of the old computer sitting in the closet during emergencies is not the same as having something live If you use
The lesson that the Mainframes, minis, pcs, and the cloud have given us over and over again is trust nothing, trust no one,
have a failover plan, have a backup to take to court, and plan around the bleeding edge future technology, because by the time you are done planning and have a pilot project out, the bleeding edge will be on sale at the local store.
Avoid vendor lock in, don't trust the drive you are writing to, don't trust the processor, but use them anyways. work around the lake of trust.

--
Work bio at MMWD
Re:The real reason by micheas · 2009-12-01 22:06 · Score: 1

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get you.
Colin Sautar

--
Work bio at MMWD
Re:The real reason by micheas · 2009-12-01 22:13 · Score: 1

Recompile for whatever architecture you want,...
With lots and lots of hacking, (or maybe just a little at this point. the V8 javascript engine is i386/amd64 only at this point, but there is an ongoing effort to port it to all of debian's architectures that at least complies last I checked.

--
Work bio at MMWD
Re:The real reason by selven · 2009-12-01 22:54 · Score: 1

Google lets you use their services from any browser on any OS. I don't see why they would block you if you're running a modified version of Chrome OS.
Re:The real reason by slim · 2009-12-01 23:39 · Score: 1

It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down. There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.
Here's how it will actually work, showing how if you want to hack on your own hardware, you can:
http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/firmware-boot-and-recovery :

Pseudocode:
1. Verify the partition table on the filesystem looks sane.
2. Load kernel A from the filesystem.
3. Verify signature of kernel.
4. If signature is invalid:
1. If this is kernel A, retry with kernel B.
2. Else this is kernel B. Both kernels are bad, so set the recovery-mode cookie non-volatile register and reboot into recovery firmware.
5. If kernel was signed with a public key not known to the boot loader, this is a developer kernel:
1. Initialize the display.
2. Display scary developer mode warning to user. For example: "DEVELOPER MODE. If you don't know what this means, press X now, and we'll fix your system automatically. If you are a l33t h4x0r, wait 30 seconds or press ASCII 0x44."
3. Wait for keypress or 30-second delay before continuing.
4. If key pressed was not D (ASCII 0x44), jump to Recovery Firmware.
6. Continue booting the kernel.
Re:The real reason by obarthelemy · 2009-12-02 02:01 · Score: 1

If no technology was ever abandoned after several problems or fiascos, we'd still be flying around in exploding zepelins, using asbestos everywhere, programming in assembly....

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Re:The real reason by DeBaas · 2009-12-02 02:52 · Score: 1

what do have against programming in assembly? ;-)
But your point is equally true. But the fact that there was a problem in itself is not good enough reason to abandon a technology. In the example of sidekick it was one service provider that screwed up. Doesn't mean that all service providers have bad or no backup in place.

--
---
Re:The real reason by blueskies · 2009-12-02 03:28 · Score: 1

If you are "that" risk adverse, you might want to buy my fog computing (tm) product. It always increases the dew point, but never saturates.
Re:The real reason by Sinus0idal · 2009-12-02 04:17 · Score: 1

So why did we move from centralised mainframes with dumb terminals to having the power at the edge hosts?
Re:The real reason by rtfa-troll · 2009-12-02 18:29 · Score: 1

Apart from the fact that it allows access to non-google web apps.
Which MS Windows does too (since as we know IE is not an "application" it's an "integral" part of the operating system :-)

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:The real reason by oliderid · 2009-12-03 21:29 · Score: 1
On the other hand how could you trust a company that will force you to sign digitally an EULA stipulating
- you won't complain if they lose all your data
- They will be able to change this contract in no time and you might end up paying to use your own property.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys
Re:The real reason by mrsteveman1 · 2009-12-06 18:53 · Score: 1

What? Since when does Google DRM things?
Re:The real reason by rtfa-troll · 2009-12-07 00:34 · Score: 1

According to a two second quick Google(TM) search since about 2006.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();

More, more! by indre1 · 2009-12-01 10:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

The more the merrier!

Re:More, more! by Jeremy+Visser · 2009-12-01 14:32 · Score: 1

Google is releasing a lightweight Linux distro that can only run a web browser, and it's being treated like something amazing.
There, fixed that for you.
I for one hate waiting for the system to boot, when all I want to do is check my e-mail. Granted, Ubuntu 9.10 boots pretty fast, and 10.04 looks like it'll boot even faster, but you can only get so far without actually removing stuff.
Although if Haiku supported WiFi, it'd already be perfect. Boots in <5 seconds on my Eee PC.
Re:More, more! by westlake · 2009-12-01 17:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

The more the merrier!
This isn't how it looks to the retailer who has to decide how much shelf space to give the Chromium netbook.
How much he can afford to spend on advertising, service and support for another entry at the low end of the market.
Near the end of its last flirtation with Linux, Walmart.com found it necessary to black flag each Linux netbook it offered with a yellow-bordered bold-faced warning that your Windows software wouldn't run.
The best evidence that returns had become a problem.
Re:More, more! by fulldecent · 2009-12-02 02:35 · Score: 1

Your example that Apple tried webapps and failed seems like the best response to "how will people respond to the cloudbook?"
However I have to wonder, would Apple still have failed if Mobile Safari had better caching, real tabs and a real internet connection?

--
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch

Diversity is good. by palegray.net · 2009-12-01 10:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Regardless of how many existing approaches there might be to a given problem, another "hat in the ring" is a good thing. Things change fast in tech, and who knows where Chromium might go in the future? Diversity fosters competition and improvements.

--
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.

Re:Diversity is good. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-01 10:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I actually disagree, not because of a dislike of google but because while diversity is good, fragmentation is bad. There is not an unlimited supply of skilled OS developers despite what people may think and even less of a supply of those willing to freely contribute to projects. Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features. from what I can see the chromium OS brings little more than extra fragmentation to an ecosystem already suffering from fragmentation.
Re:Diversity is good. by palegray.net · 2009-12-01 10:39 · Score: 4, Informative

There is not an unlimited supply of skilled OS developers despite what people may think and even less of a supply of those willing to freely contribute to projects.
I really can't agree with that. As Google is paying good salaries for developers to work on Chromium, the situation is quite different from the traditional open source labor contribution model.

--
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Re:Diversity is good. by vlm · 2009-12-01 10:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features.
Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking, if I just kill off some dudes pet project, then he will do exactly what I want.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Diversity is good. by mrsteveman1 · 2009-12-01 10:50 · Score: 1

The rest of the fragmentation is made up of nearly identical clones of Debian and Redhat. This is, out of the box, substantially different.
Re:Diversity is good. by V!NCENT · 2009-12-01 10:55 · Score: 1

I for one would wish that a fork would come into existence that would:
-Let it run on all Linux supported HW and not just Google approved HW
-Use the full potentional of a cloud OS but used local storage first and upload later
-Has a one-click-USB-storage-backup-solution-X(tm)

--
Here be signatures
Re:Diversity is good. by V!NCENT · 2009-12-01 10:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I for one would wish that a fork would come into existence that would:
-Let it run on all Linux supported HW and not just Google approved HW
-Use the full potentional of a cloud OS but used local storage first and upload later
-Has a one-click-USB-storage-backup-solution-X(tm)"
PS: and removes phoning home too...

--
Here be signatures
Re:Diversity is good. by V!NCENT · 2009-12-01 11:01 · Score: 1

PS2: and abused the phoning home features as online backup storage with encryption :')

--
Here be signatures
Re:Diversity is good. by blueskies · 2009-12-01 11:03 · Score: 1

Because if there is anything OS developers really want to work on, it is cut and polish.
Re:Diversity is good. by selven · 2009-12-01 11:21 · Score: 1

PS3: At least it's better than XBOX.
Re:Diversity is good. by w0mprat · 2009-12-01 14:17 · Score: 1

Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features.
Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking, if I just kill off some dudes pet project, then he will do exactly what I want.
A cow is a race horse designed by commitee.

--
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Re:Diversity is good. by westlake · 2009-12-01 17:54 · Score: 1

Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking, if I just kill off some dudes pet project, then he will do exactly what I want.
What you want is to see him dead and buried.
But it may be enough to get his pet projects removed from the default Ubuntu distro.
Say good-bye to the GIMP.
Say hello to light-weight photo editing apps with an attractive and serviceable UI. Something along the lines of Paint.NET.
Shed the GIMP's excess baggage along the way.
Re:Diversity is good. by micheas · 2009-12-01 22:17 · Score: 1

You do realize that chromium-os is more or less a special live cd of ubuntu right? (You basically have to install ubuntu in a jail to build it.)

--
Work bio at MMWD
Re:Diversity is good. by micheas · 2009-12-01 22:18 · Score: 1

... and an elephant is a mouse built to engineering specs.

--
Work bio at MMWD
Re:Diversity is good. by micheas · 2009-12-01 22:20 · Score: 1

The rest of the fragmentation is made up of nearly identical clones of Debian and Redhat. This is, out of the box, a substantially different version of ubuntu
There, fixed that for you.

--
Work bio at MMWD
Re:Diversity is good. by Pharmboy · 2009-12-02 03:10 · Score: 1

Lets not forget that Chrome OS being Linux based and open source means it is likely to benefit other projects as much as those other projects benefit Chrome. Some tweaks may help Linux servers or desktops, etc. More importantly, it opens up a different class of computing, basically "internet only" which is what netbooks are supposed to be, kinda. The current generation of netbooks haven't tempted me because they do too much, too slowly. This might make them an essential item as well as more affordable, which increases sales, which creates jobs, rinse, repeat.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

RTFA by houstonbofh · 2009-12-01 10:19 · Score: 5, Funny

I wonder who will notice that the link doesn't work at all? Oh, wait... This is slashdot. Never mind. :)

Re:RTFA by Barryke · 2009-12-01 10:22 · Score: 1

Well, it didnt work in Chrome. The irony? My cursor doesnt change to a hand.

--
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Re:RTFA by Barryke · 2009-12-01 10:23 · Score: 2, Informative

http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/

--
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Re:RTFA by Trev311 · 2009-12-01 10:25 · Score: 1

I wonder who will notice that the link doesn't work at all? Oh, wait... This is slashdot. Never mind. :)
I can't read you insensitive clod!
Re:RTFA by palegray.net · 2009-12-01 10:27 · Score: 1

If you look at the original submission (which is what I did), you can find the link there. That said, somebody really ought to fix it in the summary.

--
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Re:RTFA by thickdiick · 2009-12-01 11:31 · Score: 1

Why would you read a link for a story whose title ends in a preposition?
Re:RTFA by holloway · 2009-12-01 11:50 · Score: 1

It was an empty a tag without a href attribute. It wouldn't work in any browser.

--
-Docvert converts MSWord to OpenDocument, clean HTML
Re:RTFA by palegray.net · 2009-12-01 13:46 · Score: 1

I think you were looking at the wrong post.

--
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Re:RTFA by houstonbofh · 2009-12-01 14:43 · Score: 1

It was an <a> empty a tag </a> without a href attribute. It wouldn't work in any browser.
Sounds like a fantastic web tag! "Designed to not work on Any Browser." :)

Here's the link by ZaSz-RH · 2009-12-01 10:26 · Score: 5, Informative

http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/

Re:Here's the link by Savage-Rabbit · 2009-12-01 11:14 · Score: 1

A year from now, a lot of Chromium's appeal could be riding on what users can do with one when they aren't connected to the Internet or want to save content locally. There are occasions, after all, where 'the cloud' is the very last place you want certain information to reside.
Google has come up with a variation on a thin client and plans to deploy it on laptops. If this OS really is a pure thin client then google is going have their work cut out for them selling these devices because eventually people are going to want want to be able to work offline. There must be some sort of offline capability built into Chrome wich makes it more of a hybrid than a pure thin client/Web OS and it will be interesting to see what the final product look like. Then there is the expense, Wifi isn't universally available where I live, even remaining connected over mobile networks is problematic outside urban areas and also extremely expensive.

One final bit of irony. Over ten years ago, Microsoft was sued for bundling a browser with Windows 98. Does it amuse anyone else that Google is bundling an operating system along with their browser?

Oh Yes.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:Here's the link by AlXtreme · 2009-12-01 12:01 · Score: 1

There must be some sort of offline capability built into Chrome wich makes it more of a hybrid than a pure thin client/Web OS and it will be interesting to see what the final product look like.
You're forgetting about Google Gears. I think they've been planning their approach for a while now, with Gears-enabled web apps you wouldn't even notice being offline (that is, until you want to access a document that wasn't cached).

--
This sig is intentionally left blank
Re:Here's the link by slim · 2009-12-01 23:42 · Score: 2, Informative

HTML5 renders Gears (almost) obsolete. Any browser that implements HTML5 will be capable of local storage.

Why Chromium? by Locke2005 · 2009-12-01 10:27 · Score: 5, Funny

In the midst of all these options, do we need another operating system? We just might. If nothing else, it really pisses off Microsoft! In and of itself, doesn't that make it well worth it?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:Why Chromium? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-01 10:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Thank God there are people in computing who can look beyond dumb bullshit like this.

It's a howl that you slag MS at every chance but you still use it. Why don't you just go back to Digg?
Re:Why Chromium? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-01 11:09 · Score: 1

I pirate it, that's just like not using it. (Not aiming for insightful here :P)
Re:Why Chromium? by wile_e8 · 2009-12-01 11:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a Ubuntu user, I'd just be happy if it force a version of Silverlight for Linux that actually works (Yes, I've tried Moonlight. No, it doesn't work for any of the streaming sports broadcasts I'd like to watch). If making it pisses off Microsoft, everybody wins.
Re:Why Chromium? by baka_toroi · 2009-12-01 11:26 · Score: 1

I envy your ego T_T (Offtopic: today I told 2 guys and a girl I have a small penis)

Re:A bad trade off. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-01 10:35 · Score: 1, Informative

I think this is what the masses (but not slashdot readers) want: appliance computing. A computer where thinking, decision making, or user competence are not required. It explains the success of the iPhone: a smartphone dumbed down so you cant put anything bad on it.

Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sense. by Orion+Blastar · 2009-12-01 10:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro. That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.

Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.

What makes Chrome better than say Firefox? When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome. Chrome doesn't have as many plug-ins as Firefox has, no easy way to block advertising (you have to right click on each ad and choose "block" instead of using Adblock Plus and subscribe to a list that automatically blocks ads for you) and having to right click on every ad that pops up is tiresome work and gets really annoying.

All of Google's web services work in Firefox just as well as they work in Chrome. So why is there a need for Chrome or even Chromium OS? What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.

Re:A bad trade off. by bloodhawk · 2009-12-01 10:39 · Score: 1

Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure. It is not that they are doing anything wrong, it is simply they are a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist, i.e. there is no mass market desire out there for a limited machine that you MUST be connected to the web to work and cannot install applications on or store your data on.

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by gandhi_2 · 2009-12-01 10:43 · Score: 1

I agree with what you are saying, but do you really think Google would like everyone blocking their adsense placements and undermining their adwords program?

What business do you think Google is *really* in?

--
THL phish sticks

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by LOLLinux · 2009-12-01 10:45 · Score: 1

Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro. That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.

Because that doesn't allow them to restrict the machine to your Google account and only allow you to use Google services?

Niche Product by Zobeid · 2009-12-01 10:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can seriously see the advantages of Chrome OS in an ultra-portable device. . . netbook, smartbook, Crunchpad-like gadget. . . Simplicity and efficiency and speed are needed there, and it could have a real advantage.

NO WAY can I see it replacing my OS on my primary desktop computer (currently an iMac BTW). I can't see web apps replacing: Second Life, iTunes, Aperture, GIMP, my word processors and text editors, games, and a number of other programs.

Re:Niche Product by Enderandrew · 2009-12-01 10:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Chrome OS comes with a web-based media player. I think Last.fm claims to have streamed the equivalent of 2000 years of music. Web based media players might be the future.
GIMP is such a pain that Ubuntu is dropping it. My wife uses web-based image editting tools exclusively these days.
There has been work on an OpenGL ES framework for full 3D accelerated programing inside the web browser. So there can be a Second Life client that runs natively fully in your browser in the future. It isn't unfeasible.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Re:Niche Product by whoop · 2009-12-01 12:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's funny, but that's just what Googlesays it's for too. Why Slashdotters INSIST every new thing completely replace everything that's come before it is beyond me. So what you can't do high-end video editing with ChromeOS? It's for sitting on the couch and reading Slashdot, dammit!
Re:Niche Product by jo42 · 2009-12-01 14:02 · Score: 1

It's for sitting on the couch and reading Slashdot, dammit!
I already have that. It's called Ubuntu running on a Dell Mini.
And it (the Mini) can do far, far more than that (run XP, Windows 7 or Mac OSX) double and triple dammit!
Re:Niche Product by eric_brissette · 2009-12-01 14:54 · Score: 1

Lots of people don't use their computers for doing anything beyond posting on Facebook, tending their FarmVille crops, and watching cute cat video compilations on YouTube.
I can see how ChromeOS would be perfect for many many people.
Re:Niche Product by trombonehero · 2009-12-01 22:10 · Score: 1

Actually, Adobe is happy to for you to use their Web-based version of Photoshop: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9903446-7.html
Re:Niche Product by MtViewGuy · 2009-12-02 00:27 · Score: 1

In fact, Chrome OS is designed specifically for lower-end products where people have close access to an 802.11g/n Wi-Fi link, for example in schools or the numerous Wi-Fi hot spots in public gathering places. It's not designed to work a lot offline like you get with machines loaded with real Linux distrubutions, Windows XP/7, or even MacOS X 10.6.x.

Re:A bad trade off. by frank_adrian314159 · 2009-12-01 10:49 · Score: 1

That isn't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.

In most circles, limiting functionality to what the majority of targeted customers need, rather than trying to satisfy the needs of any and all potential customers is seen as economical engineering design. Tell me why every Windows user needs administrative tools allowing them to add users to their system. Or why I need an event viewer, even if I have no idea what a system event is or how to deal with it.

The bottom line is that most computer systems are over-featured and under-designed for most users. In fact, one might see most of the superfluous features creating more potential security, misconfiguration, and difficulty of use issues than their (supposedly inherent) usefulness provides.

--
That is all.

Televisions, the next frontier! by hemp · 2009-12-01 10:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am convinced that Google will work make Chrome in the TV market. Quick boot time and lack of local apps all point to a non-traditional platform.

Throw in Youtube and Hulu and you have why Comcast is buying NBC. Cable providers will quickly become irrelevant in a few years.

--
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com

Re:Televisions, the next frontier! by AHuxley · 2009-12-01 11:49 · Score: 1

Like Appletv? Or a hacked appletv :)

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Televisions, the next frontier! by Helios1182 · 2009-12-01 14:25 · Score: 1

I think this is actually an interesting idea. Computers encompass much more than just laptops/desktops that we normally thing about.
Re:Televisions, the next frontier! by slim · 2009-12-01 23:52 · Score: 1

Only problem is in locations that operate on download caps, not bandwidth (Australia for example).
I'm quite sure that problem is going to solve itself, somehow, with market forces.
The market is going to have to provide the bandwidth and high/absent caps that people need to use the Internet services they want.
That said, you could use a Web based word processor all day, every day for a month before getting anywhere near a single music download.
Re:Televisions, the next frontier! by MtViewGuy · 2009-12-02 00:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Given that 1080p TV's have 1920x1080 resolution, they actually become very nice computer monitors. As such, making Chrome OS part of the operating system for a set top box for cable TV (or eventually a set top box for DirecTV or Dish Network) makes a lot of sense--imagine the Chrome OS interface controlling everything on your DirecTV set top box, including the built-in DVR, through essentially a browser interface.
Re:Televisions, the next frontier! by Sloppy · 2009-12-02 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Imagine a non-Chrome distro controlling your DVR though a non-browser 10' interface, and imagine the content stored in a way (called "hard disk") that is faster and more reliable than any internet connection can ever hope to achieve, and very likely at a higher bitrate.
The box you describe does indeed make sense, for the boxmaker and service sellers. For the user, though, it sounds like the same living hell they just escaped from some time in the last 10 years.
Out of the Comcast pan and into the Hulu/Netflix fire? No thanks. Multimedia and communications are realms where the interests of users and other parties who wish to control them, conflict so dramatically, that moving functionality from user-controlled into either remote servers or proprietary apps, is the worst thing you can do. I want my client fat and Free.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Chrome's killer app by Radical+Moderate · 2009-12-01 10:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

...is convenience. I would say RTFA, but you actually have to watch the video to get it...Chrome OS will boot into the browser in a few seconds, compared to XP taking about a minute to boot and then another 30 seconds of housekeeping before Firefox launches (YMMV). That's a game changer. And before people start whining about how it won't slice bread and do everything else they want a computer to do, it doesn't have to. I would guess at least half of home users just do web browsing, email, light word processing, iTunes and photo management. All easy to do in a browser, and that's a pretty big market to go after.

No, it's not a gaming rig. And most people don't care, or they wouldn't be buying PCs with Intel video chips in them.

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.

Re:A bad trade off. by peragrin · 2009-12-01 10:54 · Score: 1

You don't seem to understand chromeOS at all like most here on slashdot. This isn't supposed to ever be your only computer/OS. The hardware and OS for this is based on the fac tthat you already have two or three "desktop" style computers and want something that is easy to use.

While cooking isn't a slashdotter trait, Say you come across a really great recipe at your desk, but now you want to go make it? well since it is online you could transfer it to your smart phone and squint at the screen as you try to make it. You could take your expensive laptop into the kitchen but if that is stupid as kitchens have all sorts of nasty liquids and powders in them that can cause harm. You might be willing to risk your hardware, but how about the data on the hard drive that just got trashed?

So now you can take a cheap(~$200 netbook maybe) computer there access that data remotely(run your own webserver if you want). and if you do destroy it only the hardware has to be dealt with.

personally the PC needs a major redesign anyways. Every computer should have two HD's one for the OS and one for the user files and applications. The OS system should always be mounted read only. While not eliminating attacks it would help slow the spread of malware if a reboot would undo most of them.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

The Network is the Computer by russlar · 2009-12-01 10:55 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Sun called, they want their concept back.

--
Anybody want my mod points?

Re:The Network is the Computer by onefriedrice · 2009-12-01 13:47 · Score: 1

Sun called, they want their concept back.
The distinction is perhaps less important now, but perhaps you mean Oracle. It was Larry Ellison's vision that included "network computers" which are cut-down desktop machines which rely on central servers for software and storage. He doesn't look kindly on so-called "cloud" computing today, though.

--
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Re:The Network is the Computer by moosesocks · 2009-12-01 14:59 · Score: 1

Sun is a lot like a modern day PARC or Bell Labs. They had some absolutely incredible ideas, with great brains behind them to make the technology work. Unfortunately, they were hopeless at marketing these ideas.
I'm noticing Google begin to trend in this direction, which isn't surprising given that they now employ most of the well-known alumni of the three aforementioned companies. However, Google's past successes (as well as some of their more promising projects such as the Go language) give me some hope.

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

Re:A bad trade off. by david_thornley · 2009-12-01 10:59 · Score: 1

It's a computer where you don't have to think, make decisions, or be competent on the subject of the computer itself. I know what I know as a result of years of formal education, independent reading, and experience. Lots of people don't want to do that; they'd rather learn and do different things. There's nothing wrong with that. Similarly, I'm happy to have a car that's designed to get me places comfortably without me having to learn the internals (which have changed dramatically since I came of driving age) or make many car-specific decisions.

The success of the iPhone is not from what it doesn't so, but what it does. Very few people insist on being able to program their own phone (and a whole lot of them are on Slashdot). It does a whole lot of useful and fun things very well, and that's why it's a success.

Appliance computing would be very popular if it actually worked, if people could buy an appliance that would do what they need to do (mostly web surfing, email, light word processing, and games) without having to worry about all the problems of a general-purpose computer.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by gandhi_2 · 2009-12-01 11:01 · Score: 1

The ability to block an ad one at a time they can prolly handle. An addon that completely prevents their profit, easily enabled for the masses? Another matter.

--
THL phish sticks

Remember when Google became a search engine? by fmerenda · 2009-12-01 11:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Chromium, after all, is a Linux-based OS entering the smartbook/netbook market at a time when the product segment is already being well served by a variety of Linux distros, XP, and Windows 7."

Remember when Google entered the search engine space? It was being well served by Yahoo, Dogpile, MSN, Excite and a bunch of other search engine vendors... I mean really, how could they improve internet searching?

--
-- http://www.MindBlowingPhotos.com
Photography inspired by music, nature and life itself.

Re:Remember when Google became a search engine? by Raffaello · 2009-12-01 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I do remember when Google entered the internet search market. Google gained search share precisely because that market was not being well served by the existing search engines. Google's results were better (thanks to PageRank) which is why more and more users switched to Google as their primary search engine.
In the case of notebook/netbook OSes, the current crop of mainstream contenders (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux) has more functionality than ChromeOS, which makes it very unlikely to displace the current mature offerings. This strategy, of providing a more poorly functioning offering, is exactly the opposite of how Google came to dominate Web search.
ChromeOS appears to be motivated entirely by wishful thinking. "We (Google) wish that the only thing users wanted to do is use web apps cause then we could sell more ads, so lets make an OS that only does the cloud!" It's a lame attempt at vendor lock-in in the guise of convenience.
Unfortunately for Google, in the case of ChromeOS, less is less.
Re:Remember when Google became a search engine? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-01 12:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just like the iPhone has less functionality than other smartphones, so it has been a total flop? I wouldn't want to use Chrome OS, but I don't think Google is totally crazy. They do seem to be planning to push it as easy to use.
Re:Remember when Google became a search engine? by Buelldozer · 2009-12-01 13:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think that the iPhone has broken the idea that users want MORE functionality. What your average user wants is a good experience with a popular product that has an excellent price point. If they can do what they want to with a device, feel good about owning it, and pay as little as possible for it then that device WILL be a success.
Now all Google needs to do is fire the marketing people behind "droid" and find someone who will make the Chrome OS devices appear trendy while making sure they work well and cost as little as possible.
There's your "beat the world" strategy for any product or service that you care to sell.
Re:Remember when Google became a search engine? by dbcad7 · 2009-12-02 03:35 · Score: 1

You have as much say in firing the "droid" marketing people as Google does... considering they are working for Verizon not Google.. Here's how it works, Google developed the Android OS for mobile phones.. They also make applications for the Android OS, They market these apps to handset manufacturers who wish to provide a "Google" branded phone.. The handset manufacturers then decide to (or not to) make this a part of the product they sell the carrier.. who then decides how they are going to market it.. It is very different from the iPhone, as Goggle is not selling directly to the customer (at least not yet).. The Droid campaign is unusual, in that most people are associating it with the Motorola Droid, and when thinking about that phone there is no other name.. however Verizon is also selling the Droid Eris, which is made by HTC not Motorola.. So the "Droid" brand is a Verizon thing, I imagine Motorola had some issues with it at first, but regardless of whether or not you or Motorola like it, it seems to be selling phones.. The phones are good products, but you have to wonder how things would have played out if they had marketed them as Google, or Motorola, or HTC phones instead of making a word play on the Android name ? .. and you want to fire em ?

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net

Don't like some "features" by ZDRuX · 2009-12-01 11:06 · Score: 1

From the article:

To summarize the sales pitch: Chromium gets rid of all the crusty old legacy garbage, moves storage online where it's both universally available and backed up, provides a platform that finally integrates browser and OS, all while providing a fabulous, multimedia-rich online experience. Everything you currently do offline will be available online, seamlessly provided by a content platform that presents a universal, standards-based framework rather than a hodgepodge of browsers, security bugs, and broken standards support. (Emphasis mine)

I'm not sure I like the idea of having no harddrives on my next computer and having everything I write stored off-site in someone's data center, but then again my daily fashion includes a hat made wholly out of tinfoil, as do most of the users here.

This may be good for public terminals and older-type folk, but certainly not for us nerds.

--
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re:A bad trade off. by blueskies · 2009-12-01 11:06 · Score: 1

That's the same reason Apple failed to crack the cell phone market. Their iphone experience is ending in complete failure...

I want it - not for me, but... by RobertB-DC · 2009-12-01 11:07 · Score: 1

I want Chromium OS to come out NOW*, if not sooner. Not for me -- I can install Puppy Linux and play around with dependencies and the like, learning from my mistakes. Heck, I can even run Windows without getting more than a virus or two per decade.

No, I want it for the sweet little old lady who lived a few doors down in my old apartment complex. She doesn't know the first thing about computers. She sends email like a whirling dervish of glurge -- I had to set up my Gmail to filter messages from her into a special folder, which gets several messages a day of "inspirational" forwards (half of which actually end up in the spam folder), her original poetry (kinda sweet, actually), and bizarre, rabid anti-Obama hate messages (massive pile of WTF).

Even after several rounds of explanation, she doesn't know the difference between "a computer" and "the internet". The concept of an "operating system" is absolutely impossible to comprehend -- it has no meaning. She doesn't *need* desktop applications -- she doesn't even know that they *are* desktop applications.

I set her up with a Puppy Linux installation, but that computer died and her family bought her a $40 box with some old, unpatched version of Windows on it. It met the expected fate, and she called me to ask what to do next. I recommended a $99 XP box from Micro Center, and set it up for her with "her" login lacking Admin rights (no installing software without going to the password-protected "Admin" login!). And because she really doesn't do anything but play online games, check the lottery, and send massive volumes of email, I put Google Chrome in her Startup folder -- maximized.

But I still got a call over the holiday... from her daughter, asking about anti-virus software. A good investment, but this sweet lady is on a fixed income, and I doubt she'll be able to come up with $40 a year for F-Secure Antivirus. More likely, she would buy it but never renew it, so she'd just be delaying the inevitable.

Please, Google... give me Chromium OS, for the sweet lady in the downstairs apartment. She needs it. And I need it, so that I can go back to deleting the latest "news" about the coming Obamapocalypse.

* Yes, I know it's Open Source, I could compile my own. With the time I have available for such a project (none), the chances of me doing it right are about as high as getting that sweet lady to quit worrying about Obama's birth certificate.

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

Re:I want it - not for me, but... by xwizbt · 2009-12-01 11:52 · Score: 1

I read what you said, and I thought about it, and I realised that my mother needs Chromium OS. You're right. No sarcasm, no jerking about - you are right. Chromium OS isn't really aimed at us, it's aimed at our mothers.
My mum's gonna love it. I'm gonna love it, too, because she can log on to familytree.net or whatever the hell else it is she does, and the cursor won't magically (I haven't installed anything I swear) change into a butterfly, or any of the many hundred million toolbar-related problems won't occur.
Roll it on. And thank you for the epiphany.
Re:I want it - not for me, but... by icebraining · 2009-12-01 13:10 · Score: 1

Doesn't seem so hard: Stable linux distro (Debian?), readonly root fs, $HOME mounted with noexec, autologin enabled and fullscreen Chrome. You could probably do a custom CD in an hour or two.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:I want it - not for me, but... by Buelldozer · 2009-12-01 13:50 · Score: 1

Install Microsoft Steady State for her. That will reduce the need for antivirus software.
Re:I want it - not for me, but... by Buelldozer · 2009-12-01 13:51 · Score: 1

Doh! I also wanted to say that along with Steady State you could also install the MS AntiVirus product. No cost for that any of that for home use.

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by KarlHammar · 2009-12-01 11:08 · Score: 1

Before stating that Chromium OS does not make sense and cannot be motivated, it would be fitting if you at least read up on what the goals of the project are. My understanding of it is that Chromium OS is intended for netbooks with an extremely fast boot time and a new take on system security (using mirrored system partitions that are updated one at a time, and so on). You may want to look through the Chromium OS web site (http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os), especially the videos related to security and boot speed. In short: Chromium OS might not be a better replacement for your current Linux/Firefox environment, but it may be a fitting solution for a different type of need. I can certainly imagine a ChromeOS-based laptop as a second computer, to bring on the road with me. Especially if it has some sort of 3G broadband built in.

Re:A bad trade off. by LWATCDR · 2009-12-01 11:14 · Score: 1

I agree with a lot of what you say except that I want to run apps on my computer and not on the web. Just like I can do on my iPod Touch and my Android phone.
I feel this is going too far the other way. However computers are NOT over engineered. They are way under engineered. It takes great engineering to make a complex device simple.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:A bad trade off. by sago007 · 2009-12-01 11:15 · Score: 1

Even if all previous tries have failed is not a guarantee that it will fail again. Even if the technology is the same times change.

However Google might be out a little early. The question is of course if the Internet is ready to handle a secondary device? I have worked in some companies and the question being asked then moving things out of the house is: Is the Internet stable enough. Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes it is no.

The biggest problem is of course that even if the Internet is 90% of all needed functionality we still have the critical 10% that is different for all users and therefore cannot be moved to the cloud.

Google admit that the new device can only be used as a secondary device because it lacks important functionality but one wonders if that is enough. The mobile technology suggests that people might want fewer devices not an extra.

How Can Someone Possibly Be That Stupid? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-01 11:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro"

My god, it's late 2009. I can see your average dumbass teenage Slashdot poster asking something that stupid back in 1999. But today???

Re:A bad trade off. by LWATCDR · 2009-12-01 11:18 · Score: 1

You sort of got it.
The iPhone's success is from what does which is run a lot of apps.
The iPhone's success is because it is easy to write and better yet to sell apps.
On other platforms it is easy to put apps up for sale but it is very hard to sell them.
I agree the key is what the device can do and not what it can not. Chrome OS can not do a lot of things other platforms can and those platforms can do what Chrome OS can.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Downside of clouds by imunfair · 2009-12-01 11:20 · Score: 1

Conceptually I don't mind the idea of cloud computing - but it does have one huge issue - it raises the bar for market entry. If it was to become 'the' way to use computers then instead of just needing the resources to serve up an installer for your application you need the resources to allow the masses to run your application.

The only way I see to avoid this is if the cloud the user belongs to somehow downloads your application and runs it in their user space, charging them for resources rather than putting that burden on the developer. In the long run I don't see that benefiting the user though, they'd get a cheap 'computer' but probably end up paying more in (most likely inflated e.g. text messages) fees over time than the actual cost of a computer.

Either way I don't really see the benefit, except to the providers. Either you hurt the developers or the users - you know the providers are going to get their pound of flesh somewhere.

Re:Downside of clouds by yelvington · 2009-12-01 12:25 · Score: 1

Conceptually I don't mind the idea of cloud computing - but it does have one huge issue - it raises the bar for market entry.
I completely don't get this argument. The entire Web is cloud computing. With EC2 you can point and click and enter a credit card, and within minutes you have as much computing power as you want. You can develop your service, deploy it without capitalizing one cent of hardware (that becomes Amazon's problem), route around the entire (failing, legacy) software sales/distribution nightmare. If anything, the barriers to entry are dramatically lowered.
Where you don't get a free ride: Having an idea, identifying a poorly served niche, marketing your service, providing real value.

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by selven · 2009-12-01 11:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I find Chrome to be twice as fast as Firefox in terms of startup time (both first time (from HD) and subsequent (from RAM)). Chrome OS, in its finished form, will have a similar advantage (3 sec bootup vs. 10-100). Also, I find the Chrome browser's UI better - it doesn't waste 6 lines of screen space like Firefox.

Wrong sort of comparison... by moxley · 2009-12-01 11:30 · Score: 1

I can see the benefits, they're apparent; but basically what you've got is a dumb terminal....Zobeid is right, it's a niche product...but I would add that it's for a large niche. This will appeal to corporate users and people who don't like computers....

For some people and certain applications (particularly corporate applications) this may make a lot of sense....but I see fallacy in their comparisons to the standard PC, because this device wont be able to do 80% of the things a multipurpose PC can do. It may do the most common 20% faster, and with the benefits (and limitations) of "cloud computing" but it's not the same class of device...at least not as described...

The thing I love about my computers is that I can do so much with them, and they can do all of those things extremely well....

It ay make a lot of sense for certain things, and I like the concept, but it's not competing with a windows/mac/linux PC...it's not the same thing.

One, Two Punch... by killfixx · 2009-12-01 11:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of the big problems people have with cloud computing isn't the computing, it's the storage. I'm sure I speak for a significant percentage of /.s demographic when I say, I don't want other people scrutinizing my private information.

If Chromium were to be companioned with a personal server app/OS (similar to Opera's Unite initiative), this could be game changing.

Require the server and client to use IPv6 and you have built-in security and dynamic publicly route-able addresses.

The potential for Chromium is staggering. Imagine the convergence of Android and Chromium with the aforementioned server component and El Goog won't have enough room for the money.

I wonder if Google has a branch office near me...

--
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"

Re:A bad trade off. by ColdWetDog · 2009-12-01 11:35 · Score: 1

While cooking isn't a slashdotter trait, Say you come across a really great recipe at your desk, but now you want to go make it? well since it is online you could transfer it to your smart phone and squint at the screen as you try to make it. You could take your expensive laptop into the kitchen but if that is stupid as kitchens have all sorts of nasty liquids and powders in them that can cause harm. You might be willing to risk your hardware, but how about the data on the hard drive that just got trashed?

You should probably stick to take out if you really think your cooking skills involve maneuvers that will kill a laptop. And, no, I don't want to know what recipes you were thinking about when you wrote that post.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:A bad trade off. by Raffaello · 2009-12-01 11:38 · Score: 1

Or you could just print it for the cost of about 2 cents and have a hard copy which you really don't care if it gets splattered with tomato sauce. ChromeOS is a cloud solution in search of a problem. Thing is, cloud capabilities are a small proper subset of general purpose laptop/netbook capabilities, so why chain yourself to a crippled platform?

I get it that such limitations might work for the extremely light usage crowd (grandma and people who like to pretend to be working adults by using social media sites, etc.) but for real working adults, the cloud (sans local data retention under user control) is a catastrophic, organization-wide, data loss incident waiting to happen. But adding local data stores to the cloud just makes it a regular old OS with lame web apps and online backup, something which is already available in the current crop of mature, polished, debugged, mainstream OSes like Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux.

Sony eVilla and BeOS by molecular · 2009-12-01 11:43 · Score: 1

reminds me of eVilla and BeIA/BeOS.

Re:A bad trade off. by molecular · 2009-12-01 11:57 · Score: 1

mod parent up!

but let me disagree with the last argument.

Appliance computing would be very popular if it actually worked, if people could buy an appliance that would do what they need to do (mostly web surfing, email, light word processing, and games) without having to worry about all the problems of a general-purpose computer.

It _did_ work 8 years ago (sorry to reference my own post about the eVilla)

I think that did "actually work", but didn't become popular, which must've had some other reason,...

Re:A bad trade off. by molecular · 2009-12-01 11:59 · Score: 1

Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure.

I bet 10 euros against that.

Re:A bad trade off. by bloodhawk · 2009-12-01 12:08 · Score: 1

how is that even remotely related? people do and have always wanted cell phones, people don't and if anything have shown a complete hatred for thin client server dependant technologies to the extent that the market is completely non existant despite many companies attempts to get to going.

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by yelvington · 2009-12-01 12:15 · Score: 1

What makes Chrome better than say Firefox? When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome.

I'm a longtime Firefox fan, but I've been running the developer preview of Chrome on Linux for the last several weeks. The speed difference is awesome. Chrome is up and running and off to the races before the Fox gets out of bed. I didn't expect to be impressed, but now I've switched my desktop and my laptop to use Chrome as the default browser.

What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot? What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?

Google is pushing a Web-centric world where there are no desktops and no local apps. If you love your local apps, you're not going to like that.

But in Google's world you would be liberated from software updates, application vulnerabilities, incompatible file formats, the special hell of device drivers, and the occasional moment of "oh crap, I left that report on the computer at home." Everything would Just Work, everywhere, and you would get to it from any computer and/or that blister-packed $150 netpad you picked up from Walmart (ARM cpu, touchscreen, no hard disk) or your phone or somebody else's computer.

Yeah, you'd need the Internet to make it work. As if computers were interesting/useful without it? And don't forget that Gears can erase the distinction between "online" and "offline" for many applications, including for example Google Docs.

Naturally the makers of $2400 computers and $800 software suites aren't going to like that world. I'm not sure I would, either, but I'm certainly not opposed to having the choice.

How presumptuous by sensei+moreh · 2009-12-01 12:28 · Score: 1

If computers are basically Internet portals and almost everything we do takes place online,...

If a premise is false, the conclusion must be false. In (at least my particular) case, the premise is false.

--
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science

Re:How presumptuous by jonathan_ingram · 2009-12-01 12:43 · Score: 1

The moon is made of biscuit, therefore 1+1=2.
If the premise is false, then the conclusion *may* be false. Or true. Or neither.

--
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.

Re:Just as by whoop · 2009-12-01 12:45 · Score: 1

Oh Mah God! I think your post will bring Google down. Sell all your stocks, Google will be gone by this time next year! I foresee every grandma to be protesting in the streets with signs about the evils of cloud computing. If Google gets hold of granny's secret cookie recipes, imagine the havoc that could cause! Down with all of them! Disconnect from the grid while you can!! In fact, I don't want Slashdot to have my thoughts. They could be scheming something with them too. Let me just save this to my own drive. Ok, I think I've got it--

Oops.

Re:No, pissing off MS is not important by gtbritishskull · 2009-12-01 13:55 · Score: 1

I didn't RTFA, but I thought the whole point of the summary was that Google is open-sourcing their project. Doesn't that give you complete control over it (if you wanted to put in the effort to fork it)?

Like the iPhone by obarthelemy · 2009-12-01 14:06 · Score: 1

I think the reasoning is the same as with the iPhone... and definitely does NOT apply to the slashdot crowd: think of your parents, siblings, non-geed friends...

The General Public is willing to sacrifice a lot of flexibility and confidentiality for
- ease of use
- ease of maintenance
- money
- coolness

This may seem anathema to us geeks... but when I get the monthly "my PC's not working" from my dad (ie: a video driver update messed the screen resolution and the icons are no longer in their usual place ^^), I understand how the concept can work in the marketplace. Confidentiality is a very vague concept, as long as no one gets their credit card number; Flexibility is of no import if they can do even only 50% of what they want to do... right now they can do only 30% because computers are so hard... and they're not even aware of the 10% they're missing. My dad has an nice digital camera, but still hasn't ventured into posting pics online...

So I think Chrome OS will be a success. Mainly through MS and Linux fault: even with Apple hammering the point home again and again and again, they never focused on catering to our moms and dads and nieces and nephews.

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.

Re:A bad trade off. by jo42 · 2009-12-01 14:12 · Score: 1

All normal people will print out the recipe on their ink jet printer and take the printed copy to the kitchen to make it.

Only a /.tard would take a netbook or laptop into the kitchen and gunge up the keyboard with ingredients.

The Cambrian explosion view by Owlyn · 2009-12-01 14:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just my opinion for what it's worth. What gets me is the either/or evaluation of cloud computing. It's either good or bad, dumb or smart, the future or a dead end. What I see is the diversification of the technology landscape, not a monolithic movement in any direction. For some people, cloud computing is the ticket. It's all they need and they are going to love it. For others (like me), I like my island PC, enjoy tinkering with it, but will selectively use elements of cloud computing, such as Gmail. Others will have nothing to do with the 'cloud' for either ideological or need-based reasons. The technology is allowing us to do more things, not fewer things. What we will see is people doing more things differently as it suits them. I think the Chrome OS has a future, as does the Linux desktop, Windows and the Mac. The Xbox, the Wii and the Playstation are not the end of the gaming PC, but just an increase in the many ways technology will be used for people to amuse themselves. At some point in the future (in some Darwinian fashion) a selective pressure may simplify the technology landscape. There will be winners and losers. But at this point we are in a Cambrian explosion of diversification and multiplicity of options, and this is going to continue for some time.

Smells like an Apple play by invisik · 2009-12-01 15:56 · Score: 1

This sounds like an Apple move. Create an OS you control on (mostly) controlled hardware.. but then add the kicker of then controlling the other end of the internet as well.

It works, sure. It's just as annoying though--you're stuffed into their box instead of Apple's. Open source or not, Google is at the head.

I think if I had to change from a Microsoft environment I'd switch to a full Linux distro (I've done it before). More flexibility.

-m

--
http://www.invisik.com

Network computing capabilities by Psaakyrn · 2009-12-01 15:58 · Score: 1

I'm more interested in Chrome OS being offered in multiple devices. If the cloud works as I think it should, it means that all those devices should interface in a similar form. For instance: Buy a music file, and your music player downloads directly, without having to go through your netbook (because for all intents and purposes, they are the same). Your GIMP program, detecting your other cloud devices aren't being utilized, borrows some computing power to do a heavy render. Your text editor is automatically "synced" between all your devices.

I believe though that in the end there still has to be some aspect of offline capability, but it would be offered in an auto-sync format, or in how offline web pages work.

Build it into monitors, TVs or KVM switches by DeBaas · 2009-12-01 21:26 · Score: 1

I would love to have this in my monitor. Turn it on, within a couple of seconds I can do most things while I wait for the computer to boot, fsck etc. Especially when I'm tinkering around with the desktop and have to deal with reboots. Just make sure that it shares keyboard and mouse with the desktop. (sort of a build in KVM in the Monitor)
I think there will be many times that I wouldn't even boot the desktop anymore. Especially If I just want to do some quick email checking etc.

In a (HD)TV this would also be great. Headers of new mail running at the bottom of the screen just like breaking news in news channels. If such an email triggers you, just put Chrome OS full screen and (if combined with a wireless keyboard), read the whole mail, maybe look something up on the internet etc.

If you add virtualisation, you could also use it in your dekstop. Chrome OS as the host, and then run vms of full desktops as you please but you would still be online quickly while you wait for vms to load

It is not gonna replace my desktop OS. But I see a lot of potential!

--
---

Re:A bad trade off. by micheas · 2009-12-01 22:26 · Score: 1

My dell boots chromium in about 40 seconds 37 seconds are waiting for the bios to start loading chromium.

--
Work bio at MMWD

fight the clunkyness by bazorg · 2009-12-01 23:21 · Score: 1

There is a matter of user expectation that I think might be the most valuable legacy from the ChromeOS. Today, a lot of the stuff we use is clunky. Enterprise applications that walk over any UI guidelines, intranet sites that works so-so depending on the browser used; web applications that actually do not degrade to work in small screens or not-so-broadband connections.. there's probably more examples if you think about it.

If a large number of people start using these Google terminals and this allows them to see their files and favourite internet services working nicely, regardless of using the netbook, the fat PC with Firefox or Safari or any unknown PC at an internet cafe, this will be clearly a good thing. Users will expect to see the same kind of quality on desktop applications, on enterprise applications and importantly, on their intranet and enterprise applications.

Some of the applications I currently use that frustrate me the most are MS applications that simply lag behind the free stuff that I use at home on free internet services. The way my company is unable to make Sharepoint present simple lists of files and allow changing individual items without refreshing the whole thing is frustrating and worse than everything that I use for fun on Facebook; Dynamics CRM would be nice and usable for 2005 standars, but now its navigation requires more clicks and menus than everything that I find acceptable; hell, even using MS Office with files stored remotely is a pain, with all the warnings and confirmations.

I'm counting on google and mobile telcos to subsidize the hardware and take these netbooks to the broad market. People will have new expectations about usability, about what is basic and what is advanced use of their computers. Desktop software developers will have to adapt, because their stuff cannot possibly be less clunky than free browser based applications running on cheap hardware.

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by slim · 2009-12-01 23:47 · Score: 1

Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.

*You* probably don't need to.

You or I might say that Knoppix (or whatever) "just works". But I know people who could screw up Knoppix; I bet you do too.

The whole point of ChromeOS is that it takes "It just works" and "it keeps on just working" to new levels. And of course there are tradeoffs involved.

And Chrome is *ten* times more responsive. by spaceturtle · 2009-12-02 00:57 · Score: 1

I found Crome to be about ten times as responsive as Firefox in the BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark: http://www.ucc.asn.au/~mccabedj/BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark.html

Their efforts in removing "Jank" from the UI thread seem to have paid off.

Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens by selven · 2009-12-02 01:26 · Score: 1

Why should I pick a browser that requires plugins to do something when I can get one that does it out of the box?

Re:No, pissing off MS is not important by Sloppy · 2009-12-02 03:52 · Score: 1

They're open-sourcing an OS and browser, with the vision of those things just being doorways to your applications. They are not open-sourcing Google Docs, Google Maps, Youtube, etc. If you RTFA, you'll see that saying Chrome is Free, while true, is like saying a VNC client is free when you use it to view Excel running on some Windows machine. Your computer is running Free Software but you're still somehow locked into a proprietary app. All of the advantages of your "freedom" are lost.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Re:A bad trade off. by ElSupreme · 2009-12-02 04:27 · Score: 1

But I can already do this. I have an OLPC.

Oh and printing, or pencil and paper copying, is the only way to use a recipe.

--
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!

Re:No, pissing off MS is not important by ElSupreme · 2009-12-02 04:31 · Score: 1

Well yes you can do whatever you want to the OS. But you see the OS doesn't do anything but connect you to Google Docs.

In the article it even states that disk drives, and probably all local storage would not be supported by the OS. So all you data is locked up on Googles severs.

--
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!

Re:No, pissing off MS is not important by ElSupreme · 2009-12-02 04:33 · Score: 1

Hey at least .docx and the other Office file formats are an ISO standard. Open for anyone to implement now.
As for the rest of MSFT software well some you can use, others you cant.

--
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!

Re:No, pissing off MS is not important by Locke2005 · 2009-12-02 09:12 · Score: 1

If it is Open Source, aren't you free to add drivers to talk to local storage, or to a cloud computing vendor other than Google? I wouldn't recommend Chromium for mission-critical data, but for what 90% of users do on their computers (e.g. Facebook), it should be just fine.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:A bad trade off. by peragrin · 2009-12-02 09:52 · Score: 1

I went through two printers before I realized that the inkjets suck if all your printing is one or two pages a month.

You just decided to ignore the rest of my post which stated that this isn't meant to replace OS X Linux, or Windows. It is in addition too. Like your smart phone. which other than windows mobile, uses a stripped down version of the OS, Limited local storage, lame web apps and online backup.

The only difference is that the screen size will be 5 times as big as your smart phone so you can actually read it from 3-4 feet away. Or you can read more than 5 lines of text at a time without scrolling.

You aren't chaining yourself to the platform. in fact if you use linux, windows, OSX your chained. to a subsection of limited non cross platform apps. ChromOS has a lot less to debugg, and is mounted read only so if you do get corrupted OS it can reload with a reboot. something no other OS can do(linux can do it but isn't set that way by default) So by default ChromeOS will be faster to update, and secure easier than any other "mature" OS.

Slashdot crowd can't wrap their heads around this idea, yet many wanted to buy the cruchpad which is exactly what chromeOS devices will be like.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Re:A bad trade off. by peragrin · 2009-12-02 09:59 · Score: 1

except I stopped buying printers years ago when the ink would dry up and ruin the printer before I went through a full cartridge.

Maybe I care about he environment and limit the amount of useless one off pieces of paper that I use. while i am far from paper free, I use 10% of that of my coworkers. Just because I can use a directory structure and know how to scan things.

So call me a /Tard if you like but at least I don't pollute more than I have to.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Re:A bad trade off. by LWATCDR · 2009-12-02 10:21 · Score: 1

And why couldn't that $200 netbook run Linux so that I could install applications and Chrome or Firefox to use the net apps?
Also just what newbe has their own web server at home?
Also just how bad is your smart phone that you think you would have a hard time reading a recipe?

Of course I could also just copy it to my ebook reader if my phone is too hard to read.

Also you do know that "keeping recipes" was one of those things people said they could do with their Apple Is in the late 70s right?

There is nothing that Chrome can do that another OS can't. That is my big complaint about it. You can not install apps so it becomes just a terminal.

I do love that I got modded down as a troll for daring to say that an OS that will not let you install apps is limited. If Microsoft or Apple suggested the same thing I would have gotten at least a 3.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:A bad trade off. by peragrin · 2009-12-02 13:15 · Score: 1

true there is nothing chrome can do that others can't. that is a given. it is just a dumb graphic terminal. who would ever want that.

oh I don't know maybe every single person who runs X11 to start with.

You don't see the value of Chrome. Fine, but I can admit something that many here can't. I surf the web, visit forums, read news, read the occasional blog, for hours every day. I would love to be able to do that from a seat that is far more comfortable than my desk chair. laptops aren't meant for any place other than a flat surface. Sure I download and try apps. Even whole OS's. but I have one whole computer that is basically a dumb terminal. it has running itunes(accessing a shared drive). firefox, and Safari running constantly. That is all that computer does. is basically load web pages. Why do I need the other 99% of the OS if all I am doing is running a web browser anyways?

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Re:A bad trade off. by LWATCDR · 2009-12-02 14:18 · Score: 1

Well very few people use dedicated X-Terms anymore. The thing is that what you want can be done just as easily with a netbook/smartbook running Linux or OS/X as it can with Chrome. Why have less functionality than more? The everything is a trade off. The thing is I just don't know much benefit one would gain from this OS. The iPod OS can do everything that Chrome can do with fewer trade offs. So can Android so why have less functionality than less? Chrome OS is just for the benefit of Google's customers. What people don't understand is that the advertisers are Google's customers and we are just their product.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

ChromeOS might succeed where windows keeps failing by dudeeh · 2009-12-03 06:19 · Score: 1

As slashdotters love car analogies, I'll start with one. A car is a rather complex device, and yet every day millions of joe sixpacks are driving it around, more or less safely. Why? Several reasons, but the two most important ones are:

* the interface has been dumbed down tremendously
* you do not (in general) maintain it yourself

These two points have made it possible for every day people to drive a car without knowing the science behind it. Microsoft has been trying for years to do the same with windows, to dumb down the interface to the point that average users can not only use it, but to a certain degree maintain it.

However, the latter is simply impossible in my opinion. Computers are too complex to be dumbed down enough for joe sixpack, however chrome OS offers a nice solution. They simply give you an interface, but they relieve you of the maintenance. No longer will you be burdened with deciding whether or not clicking "ok" is going to crash your pc, no longer will you have to wonder whether renaming that "wav" file to "mp3" will actually work. They do the hard work, they maintain it and they offer you an interface that is easy enough for everyone to understand.

Note: i'm a linux-only kind of guy, so chrome os is NOT for me, but i can see the appeal for all those family members that keep pestering me cause they got the latest fashionable virus

Re:A bad trade off. by peragrin · 2009-12-03 09:42 · Score: 1

you are quite correct advertisers are googles customers. However you don't have to visit those sites. There is adblock for chrome. I may use gmail and google for my search engine, however that doesn't mean I have google toolbar installed. It doesn't mean i don't block doubleclick and prevent it from storing cookies.

I have an iphone. and in it's default configuration it is almost as limited as chromeOS. however if apple offered a 5-7" sized tablet with the same OS I would use that. However no one offers that form factor that is inexpensive and light weight. I surf the web on my iphone on a regular basis. however the screen size is way to small to read comfortably for a long period of time.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Re:A bad trade off. by LWATCDR · 2009-12-03 10:14 · Score: 1

Just as limited?
100,000 apps vs 0 is just a limited?
I find the iPhone to be the limit of what I will put up with in a device as far as locked down and vendor control.
Google goes past that and to me that is just too far.
I don't hate google and I do use them. I just know where I stand with them. Heck I am even a customer of theirs since I pay for ads.
But I feel Chrome is that step to far into making a computer nothing more than a terminal.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Slashdot Mirror

What Google's Chromium OS Is Reaching For

165 of 216 comments (clear)