Slashdot Mirror
What Google's Chromium OS Is Reaching For
MojoKid sends in a piece that takes a step back from Google's much-analyzed OS to look at what it is trying to accomplish. "Last week, Google open-sourced its Chromium OS project, more than a year before the operating system is scheduled for release. In doing so, Google hopes a variety of developers and companies will become involved in the project, and has pledged to release regular updates as well as a comprehensive log of bug reports and fixes. This article takes a look at Google's design vision for Chromium, the unique benefits it offers, and a bit of why Google is throwing its hat into this particular ring in the first place. 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. In the midst of all these options, do we need another operating system? We just might."
The more the merrier!
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.
I wonder who will notice that the link doesn't work at all? Oh, wait... This is slashdot. Never mind. :)
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.
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.
http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
...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.
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.
"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.
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....
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.
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.
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!"
"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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
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();
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