Why Google Needs To Pull the Plug On Chrome OS

judeancodersfront writes "It's time for Google to realize that it is way too early to be pushing an OS that only provides a browser. If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows. Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform and provide a system that offers local applications."

Comments

Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you are doing a strictly web browser like computer and don't want to use Windows, why not just build a netbook or computer with pre-installed Linux?

The most frustrating part about Linux to end users is installing it and making sure everything works and that the hardware is supported and configured properly. Computer manufacturers are more than capable of doing that for the end user, and let the end user just boot up the computer. Linux even allows you to customize it perfectly and there are already various distros designed just to be simple and provide browser and such. This also has the advantage of having even some local file storage and not being tied to any single company like Google. You can also customize the OS to receive automatic updates just like Chrome OS and make it so that the casual user doesn't need to do or worry about anything.

That is meant strictly for people who might enjoy the simplicity of Chrome OS and just having a browser. Personally I want my desktop apps and games to work.

-sopssa

Re:Linux

[danny_lehman]

ugh.. i hate you. dont follow the link

Re:Linux

[bluesatin]

I've got to admit, it's a pretty clever way of tricking people into going to a site; people rarely fall for the url shortening sites any more, but everyone trusts Google! (Except Slashdot of course, we don't like anyone).

Re:Linux

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Not really. Anyone who actually examined the link target would see the "goatkcd" in the URL (and the "I'm Feeling Lucky" lets you know you're not actually visiting Google itself).

Re:Linux

[ElectricTurtle]

This is begging to become the vector for the next Rick Roll-esque phenomenon.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

you are such a genius that you didnt fall for that.

you must never make any mistakes... EVER!!

Re:Linux

[English French Man]

I was tricked by this once however :(

Re:Linux

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Except that your browser doesn't show the full URL, just a snippet. If the poster added some padding in there, you would've never seen the goatkcd in the URL ...

Also, the current goatkcd is better than the current XKCD. Incision. Yes, it works at many levels.

Re:Linux

[TubeSteak]

Not really. Anyone who actually examined the link target would see the "goatkcd" in the URL (and the "I'm Feeling Lucky" lets you know you're not actually visiting Google itself).

Maybe /. should consider adding a url filter for google links.
Something that strips "I'm feeling lucky" and keeps the "q=goatkcd" at the front of the url so it can't dissappear behind padding

Re:Linux

[Bakkster]

And if you are doing a strictly web browser like computer and don't want to use Windows, why not just build a netbook or computer with pre-installed Linux?

In theory, to save all those processor cycles draining your battery, instead putting them on the cloud.

In practice, I think you're mostly right. Although, if they can make Linux user (as in, grandma) friendly by removing the need to update via rpm and such (because your software is on the cloud, of course) they might be able to make it work. But it's going to take a lot to convince people to switch from the familiar Windows to an OS that requires an internet connection on your netbook.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I a bad person for knowing, before clicking that link, that goatkcd is where they replace the last panel of xkcd with the goatse.cx guy? And that I think that's funnier than xkcd itself?

However, I think http://xkcdexplained.com/ is funnier than both of them.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

use a better browser then.

Re:Linux

[SanityInAnarchy]

And if you are doing a strictly web browser like computer and don't want to use Windows, why not just build a netbook or computer with pre-installed Linux?

Because it will take longer than seven seconds to boot.

Re:Linux

[TheP4st]

Except that your browser doesn't show the full URL, just a snippet.

Except that my browser doesn't show the full url, just a snippet. There fixed that for you.

In the case you wonder, I am using Opera with the default setting "Show tooltips" which neatly displays the full url next to my cursor whenever hovering over a link. Yes, that can be a minor nuisance but one which is well compensated at times like this.

Re:Linux

[Changa_MC]

while the popup title in firefox is only google.com, the statusbar shows the full address.
I don't believe you can spoof the statusbar the way you could in IE4.

Re:Linux

[Razalhague]

I bet "GoatKCD Explained" would just rock your socks off!

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Who uses that button, anyway? In 10 years, I didn't use it once.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it take much longer to boot linux than a "simpler" OS? Moblin 2.1 boots in about 10secs here (including BIOS).

Re:Linux

[man_of_mr_e]

Part of the problem is that if they use an OS that gives too much functionality, they want it to start running Windows apps. And when it can't do that, they become frustrated and return it.

Sadly, Linux seems to be relegated to "appliance" status in most devices, largely because they don't want users to start asking too many questions.

Re:Linux

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Once if you see it's a search, do you really need to know what kind of search it is?

Re:Linux

[somersault]

It is actually kinda funny, though I'm disappointed at the lack of image hover punchline.

Re:Linux

[ZosX]

you must be new here...

Re:Linux

[lonecrow]

I want Chrome OS for people who want me to support them for no pay.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Ego somnium proinde EGO sum ...

I picture a system where a browser object is the UI for a system of appengine objects which provide the entire spectrum of user functions and tasks as a subscription. Also I see the future of computing moving back to regional super computers accepting tasks and applets to accomplish all tasks, commercial and personal.

The winner will be the provider!

Re:Linux

[Hurricane78]

I never thought that replacing the last image of every xkcd comic with Goatse could be so funny and so fitting!

You may have thought you could troll me. But after a while you just get used to it. Your trolling has no power over me! I laugh in your face! :D

Re:Linux

[SanityInAnarchy]

Actually, that was my point -- Chrome OS reportedly takes seven seconds to boot, and they're working on decreasing that. A full Linux system will take much longer unless you're trimming it down yourself, and if you're trimming it down, aren't you just effectively making Chrome OS anyway?

Re:Linux

[ldobehardcore]

I agree in principle that it would definitely be easier for OEMs to build the hardware with linux preinstalled. But I don't think an "Internet pad" type of device would be particularly marketable. I don't believe I've ever seen a popular internet only machine. Even the iPad runs local apps. I think most users would find it wasteful to have a device that's only designed for internet usage. Most people want some local storage, and at least some real world usefulness, like a camera, or usb ports for their awesome devs, like the electric stapler/USB hub combo.

Re:Linux

[RockDoctor]

an OS that requires an internet connection on your netbook.

Instant fail.
By the time I get home from this job, I'll have spent 5 weeks out of 6 in places where the only wired internet connection is required for work computers (working 24x7), where the nearest mobile phone coverage is around an hours flying time away (assuming I can get onto the flight, and that it's flying ; both assumptions that you can't rely on), and where using WiFi to leech off the work-connected laptop will at best get me the sack for breaking radio silence, and at worst could kill several people (including me).
Despite what the Generation-WGAF people who seem so common this decade think, you cannot rely on having connectivity. Unless you want to pay for the design, install and maintenance of your link, which is normally going to be a prohibitive cost.

Re:Linux

[Bakkster]

I think that was most of my point: it's a huge condition of operation, so it had better do some amazing stuff that other OSs can't if you expect people to switch.

That said, connectivity is much more common now, with most of the US able to reach cell phone data networks. Of course, one wouldn't expect Chrome to be a good choice for those under radio silence, it will never surpass traditional OSs.

While I could see a Chrome laptop with a second Android layer when connectivity is unavailable, at that point you might as well just install Android from the start and be done with it.

Re:Linux

[RockDoctor]

Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

A laudable aim, but your project is bound to end up in a disorganised mess.

Opinionated Article is Confusing

[eldavojohn]

This guy makes a lot of assumptions.

Though it looks like Chrome will have a basic media player the dependence on the internet for applications will be too limiting for the typical user.

So you're telling me that you know for sure I won't be able to bring up Google Docs and access my Google docs when I have no internet connection? Because right now I can do that in the Chrome Browser with Google Gears and they are working on HTML5 which is supposed to natively support this "offline" functionality. But what you're telling me is that they plan on dropping this paradigm?

No local printing

All I've heard is that Google Cloud Print and the proxy service for your printer plans to be bundled with Chrome OS. I've not heard whether it's opt-in, opt-out, mandatory or if -- shock of all shocks -- they figure out a way to make it work like Google Gears.

That’s some advanced technoshit when I have to contact a server in California if I want to print a bbq recipe from a printer that is 2 feet away from me.

Google Cloud Print aims to make printing from any online device to any printer available. Apart from what you so eloquently claim, they did not set bricking your printer as a goal. Nor did they express a desire to inhibit your ability to print on your printer from your local machine directly. If Google Cloud Print is not opt-in on Chrome OS, I will be just as critical as you but there's no indication one way or the other yet.

Every consumer OS has a browser. Selling an OS based on the fact that it has a browser is like selling a car based on the doors. Consumers will be confused when they are told that Chrome OS is just a browser. Just a browser?

And let the terrible analogies flow. Wrap your mind around this: what if the consumer just wants a netbook to surf the internet and do word processing? Like me and my netbook.

Why can’t I access local files? This netbook actually does less than my cell phone?

Is it that you can't access local files or that you can't discern between work that's being stored and cached locally versus being out on the cloud? One may claim that this simplifies the user experience. Who cares where it is? I can access it.

A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

The $300-$400 price point

Seriously? People belly-up to pay top dollar for quality and components that come with an Apple Product and then you quibble when Google offers something at a similar price with possibly better quality and components?

Android

While Android could run on netbooks, all the development I've done for it is through Google developed Java libraries. It's a trimmed down version of Linux so much so that I'm not sure the full functionality of Linux could be harnessed. I personally don't think the advantages that these modifications hold for handhelds would translate well to netbooks.

Jerkface Playhouse indeed.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Raxxon]

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

Using one of the 3rd party cards you can store data on a MicroSD/MicroSDHC and play it back. However this is a device that's normally used for "other" things than playing music... and may/may not be legal where you are. wink,wink nudge,nudge

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Sockatume]

And the DSi has a full-sized SD card slot. However my understanding is that it only supports AAC, not MP3, due to licencing.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[C1970H]

So you're telling me that you know for sure I won't be able to bring up Google Docs and access my Google docs when I have no internet connection? Because right now I can do that in the Chrome Browser with Google Gears and they are working on HTML5 which is supposed to natively support this "offline" functionality. But what you're telling me is that they plan on dropping this paradigm?

Yep -- at least last I heard Gears/offline editing is temporarily going bye-bye. Questionable choice at best -- why not get HTML5 working first unless they really don't care about being a viable option to traditional MS Office type editors? http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224202374

Google's other big bet is on the all-cloud environment; it's dropping for now the ability to use Docs when not connected to the Internet. Google thinks most employees don't care about offline mode, but the company knows that C-level execs--the ones who need to approve Google apps--do. They're often on airplanes without Internet connectivity, so not having offline access could be a big strike against the rewritten Docs.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[mutu310]

Where's the super-like button? So many people use a PC *JUST* for browsing. They don't even need Google docs or printing or the like. They just want a browser. And currently they have to pay for more expensive hardware that can do all the extra background processing and support so many other features that they don't need or want to use, and are occasionally confusing to them. These same people will have a faster, cheaper experience.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

...is like selling a car based on the doors...

And let the terrible analogies flow.

Come on, at least he made it a car analogy

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[AltairDusk]

A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

Something like an R4 card or similar allows you to run homebrew software and play media from a microSD card (as well as more dubious things).

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Rogerborg]

Jerkface Playhouse indeed.

Well, I for one like this new egalitarian Slashdot that will publish any random moonbat's frothy diatribe purely in order to troll us into dissecting it.

We bite every time, but isn't that how we like it? Be honest now, would you really want to read a cogently argued article that garnered nothing but "Yup" and "Seems right" responses?

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[BitZtream]

I still think ChromeOS needs to disappear, but I have to admit you've brought up good counter arguments. I'll still have to agree with the original point that its going to cause consumer confusion and frustration. I also realize that I'm not a normal user and probably want too many things that just aren't on the web yet ... unless someone can find me a full CAD/CAM/CNC controller solution done in HTML5 (Obviously not the target market) then I could switch my shop computer to ChromeOS and be happy.

I realize thats an extreme case, but I think you're still going to have that problem for normal users. It won't be the lack of CAD software, but there's going to be 'something' for a long time I think.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[conspirator57]

it supports mp3... just have to know how to unlock it

, , , , , , , , B, A

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Quantumplation]

An additional point that I thought of while reading the article: He complains about being offline at inconvenient times. Didn't Google make a move, a while back, to push the FCC into "open sourcing" the unowned frequency wavelengths in between the major points on the old national TV broadcast band? The ones that are covered over very long distances by just a few towers, and that go through standard building materials? Isn't it possible the have something planned to make the unavailability of internet a moot point? =P Just my speculation and pseudo-conspiracy theorizing here, though.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[conspirator57]

special character fail.

up up down down left right left right B A

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[raodin]

Regarding the Nintendo DS comment, he is referring to the DSi here, not the plain DS or DS lite. The DSi has an SD slot that can be used for photos or music, although I don't believe mp3 is a supported format.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Knitebane]

That's the combination to my Palm Pre!

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Raxxon]

Yeah, I haven't played with a DSi myself, but my understanding was that it was "locked down" as a music player.. wasn't sure if it was format limited or some goofball interface to obfuscate the data on the device so that it had to be played their way (see: iPod)

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[drinkypoo]

While Android could run on netbooks, all the development I've done for it is through Google developed Java libraries. It's a trimmed down version of Linux so much so that I'm not sure the full functionality of Linux could be harnessed. I personally don't think the advantages that these modifications hold for handhelds would translate well to netbooks.

I think it would be a lot smarter for Google to bring out tablets/netbooks with Android than with just Chrome OS. They can sell people apps for it out of the store, which is a huge win! And it's based on Linux, so users can have their full environment. Which brings me to actually addressing your point; the Android NDK permits you to build software in the usual Linux environment, there's libc and a handful of other libraries, and you need to build anything you need; additionally, only the libaries provided in the NDK are guaranteed to stick around so you may end up needing to do an epic build to get all the prerequisites for complex software. And as well, all Android apps are required to be Java apps, so if you need a GUI component to whatever you're building, and you want to distribute it through the store, then you're going to need to write a Java front end if one does not already exist, or port it to Android if one does.

Meanwhile, such a device could be sold with its default configuration sending the user straight to chrome, thus providing all the benefits of the chrome OS (simplicity, Linux underpinnings) and all the benefits of Android (too many to mention, but let's just focus on Android Market and the ability to do stuff that is less than elegant in the browser) at the same time.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[enigmatics]

... unless someone can find me a full CAD/CAM/CNC controller solution done in HTML5 (Obviously not the target market) then I could switch my shop computer to ChromeOS and be happy.

I think you fall into the exact opposite target demographic that Google is going after with their chrome OS. I think you also fail to realize that chrome OS isn't looking for 100% market saturation, or anywhere near it. Of course their system isn't designed to replace computers for resource intensive applications. Also, why should they stop producing an OS when it does what it was designed to do well and fits the bill for a section of the market? They're not forcing you to buy it.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[iamhassi]

"A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.....You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?"

I was so going to moderate you up until I read that. The Nintendo MP3 Player has been out for 4 years. Games 'n' Music is (or was) available at Walmart and still available online.

"Seriously? People belly-up to pay top dollar for quality and components that come with an Apple Product and then you quibble when Google offers something at a similar price with possibly better quality and components?"

Apple google is not. Apple has a 30 yr history of charging top dollar for premium products. Google doesn't. Horrible comparison, might as well throw in some car analogies and ask why Daewoos don't sell for Ferrari prices (yes, I did just compare Google to Daewoo).

While I do agree JerkFace is making an awful lot of assumptions without any links or references to back up his quotes, some of his points are valid. However all he has to do is look at the usefulness of Android cellphones when they lack an internet connection to see it's still fully functional, and that's a cellphone that is meant to have some sort of internet reception 24/7.

JerkFace did get one thing wrong: "4. The $300-$400 price point... Chrome OS at least had a chance in hell before I read this... There are Windows 7 netbooks at $280 "

You failed to do your homework JerkFace. While you correctly quoted the Google CEO of saying "$300-$400", you conveniently left off the rest "..that all the cost will be associated with the hardware, since the OS itself is free." With a free OS there is no Windows device that can compete on price.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that you guys have to use "open source" for every single instance of something being public? Can you please stop this practice? It really is annoying.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[DdJ]

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

They may be talking about the DSi, which has an SD card slot and a media player. You just load the files up on the SD card and pop it in and you can play them, it's very easy and pretty nice.

(But maybe that's not what they're talking about, since that plays AAC, not MP3. I load mine up with music from the iTunes store all the time. At this time I have more devices that can play AAC than MP3, including a bunch of devices that have no problem playing both, like the XB360 and Chumby and iPod.)

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[interval1066]

Agreed. This is troll bait.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[ciderVisor]

...is like selling a car based on the doors...

Buick tried to sell the Opel based on The Doors.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[nomadic]

Well, I for one like this new egalitarian Slashdot that will publish any random moonbat's frothy diatribe purely in order to troll us into dissecting it.

New?

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

More seriously, opinionated article is substantially underinformed and, I think, substantially underestimates what Google means by "browser based". (Whether or not you like Google's thin-client 2.0 all-your-data-are-belong-to-us strategy, you should never underestimate its sophistication).

First, and foremost, "browser based" is not going to imply "brick unless internet connected". Google built Gears before the HTML5 local data persistence stuff was available, and has been quite clear that they will be implementing the HTML5 stuff.

Second, of course, is the fact that Google has the option, and will quite likely exercise it if needed, of doing "web styled", but not strictly standard, stuff through javascript extensions(like what Palm uses in WebOS to enable various platform specific stuff) or through plugins. Most notably, Google has a little project they call "NaCl". Native Client. Available now for x86, soon for ARM. Allows sandboxed native code to run in a browser plugin.

With that, "browser based" can practically mean whatever the hell they want it to. It will, at an absolute minimum, mean any capability that they have already demonstrated in-browser; but, if they feel like it, it can also mean essentially arbitrary native x86 or ARM binaries just running in plugin sandboxes with CSS/javascript driven styling, and a browser-tab windowing model. It would also, I suspect, be Not That Hard for Google to bring over a Dalvik plugin, that would allow you to run Android applications embedded in the "browser based" environment.

Yeah, if "ChromeOS" were simply "Hey, lets put a copy of chrome on a crippled ubuntu install!", it would be certain to fail. However, it is not at all likely that that is the plan. Admittedly, the plan is likely to be less "web based" than some might like, and might even involve some sorts of questionable Google-Only advantages(ie. NaCl plugins signed by Google get to be arbitrarily persistent, and occupy more of the available storage space, 3rd party stuff is subject to the standard caching algorithm, or something of that kind); but there is no reason to suspect that it won't be nearly arbitrarily powerful.(which doesn't assure it any traction; but if it fails to find its feet, it won't be because it is crippled).

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[cynyr]

I'm not so sure, do facebook, farmville, youtube, hulu, and flash games work? if so thats about enough for a "couch tablet" getting the price down around 200-300 may be the problem though, considering you can buy whole computers for that price, but they sit on a desk, and don't have batteries.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Youngbull]

special character fail.

up up down down left right left right B A

That is the root password on my Server!

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[balbus000]

Be honest now, would you really want to read a cogently argued article that garnered nothing but "Yup" and "Seems right" responses?

Yup.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[CODiNE]

A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

It's been around since 2006 man... ANCIENT HISTORY.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[c]

> ... would you really want to read a cogently argued article
> that garnered nothing but "Yup" and "Seems right" responses?

After 20 years on the 'net, I'd be curious to see something like that just for the novelty value.

c.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just thinking the same damn thing about your mum's puss. I mean, I'm the only one who should be able to dog fuck that bitch yet she insists upon open sourcing that nasty rat hole to the whole town. Fucking cunt. You tell her that I'm coming over tonight with my strap and she'd better answer the door with her panties around her ankles. And you and your bitch ass dad better be in the basement jerking your little wieners while I'm fucking that bitch and not all in my facing annoying me with that dick watching shit.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[CODiNE]

Using one of the 3rd party cards you can store data on a MicroSD/MicroSDHC and play it back. However this is a device that's normally used for "other" things than playing music... and may/may not be legal where you are. wink,wink nudge,nudge

Nintendo officially supports playing music from an SD card.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[spire3661]

you forgot 'start' at the end. And yes it is also the dev mode unlock for Palm Pre.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[postbigbang]

No, confusion is NOT the goal. The goal is to use centrist/cloud-based apps. That's what Schmidt is all about. Sun, Novell, and what part of doing it on the data center did you not understand?

Chrome does what it's supposed to. If you want local processing, you're using something else. Each and every distribution of Linux has its place, even if that place is the dustbin.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[cgenman]

It seems like people have the underlying assumption that a longer feature list = a better product. For good design and usability, you want the absolute minimum number of features required to get the job done well. If you have 10 options, the user can see them all at once. If you have 1,000 options, you will have a heirarchical mess that drives users to repeatedly press the one button they are familiar with.

Exposing application installation and local storage means exposing all of the really ugly bits of Linux... the file structures that support the system, installation dependencies, patches, security and logins, etc. A browser, on the other hand, is just a browser. The end user never has to wonder if a file is in /bin, /usr, the desktop somewhere, etc. The system can't be hacked (much). There are no dependency trees to resolve when you want to see a PDF file. Since it is cloud-based, you don't have to back anything up. It just works. Oh, and youtube (of course) has a good corporate shill video of this, and an interesting video of the OS in action,

To force a car analogy, Sometimes you need a truck to haul all of your crap. Sometimes you just want a motorcycle to get from point A to point B quickly. You probably wouldn't get a motorcycle as your primary vehicle. But damn are they nice.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Rogerborg]

>> ... would you really want to read a cogently argued article
>> that garnered nothing but "Yup" and "Seems right" responses?

>After 20 years on the 'net, I'd be curious to see something like that just for the novelty value.

Pfft, surely you remember nodding along to the McCahill comp.infosystems.gopher post shredded that upstart Berners-Lee and his unpronouncable "Haitch Tee Tee Pee" nonsense?

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[quickOnTheUptake]

yes, and as I recall it is going forward and being tested. But I would be surprised if we see any wide-scale deployment in the next 5 years, let alone full coverage that would make internet access a moot point.
Sprint/Clearwire's WiMax network is going to be closer to making it a moot issue sooner and it still has a long way to go.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Zerth]

On a DSi, not a DS. And not mp3s

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Zerth]

A DS even lets you play local MP3 files.

You just blew my mind. I've had a Nintendo DS for several years without this ability ... in fact, I don't even thing there's a way to store data of that size on my DS. What on earth are you talking about?

It's been around since 2006 man... ANCIENT HISTORY.

Really? You had a DSi 2-3 years before they were released?

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[icebraining]

No, they'll support Gears until HTML5 is ready, except in Safari: http://gearsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/hello-html5.html

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[icebraining]

Of course they will, Chrome OS has the Chrome browser (duh) which now even bundles Flash.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[VennData]

Up on "Jerkface Playhouse" next week... "Chrome OS should be stopped, it's already too late."

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[C1970H]

Maybe that was their story on 2/10, but by 4/12 they had a change of heart. http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-google-docs.html

Please note, these new editors are not compatible with Gears (the technology that powers offline access), so they do not have offline support today. However, we plan to bring back offline support in the future, taking advantage of new technologies like HTML5 and advancements in modern browsers.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Quantumplation]

True. Still, exciting stuff. =)

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Seems right.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[conspirator57]

per wikipedia (which never lies, much like George Washington) the start is platform dependent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Code

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[conspirator57]

That is the root password on my Server!

Thanks, but I knew that already, silly. You might want to change the combination on your luggage while you're at it. ;P

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[dmmiller2k]

Be honest now, would you really want to read a cogently argued article that garnered nothing but "Yup" and "Seems right" responses?

Seems right

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[icebraining]

I didn't saw that; you're right, it currently doesn't support offline. I don't know why anyone would mod you down.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[man_of_mr_e]

Holy shit! Google Cloud Print? Google wants me to send all my print jobs to them, so they can send them back to me?

Frankly, this is getting ridiculous. Google is finding new ways to harvest our data, and make us dependant up them as a service. I love my android phone, but I realized recently that their new "voice control" and "voice to text" features means that every time you say something to your phone, it goes to google, and they process it, then send back the text. This means that google has a record of everything you've said to it.

Google will then have a record of everything you've printed with this cloud service. They have a record of all your email. They have a record of all your search queries. Who knows what their toolbar is sending back to them about your surfing habits.

I don't like ot think of myself as part of the tinfoil hat brigade, but wow. If google WANTED to be evil, they have set themselves up to be the masters.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[SalsaDoom]

Yup.

Seems right. :)

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[C1970H]

Not sure either... wasn't trying to be snarky in my reply. I was confused, because I originally read the information week article about offline editing being dropped. Read your reply and went digging for more info -- not to "prove anything" but to see why the conflict with the Information Week article. Found the later post and supplied it...thought that's how things worked here. :-)
Thanks for backing me up.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[John Whitley]

Be honest now, would you really want to read a cogently argued article that garnered nothing but "Yup" and "Seems right" responses?

That's what the comments section is for, after all. Wouldn't want to take all the fun out of slamming down that trump-card Pulitzer-winning counterpoint in under a hundred characters of URL, now would we? We've even consolidated the "Yup" and "Seems right" bit into a simple integer count at the top of the post. ;-)

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Raxxon]

And AGAIN you've missed the details.

DS is NOT a DSi.

MP3 is NOT AAC.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[c]

> surely you remember nodding along to the McCahill comp.infosystems.gopher post

See, exactly my point... by the time the gopher community started to pay attention to HTTP, I'd already seen someone doing nifty things with HTTP...

c.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

The arguments might be minimal in supportable content, but what's really important is the point.

Why would anyone buy a Chromebook when they can buy a Netbook? A Netbook does more, is nearly as simple to use, more widely available, lower priced etc. etc. etc.

You use a netbook right? Are you going to throw it away to get Google Cloud Print support? How many people want to print their hardcopy someplace they're not?

What's compelling about Chrome OS? Certainly nothing you've listed in the post above.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[dg5]

I remember reading in the early posts about Chrome OS that long-term plan is to merge the two platforms, Android and Chrome OS, so I guess some of the article's points are moot.

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[that IT girl]

Don't forget Start at the end!

(Select, Start if two people are going to be listening to the song.)

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

How have you gone this long without understanding what is possible with the DS? DS + R4 + MicroSD, I thought every DS owner knew this by now

Re:Opinionated Article is Confusing

[Rogerborg]

>> surely you remember nodding along to the McCahill comp.infosystems.gopher post
>See, exactly my point... by the time the gopher community started to pay attention to HTTP, I'd already seen someone doing nifty things with HTTP...

Yes, we all remember Bianco Troll's Smut Shack. Ah, CindyCrawfordUnderwear.jpg, fondly we salute ye.

I Disagree

[WrongSizeGlass]

The only way we're going to get simple web "appliances" is if someone with muscle and money starts pushing them now.

Google has the resources and the "good name" (at least for now) to make this happen. Simple, safe & secure web appliances will make the basics of e-mail, web surfing and reading common format documents cheap and easy for everyone (this includes the poorer countries of the world). Document & content creation are down the road, but for right now let's get this moving in the right direction.

Re:I Disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way we're going to get simple web "appliances" is if someone with muscle and money starts pushing them now.

So dumbass users can stop getting Windows viruses (er, sorry, Microsoft Windows (R) (TM) viruses - gotta give recognition where it is due) and contributing to botnets and spam and fraud and phishing while wondering why their computer runs so slow. It'd be a better world!

"But I'm not a computer expert!"* Great, here's your appliance. It auto-updates and you can't modify anything except user preferences. Enjoy.

* A "computer expert" is someone who can RTFM.

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

We have them.
They are called Android, WebOS, and iPhone phones. And now the iPad.

Plus it is just a terrible idea that is crippled from the start.
Lets take two device.
1. Chrome OS
and
2. Android.

From the end user point of view what can Chrome do that Android can not?
I am sure that the Web Apps that run on Chrome OS will work just as well on the Android browser. Unless Google cripples Android which I do not see.
So the Android smartbook can run all the apps that Chrome OS will
So 1 point for each Chrome and Android.
What about all the Android apps that are available on the market place? Well Chrome will not run them but Android will.
So 1 point for Android and zero for Chrome OS.

Now from a developers point of view.
If they want to make a web app do they target Chrome OS or Android? Well no need to choose. Both work just fine. So here is a tie.
Now suppose the developer doesn't want to run a server? He just wants to write an app. Chrome OS is out of luck but Android is just fine. Plus one for android.
Suppose the developer wants to sell the app and not depend on advertising? Well the develper could offer subscriptions on line but it is so much easier to just sell the app. another for android.

Suppose the developer wants the app to only work on a lan that doesn't have an internet connection? You may be able to do something with Gears but again an app is just a clean simple solution.

A browser only OS is a limited OS.
Any gains in ease of use will be very limited compared to what we have already gotten with smart phones.

Chrome OS is a case of philosophy over functionality and to be honest IMHO greed. Google thinks it can make more money off of ads than it has off of apps IMHO.

Re:I Disagree

[bhtooefr]

The thing about Chrome OS is that it has a UI more suited towards mouse+keyboard, whereas Android's UI is more suited towards fingers.

Also, Android uses a lot more code that runs in Dalvik, so Chrome may perform (significantly, in some cases) better.

Otherwise, yes, Android wins.

Re:I Disagree

[WiseWeasel]

ChromeOS will never get far enough in the marketplace for developers to even consider targeting it, so it's null set all around. Consumers will obviously pick the Android tablet/netbook/whatever that can play native games over the ChromeOS one that can only play crappy Flash games. ChromeOS widely misses the mark with consumers in the first place, so it's got absolutely no chance with developers.

Re:I Disagree

[fermion]

It will come down to the cost of the netbook, and the ease of use. Unix on the netbook was not a great success because MS was easily able to come in and subsidize. In addition, the cost on always on internet access on those netbooks was not negligible. WiFi is still often something that can be a profit center, and 3G and 4G is $50 a month. Someone who is buying a netbook because it is cheap is not necessarily happy with the 'hidden' costs.

So here is the thing. A netbook can work today because of WiFi access and the possibility of $30 a month data plans A Google netbook can work because if the internet is always connected, then the Google model will work well. In fact, I would say it is critical for the future of google to have a cadre of netbooks that depend on the services, and can't easily run MS services. If google does this as it did the Nexus 1, there will not be a great deal of success. If it can convince the mobile carriers to really push the netbooks, I mean give them away free, in exchange for a two year contract, then we will see great market penetration. The question is will google pay for the design work so all the mobile people has to pay for is manufacturing costs.

Re:I Disagree

[WrongSizeGlass]

From the end user point of view what can Chrome do that Android can not?

What can an Android device do that a PC can't? You're asking the wrong questions.

A device that has no storage, no potential infections, no installable software ... nothing but a UI and an internet connection. It's the "toaster" of computers. The easier and safer you make them the more they will end up in every room of every home.

They are not replacements for Android devices, iPads, etc ... nor replacements for full blown computers. Ask a parent if they want their 6 y/o using a controllable "dumb" internet terminal appliance or anything else and they'll tell you "safe and dumb as possible".

Re:I Disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the poorest countries often don't have fast broadband connections...

Re:I Disagree

[nashv]

You are looking at Chrome OS with a perspective rooted in present-day models. The whole project is based on a cloud-computing paradigm where users do not have to download or make binary blobs in order to do anything.

Suppose I wanted to see to do some advanced image processing. I don't really care for writing the code, editing the code and so on. All I want to do is get my data out from the images. Today, I have to have MATLAB, Photoshop, Origin and sleuth of other suites installed which I don't really use every day but need say once in a few months. The idea of web-based applications means that no one has to get, install and maintain software. You just point your browser to the right website.

So yes, Chrome OS makes no sense in a world which is in general bandwidth starved, has clumsy and slow web-app technologies and browsers that were built mainly for rendering a markup language that is at least years old. In a future, where Internet coverage is 100% , where net bandwidth speeds are higher than or equal to the rate of data flow between your RAM and processor, Chrome OS is perfect.

Google is not a charity, its a corporation - and greed is an asset as long as they give more to get more. If they want to get some money and show me ads in exchange for providing me a service I find useful, I see nothing wrong with it.

Re:I Disagree

[TheRaven64]

ChromeOS runs X11 on top of a Linux kernel. That means that pretty much any existing *NIX code can run on it. Android runs a Linux kernel, but with a custom display system, so code needs to be ported or written explicitly for the platform.

Re:I Disagree

[WiseWeasel]

Ubuntu also runs the Chrome browser, if that's what you're looking for. At that point, you're talking about zero official application framework support, and all unsupported (by Google) Qt and GTK stuff. What's the point?

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

Chrome OS doesn't allow native apps.
That is the point.

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

Gee so Chrome OS is for kids?
What about parental controls?
And doesn't that seem like a tiny market to you? Sure does to me so I just don't see the advantage.
Here you go.
Put a password on the Android Market Place.
Now your kids can not install anything.
Just as safe as Chrome OS and still more flexible.

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

The UI is a maybe but it could be tweaked and frankly it really does need to be tweaked even for smart phones. The Android US is really lacking compared to WebOS and the iPhone IMHO.
BTW I have an Android phone.
Chrome perform batter? The OS or the applications?
The applications sure will not since they are webapps.
Dalvik could be improved to use JIT and cached code.
My guess is you will see that sooner rather than later. Also Android does allow you to use native code for parts of our app if needed.

The thing is your hung up on Android.
You could put in WebOS
Or iPhone OS
or even a new Linux that is optimized for these devices and for ease of maintenance like Android.

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

So in a world that does not exists where we have universal faster than ram access network speeds?
Well yea I but you forget CPUs that can run javascript faster than native x86 code to that world as well.
But that world doesn't exist.

Re:I Disagree

[TheRaven64]

Really? The pre-release on that I tried did...

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

It is pre release. The only "local" apps are supposed to be web apps running under Gears/HTML 5.

Re:I Disagree

[Tapewolf]

Really? The pre-release on that I tried did...

Are you sure it was the right one?
There was a 'pre-release' version floating around that wasn't actually ChromeOS at all, it was just the Chrome browser stuck on a minimal SUSE distribution. That did allow native apps, but it wasn't actually Google's product, it was an unofficial 'demo' that someone hacked together.

Re:I Disagree

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Gee so Chrome OS is for kids?

GP said ChromeOS is the toaster of computers. You're saying that there's no use for a toaster if you have a toaster oven. Do you normally use one to make toast? Especially if you already have a toaster?

I'm just glad the discussion isn't toaster vs regular oven anymore. Well, in this thread, at least.

(Would bakeries be mainframes? Hm... We need more bread-based analogies)

Re:I Disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they'll pick the iPad. If Android on tablets is anything like Android on phones, then the fragmented software marketplace will ensure continuous customer frustration. There's nothing like hearing about the greatest new app, only to find out that it doesn't work on *your* device.

Re:I Disagree

[BikeHelmet]

Simple, safe & secure web appliances will make the basics of e-mail, web surfing and reading common format documents cheap and easy for everyone (this includes the poorer countries of the world).

We have them.
They are called Android, WebOS, and iPhone phones. And now the iPad.

LOL.

I don't know how you can compare an iPad to the $35 chinese netbooks flooding eBay right now. One of those - shipped worldwide for $50-60 - would be perfect for some of the poorer developing nations.

Of course, right now they're all lame WinCE 5/6 netbooks. ChromeOS or even Android on one of those would vastly enhance the usability.

Re:I Disagree

[zuperduperman]

> Ask a parent if they want their 6 y/o using a controllable "dumb" internet terminal appliance or anything else and they'll tell you "safe and dumb as possible".

Actually, somewhat ironically, when I hand my child either the iPad or the Nexus One, just about the *only* thing I am worried about is that they might open up the browser and end up somewhere horribly inappropriate. The apps on there are all things that I know exactly what they will do and what they will access. The browser is a completely open ended bastion of potential evil that I have to carefully supervise what they might get into on.

Re:I Disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand the concept of a **NET**book...

I'll give you a hint: it's meant for browsing the Internet.

Yes, Android can do everything Chrome OS can. That's the point of Chrome OS - it's for NOTHING except Web-based applications. Android runs apps on your phone - your music and apps are still stored locally on the phone, permanently.

Yes, it's a limited OS, and it's not for everyone. A microwave is a limited kitchen utility - it can't heat everything, you can't stick most kitchen utensils in there without risk of damage, and your food is less likely to get cooked all the way through. Is it useless? Not at all - plenty of people find it useful. Many people own both types of ovens. Why wouldn't some people own both types of computers?

As for developers - it's a moot point, because they can't write an app for Chrome OS. If they want to try, then maybe it's better for all of us that they can't - even Microsoft now knows that it's better to write your code to be cross-browser. Remember all those "IE-only" sites you hated? You want THAT to happen again?
Also - why can't they sell access? I don't understand... you can buy access to a website just like you can buy a program (and NO, I'm not talking about a subscription) - just because most sites aren't run this way doesn't mean the site owner can't do it that way.

I have a downside of Android - if you lose your phone, your app is gone, and so is any data that was on your phone. Until (or unless) you get your phone back, you can't get that data. Your calendar is gone, your e-mail is gone, your MP3s are gone. Anything not on the Internet is gone unless you have a copy somewhere. Plus for Chrome OS because nearly everything is stored on the Internet. That's no small advantage - people lose and break phones fairly often.

Here's another. Suppose the developer wants the app not to require installation, and to work on any computer with a Web connection and a Web browser. If they write an app for Android, they already failed to meet these requirements.

Also - how is Google going to make more money? Chrome OS is just a Web browser, and it'll let you surf any site just like Chrome or Firefox will. NOTHING is stopping you from not using Google services, and they aren't going to be adding their own ads to others' sites... not only do they not do this currently, but they won't sell any units if they do this.

If you don't want this, that's totally understandable and there's nothing wrong with it. But some people do.

Re:I Disagree

[bhtooefr]

But we're talking about Google here.

Google doesn't have WebOS or iPhone OS.

And the point was that Chrome OS [b]IS[/b] a Linux distro optimized for those devices.

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

But they may very well have to compete with them in the Smartbook/tablet space where Chrome OS is targeted.

Re:I Disagree

[Spaseboy]

I don't own a toaster. I use the broiler on my gas oven to make toast. A toaster seems like a waste of money to me because it takes up counter space to do exactly one thing that my oven can do and at a disadvantage because the ONLY type of item it can toast is sliced bread. I would, however buy a toaster oven. It can toast bread like a toaster but can also make french bread pizzas. It also can make cookies when I just want 4 or 5. It's pretty good at heating egg rolls as well.

I understand that I can't make pot roast or a turkey in my toaster oven but most of the time I am not using my oven for making pot roasts or turkeys and I still have my gas oven for that.

I think I'd rather have a toaster oven which is not much larger, and is so much more functional, than a toaster.

Re:I Disagree

[LWATCDR]

ChromeOS is like a toaster that is as big as a toaster overn and will only toast white bread to the perfect medium.
Useful I guess for a tiny selection of people that are to dumb to use a dial and have very limited wants.
Of course when every other company offers toasters with dials and slots that can handle beagles for the same price or less they company that made the Whitebread Wonder Toaster will be left wondering why they have a lot of unsold products.
Their only hope at that time is to find the wizard in the black turtle neck to explain the the masses why they only want medium toasted white bread. Once they do that will make a good living again.

Re:I Disagree

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Your troll of an analogy is stretched. What is the toasting level supposed to represent?

If browsing the web is making toast, it seems like ChromeOS can do almost as much as a Chrome browser under normal linux/X can.

You can't toast sandwiches with it, only bread--no other web applications like IM--but that was taken care of in the initial analogy.

Re:I Disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

The analogy was stretched to start with. I don't think a toaster oven is very useful when I have a real oven*, in fact I didn't even know about them before reading this thread, but yeah, if I didn't have a real oven it'd be useful, then I probably wouldn't bother with a toaster.

If the toaster oven could pop the toast up when done, only used the same amount of space as a regular toaster and cost the same, then the analogy would be more apt, and in that case I wouldn't see a reason not to get a toaster oven even if I didn't need it's extra capabilities.

*I do realise there is a slight difference in operation, but not one which makes a difference to me.

Nah

[MBGMorden]

Google has built an empire on having the balls to do stuff that the industry thinks it's "way too early" to do.

The only thing that makes it too early is that no one has done it right yet.

Google already provides web versions of office apps, RSS readers/players, photo management, email (naturally), and a ton of other things. From my understanding, online MP3 and eBook repositories are in the works that would allow you to stream that content from centralized storage.

Essentially, they're preparing to position this thing so that 99% of what people need to do on a computer will be available on this, and since it's all web-based, you effectively get roaming desktop on any ChromeOS terminal you sit down to.

Besides, I'm willing to bet that while Google themselves won't be making them, they will quite likely setup some ability to install 3rd party applications.

Re:Nah

[danny_lehman]

exactly, exactly, exactly. this article actually made me a bit mad at the thought of trashing innovation and opting for upgrades..

Re:Nah

[Colonel Korn]

Google has built an empire on having the balls to do stuff that the industry thinks it's "way too early" to do.

Google already provides web versions of office apps, RSS readers/players, photo management, email (naturally), and a ton of other things. From my understanding, online MP3 and eBook repositories are in the works that would allow you to stream that content from centralized storage.

Search and webmail are making Google money, and they entered those markets long after other companies had mature products already serving those needs. It looks to me like Google's success is about improving on mature markets. None of its brand new ideas has been a business success. I'm not asserting that ChromeOS won't be successful, but I think that your particular argument is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

Re:Nah

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't adding anything though, only subtracting.

Printing to any printer over the internet with a nice GUI has been standard on Windows for a decade or more now, and it certainly isn't new in the Unix world. The web apps already run on real computers, etc etc.

If you're going to make a Linux kernel based laptop, why are you removing the GNU tools that typically go along with it? It's not like they're costing you money. It all comes down to dominion over data for Google. If you print through the cloud, then they get a copy of your printout. If your documents are stored on a Google server, they're certainly crawling them and filing that data away diligently for whatever Madison-avenue cum California marketing bullshit purpose they dream up next.

Re:Nah

[LWATCDR]

So tell me.
Why is an OS that you can only use web applications on better than one that you can use web applications on and native apps on?
Any increase in ease of use over say an Android or WebOS smartphone would be marginal at best.
A lack of native apps and local storage would mean that the user really would need to pay for an mobile data plan in addition to the cost of their cell phone which is not cheap.
Roaming data charges overseas are very expensive...
I see no advantage in these limitations do you?

Re:Nah

[L3370]

I would argue that Google takes risks on innovation not because they "have the balls," but because they MUST do so to survive.

Right now advertising makes up over 90 percent of all their profit. Being an innovative tech company, they understand that someone will eventually find a way to beat Google in the advertising business..or at least strongly compete. They need to take huge risks in order to find their next profit stream. If they cannot do this soon they will be taken dismantled by their competitors.

Re:Nah

[steelfood]

Besides which, Google's main source of revenue is advertisement. These are all side projects. They're meant to cause a stir in the relevant software industry, drum up some good PR, but the truth is, Google can sit on them for years and wait for them to mature into competitive products.

I suspect some of these projects are there just provide incentive for the competition to continue to advance and progress. If Google's version catches on, it's great, but it doesn't have to. And sometime, somewhere down the line, somebody is going to find a use for it beyond its original scope, and that's when it'll make money. It's like how they're slowly positioning Gmail (or at least its internals) to become Google's competitor to Outlook.

Re:Nah

[MBGMorden]

We've yet to see whether 3rd party native apps are allowed yet or not (my bet is that they will), but you're forgetting the advantage here: the entire desktop is setup with web-usage in mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if even 3rd party executables were distributed in a byte-code style fashion and could download and run on any system you logged on from.

Having a single sign on, to any ChromeOS system, where all my apps, all my bookmarks, all my media, and everything was available anywhere with a net connection, would be HUGE. Regardless of if I'm working from my phone, netbook, desktop, work system, friend's computer, whatever.

As to mobile data plans - that's already becoming ubiqitous. Tons of people are using their mobile data plans more than their actual cell plans now. If any part of your argument is that a mobile data plan would be required then you're just arguing against change, and uselessly. It echoes the same arguments people once had against purchasing internet plans for their home computers back in the mid 90's. Fast forward to today, and no one makes that argument anymore because internet connections are useful enough that everyone has them.

As to roaming data charges overseas, honestly, what percentage of the market needs that? Do you think that this percentage (which I know is non-zero, but still somewhat small compared to the entire population) is enough to derail an ENTIRE PLATFORM, or is it more likely that that small subset of users just gets a full OS on their netbook and is happy?

This fit will NOT work for everyone. Heck I'm not convinced that even if it took off that I personally wouldn't just use ChromeOS from within a VM on a full system (best of both worlds), but there is a lot of promise in it.

Re:Nah

[Quantumplation]

Except for the complete impossibility of having to deal with viruses. Ever. There literally can be no native stored code, and if somehow the running code does get infected, it's wiped on each reboot. For the user that wants those increase of ease over Android (which are significant when comparing mouse, flash, keyboard, etc) and over Desktops/Laptops (Chrome OS can boot by the time you open your laptop, meaning MUCH longer battery life by just keeping it off), not having to deal with virus's (at least, not without a major paradigm shift in the attackers methods which will happen eventually, but for now it poses a significant difficulty) capitalizes on the same market that Mac went after, but more effectively, as it really IS more difficult to write virus's for the ChromeOS than for a Mac (rather than just being unrealistic due to market share).

Re:Nah

[WiseWeasel]

Or, you could have that roaming webtop() on your Android device and be able to use native apps such as ported C/C++/OpenGL commercial game titles, or leverage locally stored media for playback. No sane consumer is going to pick the needlessly limited device. ChromeOS should be merged into Android for the foreseeable future. They can always strip it back out again if the market is ready at some point.

Re:Nah

[zach_the_lizard]

Their side projects give them chances to datamine users and provide more targeted ads, improving their bottom line.

Re:Nah

[HateBreeder]

Why is an OS that you can only use web applications on better than one that you can use web applications on and native apps on?

I think apple answered that one for you:

because the vast majority of the consumers are absolute retards who want LESS flexibility and more simplicity. as sad as it is, for a lot of people the less choice you give them the happier they are.

Re:Nah

[Kjella]

Actually, I think Google is much smarter than the average company. Most companies tend to invest in something then struggle to find how to make money on it. Google does exactly the opposite, it's taking a profitable business model and tries to expand the scope. The more you use online services, and in particular Google services or Google-owned sites like YouTube, the more Google learns about you. That's what Google really sells, being able to target a market and hit it.

For anyone who has worked with marketing (or worse yet, in marketing) knows it's a horribly inaccurate science but none the less incredibly important. Yes, there's the occasional friend to friend recommendation but most products I never bother discussing with anyone, we got better things to do. No matter what people here think of ads, you certainly don't get to hear about the products that don't ad. Trouble is that ads are terribly hard to measure, you basically spend your money and pray for results. That's why you want to hit small, targeted markets and see if your sales projections hold up. Otherwise fail early and fail cheaply, that is an extremely valuable service. Not to mention fighting over identified trendsetters in established markets, equally vital.

Mostly everything Google does builds up under this, they want to pile as many sources of information they can, draw out as fine masked data as at all possible, and that's their business model. There's not going to be one "aha" moment that'll suddenly undercut that. Sure, the peripheral markets might not be making Google money directly but they're all trying to guide you in the same direction. That is why Google would be interested in ChromeOS and not so much local Linux applications. If ChromeOS is not ready, their solution will be to improve ChromeOS. Google won't release it without good response in user testing, and as usual slashdot overestimates users. Just like nobody wants one of those crippled i* things.

Re:Nah

[babblefrog]

Not having to deal with backups, antivirus, defrag, and possibly patching, seems like a pretty good idea to this user, and I do all that stuff for a living.

Re:Nah

[LWATCDR]

The point of Chrome OS is that you only use Web apps! So no native apps.
Cloud syncing? Android already does that. I good option mind you. BTW so does WebOS.
All your Apps?
I don't know about that. I want the apps on my phone to work in a different way than my apps on my desktop.

Chrome OS with apps is Android.

Re:Nah

[Tetsujin]

So tell me.
Why is an OS that you can only use web applications on better than one that you can use web applications on and native apps on?

Optimization of the software platform and the user interface.

Re:Nah

[LWATCDR]

defrag is a windows thing.
the rest I don't do with my Android phone.
A web app only OS is not a requirement to accomplish those goals and odds are you will still need to apply updates to your Chrome OS device for security fixes and such.

Re:Nah

[LWATCDR]

????
So the ability to install native / local apps precludes this?
Huh???

Re:Nah

[imgod2u]

His point was that Google has built an empire, not necessarily made money. One of the things about Google's business model is that any additional use of the internet is better for them -- whether or not they make money directly.

Yes, youtube is just a giant money sink. But think of how many more people use the internet on how many more devices (phones, tablets, netbooks, etc.) because of it. Now think of when all those people need to find something related to a video they saw.

The basic ad-for-money model only works if the market expands. Google helps that market expand by making services that bring more people online for more hours of the day.

Re:Nah

[vlueboy]

Actually, I think Google is much smarter than the average company. Most companies tend to invest in something then struggle to find how to make money on it. Google does exactly the opposite, it's taking a profitable business model and tries to expand the scope. The more you use online services, and in particular Google services or Google-owned sites like YouTube, the more Google learns about you. That's what Google really sells, being able to target a market and hit it.

Google image search and google earth are public environments where they kinda got the ball rolling. Even though they're expanding markets, they're not just adding a patentable and closed gimmick layer; they're doing things that most other players end up incorporating. Brightly colored unzoomable maps of 15 years ago are long gone. I have pretty much discarded a potential IT partner partly because their: "how to get here" map is an old gif from 1999 and the fact that they are jerks.

Re:Nah

[Anonymous Coward]

> Search and webmail are making Google money, and they entered those markets long after other companies had mature products already serving those needs.

I don't know how good your memories of pre-google search and webmail are, but I wouldn't call either one "mature" before google's arrival. That's not a judgement in hindsight, either; it was my direct feeling at the time. Search ranged from 'mediocre' to 'suck'; I often outright could NOT reliably find things back then. Hotmail only really existed at first because it was free, but no one was under any illusion that it was "good"; it was 2 MB of storage with worthless spam filtering/mitigation.

In both cases, IMO, Google was the first to shift things from "I tolerate this because it's the only available option, and however bad it is, it's still better than nothing" to "hey, this actually works! I will use this because it's useful".

I should probably include their advertisements too, since they introduced innocuous plain text ads in an era where there was an arms race of annoying intrusive ads.

Re:Nah

[thoughtsatthemoment]

OK, Let me argue against a +5 insightful post.

My basic argument is that Google is building their empire by reinforcing their core business. I don't think Google does this "web everything" stuff because they think this is the best way to build applications, but because it helps their search and advertisement. But I doubt this web thing is really the direction of the future of application development. Of course this is a huge judgment call. If Google happens to be wrong about this, they would have taken a huge risk.

It seems to me Google has determined to be THE search company instead of a software company. A lot of Google Apps wouldn't stand a chance if they have to compete as software products. It would seem that internet search will remain like this forever, but you never know.

Re:Nah

[zuperduperman]

> I think apple answered that one for you:

Apple seems to have proved the opposite. The "write everything as a web app" got anemic support at best, then along comes the App Store and it takes off like wild fire. Seems like while people do want simplicity, they still desire something that only native applications give them.

Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netbooks.

[wesw02]

I agree with the assumption that failure of Chrome OS could be harmful to the general comfort of using Linux-Based OS's however I think substituting Android is almost as bad of an idea. Don't get me wrong, I love android, I own two android phones and have developed a few apps for the platform. I just think you should use the right tool for the right job and putting Android on netbooks doesn't fit.

Apple section

[sakdoctor]

According to the apple section, "Netbooks are irrelevant because they are dead!!!111"

I personally thought netbooks would have hit the mark better than they did. I should have stocked up on them whilst they were dirt cheap, low powered, and came with linux.

Re:Apple section

[Anonymous Coward]

Netbooks are irrelevant because they are just small-crappy-notebooks.

Rebrand it as Android Lite

[Late Adopter]

Boom, done, I'll take my $100k consulting fee now.

He's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it up already Google, no one wants your piece of shit web-tablet. They want magic.

- Steve

Re:He's right

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

strange. you say they want magic but are buying google's piece of shit instead.

yeah, yeah. i know. troll, don't feed... whatever.

Re:He's right

[mjwx]

Give it up already Google, no one wants your piece of shit web-tablet. They want magic.

- Steve

Yep, real Magic.

Linux?

[whisper_jeff]

If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows.

Hesitant to use a Linux-based OS? Doubtful. If Chrome OS fails, OEMs might be hesitant to use a Google-developed OS on future products but I don't think it'll impact their view of Linux-based OSes one bit. Either they're open to them or they aren't - the success or failure of Chrome won't change that. What will change is their opinion on Google's offerings. Google should hold off to make sure their foray into the OS market doesn't die before they get a chance to succeed. Unlike the web, you can't release a beta OS into the market and fix it until it works. Consumers who are buying products won't wait around for you to get it right. On the web, sure - knock yourself out. Take a few years to polish the product until you're happy and content to remove the beta tag. On people's computers, either a person is enough of a tinkerer that they'll play with their OS more than Google will or they just want their computer to work and will expect the OS to be finished (as much as can be reasonably expected) from the get-go.

Chrome will have no impact, positive nor negative, upon anyone's opinion of Linux-based OSes. It will only impact people's opinions on Google's OS offerings.

Re:Linux?

[Enderandrew]

The iPad is proving that people are willing to buy a limited device that doesn't run Windows and has set functionality. While on paper, I would personally prefer something like Android with an app store and additional functionality, I think there is a niche for a dedicated device.

How many of us have friends and family members who basically live out of their browser, and don't really use any other apps? How many of these friends and family members complain about updates, security, anti-virus, spyware, etc?

The niche market for this dedicated device might just be the majority of individual users.

Re:Linux?

[crazycheetah]

They seem to be doing pretty decent with Android on the level of getting it working before pushing out. And Chrome OS doesn't appear to be coming with some kind of great speed at this point, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're polishing it before pushing it. Just sayin'...

Re:Linux?

[dbcad7]

Chrome will have no impact, positive nor negative, upon anyone's opinion of Linux-based OSes

Exactly.. Why everyone went all hilly and nilly analyzing Android and Apple OS's without addressing the main (I'll call it a point) of the article, is one of those things that make me ponder a society based on learning everything they need know from TV commercials.

Bad car analogy alert

[ciaohound]

Selling an OS based on the fact that it has a browser is like selling a car based on the doors.

Obviously he hasn't considered the Mercedes AMG gullwing.

Re:Bad car analogy alert

[Anonymous Coward]

... or the DMC-12

(if you buy one, be careful with the top speed.)

Re:Bad car analogy alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't work out so well for the Delorean! (doors are still cool though)

Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of

[aussersterne]

innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "right" in retrospect.

Re:Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of

[danny_lehman]

on the contrary, this could have been done years ago. the "right" time for this particular innovation is long overdue. This could have been done the moment network speed became realistically proportionate to file transfer needs, and online storage was available.

Re:Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of

[DaveV1.0]

innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "revolutionary" in retrospect.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of

[dudpixel]

innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "magical" in retrospect.

There, fixed that for ya.

iFixed

Re:Rather like Apple, frankly. Both reek of

[DaveV1.0]

Look! ROFLCOPTERS!

Haters are gonna hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares?

If it's good use it, if not don't. Free market, brother.

Regardless of what happens with Chrome OS, I'm certain some of it will be beneficial to the Open Source Community.

Wrong? maybe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what people said about Android, and Android had 28% of the smart phone market... (The Iphone has 21%)

Google Native Client

[Enderandrew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client

Read up on Google Native Client. Then consider they have a very secure, simple, fast OS that runs on minimal hardware. The OS is treated almost like firmware. Think about what these things have in common with each other.

Let me know when you figure it out.

Re:Google Native Client

[BitZtream]

So we're going to run native x86 code on x86 using software based fault detection ...

Given that hardware based detection is hard enough to do right and still most OSes fuck it up from time to time, what on the Earth makes you think that going back to Windows 2/3.x style code is a good idea?

You can call it firmware, software, or magic, doesn't change the fact that its still a severely limited OS. Calling it some other name doesn't actually change anything but the name you call it.

Re:Google Native Client

[Enderandrew]

You're still not getting it.

You can run all your apps through the browser via NaCl. Except whatever app you need in a given moment can be served up to you as a service. You don't need to install any software, or worry about patches or upgrades. You don't need to worry about security, viruses or malware.

You have a computer that is practically instant-on. You have a single-sign-on to your Google account, which is your PC login. Your apps and data show up wherever you are, on whatever devices you use. The interface is the same everywhere, because the interface is the browser.

Your apps just load over the net, and just work.

Re:Google Native Client

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't intel dropping some of the segmentation modes from their chips? Hmmmm...

Anyway, this is stuff embedded systems have been doing for decades. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Google Native Client

[dhavleak]

Seems kinda backward. Take all this trouble to convince people that the web is where it's at, and then engineer in some complex native client to work around the shortcomings of the web as an app platform. Not to mention that the native client is not architecture neutral.

This move has security implications as well. And if the majority (or all) of your apps are online, there will be more apps that have some native client code than the typical number of active-x controls you would install (so higher exposure to possible security issues).

Not saying it's a bad idea, or inherently insecure or anything. Just that this is hardly a reason to trumpet Chrome OS -- rather, the fact that Google is doing this, is proof positive that they too are not 100% convinced about their approach of moving all apps to the web.

Re:Google Native Client

[dhavleak]

You're seeing an overly rosy picture of it. The implementation is not architecture agnostic, so you need to build for multiple targets. Apps have virtually no frameworks they can take advantage of -- you need to serve up the entire app each time. Apps will have a finite size, so instant-on can't be guaranteed (especially as app complexity/size increases). Caching apps for speed will become necessary, which means you have to have a way of checking for staleness / updates. All app developers might not be okay with using a google sign-on as your single point of auth. Enterprises especially will not be okay with this.

I don't know why you conclude that you'll never have to worry about security, viruses, or malware either. I do understand that the native client is a sandbox, but you shouldn't read the word "sandbox" and automatically assume that nothing can go wrong. There will be a need for interprocess communication, there could always be flaws in the sandbox (especially considering you have differnet implementations for different architectures), there will be holes in the apps themselves (so even if your system isn't getting compromised, your data could be, and a cached app could be in a persisted bad state for a length of time).

Re:Google Native Client

[Enderandrew]

The key to security isn't simply a native client implementation, but also an exceptionally secure OS to accompany it.

You can't just push NaCl apps to every user with every OS and every device as is, but again, the combination of Chrome OS with NaCl is what makes this work.

Re:Google Native Client

[Enderandrew]

No, but it validates Chrome OS being the most secure means to launch a browser, and a browser alone.

Re:Google Native Client

[dhavleak]

The key to security isn't simply a native client implementation

A native client implementation implies native code execution: not insecure by default, but one step closer to insecure, compared to anything executing in some runtime environment.

but also an exceptionally secure OS to accompany it.

That would be an assumption, and a slightly premature one.

Re:Google Native Client

[dhavleak]

No, but it validates Chrome OS being the most secure means to launch a browser, and a browser alone.

How do you figure? I don't see the connection.

Why?

[Java Pimp]

It's time for Google to realize that it is way too early to be pushing an OS that only provides a browser.

Why? Emacs did it for text editing...

"Independent .Net developer"?

[lophophore]

I think I will take my advice on Linux and Netbooks from an "independent .Net developer".

NOT.

Why was this "news" even posted? Slashdot editor fail.

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[Enderandrew]

The best Slashdot article within the past week was someone stating that since Netbook sales exploded, but then the growth curve slowed down in June of 2009, it was all because of the iPad, which was announced in January of 2010.

Netbooks were clearly dead as a doornail, despite not only still selling, but continuing to GROW in year-over-year sales.

The logic of that article still hurts my brain.

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[Sockatume]

I think the "fail" part may be redundant.

*ducks*

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[jaxel2010]

hosting

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[CannonballHead]

And yet, most Linux users on Slashdot expect folks to take advice on Windows and PCs from UNIX/Linux developer types...

You were possibly joking, but just because someone is a .NET dev doesn't mean he's stupid. It doesn't even mean he doesn't use Linux. It just means he makes his money doing .NET stuff...

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[lophophore]

I wasn't joking.

Somebody who calls them self an "independent .Net developer" is pretty firmly in the Microsoft camp. You are right, of course -- that doesn't mean he's stupid. There are some pretty smart .Net programmers who use Linux (Miguel de Icaza, for instance...)

However, my opinion is that many .Net programmers have drank so much of the Microsoft kool-aid that I'll not take my Linux advice from them -- nor should Google.

The particularly appalling part of this is that this ridiculous piece from some random blog was deemed worthy of posting to Slashdot. It's basically unattributed and unsupported. And again, I say "editor FAIL."

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[BitZtream]

You do realize you can do .NET development in and for Linux ... RIGHT?

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know, right? And when you were growing up and all of those guys were in and out of your house with little 20 minute stops in your mom's bedroom were just her "friends", right? They were just "talking". Surely, she wasn't making money to buy your school clothes in certain other ways was she?

Re:"Independent .Net developer"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> You do realize you can do .NET development in and for Linux ... RIGHT?

Why would you want to do that ?

Why would Google support local applications?

[John Hasler]

> Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform
> and provide a system that offers local applications.

Google doesn't want anyone to run local applications.

Re:Why would Google support local applications?

[walterbyrd]

Google would support local applications so that people who are off-line, a fair percentage of their, time can still use google products.

If google apps offered no off-line capability at all, a lot of people would completely ignore google.

I think that may be the basic logic behind google gears.

Chrome vs. Windows. vs. Linux vs. ...

[jabberwock]

It seems to me that Chrome's *success* would have a marginal negative impact on Linux.

It's *failure* has significance for general acceptance of Google's model.

It's *existence* does a lot for the notion that Windows is not the only choice out there.

Open Source does well in a marketplace where there is the perception of choice.

Re:Chrome vs. Windows. vs. Linux vs. ...

[Mashiki]

Outside of the browser type stuff, there would be more people switching to other OS's myself included; if developers for games wrote stuff in more then just the DX API, or there was native support for DX in 'nix.

Native Client

[goruka]

Chrome OS starts making sense as a "full" OS when you consider the existence of Native Client:
http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/wiki/Downloads

This runs safe, sandboxed, native (x86/arm) applications downloaded from the cloud.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

I feel like I'm iGodwin'ing this discussion, but it's going to happen eventually. Isn't Android on a netbook essentially the (apparently successful) idea behind the iPad? You and I may decry its applicability, but the gadget-crazed masses seem to love it. A smart-phone OS essentially delivers a web browser and just a little something extra through installation of programmable apps. This is apparently all people want from a 'netbook'. I think* Android would actually be better than iPhone OS in this regard, if only because it is the more open platform.

*Historically, the device market tends to disagree with me.

A mobile computer with chromium?

[irreverant]

I run Ubuntu Moblin Remix, without the telecommunications contract, I use my phone as a wifi router and have instant internet access wherever i go. Linux+netbook+smartphone = never out of range, now unless google decides to offer a similar convenience or route, I agree, this might be one of those *duh* moments for google.

Too early?

[drumcat]

Wait, I'm to believe that a large company that is based around a user living in their browser should actually care what OEMs think? So you're telling me that Google should actually stop developing a competitive operating system because *this guy* thinks that they'd be better suited to wait 5-10 years to do something? Let's stop innovating because a nay-sayer thinks it may harm their prospects. BRILLIANT!

hahahaha

[geekoid]

Yeah, those Google guys have a reputation for not knowing what they are up to~

Unless you are away of Google internal goal or design, maybe you should stop using them to generate hits? you making yourself look foolish.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo

[FlyingBishop]

Have you used Android? I'd love to have it on a netbook. I'm currently in the market for one, and I'm debating between Android and UNR, and really Android seems to be winning out, though I would have to make sure I have root and can run Emacs.

Time to ditch any net device with XWindow?

[walterbyrd]

XWindow may have a place somewhere, but it seems to be poor fit for net devices.

Let's be honest, XWindow's performance is just bloody awful. It's slow, it pixelates, it's a difficult platform for software development.

The early 1980s architecture is not well suited to today's demands. And I doubt XWindow can be improved enough to make it worthwhile.

Re:Time to ditch any net device with XWindow?

[MrHanky]

You don't know what you're talking about.

What is it about people who don't know what they're talking about, that makes them talk about X11?

Re:Time to ditch any net device with XWindow?

[walterbyrd]

You don't know what you're talking about.

What is it about people who don't know what they're talking about, that makes them talk about X11?

Could you be more specific? Specifically what have I stated that makes you think I don't know what I'm talking about? Please note, I have cited white papers from people who certainly know a lot more about it than I.

Re:Time to ditch any net device with XWindow?

[MrHanky]

No, you should be more specific, instead of reposting old crap that you don't understand. Yes, I know you're only trolling for positive moderation (X11 "critics" have always been far more popular than they deserve), but you failed, and I'll just leave it at that.

um What?

[DaveV1.0]

If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows.

OEMs are not hesitant to use a Linux-based OS on netbooks. They started off with it. The problem was that most of the target market wanted Windows. Those customers were not comfortable with the various Linux distributions being used and they couldn't run the applications they wanted. OEMs are out to make money. Windows may cut into the per unit margin, but if they sell enough units then the OEMs make up the difference in volume.

Re:um What?

[Sockatume]

To continue your thought, if discomfort with the interface was the issue with Linux netbooks, then it's actually an argument in favour of Chrome OS. If it's web-based, then the "apps" and interface are already second nature to the user.

Starting your message in the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "right" in retrospect.

breaks quotations and makes the message overall harder to read.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo

[wesw02]

I suppose it really depends on your definition of a netbook. IMHO, a netbook is a device with a physical keyboard and mouse, and without a touch screen (essentially a smaller laptop). Again, IMHO, the iPad is not a netbook, it is a keyboard/mouse-less tablet and it has a touch screen. In that respect I think android is suited for the tablet market, but not for the netbook market.

A device that is dead when you lose your signal?

[DadLeopard]

I for one would never buy a device that was useless once you lose your signal! A "real" linux version with the ability to run applications on the hardware would be imminently preferable to one that is "only" a browser that need a connection to do anything useful!

think of it from this perspectiveperspective

[mkw87]

Before gettinflg my android phone I might have agreed....hut what the op is missing is that Google isn't trying to beat windows at their own game.....Google is reinventing the wheel. Android hanged the way I not only use my phone, but the way I look a laptops and how they could be. Think of all your parents and grandparents who just want to get a few things done on a computer, think of therlir desktops full of shortcuts, it resembles an android desktop. Sure, for windows and Linux power users chrome OS may seem simple, but for your average person who thinks ram is an animal and doesn't know the difference between dvi and d-sub, etc, chrome OS could be a wonderful interface to computers and the web.

Why so biased?

[adeft]

Why does this person care what OS OEMs ship with? This is slashdot we build our own computers or at least run whatever software we want on them.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo

[Sir_Lewk]

I love android, I own two android phones and have developed a few apps for the platform.

Have you used Android?

Now I'm understanding of not RTFA, but not reading your fucking parent post is a bit much I think.

What a load of crap

[Viol8]

"Let's be honest, XWindow's performance is just bloody awful. It's slow,"

Is it? I can run a full screen video no problems on my laptop, I can play 3D games and so forth. How exactly is it slow?

"it's a difficult platform for software development."

Really? I've written apps in Xlib and I never had any issues. And there are plenty of higher level libraries if you want to
develop GUI apps. The way Xwin deals with visuals and colour is a bit archaic , but aside from that it works pretty well IMO.
Even properly scalable fonts were sorted out years ago.

"The early 1980s architecture is not well suited to today's demands"

Rubbish. Its client server remote desktop architecture is perfectly suited to enterprise enviroments. Why not go find out why
Citrix et al have been playing catch up on Windows for years to try and do the same thing.

Re:What a load of crap

[CannonballHead]

Is it? I can run a full screen video no problems on my laptop, I can play 3D games and so forth. How exactly is it slow?

That ... doesn't really mean much.

I am able to use a word processor on a 286 AND on my current quad core system. I guess the speeds are the same.

Just because you can do something functionally on your current hardware does not mean the software is well written. Horridly typical example: I can make Windows secure. That doesn't mean it's secure by design. I can make Linux unsecure. I guess Linux is a horrible operating system!

Re:What a load of crap

[kelanden]

The early 1980s architecture is not well suited to today's demands.

Rubbish. Its client server remote desktop architecture is perfectly suited to enterprise enviroments. Why not go find out why Citrix et al have been playing catch up on Windows for years to try and do the same thing.

X development may have gotten easier for most developers in recent years, but at the end of the day most of that progress has been enabled by hacks within shims wrapped in frameworks all glossing over the horror that is the ICCCM. Given the inherent limitations of X (e.g. high bandwidth usage, deliberate lack of audio support), many developers would prefer to simply roll their own solutions rather than have to deal with all the legacy cruft. Apple's decision to create Quartz instead of adding new features to X is a great example of this.

Re:What a load of crap

[Burz]

It may not be slow, but it is balky. X11 stuff does not stay properly configured over time and seems particularly vulnerable during OS updates. It doesn't have the architectural features that would simply keep the display running when minor difficulties are encountered.

X11 is also rubbish for remote access: having to be on the same LAN to get OK performance is not truly 'remote'. It also has no way to serve *multiples* of any window or desktop, which means that sharing windows with other people needs an old-fashioned, inefficient bitmap-tosser like VNC. And connecting to and using my existing (logged-in) desktop at home also requires slow VNC. The only possibility of sharing displays over the Internet the *right* way is to use NXserver, which is not free for any use and requires that anything like a normal SSH config goes out the window.

Re:What a load of crap

[Viol8]

Well put it this way , I used to be able to run mpegs in a Window using X on Linux on a 486. Try getting Win XP/7 or OS/X to even run on a 486 , never mind do video.

Re:What a load of crap

[Viol8]

"X11 is also rubbish for remote access: having to be on the same LAN to get OK performance is not truly 'remote'."

I've had an xterm running over a dial up connection. YMMV.

"It also has no way to serve *multiples* of any window or desktop, which means that sharing windows with other people "

Apart from a few collaberation apps which could easily be written to open multiple windows displaying the same thing on different X servers - why on earn would you need to share a window or desktop anyway?

Why limit choices?

[steveaustin1971]

"Because it might hinder linux" is a pretty stupid reason for dumping the chrome OS. I don't know if you realize this or not, but the reasons for not using linux aren't limited to it not being available or known to the masses. At this point most people know what it is, and many people have tried it. I had it on my netbook pre-installed, and I installed windows 7 instead. Why? It saves me a lot of time and effort to run windows over linux. I find applications I need more quickly, never have installation issues or driver issues, all my devices work with it as is, and I have far more options. Linux is a very solid OS, but its really not a good choice for many people who could care less about learning it or spending more than 5 minutes configuring their software. My netbook is a tool I use for work, and I don't particularly enjoy my time using it. I would much rather be doing something else, so spending extra time on it, to me, is just not something I am willing to do. I have very rarely had virus or security issues because I just don't run around clicking on random crap online, so the whole "security" issue is just not there for me.

I want my CPU cycles back, dammit.

[dpiven]

Isn't that clever. I saw the link target, clicked it anyway, and all I got was a Google search-results page.

Maybe it's me, maybe it's my browser config, but that "clever trick" is Fail City over here.

Re:I want my CPU cycles back, dammit.

[rfuilrez]

Yeah all I got was google search results page. Oh well. Nice try. Better luck next time.
 
As an aside, by now I'm pretty much desensitized to all that crap. From Goatse, to tub girl, 2girls 1 cup, etc etc. It doesn't bother me. Do I wish I didn't see it? Sure. Do I lose sleep over it? Nope.

Re:I want my CPU cycles back, dammit.

[somersault]

I don't even care that I've seen that stuff. It's kind of nice to know that there's not much out there that's going to freak me out. I do worry that new stuff might freak me out, but after I heard of the blue waffle and looked it up, I wasn't even bothered by it. I actually kind of like the colour.

Re:I want my CPU cycles back, dammit.

[guyminuslife]

It makes me think of glittery sea shells.

I for one

[SlippyToad]

Think that Google needs to figure out why their browser constantly times out when my other two browsers don't. It's one of the reasons I would never try to use Chrome OS because if their timeout algorithm is the same as the one in the browser, such an OS could never function from my house. I realize I may have a latent connection or some other issue with my network, but for crying out loud, every OTHER time I try to browse with Chrome it says "Oops! I can't find that."

I NEVER have this problem with IE or Firefox. And I specifically include IE in that to rub it the fuck in. Chrome sucks. I won't use it as my main browser until they figure that crap out. And it sounds like Firefox will be Chrome-like soon enough so that I can get the simplicity and functionality I want both at the same time.

Re:I for one

[rreyelts]

I'm pretty sure you're running into a problem with Chrome's DNS pre-fetching interacting badly with your OS/network. You can disable it by clearing "Use DNS pre-fetching to improve page load performance" under Options->Under the Hood.

It's bad that this feature is enabled out of this box when it results in a failure mode for some people, particularly since Chrome is still by far the fastest browser I've used even when DNS pre-fetching is disabled.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee, but I am not speaking for Google)

Chrome OS could do more than you think it will

[drinkypoo]

Consider that the only thing the user is intended to have access to is the browser. That doesn't mean it's the only thing running on the box. What's stopping google from making Chrome OS contain a LAMP stack, or similar, and writing more complex applications that won't fit entirely in the browser. Hmm, my sources say nothing. I've been dabbling in drupal off an on with the intent of using it as the basis for various applications which would run in a browser (obviously) on a machine which basically just runs Chromium with some nice plugins. Kind of waiting for D7 so I can get proper sqlite support so I don't need an RDBMS. The machine would also contain, among other pieces of software designed to operate in the background, UMN mapserver. If I write some simple daemon to make GPS location available to the browser then it's easy enough to use the browser for mapping (if not navigation, yet.) Google could do the same sort of thing, except probably a lot more gracefully...

Re:Chrome OS could do more than you think it will

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect Google has a buttload of web-based apps ready to roll, all compatible with the browser. Developers can write all the locally executable software they want, the push by Google will be for centralized computing. The goal is to push the cheap thin client into the home.

Let's see...

[Exitar]

Apple builds a crippled device (iPad) and sell 1M of them in one month.
Why Google isn't allowed to do it too?
Because it "would just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows" should it fail?
Just hope then that the "Year of Linux Netbook" isn't after the "Year of the Linux Desktop"...

Re:Let's see...

[Murdoch5]

lol Apple is just crippled, So is Microsoft for that matter, Windows 7 anyone? The Slogan - "No driver should work, no install go smooth"

Breaking News! Random Blogger has something to say

[buback]

I don't know who this guy is. He might be some teenager sitting in his parents basement. There's no explanation in the post why i should care what this guy thinks. And it is just one guy; it's not like this is a link to an article about how "some study finds devs hate Chrome OS." It's just a blog post.

Why is this on Slashdot?

Agree but you are a bit outdated

[SmallFurryCreature]

The newest DS, the XL has a standard SD card slot, for playing music from. Why you would want to do that I am not sure, as there are cheaper and superior players around but it can be done.

This Jerkface Playhouse guy is just windows noob upset that the world he knows a tiny bit of is collapsing around him. People like that react with fear and hostility to anything new.

I have no idea if ChromeOS will be anything more then a thought experiment, but stranger things have happened. Right now Android is outselling the iPhone. Who would have thought eh? granted there are more android phones and they are cheaper but still. And who would have thought that with all this MS is behind EVERYONE on mobile phones. So much for 3rd time is the charm with a MS product. What release is Windows Mobile 7 by now (and no, it ain't 7)

I think Google is just seeing what sticks. It wants to break open the entire IT market and it is succeeding so far. MS ain't its enemy, MS lock-in is its enemy. Same as telecom lock-in and email provider lock-in. MS is breaking this up. more and more small companies and bigger ones use gmail. Gmail. Not exchange. BANG. Gone MS lock-in. For that matter lock-in with anyone. Granted now you got a bit of gmail lock-in although since there is far less tie in going on, you can far more easily migrate away from gmail then exchange.

If the internet becomes open then Google can sells its services to anyone. The more cheap devices are out there connecting, the more people will want to use online services (I barely ever write documents, and then often on different machines, I don't need office. I don't want office. I do use google docs. Anywhere, anytime.) and google makes money from that.

ChromeOS is just another attempt to break the lock-in. Maybe someone will make a cheap netbook with it purely for web access in the house. A cheap iPad for in the kitchen. Or maybe it will be in eternal beta. But Google is constantly trying and a lot of its succeeding.

When news broke about Android outselling the iPhone, where were all the doubters? To busy eating crow to admit they were wrong?

I am personally very intrested to see where Google is going. They are one of the freshest daring companies out there.

chrome os vs moblin

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood the hype around Chrome OS vs say Moblin. With Chrome OS you needed to have google account (and to use apps your google account would be shared with 3rd parties). Whereas Moblin (now MeeGo) did the same thing but didn't require you have a registered account, and had apps already installed. It was minimal like Chrome OS.

I'm not saying Moblin was/is great, but it was definitely better than Chrome OS when I tried it.

Google should just make yet another linux distribution, and make all google applications installed by default, and can tweak it however they want. Make it so it can be easily ported into other linux distributions. I doubt google would care whether you use their products on their OS or on another OS.

Bullshit

[Greg_D]

Google makes money through advertisements. Their entire reason for trying to create a web based OS is not because they feel HTML + Javascript + CSS is a better way to go than the other languages. They're doing it because they want to hit you with ads from the second you turn on the computer to the second you power it down.

Check email? Ads.
Use spreadsheet? Ads.
Use photo editor? Ads.
Search local filesystem? Ads.
Play solitare? Ads.

Sure, they're willing to give away software for free. If giving it away means hosting it on their servers and reserving the right to take it away from you at any time while continuously deriving revenue from the software while you use it.

What about Web OS? Gianduia?

[fortapocalypse]

Web OS is based on javascript and HP thinks well of it enough to have significantly invested part of their future on it. Apple is betting on Gianduia. Chrome OS was not ahead of its time, it just happened to be one of the leaders.

YMBNH

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm understanding of not RTFA, but not reading your fucking parent post is a bit much I think.

You must be new here.

Fundamental problems with X11 architecture

[walterbyrd]

I have set up many systems that dual boot windows and linux, in my experience, the GUI on the linux side is always much slower.

I found this post on the ubuntu forums, it explains some of the fundamental problems with the X11 architecture. It also cites a white paper which provide more detail.

404error wrote on the 13 Feb 09 at 01:52
I think that there has been a knee-jerk reaction to the original suggestion that is not necessarily founded on solid reasoning. Such a reaction is understandable, as a large, reasonably-functional piece of software should not simply be discarded without very strong motivation. And while the original post was well-intentioned, I do believe it could provide stronger arguments. While I have only modest experience programming directly in X11, I will do my best to explain why I also feel X11 should be replaced. If anyone has evidence that contradicts the following opinions, I would be most interested.

To go directly to the point, I think that the "linux desktop" needs a small, fast, fully-featured graphical backend. This backend should provide basic drawing primitives, input device event handling, network transparency, but should not involve itself with higher-level graphical interface design (like buttons and menus). So far, I suspect that most of the above posters would agree with this notion. Here is where we diverge: I do not think that X11 is small, fast, or fully-featured. And I think that there are fundamental aspects of the X11 protocol which will prevent any implementation from working well.

The first fundamental problem is that X11 is implemented using an asynchronous model. In other words, to raise a window one cannot simply call XMapWindow to map a window. One must call XMapWindow, which will transmit that command to the server, then one waits for the server to respond with a MapNotify event, and then one can proceed. When running over a network this potentially allows the client to send off multiple commands before waiting for the response to a single command, allowing improved performance. But when run on the local machine, this requires a great deal of round-trip communication that produces latency that causes many users to perceive X11 programs as "slow." This problem has been reduced somewhat through the use of shared memory, but still hinders performance. The asynchronous model was an excellent decision for the 1980s when most programs ran over the network. But in the current day, the backend is optimized for a use-case that is rarely used.

Beyond performance issues, the asynchronous model is also the root cause of much of the flickering that occurs on the desktop. As widgets are moved around, the asynchronous model causes repaints to occur while the windows are still in flux resulting in flickering. The developers at QT have effectively already abandoned X11 (or at least a good part of the design) by moving all of the event handling into the QT library to circumvent this flickering (see http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2007/08/09/qt-invaded-by-aliens-the-end-of-all- flicker).

A second fundamental problem with X11 is the absence of resolution independence. X11 describes all coordinates using integers that represent pixel positions. As screen sizes change and pixels become smaller (or less likely larger), then the display begins to appear pixelated. In a resolution independent scheme, all coordinates are described using floating-point values so that display is rendered correctly regardless of the screen size. Again, going with integers positions was an excellent design decision for the 1980s but is no longer an effective design. In the 1980s many of machines shipped without a math co-processor, so that floating-point operations were much much slower than integer operations and the quality of the graphical output was arguably less important. Today, virtually any modern processor has a math co-processor that can perform multipl

Chrome OS is all about security.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Chrome OS is very much about security. So much that the goal is to take the user out of the equation. Can anyone really say there arent a real need for a very secure OS with a browser? One where the vendor doesn't point a big finger at the user for every single fault of their software?

Its also not impossible that support for running Android applications wont be built into Chrome OS. As of now its really a work in progress where most of the work is put into security. Once thats nailed i suspect there will be much more happening with the OS.

As more and more stuff gets put onto the internet, the need for better security rises. If anything has become clear its that Microsoft wont provide it not matter what. Security to MS is a PR issue.

Boom

[mister_playboy]

Apparently the AMG SLS has explosive bolts designed to trigger in the case of a rollover, making it the first car that can blow its own doors off. How cool is that? XD

I think it's the other way around

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus needs to pull the plug on Linux. He's gone nowhere with the project in a long time. Let Google have it's way with it for a while.

Medical devices

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a large ( 5000 emp + ) Hospital with multiple associated schools of medicine.
Have you heard of EMR -> Electronic Medical Records ?

A Browser only type of device would be a godsend. Keep a couple spare at a unit charge nurse office for break / fix and wow ....
Put the OS in flash

Let Cerner, EPIC or EDS supply these to their customers and they would sell every one they could put their hands on.

Worst Case Operating Scenario

[BoRegardless]

The larger issue of network reliability is a bit Off Topic, but it is still relevant if you are going to prepare a scenario for your company to handle your customers in the best possible manner for the coming 20 years. This is even more true if you are Google. Naseem Taleb has written about such things in The Black Swan.

Is your device completely worthless if the internet goes down, and you can't retrieve ANY data? We have had good times for electronic network reliability for 40 years, BUT...

We have had no major wars, no major gamma ray burst or Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun that hit the Earth directly (last one around the civil war, approx 150 years ago before electronics).

We have not had a high atmospheric Nuclear blast which would fry most connected electronic devices plus lots of other susceptible devices.

We have had not one truly mega 9.0 earthquake, volcano, large asteroid nor a major Tsunami in a major metro area since the Renaissance.

Who is going to believe those things are not possible because those known events occur at repeatable, though long intervals?

Conclusion: a Web OS, Applications & Data is not a keeper for the long run.

Chrome OS on a Netbook! Try Slate device...

[__aakdpj1217]

You honestly think that Chrome OS is going to be on a NETBOOK? Google has hinted many times it's going to be something similar to an iPad. Not only that HP confirmed a week ago that their using "possibly" going to use Chrome OS on their slate device...

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used Slashdot? It's just the next evolution of Slashdot to not read other's posts! Think of it as a version of Twitter with HTML tags and no ability to read what anyone else has written.

Re:Drop Chrome, but don't adopt Android for netboo

[BitZtream]

I've owned several blackberries and palm devices, I've developed several apps for the Palm OS.

I barely used either device as they both suck ass.

Just owning something and developing for it doesn't make you a user.

You're still right though, his post was rather ignorant, but its not impossible to own and develop for a platform you don't use.

What does "too early" mean?

[MrEricSir]

Is there some time-line of future events that I don't know about?

If so, please show me. I'd like to use it for gambling purposes.

programma, pleeze

[waambulance]

chrome OS failing wont be detrimental to linux adoption. linux - by definition - does that anyway.

Re:Car Analogies

[Tetsujin]

...is like selling a car based on the doors...

And let the terrible analogies flow.

Come on, at least he made it a car analogy

I approve!

insert Microsoft press release

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and move on ... nothing to see here .... :)

On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, if Google pushes Chrome OS for a brief moment and then stops, that'll make OEMs just come *running* to Linux.

Shame on you slashdot, giving this bumfluff space

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Linux is not attracting young developers

ZDNet ignores Ubuntu 9.10 upgrade fiasco

While we're on the subject of why...

[rgviza]

Why do we think it's our (or anyone's) place to tell someone (or their company) what they should or shouldn't do with the linux kernel?

The premise of this article stinks like my neighbor sticking her head into my house and telling me why I shouldn't twice bake a potato.

Google is doing it wrong

[V!NCENT]

You can clearly see why Chrome OS fails horribly; it is made by a web service company.

The idea was that "What if operating systems where made with the internet IN MIND?" and not "Let's make operating systems totally rely on webpages".

Hello Google, the internet is not the web...

Here's how I would envision the internet OS: Everything is a file with meta data and locations... We call this the W3C Semantic Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

The OS should be installed locally, of course. Displaying the OS should go through an interface. Have one for screens, but also sound? And maybe holographic displayes or something else entirely...

Then do the same for input devices.

Make the computer have big ass local storage so you can host your own photo's and documents. Decentralisation, goddamnit!

Then have the ability to add friend to you contact lists so you can search thorugh their stuff, collaborate and communicate.

Have the OS handle files, video's and music itself and also have standard frameworks for downloadable games that you can run and store offline but are automatically updated that you can play against your friends.

On other words get rid of the entire desktop idea, starting with Gnome-Shell but then on KDE4 tech...

How hard is that? Everything is a file/container. No more apps that the user has to care about. Just: "Computer display spreadsheet renovation" and "Computer play Wolfenstein against John Doe" or type it though an interface... but get rid of the desktop idea and dependance on centralised services and webbrowsers.

But noooooooooo.... If only I was filthy rich and had too much time on my hands... *sigh*

Optimization through simplification

[Tetsujin]

????
So the ability to install native / local apps precludes this?
Huh???

The optimization in this case is the removal of unneeded options and features, so yes.

And yes, some people do need or want these "unneeded" features. I certainly do. I own a $300 laptop that's a more powerful than my desktop machine was ten years ago - I don't just run a web browser on that kind of gear, I use it for anything I might need to do.

But, some people may find the idea of a machine that provides just a web browser rather useful. By stripping away everything not related to that one task, the end result is a machine that's a little bit better at that task.

Providing an OS that only does one thing also manages user expectations. For instance, if the machine comes with 4GB disk space - a paltry amount these days - if it's "just a web browser" then that's fine. If it's a machine where people can install or run a lot of other applications, that limit can quickly become frustrating.

An optimization is a trade-off. When you optimize software, you make it more specialized - better at handling certain jobs, and (most often) worse in other cases. In user interfaces the most common case of this is features being removed or hidden in order to reduce clutter. This kind of thing is justified by the fact that these operations are not typically needed, and the upshot is that the UI is simplified. This is really just another case of that. You find that unpalatable, apparently, as do I. I don't run this kind of system, I'm not interested. But that doesn't mean it's not useful in some cases.

Re:Optimization through simplification

[LWATCDR]

Everything is a trade off but their is no significant benefit to not allowing Apps. The original iPhone and iPod Touch had that limit and it was swiftly removed.

With proper design you could gain 99.99% of the benefits you describer we several times the functionality.
The story was why Google should stop working on Chrome. The answer is that it is limited and will have a microscopic market.

Armchair business strategizing

[Tetsujin]

The story was why Google should stop working on Chrome. The answer is that it is limited and will have a microscopic market.

That may be true. <shrug> I'm not too interested in the particulars of their business operation, honestly. I assume that if they continue to develop this thing, they've probably got a use in mind for it. Whether or not they continue, whether or not they make any money off it, etc. - that's their problem.

Google's poor track record with private info

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

I don't think I'll be putting all of my computing needs into the hands of Google anytime soon. No matter who the dominant player is, you always need a rival to keep them honest. I trust Microsoft more than Google with my computing behavior given their track record of telling the government to piss off and some of the comments of Eric Schmidt. Although if I had it my way, the source of this message would be encrypted and visible to no one. Unfortunately my ISP probably doesn't respect my privacy.

Re:Google's poor track record with private info

[DanJ_UK]

I trust Microsoft more than Google with my computing behavior given their track record of telling the government to piss off and some of the comments of Eric Schmidt.

It's funny you should say that, my google account which I started in the closed beta of Gmail (i.e. I had for years) and decided to make my primary account for e-mail, then blogger, then youtube along with all of my site / analytics data, contacts and my search history for the best part of 10 years, I lost when my account was compromised through a Gmail exploit.

I must have sent 50 compromised account / account recovery forms with ALL the correct information, posted on google groups support forums, I even tried to phone them, all of my attempts failed and most of the feedback I was getting from asking around was that they don't give a shit about you unless you're a business customer, short of going down to there offices there wasn't anything I could do about it.

Now, going back to before I had my google account (hotmail days), I remember 2 or 3 times there being occasions when my free [read: not a business customer] hotmail / msn passport was compromised and everytime an e-mail to microsoft resulted in a [read] human response within a few hours and each time they were more than helpful at getting my account back after I verified who I was with them through various means.

Is there anyone from Google that can tell me why their customer service is so alarmingly poor? I've yet to find you. I expected a lot more from Google considering the vast quantities of personal information they gather through various means on their users.

OH WHATEVER.

[Aphoxema]

"It's time for Google to realize that it is way too early to be pushing an OS that only provides a browser. If Chrome OS fails on netbooks it will just make OEMs even more hesitant to use a Linux-based OS instead of Windows. Google should instead build upon its already successful Android platform and provide a system that offers local applications."

Nonsense. Hubris. A billion bull cocks.

There's dozens of "failed" GNU/Linux distributions and Chrome OS is emblazoned with "Chrome OS" and not "Reputable-Company Linux". Chrome OS is obviously an experiment and it's certainly not like you can't drop in another replacement.

This is just a grope for attention. "Oh, look at me! I know what I'm talking about! La dee dah!" Fuck that.

To be fair,

[mjwx]

Thats what people said about Android, and Android had 28% of the smart phone market... (The Iphone has 21%)

This is Q1 sales for the United states. Android has about 5-10% share and growing, Apple probably has around 20-30%.

I support Android and have no doubt that within a few years we'll have 30% of the market, but by that time the Iphone will have reduced to a fanboy only device like Apple's other product lines.

The ipad offers more than a browser

[judeancodersfront]

The iPad also has over 100k apps you can run locally and an offline movie service.

Slashdot is all about tech opinion

[judeancodersfront]

Somehow I doubt you were complaining when there were criticisms of unreleased versions of Windows.

Native Java apps on Android is just as bad

[gig]

The baby Java apps on Android aren't going to cut it against Windows and OS X either. Most of the world's application code is in C. If you think native apps are necessary, you should be calling for Google to create a C app platform. They don't seem interested in native apps, though, judging by how ill-treated Android's has been.

Re:Native Java apps on Android is just as bad

[arndawg]

ill-treated? How come? Android 2.2 is almost finished and boosts a 450 percent performance increase in certain areas. Of course that would mean performance was terrible before but. damn. my argument fell apart. Anyways. I like android and I don't think it have been "ill-treated".

I agree

[hazydave]

I never bough the "OS as a browser" argument.. if there even is an argument. I mean, I can run a web browser on Windows or on Android or Linux, and yeah, that suggests that Web-centric applications will, within reason, be kind of cool. But what possible advantage to I gain in something like ChromeOS? Why not run that same level of web browser within Android, and get the best of Web-only (like Chrome), Web-agumented (like many Android apps), and stand-alone apps as well.

It's clear from many things they do that Google is thinking Web.. and they should, that's where they were born and where they thrive. The great thing about Android versus iPhoneOS or PalmOS is that I don't ever need to cable up to a PC and sync my phone or tablet... any important syncs can just happen, invisibly, via the net. This also means that "sync to a PC" itself is only interesting if I want to also use a PC... these devices, unlike most others, can live entirely without the need for PC support. That's critical in advancing the state of computing on these devices.

But going web-only doesn't seem to be a step forward. If web apps are really that great, folks will use them, on devices, on PCs, whereever. If they're not so great yet, you're not betting the whole device on web-only functionality and perfectly persistent internet connections.

crippling the netbook

[pavithran]

When Google announced that it was building an linux kernel based OS for netbook , I expected a huge number of Hardware vendors sitting down to get their hardware working . But the first demo shows that its only meant to *cripple* a netbook . Google can't dictate what people should be doing with their netbooks when ubuntu/debian/mandriva or other eee pc based distros are working seamlessly . Added to that I don't think everyone is connected everywhere . I had to search for wifi locations in london city . Maybe 2050 would be the apt time for such a release !

Re:Breaking News! Random Blogger has something to

[Anonymous Coward]

A .Net developer rant bumped in the firehose by Apple's Astroturfing Machine?

Seriously, /. is getting very "dumb" lately, proportional to the Apple fanboyactivism and preaching. Fuck /. i want tech news, Apple is like mabe or whirlpool or oster, they sell appliances.

Fuck Apple!