Slashdot Mirror
Google's Chrome OS To Launch In Fall
Kidfork writes "On Wednesday Google's vice president of product management said that this fall Google will launch Chrome OS to compete with Microsoft Windows. More than 70 million users already use the Chrome Browser, and Google expects at least 1 million users of the OS by day one of release."
It _IS_ Linux, fscktard...
Here be signatures
Except it's open source.
Wait, Google's servers (where the data is stored) are open source? Can I audit their deployment too?
And it can't suck up any information you don't enter.
What? Afaict, your argument reduces to, "It's secure because at least if I want to keep something private they don't force me to give it to them." Similarly, every government guarantees freedom of expression because they can't do anything about internalised expression (dreaming?), I guess.
You might want to check over your shoulders whenever you go out in public to make sure nobody is following you - you never know, they may find out what brand of toilet paper you buy, or see what type of films you enjoy watching at the cinema!
Ah, the second prong on the anti-privacy trident. When it's not, "If you have something to hide, you shouldn't be doing it," it's, "actually I've decided you have nothing worthwhile to hide anyway!"
You were as forced to buy the Microsoft OS then as you are to use Google today. Giving away your OS/browser on your home page is akin in today's terms to supplying a browser on the install CD. "But you have to consciously install it!" I hear you retort. Well, do you have to consciously install Google Apps? And, if not, does it count as always installed, or never installed? The point is, whether it's installed is a technical point only relevant to admin/developers - what matters is how available it is.
Not crying for MS, just applying standards evenly. Unfortunately they became much more political after the anti-trust nonsense, which was to the detriment of business in general. This decade barely recognises a difference between corporation and government, and the MS anti-trust trial was just bringing MS in line.
I see I got modded down for mentioning Apple, who is really the initiator of the client end of the current wave of disposable/cloud computing. For the record, Jobs sucks and is far worse than MS, and it's a shame that people feel the need to mod down when they disagree rather than arguing their point.
Windows changes so Microsoft can make more money. This is why MS is worth billions, and you, presumably, are not. Nor are the FreeBSD developers.
Sounds like a double standard to me.
Basically, Microsoft is not allowed to compete by law.
Microsoft never was a monopoly.
Is Google a monopoly?
Apple?