Slashdot Mirror
Chrome OS To Support "Legacy" PC Apps Through Remote Access
adeelarshad82 writes "According to a message posted to a public mailing list dedicated to Chrome OS, a new feature is in the works that will grant users access to 'legacy PC applications' through some kind of remote desktop connection process. Google software engineer Gary Kamark, who first spilled the beans on the feature, calls the process 'Chromoting.' The current speculation amongst Chrome enthusiasts is that the Chromoting process is more akin to a VPN/sharing functionality than anything else. In that case, one would have to leave one's Windows-based desktop or laptop system on in order to access apps via a connected Chrome OS computer — which is hardly a technological leap given that numerous applications today offer users an analogous screen-sharing / remote access functionality."
"Chrome OS puts in Legacy Security Flaws"
Oh, they intend to implement remote control of another computer functionality. Whats the news in this, you can even do this on a iphone!
Visit http://www.crunzh.com/ for free software. Mac/Lin/Win
The iPad has a pretty nice Microsoft Remote Desktop client that I use when I need to quickly build a Windows project, or view logs from one of our Windows servers. Not really a complete solution, as obviously the standard bandwidth limits apply. If I'm on 3G or slow wifi it's borderline unusable. Still nice to have the option I suppose.
Google Invents VNC... news at 11.
Whole forum post:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 20:06, Gary Kamarík wrote:
Our "official" statement at the moment is:
"We're adding new capabilities all the time. With this functionality (unofficially named "chromoting"), Chrome OS will not only be great platform for running modern web apps, but will also enable you to access legacy PC applications right within the browser. We'll have more details to share on chromoting in the coming months."
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:02 AM, PhistucK wrote:
Since you are being quiet about it, I just want to understand - is
Chromoting something like Remote Desktop Connection?
Yes. "something like..."
Can you spare some more details regarding this component? use cases,
platform support?
Sadly, not right now. We'll have more info later.
-Gary
Sounds pretty lame thus far. Though an unsubstantiated forum post isn't much to go on.
The previously dormant SymphonyOS project (http://www.symphonyos.org) actually announced they were working on this two weeks ago with their new Strata desktop environment.
Not only does this sound clunky and sub-optimal in many regards, but why should I need to utilize two computers at once to enjoy functionality that only requires a single computer? At the very least it is energy inefficient.
Better known as 318230.
It will help a lot of people to have an easy to use remote desktop solution. Remove all of the client/server terminology to the end user. Just run this chromotion program on your windows pc and have the chrome station auto detect it. You privacy kooks are going to hate me for saying this: use the google cloud servers as an authentication and discovery proxy. The average slightly technical person eats this stuff up.
which is hardly a technological leap given that numerous applications today offer users an analogous screen-sharing / remote access functionality.
Perhaps not a massive technical leap but packaging and making it available to world, as only Google can, does seem like a pretty big leap forward.
I wonder if MSFT will be modifying their license agreement to try and block it?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I haven't been following chrome OS much**, but if I wanted to run "legacy apps" on a more controlled OS these days, in a secure way, I'd do it in a virtual machine. A lot of them, especially recent ones, support RDP and/or VNC, which might fulfill the term "remote access".
** Well, come on, yet another run-a-monolithic-GUI-WIMP-app-OS, from one of the biggest software houses on the planet? Snoozefest. How about something REALLY innovative?
I'm getting really bored with all the hype flowing from Google lately. What with Chrome OS and Google TV, there seems to be an awful lot of fuss being made over what in both cases is essentially vaporware. Anyone having tried the latest Chromium OS builds (the code base from which Chrome OS will be built) will see that this project has a very long way to go before it is anything like usable.
I suspect this is another outing for Google's NeatX FreeNX Server
If they make it go through their authentication systems instead of publishing an external IP address that could be a lot safer - ie, as long as the computer's properly protected and access is limited to the appropriate IP range it shouldnt pose any greater risk than running a legacy app on a computer you're sitting at
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Do you not think the backend machine is likely to be in the cloud running the app for you in a sandbox, rather than your own PC?
Look at it: it's just an OS with everything but the browser stripped out. You know what? Those other parts were actually useful and stripping them out makes no sense. GNU/Linux can run a browser just fine; it can also run quite a lot of Windows programs through Wine without the need for any kind of remoting. So, Chrome can run under Windows? Well, guess what... Linux can do that too. And it can run all the native applications out there, which by and large yield a better user experience (not to mention performance) than a browser-based app can. Don't even think about 3D games. Sometimes less is simply less.
"which is hardly a technological leap given that numerous applications today offer users an analogous screen-sharing / remote access functionality."
This would be true, if Apple couldn't sell a new version of phone even with the fact it can't play mp3s as ringtones.
Why remote access seems to every techie the most normal thing in the world, its a whole different ball game getting it to a level in which my mum can understand it. If they can get this right then she wont care that she could of done it 10 years ago with some other software.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
There is a lot of this shit going on. *If* this is a usable VNC client that creates an easy to set up and easy to use solution for running windoze apps on Chrome this is a big deal.
It takes *work* and *skill* to make existing technology/software usable and attractive. That's why Apple is doing well, if it was easy everyone would be doing it. Please everyone just understand this simple fact.
It's because they are desperate to give people a reason - any reason - to look at the upcoming chrome-browser-based welfarebooks. Just buy a real laptop - you'll save enough energy over the life of the machine to pay for not having to leave a second computer on all the time.
"Oh, but I can access my data!"
Use a USB key.
Umm, guys? How this works is just speculation, ripping on it for just being a VPN or damning it for being a reimplementation of existing stuff is like bitching about the plot of a movie before they've even released a summary, let alone the script or the movie itself.
This sentence no verb.
Isn't this the same thing as the Microsoft Terminal Services RemoteApp application?
*nm*
If the Chrome OS could act as a VM host, and just host the "legacy" OS as a virtual machine. Use VNC like technology sure, but put it all in one box.
}#q NO CARRIER
Another possibility is that Google ports something like VirtualBox over to Chrome OS. The virtualized display could then be exported to the Chrome web browser. This way only one computer would be required. In addition, any OS could be installed - not just Windows.
Of course this would only work with x86 based computers, but those requiring legacy support could easily limit themselves to these computers. Those who do not need legacy support could select an ARM based computer. The ARM based hardware should be less expensive and support better battery life.
It's exactly the sort of leap that Apple inexplicably get a good press for doing, even though they're not first either. Even nerds aren't interested in `first` or `advanced` any more - it's got to be easy.
Just set up a server process, started by the browser. Then a (ssh?) tunnel would be set up to the cloud.
The legacy application would then be started and the screen would be mapped onto a frame in a browser tab.
TIAJ.
This was what MS did in the days prior to the widespread internet. It provided software, only some of which was purchased, that could be freely installed on business machines. This provided an alternative to Unix hardware and software, all which had to be paid for, often at what we would now consider exorbitant prices. Of course, there were things that MS stuff could not do. We have gone full circle in that MS now wants $500 for software, while Apple is selling software for $30, and most stuff for Unix is free.
What people want is service, the technical details are of little concern. I can change any song into a ringtone for my iPhone. The fact that it is a fake m4a instead of an mp3 is of no concern. What is of a concern is that ringtones have never cost me a thing on the iPhone. If I am looking at $100 for a fake copy of MS Office, and $300 for MS Windows that will constantly hound me to prove that it is a legitimate copy, then perhaps running a copy of chrome with Google hosting all my documents is a rational thing to do. We can complain that it old tech, but it is only the early adopters that a fetishizing new tech enough to actually spend huge amounts of money on it.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"When I first read about Chromoting I was hoping it'd be something more along the lines of OnLive - i.e, the 'legacy' programs are running on super-powerful remote machines," wrote Mark Lunney, a Flash Developer for Glue London. "Google could set up a pay-per-use license with the software manufactures to allow them to be used remotely, which'd also cut piracy down. And the thought of rendering an entire 3D scene or movie on one of Google's supercomputers in seconds would surely be enough of a reason to get a lot of power users switching." -From the article. This is exactly what I thought of when I read this. Google could run the programs on their computers for you, so your netbook with only 1gig of ram can run as much as your bandwidth will allow. OnLive would be a great service to use with Chrome OS.
I am hoping that the more remote desktop usages surge, the more that our ISP will give us enough up bandwidth to make use of our computers wherever they are at.
I have a terabyte usb hard drive at home attached to my media center. Unfortunately, it is one of 4 hard drives and I did not have the foresight to only put tv shows and movies that I want and that no one else in my family would miss if I took it with me.
Why not run native? It would be ok for at least basic apps depending on hardware power. My understanding is Chrome has debian underpinnings at this point. To the point that getting WINE to run on it would not be considered pass marks for a geek card.
If you want to run Windows apps natively on chrome it's going to certainly be possible and will be solved within hours of the OS hitting production.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
If it can't play starcraft 2 natively, then at best its just a utility OS for me. Hopefully it will be able to run under virtualbox though.
Just buy a real laptop - you'll save enough energy over the life of the machine to pay for not having to leave a second computer on all the time.
Hrm... maybe. Maybe not.
My last electricity bill was $0.0618/kWh, but let's round up to $0.07. My quad-core computer, monitor, and external RAID use about 150W at idle, according to my UPS; a lower-end computer with no RAID and the monitor turned off would use less, but let's ignore that. My i3 laptop cost about $700, but let's say you can find a decent one for $600. And since we're looking at the cost of a "real laptop" vs. a Chrome OS netbook, let's subtract $350, which is the speculated mid-range price of a Chrome OS netbook. Let's also pretend the real laptop uses exactly as much power as the netbook, so it has no ongoing additional costs.
So, how long would you need to keep that desktop computer running continuously for it to be worth spending $250 on a real laptop instead?
(250 USD) / (0.07 USD/kWh) / (0.150 kW) / (24 hr/day) / (365 day/yr) = 2.7 years
Average replacement time for a computer seems to be 2-4 years. So depending on where you fall in that range, with these very optimistic figures, you might break even. With more realistic figures -- counting the extra electricity used by the more powerful laptop, using a less power-hungry desktop, turning off the monitor when you're away, shutting down at night -- you most likely won't. And if the real laptop you have in mind is a MacBook, forget it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
MS says they made 3D possible over net with the latest Windows Server with a good GPU. Of course, we are speaking about a lot of money here with a good server and very fast connection (gigabit).
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/windows_7_server_2008_r_2_sp1_beta/
"Called RemoteFX, the update to Remote Desktop Services enables hardware-accelerated graphics and the use of local USB devices for a remote user connected to a virtual machine (VM). RemoteFX is based on desktop virtualization software acquired when Microsoft took over Calista Technologies in early 2008."
Nice thing is, if you can really find a good "thin client" for home with HDMI output, the possibilities are very interesting.
Indeed even slightly changing your figures to be more realistic to an average non-slashdotter makes it not worth it.
(250 USD) / (0.07 USD/kWh) / (0.150 kW) / (7 hr/day) / (350 day/yr) = 9.7 years
If Google wants to do this right they should just make Wine work well enough to run the most important specialist Windows applications. Later on Chrome can support virtual machines from Googles server.
It can work, it's just a matter of how Google wants to make it work.
The iPad probably draws less power than the display on most desktop PCs.
Now this is weird. When I say something nice about an Apple product, I'm flamebaiting?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your UPS also wastes current. No UPS is 100% efficient.
You're going to be using it at some point, so you can't take just the base draw as the total draw - otherwise, why have a computer? So the system sitting at home is not always going to be idling.
You're also ignoring the extra cooling costs because of that 150 watt heater. That's an additional 500 btus of load.
Plus, let's face it, when you spend more on a better laptop, you get more than just saving electricity. You get a better screen than your el cheapo laptop, better sound, more storage, faster, more ram, and since you're not connecting to your box at home, lower latency and no "dead spots" or "you can't plug that into our network to access your home computer" - all these things have to be taken into consideration.
Your UPS also wastes current. No UPS is 100% efficient.
I don't think that matters. I personally run a UPS, but not everyone does.
You're going to be using it at some point, so you can't take just the base draw as the total draw - otherwise, why have a computer? So the system sitting at home is not always going to be idling.
I was using it when I took the measurements - I meant "idle" as opposed to startup or heavy load. Heavy loads would mean hardcore gaming or number crunching, which you can't really do on a laptop anyway.
You're also ignoring the extra cooling costs because of that 150 watt heater. That's an additional 500 btus of load.
That translates into something like an extra 40 watts needed to run the air conditioner, using the minimum U.S. standard for residential A/C efficiency. I can save 40 watts just by turning off my monitor.
(Plus, since we're talking about a house, not a data center, you could just open a window or let it get a little warmer.)
Plus, let's face it, when you spend more on a better laptop, you get more than just saving electricity. You get a better screen than your el cheapo laptop, better sound, more storage, faster, more ram
Likewise, a desktop gives you a better screen, better sound, more storage, faster CPU, and more RAM than that laptop.
and since you're not connecting to your box at home, lower latency and no "dead spots" or "you can't plug that into our network to access your home computer"
Fair enough.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Think bigger. Virtual Desktop, published and virtual apps.... Remoting one PC is hardly anything to get excited about but once we can leverage a windows virtual desktop and virtual applications within the Chrome OS we'll have a enterprise contender.
This clearly would not work for the usual PC gaming scenario, especially those games that require top-end 3D hardware.