Slashdot Mirror
Chrome OS Arrives On the iPad — No, Seriously!
Thinkcloud writes "A user named Hexxeh has posted a video online of the iPad running Google's upcoming Chrome OS. Hexxeh was able to put Chrome OS on an iPad because the open source code for the operating system is available in its Chromium state, but it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook. Nevertheless, it's worth considering what it might mean to have a robust OS like Apple's on the same tablet as one that runs a cutting-edge operating system like Chrome OS. Why wouldn't users love that?"
Why do the creators of these tech videos always add annoying music where silence or narration would be better?
I honestly can't think of anything more useless than an OS that will not work if you don't have an internet connection.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
A dual booting iPad with Chrome OS would essentially give you ... a second browser.
I'm not sure what there is to get excited about. The iPad one is pretty damn good, also uses WebKit and you get a bunch of other functionality thrown in for free - some of which is rather useful - without having to be permanently connected to the internet.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
On the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone. It took new rules to allow unlocking, for instance. You might argue that the locking had more to do with contracts with ATT than anything else... Maybe you have a point here.
But ... How about Project Gutenberg? The Kama Sutra? I think Apple has rightfully earned their reputation as a nanny mothership. They may allow alternate OSes. We'll see on that, but they definitely don't want you running non-approved apps on devices where they control the app store. This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.
If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
No, the alternative is, "You bought it, it's yours, do with it what you want. If it doesn't work, don't blame us".
There's a lot of room between that "try anything funny and we'll brick your phone".
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm a registered iOS developer, but even I have to agree with the principle of your parent post. Ad Hoc is a way to get betas out to testers before submitting your app to Apple. It is not a way to get your app to a random and/or unlimited number of users.
So your idea of an acceptable way of ad hoc distribution to potentially many thousands of people is to get every one of them to send you their device ID and to create a new version of your app every hundred users, making sure that you've sent the correct version of that app to each of the people that you've entered their device id for? You are joking right?
Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here),
Wait wait, now THAT's outright dishonest.
Specifically, Apple didn't threaten to cripple devices.
Apple posted a warning that they found out that the baseband update code is broken on unlocked devices and doesn't function correctly.
In other words, Apple didn't cripple your device, the unlockers screwed up.
Says who? Says people who worked on the unlocks in the first place.
http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick