Chrome OS Doesn't Trust Apps Or Users

holy_calamity writes "Google's Chrome OS chiefs explain in Technology Review how most of the web-only OS's features flow from changing one core assumption of previous operating system designs. 'Operating systems today are centered on the idea that applications can be trusted to modify the system, and that users can be trusted to install applications that are trustworthy,' says Google VP Sundar Pichai. Chrome doesn't trust applications, or users — and neither can modify the system. Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved, the Googlers claim."

Comments

Wait, what?

[Monkeedude1212]

Doesn't that make it even more closed than an iProduct?

Re:Wait, what?

[42forty-two42]

The headline's a bit misleading. Users _can_ replace the OS. However, the BIOS will check signatures on the OS, and offer to restore from a known-good backup on boot (without destroying user data). This ensures that if the OS is infected by a virus or something, it's very, very easy to restore.
There are specific points in the design docs where they make it clear that they do want to support advanced users installing their own OS, to the extent that that does not cause trouble for less advanced users.

Re:Wait, what?

[Americano]

No no no, this is Slashdot.

When Steve Jobs says "HTML5 web apps are all you need," it's naked, leering, monopolistic evil.

When Google VP Sundar Pichai says the same thing, it's for your own good, and the most sensible advance in computing since the GUI was invented.

Re:Wait, what?

[mrsteveman1]

MORE closed? No, because Google has always said that users could get into the core os if they wanted to without resorting to exploits and hacking.

Re:Wait, what?

[Microlith]

And I expect that to carry zero weight with 3rd party hardware vendors, who will undoubtedly lock the platforms down and, if they're like Motorola, they'll sign the kernel so you absolutely can't load other OSes.

Re:Wait, what?

[natehoy]

I was thinking the same thing. If iOS is a walled garden, this is a walled garden hermetically within a Plexiglas dome and a concrete floor and all the plants in sterilized pots.

But that might not be a bad thing. For the "my phone/computer is an appliance" crowd, this might be perfect. No fiddling around trying to download plugins or extensions, no overhead of antivirus, and no difference between multiple machines, and most importantly almost no tech support required. If I break something like this, I go out and buy a new one, present one username and password to it, and it's exactly like my old one used to be.

If you're selling an OS whose primary purpose is to surf da interwebz, it might not be a terribly bad idea to resurrect the concept of the "dumb terminal" in that context. I presume Google will push updates, so if they keep a current list of plugins and/or extensions that can be enabled/disabled by the user as desired, you have machines that are going to be really, really hard to compromise, and really, really easy to use. And really, really inexpensive.

Well, except by Google, so you'd better trust Google a LOT under this model (much like you have to trust Apple a good deal under the iOS model). If you want your computer to do anything outside what Google had in mind, you're done. If Google gets hacked, your data gets hacked and you might never know about it. And, of course, you'll never be able to do anything without Google knowing about it.

Re:Wait, what?

[Americano]

The headline isn't really misleading, it's actually quite accurate - Chrome OS doesn't trust apps or users to be safe. That you can replace Chrome OS with something more trusting doesn't mean Chrome OS itself suddenly trusts those apps and users.

Re:Wait, what?

[DrgnDancer]

After reading the article, I can't come to any other conclusion. This is *way* more closed than the iFamily stuff. It's on par with the attitude that Apple took with the initial release of the iPhone, before the App Store. Even then, Apple provided a fair number of local apps that you could use to perform a lot of basic PDA functions. This is literally a computer with one application installed. It has a web browser, that's it.

This is... pretty yucky. I mean... I consider the iPhone's level of lock down to be acceptable on a phone or PDA, but somewhat limiting on a tablet (one reason I don't have an iPad yet). This is a full fledged laptop and it's even more locked down?

Re:Wait, what?

[Eil]

Not trusting users and going to extraordinary lengths to lock down and DRM your hardware + software are different things entirely.

It's possible to not trust users and still let developers and hackers have access to the innards. Just make the access relatively obscure an put up a big "Here be Dragons" sign.

And, as another commenter pointed out, the Chrome OS laptops will have a way to wipe the system clean should the user get into too much trouble.

Re:Wait, what?

[mlts]

Reading the design docs, having an oem-unlock switch is a nice compromise between keeping Joe Sixpack from getting compromised by malware, then blaming it on Google/device maker's lack of security versus allowing a clued user to do what he or she wants.

With this in mind, one thing that would be nice to have are offline apps. This way, a glitch in Internet connectivity would not mean a corrupted term paper.

I just have one concern though -- the fact that everything you do is stored in the cloud. This means zero privacy. Even with the lack of privacy now, if an application started sifting through Word documents and uploading them to an ad agency, there would be Hell to pay. However, one can't have any assurance that someone isn't doing this when all the docs are stored remotely. There is a fundamental rule, "don't put anything on the Internet that you don't want everyone, including your worst enemy to know." So, trusting a cloud service with everything you do may have negative ramifications later on.

Re:Wait, what?

[Microlith]

I consider the iPhone's level of lock down to be acceptable on a phone or PD

I don't, so you can imagine my opinion of blatantly user-hostile systems like this. But make no mistake, this is the larger target for virtually every mobile device manufacturer. Google is just establishing a basis, leaving the final lock down to the vendors. I refer to my prior post regarding that.

Re:Wait, what?

[mlts]

I'm almost sure that will be the case. I can see third party ChromeOS device vendors not just kernel signing, efuses, or autoreinstalls, but doing one or more of the following:

1: Keeping a manifest of all executables and having a process (kernel or user space) that kills with a -9 anything whose name, inode, and path isn't in on the guest list.

2: Throwing a hardware switch to brick the device (true bricking, as in blowing out sections of the BIOS chips) if the OS thinks its tampered with.

3: Autobanning people's Google accounts who have custom ROMs.

4: Keeping a list of who is rooting the machines, then hitting them with DMCA/ACTA charges in large busts covered by the media done all on one day (think Operation Sun Devil). Of course, jailbreaking is legal for now, but ACTA is going to be the law of the land in the most of the world soon.

What I fear that may end up happening is that the only ChromeOS device that will allow custom OS modifications will be the reference ones that Google does, similar to how Google phones are the only unlocked Android devices (ADP1, ADP2, Nexus 1, Nexus 1S) available commercially.

Re:Wait, what?

[poetmatt]

might help to put more than 8 seconds of trolling worth to try to understand the difference between this and what apple does.

what your rage is about, and all the things summed up, are exactly apple things. they are not what is going on here for chrome.

Chrome is more like making sure that people can't get around the UAC concept in windows. This is more about enforcing good software policies, not like apple's "we're restricting user choice" which they have done to everything. This is more restricting bad developers from being able to get people to run bad apps.

Whether that is a good decision or one you want to stick with is another story altogether, but this (chrome) is more like assuming that people cannot be trusted and hiding the shit in your house to prevent theft, as opposed to (apple) telling people they can only be on the main floor of the house when they obviously have more options. Windows just lets people in and hopes that they don't steal shit. Consumer grade Linux requires a password for anyone to come in, but at that point anyone with the password can steal shit. Each of these reflect on the trust.

Re:Wait, what?

[moderatorrater]

Exactly. Google is the golden calf here on slashdot, that's why any story that mentions google is completely free of comments screaming that Google is now proven to be evil and we're all sheep for trusting them with any data.

Of course, if every article about google was 90% those type of comments, then you'd look like an idiot, wouldn't you?

Re:Wait, what?

[gstoddart]

Doesn't that make it even more closed than an iProduct?

If I read the article correctly, a purely "the web browser is everything" simply won't be worth a damn if you have no network connection.

It's also got no storage, so it's not like you could load it up with your MP3s or pictures.

So, it's a dumb-terminal that requires me to have constant access to the internet, can't store files, can't have actual programs installed on it. I just can't see who is going to want this.

Say what you will, but at least my iPad lets me install software, store my photos to browse, add eBooks, movies, and music ... and I can use it on an airplane.

Re:Wait, what?

[vtcodger]

***If you want your computer to do anything outside what Google had in mind, you're done. If Google gets hacked, your data gets hacked and you might never know about it***

Too Right. But if you expect this cloud concept to work, maybe it's how things are going to have to work. Realistically, I don't see how one can leave their personal and especially financial data on someone else's server without fullproof encryption and/or Operating Systems that are far more secure than Windows and Unix are or are ever likely to be.

Re:Wait, what?

[pilgrim23]

I never trusted the "one Mao Jacket Fits All" paradigm in fashion, and certainly do not with my machine. Somehow the judgement of engineers who "friended" all my gmail address book is suspect. at least to me in designing a total operating system...

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

And I expect that to carry zero weight with 3rd party hardware vendors

Perhaps not. OTOH, I expect that Google -- for the same reason there is a always an unrestricted Android dev phone available -- to always have an a similar Chrome OS dev device available once Chrome OS is generally available.

Re:Wait, what?

[mlts]

Google may be doing Jobs's path though. First only allowing Web apps and getting that locked down, then eventually adding an App Store, and a mechanism for apps to run securely. I can see ChromeOS sporting the userID protection that Android has, but also sporting a DroidWall like mechanism for only allowing apps to communicate to machines specified in their manifest list. For example, a game company's offering would only have access to their servers and Admob.

If this offering started sporting native apps, and a UI that is decent, it might be a good desktop replacement for the Aunt Tillie crowd.

Re:Wait, what?

[Americano]

Come back in an hour when all those posts have been modded down to -1, Flamebait, and look at the stuff that's been marked up.

There are an awful lot of people here who are going through tortuous mental gymnastics to explain why Google locking down its OS so that the only thing you can do is run web apps is a good thing because you can wipe Chrome OS and install whatever else you want.

By that logic, Windows is the best OS ever, because you can wipe your new system from Dell and install something that's completely different from Windows on it. If the best thing you can say about Chrome OS is "you can replace it with something better," then it's not very good, is it?

Re:Wait, what?

[coldfarnorth]

No.

Chrome lets you run apps (of the browser extension sort) that are "not trusted." It just runs them in an I-don't-trust-you-any-further-than-I-can-throw-you" sort of way"

Sort of like how you'll carry cash in the street around people that you don't inherently trust. You put it in a safe spot rather than hold it in your hand.

The difference between Google's Chrome OS and Apple's iOS is this: while Google assumes everyone is a pickpocket and takes sensible precautions, Apple just says that you are not permitted go to Mexico.

Re:Wait, what?

[KlomDark]

Remember Mulder's famous words: TRUST NO ONE (Especially with your own data)

Re:Wait, what?

[phoenix321]

I can already replace my Windows installation and when the OS is infected by a virus or something, it's very, very easy to restore. Just hit a BIOS switch, reinstall from a truly hidden (and BIOS-protected) partition - or recovery DVD - and reinstall without destroying user data. (All user data is on D:, while reinstall will bomb C:)

It doesn't work that well, let me tell you. User data is there, but programs need to be reinstalled to access it. System comes back squeaky clean, but everything needs to be changed to my personal liking.

What it boils down is that a computer will be either vulnerable to users, useless for them or anything in between these extremes. Can't install programs? Useless but secure. Can install any program? Useful, but vulnerable.

Without settings and mail saved *somewhere*, a mail client is useless. With settings and mail saved *anywhere*, a mail client is potentially vulnerable.

Replacing the OS with a known-good image only works if someone can truly produce an image that is more useful than say a Windows default installation and still known to be good. Which gets increasingly doubtful the older the OS image is, the more programs are installed and the more data/configuration/specifics are kept in program installations somewhere.

Re:Wait, what?

[yuhong]

This can be prevented by making Chrome OS GPLv3. This will require the vendor to allow and provide information on how to modify the software.

Re:Wait, what?

[mweather]

The very name of the product is that of an ad agency.

Wait, are you talking about Docs, or Word? Because both are products of ad agencies.

Re:Wait, what?

[CastrTroy]

Maybe you're on to something. Store all your data in the cloud, but store in encrypted with a public key that's only on your device (and backed up to and SD card or something). That way you are only requesting files, and decrypting them locally. The cloud itself has no method of reading the document. Still run all apps locally, but all your data is stored on the cloud, encrypted, and if you buy a new device, you just reload all the software, which comes from the cloud, and the new device acts just like the old one. If you're worried about the device obtaining and transmitting your private key, don't worry. It could be stored on the card, and all the decryption happens on the card, the machine itself only gets the data. When you get a new keycard, you get 3 or 4 for backup, so you are never without your key.

Re:Wait, what?

[DrgnDancer]

I'm not quite clear on what you're saying here. The article pretty explicitly states that users will not be able to install applications:

In contrast, Chrome OS assumes that applications and users can't be trusted. And it has just one application: the browser. "There's a cascade of things that happen when you make this core assumption," says Linus Upson, a Google VP of engineering working on the project, from making it easier to protect against malware, to reducing the need for users to act as administrator for their own system.

It's got one application: the web browser. The only way to get more "applications" is web apps. So you've gone from Apple's "You can only install the apps we allow" to "you can't install apps". You're right, it prevents people from getting around the "UAC" concept: by not letting them get to the point where the system asks if you're sure you want to install the app.

Now if there's more to the story and you can install other app somehow, that's fine and dandy, but at least according to the information in this article, that's not the case.

Re:Wait, what?

[Dishevel]

3: Autobanning people's Google accounts who have custom ROMs.

Exactly how do you think that Sony, Samsung, HTC, Sprint, Verizon or even the Evil AT&T will ban your Google account?

Re:Wait, what?

[Chad Stansbury]

While ChromeOS may not have any means for you to directly store stuff on it, by virtue of it being an HTML5-compliant* browser it *will* allow any web application that you may use to store things locally (using the offline and local storage features new to HTML5). So even if you're offline on an airplane, some of the apps you have may still work..

Even if they don't implement offline features, web apps may still work on airplanes as the flight that I was just on (Delta) had Internet connectivity... and I suspect that in a couple years, connectivity will be so pervasive that offline mode will be rendered moot for 99% of the population.

*compliant is, as I understand, still a moving target.

Re:Wait, what?

[camperslo]

MORE closed? No, because Google has always said that users could get into the core os if they wanted to without resorting to exploits and hacking.

What license is being used? If it is the Apache license, as with parts of Android, handset vendors / carriers can provide you with their customized binaries and have no obligation to provide source. (Do ANY actually provide it???) Users can get the Google code the vendors started with, but from what I've seen not the full code that matches what's installed. (The Linux GPL'd part is what's truely open)

Or was that "core os" you mentioned a disclaimer? Part open but not all...

Re:Wait, what?

[killmofasta]

Im sorry,
Apple has an iPatent on iAnal-retentive

But, it does give Google the opportinuty
to control crApps! like Google-Office!
( Can I give it a -1? only because a -5 would be redundant? )

If Google doesn't clean up its office app,
then Apple has nothing to worry about,
and neither do I. 

Re:Wait, what?

[gstoddart]

*compliant is, as I understand, still a moving target.

By which you mean they expect it to be a standard somewhere around 2022? :-P

Re:Wait, what?

[Stregano]

Well get out of my Damn house! Stop stealing stuff and keep your dirty mitts off of that TV Set

Re:Wait, what?

[mcgrew]

Sounds like "as closed" to me. I can see not letting apps modify the system without user consent, but I'm appalled by the idea that the person who pays several hundred dollars for a computing device shouldn't be able to do any damned thing he pleases to it.

Re:Wait, what?

[tobiasly]

With this in mind, one thing that would be nice to have are offline apps. This way, a glitch in Internet connectivity would not mean a corrupted term paper.

I just have one concern though -- the fact that everything you do is stored in the cloud.

If you want offline apps and data that isn't stored in the cloud, you're sorta missing the point of ChromeOS. You should probably stick with traditional laptops or netbooks.

Re:Wait, what?

[thelovebus]

I think AC means google.

Re:Wait, what?

[yelvington]

So, it's a dumb-terminal that requires me to have constant access to the internet, can't store files, can't have actual programs installed on it.

Please catch up. It is not what you think.

It's not a dumb terminal, it doesn't require you to have constant access to the Internet (some apps require it, others don't), it can store data locally, and you can install programs. They're registered in the cloud, and if you log in and one is missing, it's quickly synchronized to the local device.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/offline.html
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
http://www.html5rocks.com/tutorials/offline/storage/
http://code.google.com/chrome/apps/

Understanding the significance of ChromeOS requires that you abandon some old ways of thinking about how a computer should act. Yes, you're "losing" the desktop and the file folders. You're also losing slow boot times, viruses, the risk of losing your data in hard drive crashes or device theft, and the occasional maddening discovery that you left a critically important file on a hard drive at home|school|work.

This may not be the device for you, but it may be the device for a lot of people. It's worth pointing out that over half a million people buy smartphones every day that also walk away from a mountain of desktop-computer annoyances.

Re:Wait, what?

[ghjm]

June 29, 2007.

Re:Wait, what?

[GWBasic]

With this in mind, one thing that would be nice to have are offline apps. This way, a glitch in Internet connectivity would not mean a corrupted term paper.

That's what local storage in HTML 5 is for. When I played with Google Gears in 2007, there was a complete Javascript API for an in-browser SQLite database; AND I could specify which files would be served locally. Thus, I could make a web application that would work without an internet connection.

Google Gears is now depricated because a lot of the lessons are applied to the HTML 5 spec.

Re:Wait, what?

[mlts]

An agreement with Google. It isn't farfetched for carriers or device manufacturers twisting Google's arm and demanding that they have the ability to flag or ban accounts of suspected jailbreakers.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Mulder's famous words: TRUST NO ONE (Especially with your own data)

Are those words *really* all that famous? And are they really Mulder's? I'm kind of guessing someone else said it first before he did...

Re:Wait, what?

[Mister Whirly]

Sure, then all you have to do is convince Google to do the complete opposite of what they want.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has got _some_ storage. May be they will ship with USB ports too. Then the apps are designed to run offline. So you could theoretically install a office suite and when online it will immediately sync your docs to the cloud but when offline you can still do the editing and it will defer the sync.

Also they have a got a full Chrome App Store - so can't have actual programs installed on it part is not really true. If I recall correctly they have NACL - Native Client which will allow running binaries within the browser sandbox - for games and such.

Re:Wait, what?

[MBGMorden]

I don't think any of those carriers are in a position to be "twisting Google's arm". If anything, the reverse might be true.

Re:Wait, what?

[MBGMorden]

Chrome OS uses the Linux kernel, which is not (and according to Linus, will never be) GPL v3.

Re:Wait, what?

[gstoddart]

From TFA:

With a reliance on constant connectivity and no hard drive, a Chrome notebook could be described as an overgrown smart phone with a keyboard.

So, unless the article is mistaken (which is possible) ... that would be a dumb terminal, with no storage.

This may not be the device for you, but it may be the device for a lot of people. It's worth pointing out that over half a million people buy smartphones every day that also walk away from a mountain of desktop-computer annoyances.

Hey, I'm all about being able to buy and run whatever device you like. I'm just trying to make sense of this device as it's described -- and, I was responding to the first-post which asked if it was more locked down than Apple's stuff.

From the sounds of it, it's markedly more locked down than my iPad. I can absolutely see this being good for many things. Not sure I'd want one, but it's also a prototype -- so it's a little premature to say anything about it.

Re:Wait, what?

[MozeeToby]

One thing to keep in mind, Google honestly (and IMO naively) believes every house in America will have a gigabit internet connection before 2020. If they're right (a pretty big if), then there's no reason a dumb terminal couldn't work just fine in the foreseeable future. Pictures and music will load just as fast as they load off your hard drive today, you could easily run software out of the cloud, if latency were dramatically improved you could even run the software in the cloud and just send IO back and forth (isn't there a service already that does this?).

I think that the idea of a dumb terminal, no maintenance, appliance type computer is possible, just not possible with today's connectivity options. Get rid of the artificial monopolies granted to ISPs and give competition a decade for what's commercially possible to catch up to what's technically possible and it might be a viable choice for almost everyone. As is it's only a choice for those who already live 90% in the cloud.

Re:Wait, what?

[Microlith]

But why should I have to buy a development device to get a device that isn't locked down? What if someone buys one and for some reason they decide to explore computers (like I did when I was younger) and find that the vendor has decreed they are somehow "second class" and are not allowed?

Re:Wait, what?

[suutar]

Designing a platform that does what Joe Sixpack wants (email, farmville, and espn) but is unlikely to wind up in a botnet is a good thing. It's not suitable for what _I_ do, but that's my problem.

Re:Wait, what?

[im_thatoneguy]

Except that I just install Live Mesh and My Documents are on all of my computers but synchronized to a web-server.

Re:Wait, what?

[poetmatt]

you are correct, it does seem to be restricted in that way per the statement, I guess I misunderstood.

If they take it that far of "web browser and webapps only", it's just going to be a question of "how long before it's hacked", so it's not real security, as well as take a computer from being a computer to being a web browser. The phrase for that is: recipe for complete failure.

stopping getting around UAC style behavior is important, but not enough to go so far as to limit functionality.

Re:Wait, what?

[MicroRoller]

Don't try and anthropomorphize software....

... they don't like that.

Re:Wait, what?

[Microlith]

Not trusting users and going to extraordinary lengths to lock down and DRM your hardware + software are different things entirely.

Actually they go hand in hand. After all, DRM and lock down are employed explicitly when you don't trust your user (to jump to a competitor/not use your services/block advertising.)

It's possible to not trust users and still let developers and hackers have access to the innards. Just make the access relatively obscure an put up a big "Here be Dragons" sign.

It is totally possible, I have no illusions that non-Google 3rd parties will allow for it in the slightest.

Re:Wait, what?

[PopeRatzo]

I can see third party ChromeOS device vendors not just kernel signing, efuses, or autoreinstalls, but doing one or more of the following:

It must take a toll on your health to be so paranoid.

If you're saying that mobile phone companies will continue to be mobile phone companies, then I might agree. But none of the things you list are going to happen, and any company that does any one of them will be at a competitive disadvantage. Remember, the people who will buy phones with ChromeOS are by definition not buying an Apple product. When some website does a 0-day unpacking of the new phone and says "this phone will brick if you do X" then very few people are going to buy that phone. The only way something like you're talking about works for any company besides AAPL is if all the companies do it at the same time, and that's definitely not going to happen. Not because they would never do such a thing, but because the competition is going to be pretty cutthroat.

Re:Wait, what?

[93 Escort Wagon]

The headline's a bit misleading. Users _can_ replace the OS. However, the BIOS will check signatures on the OS, and offer to restore from a known-good backup on boot (without destroying user data). This ensures that if the OS is infected by a virus or something, it's very, very easy to restore.

isn't this exactly what Microsoft argued when it put forward "Trusted Computing"? And didn't we excoriate them for it?

Re:Wait, what?

[grumbel]

I'd say a properly secured OS is more open then an insecure one, not less, as it gives the user the freedom to mess around, try stuff, run untrusted application, etc. without fear of having the whole thing fall apart.

Extreme example: Imagine every page on the Internet would have full access to your computer. Not such a happy thought, yet that is exactly the kind of access that a normal application gets. This is one of the main reason why most new stuff in computing these days happens on the Internet in safe Flash or HTML environments or on the iPhone, not in the form of an regular application.

Re:Wait, what?

[John Hasler]

But why should I have to buy a development device to get a device that isn't locked down?

You don't have to. There are many other choices.

Re:Wait, what?

[micheas]

Sounds like "as closed" to me. I can see not letting apps modify the system without user consent, but I'm appalled by the idea that the person who pays several hundred dollars for a computing device shouldn't be able to do any damned thing he pleases to it.

Several hundred dollars seems rather high for a chrome os device.

The ones that are actually for sale, that I have seen, have been marketed to call centers, on the assumption that they will just connect to the corporate intranet.

Personally I can see Chrome OS as pretty much the perfect kiosk OS.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

Then why does Google look the other way as manufacturers engage in blatant lockdown of this supposedly free and open code?

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

Come back in an hour when all those posts have been modded down to -1, Flamebait, and look at the stuff that's been marked up.

The fact that, a little over an hour after parent was posted, many of those posts (including, amusingly, parent) have been modded to +5 Insightful pretty clearly shows that parent is paranoid and that, if there is moderator groupthink on the issue that parent discusses, its not operating in the direction parent suggests.

Re:Wait, what?

[h4rr4r]

Then they learn a valuable lesson about modern life, one that is probably way more important than the risk that they would need to ask for another laptop for christmas.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Steve Job's philosophy. Treat customers like sheep & they will have a better experience. Only Apple product my family has ever used is Quicktime. Google is so confused. Chrome OS = lock down don't trust users. Android OS = open as Julian's pants

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

I just have one concern though -- the fact that everything you do is stored in the cloud. This means zero privacy.

Relax, you don't have a thing to worry about according to Eric Schmidt.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of your complaints stem from bad design on the part of Microsoft. But that is irrelevant because presumably with this thing all the user data and settings will be stored on the cloud, thus wipe and restore is trivial, and the system will be identical afterwards.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daengbo]

ChromeOS updates automatically, just like Chrome does if you have the privileges so the images aren't old. The system auto-updates and auto-heals. Your extensions and "apps" are sync'ed whenever you login to any ChromeOS machine.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

Store all your data in the cloud, but store in encrypted with a public key that's only on your device

What do you do if you lose access to your data, perhaps because someone took it away?

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear mlts,

You are crazy.

Signed,
Sane People

Re:Wait, what?

[tepples]

Exactly how do you think that Sony, Samsung, HTC, Sprint, Verizon or even the Evil AT&T will ban your Google account?

Sony? I gave up PlayStation before PS3. Sprint? Verizon? AT&T? If I ever get a smartphone or mobile broadband any time soon, it'll probably be with the least evil major carrier or its MVNO.

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

So, unless the article is mistaken (which is possible) ... that would be a dumb terminal, with no storage.

TFA is not merely "mistaken", it is either the product of gross ignorance of the subject matter or deliberate deception.

Chrome OS does not require constant connectivity, contrary to what TFA claims. It does everything through the Chrome browser, of course, and so has requirements that are pretty similar to that -- browser based applications will require network connection to the extent that they don't take advantage of the features of HTML5 and other technologies implemented in the Chrome browser for the specific purpose of enabling offline web applications.

And, yes, the Cr-48 at least has no hard drive but not no local storage: it uses an SSD for local storage. Applications can store information locally using the HMTL5 local storage APIs.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I talked about this very topic with Chrome OS during a little post-coital relaxation. She says she's totally cool with it.

Re:Wait, what?

[jimthehorsegod]

Let's put the apostrophe in its rightful place first though, eh?

Re:Wait, what?

[Americano]

Yes, I'm using my google-jitsu to GAIN mod points.

This is slashdot. When we say "check back in an hour for news," we mean, "check back in about 4 days." You should know this by now.

Re:Wait, what?

[Americano]

It's the parenthetical that makes it special.

Nobody ever used it that way I bet.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

With a reliance on constant connectivity and no hard drive, a Chrome notebook could be described as an overgrown smart phone with a keyboard.

So, unless the article is mistaken (which is possible) ... that would be a dumb terminal, with no storage.

It says "no hard drive", not "no storage". Those are two very different things. Ever heard of flash storage?

Also, read up on HTML5 offline capabilities.

Re:Wait, what?

[angloquebecer]

Exactly. What the GoS (geeks on slashdot) dislike is that Google has the right to make cOS however open/locked down as they want. They never promised us a commercial version of Linux that was going to allow us all to buy cheap netbooks and be sure the hardware works with any distribution of our choice. As many comments here have noted, people were hoping to buy a cheap device with Linux-supported hardware to wipe clean and install the latest Ubuntu (or whatever distribution). Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google's customers don't want that.

cOS devices will always be a user experience entirely within the browser. I guess a lot of people just don't believe an OS with only 1 running program can work (and maybe it can't) but Google wants to give it a try. In exchange for having to use the web for everything, these devices will probably be pretty cheap since the hardware needed inside won't have to be very beefy, and most companies selling the devices will also be selling a 3G/4G/whatever data plan at a monthly rate.

Alternatively, if you don't want to use an OS that's "just a browser", you could buy a normal computer.

Re:Wait, what?

[geekoid]

Because the manufactures are who the OS openess is aimed at. That get to choose how they want it on, and you get to choose which manufacturer you go to.

It's not looking the other way, it's the agreement.

Plus, you need a wedge to change entrenched practices. Apple want to change the way people use smart devices to access the web, and the way voice mails are done. AT&T agreed to make those changes with the agreement they will be the sole carriers for a certain number of years. Now everyone is changing, and many devices are doing similar things, only better.

Re:Wait, what?

[Dishevel]

Because Google is still getting what it wants. Google gets the info, and puts out the free and open love, and the carriers look like shit.

If Google lets the carriers ban your Google account Google only looses. No upside for them.

Try to think then post.

Re:Wait, what?

[geekoid]

Lock down has nothing to do with Google. And it's not a development device. Google has consumer device.

To answer your last question: find someone who sells a device that meets your needs.

Re:Wait, what?

[geekoid]

well then encrypt it. IT's not that hard.

Re:Wait, what?

[geekoid]

It's an aplpience. That's all. Probably one that will be hugely successful for exactly the reasons you mention.

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

Say what you will, but at least my iPad lets me install software, store my photos to browse, add eBooks, movies, and music ... and I can use it on an airplane.

The only of these that is different from Chrome OS is "install software", and that only to the extent to which "installing a link to a web app which can be cached locally and can store its data locally, and can be run without a current connection to the internet" is different from "installing software", which I would argue is not a meaningful distinction at all.

Re:Wait, what?

[mlts]

ChromeOS is likely different because it isn't a device, but we are definitely going down a slope here. If a device did do the things I mentioned (including blocking the IMEI of the device from ever connecting to cell networks), ordinary news channels would dismiss it as "anti-hacker measures taken to ensure integrity of hardware devices".

This type of shoe has already dropped in the console world. Ask the people whose XBox has been dropped from XBL, or the PS3s which get dropped from PSN. It isn't far-fetched for cellular carriers to start banning devices by IMEI who phone home and reported tampered with (either jailbroken or rooted). Since almost all devices are locked to the carrier, it effectively renders the device unusable unless one has Wi-Fi access everywhere. The justification for this banning likely would be spelled out as: "We remove devices that have had their functionality altered by unauthorized user modifications which could damage or prevent critical emergency network communication."

Yes, this sounds tinfoil hattish, but it is going to be the next battleground in the lockdown/jailbreak war, especially since jailbreaking has been found to be legal. Yes, jailbreaking may be legal, but cellular providers can kick devices they detect as jailbroken/rooted [1], and refuse to provide service.

[1]: It can be really easy to detect jailbroken/rooted devices. A download to a Cydia repository perhaps. Or a purchase made from an Android store of DroidWall or Titanium backup.

Re:Wait, what?

[Facegarden]

From TFA:

With a reliance on constant connectivity and no hard drive, a Chrome notebook could be described as an overgrown smart phone with a keyboard.

So, unless the article is mistaken (which is possible) ... that would be a dumb terminal, with no storage.

This may not be the device for you, but it may be the device for a lot of people. It's worth pointing out that over half a million people buy smartphones every day that also walk away from a mountain of desktop-computer annoyances.

Hey, I'm all about being able to buy and run whatever device you like. I'm just trying to make sense of this device as it's described -- and, I was responding to the first-post which asked if it was more locked down than Apple's stuff.

From the sounds of it, it's markedly more locked down than my iPad. I can absolutely see this being good for many things. Not sure I'd want one, but it's also a prototype -- so it's a little premature to say anything about it.

The article is mistaken. Other reviews have noted that the device has onboard storage and, at this stage, allows at least a crude capability to browse the files. You can save pictures and other media to the drive, I think. And anyway they're still expanding that, but it seems to be within their plan to do it.

Also, the web-connected apps like google docs can still be wholly used offline. So it then is no different than having a laptop with a word processor. It is not fully reliant on an internet connection.

*and* it has a free connection to Verizon for 200mb a month (more starting at $10/mo) so you're less likely to be out of range than if you only had wifi.

Its pretty awesome, really.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's where the Cloud comes in.

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

But why should I have to buy a development device to get a device that isn't locked down?

Why should you care what the label is that is attached to the product that has the features you want?

Its possible that Google-branded or even third party unlocked devices might be made available other than as development devices (as, again, has been the case in the Android world, e.g., the Nexus One and Nexus S, or for that matter the current Cr-48 beta device for Chrome OS which isn't affiliated with any developer-focussed program.) Its also possible that general consumer demand for that feature isn't enough to support a product marketed as a consumer rather than developer device with that feature.

What if someone buys one and for some reason they decide to explore computers (like I did when I was younger) and find that the vendor has decreed they are somehow "second class" and are not allowed?

I wouldn't say second-class, but, yeah, consumer-focussed gear tends to be less casual-tinkerer-friendly as the technology in the area the gear is in matures. This has been true of pretty much every kind of technology, as maturing technology enables specialization different needs, and the most common consumer needs and those of tinkerers aren't the same.

Re:Wait, what?

[interval1066]

I could be wrong, but I'd like to think that the discussion is simply one of what's possible with this hardware. I think if users are happy to run ChromeOS then they'll do just that. One the other hand, for every 10 happy netizens of user land there's one hardware hacker who will be curious to see what's possible with this crazy new hardware offering...

Re:Wait, what?

[BlitzTech]

My kingdom for some mod points...

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

With this in mind, one thing that would be nice to have are offline apps. This way, a glitch in Internet connectivity would not mean a corrupted term paper.

Offline web apps have been a focus of the direction Google has been working very hard to move the browser market for some time, and technologies enabling offline web apps were among the key enabling technologies for Chrome OS.

Prior to having a usable standard for this, Google used their proprietary Google Gears technology to provide this in various browsers for certain Google web apps, now they use various HTML5 features.

Re:Wait, what?

[yuhong]

Exactly. What the GoS (geeks on slashdot) dislike is that Google has the right to make cOS however open/locked down as they want.

You mean the hardware vendors?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google's customers don't want that.

Of course not, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do so (or for that matter any other software modification), which was the intent of GPLv3.

Re:Wait, what?

[mt1955]

Actually one can install apps; https://chrome.google.com/webstore and local storage or offline use is handled via Google Gears. eg, the notepad app permits local storage. Downloads are also stored locally.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daengbo]

Even if it's fairly locked down, I'd be happy to see it hit 10% of the market, with iOS and OS X also at 10% each. The 60+% left for MS Windows would mean that my OS of choice would be a lot more likely to work on sites and hardware I use.

Re:Wait, what?

[Elbereth]

I would like to sign this petition.

Re:Wait, what?

[Idiomatick]

"System comes back squeaky clean, but everything needs to be changed to my personal liking."

In chrome I imagine the vast majority of tweaking that you'd make in windows will be out in the cloud and it won't take much work to get it back the way you like it.

Re:Wait, what?

[devent]

In Linux you just need the little tool called dd with will make an exact copy of your root partition: dd if=/dev/sda1 of=/some/place. If you catch a virus or you mess up your system you just do: dd if=/some/place of=/dev/sda1 and woops your system is back in place (with all installed applications). Every setting is in your /home partition so it's not lost.

With this little tool you can also deploy a fully installed system on a different computer. Just make sure you don't use the binary nvidia or AMD/ATI driver.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to restore?

Tell me ONE OS that is not easy to restore?
Windows? Lazerus partition. ( it does take about 45 mins unattended ... )
Mac OS? your boot CD.
Linux? Trip-wire.
iOS? Dear god this has been hacked so many times,
its bleeding out its cooch!
I have backed out at least 6 iPhone 3Gs from the latest update.
Sure brought that speed back.

Re:Wait, what?

[3vi1]

>> "User data is there but programs need to be reinstalled to access it. System comes back squeaky clean, but everything needs to be changed to my personal liking." ...

That's a defect specific to Windows and its bloated registry. In the *nix world, all your settings are stored in your user data directory. All programs can be reinstalled from your distros repository with a single package manager command, and their old settings (as well as all your desktop settings) will be just as you left them.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is free and open code they nearly do all they want! The license might make them submit their code, but if the original code is under BSD license or something similar, they really can do all the want!

Re:Wait, what?

[couchslug]

"So, it's a dumb-terminal that requires me to have constant access to the internet, can't store files, can't have actual programs installed on it. I just can't see who is going to want this."

The same people who made the IOpener such a rousing success. :P

Alternate answer:

I'd take one for free or stupidly cheap. I have plenty of other computers so a portable internet machine would be fine to have at for webmail and surfing.

Re:Wait, what?

[davecb]

Walled garden, with options to raise the walls or load a different walled garden.

A nice platform for a software vendor to buy to host their app in isolation from others, so if it ran on a 286 without an MMU, or on a Z80 in the dashboard of a car, I'd consider it a good idea. For a anything general-purpose, it's underwhelming.

--dave

Re:Wait, what?

[tepples]

Why should you care what the label is that is attached to the product that has the features you want?

Because a "development device" is likely to cost far more, as it's not priced for the mass market but instead for established companies that can afford it as a cost of doing business. Consider that a Wii game console costs $200, but a Wii devkit costs $2,000 plus proof of a traditional office, and that's considered cheap for a game console devkit. Likewise, an iPod touch costs $230, but unlocking it to run your own apps costs an additional $540 for Xcode* plus $99 per year for a certificate.

* On average. Xcode comes included with a Mac mini, which costs $600. I'm estimating that 10 percent will already have an Intel-based Mac.

Re:Wait, what?

[tepples]

That's what local storage in HTML 5 is for.

But good luck getting Chrome to allow enough megabytes for CACHE MANIFEST and localStorage that you'll actually be able to get work done offline.

Re:Wait, what?

[tepples]

You should probably stick with traditional laptops or netbooks.

But PC makers are under no obligation to make and sell a traditional netbook at all. If they don't sell it, you can't buy it. That's why people complain: they're afraid that the device they rely on will no longer be available.

Re:Wait, what?

[tepples]

It's got one application: the web browser.

That's like saying iOS has only one application: the home screen. Google Native Client (NaCl) is supposed to allow native code to run inside a browser sandbox, as a safer version of ActiveX.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

It's not looking the other way, it's the agreement.

Are you suggesting it's Google's agreement to sell out the developers whose code they rely on? Because it is certainly not the intention of said developers to be locked out of their own code that way. At least, it was certainly not my intention and I believe my opinion is shared by a large segment of the Linux community.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing. If iOS is a walled garden, this is a walled garden hermetically within a Plexiglas dome and a concrete floor and all the plants in sterilized pots.

That isn't correct though. The problem with Apple (and the reason for the walled garden terminology they have been pinned with) is the total lack of any way to change things. All Google is doing is making it a little difficult. That way, if you want to you can (and they generally condone it), but people just being stupid aren't likely to accidentally mess anything up.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

Because it is free and open code they nearly do all they want! The license might make them submit their code, but if the original code is under BSD license or something similar, they really can do all the want!

Unfortunately for this business plan, the most important part of Android - the operating system kernel, which gives them among other things the multitasking, memory protection and network protocols needed for a modern smart phone - is licensed under the GPL. Both Google and its stable of Android manufacturers have to follow the copyright license of the GPL just like everyone else. For extra credit, they should also try to harmonize with the spirit of the community from which they received this valuable gift.

Re:Wait, what?

[NoMaster]

"I am altering the agreement. Pray I do not alter it any further ..."

Re:Wait, what?

[gknoy]

It doesn't work that well, let me tell you. User data is there, but programs need to be reinstalled to access it. System comes back squeaky clean, but everything needs to be changed to my personal liking.

Have you considered using a disk imaging program like Norton Ghost to take a snapshot of your system after you've installed all of your programs and configured your workspace to your preferences?

Re:Wait, what?

[bennomatic]

They see the ability to lock it down as a feature. Free and open means you can do what you want with it; what you're buying from Motorola is their version of Android which is less free and less open, because that's what they chose to do when they exercised their freedom.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv2. And... Google does not own Android. OHA does; Google simply does most of the dev work.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

No no no, this is Slashdot.

When Steve Jobs says "HTML5 web apps are all you need," it's naked, leering, monopolistic evil.

When Google VP Sundar Pichai says the same thing, it's for your own good, and the most sensible advance in computing since the GUI was invented.

Please don't speak for me. As far as I am concerned, when somebody says something idiotic, they are an idiot whether they work for Apple or Google.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nexus One was ~$600. Nexus S will be ~$200 w/ subsidy. Initial ChromeOS devices are stated to be sub-$400. (All from memory.) First two are standard price for top-end smartphones. Cr-48 won't be sold. So where is the burgeoning cost here?

(Nevermind the fact that Nexus One & Nexus S are not just developer phones, despite what anyone tells you.)

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like...?

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even need Ghost etc. with Windows 7, since it can save a complete backup image to (remote) disc, including compression.

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

Google may be doing Jobs's path though. First only allowing Web apps and getting that locked down, then eventually adding an App Store, and a mechanism for apps to run securely.

Not exactly. Google cares about exactly one thing: that every phone should be able to run a browser that can freely access Google's web sites, without any tollbooths on the way.

Re:Wait, what?

[natehoy]

total lack of any way to change things

It's easy to change things. Just don't buy an iOS device. It's not like there is a lack of technologically superior, more open, and cheaper (pick any two) devices out there. Apple may have been sorta kinda first into the touchscreen cellphone niche, but it's not a lonely place any more.

Enough people avoid it, and The Steve decides maybe he has to figure out what people really want. Except that, in this case, the walled garden appears to be in significant part what a lot of people really want.

Not me, and it appears not you either, but a lot of people.

The Market Has Spoken. Fortunately, the conversation never ends. :)

Re:Wait, what?

[Daniel Phillips]

Understanding the significance of ChromeOS requires that you abandon some old ways of thinking about how a computer should act.

So, my "old way of thinking" is that a computer is a universal machine, capable of doing whatever I want it to. Now I am supposed to abandon that in favor of a single purpose machine that does exactly one thing, run a web browser? Thanks, but I prefer my old way of thinking.

For me, the significance of ChromeOS is much simpler: out of control hubris at the Googleplex.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

An agreement with Google. It isn't farfetched for carriers or device manufacturers twisting Google's arm and demanding that they have the ability to flag or ban accounts of suspected jailbreakers.

The hardware vendors are building a notebook PC, with standard, commodity parts. How long will it take Google to find another PC assembler if one of them makes threats?

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

you have to remember that the code is free and open to the manufacturer and carrier to modify as they see fit - not just you.

Re:Wait, what?

[shish]

Then why does Google look the other way as manufacturers engage in blatant lockdown of this supposedly free and open code?

What's the alternative? They give the manufacturers a long list of terms and conditions as to what they are and aren't allowed to do with this supposedly free and open code?

This seems to be a pretty straightforward parallel to BSD freedom (the freedom to limit user's choices) vs GPL freedom (your choice is limited to giving users freedom)

Re:Wait, what?

[rastoboy29]

"Windows" is the key term, here.  Don't use an OS that has a registry (that apps use), and the plan works MUCH better.

That's how I run my Linux boxes, and I suspect it would work with OSX and maybe Chrome OS as well.

Still not perfect, much way better.

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

Because a "development device" is likely to cost far more, as it's not priced for the mass market but instead for established companies that can afford it as a cost of doing business.

Yes, products with features that increase support cost when present in the mass market often cost more, either because they are in mass market version and thus increasing the support costs, or because they are not in mass market versions, and thus in limited-market versions.

The question is whether everyone pays more for those features, or just the people that actually actively desire the feature.

. Consider that a Wii game console costs $200, but a Wii devkit costs $2,000 plus proof of a traditional office, and that's considered cheap for a game console devkit. Likewise, an iPod touch costs $230, but unlocking it to run your own apps costs an additional $540 for Xcode* plus $99 per year for a certificate.

I'd rather consider something more relevant, like the cost of Google's Android dev phones vs. the cost of similar smartphones before any contracting-incentive subsidies provided by carriers.

Of course, that wouldn't really provide much fuel for your argument, would it?

Re:Wait, what?

[DragonWriter]

(Nevermind the fact that Nexus One & Nexus S are not just developer phones, despite what anyone tells you.)

No, they are the Google-branded fully-unlocked consumer phones. Whether there is, at any point, one of them available is not all that consistent.

OTOH, they've also made a public commitment to always have such a phone available through the developer program, and have done so even when Google wasn't selling Google-branded fully-unlocked consumer phones.

My suggestion upthread was that I would expect Google to do the same thing, for the same reason, with Chrome OS.

I would certainly not be surprised if Google also released Google-branded, fully-unlocked, consumer products, but I wouldn't count on them always having something available in that area.

Re:Wait, what?

[Jaime2]

Windows stores the user-specific portion of the registry in the user's home directory. How is that different?

Re:Wait, what?

[rekenner]

... And that's exactly what Apple is bashed for. Which is the point of the GP and GGP.

Re:Wait, what?

[thunderclap]

If this is true and the article is accurate the Chrome OS will fail spectacularly. Why? because people will whine about vulnerability they won't tolerate uselessness. The tweekers, buzzers and the tinkers are generally the people who the product first. While windows is incredibly vulnerable, it is far more flexible than an apple system. We need to move away from the apple system not hijack it and make it better. The problem is really economic. If google says to third parties you can't lock it at all . You can brand and insert your crap but thats it, no one will support it and it dies. If Mlts quote"I can see third party ChromeOS device vendors not just kernel signing, efuses, or autoreinstalls, but doing one or more of the following: 1: Keeping a manifest of all executable and having a process (kernel or user space) that kills with a -9 anything whose name, inode, and path isn't in on the guest list. 2: Throwing a hardware switch to brick the device (true bricking, as in blowing out sections of the BIOS chips) if the OS thinks its tampered with." Then no one will buy it from any third party and it will go the way of the kin. We need a OS that is secure as well as flexible. One that allows people it install crap but doesn't allow that crap to modify the core. Sadly That probably won't happen.

Re:Wait, what?

[thunderclap]

No no no, this is Slashdot.

When Steve Jobs says "HTML5 web apps are all you need," it's naked, leering, monopolistic evil.

When Google VP Sundar Pichai says the same thing, it's for your own good, and the most sensible advance in computing since the GUI was invented.

No its still naked, leering, monopolistic evil. Difference is that JObs will die soon because he is ill and Sundar won't.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, that's just like iPhone 1.0, web apps only, as Jobs put it, "You've got Safari, that's all you need."

One very notable time he admitted he was wrong ;-) (He does admit that from time to time.)

Re:Wait, what?

[hairyfeet]

Well you and any of the others in the Linux community are pretty much boned if you released under GPL V2, because RMS didn't see the TiVo coming and thought folks would obey the "spirit" of the license which we found out means jack and squat to a corporate lawyer. Of course since Linus and some of the other won't release under GPL V3 because they think RMS went to far you now have a divide which just makes things even more confusing and gives ammo to those that want to use the "GPL infection" bit, because if an OEM uses GPL V2 they can just pull a TiVo and lock you out with code signing and eFuses, but if a single line is GPL V3 then that is not allowed and the OEM is boned.

What I see happening is big corps like Google paying for GPL V2 versions of code to be continued and updated, which they will lock down via eFuses and other TiVo tricks thus screwing the original developers unless they hire them to work for the corp. Meanwhile the GPL V3 code will be less used or fragmented, since you'll be able to use the GPL V2 code in the GPL V3 branch but not the other way around and...it is probably gonna be nasty. But if you think the headset makers and telecos are actually gonna embrace openness? Well then I got a really nice bridge you may be interested in. Hell some of their biggest money makers is screwing their customers with nasty tricks like software lock outs of features which you have to pay to enable and other dirty tricks.

So if you don't want your code locked then you really don't want it on mobile devices here in the USA, because that is what you're gonna get, like it or not. They have seen the iPhone app store model and have $$$ dancing in their eyes, they sure as hell ain't gonna let you install or do anything they don't get a cut of, sorry.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but a windows system has to be a lot more powerful than a netbook running chrome OS. This means that if you buy a windows based netbook, wipe the OS and install something else, you're going to end up paying more for a more powerful processor, extra disk space, more memory, etc, because that netbook has to meet the windows 7 system requirements.

The system requirements for chrome OS will be a lot lower, meaning these netbooks will be cheaper, use less power (meaning longer battery life), and all the hardware will be linux compatible.

This is what people are interested in, a cheap device with long battery life and linux compatible hardware. Dell doesn't offer that because all their computers must be capable of running Windows 7.

Re:Wait, what?

[aztracker1]

ChromeOS !== Android ... it isn't meant for phones.. it's meant for netbooks, and maybe tablets...

Re:Wait, what?

[aztracker1]

Not all programs in windows use the registry, more and more don't and MS advises against it these days depending on the type of settings... Though a trusted repository for windows app/updates that included FLOSS and a single update mechanism would be very cool.

Re:Wait, what?

[aztracker1]

I don't mind the iOS walled garden... hell, *I* happen to like windows 7 too. What I don't like is being told or actively prevented from replacing the OS on my hardware... If *I* want to hack the hardware and run Gingerbread on it, so be it... the problem is being locked into a vendor bundle.. it's *MY* hardware, I bought it. I shound be able to run CE, or android on my iPod Touch if I like... that's where many of us draw the line... HTML5 + Offline storage is enough for the vast majority of application scenarios... for the rest, if can replace the OS, it's better than most non-pc hardware devices sold today.

And to your point on Windows. It *IS* a great OS. It's got consistent and compatible APIs across versions, supports a lare portion of free and commercial software, and meets the needs of most users. Like Chrome will. And like Chrome should, if you don't like it, you shouldn't be stopped rom replacing it.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anthony Mouse]

What I see happening is big corps like Google paying for GPL V2 versions of code to be continued and updated, which they will lock down via eFuses and other TiVo tricks thus screwing the original developers unless they hire them to work for the corp.

There is basically no reason for a corporation to maintain a fork of GPL code all on their own. Half the point of using OSS is that you can make the changes you need and push them back into the tree without having to maintain your own version of everything in the world. If you're going to maintain it all yourself with no community involvement then you might as well just write the whole thing without using any GPL code. If that was Google's intent then why didn't they start with BSD and then never need to publish the source for their changes?

Meanwhile the GPL V3 code will be less used or fragmented, since you'll be able to use the GPL V2 code in the GPL V3 branch but not the other way around

So you're saying that because the GPL V3 version will have improvements made by certain corporations and the community instead of just the improvements made by those corporations, fewer people are going to use it?

But if you think the headset makers and telecos are actually gonna embrace openness?

Oh, they'll fight it. But right now they control the phones because they subsidize them and people buy their phones from the phone company to get the subsidy. What happens when the price comes down on phones to the point that they don't need a subsidy? They're going to turn away paying customers just because the customer bought their phone on Amazon without the lockdown package?

They have seen the iPhone app store model and have $$$ dancing in their eyes, they sure as hell ain't gonna let you install or do anything they don't get a cut of, sorry.

Someone was just telling me how the app store model doesn't make Apple very much money (they make much more by selling the device), and I'm not sure AT&T is making anything from it directly either. They certainly make more by selling ~$100/month service plans. Sure, AT&T likes that they can "discourage" apps that use cellular bandwidth to make VOIP calls instead of making AT&T voice calls, but all it takes is a wedge. One provider allowing open phones. Then it isn't a matter of losing a few bucks out of a $100/month wireless plan, it's a matter of losing the whole contract to the company that lets their customers save a few percent by using VOIP.

Re:Wait, what?

[judeancodersfront]

No one has been able to prove that having a registry slows the system down.

It isn't ye olden days when searching for a string was a costly expenditure.

Re:Wait, what?

[Hal_Porter]

Well at least they won't shoot modders and dump the bodies in a lime pit like Apple are going to do.

Re:Wait, what?

[PopeRatzo]

ChromeOS !== AndroidOf course, you're right. Please accept my apology and change the word "phone" in my post to "tablet".

Aren't most of the tablets still being sold by phone companies? In the article, weren't a bunch of phone companies named?

Re:Wait, what?

[mrsteveman1]

Referring to this from the chrome os architecture pages

If verification fails, the user can either bypass checking or boot to a safe recovery mode.

That's the step where the system checks it's integrity. Google has said all along that users would not be forced out of their own devices by overzealous security measures.

http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/security-overview

Re:Wait, what?

[trapnest]

I don't know about you, but I haven't had offline access working in any google product for quite a long time. Using Chrome dev here.

Re:Wait, what?

[trapnest]

Kinda unrelated, it would be really awesome if there was some place you could go online to view all of your synced android data and modify it from the computer. I know you can do that with contacts and such and there are things like AppBrain, but that's not complete.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

it should also be noted than any directory in *nix can be a mounted device or network location.
it just takes a few lines of code to mount /usr/bin (think C:\Program Files) as a ramdisk and copy all files there at boot and store them on the harddisk again at shutdown with relatively little knowledge of the inner workings, the system really is that flexible. locking a *nix down in such a way while retaining user data and configuration is certainly much easier than in a windows environment (which seems horribly cluttered to me personally).

Re:Wait, what?

[angloquebecer]

You mean the hardware vendors?

Google is just as much to blame because they're making cOS pretty easy to lock down. Let's just hope they keep their word on the "evil-locked-down-mode" kill switch.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google's customers don't want that.

Of course not, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do so (or for that matter any other software modification), which was the intent of GPLv3.

By "Google's customers" I meant the hardware vendors, not the people buying cOS notebooks from companies like Acer. Anyone who buys a cOS notebook and finds that the distributor is not abiding by the terms of the software distribution licenses (whether they are GPL or otherwise), absolutely have the right to cause a stink.

Re:Wait, what?

[phoenix321]

If a system can store any amount of personal configuration, programs and data, it can by definition be broken by user mistakes and malware. Broken because of infected software or a configuration that renders the software or the entire system inoperable.

Just mix up two different configuration files from two different major versions of any software. Run the software. Feel the pain.

Neither Bill Gates nor the Cloud will help you there, you'll have to start fresh. Which mean reinstalling that thing.

Re:Wait, what?

[phoenix321]

The wonders of image-based backups are well-known and of course well deserved.

But it doesn't change a thing about the fundamental problem: a system evolves, with new software or new versions of old software coming in every other week. Backups, image or file based, need to accommodate for the new data.

No matter if this is done incrementally or with full new images, there will be a fuzzy variable called "known-good state" that is slowly and irreversibly decreasing with every configuration or software change. After several months and dozens of new versions, the system may be running smoothly, but is it free of a root kit? Or is there a root kit that's just very very well hidden?

Whatever way the Chrome OS chooses for its backups, it will either back up installed malware and b0rken config files or a rollback is like a complete reinstall. Can't have your cake and eat it.

Re:Wait, what?

[phoenix321]

Except that image based backups will by definition include malware and config errors if present.

Unless there's enough disk space for saving one initial and maybe hundreds of incremental images and at some point even the oldest backup on disk may already contain the root kit or serious config error you only detected yesterday.

Re:Wait, what?

[suutar]

Ahhhh, that makes sense. I hadn't considered that side of it. Thanks for clarifying :)

Re:Wait, what?

[RocketRabbit]

What's the /etc directory for then?

Re:Wait, what?

[devent]

At least with Linux you have repositories for your system and applications. With repositories you can check the hash of the packages. If you assume that the hash of the packages is correct then you can make a hash of the system (either each file or the disk image) directly after installing. If there is a root kit later installed, it will change the hash of the system.

Furthermore, if you take into account that all ChromeOS is going to have are pre-installed applications (which will eliminate the possibility that the user will install an application without a hash or from an "untrustworthy" repository) then you can make sure that a backup won't contain any malware.

Still, I take the almost non possibility to catch a virus in Linux then to have just a toy system where the only application is the browser and everything is in the cloud. It's like the TSA and airport security, for the almost non possibility of a terrorist attack I'm not going take such inconvenience. Google is here like the TSA, for the fear of a virus it like us to believe that we should trust the cloud.

Re:Wait, what?

[RMH101]

because Google != the Open Handset Alliance

Re:Wait, what?

[hairyfeet]

1.-I'll try to answer your points from top to bottom: The reason why the OEM will have to maintain a fork is because the code THEY will be using will be GPL V2, while the FOSS developers go on to GPL V3. Pushing the code upstream won't do jack squat for the OEM because they can't use ANYTHING the developers later create or fix without being "infected" and having to open up their devices, which they will NEVER do. If you believe they are gonna let go if the money train that is their network lock down and become dumb pipes? I got a nice bridge you might be interested in.

2.- See 1. It will become fragmented because either the developers stick with GPL V2 and allow lock down, or go GPL V3 and add new features that then will NOT work with the mobile devices. It would be like having all desktops go to windows 7 while all laptops were hard wired to only allow XP. Either you write your code to where it doesn't use the latest features, keep two apps one for mobile users and one for desktop, or you ignore the mobile market.

3.-prices will NOT GO DOWN and if anything the will go UP. Why? Because we are not talking about a standardized device like a laptop, we are talking about a proprietary mobile device whose design will be chunked in 6 months for a completely new design. Hell just look at how many devices and chips there are now. A dozen or more ARM variants, which can be paired with anything from Broadcom BD accelerators to Tegra SOC, and of course don't ignore the fashion aspect or the fact that the latest OS won't run on even 6 month old devices.

Remember friend they have EVERY reason to insure this continues because it locks a good 95% of the users into seriously nasty and highly profitable contracts just so they can afford the latest phone. Most folks simply won't shell out $500+ for a smartphone, but you'd be surprised how many of my friends are being ass raped on contracts now thanks to the latest Galaxy and other Android phones being offered for little or no upfront costs.

4.- finally friend you are missing the point. sure the appstore may not be a money machine, but a lot of that is because Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. With the coming appstores of the big carriers you'll be talking about a captive audience that will have NO choices thanks to lock downs and who will already be currently getting ass raped on contracts. anything AT&T and the other providers gouge out of them now will simply be gravy, and of course I'm sure they will also stick it to the developers as well.

And for "one provider to offer a wedge" indicates there is real competition, and in most places there isn't. In most places there is one carrier with good bars, one with iffy, and one where you'll need to stand on your truck to get a signal.And of course why should they compete in this area? if you are using their device they already have you locked in and competition would be pointless. They will "compete" not by offering freedom, but by fancier shiny, ala who has the biggest screen or the coolest graphics.

Sorry about the length, but I wanted to give you the full answers I thought your post deserves. Ultimately though I think your post highlights what is wrong with the Linux community and FOSS in general: Idealism and the "is/ought" problem. You believe if you invent the better mousetrap they will see the light, and believe in things like "the spirit of the license" and see the world for how things ought to be, not for how they are. As for why they used GPL? My guess is the code they desired was simply better maintained, and they knew with GPL V2 they could just TiVo it and it would be the same as BSD anyway. After all Linux has been used in embedded much more than BSD, and with TiVoization they can do what they want whether you like it or not. And THAT is how corporations do business, what is good for them is good for them and if it helps FOSS it is just a side effect and usually not intentional. Same as all these locked down Android devices will do jack and squat for Linux, unless it just gives you the warm fuzzies to have your code running on a proprietary device you can't change.

Vacuously true

[drdanny_orig]

That can be said of nearly every invention since fire: no users, no problems.

Re:Vacuously true

[AndrewNeo]

Excluding fire itself, obviously, because there certainly don't need to be people around for things to catch fire. No oxygen, no problems?

Re:Vacuously true

[Qzukk]

No oxygen, no problems?

I think you just solved both the fire and the user problems! Two birds with one stone!

They will never be safe

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they allow input from a mouse or keyboard.

A little problem...

[DoofusOfDeath]

I trust me more than I trust Google.

Re:A little problem...

[TheLink]

But you might trust Google more than you trust some average person to not get pwned by malware.

Re:A little problem...

[Monkeedude1212]

Nah, Malware I can deal with.

Corporate Overlords are a bit tougher.

Re:A little problem...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Good point. I might simply be outside Google's target demographic.

Re:A little problem...

[mozumder]

I don't trust you more than I trust google.

Re:A little problem...

[wiredog]

So don't buy one...

Re:A little problem...

[DoofusOfDeath]

I don't trust you more than I trust google.

Oh come on baby, don't be like that. I swear I was just fixing her sink...

Re:A little problem...

[denshao2]

It's great to not trust the regular user, but there should be a way for an administrator to get root privileges without hacking.

Re:A little problem...

[SashaMan]

Fine, then go make your modifications to the open source Chromium project and install whatever the hell you want on it.

And for those comparing this to Apple's lockdown, that's ridiculous - Apple actively tries to prevent you from jailbreaking, while anyone can mod the Chrome OS.

The fact is the vast, vast majority of users can NOT be trusted to install software, and for those that can, fine, mod the OS and go ahead.

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't trust you more than I trust google.

Trust me Dude, no one trusts you.

Re:A little problem...

[strangeattraction]

We should call the this X-File Security - trust no one.

Re:A little problem...

[jedidiah]

It doesn't matter what levels of relative distrust I assign to Google or assign to you personally.

Google can do a lot more damage to me than you can.

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust Google nor you guys.

Have we reached the peak of our little deduction chain?

Re:A little problem...

[Microlith]

So don't buy one...

I bet you think Google is the only one with this attitude, right?

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you don't trust you does not remove your implicit trust of me.

Re:A little problem...

[StikyPad]

True, but I don't trust Google more than I trust, say, you.

Re:A little problem...

[dimeglio]

Just buy Google shares and join your corporate overlords. At the end, what's more profitable is going to end-up being offered on store shelves.

Re:A little problem...

[mlts]

If I had to trust Google more than I trust Joe Sixpack on the same WAN "segment" not to get his box compromised and turned into a botnet client (which makes for a staging platform for spam/DoS/attacks against my stuff)... I'll trust Google. Having people who download "coolpr0n.exe" locked down from ever installing anything is a benefit to the Internet as a whole.

However, if I had to choose between my stuff and what runs on the hardware I spent money for, I trust my admin capabilities more than what Google assumes I know. At least if a competent admin drops the ball, he or she deals with it, rather than just blaming someone else as a knee-jerk reaction.

Re:A little problem...

[TheEyes]

It doesn't matter what levels of relative distrust I assign to Google or assign to you personally.

Google can do a lot more damage to me than you can.

Well, that rather depends on what volumes you assign to "you."

Dozens of zombie botnets around the world exist around the world, and consist of millions of compromised machines. All of these exist almost entirely because users are trusted to make the right decision with regard to program installation and access... and they're wrong often enough to get their machines infected.

The fact is these days even relatively knowledgeable users can't be expected to be able to easily vet the source code of every program they use, even when the source is available. When was the last time one of you audited the code for the entirety of your Linux install--or even just the kernel?--plus your Firefox/Chromium browser and Open/Libre Office? Have you manually combed through all the Javascript from every webpage you've browsed today, to make sure there are no exploits hidden in the code? Are you sure you haven't given a virus a backdoor into your system?

Maybe not trusting users by default is the right way to go. It's just an extension of the idea to not have everyone log in as Administrator/Superuser all the time, and instead differentiating between regular users and admins; you're just linking the Admin account to a physical switch on the hardware itself.

Re:A little problem...

[gstoddart]

So don't buy one...

I keep telling people that about iPads, but a lot of people on Slashdot still can't get over it.

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

e-bay? Cause you must be new here.

Re:A little problem...

[DrgnDancer]

And for those comparing this to Apple's lockdown, that's ridiculous - Apple actively tries to prevent you from jailbreaking, while anyone can mod the Chrome OS.

Anyone can modify Linux, that doesn't mean that if you give me a Linux box with locked down guest account access, no alternate boot methods, and don't tell me the root password that I can modify this *particular* Linux installation. The fact that Chrome is Open Source won't help me install applications on my Chrome device. Unless I go out and install my own custom ChromeOS on the device, at which point why did I buy this thing? I could have just bought a conventional laptop and put Fedora on it.

Re:A little problem...

[dfsmith]

But if that trust is broken, who could you recover more compensation from?

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust you more than I trust Google. And I don't even know you!

Re:A little problem...

[suutar]

for what purpose? To get the system back to original state? That's supposed to be built in. To modify the system away from the vetted and trusted configuration? Sounds like you're not in the target market and some other system may be better suited to your needs.

Re:A little problem...

[Idiomatick]

Depending on the day I could go either way on that...

Re:A little problem...

[Grishnakh]

Why should I care if other people get pwned by malware? That's their problem.

Being free means having the freedom to screw up. Maybe you want to live in a nanny-state, where someone else is always checking up on you and making sure you can't hurt yourself, but I certainly don't want to live like that.

Re:A little problem...

[Grishnakh]

Dozens of zombie botnets around the world exist around the world, and consist of millions of compromised machines. All of these exist almost entirely because users are trusted to make the right decision with regard to program installation and access... and they're wrong often enough to get their machines infected.

So what? What harm does it cause you? It doesn't bother me; I make sure to run an OS that's immune to such infections, and get my software from trusted sources to avoid trojan horses and rootkits, and keep my OS up-to-date to avoid any infections that it's not immune to.

The only real harm botnets cause is to ISPs, by wasting their bandwidth. That's the ISPs' problem, and if they'd grow a backbone, they could easily fix it by simply disconnecting users whose machines have been zombified. Eventually, if the problem gets bad enough, they'll probably resort to that practice. In the meantime, just make sure to use an email client that has good spam filtering (Gmail works great for me) and run a secure system, and you should be OK.

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

My only beef with the looming end of the general-purpose computing era is that the market for interchangeable PC parts is going to shrink to nothing due to economics.

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you search the web for 10 seconds, and you download and install a known Chrome OS image that includes the ability to escape-to-shell (and the sudo program). Now you can do whatever you want*. What's the big deal?

* Including the ability to get instantly pwned by malware.

Re:A little problem...

[micheas]

It's great to not trust the regular user, but there should be a way for an administrator to get root privileges without hacking.

With a little hacking, an administrator should be able to make it so that only the administrator's custom version of chromium is allowed on the machine,

That sounds like the ultimate enterprise smart dumb terminal, that can go on the road, http blocked, https only, this could be a solution for remote machines that need access to the corporate network.

Personally, this seems like a more useful item for enterprise use than consumer use. But that is just me.

Chromium was fine on my old dell laptop, (after I figured out how to install it, being as it couldn't boot directly from the usb port.)

Re:A little problem...

[Bill Dog]

The "but it's for the greater good" movement [I have other, more common names for them] is blitzing societies and our consciousnesses right now, in a loosely-concerted big push to achieve critical mass. So we're going to keep on hearing that in general people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions, and so therefore we must accept more and more controls, and accept them as a good thing. We're all in this together, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, etc.

Re:A little problem...

[Grishnakh]

We're all in this together,

Did you get that from Brazil?

Re:A little problem...

[RandyOo]

Botnets have been (and continue to be) used in mafia-style "protection" rackets, threatening with DDoS attacks. If you ran a server that was threatened with or subjected to one, you'd probably change your tune pretty quickly.

Oh, and even if you're using an email client with good spam filtering, it still has to download the spam before it can sort through it and throw it away, wasting bandwidth.

Botnets are a scourge, and harmful to many, not only ISPs! (although I do agree with your assertion that ISPs ought to disconnect users with pwned machine :)

Re:A little problem...

[Grishnakh]

Oh, and even if you're using an email client with good spam filtering, it still has to download the spam before it can sort through it and throw it away, wasting bandwidth.

That's why you use a webmail system like Gmail. Let Google deal with the bandwidth problem.

I do see your point with the DDoS, though it can also be argued that DDoSes can be a good thing in many instances, such as when they attack Mastercard, the Swedish prosecutor's office, etc. I can't remember any DDoS ever attacking anything I really cared much about, only sites run by assholes.

But again, it really comes down to the ISPs. They're the ones who could most easily shut down the botnets by just identifying their traffic, and shutting off their ports. They just don't do it because they don't want to piss off stupid customers who don't know what a botnet is and don't care as long as they can surf the web on their computer.

Re:A little problem...

[AK Marc]

I've never seen so many people get it and not get it at the same time.

Unless I go out and install my own custom ChromeOS on the device, at which point why did I buy this thing? I could have just bought a conventional laptop and put Fedora on it.

That's both the smartest and dumbest thing said so far. Why yes, if you want a full Linux distro, then don't buy ChromeOS. That's so stupidly obvious that stating it makes us all dumber. Yet so many don't get it.

"I'm mad at Google because I'm not their target audience." Get over it. You are right about what you say. It's designed for people that want something that Just Works. That's not you. So recommend it to your grandma and move on. You wouldn't like it. But that doesn't mean it isn't a cool thing. It's a great idea for 90% of the population. It's just that the 1% of the population that reads this has almost no intersection with that much larger 90%.

Re:A little problem...

[aztracker1]

Exactly.. nobody is forcing you t do so... also, if you ant to install this on a regular laptop for yor mom, nothing is stopping you... it's a relatively secure system for the common user.. doesn't mean it's right for you/everyone.

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know, I can be pretty much trusted as I don't see a viruses in my machines since Amiga times. Nevertheless, I have a lot of better things to do rather than modifying an OS to just install applications.

Re:A little problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you remember this when there are only 'dumb terminal' web devices to choose from and their all locked down in hardware.

Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[KingFrog]

Really, not letting most users or applications modify the OS is a good thing. Microsoft (and others) have had a TERRIBLE model in permitting this. Third-party stuff has no business altering the foundation of the system's operation. Now, not letting an application that doesn't want to monkey with the OS get installed is probably going too far. I mean, who's gonna run an OS they can't put an app on? That's broken.

Trifecta

[fahrbot-bot]

Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved.

Keep them from installing the OS and the box will be very secure, though usability may suffer a bit. I've always thought that security wonks are only really happy with a system while it's powered off or still in the box.

Re:Trifecta

[Monkeedude1212]

Even that might be too much. Remove the system all together and everything will be secure.

Ha! You can't hack a computer I don't have!

Re:Trifecta

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've always thought that security wonks are only really happy with a system while it's powered off or still in the box."

Happy? Not a chance. After all, someone might steal that box!

Indeed

[Dega704]

Great idea Mr. Jobs, I mean Schmidt. Sorry.

Re:Indeed

[geekoid]

steve jobs ahs opened up OSX? I can download it and modify it? iPhone users now have a choice of iPhone app stores?

what's that? no? STFU and read the Chrome OS docs, fool.

It can go into many form factors. That included ones with hard drives and without. Well, assuming there are any without a hard drive of some kind.

Re:Indeed

[Dega704]

Dude, I like Chrome OS. Pretty excited for it, actually. I was being satirical if that wasn't already painfully obvious. Take a stool softener or something.

Printable version

[asvravi]

Link to the printable version - skips the two overly obnoxious ads that get in the way before you could read the article.
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=26882

Oh no you didn't!!

[alta]

Seriously did they say that? I can see steve over there with a big See, I TOLD you so, pointing at everyone else....

Damn, this makes Microsoft look OPEN, doesn't it??

Oh, the irony.

Re:Oh no you didn't!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Open for business"*, that is!

* yes that's a cheap STD-laden whore reference.

Re:Oh no you didn't!!

[BeanThere]

Damn, this makes Microsoft look OPEN, doesn't it??

Oh, the irony.

Exactly my thoughts too. Not exactly what one might've dreamed for if one was hoping for some exciting new OS. It's a bit disappointing, to put it mildly.

Local storage has and is becoming extremely small and cheap, much faster than bandwidth is becoming cheaper (in fact global average broadband prices have actually started to rise again, and with many governments trying to get their hands on the business via phony gibberish about 'universal access' and broadband being a 'right', prices are not likely to start coming down again massively soon), so why try push away from local storage? One word and word only, greed. They can hand-wave about 'security' but fundamentally there is no good valid technical argument for this approach. Basically it's this, they're salivating with little dollar signs on their eyes at the thought of pushing all that 'software as service', with a cut for every copy of the OS, and a cut again for every app purchased in the app store. Nice business model if you can get it.

I think they're a little optimistic, people aren't going to buy into this 'just because it's Google'. However, being an advertising business, what I can picture is that they might try give the devices away free in order to make money from advertising and apps. Sort of the razor blade model. It might work in the longer run.

Fortunately the platform market is becoming very competitive, so I think what will happen is Google initially mainly only reaches a certain section of the market, but as time goes on, is pressured to open it up more and more, especially as it gains traction people would want to push it into new domains and uses.

Re:Oh no you didn't!!

[Americano]

but fundamentally there is no good valid technical argument for this approach

Actually there is. As we move towards a model where we'll be accessing our "stuff" from more than one device (laptop, desktop, htpc, phone, tablet, netbook, other), local storage just doesn't scale that well. I have a 300 GB drive full of MP3s and movies in my desktop system. If I want to have those same files on my laptop, I need another 300 GB drive in my laptop to store them. If I want to let my phone or tablet or home theater devices access those files, I'd need more local storage to house those copies... as more devices get connected, your storage needs grow as a factor the number of devices.

Now think about what happens when you have a desktop and a laptop and you use both to modify and edit the same document.

The process of *correctly* syncing all that data is a lot more difficult (and still requires a lot of bandwidth between all of your devices) than simply storing it "in the cloud" and streaming it from a central location to whichever device you want to access it on at the moment. This is the whole premise of "the cloud." Regardless of your personal feelings about storing your personal data there, there are a few compelling reasons for having centralized storage that can be accessed over a network instead of managing & syncing multiple local copies of the same data.

Re:Oh no you didn't!!

[tepples]

Local storage has and is becoming extremely small and cheap

Which means it will be small and cheap for Chrome OS devices to expose localStorage to web applications.

So it is a perfect PC

[leon.gandalf]

for that person that you are constantly fixing their pc for. You know because they installed this free app that poped up in their face and now nothing works.

Does this sill allow a sandbox?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the apps can't be trusted, what would be wrong with running them inside a sandbox.

The browser is the sandbox, you can still run your fancy web apps there.

Re:Does this sill allow a sandbox?

[natehoy]

What apps? ChromeOS is Google Chrome plus just enough operating-system-y bits stickytaped on to talk to some hardware, as I understand it.

Since the OS is basically a browser, the *whole OS* is the sandbox on this model.

It makes sense for the business market

[lpaul55]

Companies don't trust their employees and Chrome is a sandbox within a sandbox. This is a good thing in the corporate world where centralized control is valuable.

Chrome is a very thin client that really works.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[KublaiKhan]

Exactly. With user data living entirely in the cloud, that eliminates the tiresome "backup and restore" idiocy that happens with every OS upgrade; with no user access to the OS, it eliminates userspace errors leading to OS errors.

Now, for home users who know WTF they're doing, that'll be annoying...but if the commercial versions of the thin clients include the 'jailbreak' switch, then I won't complain too much.

The only really -bad- thing I can see about this--other than security worries, but that's a whole other very long discussion in itself--is that it'll put some IT techs out of business.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[KingFrog]

I dunno. If your users need to do all their work at the office, this could be great. You either always have connectivity, or nothing would have worked without the net being up anyway. Otherwise, you run into issues. Not only will this take some serious bandwidth, but if your net connection is down, you are out of luck. I'll be in the "thanks, but I LIKE using my computer even when the ISP is down" category. :)

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[sjdude]

Companies don't trust their employees and Chrome is a sandbox within a sandbox. This is a good thing in the corporate world where centralized control is valuable.

Chrome is a very thin client that really works.

And you need a whole new OS for this? What about using *nix machines, setting the login shell to /usr/bin/firefox and limiting the network accessibility to the corporate LAN? You could have done this many years ago and wouldn't need a new OS to do it. As for thin client, ChromeOS is nothing more than what I just described with a specialized browser with customized hooks for Google's proprietary app world/framework. Bletch.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[bugs2squash]

So can a large company mirror or augment google's cloud with applications on their corporate servers ?

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[DragonWriter]

I dunno. If your users need to do all their work at the office, this could be great. You either always have connectivity, or nothing would have worked without the net being up anyway. Otherwise, you run into issues. Not only will this take some serious bandwidth, but if your net connection is down, you are out of luck.

Yeah, if only Google had thought about this issue and invested some effort into enabling off-line web applications before deploying an everything-is-done-through-the-browser OS.

Maybe, while they were at it, they might have noticed the performance issues common to web apps and worked on improving JavaScript performance to deal with that, and provide some way to run native code through the browser to cover the cases where simply making JavaScript run faster wasn't enough.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[geekoid]

Connectivity isn't a problem for a very large segment of professional office workers.

This will be an excellent work tool, and it doesn't really use that much bandwidth. oh, and a manufactured can make a device with a hard drive. Perhaps one the just sync periodically in the back ground and comes live when connection is lost.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies don't trust other companies (read Google) to control their vital documents and other data. Unless that centralized control is in-house, I can't see any company wanting to use Chrome.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[Daniel Phillips]

Yeah, if only Google had thought about this issue and invested some effort into enabling off-line web applications before deploying an everything-is-done-through-the-browser OS. Maybe, while they were at it, they might have noticed the performance issues common to web apps and worked on improving JavaScript performance to deal with that, and provide some way to run native code through the browser to cover the cases where simply making JavaScript run faster wasn't enough.

And maybe while they were at it they would have noticed that browser interfaces suck for many applications, that not everybody wants a gratuitous extra layer of GUI around their app, and browser apps generally do things slower than native apps even when accelerated with shiny new Javacode engines.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[DragonWriter]

And maybe while they were at it they would have noticed that browser interfaces suck for many applications,

...and done work on improving that (which they have.)

that not everybody wants a gratuitous extra layer of GUI around their app

I'm not sure that, in Chrome OS, it makes sense to describe the browser as an "extra layer" of GUI. Its not like there is a traditional desktop environment within which the browser operates as one window providing multiple "layers" of GUI. The browser is the only layer of GUI, from the point of view of the user or any app.

and browser apps generally do things slower than native apps even when accelerated with shiny new Javacode engines.

See GP, reference to "and provide some way to run native code through the browser to cover the cases where simply making JavaScript run faster wasn't enough."

Native Client is neither a JavaScript nor a "Javacode" engine, its a system for running actual native code within a webapp.

Re:It makes sense for the business market

[DragonWriter]

And you need a whole new OS for this? What about using *nix machines, setting the login shell to /usr/bin/firefox and limiting the network accessibility to the corporate LAN?

That would seem likely to be heavier and less capable then ChromeOS, which is pretty much doing the same thing with Chrome instead of Firefox -- but with Google having spent a lot of time tuning Chrome for just this use, as well as tuning the underlying Linux environment to support that setup specifically.

As for thin client, ChromeOS is nothing more than what I just described with a specialized browser with customized hooks for Google's proprietary app world/framework.

Well, except that most of the specialized hooks are for things that are not proprietary, but instead are open specifications. Because, really, it would defeat the purpose if Google was the only one providing online services that took advantage of them.

This is what Google means by OPEN

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain to me again why Apple is so evil, please.

Google is the worst when it comes to Customer Service too. You'll get a laptop that has issue conencting to the net and you'll also only have technical support via the net.

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The difference(at least according to design docs, we'll see what happens on release when we come to that) is that ChromeOS devices give one the (advanced; but non-hack) option to tell the command and control system to shove it. Their shipping image, and the one you get if you restore, is built on a no trust model; but if you wish to put a different one on there(including a modified build of the open portions of ChromeOS) that is your call.

With Apple, by contrast, their portables are their OS or nothing, barring hacks that depend on mistakes they did not intend to make, and do tend to correct over time. What you see is what you are stuck with.

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[AndrewNeo]

If your laptop is having an issue connecting to the net, then you should be on the phone with Verizon. If your laptop is having some other problem, you should contact the manufacturer - and it's not Google. Granted that Google did do the "support" for the Nexus One, but they also completely hid the fact HTC made it.

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[david_thornley]

The other difference is that Apple forces other companies to go along with its schemes, and Google doesn't. I don't know that an iPad is any less open than, say, a color Nook. With a version of iOS, if somebody develops a crack everybody can use it. The ChromeOS device you can buy in the store may be locked down tight, and require its own crack.

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[Idiomatick]

That and chrome will probably flop so hard no one will really notice outside of 6months.

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[tycoex]

I also don' understand what the big deal is with the "Chrome OS Noteooks." If Chrome OS is really just an OS, can't I put it on any computer I want? Why would I be required to buy a computer that has Chrome OS pre-installed on it?

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[tepples]

If your laptop is having an issue connecting to the net, then you should be on the phone with Verizon.

Who will likely proceed to blame your OS vendor, because "we only support Windows and Mac on home Internet accounts."

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[DragonWriter]

If Chrome OS is really just an OS, can't I put it on any computer I want?

You can build the open-source Chromium OS and put it on any computer you want.

"Chrome OS" is a branded product using Chromium OS which will only be available bundled on hardware designed for the OS.

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[ToasterMonkey]

The difference(at least according to design docs, we'll see what happens on release when we come to that) is that ChromeOS devices give one the (advanced; but non-hack) option to tell the command and control system to shove it. Their shipping image, and the one you get if you restore, is built on a no trust model; but if you wish to put a different one on there(including a modified build of the open portions of ChromeOS) that is your call.

With Apple, by contrast, their portables are their OS or nothing, barring hacks that depend on mistakes they did not intend to make, and do tend to correct over time. What you see is what you are stuck with.

Since when was it impossible to run a different OS on Apple's portables, excluding iPods? People not wanting to is another thing.
Besides, we're comparing trusted OS to trusted OS here, the ability to install non-trusted OS over the top of it is hardly relevant.

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh . . . wrong. You can install Windows or Linux to your heart's content on a partitioned OS X disk ever since they switched chip sets. It's arguably the most versatile of all in that regard. Once again, Google are thinking like geeks, and though corporate may go for it, this is a customer service/class action disaster of epic proportions in the making. If big G really wants to have longevity in that space, they need to hire some people who know what the hell it's about, plain and simple. For better or worse, most regular folks don't know what a SlashDot is. ;)

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[tycoex]

So if you don't want the locked down version why not just do that instead of buying a Chrome OS computer? (Not you specifically, I just mean in general).

Re:This is what Google means by OPEN

[AndrewNeo]

I meant the wireless 3G service provided by Verizon for every unit.

Chrome is now 2,415 times smarter...

[Anonymous Coward]

... than when Google wrote it.

End of line.

Google wants to out-evil Apple?!

[dyfet]

Wow!

I am not sure there is anything else that could be said...

Re:Google wants to out-evil Apple?!

[Anonymous Coward]

ChromeOS is not a PC or tablet. It's designed to use "cloud" applications only.

In Soviet Russia...

[snookerhog]

system modifies you!

Your password is and will always be

[Crudely_Indecent]

1234

The same as your luggage.

Re:Your password is and will always be

[idontgno]

Hah! Shows how much you know! My luggage combination is nothing like that!

[click][click][click][click]
[rattle]
[rattle rattle]

WTF? Did Chrome just change my luggage combo?

Re:Your password is and will always be

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "light humor" may have been chuckled at in 1991 by people in an AOL chatroom. Now? Not so much.

Big Brother Does No Evil

[bfree]

If you could install an app, or adjust the system as a user, then maybe you wouldn't provide as much data to Google. Google do not make money from computers or operating systems, they make it from the information they extract from you.

Re:Big Brother Does No Evil

[geekoid]

No, they have a very good point. One of the advantages that has been talked about in regards to thin clients since before Google existed.

And Google doesn't scrape all your data for information.

What's the big deal?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I don't know any sysadmins who trust apps or users, either.

If "the system" isn't the part users can modify

[m50d]

Then it's not the part they care about. A malicious application installed by a naïve user will always be able to send emails (because the user will demand the ability to do that), and therefore send spam. And it'll still be able to delete the user's files.

Comma splice much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once users are banned from installing applications COMMA or modifying the system security COMMA usability COMMA and more are improved COMMA the Googlers claim.

I had to read that sentence five times to sort it out; Once straight through, again for each coma, and finally pieced back together again.

Firmware

[Nethead]

All I know is that my Commodore 64 never got owned. Well, at least not until I got an EPROM burner.

Re:Firmware

[geekoid]

haha, mu Apple IIc got owned. I was in a group that traded disk, and someone wrote a tool that change where the head read the data from the disk.

I've never had a virus on any Windows machine, and I have had windows machine for quite nearly as long a MS has been selling OS's.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Nadaka]

I agree it is broken, but the idea is you link to a remote web app. Chrome would be a lot better if it came with a built in web server you could drop an app into to store and run locally.

Just a hop and a skip away from...

[nlawalker]

Now we're just a hop and a skip away from "Once users are banned from browsing non-Google-approved websites or attempting to use non-Google services, security, usability and more are improved."

For those that always say "but you can modify it!" or "well you don't have to use it" (the latter of which is true even for Apple's iEcosphere), that doesn't address the problem. The problem is that a whole lot of people will see the convenience and the stability and they won't modify it and they will use it, making the whole concept of walled gardens and lockin more popular among consumers who want ease (as opposed to choice) and companies who want to make money. Large groups of people will forget that they ever had a choice to begin with. I'm not trying to evoke 1984 here or say that we're all going to be slaves to Google, but in the world of consumer technology right now, the leading idea that is getting the most users and making the most money is "step into the [Apple/Microsoft/Google/Facebook] world and bask in the luxury of having everything work together and not having to make choices."

Just like the old adage about privacy and security, is it worth trading choice for convenience?

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the latest TSA polls, yes...

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[Kijori]

Just like the old adage about privacy and security, is it worth trading choice for convenience?

Sounds like that's a question that people can only answer for themselves - and a lot of them are answering "yes" by buying locked-down devices and aren't regretting it.
I think the reason for this might be that the choice that you see isn't apparent or useful to most people. Only for a very small portion of users are the limitations that an iPhone imposes limitations at all - using myself as an example, I used to work as a programmer and still have an interest in technology, but moving to an iPhone wouldn't hamper me one bit because I have no interest in exercising any of the choices that it takes away from me.

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the old adage about privacy and security, is it worth trading choice for convenience?

Yes, for people who don't care about the computer and just want the goddamn thing to work. By nature, people do not like choice. Choosing is scary and dangerous because they can always make a mistake. If no choice exists, there can be no fault with the end user.

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[Damek]

It's a down, down, down economy, man. No one has any money anymore. And those who do tell us we shouldn't be afraid of that (though we are, because we're not dumb), but that we should be afraid of each other.

Ergo, everyone's getting really scared, and everyone wants walled gardens. Everyone would love to live in a gated community of just other people like them, preferably watched over and protected by Dada & Mama.

No one wants freedom anymore. Freedom is scary. Not only might you have to do some work managing things, you might have to do some of that icky work of "tolerance, understanding and communication."

Clearly, most people feel the same when it comes to computers and gadgets. "Can you just make it do it for me, and keep it real simple?"

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[Dhalka226]

So in your little hypothetical, the major problem is that Google will provide something that users will like and use? OH NOES!

Too often people rail on and on about choice, but what they really mean is the freedom to choose their way or clearly there must be some flaw in the system. Is it worth trading choice for convenience? Not for me, but you also have to realize that, somewhat paradoxically, trading choice for convenience is a choice. As long as people know, or can know with a little bit of research, what exactly they're buying, I couldn't care less what that ultimately entails (at least so far as there is enough competition for their to be a real consumer choice, but that's a different matter for a different day).

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[shawb]

Due to your fervent believe in choice, you would deprive others of the choice to use a walled garden "just works" device? Your ire is especially misguided considering that the CR48 (The only chrome device users have gotten their hands on yet... anything else would be mere speculation) can be set into developer mode with literally the push of a button.

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, the framework is already there... it is called Google Safe Browsing. Right now it is malicious sites being blocked but if you move the goal posts a little and start adding copyright infringing sites, "offensive" sites, sites hosting WikiLeaks, etc., then this is the result. Maybe this is not Google's agenda but they would cave too if pressured. There was a time when they said they wouldn't take responsibility for content but then they started adding layer upon layer of "features" to limit what the user can access and proactively policing content through measures such as Safe Search and Safe Browsing. As some people have said recently, the battle for freedom is now being drawn on lines of open vs. closed and centralized vs. de-centralized.

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the nostalgia - it almost feels like 1998 again, doesn't it? Except now it's not Microsoft being the Big Bad any more...

Re:Just a hop and a skip away from...

[geekoid]

Strawman, stop it.

If the machines are cheap enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the machines are cheap enough then the solution is to wipe Google OS and install Linux... Problem solved!!! All the apps you need with none of the OOgling...

Whats the issue?

[itsdapead]

I thought the whole point of Chrome OS was that it was a client for running cloud-based webapps? Given that, it makes sense to lock down the machine - unless they're saying that it won't even run non-google Web apps?

Re:Whats the issue?

[Monkeedude1212]

How will you be able to update to the latest flash player...

Re:Whats the issue?

[WiseWeasel]

Google has blessed the Flash player, so ChromeOS will keep it automatically updated for you... probably whether you wanted it or not.

Re:Whats the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's High Priest of The One True Repository will simply force the update on you the next time it boots and has a net connection. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Re:Whats the issue?

[TiberiusMonkey]

Chrome is pre-installed with Flash and Chrome also auto-updates.

Re:Whats the issue?

[DragonWriter]

How will you be able to update to the latest flash player...

The Flash Player used by Chrome OS is -- like the PDF viewer -- an integral component of Chrome and updated with the system (this is, in fact, true of the Chrome browser running on other OSs; the flash has been integrated since, IIRC, either Chrome 6 or 7, and the PDF viewer has been integrated* since Chrome 8.)

* Actually, strictly speaking, it was integrated earlier, but the integrated PDF viewer was disabled-by-default prior to Chrome 8.

We are also banded from doing what we want

[strangeattraction]

So much for actually being able to do what we want

Re:We are also banded from doing what we want

[Crudely_Indecent]

I like being banded.

There's nothing like a good banding.

As long as I'm not banned from being banded, I'm happy.

Re:We are also banded from doing what we want

[gstoddart]

I like being banded.

There's nothing like a good banding.

As long as I'm not banned from being banded

Maybe we should all band together to make sure we don't get banned from getting banded. We could have band leaders, banned leaders, and banned banded leaders.

And tea; everybody likes tea.

Re:We are also banded from doing what we want

[geekoid]

That's like saying Blu-Ray players banned me from doing what I want because they don't play laser disk.
Or saying Linux stopped us from doing what we want because it doesn't run MS Visual Studio.

Dolt.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Americano]

Google doesn't get advertising dollars from you running a local app and disconnecting from the network. They *do* get advertising dollars for every online app you regularly use because that's the only way for you to get anything done.

I spend most of my work day with a couple browsers, a couple Putty sessions, Outlook, Excel, and a few other apps open. Imagine how many page impressions that would generate if every single one of those apps was based in "the cloud" and had a little section where Google could insert ads?

Still wondering why this is being touted by Google as the most innovative and revolutionary feature ever in OS design?

Trust?

[getNewNickName]

Sorry, but I don't trust having all my apps run from the web. Just the other day I was on a tight deadline trying to print a document from Docs when it crapped out on me refusing to print. It was late at night, so it's understandable if they needed to do some server maintenance. Or possibly it wasn't even Google's fault because there may have been issues with my ISP, but either way I was helpless to do anything. I would prefer to having things run locally and automatically sync to the cloud when possible.

Re:Trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft: "Welcome home, friend!"

Re:Trust?

[vgerclover]

Because you've never had problems printing locally with Windows/PrinterDriver/PrinterHardware/Office/etc.

Re:Trust?

[geekoid]

You can export locally, and there are free third party tools that fill the need you want. Rumor is the internally they are working on this as well; however the market has solved this issue.

You were well aware of the issue, but you didn't look for a solution. well done.

Re:Trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're in luck... ChromeOS/HTML5.0 will let you cache Docs locally so you don't have to be online.

There's only one issue I see with this setup: ChromeOS doesn't trust the user or the apps -- but it DOES trust your ISP and Google. I want a truly paranoid OS that doesn't trust ANYTHING -- any data going out/coming in should be fully encrypted and not visible/modifiable by ANYONE else. If ChromeOS supported this as well (and let you decide through some manual method where your online repo was (let's say... migrate from Google to Dropbox) then I'd be happy.

Re:Trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! Chrome works exactly how you want it to work. Next time read more.

I smell an infringement lawsuit

[Arancaytar]

Didn't Steve Jobs patent that entire concept of treating your customer as your enemy?

Re:I smell an infringement lawsuit

[blair1q]

No. He stole that from The Phone Company.

Google misses the point entirely...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an end user I don't give a flying rats ass about the operating system. I only care about *MY* data. I don't care if the OS is compromised or gets deleted as I can just re-install it or install a different OS I like better.

When my data is compromised it makes me sad. Protecting the OS from privledged execution does not automatically protect the end users data because it requires no such elevated privledge to access my data. The OS vendors are acting like news casters who think it is newsworthy to report on stories they have a personal interest in but noone else really cares about.

Re:Google misses the point entirely...

[angloquebecer]

Which is also why Google wants to take your data out of your hands. Take it off your "insecure" device that could potentially be stolen/steamrolled/bricked at any time and stored securely on their servers where it can be duplicated over the RAID, etc. Let them manage keeping it secure, backed up, and consistent. How far you trust them with it is a whole other matter. But in terms of the safety of my data I'll take the cloud redundancy any day over managing my own backups. I think for the vast majority of computer users in the world, Google's servers are a safer place for storing important files.

Re:Google misses the point entirely...

[jombeewoof]

on the other hand "I" don't give a rats ass about your data, I want to be sure that YOUR machine isn't compromised and/or infected and sending me spam. That's all I care about, YOU NOT SENDING ME SPAM.
If you're smart enough to handle a computer that isn't an infected bot then all is well and good. If you're not, please either get off the net or use an appliance like this to limit the amount of damage you can do to me and my networks.

I think this new netbook or whatever they're marketing it as will server a very under-fulfilled market. Will I buy one, probably not unless it's a gift to my parents. Do I think it's a good idea, yea I think I do.

Super-duper secure!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn it off, disconnect all cables (especially power and internet) and hide it in the attic.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Eil]

The whole point of Chrome OS is to shift the application from running natively on the hardware to running in the cloud. You're thinking of the web browser as the application, Google is thinking of GMail as the application.

Uhm, think again

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys didn't pick up on this....the "users can't be trusted" part is a direct jab at Windows and their crappy control system. Chrome OS is based on Linux, which only lets those in the administrator group install programs/modify the system et all. It's a much safer system...just look up 'unix security'.

You can't trust Google.

[blair1q]

I use the charts in the Google Apps spreadsheet app.

Recently, they "upgraded" the chart software.

Under the upgraded software, the charts now look like total shit.

The documentation is vague and shallow. The options panes are missing or disable important features that might help me produce charts that don't look like shit. The only way to downgrade to charts that work is to revert to older versions of the document and not to accept the upgrade when making changes in the future.

Google has lost the plot. The last thing I want at this point is to give them control of application compatibility of my data.

Re:You can't trust Google.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the beauty of all their softwares implicitly being forever beta versions.

Are you kidding me? This is great!

[MarkvW]

I'd urge this on my mom and dad in an INSTANT. I'd never use it, but it would be great for them.

Close to a good security model

[ka9dgx]

One should never trust an application, I'm in agreement on that.

The user owns the machine, they should be trusted to decide what is done with it. If you think I'm wrong... let me explain...

The reason we don't want to trust users is because they have a demonstrated history of bad choices, which result in a lot of work for the geeks who have to clean up the mess. We have a better track record, so we ass u me that it must be because we are smarter than they are. This is only true to a limited extent.

The reason the user makes bad choices is because are given the wrong choice to make. Instead of asking what extent of permission a program should be granted, the user is given an all or nothing choice. It's not possible for them to "try out" a program without risking everything. This is just plain nuts.

Capability based security offers a way to express the wishes of the user in a manner which NEVER trusts an application... but rather places the responsibility for limiting system changes in the operating system, where it belongs.

It is only when we finally get out of or smug self congratulatory slumber that it's possible consider that the typical user is not an idiot prone to randomly pressing OK.

We need to offer sane choices, and a sane security model... Capability Based Security is the only way to go.

Google... unfortunately, isn't any wiser and misses the boat here, but by a slightly smaller margin.

Re:Close to a good security model

[lpaul55]

Chrome is very attractive in an environment where the user *doesn't* own the machine - the employer owns it and needs to control what the machine can do. There are many business situations where this is obviously the case. Chrome works like a firewall here.

Re:Close to a good security model

[AlfaMike]

I think this is actually a fairly complex question. Should the user be trusted to do whatever he wants with his machine even if it's highly unsecure? One might say he should be able to do what he wants because he bought the machine and it belongs to him. But then again there are people controlling several thousands of compromised computers in a botnet to cause harm to others. Many of these computers belong to people who couldn't be trusted when it came to the security of their system and someone else might be harmed because of that. It's like selling an assault rifle to someone who keeps it on top of a table within reach of a window (sorry about the horrible analogy. I tried to think of a car one but couldn't).

PEBKAC

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the return of the professional sys admin, just sufficiently distributed for economical home use. Suddenly a lot of geeks won't need to be handling IT for friends and family. For an awful lot of people it's a good deal.

It's an extension of GMail, where an awful lot of complicated technical, privacy, and security configurations are completely and well taken care of by Google. They've finally managed to take it all the way to the end-user hardware.

Me and the /. choir have our own issues with this, but that's not the same as saying this won't be popular, or will necessarily work badly.

Car's don't trust their drivers...

[drtsystems]

Honestly this is smart... well as long as the power user still *CAN* change things if they want (i.e. using the jailbreak switch).

Obligatory (probably poor) car analogy:
To fill up gas you don't open the hood and take apart the engine. Sure you can get under the hood and if your a mechanic you should be able to mess around as much as you want. But its better for the user (driver) to not have to worry about anything besides the interface (steering wheel and gas and brake).

Its silly that users who have no idea how the system works should be expected to decide what applications to trust. The default should be zero trust of the user and that shouldn't need to be changed for 90%+ of users out there. And thats what Chrome does.

Re:Car's don't trust their drivers...

[JohnFen]

Obligatory (probably poor) car analogy:

All of your examples are about usability, not trust. Apple & oranges. Cars do indeed trust their drivers, in that a driver can pop open the hood, poke around, fix things (and break them!) swap components out, etc. should they want to. That they don't have to is good usability design.

Although some cars take away a lot of this ability by enforcing choices via their computers, but I don't buy those cars. Neither would I buy (use) Chrome OS, for the same reason.

I own the hardware I buy, and if I want to change it, infect it, or blend it, that's my choice. Google's (or any manufacturer) "trust" is irrelevant and worthless, since I make no promises to Google that I won't do stupid things.

Beside, such trust would have to be two-way, and I don't trust Google any more than I trust any other random company.

Security model

[HumanEmulator]

This is a great security model. In fact, in order to keep my home safe I won't allow any devices in that are controlled by an outside third party either.

I agree with Google

[Anonymous Coward]

And I think Ubuntu should be modified accordingly. There's no reason, however, why apps shouldn't be native and machine based, when data access is as expensive as it is. It's just a matter of restricting installed software to the software center, denying root to everything else, and making applications request special permissions like "create and modify files in Documents". Android does it.

Enough with Apps

[Anonymous Coward]

We (meaning the Open Source community) need to come up with a viable alternative to the Trusted Computing/ "App" model on mobile platforms quickly. This means something portable which doesn't absolutely suck. Fortunately, the bar isn't too high right now -- the quality of most apps is around the sophistication of your average 1991 shareware program. Your work PC notwithstanding, mobile seems to be the future of most computing right now -- and that seems to be shaping into a closed, trusted-computing fragmented nightmare.

The typical "if you don't like mobile devices don't use them" attitude is a bit like saying "if you don't like the TSA, don't travel". Any suggestions?

No security is perfect.

[VortexCortex]

"Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved, the Googlers claim."

No security is perfect, there WILL eventually be a remote execution exploit, and the users will be banned from installing applications, or modifying the system in order to fix it. I hope it comes with a USB drive I can boot from to wipe the system clean...

However, there WILL also eventually be a remote execution exploit that enables the users to install applications, or modify the system security to provide additional usability, and more functionality than the Googlers intended.

ChromeOS is just begging to be sprung free of the Google jail.

Hint: When the "Attackers" are the folks who purchased the device, their physical access to the device will render all "defenses" useless.

Also: DO NOT WANT, will simply use any other unrestricted laptop or tablet PC available.

Re:No security is perfect.

[geekoid]

please name ONE unrestricted laptop or table, just one.

Re:No security is perfect.

[jack2000]

Are you people high or something. All laptops are unrestricted. You just boot a disk or a usb storage device and install another OS

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Americano]

And user eyeballs is the product. Google can't serve you ads if you're not online.

GOOD!

[DarthVain]

We have a lot in common then...

Holy Cow!

[carrier lost]

I've got an OS like that in my DVD player.

It doesn't trust me to watch FBI warnings...

This makes perfect sense...

[sjdude]

This makes perfect sense once you understand that the majority of the people working on ChromeOS (in Google's Kirkland offices) are Microsoft refugees. Since most people psychologically try to solve problems in their new jobs they were unable to solve at their previous ones, what better way to keep from having the most virus infested OS on the planet than to prevent anybody from ever installing or changing anything! I bet the colleagues they left behind at Microsoft are envious beyond belief.

Gee, Microsoft didn't whip IBM because of this !!!

[Saint Stephen]

Wow, talk about those who don't understand the past are doomed to repeat it. Microsoft (and PCs from IBM in general) were popular precisely because individual business departments got to install their own apps instead of having to use only the ones that the guys on the raised floorboards deemed they could have.

It's why the PC won in the first place; talk about hubris from Google.

I guess Google figures people will like it if comes with Rounded Corners + Gradients this time.

chrome os fail

[luther349]

it failed to sell me when they required net just to login now you cant modify the system. this os will be dead on arrival.

Where have I heard this before?

[spinninggears]

" Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved, the Googlers claim."

For years I have fought IT staff who held the position that the computers should never actually be used by putting applications on them. They used the exact same logic shown here.

Google does not trust apps. The reason I got into open source was because I did not trust OS and library vendors.

The reason I have never used Apple products was their attitude of "It you want to do what we don't allow you to do, you are obviously wrong in wanting to do it".

I don't see this as progress.
 

Not a Lock-In

[PineHall]

Jolicloud, a competitor to Google OS, has an app at the Chrome Web Store. Jollicloud decided to integrate its platform inside the Chrome browser. You can use Jolicloud services instead for Google's. Though definitely restrictive, Google is not locking you into its services.

Just like iOS

[gig]

It is getting pretty tiresome to watch Google keep inventing all kinds of Apple technology a few years late. The fact that apps and users can't modify the system in iOS is something that fucking Andy Rubin (of Google) has criticized about it. What the fuck is up at Google?

Re:Just like iOS

[geekoid]

yeah and that criticism is just killing iPhone and iPad sales.

Well...duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to do some work fixing up computers that people would bring in.
At least 75% of the computers I fixed, the problem stemmed from the user being a complete moron.
From deleting key system files to trying to get that free $1000 that blinking pop up offered.
So I can understand why you wouldn't want to trust your users.

need to go one step further

[a2wflc]

don't allow users to power on the device and don't allow any apps to run. Then we'll all be safe.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[kehren77]

So you will be constantly using data if these things have 3G or 4G connections? And AT&T though the iPhone used too much data.

And what happens when your internet service is down or you are out of a data coverage area? Kinda useless then isn't it?

If I had a dollar for every time I had to fix

[__aavqan3009]

A computer with chrome on it.....I`d have thousands. Keep away.

The Chrome Files

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chrome Files: Trust No One -- The Truth Is Out There (but we won't let you download it).

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[im_thatoneguy]

Microsoft tried locking out third parties from altering the kernel and they all cried anti-competitive and demanded API access... and now we have "anti-virus" programs that are hostage-ware that integrate into Microsoft's "security center". All so that we could get shitty Norton.

I wouldn't trust applications or users either

[WillAffleckUW]

I wouldn't trust either applications or user requests to install them either.

Filthy buggers.

They have small hands too - have you ever noticed that?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

This sentence is horribly mangled:
"Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved, the Googlers claim."

This would be a much better alternative:
"Googlers claim that once users are banned from installing applications or modifying the system security, usability and more is improved."

Of course, asking editors here to do their job is so much pissing in the wind...

And it will not be used..

[trollertron3000]

Be realistic. If Chrome OS was going to explode in use it already would have. It has it's uses but I don't see a lot of the IT crowd embracing it. They'd rather just install a "real" OS and have complete control. If this OS is pushed it will be from the suit level, at the top, with golf course business deals.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[SEWilco]

"Operating systems today are centered on the idea that applications can be trusted to modify the system" only applies to Microsoft operating systems. Unix and Linux don't trust applications. Application packaging systems are often trusted by users to properly install an app, but Unix/Linux requires the user to have sufficient privileges to allow the app installer to perform the installation. Few Unix/Linux apps are given root privileges.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

And then somehow, magically, trusting giant corporations becomes ok again.

No Surprise, it's a locked down Ad delivery system

[guidryp]

I bet you can't install ad blocking either. Google is not the champion of Open, they are the champion of Google.

Google security...

[metrometro]

Yeah, but they still can't get HTTPS on their own damn cloud products. Here's a quick look at Google's security beyond the local device:

I turn on my laptop, turn on my VPN, surf. In the process I got owned by my buddy running Firesheep. Here's how:

Laptop has tabs open.
Wifi connects before VPN kicks in.
Chrome tries to refresh a tab containing a PUBLIC Google Doc where I was not logged in, and Chrome sends out my authentication without HTTPS on it.
Firesheep grabbed the Google account, which is my Reset password account for everything else. Owned.

Later we learned that Chrome's sync bookmarks tool also sends your Google account authentication without HTTPS. All the time.

So if you're on an open network, Google is spamming your authentication to anyone who's listening, because they can't get their shit together to use HTTPS when they authenticate.

So, yeah. Security. Good job.

Re:Google security...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure you can do anything damaging with a Google Accounts session cookie stolen by firesheep. You'll be "logged in" as the user you stole from, but you're not going to be able to touch any service that requires https without putting your password in again. That means no using gmail to takeover your other accounts, and no reading your Docs.

Re:Google security...

[uvajed_ekil]

I'm not sure you can do anything damaging with a Google Accounts session cookie stolen by firesheep.

Mod parent up, if the comment is in fact correct, because this is significant.

Re:Google security...

[IamTheRealMike]

As noted by the AC, that's not quite correct. Many Google services have their own cookies. Stealing one of them isn't necessarily enough to access the other services. For instance stealing a cookie that wasn't over HTTPS won't let you change your Google password, not will it let you access Gmail. So not quite as bad as it seems.

Re:Google security...

[Rich0]

Are the passwords hashed when they are sent? I don't think the previous post was concerned about cookie theft, but rather password theft.

How does chrome sync your bookmarks? Simple - it has your Google account username and password stored locally on the machine. I'm sure it uses a cookie to bypass authentication when it can, but when that cookie expires it has to retransmit your username and password. Now, the question is how this is done. Obviously if they use https we're fine. If they use a challenge-response approach over http then the password is safe though the cookie is vulnerable. If they send the password in a form as plain text then anybody sniffing the connection has it.

I'm too lazy to sift through wireshark data to try to find my Chrome sync traffic, but I think this is a legitimate concern.

Haven't we been here before?

[bkmoore]

All this Chrome OS cloud stuff reminds me of the mid to late '90s. I remember when IBM, Oracle, SUN and a few others pushing stripped-down, inexpensive appliance-like computers as the next big thing. I think at the time it was called a "network computer" for handling E-mail, word processing, "surfing" the internet, database accessing, etc. Then storage and memory prices fell so quickly, there was never really a market for an internet appliance. Also most people at the time were on dial up. Internet connections may be faster now, but why would anyone want to buy a "network computer", given that HD storage and RAM don't really impact the end price as much as they used to? Is Google looking at a "free PC" subscription-based business model like most mobile phones?

My opinion at the time was the "network computer" makers missed the boat in the platform wars, so were trying to redefine the game in some way that didn't involve Microsoft. Why is it any different this time around? This is not a troll, I am just curious about the business case for Chrome OS, especially considering the success of its stable mate Android.

Re:Haven't we been here before?

[geekoid]

They also didn't have a platform to contain all your work for you. THAT was what was missing.

It's very easy, lets you go to a coffee shop and work without wierd syncing,a dn so on.

IN the 90s it was a computer attached to a local network, but you could not collaborate worth a damn, and all the same issues where there, just with less control.

This removes all those barriers. Plus the environment in corporate IT has changed.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Apple has a patent on it...

Seriously?

[Xpendable]

This coming from the company that created the Google Chrome webbrowser, which purposely bypasses ALL of Windows Security features to allow it to be installed even on the most locked-down user accounts. Seems ironic that that they would tout this when their own software uses the same techniques utilized by malware and virus authors.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Daengbo]

Any app I run could modify my .bashrc or install something to $HOME/local and run on log-in. As long as I have network access, the program can create a botnet.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Facegarden]

Really, not letting most users or applications modify the OS is a good thing. Microsoft (and others) have had a TERRIBLE model in permitting this. Third-party stuff has no business altering the foundation of the system's operation.

Now, not letting an application that doesn't want to monkey with the OS get installed is probably going too far. I mean, who's gonna run an OS they can't put an app on? That's broken.

Define "app".

ChromeOS allows the offline install of webapps like Google Docs, which allows you to use every regular function of google docs offline, with no web connection. You can create, save, and edit documents, including saving them to external media, without an internet connection. You can even print them if you have a network connection, even if there is no internet.

How is that not an app?

ChromeOS is not an operating system like you are used to. That doesn't automatically mean its a bad idea.
-Taylor

I love it!

[Requia]

Currently in the middle of the 5th virus removal of the year for my father, who only uses the computer to surf the web anyway. If I can knock a couple trojans off my workload without the tech support overload a linux system would have, it would so be worth getting him (and a couple of my aunts, my grandfather, my brother...).a chromeOS system.

Re:I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is true that he only uses the computer for web surfing, you don't have to wait for ChromeOS devices.

There have been many articles in recent years that describe unqualified success in switching such users to any of several consumer-oriented distributions of Linux, such as Ubuntu, Mint, PCLinux, etc. The articles report NO tech support needed after the switch to Linux, and the older users adapt to the minor differences between Internet Explorer and whatever browser the author set up for them on the Linux system. If you really want to get him off of Windows, and he really does nothing besides web surfing, you can make the switch right now.

Re:Gee, Microsoft didn't whip IBM because of this

[geekoid]

yes, but the world is different. IT dept are sick of maintaining everyones data, that are sick of be version police, they are sick of the constant cycle of upgrades, and business are sick of paying for it.

Corporations want everyone on the same version all the time, and now they can REGARDLESS of the hardware.

Re:No Surprise, it's a locked down Ad delivery sys

[geekoid]

Chrome has BUILT IN ad blocks.

Next.

Fair Enough, Users Don't Trust Chrome OS Either

[assertation]

At least not this user, not after Google's stunt with Buzz or white washing the pictures in Google of Tianammen Square at the request of the PRC.

Using a browser or OS from google only seems a little bit better to me than using a browser or OS made by Facebook.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[DragonWriter]

The whole point of Chrome OS is to shift the application from running natively on the hardware to running in the cloud.

No, the whole point of Chrome OS is to shift applications from targetting the OS to targetting the browser (thereby commoditizing the OS.)

This differs from a shift from "running natively" to "running in the cloud" in that one of the major areas where Google has put effort to enable the browser to be the platform for more robust applications is in allowing browser-based applications to run disconnected from the internet and leverage local hardware resources in a way that previously was restricted to native applications. Features and technologies related to that that Google has actively sought to develop and/or promote leading and that are included in Chrome OS include (off the top of my head):
* HTML 5 local storage and other offline-functionality related APIs,
* Native Client
* O3D
* Cloud print
* More robust in-browser media support, including bundled-in Flash and PDF support

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Nadaka]

The way things are now? Yes. But if it had a built in web server for local apps and sufficient local storage, it wouldn't need to use data services to access remote apps and data as much.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Idiomatick]

If it drops the cost of the device to some sort of sub 100 dollar range the thing suddenly becomes awesome again.

I'm actually supporting chrome devices having tons of ads. The more ads the bigger the drop in cost and I can just put linux on it. And google can bet on people not formatting and using it for a while.

Semi offtopic but a device maker getting paid per use really gives incentive to make a device that is addictive and lasts forever. It kicks the ass of planned obsolescence.

Re:going to happen

[TaoPhoenix]

I'm pessimistically betting they will. Why? Because Control is Fun!
To me this looks like the fabled Trusted Computing, where trust means trusting the vendor and not you.

The less active stuff you do with your machine the more you can be a nice media consumer paying by the megabyte of streamed video.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[jpmorgan]

No, but UNIX and Linux trusts applications to modify my data. That's far worse than modifying the system.

There's no reason why applications should run with my userid, and with all my user rights.

Hypocritical.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Chrome OS does not trust the user or any potential software that they may install to be trustworthy, then why the hell does Google seem to trust JavaScript? Better yet--why the hell is the pile of security bugs known as Adobe Flash so trusted by Google that not only does Chrome support it, it fucking comes with it?

Clearly if Google didn't "trust" random code that a user might come across, they would build right into the browser something like NoScript and not bundle Flash with their browser. What if I visit some malicious Flash-based porn site or or some non-Google-approved online document application? The browser will run all scripts with no problem.

This is just an attempt to block people from installing local/offline software and to keep them using Google online services, which will no doubt be recommended all around the web brows... er, I mean operating system. AKA, lock-in and some serious crippling, Apple-style.

"If we prevent you from doing something stupid...

[davecb]

... we may well prevent you from doing something brilliant."
Probably either Thompson or Ritchie, speaking about Unix.

--dave (anyone sell additional memory chips for humans?) c-b

Cr-48 according to WikiPedia...

[markjhood2003]

... has a half-life of less than a day. Guess that might be appropriate for a prototype machine, but hopefully Google will be moving on to Cr-50 sometime soon.

How many megs of localStorage?

[tepples]

browser based applications will require network connection to the extent that they don't take advantage of the features of HTML5 and other technologies implemented in the Chrome browser for the specific purpose of enabling offline web applications.

But how much data will a web application be able to store in CACHE MANIFEST and localStorage? Enough to make, say, a podcast downloader work? And to what extent will it support WebGL for advanced graphics, for which iOS currently requires a native app?

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

If ChromeOS allows apps to access files on external media, then in what way is that more secure than traditional apps?

Oh, and how does one print if you can't install printer drivers?

Compare to video game consoles

[tepples]

I'm appalled by the idea that the person who pays several hundred dollars for a computing device shouldn't be able to do any damned thing he pleases to it.

Then I guess you'd be appalled by video game consoles, especially those that cost five hundred and ninety-nine U.S. dollars on launch.

Re:Compare to video game consoles

[mcgrew]

Yes, game consoles' being locked down does appall me, which is why I won't buy one despite the fact that my daughter works at GameStop.

Re:Compare to video game consoles

[tepples]

So we've established that you won't buy a video game console because it doesn't trust its user. What do you do when you or your daughter has friends over who want to play a video game? Not a lot of PC games have local multiplayer.

Re:Compare to video game consoles

[mcgrew]

My daughters are grown and moved out. But when they were teenagers, we played PC games (all three of us were big Quake fans). We had 2 or 3 PCs networked together for local multiplayer.

CACHE MANIFEST and localStorage

[tepples]

But if it had a built in web server for local apps and sufficient local storage

Google Chrome already supports CACHE MANIFEST and localStorage, two HTML5 technologies allowing web applications written in JavaScript to run offline. The question is just how many megabytes they can be.

Offline advertisement

[tepples]

Google can't serve you ads if you're not online.

Of course it can. It can download the advertisements to localStorage whenever you sync your data between your device and the Internet.

The web is not ubiquitous...

[Radical Moderate]

...and I'm not buying a portable computer that only works when it can talk to Google's servers (though I'll happily beta test one!). Preventing apps from mucking around with system files is a no-brainer, but that doesn't mean they have to live in the cloud. For corn's sake, they make portable apps for Windows that work fine without touching the OS.

1 TB? In my cloud? Wait 200 months.

[tepples]

I have a 300 GB drive full of MP3s and movies in my desktop system. [...] The process of *correctly* syncing all that data is a lot more difficult (and still requires a lot of bandwidth between all of your devices) than simply storing it "in the cloud" and streaming it from a central location to whichever device you want to access it on at the moment.

What use is 300 GB of MP3s and movies in the cloud if your cellular ISP will only let you access 5 GB of data per month? At least if you have them on your home server, you can sync them over Wi-Fi at up to 54 Mbps.

Brilliant

[Venik]

Imagine this: an operating environment where neither the users nor user applications can modify the system. What a novel idea.

Bands that ban

[tepples]

I like being banded.

Even when it's an amniotic band that bans oxygen from getting to a developing limb, bans it from fully developing, and then bans you from being able to use it as one would use a fully developed limb?

Re:Bands that ban

[Crudely_Indecent]

If you saw the size of this limb, you'd understand.

this takes the "personal" out of computer

[__aaqvdr516]

I'll remain a free range web user, but thanks anyways Google.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[cbhacking]

First off, you're way out of date. Windows has supported the permissions structure you're advocating since NT 3.1 came out (it pre-dates Windows 95, although until XP came out the permission-less 9x systems existed in parallel). The first user created had root permissions, but nothing required that you do everything as that user; my day-to-day XP account had limited permissions. For Vista and Win7, by default even members of the Administrators security group run programs with limited permissions, though they can get root (Admin) access on-demand. Except for installers (and not always for those) Windows programs aren't usually given root permissions either.

Also, there's a difference between trusing users (logon credentials) and trusting apps. The usual behavior is that an app has whatever permissions the user running it has. Linux, through AppArmor or SELinux, offers some ways to limit the trust in an application, but most default installs don't use these. The Windows application-level trust system, Mandatory Integrity Control, is less fine-grained than something like AppArmor, but is easy to apply and is used on several out-of-the-box programs, including Internet Explorer. Such apps are marked as being "Low Integrity Level" and therefore are not permitted to write to any portion of the filesystem not *also* marked as Low IL, regardless of the permissions of the user running the program. Similarly, a program can't send messages to a program with a higher IL, so for example standard limited-user programs (default Medium IL) can't attempt to take over Administrator-level (High IL) programs. MIC is only available on NT 6.x (Vista, Server 2008, and Win7) but so far as I know OS X has nothing even vaguely equivalent.

Re:No Surprise, it's a locked down Ad delivery sys

[guidryp]

Really? where?

It's ok to not trust the user, but..

[Sloppy]

..it better trust the machine's owner completely, or else these machines are just Trojan Horses. If the machine doesn't ultimately answer to you, then who does it answer to? Someone who isn't you, that's who.

Re:It's ok to not trust the user, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

When I buy a plane ticket I don't get to control the plane, and it's better that way.

Re:It's ok to not trust the user, but..

[Sloppy]

When I buy a plane ticket I don't get to control the plane, and it's better that way.

If you're the kind of person who paid twenty million dollars expecting to only get a plane ticket, maybe you're right that you shouldn't be in control. Of anything.

Re:It's ok to not trust the user, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pay twenty million dollars for a whole plane, then you normally also hire a pilot. This Chrome OS is like getting a plane-pilot combo all from Google. If you know how to fly and intent to fly your own plane, then this plane-pilot combo is not for you. Same way if you can and want to control your netbook, then you might not like Chrome OS.

users are banned from installing applications?

[nurb432]

Um.. then what is the point of having it?

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you idiots ever research anything you declare to be true? In Chrome, and Chrome OS, you can install packaged apps, which bundles the complete web app, including all HTML, images, JavaScript code, and any extras. Running this app generates no network requests whatsoever. Furthermore, offline (cached) applications can also be completely local. And... (I might be mistaken on this point)... web apps included in the Web Store DO NOT need to be hosted by Google -- only the package info does (which specifies the app URL).

good, 'coz as a user I don't trust chrome OS

[obarthelemy]

where's that thing where they commit to a reasonable, and high, level of availability, safety and security for my work, my data, my life's bread crumbs ? I'm not even touching on confidentiality.

oh, there's none ?

and they've got free rein to do whatever they want with my data, my apps, my OS ?

kthxbye.

Re:Gee, Microsoft didn't whip IBM because of this

[zigamorph]

So what you are saying is that IT departments would prefer not to exist?

What about peripherals?

[n3xu5]

I actually agree with the idea of an appliance-like approach for some things. I can wrap my mind around the connected and disconnected application scenarios based on HTML5 technologies. What I can't quite figure out is if this is a user's only computing device, how do you connect it to a home printer, scanner, etc. devices? I'll admit I have not read up on this particular device, but, in general, I am not certain how well such a scenario plays out.

Since Linux is running underneath, a certain level of device support would be available, but there is a large amount of user-space software that is usually needed to operate peripherals. Again, it could just be that this isn't part of this product's intended appeal. But I suppose I just can easily hear in the back of my mind of a family member buying one of these because of a low cost and then wondering why they can't connect their iPod, printer, or camera to it. I don't see how you can get away from the need of a "real" desktop system at some point. Perhaps we simply aren't "there" yet.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[DragonWriter]

Oh, and how does one print if you can't install printer drivers?

Looking at Google Cloud Print information, it looks like the intent is not only that you can use the Google Cloud Print service to access a Cloud-aware printer (or one with a cloud-aware proxy), but that support will exist for compatible third-party cloud print services. So, presumably, if you had both a cloud print service and a cloud-aware printer on your local network, you could print via cloud print without access to the internet and the Google Cloud Print service.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Jaime2]

Microsoft (and others) have had a TERRIBLE model in permitting this. Third-party stuff has no business altering the foundation of the system's operation.

Microsoft fixed this issue almost ten years ago with .Net. The .Net framework allows you to grant or deny any permission to any application (or to every application). The default configuration is that applications launched from storage outside the local machine are not trusted to do anything other than display a user interface, regardless of the permissions of the user running the application. It would be trivial to change the configuration so that only Microsoft software could modify the OS. The only problem is that vendors of shrink-wrap software have predominantly chosen to not use .Net.

TRON

[Gogogoch]

.... Master System....

Somehow I see this leading to a trainwreck...

[BLKMGK]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/08/european-carriers-want-content-companies-and-smartphone-makers-t/

So carriers are apparently looking for both users and content providers to pay for the same thing and providers liek Google want us to use even MORE bandwidth? Not to mention rumblings of carriers going to pay as you go plans more and more. Somehow I don't see this working out so well!

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

If an app can write to external media, then in what way is it secure?
If you can't install printer drivers, how can you print?

Don't trust...

[Chris Mattern]

...anyone over 3.0!

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft (and others) have had a TERRIBLE model in permitting this. Third-party stuff has no business altering the foundation of the system's operation"

And as soon as Microsoft try to stop third parties altering the foundation of the system's operation, somone complains because they can't sell their $FIREWALL or $VIRUS_SCANNER or $SECURITY_BLOATWARE.

Can't entirely blame MS.

I honor the place...

[drusha]

"I honor the place where your inability to manage your computer and my desire to control your entire life become one." - Eric Schmidt

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[starfishsystems]

"Operating systems today are centered on the idea that applications can be trusted to modify the system, and that users can be trusted to install applications that are trustworthy," says Google VP Sundar Pichai.

Well, that's a pretty fundamental misstatement. In fact most operating systems today - and for the past 30 or 40 years or more - do not allow any entity without elevated privilege to modify the system or install applications.

The glaring exception is Microsoft Windows, and I agree with you that it uses a terrible security model. It violates software engineering principles that go back to the early days of timeshared systems. Back in the days when Bill Gates was answering his own emails, I asked him about this very issue. He told me "customers aren't asking for it". I said, "I'm a customer, and I'm asking." He did not reply.

Most operating systems today are derived from Unix, if not literally then philosophically, which in turn uses a simplified implementation of Multics security rings. Unless a particular derivative has been deliberately engineered to make system files world-writeable, an ordinary user is not going to be able to touch them.

I'm not debating whether such derivatives are a good idea. I'm saying that Sundar Pichai is talking nonsense to suggest that this is some kind of universal problem from which Google has to save us.

So let's talk sense instead. Ignore the red flags being waved about the innate danger of applications. There is innate danger in all kinds of things. In Unix, for example, there's nothing to prevent me from typing a single shell command that accidentally deletes all my files. That's bad luck for me, but unless I want to be denied access to the most basic kind of expressive power, it can happen. I can shoot myself in the foot.

Put that shell command in a script and call it an application. I give you the application, and now you can shoot yourself in the foot with it. Is this the least bit surprising? It's not architecturally different than if you wrote it yourself and then forgot what it did. Who ever said that you should trust a mysterious black box to fulfil any claimed behavior?

So sandbox it, if you can't trust it. We've been heading in that direction for some considerable time. The fact that Microsoft is late to the party is not, in my view, grounds for cancelling the party. Even if Google says that it's hosting an even better party down the street. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. To me, that's just another empty claim.

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[starfishsystems]

Yes, exactly!

With rare exceptions, there's no reason why a Unix application cannot be installed just fine in userspace. Install it in your home directory. Done. Problem solved.

If a particular application doesn't install properly where you tell it to, that's the fault of the application, not the operating system. And it can be fixed.

That's okay...

[uvajed_ekil]

Chrome doesn't trust applications, or users — and neither can modify the system.

That's okay, because this user doesn't trust Google or Chrome OS, and they will not be permitted to install an OS on my computer. I'll stick to linux, which I know I can sort of trust most of the time, and my own judgment, which is well known to be predictably untrustworthy.

Where nothing can possibly go worng

[grikdog]

I'll put my zorkmids on human fallability, tyvm.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not all of them

[RichiH]

While you are mostly correct, there will be modifications in /etc which a user will value. Especially since most *nix systems are used by one or two people, tops.

End of personal security and a godsend for tyranny

[Anonymous Coward]

Security comes from local physical control over your resources.

- If your resource isn't in your own local, physical possession, it is not secure (for you).

- When your resource is in someone else's physical possession, only that party has secure control over it. You don't.

- When your resource is remote, it's even less than insecure --- it may not even be accessible to you at all.

- Denying you access to "your" resource becomes trivial when it is remote ... an unavoidable consequence which will be much loved by tyrannical governments, and which turns you into a totally controlled puppet.

In respect of security and freedom, this has to be one of the worst ideas ever conceived in the history of personal computing.

Stables browser?

[xnpu]

If this guarantees me a stable browser experience, I'll get one just for that. There isn't any browser on my OS/X and Linux machines that doesn't crash after a few days of heavy usage. (Which may or may not be due the the poisonous flash plugin, but i need to use it.)

Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny that people buy these lousy devices at all. What's even more funny is the war between them trying to get bigger and bigger screens. Bigger and bigger phones, iPads, Chrome based pads, etc. Oh and now you can add a keyboard and a mouse and peripherals and...

All of these people are reinventing the PC and laptop and the stupid masses that buy them are the suckers. People don't realize they are buying a computer with the power of a Pentium III or K6-2. OOOOOOOHHHHHH! They just spent $1000 on a computer whose technology is 10 years old, and probably on credit.

Portability? Please. Admit it, you are a lemming, you will do what you are told.

With subsidy

[tepples]

Nexus S will be ~$200 w/ subsidy.

iPod touch needs no subsidy to reach a sub-$250 price point. Where is the Android device that's affordable without a $1,679.76 commitment to cell phone service, for people who will be using the device only with Wi-Fi and not as a phone on a 3G network? Google has resisted one becoming available because it's so strict on what devices it allows onto the Market. Archos 43? Not in my home town, and the selection in AppsLib is negligible compared to Android Market.

Re:With subsidy

[trapnest]

iPod touch isn't a phone.

Software development as a hobby

[tepples]

The question is whether everyone pays more for those features, or just the people that actually actively desire the feature.

Application development benefits everyone, and why shouldn't everyone pay for everyone's benefit? Another tack: If there are no mass-market devices that allow software development, then what will members of the mass market use when they decide to take up software development as a hobby?

I'd rather consider something more relevant, like the cost of Google's Android dev phones vs. the cost of similar smartphones before any contracting-incentive subsidies provided by carriers.

True, the Nexus One and the unlocked Galaxy S are comparable in price. But is there anything that's not a phone on which one can get his feet wet developing Android apps? Something in the price range of, say, an iPod touch? I have a cousin who wants to know this because he wants to get his feet wet developing Android apps but can't afford smartphone service. Right now he's stuck on an emulator.

Re:Software development as a hobby

[DragonWriter]

Application development benefits everyone, and why shouldn't everyone pay for everyone's benefit?

The extent that it benefits everyone, everyone does pay -- by whatever mechanism that pays for the apps they use (whether direct payments, ads, or whatevers).

Another tack: If there are no mass-market devices that allow software development, then what will members of the mass market use when they decide to take up software development as a hobby?

Software development would be far from the only hobby to have a buy in cost that involves purchasing equipment not generally used outside of the hobby or a related professional industry.

Its certainly convenient for hobbyists to be able to use consumer gear (and, heck, is there any locked-down consumer computing gear that hasn't been jailbroken, thus making it usable by hobbyists without the restrictions intended by the supplier?), I don't think hobbyists have an entitlement to demand that mass market gear be designed to accomodate that desire.

True, the Nexus One and the unlocked Galaxy S are comparable in price. But is there anything that's not a phone on which one can get his feet wet developing Android apps? Something in the price range of, say, an iPod touch? I have a cousin who wants to know this because he wants to get his feet wet developing Android apps but can't afford smartphone service.

I don't know anything that is unlocked-out-of-the-box in that price range; the Nook Color is an Android device similar in price to an iTouch and there is a jailbreak process published for it.

Re:End of personal security and a godsend for tyra

[natehoy]

Why? If you want to, Google provides the tools to root it and you can easily install your personal choice of freedoms.

This is aimed at the type of person who wants to put a piece of bread in a slot, push down on the lever, watch the wires get hot, and have TOAST, YEAH TOAST!

Not the kind of person who wants to go out and start a fire in their backyard so they can hold bread on a handcarved stick to make their toast.

Computers are, for a decent percentage of the population, an appliance. An appliance that takes too much time to maintain and worry about and protect just to get on a web browser and surf them thar interwebz.

Nothing at all is stopping you from expressing your own personal freedoms on this device. It's just that with freedom comes responsibility, and a lot of people either can't or don't want that responsibility for a computer they don't really need it on.

The rest of us will carry on, free from the "hey, I saw an odd popup and clicked on it and now I've got this odd message every time I start up" multi-hour debugging extravaganza.

I don't want this for me. I want this for my 70-year-old aunt who is intimidated by the term "Web Browser" ("but I don't want to browse, I know where I want to go!") and email client ("I'm not a lawyer! I want it for me!") and program ("I'm not watching TV!").

Here, push the power button, three seconds later click on "The Facebook", hey, you're online! No caps lock key so you can't shout.

I get around ANDROID "lockdown"

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I do it, for customizing it? Simple - but you have to have access to & use the SDK/developer kit tools they give you:

In the case I did this in, I used ADB!

With ADB, you can mount the mountpoint area you want to alter (say for the system - which is what I was up to in fortifying the HOSTS file on ANDROID) & I mounted system in Read + Write mode, first.

Secondly, I then pull in what you want using the PULL command, and then the PUSH command to do it an alteration of the HOSTS file on ANDROID, for overwriting it with a custom HOSTS file.

In the example I am speaking of now, I did that to use a large custom HOSTS file on my nephew's (RIT 3rd yr. CIS student) ANDROID phone, and it worked.

ANDROID wouldn't allow it otherwise, complaining "modification now allowed on production OS model" or something VERY along those lines...

Well, I beat it, but I had to use developer tools to do so.

APK

Re:I get around ANDROID "lockdown"

[RMH101]

ADB won't give you root though. Try this trick on an HTC handset running Sense and you won't have R/W access to the system directory. I do on mine, but I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get there. A lot of vendors deliberately make it very hard to root their handsets. XDA-Developers usually comes through, but it can take a while.

A web-based thin client

[darealpat]

..is what this is when one looks at it objectively. As such, it will have its niche in business and education where user "interference" is less desireable.

in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

trains found to hardly be involved in crashes

Re:Can't install an ap? That'll slow adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

seeing as how genode recently introduced linux as a browser plugin I see a bright future ^^

Where do professional developers come from?

[tepples]

The extent that it benefits everyone, everyone does pay -- by whatever mechanism that pays for the apps they use (whether direct payments, ads, or whatevers).

Then why not spread the cost among everyone in a more direct way rather than price-discriminating against developers? Making it expensive to develop software will only discourage hobby development, which in turn discourages hobbyist developers from becoming professional developers.

Software development would be far from the only hobby to have a buy in cost

The question is why it has to have a buy-in cost in the first place.

is there any locked-down consumer computing gear that hasn't been jailbroken, thus making it usable by hobbyists without the restrictions intended by the supplier?

There isn't a useful jailbreak for the Nintendo DSi yet. The current jailbreaks allow only the use of DS compatible software, not software that uses the camera, SD card slot, or expanded RAM.

I don't want a phone

[tepples]

I don't want a phone. Google hasn't made much of a push to get Android Market onto not-phones, leaving the not-phone market to Apple.

I mount the system mount point as WRITE

[Anonymous Coward]

I mount the system mount point as both READ & WRITE priveleged, first.

Then I did the ADB PUSH/PULL work to overwrite the stock ANDROID hosts file.

Otherwise, it gave me the hassles you spoke of!

(E.G.-> Without using the mount command & ADB alone, yes, I could not overwrite the original-oem stock HOSTS file in ANDROID - this is why I stressed mounting system in ANDROID as READ + WRITE using the mount command (that command is what gives you the privilege to do the WRITE, not what's in ADB)).

APK

Re:I mount the system mount point as WRITE

[RMH101]

I'm very familiar with ADB. Problem is a lot of handsets default ROMs will NOT let you mount system r/w. HTC Sense ROMs don't, for example, and it's only in the last few months that it's been acheived by the hacking community via a number of exploits.
That's the thing with Android - it's open and anyone can customise it, including handset manufacturers who want to restrict access!

I can use your input here (thanks)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm very familiar with ADB. Problem is a lot of handsets default ROMs will NOT let you mount system r/w. HTC Sense ROMs don't, for example, and it's only in the last few months that it's been acheived by the hacking community via a number of exploits. That's the thing with Android - it's open and anyone can customise it, including handset manufacturers who want to restrict access!" - by RMH101 (636144) on Monday December 13, @09:17AM (#34533728)

That's a USEFUL reply on your part, so thanks for the feedback/input. Now, I do have a question:

QUESTION: WHAT OTHER PHONES ALLOW FOR THIS TYPE OF ACCESS (even if it's via dev. tools like ADB, which I used on ANDROID to replace the "stock-oem" HOSTS file with one that blocks ad banners &/or KNOWN BAD SITES/SERVERS (along with a write enabled mount command for the system mountpoint on ANDROID))?

APK

P.S.=> Specifically, IF you know? Does RIM Blackberry allow for it, and does it have a BSD based IP stack?? Once more/Again: Thanks for the replies, you've got a lot to say I think on phones here, & I can gain by it (and you're certainly no troll either, thank goodness)... apk

Re:I can use your input here (thanks)... apk

[RMH101]

I know Android well, and have always run a huge hosts file on that platform, primarily to avoid ads.
You can do the same on a (Jailbroken) iPhone.
I don't know about Blackberry - I assumed they got around the problems of web-based exploits by making the browser so appalling to use!
P.S. If you have a rooted phone then you might find "Root Explorer" or "E-Strong File Manager" (with root options enabled)useful. They let you mount the system filesystem as r/w and browse/edit it from the handset itself. Can be useful if you don't have a PC or a microUSB cable to hand.

Drawback of LAN gaming

[tepples]

But when they were teenagers, we played PC games (all three of us were big Quake fans). We had 2 or 3 PCs networked together for local multiplayer.

But not all parents are willing to buy multiple gaming PCs and multiple copies of each game for the household. The cost of PC LAN gaming pushes parents to consoles, where adding one player to the whole library of games that the family owns costs as much as one Wii Remote and one Nunchuk. And not all genres are well suited to LAN play. Look at fighting games, which put both players in the same view; there aren't nearly as many fighting games on PC as on consoles because there aren't a lot of PCs with a big enough monitor.

Re:Drawback of LAN gaming

[mcgrew]

I never bought multiple copies of the game. I consider that selling me a network-enabled game without letting me use the network features without shelling out more cash is thievery on their part -- and back then, most games allowed you to install your game on multiple CDs. There was the occasional game that required you to have the CD in, but almost all of them were single player games anyway. Only a really shitty company will try to steal from their customers.

That's actually one of the biggest reasons I stopped gaming altogether -- the game companies got got too goddamned greedy and unethecal.

I had one PC using the big 42 inch TV as a monitor, a video card with an S-video output was less than a hundred bucks.

Re:Drawback of LAN gaming

[tepples]

I consider that selling me a network-enabled game without letting me use the network features without shelling out more cash is thievery on their part

Their defense is that they let you use the Internet, and instead of playing against people in your own household, you should be playing against people from other households.

I had one PC using the big 42 inch TV as a monitor

I gather from the comments of other Slashdot users such as CronoCloud that you are in a minority. Only geeks tend to have HTPCs, and there appear not to be enough geeks to support a market for HTPC-optimized modes in major-label PC games.

Re:Drawback of LAN gaming

[mcgrew]

I gather from the comments of other Slashdot users such as CronoCloud that you are in a minority

I'm sure I am. Most "normal" people don't have a clue that you can use a TV as a computer monitor.