Slashdot Mirror
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."
I trust me more than I trust Google.
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.
... now back to the bit mines.
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.
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.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
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.