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."
Doesn't that make it even more closed than an iProduct?
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.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
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?
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
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
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.