I guess I just don't udnerstand the purpose. I'm only ever doing development on one machine. I'd rather be able to use the tool that works the best, not the one that happens to work inside a browser. And sure, I use a web browser a LOT, but I'm also running a few other apps at any given time. Skype, Mail, Adium (IM), iTunes, TextMate (editor), Calendar. You're telling me that you really only use a browser and terminal and that's *it*?
I can work from anywhere (without carring stuff around
If I need to, I can always download Putty onto someobody's Windows box and get access from there. Doesn't even need to install. Just the.exe run from desktop. And vi if I really need to edit something. But for real development, I need to use a local dev enviornment.
I would run the "cloud" based editor on the same system where I do my testing for the websites I work on. Which means I'm editing the code on the same system it needs to be deployed on.
I'm pretty sure the IDE you linked to is a hosted service and not an app you can install on the server where you deploy so you can't edit on the deploy server. You would have to edit on the hosted service, commit to github, and then deploy to the server to view changes. And even if you could install the editor on your deploy server, what are you going to do, install a different instance of the editor on EACH server? That's just awful.
Either way though, editing files on the deploy server is amateur. Proper development happens in a developer's private enviornment and changes are only pushed to production when they're tested and compete. Or better yet, they go through a "staging" environment.
Well, it isn't so much that it doesn't run applications so much as it doesn't run anything but Chrome applications - with a much more limited API. In some sense complaining that it doesn't run Openoffice is like complaining that Ubuntu doesn't run Internet Explorer. That said, if you need to run Internet Explorer for whatever reason neither Ubuntu nor Chrome OS is going to be suitable, and that argument hits Chrome even harder.
But you can run Internet Explorer on Linux. Either through Wine (I have no idea if this is actually possible currently) or under virtualization. I do it all the time on the Mac. You just can't run it naively.
Google is basically trying to rethink the entire desktop paradigm.
Either that or they can't see past the browser. Maybe they're just short sighted and don't really get how people use computers. Though I suppose there's always going to be SOMEONE who can get by using only a web browser. It is just that I don't see why anyone would voluntarily limit themselves like that when powerful hardware is so cheap these days. If you only use a browser, install a regular OS and only use the web browser. At least then you have the possibility of running a standalone app if the need arises.
Limiting the ability to run arbitrary X11 apps greatly cuts down on the number of possible exploits possible.
In theory, maybe, but in practice it doesn't matter. Especially with the kind of strict package management using signatures that Linux uses.
Plus, they don't want to make it easy to work with locally-stored files, since the whole point of the device is to not do that except when transferring files to/from a cloud-based service. If you have a bazillion files on the local drive then if you drop the thing you lose them.
Or you setup some sync/backup of important files. You can even sync you files to the "cloud" automatically. This is a problem that is largely solved. I know Apple makes backup dead simple. Also, if you really do have a bazillion files, you probably have them between many different applications. Which means they're spread out amongst many different services on the "cloud." That makes it difficult to search, track, and transfer files between apps/services. Say I have my pictures on one service, but I want to try a different one to edit them... kind of a pain to download them locally and then import into something else. Better to have a central store for files.
I'm not sure I'd spend $500 on one personally. However, if I had an office of 10 people that needed to do typical office work I'd probably buy them in a heartbeat (assuming they could live with cloud-based apps only). I imagine the typical office with 10 people has no need for full-time IT, and probably pays quite a bit for desktop provisioning, backups, and general maintenance
Except that nearly all web based apps pale in comparison to desktop equivilents particular when it comes to business use. Have you actually tried using Google Spreadsheats for anyting but the most trivial of spreadsheets? I love Google Docs for sharing, but to do actual work? Oh god. Except for the sharing capabilities, Google Docs are about where Office suites were in 1992 in terms of functionality. Maybe 9 of 10 of Office users dont' need any modern spreadsheet features, but there's always that 1. ANd basically that one power user is going to define what the whole office needs. That's how MS Office got where it is now. Most people don't use a quarter of the poential of MS Office, but somebody does.
The concept of Chrome is that you buy IT like you buy phone service or whatever, and if a phone breaks you just go to Walmart to buy a new one.
So... use a regular computer and only use the browser. Give people a Google Docs account and instruct them to use it. That way if they DO need to run some standalone app (and all it takes is one), they
I, for one, am glad the Mac uses the toolbar for the application menubar. That means that Firefox and other apps can't hide it in a misguided attempt to be minimal. Don't hide the menubar, I still use it, dammit!
I do webdevelopment and network- and Linux/Unix system administration. It is that I've not had time yet to it up and try it out but I think I could actually move over all my work into a webbrowser if I wanted to. I've actually been wanting to try it out as an experiment:
You're not a real web developer or admin or you'd have very specific requirements of your terminal and editor. Either that your you greatly underestimte your requirements to get real work down. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself "what is the point?" I mean, just because you could theoretically move your work into the web browser, that doesn't mean you should. Is there any benefit? It looks like that terminal you linked to requires that you run a local server..??? So it isn't like you could use that anywhere.
http://www.cloud9ide.com/ [cloud9ide.com] (open source webbased programmers editor with git version control and offline support is almost ready)
So.. um.. how do you actually build/preview your project? Do you have to deploy your changes every time you want to see the results??? I can't see how this could possibly work. I'm a web developer and I have a specialized Ruby on Rails development environment including local daemons like memcache, mysql, activemq, etc. A "cloud" based editor woudl be totally useless to me.
I'm not an Office user however and I don't know if Google Docs or similair open source webapplication would be good enough for me, I do know I would want to have one that atleast supports HTML5-offline use. But as I understand it a lot of people already use it, so it probably satisfies their needs.
Google Docs are good for sharing documents and allowing multiple people to edit simultaneously, but I can't imagine using it as my primary Office program.
You don't seem to get how companies lock you into products. You can be effectively locked in despite competition. Look at how many people would so desperately love to get out of the hold that Microsoft has on almost everything business related. But it is hard. They make it hard. Once you've built everything around a vendor, it is incredibly difficult to switch gears when somebody wakes up and realizes that they've put all their eggs in one basket.
The internet evolved enough to allow everyone to "carry their own kiosk",
And mobile devices have evolved enough to allow everyone to run a full fledged OS with a web browser AND apps. And laptops are even more powerful. There's just no good reason now to lock yourself into a web browser.
Somewhat like iPad and iPhone, taking the idea to the extreme, allowing web applications to evolve and allow customers to further detach from well known OS vendors (such as Apple, Microsoft) that could sabotage access to Google web applications.
Wow, now that's just FUD. How are Apple and Microsoft going to sabotage your access to web applcations? As long as you can install Firefox or Chrome, you've got at least the same functionality as a Chromebook, and then some. Besides, even if Apple or Microsoft did do something to cripple Google apps, there's always Linux.
But as long as we're talking about FUD, what is stopping Google from making it difficult to export your documents to other competing services? At least Microsoft doesn't basically on the documents I create with Office.
The cloud works now for servers, not clients. It makes sense to put your corporate web server in the cloud, but it would be be wildly irresponsible to offload your office apps onto the cloud. Thin clients are fine when the servers are local and connectivity is reliable and fast, but not on the cloud where you app have been shoehorned into a web browser.
Any potential Chromebook buyer should be aware that it is for casual use and not serious work. I mean, Google Spreadsheets is neat for sharing simple documents, but pretty much a joke to anyone who seriously uses Excel. At least a Netbook running Linux or Windows can run a real Office suite. Google apps are just not up to the task.
No because the data is all the the cloud. At most you lose (not loose) a few seconds of work typing in a Google Doc for instance. See the many youtube videos of this in action if you like.
You do, however, lose access to your documents.
Yes because the majority of computer users know how what rsync or dd are let alone how to use them? I'd guess that 1% or less of computer users these days have ever touched a *nix command line.
Using Linux as an example of easy backup was probably a bad idea. OS X and WIndows, however, do make it dead simple these days. Time Machine, for example, works with no configuration. You just plug in an external drive and it asks you if you want to use it for backup. Done.
I can see how a Chromebook would see my aging parents calling on me less.
Sure, but it is kind of selfish, don't you think? You're saving yourself a headache by crippling their user experience.
The real question is if I can install some real Linux on it, or is it locked down?
As I understand it, Chrome OS isn't really Linux under the hood. It has a modified Linux kernel, but that's about it. And it doesn't run X11, so no, you can't really run Linux apps. It is locked down. That's what makes the thing such a freakin' joke. Buy a Netbook with a real Linux distribution installed if you want more than a browser.
Yeah right, as if you always have a top DSL connection everywhere. And if you loose your connection are you loosing any data, too?
iOS really has a place though. I mean, the devices that iOS targets are necessarily limited and could not effectively run a full fledged desktop OS and apps. To effectively target a phone, you have to design apps to utilize it. There's no balkanization since you wouldn't be able to run apps like OpenOffice on the devices effectively anyway. Chome OS, on the other hand, is just stupid. You can already get netbooks with limited hardware to run Linux and Chrome. To run Chrome OS unnecessarily limits you to using only a browser. There's really no excuse to make a laptop that can ONLY run a browser. It is like when they tried to sell computers with typewriter built that could only be a word processor. Nobody bought them because it made more sense to just buy a PC with a printer attached.
To get a patent, they'd have to reveal the protocol. And then there'd be no need to reverse engineer it. They're not really trying to protect their IP. It sounds like they want to protect their network. I guess it would be easier to automate spamming/phishing if you could interface their network without goin ghtorugh their client... maybe?
I use Skype primarily as an IM client with good group chat capabilities. I also do a lot of conference calls and yeah, call quality can be hit and miss, but no other service that I'm aware of combines video, text (one to one and conference), voice, and screensharing as well. And for free. I would definitely NOT use Skype if all I wanted was to make phone calls. I must prefer having a dedicated VoIP hardware device. I wouldn't want to be forced to be at my computer or have my computer on to make calls even if Skype was a good VoIP service.
Have you ever been in spammer forums? They exchange methods all the time. In fact, it is kind of surreal how they talk about it like it was just another day at the office. Like bypassing captchas to post pharmaceutical ads in blog comments. Dunno how they sleep at night.
If it makes you feel better, there's nothing "better" about the new version of the Mac Skype client. I have actually refused to upgrade from 2.8 because version 5 is such of piece shit. I don't even know how Windows users can tolerate it. You really don't want that garbage on your Linux box.
they want to take freedom away from those who already have it
Bullshit. Allowing people to reverse engineer a protocol does not take anyone's freedom away. The DMCA is shit legislation and never should have passed. Hackers should not automatically be become criminals just because they want to see how something works. Fine, restrict how the source code is distributed, but if I want to take something and reverse engineer it, goddammit, that's my fucking right.
There are a number of factors that make Ubuntu an attractive proposition for ASUS and its customers. Ubuntu continues to set the standard for slick design
Compared to what? Windows XP? I'm pretty sure nobody is looking to Linux to get design ideas. OS X sets the standard for clean, polished design, IMNSHO. Windows 7 next if you care about translucency. It is still pretty obvious that Linux is primarily created by programmers, though it has gotten better over the years. As a programmer myself, I can tell you that you shouldn't let us design interfaces. In an ideal work environment, I would be paired with a designer who knows his shit. Well, unless I'm doing backend coding.
ease of use and security, it is the world's third most popular operating system
Depends, are we counting mobile devices? Because I think then Linux woudl take 5th if not 6th. Unless you count Android as Linux, but I don't think that's quite right. Just like iOS isn't OS X. Must be marketing or PR department making these statements.
Anyway, I thought netbooks could already be had with linux pre-installed? Or are those just people who wipe Windows XP and install themselves?
I think the interesting idea is when you can have your computer just run a browser based OS instead of a desktop based OS. I think there are interesting products that will come along which will just be internet portholes. (Tablets fit this nitch very well) From those devices you don't want a full featured OS running a browser, just just want a browser.
Maybe not a full featured OS, but something like iOS works fine on tablets. It isn't like web browsers are especially slim these days. You're not saving much on hardware by limiting yourself to a browser. Why bother? It is like buying a computer that can only be a word processor (they tried that in the 90's and it failed). Why put unnecessary limitations on what the device can do if it isn't saving you money on the hardware or doesn't perform the task better than a general purpose device? It isn't like a device that can only browse the web is going to do it any better. Besides, computers are getting faster and smaller. Maybe a few years ago having a full featured browser on a cheap device was pretty cool, but now people want apps too. Even on mobile devices, a browser is just one of many things people run.
In those cases the more you can run in your browser, the more functionality you have.
That makes absolutely no sense. You're limiting the functionality of the device by making it only run a browser just so you can shoehorn that functionality back into the browser?
Your OS can then be a free Linux variant or whatever.
Or you could run an OS that has apps. Hmmm.... What do you think was the selling point of iPhone? You think it was Safari? No, apps. The App Store. But if you want to buy a device that has no apps by design, be my guest.
Your machine can become OS independent
No more independent than any other machine running a full featured browser. THe only difference between your browser only machine and other machines is that your machine can't run apps.
and remove the bulk and bloat of an OS from your processing workload.
Well, the site advertises that it isn't a plugin (that's a feature... maybe?), but I suppose you could. But then why wouldn't you just write this as a library that any app could use? I mean, you're going to have to go through the trouble of porting it different systems and different browsers anyway. What's the advantage to having this in a browser? It isn't like you can be anywhere and use it at some random internet cafe, which is what makes web apps attractive. You need the plugin installed. At least Flash is already installed almost everywhere.
Again, is there a shortage of open video/voice protocols? The problem is building the app and network that people will actually use. We don't really need new protocols. Though new good protocols can't hurt, I guess. But it is silly to say that it is intentended to run in a browser. That's a completely pointless limitation.
I don't get why Google is so obsessed with pushing everything to the browser.
I think the reason email works this way is because it is considered a first class internet service and essential to business. IM, not so much. You can do voice chat over the phone if you need it. There's no reason for a business to run an IM server.
I don't want protocols that are implemented in a single app by a single vendor. What I want is to be able to use the chat app of MY CHOICE and talk to any other use of any other chat program, so that they can use the chat program of THEIR CHOICE.
Historically, this leads to a very dumbed down/least common denominator feature set, like the web.
That's the way email has been working forever, and it's a great model.
SMTP was designed in a different time when there was nothing to compete against. It was just taken for granted that everyone would implement SMTP for mail transfer. Well, assuming you had a dedicated connection, otherwise you had to use silly things like UUCP. The days when you could propose a protocol and people would just start using it are over.
But, why can't we adapt the "user@serviceprovider.tld" model of contacting people to the world of IM, instead of having to have 8 different chat accounts on 8 different service providers, none of whom will interoperate with anyone else?
Because the people proposing such systems are either private for-profit enterprises out to make a buck or small open source groups with no means to market their idea. There's so much noise out there.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I just don't udnerstand the purpose. I'm only ever doing development on one machine. I'd rather be able to use the tool that works the best, not the one that happens to work inside a browser. And sure, I use a web browser a LOT, but I'm also running a few other apps at any given time. Skype, Mail, Adium (IM), iTunes, TextMate (editor), Calendar. You're telling me that you really only use a browser and terminal and that's *it*?
I can work from anywhere (without carring stuff around
If I need to, I can always download Putty onto someobody's Windows box and get access from there. Doesn't even need to install. Just the .exe run from desktop. And vi if I really need to edit something. But for real development, I need to use a local dev enviornment.
I would run the "cloud" based editor on the same system where I do my testing for the websites I work on. Which means I'm editing the code on the same system it needs to be deployed on.
I'm pretty sure the IDE you linked to is a hosted service and not an app you can install on the server where you deploy so you can't edit on the deploy server. You would have to edit on the hosted service, commit to github, and then deploy to the server to view changes. And even if you could install the editor on your deploy server, what are you going to do, install a different instance of the editor on EACH server? That's just awful.
Either way though, editing files on the deploy server is amateur. Proper development happens in a developer's private enviornment and changes are only pushed to production when they're tested and compete. Or better yet, they go through a "staging" environment.
Well, it isn't so much that it doesn't run applications so much as it doesn't run anything but Chrome applications - with a much more limited API. In some sense complaining that it doesn't run Openoffice is like complaining that Ubuntu doesn't run Internet Explorer. That said, if you need to run Internet Explorer for whatever reason neither Ubuntu nor Chrome OS is going to be suitable, and that argument hits Chrome even harder.
But you can run Internet Explorer on Linux. Either through Wine (I have no idea if this is actually possible currently) or under virtualization. I do it all the time on the Mac. You just can't run it naively.
Google is basically trying to rethink the entire desktop paradigm.
Either that or they can't see past the browser. Maybe they're just short sighted and don't really get how people use computers. Though I suppose there's always going to be SOMEONE who can get by using only a web browser. It is just that I don't see why anyone would voluntarily limit themselves like that when powerful hardware is so cheap these days. If you only use a browser, install a regular OS and only use the web browser. At least then you have the possibility of running a standalone app if the need arises.
Limiting the ability to run arbitrary X11 apps greatly cuts down on the number of possible exploits possible.
In theory, maybe, but in practice it doesn't matter. Especially with the kind of strict package management using signatures that Linux uses.
Plus, they don't want to make it easy to work with locally-stored files, since the whole point of the device is to not do that except when transferring files to/from a cloud-based service. If you have a bazillion files on the local drive then if you drop the thing you lose them.
Or you setup some sync/backup of important files. You can even sync you files to the "cloud" automatically. This is a problem that is largely solved. I know Apple makes backup dead simple. Also, if you really do have a bazillion files, you probably have them between many different applications. Which means they're spread out amongst many different services on the "cloud." That makes it difficult to search, track, and transfer files between apps/services. Say I have my pictures on one service, but I want to try a different one to edit them... kind of a pain to download them locally and then import into something else. Better to have a central store for files.
I'm not sure I'd spend $500 on one personally. However, if I had an office of 10 people that needed to do typical office work I'd probably buy them in a heartbeat (assuming they could live with cloud-based apps only). I imagine the typical office with 10 people has no need for full-time IT, and probably pays quite a bit for desktop provisioning, backups, and general maintenance
Except that nearly all web based apps pale in comparison to desktop equivilents particular when it comes to business use. Have you actually tried using Google Spreadsheats for anyting but the most trivial of spreadsheets? I love Google Docs for sharing, but to do actual work? Oh god. Except for the sharing capabilities, Google Docs are about where Office suites were in 1992 in terms of functionality. Maybe 9 of 10 of Office users dont' need any modern spreadsheet features, but there's always that 1. ANd basically that one power user is going to define what the whole office needs. That's how MS Office got where it is now. Most people don't use a quarter of the poential of MS Office, but somebody does.
The concept of Chrome is that you buy IT like you buy phone service or whatever, and if a phone breaks you just go to Walmart to buy a new one.
So... use a regular computer and only use the browser. Give people a Google Docs account and instruct them to use it. That way if they DO need to run some standalone app (and all it takes is one), they
I, for one, am glad the Mac uses the toolbar for the application menubar. That means that Firefox and other apps can't hide it in a misguided attempt to be minimal. Don't hide the menubar, I still use it, dammit!
I do webdevelopment and network- and Linux/Unix system administration. It is that I've not had time yet to it up and try it out but I think I could actually move over all my work into a webbrowser if I wanted to. I've actually been wanting to try it out as an experiment:
You're not a real web developer or admin or you'd have very specific requirements of your terminal and editor. Either that your you greatly underestimte your requirements to get real work down. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself "what is the point?" I mean, just because you could theoretically move your work into the web browser, that doesn't mean you should. Is there any benefit? It looks like that terminal you linked to requires that you run a local server..??? So it isn't like you could use that anywhere.
http://www.cloud9ide.com/ [cloud9ide.com] (open source webbased programmers editor with git version control and offline support is almost ready)
So.. um.. how do you actually build/preview your project? Do you have to deploy your changes every time you want to see the results??? I can't see how this could possibly work. I'm a web developer and I have a specialized Ruby on Rails development environment including local daemons like memcache, mysql, activemq, etc. A "cloud" based editor woudl be totally useless to me.
I'm not an Office user however and I don't know if Google Docs or similair open source webapplication would be good enough for me, I do know I would want to have one that atleast supports HTML5-offline use. But as I understand it a lot of people already use it, so it probably satisfies their needs.
Google Docs are good for sharing documents and allowing multiple people to edit simultaneously, but I can't imagine using it as my primary Office program.
Good to know Opera doesn't fall to the side of "features." ;-)
You don't seem to get how companies lock you into products. You can be effectively locked in despite competition. Look at how many people would so desperately love to get out of the hold that Microsoft has on almost everything business related. But it is hard. They make it hard. Once you've built everything around a vendor, it is incredibly difficult to switch gears when somebody wakes up and realizes that they've put all their eggs in one basket.
The internet evolved enough to allow everyone to "carry their own kiosk",
And mobile devices have evolved enough to allow everyone to run a full fledged OS with a web browser AND apps. And laptops are even more powerful. There's just no good reason now to lock yourself into a web browser.
Somewhat like iPad and iPhone, taking the idea to the extreme, allowing web applications to evolve and allow customers to further detach from well known OS vendors (such as Apple, Microsoft) that could sabotage access to Google web applications.
Wow, now that's just FUD. How are Apple and Microsoft going to sabotage your access to web applcations? As long as you can install Firefox or Chrome, you've got at least the same functionality as a Chromebook, and then some. Besides, even if Apple or Microsoft did do something to cripple Google apps, there's always Linux.
But as long as we're talking about FUD, what is stopping Google from making it difficult to export your documents to other competing services? At least Microsoft doesn't basically on the documents I create with Office.
The cloud works now for servers, not clients. It makes sense to put your corporate web server in the cloud, but it would be be wildly irresponsible to offload your office apps onto the cloud. Thin clients are fine when the servers are local and connectivity is reliable and fast, but not on the cloud where you app have been shoehorned into a web browser.
Any potential Chromebook buyer should be aware that it is for casual use and not serious work. I mean, Google Spreadsheets is neat for sharing simple documents, but pretty much a joke to anyone who seriously uses Excel. At least a Netbook running Linux or Windows can run a real Office suite. Google apps are just not up to the task.
No because the data is all the the cloud. At most you lose (not loose) a few seconds of work typing in a Google Doc for instance. See the many youtube videos of this in action if you like.
You do, however, lose access to your documents.
Yes because the majority of computer users know how what rsync or dd are let alone how to use them? I'd guess that 1% or less of computer users these days have ever touched a *nix command line.
Using Linux as an example of easy backup was probably a bad idea. OS X and WIndows, however, do make it dead simple these days. Time Machine, for example, works with no configuration. You just plug in an external drive and it asks you if you want to use it for backup. Done.
I can see how a Chromebook would see my aging parents calling on me less.
Sure, but it is kind of selfish, don't you think? You're saving yourself a headache by crippling their user experience.
The real question is if I can install some real Linux on it, or is it locked down?
As I understand it, Chrome OS isn't really Linux under the hood. It has a modified Linux kernel, but that's about it. And it doesn't run X11, so no, you can't really run Linux apps. It is locked down. That's what makes the thing such a freakin' joke. Buy a Netbook with a real Linux distribution installed if you want more than a browser.
Yeah right, as if you always have a top DSL connection everywhere. And if you loose your connection are you loosing any data, too?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
iOS really has a place though. I mean, the devices that iOS targets are necessarily limited and could not effectively run a full fledged desktop OS and apps. To effectively target a phone, you have to design apps to utilize it. There's no balkanization since you wouldn't be able to run apps like OpenOffice on the devices effectively anyway. Chome OS, on the other hand, is just stupid. You can already get netbooks with limited hardware to run Linux and Chrome. To run Chrome OS unnecessarily limits you to using only a browser. There's really no excuse to make a laptop that can ONLY run a browser. It is like when they tried to sell computers with typewriter built that could only be a word processor. Nobody bought them because it made more sense to just buy a PC with a printer attached.
To get a patent, they'd have to reveal the protocol. And then there'd be no need to reverse engineer it. They're not really trying to protect their IP. It sounds like they want to protect their network. I guess it would be easier to automate spamming/phishing if you could interface their network without goin ghtorugh their client... maybe?
I use Skype primarily as an IM client with good group chat capabilities. I also do a lot of conference calls and yeah, call quality can be hit and miss, but no other service that I'm aware of combines video, text (one to one and conference), voice, and screensharing as well. And for free. I would definitely NOT use Skype if all I wanted was to make phone calls. I must prefer having a dedicated VoIP hardware device. I wouldn't want to be forced to be at my computer or have my computer on to make calls even if Skype was a good VoIP service.
Have you ever been in spammer forums? They exchange methods all the time. In fact, it is kind of surreal how they talk about it like it was just another day at the office. Like bypassing captchas to post pharmaceutical ads in blog comments. Dunno how they sleep at night.
If it makes you feel better, there's nothing "better" about the new version of the Mac Skype client. I have actually refused to upgrade from 2.8 because version 5 is such of piece shit. I don't even know how Windows users can tolerate it. You really don't want that garbage on your Linux box.
they want to take freedom away from those who already have it
Bullshit. Allowing people to reverse engineer a protocol does not take anyone's freedom away. The DMCA is shit legislation and never should have passed. Hackers should not automatically be become criminals just because they want to see how something works. Fine, restrict how the source code is distributed, but if I want to take something and reverse engineer it, goddammit, that's my fucking right.
There are a number of factors that make Ubuntu an attractive proposition for ASUS and its customers. Ubuntu continues to set the standard for slick design
Compared to what? Windows XP? I'm pretty sure nobody is looking to Linux to get design ideas. OS X sets the standard for clean, polished design, IMNSHO. Windows 7 next if you care about translucency. It is still pretty obvious that Linux is primarily created by programmers, though it has gotten better over the years. As a programmer myself, I can tell you that you shouldn't let us design interfaces. In an ideal work environment, I would be paired with a designer who knows his shit. Well, unless I'm doing backend coding.
ease of use and security, it is the world's third most popular operating system
Depends, are we counting mobile devices? Because I think then Linux woudl take 5th if not 6th. Unless you count Android as Linux, but I don't think that's quite right. Just like iOS isn't OS X. Must be marketing or PR department making these statements.
Anyway, I thought netbooks could already be had with linux pre-installed? Or are those just people who wipe Windows XP and install themselves?
Or hardly anyone will use it and it won't matter.
Well then it is even less of a Skype killer. :-P
I think the interesting idea is when you can have your computer just run a browser based OS instead of a desktop based OS. I think there are interesting products that will come along which will just be internet portholes. (Tablets fit this nitch very well) From those devices you don't want a full featured OS running a browser, just just want a browser.
Maybe not a full featured OS, but something like iOS works fine on tablets. It isn't like web browsers are especially slim these days. You're not saving much on hardware by limiting yourself to a browser. Why bother? It is like buying a computer that can only be a word processor (they tried that in the 90's and it failed). Why put unnecessary limitations on what the device can do if it isn't saving you money on the hardware or doesn't perform the task better than a general purpose device? It isn't like a device that can only browse the web is going to do it any better. Besides, computers are getting faster and smaller. Maybe a few years ago having a full featured browser on a cheap device was pretty cool, but now people want apps too. Even on mobile devices, a browser is just one of many things people run.
In those cases the more you can run in your browser, the more functionality you have.
That makes absolutely no sense. You're limiting the functionality of the device by making it only run a browser just so you can shoehorn that functionality back into the browser?
Your OS can then be a free Linux variant or whatever.
Or you could run an OS that has apps. Hmmm.... What do you think was the selling point of iPhone? You think it was Safari? No, apps. The App Store. But if you want to buy a device that has no apps by design, be my guest.
Your machine can become OS independent
No more independent than any other machine running a full featured browser. THe only difference between your browser only machine and other machines is that your machine can't run apps.
and remove the bulk and bloat of an OS from your processing workload.
As opposed to the bulk of a Javascript VM?
Well, the site advertises that it isn't a plugin (that's a feature... maybe?), but I suppose you could. But then why wouldn't you just write this as a library that any app could use? I mean, you're going to have to go through the trouble of porting it different systems and different browsers anyway. What's the advantage to having this in a browser? It isn't like you can be anywhere and use it at some random internet cafe, which is what makes web apps attractive. You need the plugin installed. At least Flash is already installed almost everywhere.
Again, is there a shortage of open video/voice protocols? The problem is building the app and network that people will actually use. We don't really need new protocols. Though new good protocols can't hurt, I guess. But it is silly to say that it is intentended to run in a browser. That's a completely pointless limitation.
I don't get why Google is so obsessed with pushing everything to the browser.
I think the reason email works this way is because it is considered a first class internet service and essential to business. IM, not so much. You can do voice chat over the phone if you need it. There's no reason for a business to run an IM server.
I don't want protocols that are implemented in a single app by a single vendor. What I want is to be able to use the chat app of MY CHOICE and talk to any other use of any other chat program, so that they can use the chat program of THEIR CHOICE.
Historically, this leads to a very dumbed down/least common denominator feature set, like the web.
That's the way email has been working forever, and it's a great model.
SMTP was designed in a different time when there was nothing to compete against. It was just taken for granted that everyone would implement SMTP for mail transfer. Well, assuming you had a dedicated connection, otherwise you had to use silly things like UUCP. The days when you could propose a protocol and people would just start using it are over.
But, why can't we adapt the "user@serviceprovider.tld" model of contacting people to the world of IM, instead of having to have 8 different chat accounts on 8 different service providers, none of whom will interoperate with anyone else?
Because the people proposing such systems are either private for-profit enterprises out to make a buck or small open source groups with no means to market their idea. There's so much noise out there.