backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by rhuarch.. on Nov 24 at 12:15 PM


Google Chrome is built on three principles: speed, simplicity, and security.  (Source: Gizmodo)

The entire OS is built around Google's Chrome browser, with file browsing done by a browser dialog and the device solely relying on web applications such as Microsoft's online version of Office.  (Source: Gizmodo)

Describes Google, "Turns out, Microsoft Office launched a killer app for Chrome OS." (A demo of the OS running the Excel web app is shown here.)  (Source: Gizmodo)

Plugged in media will launch browser dialogs. Files, such as pictures or music files can be opened in new tabs. A Google Android phone is shown connected here.  (Source: Gizmodo)

Google says the OS will offer unprecedented security as it only allows trusted signed apps, such as approved Android apps or web applications. Every app runs in a sandbox and Google backs up and stores all your data in its cloud.  (Source: Gizmodo)
New OS is specifically geared towards the netbook market

A radical new day has dawned for the operating system.

Today Google finally aired its long awaited Chrome Operating System.  The operating system was detailed at a press conference starting at 1 p.m. EST, and the open source code was posted online just before the start of the presentation.  The new operating system brings a dramatically different look and perspective to the market and just may give Microsoft and OS X some tough competition by reinventing a tired old wheel -- the operating system -- offering the first laptop/desktop OS built around the browser and web applications.

A Google engineer set the mood for the presentation announcing in the introduction, "Chrome is the foundation of everything we’re doing here."

According to Google, its Chrome browser has garnered 40 million users who use it as their primary browser.  Google is already beating Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 browser by 30 percent in Javascript speed tests, according to the company (we confirm this claim in our browser benchmark series, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4).  That success, in part, inspired Google to make the jump to the OS market.  With the Chrome browser coming to Linux and OS X platforms, Google thought -- why not make a full Linux distribution built around the Chrome browser and web applications?

Google's Chrome OS is indeed built entirely around the company's browser.  For that reason, it naturally uses HTML 5 to provide it with rich graphical content and other advanced programming content.  HTML 5 is used for graphics, video/audio playback, threading, threads, notifications, real-time communication, and storage -- all critical factors to enabling games and productivity application. 

The company is very enthused about both the netbook and tablet movements, as they have spawned cheap, full-featured internet devices, perfect for Google's web-app based model.  Google says its OS is built for netbooks and tablets and is based on three principles -- "speed", "simplicity", and "security". 

Where many Linux distributions use some form of multiple desktops, Google's OS instead uses multiple Windows -- each a Chrome browser, essentially.  Each browser can have multiple web applications open simultaneously as tabs -- similar to PC-side applications in a standard operating system model.  Ironically, the company's competitors, in this respect, may fuel the upcoming OS's success by their decision to release web apps -- one example of this is Microsoft, which recently released a web application version of Office.  Describes Google,  "Turns out, Microsoft Office launched a killer app for Chrome OS."

The browser window allows you to find files stored locally on your machine just like Windows Explorer or other file dialog windows.  When you click to open them, though, rather than loading a stored application, it launches a web one.  Media from attached devices such as Droid phones, pops up in a new tab and is displayed/played.

Another intriguing decision by Google is to only offer solid state drive netbooks in its upcoming Chrome OS models, soon to be released by its partners.  Google says its goal is to make the computer feel like a TV -- with an "instant-on" aesthetic. 

As far as security, woes of OS X and Windows will not be problems on Google OS, according to the company.  It says that under its web application model no app is trusted, so the potential for system compromise is dramatically reduced.  It should be interesting to see if that holds true in practice.  While that seems unlikely, even if Google can simply reduce the rate of attacks/vulnerabilities, it may be on to something, though.  The Chrome browser's track record thus far has been sterling, so its hard not to buy into Google's rhetoric for the time being.

Under the new OS, data is stored as read-only and is only able to be accessed by a small list of trusted apps which are signed and verified.  Each app is run in its own sandbox.  And user data is synced and backed up on Google's cloud (which may be an unsettling thought to some).  Despite the privacy concerns, this means if you lose your netbook, you won't lose your data -- which is certainly a welcome development for anyone who has ever lost a laptop.

Google will launch Chrome OS netbooks in the holiday season 2010; tablets and laptops running Chrome OS will launch at a later date.  Chrome's demo at the presentation was running on an Eee PC, so that seems one likely target.  As mentioned, the upcoming hardware will feature SSDs and it will use 802.11n wireless cards, for now.  For now developers can download test builds and work with them.  Android apps should run on the OS, to the delight of the mobile OS's burgeoning developer community.  The OS lacks a Silverlight plugin option currently.  It can be run in virtual machines.

Overall, if there's one thing made clear by the launch to developers and Google's presentation, it's that Google is looking to drastically rethink the consumer operating system.  Google drives this point home, stating, "We are trying to offer a choice for users. The model of computing we’re trying to advance is fundamentally different."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Dumb
By Spivonious on 11/19/2009 2:48:16 PM , Rating: 3
It's Linux that uses a browser instead of a window manager. Not exactly ground-breaking, and definitely not an operating system, since it's just sitting on top of Linux.




RE: Dumb
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2009 3:04:50 PM , Rating: 5
And Linux is just Unix with improvements and a refined graphical interface.

And OS X is just FreeBSD/NetBSD's Unix implementation.

And Windows is just the evolution of an OS originally built upon MS-DOS which was just a copy of QDOS which as a knockoff of CP/M.

The nature of the OS is largely dependent on how data is controlled, how the user interacts with it and what hardware is supported, not just key utilities/libraries.

For that reason Windows 1.0 wasn't just a window manager sitting on top of a CP/M clone and Apple's OS X wasn't just a BSD clone.

Chrome OS is arguably as big a leap in many ways as either of those, for the reason highlighted in the article.


RE: Dumb
By Zirconium on 11/19/2009 3:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
Wait, are you serious? You call yourself a tech reporter and yet you can't get certain basic facts right.
quote:
And Linux is just Unix with improvements and a refined graphical interface.
Um, no. Linux is not Unix; it is Unix-like. It is not built off the Unix source and hence it is not "just Unix with improvements." This is not just a semantic difference. See http://kernelbook.sourceforge.net/pdf/ch-intro.pdf...

Also, Linux as the kernel has no graphical interface; you are probably thinking the X-server combined with the different desktop environments, which are available for Unix and other Unix-like distributions.

quote:
And OS X is just FreeBSD/NetBSD's Unix implementation.
No. Wait, what? FreeBSD/NetBSD are Unix-like, so saying that something is their Unix implementation doesn't really make sense. Also BSD != FreeBDS/NetBSD. OS X was built on NextStep which was built on BSD, but that does not mean that OS X/Darwin is built on FreeBSD/NetBSD.

quote:
And Windows is just the evolution of an OS originally built upon MS-DOS which was just a copy of QDOS which as a knockoff of CP/M.
Windows was not initially considered to be an operating system, but an operating environment. There is a difference, and I'd expect a tech reporter to know that.


RE: Dumb
By AstroCreep on 11/19/2009 5:10:58 PM , Rating: 5
Well, the BSD thing is a slippery slope, as FreeBSD/NetBSD are decendants of BSD UNIX, which was indeed a real UNIX. Some people consider Open/Free/NetBSDs as "Unix" because they were rooted in a real UNIX OS.

As for OS X, it is indeed an official UNIX flavor. Notice that I spelled UNIX in all caps, as it is registered under the UNIX 03 specification (along with HP, IBM, Sun, and Fujitsu).
Links:
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
http://devworld.apple.com/unix/
http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/L355785A_UNIX_T...
(the last one is a PDF)


RE: Dumb
By genzai on 11/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Dumb
By Samus on 11/19/2009 6:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
OS/2 Warp 4 lif3!


RE: Dumb
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2009 6:07:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Um, no. Linux is not Unix; it is Unix-like.


First off I meant those comparisons in a facetious sense. Perhaps sarcasm tags were in order.

Secondly, I meant "is just" not in the sense that it copied code, but rather in the sense that it was derived from its principles. The MINIX kernel, which would become the Linux kernel is obviously not built on top of Unix -- I never said that. But it is built in the spirit of providing a free Unix-like interface and copies CONCEPTS and design liberally from Unix.

So I could safely say :

Oh <sarcasm> And Linux is just Unix! </sarcasm>

quote:
Also, Linux as the kernel has no graphical interface; you are probably thinking the X-server combined with the different desktop environments, which are available for Unix and other Unix-like distributions


Again this should be obvious to anyone familiar with Linux. All I said was that Linux (as a bundled "operating system") has a "refined graphics interface" which most Linux builds do have, via the X Windows System Desktop Environments like GNOME or KDE. I was NOT discussing the kernel nor was I discussing GUI's. Rather I was carrying out a sarcastic dialogue on the similarities of the bundled OS (including the kernel, GUI, if there is one, etc.) to Unix. And it WAS similar.

quote:
No. Wait, what? FreeBSD/NetBSD are Unix-like, so saying that something is their Unix implementation doesn't really make sense. Also BSD != FreeBDS/NetBSD. OS X was built on NextStep which was built on BSD, but that does not mean that OS X/Darwin is built on FreeBSD/NetBSD.


But OS X does still have FreeBSD components, ASFAIK, via inherited code from NextStep. And FreeBSD is built to mimic the Berkeley Software Distribution. This is evidenced by the fact that FreeBSD has UNIX-compliant internals and APIs.

quote:
Windows was not initially considered to be an operating system, but an operating environment. There is a difference, and I'd expect a tech reporter to know that.


By the modern definition an operating system is an interface between hardware and the user, typically with tools like GUIs, CLIs, or APIs to provide this interface in a friendly manner. By this definition Windows 1 and MS-DOS TOGETHER form an operating system (Windows 1.0 was an OS-component in a sense).

Again, don't put words on my keyboard -- I never wrote that Windows 1.0 was an operating system. I wrote clearly that Windows 1.0 was a "windows manager" -- so it was clear that I meant it to be an operating environment and only the bundled package (with DOS) as an OS. You chose to misinterpret my comments to try to feel superior.

quote:
Wait, are you serious? You call yourself a tech reporter and yet you can't get certain basic facts right.


Obviously you can't get the facts right. You don't seem to understand that OS X has FreeBSD components and contributes to the FreeBSD project, you don't seem to understand that Linux liberally borrowed from the design of Unix. Additionally you've misinterpreted nearly every remark I made, adding talk of kernels and GUIs, when I didn't even touch on that depth.

It seems like you are just trying to trumpet your superiority by grossly misinterpreting my comments and spilling out what knowledge you have.

Back to the topic at hand, to the end user it's the entire package, including the GUI and APIs that are important. In this respect, my original point, sarcasm aside, is that Chrome OS will be a significant evolution over the standard Linux distribution in that it will have new APIs, a very different user interface, and likely a tweaked kernel.

It will also be a dramatic departure from the look of the average Linux (Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc.), OS X, or Windows based PC, all of which rely on a desktop-like environment with local applications.


RE: Dumb
By xmichaelx on 11/19/2009 6:54:11 PM , Rating: 4
Not your biggest fan, Jason, but I thought your original post was perfectly clear -- no explanation (or sarcasm tags) needed.


RE: Dumb
By wetwareinterface on 11/20/2009 10:52:08 AM , Rating: 5
the problem jason with your counter to his argument is that you were wrong and he was right. the chrome os is literally linux with a browser interface slapped on it. it isn't built on or based on linux it literally is linux. it's simply linux running a special version of the chrome browser. nothing more nothing less.

there is nothing in chrome os that you cannot do yourself with firefox or chrome on linux by customizing your own install to the point of stripping it down to nothing but an x server and x window system with all the minimum dependencies needed to support a web browser and web connection and removing user space storage priveledges. the only tricks i saw in the presentation were the ability to automount storage cards and recognize them and use them while still having no ability to save to the hard drive. but that isn't that complex of a trick just treat the local hard drive with system only priveledges and have the system pass down user rights as to what's usable through a kernal module instead of the file system.

and this os is gonna be a fail. it's 100% cloud and no one wants to put all their data in the cloud. some data yes can be very convenient to have in the cloud but not every bit of data you have. not to mention the hardware will be completely worthless if you do not have an internet connection available.

it makes me wonder if larry ellison is now at google part time. he tried this as did several other hardware vendors and they all failed in the marketplace. no one wanted a dumb terminal, no one will want a dumb terminal internet style.


RE: Dumb
By SorinNita on 11/20/2009 7:54:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The MINIX kernel, which would become the Linux kernel


What ??? What do you mean when you say that?

The Linux Kernel is not the one used in MINIX... MINIX influenced Linus's kernel design decisions but it's not the same.

Here is a link for you. Please read that two paragraphs carefully:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX#MINIX_and_Linux


RE: Dumb
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2009 8:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
Correct, meant to say:

The Minix kernel, which would become the basis of the Linux Kernel...

...as Torvalds' U of Helsinki project was to develop a non-commercial version drop in replacement to the Minix kernel. Many of the early applications developed by Torvalds were developed on MINIX as well and brought to Linux, so the two are tied together very intimately.


RE: Dumb
By SorinNita on 11/20/2009 8:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Minix kernel, which would become the basis of the Linux Kernel...


OK. I agree with you :)

Sorry if i sounded a bit harsh, but that statement sounded a bit out of place considering the Linus Tanenbaum debates.


RE: Dumb
By omnicronx on 11/21/2009 1:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Mick what you don't seem to understand is that any way you put it, UNIX, LINUX, BSD are not the same OS. Its irrelevant whether or not they were based off one another the fact remains they are fundamentally different.

Where as anyone with a technical background can tell Google OS is just piggybacking on an existing OS using a browser as a shell. Heck they are not even doing that, its still just x-windows.

Otherwise for all intents and purposes I could take Windows strip it down, make my owner browser to act as the shell and suddenly I've made my own groundbreaking OS?
quote:
OS will be a significant evolution over the standard Linux distribution in that it will have new APIs, a very different user interface, and likely a tweaked kernel.
That's nothing more than a personal prediction. Now I kind of like the idea that the OS will essentially be transparent to the user. All they see is a browser, which could easily make for a better user experience. That being said, Google has already stated that Chrome OS is not meant to replace your primary PC, its suppose to be a 'complementary system'. The idea is not to be able to run resources intensive apps, the point is to have the internet cloud at your fingertips for easy access for your daily activities.

The reason I really don't agree with you is that systems like these already exist, many motherboards already come with functionality that is very similar, yet because Google does it, its suddenly groundbreaking? Sure it will be a far more functional OS, but the point will be the same, access to your favorite daily internet apps quickly.


RE: Dumb
By omnicronx on 11/21/2009 3:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Linux distribution in that it will have new APIs
I think we will have to see for this one, I really doubt they would add OS level apis when everything is done in the browser.


RE: Dumb
By Runiteshark on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb
By iDarwin on 11/19/2009 7:29:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
He's dumber then a bag of hammers and gets schooled in the comments section and doesn't afraid of anything .


Hmmm...Kind of ironic.


RE: Dumb
By lexluthermiester on 11/19/2009 8:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'll second that!

Irony is my favorite form of humor!


RE: Dumb
By Xavi3n on 11/19/2009 8:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Someone isn't up on their Internet memes.


RE: Dumb
By iDarwin on 11/19/2009 9:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Damn it, now I feel old :(


RE: Dumb
By Runiteshark on 11/19/2009 9:53:50 PM , Rating: 3
All of you except Xavi3n fail.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Pretty_cool_guy

Technically, the proper wordplay would of been:

I think Dailytech is a pretty cool guy, eh can't proofraed and doesn't afraid of anything...


RE: Dumb
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/20/2009 7:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technically, the proper wordplay would of been:

Would HAVE been! I can't tell you the number of times I have corrected this in student papers. Just because you were hooked on phonics doesn't mean you should spell it like it sounds. Would of been indeed!


RE: Dumb
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/20/2009 8:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think Darwin is a pretty cool guy. Eh misunderstand internet memes and doesn't afraid of anything.


RE: Dumb
By TMV192 on 11/20/2009 1:28:21 AM , Rating: 4
I think you accidentally your sentence


RE: Dumb
By rhuarch on 11/24/2009 12:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
The whole thing!


RE: Dumb
By friedrice on 11/22/2009 10:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just throwing it out there, but I've never met a professional tech reporter who writes in such an angry tone. Noticed you didn't say what publication you write for either


RE: Dumb
By TSS on 11/19/2009 4:06:56 PM , Rating: 3
The thing is, i think your right. On all accounts.

And all accounts haven't been any big leaps. They've been small leaps, A buttload of leaps, but small ones none the less. Have you ever ran DOSSHELL in MS-DOS? it's essentially windows explorer.

Chrome OS, as i understand it, is just an OS inside a browser. They accomplish most of the things any OS does via HTML 5. Which is an achievement, sure, but not a big leap.

It's a step forward, but not a leap forward. One of many yet to come, i'm sure.


RE: Dumb
By Justin Time on 11/19/2009 4:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
>> And Windows is just the evolution of an OS originally built upon MS-DOS which was just a copy of QDOS which as a knockoff of CP/M.

I wouldn't want to be the one trying to tell Dave (VMS) Cutler that.


RE: Dumb
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 11:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
While that is true, it only applies to everything up to Win9x; NT was a break from DOS simply because like everyone else, they needed to advance the OS by killing off the old legacy crap.

Funny how it all comes back to Digital (the company bought out by Compaq) :)


RE: Dumb
By William Gaatjes on 11/20/2009 5:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And Windows is just the evolution of an OS originally built upon MS-DOS which was just a copy of QDOS which as a knockoff of CP/M.


That is a misleading statement.

windows 3.11 may have been dos based orignally from a windowmanager running on windows.
windows 95 was an 32 bit os designed to have maximum compatibility for 16 bit ms dos applications.

microsoft was developing OS/2 together with IBM. unsolvable differences let to the separation of the 2 companies. IBM continued the project OS/2. And microsoft started with windows NT. Windows NT is a derivate of Digital Equipment Company's VMS os. David Cutler was one of the leading designers of VMS and was head of project windows NT under microsoft.


RE: Dumb
By William Gaatjes on 11/20/2009 5:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
Correction

quote:
windows 3.11 may have been dos based orignally from a windowmanager running on windows.


windows 3.11 may have been dos based originally from a windowmanager running on msdos .


RE: Dumb
By sinclaj1 on 11/19/2009 3:10:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
... offering the first laptop/desktop OS built around the browser ...


Um, isn't this what Europe sued Microsoft for doing with Windows? Bundling IE with Windows and integrating it into the OS? Will they make Google supply other browsers along with their OS?


RE: Dumb
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2009 3:18:00 PM , Rating: 1
Ha a browser inside a browser, that'd be something ;) I think Google can defend this by saying that its browser acts as its windows manager.

Regardless, it'd be a much tougher challenge for regulators to shoot down. With Windows, IE was just another program, albeit a very significant one that was tied into key Windows components (the center of the controversy), which gave it advantage over competitors browser apps. With Chrome OS the browser is the basis of ENTIRE os -- from games to media to productivity apps. It'd be impossible to remove it.

That still might not not seem fair on the surface, but you have to consider you're comparing apples and oranges.

Chrome OS is very different from the Windows/OS X model in many ways, though similar in some too.


RE: Dumb
By bubba551 on 11/19/2009 3:29:44 PM , Rating: 5
So the defense is that the browser is an integral and essential part of the operating system? I know that I have heard that defense before, and as I recall, it didn't work.


RE: Dumb
By TheMan876 on 11/19/2009 4:26:55 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't that what Explorer basically is? I've run Windows XP with IE not installed, but type in a website into the explorer address and you basically had IE right there.


RE: Dumb
By DM0407 on 11/19/2009 6:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think because M$ had a monopoly on the OS market. With programs designed with only Windows in mind it didn't leave the consumer any other option than an IE installed computer. Microsoft was a target because of there size and influence on the market.

Chrome isn't for sale, which should allow them to limit their software in anyway they see fit.

Its not like its the first time The EU has made rash decisions either.


RE: Dumb
By cochy on 11/19/2009 4:21:39 PM , Rating: 1
Well you're wrong. Linux is just the kernel. The operating system are the combined pieces that sit on top of that. Chrome is a distinct OS same as Fedora and SUSE are distinct operating systems (though all quite similar).


RE: Dumb
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/20/2009 7:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
So you support spiv's first post then. Nothing ground breaking here.


RE: Dumb
By omnicronx on 11/21/2009 2:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Fedora, Suse, and now Google chrome, ALL Linux/GNU projects.
They are distinct flavors of Linux, they are not distinct operating systems.

Furthermore this is not 1991, today there are two commonly used definitions for linux, linux as the kernel and linux as the complete operating system i.e Linux/GNU.

Heck just go to one of the distro sites and it says right there.

from Fedoras main page:
quote:
Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software.
Chrome is barely even a distinct flavor either, its just a stripped down version of Debian Linux with chrome sitting ontop.


RE: Dumb
By Gungel on 11/19/2009 4:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, It was already done before with YouOS. But this web based os was shut down in 2008. Check it out at www.youos.com the tutorial is still working.


RE: Dumb
By rs1 on 11/19/2009 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
I would have to agree. Tightly integrating a browser into an existing OS doesn't create a new OS. If it did, then couldn't I say I've been using Chrome OS ever since I set Chrome as my default browser in Windows?


RE: Dumb
By walk2k on 11/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Dumb
By lexluthermiester on 11/19/2009 7:18:46 PM , Rating: 3
Was that sarcasm? Or are you a complete back-birth?

Linux is a serious part of how the internet and enterprise operating environments function. It would be fair to say that if you shut down every Linux distro on the planet most of the worlds banks, governments, and etailers would be seriously crippled. The internet itself would completely shut down. So try that "nobody cares about Linux" crap again and make us laugh at you some more!


RE: Dumb
By Motoman on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb
By lexluthermiester on 11/19/2009 8:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
Now see, this is something we all can respect. You didn't state that post as fact. Instead you used the words "I believe", which qualifies your statement as opinion.

Now to be fair, I'm a big fan of Linux. I use Linux Mint on my personal notebook and have it dual booted on my desktop. It's fair to say that Linux for the average user does not have the market base that Windows does, but to say that no one cares is simply not true. If I were not a gamer I would use Linux exclusively, and without hesitation. While I'm not a fan of Apple, to say Mac OS is irrelevant would be foolish as well. Apple has a large following of users and last I read has 18%[and growing] share of PC market. And with Linux having 7%[also growing], the scales are seriously tipping away from Windows. Don't get me wrong, I really like Win7. It is what Vista NEEDED to be. Yet open-source seems to be the way the winds of change are blowing and for good reason....

For privacy reasons, I am not a fan of Google Chrome and will never use the cloud computing idea.


RE: Dumb
By Motoman on 11/20/2009 11:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
The last survey of web access (popped up here on DT not very long ago) showed Mac usage as about 4%. Linux below that.


RE: Dumb
By Motoman on 11/20/2009 11:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
Here's the previous DT article I just referenced...

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=16710...


RE: Dumb
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 11:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not the desktop, but people seem to like it in mobile form, aka the Droid, Pre, N900 :)


RE: Dumb
By Bruneauinfo on 11/20/2009 10:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
kernel != OS

kernel = component of OS


RE: Dumb
By Spivonious on 11/20/2009 10:42:03 AM , Rating: 2
browser != OS
browser = application running in OS

An operating system provides an interface to the hardware for applications. It also provides memory and thread management, file system functions, and other low-level things.

Everything else is simply an application running in the OS. Windows (explorer.exe) is an application. KDE is an application. ChromeOS is an application.

If anything, this new "operating system" is just another Linux distribution.


RE: Dumb
By Bruneauinfo on 11/20/2009 2:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
then to prove your point install just the Linux kernel on your system and see how useful it isn't.

remember that bash and other terminal emmulators and editors like vi are apps. Without some apps you have no OS.

ChromeOS appears to put the browser in a unique position in the system heirarchy by placing it between the kernel and app.


has anyone done a study on privacy yet?
By noxipoo on 11/19/2009 2:48:18 PM , Rating: 5
with google tracking everything, I'd like to know if the Chrome OS tracks everything somewhere...




By Camikazi on 11/19/2009 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 5
It's not Google if it's not tracking what you do :)


RE: has anyone done a study on privacy yet?
By Denithor on 11/19/2009 3:10:28 PM , Rating: 4
Tracking?

quote:
And user data is synced and backed up on Google's cloud (which may be an unsettling thought to some).


They outright state that they will be storing all of your data in their cloud of server space. No more privacy at all - Google has access to everything you create, every file you save, etc.


RE: has anyone done a study on privacy yet?
By ExarKun333 on 11/19/2009 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 4
And if you live in a country that persecutes their own people, Google will gladly sell your soul to the devil. (Hint: This has happened)


RE: has anyone done a study on privacy yet?
By foolsgambit11 on 11/19/2009 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 4
This couldn't possibly have happened. There is no devil and there is no soul, ergo, Google couldn't sell anybody's soul to the devil.

Wait, was I taking that too literally?


RE: has anyone done a study on privacy yet?
By DM0407 on 11/19/2009 6:55:19 PM , Rating: 3
There is a soul, you just lost it when you booted Win95.


By PhoenixKnight on 11/20/2009 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 3
And that's why you should always closely read the entire EULA.


RE: has anyone done a study on privacy yet?
By stmok on 11/19/2009 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
with google tracking everything, I'd like to know if the Chrome OS tracks everything somewhere...


Its open source...
=> http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/building-chrom...

...There is nothing stopping you from looking through the source code, ripping out all the "user tracking" crap, and compiling your own version.

This is exactly what a third-party has done with Chrome web browser. SRWare Iron is Chrome without the tracking.
=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron


By kmmatney on 11/19/2009 11:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that - I didn't know that existed.


By PhoenixKnight on 11/20/2009 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
But isn't everything you do in the OS is stored on their cloud servers, seeing as all the programs are web-based and run through the Chrome Browser? I'm pretty sure Google hasn't made all the source code of it's cloud servers available.


By omnicronx on 11/21/2009 2:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
To make things clear while it may be open source, the chromium project is not exactly the same as the chrome OS project.

Chromium OS could theoretically be built on any flavor of linux, the instructions provided for example are for using Ubuntu as a base.

I think Chrome OS will required certain hardware to be paired with the software. Such as some kind of solid state flash to keep everything cached for instant access. Chromium is most likely not hardware dependent.


By Omega215D on 11/19/2009 8:43:53 PM , Rating: 1
I found this interesting little bit while on another site. True or not this does not sound ideal...

"Google said consumers won't be able to download the operating system — it will only be available on hardware that meets Google's specifications. Hard disks are banned, for instance, while Google said it will also specify factors such as screen sizes and display resolutions. Google said it plans to officially launch Chrome OS by the end of next year."


Offline Computing?
By artemicion on 11/19/2009 3:17:35 PM , Rating: 5
Is this netbook capable of doing anything if you don't have an Internet connection?




RE: Offline Computing?
By rwpritchett on 11/19/2009 3:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's the first thing that crossed my mind. What happens if you lose your connection or don't have WiFi available?


RE: Offline Computing?
By kattanna on 11/19/2009 3:59:08 PM , Rating: 3
since everything is done through the browser and ALL files are stored remotely, im thinking NO.


RE: Offline Computing?
By DM0407 on 11/19/2009 6:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
I thought all files were also stored locally, but as read only? So I guess you could open previous files but not update them without a way of updating the cloud?


RE: Offline Computing?
By sandhuatdt on 11/19/2009 3:41:33 PM , Rating: 3
You just download the internets, silly!


RE: Offline Computing?
By joshuasims1981 on 11/19/2009 3:49:04 PM , Rating: 3
interwebs.


RE: Offline Computing?
By HaB1971 on 11/19/2009 5:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
Download? It comes on a floppy disk surely


RE: Offline Computing?
By walk2k on 11/19/2009 6:56:43 PM , Rating: 4
Downloading the interweb isn't so much of a problem
as printing it all out is.


REINVENTING THE OS!
By invidious on 11/19/2009 2:47:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Where many Linux distributions use some form of multiple desktops, Google's OS instead uses multiple Windows
Why does this sound familiar? Maybe because Microsoft did this twenty years ago?




RE: REINVENTING THE OS!
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: REINVENTING THE OS!
By MadMan007 on 11/19/2009 4:10:27 PM , Rating: 5
Oh please, stop riding Google's nuts. It's more akin thin client using the web as its server backend than anything you wrote.


RE: REINVENTING THE OS!
By Gungel on 11/19/2009 4:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
Google basically copied YouOS.com


RE: REINVENTING THE OS!
By lexluthermiester on 11/19/2009 8:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like it. Which is why GoogleOS will likely fail as well.


Back to the mainframe, then?
By Slyne on 11/19/2009 3:22:52 PM , Rating: 4
So, if I understand correctly, they've gone back to having a mainframe running apps and using terminals for display, except that this time around the terminals are multimedia instead of 80 columns of monochrome characters. Oh, and the mainframe is accessible anywhere in the world (almost), and it has a less eyebrow-raising name for the public: the cloud! It sounds less mysterious, more friendly (and fluffy).

Me, I like my data on my own private disks, and control over my hardware. But I can see how a simpler appliance with little to no maintenance requirements could be a hit with some members of my family.




RE: Back to the mainframe, then?
By bug77 on 11/19/2009 3:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly.

After many privacy-related lawsuits, now we have the means to easily throw our privacy away and feed anyone owning a "cloud" our data to mine. A bit paranoid maybe, but I like to know what happens to my documents.


By lexluthermiester on 11/19/2009 8:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well here's a simple thought; Don't use it. I'm not going to.


reason to fail
By alu on 11/19/2009 3:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
while i appreciate competition, i think no one would ever use Chrome OS on their primary/work machine. MS is safe, for now.

media playback, application development (how is the Chrome OS API shaping up?), support for 3rd party apps are all black holes in this model.




RE: reason to fail
By Nik00117 on 11/19/2009 3:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
as long as google has allowed for offline mode i'm fine. And google should use the PC's HDD as well! Keep the data local and uploaded. Ladies and gents anytime you put anything on the internet it goes into a server. Your messages on this forum go into a server.


RE: reason to fail
By DM0407 on 11/19/2009 7:08:00 PM , Rating: 3
Really?!?

heh.... Boobs


Horrible idea...
By jonmcc33 on 11/19/2009 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 5
1. What if there is no internet connection? What if you are on dialup?
- The advantages of a normal OS is that there is such a thing as being offline. I don't have several terabytes of storage on my computer for nothing.
2. Storing data in the cloud = teh bad.
- Can't say how many times cell phones, Facebook, MySpace, etc have been hacked.
3. Flash games? Are you kidding me?
- Yep, I didn't get a Radeon HD 5850 for nothing.
4. Vulnerabilities?
- Yep, Chrome browser has had them. So if your entire OS is based upon a browser I cannot imagine how insecure it is.
5. Lack of choice? Reminds me of Apple.
- What if I want to use Firefox?




RE: Horrible idea...
By AbsShek on 11/23/2009 9:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
1. Pray for an offline mode.
- Google gears (comes with chrome) could allow you to 'install' apps for said offline mode.
2. a. See point 1.
b. Don't click 'Save'.
3. It's a NETBOOK. It doesn't play Crysis.
4. Install updates regularly.
5. Then don't use the Chrome OS. It's free anyways, like many other OSes out there that will let you use Firefox.
- It's been designed this way for a reason. If it doesn't meet your requirements, don't use it.


Only trusted apps can write things...
By PhatoseAlpha on 11/19/2009 6:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
So, who exactly decides what apps are trusted? Google only, or is this something the user can override?

Can I install untrusted apps myself and run them when offline?

If it's the former, all security goes directly out the window as end users will happily click on just about anything. If it's the latter, then it's draconian to a level typically seen out of Apple.

Then you've got the whole 'reports everything back to google' aspect - and while the linux folks might just yell recompile it yourself, that kind of cavalier attitude toward actual usability outside the technical elite will not help GoogOS any more then it helped Linux.

I'm just not seeing the point here. At least the apple folks are getting a very well done UI in exchange for higher prices and lower compatibility. In practical terms, why use this instead of a windows flavor?




By DM0407 on 11/19/2009 7:07:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If it's the former, all security goes directly out the window as end users will happily click on just about anything. If it's the latter, then it's draconian to a level typically seen out of Apple.


Guns have safety's on them too how many people still shoot themselves in the leg? *cough* Plaxico Burress

Its called Computer Darwinism, don't fight it.


Perfect.
By bandstand124 on 11/19/2009 5:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is sweet.

I don't know if I'll use it much but it is *perfect* for my mother and the rest of the many, many people like her I provide unofficial desktop support to. All they use the PC for is looking stuff up on the internet, email, streaming TV, whatever.

I set up with this and let them get on with it. I will probably not need to worry about hardware upgrades for a very long time either, or buying a PC that is, even the cheapest one, ridiculously over powered for their usage.

It's a gift.




RE: Perfect.
By kmmatney on 11/19/2009 11:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that this has potential. I can see having a little system in the family room where I can instantly get online and do emails, web browse, etc... Right now, I use my iphone (through wifi) for that, but its somewhat limited. I suppose it will support touchscreen?


Looks interesting.
By Leper Messiah on 11/19/2009 2:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad I don't have a netbook to try it out on. If these google branded netbooks become popular, it should be the killer app for HTML5 penetration on the internet.




yeah right
By MadMan007 on 11/19/2009 4:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
"...and Google backs up and stores all your data in its cloud."

Security my ass. Suck it Google, you already know far too much about people's online habits there's no way in hell I'd let you store my files.




IRC?
By Freddo on 11/19/2009 4:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
I chat with IRC a lot, and is there any powerful IRC web app for Chrome OS/Browser? Which allows for scripts and saving logs and so on, kinda like mIRC for Windows.

Would be very interesting if there is, to run an ARM powered netbook with Chrome OS and just use it as a surf/IRC/MSN device.




Download?
By cochy on 11/19/2009 4:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
Is the OS available for download yet?




What I Want To Know
By biggsjm on 11/19/2009 4:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
How will you manage your media with this thing? Obviously its not for your primary PC, but at some point they will release a desktop version (they hinted at this during the presentation) and I want to know how you will sync your iPod or Sansa or Zune to this and get your music. From what I can tell, this thing will have a very fast, small SSD.

So are we to the point where Google might be building their Lala integrated search into a streaming music service? What about Video? What about extremely large photo collections?

I love this idea, but we really need some more progress on the device side.




By Nekrik on 11/19/2009 5:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
is hardly reinventing the concept of Operating Systems.

Wonder how long before the EU forces them to build a version of their shiney new OS without a browser, or at least put in a ballot box so users can choose their own :).




the Gandhi 'effect'
By ioannis on 11/19/2009 7:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
after reading most of the comments here, the following comes to mind:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."




By Magnus909 on 11/20/2009 2:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
After all Chrome OS is nothing but a very limited version of a Linux distro where you only can use one browser, can't install local programs and are dependant upon a constant Internet connection.
How is this good for a netbook.
For me a netbook isn't only about using the net.
I watch loads of films and tv on it and for that I use ffdshow together with media player classic home cinema. I tweak ffdshow for different types of situation with different settings and couldn't live without it.
That won't be possible with Chrome OS.
Same goes for FireFox and all the add-ons I use.
And what about the transfers from my networked computers at home?
How is that supposed to work with chrome OS?
I haven't seen anything about local networking with file sharing supported by the chrome OS and to get movies and tv-shows transferred to the netbook that is an absolute must.
And there are times when the connection could go down with a netbook and I presume that will affect this type of web dependant OS very negatively.
All these negative things makes this OS a very bad match to a netbook in my mind.




Chrome
By FHAloanguy on 11/23/2009 12:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
If what I heard is true I would never want to use anything from Google. All the information they collect on me is frightening. This truly Big Brother Jr. I may be low tech compared to most of your readers but I know a scary thing when I see it. <A href="http://www.everettmortgageonline.com">Everett-mortgage-on-line</A>




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki