So none of you read the article in Linux Format (issue 120) headed

"What on earth is Chromium"

and I quote


LXF - Er, wait a minute - I've heard of this. Isn't it called Chrome?
Chrome is a web browser, but that's the name given to the finished, stable product released on WINDOWS. Chromium is the name of the open source project behind Chrome

LXF - Wow. Chrome is open source?
It certainly is! When it announced the project, Google said it was making it free because it was based on so much other free software - KHTML - aka WebKit - is the core of the browser, for example

Google Chrome OS does look quite interesting, but will it allow 3rd party apps to be installed?

Otherwise you'd have to use Google-only apps, like Google Page Creator and Google Office (Google Docs & Speadsheets). I also heard it'll be cross-platform compatible, which is a plus, I guess...

Google OS on netbooks by 2010?!
I thought netbooks actually did *some* things other than go on the 'net!

I hope GoogleOS doesn't become popular enough that people think they invented Linux or something... that'd really suck.

For locally installed apps: Because it's Linux-based, third-party apps should work, although one might need to compile from source (not sure of their intentions concerning repos).

For Cloud Services: Since the app actually runs on the server and communicates with your PC through standard web protocols, it would be 'cross-platform' compatible, there.

Cheers

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=1065


Krishnan Subramanian at Cloud Ave lends a more level headed view:

"Instead of doing their own OS, they could have rallied behind one of the Linux distros, say Damn Small Linux, and helped them get traction among the hardware vendors. This is a move by Google to deflect the high handed tactics by Microsoft in the netbook market but it appears to me like a redundant one. I feel that they should have supported one of the existing distros. However, if they had taken that route, there is no way they could have pushed the Google Chrome browser (and their services) tightly integrated with the Linux distro. In short, it is a desperate attempt by Google to stop Microsoft in the netbook game and, also, push the Google Chrome browser to the masses at a point in time when IE’s market share is going downhill."

Agreed. And, the fact of the matter is, everything's not going to be ported to the cloud. And, don't forget, the more you depend on your Internet to do everything, the more chances there are to be hacked, and the more you rely on a fast inet connection. D: Haven't you all heard of chrome's vulnerabilities (leading to remote code execution -- yikes!) that were addressed in old versions of safari and Google's rather poor response to them? I <b>don't</b> trust them with my security. Furthermore, y'all knew that chrome 'provides extra ammunition' for advertisers? Google is, after all, an advertisement company. I've always liked FF better. More user friendly in the same way that Linux is - you can tweak it

Google Chromium? Open source? I downloaded 800+ MB (just the chrome .tar.bz2, not including all these bizarre & obscure extra libraries) to try and compile it. It used totally nonstandard build tools and tried to replace my gnu linker with a google version. Now, can somebody tell me what's wrong here?

Now, don't call me a corporate software hater. There's a time and place for that. It provides programmers with jobs, and is good should you want to buy support for something more! I just don't think that corporate software works when it's the whole OS. I mean, Windows, Google Chrome OS, Macintosh - what is the underlying problem?

Google plans to use security features such as system hardening, process sandboxing, verified boot, secure auto-update and encryption in its new OS. I really like the google chrome OS security features because every time you restart your PC , it checks for digital signature to ensure that everything is OK. If it finds something is wrong and not signed by Google, it will refresh itself through the update process.

So basically it's an appliance.
I thought we hated the idea of security on a chip when it was presented as the Trusted Platform Module, now it's being snuck in under googles ever expanding umbrella.

Assume for a moment that your GoS system has been compromised somehow - if I were to write something with that objective in mind, the first thing I would prevent is any contact with googles home base(s). So no automatic "refresh" of the dodgy code.

What happens then ? Does the OS lock you out, or shut down entirely ? Or does it let you proceed ?
Either way, it's not doing its job and is just in the way. It does you well to remember who actually owns the hardware.

Computing for the mindless masses IMHO.

Very good point, I was thinking along the same lines. I don't see too much special about this Google OS that would make me want to try it.

I was in the cloud in the late 60's .... but I'm much better now.

But seriously, do you trust your most sensitive information on someone else's servers?

If it does any one of those things (except the last one ), then it's basically like putting DRM on the whole OS...

I expect that even if it does let you proceed, though, it'll probably hit you with a bunch of "Are you sure?" type messages everywhere.

So I suppose that means if the wireless stops working in your ChromeOS netbook, it's effectively b0rked.

Even the last one - if the whole point is to stop malicious code, then allowing you to proceed after malicious code is detected is completely stupid, but to lock the OS down in that situation is completely stupid too because it takes control away from you, the owner of that hardware.

There is always the false positive to worry about on the last point, and we all know that trying to one-up the "hackers" is a road to no-where.

So what is the point other than "woo hoo look at me, I'm a google boondoggle" ?

Not thought through, as usual.

Maybe I should re-register as the grinch ;-)

Directed at me or at Google?

If it's at me, sorry. I suppose I probably should've kept my big mouth shut...

???

Did you design this OS then ?

If not, then obviously it was directed at google, and anybody else who believes perfect security is possible in a general purpose OS.