I do feel you though. I love the fact that it is open source. And maybe that's why, even though I do not use it, it is installed on my laptop...

And in my opinion, anything (even Google) is better than Micro§oft...

Exactly. I have my microsoft certification, yet I dread using windows each time I come to work.

So you are posting from your office PC then? Have to be, because sees 'icon_windows_xp_2003.gif' in your post...

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn
"Shouldn't you be pleased, however, that Google Chrome OS is open source? In my opinion, I would give up anything ― even my privacy ― to open source software."

I know Linux users who use open source software for the exact reason of avoiding having a company get its paws on their personal information without their consent. If I could not have any privacy on open source software, then I would simply stop using computers whenever possible. To me, privacy is a bit more important than something being freely redistributable.
The thinking is also flawed. There are hundreds of Linux distros, dozens of *BSDs, and other open source operating systems that will not demand access to your personal information. Why would you sacrifice something that you could keep?

I must point out that Google Chrome OS is in fact NOT open source. It only ships on their hardware, and to my knowledge you cannot freely redistribute it. Chromium OS is open source, but Chromium OS =/= Chrome OS.

Yup. Every once in a while I bring in my laptop because it gives me something to do, like programming, etc. The US military has a big contract with microsoft, and it sucks.

They may not be exactly the same, but they're pretty dang close. Chromium OS, despite the fact that it may be slightly different than Chrome OS, has *almost* the exact same features and visual appearance as Chrome OS, minus automatic updates (which can be achieved with the Chromium Updater extension) and a few other highly trivial (and mostly unnoticed by users) elements of the OS (which I am sure can still be added to Chromium by plugins/extensions easily).

And Chrome OS *will* still run on hardware besides Google's (from Google Chrome OS OEM partners). Unlike Mac OS X, which can only run on App£e hardware, Chrome OS still can run on any OEM hardware that Google partners up with. The only issue, however, is that it will only come preinstalled on new computers, but how is that any different from Windows these days (seeing as though most Windows users only get Windows preinstalled on new computers)? Sure, the only system it currently comes installed on is the Cr-48, but Acer, HP, Dell, and many other OEMs will also have Chrome OS on commercial systems by the middle of this year. In contrast, App£e wouldn't dare let anybody install Mac OS X on anything that isn't App£e's, even their closest friends. It's really insane that those crooks at PCWor£d are comparing Chrome OS's hardware setup to Mac OS X's. Sure, Chrome OS may only come preinstalled on hardware, but multiple vendors regardless, versus only one vendor.

You will really give up your privacy for an OS? Really? Only because it is FOSS? I never would do that,for nothing. Even not for FOSS.

Exactly. But to answer that, I would assume that Kenny will do it, because it is a current hype. It is not really better than the Apple iDevices, they are hyped, so every one that wants to count as cool has to buy one. Kenny is only linked to FOSS-hypes. To use Ubuntu was cool, so he used it. To use an Android phone is cool, so he uses one. And now it is ChromeOS. I am waiting for the next to see what it is.

The difference is that it is no problem to buy a single Windows license without buying new hardware.

Why? It only comes with new hardware, why is it a difference that the hardware is labeled Apple or Acer, HP, Dell?

By the way, I remember such a thing like "I only use it as last resort": App£e, PCWor£d.

You really live in a black/white-world, but their is also gray out there, you know? Not everything that is FOSS (or pretends to be) is good, and not everything that is proprietary is necessary evil.

No. It doesn't matter.

I doubt that you would agree to install live feed webcam into every room of your house "for the sake of FOSS" - it is also a way to sacrifice privacy.

You missed an important detail. Chromium is not GPL - it is BSD-licensed (according to wikipedia and LICENSE file on src.chromium.org). Which means that anybody can grab the chromium source, make a proprietary fork and do the good old EEE trick (you can't do this with average Linux distro). Frankly, I'd expect that google will do it first. Another thing is that with BSD license Chrome notebook manufacturer can refuse to give you the source code for BSD-licensed parts - it is allowed by license. Even if it were GPL, and not BSD, google most likely still would be able to change the license as they want - because they probably own the rights to the source code, excluding GPL components (they're authors, author can change software license for the product). It is reasonable to expect that Google will introduce proprietary component that will make Chrome incompatible to the Chromium - in certain situation it can be a reasonable tactic to exterminate popular community forks. It is unclear whether google will actually do it (depends on their priorities), but they surely could do it if they wanted. Because (AFAIK) currently Chrome OS code is not released to the public, to me it looks like Chrome OS is already a proprietary fork of Chromium.

It is possible to make Mac OS X work on normal PC, but it is a violation of apple license agreement.

For those of you who don't know, there are two types of apps for Chrome OS: hosted and packaged. The hosted apps are those fancy bookmarks that have received all the criticism by you guys. The packaged apps are packaged inside a .crx file and all the HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and any other files they may include are inside that file (which is a modified .zip archive). When the .crx file is unpacked, the whole app installs inside Chrome instead of just a manifest pointing to a Web site.

So really, Chrome OS is not just a platform for Web apps. It is a platform for HTML apps, which may or may not be Web apps.

+1.

I'll take microsoft over google, or apple for that matter.

Because you can actually see the source code for chromiumOS, its going to be more hackable. Chrome OS = closed source = its going to be harder, a lot harder to make it do things that google dont want it to do (and I'd bet once chrome gains some traction google will start to lock it down if somebody does figure out how to do things google dont want people doing)

Thats all its ever been IMO. Google is playing licence games.

Yeah, right. Legally, you can only run OSX on 'apple branded' software (depending on if you think that an EULA is legally binding). Pratically, you can run OSX farily easily on intel iX systems, and other systems are possible.

Use a search engine, with the term "hackintosh". You can even use google if you want.

Sorry, as soon as I see a fundamental mistake like that I wonder how much you've looked into what you are saying....Saying chromeOS is 'open source' as well just seals the deal.

In my opinion Google is the lesser of the three. Sure, Google isn't perfect, but Google isn't horrible either. Why? Because the more code a company opens up the better. Canonical, Red Hat, etc. are at the top of my preferences, then comes Google, then Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle (which are tied at the bottom because Apple may open up more code than Microsoft but still uses vendor lock-ins and other anti-competitive tactics that bring Apple down to Microsoft's level, and Oracle is too much of a patent troll to pay any attention to).

Sure, but Chromium OS is so similar to Chrome OS that you can't tell the difference (the only visible difference between the two is the logo). Sure, Google may not have opened up *all* the code to the Chrome browser, but they did open up *almost* all of it, and even then the rest of the OS (save the browser and a few binary blobs in the kernel) is 100% open source. Try booting Darwin instead of OS X and you'll see a totally different animal, because Apple adds so much proprietary code to Darwin to make OS X that Darwin is very crippled. Not so with Chromium/Chrome.

Very minimally. Sure, *some* of the code to Chrome OS may be proprietary, but the proprietary code is so superficial compared to the open source code it makes no difference. Again, see above. I do know that Google isn't perfect, but as I said above, the more code a company open sources the more I like it. So again, that puts Canonical/Red Hat at the top, followed by Google, then Microsoft/Apple/Oracle. For the explanation, again, see above.

I know what a hackintosh is, thank you very much, and seeing what happened to Psystar just makes me cringe. The Psystar case is proof of Apple's mad phobia of freedom.

Again, see above. Chrome OS in full may not be open source, but 99.99999% of it is.

Google might have some 'open' projects, but ChromeOS/browser isnt one of them. I dislike the way that people are running around saying how supportive of open source google is, when they play licence games like they have with chromeOS/browser.

Putting up the code your written in a BSD style licence, then building your own closed source version of that is NOT 'supporting open source' IMO. Cynically, you could say that google found a way to decrease development costs, while also obfuscating that reality. Its also a great way to build support among the people who dont pay attention to details.

Canonical, well, 'canonical contribution agreement', it might be open source but bradley khun has a point, even if he did go a bit overboard....

ChomeOS (and chrome browser for that matter) are closed. You cant get around that by saying 'ohh, but its based on chromium which is open'.

Can anyone name anything that did not turn evil when it got to big to contol or be kept in check?

It has to be a blast to make Bill Gates and Steve Jobs insecure. I would love to have the respect of making them flinch. "Google is commin for Ya?"I hope Linux never turns evil. It's such a fun loving O.S. If Google makes a commercial version and sells support it would be dangerous so I'll bet Redhat ,Novell and Canonical are keeping an eye on it. Google will have to be slayed at some point. It's a given.

Does Darwin have a GUI? No! Can Darwin run OS X apps natively (without the OS X Cocoa or Carbon APIs)? No!

Can Chromium OS run Chromium apps? Yes! Does Chromium OS have a built-in New Tab link to the Chrome Web Store? Yes! Does Chromium OS have a similar UI to Chrome OS (with the exception of the logo)? Yes!

See the difference? Chromium OS is no more different from Chrome OS than CentOS and Fedora are from RHEL.

Yes, and the reason for the contributor agreement is simple: Notice how the GPL does require that copyright be asserted to the author of any software under it? The Contributor's Agreement is the same thing.

Again, see above. My explanation is clear: Chrome OS and Chromium OS, even if they may not be exactly the same, they are fundamentally similar, to the point where you can perform exactly the same tasks in both operating systems. Look further in the above section, and you'll find the question "how is this different from what Red Hat is doing?" Look still further, and you'll find the difference between what Apple is doing and what Google is doing.