LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > Other *NIX
User Name
Password
Other *NIX This forum is for the discussion of any UNIX platform that does not have its own forum. Examples would include HP-UX, IRIX, Darwin, Tru64 and OS X.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-07-2011, 06:20 PM   #31
mryuck
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Posts: 107

Rep: Reputation: 23

With MS and Apple you know what your getting into.
Google is more like someone pretending to be a friend then stabbing you in the back.

I can't see how what Google does is ok as long as you can see their source code.
Google is a data mining company that has reached a compromise with Verizon on net neutrality.

How is that good for anyone?

Furthermore, as stated previously, there are options besides Google Apple and MS.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 06:31 PM   #32
Kenny_Strawn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: /usa/ca/orange_county/lake_forest
Distribution: ArchBang, Google Android 2.1 + Motoblur (on Motortola Flipside), Google Chrome OS (on Cr-48)
Posts: 1,791
Blog Entries: 62

Rep: Reputation: 54
There are two things I look for in judging companies.

First off, the more code they open, the closer in functionality and appearance the open source versions are to the proprietary versions of their software, the better.

Second, the more anticompetitive tactics a company uses (i.e. software patents, vendor lock-ins, software "features" that boss users around, software updates that break jailbreaks (or Hackintoshes), etc.) the worse they are.

Google doesn't use any anticompetitive tactics of the nature of the ones listed, and they also open up *almost* all of their source code. See the difference?
 
Old 03-07-2011, 06:52 PM   #33
mryuck
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Posts: 107

Rep: Reputation: 23
Google is like FOSS spyware.
Thats the difference.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 06:57 PM   #34
Kenny_Strawn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: /usa/ca/orange_county/lake_forest
Distribution: ArchBang, Google Android 2.1 + Motoblur (on Motortola Flipside), Google Chrome OS (on Cr-48)
Posts: 1,791
Blog Entries: 62

Rep: Reputation: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mryuck View Post
Google is like FOSS spyware.
Thats the difference.
Since when? What is making Google FOSS spyware?
 
Old 03-07-2011, 07:47 PM   #35
corp769
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,807

Rep: Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996
Ever since they became widely known to the world, and they started working in line with the U.S. government.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 08:53 PM   #36
Kenny_Strawn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: /usa/ca/orange_county/lake_forest
Distribution: ArchBang, Google Android 2.1 + Motoblur (on Motortola Flipside), Google Chrome OS (on Cr-48)
Posts: 1,791
Blog Entries: 62

Rep: Reputation: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by corp769 View Post
Ever since they became widely known to the world, and they started working in line with the U.S. government.
Sure, Google may violate *some* privacy rights, but those privacy issues can be cleared with Adblock Plus as well as the settings panel (where you can clear your browsing history every time you shut down). And in Chrome OS (at least on the Cr-48), /tmp is on a RAM disk anyway.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 08:57 PM   #37
corp769
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,807

Rep: Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996
I still don't trust them anyway.... I use them for searching and for general e-mail. Have yet to find me a fully trustworthy internet-based email service....
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-08-2011, 01:51 AM   #38
fbsduser
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Distribution: Hackintosh, SlackWare
Posts: 266

Rep: Reputation: 30
What I would see chromeos useful is as a sort of "instant-on" feature on laptops.
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:48 AM   #39
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903
Hmmm...rather than actually trying to pull apart your argument Kenny_Strawn, I'm going to try to be constructive rather than divisive.

I could possibly have a minor detail or two wrong, and I'm not going to point out subtle differences between different versions of the licences. Also, this stuff has never been tested in any court as far as I know, and different courts and legal systems could have verdicts if it ever was tested in court. This is an overview of the situation.

Lets say I write a program (I am not a coder, I'm using this as a simple example)-

Code:
Buying bread V1.0. GPLv3.0   
-Get wallet
-Exit house
-Walk to store
-Select bread
-Pay with EFTpos at counter
-Walk home
-Enter house
If I release it under the GPL, I am still free to make a closed source version. Because I have automatic copyright, its owned totally by me, and because I own the copyright 100% it would be legal.

Now, anyone is free to write modifications to my GPL code, as long as they don't distribute it. If it is distributed, then it must be released under the GPL. So if somebody writes any modifications then publishes then, which would count as distributing it, then the code must be released under the GPL.

Lets say Jane Smith writes and distributes this-

Code:
Buying bread V1.1. GPLv3.0 
-Get wallet or purse
-Exit house
-Lock door
-Walk to store
-Select bread
-Pay with EFTpos at counter
-Walk home
-Unlock door
-Enter house
That means that both myself and Jane Smith own copyright to our portions of the work.

Ah-ha! I think, thats great, its been made more secure and better for a wider range of users. A while later I find a minor problem with my original code, and fix it-

Code:
Buying bread V1.2. GPLv3.0 
-Get wallet or purse
-Check for pants, if pants = none then apply pants
-Exit house
-Lock door
-Walk to store
-Select bread
-Pay with EFTpos at counter
-Walk home
-Unlock door
-Enter house
If at any point I did want to make a closed source version, it must have Jane Smiths code removed-

Code:
Buying bread V1.3C(leaned), cascade9 EULA

*this code is hidden, and cannot be seen by anyone apart from the writers of the program*

-Get wallet
-Check for pants, if pants = none then apply pants
-Exit house
-Walk to store
-Select bread
-Pay with EFTpos at counter
-Walk home
-Enter house
What canonical is doing is asking that copyright is assigned legally to canonical, making them the single copyright holder. If the canonical user contribution agreement is not 'signed' then contributions will not be accepted.

Because all copyrights are owned by a single entity, it becomes the same situation as my original program- canonical is free to make a closed source version.

Other people are still free to use the code in accordance with the GPL, but canonical is not bound to the same standards.

What google is doing is this-

Code:
Buying bread V1.0. BSD   
-Get wallet
-Exit house
-Walk to store
-Select bread
-Pay with EFTpos at counter
-Walk home
-Enter house
Because its a BSD licence, the rules are different. The code can be closed at any time, as long as the BSD licence is displayed. So if the same step as above were followed, there is no need to for google to remove Jane Smiths contribution to make a closed source version.

So you can get this-

Code:
Buying bread V1.2. BSD
Or worse yet, this-

Code:
Buying bread V1.2.1. BSD

*this code is hidden, and cannot be seen by anyone apart from the writers of the program* 
 
-Get wallet or purse
-Check for pants, if pants = none then apply pants
-Exit house
-Lock door
-Walk to store
-Select bread
-Pay with EFTpos at counter
-Inform google of bread brand selected, price paid, location of store, time of day and bank ballance
-Walk home
-Unlock door
-Enter house
That is totally legal under the BSD licence. Its only one line changed, most of the code and functions remain the same.

Do you see why I say that canonical and google are playing licence games?

Last edited by cascade9; 03-08-2011 at 04:14 AM. Reason: typos...oh, so many typos.
 
Old 03-08-2011, 09:35 AM   #40
Kenny_Strawn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: /usa/ca/orange_county/lake_forest
Distribution: ArchBang, Google Android 2.1 + Motoblur (on Motortola Flipside), Google Chrome OS (on Cr-48)
Posts: 1,791
Blog Entries: 62

Rep: Reputation: 54
The Chrome (sorry, Chromium) browser may be BSD, but everything else (kernel, GTK+, X.org, and the many other open source CLI apps located in chrome://about/os-credits) is GPL. So there.
 
Old 03-08-2011, 11:12 AM   #41
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn View Post
Sure, Google may violate *some* privacy rights, but those privacy issues can be cleared with Adblock Plus as well as the settings panel (where you can clear your browsing history every time you shut down). And in Chrome OS (at least on the Cr-48), /tmp is on a RAM disk anyway.
So it is okay to break the rules, if you can fix that with a third party app? And do you really think that the users this OS is aimed at will open the settings to fix something like that?

Quote:
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.
Quote:
The Chrome (sorry, Chromium) browser may be BSD
But exactly that is the point. At any time, they can change to code of Chrome to only run the apps they want, and they can change it in a way that is not available to Chromium.
In the meantime they have developed a "killswitch" for Android-apps, do you really think they will not do that for ChromeOS?
 
Old 03-08-2011, 05:40 PM   #42
Kenny_Strawn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: /usa/ca/orange_county/lake_forest
Distribution: ArchBang, Google Android 2.1 + Motoblur (on Motortola Flipside), Google Chrome OS (on Cr-48)
Posts: 1,791
Blog Entries: 62

Rep: Reputation: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
In the meantime they have developed a "killswitch" for Android-apps, do you really think they will not do that for ChromeOS?
Those Android apps were MALWARE INFECTED!!! The only reason why Google removed them was because they presented a danger to Android as a whole. With Chrome OS, the possibility of apps infecting Chrome is nil. There is the possibility that there will be apps that phish, but that's about all they would physically be able to do, because there's no way to make an HTML virus. There may be a way to make a Python fork bomb and host it on Google App Engine; then again, Google knows the safety of users' devices, and safety comes first. Google has every right to remove an app that poses a danger to users, their privacy, their identity, or their devices. It's a shame that others here don't see it that way.
 
Old 03-08-2011, 05:58 PM   #43
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046
They have the ability to do it, that is the point, and no one can keep them from doing that. No license and nothing. Maybe next time they will remove software that is a direct competitor for one of their services.
By the way, if they would remove software that is a danger to your privacy they would have to remove Android and ChromeOS themselves.

The OP wanted thoughts on ChromeOS, here is one that bothers me the most: I own my computers, and everything I install on them is so as it is because I wanted it that way. No one has the right to deinstall remotely anything on it. The developers/maintainers can notice me if there is a bug or security issue, but simply deinstalling anything and leaving a note after that is the perfect way to hunt me away from that OS to one that will do what I want. My device, my OS, my data, my control. None of those things has to be in the hand of others.

I don't think that it is a shame that there are people here that do not want to give their privacy and control away.
In fact, I think it is a shame that there are people that want to do that, just for a pretended convenience.
 
Old 03-08-2011, 06:54 PM   #44
Kenny_Strawn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: /usa/ca/orange_county/lake_forest
Distribution: ArchBang, Google Android 2.1 + Motoblur (on Motortola Flipside), Google Chrome OS (on Cr-48)
Posts: 1,791
Blog Entries: 62

Rep: Reputation: 54
Apparently, there's a bug in the Dev channel that I reported:

http://groups.google.com/group/cr-48...d442fd03f8c6e7
 
Old 03-09-2011, 02:35 AM   #45
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903Reputation: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn View Post
Those Android apps were MALWARE INFECTED!!! The only reason why Google removed them was because they presented a danger to Android as a whole. With Chrome OS, the possibility of apps infecting Chrome is nil. There is the possibility that there will be apps that phish, but that's about all they would physically be able to do, because there's no way to make an HTML virus. There may be a way to make a Python fork bomb and host it on Google App Engine; then again, Google knows the safety of users' devices, and safety comes first. Google has every right to remove an app that poses a danger to users, their privacy, their identity, or their devices. It's a shame that others here don't see it that way.
Never say never. LOL.

There is always the possibility of apps infecting an OS. So far nobody has managed to make a 100% safe and secure OS, and I'd doubt there ever will be.

Google has every right to do whatever they want with ChromeOS (not the GPL parts that it runs on top of though). Thats part of the point, its closed.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
By the way, if they would remove software that is a danger to your privacy they would have to remove Android and ChromeOS themselves.
+1. Though I cant say I know that about for sure android, I simply havent looked into it. I do my computing at home, and I'm not one for 'smart phones', or even laptops, etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn View Post
The Chrome (sorry, Chromium) browser may be BSD, but everything else (kernel, GTK+, X.org, and the many other open source CLI apps located in chrome://about/os-credits) is GPL. So there.
You know, being able to admit you were wrong is a virtue. I'll take that response as 'I was wrong but I cant admit it'.

BTW, excellent use of 'nah nah ne nah nah'. It might work at school but in the real world......I wont say what people generally think of that, I'll let you find out.
 
  


Reply

Tags
chrome+os, cloud, google


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] This there a Slackware version of Google Chromium Browser? (not Google Chrome) Robert.Thompson Slackware 6 01-13-2011 05:27 AM
[SOLVED] Google Talk Plugin, Slackware64-Current, Google Chrome (Latest) and Multilib - Error Gavin Harper Slackware 3 01-04-2011 07:45 AM
LXer: Google Chrome Automatically Installs Google Repository in Ubuntu LXer Syndicated Linux News 3 05-07-2010 11:20 AM
Have you tried Google Chrome , on Wine/Crossover??? Share your thoughts/tips etc harry2006 Linux - Software 4 10-16-2008 12:17 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration