Google Chrome OS - Thoughts?
Hey, folks. This is a place for discussion of Google's Chrome OS: users of the OS as well as people who have simply kept an eye on it are welcome to voice their opinions.
I'll try and keep my personal opinion of Chrome OS away, at least for the first post. What is the good and the bad? Do you like their approach to things, or is its philosophy not your cup of tea? Are you just excited that a new Linux operating system is going to potentially become mainstream? Personally, I have not yet tested Chrome OS, but I have read reviews of it as well as done some of my own research. I recently checked their website, which inspired me to make this thread. So, what are your thoughts on Chrome OS? Ahh, and some links, for those interested in learning more about it: Chrome OS official site; Features: http://www.google.com/chromeos/features.html Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS |
Incredible in my opinion. Why? Read on.
---------- Post added 2011-02-11 at 19:29 ---------- FYI: I'm posting this on a Cr-48. |
I'm talking more about the user experience, not who benefits monetarily from it. Is it pleasant to use? Is it full-featured and easily and/or greatly customisable; or is it rather over-simplified? How about the stability and general look and feel? If it's entirely app-based and rather like an iPhone in that respect, it probably wouldn't be my cup of tea.
I'm curious as to if I should even bother testing it out, since some of the 'benefits' it points out frankly sound revolting to me. If that comes across as a strange statement, let me give a couple examples: (from the Features list I linked above) Forever fresh: "The web evolves rapidly. Your Chrome notebook evolves with it. Every time you turn it on, it upgrades itself with the latest features and fixes. Annoying update prompts not included." To me, update prompts were never annoying, and I quite like knowing what is being changed when something is updated. On top of knowing what will change, I think it's the users' right to say "no" when they would rather not have something updated. It'd be like having Fedora on autopilot: sure the latest would be at your fingertips, but that could come along with bugs and snags that you'd rather not deal with. (from the Wikipedia page, also linked above) "The user interface takes a minimalist approach, resembling that of the Chrome web browser. Because Google Chrome OS is aimed at users who spend most of their computer time on the Internet, the only application on the device will be a browser incorporating a media player." For some users, this could be a phenomenal choice; and a simple, easy-to-use one for anybody. For me, this sends off a red flag in my mind. Being stuck on a browser as the OS's sole application would be to shut oneself into a box. A large, nice-looking and roomy box, but a box however. I am not saying I know everything about this OS, because I sure as heck don't, but so far I don't like what I'm seeing from their approach. It certainly wouldn't suit me, but it could be great for others. I am someone who likes to know what's going on with my system, and I enjoy learning how to do new things. I'm not sure how much system monitoring and the like would be achievable in a browser, or as a lesser issue, the amount of customisation it would allow. If I'm wrong on any point or if you have something to add, feel free to point it out. |
Well it may be browser-based, but it can install any HTML-based apps, not just run Web apps remotely. For example, the Launchpad, Ubuntu One, Fiabee, Quickrr, Chrome Player, SourceKit, Calculatoure, 5calc, and Write Space apps all install inside Chrome as extensions and are accessed as local Web pages, under the URL "chrome-extension://<weird autogenerated string>". And yet they can run offline but update when you get back online.
And for me, I have never experienced that many breaks, in fact none at all so far, even while running a version of Chrome OS from the Dev Channel on my Cr-48. I can log in all the time, I can do what I need to do, I can even run all my apps without many issues (okay, I do admit that just now, the sound suddenly became permanently muted while I was watching a video, but that is the ONLY issue I have ever had). |
Ahh, that makes sense to allow users to work offline if need be. Thanks for the feedback. :)
Out of curiosity, since their site does not seem to mention anything about it: Does Chrome OS have a viable office suite, comparable to, say, Openoffice or MS Office? Basically, is it feasible to get office-type work done on it? And if everything is browser based, is it possible to have multiple different programs on the screen simultaneously, or are they limited to being in separate tabs? I sometimes find myself with about six different things on the same screen, and it'd be a hard transition for me to have to click tabs in order to multi-task. I feel I should ask, since it's bound to be asked at one point anyway: Is the gaming experience crippled in Chrome OS? I don't imagine it'd (yet) have software like Wine despite being a Linux OS, so playing games from a disk would be out of the question. But how about just games that can go completely full-screen, like Quake or Doom? Without a compatibility layer, you'd be left with little more than online flash games and maybe some cheesy app-based games. Sounds interesting enough that I'd spend some time playing with it if it's on display at a store sometime in the near future. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I don't use Google Chrome to browse the web since I am not online at home. However, I need it to test web apps on the local host, and I am actually very impressed with its page loading speed. I am using Firefox for my default browser, and Chrome, as well as Opera, render my projects EXACTLY the same way as does Firefox. Microsoft should take a lesson here.
|
Quote:
|
@Kenny_Strawn: The office suite issue was one of my concerns for if I eventually wanted to give Chrome/Chromium OS a test-drive. Good to see there are ways to get work done. I wonder if Google will eventually release their own suite specifically for the OS...
Do you know about how much drive space is needed to install Chrome OS? I'd imagine it's rather compact, but is there an official amount of space it uses on average? Also, I saw your screenshot, looks good. It appears that tasks are separated by tabs in the same window, though. It's too bad you can't do a recording; I was actually tempted to ask if you could show off a couple minutes of how it works. Hopefully they'll have a way to screencast soon. Is Chrome OS more comparable in navigation and usage to another operating system (*NIX, *BSD, Mac, Windows, what-have-you), or is it more similar to a web browser in those respects? Apologies for bombarding you with questions, but I'm really interested to see where this OS is going. EDIT: The screenshot you provided made me think that maybe Chrome OS is inspired by mobile OS's, Google's own Android for example. |
Well you can build Chrome OS from source, but in order to get the full effect, apply for the Pilot Program. Sure, there's a wait involved, but chances are the Pilot Program will be open for a long time.
|
Thanks for the link. I applied, though I have my doubts about being selected. If not, I suppose I'll just wait to see it hit the stores, or resort to compiling the OS if the wait is killing me. :p
@Kenny_Strawn: Noted. I'm not the most patient guy in the world, but I can wait if it's worth it. |
Quote:
|
If you want Google to have unlimited access to your personal information, I highly recommend it. :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.... Quote:
|
To a large degree I envy Googles developers.
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. |
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
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? |
Google is like FOSS spyware.
Thats the difference. |
Quote:
|
Ever since they became widely known to the world, and they started working in line with the U.S. government.
|
Quote:
|
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....
|
What I would see chromeos useful is as a sort of "instant-on" feature on laptops.
|
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 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 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 Code:
Buying bread V1.3C(leaned), cascade9 EULA 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 So you can get this- Code:
Buying bread V1.2. BSD Code:
Buying bread V1.2.1. BSD Do you see why I say that canonical and google are playing licence games? |
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the meantime they have developed a "killswitch" for Android-apps, do you really think they will not do that for ChromeOS? |
Quote:
|
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. |
Apparently, there's a bug in the Dev channel that I reported:
http://groups.google.com/group/cr-48...d442fd03f8c6e7 |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM. |