LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Other *NIX (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/other-%2Anix-55/)
-   -   Google Chrome OS - Thoughts? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/other-%2Anix-55/google-chrome-os-thoughts-862146/)

Weasel War Dance 02-11-2011 08:52 PM

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

Kenny_Strawn 02-11-2011 09:28 PM

Incredible in my opinion. Why? Read on.

---------- Post added 2011-02-11 at 19:29 ----------

FYI: I'm posting this on a Cr-48.

Weasel War Dance 02-11-2011 10:07 PM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 02-11-2011 11:03 PM

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).

Weasel War Dance 02-12-2011 07:02 AM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 02-12-2011 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel War Dance (Post 4256009)
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.

First of all, there are three office suites that easily run on the Web and therefore can run in Chrome: Google Docs (which isn't that full-featured), Microsoft Office Web Apps (which has much more features, but is under the umbrella of Microsoft), and Zoho (which has the best of both those worlds) . All of these suites could easily do what you need them to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel War Dance (Post 4256009)
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.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore?c...=app%2F3-games

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel War Dance (Post 4256009)
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.

Agreed. I am happy with my Cr-48, especially since it does all that I need it to do (except Cloud Print, which you either need a specialized printer or a Windows PC to use, but that's no problem as for schoolwork I can email a link to my homework [on Google Docs] to my teachers). If I could, I would record a screencast to show off most of Chrome OS so you don't have to play, but Chrome only has a built-in ability to take screenshots (via a keyboard shortcut), not screencasts. There also is currently no extension in the Web store that allows screencast taking (a search for "screencast" rings up plenty of irrelevant apps and extensions [I assume this is a form of Google bombing] that make no sense in relation to the search.

baudrunner 02-12-2011 11:13 AM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 02-12-2011 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baudrunner (Post 4256200)
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.

The Chrome browser is off-topic. We're talking about Chrome OS here. You know, that operating system/browser hybrid?

Weasel War Dance 02-12-2011 11:48 AM

@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.

Kenny_Strawn 02-12-2011 12:17 PM

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.

Weasel War Dance 02-12-2011 12:55 PM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 02-12-2011 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel War Dance (Post 4256312)
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

Here's the thing: be patient. It took mine more than 2 months to arrive, but when it did, I decided it was worth the wait.

eveningsky339 02-13-2011 06:01 PM

If you want Google to have unlimited access to your personal information, I highly recommend it. :rolleyes:

corp769 02-13-2011 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eveningsky339 (Post 4257309)
If you want Google to have unlimited access to your personal information, I highly recommend it. :rolleyes:

And that's why I don't use google products...

Kenny_Strawn 02-13-2011 06:18 PM

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.

corp769 02-13-2011 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4257322)
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 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...

Kenny_Strawn 02-13-2011 06:46 PM

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

corp769 02-13-2011 06:52 PM

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

Kenny_Strawn 02-13-2011 07:37 PM

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

Weasel War Dance 02-13-2011 07:42 PM

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.

corp769 02-13-2011 07:42 PM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 02-14-2011 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel War Dance (Post 4257400)
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn
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.

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.

TobiSGD 02-15-2011 03:27 AM

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.
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.

Quote:

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?
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.

Quote:

The only issue, however, is that it will only come preinstalled on new computers, but how is that any different from Windows these days
The difference is that it is no problem to buy a single Windows license without buying new hardware.

Quote:

It's really insane that those crooks at PCWor£d are comparing Chrome OS's hardware setup to Mac OS X's.
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.

SigTerm 02-15-2011 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4257322)
Shouldn't you be pleased, however, that Google Chrome OS is open source?

No. It doesn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4257322)
I would give up anything ― even my privacy ― to open source software.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4258467)
They may not be exactly the same, but they're pretty dang close.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4258467)
Unlike Mac OS X, which can only run on App£e hardware,

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

Kenny_Strawn 03-05-2011 09:29 AM

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.

cascade9 03-06-2011 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eveningsky339 (Post 4257309)
If you want Google to have unlimited access to your personal information, I highly recommend it. :rolleyes:

+1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4257344)
And in my opinion, anything (even Google) is better than Micro§oft...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4258467)
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).

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SigTerm (Post 4259339)
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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4258467)
Unlike Mac OS X, which can only run on App£e hardware

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.

Kenny_Strawn 03-06-2011 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280512)
I'll take microsoft over google, or apple for that matter.

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280512)
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)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280512)
Thats all its ever been IMO. Google is playing licence games.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280512)
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280512)
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.

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

cascade9 03-06-2011 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4280624)
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).

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....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4280624)
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.

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

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'.

theKbStockpiler 03-07-2011 03:19 PM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 03-07-2011 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280659)
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280659)
Canonical, well, 'canonical contribution agreement', it might be open source but bradley khun has a point, even if he did go a bit overboard....

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascade9 (Post 4280659)
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'.

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.

mryuck 03-07-2011 06:20 PM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 03-07-2011 06:31 PM

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?

mryuck 03-07-2011 06:52 PM

Google is like FOSS spyware.
Thats the difference.

Kenny_Strawn 03-07-2011 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mryuck (Post 4282080)
Google is like FOSS spyware.
Thats the difference.

Since when? What is making Google FOSS spyware?

corp769 03-07-2011 07:47 PM

Ever since they became widely known to the world, and they started working in line with the U.S. government.

Kenny_Strawn 03-07-2011 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corp769 (Post 4282132)
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.

corp769 03-07-2011 08:57 PM

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....

fbsduser 03-08-2011 01:51 AM

What I would see chromeos useful is as a sort of "instant-on" feature on laptops.

cascade9 03-08-2011 03:48 AM

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?

Kenny_Strawn 03-08-2011 09:35 AM

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.

TobiSGD 03-08-2011 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4282191)
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?

Kenny_Strawn 03-08-2011 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4282970)
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.

TobiSGD 03-08-2011 05:58 PM

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.

Kenny_Strawn 03-08-2011 06:54 PM

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

http://groups.google.com/group/cr-48...d442fd03f8c6e7

cascade9 03-09-2011 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4283347)
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 (Post 4283362)
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 (Post 4282853)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM.