Google's Chrome OS revealed

[Fred Derf Veteran]

So wait...so if the hardware is $199, this is basically a $199 web browser. What if I want to skype. ZING cant do it. What if i want to do some work while on the bus. ZING cant do that. What do I do if I want to work while on a train or plane..ZING cant do that. Ok how about if I want to take a video a friend sent me and edit it..ZING cant do that. What if I want tweetdeck or a client on my machine instead of the useless web twitter clients. ZING cant do that... What if I want to a proper MS power presentation with tools not available online. ZING cant do that.... What if I want to use iTunes with my iPhone...ZING cant do that.. What if I want to store my music or my pictures....Locally...ZING cant do that...What if I delete all my Cache and I dont have online access....ZING i am so screwed.

This is Failure....

Who owns the Data? Google... Who owns your documents? Google? When can you USE this OS? when Google Servers are up..

If Skype makes a Chrome plugin then you'll be fine. On a bus/train? ZING you can do that. Some buses have WiFi hotspots these days and most metropolitan buses/trains will be within 3G coverage. Who would want to edit a video on a netbook? It's a netbook not a portable video editor.

Clearly it sounds like you need a desktop computer. So get one of those and ignore this product. Not every product has to be designed for you personally.

[Growled Member]

This is just a foot in the door for google, so as cloud computing slowly becomes the norm.. google are there already.

It will also do alot better on netbooks than any other linux distro has done, as google will offer a % of ad revenue created from each Chrome netbook to the OEM.

Exactly. A few dollars here, a few dollars there. A nudge here and a push there. A finger in every pot. That's the Google way.

I still believe it's much to early to judge this one. A lot can happen in a year, and probably will.

[Rudy]

Clearly it sounds like you need a desktop computer. So get one of those and ignore this product. Not every product has to be designed for you personally.

Exactly, this is clearly not meant to replace your main pc at home that has an actual full blown OS on it. It's meant for Netbooks and maybe even some new portable device (thin tablet? think something shaped like the kindle but as a full tablet with ChromeOS).

[ObiWanToby]

Will everyone really store everything in the cloud? It is hard to beat Windows and Mac OSX. I just don't see it being compelling for mass use. Sure, for the random old notebook around the house, but for a main machine? I doubt it.

[Rudy]

Will everyone really store everything in the cloud? It is hard to beat Windows and Mac OSX. I just don't see it being compelling for mass use. Sure, for the random old notebook around the house, but for a main machine? I doubt it.

My porn collection will break this "cloud"

[ObiWanToby]

My porn collection will break this "cloud"

In all seriousness, you probably couldn't find a free storage solution for the amount of porn some people probably have. In addition, it just takes ones security leak or some glitch to expose some personal files such as porn.

Granted having that stuff in your own possession on your local hard drive still poses a security risk, at least it is under your control.

[0nyX]

i don't see this (OS? web apps set? whatever it is) getting anywhere.

PS

To Google: It's not an OS

[Rudy]

i don't see this (OS? web apps set? whatever it is) getting anywhere.

PS

To Google: It's not an OS

yes it is

operating system

 

Use operating system in a Sentence

See web results for operating system

See images of operating system

?noun Computers.

the collection of software that directs a computer's operations, controlling and scheduling the execution of other programs, and managing storage, input/output, and communication resources. Abbreviation: OS

[still1]

Google might have planned to make this a public beta testing and development center

[Syanide]

VMWare/VirtualBox image out: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/19/guide...ogle-chrome-os/

[FloatingFatMan]

So, a few things I'm wondering...

1. How much storage space do you get on the Cloud?

2. Is storage free, or do you have to pay a subscription? If you have to pay, how much?

3. If storage is free, how is it actually being paid for? (Google aren't just gonna give people free storage out of the kindness of their hearts). If it's ad supported, that raises the question of what about Apple's patent on OS's level ad's?

4. Just how dumb IS it to use open source encryption? Knowing HOW something is encrypted is half the job of decrypting it, and with people these days leveraging games consoles and graphics cards as high powered encryption breaking hardware, it's likely just going to be a matter of days before someone breaks in to it.

5. Is data on the cloud backed up? How often, and is it to an off site location? How soon will data be restored if the main datacentre goes down?

6. Will ChromeOS also use its local cache for its web apps? If so, that would address the issue of losing connectivity for a while. We already know your data will be locally cached (or at least, the most recently used stuff will be), so resynching back to the data on the Cloud shouldn't be a problem once connectivity is restored.

7. Will ChromeOS have a data usage counter? Many people have connections that have monthly download limits, and I can see cloud usage rapidly eating into people's allowances. Some means of tracking usage really does need to be built into the OS.

[hdood]

4. Just how dumb IS it to use open source encryption? Knowing HOW something is encrypted is half the job of decrypting it, and with people these days leveraging games consoles and graphics cards as high powered encryption breaking hardware, it's likely just going to be a matter of days before someone breaks in to it.

All the encryption algorithms in use by reputable software today are open and thoroughly documented and reviewed. This makes it safer, as any design weaknesses are likely to be discovered early on. Any reasonable key length will make it practically impossible to brute force no matter how many consoles or graphics cards you have.

Security through obscurity rather than good algorithms simply doesn't work.

[svnO.o]

I don't really like the idea of Chrome OS. Way more benefits using a regular OS (windows/mac osx/any other linux distro). Unless the price of a netbook running Chrome OS is in the sub-$100 range I don't think I'll ever get it.

[Syanide]

I don't really like the idea of Chrome OS. Way more benefits using a regular OS (windows/mac osx/any other linux distro). Unless the price of a netbook running Chrome OS is in the sub-$100 range I don't think I'll ever get it.

Depends on what you use it for. I know I have one older computer at home, me and my family use it for surfing ONLY. I honestly can't remember when was the last time it was used for anything else. So I can't wait to put it on there when it gets officially released, because of the stripped down OS, it will surely run a lot faster than the current thing on it (Xubuntu).

As for my main computer, where I get my work done, I'll be sticking to my current OS.

[t_r_nelson]

This is a pretty harsh article on Chrome OS

Google Chrome OS Will Fail: Here are the Fatal Flaws

Randall C. Kennedy, InfoWorld

Nov 20, 2009 7:26 am

The Chrome OS is here -- sort of. This week, Google was kind of enough to give the world a sneak peek at its nascent desktop operating system. And after months of speculation (and more than a few bogus screenshot galleries), I can finally say that I've seen the future ... and it's not Chrome OS.

The preceding statement should come as no surprise to readers of my Enterprise Desktop blog. I came to a similar conclusion months ago. When news of the existence of a Google OS project first leaked out, I gave it an ice cube's chance in hell of succeeding. Now, after watching a sometimes touchy-sounding crew from Google's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters walk us through the ins and outs of the Chrome OS, I'm more convinced than ever that my original assessment was right on the money.

Fatal flaw No. 1: The Linux foundation First, there's the core architecture. A derivative of Linux, the Chrome OS builds on Linus Torvald's popular open source foundation to create a lightweight, Web-oriented desktop environment. However, it also inherits that platform's many warts, including spotty hardware compatibility.

From power management to display support, Linux has long been a minefield of buggy code and half-baked device driver implementations. Google recognizes this fact and, in a page out of the Apple Macintosh playbook, has taken the draconian measure of allowing the Chrome OS to be distributed exclusively on a series of as-yet-undisclosed netbook-like devices.

It's a move born of desperation. Google knows it can't possibly establish a viable hardware ecosystem and still meet its self-imposed release deadline of "mid-2010." So rather than do the hard work of courting device vendors and building certification processes, Google is taking the easy way out by micromanaging which systems will be allowed to ship with the Chrome OS and then dumping responsibility for the rest of the ecosystem onto the open source community.

Fatal flaw No. 2: The Web user interface Then there's the user interface. Google looks at the world through the prism of a Web page. So it comes as no surprise that the primary interface to the Chrome OS is ... Chrome, as in the Google browser. Unlike a traditional OS, there's no desktop. The "applications" running under the Chrome OS are really just interactive Web pages, with the Chrome browser's tabs serving to separate and organize them visually on the screen. Basic configuration tasks, like defining Wi-Fi settings, are handled via Chrome OS-hosted pop-up windows, while a simple status bar-like strip at the top of the display informs you about battery life, connectivity status, and so on.

Sadly, none of the above UI constructs is particularly original or compelling. The tabbed interface and "dockable" favorites are clearly derivative of Mac OS X and/or Windows (depending on whom you ask), as are the status icons and pull-down applications menu. In fact, nothing about the Chrome OS UI jumps out as innovative. Rather, it simply replaces one set of metaphors (Start menu, taskbar/Dock, system tray) with a bunch of Webified equivalents. And though I can certainly appreciate the advantages of doing away with those heavy legacy OS windowing layers -- Web content is lighterweight and easier to isolate from a security standpoint -- it also serves to limit the environment's overall utility.

The world won't buy an inflexible OS And that's where I believe the Chrome OS ultimately fails. In its effort to pare the traditional OS model down to the bone, Google has thrown out the one characteristic that made Windows and, to a lesser extent, Mac OS X and full-blown Linux successful: flexibility.

Simply put, the Chrome OS is too narrow. It assumes that the world is ready to give up the traditional personal computing paradigm and live full time in the cloud. In reality, most users prefer a hybrid existence, with some of their data and applications stored locally, and others -- typically the freebies, like Gmail -- hosted online.

Perhaps the easiest way to put the Chrome OS into context is by comparing it to the OS it's designed to supplant: Microsoft Windows. Like the Chrome OS, Windows lets you boot your system, surf the Web, and manage your data. Unlike the Chrome OS, Windows also lets you run rich, local applications and services -- and do so on the hardware of your choosing.

Don't forget that Google's plans for acceptable hardware to run the Chrome OS is very limiting. No hard drives or even DVD drives; only solid state drives. That may reduce power usage and speed up boot time (as if that was really an issue), but it also means you can't run your own apps, or store and access data, when you don't have a live Internet connection. Plus, the supported laptops are only netbook-size laptops, with low-power CPUs that won't be all that capable. Sure, Google says you can use a PC or Mac for that stuff, and Google is right: You will. Why you would want a Web-only appliance as well is not so easy to answer.

The bottom line is that while there is virtually nothing that you'll be able to do with the Chrome OS that you won't be able to do equally well with Windows, there are literally millions of things that you can do with Windows today that you'll likely never be able to do with the Chrome OS.

So don't be surprised when you start hearing about early Chrome OS adopters trying to reformat their systems with Windows 7 Starter Edition. After all, people are easily distracted, and the Chrome OS already bores me to death.

This article, "Why Chrome OS will fail -- big time," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Follow the latest developments on cloud computing, Google, and Chrome OS at InfoWorld.com.

Source

[Elliott]

This is a pretty harsh article on Chrome OS

Source

People don't seem to get that this is for people that just want to surf and use web apps. This is purely for the netbook crowd, and it's perfect for them. I'm personally not a netbook person, so I'd never see myself using this, but there are other people that love them. This just takes the extra fluff away from the already pared down netbook OSs and makes it simpler to use, especially with things like single sign on through your Google account.

[FloatingFatMan]

People don't seem to get that this is for people that just want to surf and use web apps. This is purely for the netbook crowd, and it's perfect for them. I'm personally not a netbook person, so I'd never see myself using this, but there are other people that love them. This just takes the extra fluff away from the already pared down netbook OSs and makes it simpler to use, especially with things like single sign on through your Google account.

Even then, many of them still won't want to be as restricted as ChromeOS is. I know a few people with Netbooks, and whilst they mainly use them for browsing or ebooks, one alsos uses hers for chatting on IRC, watching movies, and playing old games like Diablo 2.

During that Q&A session, they were asked about codecs, the answer was REALLY evasive, only really talking about HTML 5 video. Well, I don't know about you, but I've NEVER come across any HTML 5 encoded video... All my stuff is encoded in either DiVX, or XViD...

As for the gaming. Well, they showed off a game of Chess. I think that's about as complex as it'll get.

[Rudy]

This is a pretty harsh article on Chrome OS

Source

this guy lost all his "credibility" after his first "fatal flaw"

While I agree with his general idea (it will never go on someones PC as their main OS), I think it will be pretty successful on netbooks

[FloatingFatMan]

this guy lost all his "credibility" after his first "fatal flaw"

While I agree with his general idea (it will never go on someones PC as their main OS), I think it will be pretty successful on netbooks

Admittedly, a lot of the people there seemed unable to get it around their heads that this was a paradigm shift away from the traditional desktop style OS. They seemed only able to compare it to what they do now.

That said, I think the majority of normal people aren't going to be able to make that conceptual leap either. I suspect there'll be a large number of ChromeOS netbooks returned soon after purchase as they don't do what the user wanted.

I think Google would be better served in making Android a more netbook friendly OS. It's already pretty good on one of those things, and it would save them splitting their attention on 2 OS's.

[ichi]

I've NEVER come across any HTML 5 encoded video... All my stuff is encoded in either DiVX, or XViD...

hmm what? HTML5 provides tags to embed video, and as of now it's no restricted to any specific codec. There's no such thing as "HTML 5 encoded video".

Just how dumb IS it to use open source encryption?

Not as dumb as asking that question. The reliability of an encryption algorithm is not based on it's obscurity.

You know PGP and SSL right? You can get a complete description of their inner workings all over the web.

I don't know if I'll use ChromeOS, but the thing is I have a netbook running moblin and right now I use it only for browsing internet and playing videos. I don't think I'd be missing much if I installed ChromeOS... maybe the ability to run the aircrack suite, but I'm running it from a pendrive anyway.

My netbook is a cheap one, with just 512MB. Video/audio editing? Games? I obviously didn't buy it to do that stuff.

[FloatingFatMan]

hmm what? HTML5 provides tags to embed video, and as of now it's no restricted to any specific codec. There's no such thing as "HTML 5 encoded video".

I'm aware of the distinction, but that guy doing most of the talking in the Q&A session kept talking about HTML 5 video...

Not as dumb as asking that question. The reliability of an encryption algorithm is not based on it's obscurity.

You know PGP and SSL right? You can get a complete description of their inner workings all over the web.

I wasn't aware that was available all over the web, though to be honest, I've never actually looked. Still, if you know HOW something is encrypted, it does take a big chunk of the time away that you need to break it.

[hdood]

I wasn't aware that was available all over the web, though to be honest, I've never actually looked. Still, if you know HOW something is encrypted, it does take a big chunk of the time away that you need to break it.

Again, no, it doesn't. What takes time is brute force cracking the encryption. Even with a short 128-bit key (which is the smallest key safe today), there are 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 possible combinations. Multiply this by the time it takes to check each key, and you will see that it simply is not possible to perform such a brute force attack. The only potential for breaking it is if there is a flaw in the encryption scheme, and this is far more likely to be the case for a closed proprietary solution than an open and peer reviewed one.

[Elliott]

I'm aware of the distinction, but that guy doing most of the talking in the Q&A session kept talking about HTML 5 video...

What they're probably referring to then is H.264, which is becoming the most prolific codec (outside of the piracy scene). The other alternative is Ogg Theora, but it seems like most HTML5 video will be done in H.264 (if Firefox ever gets its head out of the sand and realizes that they can't just cling to some lesser-known open standard and shun H.264).

I wasn't aware that was available all over the web, though to be honest, I've never actually looked. Still, if you know HOW something is encrypted, it does take a big chunk of the time away that you need to break it.

I don't see people breaking through 128-bit AES encryption very often (read: never), and it's a well-documented cipher. :p AES isn't reversible, and it would take multiple lifetimes to crack through brute force. The US Government even trusts it for encrypting classified documents.

[Frankenchrist]

ChromeOS will be perfect for people with no or little computer know-how - like my folks. They just want a computer for using the net, use some apps like writing a document, managing photos, watching a video and the like. Why would they need a "complete" OS? There's nothing in OSX or Windows that makes it a must-have to them. To me at least, ChromeOS seems like a perfect match for their needs. Not everyone is a computer geek, or know a hard drive from RAM. So my guess is that it will be a success, despite the naysayers.

[FloatingFatMan]

Again, no, it doesn't. What takes time is brute force cracking the encryption. Even with a short 128-bit key (which is the smallest key safe today), there are 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 possible combinations. Multiply this by the time it takes to check each key, and you will see that it simply is not possible to perform such a brute force attack. The only potential for breaking it is if there is a flaw in the encryption scheme, and this is far more likely to be the case for a closed proprietary solution than an open and peer reviewed one.

What they're probably referring to then is H.264, which is becoming the most prolific codec (outside of the piracy scene). The other alternative is Ogg Theora, but it seems like most HTML5 video will be done in H.264 (if Firefox ever gets its head out of the sand and realizes that they can't just cling to some lesser-known open standard and shun H.264).

I don't see people breaking through 128-bit AES encryption very often (read: never), and it's a well-documented cipher. :p AES isn't reversible, and it would take multiple lifetimes to crack through brute force. The US Government even trusts it for encrypting classified documents.

Fair enough. I'll give on the encryption issue. ;)