Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome OS, Present and Future

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the ooh-shiny dept.

Linux 132

Many readers are submitting stories related to Google Chrome OS. ruphus13 points out a GigaOm opinion piece about how, if users end up rejecting its current cloud-only focus, the nascent OS may succeed as a netbook secondary operating system alongside Windows (in company with secondaries based on other Linux flavors, including Android). Engadget reviews a Chrome OS on a USB key setup that is claimed to offer eye-opening performance compared to running under virtualization. And an anonymous reader notes the 0.1 beta release of ChromeShell, which installs a "Chrome OS-like" environment that boots to the Chrome browser in ~3 seconds; users can switch to Windows later as desired.

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

need-a-subject-to-post (-1, Troll)

Ricken (797341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264844)

A very good idea. If I'm carrying a laptop around and I suddenly feel like looking at some porn, I can just boot Chrome instead of Windows.

Re:need-a-subject-to-post (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264914)

A very good idea. If I'm carrying a laptop around and I suddenly feel like looking at some porn, I can just boot Chrome instead of Windows.

Damn, all my porn is in MS-Excel format. (How else am I going to get infinite combinations of T, A, and P via cell shuffling?)
     

Re:need-a-subject-to-post (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265360)

Simple! Just import it into Google Docs!

Re:need-a-subject-to-post (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265736)

Doesn't support the Double-Dee-DLL
     

Re:need-a-subject-to-post (1)

iGN97 (83927) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267434)

Don't you mean infinite repetitions of F, A and P?

Re:need-a-subject-to-post (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267746)

It's not infinite as it eventaully results in a buffer overflow.

Re:need-a-subject-to-post (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30268268)

If you are using untested drivers on your hardware it might even result in a premature buffer overflow.

w00t (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30264846)

first post

False! (5, Informative)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264850)

If you read the linked ChromeShell page, it says it goes from standby to the Chrome browser in 3 seconds.

It actually takes 30 seconds to boot, which isn't much better than Windows. Actually, is that even better?

Re:False! (0, Redundant)

paba7 (1360803) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264924)

thanks for pointing this out

Re:False! (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264940)

There ya go again ruining a good story by RTFA.

Re:False! (5, Interesting)

gotpaint32 (728082) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265016)

Good point, I have Win 7 on a Dell Mini 10 with 1GB of RAM, it boots to the login screen in about 30 seconds and comes out of standby mode in about 5 seconds. Considering how much more it is actually loading on Windows, it seems Google still has a long way to go until instant on is a reality.

Re:False! (2, Informative)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265226)

ChromeShell isn't Google. ChromeOS boots to a login screen in less than 10 seconds off a USB key for me. But it doesn't support my wifi. It does support the wifi on my wife's gateway netbook though.. but doesn't support her verizon card.

Re:False! (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#30266396)

It doesn't support it on my laptop either. It does boot up quickly. And it does boot up, it scrolls very very slowly. Even on my desktop, with a quadcore processor, it is very slow. I suppose that that may be due to video drivers.

Re:False! (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265304)

I have a three year old Dell Inspiron 6400 (with a 160GB 5400RPM 2.5" HD) that boots Windows XP SP3 from power off to desktop in 15 seconds.

What are you people doing wrong?

Re:False! (2, Funny)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265598)

Running programs.

Re:False! (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267766)

And redundant services that you'll never use for your entire life but that are enabled by default. Someone I know has a malwatre infected Windows XP machine. By simply taking 30mins of my time I reduced the bootup time for 15min to 20 seconds, including the Novell login procedure. When explorer comes up the system is actually usable instead of loading taskbar apps for another 4 minutes...

Re:False! (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267760)

Power off to WinXP in 15 seconds? I call bull.

Re:False! (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30268232)

Pfff, I installed an image of my desktop als eprom splash image. Now my laptop doesn't even need to boot an OS to get a picture of my desktop.

Re:False! (3, Informative)

chabotc (22496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265464)

Of course if you even read the slashdot summary you would see that ChromeShell is a 'ChromeOS like' type thing, and not ChromeOS at all.

ChromeOS boots (that's full bootup and not resuming) in 7 seconds, and resumes in 3. They're working with bios firmware vendors to improve this though so boot times could become even less

Re:False! (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265044)

All it does is has Windows start the Chrome browser on startup instead of explorer.exe. Not really much to see here, unless you REALLY don't need the taskbar, desktop, and file browsing capabilities of Explorer.

Re:False! (1)

dickens (31040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265940)

With an SSD? 30 seconds is not impressive at all.

Re:False! (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267776)

Gee... Windows has a pre-Christ FS that isn't optimized for SSD's. Ofcourse it takes ages to boot...

Re:False!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts (-1, Offtopic)

coolforsale134 (1689450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265978)

http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com] (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.

Re:False! (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30266026)

Certainly not the normal case here, but I have a laptop with an i7; I hit the login screen around 7-9 seconds after pressing the power button.

Re:False! (1)

muncadunc (1679192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30266072)

Thing is, the time it takes for the Explorer shell itself to load on my laptop is almost nil compared to actual bootup (30s or so). I don't see the advantage of loading Chrome in its place- it's not like RAM is pricey these days, you can afford to run both at once.

If we're going to get instant-on on laptops and netbooks, it's going to be through some sort of super-energy efficient sleep mode that you can return from fast, not through fast bootup speeds. That's the nice thing about Apple hardware- it's always very good about waking almost instantly from sleep, while my Windows laptop takes about five seconds.

Re:False! (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30266124)

BeOS FTW. Loaded in 10 seconds after POST on a 300 MHz K6/2 Compaq with 48 MB RAM. Ten years ago. Yes, new OSs do more, but the point of Chrome is to be a stripped-down OS that runs nothing but a browser, unlike BeOS which had a webserver, 3D support, and lots of other good stuff going on.

Oh, and the first PC I used (an AT or XT, 8086 or 8088, I forget) went from power off to a C: prompt in 7 seconds. And QNX has done some cool stuff too.

You're breaking the hype (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267058)

Stop! If you keep breaking the hype with facts like that, people might realize Chrome OS is a pointless Google-branded Linux distro that can't run anything but websites in a world where even mobile phones can run native apps.

Smoke a Fag this is toast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30267300)

So they just recompile Ubuntu and slap google on it.
Which is a recompiled Debian
Which is a recompiled Kernel
Which is a compiled program from some free unix clone
Which is a dream of a professor/hippie to emulate the brain of said hippie
sleepy

Useful (5, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264876)

If 90% of what a user does is web browsing and email, that sounds like a good bet. If you push "on" and have it up and running in a few seconds, who would bother going into Windows? You'd only need to boot to Windows when doing some office work or the like, and that boot option would be a quick-click icon. If you primarily do office work with it, then you'd want a full-blown "regular" laptop anyhow instead of a netbook.

However, I imagine that Microsoft will find some way to sabotage multi-OS-boot options via screwy licensing and pricing games.
         

Re:Useful (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30264948)

Am I the only one wondering why you guys think Chrome is so interesting? Really, I doubt they could change one of its fonts without it making headline news around here.

Re:Useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265080)

they changed the fonts? shit, this has major implications. First thing tomorrow morning, I'm short selling all the big type foundries cause Open source fonts are about to revolutionize this shit.

Re:Useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265442)

When something constantly makes headlines it makes one suspect that there must be something to it which is new, interesting, and maybe profound. There must, in other words, be some reason why it was deemed worthy of such attention and discussion. Then you examine the thing itself and you don't really find much of anything that is novel and still wonder what all of the press is about. Given such conditions, it is hardly "Flamebait" to ask what the big deal is and it is abundantly possible that the person asking this might be missing something that others find obvious -- that is, far from being condemnatory, it is actually somewhat self-deprecating.

Sorry but some of you mods really need to get over yourselves. There's a reason it says "Flamebait" and not "Doesn'tSuitMyPersonalTastes". Now, could anyone perhaps explain to me why such a big deal is being made about Chrome? Because at this point I am suspecting that the only reason it gets such publicity is because it is associated with Google, that if it were produced by people you've never heard of it would not have enough merit on its own to cause those people to become famous. Is this an incorrect assessment?

LOLWUT (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265612)

The mods can do whatever they wish. All you can do is stop being a jewish dicksucker, log in, whore for karma, and become a mod yourself.

Good Luck, you fag!

Re:LOLWUT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265942)

The mods can do whatever they wish. All you can do is stop being a jewish dicksucker, log in, whore for karma, and become a mod yourself.

Good Luck, you fag!

seeing how you can't moderate your own posts, that's not going to address the fact that my original post was unfairly modded by a douchebag. nice try, you anti-Semitic jackass.

Re:Useful (5, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264976)

I don't think ChromeOS will catch on as an "early boot" option any more than some of the options the BIOS manufacturers have been pitching for a few years. The benefits of ChromeOS are pretty much mitigated by sticking it on a full laptop -- you're lugging a fully-featured computer around and you don't have access to any of it, and you could get the whole thing just by waiting around another 30 seconds.

ChromeOS is about having a bare minimum of hardware required to have a smooth internet experience. It's about the proliferation of internet access, always having something nearby that will connect you to whatever you're looking for.

Re:Useful (3, Insightful)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265374)

ChromeOS is about having a bare minimum of hardware required to have a smooth internet experience. It's about the proliferation of internet access, always having something nearby that will connect you to whatever you're looking for.

And that would make sense, if Chrome didn't require more resources for smooth experience than the majority of productivity software people use on their "full computers". Therein lies the problem: Google will have to pull a miracle to make ChromeOS run well on a device that would not run well, say, XP complete with Office, image editing software and even some casual games, or if we're talking ARM, then a light Linux distribution with more than a mere fullscreen browser window available.

In that light, ChromeOS is not unique or slim enough to compete in its own niche, and it's questionable why computer manufacturers would prefer to sell a ChromeOS ARM netbook instead of, say, Ubuntu's netbook distribution with Chrome or Firefox pre-installed. More value to the customers for the same money.

If Google are smart, we have not yet seen the main reason that turns ChromeOS into a desirable product. Otherwise, I guess they were simply throwing some stuff on the wall to see what sticks, as many of their other deviations.

Re:Useful (1, Flamebait)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265502)

Every time this speed comparison between Linux and Windows is done, it is done on newly installed systems. My experience is that after six months of running by a regular (read non technical) user, the windows system will be bogged down by all kinds of crap that make it unbearably slow.

After six months of use, it seems a safe bet the chrome OS computer will run at the same speed as the first day. After a year, the windows user will need to find someone that reinstalls his system or at least cleans it up a bit. The chrome OS user will not have noticed any problem whatsoever.

No viruses, no trojans, no crapware, no slowing down with use, no windows registry, no backups to care about. That is very convenient for your regular user.

Also consider that this is a netbook operating system. For most people needing a full desktop experience a netbook is not enough anyway (too small keyboard, too small screen), so why bothering running Windows on an underpowered box? what people will do is keeping a desktop and a netbook. The netbook will be used to book movie tickets, read the news, check email, watch news...(you don't want to wait for four minutes for windows to start just to check your email). The desktop will be used for word processing, games, work applications (if they do not run in a browser), power users, programming, design, egineering...

With arm netbook prices between 100 and 200 bucks, the netbook is a no brainer.

Re:Useful (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265764)

After six months of use, it seems a safe bet the chrome OS computer will run at the same speed as the first day. After a year, the windows user will need to find someone that reinstalls his system or at least cleans it up a bit. The chrome OS user will not have noticed any problem whatsoever.

This is a possible advantage, but the purchase decisions will be based on a clean install, as the users who are 6 months into their use of an OS have purchased the machine 6 months ago. So I'm not sure if this benefit can drive sales alone.

Re:Useful (1)

vcgodinich (1172985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265856)

My experience is that after six months of running by a regular (read non technical) user, the windows system will be bogged down by all kinds of crap that make it unbearably slow.

No viruses, no trojans, no crapware,

And what is your experience for a non technical user running a linux desktop? Hate to break it to you, an experienced user can run windows fine. its the user that installs the crap that makes the os suck.

And the only reason there aren't any viruses or trojans yet is because no one uses it yet. People will write them when the user base shifts. To imagine that there aren't any flaws in the system is a sad joke in naitivity

Re:Useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30266066)

Two points:
- Virus chuckers suck up a lot of resources, especially the bloated consumer ones
- Every Windows developer loves to install background services, updater applets, tray icons, etc etc. Admittedly Linux devs could do the same, but they generally don't.

(Typed on an XP system installed 6/14/2003 that has not suffered "winrot".)

Re:Useful (3, Informative)

Unoti (731964) | more than 4 years ago | (#30266404)

And the only reason there aren't any viruses or trojans yet is because no one uses it yet. People will write them when the user base shifts. To imagine that there aren't any flaws in the system is a sad joke in naitivity

Perhaps you should consider reading up on how Chrome OS is designed. The argument you posted above sounds like you're applying the same kind of logic to Chrome OS that you would to any other flavor of Linux. Chrome OS is actually an entirely different ball game, and fundamentally does not let you install software on the machine. This and other design considerations make it radically more secure from security attacks than conventional operating systems.

Re:Useful (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267078)

Every time this speed comparison between Linux and Windows is done, it is done on newly installed systems. My experience is that after six months of running by a regular (read non technical) user, the windows system will be bogged down by all kinds of crap that make it unbearably slow.

So, "don't install crap" is now a technical skill? Wow.

My wife his hardly technical, and I haven't had to touch her laptop since I installed the OS on it. And her laptop moves along just fine. Faster than mine, in fact, but I can blame that on the oddly matched hardware I've got.

I tell you what -- setup a linux install for your "non-technical users", give them the root password, and leave them alone for six months. Assuming they don't find a new techie who will let them actually play games on their machine, I'll be they'll wind up every bit as bogged down as as similarly-configured and abandoned windows installation.

Or, you could realize that installing programs is an admin function, that a properly installed program doesn't force a user to run as administrator, and fix the problem on the front end. Hell, you could even post a sticker that says "DO NOT INSTALL ANYTHING" if you want.

Oh, and show me a netbook with a comfortable keyboard, and you'll have a no-brainer. I can't find anyone who can stand the damn things.

Re:Useful (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30268026)

I tell you what -- setup a linux install for your "non-technical users", give them the root password, and leave them alone for six months. Assuming they don't find a new techie who will let them actually play games on their machine, I'll be they'll wind up every bit as bogged down as as similarly-configured and abandoned windows installation.

You forgot we are talking about Chrome OS. No software installation allowed. Please read TFA.

The fact that a chrome install will allow absolutely no crapware and yet will be updated is the main advantage of this idea.

Re:Useful (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265800)

Monopolies going up against each other can do some wacky things. Google is a near-monopoly in search and the same goes for MS with Windows and Office.

I watched the engadget video and, well, it sort of boots a browser that almost works. That isn't news. A grad student working on a CS project could probably do that.

Re:Useful (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265954)

Not exactly. My laptop is older and while it can run Hulu, it doesn't do it well. It severely taxes the CPU, taking roughly 70%.. and windows will occassionally use the other 30% just running and Hulu video starts staggering.

Of course the better solution to this is to have flash use hardware acceleration. Netflix with Silverlight doesn't take nearly the CPU that Hulu does.

Re:Useful (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267000)

It could also be very useful for recycling otherwise obsolete computers. If it gets computers in front of someone that couldn't otherwise afford one, great! If it gets a school in an impoverished area a computer room instead of just one box, even better! Talk about great promotions for Google...

I'm betting Microsoft will respond with something, can't have kids having their first computing experiences on a unix-based OS... they might grow up to be linux-heads!

Re:Useful (1)

mirshafie (1029876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265048)

I think Microsoft's idea was to launch their office suite for free on the web, so when you can edit Word and Excel documents in your browser, that is really all most people need. The question is which web OS will prevail. (And for whatever två öre is worth, I think Microsoft has a huge advantage in providing decent backward compatibility with the largest library of software on this planet, which could be a deal breaker if they can pull it through. I wonder what the ReactOS guys are doing.)

Re:Useful (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265202)

två öre

What's that?

Re:Useful (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265230)

I'm guessing it is "two cents" in his language.

Re:Useful (1)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265246)

ore : cent :: krone : dollar

He's throwing in his two cents.

Why not just use a smart phone at that point? (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265206)

Why not just use a smart phone if 90% of what you do is web browsing and email? Today's smart phones are capable of providing a good user experience for these tasks and if it's something the phone can't handle, the netbook probably can't either. I suppose the one major alternative is document editing, but who knows what phones will be capable of in the next few years.

For me, netbooks fall into the overly-large phone or underpowered notebook category. If they work for you or your needs, great, but they don't fit the needs of everyone and I think that's something that too many people forget.

Re:Why not just use a smart phone at that point? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265454)

Their screen and keyboard are too small.

Re:Why not just use a smart phone at that point? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265500)

I sure wouldn't want to use a smart phone 90% of the day. It doesn't matter which cellphone you think is the best, the display and keyboard are going to be too small.

Re:Why not just use a smart phone at that point? (1)

ksemlerK (610016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265872)

With the HTC Rapheal, (running EnergyROM), you can use a USB --> TV output, and plug your home charger into the TV adapter so the battery will not run down. The keyboard issue can be resolve with the purchase of a bluetooth keyboard. With these options, you will always be able to use your phone as a computer if that's what you are limited to.

Re:Why not just use a smart phone at that point? (1)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265544)

Netbooks are cheap small computers. Why pay for computing power you don't need, when 300$ netbook will work better than your old piece of junk desktop? If you only want to pay for what you're going to use, and you aren't doing anything resource intensive, netbooks are very cost efficient.

Netbooks would even make great command line servers, with a built in UPS.

Re:Useful (1)

tnordloh (462939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265468)

This article prompted me to download Chrome OS, I just started it on a VM. I'm currently bemused by the fact that it doesn't recognize the https certificate for mail.google.com (wow! Either I'm hacked in a seriously bad way, or it really doesn't recognize a cert issued by the company that wrote it. Suddenly I'm feeling paranoid). I'm typing this on my native OS, as the vm appears to be frozen. I'm debating logging into mail.google.com, and unchecking 'always use https', to give it a more fair test, but my interest is waning.

Network Of Irrelevance - The Full Cycle (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30264900)

I have the sneaking suspicion that everyone good at Google left a long time ago; with bags of money.

Now, we're left with Adsense and the Marketing department rebranding the concept(s) behind [CompuServe/Prodigy Online/AOL Online] because people don't remember the 90's.

Google IPO was only 5 years ago (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265466)

It's possible you're talking about the wizards who gave us Windows NT in 1993. AFAIK all those guys, and everybody who could understand how they did what they did, left long ago. They should have - their options were fully vested and stopped gaining value over a decade ago. I've certainly seen little evidence since that they remain though the business types who think they're the smartest guys in the room seem to remain active to this day.

People at Google keep coming out with this immensely scalable stuff that demonstrates a strong background in hard information theory, and we get to see it only a couple years after they implement it for internal use. Their gnomes appear to still be digging in the goldmine. Android, ChromeOS, Hadoop, and other ongoing projects spring to mind.

Re:Google IPO was only 5 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30266146)

It's possible you're talking about the wizards who gave us Windows NT in 1993. AFAIK all those guys, and everybody who could understand how they did what they did, left long ago.

Your statement is dismissed in two simple words: Dave Cutler.

Re:Google IPO was only 5 years ago (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30268122)

Dave Cutler was a genius, I'll give you that. A bit self-absorbed, and too confident that he created all the wisdom in his brain rather than standing on the shoulders of giants - but a genius nonetheless.

Is he still there? What the hell do they have him working on? Some skunkworks project or something, it must be - maybe Azure. He couldn't have been involved in anything relating to Vista or we'd have heard about the Postal incident.

He's 67 now. Maybe he's reached his dotage. I know I have, and I'm nowhere near that old.

Re:Google IPO was only 5 years ago (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267080)

What goldmine? For crying out loud, Chrome OS is just a Linux distro that can only load websites. What's the point of using Chrome OS if you could run a real Linux distro or even Windows 7 on a $300 netbook and run the same web apps as well as native apps?

Apple tried the web app thing with the iPhone, and people wanted native apps.

Re:Google IPO was only 5 years ago (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30268132)

If what you say is true then why does Microsoft and all of their paid mouthpieces in the press have their knickers in a bunch over the damned thing? Methinks they doth protest too much.

Balanced approach to cloud computing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30264920)

An ideal approach is an OS that's *more* focused on the cloud, rather than *entirely* focused. I use many cloud apps with Chrome's current "Web Shortcuts" feature which removes browser elements from view and presents the web app much like a native one. This approach is used in several Linux cloud distributions already. Google is mistaken in their mission to turn every consumer and business class PC into a thin client.

Wow, You TOTALLY Kicked That Strawman's Ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265040)

"Google is mistaken in their mission to turn every consumer and business class PC into a thin client."

Making shit up is fun!

Re:Balanced approach to cloud computing (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265276)

Concerning the altering of a web browser to facilitate web apps, Microsoft did this a long time ago with Internet Explorer. And Mozilla tried to do it. If it was bad when they did it, how can it be good when Google does it?

Re:Balanced approach to cloud computing (1)

The Wooden Badger (540258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267656)

In my case because I actually use it. I get plenty of mileage out of that feature. Some of it could just be timing. There are a lot more web apps that I even care about now.

Re:Balanced approach to cloud computing (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265330)

An ideal approach is an OS that's *more* focused on the cloud, rather than *entirely* focused.

You mean Plan 9?

Re:Balanced approach to cloud computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30266144)

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we had an operating system based on pervasive RPC services?

Hold on, nimda is rebooting my computer.

ChromeShell looks like... (0)

GameGod0 (680382) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264964)

ChromeShell looks like something I made in VB in like Grade 8. OLE controls anyone? (ahhh the memories)

Re:ChromeShell looks like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265700)

I agree with you that it is ugly as shit, but you are dissing VB, one of the few good things ever coming out from Microsoft together with DEBUG.COM, EDLIN.COM, GORILLAS.BAS, NIBBLES.BAS and SKIFREE.EXE.
That crime sir, can only be redeemed by looking at not graphic enough goatse ascii art for a few minutes.

(m
>O3-
(w

You are not over yet, watch it a few more seconds or visit goatse.cx. Thank you.

Re:ChromeShell looks like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30267542)

ChromeShell looks like something I made in VB in like Grade 8. OLE controls anyone? (ahhh the memories)

enhancing...

Presents and Futures (0)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264970)

Presents and Futures... what the heck is that supposed to mean?

Re:Presents and Futures (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265460)

Christmas is just around the corner, but it's not yet here.

just speed? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265042)

There is much more to Chrome than it's fast boot, most of that is because it's cloud based not inspite of it, most users don't want/need to have control of their data/applications.

Re:just speed? (0, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267092)

So you've surveyed most users and have the evidence to make that statement? If what you say is true, why isn't the world just running Linux and a web browser on everything?

nascent (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265124)

The word you were looking for is "nascent".

Who gives a fuck? (2, Informative)

nhytefall (1415959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265210)

Honestly?

Aside from the latest, greatest, shiniest geek toy... this thing isn't even in a beta state, yet somehow it is going to reshape the industry? I think not.

Come out of the basement, folks... the sun here in a real world only hurts for a moment or two.

Trusted Computing seems significant in Chrome (2, Interesting)

KNicolson (147698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265220)

There's quite a few places where the Trusted Platform Module and Chromium intersect [blogoftrust.com] , which looks like being an interesting approach to certain problems.

Online banking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265556)

Seriously, if the price were low enough I would almost want to get a ChromeOS device just to use for online banking/shopping. If I can be reasonable sure that there is nothing installed on the computer other than the OS (signed by the mfgr) that is a big plus.

Re:Online banking (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265990)

and its a perfect computer for grandma... no viruses, and you can even configure it to block her from visiting video professor.

Cringely: Expect thermonuclear warfare over Chrome (2, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265224)

From Chrome and Chrome, What is Chrome? [cringely.com] : "The most interesting part for me will be Microsoft's response. This strikes at the very heart of Redmond's business success and Microsoft will not take it lying down. Expect thermonuclear warfare."

Re:Cringely: Expect thermonuclear warfare over Chr (1)

dickens (31040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265952)

get your 50 yard line seats now...

Re:Cringely: Expect thermonuclear warfare over Chr (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267116)

I don't think Microsoft is as worried as people think they are (or wish they are). Netbooks are becoming powerful enough that Chrome OS will seem quaint and backwords because it can only open websites.

Re:Cringely: Expect thermonuclear warfare over Chr (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267444)

Yep, particularly since Netscape had a similar vision of reducing Windows to just "a buggy set of drivers".

The Boulevard Of Broken Dreams (0)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267484)

"The most interesting part for me will be Microsoft's response."

The WalMart shopper has spelled doom for every web appliance introduced to date.

His big expenses are in Internet services and consumables. Inks and papers. The thin client doesn't save him a lot of money.

His mobile Internet service options can be very limited and unreliable.

There are an increasing number of relatively low-cost gadgets competing for his attention:

E-book readers
GPS
Hand-held video game players
The iPod and and its competitors
Pocket camcorders and point-and-shoot digital cameras
Prepaid cell phones
The budget Windows netbook, laptop and desktop PC.

Which will run pretty much every Windows app he owns that was published in the last fifteen years.

WiFi radios
Etc.

Don't see the point.... (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265238)

I don't really see the point in using Chrome OS rather than Windows or Ubuntu. Lets see, the boot up time is about the same (30 seconds), all the OSes have good browsers, Ubuntu is just as free as Chrome OS, etc. So really, why the hype about Chrome OS? You are essentially getting less than what you would get with a standard distro like Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc.

Re:Don't see the point.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265268)

I think "getting less" is the point... the computer becomes an appliance if you like... a web terminal... this does have advantages.... speed (less loaded), simplicity (how easy to rebuild?) etc... obviously not for everyone but very handy if thats all you need/want....

Re:Don't see the point.... (1)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265286)

Sometimes less is more, I know that is exactly why I starting using Google search was its minimalistic approach to its front page. Most people that this would be targeting aren't going to be Linux OS nerds, yet I imagine if anyone can pull off the Year of the Linux Desktop, it would be Google. I just don't think it will be the Linux Desktop most of us had envisioned.

Re:Don't see the point.... (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265380)

Until it actually comes out Chrome OS is just running the hype machine. It seems to be on par with the iPhone on page hits so there will be many stories hyping it up and some calling out that not having your own data and everything is bad. I wouldn't put any real merit on what is being said about it until the market actually answers whether it's good or not.

Re:Don't see the point.... (4, Interesting)

Huntr (951770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265430)

Most of my family and friends are not techies or geeks. They only use their computer for email, web/facebook and passing pics around. These are the same people asking me if a $400 laptop Black Friday deal from Wal-Mart would work to replace their (aging) desktop and they won't listen to me when I tell them to get a used one for $50 on e-bay. I'd tell every single one of them to get a ChromeOS net appliance if it were available. You said

You are essentially getting less than what you would get with a standard distro like Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc.

We on /. often forget on there are many people who NEED less.

Re:Don't see the point.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30266956)

These are the same people asking me if a $400 laptop Black Friday deal from Wal-Mart would work to replace their (aging) desktop and they won't listen to me when I tell them to get a used one for $50 on e-bay.

Do you tell them which used one to get? Or should they buy 8 and hope one works? Unless they have enough know-how to wipe a drive and install an OS, they should not buy used. There may be a reason "they won't listen". $400 is not a lot of money and if it refreshes their, by your admission, aging PC - maybe they should go for it. You know, maybe you should answer their question rather than dispensing unwanted advice like I am doing.

But Chrome boots in 5s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265492)

Lets see, the boot up time is about the same (30 seconds)

Chrome OS's claimed boot time is actually in the neighborhood of 5 seconds. That's cold boot, not wake up from suspend. So there's a real benefit there. (Note: I haven't actually run the OS. But the videos I have seen from different sources appear to confirm this not-quite instant-on boot speed.) If Google can maintain or even improve this boot time, then I see a significant chunk of the social net-crowd embracing this new OS. If the power switch is smartly linked to the opening of the netbook cover, at 5 seconds we practically already have an instant-on OS. Open the computer, look up to see if there are nosy people around, and then look down to type your password.

Chrome OS boots to login in 7 seconds (1)

osssmkatz (734824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30267218)

not 30. Chrome Shell boots in 30. --Sam

So far, I like it (1)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265302)

I have Chrome OS running on VirtualBox - works as advertised, and when it is solid I'll probably buy a low cost device running it for travel, web browsing around the house and yard, etc.

I am hoping that it will eventually include a *great* xterm app with SSH support so it can also be used to monitor servers, and light weight admin work.

Re:So far, I like it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265406)

It will never include xterm and ssh. It's a fucking web browser. full stop.

Re:So far, I like it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265444)

ChromeOS isn't a fucking web browser. It's a fucking WebOS. You're right about the no xterm and the no ssh though.

Re:So far, I like it (1)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265582)

Maybe google will provide a service for that. It'll even save all your ssh keys and passwords! :)

Does ChromeOS need Linux? (4, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265568)

It seems if you are aiming to have a very narrow and specific design to your system, a general purpose Unix work-a-like is overkill. Wouldn't a minimal POSIX-ish system with some graphical operations be sufficient. It's great to use something familiar and actively developed like Linux. Just for the device drivers alone it is pretty valuable. But after digging into the Plan9 kernel, I realize that most of these drivers are not really that complicated if you can accept a basic level of functionality and less than optimal level of performance. (like the nvidia drivers in Plan9, it's only one short .c file, and just enough to get 9wm up and going). Even something like L4 is overkill, a lot of the cool abstraction it offers is probably not necessary if you can just wedge it into a library.

Many of us on here have hacked together little pseudo-kernels. Glorified Hello World bootloaders really. If you had a TCP/IP stack, using an existing one like KAME or uIP, or a new implementation (I don't care which) and a filesystem that is more like a simple memory mapped key-value pair database (using critbit, hash table, b+tree, whatever). it seems to me that would be enough to get something like WebKit going.

What value would a custom kernel/OS have over a specialized Linux? Well I think you could focus on implementing abstractions most suitable for a browser instead of trying to fit a filesystem or sqlite library to your design. Mostly I suspect you could optimize the boot of a very primitive system pretty easily. And you could do things where isolation of the browser in memory can be done in a way much finer grain than the Unix scheme of dividing everything into a user process or kernel mode thread.

Perhaps the browser would be more like a root user, but individual tabs would have permissions controlled by a kernel or hypervisor that would be in isolation of one another. One page may not be able to hijack the rest of your browser or access cookies or passwords unless specifically authorized. And it could be done in such a way that is still relatively fast and low overhead, but more secure than current schemes.

Imagine if plug-ins like flash and video codecs had to run through a socket or some fast IPC messaging scheme. where you could just close it to force the process on the end to shut down.

Why don't I implement it you ask? Well assuming I have the skills necessary to do a good job, and the ambition to complete such a task. I'm too old school to accept the idea that a system where the only application is a browser is useful to me personally. Maybe when kernel development becomes browser based?

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30267376)

and ex3Cutes a
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>