Comments on: Google Chrome OS: What it means to you.

By: Dave Farquhar

Dave Farquhar — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:27:43 +0000

I agree with the other Rob, that Google’s development of the Chrome OS could help drive hardware support, albeit at the risk of alienating elements of the Linux community who object to the use of anything proprietary in conjunction with their software.

The typical Linux distro is miles better than it used to be in regards to hardware support. There are still occasional issues, but then again, the same thing can happen in Windows. Don’t get me started on the misadventure my Firewire card brought me. Windows has a reputation now for “just working,” but anyone who supported Windows 95 in a mixed environment knows it wasn’t always that way.

I really, really want a small machine with some type of long-range wireless access (3G or something similar) that’s pretty much instant-on, with good battery life, and a keyboard (even if it’s reduced in size a bit) that boots into a decent Web browser. I wouldn’t care what OS it ran, as long as it booted in a few seconds. But I don’t know if I’m the only one who wants such a thing or not.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:05:38 +0000

... and a day later, Bill Gates chimes in on Google Chrome OS: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10286308-56.html Basically they stressed the fact that Google Chrome OS is just a thin install of Linux that comes packaged with a browser, not unlike what Rob O (who, confusingly, is not me) suggested above. I guess the big difference that Gates/Ballmer didn't comment on is that it sounds like Google is going down the same road Windows did by "certifying hardware". That's been one of the biggest hurdles for most people in getting Linux to run on certain platforms (the last time I checked there still weren't Ubuntu drivers for the wireless card in my Acer Notebook. That's probably changed.)

By: ubikuberalles

ubikuberalles — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:19:28 +0000

Actually other companies have come up with thinclient solutions that more secure and capable than what the netbooks have. Sun Microsystems, for example, sells a portable version of their SunRay that works quite well and is lighter yet more capable than the netbooks. All you need is a 3G connection and you can log into a SunOS or windows account to get all your computing needs met. You can browse the internet, use a spreadsheet, write programs or even play video games.

Communication between the SunRay and the server is fully encrypted. Because the SunRay is a thinclient, there is no local disk drive: all your data is saved in the cloud. In fact, the SunRay is invulnerable to the Princeton hack attack because passwords are not stored in the onboard memory. Thus, if your SunRay is stolen you don’t have to worry about your personal data being compromised.

I know I sound like a salesman but I was impressed by a demo I saw and we have a number of them where I work. The big drawback of the SunRay is cost. They’re expensive and the average consumer can not afford them. My only hope is that Sun comes out with a consumer version of the product or some other company offers a cheap thinclient for the consumer.

By: Greg Kennedy

Greg Kennedy — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:31:44 +0000

And so we come full circle: reduce your machine to a dumb terminal and access all your data on the mainframe. It only took 30 years of building higher quality untethered desktops to get to this point…

By: Rob O.

Rob O. — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:49:35 +0000

Also it is worth mentioning that – regardless of whether it’s right or palatable – there are web-based apps that are both OS & browser specific.

Understandably, this environment is not the target for Chrome OS, but we support a fistful of “web-based” apps here at work that either will not or are not formally supported to work on anything but Internet Explorer. And most of these are not even officially supported to work in a version of IE beyond 6.0. Optimal? No. Good programming? No. Reality? YES!

Several of our key, mission-critical apps are not only IE-dependant, but also rely upon a specific version of Java. Wanna run these on Firefox? Not gonna happen. Wanna use ’em on a Powerbook? Not a chance. From what I’ve seen, this is not an uncommon reality for corporate America.

By: Rob O.

Rob O. — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:38:21 +0000

With flexibility comes complexity.

People goober up their Windows precisely because they’re resistant to status quo. They don’t want to simply use the tool, they want to customize it and make it conform to their preferences. (This is where I’m decidedly different from most of my peers – I’m radically conservative about what I’ll install on my PC, usually testing some unknown app on a “guinea pig PC” before entrusting it to live on my rock-stable workhorse desktop PC.)

Many users will likely balk at the Chrome OS’ inflexibility just as they’re beginning to also wake up to the limitations of netbooks. There’s nothing inherently wrong with netbooks, but they aren’t exactly all-purpose machines. Google’s Chrome OS will likely suffer from limitations – either real or perceived – imposed by a rigid adherence to minimal changes to the OS.

On a different tangent, I wonder how much difference there’ll be between Google’s offering versus what you can already do with a streamlined version of Linux & Firefox. I haven’t found the Chrome browser to truly be any better than FF. And I can live in the clouds with Google’s (and others) web-based apps on ANY browser…

By: Brent

Brent — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:18:29 +0000

It will work great for anything that can be converted into a web application. There are even some people that have put high quality graphical games into the cloud now, so that will cover lots of people too. Imagine being able to fire up the latest and greatest games through a netbook. It would be ground changing if they can pull it off for zero cost to the end user especially.

By: Earl Green

Earl Green — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:52:23 +0000

Objection, not object. Maybe my head is in the cloud after all.

By: Earl Green

Earl Green — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:50:41 +0000

Although I think the tone of this article is just a little bit alarmist, it deftly raises my most basic object to having all of my stuff “in the cloud”:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/16/twitter.hack/index.html

If for some reason I can’t get online, I don’t want my apps, games, baby pictures, music and videos floating around on someone’s server. I want them floating around on my machine. And that, to me, is worth the bloated OS and the mild annoyance of backing up 1TB+ hard drives. Maybe I’m a dinosaur still clinging to the idea that I “own” my media and my apps (after all, I’ve paid for them), but until the entire country is blanketed with wi-fi, I won’t be spending much time in the cloud, thanks.

By: lethargic

lethargic — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:26:01 +0000

Do what now?