Google Chromium Os

[-Tj-]

You know, Gary13579 did come off a bit strongly, but he does have a point. A bunch of people in this thread (and other threads for that matter) seem to just drop in just to say they don't like something and then disappear. It's very counterproductive,

To be fair Mali's comment wasn't a simple "I don't like this". He put forward a valid reason for not liking the OS/Company. And if we're not supposed to provide any negative feedback in any thread then we simply allow all threads to become promotional tools for the product creators.

And I suspect that people tend to disappear from threads because they get thrashed by the "Google/Microsoft/OP/Apple/Whoever can do no wrong" fanboys that jump on every negative comment.

My post wasn't really direct at Mali. More toward the completely useless hit-and-run comments that had absolutely nothing to offer in the discussion. I won't name names; I think those I speak of are fairly obvious. It's not that those posters are bad people, and they might not even have a history of posting such messages. Honestly, they don't bug me, but it does muddle the thread, and those messages are generally open invitations for more trolls and flames.

Granted there is a lot of negative hit and run but those opinions are valid and do have value, maybe it's a completely irrational fear somehow embedded in rough potty training that they can't explain causing them to form that opinion or once had some vendor involved who'll benefit try to jack their project once or whatever their reasoning, whether they furnish a background thesis on their opinion is up to them. So one disagrees, lightly flames and uses it as an opportunity to expound on arguments to the contrary driving one's point further. Personal attacks and yelling, now that's counter productive.

Yes, personal attacks and yelling, bad. Flaming, also bad. However, rather than flaming, it's more productive if someone's negative opinion about something is backed by a decent reason. It takes maybe 30 seconds to post a just plain negative, one-sentence comment like "this sux, go Linux!" or something like that, but it doesn't take more than a minute to say something similar, but more constructive, like "this is unnecessary, we already have Ubuntu, and in standby mode it's just as quick to start up as Chromium OS."

Unless of course they're just whining, then it's STFU and GTFO.

That's basically what I'm getting at.

Back to Chromium OS and SSDs, it's very likely they're thinking about prices of parts around the time Chrome OS will be finished and ready for distribution. Kind of like Crysis, in a way, how they were building it with future systems in mind. So maybe SSDs are expensive now, but they're getting cheaper. Just look how much a 1TB HDD goes for nowadays. Maybe 3 years ago they would have been out of reach for most people. As for the now, aren't a lot of netbooks equipped with smaller capacity SSDs anyway? I assume that was their target audience.

 

[Wheels]

Well I have it installed in VMware and after its booted you are prompted with the logon screen and it wont let you pass unless it detects your active internet connection.

It logs in using your Google mail user and pass

Huh, I hadn't heard that.
Is that for every boot up or just the initial one? What if you're logged in and then disconnect from the net?

 

[WoD]

I converted the VMWare image for Parallels, booted up, logged in, and was astoundingly underwhelmed.

It's just Google Chrome, the browser, running full screen. Sure it's snappy snappy fast for a browser, but that's ALL it is. There's a great Chromium OS emulator, it's called Google Chrome. The only difference is that you don't have to log in.

 

[mali]

I'm following the discussion on several tech sites closely, and the tenor is, that it's just not worth it. Sergey Brin said, that Chrome OS and Android will merge sometime, but that's still a long way. The quintessence is: Much hype in the first place, but not much delivered. Google is just throwing money somewhere and the geeks follow "look it's free, it's Open Source, it MUST be good". It isn't

 

[-Tj-]

It's just Google Chrome, the browser, running full screen. Sure it's snappy snappy fast for a browser, but that's ALL it is.

That's pretty much what it's being marketed as. Even Google themselves have said that it's for people who spend most of their time on the internet. But their belief goes a little further into thinking you can use it as a full suite to do what most people do on their computers, but do it all online (which you can pretty much do nowadays), removing all the unnecessary stuff we usually need in a desktop environment along the way for speed.

I'm following the discussion on several tech sites closely, and the tenor is, that it's just not worth it. Sergey Brin said, that Chrome OS and Android will merge sometime, but that's still a long way. The quintessence is: Much hype in the first place, but not much delivered. Google is just throwing money somewhere and the geeks follow "look it's free, it's Open Source, it MUST be good". It isn't

Pretty funny that even Engadget is saying much of the same thing. One thing that I wholeheartedly agree with is that it would be better marketed as a compliment to a desktop OS, not a replacement. In essense, that's what I had hoped this could be on Pandora. A compliment to the OS shipped, an option to use if I choose. I'm not saying I want the devs to put it on and ship it, I don't want them to do that. They should focus on getting Pandora polished and shined.

Question for any devs that might be reading this: how hard is it to take their source code (or any source code of this sort) and make it work on Pandora?

 

[javaJake]

Huh, I hadn't heard that.
Is that for every boot up or just the initial one? What if you're logged in and then disconnect from the net?

I have a copy running in VirtualMachine myself (it's really easy - just install Ubuntu first and follow the build instructions from there to install to a second virtual hard-drive) and yea, it's basically this: turn on, black screen for a mere three seconds or so before the login screen is instantly usable, and then once you login it's only a few seconds more for a usable web browser session. The entire time it wants an Internet connection, and it won't take "no" for an answer, not even through a local login (unless you specifically enable "dev" mode during build time, in which case local logins are allowable).

VirtualMachine wouldn't work, however, until I unplugged and plugged the adapter in. (Edit: virtually, of course. I unchecked and checked "Adapter 1" under Network Adapters.)

I converted the VMWare image for Parallels, booted up, logged in, and was astoundingly underwhelmed.

It's just Google Chrome, the browser, running full screen. Sure it's snappy snappy fast for a browser, but that's ALL it is. There's a great Chromium OS emulator, it's called Google Chrome. The only difference is that you don't have to log in.

But isn't that all you need? Think about it: CGI:IRC, Gmail, GDocs, Meebo, last.fm, and on and on the list goes. Everything you do in software can be done on the web, whether or not it's completely equivalent feature-wise.


I personally think Google is way, way ahead of everyone else. Their ideas are really good (I've been actually searching for ways to exist only on the web!!) but there's not enough on the web to support a complete desktop replacement.

Yet.

 

[lulzfish]

I think the logging in with your Google name is interesting, that means you can use ANY Chrome OS device, even your friend's, and it automatically has access to all your stuff, and they don't even need to create a "guest" account.

But it's still cloud computing, so I am still disappoint.

 

[WizardStan]

That's pretty much what it's being marketed as. Even Google themselves have said that it's for people who spend most of their time on the internet. But their belief goes a little further into thinking you can use it as a full suite to do what most people do on their computers, but do it all online (which you can pretty much do nowadays), removing all the unnecessary stuff we usually need in a desktop environment along the way for speed.

To some extent, they're absolutely right. There's a substantial group of users that don't need anything flashy. They do some simple business stuff, they check email, they play online flash games like bejeweled: for a surprisingly large portion of the population, this is all they need. While computers are generally getting more and more powerful (and complex), Google wants to give them a relatively simple, low end system that does only the most basic things that this group of people wants to do.

 

[WoD]

I expected a little more out of Chromium. At least the ability to change the freakin' screen resolution for instance. You can't complain about the rediculously fast boot up speed, but that just doesn't compare to my just "opening" my laptop. Who actually turns a computer off these days? The same would apply to the Pandora, it would be more trouble to reboot into Chromium for a bit of casual browsing than to simply open the Pandora and use whatever OS happens to be sleeping at the time.

That said, I'd very much like to see the "native" Pandora OS of choice running the Pandora browser of choice in a test of pure speed up against Chromium. Even running it in a VM I was quite impressed with the speed of the browser.

 

[kaprikawn]

I just watched the full announcement thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JyFbF7QFlY

I have to say I'm pretty excited by Chrome OS. I think they're really onto something. People saying 'It doesn't do...blah blah' are missing the point. It's not a replacement for Windows/Linux/OSX. People using underpowered Atom-based netbooks aren't using them to replace their main desktop machine, they use them to quickly get on the web and other such things that are not processor intensive. Want to edit a photo? Go use photoshop. Horses for courses...Google Chrome allows people to do what they want from netbooks and do it quicker and better than they currently do with XP and Ubuntu which most netbooks are currently running.

XP is shit on netbooks, and people are put off by Ubuntu. There's stories around the web about the returns on Linux-based laptops being high. I personally love Ubuntu, but I'm a geek, and I can see why most users would be put off by it given that most people are idiots. What Google is introducing could further the progression away from Windows towards Linux which surely can only be a good thing.

It'll also further the development of web standards, Chrome is committed to open standards, so if someone makes something which isn't standards compliant is won't work on Chrome OS. This will limit their market so they'll have to commit to standards compliance (assuming Chrome OS-based netbooks take off, I think they will).

On topic, I'll try Chromium OS on the Pandora. If it offers me something over and above Angstrom I'll dual boot. Bootup speed is probably key here. If I can boot Chromium OS in seconds and be on the web, and not do the same in Angstrom, I'll use Chromium OS for those times when I just want to check something on the web quickly.

 

[mali]

Boot time on ARM devices is irrelevant. You don't boot. You don't even go into hibernation or standby. You close the lid when not in use and open the lid and continue your work. Allways on, allways connected. The theory that most people don't need a full-fledged OS is reasonable, but the real question is, do they want what they need? From a technological perspective cloud computing is the future, but the questions remain are, is Chrome OS the right way, is it the right time? The quirks will show in everyday usage, weak internet connections, too much traffic. The theory is good, but the infrastructure is not there yet. I believe that this will be the first time that Google will experience a setback. I suppose that they don't care much anyway, because they are just doing research here and maybe don't even believe in short- or mid-term success themselves.
As for Chrome OS being a success for Linux I have to say that I think the opposite. Canonical cooperates with Google now and will drop Ubuntu Netbook Remix. ARM will cooperate with Google and drop other Linux alternatives. But if you look at Chrome OS you don't see what Linux is supposed to be. You see a crippled down OS consisting of a browser on top of a basic Linux kernel.

 

[Asiyura]

Boot time on ARM devices is irrelevant. You don't boot. You don't even go into hibernation or standby. You close the lid when not in use and open the lid and continue your work. Allways on, allways connected. The theory that most people don't need a full-fledged OS is reasonable, but the real question is, do they want what they need? From a technological perspective cloud computing is the future, … *SNIP*

Cloud computing isn't really the future, it's a past concept remade with actual technologies.
These kinds of systems were called terminal/server and used in the early time of computer

 

[cobaltage]

Chrome OS seems to be really directed towards the problems of bloated OS's leading to long boot times, and security while on the internet. Google actually hasn't said much about the usage scenarios beyond that. Those advantages may not be much on the Pandora. (If we had the Pandora, we wouldn't be talking about it so much, since we could see for ourselves.) I'm pretty sure Google wasn't thinking of the Pandora when they conceived of Chrome OS. On the other hand, there are lots of library computers running Windows (Windows 2000 or NT?) just to host a browser, since library-search functions that used to be on locally-installed applications are now hosted online. For them, Chrome is a zero-maintenance OS. The same thing is probably true in a lot of workplace environments, like hospitals, banks, etc.

Overall, the timing of it is right, if you think about the big software companies (Adobe, Microsoft) who are making online versions of their software. In general, we seem to be seeing a comeback of the dumb terminal device, with a UI based on the parameters of the device and the intended usage scenarios. IMO, the iPhone is basically a dumb terminal with a fancy UI. It's nice that the iPhone does other stuff, like playing off-line games and apps, but that's not why it's selling so well. Smartphone used to mean a combination of PDA and cellphone, but now it means an internet phone.

I personally turn on my desktop just to use the internet frequently. If I could add a Chrome OS function to my desktop as a secondary OS for $100, I would definitely do that. That function is worth more to me than a Blu-Ray optical drive or a large capacity SSD.

If Chrome OS is the only installed OS on a notebook PC (a netbook), and it doesn't have any off-line functioning whatsoever, that would be completely ridiculous. Network access is much more variable on a portable device than a desktop. So I'm just assuming that that won't really true. Either it will never appear as the only installed OS, or it will have off-line functioning consistent with certain basic activities.

Is there anything fancy about HTML 5 to be excited about?

 

[lulzfish]

Is there anything fancy about HTML 5 to be excited about?

Definitely. There's the canvas, video, and audio tags.
Without using Flash or anything, you can embed a video in an HTML 5 page like this:
<video src="some video.ogg">This text will appear if you don't have HTML 5</video>

Audio is the same way. I haven't tried the canvas tag, but it's basically similar to Cairo, I think. It's a super-generic graphics object that you can draw on with Javascript. It does lines, curves, polygons, fills, etc., and can probably display SVG. There's also some interactive stuff, as people have made little Javascript games with it.

You should check out some of the Chrome Experiments, I think most of them rely on <canvas>.

 

[dflemstr]

Is there anything fancy about HTML 5 to be excited about?

Definitely. There's the canvas, video, and audio tags.
Without using Flash or anything, you can embed a video in an HTML 5 page like this:
<video src="some video.ogg">This text will appear if you don't have HTML 5</video>

Audio is the same way. I haven't tried the canvas tag, but it's basically similar to Cairo, I think. It's a super-generic graphics object that you can draw on with Javascript. It does lines, curves, polygons, fills, etc., and can probably display SVG. There's also some interactive stuff, as people have made little Javascript games with it.

You should check out some of the Chrome Experiments, I think most of them rely on <canvas>.

tl;dr: HTML5 contains almost everything that you currently use Flash for.

HTML5 is obviously better than Flash, since it's faster, more light-weight and better supported than Flash.

@lulzfish: No, there's no way to directly render an SVG to a canvas. Those two technologies have deliberately been separated because they are used for different use-cases.

I did a small demo of HTML5 audio and video in the QD forum:
http://quantumdrive.dyndns.org/music/embedded-player-for-wiki/msg903/#msg903

Also, there's been rumors and demos about a Web 3D API as an extension to HTML5. If it becomes widely supported, you will be able to play 3D games directly in your browser. The extension has an API that is remarkably similar to OpenGL ES 2.0, so if it becomes a standard, the Pandora will support it for sure.

 

[WizardStan]

Without using Flash or anything, you can embed a video in an HTML 5 page like this:
<video src="some video.ogg">This text will appear if you don't have HTML 5</video>

I'd like to point out that, over a decade ago, we had the embed tag that served these purposes. We had streaming audio and video long before every video site required the flash plugin. They used to use your default video player as a plugin. What does the video and audio tag add that wasn't previously available with the embed tag? Other than explicitly saying they are video and audio without having to know mime types?

 

[dflemstr]

Without using Flash or anything, you can embed a video in an HTML 5 page like this:
<video src="some video.ogg">This text will appear if you don't have HTML 5</video>

I'd like to point out that, over a decade ago, we had the embed tag that served these purposes. We had streaming audio and video long before every video site required the flash plugin. They used to use your default video player as a plugin. What does the video and audio tag add that wasn't previously available with the embed tag? Other than explicitly saying they are video and audio without having to know mime types?

Please note that the "embed" tag has been replaced by the "object" tag since HTML 3. EDIT: But it seems that it has been revived and revamped in HTML5... Confusing.

The advantage of the video tag is that it lets the browser itself add support for media playback, which means that no external players have to be loaded, and it is additionally now possible for Javascript to control the playback of the video (you can start it using Javascript, go to a specific time point, control the buffering strategies etc). This has the advantage that a site can write the controls to control the video (play, pause buttons etc) using normal HTML instead of leaving that to the plugin being used.

There are of course other advantages to the Video tag, like for example being able to cover the video with other HTML elements (so a page can now have animated backgrounds à la GeoCities, but now also in HD! Yeah!), or being able to transform the video using SVG (which is close to impossible even with Flash)

 

[CCmachined]

If you don't mind using lots of 3G bandwidth for little to no reason.

Which you should.

 

[dflemstr]

If you don't mind using lots of 3G bandwidth for little to no reason.

Which you should.

Well, the alternative would be using Flash, and Flash doesn't necessarily use less bandwidth than raw streaming videos (it should use more, actually). Note that even if they decide to only allow the OGG Theora codec with the "video" tag (which they haven't, yet), it'll still use less bandwidth than FLV videos would, and almost as little bandwidth as H264 videos would, since the new Theora 1.1 codec improves compression ratios massively.

 

[lulzfish]

I'd definitely prefer to use a little bit more bandwidth if I could get Ogg / Theora video over Flash-embedded H264 or FLV.
Then again, I don't use phone Internets, and it's probably a Bad Idea to try to stream video over an expensive 3G connection no matter what codec you're using.