5 ms·

Putting What Little We Actually Know About Chrome OS Into Context

68 points by mqt 17y ago

blasdel 17y ago
He completely misses the giant iceberg that is Google Native Client -- there's only a few simple 'local' apps necessary for ChromeOS to be a perfect full-time desktop for me: * A good terminal emulator / SSH client * A VNC / Remote Desktop client * A means of running a custom GNU userland locally -- User-mode Linux would be great, x86 virtualization would be good. NaCL could also be a terrific gaming platform -- none of the crippling performance issues from Flash, and existing software is very portable to it. Think about games like QuakeLive and Off-road Velociraptor Safari -- fuck, think about a port of Steam with even a fraction of the catalog!
- glymor 17y ago
  [Google's] Native Client is an open-source research technology for running _x86_ native code in web applications (http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/ http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/) As Ars noted ChromeOS's hardware parters are pretty heavy on the ARM side of the fence. Presumably they could do something like Apple's dual-binaries and implement support for ARM. But it's no longer a no-brainer. That said Native Client with it's cross platform video/audio libraries etc is pretty cool - shame it hasn't spread further yet.
  - freetard 17y ago
    It's included with Chrome now.
- kevbin 17y ago
  NaCL is a really interesting project, but it's x86-specific. A jitted NaCL based on LLVM makes more sense for native Chrome/ChromeOS apps.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- eggnet 17y ago
  I think you've missed the mark on a few points. As far as I know safari has the fastest javascript engine no matter where it runs, including ARM. It also supports local storage without google gears, buy using html5 local storage. With html5 I'm not sure what the point of gears is. As far as native client is concerned regarding ARM, it'll probably happen but not because of the iphone and android, they have ways of running native apps. Apple wants you to use the app store and as far as I know android locks you into a vm so you'd need to write custom code anyway. It'll be for chrome os on netbooks. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/24/iphone-3gs-javascript-performance-blows-away-rivals-approaches-macbook-speed/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/24/iphone-3gs-javascript-p... http://webkit.org/blog/126/webkit-does-html5-client-side-database-storage/ http://webkit.org/blog/126/webkit-does-html5-client-side-dat... http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/05/gmail-for-mobile-html5-series-common.html http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/05/gmail-for-mo...
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - boundlessdreamz 17y ago
    Chrome is faster than safari on Mac http://www.manu-j.com/blog/safari-vs-firefox-vs-chrome-on-mac-javascript-performance/355/ http://www.manu-j.com/blog/safari-vs-firefox-vs-chrome-on-ma... The point of google gears is that you can get the HTML5 features in IE and other older browsers. It also has some features like drag and drop which AFAIK is not present in HTML5
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      HTML5 Drag'n'Drop: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dnd http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dnd Gears as a Bleeding Edge HTML5 implementation: http://almaer.com/blog/gears-as-a-bleeding-edge-html-5-implementation http://almaer.com/blog/gears-as-a-bleeding-edge-html-5-imple...
snprbob86 17y ago
Daring Fireball is once again right on target. I do, however, still take issue with two points: 1) "Is it feasible to use Chrome OS as your sole computer?" This question is asked, but then the arguement proceeds as if this question was answered "no". However, in reality, I think that this question is a definite yes for the vast majority of home users... minus iPod support... not an insurmountable problem. 2) The entire "An odd name" section. Yes, I agree that significantly different things should have significantly different names. However, Chrome OS and the Chrome browser are NOT significantly different things. That's the beauty of this. Chrome OS is a straight forward extension of Chrome the browser. It's actually a huuuuge win for Google that people don't know what a browser or an OS is. They know that "Google Chrome" is something that you can get on a small laptop or something that you can get on windows or something that you can get on a Mac. Who cares? The point is that people will learn that some web sites work best "Powered by Google" or "With Chrome" or WHATEVER and they will ask "how do I get get this program?" and just because that question has two answers (an OS or a browser) doesn't mean they have to have two different names. You walk into a store and say "Give me Chrome". You can get a Chrome netbook or you can get Windows with Chrome OEM installed. The sales rep will explain, in a non-technical and probably highly-incorrect form, what Chrome is, and people will buy a Chrome OS netbook or an Windows laptop with Chrome OEM-installed, and be less confused. Technical folks can overcome the naming confusion, but non-technical folks won't even know that the naming confusion exists.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  I agreed, especially with #1. I'm a writer, and I'll always have either a windows/mac computer at all times. However, I definitely would like to have a streamlined OS for a netbook, after it is a netbook. I already use Google Docs for my writing, despite small privacy concerns (which as yet have shown to be more theoretical than realistic). 90% of what I use my laptop for now is just web browsing or working, and for me the two are one in the same. What would make Chrome OS practical is full integration of their web apps, like Docs, into offline mode. I know they work offline, however it's still not like opening up Word, which it should be. I think what the author overlooked, is that the majority of people online have computers that are solely used for browsing the internet and maybe as a secondary a word processing suite.
greendestiny 17y ago
With daring fireballs obvious and declared bias for Apple, its hard not to be a little cynical sometimes. Is it so ridiculous to talk about Chrome OS being a linux, or does it just make him feel better about Apple to downplay the relationship between BSD and OSX?
- rimantas 17y ago
  Why would he downplay that? And Gruber was never a blind Apple fanboy — when apple does BS, he calls it BS (just search for "shit sandwich" in the article and follow the link). I have a feeling that you completely missed the point there.
  - greendestiny 17y ago
    I like daring fireball but its a blog mostly about Apple. He will criticize Apple, but only when he's only talking about Apple by itself.
    - wmeredith 17y ago
      RTFA (or your comment's parent) - He describes Apple's web-apps fiasco with the iPhone as a shit sandwich (and links to his lengthy essay on said sandwich) in this very article, which is 90% about Chrome OS.
      - greendestiny 17y ago
        I didn't know there was any question that Daring Fireball was an Apple advocacy site. A large focus of this article was the way in which Chrome OS couldn't be considered Linux because it won't use X. There are other non-X linux distributions so his argument seemed odd to me. Given OSX's relationship to BSD it seems to an argument born from rationalising the rebranding of BSD to OSX. I don't think Google is going to feel any need to distance itself from Linux because it is not planning on selling Chrome OS. Having said all that for sake of clarity (if there is any in that paragraph) I'll try not to comment on future Apple stories on this site, it doesn't seem productive.
boundlessdreamz 17y ago
Chrome OS is not for everyone and it will be successful in its target marget - Netbooks. Netbooks are under powered devices. Even when you run a full OS on a netbook, it is not a pleasant experience to run resource heavy applications like Photoshop. No one buys a netbook to run those kind of apps anyway. People look at netbook as a device on which they can read stuff, do some emailing or some light editing of documents. These are functions which Chrome OS can fulfill pretty easily. So I do expect Chrome OS to be a success in the netbook market. Outside of netbooks, maybe on tablets. Unlike Techcrunch, I don’t subscribe to the idea that Chrome OS is a credible competitor to Windows. So Chrome might succeed in the netbook market but that won’t put much of a dent in Windows dominance. My 2 cents: http://www.manu-j.com/blog/google-chrome-os-a-speculative-analysis/361/ http://www.manu-j.com/blog/google-chrome-os-a-speculative-an...
- wmf 17y ago
  But there are still plenty of "lightweight" Windows apps that won't run on Chrome, like Skype. For anyone who has used a full-featured Windows/Ubuntu netbook, Chrome OS looks like a step backwards. However since few netbooks have been sold, Google may be able to target people who have no preconceived ideas about what a netbook can do.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Skype won't run, but Gmail will, and it has video chat, too.
donaq 17y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s only supported for use on new PCs that are specifically certified to work with it Isn't it supposed to built on a Linux kernel? In that case, I think it will potentially run on a rather wide range of hardware.
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  That's assuming that google would be going the "just another linux distro" route. Personally, I don't think they will. My guess is the fact that they've chosen linux to be the kernel of their OS is purely an implementation detail that they intend to hide from most users. I think they will want to make an OS that's as easy to use as a browser, which means severely limiting the types of hardware it can run on.
  - davidw 17y ago
    Sure they'll hide it. However, Linux has pretty good hardware support, and it will get better with Google's backing.
- shadytrees 17y ago
  As Gruber pointed out, it could be like OS X: built on BSD, runs only Apple's hardware, plus your PC hardware if you have massive quantities of time on your hands.
  - spudlyo 17y ago
    One weekend is all it took me. It's not as hard you think.
scott_s 17y ago
At a precise technical level, Linux is not an operating system. It is a kernel that can serve as the core for an operating system. What most people mean by "Linux", though, is an operating system built around the Linux kernel. Hmmm. I disagree with his semantics. Linux is the operating system. The rest of a distribution - the userland stuff - is the environment. Since Linux is a monolithic kernel, all operating systems code exists in the kernel itself. Consequently, on a Linux system, everything in userland is not part of the operating system.
- blasdel 17y ago
  The bootloader, libc, and init fall very squarely on the 'operating system' side of the fence.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I agree - I had forgotten about what's necessary to even get a running kernel. I was thinking about the distinction between things that any usable system needs (like a shell, or programs like ls) but are not actually part of the operating system.
endtime 17y ago
Personally, I can't see the appeal of Chrome OS over something like Ubuntu NR.

68 points by mqt 17y ago

He completely misses the giant iceberg that is Google Native Client -- there's only a few simple 'local' apps necessary for ChromeOS to be a perfect full-time desktop for me: * A good terminal emulator / SSH client * A VNC / Remote Desktop client * A means of running a custom GNU userland locally -- User-mode Linux would be great, x86 virtualization would be good. NaCL could also be a terrific gaming platform -- none of the crippling performance issues from Flash, and existing software is very portable to it. Think about games like QuakeLive and Off-road Velociraptor Safari -- fuck, think about a port of Steam with even a fraction of the catalog!

glymor 17y ago
[Google's] Native Client is an open-source research technology for running _x86_ native code in web applications (http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/ http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/) As Ars noted ChromeOS's hardware parters are pretty heavy on the ARM side of the fence. Presumably they could do something like Apple's dual-binaries and implement support for ARM. But it's no longer a no-brainer. That said Native Client with it's cross platform video/audio libraries etc is pretty cool - shame it hasn't spread further yet.
- freetard 17y ago
  It's included with Chrome now.
kevbin 17y ago
NaCL is a really interesting project, but it's x86-specific. A jitted NaCL based on LLVM makes more sense for native Chrome/ChromeOS apps.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

eggnet 17y ago
I think you've missed the mark on a few points. As far as I know safari has the fastest javascript engine no matter where it runs, including ARM. It also supports local storage without google gears, buy using html5 local storage. With html5 I'm not sure what the point of gears is. As far as native client is concerned regarding ARM, it'll probably happen but not because of the iphone and android, they have ways of running native apps. Apple wants you to use the app store and as far as I know android locks you into a vm so you'd need to write custom code anyway. It'll be for chrome os on netbooks. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/24/iphone-3gs-javascript-performance-blows-away-rivals-approaches-macbook-speed/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/24/iphone-3gs-javascript-p... http://webkit.org/blog/126/webkit-does-html5-client-side-database-storage/ http://webkit.org/blog/126/webkit-does-html5-client-side-dat... http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/05/gmail-for-mobile-html5-series-common.html http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/05/gmail-for-mo...
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- boundlessdreamz 17y ago
  Chrome is faster than safari on Mac http://www.manu-j.com/blog/safari-vs-firefox-vs-chrome-on-mac-javascript-performance/355/ http://www.manu-j.com/blog/safari-vs-firefox-vs-chrome-on-ma... The point of google gears is that you can get the HTML5 features in IE and other older browsers. It also has some features like drag and drop which AFAIK is not present in HTML5
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    HTML5 Drag'n'Drop: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dnd http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dnd Gears as a Bleeding Edge HTML5 implementation: http://almaer.com/blog/gears-as-a-bleeding-edge-html-5-implementation http://almaer.com/blog/gears-as-a-bleeding-edge-html-5-imple...

snprbob86 17y ago

Daring Fireball is once again right on target. I do, however, still take issue with two points: 1) "Is it feasible to use Chrome OS as your sole computer?" This question is asked, but then the arguement proceeds as if this question was answered "no". However, in reality, I think that this question is a definite yes for the vast majority of home users... minus iPod support... not an insurmountable problem. 2) The entire "An odd name" section. Yes, I agree that significantly different things should have significantly different names. However, Chrome OS and the Chrome browser are NOT significantly different things. That's the beauty of this. Chrome OS is a straight forward extension of Chrome the browser. It's actually a huuuuge win for Google that people don't know what a browser or an OS is. They know that "Google Chrome" is something that you can get on a small laptop or something that you can get on windows or something that you can get on a Mac. Who cares? The point is that people will learn that some web sites work best "Powered by Google" or "With Chrome" or WHATEVER and they will ask "how do I get get this program?" and just because that question has two answers (an OS or a browser) doesn't mean they have to have two different names. You walk into a store and say "Give me Chrome". You can get a Chrome netbook or you can get Windows with Chrome OEM installed. The sales rep will explain, in a non-technical and probably highly-incorrect form, what Chrome is, and people will buy a Chrome OS netbook or an Windows laptop with Chrome OEM-installed, and be less confused. Technical folks can overcome the naming confusion, but non-technical folks won't even know that the naming confusion exists.

electromagnetic 17y ago
I agreed, especially with #1. I'm a writer, and I'll always have either a windows/mac computer at all times. However, I definitely would like to have a streamlined OS for a netbook, after it is a netbook. I already use Google Docs for my writing, despite small privacy concerns (which as yet have shown to be more theoretical than realistic). 90% of what I use my laptop for now is just web browsing or working, and for me the two are one in the same. What would make Chrome OS practical is full integration of their web apps, like Docs, into offline mode. I know they work offline, however it's still not like opening up Word, which it should be. I think what the author overlooked, is that the majority of people online have computers that are solely used for browsing the internet and maybe as a secondary a word processing suite.

greendestiny 17y ago

With daring fireballs obvious and declared bias for Apple, its hard not to be a little cynical sometimes. Is it so ridiculous to talk about Chrome OS being a linux, or does it just make him feel better about Apple to downplay the relationship between BSD and OSX?

rimantas 17y ago
Why would he downplay that? And Gruber was never a blind Apple fanboy — when apple does BS, he calls it BS (just search for "shit sandwich" in the article and follow the link). I have a feeling that you completely missed the point there.
- greendestiny 17y ago
  I like daring fireball but its a blog mostly about Apple. He will criticize Apple, but only when he's only talking about Apple by itself.
  - wmeredith 17y ago
    RTFA (or your comment's parent) - He describes Apple's web-apps fiasco with the iPhone as a shit sandwich (and links to his lengthy essay on said sandwich) in this very article, which is 90% about Chrome OS.
    - greendestiny 17y ago
      I didn't know there was any question that Daring Fireball was an Apple advocacy site. A large focus of this article was the way in which Chrome OS couldn't be considered Linux because it won't use X. There are other non-X linux distributions so his argument seemed odd to me. Given OSX's relationship to BSD it seems to an argument born from rationalising the rebranding of BSD to OSX. I don't think Google is going to feel any need to distance itself from Linux because it is not planning on selling Chrome OS. Having said all that for sake of clarity (if there is any in that paragraph) I'll try not to comment on future Apple stories on this site, it doesn't seem productive.

boundlessdreamz 17y ago

Chrome OS is not for everyone and it will be successful in its target marget - Netbooks. Netbooks are under powered devices. Even when you run a full OS on a netbook, it is not a pleasant experience to run resource heavy applications like Photoshop. No one buys a netbook to run those kind of apps anyway. People look at netbook as a device on which they can read stuff, do some emailing or some light editing of documents. These are functions which Chrome OS can fulfill pretty easily. So I do expect Chrome OS to be a success in the netbook market. Outside of netbooks, maybe on tablets. Unlike Techcrunch, I don’t subscribe to the idea that Chrome OS is a credible competitor to Windows. So Chrome might succeed in the netbook market but that won’t put much of a dent in Windows dominance. My 2 cents: http://www.manu-j.com/blog/google-chrome-os-a-speculative-analysis/361/ http://www.manu-j.com/blog/google-chrome-os-a-speculative-an...

wmf 17y ago
But there are still plenty of "lightweight" Windows apps that won't run on Chrome, like Skype. For anyone who has used a full-featured Windows/Ubuntu netbook, Chrome OS looks like a step backwards. However since few netbooks have been sold, Google may be able to target people who have no preconceived ideas about what a netbook can do.
- scott_s 17y ago
  Skype won't run, but Gmail will, and it has video chat, too.

donaq 17y ago

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s only supported for use on new PCs that are specifically certified to work with it Isn't it supposed to built on a Linux kernel? In that case, I think it will potentially run on a rather wide range of hardware.

allenbrunson 17y ago
That's assuming that google would be going the "just another linux distro" route. Personally, I don't think they will. My guess is the fact that they've chosen linux to be the kernel of their OS is purely an implementation detail that they intend to hide from most users. I think they will want to make an OS that's as easy to use as a browser, which means severely limiting the types of hardware it can run on.
- davidw 17y ago
  Sure they'll hide it. However, Linux has pretty good hardware support, and it will get better with Google's backing.
shadytrees 17y ago
As Gruber pointed out, it could be like OS X: built on BSD, runs only Apple's hardware, plus your PC hardware if you have massive quantities of time on your hands.
- spudlyo 17y ago
  One weekend is all it took me. It's not as hard you think.

scott_s 17y ago

At a precise technical level, Linux is not an operating system. It is a kernel that can serve as the core for an operating system. What most people mean by "Linux", though, is an operating system built around the Linux kernel. Hmmm. I disagree with his semantics. Linux is the operating system. The rest of a distribution - the userland stuff - is the environment. Since Linux is a monolithic kernel, all operating systems code exists in the kernel itself. Consequently, on a Linux system, everything in userland is not part of the operating system.

blasdel 17y ago
The bootloader, libc, and init fall very squarely on the 'operating system' side of the fence.
- scott_s 17y ago
  I agree - I had forgotten about what's necessary to even get a running kernel. I was thinking about the distinction between things that any usable system needs (like a shell, or programs like ls) but are not actually part of the operating system.

endtime 17y ago

Personally, I can't see the appeal of Chrome OS over something like Ubuntu NR.