Chromium OS source released

[Posted November 19, 2009 by corbet]

Google has posted some information about Chromium OS, along with the current source. "First, it's all about the web. All apps are web apps. The entire experience takes place within the browser and there are no conventional desktop applications. This means users do not have to deal with installing, managing and updating programs." See the Chromium OS page for more information.

to post comments

Compared to other webtop environments?

Posted Nov 19, 2009 19:48 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (6 responses)

How does this compare against other web-centric Linux desktops such as the
Litl, or Intel's Moblin?

I wonder if any (non-tech) Google employees will be migrated to use this as
their desktop?

Q&A

Posted Nov 19, 2009 20:07 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (1 responses)

Matt Cutts has posted some Q&A from the Google Chrome OS event. Looks a lot like Litl from the client POV, but don't know how they'll handle software updates.

Q&A

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:09 UTC (Thu) by wmf (guest, #33791) [Link]

Just like Chrome (and litl), Chrome OS will silently update in the background. You may have to reboot to actually run the updated version.

Compared to other webtop environments?

Posted Nov 19, 2009 20:56 UTC (Thu) by ariveira (guest, #57833) [Link] (3 responses)

> How does this compare against other web-centric Linux desktops such as the
> Litl, or Intel's Moblin?

Sad; Litl seemed like a good device but i do not think they will survive
against Chromium OS (Moblin is different IMHO you still have native apps
and some controll over your data)

Compared to other webtop environments?

Posted Nov 20, 2009 8:14 UTC (Fri) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link] (2 responses)

Litl is out now, and Chrome OS will only be here in a year, so they have a chance. I think their main barrier is price, though, not Chrome OS.

Compared to other webtop environments?

Posted Nov 20, 2009 16:01 UTC (Fri) by ariveira (guest, #57833) [Link]

Exactly what i think. Chrome OS devices will be cheaper (look at
the long list of hardware partners) and the Google brand will help
a lot in selling the "concept".
Both devices do the same basically and chrome os will end up with
more third party "webapps" so i still think that ltl does not have
a chance ...

Compared to other webtop environments?

Posted Nov 27, 2009 19:54 UTC (Fri) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link]

Where can I download Litl?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 20:06 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] (25 responses)

::roll eyes::

More nonsense with idealists out of touch with reality that think that there's any user on this planet that only uses the Web and nothing else.

No business has a use for this.

The vast majority of kids, teenagers, college students, and young adults have a use for this.

Most families and grandparents and crazy old aunts have no use for this.

Here in Reality Land, people use quite a large variety of non-Web apps. Many, many people buy a computer just to use a specific non-Web app (often games, high-end office software that Google Apps comes nowhere close to competing with, movie and multimedia software no Web page can do, or software requires for school or work).

The only time any Web app has even come close to competing with traditional desktop apps is when that Web app is delivered as a custom plugin, which itself is nothing more than a traditional desktop app that requires a browser chrome around it to work (which in turn is just stupid an a waste of everyone's time, and is done only because so many OSes make it easy to install arbitrary third-party executable code into a browser but go out of their way to make installing arbitrary third-party executable code outside of a browser a pain in the ass... e.g. Linux).

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 20:18 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (15 responses)

Q: What is the major differences between Chrome OS and running Windows with
Chrome Browser?

A: You can't run any of your Windows applications.

Q: What is the major thing you can do in Chrome OS that you can't do in
Windows with Chrome Browser?

A: Probably nothing; except it boots slightly faster.

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:07 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] (12 responses)

Clearly, there are a lot of users that Chromium OS won't satisfy. But the article does list potential advantages of it:

"... users do not have to deal with installing, managing and updating programs". Yeah, computer experts find this to be a non-problem, but I think there ARE users who would LIKE this.
"... there are significant benefits to security... Each app is contained within a security sandbox making it harder for malware and viruses to infect your computer... (and) If your system has been compromised, it is designed to fix itself with a reboot." If you've had to fix a Windows system after an infection, you'll appreciate this.
"you can go from turning on the computer to surfing the web in a few seconds." Windows systems do NOT do this, at all.

It's hard to guess how large this market is, but it's not completely crazy. It'll be interesting to see.

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:48 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (9 responses)

But the problem is that Google is not going to sacrifice the ad revenue by
forcing people to use Chrome OS to use their online services; and neither is
anybody else.

So everything that you described will still work with Chrome browser on
Windows or normal Linux desktop. Maybe people will have to manage their own
bookmarks or something like that, but that is about it. Ergo they get just
about all the same positive experiences with Windows + Chrome Browser (or
pretty much any other other browser) with the ability to run their normal
applications.

So by going to a browser-centric OS they have to give up a lot of stuff with
very little gain with just sticking with a regular OS and using a browser.

Users and maintainers

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:39 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (4 responses)

Users and buyers aren't necessarily the same. If you're the Family Computer Person, having your web-centric users on a machine that won't run malware or p2p takes a burden away from you. "I know I promised you a computer for your birthday, but after your brother got us fifteen viruses, two identity thefts, and an RIAA lawsuit, you're getting a Google box."

Users and maintainers

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:53 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (3 responses)

Maybe.

I am just not convinced. In order for this to have merit it's going to have
to be hella slick. It's going to have to be so nice and so intuitive that
people are not going to want to run familiar software they already know and
understand.

It's going to be exceptionally difficult for them to pull this one off.

Users and maintainers

Posted Nov 19, 2009 23:46 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't think that, realistically, Google's goal is to replace every single PC in existence with a machine running Chromium OS. (They probably wouldn't mind if that happened but hey, I'd like a pony, too.) There are still loads of people around who haven't touched a computer for their entire lives so far, and so have no preconceived notion of how software should look like and behave. If Google manages to rope in just an appreciable fraction of those they'll be more than comfortable for a user community.

Also, people are moving in droves from their local mail programs to Google Mail in a browser already. As it turns out, Google Mail is kinda slick. And if e-mail and web surfing are the main things they do on their computer, which again holds true for a fairly significant number of people, Google's approach will probably be just fine for them.

kids today

Posted Nov 20, 2009 0:41 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

These kids today are riding bikes with only one gear, using the one-channel Twitter instead of IRC, drinking PBR -- why not a one-application computer?

Users and maintainers

Posted Nov 20, 2009 20:45 UTC (Fri) by asherringham (guest, #33251) [Link]

I don't think the bar is that high really.

My mum is very computer illiterate and has trouble with the concept of a "window" or "desktop" and finds the trackpad and keyboard hard. I have to repeatedly remind her how to use the "Enter" key ("the BIG key!") to break up long lines.

But guess what? She runs Linux!

This is an older laptop - web browsing and web mail only. She really doesn't need anything else and I don't have to worry about viruses, trojans and assorted malware. No need for slick - just very basic functionality.

Alastair

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 20, 2009 10:12 UTC (Fri) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link] (3 responses)

Like for Android, Google will share its ad revenues with OEM accepting to deliver the full Chrome OS (including proprietary Google apps) on their netbooks.
That's where they'll beat Microsoft: not only will they be cheaper than Windows, they'll even have a negative cost.

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 20, 2009 15:34 UTC (Fri) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (2 responses)

Exactly "Less than free".

How much will an 1+GHZ + ARM SOC + 512 MB RAM and a 2 GB SDD + small battery + an 1280 x 800 display and a few wires and plastic cost at the of 2010?

Not more than $200.

So these things will beat Windows machines everywhere except maybe really rich countries.

Like Android, this is huge.

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 20, 2009 16:10 UTC (Fri) by dion (guest, #2764) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, it's not quite your specs, but the price is $80 today:
http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Menq-Easypc-E790/

I think the Chomium OS is more likely to be used in stead of Android on the super-low end netbooks, webpads and what have you, it's not really meant to replace any "real" machines.

However, if history has taught us anything, then it's that todays "rinky dink toys" will be tomorrows mainstream and that anybody who sells "real computers" and ignores the toy end of the market will soon perish.

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 20, 2009 16:30 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

If someone were to sell me one of those for £50, I'd grab the first one into the country! Unfortunately, the nearest equivalents never really dip much below £120 - and at that price (when refurbished Eees can be had for £110) it's just not worth it.

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 23, 2009 10:56 UTC (Mon) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link] (1 responses)

The boot-up time is a non-issue for Moblin, which boots in 5 seconds. And you can install Chromium (the browser) on Moblin too.

Who might use Chromium OS?

Posted Nov 23, 2009 12:12 UTC (Mon) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

Which DID boot in 5 seconds(seems to have become slower AFAICT) on modified hardware or from the bootloader. (I have the EeePC that they demoed the 5 second boot and the BIOS takes a lot of time.)

ChromeOS does that from the moment you press the power button, that is very different.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:14 UTC (Thu) by wmf (guest, #33791) [Link] (1 responses)

Given Google's "less than free" business model, we should expect Chrome OS netbooks to be cheaper than Windows netbooks. (Of course, we've been expecting Linux to be cheaper than Windows for many years and it hasn't happened yet.)

"crapware"

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:32 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Don't forget that a typical Microsoft Windows box these days comes with a bunch of preinstalled "crapware" -- paid positioning of trial versions of proprietary software. PC manufacturers are already used to getting paid to put stuff on the machine.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:11 UTC (Thu) by massysett (guest, #52736) [Link] (2 responses)

"More nonsense with idealists out of touch with reality that think that there's any user on this planet that only uses the Web and nothing else."

You seem to be assuming that people have only one computer, or that people are interested in using the desktop apps on every computer they have, or that the market is frozen in its current state and that people will always be wedded to their desktop apps just because they are now.

I can picture many a user buying one of these machines as an extra, assuming the price is right.

Also, as the web apps mature I don't doubt people will use them more. It is amazing how far they have come in terms of usability.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 23:36 UTC (Thu) by fb (guest, #53265) [Link] (1 responses)

> I can picture many a user buying one of these machines as an extra, assuming the price is right.

I can see myself buying one.

At home I have a desktop, laptop (15"), and an Android phone. However uncomfortable it is to read RSS feeds, and email in a 3.2" screen, more often than I would ever have expected I find myself doing these things on the phone.

The reason is simple: the phone is always on, while the other two are things I need to "decide" to turn on.

I am also uninclined to leave my laptop on. The vent kicks in, and Gnome always wakes the disk. Suspending the system is not as reliable I'd wish it to be.

No case for Chromium OS

Posted Nov 21, 2009 16:32 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

The cynical in me says you need a new netbook with XFCE. My Eee 1000H fits your use case beautifully; I have fine-grained control of the fan and with

echo 80 > /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon1/pwm1

it is barely audible. And you can hook it up to a big-ass monitor. Just be sure to stay clear of that horrible Poulsbo mess and similar binary-only fiascos.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 6:11 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

there's a huge audience for this

there are five hundred million people around the world who use their computer to read email, search, watch youtube and use facebook

this audience is vastly larger than the audience of ms office users, photoshop users and even gamers

google is on to something. casual networked users are going to hit 1 billion+ users in the next decade.

i see lots of potential in a networked OS. go sit at someone else's desk, log in, boom...your desktop

advanced canvas and webgl will narrow the graphical/interactive gap

in ten years only a few native desktop apps will still be needed

apple and microsoft will invariably have to follow this model, its where the money will be.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 8:56 UTC (Fri) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link] (2 responses)

If nothing else, any VOIP app is going to be native - Flash or HTML5 aren't serious contenders (yes, I know Flash 10 has RTMFP, it doesn't seem to be designed for regular VOIP).

Reading the docs, if you turn off verified boot/turn on dev mode you should be able to alter the filesystem and install apps. Probably even install .debs, given it's based on Ubuntu, although I can't tell whether they'd need to be rebuilt.

Also in the docs is the claim the user will have a second PC if recovery is required, so maybe they are positioning this as a true netbook, secondary to your main computer.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 24, 2009 12:02 UTC (Tue) by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164) [Link] (1 responses)

I dunno, doesn't google mail already have voice & video chat? At least it seems to offer those... Haven't used them (yet) but it's there.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 24, 2009 14:02 UTC (Tue) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]

It does, but it uses a native plugin, which incidentally isn't available for Linux (yet).

Re: nobody has a use for this

Posted Nov 20, 2009 9:22 UTC (Fri) by edmundo (guest, #616) [Link]

None of us is really familiar with all of the general public. We all interact with just a biased specimen of it. However, I would have thought there must be quite a lot of people who would be happy with just a browser. Consider the following person, for example. Outside work she uses a computer only for the web browser (shopping, Google Mail, ...). When she's working at home she has to use various Microsoft apps, but neither her current employer nor her previous employer would allow her move documents off their server, so she has to work online with her PC acting as a terminal. With her previous job she used Cisco Terminal Server, I think it was: it worked fine on my Linux box. With her current job she uses some kind of Java-based thing that runs within the browser: it would probably run on Linux, though I've not tried it.

Needing a network connection is a disadvantage, it's true. But being able to work from several different computers and knowing that you have lost no data whatsoever if your computer catches fire or is stolen is a significant advantage.

The work she does involves spreading out confidential paper documents over a reasonably large table. She couldn't work on an aeroplane even if she did have to fly, which she doesn't.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 13:37 UTC (Fri) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

It seems more like you are the idealist out of touch with reality.

90% (yes, completely dreamed up figure, but I'm pretty sure it's close) of computer users doesn't care about anything but their browser, reading mail and editing documents.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 20:22 UTC (Thu) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (12 responses)

Are the apps used through the browser stored on the hard disk? And if so, then what's the point? If not instead, then what happens if the net isn't working or the server that you need for a certain app isn't working?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:09 UTC (Thu) by Banis (guest, #59011) [Link] (7 responses)

Same thing that happens today. If gmail is not up, ya can't get to your gmail. The question to ask is, how often gmail is not up?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:24 UTC (Thu) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (4 responses)

There's a big difference between my e-mail and the rest of my system. Without my e-mail I can still happily work on my system. It's just as if, instead of going from cvs to git, people started going from git to cvs!

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:51 UTC (Thu) by adamgundy (subscriber, #5418) [Link] (3 responses)

it's an X-terminal, with one application (chrome browser).

for many people, that's exactly what they want - an 'internet' machine that lets you safely browse the web, send email, etc, with 'appliance' usability. if it's not working, hit the reset button. if 'the internet' is not working, most non-technical computer users regard their machine as a brick...

it's a big kick in the pants for software vendors to web-enable their apps, specifically the whole class of software that can't currently work (eg: games, video editors, anything that chews a lot of local resources). they're obviously putting a lot of effort into allowing those kind of programs to work as web apps - 'native client', 'webgl' (or whatever it's called this week). also worth noting the cryptic comment about a 'solution for ARM native client' - whether that's fat binaries or some sort of x86 emulation (damn, that'd be slow!)

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 6:15 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (2 responses)

"if 'the internet' is not working, most non-technical computer users regard their machine as a brick..."

is there *anyone* outside of security-sensitive applications that use a standard consumer computer WITHOUT a network connection??

its 2009. a pc with no network IS a brick

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 23, 2009 13:57 UTC (Mon) by AAP (guest, #721) [Link] (1 responses)

Awhile back, I was using a computer without internet. Yes, there was a lot I couldn't do, but I could still access and update my documents and keep track of my Quicken bills, even though I couldn't send them until I got the internet back. Without a computer with a local HD, I would have had to use (ugh) pen & paper to keep track of things.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 23, 2009 15:33 UTC (Mon) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

Well, the idea is that all Google web apps will work offline with Gears/HTML5.

So you would just need new web apps .. and Google is betting that those are forthcoming.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:34 UTC (Thu) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375) [Link]

Er - you can get to your gmail if gmail is not up. Click Setting -> Labs -> Offline. This is what Google Gears is about.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:30 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Uhm. You can.

It's called 'Google Gears' and 'GMail Offline.

Gears will be installed

Posted Nov 20, 2009 10:47 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (1 responses)

Google already has something for offline use of Gmail and other Google apps, it's called Gears. It turns the web into a distributed file system with database-like properties (SQlite), and that's actually the right idea.

IMHO, the internet needs a complete architectural overhaul from bottom to top, and the things Google is doing (Gears, SPDY) are somewhat right on track on their level (that's fixing flaws in HTTP). And when you think the browser is not up to some task (like VoIP, or providing a good GUI for the app), well, that can be changed, too.

Gears will be installed

Posted Nov 23, 2009 9:04 UTC (Mon) by GregMartyn (guest, #52300) [Link]

Hardware interaction is the weakest link right now in the web app world.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 23, 2009 9:02 UTC (Mon) by GregMartyn (guest, #52300) [Link] (1 responses)

For offline web app usage, see Google Gears: http://gears.google.com/

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 23, 2009 9:03 UTC (Mon) by GregMartyn (guest, #52300) [Link]

bah.. beaten to it by several people.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:17 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] (2 responses)

I wonder how long Google will remain as "develop behind closed doors, then shout aloud about the openness" house. There is more to FOSS than source code repositories, and thus I haven't yet been very enthusiastic in Android or even this (this at least uses more existing components besides Linux kernel, which is positive). Not that it wouldn't make them successful, Google's name goes a long way.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:34 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, this seems much more open than Android. They're opening everything
year before it goes out, including their design specifications.

But then, this is mostly just a fixed function (Wed), speed & security
oriented distro that packages upstream open source projects + builds on
their own Chrome variant of WebKit. So there's no reason to keep it or its
development closed.

They want it to spread and outsiders to participate in making it better so
that it can lure a certain slice of Desktop users away from Microsoft.
These users will then be comfortably "locked" to Google's services instead
of to Microsoft software & services.

According to the security overview (which looks nice), it initially
targets following uses & users:
* Computing on the couch
* Use as a lightweight, secondary work computer
* Borrowing a device for use in coffee shops and libraries
* Sharing a second computer among family members

I wonder whether they'll co-operate with Litl. Litl could be even basing
their SW in future to this, but due to competition (other HW vendors using
Chrome), they will then need to lower their device prices.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:43 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

Yeah,

and the good thing is the very different boot process will make it _VERY_HARD_ to run Windows on those devices.

Probably important because Google will probably pay OEMs to put Chrome OS on those devices. (Their "Less than free" model)

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:34 UTC (Thu) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] (3 responses)

So basically, they reinvented terminals. What was the last attempt at this - NPC?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:04 UTC (Thu) by adamgundy (subscriber, #5418) [Link] (1 responses)

computing (and the web) have changed significantly since the NPC (10 years?).

consider how many 'computer users' you know who wouldn't touch (or own) a computer if they couldn't (a) read email, (b) browse their favorite web sites and (c) watch youtube?

that's a significant chunk of the market, and tends to overlap heavily with the segment who are forever getting 'geek' relatives (or paying geek squad) to fix their machine because they screwed it up again. a nice, safe, utterly unbreakable 'appliance' computer is ideal for that group.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 9:06 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]

That's exactly what was said last time, with NPC. ;-)

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 27, 2009 20:05 UTC (Fri) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link]

The iPhone/iPod touch. Most applications (not including the 75,000 variations of fart apps) are web based, with the notable exception of playing multimedia files. Hopefully google will allow local storage for similar purposes.

No mention of License on website

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:57 UTC (Thu) by Felix_the_Mac (guest, #32242) [Link] (1 responses)

I can find no mention of the GPL or any other applicable license on their website.

Why is that? Do they not want to mention the cancerous GPL?
I think the licensing model deserves a large amount of recognition.

No mention of License on website

Posted Nov 20, 2009 0:23 UTC (Fri) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]

A couple of clicks into 'get the source' gives you the gitweb pages for the various parts of the project, which all have the relevent LICENSE or COPYING file in plain view (FWIW, the google-only sub-projects seem to be licensed under a BSD-style license).

Overpessimism

Posted Nov 19, 2009 22:07 UTC (Thu) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link] (2 responses)

Whatever the technical limitations, it is hard to deny that Google is a household name, so they have a much better chance than any company named "Canonical" or "Red Hat" of selling an alternative desktop operating system to people who go to Best Buy.

Overpessimism

Posted Nov 19, 2009 23:21 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (1 responses)

Especially when Google is paying OEMs to put ChromeOS on those devices. Add cheap ARM chips to the equation and you cheap attractive netbooks that are lucrative for OEMs.

BTW I _love_ that they seem to demand FOSS drivers! Hurray Google!

Overpessimism

Posted Nov 19, 2009 23:42 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

If they can convince a ARM maker to release open source drivers for their
OpenGL ES chipsets then that alone would make everything worthwhile.

ARM is fast, efficient, and it's dirt cheap. But closed source GPU
acceleration is your only option for that sort of thing.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 23:21 UTC (Thu) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link] (3 responses)

Does an operating system using a kernel with a free software license really need a feature called "verified boot"? Why do I need to have special firmware to install my own kernel? Why must all data on the device stored in the Google cloud?

It appears that user freedom has not been a design goal.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 23:43 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

Not sure, but people that install their own kernel are definitely not the target audience.

I think maximum simplicity was the design goal. Don't worry about updates, backups, security, breakage, malware etc.

Big brother Google takes care of all of it.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 19, 2009 23:50 UTC (Thu) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link]

If boot verification fails, it gives you the option of reimaging the OS with an approved version, or continuing anyway. You're explicitly allowed to use an unsigned OS, the only price seems to be that you'll get a warning screen on every boot that you have to click through. This seems like an excellent tradeoff: you know there are no viruses because the *entire* *root* *filesystem* is signed by Google, literally (AFAICT).

And the chain of trust is built up from read-only firmware, so it can't be wrong unless someone has physically tampered with the device in a quite sophisticated way. Attackers could still try to get stuff installed as an unprivileged user, but only until it downloads the next OS update that wipes it out . . . it's impossible to root the device across boots. You can't get that without a chain of trust.

Of course, if you don't like it, don't use the device. Or use it but change the OS and navigate through the warning screen every time. Google isn't planning to replace normal PCs in the near future. This is meant to be a special-purpose device, not a general-purpose computer in the conventional sense.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 0:03 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

'Verified Boot' can be a valuable tool. It's a way for the user to know instantly if the kernel has been tampered with or modified.

It's the same thing with 'trusted computing module'. This is a valuable tool that can be used to verify the security of your system simply by rebooting. If properly setup then the module verifies your bootloader... your bootloader verifies your kernel.. your kernel verifies the initrd... the initrd environment verifies drivers and important system files... and then as your system boots it verifies binaries and scripts as it goes.

This way you can detect and fight kernel-level rootkits. If somebody installs a kernel module for your system they can use the kernel against you. This is a effective combat technique. Otherwise the only other reliable way is to use something like tripwire and boot up from read-only media and use a read-only database for verifying the contents of your filesystem. (or removable drive to off-network computer or something like that). Trusted Computing can dramatically lower the costs of keeping very secure OS and verifiable file system contents.

Whether this functionality is good or bad depends entirely on who holds the keys. If you, the owner of the computer and the OS, are in control of it then it's a fantastic thing. If the keys are held by somebody else then it can be used as a weapon or system of control against you and it is a bad thing.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 4:56 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (3 responses)

The video says "nothing" will be stored locally. So what good is that 320GB hard disk?

In fact there is one sort of application that everyone I know uses, and runs locally: multimedia. That's the only reason for these monster HDs on home computers, these days. Microsoft Word documents, with all their bloat, won't require more than a few GB, even if you're the world's most prolific writer.

And the multimedia need not be created on the internet either. Nearly everyone has a digital camera, or at least a camera-phone. Many people take videos with it. And then they connect it to the computer and upload it there. Few want to upload everything they have done to the internet. You only upload what you really want to share. Among other considerations, upload is slow comparing to dumping on the hard disk.

If Google's vision comes through, who needs the speed of USB 3.0? The limiting factor will be the internet connection. Who needs a 500-gigabyte hard disk? A flash disk of a few tens of GB will be enough. So it looks like Google is betting on netbooks taking over the world.

A final factor: in many places, including mine (India), there are rather stringent download/upload limits from ISPs. A computer that stored all its data on the net would quickly max out your monthly free allowance.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 5:17 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

> The video says "nothing" will be stored locally. So what good is that
> 320GB hard disk?

It's lying. Google gears and other things will store local copies of things
to make it faster. Probably. I think.

I expect what they are saying is mean is that 'there is nothing you will
lose if you destroy this computer'. I hope that is what they mean anyways.
But that sort of thing is too complicated for normal folks to understand.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 9:08 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Yes, this article makes it clearer. You save it locally and it syncs to Google's servers. You can also run some apps locally. They may be oversimplifying but they're not stupid. Still, syncing all one's data -- music, videos, etc -- would take up a lot of bandwidth. I'm still skeptical, but my guess is that they're aiming to make extremely inexpensive devices that will serve as a second computer (purely an internet device) for serious users, and as a first computer for people who don't know computers.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 8:41 UTC (Fri) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]

That's a dev machine - I read (somewhere) that they're going to mandate SSDs in production machines.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 6:37 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (1 responses)

Hmm looks to be Debian-based (via Ubuntu):

http://src.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromiumos.git;...

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 8:09 UTC (Fri) by aryonoco (guest, #55563) [Link]

The Canonical blog says:

"In the interest of transparency, we should declare that Canonical is contributing engineering to Google under contract. In our discussions, Sundar Pichai and Linus Upson made it clear that they want , wherever feasible, to build on existing components and tools from the open source community without unnecessary re-invention. This clear focus should benefit a wide variety of existing projects and we welcome it."

http://blog.canonical.com/?p=294

It's a very good move for everyone involved guys. Remember, this OS and the devices it run on are not targeting average LWN readers. I can personally vouch that I come across daily contact with people, business people not just teenagers, who don't use anything other than their browser. And the worst aspect of a computer for them, is upgrading, updating all applications, viruses, malware, and general maintenance of the system. They nearly all fail in these, and after a year, they think their laptop is not usable anymore and go and buy a new one. They would LOVE this OS, and are they primary targets of it.

I hate Web apps as much as the next guy on this forum, and even use desktop apps for things such as twitter. But I can't deny that web apps are the future, specially when HTML 5 comes off age and becomes widespread. If you look back at what the Web looked like 5 years ago and compare it to now, you'll see that it will be irresistible in 5 years time.

On a more general note, anyone who is comparing this to old failed projects based on thin clients, X terminals or net pcs, is missing the point. Yes, the technology behind this might be similar to those, but times are changing. On the one hand, people are getting used to ever-present always-available services. On the other hand, 3G is now widespread, affordable, and provides great utility for many. Laptops and phones are converging. 2007 was the year of netbooks, 2010 might be the year of smartbooks (running ARM processors). Smartphones are morphing into Internet tablets (e.g,, N900). These are very different, and interesting times.

Yes, this is cloud computing, and yes, it raises huge privacy issues. It is up to us the tech savvy crown to raise these issues and address them.

LWN readers can always run their trusty Debian or Fedora or FreeBSD or on their computer. And they remain great choices. But Google is pushing applications to go online and cross browser. They are pushing for open source drivers. They are pushing for open standards and cooperation with upstream and downstream projects. This is a Good Thing (TM) for all of us, even if we are not the target consumers of this OS.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 9:34 UTC (Fri) by RobWilco (guest, #40828) [Link]

My mum could love it. I hope it can print stuff easily, she cares for
printed stuff.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 10:10 UTC (Fri) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link] (10 responses)

This is frightening:

"Each time the system boots, Chromium OS verifies that the firmware, kernel, and system image have not been tampered with or become corrupt. This process starts in the firmware."

(from http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-doc... in "High-level design").

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 11:17 UTC (Fri) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link] (7 responses)

not important *if* we have 100% of the source code which is verified.
If it's 99.99%, then it's evil.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 13:12 UTC (Fri) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link] (6 responses)

What's the use of a 100% verified source code if you can't modify your own machine ?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 13:58 UTC (Fri) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link] (1 responses)

On the one hand, sure, it impacts some people's perceived freedom, but do they actually want such a device to start with?

On the other, the vast majority of computer users don't (nor should need to!) care about system adminstration and keeping it virus free etc.

Therefore, at the greater internet eco system level, I can only think of it as a good thing as long as the entity controlling it (i.e. google in this case) keeps it up-to-date and secure. Eventually that'll no longer happen, but if serious vulnerabilities are found then there's your means to fix it yourself.

The way I see it, as long as it's secure => great for everybody (including those who'd rather like to tinker with it because they don't get exploited by exploits running on those machines)

If it starts being insecure => no loss over a current system that requires good adminstration on the user's part to keep secure, which we all know doesn't happen.

If you want to buy something with that on specifically to tinker with, there's something wrong with you :)

Now, I realise that this argumentation isn't exactly sound on a moral level, but the way I see it so far a way to give an end-user a secure system _and_ let them tinker with it as they like hasn't been invented yet.

So is this really so bad?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 21:56 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

So is this really so bad?

Potentially, yes. If every hardware vendor decides that this is what the "consumers" want, which is (as always) a projection of the marketing people's ideas onto the "consumers", you won't be able to buy a device which isn't bundled with and tied to the vendor-supplied software.

It's bad enough having Windows bundled with most computers sold via the usual retail channels. Swapping Windows out for something else and making it extremely difficult for the buyer to install their own software (let alone get a refund on the bundled and tied software) isn't progress.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 15:21 UTC (Fri) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]

I do agree with you: none.

The hardware must allow you to verify *your code* or *the modified* software stack *you coded*. In no case that hardware should verify only google software stack.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 21, 2009 3:00 UTC (Sat) by mbligh (subscriber, #7720) [Link] (2 responses)

We've explicitly said that there's a developer mode switch for the bootloader which will allow you to load a customized version.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 21, 2009 8:00 UTC (Sat) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link] (1 responses)

Does it allow to verify the integrity of your code, or does the verification work only when using Google's code ?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 21, 2009 20:55 UTC (Sat) by mbligh (subscriber, #7720) [Link]

Not sure we've really considered doing verification for Chromium OS - I don't see much point on a standard machine. If you can't change the BIOS, you can't verify the bootloader, and the whole verification model is broken.

Even if you were running on the custom hardware with modified BIOS, I can't see how it'd know whose signatures to trust?

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 16:36 UTC (Fri) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link] (1 responses)

What you've quoted is a single bullet point. The actual description of
Verified Boot states:

"It is important to note that restraining the boot path to only Chromium-
is run that is not provided for or maintained by upstream, that the user
will have the option to immediately reset the device to a known-good state.
"

Not being able to run third party code _without knowing it_ seems a good
thing.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 17:36 UTC (Fri) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link]

Yes, I read too fast. My bad.

Thanks for correcting me.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 11:40 UTC (Fri) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]

If google publishes 100% of its network protocols; if those network protocols are neither brain damaged nor heavy kludge to implement; if those protocols do not duplicate existing standards (as in IETF) protocols without adding *significant* features.
Then, it shall be ok... as soon as, alternative and open source servers appear (GNU AGPL licence would be a must for those servers...), and chromium OS can be configured to use other servers than theirs.

That's a bucket of ifs.

The bright side:if they require 100% open source software stack... some hardware manufacturers may finally publish their programming manual to stand a chance to be selected as ok to run the OS.

Since it is based on Debian Ubuntu GNU/Linux, it will probably justify the creation of a channel of cash torwards canonical.

I have the feeling that a network of cash flows is taking shape.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 18:41 UTC (Fri) by ariveira (guest, #57833) [Link] (3 responses)

Looking over gitweb it looks like they are using plain Xorg (intel driver)
and a custom wm. Too bad I was hoping for Google to push forward something
like wayland.

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 21:11 UTC (Fri) by adamgundy (subscriber, #5418) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm reasonably surprised they didn't drop X from the stack completely - for example, chrome->cairo->glitz->OpenGL (all that code exists today). there are a grand total of three X clients that I saw on a quick trawl through the code - xscreensaver, chrome (browser) and the login dialog... and they're talking about replacing the login dialog with chrome too.

instead, they've written (or more likely, hacked something else into shape) their own X11 window manager, and have GTK etc in the mix.

there's nothing to say they couldn't drop X at some future point, of course. end users wouldn't notice (except maybe things are a little faster).

I like X11.. but it seems a little overkill for a one-trick GUI! I guess time to market trumps a small increase in performance...

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 20, 2009 22:13 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

simple, they don't want to loose compatibility with anything else they may want to put on there, and with all the different hardware that X supports.

if they were only looking at one product with a fixed list of software, what you are suggesting _may_ work, but if you are wanting to support more software, or more hardware, and support new versions of everything for years you don't want to lock yourself down like that

Chromium OS source released

Posted Nov 26, 2009 12:01 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Indeed, X11 is a bit more that screen output, namely keyboard and mouse input, application interaction (clipboard), and maybe something else that I can't remember right now.