User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account



Posted Sep 22, 2011 19:10 UTC (Thu) by semenzato (guest, #80402)
In reply to: dm-verity by k3ninho
Parent article: dm-verity

There is a fundamental tension between security and the ability to install your own software. Making a device more secure against remote attacks also makes it harder for the owners themselves to make changes. But the key, of course, is "remote". As the article points out, Google-blessed Chrome OS devices are required to have a physical switch that makes the system bypass firmware, kernel, and read-only file system verification. So the owners get to choose.

Chromium OS is open source, so it is possible that hardware vendors will produce devices without that switch. It will be up to customers to make the right choice.

(Log in to post comments)


Posted Sep 25, 2011 7:31 UTC (Sun) by vapier (subscriber, #15768) [Link]

Chromium OS doesn't contain the proprietary fun bits (like Netflix) that turns "Chromium" into "Chrome", so it automatically makes that route less desirable to vendors.

also, the internet says Google filed for a trademark on "Chromium". Mozilla/Firefox have used their trademarks in the past to control how people distribute things called "Firefox" to the point where they have a pretty strong say in things downstream from them.


Posted Oct 3, 2011 19:01 UTC (Mon) by JanC_ (subscriber, #34940) [Link]

I know of at least two open source projects that have used the name "Chromium" long before Google did, so I doubt that trademark would be worth much?

Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds