Linux Mint Forums

Just thought I'd make a little post here to see what everyone else thinks about Google's latest Linux project. I, for one, am looking forward to the release. The idea of having close to your entire desktop living in the cloud is intriguing to say the least.

Although I don't necessarily think I'll be replacing Mint and using Chrome as my full-time OS (I feel that it'll most likely hide many of the things that I find great about Linux, ie. the customization and configurability of everything), I'm excited to see where Google takes this idea. Especially considering the fact that it's going to stick with the FOSS philosophy and remain open source.

Comments?

I think that for netbooks, it is a viable idea
--if you trust Google, I don't particularly, as I expect them to be mining everything possible about my surfing habits, the better to reinforce their advertising partners..

http://eyeos.org/
Actually I guess I feel the same way about cloud computing in general, I just don't like the idea that confidential information/data will be kept at a web site, and I just can't trust any company or government policy to protect private information
--especially when I have seen how cavalier with customer data, both Governments (IRS), Insurance companies, banks and others who do not seem to believe that having customer/client personal information/data in an easily accessible form, available to a myriad group of employees is anything to be concerned about.

And I do consider NAD (name & address) data to be confidential, in this age of cybercrime and identity theft
--companies don't of course, as they see it as data to be mined, and know that security (human & machine) costs, and might interfere with a laissez-faire position

I think the only way I would consider it is if I could ensure that I could encrypt the data before it was transmitted to their site, not at their site or during a transfer process..

NO.

lexon

I'm interested to see what it'll be like. In light of DrHu's comments about data mining and identity theft and such, I'll be curious to see what kind of proprietary (hidden and/or closed source) software they try to shove off into the thing.

At first, the alphas, betas, and probably all the first version numbers will be totally open to get people used to using it. Then, once they get you used to using it, they'll spring their trap.

Not thinking of Chrome, but am considering Mint as a dual boot option along with XP Pro.

I think really the biggest advantage of Chrome is that it will open people up to Linux who would've never considered it otherwise. It could serve as a good stepping stone from Windows to Linux.

Kaye wrote:I think really the biggest advantage of Chrome is that it will open people up to Linux who would've never considered it otherwise. It could serve as a good stepping stone from Windows to Linux.

I would agree here. I recently installed gOS Gadgets 3.1 (http://www.thinkgos.com/gos/index.html) for a friend who was very apprehensive about moving to linux but DID use a lot of Google services. gOS is Ubuntu-based and Google Gadget loaded. Needless to say, he loves it. He will be moving to mint shortly, however, because - well - he trusts me now.

It looks like it wil be possible to install all the Chrome specific stuff on other distros, and have the best of Chrome and mainstream Linux.

What I like is that with ChromeOS, if I were to go out and buy a new computer preloaded with ChromeOS or even one where ChromeOS is an available option, I should be in very good shape for installing any other linux on it I so desire.

If it boots in less than 15 seconds on a netbook I would be very interested. If not, no.

lagagnon wrote:If it boots in less than 15 seconds on a netbook I would be very interested. If not, no.

If it'll make me a sandwich, I'm there.

optimize me wrote: If it'll make me a sandwich, I'm there.

I'd rather have it grill me a steak..

lagagnon wrote:If it boots in less than 15 seconds on a netbook I would be very interested. If not, no.

This requirement depends too much on the netbook and is realistically far beyond what ChromeOS or linux in general can do.

It all comes down to how you measure boot time for an OS.

The average lay consumer will start counting from the moment the power button is pushed to the moment the desktop is usable. Here, most netbooks fail to boot "quickly" because of excessive time spent on BIOS, posting, and just getting the system to the point that the MBR is accessed and the grub menu pops up. From there, loading the OS can very greatly depending on the quality and speed of the hard drive or SSD, ram, and processor. Just scratching the surface of the problem.

If you measure from MBR to GDM, I easily get sub-15sec on my netbook right now, and can get sub-20sec with autologin. But is this a fair test? My netbook spends well over 20sec just getting warmed up to the grub menu in the first place! My fullsize laptop boots just as fast (or faster) as my netbook, cold start to login, but it'll never be under 15sec because it too spends too much time getting to grub.

I really blame the BIOS for most of the delays. Conventional BIOS is obsolete.

AK Dave wrote:I really blame the BIOS for most of the delays. Conventional BIOS is obsolete.

I've thought the same thing for a while now. If you think about it, aside from a few tweaks, BIOS systems haven't changed a whole lot in 15 years or so.

I don't have a good feeling about Google's privacy-policy. So, I would think twice before loading Chrome OS on my desktop....

Interesting story; about a year ago, when i had just switched to Ubuntu (Intrepid), i found that gtalk didn't have a linux version. In a fit of petulance, i posted this message on their feedback:
"You are pioneers in your own right, how long do you intend to hang onto Microsoft's apron strings? Great things are happening in the world of Linux, try to catch up"
Now i know the very idea is ridiculous, but it tickles my ego to imagine that it was messages like these which triggered the inception of Google OS.

I doubt it will be as evolved as Linux mint, though...

I don't know any figures for sure, so I am just pulling this out of thin air. I would guess that at least 50% of the worlds population (and that includes me at times) either have no internet access at all, or access at such a slow speed that you if you had a light attached to your computer that flashed every time an internet packet arrived, you would easily be able to count them coming in.

And so with performance like that I am expected to put my entire operating system online?? (yes I know they have offline modes, but you will have to connect at some time, and anyway an offline cloud computing system is just another name for an operating system - right?).

The whole idea of cloud computing and operating systems to make use of it is complete nonsense, something dreamed up by geeks that have never been outside a major city. And don't think that internet infrastructure is going to increase dramatically to cope with all this, it isn't. If only a small proportion of the 50% I am talking about get an increase in connection speed then your speed will decrease to accommodate it and cloud computing will then be no use to either half. I suppose if you are part of the privileged 50% then it might be fun for a while but don't count on it lasting for ever.

viking777,

I have been around tech stuff for over 40 years. I was there when "people will NEVER talk to damn answering machines." I was there when "car phone are only for rich snob lawyers and corporate bigwigs." I was there when "MY company records will ONLY be kept on paper ledgers." I am here now when someone said "the whole idea of cloud computing and operating systems to make use of it is complete nonsense." I only make sure bets. Got some gambling money?

Well I am not a gambling man really waldo, but I do believe in what I say. The internet is a resource. Like all other resources, it is now, and will be even more so in the future, in short supply. The more worthless uses you invent for it, the shorter that supply becomes and then as with all resources you have to start making choices as to who gets to use it, when, how much and what for. And that doesn't even take into account things like population growth and demographics (by which I mean that at the moment you have a section of society - older people - who have never used a computer in their lives and many of them (not all I know) don't ever want to. When recent generations - who have been bought up with computers since they were born - reach 'old age', however that is defined, they will be massive users of the internet - unless they have abolished retirement by then!).

But I grant you I have been wrong before. For example when 'netbooks' were first introduced I laughed my socks off - look what happened

When I said "I only make sure bets", I was indicating I am not a gambler, either.

Internet a limited resource? We've not even scratched the surface on this. The "pipe" that carries Internet traffic now can be expanded astronomically with present technology, and probably more with technology that hasn't been invented yet.

You're right about the stubbornness of old people. I'm one of them! I do spend some time teaching my peers to overcome their fear of computers. It really is a fear of revealing ignorance, an ego thing. It affects men much more than women. My "trick" for getting around that is to "barter" our expertise. I find something that they know about, and learn from them as I show them how their field of knowledge is presented on a web page. Works almost every time!