Chrome OS -- Concept

[iago]

My biggest issue with cloud computing (and again, it doesn't cover *every* form) is that you become dependent on a corporation. Much like when you buy a phone, you're forced to be dependent on AT&T/Verizon/whoever for 3 years, when you start building your business model around Google/Amazon/whoever, you become dependent on them. When that happens, no matter how much a company starts screwing its customers, the customers are forced to deal with it because they don't really have another option.

We face the same thing with outsourcers. Much of my organization is outsourced to HP (formally EDS) and IBM. No matter how much crap they do, we have very little choice because we have signed contracts and complicated business practices built around them.

I hate the whole "trust a corp with your data" thing.. :)

[Armin]

I could see great benefit in using Chrome OS on most of my computers if all data was stored on my own local server.

[Camel]

Since we seam to be nearing a plateau in how good we can make a single processor...

I talked to my dad about this a couple years back (he's an EE), and he tried to explain to me why you can't really put a signal higher than ~10GHz on copper or silicon without losing its integrity. It was all very much over my head, but I thought I'd share the number.

[nslay]

My biggest issue is that "Cloud Computing" seems like 1960s thinking all over again.  It reminds me of time sharing, except on a larger scale.  Netbooks running Chrome OS are merely modern terminals to Google's time sharing system.  Personal computing is an evolution from this sort of thinking.  You really want to give up personal computing because every virtual thing you own and do is conveniently accessible from Google?  There are advantages, namely if your laptop is stolen, you haven't really lost your data.  But how often does that happen?  Is it worth sacrificing personal in personal computing?  Giving Google all your personal data and exposing all your data/application usage patterns also seems like a huge mistake...encrypted/anonymous or not.  This really seems like a step in the wrong direction and I hope consumers make the right choice.  Mass adoption of Chrome OS could have serious consequences on the types of computers vendors produce and sell in the future.

[MyndFyre]

My biggest issue is that "Cloud Computing" seems like 1960s thinking all over again.  It reminds me of time sharing, except on a larger scale.  Netbooks running Chrome OS are merely modern terminals to Google's time sharing system.  Personal computing is an evolution from this sort of thinking.  You really want to give up personal computing because every virtual thing you own and do is conveniently accessible from Google?  There are advantages, namely if your laptop is stolen, you haven't really lost your data.  But how often does that happen?  Is it worth sacrificing personal in personal computing?  Giving Google all your personal data and exposing all your data/application usage patterns also seems like a huge mistake...encrypted/anonymous or not.  This really seems like a step in the wrong direction and I hope consumers make the right choice.  Mass adoption of Chrome OS could have serious consequences on the types of computers vendors produce and sell in the future.

There are other ways around that bad situation, too - namely, good backup platforms.  I used Carbonite for a short while and intend to go back once I get my home PC situation figured out.

The flip side is, I really value my phone's integration with my Google account.  I like using Gmail, getting my refereeing schedule, being able to plug that into Google Calendar, and then having that come up on my G1.  I'm pretty scared that one day Google will make me into their Manchurian Candidate (I'm being melodramatic, but there's truth in that fear), but the flip side is that I don't really have anything to hide - and if I did, I just wouldn't use those utilities for that.

[Camel]

My biggest issue is that "Cloud Computing" seems like 1960s thinking all over again.  It reminds me of time sharing, except on a larger scale.  Netbooks running Chrome OS are merely modern terminals to Google's time sharing system.  Personal computing is an evolution from this sort of thinking.  You really want to give up personal computing because every virtual thing you own and do is conveniently accessible from Google?  There are advantages, namely if your laptop is stolen, you haven't really lost your data.  But how often does that happen?  Is it worth sacrificing personal in personal computing?  Giving Google all your personal data and exposing all your data/application usage patterns also seems like a huge mistake...encrypted/anonymous or not.  This really seems like a step in the wrong direction and I hope consumers make the right choice.  Mass adoption of Chrome OS could have serious consequences on the types of computers vendors produce and sell in the future.

If you don't want to use it, no one will make you. However, if you think that using this OS is going to expose anything about yourself to Google that they don't already have, you're either delusional, or very good at avoiding Google at all costs. In either case, I think you're just spreading FUD. Google goes out of their way to provide full disclosure about all of the data they collect, and when they are collecting it. They have reasonable policies about storing that information, and the company widely idealizes personal privacy. They have built their business around aligning their interests with consumer interests, and they're not going to sacrifice the that reputation over your personal/private information.

[MyndFyre]

My biggest issue is that "Cloud Computing" seems like 1960s thinking all over again.  It reminds me of time sharing, except on a larger scale.  Netbooks running Chrome OS are merely modern terminals to Google's time sharing system.  Personal computing is an evolution from this sort of thinking.  You really want to give up personal computing because every virtual thing you own and do is conveniently accessible from Google?  There are advantages, namely if your laptop is stolen, you haven't really lost your data.  But how often does that happen?  Is it worth sacrificing personal in personal computing?  Giving Google all your personal data and exposing all your data/application usage patterns also seems like a huge mistake...encrypted/anonymous or not.  This really seems like a step in the wrong direction and I hope consumers make the right choice.  Mass adoption of Chrome OS could have serious consequences on the types of computers vendors produce and sell in the future.

If you don't want to use it, no one will make you. However, if you think that using this OS is going to expose anything about yourself to Google that they don't already have, you're either delusional, or very good at avoiding Google at all costs. In either case, I think you're just spreading FUD. Google goes out of their way to provide full disclosure about all of the data they collect, and when they are collecting it. They have reasonable policies about storing that information, and the company widely idealizes personal privacy. They have built their business around aligning their interests with consumer interests, and they're not going to sacrifice the that reputation over your personal/private information.

Not over nslay's, but what about, say, a Presidential candidate?

I mean.... sheesh.  I have a Gmail account now.  What if in 20 years I run for President on the platform that I'm very much anti-big-corporation (hahaha, yeah right, me?)?  Anything I have ever used that account for could be fair game.

That's pretty scary.

[iago]

The "I have nothing to hide so I don't need privacy" argument is nonsense.

That is all.

:)

[warz]

for me it's just about practicality. i don't think i'd use chrome os for anything more than maybe a netbook type thing. strictly for surfing the web and watching videos, or streaming music. and, if that's the case, i'd probably just never buy a netbook and use a laptop with windows on it.

[nslay]

My biggest issue is that "Cloud Computing" seems like 1960s thinking all over again.  It reminds me of time sharing, except on a larger scale.  Netbooks running Chrome OS are merely modern terminals to Google's time sharing system.  Personal computing is an evolution from this sort of thinking.  You really want to give up personal computing because every virtual thing you own and do is conveniently accessible from Google?  There are advantages, namely if your laptop is stolen, you haven't really lost your data.  But how often does that happen?  Is it worth sacrificing personal in personal computing?  Giving Google all your personal data and exposing all your data/application usage patterns also seems like a huge mistake...encrypted/anonymous or not.  This really seems like a step in the wrong direction and I hope consumers make the right choice.  Mass adoption of Chrome OS could have serious consequences on the types of computers vendors produce and sell in the future.

If you don't want to use it, no one will make you. However, if you think that using this OS is going to expose anything about yourself to Google that they don't already have, you're either delusional, or very good at avoiding Google at all costs. In either case, I think you're just spreading FUD. Google goes out of their way to provide full disclosure about all of the data they collect, and when they are collecting it. They have reasonable policies about storing that information, and the company widely idealizes personal privacy. They have built their business around aligning their interests with consumer interests, and they're not going to sacrifice the that reputation over your personal/private information.

You're right, Google is very good at analyzing the behavior of users on the Internet regardless of their use of Google services.  It isn't only about the search engine, but the wide variety of interesting tools and services they produce.  Take Google Earth for example, this tool provides users a means to find restaurants, friends houses, vacation spots, etc...  From Google's point of view, this tool provides Google a means to find frequented restaurants, vacation spots, and study the geographical distribution of its users.  This is Google's business: gathering information.  They define Orwell's Big Brother but with a twist; they're a corporation not a government.  A naïve user can attempt to avoid Google's services but almost every site uses Google Ads.  This is one of Google's big guns for gathering Internet usage behavior from even those users who avoid the search giant.  It's simple, a user visiting any site with Google Ads (most) instantly reveals their visit to Google.

However, it's extremely easy to dodge Google.  The first goes without saying, do not use Google services.  The second requires intermediate knowledge of the Internet's inner workings.  You must block Google's Advertising (Google Syndidate and others) domains either by using a host file or firewall.  The host file is by far the easiest as you can get already-prepared host files here.  After installing this host file (and succeeding in step 1) you've avoided Google and similar advertising firms.

Here's a script for Unix to automatically append/update the aforementioned host file:

Code Select Expand


#!/bin/sh

trap 'rm -f "${hosts}"' KILL TERM EXIT

URL="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt"
hosts=`mktemp /tmp/hosts.XXXXXX`

awk '/MVPS/ { exit } 1' /etc/hosts > $hosts
#fetch -o- "$URL" >> $hosts || exit 1
wget -O- "$URL" >> $hosts || exit 1
dos2unix $hosts

mv -v /etc/hosts /etc/hosts.bak
mv -v $hosts /etc/hosts
chmod 644 /etc/hosts


You need the unix2dos package installed.  For *BSD, you can comment out wget and uncomment fetch.  Instructions are provided on the aforementioned site for Windows.

Regardless of dodging Google, you shouldn't be so eager to give up user freedoms or privacy regardless of Google's capabilities to track users.  I personally think Google is the new Evil Empire and I cheer the real OS and security advances made in Microsoft's research OS singularity.  Google's claim of rethinking OS and security is analogous to redecorating a 1966 Mustang and claiming to rethink cars and reinvent car safety.  In the end, Chrome OS is just another Linux distribution with a new user interface.  I find it especially ironic that Open Source stands for user freedoms but is being used by corporate Big Brother to accomplish the opposite.  I hope the consumer makes the right choice.

[Sidoh]

Since we seam to be nearing a plateau in how good we can make a single processor...

I talked to my dad about this a couple years back (he's an EE), and he tried to explain to me why you can't really put a signal higher than ~10GHz on copper or silicon without losing its integrity. It was all very much over my head, but I thought I'd share the number.

Ah, interesting.  It seems that the wall we're hitting now is heat management.  Maybe this is a theoretical limit based on other measurements?

[Camel]

The "I have nothing to hide so I don't need privacy" argument is nonsense.

Agreed!

A naïve user can attempt to avoid Google's services but almost every site uses Google Ads.  This is one of Google's big guns for gathering Internet usage behavior from even those users who avoid the search giant.  It's simple, a user visiting any site with Google Ads (most) instantly reveals their visit to Google.
...
Regardless of dodging Google, you shouldn't be so eager to give up user freedoms or privacy regardless of Google's capabilities to track users.  I personally think Google is the new Evil Empire and I cheer the real OS and security advances made in Microsoft's research OS singularity.

Your bank knows where you've been every time you use plastic to pay for something. Does that mean you should pay for everything with cash? There is no point in preventing Google from collecting this information, because a) it's not sensitive, and b) the reason they're collecting it in the first place is to make your internet experience better, not to find ways to con you in to buying crap you don't need, or to sell your profile to the government, or to spam your inbox. I don't see the privacy issue here. Who cares if Google knows what porn you look at? It just means your porn searches will be more relevant to what you're looking for. BFD.

Ah, interesting.  It seems that the wall we're hitting now is heat management.  Maybe this is a theoretical limit based on other measurements?

10GHz is not the precise frequency. The idea is that, somewhere around that order of magnitude, other factors (namely, current leakage) become such a large issue that it's probably going to break Moore's Law. Heat management has been the foremost limiting factor for a few years now, and it hasn't been enough to break Moore's Law (yet?). It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that with each advance in transistor technology (we're at 45nM now, I think?), there's an equivalent reduction in power consumption, and therefore heat.

[MyndFyre]

It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that with each advance in transistor technology (we're at 45nM now, I think?), there's an equivalent reduction in power consumption, and therefore heat.

32nm.

[nslay]

The "I have nothing to hide so I don't need privacy" argument is nonsense.

Agreed!

A naïve user can attempt to avoid Google's services but almost every site uses Google Ads.  This is one of Google's big guns for gathering Internet usage behavior from even those users who avoid the search giant.  It's simple, a user visiting any site with Google Ads (most) instantly reveals their visit to Google.
...
Regardless of dodging Google, you shouldn't be so eager to give up user freedoms or privacy regardless of Google's capabilities to track users.  I personally think Google is the new Evil Empire and I cheer the real OS and security advances made in Microsoft's research OS singularity.

Your bank knows where you've been every time you use plastic to pay for something. Does that mean you should pay for everything with cash? There is no point in preventing Google from collecting this information, because a) it's not sensitive, and b) the reason they're collecting it in the first place is to make your internet experience better, not to find ways to con you in to buying crap you don't need, or to sell your profile to the government, or to spam your inbox. I don't see the privacy issue here. Who cares if Google knows what porn you look at? It just means your porn searches will be more relevant to what you're looking for. BFD.

There's a frightening difference between a bank and Google.  You knowingly volunteer information to a bank including any personal information required for service, purchases, withdrawals, deposits, etc...  What is known by a bank is a direct consequence of the service the bank provides. Merely visiting a site with Google Ads exposes you to Google. This enables Google Ads to deliver directed advertisements which does have its advantages.  Is the naïve user aware of this?  Probably not. You claim its not sensitive, but history indicates potential.  That's not anywhere near as bad as computing on Google's Cloud: store all your personal files on Google and expose your usage behavior.

Another problem with Google isn't so much Google itself.  Users, companies, organizations and governments are increasingly relying on Google for all sorts of services ranging from trivial to sensitive.  What about malicious hackers?  What kinds of information does a successful attacker have access to?  What kinds of sensitive services can an attacker disable?  News and weather channels, for example, rely on Google Earth during live television broadcasts.  As another example, many websites rely on AppEngine for database and similar services.  For the same reasons I don't like monopolies, I certainly don't like one company having all that information.

Do you think Google magically profits from hosting the Internet's most heavily trafficked search engine, writing free software, hosting websites (AppEngine) and open source projects among other things?  Where's their income?  Do you know of any pay services Google provides?  I wager that Google makes a majority of their income through advertising and sales of statistics collected by their services.  Social networks are similar except they are arguably more empowered than Google.  These types of companies are in the business of advertising and collecting/selling information. To think these companies can profit otherwise is lunacy.  Facebook, for example, was known to be malicious about deleting user profiles.  Profiles could be deactivated and later reactivated but the information was never deleted.  Many people have written blogs and stories about how difficult it was to actually delete yourself from Facebook. 

Anyways, I had no problem with Google until last Thursday.  Chrome OS really brings Big Brother to mind.  Everything else Google does is nothing by comparison.  It worries me for privacy reasons and the potential direction Chrome OS may take us in computer technology.  Some web applications are appropriate (e.g. e-mail, calendar), but I think Chrome OS is abusing the concept and accidentally reinventing a re-branded variant of time sharing.  If you accept that Google's business is collecting/selling information, then Chrome OS's design is no accident.

I heard/read second-hand that Microsoft is interested in web applications to the extent that Google is.  If that's true, I could definitely see the Intellectual Property (IP) issue as a major motivation.  Microsoft probably takes huge losses in piracy of their own products and is probably hounded by organizations like RIAA and MPAA.  A Microsoft Web OS would probably be IP oriented.  Imagine the IP services Microsoft could provide to 3rd parties.  Take matlab for example.  It's commonly pirated in academic circles.  A company like MathWorks could write a matlab web application and pay Microsoft a service fee to host their product.  Microsoft Web OS users could then purchase access to the matlab web application without owning a physical copy of the executable effectively eliminating piracy.

I hope technology like this never comes to fruition.  Most people are not thieves and its not fair that they should have to pay because of the few who are.

[Camel]

You should read Googles privacy policies before you criticize the, since you are making ridiculous and untrue claims about what they do with your information. Google does not share information they collect via your use of Google services (gmail, gdocs, etc) with anyone. When one pays for ads, they get anonymous statistics about the people who view them (what country they are from, etc). When one uses YouTube insight, the same rules apply...and so on down the list. This is not to say that Google has this information and is hiding it; in their privacy policies, they guarantee users that they will not store your personal activity for longer than 24 hours. The 24 hour window allows them to associate different requests with a single session, and at the end of the day the link between you and that session is destroyed. This is their policy across the board.

When you use services like Google Docs, you're obviously associating a document with your account, so you are vulnerable to hackers, subpoena, etc., but that's also true for files stored locally. I haven't read the privacy policy in regards to documents stored on Google Docs, but if it was fishy I would have heard about it by now. When Google Chrome came out, their privacy policy was fishy, and the world declared shenanigans on them, so they changed it.

In any event, the idea behind this operating system is to accommodate people who already do some portion of their computing in the cloud, and want the ability to do that on a netbook without all the extra bells and whistles to slow them down. It is not designed to force the masses in to getting rid of their hard drives.