isn't quite ashamed enough to present

jr conlin's ink stained banana

2009-07-08

:: gOSegway

i've run Chrome. It's a nice browser. i keep it in a folder next to Safari and Opera for when i test pages. i'm certain that a lot of folks love it. i don't find it useful or compelling enough to switch over to. For me, at least, it's a bit like getting into an economy car that has a speedometer on the dashboard and a slew of idiot lights. Some people like that. Some folks like Segways too.

Of course, there's also the fact that Google loves to collect information about you so that they can make money off of it. Of course, this is also the stated goal of credit card agencies that do all kinds of clever things like potentially consider you a risk because you bought a friend a drink at a particular bar, so i'm not really all that inclined to offer the folks that bought doubleclick more info about myself.

Google wants you to do thing on the web. That means that all that's needed from any OS is

  • A way to host TCP/IP
  • A driver for the Network connect device (most probably wireless)
  • Reasonable disk/memory access
  • A way to run a browser

And, well, that's about it. Everything else would be done in "the cloud". Hell, you could probably forgo the local disk options entirely and have the system boot from the network. None of this is new, by the way. Unix systems have had this for decades with remote terminals and X Clients. Microsoft has even had a go at it with their Terminal Services. Google has stated that they're targeting low end, underpowered devices as is, so don't expect to be running TF2 on it. In effect, they're making their own version of Crunchpads.

So, will this amazing "OS" set the world on fire? Possibly. Apple has proven that a minimal, portable web browser is fairly compelling. Palm's PreOS is proving that you can build some reasonably impressive mobile apps with Javascript. Merging the two isn't that much of a trick.

Of course, i tend to like having computers that don't need a full connection all the time in order to work.

The touch isn't a total brick when i don't have a network connection, but i dare say it's close to useless in comparison to when i do. Granted, Apple isn't a "web company" so i would have been terribly surprised to find out if it was. Still, with phone (and phone like) devices becoming more capable, why would you want to carry around a device that's the size of a pad of paper and not be a full laptop? Isn't that a bit like driving around with a segway in the trunk, "just in case"?

i'm sure i'll be wrong about this too, but honestly, i don't really see this OS setting the world on fire quite yet. For that matter, i don't really see it solving any problem i have. Potentially creating a few, sure, but there's no pressing urgency in my life for something like this.

Kinda like how i can live quite happily without a Segway.

  1. 2009-07-08 20:23:07
    As far as working offline: presumably it will take advantage of Gears. So it won't be _useless_ offline. And two things you aren't taking into account when looking at netbooks are their size and price. Sure, I could lug around a 17" laptop, and wait forever for it to start up every time I want to check my email -- but why? Also, segways are cool! *pouts*
  2. jrconlin
    2009-07-09 07:43:01
    Well, my 15" fujitsu comes out of sleep in about a second. It can stay in "sleep" mode for around 24 hours or so. Granted full on isn't as battery friendly because the CPU is beefier than a netbook and it's got a real disk, but I don't believe that you need a stripped down host service for a browser in order to get that kind of response. (You only need to boot an iPhone maybe once every three months and that doesn't take terribly long either.) I just get a bit itchy when I think about storing ssh private keys, GPG tokens, or a javascript based version of TrueCrypt on such a device. Or were you not concerned with it getting lost or stolen?
  3. 2009-07-09 13:42:19
    I'm too lazy to encrypt. If it's lost or stolen (which I deem pretty unlikely; I am careful), I change a few passwords. Nothing stored on the disk is private. My Eee (running mostly unmodified Ubuntu 9.04) takes 22 seconds (I just timed it) to go from standby to wireless connected. That's not including any login time, since, as I said, it logs in automatically. That's not too long, but it's irritating. Starting firefox (with zero addons) and loading google.com takes 56 seconds. Watching youtube videos is impossible -- they play for about five seconds, then I spend ten seconds while the firefox UI hangs, etc. Chrome takes less than 2 seconds to start and load google.com. It would be fantastic if I had an entire operating system built around that kind of speed.
  4. Matt
    2009-07-10 14:50:17
    But doesn't the question then become what exactly are you doing? I mean, waiting a minute to do something on a computer from a cold boot - it's not really such a big drag is it? I've never got this whole obsession with saving the odd minute here or there. And then on top of that I have the same security worries as JR, and more. Any one remember that issue with the we record everything you do that first came out with Chrome? Yeah, kind of don't trust Google anymore.
  5. 2009-07-10 21:02:53
    Privacy concerns with Chrome are way overblown. Everyone read Some Blog Post that said they record every time I blow my nose, and now doesn't trust Google ever again. As far as I know, this is correct. And certainly not an invasion of my privacy. And as far as what I do on a netbook: check/send email, edit documents, read feeds, check/post to twitter, listen to Pandora...I can go on. It's not just about boot times. If Chrome OS can make my computer faster at these web-centric tasks, and if that's all I'm using my computer for, then why not improve my experience? Firefox sucks on Linux, Chrome is faster, and Chrome OS will presumably be even faster.
  6. Andrew S
    2009-07-10 23:01:43
    The "22 seconds to wireless connected" and "can stay in sleep mode for around 24 hours" must be troll bait for mac fanatics. They're laughing their heads off at that.
  7. 2009-07-11 08:53:47
    Caleb? After nine and a half years of listening to business plans regarding how to best datamine user activity, I know precisely the sorts of data that are interesting, how it's collected, and how it's used. What chrome reports back is of negligible use compared to the fact that everything points directly toward Google services. (It's like saying that IE is a Microsoft sniffer while ignoring that the home page, default search and initial bookmarks all point to MSN.) With an OS that is basically a web browser, it's even more the case that there's going to be a very easy on-ramp to using lots of Google services, where they can collect up your usage patterns and use them to best predict the sorts of ads you're most likely to click on. People don't care that you blew your nose, but don't be surprised if you start seeing ads for Dristan popping up in your gmail account.
  8. 2009-07-11 08:56:09
    Oh, and by the way? Yeah, firefox sucks on Linux. The Shiretoko 3.5 build based off of the Firefox code, but tweaked Debian (available via synaptic) is far, far better. Ah, the joys of open source, no?
  9. Matt
    2009-07-11 16:24:31
    I'm a wuss. Going to wait until it comes out in the repositories to upgrade.
  10. 2009-07-13 01:26:45
    Actually, the default homepage in Chrome is _not_ a Google site --it's a local only frequently visited site page. Firefox, however, _does_ have Google as it's default homepage. So if that's your basis for comparing them, Chrome seems like it's actually better. :-) But really, what points directly to Google services? Changing the default search engine takes just a few clicks. Yes, I agree that if I choose to use Google services I'm forfeiting my information to their advertising database (same for Yahoo, Microsoft, etc), but really, why is targeted advertising so bad? I don't understand why I should be afraid of that. What is the optimal alternative here? Not using the internet? And I shouldn't have to download modified beta versions of Firefox. Every time someone complains about Firefox, the answer is "oh, you idiot, you're not using Modified Version X or New Compiler Y". If it really was that much better, why doesn't Mozilla merge the changes in upstream? @andrew s: Yes, but my netbook cost $200. I've never seen a mac for anywhere near that cost. If I paid $2,000 for it I would have higher expectations.
  11. 2009-07-13 04:26:21
    Every time I install a new OS, with firefox, I go into about:config and comment out EVERYTHING google. And set the home page to "blank", unless I happen to have my own localhost set up already. And no, firefox doesn't suck on linux. I've been using that (or moz) for years. I did give google's effort a twirl, and frankly, that one sucked ... tastes differ.
Wanna join in?

Blogs of note
personal that's my blog
(The Official Blog of the Internet)
memoirs of hydrogen guy matthew shepherd (quebec) rhapsodic.org Henriette's Herbal Blog lynne ydw i slumbering lungfish
geek Y!Cool Thing jeremy z
(The Official Website of the Internet)
dave's picks ultramookie Josh Woodward derek balling simon willison
news ars technica search engine watch

Powered by WordPress
Hosted on Dreamhost.