Talk:ChromeOS

Vandalism?

I don't know what this would be, but a huge file saying: "CWii Never Dies" is on the top of the page, but i don't know exactly what it is Qwertyfish11 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarity to Webconverger

This is quite similar to the Firefox based Webconverger, though I am unsure how to link or associate the relation between the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendry (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 July 2009

It is too soon to know if it will be similar. It all depends on how far they will take the online desktop concept. But seeing that they are even developing a new windowsing system I do hope Google or the community will create a full desktop OS capable of much more than simply browsing the web. Especially since they are targetting netbooks, you can't have an OS on a netbook that needs to be online to work. You don't always have a connection when you are on the way with your netbook. 88.197.190.84 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also somewhat related to gOS (operating system). Ditto unsure. Woiuld both fit in a ==See also== section? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, more specifically, I'd say it sounds nearly identical to Cloud (by the gOS people). And yeah, I'd suggest linking their articles to eachother in 'See Also' sections. If, um, you happen to know how to do that, that is.

On the subject of Webconverger, I agree that they're somewhat similar, but it's not really the same thing. Both Chrome OS and Cloud are specifically designed with 'Cloud Computing' in mind (yes, I realize I'm debating over who decides to use buzz/marketing terms and who doesn't), whileas Webconverger is designed to turn a device into solely an internet appliance (again, a minute distinction, I realize). It isn't that I would actually complain about Webconverger being included in the 'See Also' lists. I just don't personaly think it's quite the same thing. 209.90.133.41 (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The consensus is that WP:RS's are using "OS" as part of the proper name (ie.: it's not an abbreviation, here).
— V = I * R (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Google Chrome OS → Google Chrome Operating System — Please rename the article to "Google Chrome Operating System". This is the full name of operating system, cause it is unclear what does OS mean. --Dima1 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions the full name in the definition, the article should have the most commonly used name which is Google Chrome OS in this case. - Simeon (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), this move would seem to be appropriate. Google OS, being a (very) likely search term, would be an appropriate redirect to keep, as well.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The announcement blog post uses "OS" much more than "operating system". Thus, it's probably the more common name (and just as official). Per the MoS, we use the common name, which uses the abbreviation in this case. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I don't really dispute that, but... to quote WP:ABBR: "Whether the acronym or the spelled-out phrase is preferable in many particular cases is debatable, but this can work itself out with the #REDIRECT [[new page name]] command. For instance, DMCA and Digital Millennium Copyright Act have oscillated as to which is primary and which page redirects. Other less controversial pairs are MPAA versus Motion Picture Association of America and IMDb versus Internet Movie Database."
— V = I * R (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposed — Everything mentioning the name of the title in question, states it as Google Chrome OS. Even the Official Google Blog lists as Google Chrome OS. [1] 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the page were moved, there would be a redirect from "Google Chrome OS" to "Google Chrome Operating System", so what would the issue be, exactly, with spelling the acronym out?
— V = I * R (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the MoS says the article's "one true name" should be the most commonly used one, and the others should be the redirects. Google searching for the terms, we get ~26,400,000 for "google chrome os" vs. ~79,200 for "google chrome operating system", so spelling it out is several orders of magnitude less popular. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Google page hit "statistics" are really meaningless... regardless, the MOS states that the common name should be used, but it doesn't state that the uncommon names shouldn't be used. As I said above, there will be a redirect. The MOS also states that acronyms should be spelled out in the actual page title, as I've pointed out above.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are indeed not definitive but they are suggestive. Combined with the usage in the official announcement blogpost, it seems quite persuasive (to me). "but it doesn't state that the uncommon names shouldn't be used' Right, because it instead states the direct opposite. You seem to suggest the lack of a negative rule is more important than the existing positive rule; I don't understand this logic. And you're misconstruing the MoS; as you yourself quoted: "Whether the acronym or the spelled-out phrase is preferable in many particular cases is debatable" (emphasis mine). We're presently having such a debate. It does not say to expand the acronym in all cases. It does advise against unnecessary or nonstandard acronyms: "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form"; the evidence suggests that that's the case here. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue would be that article would not be called the proper name for the topic in question. The official name of Google's upcoming OS is Google Chrome OS, NOT Google Chrome Operating System. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 14:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

gu1dry, I don't particularly want to be confrontational (especially over an issue that I honestly don't care about too much), but that isn't really a valid argument here. This may not be a deletion discussion, but the debate pointers that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions holds true just as much here as they do in a Prod or AfD discussion. Cybercobra crafted a compelling argument above, for example...
— V = I * R (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — I don't see any source that labels this as the "Google Chrome Operating System" proper. Theoretically, it could be called the "Google Chrome OS operating system", because it can be argued that "OS" is part of the actual title. I support keeping this at its current title and perhaps leading the intro with "Google Chrome OS is an operating system..." because there is good reason to believe "OS" is part of the brand name title.. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - It seems to be part of the name. It probably would have been just Google Chrome, except the browser already existed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wordpress pics

[2]Those pics may be totally fake. Should the mention of these pics be removed from the article? —SpaceFlight89 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WikiPedia:Verifiability, absolutely. Note that the concern here is not that they may be fake, it's that there's no means for us to verify the information. If a reliable source actually either cites that post, or even just talks about it, then it could be included.
— V = I * R (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well really, if you check out http://www.beingmanan.com/wp/2009/11/chrome-os-demo-videos-details/ you'll see that we have a respectable (IMO) computer techie with some very similar and some more screenshots for us to see...

Tangmeisterjr (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

---

How is this possible?

How can Google possibly create a Linux-based operating system with Chrome, when Chrome isn't released for Linux yet? 61.69.213.207 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, because it is released for Linux (and even if it weren't, it would still be simple). ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's in beta for Linux. If it was so simple, why did it take so long? It's been nearly a year. 61.69.213.207 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...and the OS isn't even alpha. Google codes about as well as blind, fingerless dope fiends (what little they code themselves). ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windows dominates

Someone placed a dubious tag in the Market implications section with the following text:

its Windows software has a 95% market share|see the references in Usage share of desktop operating systems

So, here's the talk page section to discuss the issue.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This (tagging that statement) appears to be some sort of POV advocacy, to me. On the other hand, the tagged statements are a POV advocacy issue themselves... As a matter of fact, the whole section is non-NPOV and full of weasel words. Just because you can point to someone saying something doesn't automatically merit it's inclusion. I'm inclined to remove the whole section, but I'll wait for a little bit to see if you guys can fix it.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to remove the section. A discussion of the Google marketing strategy is more suited to the Google page itself. Additionally, even if it were reformed to be less POV, it doesn't contain any worthwhile points to begin with.70.190.236.138 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a discussion of the Google marketing strategy. It's a discussion of the potential significance of Chrome OS. There is no reason to delete it. The 95% figure may need clarifying (I guess it refers to PCs, not including servers - the source doesn't say). Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's (heavily) copy edited, which seems to be occurring, I don't see a fundamental issue with the section. When the text starts out with weaselly statements such as "The opinion of some industry pundits", that just sends up all sorts of red flags. I've fixed that particular problem, by the way.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-line use

Should there be a discussion of how this would work if you were off-line? Seems an obvious question (at least it's my first question). Or is the answer unknown as yet? Mcswell (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably with an extension of google gears, a technology which has been in use for some time to help web-applications work off-line.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs) 09:46, July 11, 2009 (UTC)

Linux/Free Software Portal

I added links to the two portals to keep continuity among these articles.--Baina90 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

I have found some screenshots online, however I do not know what Wikipedia's policy is on screenshots of unreleased software. Here is a link to one of the screenshots: [3]. Can someone please confirm this?--Baina90 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a screenshot of an older version of gOS that still uses the E17 Enlightenment windows manager. It is almost certainly fake, there are many of such fake screenshots floating around on the Internet. I woudn't take any of them serious, and only accept screenshots officially released by Google itself, At the moment its simply impossible to have a screenshot already.Mahjongg (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it could be fake. Waiting for Google to release an official screenshot it therefore a better option.--Baina90 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly as pretty, but this is Google's official download page w/screenshots: [4] --Zentraleinheite (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

that is not the official google download page Mark (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are many fake one's (not always with a nice reason behind them either, so beware!) there are NO real ones at the moment. Mahjongg (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Chrome OS snapshots

You can download Chrome OS snapshots from Google http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/ -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Those "snapshots" are versions of Chromium, the web browser. No Chrome OS code/screenshots/snapshots/whatever exists publicly. The screenshot is therefore, in lack of a better word, wrong and should be removed. Darth Vader (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Darth Vader, have you tried them? http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux-chromeos/ snapshots are not Chromium at all. Browser is ID'd as "Google Chrome" and not Chromium. It includes things like a clock, network manager, battery manager, touchpad configurator, "Google Chrome OS Options" menu, etc. The screenshot that I posted was a snapshot of "Google Chrome OS" why can't you check it yourself? -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I havent tried it, but I remembered from earlier that build.chromium.org had Chromium source.You may be right, that's probably the OS in some early stage, but it's nothing official, so I still think it's early to put screenshots in the article. i think screenshots should be added only if (when) Google presents them. Darth Vader (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Darth Vader, but that is incorrect. We can add them as soon as they are verifiably screenshots of the OS. Unfortunately, we have no way to confirm that those screenshots Սահակ added are really from the OS or from some side project of the browser (for example a Linux version created only to run the browser and nothing else). So far, no PC magazine or website has mentioned those builds linked above or shown screenshots of them which is kind of suspicious if those really were alpha versions of the OS (several magazines were tricked by fakes though). So I would suggest the following compromise: We add screenshots as soon as they are available and confirmed by a reliable, third-party source. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this link you have provided is unofficial. The official Chromium source code project is [5]. Chromium is the source code for Google Chrome - the browser, not the OS. Chromium is the name of the project and source code behind the browser but not the name of the browser itself. If you were to use the code to build the browser on GNU/Linux, it would be Google Chrome, not Chromium. Although the browser and the OS are related, you must not mix the two up. There are always brainstorm ideas in the Linux community, the screenshots you saw were probably created by a GNU/Linux enthusiast such as here [6]. I hope that clarified things a bit.--Baina90 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, I created that screenshot myself, on my own laptop, by running the code tagged "chromium-rel-linux-chromeos". Even though there is a word "chromium" in the name of the build, it was not Chromium at all. It was a build of Google Chrome OS, and it was over 500MB in size. I hope that clarified things a bit. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a screenshot (considering that there is no official... anything) be classified as original research? Darth Vader (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The build has been removed by Google. It was probably leaked accidentally. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The German news source "Golem" talks about that file here (Google translate) and speculates that it's indeed a very early version of ChromeOS and that it's built upon Debian. While the article confirms what Սահակ wrote above, it is speculating, whether this was really a snapshot of the OS itself or only a Debian version created to run the alpha builds of Chromium for Linux, saying that the application identifies itself as "Google Chrome", not "Google Chrome OS". Regards SoWhy 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this still available? I would like to see it because if its a distro based on Debian, its more likely a modified version of Ubuntu or Debian that someone has posted on the Internet and made to look like it could be Chrome OS. Chrome OS has its own desktop environment and window management system, this is what leads me to believe that this is not the real Chrome OS.--Baina90 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone hacked into Google's servers and uploaded a fake ChromeOS? I downloaded it from Google's official web server. It is no longer available on Google's servers, but I have a local copy. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PC World have confirmed that this is fake: [7]--Baina90 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, PC World is talking about other screenshots. The screenshots that were posted in this article were not a fake. You will find out soon enough. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, here is the official Google OS screenshot released by Google Inc. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/11/chrome-os-debut-0088-rm-eng.jpg as you can see it is identical to the screenshot that I posted here more than a month ago. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but how are those similar to those ubuntu/suse-based screenshots from before? Arguing aside, the page needs to be ubdated now.--Baina90 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Google breaks silence

OFFICIAL information from the chromium project [8]. Gives many insights into how the system works, but still no screenshot. I'll build it over my current OS and see if I can get something usable for this page.--Baina90 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, if you just restore the October 13th screenshot that I posted here, you will see that it is identical to what they showed today in their webcast. Here is that change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Chrome_OS&action=historysubmit&diff=319575993&oldid=319480790 . -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The file has been removed from the commons, its not there anymore so you will have to post an external link. Regardless, lets focus on the page and not on who was right or not, its counter-productive.--Baina90 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Սահակ, the appearance has changed slightly since that screenshot. Look at the video [9] in high quality, or download it in HQ to your computer and take the screenshot from that video. It would be good if we can get a shot where some of the panels at the bottom of the OS appear, to give the reader a better impression of the windowing system. The screenshot you posted only shows the browsing capabilities.--Baina90 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Post 11/19/09 press conference

I've been tinkering with the lead paragraphs in the wake of the press conference. I hope others will refine and augment. Still needed: a better explanation of the architecture. I watched the webcast, which assume is archived, and the gist seemed to be that if you build an OS strictly for server-based apps, you can dispense with a number of steps that slow booting time. That the apps have fewer privileges, creating a safer environment. And that the OS can be transparently patched, much as the browser is. That's my take, at least. Barte (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We should add something about it using solid state drives only

We should add something about how it doesn't use traditional hard drives. Instead it supports solid state drives only. I'm not sure where it would go. Anyway, here's a source you can use.[10] 12.165.250.13 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it should go either--but I put it there. Thanks for the link. Barte (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Operating system or environment?

Every article I've seen on Chrome OS calls it an operating system. To call it an operating environment here without corroboration from at least one notable secondary source amounts to original research. That's my take anyway. Thoughts? Barte (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the wiki definition of operating environment the statement could be true. If operating environment flows like

• operating system -> operating environment -> applications -> user

Then ChromeOS is similar to a desktop environment, window manager or unix shell. The operating system of ChromeOS is Linux and the environment is ChromOS. This could be because the "applications" are all web based, where then environment in which they run is Chrome. Then again ChromeOS is also like a Linux distribution. Jdm64 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed--it could either be a Linus distro, aka an OS, or an environment. Except that nobody I've read thinks it's an environment. Not just Google, but the business press, technical press, and bloggers. Everywhere I read, Chrome OS is referred to as an OS. If a Wikipedia editor thinks it's so but the rest of the world doesn't, it's not. See wp:nor Barte (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It could also be like the confusion of Linux the kernel and Linux the entire operating system. As a whole, ChromeOS is an operating system with only one environment which is also called ChromeOS. Google created a new window manager, I think, for ChromeOS. But instead of traditional WMs, it only runs one application -- a modified Chrome browser. But either way, as a whole it's an OS and specifically it's also the name of the environment. Jdm64 (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone took out most of the "environment" references. I cut the last. Barte (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chromium OS should not redirect to Google Chrome OS

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(disambiguation) how can we fix it so that Chromium OS no longer redirects to Chrome OS? Grahamperrin (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Chrome OS has not been released to the general public yet, any version currently downloaded would form part of the chromium project. So its not relevant yet to have them on separate pages. However, we should have a section on this page about chromium and open source.--Baina90 (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect: public availability of code, whether open or not, is not relevant to the statement: Chromium OS is not Google Chrome OS. Redirection perpetuates confusion. Grahamperrin (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons

• Darwin (operating system) does not redirect to Mac OS X, and whilst much of Darwin may be used in Mac OS X 10.7 (unreleased) (focus), Darwin (operating system) should not redirect to Mac OS X 10.7
• Windows 7 did not redirect to a different version of Windows for the ~six years between http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_7&oldid=1500039 and the general public GM release of Windows 7.

Let's make the distinction sooner rather than later. The two OSes are not equal. Grahamperrin (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Baina90. For the time being at least, separating Chromium OS and Chrome into separate articles would mean writing the same article twice--and would confuse any reader not immersed in the topic. Would prefer to see the distinction made within the article. Even a caveat at the top might be in order. Barte (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chromium is the name of the project behind the browser and the OS. However, Google always prefers to call the actual browser and OS "Chrome" rather than "Chromium". If you download a beta copy of Chrome 4 (Browser) from the Chromium project, it will be called Google Chrome, have coloured chrome logo and has no mention of Chromium except on the project page. Chromium and Chrome are not separate OSs like Darwin and Mac OS X, Chromium is the name of the project, and Chrome is the name of the OS.

So, for now, we can add an entry about the OS on the chromium page and add a section about the open source chromium project into this article.--Baina90 (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Android

I have noticed chatter that the two OSs will become one. Sergey Brin has said that the two projects will "likely converge over time"[11]. If you search Google News, there are many stories like this, however, is it notable? Any Thoughts?--Baina90 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a merger this is way too far ahead of the facts: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: wp:cball You could add something about Brin's speculation, of course. Barte (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear. I don't mean merge the two Wikipedia pages, I meant just a mention in this article that Android and Chrome OS may eventually become one.--Baina90 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You could do it--but take a look at the original CNET article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10402653-265.html cited by your article above. Looks like Brin's thoughts are not necessarily shared even within Google. That context's important here. That said, I think there's enough confusion over the two OSs to justify a separate section--e.g., "Relationship to "Android" Barte (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. May need to be rephrased and expanded a bit, but the idea and refs are there. I put it in the "Market Implications" section, since the "convergence" of two OSs would have market implications.--Baina90 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"...especially with Android's growing success." - Could we get a ref for this perhaps? --Baina90 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

done Barte (talk)

Browser stat

I've been watching the revert war around the phrase"while Microsoft Internet Explorer was second to Mozilla Firefox in Web Browser applications [19]" in the market impact section. Compared to the summary table in usage share of web browsers, the webite cited is an outlier. Other cites have it that IE use is ahead of Firefox. Barte (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the people who were deleting were trying to indicate that while Microsoft dominates the OS and office suite market they don't dominate the browser market any more, so browsers needn't be mentioned there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be. But the phrase quoted above--and in the article--isn't substantiated. By most measures, IE still leads Firefox, not the other way around. Barte (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the conflicting stats, depanding on which source you use and how you count them (many consider FF 3.0 and 3.5 the same browser but IE6, 7 and 8 to be different browsers) and the fact that IE doesn't dominate the browser market quite the way that Microsoft Windows or Office dominate their respective areas, perhaps browsers are a bad example and can just be removed? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points, and I agree--browser popularity is something of a detour in an article on an OS. If no objections, let's remove the clause - "per talk". Barte (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree and done! - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Information Week article

FWIW, this is the best article I've seen to date on Chrome and Chromium. Barte (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Strictly original research, but I ran a Chromium release on my aging eeePC 701 last night. The preliminary descriptions in the articles cited appear accurate. Just nice to know. Barte (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with doing original research to validate a reference, it gives you confidence in using it then! - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see whether successive versions of Chromium get reported, or whether this will go into eclipse until Chrome OS gets closer. Barte (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is enough interest amongst columnists that there will be further reviews of the Chromium alphas and betas as they come out and those can be incorporated in this article. Chrome OS potentially could cause quite a stir if the resulting netbooks are priced right, as has been noted by such pundits as Glyn Moody (already quoted in the article). If Chrome netbooks are priced similarly to Win7 netbooks then the release will be a big yawn next fall. The pricing and the pricing model (vis-a-vis advertising vs hardware purchase cost) will be the key to whether this OS becomes commercially successful or not and I think we have to add that sort of information to the article as it becomes available. - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the InfoWeek article,Serdar Yegulalp argues that Chrome OS is also competing with Chromium--that is, the integrated hardware experience has to ultimately surpass the open source project you can download onto your netbook for free. Otherwise, he thinks Chrome OS hardware will just be a niche product. I'm reluctant to add that kind of crystal ball speculation to the article, though. Barte (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is okay to include that sort of speculation as long as it is properly attributed and presented as opinion, as I did when I added the para from Moody. Chrome OS is intended to be a mass-market product for pre-installed hardware retail sale (or maybe give-away, if Moody turns out to be right). The vast majority of the general public don't have the technical skills to download an ISO, install it on a USB stick and then install it on a netbook or laptop, not to mention the fact that it may not run on their hardware (Chrome OS is going to be pretty hardware specific). As this description for making a USB install for Ubuntu shows, it is a pretty technical task. Only the truly geek-minded will be able to do this. On top of that the current price for a reconditioned netbook is around $200 right now and I am betting that if Moody isn't right and the hardware doesn't turn out to be free of charge, that it will be considerably lower that that price point, making buying a netbook and installing Chromium a financial non-starter, compared to getting a new one with Chrome pre-installed. If the cost of a Chrome netbook is the same as a Win7 netbook, which is far more capable and has more brand familiarity, then they won't sell any Chrome OS netbooks - the price has to be considerably lower for it to work at all. So I doubt there will be much competition from Chromium. In the meantime Chromium will be attracting volunteer coding input to make it and Chrome better, which is the whole point of open source in the first place. In the period until the pricing of the Chrome OS netbooks is made public along with that pricing model, I think the speculation about what Google is really up to is useful in the article, it just has to be presented as opinion, attributed and amended as the story develops. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all of the above. What I should have said is that the speculation to date has been too "crystal ball" for my tastes to contribute much to the Market Implications section, not that the section itself is out of place. The the speculation has been so varied that it's hard to conclude anything except that the jury is out. There's Moody's predictions of free hardware. And on the other side, there are plenty of predictions that Chrome OS will crash and burn in the wake of cheaper, faster Win7 hardware. I do wonder what Win7 adds to the cost of a netbook. Less than $40, I presume, which is perhaps why Google is emphasizing fast boot speeds and security over price. One more here-and-now development is a build--ChromiumOS Cherry--which manages to put the OS into a 1 GB USB stick, albeit with the technical hoops to jump through, as you point out. I also read something yesterday about people looking at Chromium-on-a-USB stick as a quick way to boot a laptop to, say, check email. The writer said that a 5 minute boot for Windows (is that possible?) was reduced to 50 seconds, including the logon. I'm staying tuned. Barte (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your approach here. I think we need to pick out the creditable opinions and add a few of them to the article when warranted. As you point out, if you add them all at this point they will add up to zero - everyone disagrees. I still think that to overcome Windows brand loyalty (why that exists is another question, I don't use it), plus the ability to run thousands of applications on a Win7 netbook vs web-only applications on a publicly unfamiliar Chrome OS netbook, even if it has the Google name, you have to beat the competition on pricing. All will be revealed next fall I guess. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

License incorrect?

According to the automated analysis of its source code repository at http://www.ohloh.net/p/chromiumos/analyses/latest (as of now), chromium os has 807 GPLv2 files, 645 BSD files and 316 LGPLv2.1 files. In the absence of available versions of chrome os one would have to assume that chrome os numbers would be pretty similar to chromium os. The trunk/src/LICENSE file seems to only cover things that do not have their own LICENSE file; as of chromiumos-0.4.22.8 635MB of 642MB of source code under src is in the "third_party" directory, and each third party piece of software under that directory has its own LICENSE file, the majority of which are GNU GPL or LGPL. So by number of files, lines of code, and size of code, if the operating system as a whole is going to be referred to as using any one license, it would seem that GPL should be that choice, although something like "Various; mostly GPL, BSD and LGPL" would seem to be more correct. If no one disputes this analysis I will change the page to read like that soon. (very simular comment posted to the chromium os discuss page) | Djbclark (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

From the the URL above: "Ohloh searches the source code for individual license declarations. These licenses can differ from the project's official license." The project's official license is BSD. What I'm trying to figure out is what this analysis means to, say, an open source developer, much less the reader of this article. I'm not saying it's meaningless, just that I don't have the context. Could you answer that here, first?Barte (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image files

I think the article needs to start sourcing refs and providing info on what the capabilities of Chrome OS will be. We know it will browse the internet and use webmail, we know it will be able to word process, create spreadsheets, presentations and PDFs through Google apps and other on-line office suites. We know it will have calendar capabilities through Google Calendar and other on-line calendars. That covers most of what people use laptops and netbooks for while travelling. But what about downloading photos from cameras, then processing and e-mailing or posting those images? Is there any information that can be added to the article at this point that indicates whether Chrome OS will be able to do this, through web apps or some other means? - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Chrome OS will support web apps, period. There are no other means. Is there an online photo downloading app out there? Then presumably, the OS will support it. But to compile a such a list (there's even a Wikipedia category listing some)...but doesn't that amount to original research/synthases? wp:synth Barte (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"There are no other means"? Well Barte, then you must have a crystal ball, and be able to look into the future! Fact is nobody knows what Google Chrome OS will eventually be able to do. What you see now may not resemble the final thing at all! I guess it will address all these issue's, and I will be very surprised if it won't be able to download photo's from a camera, (as said with a chromium version of picasaweb) play music form your local (or online) music collection, and all those other things that common users simply expect it to do. Google's programmers aren't stupid you know, they know what people want, and there is no technical reason why these things cannot be done with Chrome OS. you may underestimate what on-line applications may do, and continue to do even without an internet connection, with "google gears" like application cashing. If the commercial version of Chrome doesn't offer these things the open source chromium version will, and then the commercial version cannot afford not to offer such functionality. Mahjongg (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is Google's Picasa for image editing, but that doesn't run natively on Linux (only with Wine) and requires installing an app, which seems to be verboten on Chrome OS. I have seen some articles on Chrome OS which list which on-line resources/apps will be available to make Chrome OS work, we would have to quote from them to avoid OR. Let me see what I can dig up then for refs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Guess I was wrong, Chrome seems to include Picasa, at least at this stage in is development. I'll add something brief on this, perhaps in a new section. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can believe that Chrome OS will ultimately include Picasa. (I could believe Google Earth, too). But the URL you cite ends with this comment on the screen shots: "Use your judgement as to whether these are real or ‘fakies’. It’s pretty easy to fake this stuff. In fact, let us know what you think in the comments." If the author isn't convinced, should we be? Barte (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

True it isn't the best ref, nor the most recent. Let me see if I can do better! - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

While looking for more Picasa info, I keep running into lots of pages that claim that Chrome OS includes:

• GNOME 2.24 desktop environment
• Google Chrome 4.0.223 web browser
• Google Picasa 2.7 photo manager New!
• OpenOffice.org 3.0 office suite
• GIMP 2.6 image editor
• Flash Player 10.0 plugin

Like here and here that even offers downloads. Any idea what that is about? - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sounds like Ubuntu.) Anything is possible, but neither of these comes near the level of credibility of a notable secondary source, such as the New York Times, PC Week, InfoWeek, Linux World...even TechCrunch. If we look just at what Google has said to date--and what has been reported by notable pubs--Chrome OS's mission in life is to supporting Web apps. That's what we know so far. Barte (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Google said about Chromium in November: "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. Second, because all apps live within the browser, there are significant benefits to security...."

If you think there's evidence that Chrome diverged from this...or if you don't want to take that statement at face value, you'd better rewrite the first sentence of the this article. It says it too. Barte (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't understand those refs mentioned above that claim that it comes with Open Office and GIMP, but that site seems to provide ISO downloads. Weird. Perhaps it is a new build based on the Chromium OS source code? On their download page they say "Download the iso file and burn it into CD-R. Boot the computer from it and when Chrome OS is loaded, click Live Installer on the desktop. Follow the instructions. Warning: Google Chrome does not work in Live CD mode, you have to install it to the hard disk at first" which makes me think is is a forked distro, essentially. Regardless, I think there is enough disinformation and doubt that I should remove the para I added from the article and will do so, but let's keep an eye out for reliable refs on this subject area! - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Some answers on this: 1, 2 It seems to be essentially a fork being passed off as a genuine Google product. Funny what people are up to! Of course it does show that Chrome OS is generating some interest if nothing else! - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the the fakes will eventually merit a section of their own. "Over it's development, Chrome OS was the subject of several counterfeits....." ;-) Meanwhile, my take is that the Wikipedia entry here should be conservative when it comes to incorporating rumors. Better to be late than to be wrong. There's another rumor--from TechCrunch--that has been widely picked up: that Google is developing its own Chrome OS device, just as it's developing its own Android device. TechCrunch first reported the latter, too, and seems to have gotten it right, though they aren't batting 1.000. We'll see about the former. Barte (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we have to keep the article on the conservative side, especially considering all the rumours out there. I think speculation is okay as long as it is labelled as such and attributed. It will all be cleared up sometime in the latter part of 2010- Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok--I tried my hand at a speculative, attributed paragraph in the hardware section. I think Arrington, reprinted in the Washington Post, is credible enough to include. So I'd call it an informed rumor. Barte (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Useful, but judicious! - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo Barte (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge question @ Chromium OS

Over at talk:Chromium OS there's a discussion over whether that article should be merged with this one. So far, the consensus is yes. Barte (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I recently came across this criticsm of Google Chrome OS on Free Software Magazine: Chrome OS and the death of the Free desktop: a response" by Sam Tuke and thought that perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I would like to incorporate some of his ideas here into this article. He describes Google as "one of the world’s most monstrous companies". - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting article but it's mostly speculations since the OS is not released yet. Although I don't think it makes sense to compare it to traditional OSes as most likely nobody will use it as their primary OS (otherwise what will they do when they are in a place with no internet). Laurent (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought he made points worth at least considering for inclusion. I don't think the fact that the OS has not been released yet is a reason not to include some of the criticisms in the article, as the author mostly is criticizing the basic operational concepts of the OS, rather than any details that may change between now and the release date. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree...the OS is far enough along that it could be included. But I think you'd have to also include reference to the article he's responding to. Barte (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the two articles together could make up refs for a fairly good "critical reception" section. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Picasa

Picasa is a client app. So when we say "The page links to Google web applications, including Gmail, Google Apps, YouTube, and Picasa...." where does that last link take you? Picasa Web Albums? (I realize we don't have the answer for Chrome OS, but what about Chromium OS?) Barte (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A time later decreased to four seconds

I don't think that is right, if you look at this you-tube video they are demonstration that the boot time is about seven seconds [12], but the video used in the link for the four seconds reference is from the -same- date! I think the difference between these two times only depends on the actual hardware the software was running on, I think that the text should mention a boot time of between four and seven seconds, and that google is still working to diminish that. Mahjongg (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited to show both sources: the NYT article (with the citation restored), which reported a 7 second bootup, and the YouTube video, in which Google engineer Martin Bligh reports 4 seconds. The difference is probably hardware, but that's speculative--so I cut the phrase. Barte (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Browser only program?

The introductory paragraph states that the browser is the only program running in the OS. However, recently Google announced they will be making a dedicated media player for Chrome OS, making the statement that only software is the browser false. Someone wanna edit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added byAyoubZubairi (talk •contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section on the integrated media player. But as I read the source article in Ars Technica (see footnote 9), the media player will be part of the browser, not a separate client app. (Which of course is what "integrated" implies.) Barte (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Q*A quote from Matthew Papakipos:

"Another big aspect to what we're doing is we're integrating a whole media player into Chrome and into Chrome OS. People often get confused about this, and it's a fairly subtle but important point. Because in a sense what we're doing is integrating the equivalent of Windows Media Player into Chrome itself." Barte (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've also added a citation in the first paragraph referencing the 11/09 Google statement, which included this:

"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." Barte (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I thought that would happen ever since I first heard about Cloud OS! To create a complete user experience the "browser" must also be able to do some things most users would normally expect (from the user experience of a normal computer system). It means they need to be able do all the normal things they expect from a "computer". If the paradigm of "web applications" fails to deliver that, they (Google) simply extend the "browser" to include it. Being able to listen to your favorite music while "browsing" is one of these "must haves". Another one is being able to do things like plugging in a camera, and importing pictures, and viewing them (and video's too) there probably will be software integrated into the "browser" to do things like that, and anything else the user will expect they can do. Mahjongg (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is it programmed in ?

Can anybody include in the article (and/or infobox) what programming language(s) are used predominantly in this OS ? I mean, Linux is programmed in C. What about the rest of the OS ? Thanks. 83.55.41.191 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)