Talk:Chrome OS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

OS inventor?[edit]

(Redacted) Off-topic discussion raising WP:BLP issues. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Canary channel[edit]

Please write about the newly discovered Chrome OS Canary Channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for version history[edit]

I propose that we create a page called Google Chrome OS version history which shows all the history of google chrome OS version history Skybliei (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, but do consider WP:NOTCHANGELOG before you start it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
What source/cite do you propose to use? Barte (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I doint know I will look for sources and add it Skybliei (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The best primary source for version history would probably be the official release announcement blog (link). The big issue to watch for is that it covers all versions of Chrome, so it is super easy to mistake a Chrome OS release for a standard Chrome release (in short, be very careful). Looking at the WP:NOTCHANGELOG page, this may not even be information worth including. I'm still new here, so I won't make that call, but if someone else wants some help putting it together I would help as much as I can. CraigTumblison (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Since this discussion the separate article was in fact created, sent for a deletion discussion and deleted due to WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The deletion discussion can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome OS version history. - Ahunt (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, thanks for letting me know the details of what happened with that page. CraigTumblison (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What would work instead is a separate section in this article describing significant changes to Chrome OS. Here are some possible sources; others are probably out there:

I'm defining "significant" as a change that is notable enough to generate news coverage. Barte (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That approach makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This seems sensible, as I mentioned earlier I'm more than happy to help find and organize the information. I'll just need some direction as to the preferred layout (table, bullets, short summaries) and best practices. I'm still reading all the editing docs here in an attempt to become more familiar with contributing to Wikipedia. Let me know how I can help :) CraigTumblison (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
If you'd like to try your hand at expanding the section, I'm happy to collaborate. Basically it's 1) find more notable references on significant upgrades to the OS; 2) summarize and, if appropriate, quote; and 3) cite the reference. At this point, it probably makes sense just to add paragraphs. A bulleted list may (or may not) makes sense down the line. I'm happy to answer questions here. Barte (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Packaged apps[edit]

As an article that so far doesn't look like it's been updated very frequently, it only mentions Web apps exclusivity, several times in fact. Nowhere does it mention the Packaged apps APIs or Packaged Apps section of the Chrome Web Store (need the Dev Channel to be able to see this link), anywhere in the article. There should be an entire section to dedicate as such. Thank you. 2602:306:BCA6:AC60:28E1:EBD:6AC9:740F (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a point. Here's a reference connecting Packaged Apps with Chrome OS. But seems to me that Packaged Apps are as much related to the Chrome browser as they are to the OS. If that's the case, maybe the subject deserves a separate entry, which could then be linked from both Chrome-related articles. Barte (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I used the above ref plus the Google primary source noted above to write a paragraph in its own section (agreed) that attempts to give a laymen's explanation. Improvements welcome. Barte (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome OSChrome OS – Per WP:Common name. I spot checked my Google Alerts for the term "Chrome OS" and none of them used the full name Google Chrome OS. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support – "Chrome OS" is common and specific enough. --Article editor (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The sources support Chrome OS being the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject as it is concise and natural and the additional specification that it is "Google" Chrome OS is unnecessary. - SudoGhost 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nom. AQFK (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The company name as more of a prefix is unnecessary. Dolinsky296 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Hardly anyone says "Google Chrome OS". Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Per points above. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. The official support forum for Chrome devices also uses the "Chrome OS" terminology several times without the "Google" prefix. CraigTumblison (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canary Channel Discussion[edit]

The "Release channels and updates" section of the article currently states that a forth release channel called Canary was introduced in 2013. It has two cited links, one pointing to a code review and the other to a blog. As far as I'm aware, this channel has yet to be made available to the public. There are comments on the Chromium Tracker from Google employees that suggest the channel is actively being used internally (1, 2), but there isn't any way for a non-employee to enable the channel for their own usage (that I'm aware of - please correct me if I'm wrong). Until the channel is released to the public (as of now there has been no official statement that it will be), should the article be changed to reflect the limited availability? CraigTumblison (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference, reference for the Canary channel doesn't indicate limited access. If we're going to assert that it's strictly internal, it would be good to have a reference saying so. If there is such a reference, I'd say definitely--it should be included. Otherwise, it violates wp:or. Barte (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Finding a source on the limited availability will be difficult because the Canary Channel has never been officially acknowledged (par a few code mentions that are not, in my opinion, on-the-record statements). Perhaps instead of adding the information about limited availability, the current text should be changed to reflect the pending nature of the release. The cited article makes clear that it hadn't been released at the time of publication, only that code has been discovered that suggests it would be in the future. The article, however, states that it was introduced, which is only factually accurate as far as internal usage is concerned (but again, there isn't a source to cite that says on the record that the channel is even being used internally). CraigTumblison (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you and have attempted to edit the paragraph to more closely reflect the actual reference. That cite, linked above, dates back to early February, making it over 5 months old. At some point, don't we have to conclude that Canary for Chrome OS never happened? If it's a vaporchannel, maybe we should just delete the reference entirely. We can always reinstate it if it actually materializes. Barte (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Your edit is a fantastic improvement over what was previously there, excellent job with the wording. CraigTumblison (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, the idea of a Canary Channel for Chrome OS doesn't quite make sense. You can run two browsers--a stable and a Canary versions. But two OSs on a standard Chrome OS device sounds dubious. Per the cite: "When the canary build lands on Chrome OS, how will it work? I am not really sure." Me neither. It think we should kill it as unfounded speculation. Barte (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree - it should go. Not well enough explained or supported! - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I would be in favor of removing it for now, pending more information. The channel is being used internally (1), but I haven't seen any information regarding how exactly it functions, nor do we have a "good" cite to confirm it. If the channel is officially released to the public in the future, that would be the most appropriate time to mention it in the article, in my opinion. CraigTumblison (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed that Canary was not a done deal. Barte (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
As of December 2013, the Canary build is indeed confirmed to exist (see here and here) and is confirmed to be capable of being installed, just not easily. 2602:306:BCA6:8300:A9DB:EBA4:5953:3ECE (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong image displaying[edit]

The image to this article is displaying "Chromium OS". But the title of the article is "Chrome OS". My suggestion is to change to the correct one. This article : - actually is displaying the correct one "Chrome OS". Why not reuse that image ? (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Chromium OS is very similar in functionality and does not contain closed-source material, unlike Chrome OS. I personally believe the Chrome OS screenshot on the page should be removed as well, as it contains copyrighted material.Alfonsojon (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, there are multiple third-party extensions installed which does not proprerly represent a stock installation of Chrome OS. A generic screenshot of Chrome OS should be provided if a Chromium OS screenshot is not used.Alfonsojon (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't make decisions here on en.wikipedia for what goes on on simple.wikipedia, but I should note that this article is about Chrome OS, not Chromium OS and the screenshots should be on topic. They are not identical. The fact that Chrome OS screenshots shows copyrighted programs or logos is completely permitted here under "Fair Use". The current image is correct, it is Chrome OS. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Please note that text has been removed from this article and talk page pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive194#Chrome_OS.23History - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the remaining sentence that User:Chromemagnon07 left in, as it's now devoid of context and WP:OR to credit the patent as among the origins of Chrome OS. – Steel 01:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree. What was left didn't look obviously tied to this article. We could either start over again with better refs and input or leave it as is now. On Wikipedia it is always better to say nothing than cause anyone harm. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


…at one point a "hardware-accelerated window manager", then elsewhere, a "hardware-accelerated graphics engine" (the hotlinks here are mine.) Synonymous ? —Jerome Potts (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ash actually is to Aura what Unity is to Compiz and GNOME Shell is to Mutter: a window manager plugin. Unfortunately, this article isn't really drawing that comparison very well... —2602:306:BCA6:8300:181:4501:A17D:D427 (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If you can post a reference then that can be added, as per WP:V.- Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Programming languages should include web technologies used[edit]

Many of the applications on Chrome OS that come with the operating system are actually programmed using web technologies, so I feel that the programming languages used should include HTML, JavaScript, and NaCl. Alfonsojon (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Is Chrome OS also based on libbionic like Android or does it use glibc for "proper" compatibility with the rest of the Linux kernel-based family of operating systems? User:ScotXWt@lk 15:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, Chrome OS uses newlib or glibc, at least as far as it's about the Google Native Client; see this document (page 27), for example. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Tone tagging[edit]

An editor tagged the "Link handling" section for tone, but provided no clue as to what the identified problem is. Can some explanation be given so this can be addressed? - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! To me, it seems like the section was tagged because it asks questions and provides answers to them, what might be seen as being suggestive. Perhaps Zhaofeng Li can confirm whether that was the reason for tagging. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ahunt and Dsimic: Yes, that's exactly why I tagged it. The questions and answers seem out of place on an encyclopaedia. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Went ahead and copyedited the section, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It reads fine now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Control via speech recognition[edit]

This could be implemented, theoretically using Web Speech API, see Talk:Google_Glass#Google.2C_Google_Glass_and_speech_recognition

Perhaps mention in article someway (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Supported architectures[edit]

The article (semi-protected, hence not editing myself) lists x86 and arm as supported architectures. Looking at the list of devices, it turns out that x86_64 and aarch64 are supported, too, and it looks like all the 32-bit x86 devices have reached their EOL strongly suggesting that 32-bit x86 is no longer a supported archetecture. Hsivonen (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)