Talk:Chromium OS

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


I've listed the license for this project as BSD, the link to the license file is here. Would people agree with this?--Stephen Judge (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks BSD to me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the automated analysis of its source code repository at (as of now), chromium os has 807 GPLv2 files, 645 BSD files and 316 LGPLv2.1 files. The trunk/src/LICENSE file reffered to above seems to only cover things that do not have their own LICENSE file; as of chromiumos- 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. | Djbclark (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see reply at talk:Google Chrome OS Barte (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
As in many free-software-related articles, the form should be something like "XYZ and others", where "XYZ" is the official project license. If the software consists of notable components under different license, I think it should be mentioned. In this case, I agree with Djbclark.--OsamaK 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Chrome OS?[edit]

Should this be its own article? Aizuku (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, or not yet.--Baina90 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is barely a paragraph here, we can always split later if needed. --Aizuku (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I vote merge. Neutral: I think Cybercobra makes a point in the discussion below. If/when Chromium development forks, this stub is back in business. So I can see the point of leaving it intact. Plus, having read wp:merging on the by-the-book procedure for merging one article into another, it's not rocket science, but not trivial, either. So no objections if someone wants to take it on, but no objections to leaving the stub here as is. Barte (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It probably makes sense to merge them, provided that the resulting article has room to mention other OS builds based on Chromium, which is already happening, like this one. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that the link above refers to the build as a "Chrome OS" beta. There's a lot of naming confusion out there. Barte (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The same confusion as with the browser. I think its best to have a separate article after the the final version of the OS is released. I vote merge.--Baina90 (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote against merging because though Google Chrome OS will be based on the Chromium platform, it will be a separate distinct product. Chromium will be available for any person to use as a free platform from where they can build their own applications based on it. However, Chrome OS will be available from Google and will contain modifications and specifications as needed for the much hyped Operating system from them to be used for netbooks and PCs. Basically, its a similar story as Linux and other applications built using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenoyshrikants (talkcontribs) 16:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(Added <discuss merge> templates to both articles) Barte (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Find sources: "Chromium OS" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Chromium is notable in and of itself. News articles on Chromium OS: InformationWeek review, PCWorld review, heise online, [1]. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the question is whether Chromium is itself notable, but whether anyone will extend the article here until Chrome and Chromium start to diverge--presumably after Chrome OS is released. I have no plans to, because the effort seems redundant. For the time being, anything relevant to Chromium OS also seems relevant to Chrome OS--because the code base is the same. Barte (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the presence of sources such as those I've pointed out, and the eventual divergence you admit, I see no reason the article would necessarily be a perpetual stub, which seems to be your merge argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Not perpetual. Just prolonged. Barte (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, then I don't think there's a valid merge reason here. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge Wild mine (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Care to provide a rationale and thus more than WP:JUSTAVOTE? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I vote merge! :) -- (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I read this, there's no consensus for merging, at least for the while. I'm removing the templates. Barte (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chromium Build Kit[edit]

Does the mention of the Chromium Build Kit on Sourceforge pass the notability test? The cite goes to the project page; no other mention noted. Barte (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Chromium OS is derived from the Debian Operating System[edit]

The statement about Chromium OS being a derivative of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system was removed from the article at this edit. The statement is supported by two sources as cited with the statement, [2] [3].

The edit comment said, "Neither source demonstrates this and recent reporting contradicts it: see Chrome OS." In fact, both sources show that Chromium OS was derived from Debian OS. The chart in the second source at [4] clearly shows that Chromium is derived from Debian, and the license that comes with Chromium OS (the other source cited) says:

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License with your Debian GNU/Linux system, in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, or with the Debian GNU/Linux hello source package as the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111 USA.

The editor who removed the text references the WP article at Chrome OS. The current version of that article cites a single magazine article at the end of the paragraph which discusses Chrome's origins, however, it is unclear which facts the magazine article is cited for. In any case, the current Chrome OS article itself says that Chrome OS was derived from the Debian Operating System (Ubuntu variant).

Therefore, I am reinserting the text back into the article with a prefatory statement about Google's silence regarding Chrome's origins. Sparkie82 (tc) 03:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Chrome OS article says "According to Vaughan-Nichols, Chrome OS "seems to have started with Ubuntu Linux", but by February 2010, Google switched to Gentoo Linux in order to use that distribution's Portage package management system. But while Portage is still used, his sources said that "today's Chrome OS is based on Google's own take on the vanilla Linux kernel". [italics mine]. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd like to see a reference that states directly that Chromium OS a derivative of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system. Your cite above doesn't do that. Rather, it quotes a paragraph deep in the 1991 GNU Public License, which, of course, doesn't mention Chromium. In other words, I think your're synthasizing a relationship, rather than documenting it. Barte (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Barte...the sources given don't verify that it's derived from Debian. Context is important concerning the "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License with your Debian GNU/Linux system" sentence, since it relates to dash and mksignames.c, not Chromium, and is directly preceded by: "This file is not directly linked with dash. However, its output is..." so that appears to be part of mksignames.c's source code (via dash), not Chromium itself (and indeed mksignames.c does have that at the very top of the code). - SudoGhost 05:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
WP articles are not reliable sources. The second source I cited above is a reliable source and it clearly says that Chromium OS is derived from Debian (Ubuntu variant) in the chart at that article. The first source I cited above, the license provided with Chromium (which seems to be unavailable this evening), also indicates that core portions of Debian are part of Chromium OS. Sparkie82 (tc) 04:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The Debian portion of the Chromium OS license is for Bash, which is about as central to Linux as you can get without getting into the kernel. The license also references Gentoo, so apparently there are parts from both Debian and Gentoo in Chromium OS. Therefore we can say that Chromium OS is derived from Debian (and Gentoo). Sparkie82 (tc) 04:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless you can provide a reliable source that directly says that Chromium is derived from Debian, that's WP:OR. Saying that mksignames.c, a file that is not directly linked, mentions Debian in its source code means that Chromium is derived from Debian is quite a stretch, and would need a reliable source to support that. The sources you're citing don't come anywhere close to making that kind of claim (and someone's chart from their personal blog is not a reliable source). - SudoGhost 05:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Second that. The role here is editor, not researcher. You can't yourself deduce Chromium's origins. You can only cite reliable, secondary sources that make a claim directly. That's why Vaughan-Nichols's article on ZDNet matters here. To counter him, you need a comparable citation from a secondary source that comes to a different conclusion. Barte (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Alternatively, you could persuade a ZDNet-caliber publication that you've uncovered the origins of Chromium and write an article making your case. We could then cite that. By attempting to publish them directly on Wikipedia, you've skipped a vital step. Barte (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Vaughan-Nichols concurs with the assertion that it originally came from Debian (via Ubuntu) and later Gentoo, so that source supports what is being claimed by the other sources. The source that published the chart is not an open blog — it looks like it is an independent publication. Regarding the license, as far as I know, there is no WP guideline that requires that published software licences must be linked as an object file in the source code. The license was published by Google at The only contradictory information appears to be from Nelson. I think the best way to handle it here is to state who says what about its origins. Sparkie82 (tc) 05:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said it was an "open blog" (whatever that's supposed to mean), it's not a reliable source. The Vaughan-Nichols article also doesn't reflect what you're saying. It says that it "originally" (i.e. not anymore) was based off of Ubuntu, not Debian. Not everything that is part of Ubuntu is also part of Debian, so unless a source specifically says that, it's WP:SYN. The license part was also already addressed; it doesn't come anywhere close to verifying what you're saying, it only refers to a single file that isn't even linked to the program. mksignames.c using a Debian comment does not mean that Chromium is based on Debian, that's WP:OR and is extremely dubious. - SudoGhost 06:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
By all means, paraphrase Vaughn-Nichols. But do it accurately. He asserts that the Chromium OS project likely began with Ubuntu, but the code itself likely derives from "plain vanilla Linux". (And of course, Nelson claims otherwise. Are you willing to cover the controversy?) I continue to think that inferring origin claims from your other two sources amounts to WP:SYNTH, because neither directly connects Chromium OS with Debian. Barte (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Here are the facts:
  • Andreas Lundqvist, Linux distributions historian, said that Chromium OS is derived from Ubuntu, a Debian-based distribution.
  • Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a ZDNet reporter, said that Chromium OS seems to have originated from Ubuntu, but later switched to Gentoo.
  • The license for Chromium OS published at includes licenses for code from Debian and Gentoo.
  • Jeff Nelson, a former Google engineer, said he developed the original technology for Chromium OS.
Now we just need to put all that into some NPOV prose for the article. Sparkie82 (tc) 13:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That's just a bunch of unrelated facts, the very definition of WP:SYN, and the licensing part is WP:UNDUE. The Ubuntu part might be worth mentioning in the article, but the fact that Ubuntu is Debian-based is not, because that's not relevant. - SudoGhost 13:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This now lengthy thread is entitled "Chromium OS is derived from the Debian Operating System" You started the thread to argue the point, and it's now clear that there is no community consensus that it's verifiably true. Hammering away at a WP:SYN thesis (which is what you're doing above) isn't going to change that. Barte (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to Android[edit]

@Comp.arch: I couldn't quite fix the citations you added; you might want to have another go. Also, what do you think about moving/copying your addition to Chrome OS? This entry is pretty much for info related solely to Chromium OS. Whereas Chrome OS is really the foundation article and has a broader scope. That's my take, at least. Barte (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the lead/infobox is more or less ok now. Ahunt, dropped Android part from "that can be installed (and in later versions also some Android one's)" in the lead. I might be wrong about that one. Not sure if (some) Android apps are currently allowed (later text was only about the future). Was probably thinking of ported Android apps (with "ARC"), and then they are not "Android apps" any more. That would be coming if/when Chrome folded into Android.. comp.arch (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I took it out just because I thought it was too much minor detail for the lede section, not a call on the accuracy of the info. That is supposed to just be a broad summary of the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree: the lede should be short--especially given the length of the article. I've reduced it and rewritten for clarity. I've also added some sections to the same end. There were overlapping descriptions of the architecture; I've gone with the one added (yes?) by Comp.arch and deleted the other. The Chrome browser is the principle UI, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it's not the only one. Users are first presented with a conventional desktop. Most of the icons are shortcuts to web apps, plus, as noted, to packaged apps. That desktop presentation is not via Chrome/Chromium. Barte (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, as Comp.arch points out in comments, there was a flurry of speculation last Oct. regarding Chrome OS and Android, including this WSJ article. That's a notable source, and I think it should be included. But included in the Chrome OS article, not this one. I think this one should stay Chromium OS-specific. Otherwise, we'll just wind up duplicating. Barte (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Confusing lede paragraph.[edit]

I've removed this paragraph from the lede:

In 2014, Google upgraded its Chrome Web Store standards for packaged applications, requiring that these applications work offline. In September 2014, App Runtime for Chrome (beta) was launched together with four ported Android applications that were able to run on Chrome OS.

The intro is suppose to give an understandable summary of Chromium OS--and this paragraph doesn't succeed. Among the problems, we have no clear definition of what a packaged application is, or was as according to the Google primary source, package applications are no longer supported by the OS. The second sentence makes more sense, but it's about Chrome OS. So a reader might well ask: what's it doing here? If we really want to extend the intro, it should be with summary material that is specifically about Chromium OS. Barte (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)