
Putting What Little We Actually Know About Chrome OS Into Context - mqt
http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/chrome_os_context
======
snprbob86
Daring Fireball is once again right on target. I do, however, still take issue
with two points:

1) "Is it feasible to use Chrome OS as your sole computer?" This question is
asked, but then the arguement proceeds as if this question was answered "no".
However, in reality, I think that this question is a definite yes for the vast
majority of home users... minus iPod support... not an insurmountable problem.

2) The entire "An odd name" section. Yes, I agree that significantly different
things should have significantly different names. However, Chrome OS and the
Chrome browser are NOT significantly different things. That's the beauty of
this. Chrome OS is a straight forward extension of Chrome the browser. It's
actually a huuuuge win for Google that people don't know what a browser or an
OS is. They know that "Google Chrome" is something that you can get on a small
laptop or something that you can get on windows or something that you can get
on a Mac. Who cares? The point is that people will learn that some web sites
work best "Powered by Google" or "With Chrome" or WHATEVER and they will ask
"how do I get get this program?" and just because that question has two
answers (an OS or a browser) doesn't mean they have to have two different
names. You walk into a store and say "Give me Chrome". You can get a Chrome
netbook or you can get Windows with Chrome OEM installed. The sales rep will
explain, in a non-technical and probably highly-incorrect form, what Chrome
is, and people will buy a Chrome OS netbook or an Windows laptop with Chrome
OEM-installed, and be less confused.

 _Technical folks can overcome the naming confusion, but non-technical folks
won't even know that the naming confusion exists._

~~~
tolmasky
One of Microsoft's greatest accomplishments in the original "OS war" was to
confuse users to the point where they didn't understand the difference between
an OS and a computer. Most people didn't, and still don't, quite understand
what a PC is vs. what Windows is, and this was brilliant. How can a competitor
compete with your OS when users don't even know OS's exist? Most people have
no idea they can install anything other than Windows on their PC, so to most
people having anything else run on their computer means "buying a new
computer". Google's goal is to make browsers _the_ dominant platform in
whatever way possible and completely commoditize everything "under" the
browser, from the hardware all the way up to the OS in the same way that
Microsoft's goal was to commoditize everything under the OS. It makes sense to
me that a good goal for them would be to not make these things distinct and
instead once again heighten the confusion. Google wants a very limited number
of brand names that are tied to getting things done "browser", "googling",
"apps", "chrome", etc. Then in Google's ideal world, when users go buy their
next computer, and the salesperson says "this runs google chrome os", they
will hear "this runs chrome" (which they have installed on their windows
machine and use for most their work), and will thus say "oh ok then I can buy
it".

~~~
endtime
>One of Microsoft's greatest accomplishments in the original "OS war" was to
confuse users to the point where they didn't understand the difference between
an OS and a computer.

How, exactly, did Microsoft bring that about? Did your mom know the difference
before Microsoft came about, and then they made it too confusing and she
forgot?

~~~
tolmasky
Most other OS vendors made it a _thing_ to differentiate the OS from the
computer, and still do. Apple wants you to know what Mac OS X is, and Linux
obviously does as well. Microsoft worked very hard to blend the experience. In
fact, they continue to do it today. Notice that their ads are "I'm a PC",
_NOT_ "I'm running Windows".'

Also, the point is not necessarily whether people are somehow born knowing the
difference between the hardware and the OS, but rather that it is beneficial
for some parties for people to be educated on this subject (such as Apple, and
Linux), whereas it is not beneficial for others (Microsoft), and hence
Microsoft can perpetuate this by simple inaction.

I think its a clear win for Google if people start being further confused
about the difference between browsers and OSes, since their whole goal is to
convince people that the browser is the OS.

~~~
freetard
But apple ads are "I'm a Mac", not "I'm runninx OS X" so they don't care
either.

------
blasdel
He completely misses the giant iceberg that is Google Native Client -- there's
only a few simple 'local' apps necessary for ChromeOS to be a perfect full-
time desktop for me:

* A good terminal emulator / SSH client

* A VNC / Remote Desktop client

* A means of running a custom GNU userland locally -- User-mode Linux would be great, x86 virtualization would be good.

NaCL could also be a terrific gaming platform -- none of the crippling
performance issues from Flash, and existing software is very portable to it.
Think about games like QuakeLive and Off-road Velociraptor Safari -- fuck,
think about a port of Steam with even a fraction of the catalog!

~~~
glymor
_[Google's] Native Client is an open-source research technology for running_
_x86_ _native code in web applications_
(<http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/>)

As Ars noted ChromeOS's hardware parters are pretty heavy on the ARM side of
the fence. Presumably they could do something like Apple's dual-binaries and
implement support for ARM. But it's no longer a no-brainer.

That said Native Client with it's cross platform video/audio libraries etc is
pretty cool - shame it hasn't spread further yet.

~~~
freetard
It's included with Chrome now.

------
boundlessdreamz
Chrome OS is not for everyone and it will be successful in its target marget -
Netbooks.

Netbooks are under powered devices. Even when you run a full OS on a netbook,
it is not a pleasant experience to run resource heavy applications like
Photoshop. No one buys a netbook to run those kind of apps anyway. People look
at netbook as a device on which they can read stuff, do some emailing or some
light editing of documents. These are functions which Chrome OS can fulfill
pretty easily. So I do expect Chrome OS to be a success in the netbook market.
Outside of netbooks, maybe on tablets. Unlike Techcrunch, I don’t subscribe to
the idea that Chrome OS is a credible competitor to Windows. So Chrome might
succeed in the netbook market but that won’t put much of a dent in Windows
dominance.

My 2 cents: [http://www.manu-j.com/blog/google-chrome-os-a-speculative-
an...](http://www.manu-j.com/blog/google-chrome-os-a-speculative-
analysis/361/)

~~~
wmf
But there are still plenty of "lightweight" Windows apps that won't run on
Chrome, like Skype.

For anyone who has used a full-featured Windows/Ubuntu netbook, Chrome OS
looks like a step backwards. However since few netbooks have been sold, Google
may be able to target people who have no preconceived ideas about what a
netbook can do.

~~~
scott_s
Skype won't run, but Gmail will, and it has video chat, too.

------
greendestiny
With daring fireballs obvious and declared bias for Apple, its hard not to be
a little cynical sometimes. Is it so ridiculous to talk about Chrome OS being
a linux, or does it just make him feel better about Apple to downplay the
relationship between BSD and OSX?

~~~
rimantas
Why would he downplay that? And Gruber was never a blind Apple fanboy — when
apple does BS, he calls it BS (just search for "shit sandwich" in the article
and follow the link). I have a feeling that you completely missed the point
there.

~~~
greendestiny
I like daring fireball but its a blog mostly about Apple. He will criticize
Apple, but only when he's only talking about Apple by itself.

~~~
wmeredith
RTFA (or your comment's parent) - He describes Apple's web-apps fiasco with
the iPhone as a shit sandwich (and links to his lengthy essay on said
sandwich) in this very article, which is 90% about Chrome OS.

~~~
greendestiny
I didn't know there was any question that Daring Fireball was an Apple
advocacy site. A large focus of this article was the way in which Chrome OS
couldn't be considered Linux because it won't use X. There are other non-X
linux distributions so his argument seemed odd to me. Given OSX's relationship
to BSD it seems to an argument born from rationalising the rebranding of BSD
to OSX. I don't think Google is going to feel any need to distance itself from
Linux because it is not planning on selling Chrome OS.

Having said all that for sake of clarity (if there is any in that paragraph)
I'll try not to comment on future Apple stories on this site, it doesn't seem
productive.

~~~
scott_s
Except this isn't an Apple story.

It's more than just not using X that will make Chrome OS "not a Linux."
Describing an operating system distribution as "Linux" implies an entire eco-
system of software that Chrome OS will probably not have.

------
donaq
_I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s only supported for use on new PCs that are
specifically certified to work with it_

Isn't it supposed to built on a Linux kernel? In that case, I think it will
potentially run on a rather wide range of hardware.

~~~
allenbrunson
That's assuming that google would be going the "just another linux distro"
route. Personally, I don't think they will. My guess is the fact that they've
chosen linux to be the kernel of their OS is purely an implementation detail
that they intend to hide from most users. I think they will want to make an OS
that's as easy to use as a browser, which means severely limiting the types of
hardware it can run on.

~~~
davidw
Sure they'll hide it. However, Linux has pretty good hardware support, and it
will get better with Google's backing.

------
scott_s
_At a precise technical level, Linux is not an operating system. It is a
kernel that can serve as the core for an operating system. What most people
mean by "Linux", though, is an operating system built around the Linux
kernel._

Hmmm. I disagree with his semantics. Linux _is_ the operating system. The rest
of a distribution - the userland stuff - is the environment. Since Linux is a
monolithic kernel, all operating systems code exists in the kernel itself.
Consequently, on a Linux system, everything in userland is not part of the
operating system.

~~~
blasdel
The bootloader, libc, and init fall very squarely on the 'operating system'
side of the fence.

~~~
scott_s
I agree - I had forgotten about what's necessary to even _get_ a running
kernel. I was thinking about the distinction between things that any usable
system needs (like a shell, or programs like ls) but are not actually part of
the operating system.

------
endtime
Personally, I can't see the appeal of Chrome OS over something like Ubuntu NR.

