Talk:ChromeOS

Alternate Builds: Hexxeh, LPS-Public, etc.

I was very surprised that there was no reference to Hexxeh's ChromiumOS Builds. As of writing, there's been over 30,000 downloads and thousands of active users (according to Hexxeh). It seems important enough to mention or at least have a spot down in external links. Would it be cool if I wrote up a little something about Hexxeh's work? If so, what section should I place it under? Thanks, Mdwittenberg (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking since they would be releasing a build of Chromium OS that it should be in that article, not this one. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. From what I can see, Hexxeh done good things making Chromium OS accessible. I used his first build on an old ASUS--and liked the results. So anecdotally, a section on him would be a good addition to Chromium OS. But it would help if you could cite not just his website as a source, but coverage from a notable secondary source. CNET? PCWeek? TechCrunch? Has anyone written about it? The problem with just citing 30,000 downloads is that the source, Hexxeh, is not just a primary source, but an anonymous one. So some independent verification, not necessarily of the number, but of his impact, would help.Barte (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"open source" vs "FLOSS"

re: the first line of the article, Google describes Chrome OS (as well as Chromium OS) as "open source" and I think (though haven't checked) that secondary sources have followed suit. I don't see that Google, or anyone else, has ever explicitly described the OS as "free":

"Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Because we're already talking to partners about the project, and we'll soon be working with the open source community, we wanted to share our vision now so everyone understands what we are trying to achieve."Barte (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on that it may be most accurate to removed "FLOSS-based" in the open sentence and replace it with "open source", since we have a ref to cite. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In this context, "open source software" and "free software" refer to almost the same set of software. When Google says 'open source', it actually, usually, refers to the same four freedoms as described in the 'free software' definition. The difference between 'open source' and 'free software' is that each of them refers to different philosophical point of view. Now, in Wikipedia, I don't think we should take one side and leave the other, at least in the context where we talk about the same set of software and not the philosophical/political view. FLOSS is considered neutral and that's why I used it. I'll add another comment about 'based' after more investigating and reading.--OsamaK 15:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about NPOV as original research. Shouldn't we hesitate to use the term here unless Google--or some notable second source--has first applied the term explicitly to Chrome OS? If your further reading turns that usage up, that would be another matter. But I think the reference has to be explicit, not synthesis Or at least some cited proof tha Google itself makes this distinction and maintains a FLOSS point of view in all its open source projects. Barte (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, FLOSS isn't an original research, Wikipedia contributors didn't make this term up. It's used in many resources as a sign for neutrality in the two movements debate. Second, that's not a statement to be concerned about originality or official confirmation, being 'open source' is the same as being 'FLOSS'. Calling a software that's licensed under an OSI- or FSF- approved license 'open source' or 'free software' isn't, by itself, a mistake and doesn't make any difference, because they're actually, almost the same set of software, but it picks one movement over the other and that's what I think Wikipedia shouldn't do in this non-philosophical, descriptive context.--OsamaK 18:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My concerns about FLOSS aren't over the originality of the term, but its prevailing use as applied to Chrome OS--regardless of Richard Stallman's preference (per your external link). Google describes Chrome OS as "open source," not "FLOSS." So my question as a Wikipedia editor is this: is any notable secondary source calling Chrome OS an example of FLOSS? Is CNET doing so? ZDNet? LinuxWorld.com? TechCrunch? Is any notable news source who is seriously following Chrome OS using the term "FLOSS" to describe the OS? If so, I think you've got a case. If not....not. "Open source" has been the prevailing term. If FLOSS is to displace it, or even get an equal footing, it should do so "out there" first. Wikipedia is not a leading, but a trailing indicator. Barte (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need an external resource, because it's not a statement we made and it doesn't conflict with Google's. No one with enough basic understanding, including Google, will ever say "Hmm, who said 'FLOSS'? It's an open source project, Google says that." because when something is open source or free software, it's directly, automatically 'FLOSS'.--OsamaK 13:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And one the 'prevailing term' term part? These websites use 'open source' because they have a certain philosophical point of view that we, in Wikipedia, don't necessary endorse. We're a community project that seeks neutrality and doesn't prefer one view over the other when they are almost the same exact thing.--OsamaK 13:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying. But has the term "FLOSS" actually gotten that much traction? If I Google "FLOSS", I get the Wikipedia article and a bunch of sites on dental care. (Try it, you'll see.) So I'm having a hard time thinking this is a notable philosophical debate. Those other websites do matter here, because they represent general usage. If they don't accept the term, I'm not sure we can simply say--"yes, but there is an equally valid term that other should consider using, as well--and we will use it here." That to me is OR. Barte (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I got your point and you got mine. Now it's the time for the community to decide. Your point is that we need to stick to Google's description of their OS and the general usage that is 'open source', and that's a reasonable point. Mine, however, is that we need to choose the neutral term that gives the exact same meaning without bringing the philosophical debate, and that term is 'FLOSS'. Now it's the time for the community to decide. Any other parties in this discussion?--OsamaK 16:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both make good points, but in the end WP:V has to prevail and the software should be described in accordance with the refs that can be cited. In this case we have a ref for the company calling the project "open source", we have no ref for "FLOSS", which I have to admit is a term that is not widely used outside Wikipedia and few other specialized places. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that it isn't FLOSS? (That's a yes/no question).--OsamaK 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability. I am saying that we have no ref that anyone calls it FLOSS, so we have to go with "open source" because we have a ref for that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The question "is this or isn't this FLOSS" is irrelevant here, because that's not what matters. The first paragraph in WP:V says:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." Barte (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Privacy Implications?

What are the security and privacy implications of this OS... now potentially Google now has complete access to the complete chain of computing systems from your system, local storage (DOM storage, local disk etc), local network, your apps (googles cloud apps), your communications (Gmail, GoogleTalk, Google Social Media sites) and your 3rd party apps/websites (thanks to Google search, Google Ads & Google APIs). In the future, this chain might even extend to Access (ie ISP like functions). They already lease large chunks of long haul bearers.

They would naturally, would spider and map it (potentially your local storage & local networks) so they can offer you local search services (which was their core business), but the side effect of these functions of course as always are that they will be able to track and categorize you and your habits, for the benefits of our customers (Ad sales: their core revenue stream). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.200.223 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to ask that question here on the talk page, but we can't include anything in the article unless you have a reference at least showing that reliable sources have asked those questions, if not provided the answers to them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New Package Manager?

It seems that Chromium is no longer based on Debian; it is now based on Gentoo (look here for proof: <http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/how-tos-and-troubleshooting/portage-build-faq> <http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/how-tos-and-troubleshooting/add-a-new-package> The mentions of ebuilds and Portage prove it is based on Gentoo (at least for the time being). 69.110.72.128 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Chromium OS to start using portage @forums.gentoo.org. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I buy it. See also... <http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-os-dev/browse_thread/thread/337cca9a0da59ad6/9354a38894da5df5> Barte (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the Package Manager accordingly in the infobox. 69.110.72.128 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It has since been changed to "unclear". I'm somewhat out of my depth here, but does this Chromium.org 2/5/10 post in Google Groups indicate that Portage is now the build tool of choice?

Here's the operative paragraph: "As we’ve been growing and working with more partners, the need to support board specific builds and improve our tools has become more urgent. In order to get there more quickly we’ve been investigating several different build tools. We found that the Portage build tools suit our needs well and we will be transitioning 100% within the next week." Or is more confirmation needed? Barte (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this ref shows an intention to act, but not that they have acted, I would say quote what the ref says and then look later for confirmation that they have in fact done that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I added an additional ref. Barte (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chrome OS team are trying out a few different package managers. They still have builds with dpkg but they are trying out different ones. Id say we should really wait and see until they officially release it with anything different. I would note though that Chrome OS is based heavily on Ubuntu light so it more than likely will use dpkg in final release. Shanefagan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC).

I'd like to see if we can reach consensus on a few points. One is whether a piece of software that is used for creating builds can itself be called a "package manager" as we did in the infobox. From the Wikipedia entry on package managers, I'm starting to think not. If not, can we definitively say the Chrome OS won't have a package manager (i.e., "package manager=none"). Again, I think not, unless Google affirmatively state that's the case. Which, to my knowledge, it hasn't. In that case, I'd prefer to go with "package manager = " Thoughts? Barte (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A package manager would like Advanced Packaging Tool and its GUI Synaptic (software) used in Debian and Ubuntu to download, install, remove and update packages, so this sounds more like a compiler or similar rather than a package manager. It doesn't look like Chrome OS will need one or have one. - Ahunt (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Google does say in a Q&A that Chrome OS (as opposed to Chromium OS) will auto-update. Are we certain that won't be done with a package manager? If we are, then "none" is fine. If we aren't, I think we should leave the category blank until we know more.Barte (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It will definitely have updates, but I think we have to stick to what we know for sure and can reference, so "blank" would seem safest at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked it. Barte (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Printing in Chrome OS?

Recently, Google announced that it was planning to solve the problem of printing in Chrome OS since drivers won't work on an operating system which doesn't allow desktop-based storage. Google said that it was planning to make a service called Google Cloud Print. There should be some info about this in the "Design goals and direction" section. Who all are with me, please edit and notify here or authorize me (by replying) so that I may edit the article to reflect this change.

Aaron Stone 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronstonedd (talk • contribs)

If you have a reference that says this, then it can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that with the refs - it looks good! - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Schmidt quote

I see that a new sentence on Eric Schmidt's prediction that Chrome netbooks will cost US$300-400 has been added by User:Barte, although it doesn't attribute the statement to Schmidt. That ref is a key find! I think this is important information and probably should be moved into a new section on pricing, along with the Moody quote on his prediction of a price of "free". In my mind the entire success or failure of Chrome is going to be its pricing. If Schmidt is right about the price point then I think Chrome is going to be an enormous failure and this article needs to start collecting the quotes on that in one place as the story unfolds. The reason I think this will be a failure is that, at least here in Canada right now, you can get a Win7 netbook for that price or less. I recently bought two brand-new Windows netbooks for Cdn$269 and put Ubuntu on them. They do everything that a Chrome netbook can do, including run the Chrome browser, plus they can do a whole lot more besides. I think unless they can position the Chrome netbooks notably lower in price than the competition then this will be big economic failure and this article needs to start collecting that information in one section. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree pricing could be its own section. But think we're actually talking about hardware pricing, which means its a subsection of the hardware section: at least until your theory is echoed in the press--or becomes a reality. If it proves true, of course, it could eventually be the lead: "Chrome OS was Google-initiated operating system doomed to failure by the high cost of its host hardware." But that's probably a bit premature. ;-) Barte (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the OS is distributed for free the issue is 100% hardware pricing! I think we should start consolidating the pricing information under one section heading of "hardware pricing". - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What would be that section's relationship to the hardware section?Barte (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Strictly hardware cost. The only section we have on hardware is "Hardware support" which is a slightly different subject, I think. I prose that Hardware cost should be a new section to gather up the text on what the netbooks will (or later "do") cost and the analysis and fallout which will accrue on that subject. This will of course greatly impact uptake of the OS. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Go for it. Barte (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay - done. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph could pared back because neither the first sentence nor the ref demonstrate that Google has unclear intentions. What we do know is that observers are speculating on the cost of the hardware. So, for that matter, is Schmidt. I'm not sure we have clear evidence that this speculation is because of the features vs. price tradeoff you suggest, even though that may be implicit. Also: "As an open source project Google always intended" means that Google is an open source project. Barte (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have made some adjustments - see what you think and feel free to edit it further! - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked for it....back to ya.  ;-) Just to make the case that this is not necessarily a price-versus-software-compatibility issue: I might well pay $350 for a Google OS device if it booted in 4 seconds--because that fast bootup might be worth more to me than the extra features of Win 7. Of course, as a prospective customer, I could be a complete anomaly, but that remains to be seen. Barte (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see that makes sense. Your changes look fine, just fixed one grammar anomaly. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Device architecture support

I thought this article might make a useful ref to update the section on hardware support Chrome OS kernel source code hints at ARM, Tegra 2 hardware by Ryan Paul, Ars Technica, but it would take someone with better technical knowledge than me to parse it correctly, together with the implications. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I can parse either, but take a look at the first paragraph: "Google's browser-centric Chrome OS hasn't reached the market yet, but development is progressing and the platform is attracting the interest of a growing number of hardware makers. Although the operating system was principally designed for netbooks, Google has also discussed some opportunities for bringing it to other kinds of devices, including ARM-based smartbooks and tablets."

I think we should factor that into this paragraph fro the article:

"The popularity of netbooks was very high when the Chrome OS project was started, but by the end of 2009 netbook sales had waned considerably.[17] As a result on January 25, 2010, Google posted notes, images and a video of a conceptual design showing how a Chrome OS user interface might look on a tablet PC with a 5-10 inch screen...."

Notice that the Ars Technica story gives no indication of shrinking netbook sales, and the ChannelWeb story itself doesn't cite a source for that assertion. Given this is all in the realm of crystal ball predictions, I think we should should tread lightly.Barte (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Ryan Paul's comment on manufacturer interest does contradict the earlier report. That is worth adding by itself, if only to show the disagreement on the subject. I'll add that in. If anyone wants to use the same ref to address the architecture support issue then please do so! - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks. Barte (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Though the paragraph I noted above still seems the same. I'm going to merge. Feel free to revise my revise. Barte (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure that looks fine. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

LPS-Public

Unless I'm missing something, the paragraph on the resemblance between LPS-Public and Chrome OS is strictly OR. I'm not saying the resemblance doesn't exist. But it needs to be referenced. Cite a notable secondary source that makes that case, and you're good as gold. Otherwise, you're just putting forth a pet theory. See wp:nor wp:v Barte (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken wrt reference. Why was LPS-Public included in the formerly Android only section? Chrome OS, LPS, etc. are new genre of OS's, no longer the bloated, multi-purpose, serve-everyone, low-security OS yet are not embedded (immutable) or proprietary/closed (e.g. Nokia, iPad, iPhone). It would be helpful if other functionally-similar (minimal, cloud/browser-focused, higher security, etc.) OS's were included here. As more are added, the length of LPS-Public's mention should be decreased and similar features may apply across many builds. Chrome OS is just the latest and probably most prominent of the cloud-centric end-node OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweerek (talk • contribs)

(Sweerek....it would be useful if you could sign your posts. Four tildas. Thanks.) I agree that Chrome OS is a member of a larger family of mimimal OSs. MeeGo and Jolicloud may be two others. (I read one article that called them "disposable OSs."). But I disagree that this is the place to discuss them--otherwise, that discussion would have to be repeated for each OS. If there are enough references to carry it, the better place is an entire article--a meta-discussion--on the topic. Barte (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu

Re: the recent linkspam, looks like we've been here before with User talk:62.172.106.177. Check out the 3/09 and 2/10 entries. Barte (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup spammers are nothing if not persistent. Fortunately I am more persistent. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I still don't understand the general criteria for blocking a user. Is it repeated offences? Or repeated offences over a given month? Sometimes, it seems like blocking spam is downright sisyphean. Barte (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure either, but persistence spammers do get blocked. I just make spamming too boring for them - I revert them with a standard edit summary and add standard templates to their pages. It all looks very mechanical and doesn't reward their bad behavior. The same works for vandals, who often want to upset people and incite nasty responses. Another user I know mentioned that vandal fighting is like a video game, click, click, they lose. When you wipe out all the edits in a few minutes in a surgical manner by tracking their contributions it quickly becomes clear to them that they are wasting their time and they go back to their day jobs, bomb-making or whatever they do. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So the price of Wikipedia is eternal vigilance. I buy it. But as an experiment, I wonder what would happen if people "accelerated" the warning template based on past behavior, not just past behavior for the current month. I look at the number of warnings on User talk:62.172.106.177 and think, life is too short. But maybe I'm just impatient. Barte (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"So the price of Wikipedia is eternal vigilance." - Exactly. With "repeat offenders" I don't usually start from scratch when warning, but build on past warnings, particularly if they are recent. IP addresses need to be handled with some care as they do change (dynamic IPs) and the same person may not be responsible for vandalism or spamming as in the past with that same IP address. Sometimes there is a pattern, though. Eventually they get blocked or banned. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which license?

The term "open source" is meaningless marketing junk. 85.76.38.140 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)