Jump to content

Talk:ChromeOS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robennals (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 14 February 2013 (→OS inventor?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Use of chromium screenshot

since chromium is the frequently updated, open source version of chrome, could a screenshot of chromium be used in this article? I feel that because they are more updaed, a chromium screenshot is more likely to reflect the updates issued by google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotinREALITY (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should go in the Chromium OS article, not here as Chromium OS is not Chrome OS. The images are representational only, there is no need that they be up-to-the-minute updates. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Free image use

As the logos of Facebook, Angry Birds and numerous other third parties are visible needlessly in this image, I believe that the best and most efficient method of moving the article forward is to simply blur the copyrighted logos within the image. this preserves the integrity and fidelity of the image and avoids violation of the fair use rationale which does not include the visibility of such logos. NotinREALITY 12:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay since you have directly addressed that issue let me engage an admin who understands this issue and see if we can gain some clarity as to whether this is required or not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be suitable, but I have seen examples where this has been performed for the same reasons, and I will attempt to post them for analysis and comparison. NotinREALITY 12:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, does anybody mind if I shorten the caption, it seems needlessly long. NotinREALITY 12:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shortening the caption sounds like a good idea! It is far longer than required. If anything is required to be retained from the caption it should be moved to the article text. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have shortened it to "Google Chrome OS (21.0.1172.0) displaying the app drawer and Chrome browser." which summaries the image nicely. The rest of the original contents were already in the article body. NotinREALITY 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will be back on for discussion about the image tomorrow (if needed), but for now i need some sleep, i will remove this message then aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotinREALITY (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note but I would have thought that the wiki globe is more of a copyright problem than the logos, not sure it is available on a free licence. The screenshot is far to complicated for an infobox image is anything else available that gives a simple representation of the OS. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chrome OS updated NRLTY
The WikiMedia logo and website are in the public domain / creative commons and can be used in such a manner, so this is not really an issue. There are other files that are suitable, and this discussion began due to my replacement of the current image with File:Chrome_OS_updated_NRLTY.png in the commons, which is of the open source variant of Chrome OS, Chromium. the solution in place currently is simply to blur the infringing logos. NotinREALITY 13:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input here. I agree that a simpler image would be a good solution. We need to appeal to someone who is running this OS to provide one. User:Kenny Strawn provided the current one, perhaps he could give us a fresh image without the complications? - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree, can someone e-mail him? NotinREALITY 13:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can leave him a note on his talk page. Apparently the Wikipedia logo is "all rights reserved" - see that file and all the others on Commons. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he isn't with us anymore. We need someone else running Chrome OS to get a better screen shot. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its in the commons, it is free for use, they have a policy for that :D NotinREALITY 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the caption on commons it is All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., it is only on commons because it is a wikimedia website. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I suspect you new screenshot of the wikpedia page will have to be put up for deletion for using the wikipedia logo as well. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have been reading Commons:Licensing, and it indicates that the purpose of the commons is to provide free for use images. The about page on wikipedia indicates that the site is under a cc-by license and can be used under attribution. Thoughts? LachlanDMcCahon (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles featuring wikipedia website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_firefox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_explorer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_%28web_browser%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_chrome
Any more objections to its use? LachlanDMcCahon 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, How about a google promo shot of the desktop, they are free for commercial use and would feature only the pre-installed google products. NotinREALITY 13:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia main page is the standard for web browser screenshots, but it would free us up a lot if we used a different page for screenshots. Maybe an RfC is in order? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the use of a different site would be suitable, i can create and upload one to my server for the screenshot with a free license if it would help :D On the other hand, Chrome OS is basically just a browser based on a minimal linux kernal and window manager, so should it not conform to the web browser standard? NotinREALITY 03:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be happy to create a simple test page if you guys want to. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can always us any US government website - they are all public domain. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I also believe the logo for meta is public domain, so a page there could be used. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found another, more recent image of Google Chrome OS mentioned above, but it was argued that because it was an image of Chromium OS it's not covered. The image is File:Chrome OS updated NRLTY.png (I've marked it to be moved to a more suitable name). Unfortunately, it's still the Wikipedia main page... --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avast

It should be mentioned that when Avast 7 asks permission to update, if you click yes, it automatically installs Google Chrome without your permission and makes it the default browser. Chrome rendered the dropdown menus on my ISPs homepage unusable because the address bar covered them (one of them was the login menu) so I thought a virus had infected my computer until someone pointed it out. I'm not sure if it was Chrome or Avast but it also disabled my ISPs webmail and made Outlook default. Wayne (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is related to Google Chrome OS, but to Google Chrome, or more likely to Avast! as they have bundled a Chromium-based browser to their software. If you check the Avast! article under "SafeZone" you will find this is an intention feature. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the above external link, this clearly seems an Avast! issue re: the Chrome browser. FWIW, this article claims Chrome isn't installed without user permission. Barte (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. I'm not that computer savvy so I didn't know there was difference between the OS and browser. Wayne (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OS inventor?

Did Jeff Nelson invent Chrome OS? His blog post here makes that claim, and if it's true, I think we should be more emphatic about his involvement in the history. (At the moment, the wording is awkward and redundant.) On the other hand, I'm uneasy relying just on a personal blog and can't find any secondary source references to confirm. Any thoughts? Barte (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falls afoul of WP:SPS, plus he seems to claim he alone invented Chrome OS when I was under the notion that it was a team effort. - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also the last paragraph in the history section. There are 4 refs being used here: Tom's Hardware, Espacenet patent search, what appears to be Nelson's home page, and Nelson's blog. The last two are self-published. Tom's Hardware seems a legit source. It doesn't mention Nelson, but refers to a patent that Nelson is credited with, via Espacenet. But the definitive ref on the subject is probably from this--from a research firm. It doesn't mention Nelson, either. Barte (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Barte (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The patent link, says Nelson was the inventor, so I think we can therefore leave in the blog as he would be considered an expert on the subject. I have made a small adjustment. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've come around to that point too. So I've taken Nelson's blog at face value and used it to write an early history paragraph at the top of the history section. I've cut other references to it now made redundant. And I've added an observation from NCICIO Research on what the patent means for Google's direction. It would be interesting to see if other Chrome OS origin stories emerge. But for now, this is the only one I'm aware of. Barte (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, I just made one small tweak to the wording. - Ahunt (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That patent has nothing to do with chrome os. 76.94.197.77 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson: "This new operating system was originally code-named "Google OS" and since 2009 has been released to the public under the product names, Google Chrome OS, Chromebook, and Chromebox. I wrote a patent for it, #8,239,662, titled "Network-based Operating System Across Devices" that was finally granted in August 7, 2012. Long after I left Google." Barte (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Kasting (Chrome Team) states that Jeff Nelson's work is unrelated to ChromeOS: [1]. Robennals (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:ChromeOS&oldid=538147852"