Open Ballot: Chrome OS: zero or hero?


Now we all know that Google's Chrome OS really is little more than a full-screen Chrome browser window running on top of Linux, it's time to weigh in with your views for our podcast: is Google onto something with the super-slim and light design, or do users want more than a window onto the web in their personal computers? Furthermore, do you think having Chrome OS around is going to be a good thing for the growing Linux netbook market?

Add your comment below, preferably answering either "Yes, Google has the right idea" or "No, I need more than just a browser" plus some sort of explanation/wit/assorted cleverness, along with a username that isn't Anonymous Penguin, and we'll read the best out when we record the podcast.

You should follow us on or Twitter

Your comments

No. No. No. No. Is that

No. No. No. No. Is that enough....

@ Remixer96

I got my netbook for programming, so for me it's a - but as I said earlier, for some members of the family it is a +.


It'd be a great idea for dual-booting... If all I need is the Chrome browser, that's what I'll boot into.

No Thank You

I have two problems with the Chrome OS. The first is freedom of choice of the application software used. And second, most important of all, the Cloud. Do I trust my personal data on some other persons server? The answer for me is no.

I would have thought too, that working to a local machine must also be far faster than working to a distant server and isn't all the extra traffic generated by Chrome and other Cloud applications going to cause traffic jams on the web?

Damn I keep missing these ballots


Nope. The cloud OS concept is not to replace the traditional OS.

As a user of desktop/laptop machines, I am entirely against the concept of the cloud OS to begin with - relying on a third party for whenever you have to do any computing, even basic computing? No thank you.

My stuff is MINE. I'm not giving up my stuff to some server and using my computer as a dumb terminal.

There is the concept of the netbook as a "complementary" device used just for web browsing. I suppose that for netbooks, Chrome OS is fine - I can't take my laptop everywhere (laptop tech isn't quite there YET), so I wouldn't mind having a low-demand machine to use "just in case".

However, Chrome OS goes FAR too minimalist - it removes so much that it doesn't leave much functionality for the user.
It's pretty bad for the GNU/Linux image because it tells people that Linux can't do anything except browse the web.

I've tried Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuSE, Sabayon, Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux, and several others. They all demonstrate how MUCH Linux can do. Chrome OS shows how LITTLE Linux can do. I don't like that.

think people!

google never claimed that chrome os is going to replace your other computer... so save all of that "i need it to do more" buisness. what chrome os is going to do is make using a a NETbook more rewarding. that are mandating that the devices shipping must have all day battery capacity, larger screens, and full size keyboards, as well as SSD's. saying chrome is minimalist is ignorant. sure theres nothing to the operating system except the internet... i guess you'd say there isnt much on there too huh? what google is doing is encouraging developers to create even more dynamic web content and chrome os will simply be that fastest and smoothest way to access it. because chrome os has the full resources of the system at its disposal. whatever you can do in your browser on any computer is what chome os will do only it will do it better despite being on a more than likely lower end(performance wise) and less expensive computer. think...

No, it's not enough

As much as I admire Google's attempts, we do live in a world where we don't all have Internet access. For example when I had my broadband go down for a couple of days I was glad that I could use a computer which isn't reliant on something which most of us have no real control over.

Moreover I'm probably one of many who don't trust cloud networks. I do have online storage, but I still keep a copy on my computer and, where possible, an external hard drive too. I like to know I can access my data even when I don't have Internet access.


Not everyone in the world has sufficient internet speed to access online for the application(cloud). I think Linux main target should be people in development country so that the new users could be increased. Therefore, I think Chrome OS is not suitable for people outside the developed countries.

Yes (to some degree)

I think that chrome os will be beneficial to linux. I don't think I'll neccessarily use it (I might dual-boot it if I just wanna check my email or something), but it's not really for regular laptops, is it? I mean, you can't criticize it as though it was meant for your laptop or tower. I'm getting a little off topic though. The point is that a lot of people will flock to this for their netbooks, and I think that's really bring linux into a more public light. And that's always good, right?

My Lord

I don't like the idea of Linux and Google progams competing instead of uniting against the Common Enemy but both Chrome and Linux have their place. Linux fans should be careful not to fall into the trap of emulating the Evil Giant which decides on the included functionality of its products not by looking at what benefits users but by looking at its own (evil) marketing strategy. (A case in point is the Evil One's failure to support open source file or even recognise Linux partitions.)

@ray woods

>> I would have thought too, that working to a local machine must also be far faster than working to a distant server

Depends on the type of application and what the local computer is. For example, the iPhone version of Dragon Naturally Speaking (voice recognition) works by sending your speech to a remote server which does the voice recognition and sends the results back to the iPhone. Obviously voice recognition is a bit of an extreme example (although it was something that Pentium 1 could do reasonably well), for most office applications it will probably be a little slower, but most likely only when loading and saving.

>> and isn't all the extra traffic generated by Chrome and other Cloud applications going to cause traffic jams on the web?

Obviously there will be extra traffic, but ISPs have coped well enough VoIP, Peer-Peer file sharing and TV-on-demand. I imagine that the traffic required by cloud computing will be insignificant in relation other technologies.

On the original subject:
* Yes I would might have liked to see something more substantial from Google - but then everyone would be complaining of Google stealing Ubuntu's thunder, just like they did when Ubuntu started to become very popular.
* Is just a web browser too limited for a general purpose operating system? Of course, however compare it high end TVs (e.g. Samsung Series 7), games consoles, set-top boxes, SplashTop (e.g. Acer's RevoBoot - which (note to Acer) would be so much better if it supported 1080p, 720p or any 16:10/16:9 resolution).

No, someday. Yes, until it's open.

No, I need more than just a browser.

But that's me, I'm not the one that Google is making this product for. In near future, low cost netbooks seem to me like a potentially big sellers if wireless standards improve, lower it's price and cover most of the countries in development. Then this dedicated OS can have it's best shot.

Yes, I think floating Chrome OS will be good for the growing Linux netbook market.

You have the biggest giant in computer industry overall, company that has proven it's standards and constantly improving every single essential thing that end-users need and even more. As long Google keeps it open, it can still be changed, modified and used in the way you love it. Users have done excellent job in improving Linux, they are pushing the limit constantly. And now Google just want to push Linux to it's own capacity, improve it furthermore. Why is this a treat to the open-society? I don't know.

Google (in simple words) is just creating a Linux distribution. Because they will cut off features, rapidly improve others and implement new ones, creating it's own Graphical Interface (or browsing interface) it came up to be Chrome OS, not a Linux distro. It's still based on Linux kernel and that is what matters. I think that if Google came to announce that they are making Linux Distribution the whole climate would be now more positive.

The bright side:
1. Constantly improving until it's fully workable. Something that open-source sometimes fails to achieve because of it's unpaid nature (don't get me wrong, i love open-source). Good ideas float in the community all the time, but not every time they are being released in fully functional stable version.

2. Official and companies released open-source drivers. Google said it will push companies to make open-source drivers. What's better then this? Instead of improving user provided generic drivers to work on specific hardware, now official companies released drivers can be improved. Also I will like to note that I'm not expecting to see something similar to ATI open-source drivers. I expect to see FULLY WORKING open-source drivers.

3. Many times mentioned, the kernel patches. Maybe not all users are intrigued by this, but one thing is clear: the more people work on kernel, the better it gets. What's so wrong letting Google adopt Linux kernel for it's personal use and provide patches, bug-fixes and improvements for the open-source generosity?


software as a service(SAS) as been in the scene for ages but now comes the cloud (that completely assimilates SAS and brings more features to the table) and this cloud makes it possible for minimal hardware setups to achieve much, much, more since the real computing is being done by powerful servers.

Don't you think that bringing to the world a platform that harness this features would be a good business decision?

I think thats what google is doing.
Mind yourselves that Chrome OS is just out and there's lot's of margin for improvement.

For those o think that chrome will help linux hardware compatibility issues, get your ideas straight, all they want is people using their cloud, and you don't need that much of a computer to do so.

has anyone tried just running ChromeOS under KVM

when they release it ...

I would think you could just install it under KVM etc and still have your normal OS but the fullblown ChromeOS running in a resizeable window ? ?

Or does ChromeOS also use KVM which would prevent it being run itself as a VM

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Username:   Password: