What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
196 Comments
- UnbannedAccount, on 10/14/2009, -7/+227meh, I can live without the cloud. I like my movies, videos, games, music and photos where it is. On my PC.
- bigteebo, on 10/14/2009, -4/+140I think omgubuntu.co.uk needs a few thousand more widgets on their website. What do you think?
- richbradshaw, on 10/13/2009, -2/+83Looks interesting - nice to see that this is from the chromium.org servers, so seems pretty legit.
- martalli, on 10/14/2009, -0/+78I wish I could get the cloud to do my housekeeping...
- UnbannedAccount, on 10/14/2009, -4/+80What was stopping you? It isn't like Linux was just invented yesterday. Did AAPLE and MSFT have a gun to your head?
- moliver21, on 10/14/2009, -2/+58can't wait for people to stop calling it "the cloud".
- Culyt, on 10/14/2009, -1/+54I really hope Chrome OS is something more than Ubuntu+The Chrome Browser with some battery/network widgets. That would be a fairly big let down for me.
One thing to point out is it doesn't actually say that it is Ubuntu based, just that it is .deb based (although Ubuntu would be logical unless Google decided to roll their own distro or use a stock Debian base).
I wounder if we could see Google buying Canonical and funding Ubuntu development, or if there are any stealth deals going on behind the scenes. - inactive, on 10/14/2009, -7/+45Ha... no. It's not that. But I think Google will break it through to the masses (and mass acceptance and adoption, as we know, is the Holy Grail of the Linux community).
But what's stopping me personally? I'm scared of incomplete distros that have features either missing or needing to be jury-rigged to work with command line kung-fu. I'm scared that even the most user-friendly Linux systems require some terminal knowhow, even if it's just a bit. I am scared that development of my chosen will rely solely on volunteers. Are these founded and realistic fears? I don't know... but I know that if Google stakes their reputation on a Linux-based ChromeOS, these issues will be dealt with effectively as quickly as they can manage it.
So I've always been excited about Linux, but ChromeOS is something I'm excited to actually *use*. - UnbannedAccount, on 10/14/2009, -4/+36My ratio of diggs to yours begs to differ. Enjoy your crappy flash based games "in the future".
- jerrykew, on 10/14/2009, -6/+37I have just overwritten ( a week ago) Win on my Acer Atom Aspire One (home machine) with Linpus Linux (I use Win and OSX in my work life)
It boots in 18 secs
Firefox up 5 seconds after that.
I now have what I want, an APPLIANCE that does the web. I have a washing machine that does the washing, a kettle that boils water, and now an acer that does the web, on demand, no hassle, no visible OS.
I really think it is that experience that chrome os is targeting. If you need more than a browser, then don't use it, if a browser is all you need, then what's not to like?? - Qumahlin, on 10/14/2009, -2/+32Yes, because storing data somewhere that you don't have control over it is a good thing...tell that to all the users of Sidekicks
- inactive, on 10/14/2009, -2/+29I'm assuming he's talking about privacy, and the company making the OS having no regard for it.
- Speedy7, on 10/14/2009, -3/+29Dugg for mininova bookmark.
- Myonosken, on 10/14/2009, -0/+24....now think about how the web browser is running.
- wejmahtin, on 10/14/2009, -11/+34why is that a surprise.. they just rebranded a linux distribution...
- Ryuuken117, on 10/14/2009, -1/+21I'm rather skeptical about this whole "cloud computing" thing. While I do keep things like text documents, photos and web browsing tools online, things like movie files and games are too bulky to be effectively streamed.
Plus there's the issue of internet connectivity. In order for cloud computing to take off in an ubiquitous way, there would have to be basic universal wifi access, which we simply don't have at the moment. Every time I take my computer into a blind spot, I can't call up what I have stored on the web, and so my productivity is crippled. You shouldn't have to carry around a hotspot or buy limited access to the web in order to be productive on the road. - daengbo, on 10/14/2009, -3/+22Download and put in full-screen mode on a window manager like OpenBox or Awesome to get a feel for the upcoming ChromeOS.
- curunir, on 10/14/2009, -4/+22"I'm scared that even the most user-friendly Linux systems require some terminal knowhow"
Don't fear the command-line shell. - FKnight, on 10/14/2009, -3/+21@CoreyTamas:
You sort of contradict yourself. You claim that Microsoft and Apple are giving everyone the impression that they are the only two operating systems out there, yet you then post that the reason you don't presently use Linux is because OSX and Windows are apparently the only ones worth a *****.
Doesn't seem at all like Microsoft and Apple are creating the impression that Windows and OSX are the only operating systems. By your own admission, it's your perceived suckiness of Linux that is giving you that impression. - jeremymccurdy, on 10/14/2009, -1/+18It's been said from the beginning that it would be a linux based OS. Also, all that's being shown is the browser for the operating system, that doesn't mean it'll just be a reskinned version of Ubuntu just because it's featured on an Ubuntu site.
- jjsavage81, on 10/14/2009, -8/+25"blurring the line between OS and Web browser"
Didn't Microsoft get fined like a bazillion dollars for trying this? Oh wait, it's "Don't be evil" Google, we can trust them... - StANTo, on 10/14/2009, -0/+16QuakeLive isn't really cloud gaming since you still have to download a client and install it.
I'll believe it's cloud gaming when it's rendered server side and just delivers speedy frames to my computer. - leamanc, on 10/14/2009, -0/+16Read the article: It's Google Chrome (the web browser) for Google Chrome OS.
- jv2k, on 10/14/2009, -0/+16I've been using ubutnu, and then Linux mint for close to a year now.
The only terminal commands I know by heart is stuff like "sudo apt-get install *insert program here*". Whenever I needed a bunch of terminal commands(and this was mostly to stuff you probably won't have to worry about) I googled "*insert problem here* ubuntu" and got linked to a page where I just copied and pasted everything I needed. It's a lot less intimidating than it sounds.
Besides than it is pretty easy. There is a learning curve and the OS isn't as idiot proof as the mainstream ones but once you get over the learning curve it is fairly easy to use. So long as you aren't computer illiterate or have to do a lot of video editing it works fine. I'd suggest ubuntu or linux mint for a user friendly OS.
Just make sure you install it alongside windows and dual boot. We do live in a windows and Mac world so some things(like my tomtom) don't run on Linux. Also if you want to play a game chances are it'll run seamlessly on windows. - startsomething7, on 10/14/2009, -1/+16This has never been done before!
- T3hJ3hu, on 10/14/2009, -0/+13They're going to have a hard time pushing this operating system, so I wouldn't get too excited.
This isn't as simple as releasing a new browser - you can't just have people running IE click on an advertisement that says "get a faster operating system!" OS installs are beyond most people, straight up. If they want it to gain popularity among the masses, they'll have to try to get big pre-built PC manufacturers to ship with Chrome OS instead of Windows - and there isn't much of a chance for that. Otherwise, they're going to be stuck to the same consumer base that's already using Linux.
Will it be a good operating system, though? Probably. Google rarely fails at something they put this much attention towards. I'm willing to bet that it'll be most the convenient and usable Linux distro to date - but that's still all it will be, at least for this first generation. Its market share is still going to abysmally low, at least for the first release; more than likely, they'll hit a market share similar to Ubuntu.
I'll be keeping a close eye on it, though. If they can manage to attract more people than I'm giving them credit for, I'll be very excited for the open source movement. Definitely a step in the right direction. - inactive, on 10/14/2009, -27/+39If this is the face of ChromeOS, then *good*. I, for one, have had it up to here with MS and Apple giving the world the impression that there are only two operating systems out there. I'm ready for something that isn't as closed, isn't as bloated and that takes advantage of the power that open source computing has harnessed.
I'm utterly and completely ready for a viable alternative to Windows and OS X. - TheNik, on 10/14/2009, -2/+14How is OS X bloated? Not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious of your opinion.
- Tomoir, on 10/14/2009, -1/+13wat
- disappointed, on 10/14/2009, -3/+14No, Microsoft got fined for using their OS monopoly to boost their browser business. Until ChromeOS achieves the dominance of Windows this won't be a problem.
- iPwnN00bs, on 10/14/2009, -2/+13@Piddly the P4 sucked at any clock speed. Also 256MB isn't enough for Ubuntu. Obvious bottleneck is obvious. And yes my EEE 1.6GHz with 2GB of RAM would smoke that old desktop. I paid $80 for 8GB of RAM in my desktop. How could you only have 256MB of RAM? You should be running Win98.
- FredFredrickson, on 10/14/2009, -0/+11Quakelive isn't cloud gaming. It's a game that runs in your browser.
True cloud gaming would be where the cloud runs the game, and not your computer. That's not going to happen for a long time. - inactive, on 10/14/2009, -2/+13Just so you know: OS X is my current OS of choice. I choose it because I find it reliable, well-designed and secure. Windows-users may want to boast the same thing, and that's fine, but I'm not trying to spark a Mac vs PC war here.
OS X is bloated in that the minimum hardware required to run it *reasonably* (by that I mean installing it on something that doesn't make it crawl) is probably around the 1.8GHz mark and at least a GB of RAM. Linux tends to do better in this area, where a 700MHz machine running (for instance) Ubuntu will feel as snappy and perform as well as OS X on a machine with three times the clock speed and four times the RAM. This is exciting to me because it means the base price for a machine running a Linux-based OS is much, much lower... making modern computing a lot more accessible.
I'm still surprised at how, as computers get faster, the computing experience doesn't seem to accelerate in a commensurate fashion. For instance, on a 2.2GHz Mac I'm still waiting 1-2 minutes for startup, experiencing lots of spinning beachballs, slow app launching and sluggish implementation of modern checkbox items such as Flash. This isn't a much different experience than I had when I was running earlier versions of OS X on a 1GHz laptop. If I have to buy new hardware to keep my computing experience at roughly the same speed then I want to pay less for that hardware.
Thanks for being so polite about it, btw. It's a pleasure to answer a question without a judgment or agenda attached. - the8thbit, on 10/14/2009, -0/+10"256MB isn't enough for Ubuntu, but XP will run fine?"
Hahaha. Have you ever tried to run XP with only 256MB of RAM? You say you have, be really, you're going to get laughed off of Digg if you come in seriously claiming that Windows XP is snappy and responsive with 256MB of RAM alone, not to mention, with a web browser running on top. I mean, my browser itself is using 273MB of RAM right now.
"Linus just came out and said that Linux is "bloated". Here again, I have empirical evidence and experience that bears this out."
Yes, the Linux kernel itself is bloated in comparison to kernels like BSD, but compared to Windows or OS X? Not so much. - jv2k, on 10/14/2009, -0/+10Corey, I run Ubuntu 9.10 on a P4 2.0Ghz machine with 256mb of RAM, and it is sluggish on simple tasks.
I run OS X on a Lenovo S10 Atom 1.6ghz processor (closer to a Celeron than a P4) with 1gb of RAM, and everything is speedy and feels quick and snappy - again, on simple tasks.
It also has 1/4th of the ram. You can't really compare the two on processor speed alone. - ssttuu, on 10/14/2009, -3/+13Why? Surely for 90% of users (most of which live on Win XP and use IE 7 and iTunes only), they can be migrated to a thin-client style computing. Storage on severs. Also, it would bring ubiquitous log in to any PC anywhere.
- geoken, on 10/14/2009, -0/+9If your intent is to simply start your OS, launch a full screen browser, then spend all of your time working in that browser (as you would with ChromeOS) you'll never deal with any of the Linux issues you fear.
- eviljolly, on 10/14/2009, -0/+9Despite what some people may say, Quake Live is not cloud gaming. The servers may be be hosted this way, but the client is still rendering what you see on the screen.
Onlive is a better example of true cloud computing. In theory it's a good idea, but in reality it just won't work with our current internet infrastructure. Maybe one day when we all have sub 10ms round-trip pings through fiber connections, but there's just way too much latency involved for this to work right now.
Onlive would like you to believe otherwise, but it's simply not possible. Even if you had a fabulous 15ms ping to their servers, that's 30ms round trip, plus processing and video encoding time. You're looking at around 1/10th of a second keyboard/mouse lag at best. Not acceptable for a First Person Shooter. - jakem1, on 10/14/2009, -5/+13One that has no regard for your privacy?
- Handonam, on 10/14/2009, -0/+8OMG THE SITE IS POINTING AT US
- inactive, on 10/14/2009, -2/+10As it happens, I do have at least *some* idea what I'm talking about, and I answered some of your questions elsewhere in this thread. But I'm not engaging a discussion with someone who is so clearly looking for a reason to get into a fight. I don't have the energy for it.
- tyho, on 10/14/2009, -1/+9Why not have local and cloud access? Not like you can't have both , or am I missing something?
- iPwnN00bs, on 10/14/2009, -1/+8@PiddlyD The CPU has nothing to do with it. Only 256MB of RAM is your issue. XP wont run right on 256MB of RAM either.
In Linux you have a swap partition that will get over used if you have that little RAM. Same thing happens in Windows with the Paging file. Also computers that have that little amount of RAM usually have old slow HD's. This only adds to the slowness when the HD is thrashing do to insufficient RAM. - inactive, on 10/14/2009, -1/+8You're running 256 MB of RAM and you think Ubuntu is the bottleneck??
Please don't reply to me with the "cult of Tux" thing. I think most modern operating systems would choke on that. - iskin, on 10/14/2009, -0/+6It's not that difficult to remove Open Office and removing OOF frees 333 megs. Removing Open Office still isn't as easy as it will be once Ubuntu Software Center is decent. The only reason Ubuntu uses so much space is that it includes a lot more software than XP.
You can still strip Ubuntu down to be much lighter than XP. I have an older Athlon 500mhz with 512 of RAM and it dual boots XP and Ubuntu 8.04(?), and Ubuntu is quite a bit lighter than XP and it's running Compiz on the GeForce 4 MX. I had to strip down the Ubuntu install, of course, but it is definitely faster.
Despite how bloated Ubuntu is, the Linux kernel is faster than any of the Windows kernels, and the ext3 file-system is better than NTFS. Considering that the recent Linux kernels have been outperforming FreeBSD kernels I will assume the Linux kernel is also better than Darwin, and conclude that Ubuntu should be able to be stripped down to match or beat OS X.
Ubuntu is trying to compete against Windows 7/Vista and OS X, and that is part of the reason it seems so bloated. - revslaughter, on 10/14/2009, -0/+6Sure, I would agree that any operating system meant for mass adoption would be bloated out of necessity. It's possible to pare down the kernel and drivers, sure, but the big thing keeping ubuntu running slowly is the window manager. I'd say that if you were using LXDE or something then you'd be great.
On the whole operating system bloat note, please keep in mind CrunchBang Linux or Damn Small Linux, which would easily run on your processor and memory. Ubuntu != Linux, though it is probably representative of most of it. - FKnight, on 10/14/2009, -4/+10Do you really think Steve Ballmer is worried about an OS which only browses the web?
- disappointed, on 10/14/2009, -1/+7It looks lovely but it's not an OS.
- BioHMMWV, on 10/14/2009, -1/+6 I meant to reply to stanggt3's comment about Ubuntu.
- inactive, on 10/15/2009, -0/+5"I'm clearly non-biased here."
Uh... -
Show 51 - 100 of 200 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is