Comments on: Thoughts On Chrome OS

By: some random_critter

some random_critter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:50:08 +0000

On security, I’d just use a ChromeOS persona and not worry abut it. Pseudonymous computing always gets a bad rap, but I think it’s the only real answer.

By: some random_critter

some random_critter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:35:07 +0000

I agree that this sounds (from the two pages I’ve hit so far this morning) like a Terminal OS, or a return to the old “thin client” metaphor, with the cloud rather than a corporate server.

I think you might be wrong to think of it on a traditional computer, for techies.

I want it on my TV.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:03:51 +0000

@Martijn: not totally true, the dangers are just as real, just hidden. If your [cloud provider] account stores even more of your data, it being compromised becomes an even problem, not to mention it’s a larger target.

By: Martijn

Martijn — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:36:47 +0000

Although you give up some functionality, the bonus is lack of state on the computer. All state is kept in your account, instead of on the computer. A fast-booting firmware and OS, that cryptographically checks its integrity and extends this security model into the browser, with each tab as a separate sandbox.

The dangers of the web suddenly seem a lot less dangerous, and if they do affect you the system self-heals.

Knowing first-hand the amount of time it takes to maintain a few laptops and desktops in working order I would be happy to have such a stateless Chrome OS device.

By: Christian

Christian — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:07 +0000

VT100 it seems to be, but the big change over traditional “dumb” terminals is the inclusion of an actual programming language (JavaScript) on the client side. The client is not dumb anymore.

Other than that, let’s wait and see. I share some of your doubts, especially since Google Wave performance is less than stellar and quite laggy. That might improve over time but I seem to have misplaced my crystal ball somewhere …