Talk:ChromeOS/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalism?

I don't know what this would be, but a huge file saying: "CWii Never Dies" is on the top of the page, but i don't know exactly what it is Qwertyfish11 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarity to Webconverger

This is quite similar to the Firefox based Webconverger, though I am unsure how to link or associate the relation between the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendry (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 July 2009

It is too soon to know if it will be similar. It all depends on how far they will take the online desktop concept. But seeing that they are even developing a new windowsing system I do hope Google or the community will create a full desktop OS capable of much more than simply browsing the web. Especially since they are targetting netbooks, you can't have an OS on a netbook that needs to be online to work. You don't always have a connection when you are on the way with your netbook. 88.197.190.84 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also somewhat related to gOS (operating system). Ditto unsure. Woiuld both fit in a ==See also== section? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, more specifically, I'd say it sounds nearly identical to Cloud (by the gOS people). And yeah, I'd suggest linking their articles to eachother in 'See Also' sections. If, um, you happen to know how to do that, that is.

On the subject of Webconverger, I agree that they're somewhat similar, but it's not really the same thing. Both Chrome OS and Cloud are specifically designed with 'Cloud Computing' in mind (yes, I realize I'm debating over who decides to use buzz/marketing terms and who doesn't), whileas Webconverger is designed to turn a device into solely an internet appliance (again, a minute distinction, I realize). It isn't that I would actually complain about Webconverger being included in the 'See Also' lists. I just don't personaly think it's quite the same thing. 209.90.133.41 (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The consensus is that WP:RS's are using "OS" as part of the proper name (ie.: it's not an abbreviation, here).
— V = I * R (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Google Chrome OS → Google Chrome Operating System — Please rename the article to "Google Chrome Operating System". This is the full name of operating system, cause it is unclear what does OS mean. --Dima1 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions the full name in the definition, the article should have the most commonly used name which is Google Chrome OS in this case. - Simeon (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), this move would seem to be appropriate. Google OS, being a (very) likely search term, would be an appropriate redirect to keep, as well.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The announcement blog post uses "OS" much more than "operating system". Thus, it's probably the more common name (and just as official). Per the MoS, we use the common name, which uses the abbreviation in this case. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I don't really dispute that, but... to quote WP:ABBR: "Whether the acronym or the spelled-out phrase is preferable in many particular cases is debatable, but this can work itself out with the #REDIRECT [[new page name]] command. For instance, DMCA and Digital Millennium Copyright Act have oscillated as to which is primary and which page redirects. Other less controversial pairs are MPAA versus Motion Picture Association of America and IMDb versus Internet Movie Database."
— V = I * R (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposed — Everything mentioning the name of the title in question, states it as Google Chrome OS. Even the Official Google Blog lists as Google Chrome OS. [1] 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the page were moved, there would be a redirect from "Google Chrome OS" to "Google Chrome Operating System", so what would the issue be, exactly, with spelling the acronym out?
— V = I * R (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the MoS says the article's "one true name" should be the most commonly used one, and the others should be the redirects. Google searching for the terms, we get ~26,400,000 for "google chrome os" vs. ~79,200 for "google chrome operating system", so spelling it out is several orders of magnitude less popular. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Google page hit "statistics" are really meaningless... regardless, the MOS states that the common name should be used, but it doesn't state that the uncommon names shouldn't be used. As I said above, there will be a redirect. The MOS also states that acronyms should be spelled out in the actual page title, as I've pointed out above.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are indeed not definitive but they are suggestive. Combined with the usage in the official announcement blogpost, it seems quite persuasive (to me). "but it doesn't state that the uncommon names shouldn't be used' Right, because it instead states the direct opposite. You seem to suggest the lack of a negative rule is more important than the existing positive rule; I don't understand this logic. And you're misconstruing the MoS; as you yourself quoted: "Whether the acronym or the spelled-out phrase is preferable in many particular cases is debatable" (emphasis mine). We're presently having such a debate. It does not say to expand the acronym in all cases. It does advise against unnecessary or nonstandard acronyms: "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form"; the evidence suggests that that's the case here. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue would be that article would not be called the proper name for the topic in question. The official name of Google's upcoming OS is Google Chrome OS, NOT Google Chrome Operating System. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 14:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

gu1dry, I don't particularly want to be confrontational (especially over an issue that I honestly don't care about too much), but that isn't really a valid argument here. This may not be a deletion discussion, but the debate pointers that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions holds true just as much here as they do in a Prod or AfD discussion. Cybercobra crafted a compelling argument above, for example...
— V = I * R (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — I don't see any source that labels this as the "Google Chrome Operating System" proper. Theoretically, it could be called the "Google Chrome OS operating system", because it can be argued that "OS" is part of the actual title. I support keeping this at its current title and perhaps leading the intro with "Google Chrome OS is an operating system..." because there is good reason to believe "OS" is part of the brand name title.. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - It seems to be part of the name. It probably would have been just Google Chrome, except the browser already existed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wordpress pics

[2]Those pics may be totally fake. Should the mention of these pics be removed from the article? —SpaceFlight89 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WikiPedia:Verifiability, absolutely. Note that the concern here is not that they may be fake, it's that there's no means for us to verify the information. If a reliable source actually either cites that post, or even just talks about it, then it could be included.
— V = I * R (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well really, if you check out http://www.beingmanan.com/wp/2009/11/chrome-os-demo-videos-details/ you'll see that we have a respectable (IMO) computer techie with some very similar and some more screenshots for us to see...

Tangmeisterjr (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

---

How is this possible?

How can Google possibly create a Linux-based operating system with Chrome, when Chrome isn't released for Linux yet? 61.69.213.207 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, because it is released for Linux (and even if it weren't, it would still be simple). ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's in beta for Linux. If it was so simple, why did it take so long? It's been nearly a year. 61.69.213.207 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...and the OS isn't even alpha. Google codes about as well as blind, fingerless dope fiends (what little they code themselves). ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windows dominates

Someone placed a dubious tag in the Market implications section with the following text:

its Windows software has a 95% market share|see the references in Usage share of desktop operating systems

So, here's the talk page section to discuss the issue.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This (tagging that statement) appears to be some sort of POV advocacy, to me. On the other hand, the tagged statements are a POV advocacy issue themselves... As a matter of fact, the whole section is non-NPOV and full of weasel words. Just because you can point to someone saying something doesn't automatically merit it's inclusion. I'm inclined to remove the whole section, but I'll wait for a little bit to see if you guys can fix it.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to remove the section. A discussion of the Google marketing strategy is more suited to the Google page itself. Additionally, even if it were reformed to be less POV, it doesn't contain any worthwhile points to begin with.70.190.236.138 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a discussion of the Google marketing strategy. It's a discussion of the potential significance of Chrome OS. There is no reason to delete it. The 95% figure may need clarifying (I guess it refers to PCs, not including servers - the source doesn't say). Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's (heavily) copy edited, which seems to be occurring, I don't see a fundamental issue with the section. When the text starts out with weaselly statements such as "The opinion of some industry pundits", that just sends up all sorts of red flags. I've fixed that particular problem, by the way.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-line use

Should there be a discussion of how this would work if you were off-line? Seems an obvious question (at least it's my first question). Or is the answer unknown as yet? Mcswell (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably with an extension of google gears, a technology which has been in use for some time to help web-applications work off-line.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs) 09:46, July 11, 2009

Linux/Free Software Portal

I added links to the two portals to keep continuity among these articles.--Baina90 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

I have found some screenshots online, however I do not know what Wikipedia's policy is on screenshots of unreleased software. Here is a link to one of the screenshots: [3]. Can someone please confirm this?--Baina90 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a screenshot of an older version of gOS that still uses the E17 Enlightenment windows manager. It is almost certainly fake, there are many of such fake screenshots floating around on the Internet. I woudn't take any of them serious, and only accept screenshots officially released by Google itself, At the moment its simply impossible to have a screenshot already.Mahjongg (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it could be fake. Waiting for Google to release an official screenshot it therefore a better option.--Baina90 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly as pretty, but this is Google's official download page w/screenshots: [4] --Zentraleinheite (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

that is not the official google download page Mark (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are many fake one's (not always with a nice reason behind them either, so beware!) there are NO real ones at the moment. Mahjongg (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Chrome OS snapshots

You can download Chrome OS snapshots from Google http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/ -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Those "snapshots" are versions of Chromium, the web browser. No Chrome OS code/screenshots/snapshots/whatever exists publicly. The screenshot is therefore, in lack of a better word, wrong and should be removed. Darth Vader (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Darth Vader, have you tried them? http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux-chromeos/ snapshots are not Chromium at all. Browser is ID'd as "Google Chrome" and not Chromium. It includes things like a clock, network manager, battery manager, touchpad configurator, "Google Chrome OS Options" menu, etc. The screenshot that I posted was a snapshot of "Google Chrome OS" why can't you check it yourself? -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I havent tried it, but I remembered from earlier that build.chromium.org had Chromium source.You may be right, that's probably the OS in some early stage, but it's nothing official, so I still think it's early to put screenshots in the article. i think screenshots should be added only if (when) Google presents them. Darth Vader (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Darth Vader, but that is incorrect. We can add them as soon as they are verifiably screenshots of the OS. Unfortunately, we have no way to confirm that those screenshots Սահակ added are really from the OS or from some side project of the browser (for example a Linux version created only to run the browser and nothing else). So far, no PC magazine or website has mentioned those builds linked above or shown screenshots of them which is kind of suspicious if those really were alpha versions of the OS (several magazines were tricked by fakes though). So I would suggest the following compromise: We add screenshots as soon as they are available and confirmed by a reliable, third-party source. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this link you have provided is unofficial. The official Chromium source code project is [5]. Chromium is the source code for Google Chrome - the browser, not the OS. Chromium is the name of the project and source code behind the browser but not the name of the browser itself. If you were to use the code to build the browser on GNU/Linux, it would be Google Chrome, not Chromium. Although the browser and the OS are related, you must not mix the two up. There are always brainstorm ideas in the Linux community, the screenshots you saw were probably created by a GNU/Linux enthusiast such as here [6]. I hope that clarified things a bit.--Baina90 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, I created that screenshot myself, on my own laptop, by running the code tagged "chromium-rel-linux-chromeos". Even though there is a word "chromium" in the name of the build, it was not Chromium at all. It was a build of Google Chrome OS, and it was over 500MB in size. I hope that clarified things a bit. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a screenshot (considering that there is no official... anything) be classified as original research? Darth Vader (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The build has been removed by Google. It was probably leaked accidentally. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The German news source "Golem" talks about that file here (Google translate) and speculates that it's indeed a very early version of ChromeOS and that it's built upon Debian. While the article confirms what Սահակ wrote above, it is speculating, whether this was really a snapshot of the OS itself or only a Debian version created to run the alpha builds of Chromium for Linux, saying that the application identifies itself as "Google Chrome", not "Google Chrome OS". Regards SoWhy 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this still available? I would like to see it because if its a distro based on Debian, its more likely a modified version of Ubuntu or Debian that someone has posted on the Internet and made to look like it could be Chrome OS. Chrome OS has its own desktop environment and window management system, this is what leads me to believe that this is not the real Chrome OS.--Baina90 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone hacked into Google's servers and uploaded a fake ChromeOS? I downloaded it from Google's official web server. It is no longer available on Google's servers, but I have a local copy. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PC World have confirmed that this is fake: [7]--Baina90 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, PC World is talking about other screenshots. The screenshots that were posted in this article were not a fake. You will find out soon enough. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, here is the official Google OS screenshot released by Google Inc. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/11/chrome-os-debut-0088-rm-eng.jpg as you can see it is identical to the screenshot that I posted here more than a month ago. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but how are those similar to those ubuntu/suse-based screenshots from before? Arguing aside, the page needs to be ubdated now.--Baina90 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Google breaks silence

OFFICIAL information from the chromium project [8]. Gives many insights into how the system works, but still no screenshot. I'll build it over my current OS and see if I can get something usable for this page.--Baina90 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Baina90, if you just restore the October 13th screenshot that I posted here, you will see that it is identical to what they showed today in their webcast. Here is that change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Chrome_OS&action=historysubmit&diff=319575993&oldid=319480790 . -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The file has been removed from the commons, its not there anymore so you will have to post an external link. Regardless, lets focus on the page and not on who was right or not, its counter-productive.--Baina90 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Սահակ, the appearance has changed slightly since that screenshot. Look at the video [9] in high quality, or download it in HQ to your computer and take the screenshot from that video. It would be good if we can get a shot where some of the panels at the bottom of the OS appear, to give the reader a better impression of the windowing system. The screenshot you posted only shows the browsing capabilities.--Baina90 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Post 11/19/09 press conference

I've been tinkering with the lead paragraphs in the wake of the press conference. I hope others will refine and augment. Still needed: a better explanation of the architecture. I watched the webcast, which assume is archived, and the gist seemed to be that if you build an OS strictly for server-based apps, you can dispense with a number of steps that slow booting time. That the apps have fewer privileges, creating a safer environment. And that the OS can be transparently patched, much as the browser is. That's my take, at least. Barte (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We should add something about it using solid state drives only

We should add something about how it doesn't use traditional hard drives. Instead it supports solid state drives only. I'm not sure where it would go. Anyway, here's a source you can use.[10] 12.165.250.13 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it should go either--but I put it there. Thanks for the link. Barte (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Operating system or environment?

Every article I've seen on Chrome OS calls it an operating system. To call it an operating environment here without corroboration from at least one notable secondary source amounts to original research. That's my take anyway. Thoughts? Barte (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the wiki definition of operating environment the statement could be true. If operating environment flows like

• operating system -> operating environment -> applications -> user

Then ChromeOS is similar to a desktop environment, window manager or unix shell. The operating system of ChromeOS is Linux and the environment is ChromOS. This could be because the "applications" are all web based, where then environment in which they run is Chrome. Then again ChromeOS is also like a Linux distribution. Jdm64 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed--it could either be a Linus distro, aka an OS, or an environment. Except that nobody I've read thinks it's an environment. Not just Google, but the business press, technical press, and bloggers. Everywhere I read, Chrome OS is referred to as an OS. If a Wikipedia editor thinks it's so but the rest of the world doesn't, it's not. See wp:nor Barte (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It could also be like the confusion of Linux the kernel and Linux the entire operating system. As a whole, ChromeOS is an operating system with only one environment which is also called ChromeOS. Google created a new window manager, I think, for ChromeOS. But instead of traditional WMs, it only runs one application -- a modified Chrome browser. But either way, as a whole it's an OS and specifically it's also the name of the environment. Jdm64 (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone took out most of the "environment" references. I cut the last. Barte (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chromium OS should not redirect to Google Chrome OS

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(disambiguation) how can we fix it so that Chromium OS no longer redirects to Chrome OS? Grahamperrin (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Chrome OS has not been released to the general public yet, any version currently downloaded would form part of the chromium project. So its not relevant yet to have them on separate pages. However, we should have a section on this page about chromium and open source.--Baina90 (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect: public availability of code, whether open or not, is not relevant to the statement: Chromium OS is not Google Chrome OS. Redirection perpetuates confusion. Grahamperrin (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons

• Darwin (operating system) does not redirect to Mac OS X, and whilst much of Darwin may be used in Mac OS X 10.7 (unreleased) (focus), Darwin (operating system) should not redirect to Mac OS X 10.7
• Windows 7 did not redirect to a different version of Windows for the ~six years between http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_7&oldid=1500039 and the general public GM release of Windows 7.

Let's make the distinction sooner rather than later. The two OSes are not equal. Grahamperrin (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Baina90. For the time being at least, separating Chromium OS and Chrome into separate articles would mean writing the same article twice--and would confuse any reader not immersed in the topic. Would prefer to see the distinction made within the article. Even a caveat at the top might be in order. Barte (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chromium is the name of the project behind the browser and the OS. However, Google always prefers to call the actual browser and OS "Chrome" rather than "Chromium". If you download a beta copy of Chrome 4 (Browser) from the Chromium project, it will be called Google Chrome, have coloured chrome logo and has no mention of Chromium except on the project page. Chromium and Chrome are not separate OSs like Darwin and Mac OS X, Chromium is the name of the project, and Chrome is the name of the OS.

So, for now, we can add an entry about the OS on the chromium page and add a section about the open source chromium project into this article.--Baina90 (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Android

I have noticed chatter that the two OSs will become one. Sergey Brin has said that the two projects will "likely converge over time"[11]. If you search Google News, there are many stories like this, however, is it notable? Any Thoughts?--Baina90 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a merger this is way too far ahead of the facts: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: wp:cball You could add something about Brin's speculation, of course. Barte (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear. I don't mean merge the two Wikipedia pages, I meant just a mention in this article that Android and Chrome OS may eventually become one.--Baina90 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You could do it--but take a look at the original CNET article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10402653-265.html cited by your article above. Looks like Brin's thoughts are not necessarily shared even within Google. That context's important here. That said, I think there's enough confusion over the two OSs to justify a separate section--e.g., "Relationship to "Android" Barte (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. May need to be rephrased and expanded a bit, but the idea and refs are there. I put it in the "Market Implications" section, since the "convergence" of two OSs would have market implications.--Baina90 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"...especially with Android's growing success." - Could we get a ref for this perhaps? --Baina90 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

done Barte (talk)

Browser stat

I've been watching the revert war around the phrase"while Microsoft Internet Explorer was second to Mozilla Firefox in Web Browser applications [19]" in the market impact section. Compared to the summary table in usage share of web browsers, the webite cited is an outlier. Other cites have it that IE use is ahead of Firefox. Barte (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the people who were deleting were trying to indicate that while Microsoft dominates the OS and office suite market they don't dominate the browser market any more, so browsers needn't be mentioned there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be. But the phrase quoted above--and in the article--isn't substantiated. By most measures, IE still leads Firefox, not the other way around. Barte (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the conflicting stats, depanding on which source you use and how you count them (many consider FF 3.0 and 3.5 the same browser but IE6, 7 and 8 to be different browsers) and the fact that IE doesn't dominate the browser market quite the way that Microsoft Windows or Office dominate their respective areas, perhaps browsers are a bad example and can just be removed? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points, and I agree--browser popularity is something of a detour in an article on an OS. If no objections, let's remove the clause - "per talk". Barte (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree and done! - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Information Week article

FWIW, this is the best article I've seen to date on Chrome and Chromium. Barte (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Strictly original research, but I ran a Chromium release on my aging eeePC 701 last night. The preliminary descriptions in the articles cited appear accurate. Just nice to know. Barte (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with doing original research to validate a reference, it gives you confidence in using it then! - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see whether successive versions of Chromium get reported, or whether this will go into eclipse until Chrome OS gets closer. Barte (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is enough interest amongst columnists that there will be further reviews of the Chromium alphas and betas as they come out and those can be incorporated in this article. Chrome OS potentially could cause quite a stir if the resulting netbooks are priced right, as has been noted by such pundits as Glyn Moody (already quoted in the article). If Chrome netbooks are priced similarly to Win7 netbooks then the release will be a big yawn next fall. The pricing and the pricing model (vis-a-vis advertising vs hardware purchase cost) will be the key to whether this OS becomes commercially successful or not and I think we have to add that sort of information to the article as it becomes available. - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the InfoWeek article,Serdar Yegulalp argues that Chrome OS is also competing with Chromium--that is, the integrated hardware experience has to ultimately surpass the open source project you can download onto your netbook for free. Otherwise, he thinks Chrome OS hardware will just be a niche product. I'm reluctant to add that kind of crystal ball speculation to the article, though. Barte (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is okay to include that sort of speculation as long as it is properly attributed and presented as opinion, as I did when I added the para from Moody. Chrome OS is intended to be a mass-market product for pre-installed hardware retail sale (or maybe give-away, if Moody turns out to be right). The vast majority of the general public don't have the technical skills to download an ISO, install it on a USB stick and then install it on a netbook or laptop, not to mention the fact that it may not run on their hardware (Chrome OS is going to be pretty hardware specific). As this description for making a USB install for Ubuntu shows, it is a pretty technical task. Only the truly geek-minded will be able to do this. On top of that the current price for a reconditioned netbook is around $200 right now and I am betting that if Moody isn't right and the hardware doesn't turn out to be free of charge, that it will be considerably lower that that price point, making buying a netbook and installing Chromium a financial non-starter, compared to getting a new one with Chrome pre-installed. If the cost of a Chrome netbook is the same as a Win7 netbook, which is far more capable and has more brand familiarity, then they won't sell any Chrome OS netbooks - the price has to be considerably lower for it to work at all. So I doubt there will be much competition from Chromium. In the meantime Chromium will be attracting volunteer coding input to make it and Chrome better, which is the whole point of open source in the first place. In the period until the pricing of the Chrome OS netbooks is made public along with that pricing model, I think the speculation about what Google is really up to is useful in the article, it just has to be presented as opinion, attributed and amended as the story develops. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all of the above. What I should have said is that the speculation to date has been too "crystal ball" for my tastes to contribute much to the Market Implications section, not that the section itself is out of place. The the speculation has been so varied that it's hard to conclude anything except that the jury is out. There's Moody's predictions of free hardware. And on the other side, there are plenty of predictions that Chrome OS will crash and burn in the wake of cheaper, faster Win7 hardware. I do wonder what Win7 adds to the cost of a netbook. Less than $40, I presume, which is perhaps why Google is emphasizing fast boot speeds and security over price. One more here-and-now development is a build--ChromiumOS Cherry--which manages to put the OS into a 1 GB USB stick, albeit with the technical hoops to jump through, as you point out. I also read something yesterday about people looking at Chromium-on-a-USB stick as a quick way to boot a laptop to, say, check email. The writer said that a 5 minute boot for Windows (is that possible?) was reduced to 50 seconds, including the logon. I'm staying tuned. Barte (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your approach here. I think we need to pick out the creditable opinions and add a few of them to the article when warranted. As you point out, if you add them all at this point they will add up to zero - everyone disagrees. I still think that to overcome Windows brand loyalty (why that exists is another question, I don't use it), plus the ability to run thousands of applications on a Win7 netbook vs web-only applications on a publicly unfamiliar Chrome OS netbook, even if it has the Google name, you have to beat the competition on pricing. All will be revealed next fall I guess. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Image files

I think the article needs to start sourcing refs and providing info on what the capabilities of Chrome OS will be. We know it will browse the internet and use webmail, we know it will be able to word process, create spreadsheets, presentations and PDFs through Google apps and other on-line office suites. We know it will have calendar capabilities through Google Calendar and other on-line calendars. That covers most of what people use laptops and netbooks for while travelling. But what about downloading photos from cameras, then processing and e-mailing or posting those images? Is there any information that can be added to the article at this point that indicates whether Chrome OS will be able to do this, through web apps or some other means? - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Chrome OS will support web apps, period. There are no other means. Is there an online photo downloading app out there? Then presumably, the OS will support it. But to compile a such a list (there's even a Wikipedia category listing some)...but doesn't that amount to original research/synthases? wp:synth Barte (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"There are no other means"? Well Barte, then you must have a crystal ball, and be able to look into the future! Fact is nobody knows what Google Chrome OS will eventually be able to do. What you see now may not resemble the final thing at all! I guess it will address all these issue's, and I will be very surprised if it won't be able to download photo's from a camera, (as said with a chromium version of picasaweb) play music form your local (or online) music collection, and all those other things that common users simply expect it to do. Google's programmers aren't stupid you know, they know what people want, and there is no technical reason why these things cannot be done with Chrome OS. you may underestimate what on-line applications may do, and continue to do even without an internet connection, with "google gears" like application cashing. If the commercial version of Chrome doesn't offer these things the open source chromium version will, and then the commercial version cannot afford not to offer such functionality. Mahjongg (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is Google's Picasa for image editing, but that doesn't run natively on Linux (only with Wine) and requires installing an app, which seems to be verboten on Chrome OS. I have seen some articles on Chrome OS which list which on-line resources/apps will be available to make Chrome OS work, we would have to quote from them to avoid OR. Let me see what I can dig up then for refs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Guess I was wrong, Chrome seems to include Picasa, at least at this stage in is development. I'll add something brief on this, perhaps in a new section. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can believe that Chrome OS will ultimately include Picasa. (I could believe Google Earth, too). But the URL you cite ends with this comment on the screen shots: "Use your judgement as to whether these are real or ‘fakies’. It’s pretty easy to fake this stuff. In fact, let us know what you think in the comments." If the author isn't convinced, should we be? Barte (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

True it isn't the best ref, nor the most recent. Let me see if I can do better! - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

While looking for more Picasa info, I keep running into lots of pages that claim that Chrome OS includes:

• GNOME 2.24 desktop environment
• Google Chrome 4.0.223 web browser
• Google Picasa 2.7 photo manager New!
• OpenOffice.org 3.0 office suite
• GIMP 2.6 image editor
• Flash Player 10.0 plugin

Like here and here that even offers downloads. Any idea what that is about? - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sounds like Ubuntu.) Anything is possible, but neither of these comes near the level of credibility of a notable secondary source, such as the New York Times, PC Week, InfoWeek, Linux World...even TechCrunch. If we look just at what Google has said to date--and what has been reported by notable pubs--Chrome OS's mission in life is to supporting Web apps. That's what we know so far. Barte (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Google said about Chromium in November: "First, it's all about the web. All apps are web apps. The entire experience takes place within the browser and there are no conventional desktop applications. This means users do not have to deal with installing, managing and updating programs. Second, because all apps live within the browser, there are significant benefits to security...."

If you think there's evidence that Chrome diverged from this...or if you don't want to take that statement at face value, you'd better rewrite the first sentence of the this article. It says it too. Barte (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't understand those refs mentioned above that claim that it comes with Open Office and GIMP, but that site seems to provide ISO downloads. Weird. Perhaps it is a new build based on the Chromium OS source code? On their download page they say "Download the iso file and burn it into CD-R. Boot the computer from it and when Chrome OS is loaded, click Live Installer on the desktop. Follow the instructions. Warning: Google Chrome does not work in Live CD mode, you have to install it to the hard disk at first" which makes me think is is a forked distro, essentially. Regardless, I think there is enough disinformation and doubt that I should remove the para I added from the article and will do so, but let's keep an eye out for reliable refs on this subject area! - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Some answers on this: 1, 2 It seems to be essentially a fork being passed off as a genuine Google product. Funny what people are up to! Of course it does show that Chrome OS is generating some interest if nothing else! - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the the fakes will eventually merit a section of their own. "Over it's development, Chrome OS was the subject of several counterfeits....." ;-) Meanwhile, my take is that the Wikipedia entry here should be conservative when it comes to incorporating rumors. Better to be late than to be wrong. There's another rumor--from TechCrunch--that has been widely picked up: that Google is developing its own Chrome OS device, just as it's developing its own Android device. TechCrunch first reported the latter, too, and seems to have gotten it right, though they aren't batting 1.000. We'll see about the former. Barte (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we have to keep the article on the conservative side, especially considering all the rumours out there. I think speculation is okay as long as it is labelled as such and attributed. It will all be cleared up sometime in the latter part of 2010- Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok--I tried my hand at a speculative, attributed paragraph in the hardware section. I think Arrington, reprinted in the Washington Post, is credible enough to include. So I'd call it an informed rumor. Barte (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Useful, but judicious! - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo Barte (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge question @ Chromium OS

Over at talk:Chromium OS there's a discussion over whether that article should be merged with this one. So far, the consensus is yes. Barte (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I recently came across this criticsm of Google Chrome OS on Free Software Magazine: Chrome OS and the death of the Free desktop: a response" by Sam Tuke and thought that perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I would like to incorporate some of his ideas here into this article. He describes Google as "one of the world’s most monstrous companies". - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting article but it's mostly speculations since the OS is not released yet. Although I don't think it makes sense to compare it to traditional OSes as most likely nobody will use it as their primary OS (otherwise what will they do when they are in a place with no internet). Laurent (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought he made points worth at least considering for inclusion. I don't think the fact that the OS has not been released yet is a reason not to include some of the criticisms in the article, as the author mostly is criticizing the basic operational concepts of the OS, rather than any details that may change between now and the release date. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree...the OS is far enough along that it could be included. But I think you'd have to also include reference to the article he's responding to. Barte (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the two articles together could make up refs for a fairly good "critical reception" section. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Picasa

Picasa is a client app. So when we say "The page links to Google web applications, including Gmail, Google Apps, YouTube, and Picasa...." where does that last link take you? Picasa Web Albums? (I realize we don't have the answer for Chrome OS, but what about Chromium OS?) Barte (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A time later decreased to four seconds

I don't think that is right, if you look at this you-tube video they are demonstration that the boot time is about seven seconds [12], but the video used in the link for the four seconds reference is from the -same- date! I think the difference between these two times only depends on the actual hardware the software was running on, I think that the text should mention a boot time of between four and seven seconds, and that google is still working to diminish that. Mahjongg (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited to show both sources: the NYT article (with the citation restored), which reported a 7 second bootup, and the YouTube video, in which Google engineer Martin Bligh reports 4 seconds. The difference is probably hardware, but that's speculative--so I cut the phrase. Barte (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

License incorrect?

According to the automated analysis of its source code repository at http://www.ohloh.net/p/chromiumos/analyses/latest (as of now), chromium os has 807 GPLv2 files, 645 BSD files and 316 LGPLv2.1 files. In the absence of available versions of chrome os one would have to assume that chrome os numbers would be pretty similar to chromium os. The trunk/src/LICENSE file seems to only cover things that do not have their own LICENSE file; as of chromiumos-0.4.22.8 635MB of 642MB of source code under src is in the "third_party" directory, and each third party piece of software under that directory has its own LICENSE file, the majority of which are GNU GPL or LGPL. So by number of files, lines of code, and size of code, if the operating system as a whole is going to be referred to as using any one license, it would seem that GPL should be that choice, although something like "Various; mostly GPL, BSD and LGPL" would seem to be more correct. If no one disputes this analysis I will change the page to read like that soon. (very simular comment posted to the chromium os discuss page) | Djbclark (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

From the the URL above: "Ohloh searches the source code for individual license declarations. These licenses can differ from the project's official license." The project's official license is BSD. What I'm trying to figure out is what this analysis means to, say, an open source developer, much less the reader of this article. I'm not saying it's meaningless, just that I don't have the context. Could you answer that here, first?Barte (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is more related to Chromium OS, because as in Google Chrome, the 'final' product by Google is just another non-free platform and NOT BSD, the problem is that there is no 'final' release by Google yet, and we simply don't know what the license will be. It's the best to keep this article as an 'upcoming OS' and leave the license field empty. I'll leave a comment about the license in Talk:Chromium OS.--OsamaK 15:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Browser only program?

The introductory paragraph states that the browser is the only program running in the OS. However, recently Google announced they will be making a dedicated media player for Chrome OS, making the statement that only software is the browser false. Someone wanna edit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added byAyoubZubairi (talk •contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section on the integrated media player. But as I read the source article in Ars Technica (see footnote 9), the media player will be part of the browser, not a separate client app. (Which of course is what "integrated" implies.) Barte (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Q*A quote from Matthew Papakipos:

"Another big aspect to what we're doing is we're integrating a whole media player into Chrome and into Chrome OS. People often get confused about this, and it's a fairly subtle but important point. Because in a sense what we're doing is integrating the equivalent of Windows Media Player into Chrome itself." Barte (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've also added a citation in the first paragraph referencing the 11/09 Google statement, which included this:

"First, it's all about the web. All apps are web apps. The entire experience takes place within the browser and there are no conventional desktop applications. This means users do not have to deal with installing, managing and updating programs." Barte (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I thought that would happen ever since I first heard about Cloud OS! To create a complete user experience the "browser" must also be able to do some things most users would normally expect (from the user experience of a normal computer system). It means they need to be able do all the normal things they expect from a "computer". If the paradigm of "web applications" fails to deliver that, they (Google) simply extend the "browser" to include it. Being able to listen to your favorite music while "browsing" is one of these "must haves". Another one is being able to do things like plugging in a camera, and importing pictures, and viewing them (and video's too) there probably will be software integrated into the "browser" to do things like that, and anything else the user will expect they can do. Mahjongg (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a browser with an integrated media player is doing more than a typical browser. Made note of that in the lead. Barte (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What is it programmed in ?

Can anybody include in the article (and/or infobox) what programming language(s) are used predominantly in this OS ? I mean, the Linux kernel is programmed in C. What about the rest of the OS ? Thanks. 83.55.41.191 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on this Chromium OS page, I think it's Python. But I'm not technical enough to add it to the article as a fact. Anyone care to take a look at the source code? Barte (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They refer to: C++, Objective-C, and Python in the google styleguide. They do not refer to C which is what the Linux kernel is programmed in. 83.55.41.191 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But that document is a general styleguide for Google open source projects, not specifically the OS. I think we need a reference that connects the dots. Barte (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fansite

The following was posted, unsigned, on my user page. As I don't quite know where to reply, I'm moving here for general comment:

What are you trying to achieve with your edits

Please justify the changes you are trying to make on the Chrome OS page including the removal of the external referance link to Chrome OS Site. It seems counter intuitive to be removing removing links to the most prolific Chrome OS dedicated site that could be a good source of information. Your edits really don't make sense.

please justify them

Ok. The external link I believe we're talking about is "Chrome OS Site - An unofficial Google Chrome OS fan-site and news aggregator.

Per WP:FANSITE #11: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject.one should avoid: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" Barte (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I looked at the website and its inclusion in this article's external links fails both WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Its sole purpose here would be to promote the website. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this external link again as it is is clearly spam. Also in reviewing the contribution record of the editor who added it, his or her sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to promote that website as all his/her edits are towards that purpose. (See contribs and also this deleted article started by the same editor that was CSDed twice as spam on two consecutive days). As a result I added a spam warning to their talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt. I also added a link directly to this thread on his/her talk page, along with a note about WP:EW. Barte (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - there is way too much time spent dealing with spam and other stuff like this - it saps time that could be used writing articles. As a result my intention was to close the issue quickly and decisively. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Stellamabandla is continuing his edit war to try to get this link to his own website included, even though it has now been removed five times by three editors as WP:SPAM. This is starting to look less like a content dispute and more like plain old vandalism now.

To User:Stellamabandla - your website has now been reviewed by three editors and all agree that it is spam. The Wikipedia article that you started on your own website has twice been deleted as spam. To get a link into this article you are going to have to gain a consensus here on the talk page to include it. Edit warring is not going to get it included and will just get you blocked or banned instead and will not make it easier to convince other editors that it should be included. Since you are trying to insert your own website here I would suggest that you also read WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

link to chromium os

if it wasnt for a comment on youtube, i wouldn't have known the difference 82.25.130.155 (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

If it's not even available for download, how can it be open source/free software? 72.64.220.179 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is available today for download. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 10 September 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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for rephrasing your statement. There is a complete discussion of what Open-source software means in that article, including complete definitions. I am presuming that you are implying that the licence should be clearly identified in the article. I agree this is a good idea. In looking though the source code website the licencing is not as clearly stated as I would like, but that page seems to indicate that coding is all BSD licenced (it says "examples are licensed under the BSD License.") so I have added that to the article infobox. It seems to me that because the OS uses the Linux kernel, which is GPL, that this is not the whole story and that the OS is actually mixed licences, although I can't find a list of them. Perhaps someone with greater expertise can add something here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as notable news sources--of the kind cited in the article--keep using "open source" in connection with Chrome OS, this article will too. That's how Wikipedia works: it's a compendium of secondary sources, and published, notable sources trump anonymous critiques. See wp:v Barte (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral source of information (wp:npov), articles aren't written from the point of view of their subjects.

The New York Times reference in the article uses the term "open source." There are others, as well. Barte (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the Chromium OS the same as the Chrome OS? 85.76.38.140 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Chromium OS is described separately at Chromium OS. - Ahunt (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Adobe hardware??

Article claims Adobe is producing compatible hardware for the new OS. What "hardware" does Adobe manufacture? -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article says it because the citation says it. If you find a reference to the contrary, you can cite it and take "Adobe" off the list. Barte (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Release date?

I have been skimming the web looking for any news on the Chrome OS release date. If they want it to be under the tree this Christmas it has to be out very soon! This article from 12 October claims a rumoured 11 Nov release date, which is today! All the news seems to have dried up this fall. Has anyone seen anything? - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a thing. All the Google OS news seems centered on Android tablets. And on tablets, especially, Android does seem more like Google's answer to iOS. Barte (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Even on the Google official blogs the silence is eerie. I expected by this point in time the PR machine would be in full swing. Even the so-called hardware partners are very quiet, all just say "we recommend Windows 7". The usual tech writers and reviewers are quiet, too - I am sure they have nothing more to report than we do. If Christmas comes and goes without a release questions are going to be asked. I wonder what is going on? You don't think they switched the focus from netbooks to tablets and moved to android, do you? - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is something at least work on the Chromium OS dev seems to be continuing apace. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And putting these two idea together, you might have landed on it. Chrome OS was announced as a built-in OS for netbooks: a platform that is apparently under siege. The value proposition: stick to web apps and we'll give you a fast boot time. Enter the tablet, which gives you native apps, Web apps, and fast boot times, at least from a warm boot. So far, Android is indeed Google's tablet OS. Verizon is selling iOS and Android tablets. David Pogue just gave a Samgung Android tablet a rave review (except for price) in the New York Times. The tablet would seem the 2010 Christmas device that Chrome OS devices were on track to fill. As you say, if any of those Chrome OS partners is planning a holiday launch, they've certainly kept it quiet.

Which leaves Google-inclined netbook users with.....Chromium OS, I suppose. Neither Android or iOS are credibly going there. On my netbook, which I'm tapping on here, I went from Ubuntu to Jolicloud--which gives me a local word processor for client meetings. My new Android phone gives me instant Web access. If I'm typical of the remaining netbook demographic, the window (pardon the expression) seems to be closing. Barte (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That all makes sense, but it leaves this article curiously hanging in thin air, as it were. As I have indicated above the whole premise of Chrome OS was nonsense, when you add in the decline in popularity in netbooks due to tablets it makes even less sense. We have been running Ubuntu on a netbook for over a year and have recently been testing Puppy Linux on it. Now that boots very fast and runs Chromium browser or SRWare Iron, will do far more than Chrome OS will do and it is free and available today. I wish we had a ref to cite that could explain what is going on in the Chrome OS world. I am still looking! - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This Digitimes story is getting some pickup--reporting (though anonymous sources) Chrome OS device shipments in November and December, including one from Google, a la Nexus One. But whether Chrome OS succeeds or flops, this article will be fine. It will chronicle a stunning Google success, a notable failure, or something between. Ditto the Chromium OS article. We'll just have to wait and see. I hadn't heard of Puppy Linux. Yet one more Linix distro to take for a spin! Barte (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree this article will document a great success or failure. Either way it is story worth telling. I'll see if I can work in that ref you found! Puppy is actually very impressive, small (130 MB) but very complete, runs entirely in RAM from a CD, USB or hard drive. It may turn out to be what Chrome OS could have been. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The tech press is getting a bit hyper about the release of Chrome OS, but I think this is closer to rumour-level, than a reliable source: Download the default ChromeOS wallpaper and view the default screensaver. - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And there are reports that Eric Schmidt told reporters at the Web 2.0 conference that the OS won't be out for a couple of months. Let us remember: wp:cball. Barte (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that ref you cited is reliable enough to include, whereas mine isn't! - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if and when a release version Chrome OS ever sees light, with actual deliverables replacing all the stated intent (including edits from yours truly), the article will compress by a third. Barte (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree - when it is released we can say "it was released on XX date". I think right now the important thing is that if someone is looking to find out when it is set for release that we have the "best guess so far". There will be a lot of text to fix and probably remove once it is released, but just think, we can make it up quoting all the reviews! - Ahunt (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dec 7 2010 event

So was this event in fact the "official launch" of Chrome OS? The Telegraph seems to think so (and I cited it), but other coverage didn't put raise that flag, characterizing this as a minor event. Any consensus? I wouldn't object if the sentence in the article were deleted, which I almost did myself. I also read in CNET coverage that Chrome OS hardware is now scheduled for mid-2011. Is that being widely reported? Barte (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A good question! Ryan Paul writing for Ars Technica, always a good source, indicates that the Dec 7th event "demonstrated Chrome OS" and that "Chrome OS isn't quite production-ready yet, but Google has partnered with hardware vendors ASUS and Samsung with the aim of launching products next year. The search giant has started rolling out unbranded test units as part of a pilot program." So I would say it was not an official launch, but a public demonstration. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the sentence. The event was certainly notable, and the paragraph newly added to the article on the test machine works. But launch = commercially available, and the OS isn't, yet. I'm also going to reword the expected date to note the slippage.Barte (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for retaining the Ryan Paul ref, I think that is useful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

His was the best single piece of coverage I read on the event. Barte (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That was what I found as well. I read his column regularly, he is a very reliable source on lots of free software projects and eminently quotable as well! - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

ARM based?

I have a CR-48 sitting next to me.

The article cites a report saying the device would be ARM based.

It is Atom based. It has an Atom N455 running @ 1.66Ghz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where this article or the two refs cited on the CR-48 indicate it is ARM-based. Perhaps you can clarify where you see that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr-48#Compatible_hardware

"In early November 2010 Digitimes reported that Google was set to release a Google branded Chrome OS notebook later in the month. The notebook will be ARM-based, manufactured by Inventec and initially ordered in numbers of 60-70,000 units. The same source indicates that Acer and Hewlett-Packard will launch smartbooks manufactured by Quanta Computer in December 2010.[40]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think anon has a point. The CR-48 is arguably a test machine, not a commercial one, but if we accept that, then the Digitimes reporting is incorrect. (Nothing shipped in November.) I think we should strike the paragraph and wait until actual product is shipped. Barte (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should forget the mindset that (like windows) systems must be based on a single (CPU) architecture, the CPU can be anything that Google is supporting, it could be x86 based, or ARM, or maybe even something else altogether, as long as Google compiles Chrome OS for it. That the demonstration device is using x86 technology doesn't say anything about what technology the commercial devices will use. Mahjongg (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion between the Cr-48 test box and future production units. The para cited does not mention the Cr-48, but there needs to be some clarification of that added if it is causing this much confusion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I found out where at least part of the confusion here came from. Cr-48 was redirected to Google Chrome OS#Compatible hardware, which is not about the Cr-48, but about other upcoming hardware that will be commercially available. The mention of the Cr-48 is currently only in Google Chrome OS#History, so I have fixed the redirect so it just goes to Google Chrome OS in general. That should solve a lot of this. - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I still do think the forward-looking paragraph anon cited above should be struck. It's attributed to an anonymous source who got it wrong at least on the timing of a commercial unit. So at this point, the whole cite is suspect. Any objections? Barte (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

None. - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming soon: reality check

As we near the end of the year, actual Chrome OS devices may actually hit the market. Ditto an official, downloadable version of Chromium OS. Which got me thinking--what should we do with the many speculative paragraphs in the article? We could make them part of a history--Observer X predicted outcome Y. Or we could delete them as the facts of the matter replace the hunches. I vote for the latter: the predictions about the OS have been so varied that one can only conclude that there was no meaningful consensus worth memorializing. Thoughts? Barte (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a tough call. I tend to go more with the latter approach and at least keep a few of the notably wrong predictions, if only to keep the history complete and show how little information Google made available during development. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: surprisingly little leakage on what the hardware partners have been up to. Barte (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been like a government "black project"!! It will have to be out soon if they want to sell any this Christmas. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

They have been sending out test-versions to applicants recently. There are unboxing vids on YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.17.165 (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Market implications section--time to cut?

Given the recent evaluations added to the Cr-48 section, is it time to cut the Market Implications section? I think yes. The article is getting heavy on forward-looking speculation, some of which was made without the advantage of recent history: i.e., tablets and friendlier, faster competing OSs (i.e. Ubuntu Netbook Edition with its Unity UI, Jolicloud.) I think we should trim the older analysis and keep adding more contemporary thought. Sooner or later, of course, we'll actually have some real data--and can cut even more. Yours, Mr. Scissors. Barte (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. As we discussed earlier I think we should keep at least a mention of what the early speculation was for historical reasons, (eg "some writers speculated early in the project that Google would give the netbooks away for free and pay for the program with advertising, but these predictions turned out to be inaccurate and the company announced a more conventional sales models, etc" - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at it and did some cutting, but please have a look and see if more needs to be done. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I had at it. My take with a fresh look is that the preliminary evaluations should be in one place: hence a new, consolidated section "Preliminary Reception". I've placed it after the history section, before the more technically oriented sections. See what you think. Barte (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it - good changes! The article was getting a bit "scattered". - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Barte (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cr-48

We need an article on the Cr-48. Right now it redirects to the current article. There is a lot of buzz and controversy about it. The test unit seem to be a complete ripoff of the Apple's MacBook(Air) design. 87.158.152.243 (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as the refs explain the Cr-48 is just a generic prototype and will not be produced, so I disagree that it needs its own article. Where does anyone say that it is a Macbook rip-off? - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Of interest one of the regular writers for OMG Ubuntu, Tyler Brainerd, is slated to receive a Cr-48 for evaluation and will be writing about his experiences. This may provide some useful quotes for this article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful ref here: The Chromium Projects - How to boot Ubuntu on a Cr-48 and Ubuntu running on a Chrome CR-48 notebook - video. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This could be a very useful ref Nothing but 'Net: hands-on with the Cr-48 Chrome OS laptop, by Ryan Paul, Ars Technica. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I added some text and longish quotes, perhaps the Cr-48 needs to be in its own section in the article? I am sure once the trial is over that it will be long forgotten, but it is an interesting footnote to the history of the project. - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I am regretting my earlier prediction that Tyler Brainerd of OMG would provide some useful quotes. Here is his first review. Note I haven't used it as a ref. - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very dubious that the Cr-48 rips off the Macbook Air. It doesn't even have a similarity in its design. The Cr-48 is part of the Chrome OS software so it does not deserve its own article until it receives public acknowledgement and is used and seen more frequently. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Cr-48 is more than a prototype test box and that production boxes will be quite different. This probably accounts for the Cr-48's unbranded generic look. My guess is that once the trial period is over you won't see them again unless some of the 60,000 sent out turn up on eBay. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Android and Chrome OS

Interesting article here forecasting that these two could be merged Google Chrome OS and Android: arranging a difficult marriage. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Chrome Shell (Crosh) section

This section was recently added and seems to be growing quite quickly. It lacks any references and I have tagged it as such, but it is really starting to look like original research too. I propose removing it unless some refs can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the first sentence of the section, at least, is legit, and I've added a cite. I don't see any documentation for crosh (which is not surprising: developers at this level will figure it out for themselves). So, I've cut the rest as OR--though I suspect it is accurate. btw, the same cite makes mention of Ubuntu Lucid as a requirement for Chromium OS developers. Which indirectly supports the notion from our previous discussion that Chrome OS is based on Ubuntu Barte (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't doubt that the text added was accurate, just that it was from OR and not referenced. I also wonder if it is notable enough to include or not; just because something about Chrome OS is true doesn't mean it has to be in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't doubt that you didn't doubt....;-) I do actually think that crosh is worth at least a mention. It has gotten a bunch of blog pickups--and at the geek level, the nature of the command line interface matters, especially when, in this case, it appear to be specific to Chrome OS. Google "crosh" AND "Chrome OS" If any of those sites are notable, we could add more. Barte (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no sweat, if you think it is worth keeping then that is good enough for me! - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Notebook vs Netbook

I just changed all instances of describing the Cr-48 as a netbook to notebook. There isn't really a clear distinction between these terms in practice, and Google refers to the device as a notebook ([13]), not a netbook, so I think we should respect that. 70.234.169.194 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Chrome OS To Get HW Acceleration, Mac/Linux/ Windows Support"

A couple of items here indicate that things are expanding and changing in the Chrome OS world, especially to do with targeting new hardware devices. I have read them but I am not sure how to integrate this into the article. Perhaps someone with more complete technical expertise can do so?

• Chrome OS To Get HW Acceleration, Mac/Linux/ Windows Support
• Chrome/ChromeOS Windowing

It seems to me that this may further delay the project, although this is not mentioned in either article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this qualifies as "under the radar." Meaning, the source (your second link) is not a Google blog or spokesperson, but a Chromium Project document. Nothing wrong with that, we've used these before, but this kind of material is inherently more speculative, because it's a proposal for a development direction, not an official declaration of that direction. For example, the document says:

"As we expand the reach of Chrome onto a variety of different devices, the need for an improved windowing system is growing. Chrome OS' small screen netbook target has driven the development of its simple full screen window manager up until this time, but as the desire to run Chrome [Chrome? or Chrome OS?] on larger format devices grows, the need to display more than one window at a time is rising."

I assume the answer to my inserted bracket is Chrome OS (as Chrome already runs on larger format devices). So I suppose the headline here is that the development team is now considering devices larger than a netbook, and is therefore considering a "modern windowing system" to support said larger devices. How that might be implemented is the subject of the rest of the document, but that's even more speculative. Barte (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is speculative, but on the part of the developers, who have some say in the outcome. I was rather unsure whether this should be included in the article as well as how to include it, hence posting it here for discussion instead. I am reading that you think this should wait until something more concrete is announced? - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If true, these are big changes, because now we are talking about a lot more devices than just netbooks. I also wonder how it would affect the release date. Also the boot time and line of demarcation with Android. (Does this mean that Chrome OS is headed for tablets? What about Honeycomb? Or does this have something to do with HP's Splashtop announcement?) But I always think that Wikipedia should be a trailing source, not the bleeding edge. If these developments are truly in the cards, we should hear more about them from other primary Google sources: namely blogs and spokespeople Barte (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Spring netbook rumors

This Digitimes story about a rumored netbook priced $200-$250 that may have Chrome OS, or maybe Android (Android on a netbook? Really?) has gotten pickup all over the place--probably because of the dearth of news about any Chrome OS devices outside the Cr-48 reference machine. Supposedly in June. Too unconfirmed for my tastes in the article, but wanted to put on the radar in case there's an actual announcement. Here's the operative sentence:

"The sources believe that Asustek's new netbook should either adopt Google's Android 3.0 or Chrome OS in order to achieve such a price level, and the new model is expected to attract consumers who only need to perform office work and Internet browsing." Barte (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but I agree, far too rumour-like to be included in the article. It also isn't that stunning a price. I have purchased two brand new Acer Aspire netbooks here in Canada for C$259, with WinXP and installed Ubuntu on them. Now under $200 would get some attention. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep lusting over the MacBook Airs (which would introduce a fourth OS into this humble household.) And then I keep thinking--couldn't someone build something equally light weight and fast-to-boot, and sell it for less than $1,000, if they used Chrome OS rather than MacOS? In other words, I wonder if a higher price point is also viable for a Chrome OS machine? Barte (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, something elegant and fast, but may be not so cheap. It is all in the hardware manufacturers hands, including the Chinese factories that make those Macs and could turn out something very similar for a lot less money if they wanted to. We'll have to see what happens when the retail Chrome OS hardware hits the stores, will it be all low end or some higher end as well? - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Imagine it, and the rumor will come. "Sony VAIO To Take On MacBook With Chrome OS, Intel Thunderbolt. Barte (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the source report from Sony Insider.... Taken at face value, the specs describe a netbook somewhat comparable to the smaller MacBook Air in terms of weight, display, and dimensions. Much less SSD storage--that's not surprising for a device geared for the cloud, and given how the situation in Japan could affect the supply chain, that could cut production costs. The CPU isn't listed, so that's a big if. But of the two Chrome OS device rumors noted here, this one is far more specific. Is it article worthy? Barte (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit more solid, sure I think it could go in the article, subject to future news, of course. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the subsequent coverage, it's all an echo chamber off the original Sony Insider report. I'm not going to add it until I see something more substantial. But hey--at least we finally have some rumors. Barte (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that manufacturers are even talking about making hardware is postive for the future of Chrome OS! - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But they're not talking. They're, at best, leaking. Barte (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Touch screen rumours

Interesting article, but I am not sure if it meets the required level of reliability for Wikipedia: Google Chrome Gets SPDY – And An Onscreen Keyboard by Daniel Bailey. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the CNET report (which has been picked up ad infinitum), if true, would be a fascinating development given that Android Honeycomb has been seen as the main competitor to iOS. Would Google really field two tablet OSs? Why? And what would be Chrome OS's advantage? Fast boot time? Lower cost? But as an editor, I just think this is still mere rumor until we get less vapor, more grist. Barte (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that those are good questions to ask. Is it possible that two Google units are developing software for the same market in an uncoordinated fashion? Probably. At this point I mentioned this here so that we can all keep an eye out for more substantial information. I agree that at this juncture in time it is far too "rumour-like" for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu Based

I read somewhere that Chrome OS is Ubuntu-based. I just can't pinpoint where I read that. I think it was a youtube video. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The cited ref http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/google-chrome-os-based-on-ubuntu/ confirms that and it is mentioned in the article, too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I gather it's true, but the cite is pretty speculative, especially for the article lead: "Glancing around the source repository for Chromium OS it looks like the operating system is unsurprisingly based on Linux and more specifically based on a severely trimmed down Ubuntu build." [italics mine] Can we do any better? I'd rather leave it off than be wrong. Barte (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Canonical Ltd was contracted by Google to do much of the development it seems pretty likely, but let me see if I can find a better ref. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Canonical's involvement is beyond dispute. But this more-or-less official statement doesn't confirm that Chrome OS is based on Ubuntu. Barte (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that doesn't make Chrome based on Ubuntu. In a quick search I found: Chrome OS vs Ubuntu Netbook Remix which I added. There are a lot more to sift though. I guess one question that isn't being asked it what does "based on" mean in this context. It might have just been a starting point and much has been altered since, as opposed to say Xubuntu or Lubuntu, for instance which are new desktops on top of Ubuntu. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The ref you cite above is a nose-to-nose comparison, but doesn't (I think) say anything about the development of the code. Barring that, I think we can cite the Ubuntu blog mention that Ubuntu consulted on the project. But we should scratch "based on" unless we find a citation more credible than what we've got. Barte (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That ref does say in the first line "Although Chrome OS is based on Ubuntu," but if you need more detail or confirmation than that then I can't argue with that. Go ahead and I'll keep an eye out for more info on this. - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh! In skimming the piece, I missed the first line. And in doing my own searches, I don't see any dispute on the point. (Nobody is arguing that the OS was built from scratch or based on some other distro.) White flag waved. Barte (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No sweat - collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I think this is wrong. "Recently, Google decided to use portage for cross-compiling and managing ChromeOS." ( http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_4f35693546041a2cd4fe7072d9a76fbb.xml ). Secondly read https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/developer-guide - its clear that portage is used, so it should be written that this OS is based on Gentoo I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.172.218 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you make of this......from the second cite?

"You must have Linux to develop Chromium OS. Specifically, the supported environment is:

Ubuntu Linux (version 10.04 - Lucid)

Most developers working on Chromium OS are using Lucid (the LTS version of Ubuntu) and will not be updating to 10.10. It is possible that things will work if you're running a different Linux distribution, but you will probably find life easier if you're on Lucid. Please note that Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) is known not to work." Barte (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like description of development environment, not the software itself. Its like claiming that using gcc for compilation of your software package makes it gcc-based. On the other hand portage seems to be described as system which is actually used to adminster packages - and this core is usually regarded as the base of linux distro, in this case Gentoo. Not being developer of Chrome OS, I might get something wrong, thats why I put here instead of 'fixing' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.172.218 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken; a development environment is not the same as the core code. I did (yet another) Google search and looked over our cites. What we seem to have is a couple of cites that explicitly say Chrome OS is based on Ubuntu, a statement from Ubuntu (I don't know if we cite it) that its engineers consulted on the project, info that the Chrome OS project switched to portage mid-stream, and references to Gentoo documentation in your second cite--but with no reason for said documentation given. It's marked "TODO" What we don't have is an explicit, credible reference that Chrome OS is based on Gentoo. On Wikipedia, it's not what's true; it's what can be verified. Barte (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"On Wikipedia, it's not what's true; it's what can be verified" Point taken as well :) We have two citations that it uses portage, so at least we could write Ubuntu/Portage based? It maybe true that make it Gentoo-derivate is too much (anyway, not more than Ubuntu.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.172.218 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chrome OS uses Portage for package management--and I think we could say that somewhere in the article. But I'm not sure it belongs in the same sentence as "Ubuntu". Because it's a distro, the latter (I think) represents Chrome OS's family tree in a way the former doesn't. Barte (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should say something like "is Ubuntu based but unlike other Ubuntu or Debian based Linux distributions it uses the Portage package manager" --Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see by this thread that the assertion that Chrome OS is based on Ubuntu has been hard to prove. Ubuntu consulted on the project. But there's scant evidence that the code is Ubuntu-based. Barte (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)