[geeks] Google announces Google Chrome OS

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Jul 8, 2009, at 14:06 , gsm at mendelson.com wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 01:28:04PM -0400, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
>> OS X runs my apps native, Google wants them in the cloud.
>
> Big difference. The cloud only exists in places that have some sort of
> compatible service that you can use.

I know, that was my point... or part of it anyway.

> I know a desktop computer will not need WiFi as you can have a wired  
> Internet service, but why run a cloud based system on a desktop?

My point exactly.  For that matter, if you don't have a desktop, why  
run a cloud based service?  Get rid of that marketer and control  
freak's wet dream and get a real computer instead.

>> It's Linux.  We already know what it is.
>
> Well, sort of. Linux is a Kernel, but Google/OS is a distribution.  
> Compare
> Ubuntu versus Fedora, or YellowDog, Mandrake, Debian, etc. They all  
> have
> a different "look and feel" and a different set of features.

Yes, but they are all pretty much the same.  Mostly the just vary  
enough to annoy the hell out of developers and users, and drive  
commercial support away.

> We know what's under the covers, but we don't know what it will look  
> like
> on the outside and how a user will see it.

I am fairly certain I know exactly what it will be like.

The only real question in my mind is are they going to be totally  
browser only, or will they expose a new graphics layer to be used for  
local applications.

Beyond that, I think it's basically like quite a few similar ideas  
that has come before, but Google might have the muscle to make it work  
and of course the world has changed since the last attempts.

> No we don't, but THEY do. Google has come to the end of the gravy  
> train.

Yep.  This has been driving a lot of their decisions for the last  
couple of years.

> As
> long as they were able to keep getting advertising to pay for  
> everything,
> they were ok. Now that advertising is down, advertisers want  
> purchases for
> their dollars, not just website traffic. Clicks no longer count,  
> sales do.

Clicks never have counted for the market as a whole, it just worked  
for people like Google temporarily as advertisers weren't too smart  
about spending their money for awhile.

I've always thought it was a real ripoff, online advertising.

> Google is trying to move their targeted advertising away from web  
> searches to
> everything you use your computer for. So instead of getting links to  
> recipies
> for Spam dishes when you check your email, now you will get  
> advertising when
> you write your shopping list.

Microsoft and a lot of others have been pushing for this for a very  
long time.

Have you used Quicken lately?  It's basically an advertising  
application with an accounting widget built into it.

I don't like passing laws for things, being a libertarian, but if the  
government must "do something", I don't think removal of and reduction  
of advertising would be a bad goal.

> Let me tell you a story. In the late 1980's the White House  
> installed PROFS,
> one of the first commercial email systems. Every loved it, instead  
> of sending a paper memo which someone could keep in a file and bring  
> it out
> later, these emails were ephermeral. Delete them and they were gone.

I remember people talking about that when it happened, who knew how it  
all worked, and that was one of the first jokes about it: "How will  
the government cover up their lies now?"

It's worth noting that a lot of other systems have running archives as  
well.

I've heard some interesting stories about shops that use WORM drives,  
and people not realizing exactly what that means.

I almost got a contract once which was basically to purge some files  
they didn't want by doing a filtered duplicate of a WORM system.

> Bottom line: NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, trust your data to be private if you
> don't have control of it.

That's why I want my data stored on my system.

Some data I don't care about of course, but I want publishing of that  
data to be on-purpose, and require either my own work to do (best),   
or my authorization (second choice).

It should further be a requirement that if I go to a company or  
government agency and request data removal, it should happen  
immediately and without question.

Technically it is like that already in Virginia, but companies do  
everything they can to delay.  When that law was passed, several  
marketing companies moved their data centers out of the state.

Cloud computing is a fine idea, but the implementation generally sucks.

For example, there is no reason, with fast networking, that you cannot  
store data remotely that no one but you can read.  You simply treat  
the remote as a block storage device, and the actual decryption/ 
encryption happens locally.

Performance would suck, but you could prevent unencrypted data from  
being stored remotely.

Better yet, just run things locally.  We have very powerful computers  
available for under $500, falling in price all the time.  For an  
individual there isn't a compelling lure for cloud computing.

In fact, even if you want to access the same data from everywhere,  
there is a solution: run your own remote services.  The main stumbling  
block for that, at least in the US, is overpriced and underperforming  
network services for home and small business.  That, and we really  
need IPv6 for that to work the best.

About the only time I've seen cloud computing presented in a  
compelling fashion is for naturally shared systems like company  
systems, or things like scientific computing.

It sucks for personal use.



-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com