Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

74% of the world, Google's Chrome OS is not for you

<< < (3/4) > >>

JavaJones:
I can't say I'm totally thrilled about total cloud computing either, but you have to admit the landscape is a lot different, and really more favorable to the concept than it was in the 80s. In terms of availability, quality, and variety of net-based services; in terms of average bandwidth per user; in terms of amount the average person spends doing things online *already*. Google isn't really coming up with an idea out of the blue to force people to use the web for 90% of their computing time, instead their responding to the reality that people *do* use their computers 90% of the time for web-based stuff (think average people - the Facebook generation). So the 80's "dumb terminal" comparison that's been made many times doesn't really work very well IMO.

- Oshyan

mwb1100:
While I agree with much of the sentiment against cloud computing (in that I want my data and software to be mine), there is a very attractive aspect in being able to get to my stuff wherever I might be.

It's just that I'd like to be in complete control of what and when that is.  However, I do note that most of my non-techie friends and family couldn't give a rat's ass about that - they like being able to get to all their stuff wherever and whenever, and they're perfectly happy to have no idea what's stored locally and what's stored in the cloud (though I imagine that some T-Mobile Sidekick users might be taking a little more care with their data - http://www.pcworld.com/article/173505/sidekick_data_loss_tmobiles_unending_nightmare.html).

zridling:
Depends. Since it's open source, there will Chrome OS variants that will take advantage of localized apps. And Chrome itself can work offline via HTML5, which most other browsers don't yet support. It's still a year away. But if a "chromebook" turns out to be a cheap device (<$200), I wouldn't underestimate its popularity for both business and casual use. It doesn't matter if you use Chrome OS or not. If more web apps are built and people use them, Google wins -- as does Linux -- in the long run.

Seems to me that Google's OS is the return of old-style dumb terminals on an 80's style computer network. Everything (apps and data) were stored on the mainframe & the dumb terminals accessed everything off the mainframe in order to do anything. No. No, thank you. Google's OS, and cloud computing in general, are the wrong direction for us to be heading. We already did this in the 80s and...well....it sucked.  :) -Innuendo (December 01, 2009, 06:49 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yes but so much has changed since then. Bandwidth is so much better in the past ten years, as are web apps themselves. Some of the things that Bing.com does -- such as visual search -- is quite cool. Zoho is now offering full integration with Google Apps, allowing users to access Google Docs seamlessly from within the Zoho environment. The variety of semantic web apps, such as DBpedia have been a great aid in my work. And I won't even mention the social web.

Point is, most of my computing is accessing and sharing information and data via the browser. The rest is spent in a text editor and a image editor. Even with the Chrome OS beta, I can save my data to an external device such as a USB stick. As I said in another topic: Your garage doesn't have to have two cars. It can have a car and a bike.

Innuendo:
I think my point was not the level of technology used in the 80s as everyone can agree that things are much better. My point was is that everything is on the server. This did and still does suck mightily.

If your net connection to the server goes down...no access to your data.

If the server goes down...no access to your data.

If your cable modem breaks...no access to your data.


Comparing the number of failure points in between me and the data on my hard drive & the number of failure points between me and the data on Google's servers shows that there's a lot less chance of something going wrong if I keep my data right here on my PC.

Another matter is security. I control the level of security to access my PC. I cannot control the level of security to access a server on the internet. Those servers are a lot bigger targets than my PC. If everyone starts storing their data on them they are going to be even larger targets. I always hear about some server that got hacked and tons of data stolen. My PC is much more of a needle in a haystack than, say...Google's servers.

40hz:
A Parable

Once upon a time, there were terminals that connected to mainframes.

In order to do anything, you had to log on to the mainframe.
And in order to change or add any new capabilities, you had to convince your IT department come and install it.

Next came terminals and minicomputers.

You still had to log on to get anything done.
But you could now handle your own changes and additions without needing to go through a centralized IT department.

Next came personal computers.

After that, you didn't need to log onto anything unless you wanted to set it up that way.
You could handle your own updates and additions without needing to involve anybody else.

But these were isolated machines. So your PC couldn't communicate with any other PCs, or share data without first writing it to some form of media. Thus sneaker-net was born.

Then along came Hayes and USRobotics, and FidoNet and RBBS-PC who gave those early PCs the ability to communicate through noisy modems.

Next came 3Comm and Shiva, who brought the benefits of inexpensive data networking to the PC so that the digital resources of all PCs could be freely and efficiently shared.

And last came the semi-divine ARPANET and it's half-sister The Internet.

And now all the personal computers of the world were finally able to have complete and total access to every computational and information resource of the planet Earth. And thus were the people of Earth united into one global community, even if this global community did not come in a form those who wished for one expected.

And the people of earth looked upon it and saw that - even if it was not perfect - it was still rather good.

And thus, a new era in human consciousness and evolution was born.

***

Then along came Google and it's bastard stepchild ChromeOS.

And suddenly, you once again had to log on to do anything.

And if you wanted anything added or changed, you could still (technically) do it yourself provided Google had what you were looking for.

Otherwise you'd need to petition Google's IT department to set it up for you.

And though the PC had evolved and become much smarter than it's ancestor the terminal, it was now regulated to the position of again being a device that relied on communicating with a mainframe in order to function.

Admirers of Google were quick to point out there was no such thing as a mainframe any more.

And to those who said all this was 'a giant step backwards,' Chrome's defenders replied: "We think of it more as coming full circle!."

But whether or not there was one big central machine, or many smaller ones floating in a virtual cloud, it still amounted to the same thing: You needed to go through something else in order to do anything.

The so-called "personal computer" was once again little more than a terminal client on somebody else's network.

But at least the graphics were pretty...

And for many people, that was enough. :-\

*The End*
 :P

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page