difference bettween ChromeOS and windows8 cloud DaaS thingy?

[madjr]

So w8 has plans to offer the "Desktop as a service" (DaaS) cloud thingy.
http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-slides-hint-of-desktop-as-a-service

http://neowin.net/images/uploaded/Windows8-slide-next_14756d52-5ce3-4955-bb11-a7483c969390.png

mainly to get companies and users to upgrade from xp and vista, lower piracy, add subscription model, etc.

But am not sure what is the difference from what google wants to offer with ChromeOS

the main concern people say is connection , but some think they will have local caching and net speeds are said to double soon in most of the target areas.

what would be the advantages and disadvantages of each one?

and of course what is the gameplan for ubuntu or you think they'll miss the bus?

[czr114]

I hope Ubuntu "misses the bus" on this one.

The goal of all this commercial cloud / DaaS buzz is to gain control of users data, lock them in, keep them consuming, tie them to a heavily commercialized channel with its own marketing, and stem the rise of FOSS.

There's a lot less money to be made, junk to be peddled, and tie-down to keep users coming back when a user owns and has full control of his hardware, on top of which runs an OS over which he has full control, on top of which runs software over which he has full control.

With locked hardware, digitally signed or proprietary software, bundled Internet access, and cloud storage of everything, it's questionable whether the user truly "owns" any of it, including his device, in the classical sense of ownership.

It's more like renting.

[Spice Weasel]

It's more like renting.

That's already the case thanks to the Microsoft and Apple EULAs.

[Red_Steve]

If I understand this correct this approach makes sense for portable devices with comparably low data storage capabilities which rely heavily on streaming technology anyway. But for desktops with it's ever increasing storage capabilities this whole online data storage and remotely executed applications thing is rather useless. Especially in terms of modability. I don't see this whole cloud thing take off for the near future until the typical device to deliver the applications we now use local at our desktops can be run on a complete mobile device.

Besides - the bandwith issue still exists in most places around the world forbidding to rely that heavily on it!

[czr114]

That's already the case thanks to the Microsoft and Apple EULAs.

Unfree software has always been like that, though. What we're seeing now is a fusion of unfree software, restricted platforms, and proprietary services.

The computer, which had once been hailed as a groundbreaking extension of the human mind, is slowly becoming a rented entertainment appliance designed to run rented proprietary services.

[czr114]

If I understand this correct this approach makes sense for portable devices with comparably low data storage capabilities which rely heavily on streaming technology anyway. But for desktops with it's ever increasing storage capabilities this whole online data storage and remotely executes applications thing is rather useless. Especially in terms of modability. I don't see this whole cloud thing take off for the near future until the typical device to deliver the applications we now use local at our desktops can be run on a complete mobile device.

Uh, it's already growing by leaps and bounds. Remember when the typical user ran an MUA? Where are your bookmarks? Your photos?

Have you seen the Jolicloud project? Give that a few more years and a buyout.

[qamelian]

Uh, it's already growing by leaps and bounds. Remember when the typical user ran an MUA? Where are your bookmarks? Your photos?
Mine are all stored on my local hard drive and that's where they'll stay.

[KiwiNZ]

The Back up "Best Practice" is three copies. Two stored locally and one store off site. Cloud gives the easiest "Off site" option for home users and SME's.

[czr114]

That depends on one's definition of the 'cloud' buzzword.

A backup procedure which tars everything up, GPG's to self, then FTP's the result to offsite storage really isn't 'cloud' as the term is now applied or known by some definitions.

An integrated fusion of local and remote like Ubuntu One is definitely a cloud idea.

Offsite is a great idea, but I still see a huge difference between simple remote bits and allowing the content itself to become assimilated and incorporated by a system which applies some sort of content-specific logic. That would be the difference between a tarball of pics on an FTP account and adding them to a Facebook album, confident that the latter has high higher reliability than a desktop hard drive.

[KiwiNZ]

The term "cloud" maybe a "buzz" word but I guess so is "Free" , "open source" etc but the concept of cloud works as long as one opens ones mind.

[TheNessus]

I hope Ubuntu "misses the bus" on this one.

The goal of all this commercial cloud / DaaS buzz is to gain control of users data, lock them in, keep them consuming, tie them to a heavily commercialized channel with its own marketing, and stem the rise of FOSS.
And to create a single New World Government and to TAKE OVER DA WORLD!!!!!

[madjr]

I hope Ubuntu "misses the bus" on this one.

The goal of all this commercial cloud / DaaS buzz is to gain control of users data, lock them in, keep them consuming, tie them to a heavily commercialized channel with its own marketing, and stem the rise of FOSS.

There's a lot less money to be made, junk to be peddled, and tie-down to keep users coming back when a user owns and has full control of his hardware, on top of which runs an OS over which he has full control, on top of which runs software over which he has full control.

With locked hardware, digitally signed or proprietary software, bundled Internet access, and cloud storage of everything, it's questionable whether the user truly "owns" any of it, including his device, in the classical sense of ownership.

It's more like renting.

with windows as the monopolistic base for everything it is now, most users are probably more locked in than if it were in the cloud.

at least there is more competition in the cloud.

When windows was first deployed it had no real competition.

i would think that microsoft is going to try and hold the traditional desktop for as long as possible (where they have all the power), while also offering the cloud solution to some enterprises/users that are not migrating.

also why would FOSS apps not be able to compete? i heard openoffice (well i guess libreoffice now) and abiword were working on online sync, multiuser editing and stuff.

but no one has answered my first post. What would be the difference (pros / cons) between what google is doing and what msft wants to do?

[czr114]

also why would FOSS apps not be able to compete? i heard openoffice (well i guess libreoffice now) and abiword were working on online sync, multiuser editing and stuff.

The problem for FOSS is that the idea of the cloud is built around fee-charging and ad-supported service providers running a proprietary model.

Right now, users may freely download Ubuntu, install it on their hardware, and they're set.

The cloud is inherently commercialized, and necessarily takes the personal out of personal computer.

When it embraces the progression demonstrated in that Microsoft graphic, users become subscribers.

[nerdopolis]

I like the KDE approach to the cloud better, then ChromeOS, its apps can integrate with online services, but it does not force it.

It still allows the user to have full control of their data, and computer.

Going with the cloud/atmosphere analogy, its like flying a kite, as opposed to being the kite.