Richard Stallman Takes No Shine to Chrome OS

[Gremlinzzz]

Chrome, the new operating system Google is currently testing, will push users into careless computing habits and give them far less control over their data, according to Free Software Foundation President Richard Stallman. Though it may be based on Linux, "Google Chrome is not free software in the sense of free and open source software," the FSF's Matt Lee told TechNewsWorld.
I agree with Stallman.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Why-Richard-Stallman-Takes-No-Shine-to-Chrome-71469.html

[Spice Weasel]

He's perfectly right.

Google Chrome = Nonfree
Chromium = Free

[alexan]

ehm....



Chromium?


EDIT: Spice was faster than me :P

[Paqman]

Well, I take no shine to the Free Software Song, so let's call it even.

[Spice Weasel]

(post no longer relevant. Someone nuked the thread)

[Yougo]

i was wondering where i left my tinfoil hat... i remember now i gave it to my friend richie :P he needs it more than i do.

he does have a bit of a point though, but that point gets kind of lost when he proceeds with the whole "all users are idiots" and "big corps and governaments are eeeevill" routine.

yes, sharing your stuff on the intenet is potentially stupid
yes people know about that
no, people don't care that much
yes, if it's really important, people will keep it to themselves.

...yes, there are the unavoidable bunch of idiots who manage to be the exception, but those almost kind of deserve it.

[DoubleClicker]

Even if you dislike Stallman, his assessment of Chrome is factually correct. ChromeOS does take a lot of control out of your hands, and does subject your data to easier government access. Whether or not that's a bad thing is up to you to decide for yourself.

[3Miro]

The article is about Chrome OS, not Google Chrome. The OP made a mistake in posting the wrong name.

Either way, Chrome OS is definitely not FOSS and I thought the idea of the cloud was a horrible idea from day one. On-line storage for some of your data is OK, storage of everything is not OK.

The only way this can be redeemed is if the system is open source (as in open the code) and absolutely ALL data on the cloud is encrypted. That is: connect my camera, download my picture, encrypt the picture on my machine using my password (or a key linked to my password), send the encrypted picture to the cloud and store it. However, this is not how things work.

Chrome OS = not FOSS. Cloud for a desktop/laptop = bad idea.

[Evil-Ernie]

Ok has the source code to Chromium OS been released freely?

[RiceMonster]

Who cares?

[ErikNJ]

Chrome is not open-source while its base, "Chromium," is open-source.

I also am not a fan of putting that many of my applications into the "cloud" (and I'm not sure what's a more ambiguous marketing term: "Cloud" or "WebApp?").

[dmizer]

Since the article is talking about Chrome OS, and not Google Chrome (the browser), I updated the thread title to accurately reflect this.

Thank you.

[Zero2Nine]

Storing data in the cloud is not bad per se, it has many advantages. However I don't like the idea that you have to store all of your work on Google's server and can't make the decision to only store it locally. Ubuntu also has a cloud service but you can choose if you want to use it or not.

[Naiki Muliaina]

Utter rubbish.


The Chrome OS will push people into careless computing by forcing them to store their data in the cloud, said Stallman, who's the founder and president of the Free Software Foundation.

I appear to have missed the announcement that Google were going to force us to their OS. ;)

[cptrohn]

I think that Google is just filling a new market with Chrome OS, I think it is too new to really be able to make a determination yet as to what it's usefullness will be and how the general computing world will take it (whether they will except it or not) I think that google sees enough people that are fed up Microsoft and Apple that will try it out, but don't want to make the move to linux because they don't understand it and don't want to put in the work of installing codecs etc.... the general computer user just wants to buy their computer, plug it in, turn it on, and have everything work. and most don't do much beyond getting online and checking their facebook, reading some articles, checking their email and maybe buying something on ebay. If google can get people intersted in doing that then I say more power to them.

competition drives innovation, and innovation drives technology and that means better products for all of us.

[alaukikyo]

since linux contains GPLed code how is chromium os released under the bsd license and how can chrome os be closed source?

[Evil-Ernie]

Utter rubbish.

I appear to have missed the announcement that Google were going to force us to their OS. ;)

Exactly, I for one wont be using it because I am happy with what I use already and I'm sure a great many people will make informed decisions of whether they want their data stored on Googles cloud or not.

The fact Google are even bothering to make Open Source software is a good step in the right direction, yet zealots like rms is one of the reasons why developers are not interested in making open source software.

[mick222]

Stallman is basically correct Google os is based on linux but the whole source code is not available and you are tied to Google's servers for most things.I don't personally think businesses will want all there data handled by a third party but it might be useful for individuals and non sensitive information.

[msrie]

Utter rubbish.



I appear to have missed the announcement that Google were going to force us to their OS. ;)

The point is they con people to join in. Cloud computing will come, and they will bring you all new toys to make these things seem normal. You can totally ignore the cloud computing thing, but you may be stuck with old techs, and i assume alot here are nerdy types who like new techs. Remember tomorrows kids will never know of any privacy or a world that existed without this over bearing gov.

[Evil-Ernie]

I don't personally think businesses will want all there data handled by a third party but it might be useful for individuals and non sensitive information.

You say that but: http://www.salesforce.com/
I have used Salesforce in 2 seperate companies (a 3rd ditched it in favour of SugarCRM just before I started with them) and I know its used extensively in the marketing industry with over 2million using it.

Some very sensitive customer information including address, contact details, buying habits and even corrispondance is kept on the Salesforce cloud by subscribers.

Business has and does use 3rd parties to look after their information and will continue to do so.

[Naiki Muliaina]

The point is they con people to join in.

How are they conning people?

[MisterGaribaldi]

Heh... y'know, most people out there are basically mindless sheep who will wind up getting what they deserve (and deserving what they get). Betcha most present "desktop Linux users" don't even know who Richard Stallman is, let alone Linus Torvalds, Eric S. Raymond, Bruce Perens, or any of the other F/OSS pundits and luminaries.

I agree with what are likely Mr. Stallman's, Mr. Lee's, and Mr. Enderle's thoughts and points on this. However, I don't see Chrome OS appealing to the regular computer user, so I'm not too worried.

Always keep your eyes open, folks, but you've gotta pick your battles, y'know?

[forrestcupp]

Chrome OS != Free Software:
Who gives a rats behind? Neither is Windows and I use it. I know some people care about this, but more people in the world do not.

Chrome OS computers = 100% Cloud:
Stupid. How many people have perfect internet connection with unlimited bandwidth all of the time and every single place they would ever want to use their computer? If you're in a place with poor or no connection, your whole computer is useless.

[MooPi]

Who cares?

Obviously not you :). But this is a larger argument than just Chrome OS. It encompasses the nature of cloud computing and loss of control over personal data. I use a webmail through gmail and yahoo and keep a dropbox available but this is for noncritical data. So if your data is not important to you than the cloud is of interest. But if like many others that believe something you've created or stored should be protected better than a promise by people and organisations that don't hold your well being a priority then it's not for you.

[Evil-Ernie]

Heh... y'know, most people out there are basically mindless sheep

See thats what I think about the people that follow rms to the letter, you can be blinkered in following an ideology just the same as the Apple fanboys with their shiny elitist products.

I believe that Mr Stallman thinks himself of some messiah that cant be questioned, if you do even slightly disagree with him then you dont support any FOSS etc etc.

He his not the messiah, he is a very naughty boy! :D (sorry, couldnt resist!)

[kaldor]

Even if you dislike Stallman, his assessment of Chrome is factually correct. ChromeOS does take a lot of control out of your hands, and does subject your data to easier government access. Whether or not that's a bad thing is up to you to decide for yourself.

This. And for that reason, I won't be buying a Chrome notebook. People are still going to flock to it, though.

[Naiki Muliaina]

I am quite stunned at what a minority I am by disagreeing with him.

[Evil-Ernie]

I am quite stunned at what a minority I am by disagreeing with him.

To be honest I'm not. I disagree too but I understand that on a discussion board such as this rms is revered for being such a strong figure on free software and I agree he has done a lot of good work.

However I disagree with his ranting almost paranoid rhetoric and in this case I think he is wrong and counter productive.

[conundrumx]

since linux contains GPLed code how is chromium os released under the bsd license and how can chrome os be closed source?

The Linux kernel is under GPLv2 because Linus Torvalds is (thankfully) not a crazed zealot with no concern for practicality.

[Spice Weasel]

The Linux kernel is under GPLv2 because Linus Torvalds is (thankfully) not a crazed zealot with no concern for practicality.

Please explain how wanting users of your licence to be protected from the DMCA is being a crazed zealot.

[conundrumx]

Please explain how wanting users of your licence to be protected from the DMCA is being a crazed zealot.

The viral aspect of the GPLv3 and the belief that proprietary software is by nature evil and detrimental is what I was referring to.

[zekopeko]

Please explain how wanting users of your licence to be protected from the DMCA is being a crazed zealot.

Please explain to me how a license makes the law not applicable.

[Hyporeal]

The faults of Chrome OS are well-known and Google acknowledges the basic facts. This isn't up for debate. Chrome OS isn't like Ubuntu. Anyone who is considering buying into Chrome OS should definitely be doing their homework. RMS makes valid points.

[conundrumx]

Please explain to me how a license makes the law not applicable.

It's not a question of making laws not applicable, but of granting authorization for something. You can't drive a car without a license (authorization), hunt, fish, distribute copyrighted material... you get the idea.

[Spice Weasel]

The viral aspect of the GPLv3 and the belief that proprietary software is by nature evil and detrimental is what I was referring to.

Stop reading Microsoft FUD.


Please explain to me how a license makes the law not applicable.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

[Naiki Muliaina]

The faults of Chrome OS are well-known and Google acknowledges the basic facts. This isn't up for debate. Chrome OS isn't like Ubuntu. Anyone who is considering buying into Chrome OS should definitely be doing their homework. RMS makes valid points.

Saying Google is forcing people to store data in the cloud is FUD, not a valid point. They are offering a service, not forcing a service.

[conundrumx]

Stop reading Microsoft FUD.

Huh? GPLv3 stuff can't (legally) be used by closed source projects. Thus, anything wishing to use GPLv3 licensed software must be GPL. It's not FUD, it's fact.


Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better.

Sometimes I wonder if RMS cares more about user's rights, or screwing over "the man."

[Frak]

Oh, look, Stallman is giving his opinion again. Oh, look, I'm not caring about his opinion, again.

Since this is the same guy who thinks we should trudge through slow, confusing, buggy software and sacrifice entertaining things like music and games for the sake of "freedom", I take everything he says with a 2-ton grain of salt.

[Spice Weasel]

Huh? GPLv3 stuff can't (legally) be used by closed source projects. Thus, anything wishing to use GPLv3 licensed software must be GPL. It's not FUD, it's fact.

That applies to all versions of the GPL, including v2, not just v3.

[Simian Man]

Oh, look, Stallman is giving his opinion again. Oh, look, I'm not caring about his opinion, again.

Since this is the same guy who thinks we should trudge through slow, confusing, buggy software and sacrifice entertaining things like music and games for the sake of "freedom", I take everything he says with a 2-ton grain of salt.

My thoughts exactly.

[Spice Weasel]

I have to agree with you there. All this Anti-Audio/Video Codecs stuff is crap. I can play MP3s using all free software. If Stallman wants us to stop using anything patented, he shouldn't use a computer.

[conundrumx]

That applies to all versions of the GPL, including v2, not just v3.

I don't have an immediate source for you, and maybe I'm just phrasing it wrong, but that is definitely not the case with GPLv2. Tons of companies released proprietary devices based on Linux with no issues (other than RMS foaming at the mouth), which is why changes were made in GPLv3 to prevent it.

[jerenept]

I don't have an immediate source for you, and maybe I'm just phrasing it wrong, but that is definitely not the case with GPLv2. Tons of companies released proprietary devices based on Linux with no issues (other than RMS foaming at the mouth), which is why changes were made in GPLv3 to prevent it.

And that is why 90% of all Linux user do NOT want the kernel under the GPLv3. It's just not practical.

(I like my NVIDIA drivers, PowerDVD, etc., they make live 1000x easier.)

[Dr. C]

I don't have an immediate source for you, and maybe I'm just phrasing it wrong, but that is definitely not the case with GPLv2. Tons of companies released proprietary devices based on Linux with no issues (other than RMS foaming at the mouth), which is why changes were made in GPLv3 to prevent it.

The changes to GPL v3 have nothing to do with companies selling propriety devices, for example owning patents on the hardware, and everything to do with companies trying to prevent end users from modifying the software on the devices they already own. I seriously doubt that 90% of Linux users are against GPL v3 in the Linux kernel. Source for the 90% of Linux users?

[wilee-nilee]

A more socialized world would be a benefit for all of us, the free market is not working, in that it leaves many under-served in just some of the basic necessities in survival. In the end RS is pushing a more even keeled socialized idea, it is just in a manner that little of us really look at from a world contextual format that puts aside the errors in his own ideas.

You guys are arguing about specific stuff when there is a much bigger contextual matter here.

A thread based on agree or disagreeing is just the example of a dichotomy, there is no exact answer here and no real start and stop of the continuum of all the factors involved.

[MooPi]

A more socialized world would be a benefit for all of us, the free market is not working, in that it leaves many under-served in just some of the basic necessities in survival. In the end RS is pushing a more even keeled socialized idea, it is just in a manner that little of us really look at from a world contextual format that puts aside the errors in his own ideas.

You guys are arguing about specific stuff when there is a much bigger contextual matter here.

A thread based on agree or disagreeing is just the example of a dichotomy, there is no exact answer here and no real start and stop of the continuum of all the factors involved.

This is mildly incorrect. In a perfect world everyone would share and work and be productive and caring. This is not the case and until every man and woman on earth behaves in this fashion we will be stuck with an under class and an elitist class. Call it the ying and yang of economics. Just look at China as an example of socialism not being just. They have some of the poorest people on earth living a sustenance existences and some of the richest in the ruling elite Communist Party. The free markets of the world also have modern day Carpet Baggers leaching off the back off common laborers. Each system in a unselfish world would probably flourish and be sustainable and just. Where oh where is Shangri La ? Linux would fit right in to Shangri La wouldn't it ?

[ErikNJ]

I have to agree with you there. All this Anti-Audio/Video Codecs stuff is crap. I can play MP3s using all free software. If Stallman wants us to stop using anything patented, he shouldn't use a computer.

Not that I fully agree with RMS's more extreme views, but there is a difference between a patent upon a hardware design (specific design) and a process or algorithm (like software).

[wilee-nilee]

This is mildly incorrect. In a perfect world everyone would share and work and be productive and caring. This is not the case and until every man and woman on earth behaves in this fashion we will be stuck with an under class and an elitist class. Call it the ying and yang of economics. Just look at China as an example of socialism not being just. They have some of the poorest people on earth living a sustenance existences and some of the richest in the ruling elite Communist Party. The free markets of the world also have modern day Carpet Baggers leaching off the back off common laborers. Each system in a unselfish world would probably flourish and be sustainable and just. Where oh where is Shangri La ? Linux would fit right in to Shangri La wouldn't it ?

I would agree the human condition doesn't show any fairness at all, in just about any area. We will screw each other at a heartbeat with no second thought, this is not always and not with every person.

The free market and stereotyping social scripting, along with myth take advantage of these built in systems. It is not much different in the whole representation of life that can prey on another.

I was not suggesting a perfect world fix but a contextual look, when we look at all the possible variables and outliers we have not much to say really, it is beyond our reasoning capability.

China is not a true socialist example, look closer at another socialized system like Sweden I suspect. There is no perfect answer that is my point here, and the systems we and other nations are not working in just plain human survival for a large part of the worlds population.

We have a world overpopulated by about 2/3 to begin with to survive with what is available on this planet.

[wojox]

RMS is a nit-wit. Who creates an OS an saves the kernel for last (and try to code it in C++)?

The only Cloud he cares about is the one he exhales from his six foot Bong. :p

Google is competing with Microsoft and Apple. That's why they are doing what their doing. I agree with wilee-nilee, the free market isn't working when your competing against proprietary companies.

This is only my opinion. ;)

[wilee-nilee]

RMS is a nit-wit. Who creates an OS an saves the kernel for last (and try to code it in C++)?

The only Cloud he cares about is the one he exhales from his six foot Bong. :p

Google is competing with Microsoft and Apple. That's why they are doing what their doing. I agree with wilee-nilee, the free market isn't working when your competing against proprietary companies.

This is only my opinion. ;)

Hey and I created my diatribe while exhaling.;)

[Spice Weasel]

RMS is a nit-wit. Who creates an OS an saves the kernel for last (and try to code it in C++)?

Should have based it on 4.4BSD if he wanted a microkernel. ;)

[wilee-nilee]

49 votes 51 posts I didn't vote as the poll is skewed.

[Tibuda]

I never agree with Richard Stallman.

[wojox]

49 votes 51 posts I didn't vote as the poll is skewed.

I didn't vote either. And quit using your extensive vocabulary. I have to keep using my dictionary. :D

[Hyporeal]

Saying Google is forcing people to store data in the cloud is FUD, not a valid point. They are offering a service, not forcing a service.

It's an operating system, not a service. And yes, it does expect that you will store your stuff online. It doesn't hold a gun to your head, but the necessity of cloud storage is part of the basic design.

[Hyporeal]

And that is why 90% of all Linux user do NOT want the kernel under the GPLv3. It's just not practical.

(I like my NVIDIA drivers, PowerDVD, etc., they make live 1000x easier.)

The GPLv3 does not prevent you from using proprietary drivers and software.

Also, I think you invented your 90% statistic. Bad form. ;)

[wilee-nilee]

I didn't vote either. And quit using your extensive vocabulary. I have to keep using my dictionary. :D

lol, you understood exhaled.;) That's all you really need to know.

[MisterGaribaldi]

I've looked into much of what Richard Stallman has said and stood for over the years, and while I do view him (in part) as being like one of the U.S.'s "founding fathers" regarding the philosophical basis of F/OSS, the GPL, etc., in general I disagree with him in significant other areas.

How many here who want to comment on Mr. Stallman have actually read what he's written or at least visited his web site? Go there and see for yourself where he stands in terms of political worldview (and other things) and decide for yourself how closely (if at all) you might align with him.

[Dr. C]

Richard Stallman's warnings about the cloud are right on the money. One gives up a lot of freedom and privacy when one stores one's email or documents on somebody else's server. One does not have to agree with his views on everything to recognize that on a lot of issues he has been right on and well ahead of his time. I for one have not forgotten when Microsoft forgot to renew the domain passport.com 10 years ago preventing access to Hotmail accounts.

This issue whether Chrome OS is FLOSS or not is actually irrelevant to the cloud or "mainframe" problem here. It is for the most part FLOSS including some GPL v3 code. The latter is the reason for the "developer switch" in the notebooks allowing for the installation of non signed, by Google, software.

By the way there has been a legal development recently in the US that does mitigate somewhat one of the cloud issues. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/breaking-news-eff-victory-appeals-court-holds

[madjr]

RMS you have 3 options to safe guard your privacy:

-use incognito mode in chrome (i think they were thinking in you when they added it)

-use an usb to store your stuff offline.

-Do not, i repeat, DO NOT take naked pics of yourself that you dont want leaked into the public... (God forbid! :-&)

[kvant]

RMS you have 3 options to safe guard your privacy:

-use incognito mode in chrome (i think they were thinking in you when they added it)

-use an usb to store your stuff offline.

-Do not, i repeat, DO NOT take naked pics of yourself that you dont want leaked into the public... (God forbid! :-&)

Chrome is proprietary software and therefore you cannot know what it's doing to your data because you don't have access to the source code. Just as I don't have access to see what Vista is doing as I'm writing this.

[kaldor]

Chrome OS != Free Software:
Who gives a rats behind? Neither is Windows and I use it. I know some people care about this, but more people in the world do not.

Chrome OS computers = 100% Cloud:
Stupid. How many people have perfect internet connection with unlimited bandwidth all of the time and every single place they would ever want to use their computer? If you're in a place with poor or no connection, your whole computer is useless.

This is my argument as well. Not the "cloud" thing, but the fact that ALL of your information gets stored online somewhere else in the world. I don't like it.

[kaldor]

Chrome is proprietary software and therefore you cannot know what it's doing to your data because you don't have access to the source code. Just as I don't have access to see what Vista is doing as I'm writing this.

http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os

[kvant]

http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os

Did you notice a small difference between two words - Chrome and Chromium?

[tjeremiah]

Wait, so Chrome OS is controlled by GOOGLE but Chromium OS isnt? Almost like the browser, right? But say if your using Chrome OS, does it store every little thing you do, even if you arent uploading content to the "cloud", their server?

[ade234uk]

What most non techy don't realise is the amount of information they are slowly giving away to places like Facebook, Forums, Flickr, Google and the more they post the bigger footprint they create about themselves and their tastes and their life and their job and their family and where they live it goes on and on.

I get extremely annoyed with my wife and her family for putting pictures of their life on Facebook. It's up to them what they do, but I want my privacy respected and I also want them to realise.

What annoys me even more is that we are all in other peoples photos too, and these photos are being shared without your permission on Facebook. So even if you hate Facebook you cannot get away from it. To me that is wrong because I don't want advertisers and organizations using this information.

[fugazi32]

ChromeOS does take a lot of control out of your hands, and does subject your data to easier government access. Whether or not that's a bad thing is up to you to decide for yourself.

Are Google working for the Illuminati?

Fnord.
;)

[kvant]

Wait, so Chrome OS is controlled by GOOGLE but Chromium OS isnt? Almost like the browser, right? But say if your using Chrome OS, does it store every little thing you do, even if you arent uploading content to the "cloud", their server?

Honestly, I haven't researched this. The guy was mentioning the browser "Chrome" and my reply was about that.

If Chromium OS is to Chrome OS what Chromium is to Chrome, then it would be slightly better, but still not good because such software cannot be free even if it's under the free licence beacuse it uses machines beyond your control to do your computing and data storage therefore disabling you from controlling your own data.

[madjr]

Chrome is proprietary software and therefore you cannot know what it's doing to your data because you don't have access to the source code. Just as I don't have access to see what Vista is doing as I'm writing this.

anyone who wants to get involved in chromeOS , needs to get involved in chromiumOS first.

http://www.google.com/chromeos/features.html

its totally open source.

and as for your "data" only being in the cloud, that is total FUD!

you can keep stuff in the flash drive and external storage without needing to sync them.

in fact my browsers dont even sync unless i tell them to.

And for the extremely paranoid like you, there is the incognito mode.

Also, you'll be still be able to hide behind proxies and all that usual stuff you use to hide with.