Is Google's Chrome OS Good for Linux?

[jonathank89]

I wrote this piece after listening to a tuxradar podcast were they talked about Chrome OS (they even read my answer to there "Chrome OS: hero or zero?" question on air, which was cool ).

Anyway...I'm an Ubuntu user and have been for a couple of years now, but I've come to release that while linux on the desktop has grown a decent amount I just wish it was more, because I'm sure like most of you, I can really see the potential there and want the world to see it! With Google entering the OS space and with it being built on linux and being open source I'm really hoping that going to help vendors get there act together and support linux properly! Anyway, I'm interested in what other people think about this:

My post: http://friendlytechninja.com/2010/01...ood-for-linux/

Oh if you see typo's or something leave a comment on the post to let me know...I usually just write howto's...Thanks

[AllRadioisDead]

it's*

[k64]

I just replied to the Friendly Tech Ninja article (it's awaiting moderation). Hope you like my feedback.

[cascade9]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...chrome is NOT open source.

These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html.

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html

The Chromium software and sample code developed by Google is licensed under the BSD license.

http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html

Because chromium is a BSD licence they can move over whatever code they want to chrome and don't have to provide any source code...and they are under no obligation to move any code over if they so wish. They can also put in whatever code they want into chrome and no give any indication that the code is different to chromium.

Brilliant gambit from google. Do some work on chrome, release the code as chromium under the BSD licence, insinuate that chrome is open source, (but keep it closed) and get coders for free. My hat is off to the cunning devils. But I'll never run chrome.

[n0dix]

I think that Google Chrome SO will give more popularity to linux in general. Therefore, the community is benefit.

[p_quarles]

Brilliant gambit from google. Do some work on chrome, release the code as chromium under the BSD licence, insinuate that chrome is open source, (but keep it closed) and get coders for free. My hat is off to the cunning devils. But I'll never run chrome.

And yet, even the purist FSF folks consider that license to be free.

I mean, you CAN access the source code, right? Am I missing something?

[cascade9]

And yet, even the purist FSF folks consider that license to be free.

I mean, you CAN access the source code, right? Am I missing something?

In some way, the BSD licence is 'freer' than the GPL. GPL locks you into more GPL, BSD licence lets you move the code into proprietary projects. (there has been a few 'libertarians' here arguing that the BSD licence is the only 'free' licence for just that reason).

You can see the code for chromium, but not chrome.

[earthpigg]

And yet, even the purist FSF folks consider that license to be free.

I mean, you CAN access the source code, right? Am I missing something?

yes, the BSD license is free... and from there, you can create non-free works if you wish. i could modify Chromium, load it with my own spyware and/or malware, keep the source code private, and release it in binary form as "Krome" if i wished. (eventually, i'd get hung up in court... but over trademark, not violating the BSD license.)

OS X is not FreeBSD. but, let's pretend it is for a moment.

OS X and FreeBSD have significantly different names. consumers will not get confused about which is open source and which is not.

but when one person points out, as the user above did, that the full products known as Chrome OS and Chrome Browser are not open source at all, and that Chromium OS and Chromium are open source... folks will be tempted to say "Same thing" and let the waters be murky and muddy.

this could also mean that Open Source get's blamed for some flaw of Chrome Browser/OS that stems from it being proprietary. i can see it now: some google spyware included in chrome that no one gets to see the source code of will have a security vulnerability that gets exploited... "See, open source stuff is just as insecure as proprietary!"

(yes, i know some of the spyware is included in chromium's source. it would be silly to assume that all of it is.)

in b4 people start using words like 'based on' and 'built upon'. doesn't matter.

0. you probably cannot use chrome for any purpose, but i haven't read the EULA. (you can for chromium, though)
1. you cannot study the source code of chrome (you can for chromium, though)
2. you can probably redistribute copies of chrome.
3. you cannot redistribute modified versions of chrome, because there is no access to source code. (you can do this with chromium, though.)

The Four Software Freedoms Do Not Apply To Google Chrome OS or Google Chrome Browser.

period.

you can assume and wish to believe that Chrome and Chromium are exactly identical aside from branding, but that's it. while you are at it, i have a very nice red bridge here in San Francisco that i have for sale, if you are interested. send some money to my paypal, and it's yours. ill fax you the bill of sale.

eventually, perhaps, someone could get interested enough to look at the nitty-gritty system calls and whatnot of Chrome and compare those to Chromium and do some reverse engineering... but i doubt anyone will bother. many/most of those individuals will simply work on or fork or develop chromium instead.

[p_quarles]

yes, the BSD license is free... and from there, you can create non-free works if you wish. i could modify Chromium, load it with my own spyware and/or malware, keep the source code private, and release it in binary form as "Krome" if i wished. (eventually, i'd get hung up in court... but over trademark, not violating the BSD license.)

More pertinently, you wouldn't be able to distribute your spyware/malware under the BSD license.

this could also mean that Open Source get's blamed for some flaw of Chrome Browser/OS that stems from it being proprietary. i can see it now: some google spyware included in chrome that no one gets to see the source code of will have a security vulnerability that gets exploited... "See, open source stuff is just as insecure as proprietary!"

Well, yes, open source stuff *is* just as insecure as proprietary stuff. Security depends on the quality of auditing, not the quantity.

... but i doubt anyone will bother. many/most of those individuals will simply work on or fork or develop chromium instead.

Which they would not be able to do if not for the fact that Chromium was licensed under the BSD license...

[cascade9]

but when one person points out, as the user above did, that the full products known as Chrome OS and Chrome Browser are not open source at all, and that Chromium OS and Chromium are open source... folks will be tempted to say "Same thing" and let the waters be murky and muddy.

this could also mean that Open Source get's blamed for some flaw of Chrome Browser/OS that stems from it being proprietary. i can see it now: some google spyware included in chrome that no one gets to see the source code of will have a security vulnerability that gets exploited... "See, open source stuff is just as insecure as proprietary!"

Thanks earthpig, I'm glad I'm not the only one

More pertinently, you wouldn't be able to distribute your spyware/malware under the BSD license.

Glib answer- why not? Its what google is doing

Seriously, the BSD licence doesnt magically protect against any form a spyware, malware etc. If your are silly enough to install it, that is your problem.

Well, yes, open source stuff *is* just as insecure as proprietary stuff. Security depends on the quality of auditing, not the quantity.

Its not just about quality vs quantity. Some times is about avtually getting a patch made-

Microsoft today admitted it knew of the Internet Explorer flaw used in the attacks against Google and Adobe since September last year.

http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/mi...ptember-012110

At least with open source, once a security flaw is discovered its more likely to get fixed. People who can actually find flaws are more likely to be able to write a fix....With proprietary /closed source software, you have to wait until someone gets the patch out.

Which they would not be able to do if not for the fact that Chromium was licensed under the BSD license...

I'm a bit confused here. Do you mean fork it or develop for it, both of which are totally possible under other licences. Or reverse engineer it? Which is...well, I wont say illegal, but its specifically referred to in the chrome licence-

9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html