GOOGLE CHROME OS

johan851 said:

If the cloud model takes off, this isn't the issue. It's not where the software comes from, like tightly-controlled Apple software or open source efforts, but rather the medium. The medium will be the web, and you'd be able to use your open source products and services through a web platform.

Click to expand...

Well firstly I'm not an open-source advocate. I am a free software advocate. Like the link I posted above I don't want the medium to be some vague entity on the internet. For example I know of a browser plugin that is free software and GPL licensed. However, what it does is it sends your data to a remote server which checks it for grammar errors. The whole point of free software is to be in control of your computing. If you read the link I posted earlier when you use software as a service you give it up to some entity on the internet.

For example I know of a browser plugin that is free software and GPL licensed. However, what it does is it sends your data to a remote server which checks it for grammar errors.

Click to expand...

That's an example of something that you don't like, correct?

johan851 said:

That's an example of something that you don't like, correct?

Click to expand...

Yes. I won't use that extension. While the client itself is GPL'd it is just simply a frontend. If the program was free and did the grammar correction on MY computer I would have no problem with it.

To reiterate the point of free software is to have control of your computing. Viewing a webpage and using the internet is great. But a few services are actually programs (e.g. google docs, the extension I mentioned) which do the computation for you. Thus you don't have control over the computing. That is my issue.

Thus, my problem extends to the Chrome OS where that is the whole point. Even if the whole OS was free software I couldn't use any of the 4 freedoms I value over the "actual" programs. I couldn't modify/study/share the google doc program. So that is my whole issue.

People however are free to install whatever they want on their computers. I can't and won't stop them.

TalRW said:

Yes. I won't use that extension. While the client itself is GPL'd it is just simply a frontend. If the program was free and did the grammar correction on MY computer I would have no problem with it.

To reiterate the point of free software is to have control of your computing. Viewing a webpage and using the internet is great. But a few services are actually programs (e.g. google docs, the extension I mentioned) which do the computation for you. Thus you don't have control over the computing. That is my issue.

Thus, my problem extends to the Chrome OS where that is the whole point. Even if the whole OS was free software I couldn't use any of the 4 freedoms I value over the "actual" programs. I couldn't modify/study/share the google doc program. So that is my whole issue.

People however are free to install whatever they want on their computers. I can't and won't stop them.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Then I can see why you wouldn't like Chrome OS. But once you click "install" (or type sudo apt-get, or whatever) you're surrendering control of your computing anyway, aren't you? Whenever you let any code run by any developer other than yourself, you've lost control. So it doesn't sound like you actually want control over your computing, it simply sounds like you want everything to be local. Local computing resources and local data to be viewed locally. I guess I don't understand your motivation there.

When I talk about the medium being the web, I'm not making a distinction between services and applications, I'm making a distinction between local resources and remote resources. You have all the same issues with free software vs open source vs closed source regardless of the medium.

You mention a few issues here. I'll go through them one by one.

Whenever you let any code run by any developer other than yourself, you've lost control.

Click to expand...

Not true. However, when I say "control" I mean that you run free software which gives you control over your computer. Almost 100% of the software on my computer was written by developers other then myself. (Having a single person write their own OS is almost impossible in any practical terms) However I use a FSF endorsed distro in which all the software on it meets the 4 freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Thus if I want with a simply command (sudp apt-get source) I can download the source code to any program on my computer. I have the freedom to modify and share it how I wish. Having someone else write your software doesn't make you lose control as long as it is under a free license.

But once you click "install" (or type sudo apt-get, or whatever) you're surrendering control of your computing anyway, aren't you?

Click to expand...

See my above answer. It only is surrendering your own control if you are agreeing to a non-free license. For example lets say you install chrome (the browser) or any other proprietary program that says in their EULA that you can't copy, modify, or redistribute. Then yes, you are surrendering your freedom. I don't install those sorts of programs.

So it doesn't sound like you actually want control over your computing, it simply sounds like you want everything to be local. Local computing resources and local data to be viewed locally.

Click to expand...

Also not what I am saying. I do use online services and support others. Two examples. One is tinyogg. The other is the MMORPG game Ryzom. Tinyogg converts flash videos from sites like youtube into ogg videos. The other is a MMORPG game. Both are under the GNU Affero (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html) license. This basically says that if you run a server and allow others to use it you must also make the source code to the server's program available. That way if I wanted I COULD run my own ryzom server or tinyogg server. So I have no problem using services that are GNU Affero licensed. It isn't a matter of local vs remote. Even though these services are remote I still have access to the source code, and freedom to run/modify/study/redistribute it if I want.

In contrast google docs I can not download the source code. If I ran my own google docs server I would be sued. If I shared the source code (assuming I could obtain it) I would be called a pirate. That is the difference.

I guess I don't understand your motivation there.

Click to expand...

My motivation is that I am a supporter of software freedom. If you want more information on that you can visit the Free Software Foundation's website. Also read the link I posted earlier. about Software as a Service. Google Chrome is not in the interest of software freedom. Hence I am against it.

When I talk about the medium being the web, I'm not making a distinction between services and applications, I'm making a distinction between local resources and remote resources. You have all the same issues with free software vs open source vs closed source regardless of the medium.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here. I don't think there is a distinction between a "service" and an "application" really. At least in the sense we are talking about. One is simply just a program you run on your computer and one is simply a program run on someone elses computer.

Yes, with local vs remote resources you do have all the same issues with free vs non-free programs. Which is why I will only use free programs on my computer and free services online like the ones I mentioned above. If google chrome OS pointed you to only libre remote services then I would endorse it.

Yes, with local vs remote resources you do have all the same issues with free vs non-free programs. Which is why I will only use free programs on my computer and free services online like the ones I mentioned above. If google chrome OS pointed you to only libre remote services then I would endorse it.

Click to expand...

I see. So it's not that you couldn't use an operating system LIKE Chrome because the medium is different, but rather you won't use Chrome OS specifically because the OS itself does't meet the free software standards you mentioned. Right? So what about Chromium-OS?

My motivation is that I am a supporter of software freedom. If you want more information on that you can visit the Free Software Foundation's website. Also read the link I posted earlier. about Software as a Service. Google Chrome is not in the interest of software freedom. Hence I am against it.

Click to expand...

I didn't understand your motivation for everything to be local. That's why that sentence was in that paragraph. Now I see that what you want is a little different than what I thought.

johan851 said:

I see. So it's not that you couldn't use an operating system LIKE Chrome because the medium is different, but rather you won't use Chrome OS specifically because the OS itself does't meet the free software standards you mentioned. Right? So what about Chromium-OS?

Click to expand...

Exactly, I am not familiar with Chromium-OS. I am assuming this is the free version of Chrome OS. Since I am not familiar with it I won't make any definite statements about it since I don't want to comment on something I don't really know about.

However, chances are that I probably wouldn't support that. Most likely because it is just like that browser extension. Just a free front end for SaaS. The issue is very complex. There is a video where Richard Stallman talks about it. He explains things better then I can. See (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/libreplanet-audio-and-video-is-now-ready) check out the video "Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation Awards." He starts talking about it at about minute 4 or 5

If Chrome OS took off, and lets say every computer in the world has Chrome OS, or even another OS (due to monopoly) but they both work the exact same way, everything in the cloud.

First I think it wouldn't take off so much, why? People like privacy, second everything can be read by government and tracked etc, sure if you're a good citizen what do you have to hide, but still the fact anyone could hack and read your stuff, secondly you'd have to be connected to the internet always, which sucks because I have one computer that has never and never will be connected for tax/privacy purposes.

So if everything did connect in this way and it became the standard, i think a lot of my work would end up back on paper and pencil...

MetaX said:

If Chrome OS took off, and lets say every computer in the world has Chrome OS, or even another OS (due to monopoly) but they both work the exact same way, everything in the cloud.

First I think it wouldn't take off so much, why? People like privacy, second everything can be read by government and tracked etc, sure if you're a good citizen what do you have to hide, but still the fact anyone could hack and read your stuff, secondly you'd have to be connected to the internet always, which sucks because I have one computer that has never and never will be connected for tax/privacy purposes.

So if everything did connect in this way and it became the standard, i think a lot of my work would end up back on paper and pencil...

Click to expand...

Encryption!