The google chrome os is set to come out soon!!! Its open source and I was wondering if we could have this actually portable. I was wondering though if anyone knew if it would be possible to actually download the whole thing (not like google chrome portable, where you have to have a local install). Is there any license issues? Maybe we could get around it and portable-ize an *unofficial* version of it (from here: http://www.bestfreewaredownload.com/freeware/t-free-google-operating-sys...)
before they come up with a license so then when the official version comes out, google might agree to let us have it portable.
Now wouldn't that be sweet?
I saw an online poll that said when it comes out that 98% of people will download it.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
As I heard, Chrome OS isn't OSS, it's proprietary. That, and it makes more sense to just have Chrome (or Iron) portable because it's really just a browser OS.
I, myself don't really want Chrome OS to be successful because Chrome OS=Linux Viruses.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
Chrome OS Linux virsuses, i think. But I'm not sure.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
and i have proof:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/07/google-announces-chrome-os-...
But think about it: portableapps.com could actual have an operating system to download. Not just instructions for mac-on-stick or a coming soon for linux but something you could actually download!
I prefer the fedora on USB. There's a program that makes it easy.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
There's a program that makes any LiveCD easy, called UNetBootin.
I see as the main problem for USB linux is that it's either lacking because of horrible programs and/or package management systems or slow...
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
I was wondering about an OS that that runs inside windows (I know theres a lot out there so don't post them). Live USB doesn't work out because its too slow.
Just search for it, it's pretty easy to find.
But don't be mislead; it's portable as in cross-platform, not as in USB stick portable.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
like i said, I know there out there so don't post about them.
Sorry
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
needs a driver to work really well.
You can try qemu, but it also needs a driver to work well. But qemu can run without the driver.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
At least according to them:
http://chrome.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-chrome-os-faq.html
There is mention of releasing source code later in the year, but it's later in the year now, and it's not even out yet.
I'd like to see a newbie Linux work out. Sure, it's nice to say you use Slackware or Gentoo or whatever that one is that you have to compile yourself (and if done right is among the best). Lindows/Linspire was one of the best ideas in the Linux world; unfortunately, in practice it wasn't as great as it led people to believe (and ultimately failed) but that doesn't mean such ideas shouldn't be pursued, it just means they should be done better.
If the amount of viruses for Linux was proportional to the percentage of Linux machines, we would have a lot more than 1000 documented Linux viruses, in relation to the 6 million for windows. This is because, although Linux stands for about 1% of the market and MacOS for 5% (at least according to the article I link below). The amount of viruses for these systems doesn't pass 0.16% approximately for each system (and we're not having in account that the server market is ruled by Linux).
This happens, not because Linux is not know, but because of its safety and good code.
More info can be seen in here.
It's also because anybody who's smart enough to even know that Linux exists also knows how to avoid viruses.
For any of you that don't know what a virus is, the government made this site called OnGuard Online, with some pretty pathetic yet addictive games (is that a good thing?).
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
I'll probably download it and give it a try, but I doubt I'll be that impressed. There are a lot of Linux distros that can run from flash drives that have had years of testing and improvments. I doubt Google's first try will be better.
I'm not a linux expert by any means, but I've tried out a half-dozen assorted live distros. I don't use any of them full time, but I do always keep Puppy Linux on one of my flash drives in case of emergency. When the hard drive in my laptop had a problem and I couldn't boot to windows, I was able to boot to Puppy from the flash drive and recover all my data.
You can have both the linux distro and your portable apps on the same drive, with a little work. If you partition a flash drive, Window only shows the first partition. You can put apps on the first partition, make the second partition bootable, and put linux there.
google is HUGE! They're one of the biggest companies (in terms of stock prices) in the world. With all them fancy developers, don't you think it otta be pretty great, even for their first try?
Well, it looks like there's no point in making a big fuss over this. Google has finally released some info on this OS:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/8_things_you_need_know_about_c...
It is open source, but it's very limited on what hardware it runs on (no hard drives, only some wireless chipsets. Moreover, it's not much of an OS, given that the only app is Chrome browser. You can only run web-based apps, and it stores all data in the cloud.
I think I'll stick with Puppy.
And why do people make such a fuss about it?
Looks more like a cloud computing system than an operating system to me.
And as I don't like clouds (if they aren't in the sky ;)), I think I´ll stick with what I have
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
The earlier information made it sound more like a real OS, a linux distro with a major company backing it. A lot of people thought that sounded like a really good thing, given how fragmented the linux community is.
I didn't really expect too much, myself. Other big outfits have tried to make their own Linux OS with limited or no real success. For example, Intel made the Moblin OS specifically for the Atom processor. Sounds like a good idea, but the early releases were awfully buggy. Moblin is up to version 2.1 now, and it's much more stable. It's still a lousy excuse for an OS, IMO. Most major linux distros support the Atom at least as well, and have a lot more features and better software.
"I saw an online poll that said when it comes out that 98% of people will download it."
I will swallow my face if this is true. There is no way 98% of the general internet population will download it.
AFAIK, it's an appliance app, meaning that it's locked down to certain devices (which supposedly would give it faster bootup because they modified the firmware).
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
yes. And its main purpose is to run Chrome Web Browser.
So . . . . .
It should have to have a hard drive, RAM, etc. But I think google may pull something similar to Apple (albeit maybe looser) and hook it to licensed hardware. But hopefully they''ll be a little more open. I.E here's the standards, make it work.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
It is open source, so maybe someone will be able to make a real OS out of this, but I think they'd be better off working with a real distro than using this as a starting point.
yeah. But why start with chromeOS when I can just use ubuntu or opensuse or mepis or fedora.
yeah, I stick with one of those
Google's starting to scare me.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
I think it was at techcrunch.com
so only 98% of the readers of techcrunch will use it.
Only the TechCrunch readers who already had enough of a pre-existing interest in Chrome OS to read an article about it and then participate in the survey.
PortableApps.com Advocate