...The benefit of cloud storage for applications is that they all can be updated without the users even having to bother with it. People will have the latest versions all of the time.
Because users love when things change on them without notice.
Viruses shouldn't be a problem with cloud based software.
And when it turns out that they ARE susceptible to malicious acts, EVERY user will suffer, all at the same time.
I'm not feeling the impetus to drive any of my material to the cloud. The storage isn't guaranteed, so you still have to do backups, and backups are harder because these companies want your content stuck in their proprietary system (MS Office all over again, but actually worse and more domineering). The security is bad because of the basic fact that a Google an Apple server is a bigger target for assault than a Jane Smith personal device. They will issue a "we're sorry", but not a guarantee or compensation for failure or stolen/compromised private data. The reliability of the service is questionable, as existing systems show (and don't tell me it'll get better because computers have been here far too long to still be as much of a broken pain in the ass as they really still are) and there's no backup tool to use when the network or service craps out (if my device craps out, I can use another, faster than waiting for a major Internet service to recover). Then there's the crappy GUI and user experience, and, WORSE, all the advertising they'll ram down our throats, and the eventual attempt to get us to pay for what started out as free (in order to acquire users in the first place).
I'm not being a Luddite. I'm being practical and I'm looking at how this industry has worked to this day. Practicality and reliability are the antithesis of the computer industry.
Is there a place for these kinds of things at all? Yes, of course; especially collaboration in a project heavy with sharing of non-private data. But it's a far cry from the superior default platform upon which to do all of our work. I do not see it being a good goal for anyone but the top three capitalists and their preferred shareholders.
Why would you want to when you could buy a laptop and put Linux on it instead? If you have to look at a product from the point of view of a hacker or modder before it's really useful then your product is a failure.
Because:
1. You run Linux and Chromios at the same time, getting the benefits of both.
2. It's very easy
3. I was not commenting on whether the Chromebook Pixel was a wise product move by Google, but only on whether it would be useful. The answer is that a nice Chrome/Linux box with a beautiful display is definitely useful. I generally use MacBook Pros for my computing, but this is a very enticing alternative (the macbooks are WAY more expensive, come with some better hardware, but no LTE, nor the terabyte of cloud storage.
1. You run Linux and Chromios at the same time, getting the benefits of both.
2. It's very easy
3. I was not commenting on whether the Chromebook Pixel was a wise product move by Google, but only on whether it would be useful. The answer is that a nice Chrome/Linux box with a beautiful display is definitely useful. I generally use MacBook Pros for my computing, but this is a very enticing alternative (the macbooks are WAY more expensive, come with some better hardware, but no LTE, nor the terabyte of cloud storage.
1) I wasn't aware that Chrome OS had virtualization option to run Linux on Chrome OS.
2) You can run Linux atop Windows and Mac OS X, too, but seems like a better option that simply running a VM of Linux on a Linux-based OS. What's the benefit of that, especially with the HW provided which is really only impressive on the display HW?
It's a lousy product. There's no way you can create high-end applications for it since you can't actually write native code for it. All it does is run Web Apps inside a browser based OS. It's only good for basic tasks like e-mail, browsing, social interaction or creating basic documents. You can't do anything requiring graphical power (photo or video editing, illustration or even games). It would be useless for web developers since you don't have a way to check your website on multiple browsers for compatibility. You can't code or develop software on it since you're never going to see a Web App compiler (well, they could off-load the compiling to a third party but what programmer is going to trust their code to someone else to compile?).
And when you try and rape people $1,300 for a high-end version it's downright stupid. High-end hardware that lacks the software to do any high-end work.
Bottom line: great for simple tasks, useless for real work.
Third party developers should not be allowed to create native iPhone applications. Nobody needs native iPhone applications. Web apps are "really sweet".
Third party developers should not be allowed to create native iPhone applications. Nobody needs native iPhone applications. Web apps are "really sweet".
You should be banned for constantly posting this crap.
1) I wasn't aware that Chrome OS had virtualization option to run Linux on Chrome OS.
2) You can run Linux atop Windows and Mac OS X, too, but seems like a better option that simply running a VM of Linux on a Linux-based OS. What's the benefit of that, especially with the HW provided which is really only impressive on the display HW?
As for your second question, I haven't run Linux virtually on the mac, but I HAVE run windows (with both VMWare and Parallels), and there is quite considerable performance degradation, in my experience. The Chromebook supposedly runs linux at native speeds. The LTE is clearly a win (I am typing this in a New York City hotel, where I am using my iPad's hotspot functionality, but this is clunky (and I HAVE to have multiple devices with me). The display hardware is significant for me (I stare at my screen too much, and get tired on lower res devices). Otherwise, I don't disagree, the hardware is pretty generic except for the LTE and screen.
As for your second question, I haven't run Linux virtually on the mac, but I HAVE run windows (with both VMWare and Parallels), and there is quite considerable performance degradation, in my experience. The Chromebook supposedly runs linux at native speeds. The LTE is clearly a win (I am typing this in a New York City hotel, where I am using my iPad's hotspot functionality, but this is clunky (and I HAVE to have multiple devices with me). The display hardware is significant for me (I stare at my screen too much, and get tired on lower res devices). Otherwise, I don't disagree, the hardware is pretty generic except for the LTE and screen.
1) VMs don't degrade performance very much. Modern CPUs have virtualization features built-in that make them excellent options. In fact, many corporate servers are virtual machines that they can seamless move between physical servers without it ever skipping a beat. I'm quite a fan of XenServer and iSCSI specifically for this type of ease of use and redundancy.
2) You inferred that you're running two OSes at the same time on the same HW. That means it has to be a VM if you are actually running two OSes. Crouton clearly shows that you're switching between two UIs for a single OS that is running. That is not two OSes as you can tell by how quickly it launches without any bootstrap or other aspects of the OS loading. It does, however, help prove my earlier point that Chrome OS is built atop a fully accessible Linux substrate.
edit: The Ubbuntu UI is running in its own space (wondered how they were going to deal with that) but it's still running on the same single boot. It's more complex than simply running different GUIs like you can do with Gnome and KDE, but it's not that much different. The changes all look to be made to convert the Linux boot to simply allow the Ubuntu GUI to start as needed. A clever proof-of-concept but it's not going to make waves do to its many shortcomings.
3) What Linux distro has a GUI that is designed for the Chromebook Pixel display at this time? I'd guessing none at this point. This is an area where Linux is likely very slow to move.
I am a bit confused: what does this actually mean, since the device doesn't have 3840x2400 pixels???
It means you can make all the elements on the screen much, much smaller but it'll have the same fuzziness issues with any fractional pixels and use more power to render the non-standard UI.
Just because I didn't comment on it doesn't mean it was ignored. i don't know anything about web development nor did I see anything that would dispute what you said, so I had nothing to add. You're probably right that it's not a good choice for a web developer. You just weren't right about some of your other Chromebook claims.
LOL you fail, dude. Do you get to demo the products before you market them? Honest question.
Bought Office for Mac today. See, they offer "the next version for free if you buy now". Got to the offer site. Filled in the code. Found I actually get "one year of Office 360 cloud-based service". Feel cheated.
Comments
Can't believe no one here has brought up QuickRes. Because of the two graphics cards, you can go all the way up to 3840x2400.
http://quickresapp.com
Because users love when things change on them without notice.
And when it turns out that they ARE susceptible to malicious acts, EVERY user will suffer, all at the same time.
I'm not feeling the impetus to drive any of my material to the cloud. The storage isn't guaranteed, so you still have to do backups, and backups are harder because these companies want your content stuck in their proprietary system (MS Office all over again, but actually worse and more domineering). The security is bad because of the basic fact that a Google an Apple server is a bigger target for assault than a Jane Smith personal device. They will issue a "we're sorry", but not a guarantee or compensation for failure or stolen/compromised private data. The reliability of the service is questionable, as existing systems show (and don't tell me it'll get better because computers have been here far too long to still be as much of a broken pain in the ass as they really still are) and there's no backup tool to use when the network or service craps out (if my device craps out, I can use another, faster than waiting for a major Internet service to recover). Then there's the crappy GUI and user experience, and, WORSE, all the advertising they'll ram down our throats, and the eventual attempt to get us to pay for what started out as free (in order to acquire users in the first place).
I'm not being a Luddite. I'm being practical and I'm looking at how this industry has worked to this day. Practicality and reliability are the antithesis of the computer industry.
Is there a place for these kinds of things at all? Yes, of course; especially collaboration in a project heavy with sharing of non-private data. But it's a far cry from the superior default platform upon which to do all of our work. I do not see it being a good goal for anyone but the top three capitalists and their preferred shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Who says you have to push out the 1TB on LTE (or, for that matter on the ChromeBook)?
Who said you needed to buy 1TB of cloud storage?
Actually as of late more and more Apple users are saying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Why would you want to when you could buy a laptop and put Linux on it instead? If you have to look at a product from the point of view of a hacker or modder before it's really useful then your product is a failure.
Because:
1. You run Linux and Chromios at the same time, getting the benefits of both.
2. It's very easy
3. I was not commenting on whether the Chromebook Pixel was a wise product move by Google, but only on whether it would be useful. The answer is that a nice Chrome/Linux box with a beautiful display is definitely useful. I generally use MacBook Pros for my computing, but this is a very enticing alternative (the macbooks are WAY more expensive, come with some better hardware, but no LTE, nor the terabyte of cloud storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Who said you needed to buy 1TB of cloud storage?
Some do, others don't. What's your point?
1) I wasn't aware that Chrome OS had virtualization option to run Linux on Chrome OS.
2) You can run Linux atop Windows and Mac OS X, too, but seems like a better option that simply running a VM of Linux on a Linux-based OS. What's the benefit of that, especially with the HW provided which is really only impressive on the display HW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
It's a lousy product. There's no way you can create high-end applications for it since you can't actually write native code for it. All it does is run Web Apps inside a browser based OS. It's only good for basic tasks like e-mail, browsing, social interaction or creating basic documents. You can't do anything requiring graphical power (photo or video editing, illustration or even games). It would be useless for web developers since you don't have a way to check your website on multiple browsers for compatibility. You can't code or develop software on it since you're never going to see a Web App compiler (well, they could off-load the compiling to a third party but what programmer is going to trust their code to someone else to compile?).
And when you try and rape people $1,300 for a high-end version it's downright stupid. High-end hardware that lacks the software to do any high-end work.
Bottom line: great for simple tasks, useless for real work.
Third party developers should not be allowed to create native iPhone applications. Nobody needs native iPhone applications. Web apps are "really sweet".
You should be banned for constantly posting this crap.
Doesn't iPad do the same thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I wasn't aware that Chrome OS had virtualization option to run Linux on Chrome OS.
2) You can run Linux atop Windows and Mac OS X, too, but seems like a better option that simply running a VM of Linux on a Linux-based OS. What's the benefit of that, especially with the HW provided which is really only impressive on the display HW?
Yes, it does, see:
https://github.com/dnschneid/crouton
http://gigaom.com/2013/03/05/video-chromebook-pixel-running-chrome-os-and-linux-simultaneously/
(actually, see the second one first).
As for your second question, I haven't run Linux virtually on the mac, but I HAVE run windows (with both VMWare and Parallels), and there is quite considerable performance degradation, in my experience. The Chromebook supposedly runs linux at native speeds. The LTE is clearly a win (I am typing this in a New York City hotel, where I am using my iPad's hotspot functionality, but this is clunky (and I HAVE to have multiple devices with me). The display hardware is significant for me (I stare at my screen too much, and get tired on lower res devices). Otherwise, I don't disagree, the hardware is pretty generic except for the LTE and screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brisance
Can't believe no one here has brought up QuickRes. Because of the two graphics cards, you can go all the way up to 3840x2400.
http://quickresapp.com
I am a bit confused: what does this actually mean, since the device doesn't have 3840x2400 pixels???
1) VMs don't degrade performance very much. Modern CPUs have virtualization features built-in that make them excellent options. In fact, many corporate servers are virtual machines that they can seamless move between physical servers without it ever skipping a beat. I'm quite a fan of XenServer and iSCSI specifically for this type of ease of use and redundancy.
2) You inferred that you're running two OSes at the same time on the same HW. That means it has to be a VM if you are actually running two OSes. Crouton clearly shows that you're switching between two UIs for a single OS that is running. That is not two OSes as you can tell by how quickly it launches without any bootstrap or other aspects of the OS loading. It does, however, help prove my earlier point that Chrome OS is built atop a fully accessible Linux substrate.
edit: The Ubbuntu UI is running in its own space (wondered how they were going to deal with that) but it's still running on the same single boot. It's more complex than simply running different GUIs like you can do with Gnome and KDE, but it's not that much different. The changes all look to be made to convert the Linux boot to simply allow the Ubuntu GUI to start as needed. A clever proof-of-concept but it's not going to make waves do to its many shortcomings.
3) What Linux distro has a GUI that is designed for the Chromebook Pixel display at this time? I'd guessing none at this point. This is an area where Linux is likely very slow to move.
It means you can make all the elements on the screen much, much smaller but it'll have the same fuzziness issues with any fractional pixels and use more power to render the non-standard UI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Just because I didn't comment on it doesn't mean it was ignored. i don't know anything about web development nor did I see anything that would dispute what you said, so I had nothing to add. You're probably right that it's not a good choice for a web developer. You just weren't right about some of your other Chromebook claims.
LOL you fail, dude. Do you get to demo the products before you market them? Honest question.
deleted
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Google once again designs a square peg for a round hole...
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I am a bit confused: what does this actually mean, since the device doesn't have 3840x2400 pixels???
Maybe not, but you KNOW it's there, don't you?
Seems like you got to the other site.
LOL. Good to see it being dropped in the Trash, and not a Recycle Bin