That might be true. Google wants to keep all your confidential information for itself.
Sadly, not enough people realize that turning all of your data over to Google in the interest of security is probably a bad choice.
Why? Are Google Cloud services inherently less secure or reliable than Apple Cloud services or Amazon Cloud services or Microsoft Cloud services?
I'm guessing your issue would be with Cloud services itself. Yeah, you are putting trust in the service being available when you need it, and that your files don't disappear.
Why? Are Google Cloud services inherently less secure or reliable than Apple Cloud services or Amazon Cloud services or Microsoft Cloud services?
I'm guessing your issue would be with Cloud services itself. Yeah, you are putting trust in the service being available when you need it, and that your files don't disappear.
No, the issue is with Google. They can't be trusted any further than you can throw their headquarters.
I don't have any desire to spend the next 20 years fighting off spam from advertisers who received my information from Google.
No, the issue is with Google. They can't be trusted any further than you can throw their headquarters.
I don't have any desire to spend the next 20 years fighting off spam from advertisers who received my information from Google.
Oh, back to that. . .
Figured you knew the facts from FUD by now, as much time as several members spent trying to help you understand the last few times you brought it up.
Nothing to be gained from discussing this again. As you were.
No, there isn't. What you're probably referring to is Chrome's included *optional* ability to use Google's servers for advanced spell checking, the same kind they use in Google searches. It is off by default, even if you previously set it on another machine, which means you have to explicitly enable the feature to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Offline video editing? Garageband? Also, why would it be ok for a $1299 laptop to be less functional than a $329 tablet?
Simple - it excels in other ways the $329 tablet cannot. Multiple browser windows with Mobile Safari? Nope. More than eight tabs open at the same time? Nope. Access to the wealth of browser extensions and apps that exist for Chrome? Nope. To me, browsing on an iPad (I own two by the way) or an Android device is useful in a pinch, but I would *never* consider using those devices for day-to-day work. They're both too limiting for me in that particular scenario.
It should be noted that the Pixel includes three years of 1TB of Google Drive storage, which actually costs less than if you just bought that amount of storage over the same period of time. If all you want is the storage, you can buy it at a $300-500 discount and essentially get a free laptop, which isn't too bad of a deal.
Regarding those specific examples you gave, as I said, if the Chromebook doesn't suit your needs then it's okay not to get one. I know that my mother has no need for Garageband or any kind of video editing - she just wants a computer that will let her get onto her Facebook and any other website she wants to without having to worry about viruses or accidentally downloading something that will mess up her machine. A Chromebook would be a much better fit for her than a traditional Windows PC or even a Mac. If I'm willing to spend money in the high-end Mac price range anyway, it might be worth it to get a Pixel instead and give her better peace of mind with a gorgeous screen and offsite storage for all of her data.
Edit: I forgot that the eight tab limitation is gone since iOS 5.x, but tab organization gets messy after you have a lot of tabs open, and again, no multi-window support to help organize those tabs.
Why? For only $200 more, you can get an MBP Retina with the best hardware quality in the business, longer battery life, and much faster processor. If you want to install Ubuntu, you can do that.
Yeah but you could save $200 and go through the following 25+ step process to end up with Linux jammed onto a tiny partition on a Chromebook because the usable stateful partition is much less than the storage in the machine:
It's 9GB on the Samsung but one of the Chrome OS software engineers says the Chromebook Pixel can have up to 21GB free and provides a helpful guide on how to replace the OS he works on:
You do get a whole 4GB of RAM with the Chromebook that can't be upgraded and USB 2 ports to allow you to expand it with slow storage and 5 hours of battery life.
Wait, Google has explained all these design decisions:
[VIDEO]
This is a laptop... no it's not
This is a computer?... not really
How do I do stuff?... you can do everything on the web
So I can throw this thing into a river... now we're getting somewhere and it's light(ish) so you have no problem throwing it
I know that my mother has no need for Garageband or any kind of video editing - she just wants a computer that will let her get onto her Facebook and any other website she wants to without having to worry about viruses or accidentally downloading something that will mess up her machine.
Sure but there are a lot of limits like no USB printing or importing photos from a camera over USB. While some limits apply to the iPad again, this is a $1300 machine.
I actually think this would be fine if it came with Android and cost $500. I don't get why Google insists on bothering with Chrome OS. Is it the malware thing maybe or the update thing?
The comment that [I]viruses shouldn't be an issue[/I] is correct. This goes for all sorts of malware, just like with Mac OS X. Why are we ignoring that the absolute "won't ever be an issue" wasn't used, something that is said by the dissenters (see Haggar for examples) about Mac OS X despite that not ever being stated anyone reasonable. I see absolutely no warping of the facts here. Whether you trust Google to protect your data is another security issue altogether but it's not a virus.
FUD: Anything posted by Gatorguy and the other Google shills around here.
...and back to that too. I always consider it evidence I've won the debate when the dishonest name-calling starts. I sometimes think you've forgotten how to construct a proper argument and how to recognize when what you do have to say is fallacious. Here's an easy-read reminder:
Does Chrome OS have standard security controls: [LIST] [*] Secure Boot Chain [*] Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [*] Application Sandboxing [*] Code Signing [*] File System Encryption [/LIST]
It's hard (for me) to say but there does seem to be a great deal of these features simply from being built atop Linux. Here is a list reagrding Chromium, which may or may be the same as with Google's implementation of Chrome OS: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/SystemHardeningFeatures
It's hard (for me) to say but there does seem to be a great deal of these features simply from being built atop Linux. Here is a list reagrding Chromium, which may or may be the same as with Google's implementation of Chrome OS: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/SystemHardeningFeatures
Those features are only available if implemented. The vast majority of the security features listed indicate that testing is needed, in which case the feature effectively isn't implemented.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that anti-virus is not necessary. In fact, Google's other major operating system which is also Linux-based strongly suggests otherwise.
Those features are only available if implemented. The vast majority of the security features listed indicate that testing is needed, in which case the feature effectively isn't implemented.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that anti-virus is not necessary. In fact, Google's other major operating system which is also Linux-based strongly suggests otherwise.
Sure, but Apple implemented anti-virus measures with their Xprotect but I wouldn't call that the same as needing a constantly running anti-virus and anti-malware app like with Windows, especially during the WinXP days. Nor do these security features mean that there are viruses or malware present or not. I think it was only with iOS 6.0 that ASLR was implemented down to the kernel level and yet we didn't have rampant viruses and malware in iOS before that point.
Again, Chromium is the open source version of Chrome OS so we don't know if Chrome OS has any of these implemented and tested for the HW its on, and I don't think it's appropriate to simply pigeonhole it to that it doesn't because it's Google. Android isn't a good example because it's inherently different from Chrome OS. Just look at the app stores between the two. Chrome OS is functionally closer to iOS in how it's apps are sandboxed than it is to Android. I see absolutely no way one can say Chrome OS is like Android OS simply because they are both from Google.
In a nutshell the operating systems is freshly downloaded at each boot to make sure the user has the most recent improvements and security features. In addition the OS is verified at each start-up to help ensure it hasn't been tampered with. User data to and from Google is encrypted.
It looks to be at least as secure as any other consumer OS, including anything from Apple, and more secure than most IMHO.
Those features are only available if implemented. The vast majority of the security features listed indicate that testing is needed, in which case the feature effectively isn't implemented.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that anti-virus is not necessary. In fact, Google's other major operating system which is also Linux-based strongly suggests otherwise.
Seeing as how every tab in Chrome is sand-boxed, that arbitrary code can't be run on Chrome OS, and that to install anything natively on the machine you need to switch it to dev mode and go through an entire process in itself..., I'd say Chrome OS is going to be pretty secure...
Those features are only available if implemented. The vast majority of the security features listed indicate that testing is needed, in which case the feature effectively isn't implemented.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that anti-virus is not necessary.
Of course there is. Where would that virus live on a Chromebook? It's as unlikely to be impacted by a virus as your Mac and much easier to get rid of it it ever did happen. AFAIK the OS downloads fresh at every boot, washing away device system changes that didn't come directly from Google. Not even your Mac or iOS device does that.
Since it was first introduced there's been a few areas further improved and identified holes closed as they're found. in addition the operating systems is freshly downloaded, and the OS verified to be tamper-free. That means users always have the most recent security updates. It looks to be at least as secure as any other consumer OS, including anything from Apple, and more secure than most IMHO.
Since the apps are all using webcode and the UI is based on Google's Chrome OS which is spends a lot of money and time securing I'd say that Chrome OS is probably one of the, if not most, secure OSes on the market today… at least when you subtract what Google could be doing with your personal data, which I know that many here will see as worse than having malware from Eastern Europe or China running around on your system, but I think that's very extreme.
That might be true. Google wants to keep all your confidential information for itself.
Sadly, not enough people realize that turning all of your data over to Google in the interest of security is probably a bad choice.
I do turn over all of my data to iCloud, Steam, Blizzard, Google etc. I don't really have a choice, especially in the case of Blizzard and Steam. It's not like I can use their stuff without the "f____g cloud", right?
Also, see my previous rant about MS forcing Office 360 down my throat by selling me "the next update to Office", which is not Office 2013 as you'd expect!
Comments
That might be true. Google wants to keep all your confidential information for itself.
Sadly, not enough people realize that turning all of your data over to Google in the interest of security is probably a bad choice.
Why? Are Google Cloud services inherently less secure or reliable than Apple Cloud services or Amazon Cloud services or Microsoft Cloud services?
I'm guessing your issue would be with Cloud services itself. Yeah, you are putting trust in the service being available when you need it, and that your files don't disappear.
Now you're just playing dumb. . . or I hope so anyway.
No, the issue is with Google. They can't be trusted any further than you can throw their headquarters.
I don't have any desire to spend the next 20 years fighting off spam from advertisers who received my information from Google.
Oh, back to that. . .
Figured you knew the facts from FUD by now, as much time as several members spent trying to help you understand the last few times you brought it up.
Nothing to be gained from discussing this again. As you were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There's a giant keylogger on there though.
No, there isn't. What you're probably referring to is Chrome's included *optional* ability to use Google's servers for advanced spell checking, the same kind they use in Google searches. It is off by default, even if you previously set it on another machine, which means you have to explicitly enable the feature to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Offline video editing? Garageband? Also, why would it be ok for a $1299 laptop to be less functional than a $329 tablet?
Simple - it excels in other ways the $329 tablet cannot. Multiple browser windows with Mobile Safari? Nope. More than eight tabs open at the same time? Nope. Access to the wealth of browser extensions and apps that exist for Chrome? Nope. To me, browsing on an iPad (I own two by the way) or an Android device is useful in a pinch, but I would *never* consider using those devices for day-to-day work. They're both too limiting for me in that particular scenario.
It should be noted that the Pixel includes three years of 1TB of Google Drive storage, which actually costs less than if you just bought that amount of storage over the same period of time. If all you want is the storage, you can buy it at a $300-500 discount and essentially get a free laptop, which isn't too bad of a deal.
Regarding those specific examples you gave, as I said, if the Chromebook doesn't suit your needs then it's okay not to get one. I know that my mother has no need for Garageband or any kind of video editing - she just wants a computer that will let her get onto her Facebook and any other website she wants to without having to worry about viruses or accidentally downloading something that will mess up her machine. A Chromebook would be a much better fit for her than a traditional Windows PC or even a Mac. If I'm willing to spend money in the high-end Mac price range anyway, it might be worth it to get a Pixel instead and give her better peace of mind with a gorgeous screen and offsite storage for all of her data.
Edit: I forgot that the eight tab limitation is gone since iOS 5.x, but tab organization gets messy after you have a lot of tabs open, and again, no multi-window support to help organize those tabs.
Sure.
FUD: Anything posted by Gatorguy and the other Google shills around here.
Yeah but you could save $200 and go through the following 25+ step process to end up with Linux jammed onto a tiny partition on a Chromebook because the usable stateful partition is much less than the storage in the machine:
http://www.devchronicles.com/2011/10/installing-ubuntu-on-samsung-series-5.html
It's 9GB on the Samsung but one of the Chrome OS software engineers says the Chromebook Pixel can have up to 21GB free and provides a helpful guide on how to replace the OS he works on:
https://plus.google.com/100479847213284361344/posts/QhmBpn5GNE9
The guy in the following video says there's no UI scaling under Linux on the Chromebook Pixel:
[VIDEO]
but maybe Linus will figure it out without just using a lower resolution (thereby defeating the point of having a high resolution screen):
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/linus-torvalds-is-making-the-chromebook-pixel-his-primary-laptop-2013036/
You do get a whole 4GB of RAM with the Chromebook that can't be upgraded and USB 2 ports to allow you to expand it with slow storage and 5 hours of battery life.
Wait, Google has explained all these design decisions:
[VIDEO]
This is a laptop... no it's not
This is a computer?... not really
How do I do stuff?... you can do everything on the web
So I can throw this thing into a river... now we're getting somewhere and it's light(ish) so you have no problem throwing it
Sure but there are a lot of limits like no USB printing or importing photos from a camera over USB. While some limits apply to the iPad again, this is a $1300 machine.
I actually think this would be fine if it came with Android and cost $500. I don't get why Google insists on bothering with Chrome OS. Is it the malware thing maybe or the update thing?
The comment that [I]viruses shouldn't be an issue[/I] is correct. This goes for all sorts of malware, just like with Mac OS X. Why are we ignoring that the absolute "won't ever be an issue" wasn't used, something that is said by the dissenters (see Haggar for examples) about Mac OS X despite that not ever being stated anyone reasonable. I see absolutely no warping of the facts here. Whether you trust Google to protect your data is another security issue altogether but it's not a virus.
...and back to that too. I always consider it evidence I've won the debate when the dishonest name-calling starts. I sometimes think you've forgotten how to construct a proper argument and how to recognize when what you do have to say is fallacious. Here's an easy-read reminder:
http://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html
[LIST]
[*] Secure Boot Chain
[*] Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR)
[*] Application Sandboxing
[*] Code Signing
[*] File System Encryption
[/LIST]
It's hard (for me) to say but there does seem to be a great deal of these features simply from being built atop Linux. Here is a list reagrding Chromium, which may or may be the same as with Google's implementation of Chrome OS: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/SystemHardeningFeatures
Those features are only available if implemented. The vast majority of the security features listed indicate that testing is needed, in which case the feature effectively isn't implemented.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that anti-virus is not necessary. In fact, Google's other major operating system which is also Linux-based strongly suggests otherwise.
Sure, but Apple implemented anti-virus measures with their Xprotect but I wouldn't call that the same as needing a constantly running anti-virus and anti-malware app like with Windows, especially during the WinXP days. Nor do these security features mean that there are viruses or malware present or not. I think it was only with iOS 6.0 that ASLR was implemented down to the kernel level and yet we didn't have rampant viruses and malware in iOS before that point.
Again, Chromium is the open source version of Chrome OS so we don't know if Chrome OS has any of these implemented and tested for the HW its on, and I don't think it's appropriate to simply pigeonhole it to that it doesn't because it's Google. Android isn't a good example because it's inherently different from Chrome OS. Just look at the app stores between the two. Chrome OS is functionally closer to iOS in how it's apps are sandboxed than it is to Android. I see absolutely no way one can say Chrome OS is like Android OS simply because they are both from Google.
Nearly everything you want to know about Chrome OS security features can be found here. It's a little old so there's been further improvements since:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://dhanus.mit.edu/ChromeOSSecurity.pdf
In a nutshell the operating systems is freshly downloaded at each boot to make sure the user has the most recent improvements and security features. In addition the OS is verified at each start-up to help ensure it hasn't been tampered with. User data to and from Google is encrypted.
It looks to be at least as secure as any other consumer OS, including anything from Apple, and more secure than most IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The guy in the following video says there's no UI scaling under Linux on the Chromebook Pixel:
KDE has UI scaling.... Gnome doesn't however (what the reviewer was using).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Those features are only available if implemented. The vast majority of the security features listed indicate that testing is needed, in which case the feature effectively isn't implemented.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that anti-virus is not necessary. In fact, Google's other major operating system which is also Linux-based strongly suggests otherwise.
Seeing as how every tab in Chrome is sand-boxed, that arbitrary code can't be run on Chrome OS, and that to install anything natively on the machine you need to switch it to dev mode and go through an entire process in itself..., I'd say Chrome OS is going to be pretty secure...
Of course there is. Where would that virus live on a Chromebook? It's as unlikely to be impacted by a virus as your Mac and much easier to get rid of it it ever did happen. AFAIK the OS downloads fresh at every boot, washing away device system changes that didn't come directly from Google. Not even your Mac or iOS device does that.
Since the apps are all using webcode and the UI is based on Google's Chrome OS which is spends a lot of money and time securing I'd say that Chrome OS is probably one of the, if not most, secure OSes on the market today… at least when you subtract what Google could be doing with your personal data, which I know that many here will see as worse than having malware from Eastern Europe or China running around on your system, but I think that's very extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That might be true. Google wants to keep all your confidential information for itself.
Sadly, not enough people realize that turning all of your data over to Google in the interest of security is probably a bad choice.
I do turn over all of my data to iCloud, Steam, Blizzard, Google etc. I don't really have a choice, especially in the case of Blizzard and Steam. It's not like I can use their stuff without the "f____g cloud", right?
Also, see my previous rant about MS forcing Office 360 down my throat by selling me "the next update to Office", which is not Office 2013 as you'd expect!