The first threat to Microsoft Windows since BeOS

Status
Not open for further replies.
For offline work there are already things like Google Gears. Your stuff's cached offline, you work on it, you go online and it synchs up with the Cloud of Doom. Simples.

This sounds like a combination of total vapourware (release in the second half of 2010?) and not that different from the Palm Pre's OS (kernel plus JS/HTML/CSS apps) that a load of people are making a mess over. The only difference is it'll have a bigger screen and maybe a half-decent keyboard.
 
m4cc45 said:
Then google will be acting as a proxy onto the net. They will be scanning all of your traffic (which will be necessary to provide an effective AV) and also then they can use directed advertising.

The interesting thing is that you are not always going to be connected to the net. If everything is in the 'cloud' then what are you going to do when you are offline?

Also what if you use a memory stick to copy over files and get a virus that way? Or are you suggesting that they then scan every file on your computer via a web connection?

Sounds stupid to me and I for one will not be touching it with a big stick.


M.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows how anything will work, so it's a little stupid to say you're not going to use something you know nothing about.

And if everything is stored online, you will be able to use Google Gears to store information for use offline. And any changes that are made will be synced up the next time an internet connection is used.

Bah, beaten to it.
 
I want to play with IRQ's and mess with HD DMA values!!! (the latter on my mates pc's not mine, pio mode f t w!)
 
Dj_Jestar said:
I'm genuinely intrigued when I ask could you please qualify how Google are "evil", especially "more evil than Microsoft"?
Click to expand...

If you read around the open source underworld there is an increasing level of displeasure at how Google are constantly leeching their wares, chopping them up, sticking their brand on top, and then acquiring market share with it. Sure Google keeps it legal by releasing their changes as GPL code as well - but the OSS community hasn't gained anything except yet another fork.

At least when Microsoft was involved in the browser wars with Netscape they were actually writing their own code to do their dirty work...
 
Isn't that the idea of an open source community? That someone can come along and do whatever they want with the code, no questions asked?
 
That's what I thought.. and, if not already obvious, I'm a massive advocate of Open Source. In my opinion, the open source community do not care about market share. The ethos is make what *you* want, if others like it, so be it.

It's not like MS at all, in that MS have taken other's ideas/software, stamped it with a proprietary license, then sued anyone 'copying' (including the originators in a few cases) their copy.
 
The expectation is usually that the big corporate contributes at least some of their changes back to the original project.
 
Well no but it's usually expected, like when Apple went off with a fork of KHTML then demanded the devs signed NDAs to see the source before Webkit came along. That's essentially doing what you labelled MS "evil" for.

Chrome isn't GPLed either. The closest is Chromium which isn't quite the same thing.
 
I'm fed up of hearing about NetBooks.

Mobile computing is about having a good smartphone in your pocket, and I doubt any half serious user will have a NetBook as their one and only proper computer.

I know they are and will sell well, but it's just not that appealing.
 
I'm inclined to agree. Netbooks just seem like a fad to me. You can get a basic laptop for the same price, which is useful for more than just surfing the net.
 
NathanE said:
I think it is good that BT, of all companies, has decided to voice an opinion on the subject. If nothing else, it has raised BT's profile amongst the open source and security industries.

I totally agree with the guy. If Google had merely said something like "we're going to redesign the security architecture making it more secure than ever before" but they didn't. They said their OS "will be immune from viruses"! That is quite some claim, right there.

The immaturity of Google, as a company, is beginning to show more than ever before now. Increasingly people are beginning to realise Google are not their fluffy teddy bear anymore but that they are evil and more evil than Microsoft ever was in its heydays.
Click to expand...

Not just BT, but one of the most respected world experts in security, so his words definitely carry a heavy weight. You're right as well, it's a laughable claim..

tbh I've never been inclined to use anything made by google beyond a cookie-free google search :p. I havent the experience nor the evidence to trust them with operations on my computer beyond that. If they do come out with a reasonable OS, which is well received and reviewed in terms of security and privacy i may be intrigued.

However, for them to come out and say something like that gives a feeling somewhat like we, the consumers, are being played for fools. I can understand Google wanting to appear as the knight in shimmering armour coming to rescue us, the poor dumb damsel consumers in distress, from the evil Microsoft..but..come on..we're not that easy..
 
Immune from viruses means immune from unauthorised code execution.
Additionally it also means users can't run their own code on the system.

It's not that hard to do if you accept the limitations this brings.
 
yashiro said:
Immune from viruses means immune from unauthorised code execution.
Additionally it also means users can't run their own code on the system.

It's not that hard to do if you accept the limitations this brings.
Click to expand...

You can do that with Windows through a code signing certificate policy. But nobody ever does because nobody wants to accept those limitations.

If Google are planning to do that with their OS I will be absolutely shocked and I pledge to eat my hat if that happens.
 
I don't like the concept of cloud or anything else online of that ilk.

I much prefer to buy my own apps and have them installed on my own HD. Same goes for music photos and just about everything else. I don't want to store my data online on some companies server that may well go bust then we have legal wrangles over who owns the data etc. and I certainly don't want to store my backups online either. We are being seduced into sharing more and more of our personal lives with faceless organisations and government. Thanks but no thanks I'll buy my own and look after my own.

Please don't start me on Netbooks either - I don't even like Laptops but Netbooks Jeezz. Give me my Desktop anyday with it's nice big screen sat on my desk complete with comfy chair and purpose built office AHH! pure bliss.
 
Faustus said:
I certainly don't want to store my backups online either. We are being seduced into sharing more and more of our personal lives with faceless organisations and government.
Click to expand...
You can encrypt it before it leaves your computer. I love online backup, it's a convenient way to get stuff off-site, which is one of the most important aspects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom