Loading...

chromium-os-dev@googlegroups.com

[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: [cros-discuss] Re: chromium-os and virtualization support Chris Sosa Tue Dec 29 11:00:13 2009

Hey Todd and Rodrigo,

These are all very good comments and I think I'm speaking for many
other developers when I say that we would welcome those changes in the
Chromium OS project rather than a separate fork.  We especially would
be happy to get more virtualization support because while we feel it
is very important, I don't think we have any developers actively
working on getting better VM support.  I completely agree that our
support for virtualization isn't the greatest at the moment because we
don't have support for the virtual drivers.

I'd be happy to (and I'm sure other dev's would also be happy to) help
you with any changes and through the commit process.  I know that's
one of the hurdles to overcome when committing to an existing project,
but we can help make this as seamless as possible.

I also think you should move this conversation over to chromium os dev
(am cc'ing) as other developers might have feedback on this.

Best regards,
~Sosa

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Rodrigo Romero III
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> good...this is what i would love to see here...however, it doesnt need
> to be a different version, remember ChromeOS will have a repository
> and a way to be updated...the VM part could be some sort of add-on you
> could install if needed, and not installed if not needed.
>
> This OS is served as an OS for on the road people and it is marketed
> as a second PC but i think it will end to be more than that...much
> more; everything is going to cloud computing and most of the apps i
> currently use are in the cloud, i use Google APPS for my companies and
> everything is there.  They lack:
>
> 1. a good ERP/CRM/Accounting system, BUT, the checkout shopping cart
> product could end being a very good ERP/CMS if well integrated with
> Contacts and DOCs asi it could be used for Cash On Delivery and Retail
> buy (using the web gadget as a POS)
> 2. better communications system, but voice/gtalk/gizmo5 could end up
> being a one tool WAY BETTER than anything out there
> 3- online IDE, but they have the SDK, the appengine, the GWT, SITES,
> groups, google code...so a web development framework working online is
> just a matter of wanting to do it and integrate what you already have
> (plus adding YUI and CSS to the sites product)
> 4- Online Games...but OD3 and webGL are on its way and if the game
> developers are clever enough they will migrate to a one fork that will
> work for ANY OS, on ANY plattform, on ANY Browser
>
> im wandering in thoughts here but the fact is that google will
> probably have all these stuff working in a year or two with low
> effort...by the time chromeOS is well known at least...so this makes a
> simple OS, thought to be for netbooks and mobile users as a second
> computer, the best OS as it is simple and everything is already online
> so why use a heavy OS when you have simple, yet secure OS, very fast
> with everything you need.
>
> Google has what everyone needs and if they dont then you can find it
> somewhere else and do it online also...for graphics and audio you can
> use Aviary.com which is as good as adobe master collection if you are
> starting (migration is more difficult)...there is almost nothing you
> can not do online right now...the thing is most of us are used to use
> the installable software and most of them are designed for a desired
> OS.
>
> take one last thing into consideration: netbooks are growing in
> performance very fast...and if everything is running in the cloud and
> you have a very secure, fast and simple OS...then you dont even have
> to wait for better computers as a current netbook will run better
> Google Docs than a desktop with double RAM/processor running Windows/
> MSOffice.  If everything runs in the cloud...a current netbook is a
> VERY powerful computer right now.
>
> On Nov 27, 3:46 pm, deshantm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OK. Now I understand your idea better. I think that over time this is
>> what is intended. Run everything else as Native Client (NaCl)
>> applications until they can be supported directly in Chrome. I do
>> think however that it will probably take much more time to get all of
>> the apps ported over and that an very decent intermediate solution is
>> to have a really nice ChromiumOS-based VM running in a locked down VM
>> along side your normal apps (or apps in other secure VMs).
>>
>> The VMs that exist to this point work OK, but don't work great. The
>> keyboard interaction is slow and the the paravirtual drivers (such a
>> Virtual Box additions, VMware tools, KVM virtio drivers, Xen guest
>> drivers, etc.) are not included, and shouldn't be included in the
>> default netbook version. Having a optimized VM version would give any
>> user a chance to get a good experience using Chrome OS. They could use
>> their normal apps at the same time too and then try to migrate to it
>> fully once the apps they use are ported over.
>>
>> VMs are also going to be one of the best places to do development and
>> will make it easier for potential developers to get involved.
>>
>> A version of chromium that is intended to run on a normal PC doesn't
>> seem to be on the roadmap. Although, I think that a version like that
>> could be interesting as well. There are a lot of security issues that
>> need to be taken into consideration in a more general environment
>> (locked down netbooks, running custom firmware, etc. can be more
>> easily verified and recovered).
>>
>> It seems that there are a lot of people working on NPAPI versions of
>> applications (to be used with NaCl, I would assume), you should try to
>> find out if there are already projects for some of the apps that you
>> suggested.
>