Filed under: OS Updates, Google, Browsers
More Chrome OS clues - and it's sure sounding like a bootable browser
I located a reference to Chrome OS in the Chromium source code's switches file yesterday, and today I was intrigued to find not just a few lines in a file but an entire directory.
Nestled in the 204 branch is a chromeos folder which only contains a couple of files at this point. They do provide a couple interesting insights, however:
- The status bar contains a clock, an application menu, and a non-working battery indicator.
- Some information about the single sign-on cookie: "To support single-sign-on for Chrome OS, we need a way to inject cookies into Chrome. In the case of session cookies, putting them into Chrome's cookie jar DB doesn't work. This CL adds a command line flag that tells chrome the name of a Unix pipe to open, from which it can read said cookies."
It sure sounds as though the Chrome browser for Chrome OS has an integrated application dock - rather than a floating one as we've seen in the various leaks. The fact that common system tray residents like the clock and battery indicator are also mentioned goes against the tiny detached panel in the lower right corner.
So far, then, what we've got is a bootable browser. While technically the browser won't be the OS - it'll be sitting on top of a minimalistic Linux base after all - it will be pretty much the only thing you see once Chrome OS has booted.
Two more somewhat noteworthy items:
That's today's update. You may now speculate wildly in the comments. So far, then, what we've got is a bootable browser. While technically the browser won't be the OS - it'll be sitting on top of a minimalistic Linux base after all - it will be pretty much the only thing you see once Chrome OS has booted.
Two more somewhat noteworthy items:
- A 'compact nav bar' option is being added to the browser. There's not a heck of a lot to look at here yet, but here are the back, forward, and Chrome buttons (PNG, straight from Chromium.org):
- The browser can now recognize and report Chrome OS on about:version. That means this thing is real, right?
- A domain name is ready and waiting:
CHROMIUM-OS.ORG NAME SERVERS
Name Server IP Location ns1.google.com 216.239.32.10 Mountain View, CA, US ns2.google.com 216.239.34.10 Mountain View, CA, US ns3.google.com 216.239.36.10 Mountain View, CA, US ns4.google.com 216.239.38.10 Mountain View, CA, US
Get a WordPress.com Blog
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ハイドン said 2:49AM on 9-02-2009
I'm hoping that Chrome OS is basically no more than a permanently maximized version of the web browser, with a nice small notification tray replacing the current `minimize', `maximize', and `close' buttons. For those who don't much like a fully maximized operating system, take a look at Moblin: most elements of that are fully maximized and it works well, definitely considering it is designed primarily for netbooks (as Chrome OS seems to be). Gears already allows for relatively good offline capabilities, but hopefully it can be improved and more finely integrated into the system. So in the end what you have is a nice, simple, lightweight web-browser-based operating system. Those who want something more powerful should go with full Linux or Windows.
Reply
Sonic said 3:34AM on 9-02-2009
If Google would want to make an Instant-on style OS it'd be out by now (not that complicated considering that Android is Linux based).
whiskey said 5:47PM on 9-02-2009
Considering also that there's such a thing already but with Firefox. You can follow their instructions to make one yourself or buy the already custom made one for 25 pounds. http://www.morphix.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=59
So, if Google wanted such a simple solution, they would by now know about this.
Sam Jordan said 4:38AM on 9-02-2009
I seriously fail to see how this can be anything but an instant on OS. I simply use my computer for more than web browsing and writing word docs. I've got an Aspire One which originally came with the Linux build, and frankly it sucked. What if I want to RIP DVDs or organise my music with iTunes?
Obviously we have no idea where this is going, but unless it's as feature and developer rich as Windows or OS X, it's just another Linux build filling up the internet.
Nice article.
Reply
chefgon_ign said 7:33AM on 9-02-2009
While it's true that nobody is going to stop using Windows or OSX in favor of Chrome, that doesn't mean that it's worthless. It just has a different purpose. I have adopted Android but I still use Windows 7 because they're on different devices that do different things.
What Google is trying to do with Chrome OS is trying to turn the Netbook into its own product category instead of just being a crappy subset of the laptop business.
If they can successfully convince people that it's worthwhile to have a small and inexpensive netbook that literally does nothing but webbrowsing but turns on instantly and has super long battery life, then Google has created an all new product category that will push people towards Google's cloud services. It's a stepping stone on Google's long and patient path towards killing the rich client. That's still a long ways off, in my opinion, but this is a smart move on Google's part in the mean time.
yabun said 8:42AM on 9-02-2009
Basing an OS on a browser isn't so limiting if you look at all the technologies involved.
First, you need a wicked fast browser/Javascript-engine (check). Then add the new abilities in HTML5 (ex. media). Then there's the Google 'native client' project to run a wider variety of code on the core system. Consider new gaming systems like OnLive. And, hopefully, being prepared for the inevitable... Microsoft adopting a standard half-assed in order to taint people's perception of it and minimize people adopting or implementing it in a simple consistent fashion (like Java). I'm curious.
But, please, news of a status bar with a clock and battery indicator. There's some extreme journalism.
Reply
Lee Mathews said 8:45AM on 9-02-2009
Again with the journalism comments...This is a blog, not a newspaper.
And the fact that the browser status bar contains those elements seems significant to me, since it means that there's no "taskbar"...and it casts more doubt on the "leaked" screenshots that we've all been looking at.
MarkyB86 said 9:57AM on 9-02-2009
Why do people come to these blogs just to whine about quality of posts? Go find your own source of info and write one yourselves.
yabun said 11:08AM on 9-02-2009
I apologize if I offended anyone. I do appreciate the work bloggers do.
We are all excited to see how the OS comes together. Any news on it is appreciated and rare. With no formal information, I just felt it was silly speculating on if/where it has a clock and battery indicator.
Lee Mathews said 11:09AM on 9-02-2009
This isn't speculation. It's notes from the source code, FWIW. ;)
yabun said 2:22PM on 9-02-2009
I see that your clock/battery info was taken from the source code, now. Including the screenshots gave the impression they were a source of information and you were giving some level of legitimacy to them. Seems Alexei thought so, too, and not that they were a sample of what has been speculated.
Paraphrasing information obtained from a source. Adding comments. Packaging the information for easy distribution and consumption. Throw in some advertising revenue. That's journalism. Don't sell yourself short, you're a journalist.
Alexei said 11:02AM on 9-02-2009
The screenshot is fake. It is taken from this page: http://www.junauza.com/2009/08/10-interesting-google-chrome-os-mock-up.html
Reply
sharkbait said 5:07PM on 9-02-2009
I've been following the svn log and I found a few clues in these revisions:
23070, 23648, 23747, 24061, 23936, 24642, 24416, 24217
To view them, go to e.g.
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=23070
Each should have a link to a review page, which might include discussion about the changes.
(I'd post links to each, but the gray text says to only post up to 3 urls)
Also, last I checked, the small white battery icon is in an images directory somewhere. (It's vertically oriented, not horizontally like the mockup/fake screenshot)
Unless it's changed since I last tried, it _might_ be possible to compile Chrome OS; look at browser/gtk/browser_window_gtk.cc. There might be something about building it in one of the revisions. I'd build it myself, but I don't have enough RAM :/.
Cheers.
Reply