I don't get the fuss.

Today  I can buy a laptop, install ubuntu, install chrome.

What's the improvement

I can buy a laptop, the OS is hidden, it runs chrome.


Goog says:  "we aim for netbooks".  Well, netbooks are tracking  
towards laptops, what's the fuss.

Goog says:  "users want less startup time".  Well, OK, that's fine,  
but between 10 seconds and 1 minute I'm pretty forgiving and with a  
netbook battery i'm never at power off to boot, i'm usually at de- 
hibernate to use.  If that's sufficiently small, I'm OK.  Even on my  
macbook that's tolerable at the moment.

Press says:  This will have MS shaking in their shoes.  Uh, no.  This  
has no traction in the enterprise.

Now, launching this, on a branded netbook, with a support structure,  
with the Google app stack, with a way to get a secure cloud app stack,  
that would be an MS death blow (roll saving throw!), but this is sort  
of a "Oh, so you want to kill off the linux distributions?".

Steven



On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Adam Theriault wrote:

>
> > password storage
>
> if I trust my bank to store a copy of my banking password on their  
> own servers, I can probably trust google with my facebook password.
>
>
> > personally identifiable data
>
> ...such as using your full name to post a negative opinion of a  
> company using their groups app?
>
>
> > sensitive legal documents
>
> Again, I probably trust google's datacenter more than the county  
> courthouse.
>
>
> > files with family members' photos
>
> which are then posted online for everyone to see.....
>
>
> > identifiable information
>
> which is somehow different than the personally identifiable kind. I  
> guess cause it's information and not data. I'm just going to take a  
> leap of faith here and assume by "identifiable" we mean "porn".
>
>
> > medical records
>
> which are stored off-site and accessible by medical employees around  
> the world.
>
>
> I tend to go with Scott McNealy: "You have no privacy anyway, get  
> over it."
>
> Aside from having some weird EULA that says "by signing this you  
> agree to let us sell your medical records and family photos to  
> whatever sleazy guy in an alleyway we want to", I fail to see what  
> any company's motivation would be to get a massive market hooked on  
> a product, and then completely disable access to it and/or trigger  
> the most epic PR disaster in history.
>
> What really confuses me though is if people don't like it, they  
> don't have to use it...why is it important if anyone else is nervous  
> about it or not?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Our Web site: http://www.RefreshAustin.org/

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Refresh Austin" group.

[ Posting ]
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Job-related postings should follow http://tr.im/refreshaustinjobspolicy
We do not accept job posts from recruiters.

[ Unsubscribe ]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]

[ More Info ]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Refresh-Austin
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to