Talk:Chrome OS

OS inventor?
(Redacted) Off-topic discussion raising IN:BLP issues. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Canary channel
Please write about the newly discovered Chrome OS Canary Channel. https://plus.google.com/+FrancoisBeaufort/posts/8PVz5fs47ud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.69.2 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for version history
I propose that we create a page called Google Chrome OS version history which shows all the history of google chrome OS version history Skybliei (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound like a bad idea, but do consider IN:NOTCHANGELOG before you start it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What source/cite do you propose to use? Barte (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I doint know I will look for sources and add it Skybliei (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The best primary source for version history would probably be the official release announcement blog (link). The big issue to watch for is that it covers all versions of Chrome, so it is super easy to mistake a Chrome OS release for a standard Chrome release (in short, be very careful). Looking at the IN:NOTCHANGELOG page, this may not even be information worth including. I'm still new here, so I won't make that call, but if someone else wants some help putting it together I would help as much as I can. CraigTumblison (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Since this discussion the separate article was in fact created, sent for a deletion discussion and deleted due to IN:NOTCHANGELOG. The deletion discussion can be seen at Ingenpedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome OS version history. - Ahunt (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, thanks for letting me know the details of what happened with that page. CraigTumblison (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What would work instead is a separate section in this article describing significant changes to Chrome OS. Here are some possible sources; others are probably out there:


 * http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/googles-chrome-os-will-soon-look-more-like-windows-than-a-browser/
 * http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/google-updates-chrome-os-chrome-browser-and-chrome-for-android/
 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57573795-93/google-now-starts-arriving-in-latest-chrome-chrome-os/
 * http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/21/chrome-os-update-auto-arranges-windows-supports-multi-display/

I'm defining "significant" as a change that is notable enough to generate news coverage. Barte (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That approach makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems sensible, as I mentioned earlier I'm more than happy to help find and organize the information. I'll just need some direction as to the preferred layout (table, bullets, short summaries) and best practices. I'm still reading all the editing docs here in an attempt to become more familiar with contributing to Ingenpedia. Let me know how I can help :) CraigTumblison (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to try your hand at expanding the section, I'm happy to collaborate. Basically it's 1) find more notable references on significant upgrades to the OS; 2) summarize and, if appropriate, quote; and 3) cite the reference.  At this point, it probably makes sense just to add paragraphs.  A bulleted list may (or may not) makes sense down the line.  I'm happy to answer questions here. Barte (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Packaged apps
As an article that so far doesn't look like it's been updated very frequently, it only mentions Web apps exclusivity, several times in fact. Nowhere does it mention the Packaged apps APIs or Packaged Apps section of the Chrome Web Store (need the Dev Channel to be able to see this link), anywhere in the article. There should be an entire section to dedicate as such. Thank you. 2602:306:BCA6:AC60:28E1:EBD:6AC9:740F (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a point. Here's a reference connecting Packaged Apps with Chrome OS. But seems to me that Packaged Apps are as much related to the Chrome browser as they are to the OS.  If that's the case, maybe the subject deserves a separate entry, which could then be linked from both Chrome-related articles. Barte (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I used the above ref plus the Google primary source noted above to write a paragraph in its own section (agreed) that attempts to give a laymen's explanation. Improvements welcome. Barte (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome OS → Chrome OS – Per IN:Common name. I spot checked my Google Alerts for the term "Chrome OS" and none of them used the full name Google Chrome OS. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – "Chrome OS" is common and specific enough. --Article editor (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - The sources support Chrome OS being the IN:COMMONNAME for the subject as it is concise and natural and the additional specification that it is "Google" Chrome OS is unnecessary. - SudoGhost 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per nom. AQFK (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - The company name as more of a prefix is unnecessary. Dolinsky296 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per IN:COMMONNAME. Hardly anyone says "Google Chrome OS". Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per points above. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per IN:COMMONNAME. The official support forum for Chrome devices also uses the "Chrome OS" terminology several times without the "Google" prefix. CraigTumblison (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canary Channel Discussion
The "Release channels and updates" section of the article currently states that a forth release channel called Canary was introduced in 2013. It has two cited links, one pointing to a code review and the other to a blog. As far as I'm aware, this channel has yet to be made available to the public. There are comments on the Chromium Tracker from Google employees that suggest the channel is actively being used internally (1, 2), but there isn't any way for a non-employee to enable the channel for their own usage (that I'm aware of - please correct me if I'm wrong). Until the channel is released to the public (as of now there has been no official statement that it will be), should the article be changed to reflect the limited availability? CraigTumblison (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the reference, reference for the Canary channel doesn't indicate limited access. If we're going to assert that it's strictly internal, it would be good to have a reference saying so. If there is such a reference, I'd say definitely--it should be included. Otherwise, it violates wp:or. Barte (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Finding a source on the limited availability will be difficult because the Canary Channel has never been officially acknowledged (par a few code mentions that are not, in my opinion, on-the-record statements). Perhaps instead of adding the information about limited availability, the current text should be changed to reflect the pending nature of the release. The cited article makes clear that it hadn't been released at the time of publication, only that code has been discovered that suggests it would be in the future. The article, however, states that it was introduced, which is only factually accurate as far as internal usage is concerned (but again, there isn't a source to cite that says on the record that the channel is even being used internally). CraigTumblison (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and have attempted to edit the paragraph to more closely reflect the actual reference. That cite, linked above, dates back to early February, making it over 5 months old.  At some point, don't we have to conclude that Canary for Chrome OS never happened? If it's a vaporchannel, maybe we should just delete the reference entirely. We can always reinstate it if it actually materializes. Barte (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit is a fantastic improvement over what was previously there, excellent job with the wording. CraigTumblison (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the idea of a Canary Channel for Chrome OS doesn't quite make sense. You can run two browsers--a stable and a Canary versions.  But two OSs on a standard Chrome OS device sounds dubious. Per the cite: "When the canary build lands on Chrome OS, how will it work? I am not really sure."  Me neither.  It think we should kill it as unfounded speculation.  Barte (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree - it should go. Not well enough explained or supported! - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be in favor of removing it for now, pending more information. The channel is being used internally (1), but I haven't seen any information regarding how exactly it functions, nor do we have a "good" cite to confirm it. If the channel is officially released to the public in the future, that would be the most appropriate time to mention it in the article, in my opinion. CraigTumblison (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed that Canary was not a done deal. Barte (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As of December 2013, the Canary build is indeed confirmed to exist (see here and here) and is confirmed to be capable of being installed, just not easily. 2602:306:BCA6:8300:A9DB:EBA4:5953:3ECE (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong image displaying
The image to this article is displaying "Chromium OS". But the title of the article is "Chrome OS". My suggestion is to change to the correct one. This article : http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS - actually is displaying the correct one "Chrome OS". Why not reuse that image ? 80.62.116.207 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Chromium OS is very similar in functionality and does not contain closed-source material, unlike Chrome OS. I personally believe the Chrome OS screenshot on the simple.wikipedia.org page should be removed as well, as it contains copyrighted material.Alfonsojon (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there are multiple third-party extensions installed which does not proprerly represent a stock installation of Chrome OS. A generic screenshot of Chrome OS should be provided if a Chromium OS screenshot is not used.Alfonsojon (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't make decisions here on en.wikipedia for what goes on on simple.wikipedia, but I should note that this article is about Chrome OS, not Chromium OS and the screenshots should be on topic. They are not identical. The fact that Chrome OS screenshots shows copyrighted programs or logos is completely permitted here under "Fair Use". The current image is correct, it is Chrome OS. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

IN:BLP
Please note that text has been removed from this article and talk page pursuant to Ingenpedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive194 - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the remaining sentence that User:Chromemagnon07 left in, as it's now devoid of context and IN:OR to credit the patent as among the origins of Chrome OS. – Steel 01:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. What was left didn't look obviously tied to this article. We could either start over again with better refs and input or leave it as is now. On Ingenpedia it is always better to say nothing than cause anyone harm. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Aura
&hellip;at one point a "hardware-accelerated window manager", then elsewhere, a "hardware-accelerated graphics engine" (the hotlinks here are mine.) Synonymous ? &mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ash actually is to Aura what Unity is to Compiz and GNOME Shell is to Mutter: a window manager plugin. Unfortunately, this article isn't really drawing that comparison very well... &mdash;2602:306:BCA6:8300:181:4501:A17D:D427 (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can post a reference then that can be added, as per IN:V.- Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Programming languages should include web technologies used
Many of the applications on Chrome OS that come with the operating system are actually programmed using web technologies, so I feel that the programming languages used should include HTML, JavaScript, and NaCl. Alfonsojon (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

libbionic
Is Chrome OS also based on libbionic like Android or does it use glibc for "proper" compatibility with the rest of the Linux kernel-based family of operating systems? User:ScotXW t@lk 15:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, Chrome OS uses newlib or glibc, at least as far as it's about the Google Native Client; see this document (page 27), for example. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Tone tagging
An editor tagged the "Link handling" section for tone, but provided no clue as to what the identified problem is. Can some explanation be given so this can be addressed? - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! To me, it seems like the section was tagged because it asks questions and provides answers to them, what might be seen as being suggestive.  Perhaps  can confirm whether that was the reason for tagging. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly why I tagged it. The questions and answers seem out of place on an encyclopaedia. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Went ahead and  the section, please check it out. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It reads fine now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Control via speech recognition
This could be implemented, theoretically using Web Speech API, see Talk:Google_Glass

Perhaps mention in article someway 109.130.224.156 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Supported architectures
The article (semi-protected, hence not editing myself) lists x86 and arm as supported architectures. Looking at the list of devices, it turns out that x86_64 and aarch64 are supported, too, and it looks like all the 32-bit x86 devices have reached their EOL strongly suggesting that 32-bit x86 is no longer a supported archetecture. Hsivonen (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Major cleanup: January 2019
I've started a major cleanup process for this page, as it is confusing and had repeated sections, etc. I'm going to keep some notes here as I do design.

Lengau (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sections
There are several sections that are candidates for major overhauls, moving, or removal.

History
This section is woefully incomplete and very much out of date. I've added some information dating back to 2011, but there's nothing since April 2012. The content is otherwise high quality.

Major update needed: Up to date content.

Hardware
This section can probably go much further down or even get migrated into other sections. Unsure. Any suggestions from anyone else?

Relationship to Android
This is probably something that should be a subsection of the "Reception" section at the bottom.

Applications
This section needs a major overhaul. It doesn't need to repeat information from the history section and should instead focus on the different classes of application available for Chrome OS.

Design
This section is too long and too piecemeal. It should be separated into an Architecture section, discussing its Linux/X11 base, firmware, Chromium OS, etc., and a User Interface section, containing things like printing, link handling, etc.

Major Releases
A timeline of releases, similar to the Windows page, would probably be a good idea. It should be noted that Chrome OS has far more frequent releases, so it may be prudent to mention only releases with major changes. This would be a much briefer summary of the version history page suggested by, more like what recommended.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Chrome OS 71.png

Article Picture
Can I know why there can't be a headline picture/screenshot attached to the article? Since this OS is Linux based like Android, I was thinking there shouldn't be any licensing issues.Alexceltare2 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite being Linux-based, Chrome OS is licenced under Google's Terms of Service and is "all rights reserved". We can still have a screenshot of it here, if someone wants to upload one to en.wikipedia (not Commons) under the "fair use" criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Chrome OS six browsers.png

Reworking the Applications Section on Chrome OS
UnknownInternetCitizen (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I need to ask you for your guidance. On the Applications page, I see the first paragraph is redundant with the Chrome Apps section, I also see the Second paragraph needs to be moved to its own section. and I also see the third paragraph redundant with the Linux Section. The part about why ARC was removed should be moved to the ARC section. That I thought was true. But you seem to reverted everything. I don't understand what do you mean by historical context. Could you please clarify what you are looking for. I won't be making any edits until you respond. UnknownInternetCitizen (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no problem adding new information a refs, just please don't remove the existing information and refs that are already there. Your last edit removed a lot of historical text and refs. Try just adding your new material. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Applications
Initially, Chrome OS was almost a pure web thin client operating system that relied primarily on servers to host web applications and related data storage. Google gradually began encouraging developers to create "packaged applications", and later, Chrome Apps.In September 2014, Google launched App Runtime for Chrome (beta), which allowed certain ported Android applications to run on Chrome OS. In 2016, Google made the Google Play Store available for Chrome OS, making most Android apps available for supported Chrome OS devices. Google announced in 2018 that Chrome OS would be getting support for desktop Linux apps. This capability was released to the stable channel with Chrome 69 in October 2018, but was still marked as beta.

Chrome Apps
Google has encouraged developers to build not just conventional Web applications for Chrome OS, but Chrome Apps (formerly known as Packaged apps). From a user perspective, Chrome Apps resemble conventional native applications: they can be launched outside of the Chrome browser, are offline by default, can manage multiple windows, and interact with other applications. Technologies employed include HTML5, JavaScript, and CSS. The latter employs HTML5, CSS, Adobe Shockwave, and JavaScript to provide a user experience closer to a native application. Google has decided to remove Chrome Apps for most consumers by June 2021, and for all users by June 2022.

Integrated media player, file manager
Google integrates a media player into both Chrome OS and the Chrome browser, enabling users to play back MP3s, view JPEGs, and handle other multimedia files while offline. It supports DRM videos.

Chrome OS also includes an integrated file manager, resembling those found on other operating systems, with the ability to display directories and the files they contain from both Google Drive and local storage, as well as to preview and manage file contents using a variety of Web applications, including Google Docs and Box. Since January 2015, Chrome OS can also integrate additional storage sources into the file manager, relying on installed extensions that use the File System Provider API.

Remote application access and virtual desktop access
In June 2010, Google software engineer Gary Kačmarčík wrote that Chrome OS will access remote applications through a technology unofficially called "Chromoting", which would resemble Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection. The name has since been changed to "Chrome Remote Desktop", and is like "running an application via Remote Desktop Services or by first connecting to a host machine by using RDP or VNC". Initial roll-outs of Chrome OS laptops (Chromebooks) indicate an interest in enabling users to access virtual desktops.

App Runtime for Chrome (ARC)
At Google I/O 2014, a proof of concept showing Android applications, including Flipboard, running on Chrome OS was presented. In September 2014, Google introduced a beta version of the App Runtime for Chrome (ARC), which allows selected Android applications to be used on Chrome OS, using a Native Client-based environment that provides the platforms necessary to run Android software. Runtime was launched with four Android applications: Duolingo, Evernote, Sight Words, and Vine. Android applications do not require any modifications to run on Chrome OS, but may be modified to better support a mouse and keyboard environment. At its introduction, Chrome OS support was only available for selected Android applications. Engineering director Zelidrag Hornung explained that ARC had been scrapped due to its limitations, including its incompatibility with the Android Native Development Toolkit (NDK), and that it was unable to pass Google's own compatibility test suite.

Play Store
In 2016, Google introduced the ability to run Android apps on supported Chrome OS devices, with access to the entire Google Play Store. The previous Native Client-based solution was dropped in favor of a container containing Android's frameworks and dependencies (initially based on Android Marshmallow), which allows Android apps to have direct access to the Chrome OS platform, and allow the OS to interact with Android contracts such as sharing.

Linux Apps
Since 2013, it has been possible to run Linux applications in Chrome OS through the use of Crouton, a third-party set of scripts that allows access to a Linux distribution such as Ubuntu. However, in 2018 Google announced that desktop Linux apps were officially coming to Chrome OS. The main benefit claimed by Google of their official Linux application support is that it can run without enabling developer mode, keeping many of the security features of Chrome OS. It was noticed in the Chromium OS source code in early 2018. Early parts of Crostini were made available for the Google Pixelbook via the dev channel in February 2018 as part of Chrome OS version 66, and it was enabled by default via the beta channel for testing on a variety of chromebooks in August 2018 with version 69.

Aura
Can there please be included additional info about Aura? I don't think it's clear from the article whether it's a window manager, graphics engine, or widget toolkit, or perhaps all of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate Content
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS#Android_applications (second paragraph)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS#Relationship_to_Android (third paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.106.195 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Google purchases Neverware
Any thoughts of the impact of Google's Neverware acquisition here? https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-quietly-buys-company-that-turns-your-old-windows-7-pc-into-chrome-os-machine/

"'As CloudReady becomes an official Chrome OS offering, you can expect the release mechanics to fall in line with official Chrome OS releases,' Neverware notes."

Does that mean that there's now a Google-sanctioned version of Chrome OS that's user-installable? Until now, I think, and per the article, Chrome OS has only been available preinstalled on Chromebooks. Chromium OS isn't mentioned in the article. Barte (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Good questions, but not many answers. We may have to wait to see if this needs adding. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Reading the coverage, I come to the same conclusion. Google hasn't chimed in. The statement in the CloudReady Q&A on the acquisition is hardly definitive. It's something to keep an eye on. Barte (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)