Google's Chrome OS, Cloud-oriented Computing, and User Freedom; or The Emperor has No Clothes!

Google has recently announced their plan to release a new open source operating system called Chrome OS, which they hope to make freely available by mid 2010. A quick review of write-ups about Google's announcement (like this piece by Miguel Helft and Ashlee Vance in the New York Times) reveals that many view the proposed Chrome OS to be an innovative approach to desktop computing, since the idea is to make Google's Chrome browser the focus of the operating system. With little or no native applications to bog it down, Chrome OS would thus provide the user with quick access to the Internet, and nearly all computing tasks would take place through web applications such as Google Docs and Picasa.

It might first seem counter-intuitive, but by giving away Chrome OS and their web services, Google will ultimately grow their business. Google makes its money from targeted advertising. Widespread usage of Chrome OS would mean that more people would be doing their computing in the clouds , which would in turn provide Google greater opportunities to offer more precisely targeted advertisements at a greater quantity, and hence greater opportunity to increase revenue.

If Google's cloud-centric operating system catches on, it will most certainly pose a challenge to businesses that currently sell traditional desktop operating systems, such as Microsoft and Apple. With an orientation on native rather than web-based applications (e.g. Word, Windows Media Player/Quicktime, iPhoto, etc.), Windows and OS X stand in the way of Google making more money, since the more time one spends on those native applications, the less time one spends online using Google's web-based services. By offering Chrome OS for free, Google undercuts Windows, OS X, and their expensive software, driving consumers to use Google's services instead.

All this might sound like a big win for the consumer, since he or she will get to use quality applications on a purportedly more reliable and efficient operating system at no cost. Under any ordinary circumstance, who could argue with that? But herein lies the problem. This is no ordinary circumstance. We're now dealing with cloud-oriented computing, and with this, free comes at a high price.

Cloud computing can be quite useful. However, to make an operating system completely dependent upon web services for its most basic functions poses certain dangers to the user. First, all one's computing becomes dependent on having an Internet connection, which means one must have an Internet service provider in order to utilize the system to its fullest potential. Google will likely further develop Google Gears, which currently allows the user to work with certain web-based applications offline, but it will probably never be able to provide the same functionality to web-based applications as one has with native applications. So for those who don't want or can't afford to pay for an Internet connection (yes, I know, this is a small demographic in many nations), or for those who have no access to the internet for an extended period of time, Chrome OS would appear to be practically useless. Even for those who have an Internet connection, why would they want to have that cost become an inherent part of their ability to use their computer?

Second, it isn't clear whether one will have the ability to write and run non-web-based applications on one's computer. Google may allow for such a feature, but it will probably be disabled by default, seriously restricted, or come at a price. These applications will compete for the user's time, which he or she would otherwise spend using the web-based applications that bring Google revenue. So the freedom of the user to write his or her own program and run it on his or her computer the way he or she sees fit will likely be restricted or taken away.

Finally, cloud-oriented computing means that one's private data will not (only?) be on your personal hard drive, but it will (also?) be sitting on the hard drive of some third party server, meaning God-knows-who could have access to your private information, doing God-knows-what with it. This raises a series of important related questions: is data in the clouds ultimately public? We're talking about a centralized storage location that contains very intimate details about the lives and dealings of billions of people the world over. This places unthinkable power in the hands of who or whatever owns that centralized storage location. If the information is there for another to be accessed, in what sense is it still private information? Do the storage location owners only own the storage, or can they lay any claim to the contents of the storage, as well? What can they do with the information, and who or what is to stop them if they try to do something with it that they shouldn't? Certainly the private/public distinction begins to get blurred; at the very least, this would involve having limited control over any personal information stored in the cloud. And when all or nearly all one's computing takes place in the cloud, one would have limited control over a large bulk of that information.

When all is said and done, the Chrome OS platform may end up being cheaper, more efficient, and more innovative than Windows or OS X. It may be built around the Linux kernel. It may also be touted as a free/libre open source project, but it cannot help but result in an arrangement that is at least as equally unethical as the arrangement between proprietary software companies and their end users, since users will end up surrendering to their service provider a modest amount of control over system functionality, as well as security of personal data. Chrome OS may be free/libre open source in name and in practice, but the very nature of the relationship between user and provider that cloud-centric computing fosters entails that it cannot be fee/libre open source in spirit.


Google's Chrome OS, Cloud-oriented Computing, and User Freedom; or The Emperor has No Clothes! by Nathan M. Blackerby is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

The Distributist Review - Three Acres and a Penguin: Why Distributists Should Try Linux

Originally published by Bill Powell at The Distributist Review.

Gripe, gripe, gripe. Globalization swallows the globe. Monsanto poisons your popcorn. Big Business and Big Government team up to embed RFID tracking chips in schoolkids. And distributists love to hate the whole mess. Cheers!

Well, friends, I have good news. Linux. It's time to free your computer.

Have you heard of Linux? Maybe you went to download Firefox (a free web browser), clicked around, and noticed that after "Windows" and "Mac" there was "Linux", with a little penguin. (His name is Tux.) Maybe you're periodically forced to interact with your IT department, and you've overheard "Linux" as they discuss their arcane secrets. Maybe you're way ahead of me, and are irritated because I'm probably not going to mention OpenBSD.

Or maybe you have no clue what I'm talking about. What is Linux? Basically, Linux is a pile of programs that lets you take your computer, strip it down to the bare hardware, and start fresh. Linux is an alternative operating system . If you just download Firefox, you're still in Microsoft Windows or OS X. When you download Linux, you're in Linux.

Why is this good news for distributists? Because Linux is free . Not only "free as in beer," but far more importantly, "free as in speech." You can download Linux and use it as you will. You can try free alternatives for almost any task you can think of: email, browser, word processor, spreadsheet, graphic design, typesetting, games, and many more. You can customize most of these programs, as well as the overall window manager, beyond your wildest pre-Linux dreams. You can also remove any application that annoys you. (Try removing IE.)

You can even read the source code; and if that sounds silly, you can rest assured that thousands of other programmers do read the source code. Why does this matter? Computer programs are made up of hundred, thousands, or millions of lines of code, and in the world of Microsoft or Apple, that code is proprietary . It's generally illegal to read the code unless you work for Microsoft or Apple. In fact, when you buy the program, you don't even get the source code. You only get (no, you rent) the computer-readable binary code, which looks like gibberish and can't be altered. It works (hopefully) but you are not allowed to know how. Or fix it.

Imagine if you could only fill your car with gas from Exxon. Or only get an oil change at the dealership. Or if it was illegal to open the hood of your car unless you worked for the manufacturer. Even if you had no desire to be your own car mechanic, these rules would seem a bit draconian.

So why this paroxysm of intellectual property law for computer software? It's understandable; when advances in computing made it possible for companies to sell software to non-programmers, they quickly noted that you could pay a hundred thousand dollars to develop a vital program, and your competition could copy it the next day. They thought sharing wouldn't work. They were wrong.

Whether the proprietary model is moral is beyond my allotted portion. It's certainly obvious that, permissible or not, it drastically curtails the freedom of the user. It seriously tips the balance of power towards the corporation. How would you feel about a brake job if it was illegal to have a rival company check up on the work? You probably store plenty of private information on the same computer that mysteriously connects you to the Internet; wouldn't you prefer that this computer had no secrets?

Linux is exciting because it turns the proprietary model on its head, and it works . Linux is often called open source or simply free (or libre) software ; the basic idea is that you can read the code, tweak it, add to it, re-release it, even charge money for it. For instance, I charge money for customizing an installation of web site software. You get a web site that's based on a common, powerful, well-supported program, but I make it unique for you. Anyone can do anything they like with the code except try to lock up the portions they used. The code stays free.

So where does all this code come from? Why do programmers spend millions of hours on code they will give away?

This also should excite distributists. Free software is a unique ecosystem. (I'm going to stop saying "Linux" now; it sounds cooler than "free software," but it actually has a definite technical meaning, and it isn't the only free OS in town, either.) A program is not like an apple. If I share my apple with you, we each only get half. (Which is why it matters who owns an apple tree.) If I share my program, we both have a full copy; and I benefit from your feedback.

Every program's niche is different. Many programs happen simply because the programmers want or need them. Major programs might be the work of a non-profit foundation, as with Apache (which runs more than half the servers on the Internet), or subsidized by a for-profit company so the code can be reused elsewhere, as with OpenOffice.org (a free office suite which also runs on Windows or a Mac). Some companies offer free software, and charge money for support. Some programmers seem to live on donations and advertising. People do what works.

Chesterton fought for economic liberty, and knew it was bound up with political liberty. Today, he would say that both are bound up with digital liberty. Do you own a computer? Especially a spare older computer you can wipe clean without fear? Try a few free Linux lessons. Or if you'd like to stay on your current operating system, at least try a free web browser or word processor. If these are the tools you use every day, why not choose tools you can make your own?




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License

The Utility of Ubuntu

Yesterday my friend Matt brought to my attention an article entitled "A Software Populist Who Doesn't Do Windows," which recently appeared in the Business Secion of the New York Times. It's an interview story on Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Canonical, but is equally about the rise in use of Canonical's desktop Linux distribution, Ubuntu. Ashlee Vance, the author of the article, contends that Ubuntu may have the wherewithal to become a competitor in the desktop market, precisely because it succeeds in areas where Linux has a reputation for failing: user-friendliness. The fact that it comes at no cost helps too. But what Vance giveth with one hand, he taketh away with the other, arguing that usability, compatibility issues, and price are also its major stumbling blocks to success. Consider, for instance, the following statements:

While relatively easy to use for the technologically savvy, Ubuntu — and all other versions of Linux — can challenge the average user. Linux cannot run many applications created for Windows, including some of the most popular games and tax software, for example. And updates to Linux can send ripples of problems through the system, causing something as basic as a computer’s display or sound system to malfunction. (New York Times)

Parts of Mr. Shuttleworth’s venture continue to look quixotic. Linux remains rough around the edges, and Canonical’s business model seems more like charity than the next great business story. And even if the open Ubuntu proves a raging success, the operating system will largely be used to reach proprietary online services from Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and others. “Mark is very genuine and fundamentally believes in open source,” said Matt Asay, a commentator on open-source technology and an executive at the software maker Alfresco. “But I think he’s going to have a crisis of faith at some point.” Mr. Asay wonders if Canonical can sustain its “give everything away” model and “always open” ideology. (New York Times)

Press coverage of free/libre, open source software always has the potential to be a positive; you never know just whose curiosity it might pique. However, articles like Vance's seem to do more harm than good. Henry Kingman has described Vance's portrayal of Ubuntu as "the flawed plaything of an eccentric billionaire, an OS likely to appeal only to the disaffected, marginalized, deeply technical, or all of the above." I think Kingman is correct. Vance's comments about Ubuntu certainly seem to suggest that he believes it's an unstable system with too much of a learning curve for the non-specialist, that it has too many quirks to be functional, and that its sustained existence depends on Mark Shuttleworth's attention span. All this serves to scare the unsuspecting Windows or Mac user away from exploring the world of Linux. "Ubuntu may be free of cost," the warning begins, "but it's largely useless."

There are greater, ethical reasons for choosing to use a free, open-source operating system, but since Vance focuses on utility and price, I'll ignore those ethical reasons and make some brief remark on how my own experience (as well as others' experience) with Ubuntu confirms the opposite of Vance's claims.

I have used computers for a long enough time and have had enough working experience with computers that, for instance, I don't freeze at the sight of a command line interface or panic when a program needs code fixed in a text editor. Nevertheless, I'd still classify myself as a "regular user." Yet I run Ubuntu on each of my computers every day with relative ease. Others who are less "tech-savvy" than me have had the same or similar experiences with Ubuntu. Neither they nor I find using Ubuntu a "challenge" at all (including system updates and upgrades).

Moreover, I don't miss Windows programs. There are two reasons for this. Nearly every application that runs on Windows has its corollary in Linux. For Microsoft Office there is Openoffice; for Internet Explorer there is Firefox, Konquerer, and Opera; for Adobe Creative Suite there is F-spot, the GIMP, Inkscape, and Blender; for Windows Media Player there is Amarok, Rhythmbox, Mplayer, and VLC. The list goes on. However, if one fails to find, say, an adequate tax program that runs natively on Linux, he or she can always run his or her Windows tax program of choice in Linux through WINE.

So, contrary to Vance, my own experience and the experience of others stand as testament that Ubuntu is a stable operating system. Moreover, the fact that Ubuntu receives a steady stream of updates, that new versions are released every six months, and that it has an active and large community of developers and contributers indicates that Ubuntu should provide a stable system in the future as well.


The Utility of Ubuntu by Nathan M. Blackerby is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

An rwx World

This week, I came across a number of interesting videos and books that deal with so-called intellectual property, copyright issues, digital media, the free culture movement, Creative Commons licensing, and other related matters.

The first of which is a film called Good Copy, Bad Copy, which was released in 2007. It focuses largely on the creation of new music through sampling, the entertainment industry's opposition to file-sharing, and in a subtle way, the economics that underlie copyright issues. Perhaps most interesting to my mind was the segment that covers the Motion Picture Association of America's influence on Swedish authorities shutting down The Pirate Bay in May/June 2006. Since the Pirate Bay is in Swedish territory, and thus does not fall under US jurisdiction, the Pirate Bay isn't restricted by the copyright standards found in the US, and so no one could be detained nor could the state prohibit the Pirate Bay's continuation. Check out the film:





Next is a recently published book by James Boyle entitled The Public Domain. It's available as a pdf for free download. You can also freely read it online in html at Yale University Press. As one would expect from a book, The Public Domain goes into greater depth than Good Copy, Bad Copy concerning fair use and intellectual property issues. However, it is also broader in scope, as it addresses such things as invasive techniques to control what we are allowed to do with, what we are capable of doing with, and how we actually use media and software. Thus he carries on an extended discussion of such things as DRM, and proprietary vs. free and open source software. His message is a simple one: the public domain is worth preserving. Well, duh. Shouldn't that be a no-brainer? Unfortunately, for some people it isn't.

I also came across a recent interview with Lawrence Lessig on Charlie Rose, as well as a presentation Lessig gave at a conference hosted by Google in 2006. In the Charlie Rose interview, Lessig discusses his relationship with Barack Obama and how he has known Obama since the beginning of Obama's career as a law professor. He also discusses the influence of money in politics and how we need to work toward more open governance, his motivation for the establishment of Change Congress.





The only unique things I found about Lessig's Google presentation is that he compares Creative Commons licenses with the GNU General Public License, and that, during the Q & A period, he addresses some deeper philosophical questions about intellectual property vs. fair use. Beyond that, the rest is really just an extended version of a talk he gave at TED in 2007. So if you don't have an hour and fifteen to spare, check that out instead.





Finally, I read a long essay (or short book - whichever you prefer to call it, I guess) by Douglas Rushkoff entitled Open Source Democracy. It was published in 2003 by DEMOS and, like The Public Domain, is available for free download. Rushkoff's thesis is that political communities have been based largely on a top-down, proprietary model, in which power and decision-making is vested in a centralized group. By contrast, free and open source communities exhibit an emergent, bottom-up, and participatory model, in which power and decision-making is largely decentralized and vested in each member of the community. As such, free and open source communities provide an example of an alternative model for politics and governance. Check out p. 59-60, where Rushkoff draws a parallel between free and open source models and the economics of E.F. Schumacher.

Rushkoff's book is good insofar as it takes a first step towards addressing how free and open source models might be suggestive for new forms of government and politics. However, I found his argumentation a bit too loose at times. In the coming weeks I hope to post a blog that makes a stronger connection between free culture, open source, etc. and democracy. At any rate, Open Source Democracy is worth the hour and a half or so it takes to read.


An rwx World by Nathan M. Blackerby is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.