Shared publicly  - 
Actually, I don't think it is. Let Microsoft make Windows on ARM as restricted as they like and then watch the customers and developers stay far, far away from it.
Ron Miller's profile photoAlan Cox's profile photoJe Saist's profile photoRobert MacAnthony's profile photo
Sounds like the beginnings of a "nail in the coffin" thing for Win8 and MS...
On the bright side, it'll be a counterbalance against all those ****ing Chrome only web sites springing up
+Alan Cox um... I'm wracking my brain here, but what web-sites have gone Chrome-Only?
+Alan Cox, I am totally opposed to the idea of one-browser only websites. At the same time, does the counter have to be more exclusion?
+Ramki Kazhiyur-Mannar Call me crazy, but I was under the impression that organized standards such as HTML5 were in place to prevent one-browser only websites.

+Joakim Wahlgren I kind of understand why Google+ has not implemented a Minus button. It would be very, very, very easy to grief other users of the service. I'd actually be hard-pressed to name a single time that I have participated in social service with Minus function, be it forum, news-site, Youtube or so on and so forth, where the Minus system has not been abused.
This whole Windows RT thingy reminds me of old versions of Windows CE, ca. 1999. They created small notebooks - like today's netbooks or a bit smaller - with a desktop that looked roughly like Windows 95. And there were so-called Pocket versions of Word and Excel, as well as a version of IE. Heck, they were even ARM-based. And no, using them was not a pleasure nor productive by any sensible definition.
You can that attitude, Steven of course and hope for that outcome, but you can't forget that Microsoft got into trouble for this very practice once before. If it favors IE over others, it's probably going to run into similar problems from regulators again.
+Ron Miller Usually, regulators become active only when a company has a large market share. If WindowsRT is as successful as Zune or Kin (or Windows Phone 7 as of today), nobody will care.
Can I run Firefox or IE natively on a Chromebook, and if not is that a problem?
+Grey Geek I think MS may have called the DVD one right - you can't fit a DVD into a tablet anyway.
+Je Saist From that link it looks like the answer is no. It says the OS is web-centric and all apps are web apps. You're running the native code inside of the Chromium browser, it looks like. So you're not going to be running Firefox or IE on a Chromebook (or at least the average use won't be able to do it).
+R. Scott Kimsey as far as I am aware Chromium uses the same packaging system as Android (.apk) and supports what is now being referred to as sideloading. While Google * recommends* NativeClient, that is not the only Native-code solution available. If I understand the documentation correctly, users should be able to install packages to Chromium.

The answer still remains yes: you can install, and therefor run, any native Linux application. So yes, you can run FireFox. Somebody just has to package Firefox for the Chromium platform, or you'll have to install from Source.
+Je Saist That makes sense. I guess what I'm getting at is that it isn't going to be expected that the average Chromebook user will be installing another browser. It may be harder for some people than others, but it seems to me the idea of the Chromebook generally goes against the idea of running a browser other than Chrome. With Windows RT, it seems likely that someone with the right skills could get Firefox or Chrome going on it, but for the average user there won't be any incentive to do it.
+R. Scott Kimsey Oh, I agree. Most people buying a ChromeBook are expecting to be using it in a networked environment. Most people buying Windows 8 will be trying to replace the... ahem... junk software.

+Grey Geek I can just see it now. A Windows-Multimedia site with libdvdcss2, w32codec, and w64codec packages :)
+Je Saist Even though I rarely use any MS software (I prefer Linux) I don't think Win 8 is bad for a tablet OS. But I think the way it drops into the legacy desktop is just terrible. I don't see myself adopting it for my one Windows computer (which is for games).
What would stop someone from just using VLC or something in Win 8?
+R. Scott Kimsey as far as I am aware there should be nothing that would stop somebody from loading VLC. The question is the legal distribution of the proprietary and... protected ... codecs that much of the commercially sold media is encoded in.

However, the legal precedent has been set in most countries that such access to such licensed technology is generally granted if you already have paid for the licensed technology. In theory because I've already paid for a Playstation 3 I have already paid the license for DVD, Blu-Ray, Obscure Media Format Here, playback capability. I am not legally obligated to pay for that license again. We actually used this during Mepis development where the inclusion of the freely available, but proprietary, /Linux RealPlayer gave us the legal ability to ship mp3 and other media codecs within the Mepis distribution.

Now, is this something that is actually going to stand up in court with the legal benthopelagic's employed by the RIAA, MPAA, and IFPI? Personally, I'd rather not be the person to find out.
I'll continue to buy a desktop for gaming unless tablets are able to make some incredible strides in that regard in the next couple of years.
+Je Saist Thank you for that link. I see what you're talking about there, and if that comes to fruition I could certainly envision myself moving to such a setup. I think it would be pretty cool. I have to admit, though, that I'm not a huge fan of KDE. But the type of hardware arrangements you are talking about could work well with a variety of desktop environments.
Add a comment...