Richard Stallman Says You Should Worry About Chrome OS

It's plain as day that people don't want to maintain their own computing environment. Do you think average Joe wants to worry about antivirus definitions? Patches? Drivers? Backups? Let alone building their own servers/services that handle their data.

Chrome OS may fail, but the principle of computing as a managed service will happen regardless of any objections. The only questions are what form it will take, and how soon it will arrive.

Here are my predictions: 1. Widespread adoption of a system very similar to ChromeOS 2. Huge vulnerability/breach of said system 3. Legislative overreaction creates laws intended to protect consumers, but unintentionally shuts the door on any smaller fish looking to get into the Cloud OS pond.

I profoundly disagree with many of Stallman's opinions. However I have tremendous respect for his timing and ability to capitalize on the buzz surrounding something new, and use it as an opportunity to re-state his position.

I think he makes a good point about cloud stored data, but failing to acknowledge having a developer mode baked in to the OS and a trusted boot process that doesn't prevent modification was a real mistake. Google obviously went to great pains to buck the polar trends in OS security = either being in denial about the current security landscape, or removing all user control entirely for business purposes in the name of security.

FSF founder claims that something that doesn't abide by FSF rules isn't good? No way!

Not that he doesn't have a point here, but I think people already realize that data in the cloud isn't fully secure. People are (individually!) choosing to trade security for convenience.

But then again, given how many personal computers end up in botnets, maybe it's actually -more- secure in Google's hands than their own.

I won't use Chrome OS. Why should I let some unaccountable megacorporation own my data? The Google we know today is benign, but corporations change, and can be forced to change. Trusting Google with my data today would mean trusting all of the possible future Googles with my data, too, and that's not a bet I'm willing to take.

If your only tool is a Stallman, every problem looks like an OS.

That said, data in the cloud is absolutely less secure from fed perusal. Of course, the lack of commonplace point to point encryption (see the Phil Zimmerman witch hunt in the early 90s) was in many ways a more critical nail in the messaging security coffin.

The best case scenario for cloud computing would be some sort of device that you could run on your home network that would provide services like email, web hosting, and file sharing. It would have to be painless to setup. Maybe it could backup heavily encrypted copies of your stuff onto off-site servers just in case. You could VPN/SSH into your cloud wherever you had an internet connection.

Unfortunately, I think such a device would STILL be too much work for the average computer user when all it takes is a couple seconds to make a dropbox account.

He brings up some good points for those who agree with his stance. While they sometimes have a bit of wisdom to impart, I have a tendency to not listen to the jaded and disenfranchised old guard once they begin whining.