Diesel: A Safe, Extensible ORM and Query Builder for Rust - <AUTHOR> http://diesel.rs/ <comment><USER2> Why is

        Post::belonging_to(user).load(&connection)

an improvement over

        SELECT * FROM posts WHERE user_id = 1;

?

If you use this, it nails the database schema into your Rust code, because this needs to know the table formats. If someone adds a new field to a row, you have to rebuild all your Rust programs that use the database. Now your deployment process just got much more complicated.

It's a neat hack, but seems an overly complex way to do something that's not that complicated. Unless this has some huge performance gain over rust- postgres[1], it's probably too much.

If rust-postgres is too slow, it would be worth having an optional generic for rust-postgres to help with unmarshalling returned rows. Rust-postgres returns row objects from which fields can be extracted. Converting that to a Rust struct is the only operation which needs to go fast.

[1] [https://github.com/sfackler/rust- postgres](https://github.com/sfackler/rust-postgres)

<comment><USER3> In that very specific example, you are right -- the benefits are pretty minimal (mostly just the deserialization). However, you're actually able to represent the relationship between those two models _however you want_ , but still deal with relationships between types, and not what the exact join clause is.

Additionally, SQL is extremely hard to compose. In my applications, I very rarely have some specific one off query that I want to run, I have multiple predicates that I want to be able to mix and match easily. String munging is fragile, while this actually lets me build reasonable domain abstractions.

To your final point "Unless this has some huge performance gain over rust- postgres"

Diesel performs 33% faster than rust-postgres, and will be competitive with if not faster than ideomatic C.

<comment><USER4> > Additionally, SQL is extremely hard to compose.

I've seen almost everyone who doesn't use SQL directly say this but I always feel it's the exact opposite. SQL is easy to write once you do it enough. I've gotten to the point where I compose zero SQL in any application's code and, instead, do it all inside of stored procedures (of which they do not generate dynamic SQL). Then my code just calls stored procedures, my database users for the web application never have more access than executing a specific subset of stored procedures, and if there is a bug found in a stored procedure I can deploy them separately from the web application.

I'm guessing it's just different philosophies but almost every time I've used something that abstracts an existing interface to another, completely different interface, I always end up running into major issues.

<comment><USER3> Stored procedures are no more composeable than SQL strings are. Now it's certainly easy to say that I haven't used SQL directly. But I did spend years working that way (though of course this statement shouldn't give you much confidence by itself).

Ultimately an ORM _can_ help you to build more maintainable and resilient (to changing market conditions) software than direct SQL. Diesel in particular can catch mistakes that SQL strings cannot.

I do understand why a lot of people have reservations about ORMs. I share a lot of them. I've maintained Active Record for about 2 years now, and learned a lot from doing so (note: This does not mean that I like AR or want this to be anything like it).

TL;DR: Your points aren't wrong. Diesel is different. Maybe give it a shot. ;)

<comment><USER4> > Stored procedures are no more composeable than SQL strings > are[...]Ultimately an ORM can help you to build more maintainable and > resilient (to changing market conditions) software than direct SQL.

I couldn't disagree more. Creating the separation between SQL DB and web application allows you to maintain, deploy, fix and upgrade things independently and it's easy (maybe not quite as easy as an ORM would make it but not really harder either; you're going to have to know how SQL works anyway if you want to effectively optimize and secure your data).

Not only that but you can provide far better security controls because you can limit certain users access to certain procedures, never direct access to tables and various other things and if you don't do any dynamic SQL in the procedures itself you not only never have to worry about SQL injection but unless there is a critical vulnerability in the SQL system itself it's going to be impossible to conduct an injection attack.

Yeah you can separate your code to make it easier to deploy separately to get a similar benefit and yeah your code can prevent SQL injections too but it's so much more work, more possible points of failure and the differences between databases can really bite you in the ass when you do everything generically. SQL is fun :)

> TL;DR: Your points aren't wrong. Diesel is different. Maybe give it a shot. > ;)

Yeah I'm not saying NEVER use ORMs; they're great for creating things quickly that don't need to scale. But after my experience with them I'm highly skeptical using them outside of that type of use case. Of course you can scale ORMs but I've never seen it done well.

<comment><USER3> I think we're violently agreeing in a lot of ways. :)

I'm curious what you mean by scale. Are you referring to performance, or code size? If you're referring to performance, you'll probably find it interesting that we out-perform or are competitive with ideomatic C.

<comment><USER4> By scale I mean performance though I'm not sure the application's language matters as much as the SQL that's being generated and run against the database. I've just never had good luck with ORMs generating the best, most optimized SQL for the query I'm trying to run and I've known a few people who used an ORM until they started getting heavy traffic, tested out talking directly to the RDMS, found it to be more performant and end up dropping the ORM.

Don't get me wrong ORMs can certainly be performant. I just haven't seen or know anyone who used it in a manner that scaled to thousands of concurrent users and, at the same time, didn't have a lot of pain trying to do that with the ORM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If anyone is interested in hearing from the creator, Sean Griffin will be talking about Diesel at the next Bay Area Rust Meetup on February 18th [1], which will be live streamed and eventually archived on Air Mozilla [2]:

[1]: [http://www.meetup.com/Rust-Bay- Area/events/219697075/](http://www.meetup.com/Rust-Bay-Area/events/219697075/)

[2]: [https://air.mozilla.org/bay-area-rust-meetup- february-2016/](https://air.mozilla.org/bay-area-rust-meetup-february-2016/)

<comment><USER6> He also did a good podcast interview about Diesel and about Rust (and what makes a Rust ORM special with compile time magic) a week or so ago:

[http://bikeshed.fm/49](http://bikeshed.fm/49)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sean Griffin (and others), the maintainer of Rails' ActiveRecord, has been working on this ORM for a while now. It's not a port of ActiveRecord, but a look at what an ORM that takes advantages of Rust's strengths would look like.

It makes heavy usage of Rust's type system features, particularly zero-sized types, to provide a large degree of safety with no overhead. Sean has mentioned several times that he even believes that he is faster than literal SQL strings, due to pre-compiling them in some way, but that's a bit out of my league.

He also wants to have features like "type-check all of your queries at compile time and then query the database to make sure that the schemas all line up" and other such compile-time safety shenanigans.

</comment><comment><USER7> Honest question: When would it ever really make sense to use Rust on the server for a service that interacts with a SQL database heavily enough to justify using such a library?

Wouldn't waiting on the network eat up any possible performance gain you could expect from Rust vs something like the JVM or Go runtime? Before modern day JavaScript JITs, relational database systems were the epitome of dynamic runtime systems. There's so much performance variability in the query planner, network, disk caching, etc, to make garbage collection a rounding error. Zero- cost abstractions are just not a particularly useful thing in this context from what I can tell.

Even if you do have genuinely CPU-bound tasks, why wouldn't you use Rust for those modules + call it via FFI from whatever is doing most of the boring business logic? If it's just about static-type-check-all-the-things! I just can't get excited about it vs something like Go.

<comment><USER8> In my limited experience using both Go and Rust for hobbyist web scraping, I haven't found either language to have a significant edge in development difficulty. Go's most salient edge over Rust would be in the more numerous and mature libraries.

So if Rust is not substantially easier or harder than Go, when Rust catches up to Go in the library ecosystem, I can see why people might want to use Rust. Also, it's nice to have better language support for functional strategies.

<comment><USER7> I think that Rust is substantially harder than Go. At least extrapolating from my personal experience and the 6+ highly-skilled people I've watched learn both Go and Scala simultaneously.

<comment><USER9> I think you're right--Rust is harder to learn than Go--but I also think that doesn't really matter, since the important thing is whether people _fluent in both languages_ can write code faster in Rust or Go. I have not seen many if any instances in which people who actually know Rust write code more slowly in Rust than they would in other languages (modulo compiler performance). The borrow check is, like, less than 5% of the errors I see, and the errors are at this point not significantly harder to fix than a misspelled variable name.

<comment><USER6> Re: modulo compiler performance

My productivity has been greatly improved by restricting myself to `cargo check` when writing code. It only does type and borrow checking which is much faster than doing all of the LLVM passes (or whatever rustc does after those passes, on that subject I am ignorant).

<comment><USER10> Note that even for large codebase, the Go compile is faster than Rust up to typecheck. Not much faster, but when I use Go I get errors immediately; whereas in Rust I often context-switch to wait for errors (both for large codebases). Some planned improvements to Rust may fix this.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough, and being honest I haven't tried Go yet so I have no basis for comparison between the two compilers.

I've found that when using Atom with linter/linter-rust installed and setup with cargo check I rarely context switch while waiting for errors/warnings to be highlighted (and this is on a 1.6Ghz Xeon machine at work). But maybe I'm just OK staring blankly for slightly longer than others :).

<comment><USER10> Well, I work with really large codebases in Rust (Servo or Rust itself), so the twenty seconds to a compile error are a lot. Whereas when hacking on Go's compiler it's much, much less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I know the ".rs" TLD is common to rust projects, but maybe add "for Rust" to the title?

<comment><USER12> I had no idea that .rs was conventionally for Rust projects, but I'm also not too bothered by having to figure it out.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure it's convention but it's common just due to matching the file extension.

<comment><USER3> It's technically for the Republic of Serbia. I only chose it because .io was taken by a python library (which I wish I'd checked before deciding on the name)

It's also a pain in the ass to register because you have to have a Serbian tax ID

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Naming something "Diesel" is problematic. While the name is well known because of Rudolf Diesel, a German inventor of the Diesel engine and the Diesel fuel.

There is an Italian clothing company "Diesel S.p.A." that tries to protect their brand by suing almost anyone using "Diesel".

For example a German video game called "DieselStormers": due to a successful trademark lawsuit by Diesel S.p.A., who owns the trademark "Diesel" in relation to video games, Black Forest Games had been required to drop the title DieselStormers. [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-09-30-dieselstormers-...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-09-30-dieselstormers- forced-to-change-name-after-diesel-wins-trademark-dispute)

Such greedy companies act very similar to patent trolls. Well, there are sadly several other common words that are tainted by such "brands".

Edit: In 2015/2016 the Volkswagen (VW) Diesel scandal tainted the "Diesel" name too: [http://autoweek.com/car-news/vw-diesel- scandal](http://autoweek.com/car-news/vw-diesel-scandal)

<comment><USER14> Chosing Diesel as a name in 2016 is not exactly smart. greedy companies or not

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Really nice home page, clearly explains what the product is for and how it works, I really wish more tools would have such landing pages, most of the times I am spending a lot of time just figuring out what the hell is that new tool about. Great job!

</comment><comment><USER16> I am a big fan of typography but I have to draw the line at ligatures in code samples. It's just not appropriate for type that actually has a compelling reason to be monospaced =)

<comment><USER3> Mind posting a screenshot of what you're seeing? All our code samples are `font-family: monospace`

<comment><USER17> I think they're referring to the "fi" in filter:

[http://i.imgur.com/tJBeeNt.png](http://i.imgur.com/tJBeeNt.png)

<comment><USER16> ^ This is what I'm seeing. Sorry it took so long :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is pretty cool, makes me want to take a look at Rust.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't quite get why nobody simply creates function bindings that have a query template string on one side, that is represented as a function that creates a parameterized query under the covers, and a solid type that represents a record that is returned? I mean instead of jumping through all the binding chains.. just have a string and type... call the generated function based on the string, return an array/stream/whatever of <type>

I'd rather use template string generated promises in node, tbh, than any ORM.

<comment><USER3> That is our `sql` function

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Very cool. I like that it (as far as I can see) is actually built on top of an SQL AST.

This is one of the shortcomings of ActiveRecord. The SQL building used to be extremely ad-hoc, and though ARel was eventually written to fix this problem, the integration between ARel and ActiveRecord is not very fluid (and ARel itself has some design issues; if I remember correctly from the last time I worked with it, it's not immutable, which can be very confusing when chaining expressions).

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I'm planning on killing Arel at some point. I actually want to extract `Relation` to a gem entirely, as it's really not an adequate query builder for what we need in AR.

Also random fun story about Arel not being immutable. We had a bug in 4.1 where basically PG bind params are ordered, but Relation can't actually know the order ahead of time (e.g. because a Relation can be used in a from clause). Turned out actually fixing it was somewhat hard (the "real" fix was eventually [https://github.com/rails/arel/commit/590c784a30b13153667f8db...](https://github.com/rails/arel/commit/590c784a30b13153667f8db7915998d7731e24e5)). But as a hack, basically someone took advantage of the fact that `Arel::Nodes::BindParam < SqlLiteral` and `SqlLiteral < String`, and Strings are mutable. So they just ignored the lack of a proper map function, and fiddled with the strings. >_>

Anyway, yeah our AST is fun because Rust's compiler lets us set it up so that we can walk it as many times as we need basically for free (because it gets monomorphised and the walking ultimately gets inlined and optimized away)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How does this reconcile the async IO problem?

I couldn't figure out from cursory reading how "PgConnection" works or how it would be compatible with other IO-related code.

<comment><USER22> This is still one of Rust's major shortcomings. Async IO, particularly async database and network IO, are still pretty much nonexistent in any practical sense. Some libraries are in the works, but for the time being, I'm still passing over Rust for any real work.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's very close to landing in hyper, which should then percolate up through the rest of the ecosystem, at least, HTTP-wise.

<comment><USER23> Do you know of any resource that would explain the current status of running rust as a webservice server endpoint ?

I'm thinking of question such as :

-embedded http server vs using apache or nginx ( eg : node and go seem to favor not using third party servers at least for simple cases)

\- prefered concurrency model ? ( async vs thread based vs coroutines vs...)

\- deployment issues ? ( single binary with everything inside, vs parts that need to be predeployed on the server beforehand)

\- third-party connectivity ? ( diesel seems like a really fantastic way to query a db, but what about other storage such as s3, mongo, redis, queue systems, etc)

\- current frameworks status ?

I know it sounds like a lot, but as ORMs is usually the major pain point for me when looking at a new techno ( it's one of the main reason i'm not using go, for example) and now that diesel seems to answer all my needs, i'm REALLY looking forward to start using Rust. I just need those questions to be answered, and i think i'm not the only one.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know of one, so let me write up something short:

      > embedded http server vs using apache or nginx

For now, put nginx in front of things, at least if you're using one of the non-rotor frameworks. That's because they are synchronous for now. This will change soonish, more below.

      > prefered concurrency model ?

If you're using a framework, this is handled for you already. If you're building something custom, you probably want to use something like mio to make it asynchronous. Current frameworks are all using synchronous IO, but work is undergoing to switch that, which will then percolate upwards through the ecosystem.

      > deployment issues ?

By default, everything is statically linked except glibc, so you make sure that those are compatible and then copy the binary.

      > third-party connectivity ?

Wonderful or nonexistent depending. We're still youngish, so there's gaps. Support ranges from "provided by the vendor itself" (mongo) to "nonexistent" (some random noSQL store that might be popular amongst a certain group but someone hasn't written a binding yet)

      > current frameworks status ?

The two most well-known are Iron and Nickel. Crates.io uses its own homegrown framework due to age. The author of Diesel may or may not be working on a new one to go with it...

<comment><USER6> > The author of Diesel may or may not be working on a new one to go with it...

IIRC, he hints at working on one (I think with Yehuda Katz?) in the podcast where he talked about Diesel:

[http://bikeshed.fm/49](http://bikeshed.fm/49)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> An FYI to anyone responsible for this site, or in contact with them, the visited and unvisited link colors in the getting started guide[1] are _very_ close to the background color, which makes them hard to read. Specifically, the link to dotenv and the CLI.

1: [http://diesel.rs/guides/getting-started/](http://diesel.rs/guides/getting- started/)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. The designer is taking another pass at it soon, I didn't expect to have so much traffic. I'll bump up the color on the links until then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This would be really awesome if someone used this with a rust framework being used in production

It would be really cool if this had an easy integration with postgis that uses simple syntax to query location

When I'm using a node framework and using postgres I have to use a nosql db for playing with coordinates as postgis syntax is not something i am very fond of

<comment><USER3> FWIW making sure it's easy to add extensions like this is part of the core design of Diesel. For example, this adds full text search support (it's slightly out of date) [https://github.com/sgrif/diesel_full_text_search/blob/master...](https://github.com/sgrif/diesel_full_text_search/blob/master/src/lib.rs)

If you're interested in adding postgis support, ping me in our Gitter room. I'd be happy to help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> How does this compare to Elixir's Ecto?

<comment><USER3> I'm having Jose on The Bikeshed (bikeshed.fm) next month to compare notes!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In the getting started guide, it looks like they use an as-yet-non-existent Post struct to create the migration SQL. Where is the migration CLI getting the struct's fields from if it hasn't yet been written in that part of the tutorial? Am I missing something obvious?

<comment><USER3> The CLI just generates the file structure. We fill in the SQL manually as part of the guide, and then create the structs immediately after that.

<comment><USER6> What I get for reading too quickly! Thanks for clarifying.

<comment><USER3> It wasn't super clear, anyway. Fixed in [https://github.com/sgrif/diesel.rs- website/pull/5](https://github.com/sgrif/diesel.rs-website/pull/5) :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I like how the logo uses a red gas can. Diesel fuel is actually goes in a yellow gas can.

<comment><USER3> I think it's green, at least in the US. XD

<comment><USER28> nope, diesel is yellow. never seen a green fuel can.

<comment><USER29> For plastic 'cans' in the UK, we use green for unleaded petrol. Red was for leaded petrol and diesel is black.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why did a NewPost struct have to be created to actually add a new Post? Is it generally not possible to have the result type of a query be used to update the same records?

<comment><USER3> Update yes. It's possible to use the same struct for create, too if you really want, but you'd need to wrap `id` in an `Option`.

Generally we're designed for the idea that you'll have a separate struct for read, create, and update. We also try and design for the latter two mapping roughly to web forms, as this is how most large applications end up wanting to be structured from my experience.

The main thing I'm trying to avoid is lumping all your logic in a single place, and ending up in many of the same rabbit holes that Active Record has led us to (which is at least partially my fault)

<comment><USER30> I guess that makes sense. The types should be able to ensure you don't have any errors even with so many "redundant" types, but my first thought is of how much boiler plate will result. Like, I would guess _most_ record types will be very similar between create, update, and retrieve.

Also, what about upsert?

<comment><USER3> > The types should be able to ensure you don't have any errors even with so > many "redundant" types

Correct. Sorry, I should have been clearer in my last comment. The reason you'd want a separate type for insert is because wrapping your id in an `Option` would be painful for anything _except_ insert.

> but my first thought is of how much boiler plate will result.

Yeah, if you're coming from Active Record (which is the other project I maintain), we'll probably seem a little bit verbose. My goal here is to be 80% as nice to get started with, but nudge users towards significantly more maintainable code as their product grows.

> I would guess most record types will be very similar between create, update, > and retrieve.

Early on, yes. 2 years in, not so much.

> Also, what about upsert?

This is something I'd like to add support for in the future. This comment made me realize I didn't have a tracking issue, so here it is: [https://github.com/sgrif/diesel/issues/196](https://github.com/sgrif/diesel/issues/196)

<comment><USER31> We went through a somewhat similar process at an old job. Entities don't have an ID before they've been saved, but do after. Other things can change over their lifecycle too. At one point, we had separate types for each stage in the lifecycle, a bit like your different types for insert and read, but that makes it impossible to write any kind of code which is stage-agnostic - so for example you need a separate to-string function for each stage.

We were working in Scala, and I had a go at solving this using a higher-kinded type for the ID and other changing fields:

[https://github.com/tim-group/higher-kinded- lifecycle/blob/ma...](https://github.com/tim-group/higher-kinded- lifecycle/blob/master/src/main/scala/Idea.scala)

The idea is that if you say that the ID is of type 'T of String, where T is some subtype of Option', then you can bind T to None for entities that haven't been saved, Some for ones which have, and Option where you have a mixture. You then have one type definition, with which you can write stage-agnostic code, but static guarantees about whether there's an ID.

You can go further and use type constraints to enforce the order of lifecycle stages: if your object can only be saved to the database once it's been given a timestamp, say, you can make sure that the ID type can only be Some if the timestamp type is also Some.

So maybe when Rust gets HKTs it'll be time for a new release!

<comment><USER10> This type of bound can be expressed with a trait and associated type already in Rust, fwiw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Can you just use stock-standard parametrised SQL queries or do you have to use the ORM to build the SQL statement?

<comment><USER3> We have a SQL literal ast node but you lose most of the benefits of the library that way

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Safe from what?

<comment><AUTHOR> Type safe, memory safe.

<comment><USER33> How is a strong-typed language, such as CL, is less safe?

Edit: let's paraphrase - how excessive safety nets for construction workers makes buildings more safe?

A strong-typed language without implicit coersions is not more "unsafe".

Baning heterogeneous containers and conditionals, maybe-wrapping of everything to be able to check some constraints at compile time and catch _simple_ errors (which also would be caught in a strong-typed language at run time) does not quality for this "safe" meme.</comment></comment></comment>


Chromebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/chromebook/# <comment><USER3> \- browses web? check.

\- runs the latest fad games, like Angry Birds (and more soon thanks to WebGL)? check.

\- can connect digital camera and upload photos? check.

\- can browse facebook, twitter, youtube, gmail, hotmail, etc? check

\- can play flash games & netflix, hulu, & other crap? check.

This will satisfy the needs of all my immediate non-techy family members. And I won't get the monthly calls about malware anymore.

<comment><USER4> I personally find the Angry Birds-Facebook-Netflix picture of the future of computing extremely depressing. Where's Google's suite of content creation apps that "non-techy" people can explore to express their creativity?

<comment><USER5> Most people don't create. You must be depressed by the wasted potential, because we're going from a world where most people don't create to a world where most people don't create.

<comment><USER6> I don't think you ever saw ordinary people let loose with the power of "Print Shop" in the 1980s or Microsoft Word in the 1990s. People made greeting cards, family newsletters, notices, party decorations....

In the visual arts, a lot of the people who do amusing Photoshop work are not professionals. Also consider MySpace in the 2000s. You might argue that MySpace isn't a good illustration of the _value_ of giving people creative freedom, but you can't deny that a lot of people were eager to take advantage of it.

Then there are the people who get into sound editing or musical arrangement. These days a kid might start with making a ringtone and then escalate. Personally, I'm the least "creative" and least musical person you'll ever meet, but even I spent a whole day trying to arrange a decent-sounding version of "Walk Like an Egyptian" using a digital music program on my Apple IIgs. Why "Walk Like an Egyptian?" I have no idea. When I was thirteen I recorded myself belching, reversed it, dropped the tone an octave or two, added an echo and made it the shutdown sound for Windows 3.1. I told my parents it was the sound of a WWII submarine preparing to submerge. (Eventually, I figured out that code was my preferred way of expressing myself. I had fun writing computer programs that made pretty mathematical patterns on the screen, among other things.)

Putting content creation tools in the hands of _everyone_ is key because you never know who's going to use them. Some kid decides to make something cute or awesome or badass or smartass and the next thing you know s/he's hooked on sound editing or what-not. Unfortunately, the model of commercial software development is to give someone a free taste, then frustrate them with limitations, and then take their credit card and charge them for the pro version. Kids are easily frustrated, may not have access to a credit card, and even if they have a card, may not be able to spend $100 or more for professional-quality software.

However, I think the answer to that concern is that non-professional content creation needs will be served by free web apps.

<comment><USER7> I do not understand this worry or whatever it is at all. I'm always completely baffled when someone brings it up.

Content creation has never been as cheap as today. To suggest that tablets or netbooks will somehow limit that ability seems crazy to me. Just because the software isn't yet written? Because that's what's happening, the software is written and perfected (Have you seen GarageBand? Google Docs? The list goes on.) and meanwhile we are all in transition anyway. All those PCs won't disappear overnight.

This is one of those crazy way-too-premature worries.

<comment><USER8> Would you like to try creating extensive content on a touchscreen?

I love my netbook, it goes almost everywhere with me. I can touch type on it fast enough to take notes in meetings or from church sermons, I can write music on it, I can even run Visual Studio 2010 and SQL Server 2008 well enough to be productive with them.

I can't for one minute imagine how I'd be able to do anything like that without a hardware keyboard and I'm yet to see the add-on keyboard that's as stable for typing on my knees, in the back of a car, held in one hand while standing (or whatever) as any netbook. I've got no problem with tablets as devices but they still seem to be firmly consumption devices to me.

<comment><USER7> You mistakenly seem to have equated typing with creating.

Typing is a subset of creating. Tablets are not so great for typing, sure, but PCs and tablets are both cheap. There is no reason to believe that they won't co-exist, both making it easier for everyone to create.

<comment><USER8> No, but a better input device than a touchscreen can certainly make creating easier.

When I'm creating text content, a keyboard is a fast and efficient means of data entry.

When I'm creating images or doing graphic design work, I want precision of control. A touchscreen isn't fine enough.

When I'm creating music, there are a range of input options but I'd still take some persuading that a touchscreen is quite there.

<comment><USER7> Your opinion. There are quite a few artists who would disagree with you about the images part.

But it still doesn't matter. Looking at the whole picture, tablets make creating easier. That's it. To suggest otherwise seems crazy to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't imagine anyone buying this and being happy unless they are already intimately familiar with the device ahead of time. Too many limitations, with virtually no big upside functionality or user experience (unlike the iPad that makes up for limitations with some huge upside).

As I'd mentioned before I can buy an ASUS Eee PC with an AMD C30 processor for $289 and be able to use the browser of my choice, sync my iPod/iPad/iPhone, play WoW, use Skype, hook it up to my TV in the dorm, use MS Office, Visual Studio, emacs, vim, etc...

It just feels like a half-baked implementation. The price point on this needs to be a LOT cheaper. Like $100 or free for a netbook, and make the money up with targeted advertising based on them being locked into Chrome. Otherwise this doesn't seem recommendable.

<comment><USER10> It's quite obviously not targeted at you. There are people who use computers who don't even know what Emacs or Visual Studio are. They're also the ones who have major troubles keeping their computers working. Google's working on abstracting away the IT guy. I hope it works.

<comment><USER9> And those people don't know what Google Docs are either. And when they get an Excel document where charts don't render correctly, or comments are screwed up, or pivot tables don't work against their datasource, they'll be POed.

Or when all their friends are playing WoW and they realize that this device doesn't play it.

Or when they want to Skype with their grandkids they realize, they can't do that.

Or when they take the photo editing class and realize that the laptop doesn't run the software so they trot halfway across campus to use the lab that has the software installed.

Or when they go to get all their stuff on iTunes and sync their iPhone with it and realize that they still need their old laptop.

Or, or, or...

You can't drop this computer on any average Joe. The subset of people I could recommend this to is crazy small -- maybe zero given the price point.

Make it $0-$100 and I think we have a really interesting device. But at $300 or $20/month, that's a non-starter.

And I should note that I used to be the IT guy for my family and friends. I still am, technically. But it's basically a non-issue nowadays. The only question I've gotten in the past couple of months is someone forgot how to download pictures from her camera. Speaking of which, how well does that work with Chrome (seriously asking)?

<comment><USER11> I pretty sure Google knows all of this. And are counting on it. They want them in people's hands, and they know once they are, all of those problems play into their vision.

 _And those people don't know what Google Docs are either. And when they get an Excel document where charts don't render correctly, or comments are screwed up, or pivot tables don't work against their datasource, they'll be POed._

Google likes this. Excel screws up? Perfect, just use Google Docs. Mission accomplished. People are surprisingly flexible if you throw up a barrier. An hour or so of pissing off a customer is a exchange Google is willing to make if it give them a shot at a new Docs user.

 _Or when all their friends are playing WoW and they realize that this device doesn't play it._

Really? Hardcore gamers are the last people who would use this, and the first people to recognize that.

 _Or when they want to Skype with their grandkids they realize, they can't do that._

Hmm, Skype doesn't work? I am sure the company with their own browser based video chat system is crying a river.

 _Or when they take the photo editing class and realize that the laptop doesn't run the software so they trot halfway across campus to use the lab that has the software installed._

As the owners of Picnik, they are again very angry, I am sure.

 _Or when they go to get all their stuff on iTunes and sync their iPhone with it and realize that they still need their old laptop._

Apple uses their mobile platform to encourage people to use Macs, why can't Google encourage use of their mobile platform with their laptops?

There are always going to be a million reasons why a new device won't fit the current system. But Google is making a big bet on the future, and for my point of view, this seems pretty ingenious. And an utter cash cow if they pull it off.

<comment><USER12> > _Really? Hardcore gamers are the last people who would use this, and the > first people to recognize that._

I don't know if you really understand how many people play WoW. Most of the avid WoW players I've known have _not_ been "hardcore gamers" and they've played WoW on really crappy computers, with Intel GMA graphics and everything. There are many normal people that wouldn't drop the cash on a video card that play WoW.

Also, you didn't address things like downloading pictures from a camera, syncing with an MP3 player (not necessarily iTunes/iPod), or any of the other local, non-browser stuff that a normal person does _all the time_.

<comment><USER13> > Also, you didn't address things like downloading pictures from a camera, > syncing with an MP3 player (not necessarily iTunes/iPod), or any of the > other local, non-browser stuff that a normal person does all the time.

Plug in a camera and it offers to upload them to Picasa. With Google Music there is no need to sync anything. Anytime you want to listen to music on your Android phone it just plays from the cloud.

<comment><USER14> > Plug in a camera and it offers to upload them to Picasa.

I'm on a 3-day trip to Paris, with my wife. At the end of day one we go back to our cheap 3-star hotel room, and we want to upload the day's pictures. All 200 of them (that's about 700MB on my photo camera). What do I do? Do I use my Internet roaming? That would be ~700 euro, so no. Do I rely on my hotel's crappy and expensive Internet connection to upload the photos to Picassa? No, because I don't want to lose half a night and ~100 euros (at ~20 euros per hour).

Why can't I just download all the photos on my laptop, no Internet traffic involved, and upload a select few on Facebook, like everybody does? (because what would be the fun of going to Paris if you can't brag about it on FB? right when it happens, not after 3 days, not after 3 weeks).

<comment><USER15> I don't mean to defend Google, because I don't know how well this ploy will work out but let me offer a counter analogy.

I would find a Chromebook extremely useful even though I have a laptop, desktop, and Kindle.

A Chromebook would be used for emailing, light reading (aka HN), and web surfing. It'd be an appendage, and not the end-all-be-all of my technology sphere.

I'm also an avid amateur photographer, but like many I never offload my pictures onto a laptop during a vacation or photo-shoot. Years ago, I bought two 16GB flash memory cards for the camera. With that, I can take thousands of pictures and never worry about offloading anything.

If in fact, I _absolutely_ needed to offload data I'd just plug in a handy USB-connected external hard-drive and get instant access to 500GB more space.

\----

As an aside, since you're in Paris you should by an Orange card. Its about 10 euros, and gets you Wifi access at many of their hotspots around town.

Alternatively, you should be able to get Wifi in certain public parks too without paying. I haven't done the later, but I have done the former.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It took me a long time of exploring to realize they were talking about a laptop. I was like "Chromebook?" Is it a kindle? Is it an online scrapbook? Is it online literature?

edit: why am i being downvoted? because i don't read tech blogs 24/7? because nowhere on the website does it actually say what a chromebook is?

<comment><USER10> Maybe you're being downvoted because of the large photos of laptops when you hit the heading "Chromebooks"?

<http://www.google.com/chromebook/#chromebooks>

<comment><USER17> > Chromebooks are built and optimized for the web, where you already spend > most of your computing time. So you get a faster, simpler and more secure > experience without all the headaches of ordinary computers.

Their landing text. Assuming we didn't all see the forbes.com piece about this announcement yesterday, that text doesn't tell me a single thing. (Other than Google has a well-paid marketing department.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Something that's not confidence inspiring from the site: "Get everything you need directly from Google, including support - online, email and phone."

Contrast with the current CEO's views on support <http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/3/>

"...Denise Griffin, the person in charge of Google's small customer-support team, asked Page for a larger staff. Instead, he told her that the whole idea of customer support was ridiculous. ..."

If Google is truly going to support these devices, they're going to need a paradigm shift from Page's pre-existing "support doesn't scale" attitude... and bring their A-game.

</comment><comment><USER19> I find it interesting that most comments here mirror the classic Slashdot iPod review: _No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame._

I think this isn't targeted at the classic computer market, the one that Steve Jobs said is like _like trucks_. instead, it is an attempt at building a computer market that is closer to general appliances, like TVs or cell phones. Quite similar to iPad's approach, but with more focus on productivity and the web.

Whether it works will depend a lot on marketing, and also on us hackers creating the compelling web ecosystem. I already mostly live just in the browser and many do the same, so maybe the world is ready for this. We'll see

<comment><USER20> I don't think so. I think people are well aware of what these trade-offs hope to accomplish, but don't feel it'll pan out with the consumer market. Just because someone radically rebalances features in a device doesn't mean it's going to be a winner. We'll see.

Part of the difference is that with ipod, apple had no other incentive for its design than to make consumers happy and thus get money. That isn't even close to the case here. Google has strategic objectives, and it hopes to promote those aims with chromebook. Google has a ton of bias distorting its vision as to what will excite users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Based on my experiences with the CR-48 (which I used extensively for a few months), I have to suggest that you not get one of these laptops. Basically, ChromeOS is great, but using Atom processors is simply unacceptable for the tasks that they advertise. The only thing the CR-48 can do well is viewing static content -- and I mean truly static! Scrolling around on an otherwise- static web page is far to dynamic for it to handle. Want to play flash? Yeah right.

These new models have dual-core atoms, which will help, but mostly it's just the awful single-core performance that gets you. Even tying emails in gmail was an extremely painful experience; often the characters on the screen would lag significantly behind my tying, and it would take forever to load the different pages.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can use these things for "real work". I'm going to argue that if you care about your time, you can't even use these things for any of the other stuff they advertise. Unless the new processors are significantly better, I'd say get something else.

<comment><USER22> That's really strange because I've had the opposite experience. I use ssh for most of my work. I can play hulu videos in 280p, I can view almost all pages and content slowdown free.

The cavet being I cannot run hundreds of tabs, I usually keep it around 5, and when I'm on a flashy website it slows everything down.

Its getting better almost everyday though and now I can almost watch hulu videos in 480p.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Heh, I was amused that on Firefox that Javascript that does that whole stupid "fade in" crap took longer than 8 seconds to load :-). Note to web designers, its not studly its worthless bling, please don't give in to the temptation to do that stuff.

From a product perspective it does have some nice benefits for the non- techies. I'd love to get my parents something that they could carry around to read email and view pictures on which wasn't waiting for them to drive by some hijacked site. The pitch about 'let your friend use it' was also clearly the other 'big complaint' about the iPad they are addressing. I hope that means the iPad will get a 'guest' mode where you can hand it to someone without them getting access to your cookies/email etc.

<comment><USER24> Much more difficult for that to work on iPad. It takes Chrome seconds to sync everything for a particular user. Since iPad apps aren't served on demand ala web apps, you'd have to download every app belong to the guest. Much wasted hard drive space. The iPad will remain a personal device, like a phone.

<comment><USER10> I don't think anyone is (yet) asking Apple to support any Mobile Me user to log into any iPad and see all their stuff. Just a way for multiple people to use one. Or for me to be able and make my iPad available to someone without also giving them access to all my email and Dropbox contents. Sort of like OS X...

<comment><USER25> At least it is possible to restrict access to some functionality and apps through "Restrictions," i.e. parental controls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The Chromebook has a lot of parallels with the electric car. For a lot of people it is a real improvement for the normal routine, but there are a few use cases outside that routine for which it just won't work.

ChromeOS has a lot of potential in institutional settings (much like the electric car) where corner cases don't exist or there can be a small handful of special purpose machines for those cases. IT costs for most organizations would plummet and manageability would go up significantly. I can't imagine how much money and software is used to lock down and secure Windows machines and back up data nine different ways. And subsequently how much is spent recovering or mitigating the loss / theft of sensitive data.

</comment><comment><USER27> "* Obviously, you're going to need a wireless network, be willing to use it subject to the provider's terms and conditions, and be ready to put up with its real life limitations including, for example, its speed and availability. When you do not have network access, functionality that depends on it will not be available."

<http://www.google.com/chromebook/#features>

That's some very important information to put in a footnote at the bottom of the webpage. I'll have to check network availability in my most common locations before deciding whether or not this is useful for me or one of my children.

<comment><USER28> It's a little snarky sounding for corporate speak; kinda like someone at Google rolling their eyes at you.

<comment><USER29> When writing emails at work I often find myself starting sentences with 'Obviously,' and then taking it out later. I find it very rarely necessary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Google is such an interesting company.

Compare this page with an Apple page trying to sell a product: <http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/> or <http://www.apple.com/ipod>

There's absolutely no comparison. My non-technical friends (heck, even me) are just absolutely more receptive towards that second page.

For all of Google's resources as a gargantuan company...can't they just find some small dash of good design somewhere?

(Not bashing Chrome OS. Looks absolutely wonderful. This is just what I thought when I visited the page...and HN sometimes is for nitpicking :)

<comment><USER31> This is the page you should be comparing to: <http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/chromebook>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> So, you can get a full featured eeepc for the same price as a chromebook, but google expects people to pay just as must because (I guess?) it's so simple to use and doesn't have viruses? I don't think that's how normal people buy things. People don't want simple for simple's sake. They want good design. People do want features. They do want power. They will not choose a less powerful solution because of vague imputed simplicity. As far as I can tell, the only simplicity benefits a chromebook has to offer is by providing strictly less features.

The ipad, although superficially similar to a chromebook in some senses, is a completely different product. Its design, both software and hardware, is utterly and completely unlike chromebook. You won't get far extrapolating ipad's success to chromebook.

Microsoft would not be able to sell a version of Word without print capabilities, even though it would be slightly simpler. No one would buy it obviously. I think a lot of technically oriented people have the wrong idea about what constitutes a valuable trade-off between simplicity and power in a product. Like I mentioned, people want well-designed.

Chromebook is an uncanny valley netbook, and it will be a disappointment. Unless I'm wrong. :)

PS - Another thing technically literate folks overestimate due to tribulations of the past is the extent to which viruses continue to be a nuisance.

<comment><USER32> Features:

        - boots in 8 seconds
        - updates itself without bothering you
        - battery that lasts all day
        - backups taken care of (all data is in the cloud)
        - built-in 3G with 100MB/month included
        - doesn't get viruses

<comment><USER20> Right, so not very compelling.

        - Boots in 8 seconds: Why power off your laptop? I don't nor anyone I know.
        - Updates itself without bothering you: Low value.
        - Battery lasts all day: This is strong, if verified.
        - Backups taken care of: Implications are mixed at best.
        - Built-in 3G: This is probably stronger than some will give credit.
        - Doesn't get viruses: As I suggested above, low value.

I was aware of these, of course. Still don't think it overcomes massive loss of power and features.

<comment><USER33> It sounds like you aren't really the target market for this device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> A _little_ pricy for me to be honest. Is an all day battery and 100MB of 3G data a month worth giving up a whole lot of features over a netbook? For some, maybe. But for me, no.

<comment><USER35> Those "features" of your netbook aren't actually features (and some are even anti-features, e.g. viruses, not auto-updating) for someone like my parents, or for students at a school or employees at a business. To start, it seems this is aimed squarely in their direction.

<comment><USER34> This doesn't make sense from a bunch of different perspectives.

Yes, with the Chrome computers, you might not get viruses. But that would be the same as if you got any Linux Netbook that they sell, and would _still_ have many more features than the Chromebook.

You also bring out a lot of _anti_ -features with the Chromebook as well. When you give this to your parents, and they ask where their little blue "E" is, or where their Spider Solitaire is, what will you say? What about those students and businesses that require to have certain software on their system, that the Chromebook doesn't support? Suddenly you exchange technical problems like getting rid of viruses with explaining how to do things in a new environment, with new rules.

And at the end of the day, is it worth it? For me, I'd rather take that $450 dollars (or $350) and buy a fully functional PC that can run all my favorite software and also get me access to the web.

That is _not_ to say, however, that I would not buy one in the future. If they brought the cost down ($150 would be almost an instant buy for me), and/or had a fully matured "app" store if you will, I would probably change my mind. But I look at it, and the only key features I see are the great battery life, and free 100MB 3G access a month, and a whole lot of negatives and unanswered questions (Are they going to have bad customer service like they did with the Nexus? Are they going to give up on this like the Wave, or keep pushing it?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The data service (<http://www.google.com/chromebook/#features-connectivity>) looks nice for people who don't do a ton of streaming. In fact, if chromeos has ssh, it would probably do for my work laptop at something better than a netbook + verizon dongle, and a whole lot cheaper. (well, I think right now it's $60/5gb, and I rarely hit that).

<comment><USER37> I think those rates only apply to the CR-48, not to the new devices announced today, because the new ones are also going to Europe, where CDMA is pretty much non-existent.

<comment><USER36> That's not what the site seems to say:

      Chromebook that have built-in 3G include up to 100MB per month
      of Mobile Broadband service for 2 years, provided by Verizon Wireless.

<comment><USER38> Note that Verizon doesn't operate in Europe, and CDMA is just about unheard of over here.

According to this CNET report ( <http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20061896-266.html> ) chromebooks will be sold in several EU countries, so I assume there'll be a UMTS/HSPA model sold with contracts from various carriers.

(It's fairly clear that Google are targeting the same "curated computing" approach as Apple, but via a radically different delivery vehicle -- a netbook-like notebook PC rather than a tablet with a "clean sheet" multitouch user interface. Be interesting to see how the competition shapes up over the next year.)

<comment><USER36> Well, changing the language to Nederlands got me a different page -- one that I can read but I can make sweedish chef like interpretations of.

Looks like Dutch users can expect wireless from kpn, with a gig of transfer per (garbled) for free, and then it's 20 euros/200MB.

Hell, I should have done the English/uk, They're getting internets from three, and It's 3gig transfer free for the first three months, then pay as you go after.

<comment><USER39> What the hell, I thought you could get unlimited mobile broadband at least in the Netherlands? This pricing makes no sense.

I mean here in Sweden I can get mobile broadband (i.e. a USB dongle I plug into my laptop) from Three with a speed of (up to) 6mbit/s and no datacap for 9 euro/month. 25 euro/month gives me up to 32mbit/s, and still no caps.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have some sort of operator kickback scheme for the chromebooks, but we'll see if/when they launch them in Scandinavia as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> They don't seem to be priced any better than similar Windows machines, although it's hard to find exact comparisons since most things with Atom processors only go up to 10" screens.

<comment><USER41> Same price as a windows laptop but much cheaper to support.

For anyone who's the the family tech support guy, it's almost worth buying these for your relatives just so you don't have to deal with cleaning up their malware infected, bloated PCs every 6 months.

<comment><USER42> Amen to that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> One big point about this, esp if it takes off. It answers a big question:

How do you get J. Random User to use Linux?

Don't call it Linux. Don't make it look like Linux. And Chrome for Windows synced over to an identical looking ChromeOS means he's escaped Microsoft lockin without even knowing it.

<comment><USER17> > How do you get J. Random User to use Linux?

Why do you want them to use Linux? Is it about the linux kernel? Is it about the GNU userland tools? Is it about Gnome/KDE, the configurability?

Android is 'Linux', but it's missing most of the Linux bits that I want. (ChromeOS is also missing most of the bits I want too.)

<comment><USER43> To clarify. I want them to use Linux, because then they aren't using Windows.

Possibly you weren't using computers in the mid-90s when Microsoft was synonymous with evil. Yes, we are merely nursing meaningless old grudges, but victory is sweet.

I'm not going to say Linux is better. It's just spite. How dare you get so rich selling rubbish to idiots? - I'm European and a lot of us really _are_ communists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Have they published price of these laptops anywhere?

I can't find any info at Amazon/BestBuy or official website <http://www.google.com/chromebook/chromebooks.html>

<comment><USER45> $28/month/user with Google Apps & Support for business

$20/month/user for students.

(from the Engadget live feed)

<comment><USER46> I can't see the laptop itself not costing anything. The per month is on top of the laptop cost I take it?

<comment><USER47> No, for businesses or schools this is a monthly price that includes software and hardware updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "In the near future, you'll also be able to run traditional software remotely on our Chrome notebook. Companies like Citrix are developing solutions that will be available in the Web Store, and we are developing a free service called Chromoting that will enable Chrome notebook users to remotely access their existing PCs and Macs."

I wonder what the timeline is on this, and if it will be frustratingly slow vs. a netbook.

</comment><comment><USER49> As an owner as one of the CR-48 test units, let me just tell you that I can get on the internet quicker on my three-year-old MacBook than this thing. The MacBook is connected to WiFi by the time I'm logged in from sleep. Not so with the CR-48. However, the 100 free megabytes of 3G per month is nice. I've used about 400kb total since December.

</comment><comment><USER50> That samsung version looks very nice and 8.5 hours of continuous usage is killer. However, I won't be trading in my brand new Macbook Air 13" any time soon.

It doesn't mention harddrive specs because this is supposed to be a "cloud computer." However, it definitely has a harddrive and I wonder if it is a SSD or regular spinning disc drive.

<comment><USER51> Why does it have to have a harddrive? The thing can run off an SD card, in theory.

I used to sell thin clients that ran off of CompactFlash cards. (they ran a version of XP, too)

<comment><USER24> Boot time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Interesting. But with the functionality mentioned above, as a student I would rather buy an iPad with hook-in keyboard. If this device is available in similar form factor, I might consider. Just a thought. I'd still buy one of these.

I think the cost of the device should be low, most people in 2011 will buy these as an add-on gadget rather than one-sto-shop. I don't know of many add- on gadgets being massively popular while costing more than $250.

I don't think this is a PC, this is an internet window. What google probably chose wrong was the netbook form factor. It's an internet window which looks like a PC, specially the one that Steve Jobs trashed at iPad launch.

</comment><comment><USER53> I was hoping they'd also announce some ARM based notebooks, maybe with the quad core Tegra 3.Performance should at least be similar to the current notebooks, but they would be cheaper and battery would last even more.

<comment><USER17> Flash on ARM still isn't there _yet_ , unfortunately; by using x86 chips, they can use a much better version of Flash that's available now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Just what we need: Google involved in more aspects of our lives. No thank you. Nothing against Google per se, but letting any huge corporate conglomerate control the majority of your data seems foolish.

I use OS X as it has the perfect mix of Unixy goodness where superb OSS developer tools run great, graphics tools like Photoshop, and VMWare for Linux. Honestly, it is such a good platform, I cannot for the life of me think of a use-case for Chromebook. I'm actually a bit shocked that many HN users seem to be touting this thing as something revolutionary and/or desirable.

</comment><comment><USER55> Google is still planning on making Chrome OS installable on other hardware, right?

I already have a thin and light laptop that I'm pretty happy with - <USER2> I can install Chrome OS from an image onto it to tinker with.

<comment><USER43> <http://chromeos.hexxeh.net/>

you can try it now

you can try the whole thing on a compatible laptop when the chromiumos builds are the same as the chromeos these ship with.

<comment><USER55> Is there an official build planned though? Or is Google only planning on supporting "official" hardware?

<comment><USER43> ChromeOS (not "buildable", pre-shipped) I assume, ONLY on Chromebook and official google devices

ChromiumOS, (build or download built) on anything it runs on

You can't build the browser Chrome yourself, because that is Google's trademark. But you can build Chromium.

There is little difference between ChromeOS and ChromiumOS, so it doesn't matter. What's wrong with something built outside google? Chromium will have all the beta features first, so it'll be better.

<comment><USER55> I'm not making any value judgements here - I am just wondering whether or not there will be any official way to download an ISO (in the manner of Ubuntu, for insance) of Chrome/Chromium OS and run it on arbitrary hardware.

I guess the question really comes down to whether or not Google is planning significant work on the hardware hooks into the OS - will it be possible for manufacturers to write ChromeOS drivers for their devices, or will Google develop that on their own?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I see enormous potential here for SaaS startups dealing with businesses to ease 1) initial hardware costs for a computer with a competent browser, and 2) support issues from hardware / software fragmentation.

You can now give businesses an option that doesn't light the checkbook on fire while supporting all the bleeding edge web technologies we all wish were more widely supported. Sounds pretty awesome to me.

</comment><comment><USER57> It's a purely personal point of view, but I sincerely think that the CR-48 looked much better than both of those. If Crunchgear is right and those laptops hit the market at 350+ & 425+, I'll regret not having an address in the States back then, when Google was distributing CR-48s ! On a more serious note, I think a worldwide 3G plan would make those laptops very interesting for me.

<comment><USER58> It was barely mentioned in the keynote, but they discussed changing the trackpad from the CR-48, and to me that was practically the biggest announcement of the speech. The CR-48 trackpad is crap. Other than that I would agree with you, it has a very nice feel to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I wonder if an OnLive client is on the way. That would provide a lot of gaming options that will not be available through browsers for years.

</comment><comment><USER60> It's like the litl plus 3G but minus the clever industrial design (and two years later)

<http://litl.com>

</comment><comment><USER61> Perhaps someone with a CR-48 can enlighten me... how does one get their photos from their camera to the cloud on one of these?

<comment><USER62> They went into a bit of detail during the keynote. It's worth checking out a video if you can find one. It's towards the end, in the last 20 minutes.

Anyway, the gist is, a web application (say, Picasa, or Facebook) can register as a file handler for certain kinds of file types (say images) and then handle the upload from the client. A little contextual menu comes up when you plug in a sd card or whatever that asks you which (if any) file handler you'd like to deal with the files.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Does anyone know if a monthly subscription is _required_ to have one of these? I've already got laptops that work and I'm not interested in paying a monthly fee for something that doesn't do everything I want it to, when I wont even be using it 100% of the time. In fact, I hate monthly fees on just about everything.

</comment><comment><USER64> I think there's a bug at <http://www.google.com/chromebook/#support>

When I click on "Guided Tour" and then try to watch the video, the lightbox closes. Seems like its registering the mouseclick as a click outside the lightbox. I'm using the most recent version of Chrome 11.

Anyone else?

</comment><comment><USER65> I see a lot of criticisms here but it was apparent in the presentation today that Google is targeting this mainly towards business, organizations and schools. Their selling point is elimination (or significant reduction) of the maintenance and support that the IT infrastructure requires.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'm pretty thrilled that chromebooks will be available in some european countries from launch on.

</comment><comment><USER24> So does that $28/month/user for businesses include Apps? That's a pretty killer price, if so.

<comment><USER67> Well, it's normally $50/year/user, right? So apps is only ~$4/month, meaning the price isn't that different either way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> If it is web only wouldn't it be better suited to an iPad form-factor? I would get one if it was around $30/mo and you can trade it in for a newer model every year or two. Better yet if they could figure out how to get unlimited 3G in there cheaply.

<comment><USER69> Maybe not trying to out-iPad the iPad is a good thing.

You ain't getting a netbook, an apps account, AND unlimited cell data for anywhere near $30/month though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I'd be interested to see if we'll see similar models emerge from other manufacturers biz in the near future. Is an interesting concept and with a feature set and price point that will appeal to the masses.

</comment><comment><USER71> Guess I'll have to drive down to the US to get one. Canada is somehow always excluded from new google projects. I'd like them to tell us which laws or limitation cause this. Crappy ISPs and Mobile networks?

<comment><USER72> A couple years ago the Google Summer of Code had a restriction on citizens from Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan and Quebec.

Language laws, I think, were the culprit in that case. Not sure about this one though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I'm not really seeing how this wins in the "computer as appliance" market when the competition is the iPad, the Playbook and all the other imitators...

Am I missing something here? Why wouldn't you just purchase an iPad?

<comment><USER74> Because it's not an iPad?

<comment><USER73> Well, I wouldn't be betting my shares on that particular marketing point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> [http://www.thechromesource.com/google-io-chrome-keynote- live...](http://www.thechromesource.com/google-io-chrome-keynote-liveblog/)

</comment><comment><USER75> My first reaction to this was: creepy. The sales pitch is creepy - telling us in the best newspeak that less is more. The sales language is creepy, describing how much more "secure" a machine is because it only browses the web. The sales video has the smell of a lecture, with a message that hints at Big Brother. The layout of the product page is even creepy, with all kinds of colors and icon styles. Google doesn't want to add value to anything here. They want control, and they are playing catch up with the iPad. This is the textbook way to run business, and it will fail.

</comment><comment><USER76> With Google competing with Microsoft for the Lower to mid range market, Microsoft will have corporate competition on a large sector of their traditionally cornered market.

It's going to be an amazing next 10 years for the desktop and web technologies. Late 90's/early 2000's progress was impeded by the Microsoft monopoly.

Even better Chromium listening to what Developers want, the web will move forward at a staggering pace. Combined with the realization of interface importance, mind blowing UI hardware improvements are already happening.

I'm usually cynical, but this really may usher in the golden age of computing.

</comment><comment><USER77> "3G-enabled Chromebooks connect to the web using blazing-fast mobile data networks"

Eh, "blazing-fast" might overselling things a bit.

<comment><USER78> I wonder if they'll offer an Opera Turbo style proxy to compress sites with SPDY and WebP etc. for Chromebook users?

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> I am frustrated by the fact that I have to buy it in a hardware-packaged form, why can't I just download Chrome OS to an older laptop to experiment (like I do with Linux distros)? I guess at this stage the OS is flimsy enough that they need to control all aspects of hardware.

Also, the support & distribution thing from Google doesn't work, we have already seen it with G1. Why do they want to repeat the mistake?

<comment><USER80> Chrome OS is open source <http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os>

A quick search in google you can find tutorials on how to run it on your own hardware.

<comment><USER79> Not so easy! Currently most people use a build by Hexxeh, which is a slightly tweaked version of Chrome. Installation is _nowhere_ as easy as, say, Ubuntu. I don't understand why I need to use builds from third parties rather than directly from Google?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Manufactures: Samsung or Acer? No thanks. Reliance on current shit telecom network? No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER82> Can make you phone calls with GVoice on this thing? There might be a lot of value right there.

<comment><USER17> You can on the CR-48.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> How well would the interactive music video they demoed work on these?

</comment><comment><USER84> Oddly, the first video was played for me with Dutch subtitles.

</comment><comment><USER85> If this thing could run Emacs, I might be tempted to get one.

</comment><comment><USER86> So is there an initial fee apart from the $20/28 per month?

</comment><comment><USER87> is there a dedicated screen for always on advertisement yet ? :)

And seriously I'd need at least ssh and rdp clients on this to even consider it

</comment><comment><USER88> been beta testing this thing for a few months (at least something very similar). There are issues. And no webGL

</comment><comment><USER89> Am I missing something here?

It's ~$400 for a laptop, then $28/mo to use it?

What are you getting from this that I'm not already getting for free from google?

Or is it $28/mo and the hardware is free...?

<comment><USER90> You can buy one for $400ish.

For Google Apps for Business you can get them for $28 per user per month, this includes the hardware and periodic hardware refreshes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> If only you could code on it...

</comment><comment><USER92> It's called getting an SSD...

</comment><comment><USER93> I prefer a TV :-(

</comment><comment><USER94> direct link to app:

<http://chrome.angrybirds.com/>

</comment><comment><USER95> This is a game changer. I plan to get one for my 6 year old daughter. I have started her on Khan academy for math (I have been watching the vids myself - they are fantastic)

<comment><USER96> Not intrinsically, no.

EDIT: Just for the record, before the OP edited his entry, it simply said "This is a game changer" which I consider an exaggeration. Of course, I can see how it makes for a nice children-appropriate machine, but that's not something new and exclusive to Chrome OS.

<comment><USER97> From a security perspective I think it's a big game changer. I'm looking forward to hearing about how secure it is in practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> $28/user/month, software + hardware (updates for both) is a good deal.

<comment><USER75> Why is this a good deal? Isn't it about $1000 for this machine (let's say 3 years of use x $336/year). Tablets and netbooks are a lot less than that.

<comment><USER99> But from a business point of view, looking at an anticipated total cost of ownership, it might be a pretty good deal.</comment></comment></comment>


Americans are stalking Australian dot-com start-ups - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/wanted-to-buy-geeks-with-big-ideas-20111223-1p8f4.html

<comment><USER2> I think this is really interesting stuff. I personally think that the startup scene needs to be better developed in Australia. When I was just coming out of University (UoW circa late 2008) people's mindsets were different than they are now and currently, entrepreneurship/startup groups are springing up everywhere. I am currently overseas and I am honestly deliberating between heading back to Oz and try my luck there or head over to the US. Anybody with suggestions or advice?

<comment><USER3> Canadian here. I spent the past 3 years living and working in Sydney. This program kind of overstates the size of the scene there. It is growing, but it doesn't really feel much like a scene so much as a few companies making it. Lots of social media events but that's about it.</comment></comment>


What it takes to make a student - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magazine/26tough.html?ex=1322197200&en=365daca642ddcb2f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all "The disadvantages that poverty imposes on children aren't primarily about material goods. True, every poor child would benefit from having more books in his home and more nutritious food to eat (and money certainly makes it easier to carry out a program of concerted cultivation). But the real advantages that middle-class children gain come from more elusive processes: the language that their parents use, the attitudes toward life that they convey.
...
Can the culture of child-rearing be changed in poor neighborhoods, and if so, is that a project that government or community organizations have the ability, or the right, to take on?"
Does the government have the right to dramatically increase both the length of the school day and school year exclusively for low-income minorities, effectively minimizing the role these parents play in the education of their children? <comment><USER2> As with the Obama speech video, this really doesn't belong on news.yc. The whole attraction of this site it that it IS targetted.. Initially to startups, and then expanding to "Hacker News".. Please don't try to further broaden it.

As an aside- This is why Slashdot still maintains editors, even in this age of user generated content. Control of message.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you read the actual article?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

"The disadvantages that poverty imposes on children aren't primarily about material goods. True, every poor child would benefit from having more books in his home and more nutritious food to eat (and money certainly makes it easier to carry out a program of concerted cultivation). But the real advantages that middle-class children gain come from more elusive processes: the language that their parents use, the attitudes toward life that they convey. [...]

Can the culture of child-rearing be changed in poor neighborhoods, and if so, is that a project that government or community organizations have the ability, or the right, to take on?"

Does the government have the right to dramatically increase both the length of the school day and school year exclusively for low-income minorities, effectively minimizing the role these parents play in the education of their children?

This isn't some abstract ethical debate. These ideas are appearing in the education plans of some of the presidential candidates.

</comment><comment><USER3> _Should low-income minority parents lose the right to raise their own children autonomously?_

No.</comment>


Prices Reduced for EC2's M3 Instances - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2013/11/prices-reduced-for-ec2s-m3-second-generation-standard-instances.html

<comment><USER2> A reaction to Rackspace's announcement ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6673558](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6673558)) perhaps? Gotta say, Rackspace's new servers are quite compelling compared to Amazon's standard instances.

</comment><comment><USER3> HP is making a pretty big push recently on their cloud service. Check out their contributions to fog, a popular ruby cloud-abstraction library: [https://github.com/fog/fog/blob/master/changelog.txt](https://github.com/fog/fog/blob/master/changelog.txt)

Anyone tried them? Experiences?</comment>


Three Reasons for Those Hefty College Tuition Bills - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/upshot/three-reasons-for-those-hefty-college-tuition-bills.html?ref=economy <comment><USER2> When people complain about the exponential increase in costs of higher education and healthcare the first things that gets cited is the salaries of professors and doctors, yet when I talk to friends in these industries about this they roll their and give a big LOL. Someone must be wrong.

Focusing on professors, one the one hand there are people who argue that salaries have not really increased _that_ much: For example [1] claims that "During [the past decade], the salaries of public-college professors, when adjusted for inflation, rose by less than 1 percent at doctoral and baccalaureate institutions and fell by more than 5 percent at master's universities." [2] has good data on sociology professors that show that "Over the past 21 years the average sociology faculty salary for all ranks more than doubled in current dollars, increasing by 133 percent by AY 2003/2004." Finally, [3] has some cool plots that you can play with, that show 3x to 4x increase in the time span 1975-2012.

So, professor salaries have increased _considerably_ , as this article also states, but it's not enough to explain the huge increase in tuition.

[1][http://chronicle.com/article/faculty-salaries-barely- budge-2...](http://chronicle.com/article/faculty-salaries-barely- budge-2012/131432) [2][http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/septoct04/fn17.html](http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/septoct04/fn17.html) [3][http://highereddatastories.blogspot.com/2014/07/changes- in-f...](http://highereddatastories.blogspot.com/2014/07/changes-in-faculty- salaries-over-time.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> The reason tuition increases is that we have tuition. If public institutions were tuition free, this wouldn't be an issue. And yes, we have the money; we already spend the equivalent of total tuition on other things. We just haven't decided to spend the money on tuition, instead of on some of those other things. We have the choice.</comment>


Ask HN: Don't signup, Just review the Startup product - <AUTHOR>

Would love to get feedback on our new startup. Launching MVP soon. Good, bad, brutal or whatever, just comment.<p>www.doccaster.com <comment><USER2> I had to strip of the www for it to work, need to fix your url or your webserver settings.

I like the animation, good points to get my interest. the background was odd, throwing stuff in the air in an empty field? think about that. How about something like a lightbulb over your ipad or something saying doccaster "sharing" or something - with a bunch of lightbulbs over disperse folks in a crowded room?

So you have to have your potential clients load up some app in order to access. Then it is limited by time and range... I guess that is a good thing if it is paid conference materials that you want stricter control over distribution...

So I take it you would have to create some sort of flyer or brochure on how potential clients can setup and sign into doccaster in order for them to access your stuff then? (cue the cute animation of people grabbing your flyer and throwing it in the trashcan) Will it work on my Linux laptop? or my Blackberry? etc. requiring an app will be limiting.

Document presentation/management is a great thing, but I think you have put in a few stumbling blocks to "gotta have it" adoption. I think you would get better results with a web portal where accounts are accessed like www.doccaster.com/mybizdocs which presents a graphical brochure rack to click and choose documents. Distributors could put that address on a card with friendly easy to read type "the Iludium Q35 Space Modulator: www.doccaster.com/q35info" five words and an address (maybe a graphic of it on the back of the card) just enough not to loose the attention of an ADHD executive.

But then again, you don't have the geographic control... but would you via a laptop either?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank Larrys for the feedback. The product video was modeled off other web 2.0 intro videos (Dropbox 2min, Linkedin 2:35min) and was designed to provide first time users with an overview. We tried to create the stumbling blocks in the beginning b recreating events that commonly take place in the sharing of documents that the viewer would relate too. Probably, could have done better. Ultimately, we hope the video sparks interest by showing people the advantage of using our system over traditional document distribution methods. Thanks again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Your video needs to be between 30-60 seconds...MAX

Your phrasing, "Broadcast any document into your location" doesn't explain what you do. I'm probably slower than the average hacker news reader, but that being said, I don't get it...especially after watching the video (which explained it to me). Something like, "Location-based document sharing" is a very functional explanation, but lacks lacks creativity. But, you get the point. A one-liner has to be both easy to remember AND something that when I repeat it to a friend, they get it too.

As another commenter insinuated, generally, the product applies to a lot of people, only a very small percentage of the time. I highly recommend you target carefully. Maybe the convention audience (thought probably not), or college recruiters. Be something specifically important to someone first and grow from there.

Caution: this has been done with QR codes. Check out why others that have tried solving this problem a different way have been or weren't successful.

Find out, as early as possible, how much people would be willing to pay for something like this.

Best of luck,

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool and thank you very much! Our vertical is the convention/ conference space. We live in Orlando which is a large convention market and have been tide to the space for a while which is the reason why the product was developed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hm...i would love to provide more valuable feedback, but the page doesn't load for me.

Firefox says "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading."

<comment><USER4> Ok now it loads.

1\. So its a bit like google buzz for documents?

2\. I get the pain point...i have always printed too many or not enough, and i hate seeing that go into the bin either way...

3\. The site is ok, but i just don't feel interested enough to signup.

4\. I suspect i would want to signup, if i currently needed to use something like this, right now i don't. Maybe this is something to consider when you're thinking about customer acquisition.

<comment><USER5> Same here, I get the pain point but am not motivated to try it... maybe I'm just not target audience.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand. Not a everyday tool at all. Only good for events, conventions and meetings.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Testing RESTful APIs the not-quite-as-hard way - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.operationaldynamics.com/andrew/software/research/testing-restful-apis-with-httpie <comment><USER2> The easy way : [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hgmloofddffdnphfgc...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hgmloofddffdnphfgcellkdfbfbjeloo)</comment>