3News » Home

Installing Google Chrome OS

Chrome OS is initially expected to be limited to people looking for inexpensive, lightweight computers designed for web surfing Chrome OS is initially expected to be limited to people looking for inexpensive, lightweight computers designed for web surfing
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:21a.m.
So you’ve heard about Google Chrome OS? Want to find out more? As soon as I heard it was released I downloaded and compiled it.

It was easy and well documented, however you had to have a Linux box to do it. A day or two later several places released pre-made images of it for both VMWare and USB -however the USB installer was pretty fragile unless you were clueful.

I had already started compiling the OS at work Friday but got sidetracked and forgot to bring it home on a USB key, so I took the faster option of downloading the USB image pre-made.

Booting was extremely fast, in the range of a couple of seconds. After booting up I was given a login screen, there was no hint of what user/password to use and a bit of Googling told me that you can just login with your Google account (it authenticates online), which then logs you into any Google account you have also.

Whilst great in theory, my Eee PC was on the wireless network – requiring the WEP key. To do this I needed to login somehow. After a bit more Googling I found there is an 'offline user' which can be changed at compile time, but because I had a pre-made image I was at the mercy of the person who compiled it and got stuck with the user/pass chronos/chronos.

After logging in I was confronted with a web browser. Nothing else, no menus, no configuration options, no logout, or shutdown buttons, no desktop, no icons, just the browser. After hunting about briefly I found no options or config other than a Wi-Fi icon which allowed me to connect using the password, and extremely basic browser config.

So now I was up and running, I browsed the web, I idly wished I had other web related applications (an IM client would have made a good start) but realized this really is an infant OS with extremely basic setup. At about this time I went to look under the hood and add myself my own offline user, so I used the Ctrl+Alt+T key combo to bring up a terminal, used sudo to get root access.

Upon trying to add another user I got a few permission and locking errors, I quickly realized that root file system was mounted as read-only, and the /home directories were mounted as an encrypted volume when I logged in so they were writeable.

I remounted the root filesystem read/write ( mount -o remount,rw / ), added my user and then tried logging out and back in. No luck it seems, so I checked the home directory of the user I was in, copied necessary files over, tried again, still no luck.

At this point I realized something else must have the username somewhere, so checked /etc and found about 4-5 hardcoded files with the offline username, then found more else where. After editing them all, I still had no luck.

At about the same point I got somewhat distracted and noticed that the filesystem seemed to be over 500MB. This seems rather excessive for such a simple Linux install.

Google Chrome OS is based on Ubuntu, now Ubuntu by default has a lot of extra not-really-needed packages, so I'm guessing they just hadn't got around to removing them.

If I install a base install of Debian, X-Window system and desktop manager I can get it in about the same amount of space (500mb or so).

I checked out how much memory it used, and was surprised to see it using over 600MB of RAM, yet nothing obvious was actually using the RAM. There was no swap at all enabled, and after a bit of checking with Google I saw others using it in a VM also had problems trying to run it on anything less than 512MB RAM, preferred amount was around the 1GB mark.

I assumed here (without checking) that this was for speed, being designed for netbooks mostly, the average netbook has a decent amount of RAM (vs perhaps a Newton or PDA for which they have Android).

Overall:

I think it’s useable and does what it’s designed for. If you are a Linux geek, and have a clue, can hack away at it for fun, it’s amusing for a while.

If you just want a portable web browser bigger than your cell phone, and you have a spare Netbook that you never use, then it’s good. Otherwise buying a Netbook that costs $500-$1000NZD , just to install Google Chrome OS, is a waste of time and money right now. Give it a year or two to mature and come out with a bit more usability and use.
 
AQRUFXY77TCS

Liz works as a Linux System Administrator at Rimuhosting.com and has been using Linux and Open Source software for well over 10 years.
 
She is an active member in several projects, and you can find her on twitter at @velofille or @RHLiz
 
 

Previous Geek life entries

Comments [7]

TheWs
11 Feb 2010 11:59a.m.

I got the more information about the Google Chrome OS from the http://www.techarena.in/review/18377-google-chrome-os-chromium-os.htm

Mark
26 Jan 2010 12:08a.m.

Oh no - the n00bz wanna try chromeos - i feel sorry for every single ISP & Tech helpdesk out there when the "my internet explorer wont work" calls flood though after they've tried to install chromeos after formatting their hard drive and destroying the recovery partition on their $999 Dell computer

Brad
25 Jan 2010 2:20p.m.

Where do you get this premade image? (I want to have a go)

QuiltyFan
17 Dec 2009 2:57p.m.

Great article as always Liz... Question - is the Google OS designed to be installed on baremetal hardware without another underlying OS? How does it detect hardware / what driver support is available etc?

Ten
25 Nov 2009 5:21a.m.

..I can't believe the hype over this. Google Chromium OS is NOT even close to what it will be a year from now. They made the announcement for OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPERS, not the public to use as a main OS for their net-books. The user interface will be different by launch; the functionality will be increased by launch; the over all application selection will be increased by launch (native client). This is not a desktop operating system, nor was it ever stated to be one. This is not a replacement for your main system at all. Come on people, let the devs work on it a bit more before jumping to conclusions.

James
23 Nov 2009 9:37p.m.

After reading your review I would have to say that I am decidedly underwhelmed. After hearing all the whoopla about the new Google OS I was expecting a whole lot more. Google may have more to offer in the future but right now I don't see this as anything significant especially considering it is going to be compared to Windows, Snow Leopard and the numerous distros of Linux that are already in existance and probably a lot better supported as far as device drivers go.

Jenny
23 Nov 2009 12:39p.m.

Thanks Liz, after reading this i've realised it's best I avoid fiddling with this OS until it's packaged in a more friendly manner!

Post a comment

Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:


3News Video 3News Audio