You're not going to see me using an OS where I have to use a SSH-client written in Javascript where I have to upload my keys to a random site on the internet.
By not supporting local applications, lots of the "cloudy" stuff I do, for instance by hooking up to remote sessions via SSH and RDP, is not viable or is inherently much more complicated and less smooth. The "everything is in the cloud" goes both ways. Prevent me from accessing it and your OS is actually less "cloud-capable". Like ChromeOS is.
Edit:
To come off a little bit less rantish, what I think is the key point here is that the proponents of ChromeOS, who wants it to succeed, has their vision somewhat clouded (pun intended).
I don't think anyone here questions the potential of the web as a platform. For certain kinds of applications. We have all seen the amazing stuff happening on the web, while the desktop has been at a relative standstill. We know what this technology can do, and it is finally getting some momentum. Change is happening at a fantastic pace and we're moving forward towards a new web with even more capabilities.
But in all this excitement it's easy to forget that just because a platform can do something doesn't mean it's the best fit for the task. Certain things just works better as local applications. Remember the catch-phrase "use the right tool for the job"?
Why do you want to shoehorn everything into the web, even where it doesn't provide you any benefits? Why should we scrap all out working applications, just because someone out there has written the same application, somewhat limited, in HTML and JS? And why are you so eager about losing control of your data?
Lots of common computer use-cases depends on reasonable IO-capabilities. Until everyone has at least a 100mbps synchronous internet-connection and the internet as a whole has a backbone to support this, these kinds of applications will be severely impaired.
The web is nice. Being forced to go web only when it's not practical is less so.
I think the question is one of what should be mainstream. I think most people will value portability over all else once it can come close to matching local apps. Because while it might not take you or me much effort to move our data from computer to computer your average user dreads that. Your average user lives in fear of their computer crashing because they'll lose access to their data and have to pay someone $300+ to get it fixed. Or that they'll get a virus and lose access to everything. Or whatever else.
For them the right tools is one that gives them the ability to walk over to another system, put in their info and be back up and running.
For people like you I think there will always be Linux versions out there and who knows what else. The cloud isn't right for everyone. Those of us who support ChromeOS just realize most people aren't like you.
By not supporting local applications, lots of the "cloudy" stuff I do, for instance by hooking up to remote sessions via SSH and RDP, is not viable or is inherently much more complicated and less smooth. The "everything is in the cloud" goes both ways. Prevent me from accessing it and your OS is actually less "cloud-capable". Like ChromeOS is.
Edit: To come off a little bit less rantish, what I think is the key point here is that the proponents of ChromeOS, who wants it to succeed, has their vision somewhat clouded (pun intended).
I don't think anyone here questions the potential of the web as a platform. For certain kinds of applications. We have all seen the amazing stuff happening on the web, while the desktop has been at a relative standstill. We know what this technology can do, and it is finally getting some momentum. Change is happening at a fantastic pace and we're moving forward towards a new web with even more capabilities.
But in all this excitement it's easy to forget that just because a platform can do something doesn't mean it's the best fit for the task. Certain things just works better as local applications. Remember the catch-phrase "use the right tool for the job"?
Why do you want to shoehorn everything into the web, even where it doesn't provide you any benefits? Why should we scrap all out working applications, just because someone out there has written the same application, somewhat limited, in HTML and JS? And why are you so eager about losing control of your data?
Lots of common computer use-cases depends on reasonable IO-capabilities. Until everyone has at least a 100mbps synchronous internet-connection and the internet as a whole has a backbone to support this, these kinds of applications will be severely impaired.
The web is nice. Being forced to go web only when it's not practical is less so.