Skip to main content

Google's browser, the engine for the Cloud?

I don't know what Om is raving about, but Shankland too wrote a brave post about how he shifted to Chrome. I particularly like Firefox for all it does for me. I do fat things, I have heavy needs and I am not in need of something fast when I am pretty much content with the quality of content delivered to me.

So for all the cool extensions like ABP, IE plugin, Facebook, LinkedIn etc etc, I am not about to pick Chrome. Nice article but it really doesn't make any solid case for Google's Cloud readiness. They're good in search and have a lot of data indexed. That it.

A lot has changed in the past 10 years. For one thing, the cost of hardware and network infrastructure has declined sharply. Such a decline has led to what's known as cloud computing, whereby companies like Amazon.com (AMZN) offer infrastructure on demand. That has, in turn, allowed innovators to roll out their applications without making major outlays up front.

In the meantime, always-on broadband connections at home, work, and on the move have become commonplace. This has served as a catalyst for those who have developed Web services that are now screaming for browsers that allow your data to live on the Web but be accessible offline, a trend I first wrote about in a column for the now defunct Business 2.0 magazine back in March 2006.



Source
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more