/* Please don't comment out words such as FUCK as this fools the curse / swear filter */
rheum101 writes "Fellow slashdotters — I have been considering the pros and cons of the recently announced Google ChromeOS. I would love to have a bog standard PC boot fast (10 secs), load straight to browser for all my Gmailing and day to day surfing (and then maybe give me a "load Windows" button if I want to pull in all my legacy thick apps). Even better would be to have this on a USB stick so that ANY USB bootable PC can get me to my online apps ASAP. Imagine how frustrated that I am to have to wait for another year for ChromeOS and to have to buy a ChromeOS — specific machine. But wait! All of the pieces I need to do this are here in the OSS world today — I am just asking for a very fast loading Linux+Firefox on a USB stick, right? Maybe the touted 10 secs Ubuntu boot or the DamnSmallLinux can do the trick somehow. Can anyone help me get this pulled together? (I am not a source coder, but can handle drive partitioning and such)......"
I for one am in the "unwilling" category since I am stuck in IE7 for roboform and for some use of IE7 rich text editor mode. Chrome frame is what I need today. This is like Windows containing a DOS backward compatibility mode in the '90s - it's a transition path strategy. When rf supports Chrome browser and I have moved off my home grown rte WCM app (to Google sites), then I will switch. No Google, I will never store pwds in the browser, so get on the phone to rf pdq. Not only does Google want Chrome Frame to make all apps work & simplify development. They are willing to hold success of their killer app (Wave) hostage to everyone either moving off IE, or at least going "half-way" to Chome Frame. This gives them critical mass the fastest route. And they are smart enough to provide this as a developer platform since this it the other side of the coin. Now let's see what happns when MS kills Chrome Frame with the next IE "security" update. ~r101