The paper presents a lock service to be used by loosely coupled distributed systems.
Chubby is adapted for requirements encountered by Google applications. Therefore, Chubby is optimized for availability and reliability rather than high performance, with locks expected to be course-grained (in time). Chubby is implemented as a set of servers that use a consensus protocol among them. Interestingly, Chubby does not mandate locks, meaning that the applications choose to not modify or corrupt the locked file. This is based mainly on two reasons: the lock service simpler to implement and it does not have to handle real malicious applications as it is running in a closed environment.
The paper makes a thorough discussion of why a lock service is useful compared to a distributed consensus algorithm such as Paxos which would require no new service. I mostly agree with the arguments presented in the paper, which are: some applications are not created to be highly available as required by Paxos (e.g. are started as prototypes); application writing is simplified with a lock service (rather than implement distributed consensus in all applications); a distributed consensus would require to advertise and store small amounts of data which is difficult to do and requires a lock through the name service anyway; a single reliable node can make progress without requiring a quorum.
As a critique, the arguments presented for why building a lock service rather than a consensus protocol are valid but not well structured. Another thing is that by not mandating a lock, poorly written applications could lead to hard to detect bugs.