With the 9 cell I get easily 15 hours while developing. Not sure which Chromebooks you are talking about. But I prefer the x220 over the 230. Haven't tried the 240 which is now starting to get cheap second hand here.
not sure what the battery life on x230 is. I usually get 6-7 hours atleast on my current chromebook.
Besides this was an impulse purchase. I was tired of my home laptop and wanted something so I went to best buy and purchased it within half an hour. I can't say the same for x230.
I have been using a Chromebook as my daily driver for nearly 2 years now.
Most of the time, I'm either at home or at work, so I just remote log into my development systems. I, personally, don't really need to lug around my entire development environment, though I used to be in that school of thought.
So, given that I really just need SSH, a decent Chromebook is cheap (as others mentioned), and can have a decent keyboard with long battery life. The one I have is around 1kg, so it is very "handy", and I carry it everywhere, as I would have a notepad in earlier days.
I'm trying to setup something similar - do you use Wake on LAN to turn the computer on? Or do you leave it on? Do you have a static IP or do you use some kind of dynamic DNS service?
Cheap and lightweight, but of reasonable quality. You'll get Linux out of the box. Effortless updates. Lots of battery life - my Chromebook came with 13 hours of battery and it is a few years old machine at this point.
I think I did checked them out. But I have a special use case, need Touchscreen, long batery life, rugged, small, lightweight ( ...for hiking and working Outdoor) Asus C213 was a perfect fit. Otherwise there are only windows devices avaiable with terrible linux Driver support at the moment.
It has been an inexpensive and reliable crouton linux box.
The hardware support has been really nice, as a lot of the usual linux fiddling required to support monitors, etcetera has been much easier with the intermediate chromeOS layer.
MacBooks are out for me now that they have the touchbar and bad keyboard. I currently use a ThinkPad and it's pretty good, but the touchpad is mediocre at best.
I think a ChromeBook with really first class support for Linux apps is very compelling. I run Linux in a VM on Windows 10 on my ThinkPad and it's a great setup. A ChromeBook would be a very similar setup but probably with better native OS integration (for example they are exposing the Linux filesystem in ChromeOS's file browser) and this would all be a first class use case supported by Google.
You mean pixelbook, $300 chromebooks would obviously be of poor build quality; although i am not sure of the hardware quality of pixelbook either. For me a thinkpad works pretty well for a linux machine.
FWIW, I have an Acer ChromeBook I bought for $99 brand new on Black Friday a couple of years ago. I have about 20 laptops at my disposal (including ThinkPads and MacBook Pros) but I use this one the most. The build quality is surprisingly good and the battery lasts forever. I installed Linux on it after replacing the firmware, but I'm excited that Crostini might make this unnecessary on other ChromeBooks (and maybe even this model). A very important bonus of Crostini is that it will not be necessary to put the machine in developer mode.
I have a Dell Chromebook 13 and the build quality is fantastic. It's my favorite laptop out of last gen Macbook Air, Dell XPS 13, Thinkpad, and Razer Blade. The keyboard on it is the only one that doesn't hurt my fingers to type on.
A lot of the lower-end Chromebooks are surprisingly well built. Education is a huge market for Chromebooks, so durability is important. My Acer Chromebook is mostly plastic, but there are hefty metal hinges and a metal backplate for the LCD. I've dropped it several times and it just seems to bounce. The keyboard and trackpad aren't exceptional, but are perfectly pleasant to use. The only major downside is the screen, which is a fairly dim and low-res TN panel. Still, you really can't complain for the price.
I have to disagree, surprisingly. I've got an Acer Chromebook 14 which is all aluminum, very thin/light, 14" IPS 1080p display, wonderful trackpad and a pretty solid keyboard. All for under $300.
The Samsung Chromebook Plus/Pro also have 3:2 screens, same size and resolution as the Google Pixelbook (probably the same display panel). Though those are also Chrome OS devices, of course.
It's a cheap more portable 2nd laptop. I much prefer it over a tablet. While the screen resolution on mine is pretty bad (768p 11"), I actually bring it around with me and am able to do elixir development with Termux.
You can install GalliumOS [1] on a Chromebook for a full Debian-based Linux experience. I dual boot mine for certain apps I can't run under ChromeOS, but I'll be perfectly happy to stay in Chrome land once this Linux app thing gets pushed out to my chrmebook. For the most part, I'm doing heavy lifting on other machines I remote log into (graphical or shell). I've got LXC and KVM scripts [2] to spin up virtual Windows, MacOS, or Linux machines as dev environments on any Linux host, and then connect using ssh, x2go, or Chrome Remote Desktop. With this setup, I can comfortably do without a beefy laptop, and don't need to worry about taking proprietary/sensitive data through an airport.
The promise of Ubuntu Convergence and Windows Continuum on a single piece of hardware, solving the "app gap" with Android support - the best of the web, Android and one's choice of Linux desktop.
An ultrabook/iPad substitute - "power users" requiring a 32GB Core i7 desktop replacement might look elsewhere, naturally.
1. The security model is fantastic compared to the alternatives. DIY security is an endless distraction these days unless it's your full-time job. I am concerned that the team may not be able to keep things so secure as the complexity of Chrome OS increases, but as a starting point it's still the most secure commercial OS out there.
2. Little to no setup. Boot it up, log in, and you're ready. (And now, I guess, install whatever Linux apps you want.) This makes it easy to recover from hardware failure, even if you're on the road. Just go take one off the shelf, no worries about installation, configuration, etc.
3. Disposability. Most Chromebooks are incredibly cheap. If it breaks or if you lose it, it's not the end of the world.
4. Easy, safe sharing. If someone needs to borrow a computer to check their email, you can log out and hand it to them. Your stuff is securely encrypted, and the system is hardened against compromise. This may not be a big deal for everyone, but it brings me great peace of mind!
If I had to guess its because they want to move to their own proprietary systems and don't want to support backwards compatibility with "native" linux applications.
Exactly–ChromeOS being Linux-based is, at this point, an implementation detail. No ChromeOS "apps" depend on that fact, because they all run under their own VMs or ABI sandboxes. This means that Google could make a Fuchsia-based ChromeOS and nothing in userland (save for the code of those VMs and sandboxes) would have to change.
Fuschia doesn't contain any Linux at all, hidden or otherwise. There's a compat layer you can run on top, but it's closer to the Windows subsystem for Linux than Chrome OS.
That said, parent comments seem to be talking about two different topics. Later comment about Google switching the underlying foundation of Chrome OS from Linux to Fuchsia sounds plausible, while earlier comment complaining about Fuchsia being proprietary is nonsense.
It might not be proprietary, but if OEMs already only release updates at gun point with GPL, just wait until they get an OS with MIT like licenses given to them. It will be a big party.
Still does not make Fuchsia proprietary.
There will be proprietary fuchsia bundles, sure, they are unfortunately standard with Android allready, but that was not the point.
Do you know if pacman is available on Chrome OS? My understanding is that it's based on Gentoo but it's heavily modified. So adding a different binary-based package manager isn't that crazy of an idea, especially for Google.
Two package managers are a bad idea. They would need to cooperate somehow. Pacman developers probably have heard of Gentoo, but I wouldn't call it "based on Gentoo".
I meant that since pacman is not available, then use a different one entirely (not both). It seems it's a moot point b/c of the sibling comment saying the disk is read-only.
ChromeOS/ChromiumOS uses portage for its build system, to produce a signed, read-only image that the OS can boot from. CoreOS uses the same tooling FWIW:
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/build
This is why you can’t just install random packages onto the parent OS. Any additional software needs to run in some overlay filesystem or sandbox.
I have never tried using portage with binary packages, but I am using Paludis with binary packages since a while and I have to say it is very different from using Apt or Pacman.
Package managers which are build for source packages (e.g. ebuilds/exheres) have a much more complicated logic running in the background, come up with much harder to solve problems and are a lot slower (orders of magnitude).
The only aspect where this setup is superior than e.g. arch + pacman is when it comes to using source packages on the same system. So I guess that is nothing you would like to use on a Chromebook anyway. Therefore, using a Debian container is a reasonable choice, in my opinion.
apt-get is still the golden standard for installing apps on Linux because of its dependency resolution system, and being able to "sudo apt-get install <package>" is a core use-case for end-users (i.e. students who are learning how to use Linux / code for the first time).
Disclaimer: I work at Google, but not on Chrome OS.
Genuinely asking, what makes apt-get that much better than other package managers? Outside of Slackware I think good dependency resolution is pretty much universal at this point, and I can't say I've ever noticed any major problems with pacman, for instance.
Windows has a lot of users just because they're familiar with it.
The same goes for Debian derivatives. A lot of people's first Linux distro is Ubuntu, so they get familiar with apt and don't have a compelling reason to use anything else.
I'm a perfect example. The second package-manager I really interacted with was Alpine's "apk", and that's only because I've been working with Docker pretty extensively over the last year.
Apt-get got there first. Debian does a pretty good job of trying to make upgrades work (which isn't really an apt thing, plenty of apt based distributions don't actually care to make upgrades work).
It's been a while, but my understanding is redhat figured out dependency resolution too, though.
It's been a while since I've used it but yum used to tie up my machine pretty badly on significant upgrades. After reboot it could take hours to finish applying the upgrade, during which time the machine was usable. Apt has never given me that sort of trouble.
Maybe 15, but I do recall using redhat in 1998 and getting things like you can't install foobar.rpm because it needs /usr/lib/libsomethingcool.so.4 and then plugging in that file name to rpmfind.net to figure out what package I needed (maybe it didn't need to be that hard, but it wasn't obvious that it could be easier)
Depends on what you mean by "figured out". Yum was capable of dependency resolution 15 years ago, maybe more, but was unbearably slow compared to apt-get. Maybe dnf solved that, maybe yum is faster now, I don't know, I switched to Debian more than a decade ago and didn't have a reason to retest RH since.
Even on the slowest systems I still have access to (64MB VPS, RasPi 1), apt-get is reasonably quick and responsive.
It not APT itself, but the policies, tooling and practices around creating and installing packages.
A lot of work is done to ensure smooth upgrades, or prevent packages from breaking each other by overwriting files, breaking configurations, changing ownership of some files or directories and so on.
I believe they don't use Gentoo, rather they use Gentoo's build system (portage) to build ChromeOS.
They use their own tree (ebuilds) and they don't include portage into ChromeOS.
I'd guess they wanted a simpler solution. Debian mostly has stable packages, but if users want more it is easier to get it compatible with Ubuntu repositories and packages.
For example if chromeos users wanted to install steam on their system having a Debian base would help.
Aside from this I'm really surprised that they are using Wayland instead of X11, this decision ought to bring some stability issues until Wayland gets widely adopted.
If I were to guess this feature has been added as a freetime project amongst Google employees. As such, I don't think we can expect continuity. If those developers go away/get reassigned or lose enthusiasm, I don't think Google would allocate resources to maintain a linux VM inside their OS. IMHO if it were important to Google that users could be able to use Linux apps, they would've strived for binary compatibility with Linux from the beginning.
> If I were to guess this feature has been added as a freetime project amongst Google employees.
I believe the impetus was enabling Android app development on Chrome OS. Google first said they were working on that a long time ago. I guess in the process of doing so they figured they might as well expand the functionality to cover all Linux apps, not just Android Studio.
As such, I expect support will be stable. Chrome OS in general has had very solid support, too.
Any links for more info about containers vs VM there? The article just says:
"That’s because Google is going to start shipping Chrome OS with a custom virtual machine that runs Debian Stretch, the current stable version of the operating system."
I have been using this on my pixelbook and, unless I am wildly mistaken, it's generating an LXC container. Android apps for instance all run inside a single container for them as well
The container itself is running Debian Stretch. However, for someone not using this it can be easily misinterpreted to mean a VM. Functionally it's not much different.
It is based on Gentoo as software can be based on make and gcc. But the user only sees the resulting binary.
AFAIK Portage, Gentoo's package manage, is used only to build the rootfs image. Because Gentoo is really a meta distribution. This distinction is not an empty slogan. You can use Gentoo as a build system to create separate operating system, just like ChromeOS does.
You can use of course use Gentoo directly and prepare tailor built binary packages to distribute them to users. Then it would be a bit more similar to other distributions. But ChromeOS is not an ordinary distribution. It's update model is not really compatible with typical distribution model. It's one of the greatest strengths of the system. You could shoehorn packages meta data, but it would be pointless, because whole image is updated at once.
Why does the Chrome OS team do anything the Chrome OS team does? They decided the best idea for low-end hardware is to run everything as a web app. They decided to make it practically useless without an Internet connection because clearly no one will use an ultraportable somewhere without Internet access. They decided to develop their own distro mostly from scratch because contributing to an existing project would be too easy, to useful, and would get them too much goodwill. They decided the best way to make the system easy to use was to split your files between local storage and the cloud so you don't know where anything is.
It's a stupid idea from start to finish. You shouldn't try to make sense of it.
And it depresses me. Its success demonstrates that Linux desktops could catch on in the mainstream market just fine if they had the marketing budget, brand recognition, and vendor support of Google. This team of idiots could have ended the hegemony of Microsoft and Apple for good.
> Linux desktops could catch on in the mainstream market just fine if they had the marketing budget, brand recognition, and vendor support of Google
The problem with Linux on the mainstream is Linux, it has nothing to do with not having a huge brand like Google's nor with marketing, just ask Dell. Linux offers exactly what the enterprise market needs and it is a huge success, far bigger than anyone in the 90s ever imagined. Linux does not offer what the mainstream market demands and no amount of marketing or brand recognition can change that.
Linux isn't the problem: with enough money and time, you could build an OS around Linux that a user can use just like MacOS or Windows. Sony built an operating system around FreeBSD for the PS4 that noone recognises as such. The problem is that open source software (which Linux necessarily attracts due to licensing and reputaion) is designed by people with a fundamentally different view of ergonomics, and the number of disparate HW components (audio, graphics, etc) create a similar number of software components that make integrating them cumbersome and frustrating.
Linux can do whatever it damn well pleases. You can take Linux and turn it into the most feature-poor "easy-to-use" toy on the planet, as Google has demonstrated. The UI has little to do with the underlying technology.
The problems with the Linux desktop that I can see are poor driver support and a limited software selection. OEM support solves the driver support problem and Chrome OS demonstrates that people are willing to use a system with no software at all. What else makes it unsuitable for most users?
Anyway, short answer: because they heavily customized and changed a lot of things. They could not have done this with an existing Distro so easy. And sad as it is -> their goal is and was not to help the linux desktop - it is to help the google Eco system. Cloud-Service. Webapp. Makes perfect sense.
No matter how much you want them to support the things you (or me) want.
We linux users are not the target group, target group are ordinary newbs who like that everything just runs and don't like that their exe files somehow don't run anymore. But the ones who handle exe files per hand are rapidly declining I guess.
Maybe so. And as I said, that makes me sad. People who work hard to develop full-featured and high-quality software fail to make headway, but people who cynically manipulate others to lock them in to one company while providing nothing of value make millions. It's perfectly rational and perfectly disgusting.
Chrome OS is worthless for its users. I don't much care how good it is for Google.
On the other hand, Chrome OS has finally ended my nightmare as the family IT support specialist. I have to help people who don't know what a "mouse" is, what a "browser" is, or that you can read the same email on multiple devices. When I switch them to a ChromeBook, life is much easier. Do they still have problems? Yes, because they don't understand the underlying concepts and face an enormous learning curve. But they don't get viruses anymore and nearly any problem is solved with a restart. Plus, Chrome OS is truly multiuser in the sense that anyone with a Google account can log into the device and access all of their online resources without affecting any other users, so I've been able to modify the owner's idea of what it means to share the device in a secure manner. Frankly, it's a godsend for some types of users who are incapable of maintaining any system running Windows, MacOS or a mainstream Linux distribution.
Frankly, the more I use a ChromeBook myself, the less I want to use another mainstream OS for day-to-day computing. I don't game or do much photo / video editing so I go weeks at the time on the ChromeBook without reaching for something else. It's nice having a computer that I genuinely don't need to think about.
Next step is ditching my work-provided Windows laptop for a ChromeBook...
Firstly, no it isn't. The fact that they need an Internet connection is just one of Chrome OS's many problems.
Secondly, I never claimed Chromebooks don't work offline. I claimed they are nearly useless offline, which they are. They default to storing things in the cloud and using web apps. Getting them to be useful offline requires effort from the user and special effort from the developers of any offline web apps. The fact that users have to keep track of where all their data and programs live is needless complexity which is quite opposed to Chrome OS's supposed focus on ease of use.
I guess because they want to keep the actual OS locked down. This way you can run any kind of linux software and even pretend to be root, all without really having root access to the pixelbook.
"Google’s PM director for Chrome OS Kan Liu told me the company was obviously aware that people were using Crouton to do this before. But doing this also meant doing away with all of the security features that come with Google’s operating system."
I don't know if I am the only one, but this one made me laugh.
Plus the automatic updating and even done in the background. Just pick it up next reboot.
True story. Son was turning his Win PC off for the night and it indicated do not shut off as updating. Told him just leave it on for the night. Wake up in the morning and still do not turn off updating. Just a terrible UX.
I am a huge fan of CBs. Now GNU/Linux support makes it that much better.
I wish they would also offer some runtime environment to run Android apps on a normal Linux (e.g. Debian/Arch). And no, I am not talking about some weird, full size VM with a few Gigs of ram overhead. But since the business case seems to be missing, I will probably have to wait forever ;-)
Anbox[0] already does that. It's not official, it's not from Google, it's not perfect, but .. it works, and integrates the android apps into your system (does not have a weird VM or few gigs of ram overhead).
I only dived in crouton etc. for a short view, but I think the main reason why I did not continue (besides that it was messy) was the lack of GPU rendering (I believe there was none, at least for my ARM Modell)
Tech journalists, especially, almost always fail to do even a tiny bit of research or due diligence. I mean... Crostini is not "new", it's been on dev channel for months[1]! But this article ending... hilarious icing on the cake.
> "Now, it’s probably only a matter of hours before somebody starts running Windows apps in Chrome OS with the help of the Wine emulator."
Someone should also tell them about running Crossover on Chrome OS via Android[2], which has already been possible for months!
To be honest if the manufacturer is misleading you that you have to do secondary research then why go to the event at all. I agree they should have done their due dilligence but at this time since no one values the written word nearly everyone is just taking some press release and cut and pasting it.
On the other hand I have seen products being launched at Google I/O and being non existant for months. Tensorflow lite took months to come out. Why would you do this? Real artists ship and I don't get why you would announce something and have an indefinite launch date? By the time tensorflow lite came out Apple had coreml out for months and was somewhat usable.
There is a lot of confusion about what emulation means, and the name shifted to reflect that it will not, in fact, allow you to run your x86 Windows EXEs on a SPARC or PowerPC.
There is a good deal of validity towards calling Wine an emulator in this vein. It is reimplementing an executable format loader, calling conventions, and the entire runtime and libraries of a foreign operating system -- in other words, emulating the Windows operating system.
However, emulating has also often been used to describe software that implements the opcodes of a foreign instruction set in software. For example, a program that implements 6502 opcodes and related modules that allows you to play NES games on a PC. Wine isn't an emulator of this type. Wine relies on the fact that x86 Windows programs can be made to run on x86 Linux by means of implementing everything I stated in the first paragraph. It does not allow for running x86 Windows programs on a SPARC machine (QEMU can assist in doing this, but that's a digression...). Wine is not an ISA emulation, but it is an ABI emulation.
Sure, but that was a point of confusion that was relevant back when SPARC and PowerPC and x86 emulation on them were things people cared about. That hasn’t been the case for a looong time though.
Many of which are barely mutually compatible yet also call themselves or are commonly referred to as versions or flavours of ‘the Linux operating system’. My greatest wish for Linux is that the term is only used to refer to the kernel architecture and ‘distros’ be consistently referred to as Operating Systems.
I guess "web apps" are not as successful as Google hoped. There are some great web apps, but they are electron apps ... Maybe bake in "elevated" mode in Chrome so it basically becomes Electron, but with some kernel hooks to limit an apps abilities and let users pick what the app is able to access, network, hdd, etc.
I'm really happy Google are giving a go at making ChromeOS into something more than browser on steroids. I really believe this is a path to a decent Linux Desktop future.
I'm def considering getting a pixelbook for my main machine this year now.
I think this is great. I bought a chromebook flip a couple of years ago, with the intention of putting Linux on it---only to find that the hardware is depressingly bad and the ARM processor makes the Linux experience terrible (had to install Arch, never did manage to make basic things like the JVM work right, eventually gave up on it). Since then, I've been very skeptical of the notion of buying chromebooks as cheap and lightweight mobile working tools.
But I will buy a pixelbook in an instant if I can get a fully functional, no bullshit with having to install custom kernels or new firmware or god only knows what and what will happen to the hardware and what just won't work despite The Internet insisting it does, insisting! Oh Lordy. A Linux environment available on decent hardware, without having to MacGyver it together with bubble gum and safety pins? Where things like power management actually work? What other options are there, really, for that? Purism? Dell XPS13! All of those are actually more expensive than the Pixelbook. (Though the Dell thing does look pretty sweet.) Hell, I may go order one now.
The other good thing about this is that the Pixelbook is a 3:2 screen, so finally there's a laptop with a proper display resolution that can run Linux nicely.
3:2? No thanks I don't really want black bars when watching movies...
What I'd really really like is something with the build quality (especially the touchpad!) of a MacBook Pro, with decent and recent hardware, first class Linux support for all features, support for both USB-C and "old" USB and a decent keyboard with it. And that without paying more than for an technologically outdated yet still top-of-the-line MBP...
Give me a Thinkpad with a full aluminium body, a touchpad with a size that's actually usable and we'll talk. Sorry but I have developed a real dislike for small touchpads incapable of reliable gestures and full plastic bodies.
A metal body is heavy, prone to dents and attenuates radio. Why are you so keen on having one? The X1 Carbon is lighter, tougher and more serviceable than a MacBook Pro, in part because of a better choice of materials.
As for trackpads, Apple keep making them larger and larger, so a ThinkPad trackpad is no smaller than a MacBook from a few years ago. The keyboard is surely the primary concern.
The trackpad is also terrible compared to modern MacBooks aside from the size. It flexes, feels worse and does not reliably track gestures. The whole thing feels stuck a decade ago.
Yes, FOSS saving a close source platform, what's news?
You are completely missing the point, my point was that Apple is so bad of a company that they completely refuse to ship with GPLv3 software, they are nothing but a bunch of immoral fascists.
Take take take, but never give anything back. The GNU project did everything right by moving to GPLv3.
And last time I checked, brew doesn't work so well when you have multiples users on the same system.
If you cannot see anything immoral in Apple, or if you're unable to see anything immoral/fascist beyond murder and WWII then I'm not sure you're ready to discuss this subject.
I suggest you educate yourself on the matter, because judging by your comment, I can clearly see you're ignorant about the subject.
Being an UNIX is irrelevant for Apple related development, it is just a side effect of being based on NeXTSTEP, which also only used POSIX compatibility as an attempt to take business away from SGI and SUN.
If you want UNIX development, without any regard for OS X and iOS, then go sponsor hardware vendors selling Linux and BSD based systems.
I want to agree with you, I want a Linux daily driver with the quality I am used to from the Mac. But I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the new mac keyboard being a dealbreaker.
Modern plastic composites with carbon fiber / glass fibers can perform as well or better than metals with regard to strength-to-weight. Plastics also have many other properties that make it preferable for a laptop case. Apple have chosen aluminium to give the impression of build quality. The competition are too often judged by their plastic cases instead of other attributes, such as the lack of glued-in batteries and unreplaceable components.
> Apple have chosen aluminium to give the impression of build quality.
My MBP is going on 6 years old and I have not been gentle with it. In fact I have dropped it on concrete multiple times. It is dented and scraped, the hinge is crooked. It still works perfectly. My previous, plastic laptop (also a Mac) had to have its shell replaced twice (under warranty) in less time than that.
You may feel that aluminum is not worth the trade-offs or the cost, and that's fine, but I want to be clear, the MBP's build quality is not just a shiny facade.
This. I don't buy MacBook Pro because it has Aluminium body, but because of the quality of the components inside, and how they integrate well with the OS.
My dream computer would be
- ThinkPad like casing. Light weight, yet durable. Not some cheap flimsy plastics.
- XPS like thin bezel display, with Apple like screen with colour calibration. While at it, please give me a 16:10 or some other tall displays where I can have more vertical space. 16:9 is only good for media and it is a secondary use-case on my laptop.
- Components with wider/open source drivers like intel wireless card instead of the Broadcom stuff. Some bluetooth module that has proper working Linux drivers.
- Trackpad - Mac like smooth trackpad. It's been decades and nothing comes even close to what Apple could do.
- Decent 12 hour real world battery life. I don't care if it makes the laptop slightly thicker or heavier - it is worth it.
- Keyboard with a good bit of travel - Like a ThinkPad.
- No Dongle life. Want USB-A, USB-C, HDMI, MiniDP, Full size SD card slot.
So far, only MacBook pro (with VMs running Linux) comes closest with several compromises.
> A metal body is heavy, prone to dents and attenuates radio. Why are you so keen on having one?
I like how it feels and looks. Is that so wrong?
I have used an X1 Carbon for the last year but when I can I will probably go back to the MBP for the trackpad. I guess different people just have different preferences?
Let's be happy there's enough choices to hopefully satisfy everyone.
Yes choice is good. But my concern is that consumers start demanding metal bodies, zero-travel keys and touch-bars everywhere, because Apple, and choice will be reduced. For example, I can no longer buy a mobile phone that doesn't have a glued-in battery.
at least for me, the answer is yes. I'm unsatisfied with almost all the options in laptop market based on my requirements. I just have to choose one, that makes me less unhappy.
Asus and Lenovo have great ultra books running Win10. Ultimate Office 365 support + good battery life. But it lacks a terminal + integrated UNIX utilities.
I prefer to use Linux on my laptop, but at the moment, it is lacking office 365 support. On some brands there is a serious battery issue.
Next option is macOS which has sane shell. But I don't understand, why is there such a huge race toward making thinner laptops? Previous generation MBP, was already thin enough. Consumers demanded thinner laptops. And now I have to bare with thinner MBP but less reliable battery power, fewer ports and a very noisy keyboard (which is disturbing everyone in library).
I'm not going to prescribe any feeling to them. I don't think they 'should' do anything. Just found it curious to be concerned about other people having different opinions.
I don't think the concern is other people having different opinions in itself. The concern is that by having preferences that are not represented by consumers in general, it is less likely that you'll find your preferences satisfied by a product on the market. If the mainstream is heading towards a set of standards that are uncomfortable to you, I think it's a valid cause for concern.
I can't remember consumers demanding glued-in batteries. I think decisions like this are taken for all kinds of reasons (CEO preference, ease of design and assembly, lock-in, etc) and then presented to consumers as packages that they can accept or decline. But it's too simple to say that this is solely driven by consumer choice.
Consumers demanded slimmer designs over glued in batteries, soldered RAM chips, etc. So the market responded by gluing in batteries and soldering ram. In a way, the consumers did demand that.
I wrote off the Trackpoint back in its glory days, but I recant my former position. Trackpoint is the bees knees once you get used to it. The Apple touchpads have gotten huge and easily triggered, Trackpoint is the cure.
On macOS trackpad rejection is quite good, but if you're running anything else it's very frustrating. One of the primary reasons reinstalled macOS... too many triggers on Fedora :(
This is pretty subjective, but I spend a lot more time typing than using the touchpad and while the MBPs touchpad may be nicer, I think the MacBook keyboards can't hold a candle to ThinkPad keyboards. I'm happy to trade a worse touchpad for that any day.
I use a Thinkpad with Linux for work and I agree that the keyboard is better than a MBP's.
However, even though I use the keyboard more than the trackpad, I find that I still rather use a MBP because the difference between the trackpads is greater than the difference between the keyboards. Also I like the screen on the MBP better.
Cool, so buy something else; literally every laptop on the market is catering for you, and I'm genuinely happy for you--
but those of us who prefer taller aspect ratios have nothing.. please let us have this.
Wow. Thanks for sharing. This is amazing... it's like it was made for me but I'm sure my wife won't approve the idea of buying yet another computer. Good daydreaming material, though!
Because they are Clevo. In my opinion the whole "linux laptops" are just a scam in general. Virtually all of them are just slapping their logo on top of generic machine from vendor like Clevo or Compal and are saying that those are "machines designed for linux" ... no they aren't. The most that they are doing is to negotiate with Clevo to put a WiFi card that will work with linux out-of-the-box, which is basically the same what you can do yourself.
> No thanks I don't really want black bars when watching movies...
I genuinely never understand people that watch movies on laptops. I find it a wholly unenjoyable experience.
Do you own a TV? You’re missing so much of the experience watching a movie on anything smaller than 45” and TVs are dirt cheap these days. I saw a 65” the other day for $250...
> You’re missing so much of the experience watching a movie on anything smaller than 45”
genuinely curious: given the same resolution, what's the difference between watching a e.g. a 45" from your couch and watching something like a 20" while getting closer to the screen until it covers the same angle of view? Just the fact that it's (probably) more relaxing for your eyes to focus on relatively distant objects?
The TV itself may be cheap but the space it requires probably isn't. How do you fit one 45" screen per person in a small appartment?
I genuinely don't understand why people put huge TV screens in their small rooms given that a smaller screen at closer distance produces the same visual effect.
In my case, I live on a boat so don't have the room for a 45 or 65 inch TV. Laptop it is.
But there are many, many circumstances why you'd watch TV on a laptop. I don't believe airlines would look too fondly on someone dragging their 65" TV on board.
My kids have nice TVs in their room and a rarely see them use them. Instead they watch movies on their Chromebooks majority of the time.
Are go to for the kids are the Acer 14s. Just incredible machines for the money. All aluminum chassis, peppy performance, long battery life, etc. Get them Acer refurb for about $200. Best value you can get.
Wife uses a CB+ and me a PB.
Wife spends a ton of time on her CB+ and does often time watch movies on it. While I never do on my PB. Often times she will be watching a movie on hers laying in our bed while I am watching something on our TV in our bedroom.
It depends on what you do. 16:9 is better for wathing 16:9 movies. But if you read lots of text, narrower, longer columns are usually a lot more handy. We have way more vertical than horizontal scrollbars.
I prefer 16:9 or 16:10 because I have a lot of windows side-by-side most of the time. I don't have 1 file open while coding, most of the time 2 or 3, in that case a wider screen is better in my opinion.
I've got a surface and in my opinion 3:2 is actually better for multitasking. You can fit two windows vertically. So you end up having 4 windows side by side.
Because 16:9 ("shortscreens") was a ploy by manufacturers to sell a smaller screen for the same diagonal. Combined with much of the vertical dimension being eaten by the general pattern of window decoration + app taskbar + app toolbars + OS taskbar, and well, at least they're good for watching movies!
crostini does not need developer mode to run.
what happens is that it is still in chrome os developer channel, which means is still in beta and can have bugs, but is something diferent then developer mode, just to make things clear.
Oh great. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll still wait until it's on the release channel but it's good to know I don't have to turn on developer mode to use it.
> Since then, I've been very skeptical of the notion of buying chromebooks as cheap and lightweight mobile working tools.
You have to be careful about which processor powers your Chromebook if you want to do non chrome os things. The processors from the mainstream core line (Haswell, Skylake) etc do pretty well, although they're usually fairly low clocked. The chromebooks with Atom or ARM processors usually have a harder time booting other things, and the ARM linux ecosystem is a lot trickier than the x86-64 ecosystem.
Avoiding Atom processors is harder than it looks, because Intel keeps changing the branding, probably to confuse users.
By the same token... if you want to run Android applications the situation is much worse on x86 processors, because while Android is supposed to be agnostic the reality is that there hasn't been any requirement for developers to target x86 market wise for a long time, and anything that goes remotely near direct graphics rendering or video DRM tends to break quite badly.
This isn't my experience. I have a Chromebook Pixel, which is x86, and games and movie apps work fine on it. I think anything major is likely to be cross-compiled, and it's only niche apps that won't run.
The raspberry pi has done a lot to improve the Raspberry Pi Linux ecosystem, with some effects for the ARM Linux ecosystem, but the fact that there's a difference between the two ecosystems is the problem with the ARM Linux ecosystem.
I was gonna suggest the Dell until I read the end of your message. I have one and haven't regretted the purchase. Pretty much everything works out of the box except for the fingerprint scanner.
$899 definitely a steal, if it starts running Linux easy. Damn, my 2013 MacBook pro getting old, so this looks like an awesome deal. Since Apple wants to put shitty keyboards
I have a Dell XPS 15 at work and it's so difficult to install and setup Linux between the M2 SSD drive and the Nvidia Optimus GPU. Would not recommend.
I run Arch on my XPS 15, too. Had it up and running after the usual Arch Wiki binge reading and a couple hours of trial and error. But that's what I always do when installing Arch.
A couple weeks ago I did a fresh install with Manjaro. With this the installation process goes down to around 10 minutes and everything (bluetooth, touchpad, function keys, optirun etc.) works out of the box.
I'm using a XPS 15 9550 with Arch linux installed, didn't have to setup up anything special apart from bumblebee I suppose it works really well for me.
VS Code and Atom are based on Electron, which is a platform by GitHub using the Google Chrome browser engine, which was forked off Apple‘s WebKit engine, which was forked off KHTML from the KDE project.
But would these cost $200 like the original chromebooks? The entire sell of Chromebooks to me was that they were really cheap. The newer models tend to cost as much as a macbook.
There are both cheap and expensive Chromebooks available. So the main change is that now you have mid- and high-range Chromebooks _alongside_ the cheap ones, depending what you prefer
This is great. I've been exploring Chromebook for the first time, but immediately got it in dev mode, then installed ubuntu gnome using crouton (chroot). Then installed golang and vscode, chrome and firefox browsers, and some tweaking for keyboard. It's been okay for several weeks. I can switch back to ChromeOS and have TeamViewer and Windows Remote Desktop to access more powerful computers at home or VMs from the cloud. Long battery life, fanless, (Acer 14 full hd) good stuff, great experience overall, but it looks like it will get better.
Acer 14 is an excellent machine. We have a bunch of them as have 8 kids and not had a single issue with a machine. I hand them to my kid and to not hear back which is my ideal. I am the house admin even though never applied for the job.
Purchased all Acer refurb for about $200 USD. One was $180.
You just can not get any other laptop that is all metal, peppy performance, incredible security, etc for so cheap.
You hear that Adobe? You now have a lot of potential costumers to sell your Creative Cloud package to.
I bet those Chromebooks are selling like hot cakes and many schools would love to offer training for your tools.
As a side benefit, you'd get a lot of neglected Pro Apple costumers (well, one at least), which would love to use some blessed by Adobe Linux distro.
Also…
>…meaning that even less powerful machines should be able to handle a code editor without issues.
Being able to run a code editor is a statement of a machine's power and system optimization?
Welcome to the wonderful world of Electron apps.
To those of us that used it back when Wine officially stood for Windows Emulator, people nowadays getting all upset on this point is an ever green source of amusement.
Interesting linked post, thanks, but the project FAQ was headlined "The Wine (Windows Emulator) FAQ" even in 1998. Wine clearly is an emulator of the Windows APIs, it's just not a CPU emulator which was a much more common thing back then.
Not in Europe they aren't, here even as "Deal of day" they hardly get a buyer on consumer shops, always stuck alone in a dark corner of the shop, if they are there at all.
Ever since I bought a Samsung Chromebook Plus for a friend and had a week to play with it, I've wanted Google to do this. This is probably my favourite announcement from I/O this year. I love how simple and well designed Chrome OS is. Now I can get proper access to all the tools I'm used to on Linux while not having to deal with terrible UX when it comes to things like notifications, daily schedule, calendar and mail. This to me looks like the perfect balance between running Linux and macOS.
I'm running Kubuntu on a 1 year old XPS 13 and most things work quite well. I do however miss a nice mail clients, reliable notifications about meetings, daily schedule, etc. I've tried almost everything available on Linux and while some things do work, they either are not reliable enough (with cloud APIs, etc) or are too ugly and clunky to use.
I'll wait for the next Pixelbook before jumping ship. Hopefully, Linux apps support would have matured enough by then.
I recently discovered "mailspring" as a snap package in the software center.
It's quite a powerful and polished mail app. The disadvantage is that it breaks down on me sometimes and by default it adds tracking features to your email, so you'll have to turn that off.
Will this make it possible to run Docker in a Chromebook? With Crouton, which is just a chroot, you can't run Docker at all (without changing the ChromeOS kernel), and can only run rkt containers. If this new Linux apps support really runs in a Debian KVM virtual machine, then maybe it will be possible to run Docker in that, which would be a massive advantage over what crouton provides. Anybody know?
I was toying with the idea of setting up my docker cli in crouton to connect to a docker daemon I host via a VPS (cheap Lightsail box maybe). I think this will work fine.. it's just the docker daemon that won't run because the ChromeOS kernel locks it out of features it needs. Then I could do local dev but any docker calls would run remotely.
But I'm sure that will have its quirks.. if I could run lightweight containers (node, redis, etc) directly on my Chromebook then I'd prefer that.
I've been playing with crosvm and containers (lxd) in ChromeOS for awhile and I've been very impressed at the technical expertise that has been required to bring this to ChromeOS. Now that the terminal app is released I can say (I have a pixelbook and am currently using it), the user experience is really quite slick. This is a very promising platform.
I assume the reason this is being abstracted behind a VM where the app must bring not just a userspace but its own kernel is because Chrome OS is about to become Fuchsia, and the only vestige of Linux on the future Chrome OS devices will be in a VM for niche applications.
Hooray.
This isn't more Linux, this is a compatibility step towards less Linux being spun as something else.
What? If the Linux support remains how is it "less Linux"? Linux is embedded inside ChromeOS and could be Fred and nobody would know any difference.
The complaining on HN is becoming just baffling. seems for the sake of just complaining.
We finally have a machine that support GNU/Linux applications out of the box and from the UI standpoint basically a first class citizen. But the most secure GNU/Linux machine you can get.
Honestly there is no reason the same technique being used by Google could not have been also done by MS and/or Apple.
Could even have been a standard. Click, container comes down, spins up, do what you need, disappears.
It is a bit insane we have basically the same hardware for Windows, Macs and ChromeOS and we make each different in the OS.
I get some CBs are ARM but really not as common as people think.
It's less Linux because this is another step towards Chrome OS devices not running any Linux at all except for in niche situations, and in those cases only as a VM. The decision to use a VM is the telling part. If they were committed to Linux as the underlying kernel in Chrome OS this would just use process-level isolation like containers.
When measured in terms of number of devices actually running a Linux kernel on physical hardware, in a post-Fuchsia Chrome OS world there will be less Linux kernels executing on devices at the bare metal, according to my prediction.
Between this and Android pivoting to Fuchsia, the number of non-server devices executing Linux kernels on physical hardware will have dropped substantially.
For anyone who values having a well-supported GPL kernel with maintained and modern hardware drivers as an option it should be viewed as incrementally more bad news.
Microsoft and WSL is another facet of this attack on the Linux kernel. By providing a way to run a Linux userspace directly from existing proprietary Windows installs, they remove a bulk of the impetus a Windows user may have had to attempt running the Linux kernel directly on their physical hardware.
We're headed towards a future where relatively few people run Linux at all directly on non-server hardware. Which enters into a self-reinforcing scenario of even fewer people doing so because the kernel development community will be working with fewer resources to keep up with hardware developments.
I hope I'm wrong, but it's looking increasingly like the future of Linux-based clients will be IoT and raspberry pi like devices.
ChromeOS supporting GNU/Linux applications now has ZERO to do with this new capability. Completely unrelated. Different kernels and even GUI is forwarded.
Plus how they implement Fuchsia is unclear or even for sure going to happen. ChromeOS already uses Skia so could be where they chose to tap into. But once again this has ZERO to do with this.
"it should be viewed as incrementally more bad news. "
Bizzare statement. GNU/Linux is using virtual drivers so if Fuchsia does a better and more secure job then all is good.
What you do not seem to understand is what Google has done is no different than if it was done on Windows or OS X.
It is purely a coincidence both are using the Linux kernel.
Running GNU/Linux on the client just got the biggest tail wind since it came out. This is a huge development for GNU/Linux on the desktop.
60% of K12 in the US is CBs. That is a big number of people now going to be able to use CBs to support things like AP CS 1 and 2.
BTW, how Google implemented is a huge plus to be intact if they moved to Fuchsia for ChromeOS not less.
So if you want to save a movie for the flight, 480p is all you get...
Really wish we could get this functionality on iOS. iPad Pro is definitely big enough to code on. All it’s really missing is being able to run commandline tools.
> To enable support for graphical apps, the team opted to integrate the Wayland display server
So why VM if they provide a Wayland compositor? For security they can use apparmor or other sandboxing methods without resorting to full virtualization.
328 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 294 ms ] threadThis is not my primary machine however. I only use it at home to ssh into my desktop once in a while.
They seem to be going for the same price range.
Besides this was an impulse purchase. I was tired of my home laptop and wanted something so I went to best buy and purchased it within half an hour. I can't say the same for x230.
Most of the time, I'm either at home or at work, so I just remote log into my development systems. I, personally, don't really need to lug around my entire development environment, though I used to be in that school of thought.
So, given that I really just need SSH, a decent Chromebook is cheap (as others mentioned), and can have a decent keyboard with long battery life. The one I have is around 1kg, so it is very "handy", and I carry it everywhere, as I would have a notepad in earlier days.
https://system76.com/
It can also make sense if you like physical function keys and/or a touch screen larger than a function key row. :)
I used a Chromebook Pixel with Crouton very happily for a year. Granted I spend 95% of my time in Emacs and a web browser.
The hardware support has been really nice, as a lot of the usual linux fiddling required to support monitors, etcetera has been much easier with the intermediate chromeOS layer.
I think a ChromeBook with really first class support for Linux apps is very compelling. I run Linux in a VM on Windows 10 on my ThinkPad and it's a great setup. A ChromeBook would be a very similar setup but probably with better native OS integration (for example they are exposing the Linux filesystem in ChromeOS's file browser) and this would all be a first class use case supported by Google.
Macbooks continue to look less and less appealing to me, if Chromebooks somehow got Adobe CC, I'd switch immediately.
[1] https://galliumos.org/
[2] https://github.com/kstenerud/virtual-builders
The promise of Ubuntu Convergence and Windows Continuum on a single piece of hardware, solving the "app gap" with Android support - the best of the web, Android and one's choice of Linux desktop.
An ultrabook/iPad substitute - "power users" requiring a 32GB Core i7 desktop replacement might look elsewhere, naturally.
1. The security model is fantastic compared to the alternatives. DIY security is an endless distraction these days unless it's your full-time job. I am concerned that the team may not be able to keep things so secure as the complexity of Chrome OS increases, but as a starting point it's still the most secure commercial OS out there.
2. Little to no setup. Boot it up, log in, and you're ready. (And now, I guess, install whatever Linux apps you want.) This makes it easy to recover from hardware failure, even if you're on the road. Just go take one off the shelf, no worries about installation, configuration, etc.
3. Disposability. Most Chromebooks are incredibly cheap. If it breaks or if you lose it, it's not the end of the world.
4. Easy, safe sharing. If someone needs to borrow a computer to check their email, you can log out and hand it to them. Your stuff is securely encrypted, and the system is hardened against compromise. This may not be a big deal for everyone, but it brings me great peace of mind!
That said, parent comments seem to be talking about two different topics. Later comment about Google switching the underlying foundation of Chrome OS from Linux to Fuchsia sounds plausible, while earlier comment complaining about Fuchsia being proprietary is nonsense.
ChromeOS/ChromiumOS uses portage for its build system, to produce a signed, read-only image that the OS can boot from. CoreOS uses the same tooling FWIW: http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/build
This is why you can’t just install random packages onto the parent OS. Any additional software needs to run in some overlay filesystem or sandbox.
Package managers which are build for source packages (e.g. ebuilds/exheres) have a much more complicated logic running in the background, come up with much harder to solve problems and are a lot slower (orders of magnitude).
The only aspect where this setup is superior than e.g. arch + pacman is when it comes to using source packages on the same system. So I guess that is nothing you would like to use on a Chromebook anyway. Therefore, using a Debian container is a reasonable choice, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, but not on Chrome OS.
sudo pkcon install <package>
These days it's all pacman for me though.
Windows has a lot of users just because they're familiar with it.
The same goes for Debian derivatives. A lot of people's first Linux distro is Ubuntu, so they get familiar with apt and don't have a compelling reason to use anything else.
I'm a perfect example. The second package-manager I really interacted with was Alpine's "apk", and that's only because I've been working with Docker pretty extensively over the last year.
It's been a while, but my understanding is redhat figured out dependency resolution too, though.
About 20 years ago, give or take.
Even on the slowest systems I still have access to (64MB VPS, RasPi 1), apt-get is reasonably quick and responsive.
Nothing these days. I guess more desktop users are familiar with it because ubuntu + mint make up a lot of the Desktop market share.
A lot of work is done to ensure smooth upgrades, or prevent packages from breaking each other by overwriting files, breaking configurations, changing ownership of some files or directories and so on.
For example if chromeos users wanted to install steam on their system having a Debian base would help.
Aside from this I'm really surprised that they are using Wayland instead of X11, this decision ought to bring some stability issues until Wayland gets widely adopted.
If I were to guess this feature has been added as a freetime project amongst Google employees. As such, I don't think we can expect continuity. If those developers go away/get reassigned or lose enthusiasm, I don't think Google would allocate resources to maintain a linux VM inside their OS. IMHO if it were important to Google that users could be able to use Linux apps, they would've strived for binary compatibility with Linux from the beginning.
I believe the impetus was enabling Android app development on Chrome OS. Google first said they were working on that a long time ago. I guess in the process of doing so they figured they might as well expand the functionality to cover all Linux apps, not just Android Studio.
As such, I expect support will be stable. Chrome OS in general has had very solid support, too.
"That’s because Google is going to start shipping Chrome OS with a custom virtual machine that runs Debian Stretch, the current stable version of the operating system."
The container itself is running Debian Stretch. However, for someone not using this it can be easily misinterpreted to mean a VM. Functionally it's not much different.
AFAIK Portage, Gentoo's package manage, is used only to build the rootfs image. Because Gentoo is really a meta distribution. This distinction is not an empty slogan. You can use Gentoo as a build system to create separate operating system, just like ChromeOS does.
You can use of course use Gentoo directly and prepare tailor built binary packages to distribute them to users. Then it would be a bit more similar to other distributions. But ChromeOS is not an ordinary distribution. It's update model is not really compatible with typical distribution model. It's one of the greatest strengths of the system. You could shoehorn packages meta data, but it would be pointless, because whole image is updated at once.
It's a stupid idea from start to finish. You shouldn't try to make sense of it.
And it depresses me. Its success demonstrates that Linux desktops could catch on in the mainstream market just fine if they had the marketing budget, brand recognition, and vendor support of Google. This team of idiots could have ended the hegemony of Microsoft and Apple for good.
The problem with Linux on the mainstream is Linux, it has nothing to do with not having a huge brand like Google's nor with marketing, just ask Dell. Linux offers exactly what the enterprise market needs and it is a huge success, far bigger than anyone in the 90s ever imagined. Linux does not offer what the mainstream market demands and no amount of marketing or brand recognition can change that.
The problems with the Linux desktop that I can see are poor driver support and a limited software selection. OEM support solves the driver support problem and Chrome OS demonstrates that people are willing to use a system with no software at all. What else makes it unsuitable for most users?
Anyway, short answer: because they heavily customized and changed a lot of things. They could not have done this with an existing Distro so easy. And sad as it is -> their goal is and was not to help the linux desktop - it is to help the google Eco system. Cloud-Service. Webapp. Makes perfect sense. No matter how much you want them to support the things you (or me) want.
We linux users are not the target group, target group are ordinary newbs who like that everything just runs and don't like that their exe files somehow don't run anymore. But the ones who handle exe files per hand are rapidly declining I guess.
Had Linux not appeared on the scene, BSD kept busy with their ongoing trial and UNIX like OSes would be surely much less relevant today.
Maybe so. And as I said, that makes me sad. People who work hard to develop full-featured and high-quality software fail to make headway, but people who cynically manipulate others to lock them in to one company while providing nothing of value make millions. It's perfectly rational and perfectly disgusting.
Chrome OS is worthless for its users. I don't much care how good it is for Google.
Frankly, the more I use a ChromeBook myself, the less I want to use another mainstream OS for day-to-day computing. I don't game or do much photo / video editing so I go weeks at the time on the ChromeBook without reaching for something else. It's nice having a computer that I genuinely don't need to think about.
Next step is ditching my work-provided Windows laptop for a ChromeBook...
Local storage is available on later instances of ChromeOS I gather.
https://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/everything-you-can-do-offline...
Secondly, I never claimed Chromebooks don't work offline. I claimed they are nearly useless offline, which they are. They default to storing things in the cloud and using web apps. Getting them to be useful offline requires effort from the user and special effort from the developers of any offline web apps. The fact that users have to keep track of where all their data and programs live is needless complexity which is quite opposed to Chrome OS's supposed focus on ease of use.
I don't know if I am the only one, but this one made me laugh.
Of course, you can do away with these checks by entering developer mode.
True story. Son was turning his Win PC off for the night and it indicated do not shut off as updating. Told him just leave it on for the night. Wake up in the morning and still do not turn off updating. Just a terrible UX.
I am a huge fan of CBs. Now GNU/Linux support makes it that much better.
[0] https://anbox.io/
Is this going to be different with this approach?
And yes, virtio-gpu is coming.
Chrome OS is, as the name suggests, an OS.
> "Now, it’s probably only a matter of hours before somebody starts running Windows apps in Chrome OS with the help of the Wine emulator."
Someone should also tell them about running Crossover on Chrome OS via Android[2], which has already been possible for months!
[1] https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/87...
[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.codeweaver...
On the other hand I have seen products being launched at Google I/O and being non existant for months. Tensorflow lite took months to come out. Why would you do this? Real artists ship and I don't get why you would announce something and have an indefinite launch date? By the time tensorflow lite came out Apple had coreml out for months and was somewhat usable.
However, emulating has also often been used to describe software that implements the opcodes of a foreign instruction set in software. For example, a program that implements 6502 opcodes and related modules that allows you to play NES games on a PC. Wine isn't an emulator of this type. Wine relies on the fact that x86 Windows programs can be made to run on x86 Linux by means of implementing everything I stated in the first paragraph. It does not allow for running x86 Windows programs on a SPARC machine (QEMU can assist in doing this, but that's a digression...). Wine is not an ISA emulation, but it is an ABI emulation.
And this whole set of applications belongs to which category? https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/overlays/chromi...
Especially this one - Glibc. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/overlays/chromi...
Web apps and Android apps are more than fine for the large majority of Chrome OS users.
But what I like is the analytics. It is all about taking the gut out of matching students and teachers.
I have 8 kids and you get a link with everything broken down by kid and can drill down.
I'm def considering getting a pixelbook for my main machine this year now.
Is each desktop application going to live in its own sandbox?
But I will buy a pixelbook in an instant if I can get a fully functional, no bullshit with having to install custom kernels or new firmware or god only knows what and what will happen to the hardware and what just won't work despite The Internet insisting it does, insisting! Oh Lordy. A Linux environment available on decent hardware, without having to MacGyver it together with bubble gum and safety pins? Where things like power management actually work? What other options are there, really, for that? Purism? Dell XPS13! All of those are actually more expensive than the Pixelbook. (Though the Dell thing does look pretty sweet.) Hell, I may go order one now.
There's a good community of folks over at https://www.reddit.com/r/Crostini/ who have been tinkering with this for quite some time.
3:2? No thanks I don't really want black bars when watching movies...
What I'd really really like is something with the build quality (especially the touchpad!) of a MacBook Pro, with decent and recent hardware, first class Linux support for all features, support for both USB-C and "old" USB and a decent keyboard with it. And that without paying more than for an technologically outdated yet still top-of-the-line MBP...
As for trackpads, Apple keep making them larger and larger, so a ThinkPad trackpad is no smaller than a MacBook from a few years ago. The keyboard is surely the primary concern.
Says the macOS user... did you even get a newer version of bash yet? I heard even Debian stable has a newer bash version than macOS.
Software is trivial to upgrade and that's a very silly comparison to make.
You are completely missing the point, my point was that Apple is so bad of a company that they completely refuse to ship with GPLv3 software, they are nothing but a bunch of immoral fascists.
Take take take, but never give anything back. The GNU project did everything right by moving to GPLv3.
And last time I checked, brew doesn't work so well when you have multiples users on the same system.
Yep. The Apple death count must be nearing that of WWII by now surely.
I suggest you educate yourself on the matter, because judging by your comment, I can clearly see you're ignorant about the subject.
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html
OS X and iOS developers are pretty fine with the OS tooling.
That's because they are "fine" with anything Apple does, I guess removing ports wasn't enough for them to see beyond their own stupidity.
OS X developers have to be the dumbest of them all, if Apple tells them to jump off a bridge they probably would too.
They are blind for a brand.
If you want UNIX development, without any regard for OS X and iOS, then go sponsor hardware vendors selling Linux and BSD based systems.
There are no missing features that would prevent developing Swift and Objective-C applications.
This comment alone proves that Apple developers are a bunch of clueless idiots.
If you want to do that buy hardware from Linux vendors like Dell and System76.
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html
Nowadays I use whatever makes business sense.
You are thinking of cast iron, probably.
My MBP is going on 6 years old and I have not been gentle with it. In fact I have dropped it on concrete multiple times. It is dented and scraped, the hinge is crooked. It still works perfectly. My previous, plastic laptop (also a Mac) had to have its shell replaced twice (under warranty) in less time than that.
You may feel that aluminum is not worth the trade-offs or the cost, and that's fine, but I want to be clear, the MBP's build quality is not just a shiny facade.
My dream computer would be
- ThinkPad like casing. Light weight, yet durable. Not some cheap flimsy plastics.
- XPS like thin bezel display, with Apple like screen with colour calibration. While at it, please give me a 16:10 or some other tall displays where I can have more vertical space. 16:9 is only good for media and it is a secondary use-case on my laptop.
- Components with wider/open source drivers like intel wireless card instead of the Broadcom stuff. Some bluetooth module that has proper working Linux drivers.
- Trackpad - Mac like smooth trackpad. It's been decades and nothing comes even close to what Apple could do.
- Decent 12 hour real world battery life. I don't care if it makes the laptop slightly thicker or heavier - it is worth it.
- Keyboard with a good bit of travel - Like a ThinkPad.
- No Dongle life. Want USB-A, USB-C, HDMI, MiniDP, Full size SD card slot.
So far, only MacBook pro (with VMs running Linux) comes closest with several compromises.
I like how it feels and looks. Is that so wrong?
I have used an X1 Carbon for the last year but when I can I will probably go back to the MBP for the trackpad. I guess different people just have different preferences?
Let's be happy there's enough choices to hopefully satisfy everyone.
Asus and Lenovo have great ultra books running Win10. Ultimate Office 365 support + good battery life. But it lacks a terminal + integrated UNIX utilities.
I prefer to use Linux on my laptop, but at the moment, it is lacking office 365 support. On some brands there is a serious battery issue.
Next option is macOS which has sane shell. But I don't understand, why is there such a huge race toward making thinner laptops? Previous generation MBP, was already thin enough. Consumers demanded thinner laptops. And now I have to bare with thinner MBP but less reliable battery power, fewer ports and a very noisy keyboard (which is disturbing everyone in library).
Why would a comparison with products from years ago be valid here?
The touchpad is inferior to the trackpoint, so I'd much rather they get rid of it entirely instead.
However, even though I use the keyboard more than the trackpad, I find that I still rather use a MBP because the difference between the trackpads is greater than the difference between the keyboards. Also I like the screen on the MBP better.
https://puri.sm/products/librem-13/
I genuinely never understand people that watch movies on laptops. I find it a wholly unenjoyable experience.
Do you own a TV? You’re missing so much of the experience watching a movie on anything smaller than 45” and TVs are dirt cheap these days. I saw a 65” the other day for $250...
genuinely curious: given the same resolution, what's the difference between watching a e.g. a 45" from your couch and watching something like a 20" while getting closer to the screen until it covers the same angle of view? Just the fact that it's (probably) more relaxing for your eyes to focus on relatively distant objects?
I genuinely don't understand why people put huge TV screens in their small rooms given that a smaller screen at closer distance produces the same visual effect.
But there are many, many circumstances why you'd watch TV on a laptop. I don't believe airlines would look too fondly on someone dragging their 65" TV on board.
Are go to for the kids are the Acer 14s. Just incredible machines for the money. All aluminum chassis, peppy performance, long battery life, etc. Get them Acer refurb for about $200. Best value you can get.
Wife uses a CB+ and me a PB.
Wife spends a ton of time on her CB+ and does often time watch movies on it. While I never do on my PB. Often times she will be watching a movie on hers laying in our bed while I am watching something on our TV in our bedroom.
surface book appears to as well, but i don't have one of them to vouch for
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/24/16007692/huawei-matebook-...
It's not better. It's usually just people projecting their personal preferences as though they should apply to everyone else.
Every one is different, so as long as the individual is content with what they've got, it doesn't really matter what aspect ratio they're using.
Still holding out until Crostini is supported by more Chromebook manufacturers and can be used outside of developer mode before I get one.
You have to be careful about which processor powers your Chromebook if you want to do non chrome os things. The processors from the mainstream core line (Haswell, Skylake) etc do pretty well, although they're usually fairly low clocked. The chromebooks with Atom or ARM processors usually have a harder time booting other things, and the ARM linux ecosystem is a lot trickier than the x86-64 ecosystem.
Avoiding Atom processors is harder than it looks, because Intel keeps changing the branding, probably to confuse users.
A couple weeks ago I did a fresh install with Manjaro. With this the installation process goes down to around 10 minutes and everything (bluetooth, touchpad, function keys, optirun etc.) works out of the box.
What sort of issues did you have?
https://www.xda-developers.com/chrome-os-linux-app-support-g...
My prediction: VS Code / Pixelbook becomes a formidable devenv for many in the coming months ;)
You can always try Neverware on a live usb to get a taste
https://www.neverware.com/freedownload
:)
https://youtu.be/flU42CTF3MQ?t=1970
Purchased all Acer refurb for about $200 USD. One was $180.
You just can not get any other laptop that is all metal, peppy performance, incredible security, etc for so cheap.
Also…
>…meaning that even less powerful machines should be able to handle a code editor without issues.
Being able to run a code editor is a statement of a machine's power and system optimization? Welcome to the wonderful world of Electron apps.
>…Wine emulator
Wine is not an emulator, for crying out loud.
They hardly can keep up with Mac and Windows...
Adobe will do pretty fine with Windows and OS X customers.
To those of us that used it back when Wine officially stood for Windows Emulator, people nowadays getting all upset on this point is an ever green source of amusement.
[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.misc/_g3F2H4ie...
No, WINE is a third party implementation of Windows APIs, that doesn't make it an emulator. Otherwise, Oracle JDK would be an "OpenJDK emulator".
Not in Europe they aren't, here even as "Deal of day" they hardly get a buyer on consumer shops, always stuck alone in a dark corner of the shop, if they are there at all.
I travel regularly around central and southern Europe.
So far the only consumer shops I ever saw them on sale were the Media Markt, Saturn, FNAC chains.
Usually they have like one or two devices on show, and quite often with some kind of discount deal.
It reminds me of the Netbook Linux days, when such deals would be going for weeks until finally someone bought them.
I'm running Kubuntu on a 1 year old XPS 13 and most things work quite well. I do however miss a nice mail clients, reliable notifications about meetings, daily schedule, etc. I've tried almost everything available on Linux and while some things do work, they either are not reliable enough (with cloud APIs, etc) or are too ugly and clunky to use.
I'll wait for the next Pixelbook before jumping ship. Hopefully, Linux apps support would have matured enough by then.
It's quite a powerful and polished mail app. The disadvantage is that it breaks down on me sometimes and by default it adds tracking features to your email, so you'll have to turn that off.
I was toying with the idea of setting up my docker cli in crouton to connect to a docker daemon I host via a VPS (cheap Lightsail box maybe). I think this will work fine.. it's just the docker daemon that won't run because the ChromeOS kernel locks it out of features it needs. Then I could do local dev but any docker calls would run remotely.
But I'm sure that will have its quirks.. if I could run lightweight containers (node, redis, etc) directly on my Chromebook then I'd prefer that.
Source: I've been testing Crostini for a while now, and Docker works great!
I just installed GalliumOS on it (a native Linux OS tuned for Chromebooks).
It works really well.
Yes docker is working with this new funtionality. You use on a machine container. Which runs on a VM.
Hooray.
This isn't more Linux, this is a compatibility step towards less Linux being spun as something else.
The complaining on HN is becoming just baffling. seems for the sake of just complaining.
We finally have a machine that support GNU/Linux applications out of the box and from the UI standpoint basically a first class citizen. But the most secure GNU/Linux machine you can get.
Honestly there is no reason the same technique being used by Google could not have been also done by MS and/or Apple.
Could even have been a standard. Click, container comes down, spins up, do what you need, disappears.
It is a bit insane we have basically the same hardware for Windows, Macs and ChromeOS and we make each different in the OS.
I get some CBs are ARM but really not as common as people think.
When measured in terms of number of devices actually running a Linux kernel on physical hardware, in a post-Fuchsia Chrome OS world there will be less Linux kernels executing on devices at the bare metal, according to my prediction.
Between this and Android pivoting to Fuchsia, the number of non-server devices executing Linux kernels on physical hardware will have dropped substantially.
For anyone who values having a well-supported GPL kernel with maintained and modern hardware drivers as an option it should be viewed as incrementally more bad news.
Microsoft and WSL is another facet of this attack on the Linux kernel. By providing a way to run a Linux userspace directly from existing proprietary Windows installs, they remove a bulk of the impetus a Windows user may have had to attempt running the Linux kernel directly on their physical hardware.
We're headed towards a future where relatively few people run Linux at all directly on non-server hardware. Which enters into a self-reinforcing scenario of even fewer people doing so because the kernel development community will be working with fewer resources to keep up with hardware developments.
I hope I'm wrong, but it's looking increasingly like the future of Linux-based clients will be IoT and raspberry pi like devices.
Plus how they implement Fuchsia is unclear or even for sure going to happen. ChromeOS already uses Skia so could be where they chose to tap into. But once again this has ZERO to do with this.
"it should be viewed as incrementally more bad news. "
Bizzare statement. GNU/Linux is using virtual drivers so if Fuchsia does a better and more secure job then all is good.
What you do not seem to understand is what Google has done is no different than if it was done on Windows or OS X.
It is purely a coincidence both are using the Linux kernel.
Running GNU/Linux on the client just got the biggest tail wind since it came out. This is a huge development for GNU/Linux on the desktop.
60% of K12 in the US is CBs. That is a big number of people now going to be able to use CBs to support things like AP CS 1 and 2.
BTW, how Google implemented is a huge plus to be intact if they moved to Fuchsia for ChromeOS not less.
Then, decided to check my other big usecase for when on the road - Netflix and other entertainment... total flop:
Resolution:
- Up to 1080p on Google Chrome
- Up to 480p on the Netflix app from the Google Play Store https://help.netflix.com/en/node/296
So if you want to save a movie for the flight, 480p is all you get...
Really wish we could get this functionality on iOS. iPad Pro is definitely big enough to code on. All it’s really missing is being able to run commandline tools.
So why VM if they provide a Wayland compositor? For security they can use apparmor or other sandboxing methods without resorting to full virtualization.