GrapheneOS-style sand-boxing for every app is long overdue in Linux. I'd love to have it's granular permissions for every single service. I'd love to have the battery management, the unified settings UI, the effortless disk encryption UX and key management.
Could you build it with SE Linux and a lot of glue? Yes, but nobody has. And doing it well, everywhere, would take a lot of hours.
Security seems like a solved problem on desktop already? Secure Boot + LUKS + SELinux gives anyone a pretty airtight userspace.
Microsoft/Apple have similarly secure set ups for their operating systems. Bitlocker by default (although there is a convenient backdoor for high-paying customers to protect against data loss and for law enforcement forensics) and Apple's Secure Enclave (only broken into by a certain five countries intelligence agencies and for older versions streaming pirates) should protect the average user pretty well.
Is there anything special about Android phones (especially budget ones) that makes them more secure? That's not what I've seen.
Weird that ChromeOS Flex is not mentioned, I wonder if we are just changing names with some added features. I don't think this is a OS, not based on Linux, like Fuchsia.
My dad always pronounced it a-luna-min, so my whole life I thought that there were 3 pronunciations, and the fact that there are only two correct ones feels strange to me. Not sure where he got that from, maybe he had special metal from the moon.
Cant wait till like Android on phones, OEMs are put in charge of delivering updates to laptops, and if your laptop is older than 3 years good luck.
Seems like a big downgrade compared to current ChromeOS where Google is in charge of all updates, or even Windows where Microsoft delivers the same updates to everyone.
Funny anecdote. I had a Mac Mini Core 2 Duo that Apple dropped support for relatively quickly. I installed Windows 7 on it and it was running a supported OS did years after Apple dropped support for it.
Windows 7 supported every piece of hardware on it. If Microsoft can make an operating system that supports third party computers - even those that were never meant to run it - without relying on the manufacturer, why can’t Google?
Installing Windows did not require Boot Camp from Apple.
The entire basis of this article/rumor is a single job posting on Google's careers website... Unifying Android across all devices is Google's holy grail and they've been hiring for that for most than a decade. I don't think we have to read into this much.
Unifying the two has never been an internal goal until 2024. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Everything before that has just been rumors and maybe one off projects by very small amounts of people. Rebasing ChromeOS on the lower half of Android is real and has been publicly announced. It is not necessarily the layers you will notice through. It's about unifying things like the kernel, display stack, power management, Bluetooth stack, etc. There are effectively divergent universes between ChromeOS and android (and the desktop Linux ecosystem) despite these things not necessarily requiring unique solutions.
Might be that the source of the rumour is an inside disclosure which pointed to the job listing as a published fact.
That's an extrapolation on my part, of course, but it's not inconsistent with how other leaks or disclosures have occurred. Can't speak to Android Authority's practices here.
If you, like me, were wondering why Google thinks it needs another operating system (ChromeOS, Android, Fuchsia - which is presumably dead (edit/turns out it's not/edit)) or where it fits in with the "stack":
> ChromeOS and Aluminium Operating System (ALOS) Commercial devices across all form factors (e.g. laptops, detachables, tablets, and boxes) and tiers (e.g., Chromebook, Chromebook Plus, AL Entry, AL Mass Premium, and AL Premium) that meets the needs of users and the business.
Sounds like ChromeOS is Android for entry/thin and similar PC's and Aluminum is more upmarket/premium.
Also, to be honest, this doesn't seem like "a new OS" to me, but rather a shift in Android's roadmap and an associated rebrand to try to push ChromeOS/Android upmarket to try and expand their "Devices with Gemini/Google AI as a first-class service/product" footprint beyond cell phones.
Given the push for arm in the consumer PC space, I can kinda see why google is renewing efforts here even if you set the AI stuff aside.
Aluminum and fuchsia are largely implementation details. The reasons these projects have value isn't necessary user facing, however they will have outcomes that enable products to be more useful with time. Maybe ai features are easier to ship, or it's less costly to maintain device support, or maybe they just save Google some money allowing for cheaper prices. Ultimately, they are closer to what's in the sausage than the sausage itself though and so most folks will not care. And that's okay.
Is there any Android app that is worth using on a PC? Not being snarky, I cant see anything on Android being good enough for a desktop app that is used regularly. Most of the Android apps I use are the 'best of the worse' and I have to use them because there is no other options.
Android accessibility is so not ready for PC. Navigate with keyboard and TalkBack and you'll hear "selected" everywhere which is redundant, since if TalkBack is speaking a UI element, it is selecting it for action. Apps aren't ready for keyboard either. They really, really aren't ready for a launch next year. But I'm sure they will. And few blind people will care because (almost) every blind person uses windows or an iPhone as their main computer and so Google will think they're doing just fine.
With the move to close down Android further and evil remote attestation, the PC is the last computing platform that leaves the user in somewhat control over the system. This is an indirect attack on our freedom, and I really don't want a future where two American companies somehow got a duopoly with full control over the hardware and software stack of all general purpose computing devices, and on top of that also act as the gatekeepers and distributors of all third-party software. Fuck. That. Shit.
I want full control, and by that I don't mean the ability to customize the color of my UI, but the ability to run whatever software I choose on the device that I supposedly own.
Sure, I may be able to technically be able to run Linux on a PC and retain my free choice for a while, but that is only until Google and Apple has finished selling their remote attestation security snake oil to governments, banks and service providers so that people like me will just be excluded from the digital society altogether.
Does anybody think Aluminium as a brand name is a good choice? Especially considering the intended expansion towards the premium market.
To me it sounds cheap, second-rate, ersatz. What you use if you cannot afford a better metal. Chrome is shiny, aluminium surfaces soon get dim again after any polishing attempt.
No one tech-savvy wants this. We are already sick of Google's Android lockdowns on mobile phones, and now coming after laptops and desktops?
What's that going to be like? Will developers have to beg to have control over devices they own? Will we be locked down on the store and have to manually install "unverified" software? Will I be able to take screenshots at will on MY computer, or get a black screen because Google decides so?
The list can go on and on ad nauseam. Given what Google has done on the mobile space I have zero interest in having the same autocratic experience to be replicated on the last type of devices (PCs and laptops) where we can really have true open choices and alternatives. Screw them.
GNu/Linux will never gain adoption on desktop because its fundamentally flawed: no stable abi, too many window manager/distro/libc/various dependency version targets, and also insufficient security model for random apps.
If you want a mainstream open source desktop OS, it will be Android.
We're now in a mixed computing era that is shaping the future of computing:
Ignoring niche OSes (eg consumer electronics such as TVs/dishwashers/etc)
- PC (Windows, Linux, macOS)
- Mobile (to simplify, this includes phones, watches and ongoing AR / AI progress based around Android and iOS with some Meta)
Mobile already "broke" the rules, and we have locked down devices with simplified "app stores" and more complex off-the-market OSes since each device is a unique SoC combination many times with closed-sourced blobs.
Web did a major change for desktop (which I guess part of the assumption for ChromeOS). but there are still some scenarios where native APIs are needed.
On the other hand, current Desktop OS market is a mess, Windows is focusing on intrusive features and enforcing user account, Apple is all about "notarizing" and making desktop similar to mobile, and Linux is diverged with multiple variants.
I really hope for opinionated Linux distribution promoted by a big player (I've always hoped Adobe or someone in the right size will understand the need and their ability to get enough common products to it).
Having said that,
Linux did great advancement over the years. Many companies including closed source already have some support and also gaming made great advancement.
Anyway,
Making a "locked os" won't do much. So unless Google plans to shoot their own leg, they'll need to make it open enough.
With their latest developer policy changes, what should make me think that this will be an open OS? And if they allow downloaded apps to be run, they'll be monitoring them in depth, not caring about privacy, since they have never cared about privacy. Every App has internet access and I cannot block or control it.
I struggle to imagine existing Android apps being useful in a desktop form factor.
It's not just about touch vs mouse/keyboard, it's the whole interaction design philosophy.
And it's not as if you can say that getting the Android developer experience on desktop is going to entice developers. Compose is decent, but the actual Android system APIs make Win32 look brilliant. At least Win32 is stable.
For this to be viable, there has to be a bigger strategy than just "Android apps and APIs on a desktop" -- because neither of those are appealing.
Users and developers will just stick with the web.
Yea! Finally an answer to the big brother Windows 11!
But isn't Google just as bad at spying on us? It's just trading one big brother for an another.
Oh yeah... didn't think of that.
Hey haven't you ever just ever considered using Linux?
54 comments
[ 626 ms ] story [ 2085 ms ] threadGrapheneOS-style sand-boxing for every app is long overdue in Linux. I'd love to have it's granular permissions for every single service. I'd love to have the battery management, the unified settings UI, the effortless disk encryption UX and key management.
Could you build it with SE Linux and a lot of glue? Yes, but nobody has. And doing it well, everywhere, would take a lot of hours.
edit: for all the iOS/MacOS whataboutists, i don't own any Apple devices for the same reasons, so not sure what point you are trying to make.
Microsoft/Apple have similarly secure set ups for their operating systems. Bitlocker by default (although there is a convenient backdoor for high-paying customers to protect against data loss and for law enforcement forensics) and Apple's Secure Enclave (only broken into by a certain five countries intelligence agencies and for older versions streaming pirates) should protect the average user pretty well.
Is there anything special about Android phones (especially budget ones) that makes them more secure? That's not what I've seen.
Seems like a big downgrade compared to current ChromeOS where Google is in charge of all updates, or even Windows where Microsoft delivers the same updates to everyone.
Windows 7 supported every piece of hardware on it. If Microsoft can make an operating system that supports third party computers - even those that were never meant to run it - without relying on the manufacturer, why can’t Google?
Installing Windows did not require Boot Camp from Apple.
That's an extrapolation on my part, of course, but it's not inconsistent with how other leaks or disclosures have occurred. Can't speak to Android Authority's practices here.
> ChromeOS and Aluminium Operating System (ALOS) Commercial devices across all form factors (e.g. laptops, detachables, tablets, and boxes) and tiers (e.g., Chromebook, Chromebook Plus, AL Entry, AL Mass Premium, and AL Premium) that meets the needs of users and the business.
Sounds like ChromeOS is Android for entry/thin and similar PC's and Aluminum is more upmarket/premium.
Also, to be honest, this doesn't seem like "a new OS" to me, but rather a shift in Android's roadmap and an associated rebrand to try to push ChromeOS/Android upmarket to try and expand their "Devices with Gemini/Google AI as a first-class service/product" footprint beyond cell phones.
Given the push for arm in the consumer PC space, I can kinda see why google is renewing efforts here even if you set the AI stuff aside.
I won't be using Aluminum OS.
And I'm not just talking about the extra I...
I want full control, and by that I don't mean the ability to customize the color of my UI, but the ability to run whatever software I choose on the device that I supposedly own.
Sure, I may be able to technically be able to run Linux on a PC and retain my free choice for a while, but that is only until Google and Apple has finished selling their remote attestation security snake oil to governments, banks and service providers so that people like me will just be excluded from the digital society altogether.
What's that going to be like? Will developers have to beg to have control over devices they own? Will we be locked down on the store and have to manually install "unverified" software? Will I be able to take screenshots at will on MY computer, or get a black screen because Google decides so?
The list can go on and on ad nauseam. Given what Google has done on the mobile space I have zero interest in having the same autocratic experience to be replicated on the last type of devices (PCs and laptops) where we can really have true open choices and alternatives. Screw them.
If you want a mainstream open source desktop OS, it will be Android.
- PC (Windows, Linux, macOS) - Mobile (to simplify, this includes phones, watches and ongoing AR / AI progress based around Android and iOS with some Meta)
Mobile already "broke" the rules, and we have locked down devices with simplified "app stores" and more complex off-the-market OSes since each device is a unique SoC combination many times with closed-sourced blobs.
Web did a major change for desktop (which I guess part of the assumption for ChromeOS). but there are still some scenarios where native APIs are needed.
On the other hand, current Desktop OS market is a mess, Windows is focusing on intrusive features and enforcing user account, Apple is all about "notarizing" and making desktop similar to mobile, and Linux is diverged with multiple variants.
I really hope for opinionated Linux distribution promoted by a big player (I've always hoped Adobe or someone in the right size will understand the need and their ability to get enough common products to it).
Having said that, Linux did great advancement over the years. Many companies including closed source already have some support and also gaming made great advancement.
Anyway, Making a "locked os" won't do much. So unless Google plans to shoot their own leg, they'll need to make it open enough.
It's not just about touch vs mouse/keyboard, it's the whole interaction design philosophy.
And it's not as if you can say that getting the Android developer experience on desktop is going to entice developers. Compose is decent, but the actual Android system APIs make Win32 look brilliant. At least Win32 is stable.
For this to be viable, there has to be a bigger strategy than just "Android apps and APIs on a desktop" -- because neither of those are appealing.
Users and developers will just stick with the web.