7 ms·

Maybe Pinterest is a poor example, but there are Android apps that offer functionality unavailable in Linux and Chrome. For example I used Word for Android to e

Maybe Pinterest is a poor example, but there are Android apps that offer functionality unavailable in Linux and Chrome. For example I used Word for Android to edit a Word document with suggestions and comments (could not do that in Office 365 apparently). Actually I'm pretty sure there are many Android apps that offer functionality unavailable on Windows and OS X. Also, it's nice to have the possibility to mess around with Debian in the VM, yet always have a browser available and with the best security.

hedora 7y ago
> always have a browser available and with the best security. But it won’t be secure, because the whole point of Chrome is to feed your data back to Google. Being able to wipe the disk, install some other Linux, and run an (ephemeral?) android emulator in a sandbox would be nice though.
- skybrian 7y ago
  This is a peculiar definition of security advocated by people who think Google is the enemy. For other people, Google having some access to your data is no more a security breach than your bank seeing your bank transactions or Kaiser having your medical records. (Internal controls do matter for defense in depth, but that's different.)
  - ngcc_hk 7y ago
    Not sure about this line of argument. Bank has my data but only those trusted my transaction with them. Google is much more general in nature. Storage is not a transaction. Safety deposit does not mean the bank shall open it already or any time they like without telling me and ask for permission.
- cbolton 7y ago
  > But it won’t be secure, because the whole point of Chrome is to feed your data back to Google. I trust Google more than other companies to handle my data with care. Pragmatically speaking, I think it's more likely to get hacked with a ransomware on Windows or OS X, than to suffer of <something> because of the data Google has on you. I'm not even sure what this hypothetical something is? Also, the amount of data Google gets specifically from Chrome OS users is negligible, compared to what they get through other means such as GMail (which Chrome OS users presumably use already).
  - xg15 7y ago
    The discussion about the "input" has been had often enough, but I'm also concerned about the "output" part by now. If they find that the Linux support does not fit their strategy for some reason, they could choose to "retire" the feature tomorrow and remotely remove it from all Chromebooks. If they find software X to conflict with their business interests or obligations, they can just ban it. As a user without control over your device, there is nothing you can do about it.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Security and privacy go hand-in-hand, but are not the same thing.
larrik 7y ago
You can do that in Office 365, but it's janky as hell in FireFox. If you are collaborating simultaneously it gets way worse. I didn't think to try Chrome at the time, though.
komali2 7y ago
Big usecase for me is a linux platform with a functional version of Onenote: the android version. The web version doesn't take handwritten notes well at all on any convertible device I've tried it on, the android version works perfectly.
chupasaurus 7y ago
Anbox[0] does exactly what Google made available for ChromeOS in reverse: it runs Android apps inside Linux containers. [0]https://github.com/anbox/anbox https://github.com/anbox/anbox
- solarkraft 7y ago
  Does Chrome OS run Linux apps in Android containers? Edit: Thanks for pointing to this. I have been wishing for this for a while.
  - cbolton 7y ago
    Linux apps are run in an unprivileged container, inside a VM that uses a stripped down kernel. By default all apps run in the same container in the same VM, but that can be controlled by the user (through the command-line, there's no GUI for that yet). This is detailed here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/master/containers_and_vms.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/master/c... Android apps are run directly in a container (and each Android app runs in a sort of container, whether on smartphones or on chromebooks). See https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform2/+/master/arc/container-bundle/README.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform2/+/mas...
sdrothrock 7y ago
Instagram might be a better example -- Instagram messaging isn't available on the browser version at all. On OS X, there are some third-party programs available to make messaging available, all of varying quality.
lone_haxx0r 7y ago
All those are artificial limitations imposed by the app developers. I'm not judging you, as you are not the app developer, but I don't use software where the developer is my adversary. I also recognize most people aren't me, but still I wonder "Why would I want to run software that's intentionally crappy?"
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  I think the charitable interpretation is that some of those apps were written and published only for Android. In that case, comparable functionality wasn't artificially removed from desktop versions, it just never existed in the first place.

hedora 7y ago

> always have a browser available and with the best security. But it won’t be secure, because the whole point of Chrome is to feed your data back to Google. Being able to wipe the disk, install some other Linux, and run an (ephemeral?) android emulator in a sandbox would be nice though.

skybrian 7y ago
This is a peculiar definition of security advocated by people who think Google is the enemy. For other people, Google having some access to your data is no more a security breach than your bank seeing your bank transactions or Kaiser having your medical records. (Internal controls do matter for defense in depth, but that's different.)
- ngcc_hk 7y ago
  Not sure about this line of argument. Bank has my data but only those trusted my transaction with them. Google is much more general in nature. Storage is not a transaction. Safety deposit does not mean the bank shall open it already or any time they like without telling me and ask for permission.
cbolton 7y ago
> But it won’t be secure, because the whole point of Chrome is to feed your data back to Google. I trust Google more than other companies to handle my data with care. Pragmatically speaking, I think it's more likely to get hacked with a ransomware on Windows or OS X, than to suffer of <something> because of the data Google has on you. I'm not even sure what this hypothetical something is? Also, the amount of data Google gets specifically from Chrome OS users is negligible, compared to what they get through other means such as GMail (which Chrome OS users presumably use already).
- xg15 7y ago
  The discussion about the "input" has been had often enough, but I'm also concerned about the "output" part by now. If they find that the Linux support does not fit their strategy for some reason, they could choose to "retire" the feature tomorrow and remotely remove it from all Chromebooks. If they find software X to conflict with their business interests or obligations, they can just ban it. As a user without control over your device, there is nothing you can do about it.
saagarjha 7y ago
Security and privacy go hand-in-hand, but are not the same thing.

larrik 7y ago

You can do that in Office 365, but it's janky as hell in FireFox. If you are collaborating simultaneously it gets way worse. I didn't think to try Chrome at the time, though.

komali2 7y ago

Big usecase for me is a linux platform with a functional version of Onenote: the android version. The web version doesn't take handwritten notes well at all on any convertible device I've tried it on, the android version works perfectly.

chupasaurus 7y ago

Anbox[0] does exactly what Google made available for ChromeOS in reverse: it runs Android apps inside Linux containers. [0]https://github.com/anbox/anbox https://github.com/anbox/anbox

solarkraft 7y ago
Does Chrome OS run Linux apps in Android containers? Edit: Thanks for pointing to this. I have been wishing for this for a while.
- cbolton 7y ago
  Linux apps are run in an unprivileged container, inside a VM that uses a stripped down kernel. By default all apps run in the same container in the same VM, but that can be controlled by the user (through the command-line, there's no GUI for that yet). This is detailed here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/master/containers_and_vms.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/master/c... Android apps are run directly in a container (and each Android app runs in a sort of container, whether on smartphones or on chromebooks). See https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform2/+/master/arc/container-bundle/README.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform2/+/mas...

sdrothrock 7y ago

Instagram might be a better example -- Instagram messaging isn't available on the browser version at all. On OS X, there are some third-party programs available to make messaging available, all of varying quality.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago

All those are artificial limitations imposed by the app developers. I'm not judging you, as you are not the app developer, but I don't use software where the developer is my adversary. I also recognize most people aren't me, but still I wonder "Why would I want to run software that's intentionally crappy?"

naniwaduni 7y ago
I think the charitable interpretation is that some of those apps were written and published only for Android. In that case, comparable functionality wasn't artificially removed from desktop versions, it just never existed in the first place.