3 ms·

And yet, google has induced millions of families to spend their limited computing budget on a "non-programmable" OS. Was it really beyond google's capabilities

by geebee 7y ago

And yet, google has induced millions of families to spend their limited computing budget on a "non-programmable" OS. Was it really beyond google's capabilities to make this a more open, perhaps linux based environment?

filoleg 7y ago
>And yet, google has induced millions of families to spend their limited computing budget on a "non-programmable" OS. As far as I am aware, chromebooks in education are provided by school districts, families aren't paying for it directly. You can always resort to "they are paying for it with taxes", but that would be the same for any non-chromebooks as well, except it would end up being more expensive (they won't be sold at as high of a loss as google can afford with chromebooks; count all that extra IT administration needed for non-chromebooks, adding a lot of costs as well). >Was it really beyond google's capabilities to make this a more open, perhaps linux based environment? It wasn't beyond their capabilities, it just wasn't a good idea for the purposes chromebooks were supposed to serve.
leggomylibro 7y ago
I dunno, I got a C202SA Chromebook specifically for software development. It was designed for schools, so it has a spillproof keyboard, shock-resistant case, 1.5-2 days of battery life with my usage, it only costs like $250, and it's smaller than 12". I installed GalliumOS, and I love it. It is a complete Linux environment (Ubuntu), and it easily meets my needs even if Firefox sometimes slows down a bit with Javascript-heavy web apps (I haven't installed Chrome.) My only complaint is the limited storage space. Google may not ship Chromebooks with a customizable OS, but they and the OEMs don't interfere with end users' ability to install one (yet), and I really appreciate that the education market has created so much demand for machines with this sort of form factor.
est31 7y ago
You can now have sandboxes where you can install desktop tools without having to enable stuff like developer mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI Sandboxing this stuff away is in general a good idea for protecting "normal" users. People often want to install pirated games or whatever and that's abused as a vector to get malware onto those devices. If that's not enough you can install entirely different operating systems and even bootloaders (if you want to).
ummonk 7y ago
These chromebooks are school-provided supplies, just like textbooks. Now for families that are voluntarily buying chromebooks for personal use, I don’t see them getting any value out of programmability regardless. Or are you one of those people who think everyone should be forced to learn coding?
recursive 7y ago
> beyond google's capabilities Perhaps beyond their better judgment. More open implies more ways to break.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
That's not an accurate description of chromebooks - they are not non-programmable os. In chromebooks out the last 1.x years, you can run android apps, dev tools, and linux too. Yet they are all safely sandboxed from the os, giving the benefit of no virii.

by geebee 7y ago

filoleg 7y ago

>And yet, google has induced millions of families to spend their limited computing budget on a "non-programmable" OS. As far as I am aware, chromebooks in education are provided by school districts, families aren't paying for it directly. You can always resort to "they are paying for it with taxes", but that would be the same for any non-chromebooks as well, except it would end up being more expensive (they won't be sold at as high of a loss as google can afford with chromebooks; count all that extra IT administration needed for non-chromebooks, adding a lot of costs as well). >Was it really beyond google's capabilities to make this a more open, perhaps linux based environment? It wasn't beyond their capabilities, it just wasn't a good idea for the purposes chromebooks were supposed to serve.

leggomylibro 7y ago

I dunno, I got a C202SA Chromebook specifically for software development. It was designed for schools, so it has a spillproof keyboard, shock-resistant case, 1.5-2 days of battery life with my usage, it only costs like $250, and it's smaller than 12". I installed GalliumOS, and I love it. It is a complete Linux environment (Ubuntu), and it easily meets my needs even if Firefox sometimes slows down a bit with Javascript-heavy web apps (I haven't installed Chrome.) My only complaint is the limited storage space. Google may not ship Chromebooks with a customizable OS, but they and the OEMs don't interfere with end users' ability to install one (yet), and I really appreciate that the education market has created so much demand for machines with this sort of form factor.

est31 7y ago

You can now have sandboxes where you can install desktop tools without having to enable stuff like developer mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI Sandboxing this stuff away is in general a good idea for protecting "normal" users. People often want to install pirated games or whatever and that's abused as a vector to get malware onto those devices. If that's not enough you can install entirely different operating systems and even bootloaders (if you want to).

ummonk 7y ago

These chromebooks are school-provided supplies, just like textbooks. Now for families that are voluntarily buying chromebooks for personal use, I don’t see them getting any value out of programmability regardless. Or are you one of those people who think everyone should be forced to learn coding?

recursive 7y ago

> beyond google's capabilities Perhaps beyond their better judgment. More open implies more ways to break.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

That's not an accurate description of chromebooks - they are not non-programmable os. In chromebooks out the last 1.x years, you can run android apps, dev tools, and linux too. Yet they are all safely sandboxed from the os, giving the benefit of no virii.