6 ms·

While I share your concerns, the user experience and security of ChromeOS is so much nicer than Windows, or Linux (haven't used a Mac for ages so can't compare)

While I share your concerns, the user experience and security of ChromeOS is so much nicer than Windows, or Linux (haven't used a Mac for ages so can't compare), for most tasks for most people. It's what I'd recommend to my grandparents. Also, completely disagree with your point about locking people into Google ecosystem - this is an OS that just runs a web browser. You need a Google account to log in, sure (actually, there's a guest mode too), but otherwise it's just a browser.

m-p-3 4y ago
Honestly, ChromeOS has been the best solution for my grandparents. I don't receive any calls to help them out with computer issues, which means I can spend more time with them instead of fixing stuff.
wyldfire 4y ago
I'm a fan of Linux and a fan of ChromeOS. but are the user experience and security better on ChromeOS than Linux? It's a bit simpler than linux but I'd say Linux is a close second.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I expect that the user experience and security are better on ChromeOS. But that depends on who you're trying to secure against. I'm not particularly worried about state-level actors or even garden-variety malware. But I am worried about surveillance capitalism, and that's what Google has built its business around. So I would not trust ChromeOS to be secure against Google. (Having said that, I still haven't been able to completely wean myself off Google services, so Google already has plenty of data on me, and gathers more every day.)
- TingPing 4y ago
  No they don't compare at all. ChromeOS is highly sandboxed and limited in a way desktop Linux can hardly do with normal apps.
- cowmoo728 4y ago
  I can't hand my non-technical family member a Linux device and expect it still work a week later without any intervention.
  - Self-Perfection 4y ago
    Do you have an example what might go wrong? I cannot imagine how can one mess up desktop Linux system without root privileges. Totally fill up the storage maybe?
    - aembleton 4y ago
      Delete .config
      - pjerem 4y ago
        Why would they delete files they cannot see without opting to see them ?
        aembleton 4y ago
        Because they hit ctrl+h instead of ctrl+v by accident once.
    - _nalply 4y ago
      They go to a shady website telling them to open a terminal and entering `sudo rm -fr /`, and you got unlucky that they entered the same password they used when logging in. But! It's your fault! They shouldn't be able to sudo! But that's the point. If they couldn't sudo, they could do something else as disastrous. It is difficult to secure a Linux system if the user is allowed to log in. If I needed to give someone access, I just would give him a freshly installed Linux virtual system, and if he deleted something important, it's his problem, not mine.
      - PlqnK 4y ago
        Without sudo privileges the worst they can do is nuke their own home directory, nothing else because that's the only path where they have write access.
- kweingar 4y ago
  (Disclaimer: I work on ChromeOS at Google) I would let anyone, even a total stranger, use my Chromebook in guest mode without a second thought (as long as I am reasonably sure they won’t steal it, break it, or disassemble it).
  - wyldfire 4y ago
    I guess in practice this doesn't come up often. but it's a powerful testament to your confidence in ChromeOS' security. You are implying that you don't feel the same way about a Linux user guest login. But why? What additional security measures are present in ChromeOS that are missing from popular Linux distros? I don't doubt the features are there, I'm genuinely curious what they are.
    - kweingar 4y ago
      You can harden and configure a Linux system to have many of the ChromeOS security features, but ChromeOS has all of these enabled by default: - All user data is encrypted at the login level. A guest user cannot access any other users’ data. Whereas in Ubuntu, for example, home directories have 755 permissions. - The Linux userspace in ChromeOS is actually running on KVM, so ChromeOS itself is insulated from user-installed malware. - Verified boot is huge. It is theoretically impossible for a modification to system-level software to survive a reboot. An attacker would have to modify the hardware too. And even if someone stole your Chromebook and modified the hardware to run malware, your data is still encrypted. If you are interested, a more thorough explanation can be found here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/security/chromeos_security_whitepaper.md#going-beyond-the-browser https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/sec...
      - cmatthias 4y ago
        What if the attacker is the one who built and shipped the OS to begin with? Everything you say is true, but it doesn't matter as long as user data (history, location, etc) is being shipped off to Google. Or, put another way: your threat model is a nefarious hacker or three-letter-agency who might secretly modify your hardware/software to get your data. Mine is surveillance capitalism. ChromeOS is secure under your threat model, but is _built by the attacker_ under mine. Both of these threat models are important to consider, but one is much more relevant to a larger portion of the population than the other.
gotbeans 4y ago
It all boils down to if what you want is an OS or a browser. If an OS is good enough feature and security wise though, there's no reason to just want the browser for the same price. > You need a Google account to log in This is absolutely blatany lock in, let's not sugarcoat or pretend it is not at least.
- neogodless 4y ago
  How is that lock-in? Lock-in to what? Could you not access your Google account on a Linux, macOS or Windows computer? Could you also simply not use that Google account while using those other systems?
- askvictor 4y ago
  First, you can use a Chromebook in guest mode, no Google account required (as said), but they you need to log in to your accounts every time (probably not a problem for people like my mum who log in every time they use a computer, and log out of everything when they're done. But more to the point, lock in is when you can't move your data to another system. You need a Google account to log in (these days that's not much different from Windows or Mac basically requiring MS/Mac accounts), but you don't need to use the account for anything else you do on the Chromebook; it's just a browser. If you want to, you can export any data that browser holds (passwords, bookmarks etc) and import into any other browser. That's not lock-in. Lock-in is forcing you to continue to use a particular vendor's product because getting out of it is too difficult (usually proprietary data formats ala MS Office, or not allowing cloud exports)
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
It is possible to create customised UNIX-like OS with custom kernels, read-only filesystems (mounted images) and writable directories mounted as tmpfs, booting from removable USB. Some call this "diskless". There are some drawbacks from using USB media such as lack of a good randomness source on boot but there are many advantages. Kernels and filesystems are just single files on the USB media and can be easily switched/updated. The system stays "clean". It is "like new" on every reboot. I was doing this with a netbook long before the so-called "Chromebook" came along.^1 The problem with Chromebooks is that they are designed to try to get people to "log in" to Google and to use "the [Google] cloud" for storage. Chromebooks in Guest Mode have an array of Google-authored daemons running the the background from read-only media. There is no way to disable them. You cannot even change the options passed to Chrome, e.g., to disable "Origin Trials". This setup is great if you love everything Google, but not great if you just like computers, you bought the computer for the hardware and drivers, and prefer to choose your own software. With these Google programs always running in the background, it means you do not have ultimate control over the computer, Google does. Another annoying thing is that ChromeOS, as well as Chrome, is a WIP. It is constantly changing. For example, bluetooth may be working fine and then suddenly there is an "automatic update" that breaks it. Then you wait for Google to fix it. I am not too fond of that approach to updates. For the systems I create I choose if and when to update them. I prefer stability as opposed to bleeding edge. Chromebooks OTOH assume the computer user is willingly along for the ride as the Chromebook development teams figures out what they are doing. 1. Google likes to boast about Chromebook security. Indeed the Google programs run from write-protected media, and the user is denied access to parts of the storage media, but this type of setup is nothing one could not achieve, before or after the arrival of the "Chromebook", using an open source project such as NetBSD. IMO, the benefit of the Chromebook project is the hardware support, not the deliberately limited storage, lack of user access to parts of the storage media, mandatory installation and running of Chrome and other Google programs. Additionally, one has to consider the "security" implications of an OS that steers people to use Chrome and cloud storage and to remain online. Those Google programs are constantly probing for internet access. ChromeOS is an OS that encourages risk-taking, i.e., giving more data to Google, including storing user data "in the cloud". I always make diskless systems to be offline by default. I avoid running X11 unless needed, staying in VGA textmode by default. There is no phoning home for "updates" to an advertising company. Chromebooks are not designed to be offline by default. ChromeOS forces users to launch a GUI and run Chrome. Google is always trying to collect more data about computer users. https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/22/chromebook-exploit-earns-researcher-second-100k-bounty/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/22/chromebook-explo...
reacharavindh 4y ago
You disagree about the lock-in with Google and then go on to acknowledge that one would need a Google account to login? I’m struggling to understand your logic. I would love a streamlined Linux desktop that is as technically sound as what ChromeOS does - isolations, integral updates etc. The fact that it comes with a forced leaky pipe to Google mothership to feed their ad monster is a non-starter. We at HN should stop calling it secure*(except you know Google tracking you). PS. I feel the same way about Windows. So, may be I’m just a grey beard yelling at the sky.
- kelnos 4y ago
  To be fair, requiring a Google Account alone isn't lock-in; lock-in would be if the OS forces you to use Google cloud services for a bunch of essential tasks, which could then make it hard to migrate to another platform. I'll admit that I don't know for a fact that it does require this, but I just kinda assumed it might. IIRC you can run Android apps on ChromeOS, and if you buy apps from the Play store, then you're stuck with ChromeOS if you want to continue to run them. Otherwise you lose that money you paid.
- askvictor 4y ago
  Lock-in is when you can't (or it's too difficult/expensive to) change to another platform. Requiring a Google login to access a Chromebook ain't that. You don't need to like or agree with it (it would be nice to have the option of a local-only login), but it's different to lock-in (just like privacy is different to security)
enriquto 4y ago
> this is an OS that just runs a web browser > You need a Google account to log in These two sentences are contradictory, aren't they? You do not need a google account to run a web browser. If it really was an OS that "just" ran a web browser, you would be able to run said browser without being forced to use a google account that spies on your web browsing behavior.

m-p-3 4y ago

Honestly, ChromeOS has been the best solution for my grandparents. I don't receive any calls to help them out with computer issues, which means I can spend more time with them instead of fixing stuff.

wyldfire 4y ago

I'm a fan of Linux and a fan of ChromeOS. but are the user experience and security better on ChromeOS than Linux? It's a bit simpler than linux but I'd say Linux is a close second.

kelnos 4y ago
I expect that the user experience and security are better on ChromeOS. But that depends on who you're trying to secure against. I'm not particularly worried about state-level actors or even garden-variety malware. But I am worried about surveillance capitalism, and that's what Google has built its business around. So I would not trust ChromeOS to be secure against Google. (Having said that, I still haven't been able to completely wean myself off Google services, so Google already has plenty of data on me, and gathers more every day.)
TingPing 4y ago
No they don't compare at all. ChromeOS is highly sandboxed and limited in a way desktop Linux can hardly do with normal apps.
cowmoo728 4y ago
I can't hand my non-technical family member a Linux device and expect it still work a week later without any intervention.
- Self-Perfection 4y ago
  Do you have an example what might go wrong? I cannot imagine how can one mess up desktop Linux system without root privileges. Totally fill up the storage maybe?
  - aembleton 4y ago
    Delete .config
    - pjerem 4y ago
      Why would they delete files they cannot see without opting to see them ?
      - aembleton 4y ago
        Because they hit ctrl+h instead of ctrl+v by accident once.
  - _nalply 4y ago
    They go to a shady website telling them to open a terminal and entering `sudo rm -fr /`, and you got unlucky that they entered the same password they used when logging in. But! It's your fault! They shouldn't be able to sudo! But that's the point. If they couldn't sudo, they could do something else as disastrous. It is difficult to secure a Linux system if the user is allowed to log in. If I needed to give someone access, I just would give him a freshly installed Linux virtual system, and if he deleted something important, it's his problem, not mine.
    - PlqnK 4y ago
      Without sudo privileges the worst they can do is nuke their own home directory, nothing else because that's the only path where they have write access.
kweingar 4y ago
(Disclaimer: I work on ChromeOS at Google) I would let anyone, even a total stranger, use my Chromebook in guest mode without a second thought (as long as I am reasonably sure they won’t steal it, break it, or disassemble it).
- wyldfire 4y ago
  I guess in practice this doesn't come up often. but it's a powerful testament to your confidence in ChromeOS' security. You are implying that you don't feel the same way about a Linux user guest login. But why? What additional security measures are present in ChromeOS that are missing from popular Linux distros? I don't doubt the features are there, I'm genuinely curious what they are.
  - kweingar 4y ago
    You can harden and configure a Linux system to have many of the ChromeOS security features, but ChromeOS has all of these enabled by default: - All user data is encrypted at the login level. A guest user cannot access any other users’ data. Whereas in Ubuntu, for example, home directories have 755 permissions. - The Linux userspace in ChromeOS is actually running on KVM, so ChromeOS itself is insulated from user-installed malware. - Verified boot is huge. It is theoretically impossible for a modification to system-level software to survive a reboot. An attacker would have to modify the hardware too. And even if someone stole your Chromebook and modified the hardware to run malware, your data is still encrypted. If you are interested, a more thorough explanation can be found here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/security/chromeos_security_whitepaper.md#going-beyond-the-browser https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/sec...
    - cmatthias 4y ago
      What if the attacker is the one who built and shipped the OS to begin with? Everything you say is true, but it doesn't matter as long as user data (history, location, etc) is being shipped off to Google. Or, put another way: your threat model is a nefarious hacker or three-letter-agency who might secretly modify your hardware/software to get your data. Mine is surveillance capitalism. ChromeOS is secure under your threat model, but is _built by the attacker_ under mine. Both of these threat models are important to consider, but one is much more relevant to a larger portion of the population than the other.

gotbeans 4y ago

It all boils down to if what you want is an OS or a browser. If an OS is good enough feature and security wise though, there's no reason to just want the browser for the same price. > You need a Google account to log in This is absolutely blatany lock in, let's not sugarcoat or pretend it is not at least.

neogodless 4y ago
How is that lock-in? Lock-in to what? Could you not access your Google account on a Linux, macOS or Windows computer? Could you also simply not use that Google account while using those other systems?
askvictor 4y ago
First, you can use a Chromebook in guest mode, no Google account required (as said), but they you need to log in to your accounts every time (probably not a problem for people like my mum who log in every time they use a computer, and log out of everything when they're done. But more to the point, lock in is when you can't move your data to another system. You need a Google account to log in (these days that's not much different from Windows or Mac basically requiring MS/Mac accounts), but you don't need to use the account for anything else you do on the Chromebook; it's just a browser. If you want to, you can export any data that browser holds (passwords, bookmarks etc) and import into any other browser. That's not lock-in. Lock-in is forcing you to continue to use a particular vendor's product because getting out of it is too difficult (usually proprietary data formats ala MS Office, or not allowing cloud exports)

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

It is possible to create customised UNIX-like OS with custom kernels, read-only filesystems (mounted images) and writable directories mounted as tmpfs, booting from removable USB. Some call this "diskless". There are some drawbacks from using USB media such as lack of a good randomness source on boot but there are many advantages. Kernels and filesystems are just single files on the USB media and can be easily switched/updated. The system stays "clean". It is "like new" on every reboot. I was doing this with a netbook long before the so-called "Chromebook" came along.^1 The problem with Chromebooks is that they are designed to try to get people to "log in" to Google and to use "the [Google] cloud" for storage. Chromebooks in Guest Mode have an array of Google-authored daemons running the the background from read-only media. There is no way to disable them. You cannot even change the options passed to Chrome, e.g., to disable "Origin Trials". This setup is great if you love everything Google, but not great if you just like computers, you bought the computer for the hardware and drivers, and prefer to choose your own software. With these Google programs always running in the background, it means you do not have ultimate control over the computer, Google does. Another annoying thing is that ChromeOS, as well as Chrome, is a WIP. It is constantly changing. For example, bluetooth may be working fine and then suddenly there is an "automatic update" that breaks it. Then you wait for Google to fix it. I am not too fond of that approach to updates. For the systems I create I choose if and when to update them. I prefer stability as opposed to bleeding edge. Chromebooks OTOH assume the computer user is willingly along for the ride as the Chromebook development teams figures out what they are doing. 1. Google likes to boast about Chromebook security. Indeed the Google programs run from write-protected media, and the user is denied access to parts of the storage media, but this type of setup is nothing one could not achieve, before or after the arrival of the "Chromebook", using an open source project such as NetBSD. IMO, the benefit of the Chromebook project is the hardware support, not the deliberately limited storage, lack of user access to parts of the storage media, mandatory installation and running of Chrome and other Google programs. Additionally, one has to consider the "security" implications of an OS that steers people to use Chrome and cloud storage and to remain online. Those Google programs are constantly probing for internet access. ChromeOS is an OS that encourages risk-taking, i.e., giving more data to Google, including storing user data "in the cloud". I always make diskless systems to be offline by default. I avoid running X11 unless needed, staying in VGA textmode by default. There is no phoning home for "updates" to an advertising company. Chromebooks are not designed to be offline by default. ChromeOS forces users to launch a GUI and run Chrome. Google is always trying to collect more data about computer users. https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/22/chromebook-exploit-earns-researcher-second-100k-bounty/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/22/chromebook-explo...

reacharavindh 4y ago

You disagree about the lock-in with Google and then go on to acknowledge that one would need a Google account to login? I’m struggling to understand your logic. I would love a streamlined Linux desktop that is as technically sound as what ChromeOS does - isolations, integral updates etc. The fact that it comes with a forced leaky pipe to Google mothership to feed their ad monster is a non-starter. We at HN should stop calling it secure*(except you know Google tracking you). PS. I feel the same way about Windows. So, may be I’m just a grey beard yelling at the sky.

kelnos 4y ago
To be fair, requiring a Google Account alone isn't lock-in; lock-in would be if the OS forces you to use Google cloud services for a bunch of essential tasks, which could then make it hard to migrate to another platform. I'll admit that I don't know for a fact that it does require this, but I just kinda assumed it might. IIRC you can run Android apps on ChromeOS, and if you buy apps from the Play store, then you're stuck with ChromeOS if you want to continue to run them. Otherwise you lose that money you paid.
askvictor 4y ago
Lock-in is when you can't (or it's too difficult/expensive to) change to another platform. Requiring a Google login to access a Chromebook ain't that. You don't need to like or agree with it (it would be nice to have the option of a local-only login), but it's different to lock-in (just like privacy is different to security)

enriquto 4y ago

> this is an OS that just runs a web browser > You need a Google account to log in These two sentences are contradictory, aren't they? You do not need a google account to run a web browser. If it really was an OS that "just" ran a web browser, you would be able to run said browser without being forced to use a google account that spies on your web browsing behavior.