6 ms·

It's sad to see folks celebrating computing devices that are more extremely locked down than even the iDevices. A Windows PC/laptop is much more open than a Chr

It's sad to see folks celebrating computing devices that are more extremely locked down than even the iDevices. A Windows PC/laptop is much more open than a Chromebook. Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Only Google can make system and native apps, unlike the iDevices where you can access most of the native functionality even if you have to go through Apple's approval and you're not forced to upload all your information into Google's cloud with paltry local storage like 64GB on even a 1500 dollar machine where the information is mined by Google and is accessible to various parties like the Government. They now even track which retail stores people visit using their Android phones or iPhones. http://digiday.com/platforms/google-tracking/ http://digiday.com/platforms/google-tracking/ Looks like user and developer freedom are a big concern only when Apple or Microsoft infringe it(even though Win32 is much more open than ChromeOS, after all Google exploited it with the Chrome browser and bundling it with Flash and Java updates), but Google gets a free pass to lock everything down and still call itself open.

Sargos 12y ago
You can't release Firefox for an iDevice either as Apple does not allow native code that you need for Gecko so they are about equal in ability to run system apps front. Chromebooks also run Android apps so in the near future there will be a lot more flexibility in what kinds of either web apps or Android apps you can develop. Firefox already runs on Android and presumably will be available for Chrome OS within this year.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Sure Apple allows native code. Apple doesn't allow third-party interpreters/compilers if they can run code from untrusted sources (Codea and some Python environments get around it by only running locally written code).
- amyjess 12y ago
  Apple allows native code. What they don't allow is the use of any other rendering engine besides WebKit.
  - tkubacki 12y ago
    and that's fucking stupid - because web browsers can't compete on iOS
malkia 12y ago
There is crouton. Just github it.
- ntakasaki 12y ago
  Just because you can replace an OS does not mean it's open. It's about the ecosystem too. How much percentage of Chromebooks could be running Crouton or Linux? I wager less than 2%.
  - yohui 12y ago
    And how many Windows users installed Linux? If it's easier to run Linux or use Crouton on a Chromebook, then that's an argument against the view that they're less open than Windows or iOS.
  - EddieRingle 12y ago
    You're wrong. 100% of Chromebooks are running Linux. If you don't want to use Crouton you can bootstrap Linuxbrew and have access to pretty much any program you'd have on any other Linux distribution.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      not just Linux, but Gentoo Linux. the one everyone used to make fun of[1] before Google made it acceptable, and the only one not going the systemd route. 1. http://funroll-loops.teurasporsaat.org/ http://funroll-loops.teurasporsaat.org/
haberman 12y ago
> Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Can Google even make a Chrome browser for FirefoxOS? All of the PR surrounding the creation of FirefoxOS lauded how it was completely open because it was built on standards like HTML/CSS/JavaScript. But when Google does the same thing, it is an example of "locking everything down while still calling itself open." Mozilla has been arguing for years that compile-to-JavaScript is good enough (and based their opposition to NaCl/PNaCl on this principle). It is strange to see argument here against Google that "only true native will do", when that argument is what motivated NaCl/PNaCl to begin with.
- ntakasaki 12y ago
  Folks aren't talking about FirefoxOS replacing laptops or desktops though, unlike Chromebooks, if you follow this thread. Nor does Mozilla do a lot of cloud business nor is it in the business of tracking users for advertizing purposes. The PC software ecosystem has been open historically, even with Windows and OS X, and now there's talk of it being replaced by a completely closed alternative
  - yohui 12y ago
    > Nor does Mozilla do a lot of cloud business nor is it in the business of tracking users for advertizing purposes. What does that have to do with how open the devices are?
  - haberman 12y ago
    > now there's talk of it being replaced by a completely closed alternative If Mozilla and Google both do X, but Mozilla's actions are judged as "open" while Google's are judged as "completely closed," then the words open and closed are losing their meaning. How does Google's other business activities affect whether, in principle, an HTML/JavaScript-based OS is "open" or "closed"? Yes, it's true that OS platforms are moving towards sandboxing their apps more and more. This is mainly being driven by market forces, because more sandboxed platforms offer important features: - more resistant to malware - more secure (one stupid little app can't steal/delete all your data) But no one is taking away your Windows or OS X boxes. If people keep wanting them, manufacturers will keep making them. And while mainstream consumer devices are moving towards being more sandboxed, the ability to tinker is being addressed in other ways, like Raspberry Pi, which are very cool in their own way.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nightpool 12y ago
Actually, I upvoted this, but on reflection I think this is wrong. Here's why: - Most Chromebooks are freely bootloader unlocked, allowing any operating system to be loaded on them. - ChromeOS follows the same open source model as Chrome—Most core features open, with things like Flash/Wildvine/API keys held secret. - There are no native apps on ChromeOS—the correct question is not "Can Mozilla write a browser for ChromeOS", its "Can Mozilla write an app for ChromeOS" and "Can Mozilla write a browser for Chromebooks". Both of these statements are absolutely true. So I fail to see how Chromebooks are "more extremely locked down" than iDevices.
- KeytarHero 12y ago
  > There are no native apps on ChromeOS—the correct question is not "Can Mozilla write a browser for ChromeOS", its "Can Mozilla write an app for ChromeOS" Exactly - ChromeOS is a browser. "Can Mozilla write a browser for ChromeOS" makes about as much sense as "Can Mozilla write a browser for Chrome" or "Can Google write a browser for Internet Explorer". ...or it would have made that little sense before Mozilla wrote a browser in html: https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html
  - jrockway 12y ago
    The fact that the Chromium process is what's compositing windows is relatively uninteresting to the end user. It's Linux with a different GUI system. Ubuntu is ditching X11 also, as I understand it, so people other than Google appear to be prepared to redo Linux GUIs. There's Native Client, so you can write native code. I believe there are things like Emacs for NaCl, though Emacs is relatively useless until someone also ports your favorite programming language, version control, etc. to this model. For programmers, it's tough to have to redo everything, and because we tend not to use the ability to run unaudited native code to install viruses on our machine, it seems like a lot of work for no reason. For the end user, though, things are a bit different. It's a long road but ultimately computers that are easier to use and get fewer viruses is a worthy goal, I think. Someone could port Firefox to ChromeOS if they found it to be interesting. It would probably be quite difficult, however. I use ChromeOS as my primary workstation because it removes a lot of headaches I have with computers. I hate configuring things. I just want a terminal with Emacs and a web browser. ChromeOS gives me this. I log into my laptop and it has the exact same configuration as my desktop. ChromeOS auto-updates and takes 8 seconds to reboot afterwards. It doesn't nag me about auto-updates or checking that Windows Defender is up to date. All my work is saved somewhere other than my desktop/laptop, so if I lose the computer or get another one all I have to do is log in again. It's very much a thin-client thing, which some people hate, but I find quite suitable for my normal workflow. sshing into a Linux box is generally great for doing work. Using the GUIs is an effort in frustration. ChromeOS solved that issue for me. (Yup, I need an Internet connection to get to my ssh-able Linux box somewhere. I always have one.) If you are convinced Google is out to get you with configuration syncing, SSH clients that run "in a web browser" (but are native code and preserve all keybindings that you're used to), and "cloud storage" then ChromeOS is probably not for you. Enter developer mode (one keypress) and install your favorite Linux distribution instead -- all the patches necessary to make the devices work are in the open source tree, and unlike with Linux on random Windows laptops, your WiFi will work and you'll get the advertised battery life. I have given ChromeOS laptops to family members where my previous attempts at giving them computers have failed. A year later their laptops are running the latest version of the OS and didn't have any viruses. I even got them using two-factor authentication with security keys! I was surprised. Disclaimer: I work on ChromeOS as my 20% project. But I work on it because it solved a lot of my computing problems and I find it worth my time. I wouldn't waste my time advocating to help my employer sell $149 laptops.
geofft 12y ago
> Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Sure, Native Client's there and should have all the functionality you need. It'll technically be running inside Chrome, but so is everything else like the settings dialog.
- Zikes 12y ago
  https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html
  - dao- 12y ago
    That's merely a browser GUI, not a full browser with a Javascript and rendering engine and whatnot.
KeytarHero 12y ago
> Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Apparently they can: https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html

Sargos 12y ago

You can't release Firefox for an iDevice either as Apple does not allow native code that you need for Gecko so they are about equal in ability to run system apps front. Chromebooks also run Android apps so in the near future there will be a lot more flexibility in what kinds of either web apps or Android apps you can develop. Firefox already runs on Android and presumably will be available for Chrome OS within this year.

Tloewald 12y ago
Sure Apple allows native code. Apple doesn't allow third-party interpreters/compilers if they can run code from untrusted sources (Codea and some Python environments get around it by only running locally written code).
amyjess 12y ago
Apple allows native code. What they don't allow is the use of any other rendering engine besides WebKit.
- tkubacki 12y ago
  and that's fucking stupid - because web browsers can't compete on iOS

malkia 12y ago

There is crouton. Just github it.

ntakasaki 12y ago
Just because you can replace an OS does not mean it's open. It's about the ecosystem too. How much percentage of Chromebooks could be running Crouton or Linux? I wager less than 2%.
- yohui 12y ago
  And how many Windows users installed Linux? If it's easier to run Linux or use Crouton on a Chromebook, then that's an argument against the view that they're less open than Windows or iOS.
- EddieRingle 12y ago
  You're wrong. 100% of Chromebooks are running Linux. If you don't want to use Crouton you can bootstrap Linuxbrew and have access to pretty much any program you'd have on any other Linux distribution.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    not just Linux, but Gentoo Linux. the one everyone used to make fun of[1] before Google made it acceptable, and the only one not going the systemd route. 1. http://funroll-loops.teurasporsaat.org/ http://funroll-loops.teurasporsaat.org/

haberman 12y ago

> Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Can Google even make a Chrome browser for FirefoxOS? All of the PR surrounding the creation of FirefoxOS lauded how it was completely open because it was built on standards like HTML/CSS/JavaScript. But when Google does the same thing, it is an example of "locking everything down while still calling itself open." Mozilla has been arguing for years that compile-to-JavaScript is good enough (and based their opposition to NaCl/PNaCl on this principle). It is strange to see argument here against Google that "only true native will do", when that argument is what motivated NaCl/PNaCl to begin with.

ntakasaki 12y ago
Folks aren't talking about FirefoxOS replacing laptops or desktops though, unlike Chromebooks, if you follow this thread. Nor does Mozilla do a lot of cloud business nor is it in the business of tracking users for advertizing purposes. The PC software ecosystem has been open historically, even with Windows and OS X, and now there's talk of it being replaced by a completely closed alternative
- yohui 12y ago
  > Nor does Mozilla do a lot of cloud business nor is it in the business of tracking users for advertizing purposes. What does that have to do with how open the devices are?
- haberman 12y ago
  > now there's talk of it being replaced by a completely closed alternative If Mozilla and Google both do X, but Mozilla's actions are judged as "open" while Google's are judged as "completely closed," then the words open and closed are losing their meaning. How does Google's other business activities affect whether, in principle, an HTML/JavaScript-based OS is "open" or "closed"? Yes, it's true that OS platforms are moving towards sandboxing their apps more and more. This is mainly being driven by market forces, because more sandboxed platforms offer important features: - more resistant to malware - more secure (one stupid little app can't steal/delete all your data) But no one is taking away your Windows or OS X boxes. If people keep wanting them, manufacturers will keep making them. And while mainstream consumer devices are moving towards being more sandboxed, the ability to tinker is being addressed in other ways, like Raspberry Pi, which are very cool in their own way.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nightpool 12y ago

Actually, I upvoted this, but on reflection I think this is wrong. Here's why: - Most Chromebooks are freely bootloader unlocked, allowing any operating system to be loaded on them. - ChromeOS follows the same open source model as Chrome—Most core features open, with things like Flash/Wildvine/API keys held secret. - There are no native apps on ChromeOS—the correct question is not "Can Mozilla write a browser for ChromeOS", its "Can Mozilla write an app for ChromeOS" and "Can Mozilla write a browser for Chromebooks". Both of these statements are absolutely true. So I fail to see how Chromebooks are "more extremely locked down" than iDevices.

KeytarHero 12y ago
> There are no native apps on ChromeOS—the correct question is not "Can Mozilla write a browser for ChromeOS", its "Can Mozilla write an app for ChromeOS" Exactly - ChromeOS is a browser. "Can Mozilla write a browser for ChromeOS" makes about as much sense as "Can Mozilla write a browser for Chrome" or "Can Google write a browser for Internet Explorer". ...or it would have made that little sense before Mozilla wrote a browser in html: https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html
- jrockway 12y ago
  The fact that the Chromium process is what's compositing windows is relatively uninteresting to the end user. It's Linux with a different GUI system. Ubuntu is ditching X11 also, as I understand it, so people other than Google appear to be prepared to redo Linux GUIs. There's Native Client, so you can write native code. I believe there are things like Emacs for NaCl, though Emacs is relatively useless until someone also ports your favorite programming language, version control, etc. to this model. For programmers, it's tough to have to redo everything, and because we tend not to use the ability to run unaudited native code to install viruses on our machine, it seems like a lot of work for no reason. For the end user, though, things are a bit different. It's a long road but ultimately computers that are easier to use and get fewer viruses is a worthy goal, I think. Someone could port Firefox to ChromeOS if they found it to be interesting. It would probably be quite difficult, however. I use ChromeOS as my primary workstation because it removes a lot of headaches I have with computers. I hate configuring things. I just want a terminal with Emacs and a web browser. ChromeOS gives me this. I log into my laptop and it has the exact same configuration as my desktop. ChromeOS auto-updates and takes 8 seconds to reboot afterwards. It doesn't nag me about auto-updates or checking that Windows Defender is up to date. All my work is saved somewhere other than my desktop/laptop, so if I lose the computer or get another one all I have to do is log in again. It's very much a thin-client thing, which some people hate, but I find quite suitable for my normal workflow. sshing into a Linux box is generally great for doing work. Using the GUIs is an effort in frustration. ChromeOS solved that issue for me. (Yup, I need an Internet connection to get to my ssh-able Linux box somewhere. I always have one.) If you are convinced Google is out to get you with configuration syncing, SSH clients that run "in a web browser" (but are native code and preserve all keybindings that you're used to), and "cloud storage" then ChromeOS is probably not for you. Enter developer mode (one keypress) and install your favorite Linux distribution instead -- all the patches necessary to make the devices work are in the open source tree, and unlike with Linux on random Windows laptops, your WiFi will work and you'll get the advertised battery life. I have given ChromeOS laptops to family members where my previous attempts at giving them computers have failed. A year later their laptops are running the latest version of the OS and didn't have any viruses. I even got them using two-factor authentication with security keys! I was surprised. Disclaimer: I work on ChromeOS as my 20% project. But I work on it because it solved a lot of my computing problems and I find it worth my time. I wouldn't waste my time advocating to help my employer sell $149 laptops.

geofft 12y ago

> Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Sure, Native Client's there and should have all the functionality you need. It'll technically be running inside Chrome, but so is everything else like the settings dialog.

Zikes 12y ago
https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html
- dao- 12y ago
  That's merely a browser GUI, not a full browser with a Javascript and rendering engine and whatnot.

KeytarHero 12y ago

> Can Mozilla even make a Firefox browser for ChromeOS? Apparently they can: https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html