Hacker News Reader

Even funnier to see the contrast between the title: "Amazon's top selling laptop doesn't run Windows or Mac OS, it runs Linux"

...and the claim in the body text: "True, there is Linux under the hood but you have to go out of your way to find it."

So, huzzah for another great victory for Linux (like TiVo, Android...) made possible by hiding Linux as much as possible.

The big promise of linux was that it would commoditize the OS market, and this is exactly what happened. It is indeed a victory for linux that everybody who wants to build their own OS starts with the linux kernel. The OS can move out of the way, because it should have never been in the spotlight in the first place (this was a larval phase of the personal computing market.)

The upside should be that everybody contributes back into the global pool of source code, and that even people who would never buy a chromebook benefit by google's source contributions. I don't know how that works out in practice though.

Google contributed 2620 changes to the Linux kernel in 2012 according to http://go.linuxfoundation.org/who-writes-linux-2012 (PDF) - and presumably many others to user-space projects.

Not to mention ChromeOS is open source (http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os), happily accepts patches, and the chromebook has a built-in developer switch on it that you can flip and install what you want on it.

Reflecting on this a bit more, the popular OS's that are not linux-based predate linux:

- Windows 8 (RT/Phone): NT kernel development started in 1989.

- BB OS 10: QNX 4.0 released in 1990.

- OS X 10.8 / iOS 6: NextStep first shipped in 1989.

What is strange to me is how little-used BSD is, given its more permissive license.

Pedantry: BBX hasn't shipped yet outside the PlayBook, and I'd hardly call that popular. The phones are still running the original since-1999 BlackBerry OS.

And why not BSD? I'd mainly say mindshare, and portability to a degree. You don't have to release your source every time you port BSD to a shiny new platform. BSD code is out there (networking stacks, a handful of the base *nix utils in OSX), but the permissive license cuts both ways.

Joeri was referring to QNX which is the core of BBX (or BB10, not sure what it is being called).

Apparently, many of your home electronics likey run QNX, and you wouldn't know it.

BSD is used in a lot of places, it is generally hidden though. For example Juniper used it for their OS, FreeBSD is currently in use by NetFlix for their appliances (the ones that sit on the ISP's network to lower costs). Cisco has in the past used code from BSD, I've seen OpenBSD in various different commercial projects, including an audit logging machine.

Every so often I get surprised as to where BSD is when I come across it.

I'd say that the choice of Linux over BSD on those cases has to do with hardware support. Writing drivers and supporting a wide range of devices would increase up a lot the development time for Chrome OS, for instance.

Industry settled on Linux in the 90s when a) there was lingering FUD from the AT&T lawsuit, b) everyone was afraid of "embrace and extend" which the BSD license arguably makes easier.

>How is any of this better for consumer freedom than just Windows 7?

Ecosystem. This is a limited function device, which is bad, but anything you can do on it you can also do on a full Linux distribution. Which means that anyone who can get by with such a device will have no barrier to switching if they are ever inclined to do so.

That is the difference from a Windows machine. Because if you have Windows then you start accumulating Windows apps and you become accustomed to their interfaces and your files are in those formats, etc. etc. Windows locks you into Windows. ChromeOS doesn't lock you into ChromeOS; you can switch to a full desktop Linux distribution whenever you want and everything still works.

Which also means that they can switch to a Macbook or a Windows PC whenever they want instead of a Linux machine. How does that help Linux?

First of all, your original question was, "How is any of this better for consumer freedom than just Windows 7?" Being able to easily switch to any OS is obviously better for consumer freedom.

So now you are asking a different question. But are you serious? One of the main barriers to Linux adoption has been the difficulty of switching as a result of lock in. Are you seriously asking how the elimination of that barrier could be good for Linux just because it also eliminates the same barrier for other operating systems?

OK, the default alternative to ChromeOS is that people use Windows. Using ChromeOS does not decrease the switching barrier to using Windows as compared with having used Windows in the first place, it only decreases the switching barrier to using Linux or MacOS. Moreover, MacOS can't be installed on a Chromebook, so there remains the substantial barrier to switching to MacOS of buying a different, much more expensive computer instead of just installing a desktop Linux distribution on the Chromebook.

By this logic most free people are people who don't use computers at all, they have no switching barriers.

Anyone with a computer can switch to no computer at all. But yes, anyone who can't live without their computer is not free. I guess you could say we've sacrifice some freedom for power.

>By this logic most free people are people who don't use computers at all, they have no switching barriers.

Is there some reason you expect that conclusion to be an absurdity? Fact: People who have never used a computer are the ones with the most freedom to choose between operating systems, because they have nothing invested in any of them yet.

You seem to be implying that this is somehow not the case. Please elaborate.

People are more likely to try something out if they know they can easily go back to what they're used to.

It's the same reason I like having a macbook - I can currently also boot into windows natively or several flavors of unix via virtualization - every os has strengths and weaknesses, why not have them all?

If people can run linux, it helps linux. Even if they only "know" they can run linux. It's mindshare at that level.

But I could also use just Google Apps on a Windows or Apple machine. Because I use Windows I don't have to buy Windows apps.

Your argument seems to be that "it is better as it doesn't allow me to buy OS-specific apps so I can't get tied in"? I might be misunderstanding.

>Your argument seems to be that "it is better as it doesn't allow me to buy OS-specific apps so I can't get tied in"?

No, that's pretty much it. The problem with Windows is that when the typical user goes to install a piece of software, there is nothing there to make them think "this will cause me great consternation if I ever want to switch operating systems" -- so they don't think that, and they install it, and soon they're thoroughly locked in before they even realize it.

Or to extract out the general principle: It would be best for user freedom if all operating systems used standardized cross-platform APIs and all applications ran on all operating systems.

Actually I think the limitations on this device are a good thing, AS LONG AS there is the 'developer switch'.

I don't want the normal user to have any kind of root access to their machine - and actually most users don't want it either! With power comes responsibility, and non-tech people don't want responsibility with their laptop - they just want it to work.

As long as there's a switch on the back to drop me to a proper bash prompt, and as long as I can tell whomever I support/recommend this laptop for "don't ever touch this" and it will continue to work for them, this is only a good thing. If you know that the user will never be doing rooty things like installing software, you can put a lot of extra security on a device without compromising the user experience, and the Chromebook does exactly this.

Better security, easier user experience, and as-in-speech freedom is one switch away if you want the responsibility. Honestly, I don't see the down side.

> The answer is not "because it has a developer switch on the back to install Ubuntu"; you can do that on a Windows PC as well.

That's not necessarily true with UEFI secure boot.

For any x86 system it is.

Which the Surface RT and this Chromebook aren't.

I really don't see why so many people expect this to be comforting.

In one thread everyone will be so sure that ARM devices are the future, and in the next nobody needs to worry about secure boot because nobody will ever want to use ARM.

Only if the device is manufactured under heavy partnership with Microsoft. Something tells me we'll see much like we have now, a handful of devices which are locked (much like anything running iOS) and the great majority not.

There's also no prohibition from Microsoft on having two different SKUs for the same hardware.

The sky is not falling, people.

The sky isn't falling because OEMs are going to care about minority OS users? Wonderful, that puts me totally at ease.

The near term threat is that they would change the terms of a sticker program. The longer term threat, that hardware becomes locked to Windows, is disturbing but I don't see how it would be anything other than annoying without extensive user-hostile legislation (because we are already at the point where a very useful computer on a stick costs ~$100 and there are lots of players that will continue to want capable open boards for servers).

Are you talking about the x86 sticker terms? I am concerned about ARM.

I don't think x86 is going to change dramatically, I just think it is going to continue to be marginalized. I, like many other consumers it seems, want a small thin fanless ARM computer.

The google/samsung xe303 chromebook isn't an x86 device...

I can only give you my perspective:

* Linux gains from having many people using it, what is effectively happening when a lot of people are buying Chrome Books. So ARM support is likely to become even better, and hardware manufacturers are going to build something more "linux"-friendly

* You can do whatever you want with it if you turn on the developer switch, so that's a plus

* You don't actually pay for a license for windows 7 if you buy this chromebook, so you are not supporting "closed source software" with money

* Google as a company has done considerably more for open source software than Microsoft (or so I think)

These would be my points, why I think of the chromebook in better regards as Microsoft Surface. However, it would be kind of awesome if you'd have an open, touch-enabled platform (like the surface) and could use it however you want i.e. installing Ubuntu on it. In that case I'd probably be really tempted to even buy one, though it'd come from Micro$oft.

>Micro$oft

You made some great points, but had to end it with that juvenile jab which adds nothing to the conversation and which I believe has no place on HN.

Because it's THIN, CHEAP and has a developer switch on the back to install Ubuntu. The ones doing that are also likely to run a webserver on their Android smartphones to have access to more storage and services via something like EyeOs, so goodbye Google cloud.

So you mean SJVN, HN etc. would cheer on a Windows RT laptop if it were THIN and CHEAP and allowed the user to install Ubuntu?

Somehow I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

Windows RT devices won't allow people to install their own Operating Systems dude :) They won't be cheap either.

>So you mean SJVN, HN etc. would cheer on a Windows RT laptop if it were THIN and CHEAP and allowed the user to install Ubuntu?

Uh, hell yes. I'm waiting to place the order button as soon as this http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5018096 makes more progress (though it's likely this will be confined to running Windows albeit less restricted). It's also why I'm evaluating grabbing one of these Exynos Chromebooks to install Ubuntu on (possibly in a chroot).

It's a cheap laptop that comes with Chrome OS installed. Versus the current market where I buy a cheap laptop and it has Windows installed. (And in this case I get to choose ARM if I want since Linux properly supports it)

You would, but it's a safe bet than even the announcement of such a device would be flagged off the front page of HN.

In fact, lots of devices with that capability are coming to market: they are all those Allwinner-based netbooks and tablets that can also run some form of pure, multi-tasking Linux. They'll run web servers, interpreters and compilers. They'll run Java SE. They'll run the GAMBAS IDE.

Some Arm chipsets like the Allwinner can now be considered as the true spiritual successor to the PC. Although some aspects are closed source, workarounds will be found and even some closed source drivers can't hurt. It's just like the PC era when people were trying to reverse-engineer the PC BIOS.

Based on the vote count of my comment, I really don't think that's true.

Actually, I would be all over the Microsoft Surface if it was thin, cheap and--most importantly--allowed me to run Linux without a hassle. In fact, I was seriously considering getting a Surface until I found out that the ARM version was crippled and the x86 version would have some compromises (like being louder, heavier, thicker and having worse battery life).

And I don't think my sentiment is at all unique--I've certainly seen the same idea repeated on HN.

I actually had not seen EyeOS. Thanks, looks interesting.

They went back to a purely commercial model though. The only other open source downloadable alternative crashes on its demo web site: http://simonser.fr.nf/symbiose/

Edit: it works fine if you give it some time. I kinda like it already...

Web apps are supposed to be the native apps, that was kind of the point of Chrome OS. Email, docs, calendar... all those are rich HTML5 apps, its not really a matter of google locking you out of their native OS app api. It's no more restrictive then the web is, honestly.

The part about logging into your Google account is definitely questionable, but it's a cloud device and that's what you're buying in the end... the fact it has a developer switch is what makes it more like a PC in terms of control and not like a tablet or phone where installing your own OS has a few hurdles.

It's a matter of perspective, really.

This is the answer. Chromebooks are a buy-in to the web platform. That's why it's good for the consumer. It de-emphasizes the OS; users can seamlessly switch between Windows, Mac, another Linux distro, iOS, Android, etc. and stick to the web platform. Chromebooks are an optimization for the web and in some ways a "less is more" prospect for consumers.

From the HN "it's my hardware, let me do what I want" perspective (and count me among you), it's a bit of a paradigm shift. Sure there are some restriction but it's not as if we are completely shut out. We have Native Client to get at a lower level and the usual tools like SSH. If this isn't good enough, you aren't restricted to a single piece of hardware or just install Ubuntu.

My thoughts exactly. Back in the day I thought MS was evil. Now, the things happening in the "consumer computing" almost make me see those Windows times as a paradise of openness.

Microsoft is still evil (see all the patent trolling, legal maneuvering, running of astroturf campaigns, locking down of non-x86 "windows" hardware, etc).

Why would it matter to users what kernel is being run?

The great thing about Chromebook running Linux is that more work is put into Linux kernel, Linux harware supporting and Linux software support.

Linux is not GNU. Locked down devices were explicitly allowed when kernel devs opted to keep GPLv2 instead of moving to v3. They don't care about openness of devices but about the source code.

Exactly what I thought. If, for example, Netflix would create a plugin for ChromeOS, it would be easier (or less dificult) to port that to a "regular" Linux desktop as well.

> Funny to see something even more locked down than Windows being cheered by the Linux crowd.

Just to set the record straight, I was at the last Linux Crowd™ meeting and nobody was cheering over some inaccurate link-bait title of an article in zdnet.

The need for a Google account is definitely the biggest concern of mine. In terms of supporting and promoting OSS though I think it is a better direction that Windows ever took. The major pieces, Linux and Chrome are both open, if the user is curious. True they probably have to be curious on another device, or after flipping the switch, but at least it is possible, unlike Windows. The second part is that, if the web is the new user-space, then that is tremendously open. Chrome's dev tools are amazing, and still prominent on the right click menu for any site. Unfortunately JS obfuscation is pretty much defacto for most large sites, but at least HTML and CSS are still navigable.

How is any of this better for consumer freedom than just Windows 7?

Windows has been Public Enemy #1 for so long they've got tunnel vision, that's how.

"How is any of this better for consumer freedom than just Windows 7?"

Perhaps not for consumer freedom, but think about it in this way: You're getting a laptop largely subsidized by a corporation which is somewhat more guaranteed to successfully run your own brand of Linux. If you buy a PC with Windows and use only Linux, you are paying a lot for something that isn't even tangentially useful for you.

"Even more locked than windows"

Do you mean Win RT? In which case that's much more locked and you can't run your own binaries or alternate OS's on it, or did you mean Win 8, which isn't really locked at all?

I agree it's not that 'open' for the average consumer, but the very existence of a developer switch makes this substantially more open than RT devices.

Linux crowd is just happy because of no more "I need %s windows-only software". But in everything else -- you're absolutely right, it's horrible that this type of vendor-locked systems even exist.

Yes, it's truly horrible that a secure system that you can flip a switch to install what you want on it exists.

Isn't this exactly what folks have been asking for?

Want the secure version, great, that's what you get. Want to put your own stuff, just flip this switch on the back, and it's no longer secure, and you can do what you want to it.

One more time. It's horrible and wrong that this kind of vendor-lockness and insecurity of personal data "by default" exist and considered OK. And that fact that they added switch to make you able to install your own OS doesn't change this fact.

> Want the secure version, great, that's what you get. Want to put your own stuff, just flip this switch on the back, and it's no longer secure, and you can do what you want to it.

This _is_ your own stuff, you're paying money for it, and it _should_ be "secure version" of it, and why do you need to flip anything to get this at all?

Your concrete suggestion then is what, exactly?

Concrete suggestion to you?

> There are no native apps [..]

Google's NativeClient gives you native apps.

SJVN and the like are more about bashing Microsoft and Windows down rather than championing for user or developer freedom. SJVN knows what kind of articles bring the most hits and looking at his previous articles,seems to writing precisely such kind of articles.

Stallman, on the other hand, is remarkably consistent and sticks to his principles. I doubt he'd be happy with the Chromebook

> The answer is not "because it has a developer switch on the back to install Ubuntu"; you can do that on a Windows PC as well.

Not for $249 and not on ARM.