I think all web designers and developers should use a Chromebook, especially a cheap one. Not necessarily to develop on, but to understand first-hand how their site is going to behave on devices that aren't some max-specced $4k Macbook with a IPS super high resolution display for once.
What do you mean I can't run my sixty dozen frameworks of JavaShit to real-time encode and render my MP4 disguised as a GIF so it can occupy 120% of the monitor before you get to read anything on my webpage?
When I started working at Google in 2018, I got a shiny new beefed-up Chromebook to work on. See, the idea was that I'll do Google work on Google equipment, using Google software (NIH was the religion there). Google's IDE, Cider, ran in Chrome; it integrated with version control and what not.
Nobody on our team used Chromebooks - everybody got a Mac - but I thought I'll give it a go.
Well it was a mistake. Having a computer that doesn't work as a computer is frustrating. Congratulations to everyone who can convince themselves they don't "need" things that computers do while using a computer.
Yes, one can do a lot with a browser. But the list of things you can't do is immensely vaster. The compromise can make sense when you use a tablet or a phone, and have a specialized OS tailored to the use case.
But Chromebooks are literally just laptop PCs. You get all the disadvantages of using a laptop (size, weight, etc), while getting all the disadvantages of trying to do things on a phone OS. It's a lose-lose scenario.
The question here is not what the author can do with their Chromebooks, or why it works for them. The question is what someone could gain from using a Chromebook over a similarly-sized laptop running Windows/Linux/MacOS.
The author claims it's "snappiness" - by comparing to Windows 10 running on absolute crap hardware. I'm not convinced, but I'll take their word. Of course, that doesn't apply if you buy non-crap, but slightly older hardware.
> The question is what someone could gain from using a Chromebook over a similarly-sized laptop running Windows/Linux/MacOS.
It's not foolproof, but these are good candidate devices for the terminally computer illiterate. Scam call centers aren't trained on ChromeOS takeovers as well as they are for Windows, but the user interface is close enough to Windows for users trained to use Windows. In case of large trouble, powerwash is easily accessible and fast. The ephemeral nature means replacing hardware doesn't require data transfer. The big downside is it's tied to a Google account, which means if you can't manage a Google account (because you like resetting your password instead of finding your password book, and writing the new password somewhere else you can't find, etc), you're going to end up with a Guest login account which is less functional.
>It's not foolproof, but these are good candidate devices for the terminally computer illiterate.
Point taken, but you really got to have no faither in those users.
Even my 80+ year old grandparents learned Windows well enough to use for their needs. And all in all, Windows 95 has been miles ahead of Chrome OS in discoverability and UX.
So did my mom. But every time I came home I have to clean something up. The last time she bought a printer and searched for printer drivers. The first link was third party malware.
Windows 95 was even more susceptible to the 15 browser bar extension crap.
Well, I'd say that Microsoft has been making Windows harder to use since then. But yeah, some people have shown me that they no longer have the capability to use a Windows computer safely, but modern life without a web browser is pretty difficult. And filling out forms on a phone is better than paper, but a browser on a computer shaped device is much better.
>Well, I'd say that Microsoft has been making Windows harder to use since then.
Sadly, yes. I hope the trend to make everything look shiny (and hard to use) reverses one day. Agreeing on the rest - lack of features is a feature in this case.
I use a Chromebook. I don't use ChromeOS. I buy the loss leader hardware, install coreboot from mrchromebox.tech, then wipe the internal drive of ChromeOS and install Linux. I can get a higher spec mid-range laptop for a lower price. 8GB of RAM and an i5 is plenty for me.
I looked into this option, but when I checked the FAQ of mrchromebox.tech it has the following:
Q: I want to buy a Chromebook to run Windows or Linux -- which should I buy?
A: Buying any modern (2017+) Chromebook with the intention of running Windows or Linux is a terrible idea, period. Most can't boot anything other than ChromeOS, and those that can run it poorly. Older models may fair better compatibility wise, but there are still lots of caveats, and it's not recommended to buy a Chromebook as a cheap Linux device. The days where Chromebooks ran Linux well ended with the 2015 models.
He basically seems tired of angry emails from amatuers who brick their machines. Suzy
qables aren't even available anymore, so to do what I'm talking about, you need to open the chromebook, disconnect the battery, and rewrite the firmware on the SOIC-8 chip from the command line. If you screw this up, you have a brick and need a CH341A SPI flash programmer to restore the firmware backup. You have one of those handy in a drawer somewhere? Then you might be the target audience. Otherwise, maybe you should reconsider doing this.
An old Thinkpad works well for me for those use cases. I replaced a Chromebook with an old x1 carbon and it works really well. Easy to upgrade and works equally well with Windows and Linux.
Is the hardware really that much of a loss leader? I just poked around a bit and found plenty of 8GB i5 Windows laptops selling for exactly the same price as equivalent ChromeOS laptops. And that isn't even taking the whole second hand market into account. You can pick up a very nice used X series Thinkpad for the same price as a new Chromebook.
Same here. And because it's already designed for compatibility with the Linux kernel (because ChromeOS is Linux), it works so much better than most machines I've installed Linux on after Windows.
How often do you (and your parent poster) find yourself stuck with 'vendor kernels' on these machines a la arm devices? I've tried twice to rehabilitate Chromebooks; in the first instance I was stymied by lack of mainline support for the chipset involved, and in the second case there was no mainline support for the soldered-in broadcom wifi. Is this common, or is there a trick to avoiding buying encumbered hardware?
How reliable is the process of wiping ChromeOS and running Linux? I used crostini for awhile, but I was worried about bricking the laptop if I dumped ChromeOS completely.
If you go the whole way and install a 3rd party firmware, it should be good.
You're unlikely to brick the laptop anyway, but if you rely on the Google firmware to boot other operating systems, it's easy to accidentally push the wrong button and wipe the drive during boot, and I recall reading about some models that did bad things if the battery fully ran down and they lost firmware battery ram storage.
Instead of using a "free of spyware/crapware operating system" you use a crap laptop with low specs. But wait, its so useless that it has to emulate a real linux to do something usefull... and as nobody is developing "apps/webs" for "native" cromiumOS you also need another layer of emulation for android. Hummm, no thank you I will keep with my debian runing...
ChromeOS runs Debian in an LXD container. You can install desktop apps in it (e.g. using Flatpak) and they appear as launchable icons on the ChromeOS desktop. Being LXD you're not just limited to one container either. I have additional multiple containers with Ubuntu and AlmaLinux on my Chromebook and can use other LXD features to snapshot and publish them as required. This is far from being "useless".
You can? I thought it ran on a totally nonstandard stack meaning no X, PulseAudio, systemd etc. How do regular Linux apps work? Is there some sort of compatibility layer?
IMO, it's the cheap hardware which rules out Chromebooks for me. The Pixelbook is one my favorite laptops (barring the huge bezels and sub-par keyboard). Too bad the the Android experience is pretty bad, or else I'd still use it.
There can be a serious argument made for getting chromebooks out to the 3rd/2nd world. Honestly, we don't _need_ to "do more" (as the article plainly points out) and can get people connected and productive in no time. Sure, it has its drawbacks (crapware/spyware/bloatware) but if that offsets the cost of production and profits then basically...why not?
I hadn't initially considered a Chromebook until I found out about GalliumOS. Then I realized I could get a lightweight, cheap laptop, that also has fantastic battery life.
I've tried putting both plain Arch and Debian on it, but the networking seems hit and miss. But that's alright because it's not my main machine. Makes a great auxiliary computer though!
I got a smallish Chromebook which has a detachable keyboard so can be used as a Tablet as well (a Lenovo Duet).
It is somewhat slow but cheap, lightweight and the battery holds forever.
This thing is quite practical for surfing on the couch or writing the odd email while on vacation.
I would never consider this for serious work but i really like it as a sort larger smartphone with a keyboard which can run Linux applications if need be.
As a student i used one of those crappy Netbooks that thing was more expensive and (not considering the privacy issues of ChromeOs) way worse.
Those Chromebooks are fine as sort of a more capable tablet which you use alongside a "proper" Desktop/Laptop.
I still don't get Chromebooks. I don't buy the argument that the OS is so lightweight, as any savings one can get by getting rid of the legacy Windows cruft is more than offset by the resource demands of webapps. In fact, I'd argue that the most demanding apps I run on my Macbook are webapps as well.
They look like cheap laptops to me. And they are priced like cheap laptops as well, with all the pains it entails.
I get them for places like schools or environments where there is high risk of your laptop being stolen or damaged. If you lose or breaks one you can easily replace it with any random other Chromebook and be back up and running in minutes and it is basically impossible to 'break' the software on it (and if you do, resetting it is trivial).
Chromebooks have come a long way since they were introduced in 2011. They can be 2-in-1s, run almost any app on the planet with Chrome Remote Desktop, play Chrome OS games, and run Google and Android apps like Skype, Google Docs, Google Sheets, Google Assistant, WhatsApp, and many more
No, he's not. You can run Android applications on the device, they're not running remotely. You can also run Linux applications using Crostini, on the device.
The real limitation I found with either of these approaches is that they are sandboxed in such a way as the apps are always hobbled. Android applications can only reach a sandboxed file system. Linux apps can't use GPU. Neither can read USB storage. Stuff like that.
Some of those may be fixed now, but after trying for a couple of years, I eventually gave up on ChromeOS ever working as advertised in that regard. Running applications on ChromeOS is a sort of toy feature that might work, but if it doesn't, don't expect any attention in making it work, because you're the weirdo trying to run apps on ChromeOS.
Every new Chromebook since 2020 supports the Linux container, even the low cost ones. Would I use Linux for heavy duty desktop apps on an entry-level Chromebook? No, but for occasional use or a third party browser it works perfectly fine.
> By that standard, my monitor can run any app in the world... as long as I plug it into a computer that runs it!
Well, yeah, and if someone says your monitor sucks because it can’t even run apps, that’s exactly what your response would be. That’s not a slight against your monitor or against a Chromebook.
A dumb terminal with identical specifications to a full computer isn't a dumb terminal, it's a dumb idea. Dumb terminals haven't been economically viable since the 1970s; the common terminals (VT100 and successors, ANSI, IBM 3151, etc) are all smart terminals; they support line drawing features and so forth.
Chromebooks are the end result of making terminals smarter and smarter until they're just computers with artificial restrictions on which programs they can run. That's a valid product if you want to subject yourself (retail chromebooks) or others (school fleets) to such restrictions, but pretending it's innovative because you have to work around limitations you needlessly imposed on yourself is a bit daft.
If you take away the keys to my home I will not feel more secure, nor be more secure - I will be more ignorant about security, that's it. The same applies here.
Right, just like your monitor. Again, it’s not a slight against your monitor or your Chromebook. Nor is it a slight against your car seat that it is not itself an automobile.
