"Why Chromebook Pundits Are Out of Touch"

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by sl42

1Gb swap. Things are just as bad under Crunchbang, which I've had running on this thing before. Currently I don't have access to wired Ethernet, only wifi which leaves me limited to Ubuntu derivatives since my wireless card works out of the box with *untu but I need an Internet connection to install the driver for anything else (catch-22 there).

I needed to install the b43-firmware package from the AUR which was a double problem but I just downloaded the sources on another computer and used makepkg then pacman -U /path/to/pkg

[sl42]

Originally Posted by Graham

Discussions of Linux swap partitions and XP service packs do underline one of the main reasons why Chromebook Pundits are Out Of Touch...

Seriously, though, I do get the impression that there's less emphasis now on 'buy a Chromebook and you can dual-boot into a traditional Linux distro' than there was when we started this thread.

I think Chromebooks are increasingly being accepted for what they are, rather than what they're not.

Graham

Well, I know plenty of people who have either looked at or recommended looking at Chromebooks - but I don't think any ever intended to run Chrome-OS. I'm really surprised that anyone would dual boot - I don't really get what you would use Chrome-OS for if you had Linux installed? I mean if I have my browser of choice a click away, why would I want to shut down and boot into a browser?

[sl42]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I needed to install the b43-firmware package from the AUR which was a double problem but I just downloaded the sources on another computer and used makepkg then pacman -U /path/to/pkg

Yea, in the past I've always had multiple computers - things get a bit more tricky when you only own one machine. To make things even more tricky, I don't even own a USB thumb drive anymore - I do have an external hard drive though, so it is chopped into a main partition and a 2GB partition that I can put an installation image on with unetbootn. Then when I'm done, I install multiboot on the new system to switch the external back to booting from the first partition (which has a backup and recovery distro on it in addition to all my files).

[ApK]

Originally Posted by sl42

Well, I know plenty of people who have either looked at or recommended looking at Chromebooks - but I don't think any ever intended to run Chrome-OS. I'm really surprised that anyone would dual boot - I don't really get what you would use Chrome-OS for if you had Linux installed? I mean if I have my browser of choice a click away, why would I want to shut down and boot into a browser?

On my Chrubuntu system, I very rarely switch back to ChromeOS. Maybe just to see what new features have been added out of curiosity.

On my wife's system with Crouton, she only ever launches Linux to play Minecraft with the family.

Everything else she does can be done faster and more handily in ChromeOS.

[sl42]

Originally Posted by Graham

Discussions of Linux swap partitions and XP service packs do underline one of the main reasons why Chromebook Pundits are Out Of Touch...

Seriously, though, I do get the impression that there's less emphasis now on 'buy a Chromebook and you can dual-boot into a traditional Linux distro' than there was when we started this thread.

I think Chromebooks are increasingly being accepted for what they are, rather than what they're not.

Graham

To me a piece of hardware is a piece of hardware - what happens to be on the hard drive when you buy it certainly doesn't dictate what you do with it. All but one of the computers I've purchased over the last twenty years have been "windowsbooks" by that logic. I purchased them to run the OS and software that I use, and the fact that Windows was installed by the manufacturer is of no concern to me, other than the minor annoyance that Microsoft gets another few unearned bucks just like they do from almost every Linux user for most of their purchases (unless you go out of your way to buy a machine with Linux/No OS installed/build from scratch), but that's just the way the world works.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by sl42

Yea, in the past I've always had multiple computers - things get a bit more tricky when you only own one machine. To make things even more tricky, I don't even own a USB thumb drive anymore - I do have an external hard drive though, so it is chopped into a main partition and a 2GB partition that I can put an installation image on with unetbootn. Then when I'm done, I install multiboot on the new system to switch the external back to booting from the first partition (which has a backup and recovery distro on it in addition to all my files).

I don't wipe existing OSes so I could reboot back into Windows for that -- or use the library.

[afv011]

New entry, Acer's 13" with Tegra K1 CPU, 13 hours battery life and optional 1080p screen, starting at $279.

Until now, if you wanted a Chromebook with a full HD display, you only had one option: the 13-inch Samsung Chromebook 2. Want epic battery life? Yep, all roads lead to Samsung there, too. Well, not anymore, anyway. Acer just announced the Chromebook 13, and it matches Samsung nearly spec for spec with an optional 1080p display and NVIDIA's quad-core Tegra K1 chip, promising up to 13 hours of runtime

Source

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by afv011

New entry, Acer's 13" with Tegra K1 CPU, 13 hours battery life and optional 1080p screen, starting at $279.



Source

It has a tablet processor. How does it stack up against Intel's Haswell?

[afv011]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It has a tablet processor. How does it stack up against Intel's Haswell?

It does, but it's supposedly faster than any of the other current ARM offerings. I do not expect it to be as fast as a Haswell Celeron though, but gets better battery life. I think a fairer comparison would be against Intel's Bay Trail.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by sl42

To me a piece of hardware is a piece of hardware - what happens to be on the hard drive when you buy it certainly doesn't dictate what you do with it. All but one of the computers I've purchased over the last twenty years have been "windowsbooks" by that logic. I purchased them to run the OS and software that I use, and the fact that Windows was installed by the manufacturer is of no concern to me, other than the minor annoyance that Microsoft gets another few unearned bucks just like they do from almost every Linux user for most of their purchases (unless you go out of your way to buy a machine with Linux/No OS installed/build from scratch), but that's just the way the world works.

Hi SL42, my post wasn't in any way decrying the use of Chromebook hardware to run Linux. Far from it. Go for it.

I was commenting on the fact that a year or so ago, booting into Chrubuntu and the like was a hot topic, but now my perception is that the use of ChromeOS itself has become the conversation among the pundits. The journalists are finally starting to 'get' why people like it - even though, as you point out, running a full desktop operating system would provide more features and power.

As APK said below:

Originally Posted by APK

On my wife's system with Crouton, she only ever launches Linux to play Minecraft with the family.

Everything else she does can be done faster and more handily in ChromeOS.

What many commentators were missing in the early days is that ChromeOS is a pleasure to use. Sure, my Windows box can do more, but I fire up my ChromeOS machines when I'm doing the 95% of my activity that they can handle, because it's a smoother, nicer environment than Windows.

And I like Windows.

Graham

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Graham

What many commentators were missing in the early days is that ChromeOS is a pleasure to use.

I believe this is correct. ChromeOS, while a bit painful at first, has grown into a fun-to-use basic operating system that can fulfill the primary needs of vast hordes of computer users who currently use operating systems like Windows (and even Mac OS X). All the while it is generally safer, easier to use, simpler to fix, cost-effective to replace, and continually improving (at an impressive rate).

I've moved many of my relatives over to ChromeOS and tablets for many of their main computing needs. I get less calls for support than any time in the last 10 years or so. So, anecdotally positive.

[sl42]

Originally Posted by Anthem

I believe this is correct. ChromeOS, while a bit painful at first, has grown into a fun-to-use basic operating system that can fulfill the primary needs of vast hordes of computer users who currently use operating systems like Windows (and even Mac OS X). All the while it is generally safer, easier to use, simpler to fix, cost-effective to replace, and continually improving (at an impressive rate).

I've moved many of my relatives over to ChromeOS and tablets for many of their main computing needs. I get less calls for support than any time in the last 10 years or so. So, anecdotally positive.

I haven't used ChromeOS at all - but it seems like something that would be a good "default" to be installed on new hardware - something that makes it useful out of the box, and possibly all that some users might need, while not forcing people to pay for a license for something like Windows unless that is actually what they choose to install on their computer.

I have no clue what the Microsoft tax actually amounts to per computer purchase, but it is, of course, absurd. Nearly every Linux user is a constant repeat customer for Microsoft, even if they never use the product they are paying for. Personally, I switched to Linux (Slackware downloaded as floppy disk images from a local BBS) in 1995 having seen and heard a bit about the upcoming Windows 95 by then which I really didn't like one bit and had no desire to use. I haven't used Windows since version 3.11 but have no doubt racked up quite a lifetime total in Microsoft purchases.

ChromeOS or something similar would be perfect to ship on new hardware.

I'm sure that like me, most Linux users would still do a fresh install of their favorite distro on a newly purchased machine, even if that machine came from the factory with Linux installed and configured according to whatever defaults the manufacturer chose, so I actually wouldn't recommend Linux as a "space-filler" OS since it isn't likely to be a good fit for those not capable of installing it themselves, or needed by those who can.

ChromeOS on the other hand, might be perfect. It is simple and likely to be the most appropriate choice for people not capable of installing another OS. Those who need more capability can go ahead and install Linux, or buy and install Windows. Really that would seem pretty ideal for all users.

[eschwartz]

Would not Ubuntu work just as well?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Would not Ubuntu work just as well?

No, as the lackluster sales of Linux boxes to date (especially as compared to Chromebooks) Should make self-evident.

Any full Linux distro imposes needless management complexity for the broadest segment of users. I'm not going to argue the fact. It's true.
Your own message #736 in this thread is sufficient proof for most people to whom it applies.

ChromeOS just works, and maintains itself.

If a particular users sees nothing of concern in #736, then that user is free to install Linux, under sl42's plan.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

No, as the lackluster sales of Linux boxes to date (especially as compared to Chromebooks) Should make self-evident.

Any full Linux distro imposes needless management complexity for the broadest segment of users. I'm not going to argue the fact. It's true.
Your own message #736 in this thread is sufficient proof for most people to whom it applies.

ChromeOS just works, and maintains itself.

If a particular users sees nothing of concern in #736, then that user is free to install Linux, under sl42's plan.

Since I was installing Arch Linux, I would definitely not recommend that as a "space-filler OS".



I believe Ubuntu comes with b43 and b43-fwcutter on the install disk. You still need to manually enable them over an internet connection, since the firmware is proprietary. It's dead easy but requires an ethernet cable. And b43-firmware is only ever needed for certain legacy laptops. Although I am sure other packages are needed for other wireless cards, so it really depends on what hardware you have.

In any event, you'd think that the same way Windows ships with any proprietary drivers necessary to use it out-of-the-box, installed by the manufacturers as necessary, they'd do the same for Ubuntu...

Regarding "needless management complexity", sure, compared to a chromebook. But not compared to Windows, and people seem to manage that just fine. The tradeoff is of course that ChromeOS cannot do a lot of things that many people DO need. So as a space-filler OS, I'd vote for more basic usability, which is also useful out of the box (as Windows is too) but fulfills the criteria of not requiring users shell out for a Windows license they may never need (like ChromeOS).

In other words, I'm not so sure I agree ChromeOS is the perfect and most appropriate choice. I think the main reason for people getting ChromeOS is not that it is so simple it is easy to use, but that it is cheaper and still does everything they need. The simplicity doesn't hurt, and I am sure it is a factor -- but the main one? (And for the people looking to buy more high-end hardware?)

Or they could offer both, and let the consumer choose which configuration. Which would be exactly like the current situation where you need to choose between ChromeOS and Windows instead.