
Chrome OS is here to stay - Navarr
http://chrome.blogspot.com/2015/11/chrome-os-is-here-to-stay.html
======
rdl
I'm generally willing to take statements from Google at face value; they've
done unpopular things (killing Reader, etc.), but in my experience haven't
been deceptive about them.

I hope they realize how valuable a reasonably secure, "stateless" OS like
Chrome OS is for many applications. Chrome OS is far from perfection in this
space (and there are a lot of easy ways to make it better, and some hard ways
to make it vastly better), but it is head and shoulders above anything else
for a lot of deployment models right now.

Handing me a Chromebook with reasonable assurances the "dev switch" hasn't
ever been switched is one of the general purpose full-TCB devices I'd accept
from someone and mostly trust. (obviously hardware hacks, or switch was thrown
and reflashed and disabled/reset). It's also a cheap/awesome way to manage
fleets of machines in education and corporate/kiosk/etc. environments -- you
CAN achieve that with Mac OS or Windows, but it requires a lot of work.

I hope they don't kill it in the future.

~~~
slacka
> Chrome OS is far from perfection

In fact, I would say for some users, Chrome OS is near perfection. Take my
uncle for instance, who for years was getting himself infected with malware
requiring regular visits from me or geek squad to wipe his system. When he was
ready for his most recent upgrade, I tried him on Mint, but he didn't like the
interface. Then I suggested a Chromebook. He LOVES IT. He says it's the best
machine he's ever owned. One year later, and not a single issue with malware.

I don't worry about him getting infected. If instead of a Chromebook, he had
gotten some Android tablet with an OS stuck at 4.x, he's likely be infected by
now.

Android and Chrome OS serve different use cases. Even if Android manages to
fix their upgrade issue, I doubt it will ever be as secure as Chrome OS. From
the blog, "guaranteed auto-updates for five years", sounds like a few people
at Google get this. Fingers crossed.

~~~
rdl
The "perfection" I want is "not having to trust Google as an operator, only as
a developer (and, open source!), and being able to plug in my own enterprise
as root of trust for XXX-OS, with my own choice of backend services too --
which may include google apps".

I'd also like some non-defeatable indicator in the hardware/display/etc. that
"box is in "good" state. The dev switch doesn't retain state.

These probably don't matter much for individuals but do matter for enterprise.
If this existed, even if it were just keys to approve/sign updates and still
required google services for a lot of the functionality, would be awesome.

~~~
bobajeff
> "not having to trust Google as an operator, only as a developer (and, open
> source!), and being able to plug in my own enterprise as root of trust for
> XXX-OS, with my own choice of backend services too -- which may include
> google apps"

That's a good idea I wish they'd implement. Basically allow you to choose your
own sync/updates server instead of having it hardcoded to Google's.

I imagine I could then basically make any modifications to my own personal
Chrome OS fork and have them stick.

~~~
groby_b
You're seeing the contradiction between having a verifiably "good" device and
the ability to change the update/sync server at will, right?

~~~
bobajeff
I don't quite understand the need for that level of security. Surely the cases
where being able to elaborately go into the BIOS and change such settings will
lead to infections is miniscule. It's certainly worth the tradeoff of not
relying on an external entity for verification of what's "good".

~~~
rdl
It's a big deal if you have fleets of machines which travel outside your
control. It lets you treat them as identical (modulo hardware damage).

It's also a big deal because on a conventional machine, malware remotely can
download, root, reflash, and persistently doom you, no physical access needed.

~~~
bobajeff
Why wouldn't you be able to treat them as identical?

How would being able to change the sync/verification server make Chromebooks
vulnerable like those conventional machines?

~~~
simoncion
> Why wouldn't you be able to treat them as identical?

If a given machine can have arbitrary software installed on it, then that
machine can behave differently than other machines in the fleet.

If all machines in your fleet can _only_ install and/or run software signed
with the company key, then the company can ensure that the software load for
_all_ machines remains the same and -thus- all machines behave identically.

> How would being able to change the sync/verification server make Chromebooks
> vulnerable...

If the software repo and/or verification server can be changed by a third
party, _and_ the trusted keys installed in the machine can be changed, then
it's trivial to pwn such a machine. If only the servers can be changed, then
it requires loss of control of one's signing keys to pwn such a machine. [0]

[0] Or -obviously- a _sufficiently_ bad privilege escalation bug can pwn such
a machine.

------
kinofcain
"no plan to phase out Chrome OS"

does not explicitly refute

"speculation that Chrome OS will be folded into Android"

Especially since the original story stated that google was going to "combine
the operating systems":

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabets-google-to-fold-
chrome-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabets-google-to-fold-chrome-
operating-system-into-android-1446151134)

Google could easily market the combined OS as "Chrome OS" rather than Android.
In fact that might be a good idea if they're going to make the
experience/distribution model more Google-led like it is with Chrome OS.

~~~
derefr
It could also mean that the two operating systems are going to be merged at a
base level but keep distinct userlands, like iOS and OSX.

The point this article was _trying_ to make, is that Chrome OS is under LTS
constraints _at the UX and userland-API level_ for its present enterprise
users (schools, mostly, but also some corporations.) Under these constraints,
the kernel, display-server stack, etc. might get switched out in some future
version, but educators who are dependent on their present workflows using
specific apps+extensions will be able to continue to use them with no change.
Any "merger" with Android will be at a level that is transparent both to the
user, and to the Chrome app/extension developer.

~~~
edvinbesic
This would be very interesting. Imagine plugging your android phone into a
dock and getting the ChromeOS GUI instead of Android but having access to all
the same data and services. Now imagine we could run crouton and get full
access. You could really turn your phone into your main device/dev machine (at
least for light workloads).

Kind-of-sort-of like what Microsoft demonstrated with the new windows 10
phones, but a souped up version.

~~~
Navarr
Doesn't the Ubuntu phone do this as well?

~~~
edvinbesic
I think that was the general idea, but as I recall the phones did not review
very well which is a bummer since you can't just pick a device you want and
install ubuntu phone on it.

~~~
zanny
They do support several of the most popular Nexus devices, though.

------
bingobob
well this was found the other day. [https://chromium-
review.googlesource.com/#/c/306706/](https://chromium-
review.googlesource.com/#/c/306706/)

libchromeos is transitioning to libbrillo and chromeos namespaces and include
directory is changing to brillo.

brillo is Google IoT OS,
[https://developers.google.com/brillo/?hl=en](https://developers.google.com/brillo/?hl=en)
they say its based on Android?

also the new Google onHub Router are running ChromeOS
[http://thehackernews.com/2015/10/root-google-onhub-
chromeos....](http://thehackernews.com/2015/10/root-google-onhub-
chromeos.html)

I think the idea is Google are just aligning there Core Linux base between all
there products allowing for a whole range of improvements from resource
sharing to a even better security. and it may even allow them to upgrade
Android at a better update rate, with reports that the Google Pixel C a Tablet
running Android is getting updates every 6 weeks.

i would also like to point out Microsoft has basically done the same thing
with the Windows 10 Core its now on XBOX ONE, Windows Phone, PC and even a
Raspberry Pi runs this core but they all have there own user space setups/gui.

~~~
notatoad
This would, imho, be the best possible outcome of this: libchromeos becoming
the underpinning for all Google's consumer OS projects, and then having a
distinct userland slapped on top of it. Especially if it meant the device-
specific stuff all happens in the brillo/core layer, and we can slap a
chromeos, iot, or android layer on top of it regardless of the device.

Want to turn your nexus player into a desktop computer? replace the androidTV
user layer with the ChromeOS user layer. Want to turn your chromebook into a
media centre? do the opposite. turn an old phone into a home automation server
by replacing android with the IOT layer.

------
thebouv
That's clear as mud.

On the more interesting side, I had no idea about the Chromebit. So now to
find out how to get one since the page linked in the article is a "sign up to
stay in loop". But after some more digging seems like it is already out, or
maybe just previewed earlier this year to some bloggers?

~~~
wishinghand
I found out about it a few weeks ago. It was announced in the Spring, supposed
to come out in the summer, then nothing other than maybe it'll be less than
$100 and available Q4 2015. Hearing Google say it'll be a few weeks is
reassuring.

~~~
thebouv
I just bought a Chromecast to play with for a digital signage solution, but
this could be better.

I couldn't find any specs on how it is powered. From the very little research
I've done, it seems like power over HDMI is possible, but maybe I'm wrong on
that. Would be nice to get it down to just the stick.

~~~
jotux
ExtremeTech[1] lists the specs:

>the Chromebit contains a quad-core ARM Cortex A17 Rockchip CPU and a quad-
core ARM 760 Mali GPU, drawing as little as 3 watts of power, and the
Chromebit contains 2GB RAM and 16GB flash storage. 802.11ac and Bluetooth are
on board, with the latter meant for connecting a keyboard or mouse; an
additional USB 2.0 port is for hooking up a drive or other peripherals.
There’s no microSD slot on this one.

[1][http://www.extremetech.com/computing/202907-intel-compute-
st...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/202907-intel-compute-stick-vs-
asus-chromebit-should-you-wait-for-chrome-os)

~~~
thebouv
That's actually a lot beefier than I thought it was going to be. Very
interesting.

------
jordanthoms
Notice that they never say _Android_ is here to stay - Maybe Chrome OS will
become the Phone/Tablet OS under a new guise?

Google's working on a new UI layer and potential backwards compatibility for
older Android apps, which points in that direction:

\- Chromium developers are working on a DART-based Mobile UI framework and
execution engine, Flutter ([http://flutter.io/](http://flutter.io/)). It's
looking to be far better than the existing Android UI system - built for touch
and 120fps from the start. This uses the Dartium VM and a bridge to allow the
DART apps to use all the native features of the platform, it's much more than
just another web framework. Development on this is very active right now,
clearly a sizable team working fulltime - and they're building new developer
tools also. There was a talk on this a while ago:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnIWl33YMwA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnIWl33YMwA)
.

\- Google has built a Runtime to allow existing Android Java-based apps to run
on Chrome OS, and is currently testing this and working with developers to get
their apps to run on it. It doesn't make much sense to invest in building that
out just for chromebooks, since the experience on a Chromebook with Android
apps is pretty awful (can't resize etc), but it makes total sense if it's
going to be how legacy Java/Android apps run on the new Chrome based phone OS.

The sad truth is that Android simply isn't a very well engineered system -
it's been improved over time, but problems persist - like the complex update
process leading to unsatisfied users and security problems, poor UI
performance (even now, Android can barely do simple animations at a steady
60fps on the latest Nexus devices, and has little hope of allowing for the
beautiful animations the Material Design team has come up with), and poor
battery life. Google's also at a dead-end with Java given the ongoing legal
battles, and with Apache Harmony dead they have to maintain the standard
library implementation themselves.

On the other hand, Chrome OS performs great, has awesome battery life on
Chromebooks, is quite possibly the most secure end-user OS ever, and
Chromebooks get speedy updates for at least 5 years. I know which one I'd
choose as the basis for a merged OS.

Of course, if the merge is more Chrome OS than Android, they'd be saying
exactly what they're saying now - The last thing they want is an Osbourne
effect hitting the current Android phones.

~~~
jusben1369
That's because no one seriously thinks for a minute that Android is not here
to stay. When you hear about the dominant global mobile operating system
(share, not profit) and a niche desktop operating system "merging" it's not
difficult to work out which one is more at risk.

This announcement is aimed strictly for business consumption and has nothing
to do with technology. Google will be inundated with hardware developers
(OEM's) and large Chrome OS buyers (distributors, educational groups) saying
"the Microsoft sales people are telling me you're abandoning Chrome OS. This
is very disturbing to us as we've made a significant investment in your
technology!" This is their effort to rebut some of that FUD which may or may
not be FUD.

~~~
vidarh
It would presumably be fud in the sense that to merge ChromeOS and Android
wouldn't require all that much in order to provide the functionality people
use ChromeOS for. If it provides Chrome + pnacl + support for
installing/running Chrome apps, it won't even have to be visible to people
that the system underneat is largely Android unless they want to know.

I have a ChromeBook, and to be honest, I have no idea what the filesystem is
like, even. As much as the geek in me wants to play around, the pragmatic in
me recognises that I bought it to have a light, low maintenance way of running
a web brower + ssh on the go, and is too busy doing other stuff than poking
around...

So assuming that people will be able to keep running the same apps, with a
similarly clean launcher, there's every reason for them to sell that as
"ChromeOS isn't going anywhere" even if they may or may not be fibbing from a
purely technical point of view.

------
aznpwnzor
The IOTization of any available media output seems to be the goal of the
Chrome team: Chromecast, Chrome Audio, Chromebit. I like it.

~~~
the-dude
Coworker sent met this: [https://google.github.io/physical-
web/](https://google.github.io/physical-web/)

Haven't had the time to check it really out, but seams to be 'iBeacons'.

~~~
Navarr
Google has Beacons called "Eddystone"
[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/meet-googles-
eddyston...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/meet-googles-eddystone-a-
flexible-open-source-ibeacon-fighter/)

~~~
the-dude
These are called 'urlBeacons' iirc.

~~~
tjohns
Eddystone has a couple different modes. One of them is to transmit a URL, but
beacons can also be configured to transmit a UID. Not all Eddystone beacons
will be transmitting a URL.

That said, I believe Physical Web does use the Eddystone-URL mode.

Spec: [https://github.com/google/eddystone/blob/master/protocol-
spe...](https://github.com/google/eddystone/blob/master/protocol-
specification.md)

------
shmerl
But will it still use glibc Linux (Gentoo) or it will switch to bionic Android
one? That was the main point, and not the confusion that Chrome OS is
disappearing.

------
cowardlydragon
Can we please get a gradual plan for looping in the rest of the mainline linux
ecosystem?

The desktop market may be shit, but it's there and google could still go after
it if they wanted to. At some point Apple is going to realize that the major
market it hasn't dominated yet is... the PC, and it's ripe for attack now that
alternative computing footholds are so well established in mobile from the
Microsoft days of yore.

------
toddchambery
I'm sure for the vast majority of Chrome OS users, the technology powering
their device is of no significance compared to a reliable and consistent UI.

~~~
nraynaud
plus who cares? Chrome OS could just be a stripped-down android, and the world
would be fine. Actually I though they were already mostly the same (I have a
chromebook, but no android device, I don't know what's the difference, appart
from the fact that my chromebook gets regular updates)

~~~
pgrote
I don't think that is correct.

There are flavors of android including vendor modified or changed
specifications. They can be subtle, like a pay as you go phone carrier, or
major like what Amazon has done with Fire. Each of these changes introduces
security issues outside of Google's control.

With a Chromebook you get the ChromeOS from Google regardless of the vendor
who made the hardware.

At least that is my understanding.

------
shadowmint
I'm willing to bet money that:

    
    
        While we’ve been working on ways to bring together the
        best of both operating systems, there's no plan to
        phase out Chrome OS
    

Comes from a worry about chromebook sales, not any presence or lack of a
technical plan to merge or combine components from the two.

I would bet this is actually: 'YES, we are merging something with something
_technically_ , we're just going to keep two brands for now'.

For all the reasons in the other thread, it's both good and bad in different
ways; but I would be astonished if you don't see wide support for Android apps
on chromebooks in the near future; and that does require some kind of Android
runtime.

------
nikanj
Reminds me of Microsoft trying to convince us Windows RT wasn't in hospice
care internally

------
Artistry121
What blog template does google use for their blogspot domains?

------
snambi
There is enough market for an android laptop. There is no need to kill chrome
OS. Is google planning to release an Android Laptop or not?

~~~
notatoad
It's been done. It wasn't very good.

[http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/21/hp-
slatebook-14-review/](http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/21/hp-
slatebook-14-review/)

------
bedros
I think the plan is to run android apps inside chrome OS, the same way you can
install android apps inside a PC using bluestacks

------
ausjke
so what does this really mean, Chrome-OS will not be "folded" into Android?
Can't have a concrete answer after reading it through though.

MS Windows is trying to rule all platforms with one OS, so does iOS, even
Ubuntu is trying the same, maybe Google though they need one OS to rule it all
as well?

------
simula67
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, they could be trying to
avoid an osborne effect.

~~~
deckar01
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect)

Even if ChromeOS got completely replaced by Android (which they seem to say it
won't) surely it would merge/fork and not just get abandoned.

~~~
simula67
To cause Osborne Effect, it is sufficient for people to _think_ it would get
abandoned.

------
KuhlMensch
"every school day, 30,000 new Chromebooks are activated in U.S. classrooms"
_spits out coffee_

Wow.

------
awqrre
Does that mean that they will update it twice as often now (Chrome + Android
engineers)?

------
Zigurd
Nearly everyone glossed over how hard it is to make one os for both lo-cost
non-touch laptop and finger-touch mobile form factors.

If there was an awesome touch ux for the pixel laptop I'd be more inclined to
believe.

~~~
anonbanker
KDE5 and multitouch? :)

(written from my Chromebook running custom Gentoo Linux)

------
fibo
I have a Chromebook and I am really happy with it

------
nitpickifying
The green Android robot logo kind of sucks, and I bet there's an internal
campaign amongst some marketing/branding goons to try and kill it off in the
name of beauty and elegance.

------
byron_fast
"Chrome OS thinks it would like to go for a walk."

------
ohitsdom
This is confusing. Smells like there is a lot of friction and uncertainty
inside Google...

~~~
baddox
What seems uncertain? Couldn't it just be that the reports were false, which
wouldn't indicate anything about the teams at Google?

~~~
danieldk
Or just taken out of context. Since both Android and Chrome OS run on Linux, a
small userland, and a display server, maybe there is some effort within Google
to bring these two more together to reduce maintenance cost.

Disclaimer: I don't know how much the code bases differ now.

~~~
Sanddancer
Fairly substantially. ChromeOS is a fairly standard Linux distro under the
hood, albeit with not using X11 or directfb for their rendering layer, while
Android uses a different libc, rendering layer, etc.

------
mtgx
Then what exactly did they ever mean by "merging Chrome OS and Android" if
Chrome OS remains a stand-alone OS, as well? And I'm not just talking about
the recent WSJ article, either. They've mentioned the merger multiple times
since Chrome OS first came out.

Either way, I could care less about the "merger" (which nobody seems to be
able to define anyway), but I do care about them being serious about making
Android a real competitor to Windows on the desktop, by taking advantage of
the huge native app and developer ecosystem they have there (which _by
definition_ is non-existent on the browser-based Chrome OS).

In other words: keep Chrome OS or kill it. Whatever. Just get serious about
Android on a PC. And please don't begin with the assumption that the tablet
interface is enough for that - you know, like you just did with Pixel C? Like
that. Don't do that!

~~~
Navarr
I don't think I've ever heard that from an official source. It's been rumored
basically forever.

~~~
datasage
Same thing could be said about OSX and iOS. There have been rumors of the
platforms merging for a long time.

Instead, they took some features of iOS and integrated them into OSX and vis
versa. But they are still separate platforms.

I think with merging them together you run the risk of confusion that
Microsoft had with WindowsRT and Windows.

