Slashdot Mirror
ChromeOS Will No Longer Support Ext2/3/4 On External Drives/SD Cards
An anonymous reader writes Chrome OS is based on the Linux kernel and designed by Google to work with web applications and installed applications. Chromebook is one of the best selling laptops on Amazon. However, devs decided to drop support for ext2/3/4 on external drivers and SD card. It seems that ChromiumOS developers can't implement a script or feature to relabel EXT volumes in the left nav that is insertable and has RW privileges using Files.app. Given that this is the main filesystem in Linux, and is thereby automatically well supported by anything that leverages Linux, this choice makes absolutely no sense. Google may want to drop support for external storage and push the cloud storage on everyone. Overall Linux users and community members are not happy at all.
I just can't see what the point of ChromeOS is.
I can sort of see why Firefox OS exists: it's just Mozilla thrashing around prior to death, trying to grasp onto anything that can keep them afloat. They know that when Google finally stops throwing money at them, or even just throws less, that they're going to fail as an organization. So they're trying to get a toehold in other markets, and Firefox OS, as shitty as it is, is the best they can manage.
But there's no such excuse for Google. They've got lots of money, lots of talent, and they even have a much better ChromeOS alternative: Android.
ChromeOS provides a miserable experience to begin with, and now they're apparently just making it even more useless.
So why even bother? Why waste more time, money and people on ChromeOS?
ChromeOS should be ended as a project. Firefox OS should be ended as a project. They're both money drains with no hope of ever producing something useful.
No, it's just an example of a relatively new mentality in software development. If the metrics say that few people use a certain troublesome feature, let's just ax it, nevermind the legitimate reasons that the few who do use it have. It reveals lazyness and narrow mindedness.
By the way, what a horrendous summary.
Sergey Brin needs to remind himself what country he escaped as a child and stop helping American versions of the FSB from growing their powers. Of-course he hasn't been through a TSA experience himself and I am sure his and his family privacy are safe from Google's data mining operation, but he should not kid himself, he is on a special list of persons of interest, USA powers that be are certainly paying close attention to high profile targets like Brin and other influential and wealthy individuals. Does he really want to increase their powers? It would be a grave error on his part because private property rights are quite transient in the United Socialist States of Republicans (and Democrats).
Keeping all private information on line, where it can be data mined by Google and the NSA is profitable for Google but it also grows the power of the state and people should think really hard about letting the state have all that power.
You can't handle the truth.
Yes and No. You can get a VERY basic terminal by typing ctrl-alt-T, but really all it can do is ssh to something else. If you change it into developer mode (takes a bit longer to boot), then you get access to root/full terminal.
cheap, works, not too upset when 7 year old drops it, keeps him from attempting to use my good laptop, and avoids paying the windows tax.
I think the article hits it head-on about pushing users toward cloud storage, specifically Google Drive. I just got a Droid Maxx with KitKat and was shocked to find they had removed the ability to mount USB drives via USB OTG. Had to root my phone and install USB OTG Helper to have that basic functionality again. Obviously, the support is still there in the kernel; just the userspace access was removed, and USB OTG Helper was able to mount my flash drives successfully, even NTFS. Did I mention the Droid Maxx (made by Motorola after Google's acquisition) lacks an SD card? The 32 GB model was discontinued, so this is the 16 GB version and a Verizon exclusive, so you KNOW it's full of unremovable bloatware further depleting its limited, unexpandable storage. They tried to justify this by including 50 GB of Google Drive space for 2 years, but cloud storage should not be a replacement for local storage, only a supplement. Also, what if I did jump in feet-first and use all that extra space? What happens to my data 2 years from now? It's essentially being held hostage by the free "trial". Thankfully I only use cloud storage as off-site backup for important documents; I also store them in encrypted containers to prevent them from being data mined. Also, cloud storage is a pain when you have metered internet. I love me some Google products, but their "don't be evil" philosophy has gone out the window long ago.
It does everything that a normal person could want...
If they drop EXT2/3/4 it will cease doing everything a normal person could want. Hence the article.
The target market for the units isn't uber-geeks, it's home users. Those home users will virtually always be inserting memory cards from their camera and attaching external drives they picked up at the local electronics store. As long as the boxes can talk to those, Google is fine.
Why bother developing, testing, and supporting a feature that few in their target market will ever use?
They're apparently dropping support on a single SD card? (it should be "external drives and SD memory cards." Then this:
Which is an extremely awkward, if not utterly nonsensical, sentence.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Google Apps, combined with Chromebooks is a very compelling platform for schools.
We are deploying tons of these. They are cheap to buy, easy to manage, and great for 90% of the work that students are asked to do. (We use Macs for the other 10%).
When a kid drops a $1000 Macbook, I cringe. I cringe at the cost, and at the loss of whatever data that kid saved to his/her desktop. When that same kid drops a $250 chromebook, the hardware loss isn't too terrible, and I know that kid's data is saved to their Google Drive - automatically.
These things are fantastic in schools.
No, I don't expect software corporations to care a fig about either what I want, or about good design. I don't expect software corporations to EXIST. Linux is community developed and free. There is no reason whatsoever that the niche filled by ChromeOS could not be much better served by community development as well. With the soulless bean counters out of the way, we could then get a decent design and stop making stupid decisions.
"No one" may come close to describing statistically the portion of ChromeOS users expicitly demanding removable extx support, but "everyone" would be a pretty good description who want useful and effiicient removable storage support without STUPID LIMITATIONS.
I would assume so. These devices are 200 to 400 dollars each. That is still a lot of money. People would have returned them or at least posted very negative reviews if they got something unexpected. But it seems even with 1000 reviews these devices have very good 4 to 5 star ratings. So I would say they are valid purchases.
Re: I'd rather pay Google than M$.
Why? What's the difference? Aren't they equally bad but in different ways?
Ummm, no. Just because you can point to examples and say 'both sides are bad', that doesn't make them equally bad. Fox is biased and MSNBC is biased, but only one promotes disinformation along with their bias - and refuses to correct their mistakes (if they're even accidental at all). And yet, you will see it reported, oh, everywhere, that MSNBC is the 'liberal' Fox, and they're both the same. They're not.
If you think Google's business model is 'evil', you obviously don't want a Chromebook - if only because you don't want to support Google. But Chrome and Chromebooks are basically just a way to prevent Microsoft from re-monopolizing the web browser market. Chromebooks work by doing what the web does best, shake things up. They don't provide Google with any other benefits that they can't get by promoting the Chrome browser on Windows, OS/X or Linux.
The original browser wars started because Microsoft felt threatened by the web - and definitely didn't want to see the emergence of cross-platform software development. Their business model was based on tying all end-user software to Windows. Microsoft would like nothing more than to translate their (continues) desktop dominance into mobile dominance. Sure, Google wants to continue their search dominance - but Chromebooks don't really add much to that effort. They just attempt to make sure that Microsoft isn't able to claw back the web and lock them out.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Once a student has completed all of a teacher's assignments, what should the student be doing while sitting quietly between having completed the assignments and the bell other than games?
Perish the thought that they might--in a classroom, of all places--find a book to read.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
but only one promotes disinformation along with their bias
That's because one is more in line with your world view so you suffer from confirmation bias when trying to compare the two.
To be clear, both networks are an embarrassment and neither should call themselves a news network. They both know that tribalism and sensationalism is what the unsophisticated masses want to hear. It worked on you.
Fox just gets called out more often because they happen to be the only network that caters to social conservatives and has a much larger audience.