Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Are There No True Dual-System Laptops Or Tablet Computers?
dryriver writes: This is not a question about dual-booting OSs -- having 2 or more different OSs installed on the same machine. Rather, imagine that I'm a business person or product engineer or management consultant with a Windows 10 laptop that has confidential client emails, word documents, financial spreadsheets, product CAD files or similar on it. Business stuff that needs to stay confidential per my employment contract or NDAs or any other agreement I may have signed. When I have to access the internet from an untrusted internet access point that somebody else controls -- free WiFi in a restaurant, cafe or airport lounge in a foreign country for example -- I do not want my main Win 10 OS, Intel/AMD laptop hardware or other software exposed to this untrusted internet connection at all. Rather, I want to use a 2nd and completely separate System On Chip or SOC inside my Laptop running Linux or Android to do my internet accessing. In other words, I want to be able to switch to a small 2nd standalone Android/Linux computer inside my Windows 10 laptop, so that I can do my emailing and internet browsing just about anywhere without any worries at all, because in that mode, only the small SOC hardware and its RAM is exposed to the internet, not any of the rest of my laptop or tablet. A hardware switch on the laptop casing would let me turn the 2nd SOC computer on when I need to use it, and it would take over the screen, trackpad and keyboard when used. But the SOC computer would have no physical connection at all to my main OS, BIOS, CPU, RAM, SSD, USB ports and so on. Does something like this exist at all (if so, I've never seen it...)? And if not, isn't this a major oversight? Wouldn't it be worth sticking a 200 Dollar Android or Linux SOC computer into a laptop computer if that enables you access internet anywhere, without any worries that your main OS and hardware can be compromised by 3rd parties while you do this?
That second system you are looking for, to browse and email and such, it's in your pocket.
It's called your phone.
The need you are describing is apparently not widespread nor strong enough for anyone to invest in implementing it in the way you describe.
Use your phone.
Virtualization is the obvious answer. Inside your VMs you can run Linux, or Windows, or whatever. It's quite safe. You should run your work-related stuff in one VM, and your personal stuff in another VM, and not use the native OS for anything except the virtualization software.
This is the most secure option you will find, and modern virtualization platforms (VMware, etc) will even let you set flashpoints where the VM is saved, and if there's an issue, you can rewind to the safe point and continue.
There's little to no performance penalty as long as the hosted OSes run natively on Intel.
- Vincit qui patitur.
That very much depends on how you define security.
If you define security as aboslute safety and isolation, then you are correct. However, that is not the definition of security in the real world. In the real world, security is the achieved by incremental decreases in risk of harm to a system. What he proposes would have the potential to increase security by this measure. However, this only works if the following is true:
That said, this would actually open up a potential new avenue of attack, and decrease security, unless the isolation is nigh total. If I recall correctly, even being in proximity, there have been proof-of-concept demonstrations that two air-gapped computers can still transmit data to each other under the right conditions.
This question originated in a patent writing effort I was a part of 3 years ago. Basically, we were drafting the patent document for an invention on one PC that had no internet connection at all - to keep the invention safe from prying eyes until the patent could be filed. And we were using another computer with internet connection in a different room to look up stuff on the internet, like patent writing regulations, patent formatting guidelines, patent filing deadlines, technical stuff and so on. It was a pain in the ass because to keep the invention to be patented confidential, we had to write the patent on one computer with no internet whatsoever, and do everything internet related on a separate computer, going back and forth between the 2 machines for weeks. So I thought - why not make a computer that can go on the internet WITHOUT potentially exposing the entire machine to the internet. Having a 2nd mini-PC inside the main computer that can go online but cannot expose the rest of the computer to any would-be hackers seemed like a great solution for this. There are many real-world situations where you DO need the power of a full Win 10/Core i7 PC to accomplish something, and DO need to look stuff up on the internet all the time while you are doing this - technical details or technical knowhow for example - but are constantly fretting that exposing the ENTIRE PC or laptop to the internet could result in your work being stolen. So I came up with the idea of 2 computers in one casing - 1 large, fully featured computer that is not seen by the internet, and 1 much simpler SOC computer that CAN see the internet and be seen by the internet. Its kind of like using little netbook computer alongside your main laptop for internet stuff, but the netbook is built into your main machine, and can run parallel to it when needed.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
What is so COMPLEX and HUGE and STUPID about adding a small SOC chip into a workstation replacement laptop that already costs 2,500 Dollars to buy? Is there really NOBODY who would benefit from a having a 2nd small and cheap computer integrated into a Laptop computer?
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
What makes chromebooks less useful than tablets?
Modern Chromebooks run all android apps in addition to their normal stuff, they also are capable of running full Linux distros in parallel with ChromeOS.
I use a Pixelbook as my primary, and only, personal computer at this point. I've not run in to any situations where I wished I had a tablet instead, nor any where I wished I had a different type of computer. The Pixelbook has actually surprised me. When I bought it, I assumed that I'd spend all my time in Ubuntu on it, but that's just not the case, I almost never bother to switch to Ubuntu, and instead do everything I need on ChromeOS, either online, in android apps, or in a shell. The times I need to open Ubuntu are few and far between.
This is the answer.
My own implementation presumes Windows as the (very) weak link in the chain, and it's run as a VM inside of Linux. I've given up on ever trusting Microsoft again, in light of the recent, ongoing, and ever-doubling-down, privacy horrors, endless stream of newly-discovered exploitable vulnerabilities, and forced corporateware installations associated with Win 10. So ok. So no Win 10. I went the other way. Win 7 Starter Edition SP1, stripped down to the ground floor, no Windows Updates, no antivirus, no anything, just the bare OS, to run the proprietary software (if the software demands an x64 OS, well then, we'll move up the Win7 hierarchy one notch) that demands Windows, to run smoothly enough, hassle-free. This Win7 VM is considered to be laying on the floor with its legs spread, and it only runs the programs it must run, and nothing whatsoever else. No games. No VOIP. Certainly no web browsers. It's drawbacks are obvious, but with adult supervision, nothing that cannot be dealt with, and it's lightning fast in its stripped-down state.
If he wants a second Linux VM running alongside the Win7 VM inside the first one, well then, ok, so he shall have it. Whatever suits the situation most appropriately.
Toss in a TAILS USB stick with encrypted persistent storage for situations that seem a bit sketchy for the above "standard" setup, and we're good to go.
Again, your answer is the correct one.
Is it fascism yet?