You Can Now Run Linux Apps On Chrome OS (venturebeat.com)

Google today announced Chrome OS is getting Linux support. "As a result, Chromebooks will soon be able to run Linux apps and execute Linux commands," reports VentureBeat. "A preview of Linux on the Pixelbook will be released first, with support for more devices coming soon." From the report: "Just go to wherever you normally get those apps, whether it's on the websites or through apt-get in the Linux terminal, and seamless get those apps like any other Linux distribution," Chrome OS director of product management Kan Liu told VentureBeat.

Support for Linux apps means developers will finally be able to use a Google device to develop for Google's platforms, rather than having to depend on Windows, Mac, or Linux machines. And because Chrome OS doesn't just run Chrome OS-specific apps anymore, developers will be able to create, test, and run any Android or web app for phones, tablets, and laptops all on their Chromebooks. Without having to switch devices, you can run your favorite IDE -- as long as there is a Debian Linux version (for the curious, Google is specifically using Debian Stretch here -- code in your favorite language and launch projects to Google Cloud with the command line.

Comments

Important to note: not actually a new feature

[Narcocide]

It's only "new" in the sense that they stopped forcibly blocking this functionality. Probably because Windows 10 can run Linux apps finally so now Chrome OS was the only major one left that couldn't.

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[ZorinLynx]

I was about to ask, but you sorta got there first... How is this different than developer mode which gives you full access to the system?

I haven't used Chromebooks in a while; did they take that out?

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[Narcocide]

What I had gathered previously was that it was something that not many vendors had left access to. (On purpose, anyway.)

Re: Important to note: not actually a new feature

[tysonedwards]

Turning on developer mode disables a lot of the security protections. This change keeps the security on and puts apps in a sandbox, just like Android.

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[tepples]

How is this different than developer mode which gives you full access to the system?

Developer mode self-destructs if someone turns on a Chromebook and looks at it funny. Verified mode does not.

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[tepples]

The new part is the ability for your Chromebrew installation and unpushed changes to survive someone turning on your Chromebook and following the prompts. A developer mode Chromebook prompts the user to press Space then Enter to perform a factory reset, and your non-technical roommate or children just might follow them.

Re: Important to note: not actually a new feature

[Monster_user]

In the age of facial recognition, especially combined with bad prompts as the one linked, your comment could be literally true in the near future.

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[squiggleslash]

That's incredibly misleading.

You appear to be referring to "Developer mode". Developer mode is available in all Chromebooks, and they've always made it easy to get into. It's off by default, because the entire point of the Chromebook is to be a secure platform, and giving people access outside of the sandbox is risky.

They've never "blocked" this functionality. They implemented the functionality.

What appears to be being announced today is that they've found a way to sandbox regular old GNU/Linux applications, so they have the same level of security that NaCl, Web apps, and sandboxed Android APKs do.

That's definitely new, and that's definitely positive.

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[squiggleslash]

It's not remotely similar, and the idiots who modded up the GP need to have their heads examined.

Developer mode is a system for gaining access to the internals of your Chromebook. It allows you to install arbitrary software. It was developed deliberately by Google, contradicting the GP's contention that Google has been trying to prevent people from doing this.

Developer mode however is an insecure system. It doesn't sandbox anything. When you're in developer mode, you literally have control over the entire workings of your Chromebook. You can even overwrite the BIOS.

What this article is about is the ability to run arbitrary GNU/Linux applications in a sandbox. It will not give you, or those applications, control over the Chromebook. Your data will remain safe.

The only thing the two things have in common are that if you want to run an arbitrary GNU/Linux application, both systems allow you to do so. That's a little like arguing that a car is the same thing as a bus because both can transport you to work.

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[green1]

So in other words, this is a solution to a problem that Google themselves created. And not even the easy solution which would be to quit putting up stupid screens that allow people to wipe the machine by pressing the spacebar!

The only thing that's "insecure" about developer mode is that one stupid screen. I wish companies would stop this war against their end users and allow people to have some control over their own devices without such stupid shenanigans!

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[green1]

Developer mode however is an insecure system. It doesn't sandbox anything. When you're in developer mode, you literally have control over the entire workings of your Chromebook. You can even overwrite the BIOS.

Since when did the definition of "insecure" change to mean "the customer has control of the device they bought and paid for"? This is a complete re-definition of the word, and is entirely in the favor of the corporations fighting against the end users.

What this article is about is the ability to run arbitrary GNU/Linux applications in a sandbox. It will not give you, or those applications, control over the Chromebook. Your data will remain safe.

The only threat to your data in developer mode was Google themselves with the moronic decision to allow anyone to wipe your device by pressing the spacebar at the big scary security screen. THAT is what is talked about when people talk about google preventing people from running what they want on their own machines, the fact that Google makes it as scary and fragile as possible to control what you already own.

The only thing the two things have in common are that if you want to run an arbitrary GNU/Linux application, both systems allow you to do so. That's a little like arguing that a car is the same thing as a bus because both can transport you to work.

Here you are correct. The original developer mode was a way for you to actually own the hardware you paid for, as long as you were ok with any passer-by wiping your device clean if the looked at it funny. The new version is making sure that ownership of your device continues to rest with the manufacturer, but at least you're allowed to use it for a subset of approved activities.

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[green1]

So the new part is a way to not be screwed over by Google just because you want to pretend you own your hardware....

Re:Important to note: not actually a new feature

[green1]

You appear to be referring to "Developer mode". Developer mode is available in all Chromebooks, and they've always made it easy to get into. It's off by default, because the entire point of the Chromebook is to be a secure platform, and giving people access outside of the sandbox is risky.

When did we re-define "secure" to mean "the end user isn't allowed to choose what to do with their hardware"? That's not security, that's oppression. Blocking the end user from running apps, does not stop hackers from accessing your data, or running their own apps. It only means that you don't actually own the hardware you bought and paid for.

They've never "blocked" this functionality. They implemented the functionality.

Debatable. By putting up so many barriers (including making sure that any passer-by can wipe your drive clean just by pressing the largest key on the keyboard) They have very much actively discouraged using this functionality, even if it's not technically "blocked". As for "implemented" it's hard to give credit for someone who spends tons of time, effort, and money taking away the primary feature of a general purpose computer just because they come up with the most awkward and inconvenient way possible to give it back to you later.

What appears to be being announced today is that they've found a way to sandbox regular old GNU/Linux applications, so they have the same level of security that NaCl, Web apps, and sandboxed Android APKs do.

That's definitely new, and that's definitely positive.

And by "security" you really mean "lack of end user control", as opposed to the traditional definition of security which would be more focussed on blocking attackers, and less focused on keeping the owner of the machine from actually having any control over it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: WOW!!!!!!!

[Bing Tsher E]

ChromeOS is a prison compound built on a cement slab that is made out of Linux. The kernal, not the OS.

Linux Apps?

[TechyImmigrant]

I can run Linux programs on my Linux machine. I've been able to do that for decades.

Linux based machines that hide the underlying functionality are simply stupid.

Re: Linux Apps?

[Bradmont]

Linux is GPL 2, isn't it? I thought Linus was against switching to GPL 3

Re: Linux Apps?

[exomondo]

That's right. The Linux project doesn't do assignments of copyright to the FSF so going from the GPLv2 to GPLv3 would be complicated, but that's an aside to the fact that Linus views Tivoization as a good thing.

Re:Linux Apps?

[tepples]

I can run Linux programs on my Linux machine. I've been able to do that for decades.

But for what fraction of those "decades" have you been able to buy a compact GNU/Linux laptop in major electronics store chains?

Re:Linux Apps?

[AmiMoJo]

This could finally be the year of the Linux desktop. A decent desktop, decent hardware and drivers supported by the manufacturer, and Linux apps...

Re:Linux Apps?

[serviscope_minor]

Unfortunately it will be the year of commands under someone else's crappy desktop.

The beauty of the Linux desktop is you can run whatever window manager you like. Don't like the latest offering from Ubuntu or GNOME? KDE, XFCE, LXDE, FVWM, Ratpoision or Xmonad and many others will all work perfectly depenging on your tastes.

Re:Linux Apps?

[DMJC]

Just don't expect all your apps to fit any particular desktop metaphor. This is the main reason why GNUstep is so disappointing to use. It could have very well been a great way to run an OSX style desktop on Linux. Instead it doesn't have a web browser, and the applications feel out of place with everything else you have installed. AMIWM is another example, a bit more extreme perhaps. It tries to clone the Amiga desktop's windowing style but doesn't bring any applications of it's own so the entire desktop experience lacks cohesion.

Re:Linux Apps?

[AmiMoJo]

That sounds nice, but I find that the practical result is that many apps don't work well with more than just the one the primary developer used. Scroll wheel and trackpad support is the classic example, but also high DPI.

Re:Linux Apps?

[swillden]

Linux based machines that hide the underlying functionality are simply stupid.

Tens (hundreds?) of millions of Chromebook users disagree with you. Many of them very strongly.

The fact is that between 95 and 100% of most people's laptop usage these days is in a browser. Having a system that is nothing but a browser turns out to be quite useful, and to have some big advantages in terms of simplicity, reliability and security. ChromeOS is by about any metric you might name, the most secure consumer operating system ever built. This is at the expense of flexibility since (until recently) the only app was a web browser. But as I already said, this lack of flexibility is actually just fine for many, many people, since the one thing it does is the only thing they need.

I hope this decision to make ChromeOS more flexible doesn't destroy the things that make it appealing.

Re:Linux Apps?

[slew]

I can run Linux programs on my Linux machine. I've been able to do that for decades.

Linux based machines that hide the underlying functionality are simply stupid.

One question will be if this feature survives a Google transition from Linux to Fuschia/Zircon...

Re:We’re so close

[green1]

All I really want is developer mode that doesn't have the obnoxious screen allowing any passer-by to wipe your machine by pressing the spacebar.

The only thing "insecure" about developer mode is that stupid boot screen!

Re: WOW!!!!!!!

[Desler]

An old Commodore OS.

Re: WOW!!!!!!!

[Bing Tsher E]

I can never spell that right. Maybe we can get you a job proofreading for me.

Re: I can run Chrome on Linux

[Bing Tsher E]

Yes, but some of us would like to buy one of those under $200 chromebooks, wipe it and run a freenix on it. I would choose NetBSD, with the tab window manager (twm) and build the stuff I wanted out of pkgsrc. It wouldn't include a lot of the bloated shit people call a 'modern desktop' and it would run hella fast on that light inexpensive hardware.

But Why?

[JustNiz]

Why would anyone even want to run Linux in a VM under Chrome instead of just running Linux natively?

Re:But Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone even want to run Linux in a VM under Chrome instead of just running Linux natively?

So Google can keep spying on you even when running Linux.

Re:But Why?

[jetkust]

I would. This makes Chrome laptops more appealing to me. When you want to run Linux on laptops you always have to be careful to select the right laptop which is compatible enough to make it worth buying. Having a laptop that is out of the box compatible is different, or at least where the company that makes it is designing it to do what you want to do. Everything I do on a Linux laptop is either in a browser, or in a terminal. I'm fine with Chrome doing the browser work. And if I have a fully functional terminal, ChromOS may be virtually indistinguishable to me at least with how I use Linux on a daily basis. Also I'm cool with the VM, as long as it's seamless and efficient. Plus you're not really running Linux in a VM, you are running the Linux programs in a VM. ChromeOS is still native. But you're doing what it was designed to do, as opposed to always seeming like you're using workarounds. I also like that it would make development for Android more seamless than if on a Linux machine. I won't be ditching Linux for ChromeOS any time soon, but it does increase my interest level.

Re:But Why?

[AHuxley]

Who wants traces of an ad company system still running on hardware at the same time?
Remove the adware system down to the hardware and start with a real OS.

Re:But Why?

[serviscope_minor]

I would. This makes Chrome laptops more appealing to me. When you want to run Linux on laptops you always have to be careful to select the right laptop which is compatible enough to make it worth buying.

I mean I get it, but you're solving it by finding a laptop which is supported out of the box by the manufacturer which is fine and all, but there are others already that do that. There's System76 for example. But also Dell and Lenovo offer Linux preinstalled on quite a few models. Lenovo even have a certification page for Linux laptops:

https://certification.ubuntu.c...

Re:But Why?

[squiggleslash]

I think you're overthinking this. We're basically looking at a massive increase in the number of laptops that have a supported open GNU/Linux system. On top of that:

- Chromebooks are more secure. The proposal from Google involves sandboxing GNU/Linux applications so they're effectively as secure as the existing Webapp/NaCl/Android applications that Chromebooks currently support.
- There's an extraordinary range of Chromebook laptops, from $150 next-gen netbooks (with 720P screens) to high end rivals to the MacBook Slim (or whatever the fuck they're branded as these days.)

Even better, Chromebooks don't have a capslock key.

From the point of view of the GP, this has opened up a whole range of laptops to him or her that weren't available before. But moreover, it's quite possible that the way this is implemented means those laptops will be more useful to him or her than either that cheap HP thing, or that mid-range Dell thing, or that expensive System76 Slabtop.

I'll be curious to know how well this works. My sole disappointment is I felt that between platforms like Electron and similar but not quite the same platforms like ChromeOS we were going to see more applications written in cross platform, easy to sandbox, ways, and "Debian under ChromeOS" seems like it might slow that movement down. But time will tell.

Re:But Why?

[serviscope_minor]

- Chromebooks are more secure. The proposal from Google involves sandboxing GNU/Linux applications so they're effectively as secure as the existing Webapp/NaCl/Android applications that Chromebooks currently support.

How do the applications communicate with one another?

apps glitch

[Anonymous Coward]

I am part of a team currently redubbing "the matrix". We hope to release this new version with every instance of the word "program" replaced by the word "apps". People in the future will thus have some underestanding of what is going on.

While on topic

[jma05]

How good is ARM Linux battery life on a Chromebook, if I replace the Chrome OS completely?
Is it comparable or is it much lower?

Re:While on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Having used linux natively on ARM chromebook, I found battery llife comparable. There were so many glitches and hurdles, though, that I have mostly abandoned that machine. Everything almost works perfectly, but I got tired of chasing down corner cases. I let it idle (~2W), though, and uptimes average about a year, before I forget to reconnect the charger to it after playing around with it.

My current go-to machine is a 2013 version of chromebook pixel which I boot from a Mint or Ubuntu iso image. Works dandy.

I mostly avoid native chromeos to prevent tracking. I do keep a vanilla chromebook on the mantle to lend to visitors, or to look up the occasional recipe in the kitchen.

Re: While on topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Same and sometimes better.

Security, reliability. With today's CPUs it's free

[raymorris]

The CPUs do virtualization in hardware these days, so VMs are essentially free. The performance difference is less than 5%, often closer to 1%.

What you get for that is clear separation, in terms of security, stability, etc. No one application can cause problems for the system.

ChromeOS

[fluffernutter]

This news actually made me interested to try ChomeOS for Android development and possibly see how I can better use the Google ecosystem. For some curious reason it's not easy to download it for people to see if it would work for them. There is some free bastardization of it that requires you to fill out a form and you can try it free, but why would they not just release it like a Linux distribution? If I like it, I might buy a Chromebook, but as it sits I'm not interested.

Re:ChromeOS

[q_e_t]

I've had it working directly on an old laptop, and it wasn't too bad. This was to see if my wife might have wanted a Chromebook.

Fake

[MasterOTheTiger]

Apt-get is for Ubuntu. Chrome OS is built in Gentoo.

Re:Fake

[tepples]

Since when does Gentoo not support running Debian's userspace in a chroot?

This is really news

[aglider]

I can run Linux programs inside an operating system based on ... Linux.

Re:Security, reliability. With today's CPUs it's f

[AmiMoJo]

Well, it was 1% before Meltdown. Now if you have an Intel CPU it's quite a lot worse than that.

Fortunately most Chromebooks are ARM based.

But does it run...

[OneAhead]

... X.Org? Or Wayland?

Re: I can run Chrome on Linux

[Pinky's Brain]

Lots of people run Linux on their Chromebooks, it's a very open platform. Just need to take out the write protect screw and you can modify the open source bootloader to load a different OS.

components and license

[DrYak]

p.s. I thought it was a GPLv3 violation to "TiVoize" Linux. Does this mean Chrome OS was using GPLv2?

The Linux kernel (the thing written by Linus Torvalds) is still GPLv2 because:
  - Linus doesn't want to enforce anti-TiVoization (he's more on the programatic vs. ideological scale than RMS. He's fine with locked devices that still provide source code for curious users. RMS is the one who doesn't like something that can be considered as "someone else's computer")
  - The current kernel license is litterally "GPLv2 only", not "GPLv2 or any future version". All the authors that have contributed to Linux have agreed to release their patches under the same "GPLv2 only" license, and the kernel doesn't use "attribution" (the author of some piece of code remain the owner of that piece of code. The propriety of bits of the kernel don't automatically shift to Linus). Switching to GPLv3 would require contacting every single last author that has still owning bits in the kernel and ask them to accept re-licensing to either "GPLv2+" or "GPLv3" (or GPLv3+). Not realistically feasible.

There are huge swaths of GNU userland (e.g.: most of the parts that the FSF is taking care of) and other userland components that have switched to GPLv3. But typical chrome book doesn't use that many of them (e.g.: there's no GCC compiler installed).

ChromeBook aren't TiVoized, they are made user-friendly/idiot-proof (that's why top poster said "hiding", not "blocking you from").
  - A dev can install whatever they want if they turn the dev mode on.
  - But a clueless use should be able to revert back to original factory state with a couple of key press.
(And that's where the problem lies currently. Is way to easy for a clueless roommate/child to wipe a dev's chromebook)

  - These thing use Coreboot open firmware. It's opensource. For a power use, it's not that complicated to reflash them to a new custom firmware that will accept any full-blown GNU/Linux installation without making it too easy to self-destruct.

(But I think a lot of devs, prefer to have the light "chromebook" experience and only open a sandbox for their linux-ing needs).

compact GNU/Linux in major electronics store

[DrYak]

But for what fraction of those "decades" have you been able to buy a compact GNU/Linux laptop in major electronics store chains?

Approximately since the ASUS eeePC started the "sub-notebook with Linux in your local store" craze (followed imediatly by Acer. And then countless no-name Asian manufacturer spitting crappier machines) , that subsequently jump-started the whole wave of Chromebooks, once google decided to address the "userfriendly so even your grandma can use it" part and the "minimal quality so the machine isn't full crap".

So since slightly more than 1 decade.

Re: compact GNU/Linux in major electronics store

[mSparks43]

heh, flashbacks.
we still use the archos 101 i got in 2011. never did get round to installing linux on it though.

Re:compact GNU/Linux in major electronics store

[tepples]

But for what fraction of those "decades" have you been able to buy a compact GNU/Linux laptop in major electronics store chains?

Approximately since the ASUS eeePC started the "sub-notebook with Linux in your local store" craze

That craze covers fourth quarter 2007 through roughly fourth quarter 2012.

that subsequently jump-started the whole wave of Chromebooks

Chromebooks run Linux as their kernel, I'm aware. But until now, they haven't given the user ability to run GNU outside the self-destructing developer mode. Straight from the horse's mouth, with emphasis in the original:

Remember: Chrome OS devices are not general-purpose PCs.

So from first quarter 2013 through second quarter 2018, compact laptops usable as general-purpose GNU/Linux laptops were not widely available with a warranty in stores. Sure, netbooks are still scattered across pawn shops, but they haven't seen any updates, and at least one anonymous commenter on Slashdot has unironically suggested to stockpile the dwindling supply of old netbooks and maintain them by replacing lithium cells in their battery packs.

Probably not even virtualization

[DrYak]

ChromeOS uses the Linux kernel (and very often a modern one, thanks to Google putting some efforts with hardware manufacturer).
Debian GNU/Linux also relies on a Linux kernel, hence the name.

Linux has been having containerization capabilities for quite some time (back when LXC started the whole craze that lead to modern-day Docker).

The "sandboxing" is probably just a different container running from the same kernel, with no ressource costs at all.

They're probably doing the same kind of things that crouton has been doing, but with full kernel's containerization instead of only chroot.

Just use GalliumOS

[nickjj]

The article mentions that it runs Linux through a VM but that's not going to be very good in terms of performance.

GalliumOS has been around for years. It's a fork of xubuntu that's optimized for Chromebooks.

I've been running it on my Chromebook for 2 years. It's something you boot into directly, so no VMs are required (and you can choose to dual boot into ChromeOS if you want to keep it around).

Details on how to set it all up can be found at https://nickjanetakis.com/blog....

I run all sorts of real development work loads on a $350 Chromebook and it's rock solid.

Re:Just use GalliumOS

[bluefoxlucid]

VMs use memory for an entire OS. That includes duplicating the software (shared libraries no longer sharing code), management code (scheduler, etc.), services (all the RAM being used when you bring up to multi-user text console, no X).

I had argued the first step should be a .NET environment for ChromeOS. It would be relatively-simple to integrate: the .NET installation would include the base mounted under each container along with a resolver built into the Mono or .NET Core system. When you run a .NET application, the resolver tells ChromeOS what it needs; if ChromeOS doesn't have it, it grabs it via NPM or whatever appropriate channel, adds it to the central library of stuff, and exposes it into the container.

With this configuration, each .NET application can run isolated in its own cgroup (same mechanism as Docker). Calls to certain system services, such as the default browser, would use a helper application which forwards though a socket: .NET calling a Web URL would be the same as a ChromeOS or Android app calling a Web URL, with the same results; same for any "launch default application for X" call.

ChromeOS could also provide a mount point exposing /Downloads and /Drive, along with a configuration directory separate to that application. In essence, you'd have $HOME with $HOME/Downloads and $HOME/Drive. The .NET environment could provide an appropriate replacement for the usual common file selection dialogues.

On the one hand, this gets you an immediate .NET environment. On the other, this also paves the way for a more-complex native Linux application environment not running a VM. Native Linux applications might require modified Gnome core libraries, dbus, or GTK to function properly; or the modifications may be minimal. Thing is, you have FLTK, GTK+, Qt, Gnome, KDE, and all these other graphics toolkits that don't all use the exact same mechanism to accomplish some tasks. While you can readily stub in a fake Chrome browser installation and a dbus socket, there will be a lot of polish to get native Linux applications to behave as native Linux applications--just running .NET is easier.

It's also notable you can use .NET to run Python and Java, if you're so inclined.

oh

[cascadingstylesheet]

Chrome OS is an operating system designed by Google that is based on the Linux kernel

So they're finally letting Linux programs run on Linux?

Website?

[Thelasko]

Does anyone download Linux apps from websites? The first thing I tell noobs is to stop doing that and use the repository. Downloading Linux software from websites is asking for all kinds of problems.

Re:Website?

[Thelasko]

Unfortunately there's a new movement (or more properly a neo-movement) that seeks to allow distribution-agnostic packages to be installed. Among these are Flatpak, Snap (in theory, once you have installed the necessary backend, which is readily available in Ubuntu/Debian based distributions), and AppImage

I forgot about those abominations. I guess I'm showing my age.

Re:Security, reliability. With today's CPUs it's f

[q_e_t]

So you have never had a program use too many resources and bring the system to a crawl. Yes, you can configure the OS to constrain programs in various ways, but containerisation or virtualisation is a fairly quick way to do it, provided the OS constrains the resources used by the VM or container.

Re:Crouton

[green1]

(aforementioned easy-wipe boot screen aside.)

It's really hard to ignore a massive warning with loud audible beep that begs anyone nearby to please destroy all your data....

If Google really wanted to fix the problem, they didn't need to go to all this work, they just needed to remove that one huge threat!

Re:Run Linux apps on Linux?

[green1]

What was stopping them before?

Google.

More specifically that if they dared run the applications they want to on the machine Google would throw up a big scary warning screen with loud audible beep that begs anyone nearby to please wipe your data. But other than that, sure, it was actually easy to run any app you want. As long as you are willing to risk all your data.

Consoles closer to identical than vintage laptops

[tepples]

I imagine that there are far fewer of any single model of netbook than for the NES. This diversity makes it harder for people like me to find a community of other people knowledgeable enough to perform component-level repair on a particular model of netbook than for the NES.

And Android

[sad_]

You get to run Linux AND Android applications on your chromebook.
Suddenly this little laptop of little interest is getting very interesting.