Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Open Source Operating Systems Hardware Linux

Google Just Made It Easier To Run Linux On Your Chromebook 169

TechCurmudgeon writes A story in PCWorld's "World beyond Windows" column outlines coming improvements in Chrome OS that will enable easily running Linux directly from a USB stick: "Have you ever installed a full desktop Linux system on your Chromebook? It isn't all [that] hard, but it is a bit more complex than it should be. New features in the latest version of Chrome OS will make dipping into an alternative operating system easier. For example, you'll be able to easily boot a full Linux system from a USB drive and use it without any additional hassle!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Just Made It Easier To Run Linux On Your Chromebook

Comments Filter:
  • Pedantic, but... (Score:1, Informative)

    I think they mean "GNU/Linux," as Chrome OS runs the Linux kernel.
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @07:22PM (#48889803) Journal

      Get back in your box, Richard Stallman!

    • Like Godwins law, true linux pedantry will continue until the probability of descending into linguistic analysis of libre vs gratis reaches 1.0. At which point the thread should stop altogether.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

      Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of eve

      • As far as I have seen, the vast majority of the operational components in Android are not actually GNU but instead Google's own code. GNU components are available... no differently than they are part of SFU from Microsoft. As far as I know, even the bootloader is not GNU. I suppose the init.d may still be, but I'd imagine that since services/daemons are mostly in Java land, that could probably be replaced with a pretty small monolithic script.

        So, it is probably more correct to say Linux without the GNU unle
        • So, it is probably more correct to say Linux without the GNU unless we should call Windows "GNU Windows" since one might choose to run a Mingw app.

          MinGW is just GCC with the C library of Microsoft Visual C++ 6. If someone were to install Cygwin, on the other hand, that might stand a better chance of being called GNU/Windows. (In fact, Cygwin stands for Cygnus GNU/Windows.) And you're not the only person to present this sort of reduction to absurdity argument [usermode.org]. So I set out to define a "GNU/$kernel" userland for myself [pineight.com] as GNU Coreutils plus two other major GNU components, such as Bash, Emacs, GCC, or shared glibc. GNU/Linux counts, Cygwin counts, and MS

      • Richard, the GP did mention 'GNU/Linux', and while referring to the ChromeOS, mentioned just Linux. That is correct - ChromeOS doesn't use your GNU corelib or shell utilities. Google has used others in building both ChromeOS as well as Android. So it's not accurate to describe ChromeOS as 'GNU/Linux'.

        Also, if within GNU/Linux (let's take your favorite - gNewSense) - one doesn't go into emacs or bash, but instead, X11 comes up, followed by LXDE, and the user simply kicks up an instance of FireFox or Chr

        • I've never in my life uttered "gnu/Linux", until now, but to answer the question, glibc is approximately everywhere. Also, unless you've been infected with systemd, you're probably running gnu sysvinit as pid 1 (or upstart).

          You COULD run a minimal Linux system at runlevel 3 without any gnu code, but for a desktop system, running a graphical desktop environment, you're probably going to have some gnu in a few places.

      • GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.

        Addition commonly uses the symbol '+' . Hence shouldn't that be

        "GNU divided by Linux" ?

        • I guess that's why RMS now calls it GNU+Linux. This reminds me of people who used to deride OS/2 as half an OS
        • by paulatz ( 744216 )
          The "/" symbol is often pronounced "above" in some mathematics field. Wgich would allow you to pronounce "GNU over Linux", which is quite accurate! Not to be confused with "Gnu over Linus", which is an entirely different thing.
      • Mr Stallman, I'm impressed that you didn't seize this opportunity to tell us all how evil Google is, and how it's spying on us w/ the Chromebook
      • It's like I'm really in 2002!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I use Buzybox/Linux, you insensitive clod.

    • by Dynedain ( 141758 ) <slashdot2&anthonymclin,com> on Friday January 23, 2015 @08:18PM (#48890105) Homepage

      How long before that's SystemD/GNU/Linux?

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        The original suggestion was LiGnuX - which as a name almost all thought it licked nuts and was worthless. Then the prefix to promote GNU was suggested and the rest is fairly pointless history since it just confused people. Many thought it meant the kernel was a linux project and the rest didn't care about GNU unless they had heard of it already.
        • Actually, LiGnuX was better, although the capitalization was still weird. A better way to have written it would have been either all caps - LIGNUX, or all lowercase (in keeping w/ UNIX CLI conventions). Too bad it didn't take hold
          • by dbIII ( 701233 )
            Although the name sounds stupid that's par for the course in software - however the other "disadvantage" is it could not be mistaken for meaning complete ownership of the linux project. I've seen more than one journalist write "Richard Stallman, inventor of linux". I'm sure that helped a bit with those awkward "but what have you done since 1990" discussions in MIT staffrooms.
      • You should be modded +5 insightful-yet-depressing ;)
    • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:01PM (#48890849)

      I think they mean "GNU/Linux,"

      Not necessarily. Some distros, especially for lean systems, have nothing from GNU. There is more than one libc and busybox is not a GNU project.

    • I think they mean "GNU/Linux," as Chrome OS runs the Linux kernel.

      actually no, any Linux will boot fine.

    • by nateman1352 ( 971364 ) on Saturday January 24, 2015 @05:33AM (#48891875)

      Now don't get me wrong, I really really appreciate all the hard work the GNU project and the FSF have contributed, but to imply that _only_ the GNU project and the Linux kernel deserve credit seems quite unfair to me.

      If we call in GNU/Linux because GNU deserves credit then we should name it GNU/Apache/Xorg/KDE/SystemD/Samba/LibreOffice/Mozilla/Linux, because all those other projects are just as critical to creating the modern, functional operating system that we have today.

      Or we could grow up and just call it Linux because its just a name after all.

      My theory is RMS and all his buddies over at the GNU project are still butt hurt about Linux stealing the thunder from GNU Hurd (25 years after the fact!) If they really want to have their GNU OS, then just finish Hurd already build your GNU package.

      It's amazing how childish RMS can be sometimes, look at how he reacted to the fact that Clang and LLVM are now technically superior to GCC. Wrote a whiny blog post about how he admits it hurts on a personal level and then in the same paragraph attacks Clang as not being open source enough because it is BSD licensed instead of GPL! Honestly I think deep down inside RMS would have preferred that Apple kept Clang closed source even though he would never say that publicly. Apple gives us something for free that they totally didn't have to give us so obviously we should bite their hand off because they licensed it in a way that would allow them to continue using it in Xcode.

      There is a lot of things I really like about the open source movement, but self righteous crap and the cliquey project leaders definitely leave a bad taste in my month.

      • Fully agree w/ this. Have said several times - I'd have a lot more respect for the FSF crowd if they finished HURD and came up w/ software that they wanted people to actually use, instead of preaching all the time - don't use flash, don't use MP**, don't use i****, don't use Windows, don't use FaceBook, don't use Amazon, don't use Google, blah blah blah
    • by itzly ( 3699663 )

      Chrome OS probably also runs glibc and other GNU stuff. Not much different from a regular Linux system.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @07:18PM (#48889783)

    I thought they were wiping the Chromebook's internal drive, then reinstalling with their preferred Linux variant.

    • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @07:31PM (#48889867)

      I thought they were wiping the Chromebook's internal drive, then reinstalling with their preferred Linux variant.

      I don't know about most, but I keep the ChromeOS also. I use the Chromebook as my take out to breakfast and go on vacation computer. It's a breeze to use in a restaraunt on wifi, and if I need anything more serious, I boot into Linux. It's also nice to keep my stuff separate from my home computers, except for the gmail account I use that syncs on all my computers.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23, 2015 @08:12PM (#48890071)

      Protip: Most people are doing neither.

    • by Fwipp ( 1473271 )

      Crouton is still my favorite approach, unless you need more disk space.

    • by aunchaki ( 94514 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:05PM (#48890347) Homepage

      I replaced my nine-year-old ThinkPad a few months ago (it's slowly running the latest Ubuntu). I went round and round for about a year and finally decided to get a used Chromebook Pixel. It's awesome! I thought I'd play around with crouton for a while, but eventually wipe the whole thing and install Linux on it.

      I haven't done that. I do run crouton and can flip between ChromeOS and Ubuntu 14 in a keystroke. The thing is, ChromeOS is a really nice broswing experience and 75% of what I do is browser based. I could spend all day in Ubuntu, but it's just too nice using ChromeOS.

      I'm really happy with my Chromebook.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      I thought they were wiping the Chromebook's internal drive, then reinstalling with their preferred Linux variant.

      Why do that? Chromebook is already running Linux, and you can easily install a full Ubuntu (or whatever) environment under ChromeOS, running them side-by-side, using Crouton scripts.
      No need to reboot. A bit like a using a virtual machine, but its all native.

      The biggest problem is having to wipe all your data when switching to developer mode, and Google considers this a feature. Couldn't they just encrypt the private data instead? I cannot see the point. If a bad buy gets hold of your Chrome-book and switche

      • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        > Why do that? Chromebook is already running Linux,

        CUPS.

        I don't have any interest in every little thing I do on my home network being tied to the Google collective. The same arguments for leaving ChromeOS can be applied equally to removing it and replacing it with Linux.

    • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:40PM (#48890767) Journal

      I set my wife's up to boot Linux from a high-performance SD card. Her previous computer ran Linux, so I figured I'd make the Chromebook run what she's familiar with.

      It turns out, everything she does on the computer she does through a web browser, so she's never had any reason to boot to Linux. ChromeOS suits her use case perfectly. I find that surprising, but ChromeOS is apparently very good at what it's designed for - email, general web browsing, YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, etc.

    • Actually, no. Most people use Crouton in developer mode. That means they run Chrome OS side-by-side with their preferred Linux variant.

      It's less risky that way. Because if you replace Chrome OS completely with your own Linux distribution, you'll probably lose the small amount of free Verizon data that comes with it for three years, or the 10-fingers touch support, or the very high resolution support, that may come on some of those newer Chromebooks. Because don't believe what the Ubuntu guys say, they may c

  • I'm sold! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ThorGod ( 456163 )

    I've not bought one yet (who has the finances?) but this would be great...and I could consolidate my porn browsing to just it. That ought to keep the rest of my stuff safe...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      For porn, get yourself an Android tablet. The user experience of the Chromebook is not optimized to keep and navigate your porn locally. So unless, you want to re-download the same porn videos again and again, consider using an Android tablet instead.

      The app support for porn on Android is awesome (personally, I prefer Opera the best for that, especially for the animated gif previews, plus an app for hiding the porn, plus a video app for looping the small parts of the videos I prefer). Also, consider a 7 in

  • Gee (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @07:27PM (#48889847)
    I've been running Linux dual boot on my Chromebook since last summer. I'm surprised that anyone thought it was so difficult to install and use. I think it took me all of 15 minutes to download and do the necessary alterations.

    It's fun actually

    "you'll be able to easily boot a full Linux system from a USB drive and use it without any additional hassle!"

    As opposed ot the insufferable hassle of hitting control+L and booting direct? If that's too much trouble, plugging a USB stick is too.

    • True, but you can run the USB stick on multiple computers, keeping your work environment and files all in one place wherever you go. With 64 gig USB 3.0 flash keys going for $25, and 128 gig USB 3.0 going for $40, why not?
      • Re:Gee (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:59PM (#48890623)

        True, but you can run the USB stick on multiple computers, keeping your work environment and files all in one place wherever you go. With 64 gig USB 3.0 flash keys going for $25, and 128 gig USB 3.0 going for $40, why not?

        Well, a thumb drive is a lot easier to lose than a whole laptop for one thing. I've found quite a few over the last several years. Also, I have to guess that the thumb drive is going to be slower than the SSD in the Chromebook. Because that's the biggest thing going for them. They move. Chrome boots in something like 7 seconds, depending on how fat you can type your password, and Linux about the same.

        Regardless, I don't think its necessarily a bad idea, just that the presumed inconvenience of doing a dual bootsetup, then install of a distro is way overplayed.

        • by GbrDead ( 702506 )

          depending on how fat you can type your password

          Yo password's so fat... oh, wait, that is actually a good thing.

      • the friggin 7 year old netbook I have playing music can boot from USB.

        so really - are they seriously saying that this was not available before? like what the fuck?

        • What they're saying is it wasn't an option on Crapbooks before. And what's the excitement - most chromebooks only have 2 gig of ram and 16 gig of storage. Even the "high end" ones only have 4 gig and 32 gig. And at the price of a high-end chromebook you can buy a laptop with 4 cores, 8 gig ram, and 500 gig-750 gig storage so if you're going to run an OS off a USB key anyway, you're better off without a chromebook. (Of course, you have the option of running it directly off the hdd as well with a laptop).
        • No they weren't. This was all in the context of Chromebooks.

  • by Ukab the Great ( 87152 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @07:31PM (#48889869)

    Wake me up when they post a useful article on how to run Unix on my Macbook Pro.

    • by ThorGod ( 456163 )

      What's the problem? Or is it the ati driver still...

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @07:43PM (#48889939) Journal

      Fuck that, I've been trying to install FreeBSD on my Commodore 64. Crapping Commodore 1541 disk drive keeps mangling my installation CD.

    • by ogdenk ( 712300 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @08:22PM (#48890135)

      It's pretty easy. First, take it out of the box. You lift the LCD into a proper viewing angle and push the power button. There you go. Unix.

    • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:32PM (#48890479)

      Wake me up when they post a useful article on how to run Unix on my Macbook Pro.

      Mac OS X *is* UNIX. It's certified. Wake me up when Linux passes conformance testing.

      PS: We even put UUCP on the damn thing to pass the tests; it's definitely UNIX, so feel free to spin up your own NetNews node on your MacBook Air.

      • PS: We even put UUCP on the damn thing to pass the tests; it's definitely UNIX, so feel free to spin up your own NetNews node on your MacBook Air.

        But please, don't use UUCP. Because some of us have suffered enough with it that you shouldn't have to.

      • Why doesn't RedHat, or Oracle, or SUSE, or someone else run Linux through the compliance tests?
        • Why doesn't RedHat, or Oracle, or SUSE, or someone else run Linux through the compliance tests?

          Primarily? Because it won't pass the testing without a lot of work. In particular, there are negative assertion tests on header files (some things are not allowed to be dragged into the namespace, and the header are promiscuous). There's also a whole bunch of testing having to do with full and almost-full devices. There are also signal issues and process group membership issues. For example, you can "escape" an exclusion group on Linux by setting your default group to one of your other groups; Linux ov

    • by HuguesT ( 84078 )

      It already does [opengroup.org] unless you've forcibly removed OSX.

  • If they are making it easy to run "normal" Linux, why not install the appropriate libs and allow Linux apps to run side-by-side with Chrome apps?

    • If they are making it easy to run "normal" Linux, why not install the appropriate libs and allow Linux apps to run side-by-side with Chrome apps?

      Because that opens a big gaping hole in Chrome's security. Part of the security of Chrome OS is to not let users install binaries. They only get web apps.

      This model is broadening to a degree with the ability to run some Android apps. However my understanding is that these apps must be pure java, no NDK, no direct usage of the Linux kernel and other related system level libraries. The Android app lives entirely in its Java sandbox.

  • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @09:27PM (#48890459)

    So there is this trend about wanting to run 'foreign' OSs on computers that come w/ one already. The other day, the question was running Linux on a MacBook Air, then one about running standard non-Libre Linux on the Librem, and today, running a normal GNU/Linux distro on a Chromebook.

    I can understand why people replace Windows - particularly Windows 8.x, which is what I did (using PC-BSD). What I don't understand is why anyone would replace any POSIX based OS w/ your run of the mill distro. If you have a MacBook, then OS-X already supports whatever the MacBook will be dealing w/. If you have a Librem, you have Purism OS, which is Trisquel, and which has been specifically engineered to that box. If you have a Chromebook, Google has already made ChromeOS support anything that the Chromebook will have to do.

    So aside from losing some of the capabilities you have of your laptop, what exactly is the fun in getting a run-of-the-mill Linux on your Chromebook, replacing ChromeOS? Why not take that box, and see what other apps are there - maybe Android apps - that could run on your Chromebook?

    • Re:Again, why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by quenda ( 644621 ) on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:14PM (#48890685)

      If you have a Chromebook, Google has already made ChromeOS support anything that the Chromebook will have to do.

      Oh, no they have not.

      A macbook can install 3rd party apps out of the box. It is not locked down.
      But if you want Skype, Minecraft, or Steam for example, on a Chromebook, you need to unlock it (developer mode, unsupported) and install a full Linux environment first.

      But yes, no need to replace ChromeOS, just supplement it.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      So there is this trend about wanting to run 'foreign' OSs on computers that come w/ one already

      It's typically all about running one or two applications that are not on the main OS or about getting rid of a whole lot of shit to just run one or two applications. If there was more cross platform stuff and less weird UIs like Win8 it wouldn't be so common. I've got a touchscreen tablet running Win7 because Win8 is shit even in that situation if you just have one main application you want to run.

      • So don't these OSs have VMs that one can use? OS-X? Trisquel? ChromeOS? Okay, maybe the last one doesn't, but what about the first 2?
        • Typical Chromebooks aren't powerful enough to run VMs nicely. The limitation is quite hard in the RAM department, one may not want to spend money in upgrading it when performance will be bad even after RAM upgrade - why not run proper Linux distribution on bare metal and save the expense and performance hit?

    • So there is this trend about wanting to run 'foreign' OSs on computers that come w/ one already. ...

      "Trend"? I've been doing this for at least 10 years. And I know lots of folks who've been doing it for much longer.

    • If you have a MacBook, then OS-X already supports whatever the MacBook will be dealing w/.

      Correct. I have an early 2011 macbookpro with all features supported. Since the battery life, performance and screen size is still sufficient today (after a $100 ssd upgrade), I will not be buying a new laptop soon.
      The only thing going down hill is OSX. Either on subjective issues (cloud, playdoh) or objective ones (hardware requirements), so I better prep for alternatives.

  • but I put a linux live USB stick in. When he was startled as boot messages scrolled by, I asked him to relax, it's just getting your credit card info and your shoe size. No, you don't have to take them out of your wallet.

  • This may enable potentially important solutions like: http://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose.... [dod.mil]
    Lightweight Portable Security (LPS) creates a secure end node from trusted media on
    almost any Intel-based computer (PC or Mac). LPS boots a thin Linux operating system
    from a CD or USB flash stick without mounting a local hard drive.

    The LPS may be less than ideal but it is a good step forward and makes it clear
    that a like solution has a valid place in government and corporate America.
    Some think this is a baby step. I thin

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Working...