Linux App Support is Coming to Chrome OS
- Paul Thurrott
- May 03, 2018
-
131
It appears that Linux app support is indeed coming to Chrome OS. The obvious question, of course, is why?
After all, Linux isn’t exactly well known for its vibrant apps ecosystem. And Chrome OS already has access to the world’s biggest apps ecosystem, Android. So what’s up?
Simple. This is a developer play.
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
The one thing that’s still missing from Chrome OS even with Android app supported added is developer tools. And that is the one thing that Linux can offer from an apps perspective.
This is born out by the description of this feature which, as many Android/Chrome-related blogs are starting to discover, is now available in Beta form in the Chrome OS Dev channel. “Run Linux tools, editors, and IDEs on your Chromebook,” the description notes.
For Google and its employee and third-party developers, this is the final piece of the puzzle. It is what will make the Pixelbook and other high-end Chromebooks viable as developer boxes.
Interesting stuff.
Conversation 131 comments
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#271950"><em>In reply to curtisspendlove:</em></a></blockquote><p>I don't think anyone is claiming that Windows is "infallible", but to suggest that "normal" people don't use Windows is embarrassingly ridiculous. There are 400 million PCs running Windows 10 alone and given enterprises reluctance to upgrade suggests that a significant percentage of those 400 million are owned by everyday people.</p><p><br></p><p>Of course there are many people who use Macs and to a degree Linux desktops.</p><p><br></p><p>Edit: OK you did say "most" which mitigates my criticism somewhat.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272175"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Except the superfluous device in this scenario is the phone. Just incorporate a processor in the monitor (becoming a terminal) and you're done. But the real problem is that you're not going to find these "terminals" everywhere so they aren't going to solve the computing "on the go" problem the way laptops do and if they are in the office, they just become another tethered solution -all the bulk of a desktop PC with more restricted functionality. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272190"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Your scenario involves a change to the way things are today. Having terminals available is no more of a change that what you propose. But that aspect doesn't matter because whether it's a terminal with a keyboard and mouse or with a monitor with a mouse and keyboard with the phone controlling it, there's not going to be a lot of these "stations" around in public places because there's no reason for businesses to provide them.</p><p><br></p><p>While it might be true that some people want to carry only a phone they are still going to have to connect to tethered equipment to efficiently run complex applications even if they are server based. At that point the phone becomes irrelevant. A PC will be able to support both local and remote software at a similar price point to the combination of phone, hub, mouse, keyboard and monitor. Of course at present these hub schemes are significantly more expensive than the PC solution since they require high-end smartphones.</p><p><br></p><p>IMO a expansive trend toward server-based complex application execution and phones as tethered PCs are orthogonal. What they do have in common is that the future of neither is assured.</p><p><br></p><p> </p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272298"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, I've used Citrix and experienced its mediocre performance. That may be indirectly due to the primary philosophy behind adopting such a system – saving money. Thus the "workstations" used are quite weak and the desire to save money also extends to the capability of the servers. YMMV of course. </p><p><br></p><p>The orthogonality I was referring to was between tethered phones and server-based applications, not between tethered PCs and server-based applications. Although there's talk here (primary by you I think) about using tethered phones to run server-based applications, that's not really the way the vendors are pitching them.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272341"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Most remote desktop use is in the enterprise but I don't see companies moving toward buying everyone who uses a computer their own smartphone particularly since tethering is a premium feature making those phones expensive. Much cheaper to buy a low-end PC or PC dongle if the limitations of remote desktops are acceptable. </p><p><br></p><p>I just don't understand some people's enthusiasm for running complex software on (or via) a mobile smartphone when that smartphone has to be operating in a non-mobile environment.</p>
-
skane2600
<p>I guess it depends on what limitations, if any, are involved. If Android Studio was supported including Android device emulation, that seems to me to be the use case with the most value. I suspect that using a conventional Linux distro would still be the best way to develop Linux applications but on that point I'll defer to those who are actually developing Linux apps.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#271456"><em>In reply to raptor:</em></a></blockquote><p>So Google has said it can run all Linux apps? It didn't seem that clear to me. It seems to me if it can run Android Studio, it would be one of the first claims Google would make. Then again, it doesn't appear that Google has announced anything and this story is at least partly speculation.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#271472"><em>In reply to Bill_Strong:</em></a></blockquote><p>I said "device emulation", not app emulation. Most Android developers would like to test their apps on multiple screen sizes etc. Smartphones are the most important targets for Android apps, not Chromebooks. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#271455"><em>In reply to raptor:</em></a></blockquote><p>Generally a real-time OS and a general purpose OS are designed with significantly different goals in mind. If an application uses garbage collection or the OS runs on hardware that uses a cache, you're pretty much out of a real-time environment. </p><p><br></p><p>Contrary to the casual use of the term, a real-time OS isn't about speed it's about consistency. In the ideal case, each OS function call or interrupt is guaranteed to return in the same amount of time, every time. In the less than ideal case there's a guarantee that the timing will vary over a tightly-defined range. Caches and garbage collection add an uncertainty factor to the timing. </p><p><br></p><p>Real-time software is on the wane because more and more real-time functions have migrated to hardware.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#271603"><em>In reply to Jack_Smith:</em></a></blockquote><p>Do you really believe that Linux using a monolithic kernel is the reason for it's success? It's been about a quarter century since Linux was designed, perhaps the relative value of monolithic vs micro kernel should be revisited since we are no longer running Intel 386 processors with 1MB of RAM. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#271838"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, I was wondering about the security issue too. Adding Linux support seems to be the exact opposite of the philosophy underpinning the Chromebook.</p>