61–70 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chromebok was originally marketed as a simple, no-nonsense laptop and that's what it is. All iterations since have been useful but did anyone really believe it was going to be a ThinkPad killer?
Once they started selling $2k+ versions, yeh I kind of do think expect that actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I think it is more "this feature requires kernel 4.x, but the drivers for this manufacturer's hardware do not support 4.x, so we cannot offer this feature without losing sound/WiFi/touchpad/etc" The chromebooks do update themselves all the time but I gues there is some more fundamental stuff that requires more low-level changes.
What I’m saying is Google should require access to the source code and the right to modify it. At that point, it is Google’s responsibility to make any changes to keep it compatible with the latest kernel.
I guess there would be 0 hardware manufacturers left to choose from then.
The lack of documentation from Google was already noticeable 4 years ago thus I'm not surprised about that move.
Typical Google move. I have a Chromebook. It was listed on the models that would support Android app, this support never came (it's still "planned", 2 years later...). Support for Linux apps didn't come, either. So now I suppose my Chromebook will be soon a useless brick. Thanks, Google. Got the message, I'll never use any product with your badge again.
There was a guy releasing SeaBIOS ROMs so you can install regular Linux if your device is supported. The project is dead now, but since your device is older, there's a fair chance it's supported. I used it for a Chromebox and the process was pretty straightforward. https://johnlewis.ie/custom-chromebook-firmware/rom-download...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I’m saying is Google should require access to the source code and the right to modify it. At that point, it is Google’s responsibility to make any changes to keep it compatible with the latest kernel.
Ok sure - you're welcome to your opinion. I feel like expecting endless maintenance builds from Google for any manufacturer's hardware forever is a bit of an optimistic expectation though, especially for old models. They guarantee at least 5 years support (1) for updates which I don't think is unreasonable considering that they are so cheap. If that is not long enough for you then I guess you are not the target audie…
Microsoft just ended support for Windows 7 - released July 2009 - yesterday. It’s currently running on my old 2006 era Mac Mini that my mom is using.
I also have a 2009 Core 2 Duo laptop that until early last year was my Plex Server. It is running a still supported Windows 10.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say that, but you got a Chromebook despite everything Google did in the past. If people had gotten any message they'd have abandoned Google back in 2008.
Speaking just for one, I haven't adopted a new Google consumer product in 7 years. I don't even click the links. Pretty sure Reader had that effect on a large chunk of the technical base they previously relied heavily on.
(Disclosure: I work at Google, not on Chrome)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the manufacturer even involved in this? I thought all updates come straight from google? I have zero sympathy for Google at this point. It is one thing that the drivers are not all free and open source but Google should at least require that Google has access to the drivers or software it needs to keep devices up to date. If a vendor doesn’t do that, don’t do business with that vendor.
Well I think it is more "this feature requires kernel 4.x, but the drivers for this manufacturer's hardware do not support 4.x, so we cannot offer this feature without losing sound/WiFi/touchpad/etc" The chromebooks do update themselves all the time but I gues there is some more fundamental stuff that requires more low-level changes.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/11/google-outlines-plan...
Note that Chrome Apps != Progressive Web Apps, which you can still install on desktop Chrome and the new Edge and hopefully will gain more traction.
A lot of use-cases like e.g. chat apps, depend on that kind of technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I’m saying is Google should require access to the source code and the right to modify it. At that point, it is Google’s responsibility to make any changes to keep it compatible with the latest kernel.
> What I’m saying is Google should require access to the source code and the right to modify it. I guess there would be 0 hardware manufacturers left to choose from then.
Maybe I overestimated how much leverage Google has then :/