2y ago

“Absurd”: Google, Amazon rebuked over unsupported Chromebooks still for sale

arstechnica.com

Archived version: https://archive.ph/vNSJa

35 comments

Considering that it's basic x86 Linux+Chrome it could be supported indefinitely without any issues. Especially just chrome, once unsupported it won't even receive updates to the browser and that's unacceptable
- Ars mentions that Apple (on average) now supports new Mac’s for 7 years, but even though Apple stops delivering updates at least the (non-Safari) browsers and other software may continue to receive updates for quite a bit longer.
  In this day and age browser security is the first and most important line of defense, and as long as your browser is updated and your firewall is up you can have some sense of security.
  I personally never touched a Chromebook, and have no idea how hard it is to get Linux onto them, but it sure proves Stallmans old argument about freedom.
  
  I personally never touched a Chromebook, and have no idea how hard it is to get Linux onto them, but it sure proves Stallmans old argument about freedom.
  In some cases you have to physically modify hardware to get a different OS onto a chrome device. It could be anything from removing a write-protect screw from the motherboard, all the way up to flashing an EPROM.
  See here: https://mrchromebox.tech/
  
  it's quite the opposite, updates for safari are generally tied to the operating system so after 7 years (but it could be 4 years in edge cases) safari will stop receiving updates. While third party browsers instead are more gentle, will continue to get updates as long as possible (but it's still not calculated in "decades" as for windows or linux)
  regarding updates, i think linux can be installed on them (never touched one nor plan to do so in the next decade) but the combo shitty cpu+extremely small and slow emmc storage+the bare minimum RAM is a killer. Maybe just for a fun experiment
  
  Apple's current 7 year cutoff includes radical evolutions of hardware over recent years.
  The latest cutoff, as far as I know, is Macs that typically were sold with a spinning rust HDD - which are honestly useable anyway on the new filesystem which has been designed from the ground up for SSDs. Modern MacOS just can't cope with seek time lag to access the disk.
  The big cutoff before that was transitioning from 32 bit to 64 bit CPUs. And the next cutoff will be from x86 to ARM.
  Apple doesn't have a hard cutoff - they have a "we will support as far back as we can" cutoff, which is a combination of the cost required to keep it compatible and the number of actual users on old hardware.
  Also - even after things are no-longer "supported" they often still get security patches from Apple. Especially if something is actually being exploited.
- Firmware updates though.
  
  How often do you see a worthwhile firmware update to something older than two years?
  Besides, running Linux isn’t a blocker for firmware updates if the vendor supports it.
Chromebooks are not a walled garden, they don't need "support" themselves, you can even install Windows 10 on one!
The problem comes from "school test administering companies" requiring a "bootlocked hardware with closed support" for the laptop to work for school.
That other thing about hardware attestation from the browser, that has so many up in arms, is actually a possible solution for this particular problem.
- No, it's not.
  Use your "you don't get funding unless..." lever to ban schools from doing business with shitbag companies with invasive requirements and your problem is solved.
  Allowing Google to abuse their market position to destroy the internet is not a valid answer.
  
  The current lever is "you get closed unless... you follow these invasive rules we've come up with, which we're forcing testing organizations to follow, and you're free to do business with whatever company you want... oh, Google turns out to be the cheapest one following those rules? Whatever."
  The browser attestation is a way for Google to keep offering an even cheaper way to comply with those invasive rules.

35 comments