Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

81 comments

Over 10 mins and no first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41769831)

Come on!!

Re:Over 10 mins and no first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41769869)

There's a lot of stuff here I don't care about at all: OpenSUSE, ARM, Chromebook.
BFD.

Re:Over 10 mins and no first post (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770059)

Biden, is that you?

Re:Over 10 mins and no first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41769883)

Apparently OpenSUSE + Chromebook = Nobody cares!!

Re:Over 10 mins and no first post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41769919)

I think adding either of those to anything is like multiplying by zero

Re:Over 10 mins and no first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41769885)

everyone was trying to get to the Original Source instead of someones blog about a blog

Re:Over 10 mins and no first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770091)

It's compounded on sites like NetworkWorld who incessantly place links to their own articles and stories in the blog with cryptic links that should point to a company, but instead point to an article talking about said company.

Re:Over 10 mins and no first post (1, Offtopic)

cdwillis (1470349) | about a year and a half ago | (#41773363)

Comments like this are why I wish I could collapse comments here on Slashdot. Not only does this post contribute nothing, there are six (as of now) posts below it that I need to scroll past to see any decent comments.

Why not Debian? (1)

YurB (2583187) | about a year ago | (#41769847)

Just curious, why would one try to port a distribution if there's already a ported one? Or the debian's ARM is something different (unfortunately I know very little about processor architectures)?

Re:Why not Debian? (5, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#41770045)

I guess the feat is not to redo some porting of code to arm, which debian has done, but to configure the system/add drivers to support the chromebook.
IMHO if chromebook wants to sell more than a tablet it must work as a real laptop, and a linux distro is at the moment the only way to have a complete personal computing experience on arm.

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770271)

Google is explicitly selling the Chromebook as being different from a "real laptop". Why would they suddenly change that just because you want a cheap Linux machine?

Re:Why not Debian? (5, Interesting)

lkcl (517947) | about a year ago | (#41770469)

IMHO if chromebook wants to sell more than a tablet it must work as a real laptop, and a linux distro is at the moment the only way to have a complete personal computing experience on arm.

this is only really going to happen when ARM SoC vendors get out of the "vertical market" mentality, and stop trying to control everything. this is a really in-depth topic so i'll describe it briefly (yes, briefly - despite appearances)

the problem is that ARM SoCs have typically come from the "embedded" space, as "appliances", where android is now also considered to be an "appliance". what that means is that typically a device is designed by the SoC vendor themselves (a "reference design"), the software is written by the SoC vendor themselves, and the whole package sold, usually as a GPL-violating product, to factories who do NOT have ANY software expertise AT ALL.

these factories receive a set of instructions:
1) make PCB
2) assemble PCB in case
3) insert "boot sd/mmc card" to flash OS onto device
4) pack in box
5) sell box.

the chromebook is absolutely *no* exception to this.

what we're doing with the Rhombus Tech initiative, through the EOMA-68 hardware specification, is drawing a line in the sand, where the CPU is now on a Credit-Card-sized "module" along with the RAM and NAND Flash, but that's only half the story. because the CPU Cards can go into literally *any* EOMA-68-compliant mass-volume device, the CPU *has* to be considered to be "General Purpose". every CPU *has* to be "open" (or, alternatively, the burden is on the proprietary software vendor (e.g. apple or microsoft) or on the GPL-violating vendor to support literally every possible combination of devices that could possibly be out there or imagined).

so we're turning things around: turning SoCs back towards where they ought to be (and are already in the x86 world): general-purpose processors that can run any OS.

Re:Why not Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41773277)

While I dig the principle behind it, lacking the space/ability to run external cooling, adequate power, or backwards-compatible high speed IO, it seems more like a solution in search of a problem than a truly beneficial design, at least from the consumer perspective.

And I say this as someone who's been quite unhappy with the recent trend towards integrating memory controller and external IO bus lanes directly into the CPU.
(Which has NOT, contrary to marketing promises, in ANY way reduced the price of motherboards OR cpus, but rather just ensured that multi-generational upgrades will mean buying a complete package rather than having the possibility of piecemeal upgrading.)

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

lkcl (517947) | about a year and a half ago | (#41791299)

While I dig the principle behind it, lacking the space/ability to run external cooling, adequate power, or backwards-compatible high speed IO, it seems more like a solution in search of a problem than a truly beneficial design, at least from the consumer perspective.

the EOMA-68 specification includes backwards-compatibility through the three key buses: USB3 (which can do all the way back to USB1.1), SATA-III (which can do all the way down to 150mbit/s if you really get stuck), and Gigabit Ethernet (which can do 10 as well as 100). all of these are through auto-negotiation.

the reason for specifying a 3.5 watt limit is precisely *because* this is a mass-volume standard. in mass-volume products you simply do *not* put in moving parts like fans. the margins are too tight to have things fail and be returned under warranty.

we're taking a bit of a risk by allowing the 8mm version to be up to 10 watts and allowing fans to be included on-board. but, we're not pursuing that right now - just concentrating on the less risky higher-volume version.

think about it, though: with geometries shrinking all the time, in 3-5 years time we'll be laughing about 3.5 watts :)

Re:Why not Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41781003)

i kindof said fuckyea to myself whilst reading this.

Re:Why not Debian? (4, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | about a year ago | (#41771965)

The point of the Chromebook is not to sell hardware. The point of the Chromebook is to sell the Google model of doing everything on the cloud. Selling cheap systems running a "real laptop" OS is an unprofitable low-margin business that's of no interest even to hardware companies, never mind a services company like Google.

Hackers are hacking Chromebooks because they're hackers. The commercial viability of the combination is nil.

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41772831)

Afacit google's goal isn't necessarily to offer a "complete computing experience" it is to offer tools that encourage people to use their services. While they don't seem to mind letting (and sometimes even helping) us techies re-purpose their kit to run things that aren't associated with google services it's not the primary goal of the devices.

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

fufufang (2603203) | about a year and a half ago | (#41772897)

I guess the feat is not to redo some porting of code to arm, which debian has done, but to configure the system/add drivers to support the chromebook.
IMHO if chromebook wants to sell more than a tablet it must work as a real laptop, and a linux distro is at the moment the only way to have a complete personal computing experience on arm.

Google is selling Chromebook as their advertising platform... You might also get vendor lock in. You can't use the Gmail interface without using Gmail itself. Although you can indeed use Gmail via IMAP+SMTP.

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

xtronics (259660) | about a year ago | (#41770307)

Yes - please give credit to where credit is due.

Debian ARM port [debian.org]

Re:Why not Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770709)

Why not RISC OS [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#41772847)

RISC-OS was a nice OS for it's day but while it's quick afaict it is still a cooperative multitasker allowing any one process to lock things up. There is also the issue that running older software requires a third party emulation layer which is only available for a handful of devices (and costs money for some of them).

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#41770891)

Just curious, why would one try to port a distribution if there's already a ported one?

So, once Chromium OS runs on the Chromebook, there's no reason for any other Linux-based OS to run on it.

Re:Why not Debian? (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | about a year ago | (#41770973)

Why not NetBSD? Oh, wait. It probably already does.

Re:Why not Debian? (2)

mmontour (2208) | about a year ago | (#41771261)

Maybe he just prefers SuSE?

Several years ago, I ported SuSE onto my PowerPC iBook G3 because I liked it and it was the distro I ran on my main desktop machine.

("porting" in this case mostly meant bootstrapping a build environment and working around a few bugs. The source RPMs already had PPC build targets.)

Ubuntu, too. (5, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#41769861)

Re:Ubuntu, too. (3, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#41769971)

Yup. This is what I had a mind to do, but the stupid GPU driver situation on ARM makes life more than a little painful.

Re:Ubuntu, too. (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#41770093)

Not necessary for Emacs. I'd be tempted if SBCL ran well on arm (i have no idea), might make a nice portable dev machine.

Re:Ubuntu, too. (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#41770573)

Sorry but chromeOS led me directly to the idea of a real emacsOS when I read your comment.

Re:Ubuntu, too. (1)

lindi (634828) | about a year ago | (#41770695)

At least in Debian it's only for amd64 i386 kfreebsd-amd64 powerpc

Why haven't OEMs caught on? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41769893)

This is a great idea - a lightweight, attractive, inexpensive ARM-powered notebook running GNU/Linux. But, I wonder why Samsung and others haven't bothered to "officially" offer it? I think a system like this, running KDE, could be very appealing to a present Windows 7 user, versus switching to a higher-priced system running Windows 8 and its unfamiliar "Modern" interface.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#41770095)

Wait until you see KDE running on it first, i bet it will be dismal and defeat the whole purpose and turn people off of 'alternatives' permanently.

To the average guy, percieved speed is more important than openness, or even cost.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (1, Flamebait)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#41770145)

Yes, let's all wonder why Google hasn't officially offered to run another operating system on a machine made specifically for Google to run their OS on.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770305)

The question is not why Google didn't do it. The question is, why haven't Samsung and other hardware considered it on their own, since we now see that it might be possible?

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770375)

Because it's an even more niche product than a Chromebook that have so far sold extremely poorly.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#41770899)

If you have 2 niches in the same hardware you have more sells than offering just one. Opening the drivers mean that it could be sold to the 2 kinds of clients, or give your clients an alternative if they don't like the bundled one or at least don't fill all their needs.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | about a year ago | (#41770391)

Why aren't they selling OSX machines, as well?

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#41770843)

> Why aren't they selling OSX machines, as well?

They would be sued by Apple for software piracy.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#41770895)

let's all wonder why Google hasn't officially offered to run another operating system on a machine made specifically for Google to run their OS on.

Good thing he didn't say Google but Samsung and others.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770195)

Because no one but nerds actually want a Chromebopk.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774903)

Because no one but nerds actually want a Chromebopk.

I'd like any kind of bopk

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#41770999)

This is a great idea - a lightweight, attractive, inexpensive ARM-powered notebook running GNU/Linux. But, I wonder why Samsung and others haven't bothered to "officially" offer it?

Because there's no software vendor that is both willing and able to put the money into polishing, marketing, and supporting a "GNU/Linux" style operating system the way Microsoft is doing with Windows 8/RT or Google is with Android/ChromeOS, and hardware vendors want to stick to their core competency rather than trying to software developmenet, support, and marketing organizations, so "GNU/Linux" type of operating systems, when they are available preinstalled at all, are generally niche items either from smaller vendors or targetted to specialized market and not the mass consumer market.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41771239)

I can already get a laptop with Win7 for $249; I'm sure that soon I'll be able to get one with Win8. So for a present Win7 user, I don't see this as very appealing since their software won't run on it...

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774913)

I can already get a laptop with Win7 for $249; I'm sure that soon I'll be able to get one with Win8. So for a present Win7 user, I don't see this as very appealing since their software won't run on it...

You might change your mind when you've tried Win8

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year ago | (#41771461)

You realize the chromebook is made by samsung? The only difference is that they installed chromeOS and not debian.

Re:Why haven't OEMs caught on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41772315)

In the early days of netbooks, most of them came with Linux. The story I heard about this is that it didn't sell as well as XP. It would not surprise me if OEMs are still afraid of Linux for this reason.

News??? (4, Funny)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#41769917)

All this guy did was follow somebody elses directions.

Keep those quality stories coming Timothy.

Re:News??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770023)

Seriously. WTF?!?!? When do I get my own story about supposed ly porting coffee to a teapot using These [thevillagemg.com] instructions?

Re:News??? (4, Funny)

WankersRevenge (452399) | about a year ago | (#41770727)

News? Of course this is news. Someone out there actually RTFM. Personally, I'm surprised this isn't the story of the decade.

This is what it takes to get in the news? (4, Insightful)

CyberKnet (184349) | about a year ago | (#41769947)

Step 1. Buy a Chromebook
Step 2. Use ChromeOS for half a day.
Step 3. Follows instructions you got from SOMEONE ELSE (a Google-employed developer, at that) on how to load openSUSE onto a Chromebook.
Step 4. Enjoy being on slashdot front page getting credit for what someone else told you how to do.

Geez.

Re:This is what it takes to get in the news? (0)

Manfre (631065) | about a year ago | (#41770065)

I bet your the type of person who makes outlandish claims like "Coloring a color by numbers pictures is not art worthy of hanging in the Met".

Re:This is what it takes to get in the news? (1)

JoosepN (1847126) | about a year ago | (#41770147)

No "Step n. Profit!" ? Who'd follow those steps without it?

Geez.

Re:This is what it takes to get in the news? (-1, Troll)

helix2301 (1105613) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776679)

I agree this not news. Not to mention openSUSE stinks why would you even waist your time.

Impressive. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41769953)

Wow, a developer got a linux based operating system to run on a hardware that did'nt ship with the same operating system ! Incredible ! I am amazed.
But I suppose this is big news because that's something we'll be seing less and less in a near future.

Re:Impressive. (4, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year ago | (#41770257)

Try installing Windows XP on your Window RT device.

Re:Impressive. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#41770333)

I think that was his point. It wont be so common place with upcoming hardware, so this may be one of the last 'modern' devices.

( no, we arent there yet, it was just his prediction as we are going that way.. slowly... )

Re:Impressive. (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year ago | (#41771565)

an Linux is the outlier is my point.

Ran it on my $189 eeePc 3 years ago (4, Funny)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year ago | (#41770041)

Cold-start to reading Slashdot in 12 seconds flat with KDE Plasma Netbook. Because I could, that's why.

Re:Ran it on my $189 eeePc 3 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770755)

You sir have won... ONE INTERNET!

And now this is to satisfy the absolutely lame lameness filter. I guess that's where the name comes from...
And the captcha is "policed". How cute.

Re:Ran it on my $189 eeePc 3 years ago (1)

kakaburra (2508064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774679)

Ran it on my $189 eeePc 3 years ago

Geez.. do you have a time machine??

Re:Ran it on my $189 eeePc 3 years ago (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#41786531)

Geez.. do you have a time machine??

Nope - believe it or not, there was such a thing as openSUSE three years ago. Didn't need a time machine.

Shocking! (-1, Troll)

Altanar (56809) | about a year ago | (#41770127)

I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you! They could do that despite Chromebooks using the exact same UEFI secure boot that Windows 8 uses? Are they wizards? Or was all the Windows 8 stuff just FUD?

Re:Shocking! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770231)

No, the Chromebook lets you turn it off. Unlike Windows ARM tablets.

Man this place is full of Microsoft shills these days.

Re:Shocking! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770491)

Reality has a Microsoft bent to it.

Re:Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41771145)

s/Microsoft shills/idiots/

I'm sure there are many times more UEFI Macs out there nowadays than UEFI PCs.

citation required (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770331)

"...exact same UEFI secure boot..."

Not really the same at all. And many other ARM Chromebooks are using u-boot, not UEFI.

citation required -- yourself. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#41771049)

"...exact same UEFI secure boot..." Not really the same at all. And many other ARM Chromebooks are using u-boot, not UEFI.

There are only 2 models of ARM Chromebook, both from Samsung, and they differ only in the presence of 3G on the more expensive one, while the less-expensive one is WiFi-only. There are a few models of x86 Chromebooks that have been on the market (though, IIRC, only the Samsung Series 5 550 is still in production.)

Developer get's girlfriend wet on $249 Chromebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770249)

Now that would be world class unique news.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things! (0)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#41770423)

Just imagine!

Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things! (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#41770457)

No, I will not.

Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things! (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#41771471)

Not even with Natalie Portman in hot grits?

Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41770761)

Why doesn't this site just fucking work? Half the time the page won't fully load and I don't get the (stupid) slider so I can see all of the comments.

This site is total shit.

Re:Why? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#41770803)

It fucking works fine for me.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41776797)

It fucking me works fine.

Wait, what?

Breaking News (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#41770797)

Computer runs Operating System. Full report at 11:00. Weather at 11:01.

Re:Breaking News (1)

flatt (513465) | about a year ago | (#41772129)

Joking aside, how sad is it that it is now newsworthy that someone was able to successfully install an operating system of their choice onto a device that they own?

I weep for the future.

Great work (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year ago | (#41771235)

With a decent Linux distro on it, this certainly becomes more interesting. Now give it a non-glare screen and longer battery life and I'll buy it. :-)

Re:Great work (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#41771477)

... and then it won't be $249 anymore.

One small step - and that's all (-1, Troll)

petes_PoV (912422) | about a year ago | (#41771537)

The photo shows a text console. if that's all it will do, it's worthless.

Write a story when all the Chromebook's features, functions and peripherals work with X and a desktop. THEN you've got a story. Right now they've got nothing of value.

Re:One small step - and that's all (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774941)

The photo shows a text console. if that's all it will do, it's worthless.

?! Computers where worthless before the Xerox star [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:One small step - and that's all (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776997)

Err, wow. You are truly a technical illiterate. Have a good day.

Nice! (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year ago | (#41772379)

Suddenly I care about the Chromebook!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...