16
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Maybe this is a hot take. However, a lot of the Chromebooks that were deployed by schools during covid are build like tanks while being super lightweight and having great battery life. Meanwhile the old thinkpads are 10 years old and are probably starting to wear down. Many Chromebooks support coreboot these days so theoretically they have the potential to be more private and secure. Some of them are also arm which means that they are more efficient from an architecture perspective.

Edit:

I like how incredibly controversial this is. I have successfully split the votes

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] OneCardboardBox 71 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The problem with chromebooks is that the base specs are pretty shit. A lot of them have 4 GiB of RAM and maybe 16GiB of disk if you're lucky.

They were designed to be thin clients to connect students to the internet, and little else. Maybe they could be hacked into something useful, but I don't think it'll ever make a good PC. They were always destined for the landfill.

Meanwhile, the best thinkpads were quality machines back when they came out. IMO, that's why they're still so versatile today. Free software can't fix bad fundamentals.

[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 37 points 3 months ago

They are built like tanks? The Chromebook laptops I've come across were flimsy as aluminiumfoil. The plastic hinges were so weak you had to try to not tear the screen from the keyboard!

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

Lot easier to swap parts on a thinkpad.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

That's a fair point

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 24 points 3 months ago

Modern Chromebooks are typically slower and more resource limited than even quite old laptops ( like Thinkpads ). They may also be difficult to service and expand.

Chromebooks as a class may become common devices. Sadly though, I think most of them are destined to be e-waste.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] drwho@beehaw.org 17 points 3 months ago

Chromebooks? Built like tanks?

Maybe if you folded origami tanks and spritzed them with water. They're cheap, they're cheaply made, and they're made to be e-waste.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

It depends

There are a lot of devices geared toward schools. Many of these devices are certified to be dropped and have keyboards that are completely sealed. They are designed for students who are abusive and highly destructive. Some even have military certifications. I've scene these devices survive being stepped on and covered in coffee

[-] SanguineBrah 5 points 3 months ago

As an IT technician in a school, I have to repair Chromebooks of many different models on a regular basis, mostly from Dell and Lenovo. I haven't seen one that I would consider durable yet. All of them use butterfly switches that break when a child rips off the keycap, meaning the whole keyboard has to be replaced. It is also common for the brass inserts into which the hinges are screwed to pop out of the plastic on most models due to rough handling. We also had one Lenovo model where almost every device we put into service developed a no power issue due to the same ceramic capacitor going short. Of course, the display panels are just normal panels that crack when struck - that is probably the most common damage we have to deal with.

[-] pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org 16 points 3 months ago

I'm not so sure... for the following reasons:

  1. Despite using a version of the Linux kernel in ChromeOS, Chromebooks don't always have the best hardware (ie. driver) support from the mainline kernel used by most distributions. That's why there are niche distributions like GalliumOS which provide tweaks to support the touchpad and audio devices in many Chromebooks. It's similar to how Android is Linux, but it's not standard Linux as we are familiar with (so the hardware support is different).

  2. Many Chromebooks have really poor specs: low-wattage CPUs, small amounts of storage, low amounts of RAM. While they may be newer, they are actually probably less performant than older laptops. This has changed in recent years with the new Chromebook plus program (or whatever it is called) which mandates a reasonable set of baseline features, but that is talking about current Chromebooks and not the ones from the COVID era.

  3. Related to the previous point, many Chromebooks are not serviceable or upgradeable while Thinkpads and some recent laptops are. You are unlikely to open up a Chromebook and be able to replace say the RAM or SSD, which would be a show stopper for a lot of people that like Thinkpads.

So... unfortunately, I think this take is a bit of a miss and I dont' really see it happening. I would be happy to be proven wrong though since my kids have two Chromebooks from the COVID era :}

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago

The thing is Chromebooks are flooding the market. You can get a devices for like 40 USD

[-] eugenia@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 months ago

Most Chromebooks from the last 5 years have 8 GB of RAM and 32/64 GB internal drive. That's not enough to satisfy the kind of user who would buy a Thinkpad.

I have 4 Chromebooks that I converted to Linux, from the era before the aforementioned, with 4 GB of RAM and 16 GB of internal space (and just 1366x768 res -- kdenlive and some cad apps don't fit in that res, not even some of the DE pref panels fit!). At 16 GB internal disk, only Debian fits in there properly. Mint and all ubuntu-based ones, or fedora are either out of space, or with only 1 gb left (Debian leaves 8 GB free). Also, it's near impossible to use a modern web browser to browse the web with 4-5 tabs at the same time at 4 GB of RAM -- you always hit the swap sooner than later. So it's literally bare bones experience.

The newer Chromebooks, with 8 GB RAM and 32/64 internal space are definitely better, but still nowhere near the "modern" specs required to run Linux properly (especially if you also want to do some video editing). In fact, look at the Cosmic DE. While it's new, and without any code fluff, it requires a minimum of 2.4 GB of RAM just to boot (which is more than gnome/kde).

So yeah, Chromebooks have nothing on Thinkpads. Not for the kind of users who buy thinkpads anyway.

[-] wesker 13 points 3 months ago
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago

Actually these devices are pretty cool as the usually have a TDP of 5-7 Watts

[-] wesker 5 points 3 months ago

I don't disagree, I was just commenting from the angle of how enthusiastic many are about ThinkPads.

I don't know too much about Chromebooks myself, so I look forward to the banter in order to learn more.

[-] jrgn@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

I have been repurposing my EOL Chromebook, and I don't think they will ever be able to compete with ThinkPads. I like my Chromebook since it is so damn small, however the specs are really bad. And everything is soldered right on the motherboard. So I have 64GB storage (plus an SD-card) and 4GB RAM. I have enabled ZRAM so the CPU is helping out a bit. But even so I struggle with the memory. Browsers are such memory hogs!

[-] 0x0@programming.dev 12 points 3 months ago

My old Thinkpads disagree.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

There's certainly a case to be made for saving Chromebooks from the landfill by installing Linux. There will be plenty of people who will be happy to have one. But that will be a different target audience than the people who use old ThinkPads.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] undrwater@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

As others have mentioned, perhaps while the metaphor is weak, your spirit is strong!

My kid's Chromebooks (I purchased for them before the school provided) reached EOL before they finished elementary school.

I installed Linux (Gentoo) so we could continue using them. When power is correctly configured, they were very cool to use as a quick tool to search for something, answer an email, write a quick document and other simple tasks. They did not work well as workstations as an old Thinkpad might.

Since they are so light, and the battery lasted forever, we would leave them on a counter, and pick them up as needed.

[-] xulfer 9 points 3 months ago

Thinkpads are fairly powerful as laptops go. Are you talking about some very strong variety of chromebook here?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] intelisense@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

New Thinkpads are still great Linux laptops, so there's a steady stream of newer 2nd hand models coming on the market.

[-] crazyminner@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

Stupid fucking Lenovo is starting to buy back EoL computers. I swear it's to cut down on the available second hand computers on the market.

Can't have poor people having decent things to use for cheap.

[-] intelisense@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

That's news to me - and a bit of a dick move.

[-] 0x0@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago
[-] crazyminner@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

They're going to start doing it at my job. So the source would be my boss.

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

———————————No coreboot?——————————— ⠀⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ —————————————————————————————

[-] j4k3@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

::: spoiler Thinkpads were the enterprise standard. They were well documented and had full spec implementations of software. This was the reputation that built the icon.

I don't trust anything from Google and especially anything with ARM. I'll use Graphene, but only because of the TPM chip that can better prove what is happening in hardware when absolutely every mobile device made is a heap of shit hardware.

With a computer I have better options. When I was younger and dumber, I thought Android was great because it was Linux. Since then I learned that the entire scheme of Android is a way for google to enable and manipulate an industry while stealing ownership of all consumer devices using orphaned kernels to depreciate devices.

I learned my lesson. Everything google touches is a shitty scheme. Everything from the "free" stalkerware internet model that has completely undermined the third pillar of democracy (free press/freedom of information), the ownership over a part of me that is used to manipulate me, to the theft of my device itself; nothing google does is ever in your best interest. The only time it is worth buying google stuff is with an extremely well reasoned group like Graphene OS that have nothing to do with google and are not in any way funded by or associated with google.

ARM is dead in the water. The writing is on the wall. The same last hoorah of hardware happened when Power PC, and the 68k Motorola stuff was about to die. The most important thing to know is how Apple actually works and has always worked when it is successful. Apple leverages sinking ship silicon with buying power, and next level software development to squeeze all the untapped potential out of the device. All of the bugs and issues are fairly well known and documented. This low grade trailing edge hardware is placed in a pretty dress and marketed to people that are clueless about actual hardware. These people are paying a premium. Their stuff works great and performs quite well for what it is, but nothing about it is cutting edge. Apple profits from selling old tech as a premium product. The 6502 was a hackjob that started the trend and it only existed because it was a third as much money as all other processors. That was its only real selling point. Their fab quality was so bad, MOS couldn't compete with the speeds of their competition. They came up with the first dual instruction loading pipeline to try and get anywhere near the speeds of Zilog, Intel, and Motorola. This is how Apple started; with the 6502. The only architecture that Apple has ever used that has not already failed is x86. When Apple chooses ARM, that is the death knell. The true tell about ARM is how it was sold by the original Acorn group ownership right after RISC-V won the legal case against UC Berkeley for full independence. The entire business model of ARM is to keep everything proprietary. This is a key player in theft of ownership and the dystopianism of the present neo feudal digital age. This is the polar opposite of the original legacy of the IBM Thinkpad. The present hardware with Thinkpad stickers doesn't come close to that original legacy in any way. The world is more complicated now. But, we have tools like Linux hardware probe to find what works and what doesn't, and distros like Fedora just work.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I am a big RISC-V fan and often write how it will eventually push ARM down but let me do the opposite here.

Apple Silicon uses the ARM ISA but Apple designs the chips themselves and TSMC makes them. This makes it a very different situation from PowerPC.

TSMC offers more advanced manufacturing than Intel does. This is not changing anytime soon. From that perspective, Intel looks to be more in the PowerPC seat this time around. Their recent troubles are going to hang a serious anchor on their R&D. It is not at all clear what their future looks like.

Add to this the timing of Intel stumbling just as the Qualcomm X Elite chips enter the market and we have a very interesting competitive moment. Power and battery life matter a lot these days. Will it matter enough to counter speed bumps in app compatibility? We will see.

Independent of Apple, ARM may become viable in the Windows space and that would be entirely new. If it does not happen, it does not really hurt Apple. However, if ARM does take a cut of the Windows market, it does hurt Intel and puts them more into the place PowerPC was historically. If X Elite ( ARM ) does not fail on Windows, it will probably become the preferred option on laptops. If that happens, maybe it reduces Apple market share as well but not enough to push Apple off their own silicon.

As long as Apple sells enough volume, they can continue to design their own chips. It does not even matter how well ARM themselves are doing. If Apple continues to be good at it, there is no reason to switch.

So, while it sounds like you and I may agree about RISC-V vs ARM, remember that Apple does not buy their chips off of ARM. Apple gets its chips from TSMC and, far from being “old tech”, they are buying manufacturing process superior to anything Intel has access to. Also, Apple’s market is not just laptops and desktops. They are using Apple Silicon in all those iPhones and iPads at volumes that dwarf the PC side.

The reason that Apple moved away from PowerPC ( and Motorola before that ), was because of the economics. With only 15% of the PC market, Apple was the primary driver of PowerPC and had to fund all its innovation ( including manufacturing ). Now, they have control of the design and use it to serve much higher volumes while TSMC ( biggest in the world ) drives the manufacturing at the forefront of the industry. Most importantly, Apple is not really impacted at all by the success of the rest of the ARM space. If ARM fails, it does not really hurt Apple. If ARM is very successful, maybe it helps Apple a bit with more software available, especially on alternative OS like Linux. But alternative OS options for Apple hardware are a mixed blessing for them anyway.

It is a very different world m.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CsXGF8uzUAOh6fqV@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I'm not a thinkpad guy, but I thought one reason for people liking old thinkpads is that the old ones came with cpu's that predate the intel management engine.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

Exactly. The ARM Chromebooks can run coreboot in a lot of cases. I am not sure about WiFi and GPU acceleration but at least those can be isolated if necessary.

[-] mariusafa 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Coreboot does not remove IME. Libreboot (a coreboot distro) does. Or neuter it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

I am on a backpacking trip with my son right now. I wanted a laptop but did not want to carry anything heavy and did not want to be upset if it was broken or stolen.

I bought a 2013 MacBook Air off eBay for $60 and put EndeavourOS on it ( 128 GB SSD and 8 GB of RAM ). The webcam did not work out-of-the-box but the driver for that was in the AUR ( so just a simple ‘pacman -S’ post install ) and everything else worked perfectly.

The apps I have used so far on the trip are LibreOffice, Firefox / Edge, Email, IntelliJ IDEA, and Microsoft Teams. I built an up-to-date version of the Ladybird browser just to check-in on the status. The MacBook has performed wonderfully and exceeded my expectations.

I guess my point is, even when my requirements were perfect for a Chromebook, I still did not even think of one. This machine is so beautiful, I cannot imagine why I would settle for a Chromebook next time. How much cheaper is it going to be than $60?

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

https://docs.mrchromebox.tech/

A lot of Chromebooks can have Linux natively put on them.

I see a lot of pooh-poohing of the idea in this thread, but I think there's people who are willing to do so.

I just took an old Lenovo ThinkCentre Chromebox 10H5 and modified the UEFI firmware with the walkthru from MrChromebox to put Xubuntu on it. It's actually pretty snappy despite its limited hardware.

Also, I upgraded the 16gb M.2 SSD into a far more sufficient 256gb size.

The shortage of RAM is rough, but it can still be a workhorse in a lot of ways. I plan on replacing Xubuntu with a server version to get a little boost out of running it headless to drop the RAM going to rendering a GUI.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago

I would with Debian plus minimal gnome (install just the gnome base package without recommends)

Another idea is to connect it to a much faster device over RDP or moonlight

[-] Fizz@lemmy.nz 3 points 3 months ago

I got a chromebook with 2gb RAM, the shittiest CPU and 16gb of storage. Slapped arch on it and it works great for watching movies and youtube.

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don't not necessarily agree, but I like your prediction. Let's see if it turns out correct. Time will tell.

n.b.: am a Thinkpad enthusiast myself

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago

https://zipso.net/chromebook-specs-comparison-table/ I didn't know there were so many Chromebooks. I'm no longer in school (for long time) and don't know if German schools get any netbooks or Chromebooks to work with.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
16 points (57.1% liked)

Linux

48375 readers
1658 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS