No one tech-savvy wants this. We are already sick of Google's Android lockdowns on mobile phones, and now coming after laptops and desktops?<p>What's that going to be like? Will developers have to beg to have control over devices they own? Will we be locked down on the store and have to manually install "unverified" software? Will I be able to take screenshots at will on MY computer, or get a black screen because Google decides so?<p>The list can go on and on ad nauseam. Given what Google has done on the mobile space I have zero interest in having the same autocratic experience to be replicated on the last type of devices (PCs and laptops) where we can really have true open choices and alternatives. Screw them.
I want the equivalent of wine/proton, nothing more.
I guess this is more meant as an replacement for Chrome OS? That one is already pretty locked down, so switching to Android does not change much.
ChromeOS is much more close to regular Linux systems than Android. The vendors had support Linux properly to get into ChromeOS. This allowed google go support ChromeOS laptops for very long period. Also, a a side-effect Chrome OS contractors got to contribute a lot into mainline Linux.<p>Android Otoh let's vendors get away with shipping binaries that work once on one Android version, making upgrades pain. And thus Android devices are generally stuck with the build they released with.<p>The Google decision to drop ChromeOS in favour of Android is going is going to be a huge disaster for Linux ecosystem.
I always assumed Chrome OS was some kind of Android build anyway, but apparently not
ChromeOS has been converging on Android for a while but never quite gets there. They are asymptotic ;-)<p>It rather looks like Aluminium OS is the intended solution.<p>I don't see any problem with it being "locked down", in the sense that it doesn't sound any worse than Chrome OS or Android.<p>The open question is whether any open source release will happen worth a damn.
Why are you complaining about products which you will never buy? I don't sit around all day complaining about Triumphs because I drive a Honda. Or maybe I should start?
They are pushing hard the adoption of restrictive platforms where people that have no idea how technology works lose the ability to control their devices, a fucking basic right. And this is done transparently to people that are not tech-savvy. This affects everyone, but the main difference is that is extremely hard to make people that are not in technology understand WHY such platforms should be avoided.
Because we exist within a market, where the choices of others end up affecting us - if the market "votes" for a competing thing, that might affect the market for the things you care about.<p>Your car analogy isn't great, but we see a similar dynamic playing out with EV vs combustion, and we did with film-vs-digital cameras. "Don't buy a digital camera if you like film" sure didn't help the film photographers.
And what happens when your bank or government portals decide that the <i>only</i> methods to access their services is through apps installed on trusted platforms?
The market for operating systems naturally falls into oligopolies.<p>It's usually not financially feasible for third-party applications to support more than a few of them.<p>Users tend to have strong preferences toward operating systems that have lots of applications built for them.
Standards fill this gap, allowing for interoperation. When was the last time you had to write custom logic for your browser to access 99% of the domains you access?
But here we're talking about developers. They will have other platforms they can use.<p>And I don't believe for a moment that Google will have any success with this new project. They simply aren't capable anymore of making projects such as these work. MacOS, Windows and Linux will stick around long after this project is abandoned.
Here's to hoping that's the case. But the GGGP was arguing about that other case, where in fact Google manages to lock down the desktop to the point that you have to ask their permission in order to be able to ship a piece of software.<p>And since we've already seen two other players take that exact stance thinking that the third (who is already doing similar stuff on their mobile platform) is going to do the same thing is not just a theoretical risk.
Because our kids will be forced to use it in schools.
> I don't sit around all day complaining about Triumphs because I drive a Honda.<p>I mean, you could decide to complain or not complain, either is fine under a discussion thread of <i>that specific topic</i>. I have posted many comments like "I will never buy * because ..." on forums which I think is perfectly fine.<p>What matters is whether a comment contains valuable information and is contributing to the discussion. If others can use the information to form their decision, it's a net value add.
I don't see much value in complaining about something before trying it, before the project has started, when it's just a rumor. Is that an honorable or fulfilling way to spend the limited time we have on earth? Complaining about some product which you will never have any interest of buying, which hasn't even been decided yet?<p>When will hackers wake up? You are wasting your time being angry at completely meaningless things in this world and complaining about things which don't affect you in the slightest. The clock is ticking, we are all approaching our graves further each day. TICK! TOCK!
It will affect every hacker parent that has to buy a Google sanctioned device for his/her kid to use in school. At least with ChromeOS you can enable the Linux VM which makes it an Okish Linux machine on which a kid can learn to program if interested.
I don't understand how complaining is bad, but complaining _about_ complaining is totally okay and valuable. And now you have me mildly complaining about complaining about complaining.
I struggle to imagine existing Android apps being useful in a desktop form factor.<p>It's not just about touch vs mouse/keyboard, it's the whole interaction design philosophy.<p>And it's not as if you can say that getting the Android developer experience on desktop is going to entice developers. Compose is decent, but the actual Android system APIs make Win32 look brilliant. At least Win32 is stable.<p>For this to be viable, there has to be a bigger strategy than just "Android apps and APIs on a desktop" -- because neither of those are appealing.<p>Users and developers will just stick with the web.
Android accessibility is so not ready for PC. Navigate with keyboard and TalkBack and you'll hear "selected" everywhere which is redundant, since if TalkBack is speaking a UI element, it is selecting it for action. Apps aren't ready for keyboard either. They really, really aren't ready for a launch next year. But I'm sure they will. And few blind people will care because (almost) every blind person uses windows or an iPhone as their main computer and so Google will think they're doing just fine.
I don't really get your point. The accessibility story can surely be improved, but it's absolutely 100% better on Android, than what we have on GNU/Linux today, so at the end of the day it's just one more choice for end-users.<p>And keyboard and the like will also get a chance to get fixed if more people are interested in the platform.
I dunno that it <i>will</i> be improved. ChromeOS is pretty bad on that front (or at least was a couple years ago when I set up a chrome book for my elderly dad).
Accessibility is not the additional feature that can be improved later. If it's not there when you sell the product, you can be fined.
We're now in a mixed computing era that is shaping the future of computing:
Ignoring niche OSes (eg consumer electronics such as TVs/dishwashers/etc)<p>- PC (Windows, Linux, macOS)
- Mobile (to simplify, this includes phones, watches and ongoing AR / AI progress based around Android and iOS with some Meta)<p>Mobile already "broke" the rules, and we have locked down devices with simplified "app stores" and more complex off-the-market OSes since each device is a unique SoC combination many times with closed-sourced blobs.<p>Web did a major change for desktop (which I guess part of the assumption for ChromeOS). but there are still some scenarios where native APIs are needed.<p>On the other hand, current Desktop OS market is a mess, Windows is focusing on intrusive features and enforcing user account, Apple is all about "notarizing" and making desktop similar to mobile, and Linux is diverged with multiple variants.<p>I really hope for opinionated Linux distribution promoted by a big player (I've always hoped Adobe or someone in the right size will understand the need and their ability to get enough common products to it).<p>Having said that,
Linux did great advancement over the years. Many companies including closed source already have some support and also gaming made great advancement.<p>Anyway,
Making a "locked os" won't do much. So unless Google plans to shoot their own leg, they'll need to make it open enough.
If you, like me, were wondering why Google thinks it needs <i>another</i> operating system (ChromeOS, Android, Fuchsia - which is presumably dead (edit/turns out it's not/edit)) or where it fits in with the "stack":<p>> ChromeOS and Aluminium Operating System (ALOS) Commercial devices across all form factors (e.g. laptops, detachables, tablets, and boxes) and tiers (e.g., Chromebook, Chromebook Plus, AL Entry, AL Mass Premium, and AL Premium) that meets the needs of users and the business.<p>Sounds like ChromeOS is Android for entry/thin and similar PC's and Aluminum is more upmarket/premium.<p>Also, to be honest, this doesn't seem like "a new OS" to me, but rather a shift in Android's roadmap and an associated rebrand to try to push ChromeOS/Android upmarket to try and expand their "Devices with Gemini/Google AI as a first-class service/product" footprint beyond cell phones.<p>Given the push for arm in the consumer PC space, I can kinda see why google is renewing efforts here even if you set the AI stuff aside.
Let's be honest, nobody is asking for android based desktops, google just wants to normalize rent seeking 30% of all software sales.
I'm asking for Android-based desktop.<p>Windows is so bad, that I've lost any hope for it to recover.<p>MacOS is not that bad, but it's tied to Apple hardware and I don't like it. Also it's not getting better either, new releases bring more bloat and features I didn't ask for.<p>Linux is what I use, but I also lost hope for it to ever become polished experience. Just recent months they introduced another bug to GNOME which probably will not be resolved in years. No big company wants to invest in desktop Linux and without investments it's just not good. I can navigate Linux bugs and workarounds, but I'd prefer not to.<p>Expecting some new unknown operating system to appear and be ready is foolish, it won't happen.<p>So Android is the only operating system that could realistically be ready in the foreseeable future. Linux have good support for desktop hardware. Android have good polished stack for applications. Developers know how to write apps for android. Security story for Android is miles ahead that of desktop Linux. So I totally see that Android Desktop could actually be a good thing, with Google sponsoring its development. And if Google will put too much bloat in it, its open source nature would allow for volunteers to build better distributions of it.
My pessimism is that with their coming clamp-down on external sources for -installing- "sideloading" apps <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45736479">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45736479</a> this os may be somewhere between macos and ipados in terms of freedom in the coming years. I have hope that Valve's operating systems and unified platforms will provide a way not only for macos/windows users to move on while retaining compatibility, but for the company to make the transition to arm (as they are with deckard) and retain total binary freedom.
It's pretty openly known that GNOME is hostile to its own userbase and their preferences,, why continue to use it instead of KDE or any of the other 10 DE environments?
> It's pretty openly known that GNOME is hostile to its own userbase<p>It's pretty openly in bad faith to assign malice to open-source developers.
I don't want extensible software. KDE is terrible in that regards. They have miriads of options, that's too much for me. I want opinionated software. I don't like GNOME, but it's the lesser evil and I learned to deal with its issues.<p>Also I don't like that KDE does not have its native launcher. I need to install some SDDE stuff which works under Xorg or something like that and looks ugly. Pretty weird stuff all that. GNOME just have GDM which just works.<p>My ideal environment would be Windows 95-like WM with zero configuration options which just works out of the box the way I want. It doesn't exist, unfortunately. May be I should try to write is, as I complain about it so much. Just have no idea about scale of such a project.<p>There are no other 10 DE environments. GNOME and KDE are the only two mature ones. Rest are either obsolete, especially with Wayland conquering Linux desktop, or for weird use-cases, like tiling WMs. I'm used to traditional windows managers, I don't want tiling WMs.
This is an honest question, not trying to get into an argument...<p>> I don't want extensible software. KDE is terrible in that regards. They have miriads of options, that's too much for me.<p>Why not use the default provided then and take the defaults as opinionated? That's what I do actually. I might change very few options, but I generally use the defaults. It's not that you have to configure kde before it becomes usable, the defaults are pretty ok.
Lots of opinions that are less than idea in gnome. But the only one that really breaks me is lack of typeahead in Nautilus.<p>I just want to type D, enter and open Documents/, how hard can it be.
It's been almost a decade since they removed it, and I still can't use vanilla Nautilus.<p>I always end up with Nemo or a patched Nautilus.<p>rant aside, the rest of gnome seems fine. Don't love it, but also don't hate it. I can add my own shortcuts with rofi/dmenu.
Works for me. I'm typing D, it instantly filters the list of files and selects first item. That's "desktop" for me, so I need to type O or press Down to select "documents" and type <Enter>.
> My ideal environment would be Windows 95-like WM with zero configuration options which just works out of the box the way I want. It doesn't exist, unfortunately. May be I should try to write is, as I complain about it so much. Just have no idea about scale of such a project.<p>Have you ever tried Icewm?
> My ideal environment would be Windows 95-like WM with zero configuration options which just works out of the box the way I want.<p>Why would we have any reason to believe that there would ever be a super-opinionated desktop environment that would be good? The examples we have -- which notably DO NOT include Windows 95, which had a zillion tiny knobs, many in the UI, but others requiring dropping to the registry (which is no different from screwing with confirmation files)... and, frankly, doesn't even include macOS, the system with some of the best customization of key bindings and the most universal automation -- are mostly bad. Put in the day or two of effort to make something that isn't opinionated work the way you want, and then reap the rewards for the following few decades of your productive career.
But you don't need to configure kde to use it, you can just use the defaults for everything, nobody is forcing you to configure stuff.
It is not some exotic tiling wm where you have to set up everything.
XFCE is plenty mature and very stable
Cinnamon DE (linux mint) is stable, mature and miles ahead of gnome
Cinnamon is probably the best to use right now followed by XFCE because it uses XWayland by default. It provides nearly full use in both directions while still allowing both the new plugins and old widgets systems. It's also surprisingly stable. The only bug I've ever encountered in my now ten years of using it is on an N100 powered laptop, where if I let the computer go to sleep instead of turning it off eventually Cinnamon's process keeps requesting CPU time until it uses an entire core to itself.
Dunno, Gnome hasn't been hostile to me.
I'm sorry, but there are MANY users of GNOME who are happy with the direction. I'd personally choose GNOME over any desktop environment on any OS.
Isn’t Valve having a go at making Linux more consumer friendly?
Are you pretending android doesn't have bugs?
> Just recent months they introduced another bug to GNOME which probably will not be resolved in years. No big company wants to invest in desktop Linux and without investments it's just not good.<p>Classic straw man: a single GNOME bug doesn’t mean all of desktop Linux isn’t worth investing in.<p>Developers have been writing Linux desktop apps successfully for decades. Moreover, who cares about polished desktop apps when most apps are just web apps that look the same on all platforms?<p>For the record, I despise web apps.
Windows is bad because it has opinions about advertisements and AI.<p>MacOS is bad because it has opinions about what hardware you should use.<p>Linux is bad because it doesn't have opinions.
What's the GNOME bug?
I'm using shortcuts <Super>+1 ... <Super>+4 to switch between virtual desktops. Let's say there's Xwayland application launched on desktop 1 and I'm on desktop 4. Vscode for example. Now I press <Super>+1 to switch to desktop 1. At this point, vscode starts printing "11111111" until I press Esc.<p>This bug manifests both for vscode and Idea. I configured these apps to run under native wayland, but they're not ready and other bugs manifest (e.g. no border around vscode window), which are less annoying, but annoying nonetheless.
Interesting. I sometimes get similar behaviour on KDE / wayland, usually it is "2" or "3", and it seems to only affect electron apps. Always thought it has something to do with a dodgy ps/2 to usb converter I use to attach my old mechanical keyboards. I think it does not happen if electron apps are started with "--ozone-platform=wayland" but not completely sure, and I have no reliable way to reproduce or somehow trigger that behaviour.
try cosmic desktop since it was made to be similar to gnome - it's maintained by system76 and is shaping up to be one of the most polished desktops out there, gnome has been feeling like it's going downwards for a while. I can't comment too much tho since I am too used to KDE at the moment and tiling support is just not there yet compared to KWin.
Oh wow that explains a ton of problems I was having before I switched to KDE.
Depends what you mean by security, if by security you mean sanboxing of apps sure, if by security you mean that you trust what's in your OS and you can control it, it's worse than desktop Linux.<p>Security isn't just about technical features but also about trust, while I trust my Linux desktop, I don't trust my Android phone with the Play Store running as high privilege, advertising id in the OS and unknown manufacturer additions.
But that's more like talking about a particular distro, like I wouldn't trust North Korea's Linux distro either, compared to Debian.<p>Meanwhile something close to GrapheneOS running on desktop sounds fantastic.
For all the complaints against Windows, legit or not, I can't envision a world in which I want the world's largest advertiser to run my desktop OS.
Oh, Fuchsia isn't dead [0]. Apparently it's what the Nest Hub launched with and the latest update is pretty recent: from Oct 2025. Interesting.<p>(Replying to my own comment instead of editing it as this is tangential to the topic at hand)<p>0: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchsia_(operating_system)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchsia_(operating_system)</a>
Google wants an OS with Play Market on any and all devices possible. That's the end goal.
Aluminum and fuchsia are largely implementation details. The reasons these projects have value isn't necessary user facing, however they will have outcomes that enable products to be more useful with time. Maybe ai features are easier to ship, or it's less costly to maintain device support, or maybe they just save Google some money allowing for cheaper prices. Ultimately, they are closer to what's in the sausage than the sausage itself though and so most folks will not care. And that's okay.
I don't trust Google anymore or what their business model has become over the years.<p>I won't be using Aluminum OS.
Curious to hear what other technical products you use that are from companies that are pure as the driven snow.
Don't think it is targeted at you. A lot of people like you say so - but will be shoved Win11 or Apple Intelligence. Enjoy.
With their latest developer policy changes, what should make me think that this will be an open OS? And if they allow downloaded apps to be run, they'll be monitoring them in depth, not caring about privacy, since they have never cared about privacy. Every App has internet access and I cannot block or control it.
The entire basis of this article/rumor is a single job posting on Google's careers website... Unifying Android across all devices is Google's holy grail and they've been hiring for that for most than a decade. I don't think we have to read into this much.
Unifying the two has never been an internal goal until 2024. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Everything before that has just been rumors and maybe one off projects by very small amounts of people. Rebasing ChromeOS on the lower half of Android is real and has been publicly announced. It is not necessarily the layers you will notice through. It's about unifying things like the kernel, display stack, power management, Bluetooth stack, etc. There are effectively divergent universes between ChromeOS and android (and the desktop Linux ecosystem) despite these things not necessarily requiring unique solutions.
One of those things that makes so much sense it’s a wonder it didn’t happen sooner.
No thanks! It makes sense for them, not for us. Their rent seeking behavior, locking down of the OS and hardware and their hostility towards the FOSS mod community and users have all worsened lately. The only reason why they ever revisit such 'features' is a massive backlash from the community. Then again, history has shown that they try to smuggle them back in some other form.<p>Desktop and laptop are the last standing bastions of user modifiability and general purpose computing. The situation on smartphones is so desparate that I type this message on a half-crippled Android installation, hopelessly wishing that it was Linux in here instead. I don't mind sacrifing some convenience and functionality for a while while the devs figure out how to iron out the shortfalls of Linux on smartphones. I absolutely don't want to concede that same ground on desktops and laptops. We deserve at least some devices that we can experiment and modify to our liking.<p>I know that if the trillion dollar corporation is out for it, they will force it down the throats of naive people or those who don't know any better. Soon afterwards, the rest of us will have two options - a dwindling supply of heavily modified and refurbished used configurable systems, or locked down, dumbed down machines with arbitrary restrictions like everyone else. At least until then, I believe that it's well worth resisting the invasion of freedoms for as long as we can.
I share your fears, but I think the premise itself is valid. The project should be done, but fully Open Source.<p>I'd love to have Android (well, GrapheneOS) style sand-boxing for every app, I'd love to have it's granular permissions for every service. I'd love to have the battery management, the unified settings UI, the effortless disk encryption UX, ect. Who's using power, who's using data, who accessed the microphone 10 minutes ago?<p>Could this all be re-implemented in a Linux distribution? Sure, SE Linux is there. But it would take a long time to get to the same level of UX, and almost certainly fracture across different desktop environments.
Thanks, I completely agree with you! It seems that most people here will happily trade their freedom for some convenience by just handing their digital lives to Google though, which to me is crazy, but apparently how the majority thinks.
With the move to close down Android further and evil remote attestation, the PC is the last computing platform that leaves the user in somewhat control over the system. This is an indirect attack on our freedom, and I really don't want a future where two American companies somehow got a duopoly with full control over the hardware and software stack of all general purpose computing devices, and on top of that also act as the gatekeepers and distributors of all third-party software. Fuck. That. Shit.<p>I want full control, and by that I don't mean the ability to customize the color of my UI, but the ability to run whatever software I choose on the device that I supposedly own.<p>Sure, I may be able to technically be able to run Linux on a PC and retain my free choice for a while, but that is only until Google and Apple has finished selling their remote attestation security snake oil to governments, banks and service providers so that people like me will just be excluded from the digital society altogether.
AluminIum you say?
The name makes sense because Aluminium has an -ium suffix like Chromium. There's also no reason for the project name to agree with the US pronunciation of the element.
Well, it makes sense and it doesn't because it makes it sound like this is a 'lightweight' version of the Chromium-based products while the opposite seems to be true. Call it Osmium instead, that's got '-ium' and some weight to it just like this thing.
Team started in Australia, they use British spellings.
It will win where Longhorn and Midori failed, due to politics.
Is there any Android app that is worth using on a PC? Not being snarky, I cant see anything on Android being good enough for a desktop app that is used regularly. Most of the Android apps I use are the 'best of the worse' and I have to use them because there is no other options.
Tons. Top of my head: native OpenStreetMaps (with offline maps, support for GPS and compass, turn-by-turn navigation), every single transit app, banking apps, and - of course - the camera app.<p>The point about online banking is a bit dubious, but all my banks have decided that the Android app may conduct online banking alone, and it may verify a desktop session; but not the other way around.
Based on my experience using DeX, no. Most never considered "desktop" as a use case, so their UI is terrible on a 27 inch screen, and keyboard navigation is either non-existent or very awkward.<p>Oh, maybe the browser, so we are back to ChromeOS.
I used to main Pixelbook (1st gen) for about a year. ChromeOS really is enough for the majority of day to day stuff. For development it allows you to run linux environment inside ChromeOS<p>I can only assume the Aluminium OS would aim to do the same
Some apps only (usably) exist on mobile, like Tinder or Tiktok. Not sure that niche is worth a full new OS though, but Googlers need their promotion so here we are.
And it's been possible to run android on x86 for years. It's just that nobody wants to, except for app developers ... because you wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't develop on a phone ;)
For myself there are not any android apps that I need on my desktop. However it's important to look at things from a global perspective, not just personal.<p>There is a robust mobile gaming market worth hundreds of billions in USA alone.
<a href="https://www.pleco.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pleco.com/</a>
Linux is better in every conceivable way
I can conceive a couple of ways.<p>GrapheneOS-style sand-boxing for every app is long overdue in Linux. I'd love to have it's granular permissions for every single service. I'd love to have the battery management, the unified settings UI, the effortless disk encryption UX and key management.<p>Could you build it with SE Linux and a lot of glue? Yes, but nobody has. And doing it well, everywhere, would take a lot of hours.
Both Chrome and Aluminium are Linux, so which are you trying to say is better?<p>Or are you saying more conventional Linux is superior? Gnu/Linux is a good term for that.
When someone says "Linux" in isolation, they mean a conventional Linux distribution. Only extreme pedants and Richard Stallman call it "GNU/Linux".
It’s not a great term, there is a small and shrinking proportion of GNU in most distros. Things like systemd or Wayland are far more important.
Systemd is Gnu licensed.
That is not how anyone uses that term. For starters, Linux is <i>also</i> GPL licensed, so if it was like that then we wouldn't bother calling it GNU/Linux, we could just call it GNU. More to the point though, being GPL-licensed doesn't make something part of the GNU project.
"GNU" in "GNU/Linux" isn't about the license but about the GNU OS, <a href="https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#why" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#why</a>
Except being able to buy GNU/Linux laptops from known brands, the same that sell Android and Chromebooks with 100% supported hardware, at FNAC, Worten, Saturn, MediaMarkt, Publico, Dixon, CoolBlue,....<p>It would be great, however it died alongside netbooks.
This is the year of Linux on the desktop!
Arguably not in security model.
So after Qualcomm successfully brought Windows to ARM, now the will bring Android to PCs. This is hilarious!
Weird that ChromeOS Flex is not mentioned, I wonder if we are just changing names with some added features. I don't think this is a OS, not based on Linux, like Fuchsia.
Sounds like someone at Google wants a promotion…
Cant wait till like Android on phones, OEMs are put in charge of delivering updates to laptops, and if your laptop is older than 3 years good luck.<p>Seems like a big downgrade compared to current ChromeOS where Google is in charge of all updates, or even Windows where Microsoft delivers the same updates to everyone.
Funny anecdote. I had a Mac Mini Core 2 Duo that Apple dropped support for relatively quickly. I installed Windows 7 on it and it was running a supported OS did years after Apple dropped support for it.<p>Windows 7 supported every piece of hardware on it. If Microsoft can make an operating system that supports third party computers - even those that were never meant to run it - without relying on the manufacturer, why can’t Google?<p>Installing Windows did not require Boot Camp from Apple.
That's basically Microsoft's present strategy with W11. It seems to be going about as well as we'd hope
That article was almost impossible to read with how often the content shifted around, presumably due to crappy ad scripting.
[dead]
A Pc that requires every dev register their blood type with Google? where do i sign up /s<p>edit: for all the iOS/MacOS whataboutists, i don't own any Apple devices for the same reasons, so not sure what point you are trying to make.
The last I heard, Windows for ARM also had enormous restrictions compared to x86.
Isnt that how it work on iOS as well?
But you don't run iOS on desktop computers. If MacOS went locked down like iOS people would throw fits.
That is what iPadOS Pro is for.<p>The sales prove there is enough happy people, even with the complaints regarding some of its limitations.
Hasn't it been heading in that direction for a while?
Not really.
Actually, yes:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24838816">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24838816</a><p>And this one got cancelled after a huge public outcry: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28309202">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28309202</a>. Also, Apple never said that it's fully cancelled.
So what? That's why we don't buy Apple products and never have.
i don't know ,haven't seen an iOS pc and i don't own any of their other iOS devices or a MacOS device<p>edit: or an iPadOS Pro, for those who feel the need to highlight they spent the most.
Whataboutism?
Was anyone asking for this?<p>And I'm not just talking about the extra I...
Tego nie pomalujesz.
I'm excited for this as it will allow desktops to get closer to the security of phones.
I don't think a mega corp having full access to my phone while me not having that is very "secure". Sure it's pretty ok against third parties but in my threat model Google and Apple are also adversaries. Microsoft too by the way.<p>In my model my Linux pc is a lot more secure as there's no adversary having direct access and more control than me.
Privacy != Security<p>We shouldn't be happy with the state of security on Linux, while simultaneously enjoying its privacy benefits.
By this definition no operating system Google releases will be secure to you. I think it would be a more productive discussion if you could argue about security ignoring that you have to trust the person who wrote your operating system or designed your cpu.
Do you personally go through every line of source code for your Linux distribution?
That's not the relevant part. The relevant part is, if you find it's doing something you don't want it to be doing, can you read and modify the code that does <i>that</i>?
Do you do that for Android?
Security seems like a solved problem on desktop already? Secure Boot + LUKS + SELinux gives anyone a pretty airtight userspace.<p>Microsoft/Apple have similarly secure set ups for their operating systems. Bitlocker by default (although there is a convenient backdoor for high-paying customers to protect against data loss and for law enforcement forensics) and Apple's Secure Enclave (only broken into by a certain five countries intelligence agencies and for older versions streaming pirates) should protect the average user pretty well.<p>Is there anything special about Android phones (especially budget ones) that makes them more secure? That's not what I've seen.
As the other comment mentioned, is that Android is way ahead on app sandboxing and not doing things like exposing sudo to apps. Yes, apps can literally ask for your user's password using a fake dialog and then elevate to root and then do whatever. Even without root programs can spy on you by recording your screen, and mic. Programs can cryptolock your files or steal them (browser login information is a juicy target to steal). Android shuts down all of these kinds of malware by design. Apps can't escalate to root. Apps can't read or write to all of your files. Apps can't steal files from other apps. Apps have to ask for permission to record users. Apps can't see you have a root terminal up and start typing commands into it. Also in regards to writing APIs that are permissions Android makes it easy.
Per app isolation vs single user account.
There isn't that much demand for that on Linux because the apps aren't adversarial. If you install Facebook on your phone, you want it locked in a jail where it can't suck up everything on your device and send it to Meta. If you install the Signal desktop app on Linux, it's open source and doesn't do that. And to the extent that you use the likes of Facebook it's the web version.<p>Meanwhile per-app isolation is a pain. You download a picture in a browser, crop it in a photo editor and attach it to an email. All three apps need access to the same picture. Your backup app needs access to everything. Your password manager is filling in fields in other apps.<p>You do want to be able to isolate something questionable, but the usual way to do this for sophisticated users is virtual machines or containers. Maybe that could use a coat of paint to make it easier for unsophisticated users to use it, but maybe unsophisticated users should just stick to the system package manager anyway.
So secure it locks the owners out.
Yes, if someone sets a passcode and then forgets it, they will be locked out forever and lose all of their files. There is no way to prove physical ownership of the device, pretty mich the passcode proves who the owner is.
If I forget my LUKS passphrase no power on heaven or earth can recover my data
That's sort of the point of LUKS, and it's self-inflicted and your own choice because you didn't back up the key.
St. Gabriel, sitting on his cloud, looking at his Nvidia GPU supercomputer (also a cloud) fabbed by God, could totally bruteforce your LUKS key.
Does anybody think Aluminium as a brand name is a good choice? Especially considering the intended expansion towards the premium market.
To me it sounds cheap, second-rate, ersatz. What you use if you cannot afford a better metal. Chrome is shiny, aluminium surfaces soon get dim again after any polishing attempt.
It’s just a very old-school luxury metal:<p>“Aluminium was difficult to refine and thus uncommon in actual use. Soon after its discovery, the price of aluminium exceeded that of gold. It was reduced only after the initiation of the first industrial production by French chemist Henri Étienne Sainte-Claire Deville in 1856.”<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aluminium" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aluminium</a>
Aluminium is also what you built aircraft out of back in the day, and they could very shiny.<p>I also don't think it's ersatz anything. It's what you use if you build large, stiff objects that aren't supposed to rust. It's certainly less ersatz than steel, with a less martial character.<p>So I don't agree. I think it can signify something clean, light, unburdened by heavy and unnecessary things. I don't intend to use it though, for reasons everybody else gives, app-stores etc.
You don't even need to go that far to think its a bad name. The anglosphere can't even agree on the pronunciation and spelling.<p>Malicious actors will certainly take advantage of this as well.
It's likely just a codename for now.
I think that the general concensus is as long as a name doesn't start with a V, and is not taken, it's a good brand name. You can substitute W for V though, as in Waginium.
Sounds British