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/
Sounds perfect! /s
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
That’s what I wrote. :)
And as for Windows updates we don’t know what the future holds. Windows Vista and 8 certainly wasn’t supported for decades.
Linux distros are fine as long as you do dist-upgrades, but that’s not something most people’s grandparents, heck, even most people, are going to do even if they were able to walk into a store and actually buy a computer with Linux on it.
And as for the edge case Macs which only received four years of software updates - I’d be pissed if I was the owner of one.
Ah i translate wrong in my head, re reading now it’s exactly what you said
updates for safari are generally tied to the operating system
Sure - but Apple also ships bugfix and web standards compatibility updates for old versions of Safari. You don’t have to be running the latest version to be fully supported. You only need the latest version for user interface features (tab grouping, etc).
It’s generally only a problem with really old hardware.
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.
I’m well aware of the developments, but fact is that it would be trivial to support these devices, they just choose not to.
Assuming that Apple makes “informed” decisions based on the number of active devices is just ridiculous. Apart from the abysmal 2016 and up Intel-based MBP machines there is plenty of great and capable hardware out there.
Both my 2011 MBA and 2014 MBP (late 2013 model which honestly holds up way better than my 2018 MBP) have both gone out of favor [1], but they both have SSD’s and are fully capable of running 64-bit software.
Apart from the security coprocessor for touchID there’s very little difference between these and the machines that are currently supported.
As for Apples willingness and ability to deliver software updates to earlier, but still officially supported versions of MacOS - there are considerable issues and concerns [2].
1: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213264 2: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/11/psa-apple-isnt-actually-patching-all-the-security-holes-in-older-versions-of-macos/
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.
I run a Chromebook from HP that no longer has support from Google. I had to pull the back off and remove a physical screw to reinstall the OS but am happily running Pop_OS 22,04 on it which gets linux-firmware updates. Unfortunately I have not seen a bios update in quite some time, but the firmware still gets support from the kernel and distro. I did need the juevos to actually open my computer up after researching what to do and the knowledge to futz with all the keyboard oddities to get the keyboard fully functional that most people just don’t have the knowledge to easily do nor the patience to fight with Google searches and Gallium tools/documentation to make these things work.
That’s the problem though, serious firmware security flaws are found all the time. My HP laptop stopped getting BIOS updates after about five or six years, but other models with very similar model numbers did get security patches with problems like “the root user can reprogram the BIOS and infect the system in a way that can’t be removed”.
Also, the ARM Chromebooks will likely have the same problem Android phones do, where Google needs to go in and alter the kernel for the shitty proprietary drivers to work (or pay for an updated driver, if that’s even available).
Lastly, someone is going to need to test the updates on all of these devices. You don’t want to release an update for a model nobody uses anymore and accidentally brick an entire school right when exam weeks are starting, that would be worse than telling the school to buy a different $50 computer after several years of updates.
Google can and should do better (Microsoft manages to get 10 years of updates so why can’t Apple and Google?) but I also understand Google’s point here. Most of the deprecated laptops were slow and shit when they were new, bought by schools as a symptom of underfunding or because school admins thought they were smart and tried to save a buck. When you buy a crap tier device for barely any money, you have to adjust your expectations in terms of support.
That isn’t the case for very expensive Chromebooks, including the ones Google themselves released. 300 or 400 dollars should be enough for 10 years of support, and if they aren’t, it’s time to move away from Chromebooks back to Windows, where this type of arrangement is common.
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.
