It's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromebox which is a class of small computer that run ChromeOS

It's kind of in the name, which is why they probably thought they don't need to say it.

It's a Chromebox, meaning, a computer running ChromeOS. Usually those can run Linux with some tweaks.

Every Chromebox runs Linux.

The Linux kernel has always been present in ChromeOS internally. But until about 2021, it was a PITA to convert Chrome machines to "real" Linux; you had to establish a dual-boot environment which was finicky and the process was different on every machine.

But now Google has improved the process so you can basically just flip a switch and use the underlying Linux [0] [1]. It's kind of like WSL, but to me it feels like 100% Linux.

[0] https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/install-linux-on-your-chromeboo...

[1] On Intel Chromebooks. For ARM Chromebooks, you still need to dual-boot to get something that feels like "real" Linux. [2]

[2] Which is kind of ironic given that ChromeOS can run Android apps now, and Android apps are ARM based [3], so they have to be run in emulation mode on Intel CPUs.

[3] Okay they're bytecode based. Android apps on Intel Chromebooks used to run the JVM in emulation mode (I think) but there may now be a native Intel version of Dalvik or whatever-Google-calls-their-JVM-these-days.

The 'flip a switch' is a bit of a shortcut, it usually isn't just a switch but can be a screw that acts as a jumper and you'll need to open the device to access it.

Well worth it though, especially if you max them out on RAM after installing Linux and you can get them for little money as 'bricked' for instance out of contract dedicated Google Meet hardware.

It's semantics, but I think it's useful to reserve the name "Linux" for devices that are the unrestricted version of the OS, otherwise the name starts to become as generic as the term "smart".

You may be talking about 2 different things:

1. Yes, ChromeOS is based on Linux, but it's not really what most people would refer to as "Linux". I think this is what you're talking about.

2. ChromeOS does have, however, some great technology to run an unrestricted version of Linux in a container, called Crostini: https://chromeos.dev/en/linux . I used to use a high end Pixel book (which was a great machine, really sad Google discontinued it - surprise, surprise, I know) as a primary dev laptop, it ran VSCode, postgres, etc. very well.

Yes, it is based on Linux, as are many televisions, car radios, phones, and other devices. That's my point re "smart" devices.

Crostini is a VM, and isn't 100% unrestricted. I'd classify it in the same category as WSL or Parallels.

Describe a way in which the Linux implementation of ChromeOS is “restricted”.

Disclaimer: I daily utilize a cheap Chromebook as a lightweight typewriter, and I love it.

However, it's important to note that Linux on this device is subject to certain restrictions: It operates within a containerized environment, which limits both disk space allocation and system-wide access. Accessing the terminal requires navigating through a "virtual machine", and files are shared within the /mnt/chromeos directory. Additionally, the utilization of USB devices is layered behind the primary operating system support and Linux backups are separate from the overall operating system backups.

Something interesting about Crostini is that it uses 9p to bridge filesystems, just like WSL2. It seems that 9p has "cracked the code" on bridging filesystems over virtual machines and differing operating systems in a way that other options never seemed to do quite as seamlessly, which I find rather interesting. Maybe it's because it comes with less baggage than CIFS? Easier to extend? Less complex than NFSv4? I'd love some commentary on this.

The filesystem bridging between Crostini, the rest of ChromeOS, and Google Drive is brilliant. It also transparently integrates SSHFS into the filesystem and the file browser.

Yes. You're describing Crostini which I use often and like. Those constraints are fine with me. YMMV.

If you want uncontainerized Linux you have to dual-boot. I used to do that but it's difficult and no longer worth the hassle IMO.

Well, for starters, with dm-verity and secure boot to prevent modifications to the root filesystem.

IMO it's beside the point. Calling ChromeOS "Linux" is like calling cells "mitochondria". One could argue that the same could be said about the somewhat standard Linux desktop stack you'd find on Ubuntu or Fedora installs, and that's true. However, that's probably mostly just a consequence of the fact that Linux doesn't have an actual standard userspace. The closest it has is the defacto set of components you're likely to find in any GNU/Linux distro, and they are quite different than what you'll find when you boot up ChromeOS or Android.

Are we talking "Linux, the kernel", or "Linux, the typical user experience"?

I reject the idea that a terrible UX is an integral part of Linux.

Inability to change DE, upgrade kernel, use kernel modules, etc.

Kernel changes that are not in the upstream kernel yet for one

Is spyware.

You can switch any chromebook into "developer mode". Then you get bash within the terminal app, with full sudo access.

At that point, as you poke around, you find that chrome os is actually built on top of gentoo Linux.

And there is a 3rd party pkg manager (chromebrew) which gives you gcc, and thus a whole host of additional pkgs.

Yup, its linux all right. Even without going the crouton (chrome into another distro) or crossing (vm running separate linux distro) route.

And Android too...

It is an expensive web browsing machine

> And with up to 32 GB DDR4 memory...

It's definitely a high-end web browsing machine. The TPM and sandbox model makes it pretty handy to use as daily driver for web browsing. Definitely a good recommendation for non-technical friends and family that need more than a device with 4GB ram.

For around 5 years I used a Chromebook as my primary home computer, and it worked really great. It was a HP 13 g1, with the very high res display, insane battery life, 8GB RAM. I bought it for $550-ish, and a couple years ago got my son one and myself a spare, upgraded box (partly because it finally supported the Linux subsystem), those were each around $100.

For running ChromeOS, it was spectacular. I ended up using it a lot for connecting into my work Linux box and doing work things via tmux+mosh. And then for browsing.

I ended up replacing it with a MacBook Pro, for way, way more money, but it's a top notch computer, can do the occasional videos that I couldn't do on my other computers, but I still blush at how much it cost.

I do really miss the "just reboot into updates". Right now I'm putting off a MacOS update because I know the machine will be fully out of commission for at least an hour when I do.

On which you can run linux apps and android apps.

It's a Chromebox, and that's in the name. If you don't know what that is, nobody at the ASUS marketing organization would or should ever expect you to click on the page.

Google really isn't great at marketing. I'm sure there are many people who could use a Chromebox who don't know what it is.

It's a box. It has Chrome on it. In a world of ambiguously named yet-successful products, I think Chromebook/Chromebox is the most straightforward naming convention you could ask for.

I like ChromeOS but it has <2% market share and has the same name as the most popular web browser in the world. Every windows and mac computer is also a "box with Chrome on it."

I don't like ChromeOS, but I gotta admit it's a perfectly fine name for the system. They don't bury the lede ("this runs Chrome") and they suffix it with a brief product identifier. If you are looking for a device with Chrome on it, this will qualify. If you need a Windows machine or a Mac, they aren't pretending to compete with them.

Is there a more straightforward name that even makes sense here?

This is a weird argument. Every computer runs Chrome so that doesn't explain why anyone would want a ChromeOS device.

There's nothing wrong with the name, but it's also not so well-known or self-evident that it never needs to be explained.

Whoa, just realized some of my past custom built desktops were Chromeboxes. (Current one does not have Chrome on it. Maybe it's a FirefoxBox?!)

I still think there's room for better communication on the product page.

It's hardware in a form factor I like. What can I use it for? Can I install any OS I want?

The whole "Chromebox" nomenclature is about as meaningful as the "Steam Machine" or "Mac" designations. If you build a designated gaming PC with Steam, it's a Steam Machine. If you've got a device running MacOS, it's a Mac. There's no real fanfare to the thing, it's just a nominative way to cover the base specifications of a device.

> It's hardware in a form factor I like. What can I use it for? Can I install any OS I want?

I'll be damned if a single product page for consumer hardware tells me any of those things anymore. I'd happily support legislation that pushes manufacturers to disclose that info, though.

Does it run Microsoft Word? Can I play Diablo 4 on it? Honestly, I don't know, but that's why it's not straightforward.

Does it run in Chrome? That should pretty decisively figure things out for you.

It's more straightforward than explaining to people that the 'X' in Xbox stands for DirectX, or that 'i' in iPhone means internet. Chrome is a browser, it runs in a box. It neatly ties two concepts together in a way that the majority of consumers will grok. Is there a more obvious name suggestion that I'm missing here?

It runs Android apps too actually, including Word.

Sure, you can run Word in a browser these days, and you can probably run the Android Word too. No, you can't run (easily) Word for Windows, as it's not Windows, nor Word for Mac.

Diablo 4 is a definite no. But probably maybe one of the VNC for games services has a frontend that works on Chrome OS; with all of the baggage that comes with.

If you're willing to put in work, older chromeboxes make decent, somewhat quirky general purpose PCs that can run FreeBSD or Windows or whatever, but it's still unlikely to play Diablo 4, because it's an intel laptop cpu with integrated graphics.

Nah, it's for the best if as few people as possible use that crap

No, that could just be an overlapping brand name. Meanwhile, describing compatibility with alternative operating systems would take a few more kilobytes of bandwidth for potentially millions of dollars more in sales.