Please, FOSS world, we need something like ChromeOS

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Fragmentation, “choice”, and consumer usability

  • Many argue desktop Linux is shaped by engineers without product management: too many distros, desktops, package managers, and configuration choices for ordinary users.
  • This “9 clicks to shit” effect: first impression is good, but quickly degrades as users hit rough edges, inconsistent UIs, and integration bugs.
  • Others defend this diversity as “freedom and beauty”, seeing Linux as a customizable platform rather than a mass-market appliance.

Immutable, browser‑first OS vs traditional distros

  • Several comments stress that a basic Debian/Ubuntu/Mint install is not equivalent to ChromeOS:
    • Traditional package management drifts and breaks over time; atomic/A‑B systems with CI‑tested images are seen as closer to ChromeOS.
    • ChromeOS‑style simplicity is: “boot to browser, everything synced, no decisions about apps/desktops/packaging.”
  • Security isolation and immutability are emphasized: no sudo, no user‑writable host, verified boot; mistakes or malware disappear on reboot.

Hardware support and OEM preloads

  • A core obstacle: supporting the vast PC hardware matrix without a Google‑style certified device list.
  • Real‑world stories highlight Wi‑Fi, display, suspend, Bluetooth, and UEFI issues on general laptops and NUCs; long‑time Linux users often deliberately buy “Linux‑friendly” hardware.
  • Commenters note ChromeOS works largely because it is tightly coupled to specific hardware and ships preinstalled.

Business model and maintainer incentives

  • A ChromeOS‑like FOSS system needs many full‑time engineers doing unglamorous integration and QA; volunteers usually prefer scratching their own itches.
  • There’s “no money in consumer desktop Linux” unless it feeds another business (Google ecosystem, Apple hardware, Valve’s store).
  • Without a paying sponsor, a polished, locked‑down “just works” distro is seen as unlikely to be maintained long‑term.

Existing partial answers

  • EndlessOS, Fedora Silverblue/Bluefin, SteamOS/Bazzite, kiosk modes, and OSTree‑based systems are cited as close in spirit (immutable, curated, sometimes browser‑centric).
  • Their main gaps: limited preinstallation, hardware certification, and the absence of a large central entity to dictate and fund UX and integration.

Cloud, privacy, and philosophical mismatch

  • A browser‑first, cloud‑synced OS raises questions: who runs the cloud, who pays, and who can read/sell the data?
  • Some propose self‑hostable or S3‑backed, end‑to‑end encrypted sync; others say ChromeOS’s tight Google integration is exactly what FOSS people don’t want to build.
  • Several argue that “freedom is friction”: the very openness and user agency FOSS values are in tension with the frictionless appliance experience of ChromeOS.