A coming revision to Chrome OS will enable Windows-compatible network browsing by default. This means that Chromebooks will be able to connect with Windows PCs just as easily as other Windows PCs do today.
A very welcome change, especially among corporate users.
Now, when is Android going to get this capability?
WorknMan,
I’ve been looking for a solution to this problem in vein since day one with android.
IOS/Android make it extremely difficult to access/share one’s local files locally without going through a cloud service, email, or a 3rd party application, which is very frustrating. Having access to LAN is a huge productivity boost, I want all applications to support network files.
Having individual applications bundle their own CIFS stack in order to access network shares (as some do) is just stupid. Forcing us to upload/download files through a 3rd party data silo when our data is already here is also stupid, especially if we’re talking about large resources and metered internet connections.
What’s a shame is that linux supported CIFS out of the box since before android existed, they just never turned it on and gave us a way to use it. I frequently find myself needing to transfer files to/from the LAN and feel handicapped by this limitation every time.
There are plenty of SMB addon tools for Android – I use Astro file manager.
Yes, but until recently CIFS was at SMB v1, very insecure. You’d of had millions or billions of insecure devices. I mean more insecure than they are now, insecure.
Not sure why everyone would want an Android folder on their share!
I connected a floppy drive to my Note 8 and it creates two folders automatically. Annoying when you only have 720kb disks.
And this is different from desktop.ini, thumbs.db, .DS_Store and ._AppleDoubles, or that weird folder Nautilus used to put there… how? Besides, it’s not as if Android would have to create these folders, though the morons at Google would probably make sure it did. I do wonder what annoying extra files, hidden or otherwise, Chrome OS will stick in there when this feature comes out, thus necessitating another thing in the long list to clean up.
The people running home/small businesses do not really have the luxury of time to play much around with their systems. And the 6-month upgrade cycle with Windows 10 is not helping here.
Having Chromebooks capable to natively share files with Windows systems on a local network opens the door for slowly replacing Windows systems with Chrome OS based systems. While some form of server (headless?) would likely be needed, the requirements may not be so high that an existing systems could not be converted to such a duty.
Do I understand this correctly?
So when Windows gets a feature update: Things change to often
When ChromeOS gets a feature update: Things have changed enough that we can replace the version of Windows that we don’t update
I choose my Operating System based on the software that needs to run on it, what other people around me are using and what is allowed/provided by the IT-department. Getting “SMB-support” in ChromeOS makes ChromeOS better and is a great feature, but it won’t make replacing programs any easier. It is like adding mouse-support to iOS…it will make that OS better but will not make it run programs that don’t run now
The owner of a home business is also the IT Department and simplification will always be preferred over increasing complexity.
Granted, the ChromeOS world is not perfect. Some key applications in the MacOS/Windows worlds do not have equivalent in the ChromeOS world. Even flagship devices have been orphaned like the Linux container capability not being back-ported to the Pixel 2015 (something to do with the underlying Linux kernel version).
More easily sharing files in a network environment consisting of a mixture of Linux, MacOS, and Windows systems (all supporting SMB) is a good thing for ChromeOS based systems.
I disagree with this direction.
The whole point of chromebooks and cloud services was the idea that we could have device and network independent secure and simple endpoints, and we could pick and choose cloud-based services to consume through the very open interface known as the web.
This simplicity had huge benefits.
Really simple devices, almost state-less. Easy to manage and own. Easier to secure. Easier to discard or lose.
Data was primarily stored and processed server side – with the appropriate security around that data.
This move breaks that model.
We now have to local LAN resources and a security model that has to loosen to allow that. We have more complex information security architecture – and devices are now holders of data not just passive viewers (even then it was mostly encrypted).
The Microsoft SMB protocol isn’t clean and open enough – which makes it both a technical and a security risk. Think about it – if it was so simple and open why do we keep having to play catch up with open source implementations?
I think this is a worrying counter-strategic move by Google.
They should, and have the resources, to stick to their no-network strategy.
Disagree. Google found out the hard way that not everyone, particularly businesses, want to trust their data to the dubious nature of Google Drive. They held to that stance far too long before allowing you to choose and add other filesystem providers, i.e. other cloud services. Besides, some data is simply too sensitive to put in the hands of others.
This is absolutely necessary, and has been far too long in coming. One can hope they’ll add support for shared printers next. I will not ever buy the idea that I must send all my print jobs to Google in order for a Chromebook to have easy printing. Sorry, no. Especially not to a company whose number one way of gaining money is selling me to the highest bidder.
project_2501,
I won’t deny that 3rd party data services may be “good enough” for many people who don’t have a computer network, but for those of us who have a working PC network with shared files, the inability to access it from android doesn’t simplify anything. It only makes file access extremely frustrating and complex. I often find myself resorting to USB, which is a pathetic substitute for native network file sharing.
At this point, Chrome OS and Android are as close to ubiquity as Desktop Linux is ever going to get, so I can hardly blame Google or Microsoft for not putting the resources into developing for a constantly changing and unstable platform when they can concentrate on the platforms that most customers really care about. It’s just good business sense.
ChromeOS is still tiny, but it has potential; also, still a few billion people are left to adopt Android…
If I am not mistaken, iOS also does not support file operations we have come accustomed to do on a desktop.
Concur with the great thing about Linux is that it offer choices.
… that Microsoft LOVES IT, right??? Would have loved to see Steve Ballmer’s reaction, had he been Microsoft’s CEO.