[HN Gopher] Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices
___________________________________________________________________
Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices
Author : ingve
Score : 125 points
Date : 2026-03-12 20:13 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.chromium.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.chromium.org)
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Looking forward to no longer having to patch glibc on my Linux
| phone just so I can watch YouTube or use Spotify.
| mort96 wrote:
| Wait what, how is glibc patching related to YouTube and
| Spotify? Could you not watch YouTube using an arm64 build of
| Chromium or Firefox?
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Spotify requires Widevine CDM to run, and Firefox doesn't
| come with Widevine on Debian-based distros. The .so hasn't
| been available on arm64 except for ChromeOS. You can rip the
| .so out of ChromeOS (that's what RaspberryPi OS did). But
| ChromeOS uses its own flavor of libc so a couple of patches
| to glibc are required.
|
| Same thing with YouTube. A few months ago, YouTube started to
| require Widevine CDM if one uses the m.youtube.com site. I
| can't use the non-mobile site on my phone for performance
| issues, so I'm essentially locked into Widevine for watching
| YouTube, too.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Firefox pre-packaged for Ubuntu on my NVIDIA Spark has no
| problems with YouTube?
|
| I guess it must be a snap, not a deb package, but...
| wouldn't that work?
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Regular YouTube works as is (but has performance issues
| on my weak phone.)
|
| It's m.youtube.com that seems to require the DRM thing,
| at least for me. Have you tried that?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| m.youtube.com works fine in both Epiphany and Firefox on
| my Librem 5 with PureOS.
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Turns out you're right. I just uninstalled the CDM and
| YouTube indeed works! I'm still absolutely, positively
| sure that m.youtube.com started gating it for me last
| August without a doubt. [0]
|
| Maybe they pulled some temporary A/B experiment on me?
| I'll probably never know. Thanks for the correction.
|
| [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45193597
| samtheprogram wrote:
| I'm confused, how does Chrome work on ARM64 Android phones today?
| bloomca wrote:
| Maybe Android has its own libc? So they compile it for Android,
| but not for general Linux.
|
| Also curious about this.
| westurner wrote:
| Android's libc is called Bionic.
|
| Bionic (software)
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_(software)
| westurner wrote:
| What is necessary to run Linux ARM64 binaries on Android ARM64?
|
| To run conda-forge arm64 Linux binaries on Android in termux
| requires proot-distro because the ABIs are slightly different
| FWIU.
|
| What is necessary to run Android ARM64 binaries on Linux ARM64?
|
| Android Studio, LineageOS or BlissOS's outdated Android
| containers, a runtime like vinegarhq/sober that emulates just
| enough of Android.
|
| An Android binary that makes Linux compatible syscalls only
| (that doesn't require Android libraries that aren't compiled
| for Linux) won't work will it?
| mort96 wrote:
| A fully statically compiled Linux ARM64 binary which only
| interacts with the kernel through syscalls should run no
| problem on ARM64 Android. From the kernel's perspective,
| there is no difference between a "Linux binary" and an
| "Android binary" because the kernel in Android is Linux.
|
| Most programs want to interact with various system libraries
| and system services though. Android and your typical desktop
| Linux system share pretty much nothing aside from the kernel.
| westurner wrote:
| Why is it easier to run a Linux ARM64 binary on Android
| than to run an Android ARM64 binary on Linux?
|
| My guess is that the reason is the same reason that there
| aren't official updated Android containers
| mort96 wrote:
| I don't know what you mean by an "Android ARM64 binary".
| If you make an ELF file containing ARM64 machine code, it
| doesn't matter to Linux whether you meant for it to run
| on Linux in an Android system, on Linux in a desktop GNU
| system, or on Linux in some environment with without much
| of a userspace at all (such as a stripped down initramfs
| environment).
|
| If you mean something like an Android app, the answer is
| that there's a ton of system stuff that the app depends
| on, it interacts with more than just the kernel.
| westurner wrote:
| . CC= clang CXX=clang++ $CC
| hello.c -o hello_android_c $CXX hello.cpp -o
| hello_android_cpp -static-libstdc++ $CXX
| hello_asm.cpp -o hello_android_cpp_asm_syscalls_only
| -ffreestanding -nostdlib -fuse-ld=lld find -name
| hello_android -exec readelf -l {} \;
|
| But go binaries don't require (bionic) libc unless you
| compile with CGO_ENABLED=1
| pjmlp wrote:
| Only if they restrict themselves to the officially
| supported syscalls, otherwise Android will kill the
| application.
| hugs wrote:
| they probably meant desktop. i do browser test automation
| (selenium, vibium), and the lack of google chrome on arm64
| trips up new users frequently. the workaround is to just use
| chromium, but that's a confusing extra step for some if it's
| not automated and hidden for you.
|
| on that note, it would have been nice if they also clarified if
| this means they'll be shipping an official "chrome for testing"
| for arm64 linux, too.
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| Don't most people use chromium instead of chrome anyways on
| Linux?
| hugs wrote:
| most people just click the "internet" button and use
| whatever was already pre-installed.
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| I meant Linux users and chromium is the one that's
| already in the repos and doesn't need extra work. The
| default browser in most distros is Firefox
| drnick1 wrote:
| Yes, and the last thing we need is Google's cancer
| spreading to Linux.
| vinkelhake wrote:
| This is "just" about providing the official Chrome binary to
| ARM64 "desktop" Linux.
|
| You've been able to build and run Chromium on ARM Linux for a
| long time (I'm running it right now), it's just that they
| haven't provided an officially branded Chrome.
|
| This is a good thing. While Chromium works well, there are a
| few things (like syncing) that is a bit of a pain to set up.
| hparadiz wrote:
| The Chromium project builds many things. The Android version is
| just one of those things.
| danans wrote:
| The reason they didn't release Chrome for arm64 Linux almost
| certainly wasn't about technical feasibility, but rather about
| it being worth the support costs.
|
| The Android arm64 Chrome build is clearly worth it to them, as
| is the Chrome build for ARM Chromebooks.
|
| Before this point they probably didn't think that arm64 Linux
| was a worthwhile target to support (especially since Chromium
| was available on arm64 Linux anyways).
|
| I'm not sure what has changed in the desktop/laptop ARM Linux
| market that changed their minds - or maybe they want to put
| their shoulder behind that market.
| oofbey wrote:
| Support? This is Google!
| danans wrote:
| Support in this context means bugfixing, performance/crash
| testing across devices and chipsets, security updates, etc,
| not "phone/email support".
| CJefferson wrote:
| It required custom glibc patches, and getting videoes to work
| required some kernel stuff as well.
|
| This is a combination of getting stuff merged upstream, and
| removing the need for some more specialist features.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Curious; given that ARM Chromebooks are nothing new, I'm
| surprised that it took them this long to ship it to other Linux
| distros.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| Chrome had no official arm64 build. There are distro specific
| builds from debian, fedora etc for arm64 chromium, but google
| had no official arm64 build.
|
| There were actually some paid services that provided a distro-
| agnostic chromium arm64 builds mostly targeting people running
| puppeteer on AWS ARM lambda. You can see some discussion here
| https://github.com/alixaxel/chrome-aws-lambda/issues/241
|
| edit: I think I replied to the wrong comment.
| tedk-42 wrote:
| I thought the same though this comment clarifies it ->
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47357608
| emilbratt wrote:
| I have been waiting... so many years for this. Like, I figured it
| would never come. So happy to be wrong. Wonder if it will work
| well on Raspberry Pi and also if it will come with Hardware Video
| Acceleration out of the box.
| mort96 wrote:
| I would have more faith in Raspberry Pi's own patched build of
| Chromium to do hardware acceleration properly on the Pi than I
| would have in Google's generic Chrome build.
| emilbratt wrote:
| But as far as i know, there has never been working HW
| accelerated video in their build of Chromium. But yeah, I
| guess you have point.
| jamesfinlayson wrote:
| Me too. Trying to get Chrome to run in Docker on an ARM Mac was
| a battle that I didn't win (I didn't want to fight the battle
| to start with but I had to use a Mac rather than Linux).
| andrepd wrote:
| There's always Firefox.
| vsgherzi wrote:
| a lot of people seem to not understand what used to go into
| running chrome on arm64 devices, this blog goes over it pretty
| well
|
| https://www.da.vidbuchanan.co.uk/blog/netflix-on-asahi.html
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| that's not really "running chrome" but "running that specific
| DRM part browsers use to play content from companies you
| shouldn't give your money to"
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| sudo apt install chromium (or chromium-browser in the past)
| kgwxd wrote:
| Nope. Make uBlock Origin work properly again, or gtfo of the
| browser market.
| oofbaroomf wrote:
| Wait... weren't there many ARM Chromebooks already?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Sure, and when I worked at Google on Chromecast there was also
| _that_ build of Chromium.
|
| All of that is very different from The G actually providing a
| packaged official Chrome build, though. Which for some reason
| they couldn't be bothered to do before (Firefox exists though)
| oofbey wrote:
| Couldn't be bothered - the Google way. Nobody ever got
| promoted for doing something easy and useful.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Much like Android, Chromebooks are considered a different
| target even though they use the Linux kernel. This release will
| be for a generic Linux desktop binary rather than specific 1st
| party systems.
| torginus wrote:
| Yeah, strange, there has been a build of CEF for Linux ARM64
| since forever.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I recently switched to using an NVIDIA Spark as my primary
| workstation and lack of Chrome binaries for it are what finally
| pushed me to completely sever my relationship with Chrome and
| switch to Firefox.
|
| Sorry, Google. Too late!
|
| (Bonus: ad blocking properly works).
| xupybd wrote:
| What is it like using a Spark as a workstation?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Just like any other Ubuntu machine, really. Just lots (128GB)
| of RAM and relatively lots of cores (10 efficiency, 10
| performance). It's not screaming fast, but it's absolutely
| fast enough for anything I need to do and it's got insanely
| fast networking options if I need them.
|
| I like it, and the local AI options make it fun enough, too.
|
| Apart from a few hassles. No pre-packaged Discord or Slack or
| Chromium or Spotify are the only things I've run into really.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Chromium has been pre-packaged for ARM in Ubuntu for more
| than a decade now. Did they throw it away with Snaps?
| swisniewski wrote:
| I use a DGX spark, with Cosmic as my DE, and it's super
| awesome.
|
| This is a bit of a franekin-distro, as it's ubuntu + nvdia
| packgages + system 76 packages, but it works pretty well.
|
| I've been using Flatpack chromium, which is ok for most
| things. It performs a bit better than Firefox does. Having
| access to official Chrome will be nice though, as it should
| come with Widevine support. Chromium doesn't support DRM, so
| some things like Netflix don't work.
| r2vcap wrote:
| Cool. Let's release Android NDK for Linux arm64 host, too.
| Retr0id wrote:
| This one is so frustrating because aarch64 android would work
| great under kvm, but it's a pain to set up without the NDK
| cooperating.
| surajrmal wrote:
| What specifically doesn't work?
| Retr0id wrote:
| I'm not aware of anything specific other than the fact that
| it's not officially supported as a build target so you have
| to hack up the build system to make it work. Example:
| https://github.com/SnowNF/ndk-aarch64-linux
| transpute wrote:
| Google will launch Chrome for ARM64 Linux devices in Q2 2026,
| following the successful expansion of Chrome to Arm-powered macOS
| devices in 2020 and Arm-powered Windows devices in 2024.. Google
| is partnering with NVIDIA to make it easier for DGX Spark users
| to install Chrome.
|
| Will be useful in isolated Debian Linux pKVM Arm VM with
| accelerated vGPU, in Android-ChromeOS converged desktop on
| Qualcomm Arm laptops. Possibly Nvidia-Mediatek Arm laptops, if
| they support h/w nested virt for pKVM/AVF.
|
| Android desktop mode:
| https://x.com/sahajsarup/status/2031963143082295610
| Retr0id wrote:
| I hope this means widevine builds for aarch64 linux are finally
| here (which is a strange thing to wish for but it will obsolete
| some very janky workarounds)
| leni536 wrote:
| Debian ships Chromium on many architectures for a long time now,
| apparently. I never tried it outside of x86_64, so I can't say
| how usable it is. What am I missing? Is this about V8 JIT and
| widewine? Although those must be already supported on
| chromebooks, so I don't know.
|
| Lists of architectures on oldstable (bookworm): amd64, arm64,
| armhf, i386, ppc64el
|
| https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/chromium
|
| From where I stand it seems they enabled a build architecture for
| Chrome, but I don't think this required a lot of porting effort.
| Kudos for the official support though.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| It's just about their branded closed build, not even about V8
| JIT which was there already.
| pjmlp wrote:
| > This launch marks a major milestone in our commitment to the
| Linux community and the Arm ecosystem.
|
| So does Chrome finally hardware accelerates You Tube on
| GNU/Linux, and supports WebGPU, just like on Android/Linux and
| ChromeOS/Linux?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Bring the mobile UI there and it will be a news. Chromium has
| worked on ARM64 Linux since forever.
| madduci wrote:
| Since the inception of Raspberry Pi at least?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Longer than that. Raspberry Pi isn't that old, it only
| launched in 2012.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| And first arm64 device was released in 2013
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Ha, touche! But it worked on ARM long before that :)
| ZiiS wrote:
| Surely are more ARM64 Linux Devices running Chrome then any other
| Arch-Kernel combo in history? Not packaging it for common distros
| when they have built two empires off the kernel was just a
| choice.
| slhck wrote:
| Does that mean Widevine DRM will be supported officially? Does
| anyone know?
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| Most interesting here is the possibility of Arm64 Widewine
| libraries appearing?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-13 23:01 UTC)