3 ms·

Which is mostly a problem that Google themselves architected into Android. By not building a sensible HAL in to android like requiring ACPI in the hardware for

Which is mostly a problem that Google themselves architected into Android. By not building a sensible HAL in to android like requiring ACPI in the hardware for the first android phones (especially the moto droid which they worked on closely with Motorola), they condemned us all to vendors-specific kernels and bootloaders. Google's inept 'management' of the android ecosystem has left us with openness for hardware vendors like Samsung but not end users. Their design of android deprives end users of regular security updates that iOS users enjoy but also deprives them of the right-to-modify that licenses like the GPL were intended to guarantee. I don't know what everyone at Google intended, beyond 'let's beat Apple', but the way android turned out looks awfully evil to me.

floatboth 10y ago
On the Nexus 5X/6P and some other new phones, there's a separate /vendor partition for proprietary blobs that can be updated separately from your Android distro (which is at /system). Granted, the Nexus is Google-related and I'm not sure if that's the case on other devices… By the way, the upstream Linux kernel supports the Nexus 5X! http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-4.9-ARM-Pull http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-4.9... And the bootloaders are based on fastboot pretty much everywhere I think? At least that was the case with the non-Google-related HTC phone I've had.
- CountSessine 10y ago
  Samsung's Odin bootloaders are not based on fastboot (or at least I don't think they are). And whatever they are based on, the problem is that they can be locked, depriving end-users of their right-to-modify. And that Google went out of their way at every turn in Android's development to reimplement GPL components with permissive licenses (like Bionic) that would enable hardware vendors to engage in this sort of dickery. Android is the emblem and sigil of Tivo-ization. And Google was the key enabler of this. I get that this was successful - after all, "Android overtakes Windows as the blah, blah," is very successful. And maybe if Google had behaved ethically Android wouldn't have been the success that it is. Just don't give me any of the "don't be evil" BS. When threatened, Google was every bit as evil as Microsoft was at the height of the browser wars.
vetinari 10y ago
Google was just realistic at the time. ARM boards do not have platform services at firmware level, nor plug and play buses like PCI. If Google required that in 2008, Android would have market share similar to Sailfish or FirefoxOS. Have look at Redhat, how far got them requiring UEFI at server ARM boards. That's market, where the buyers have much more impact on the design than mobile.

floatboth 10y ago

On the Nexus 5X/6P and some other new phones, there's a separate /vendor partition for proprietary blobs that can be updated separately from your Android distro (which is at /system). Granted, the Nexus is Google-related and I'm not sure if that's the case on other devices… By the way, the upstream Linux kernel supports the Nexus 5X! http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-4.9-ARM-Pull http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-4.9... And the bootloaders are based on fastboot pretty much everywhere I think? At least that was the case with the non-Google-related HTC phone I've had.

CountSessine 10y ago
Samsung's Odin bootloaders are not based on fastboot (or at least I don't think they are). And whatever they are based on, the problem is that they can be locked, depriving end-users of their right-to-modify. And that Google went out of their way at every turn in Android's development to reimplement GPL components with permissive licenses (like Bionic) that would enable hardware vendors to engage in this sort of dickery. Android is the emblem and sigil of Tivo-ization. And Google was the key enabler of this. I get that this was successful - after all, "Android overtakes Windows as the blah, blah," is very successful. And maybe if Google had behaved ethically Android wouldn't have been the success that it is. Just don't give me any of the "don't be evil" BS. When threatened, Google was every bit as evil as Microsoft was at the height of the browser wars.

vetinari 10y ago

Google was just realistic at the time. ARM boards do not have platform services at firmware level, nor plug and play buses like PCI. If Google required that in 2008, Android would have market share similar to Sailfish or FirefoxOS. Have look at Redhat, how far got them requiring UEFI at server ARM boards. That's market, where the buyers have much more impact on the design than mobile.