4 ms·
> Having to recompile doesn't make the applications kernel dependent, now to consider porting such applications from macOS to Linux to Windows, kernel dependen
by m45t3r 7y ago
> Having to recompile doesn't make the applications kernel dependent, now to consider porting such applications from macOS to Linux to Windows, kernel dependent?!?
So you concur with me that if Google changed the Android kernel it would be a big change? Just imagine, you would have to recompile all applications using NDK to work with this new Android. It is not something trivial, sure they can make it work, however it would probably need quite some time with Google making obligatory to having developers to ship both Linux and new Kernel binaries.
And even them, you can't make sure that everything will work. A small change in behavior of a specific syscall may break a random application somewhere that depends on it, because even if this syscall is not directly used, Android NDK uses this syscall to implements its API. Now multiply this for the number of NDK applications that Android have and you will have a huge amount of breakage.
So yeah, Google can make it work, however it is not as trivial as you think.
> And the point wasn't that it isn't profitable as such, rather it isn't the money maker that some here are making waves for, rather a wannabe versus the revenue made across desktop, consoles and iOS.
Sure, we can concur at this point. However the market for Android gaming is still more expressive than you seem to think (not wannabe by any means, but lower than iOS sure).
- pjmlp 7y ago> So you concur with me that if Google changed the Android kernel it would be a big change? No I don't, anyone writing portable applications already does compilations all the time. It is no different than the requirements to provide newer builds updated to specific Android target versions, or being 64 bit only that Google keeps forcing devs to move forward. It is Google and OEM's job to ensure that NDK APIs work across whatever kernels are available. Any application that depends on syscalls isn't portable across Android devices anyway. Google doesn't support syscalls as part of the NDK stable APIs contract, and some OEMs are well known to change their behavior.
- m45t3r 7y ago> It is no different than the requirements to provide newer builds updated to specific Android target versions, or being 64 bit only that Google keeps forcing devs to move forward. That is basically saying that this is a big work for everyone involved (developers, Google, OEMs). This is exactly my point. > Any application that depends on syscalls isn't portable across Android devices anyway. The application does not necessary call a syscall directly, the problem is that the NDK calls a syscall as an implementation detail (for example, for lock primitives eventually the NDK must call the Linux lock primitives too, there is no way out). So if Google needs to change Android kernel, they need to implement the same quirks of the current syscalls, or the slightly change in behavior will break random applications. My point was never calling syscall directly, however for sure some applications call syscall directly too.