4 ms·
Because muh libc and it's not using some obscure barely working DE.
by EvilEy3 5y ago
Because muh libc and it's not using some obscure barely working DE.
- edgyquant 5y agoI think it’s because to most people Linux = GNU/Linux
- dividedbyzero 5y agoI'd be surprised if there were more than a tiny tiny minority of people who even know what you're talking about
- opan 5y agoGNU/Linux as a term is often used for precisely these situations. It evokes the image of something like Debian or Arch on a desktop or server. Very distinct from Android. I can use a terminal on Android and use a few familiar tools, but the same is true of macOS.
- edgyquant 5y agoThe type of people who are likely to hold the opinion that Android isn’t a real Linux definitely do, which is what we’re discussing here.
- Cloudef 5y agoI actually have written bionic -> glibc compatibility layer. https://github.com/Cloudef/android2gnulinux https://github.com/Cloudef/android2gnulinux If it's a native binary, there's good chance you can run it with this. JNI/Java stuff is mostly unity and even that's very proof of concept.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y agoThank you, it looks very interesting.
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoCall me back when you can compile a Linux program to run on Android. Shouldn't that be the deciding yardstick for OS compatibility?
- hiccuphippo 5y agoInstall one of those chroot apps that give you a distro's package manager on it and then you can. I once did to compile a Qt program on arm. Just install the gcc package and compile away. It was way easier than trying to set up cross-compilation in my Linux box at the time.
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoYou can also install a VM on MacOS and compile Linux apps, too. Does that make MacOS a Linux?