6 ms·

Google: "Android is the Linux desktop dream come true"

29 points by taylorbuley 15y ago

GrooveStomp 15y ago
I was thinking about this the other day - with netbooks, tablets and smartphones running Android showing no signs of slowing down; Android really does seem to be "the dream come true" in terms of "Is this the year of the Linux desktop" kind of dream. It's kind of exciting and also kind of scary. I'm not a fan of the Android development stack at all, and this comes from someone who's been championing Android over iOS for the past several years. I think overwhelmingly it's probably a good thing, I just won't be dabbling too much.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  If you don't like the stack, why do you think it is a good thing that it should become so widespread?
sscalia 15y ago
Haha. Yes, yes it is.
VladRussian 15y ago
there are dreams and there are nightmares.
senko 15y ago
"A platform controlled by a single vendor and locked down by hardware vendors != the Linux desktop "dream come true"" http://twitter.com/#!/segphault/status/90546480737296384 http://twitter.com/#!/segphault/status/90546480737296384
- va_coder 15y ago
  There are a lot of dreams out there for Linux. One of those dreams is an easy to use tablet that's fast, has a lot of apps and is easy to use. That dream has been realised.
  - sscalia 15y ago
    you mean an ipad??
    - inportb 15y ago
      If you've gotten Linux on your iPad, tell me how. Now.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  That's cheap. What Linux developed by a company today isn't "controlled by a single vendor". What does that even mean? CyanogenMod and countless other AOSP-based roms seem to contradict that implication anyway. Not sure what the criticism is regarding the hardware vendors. That'd be like criticizing RHEL if a distributor sold machines and locked it down to only allow RHEL to boot. Does that reflect on the project itself? No. I suppose you can criticize them for not using GPL3 (as it would prevent the hardware lockdown) but you'd be criticizing a loooot of people in that case. (A defensive reply to a "witty" bit of snark earns downvotes and silence. Shocking.)
0ffw0rlder 15y ago
For smartphones, sure. For desktops this is not going to happen for a long time if ever. When will AutoCAD, UGS-NX, MAYA, Photoshop, Quark Express, MatLAB, Mathematica (other than wolfram alpha), and even more specialized medical/industrial/scientific software be available for android? Will there even be decent gaming under java? (angry birds does not count)
- sorbus 15y ago
  > Will there even be decent gaming under java? (angry birds does not count) Minecraft is written in Java. > When will ... even more specialized medical/industrial/scientific software be available for android? Presumably when the people buying the software begin to express an interest in moving to android. I'm not saying that it will happen, just that the software will be ported over, or new software written, when people start wanting it. I don't think that anyone seriously believes that android is going to replace OS X and Windows on desktops, just that, as time goes on, people will be spending more and more time on tablets and smartphones and less on traditional desktops and laptops. I find it a bit sad, mostly because I refuse to believe that I'll ever be able to type as quickly on a tablet as I do on a keyboard.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Tablets are distinctly different from smartphones, and although the iPad dominates this market segment at present there is a android invasion taking place even as we speak. That's just the first wave; with NVidea's Kal-el chip already sampling and supposedly reaching consumers by October, the tablet market seems poised to go into overdrive. between increased competition and the availability of networking facilities on large-screen TVs, I'm not certain that consumers will really need desktops for much longer. Now, what you are talking about - computationally-intensive tasks that traditionally require workstations - Android does not perform nearly as well. But the people who really need that kind of processing power and can't satisfy it with a tablet, game console, or other home-oriented system are only a small segment of the overall market.
- nl 15y ago
  By that argument the fact that dBase 4 isn't available for OS-X means the Mac isn't ready for the desktop. People don't shift platforms to do what they used to do on their old platform - they do it so they can use the new things on the new platform. angry birds does not count Why not? I've played more angry birds on my desktop computer (in Chrome) than any other game. (Edit: lol - I'm guessing Angry Birds is was got me the downvotes?)
wmf 15y ago
Previous discussion from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2755050 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2755050
ignifero 15y ago
I do not see X dying for the foreseable future, but if there was good android support on X, many android apps are better than the accessories included in gnome/kde/xfce. I don't understand how Android is a "linux desktop" at the moment. On the other hand, Android will be the closest thing to "linux everywhere (but the desktop)" . It could power TV sets, washing machines, car navigators, watches etc. Looking forward to using it on my next Roomba.
Zigurd 15y ago
Two comments here converge on a complete response to Chris DiBona's assertion: "A platform controlled by a single vendor and locked down by hardware vendors != the Linux desktop "dream come true" "For smartphones, sure. For desktops this is not going to happen for a long time if ever." As much as Android is now both the dominant client Java and the dominant Linux userland, there are two things that have to happen before it is the Linux "dream come true." First, it should become really open, without a Google controlled two-tier structure for OEMs. Not all open source, but open to all comers: Anyone who makes an Android device that passes compatibly tests should be able to ship the Android Market on it. In this, Microsoft is more even-handed with OEMs. Any OEM can license Windows, and they get the same thing HP and Dell get. Second, Google needs to make this openness and evenhandedness happen for tablet makers, which are more like desktop PC makers than handset makers. Tablets are not tied to mobile networks, nor to mobile network operators' retail channels. There is no mobile operator dictating what the software content of a tablet must be in order for it to be accepted by their channel, so there is no excuse for the process to be less than transparent and open to every product that passes compatibility tests.
- kkowalczyk 15y ago
  If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other companies that signed a deal with Google. The difference between Microsoft and Google is that if you don't license Windows, Microsoft gives you nothing. Big, fat 0. If you don't sign a deal with Google, you get 95% of Android. Your demands perfectly illustrate human nature: no matter how good you have, not matter how much you have, there's always more to want and demand. With Android Google is being generous to extreme, unprecedented levels. They give away, for free, with source code, technology that would require millions to redevelop from scratch, but that's not good enough for you. And the same time, you make no demands on Apple or Microsoft to be even 1% as generous as Google is. The restrictions that Google has on Android have very good rationale: to prevent explosion of incompatibilities, something that has plagued uncoordinated desktop Linux efforts for years and has no signs of being resolved. rpm vs. apt vs. yam. Gnome vs. Qt. etc. And finally, no matter how many of your demands Google will meet, people will always come up with more. You have already demonstrated that you'll find a fault with a very big and generous gift of Android. I can easily imagine that after Google lifts the restrictions that bother you so much (even though the likelihood that you're personally affected by them is 0) someone will consider that 30% royalty in Android Market is too high.
mahmud 15y ago
I am writing this on an android tablet, best buy so far this year. And fwiw, Ubuntu is the dream come true, not android.
rkwz 15y ago
FTA: >derStandard.at: How does a company like Google balance the need between wanting secrecy on new developments and doing it open source? Chris DiBona: That varies between project. If you look at Chrome, every commit is instantly online. Android has a punctuated release model based on its marketing needs. derStandard.at: Why is the chosen model for Android and Chrome so fundamentally different? Chris DiBona: It's a different kind of market. If you look at Android we have lots of partners. We have chipset partners, we have handset partners, we have carrier partners. They all want to use Android and they all want to have something special about themselves. So they want to use Android for that specialness. What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. And the bigger question then becomes how you architect software that it's still useful around that kind of model. He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for openess.
- nl 15y ago
  He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for openess. I thought this was a pretty direct response: What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. ie - the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other (and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android). No surprise there, right?
  - rkwz 15y ago
    >the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other >and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android These two statements contradict each other. All handset makers are using the same Android code with some changes. The Android 2.3 in Sony Ericsson is same as the one in Samsung or HTC. Or is Google developing separate Android OSes with each hardware vendor? My question is what's stopping Google from releasing the base Android OS? And what's stopping them from following a open development model like chromium? Sure MS/Apple/HP/RIM can gain some insight if they saw the commits but that's another matter.

29 points by taylorbuley 15y ago

I was thinking about this the other day - with netbooks, tablets and smartphones running Android showing no signs of slowing down; Android really does seem to be "the dream come true" in terms of "Is this the year of the Linux desktop" kind of dream. It's kind of exciting and also kind of scary. I'm not a fan of the Android development stack at all, and this comes from someone who's been championing Android over iOS for the past several years. I think overwhelmingly it's probably a good thing, I just won't be dabbling too much.

rbarooah 15y ago
If you don't like the stack, why do you think it is a good thing that it should become so widespread?

sscalia 15y ago

Haha. Yes, yes it is.

VladRussian 15y ago

there are dreams and there are nightmares.

senko 15y ago

"A platform controlled by a single vendor and locked down by hardware vendors != the Linux desktop "dream come true"" http://twitter.com/#!/segphault/status/90546480737296384 http://twitter.com/#!/segphault/status/90546480737296384

va_coder 15y ago
There are a lot of dreams out there for Linux. One of those dreams is an easy to use tablet that's fast, has a lot of apps and is easy to use. That dream has been realised.
- sscalia 15y ago
  you mean an ipad??
  - inportb 15y ago
    If you've gotten Linux on your iPad, tell me how. Now.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
That's cheap. What Linux developed by a company today isn't "controlled by a single vendor". What does that even mean? CyanogenMod and countless other AOSP-based roms seem to contradict that implication anyway. Not sure what the criticism is regarding the hardware vendors. That'd be like criticizing RHEL if a distributor sold machines and locked it down to only allow RHEL to boot. Does that reflect on the project itself? No. I suppose you can criticize them for not using GPL3 (as it would prevent the hardware lockdown) but you'd be criticizing a loooot of people in that case. (A defensive reply to a "witty" bit of snark earns downvotes and silence. Shocking.)

0ffw0rlder 15y ago

For smartphones, sure. For desktops this is not going to happen for a long time if ever. When will AutoCAD, UGS-NX, MAYA, Photoshop, Quark Express, MatLAB, Mathematica (other than wolfram alpha), and even more specialized medical/industrial/scientific software be available for android? Will there even be decent gaming under java? (angry birds does not count)

sorbus 15y ago
> Will there even be decent gaming under java? (angry birds does not count) Minecraft is written in Java. > When will ... even more specialized medical/industrial/scientific software be available for android? Presumably when the people buying the software begin to express an interest in moving to android. I'm not saying that it will happen, just that the software will be ported over, or new software written, when people start wanting it. I don't think that anyone seriously believes that android is going to replace OS X and Windows on desktops, just that, as time goes on, people will be spending more and more time on tablets and smartphones and less on traditional desktops and laptops. I find it a bit sad, mostly because I refuse to believe that I'll ever be able to type as quickly on a tablet as I do on a keyboard.
anigbrowl 15y ago
Tablets are distinctly different from smartphones, and although the iPad dominates this market segment at present there is a android invasion taking place even as we speak. That's just the first wave; with NVidea's Kal-el chip already sampling and supposedly reaching consumers by October, the tablet market seems poised to go into overdrive. between increased competition and the availability of networking facilities on large-screen TVs, I'm not certain that consumers will really need desktops for much longer. Now, what you are talking about - computationally-intensive tasks that traditionally require workstations - Android does not perform nearly as well. But the people who really need that kind of processing power and can't satisfy it with a tablet, game console, or other home-oriented system are only a small segment of the overall market.
nl 15y ago
By that argument the fact that dBase 4 isn't available for OS-X means the Mac isn't ready for the desktop. People don't shift platforms to do what they used to do on their old platform - they do it so they can use the new things on the new platform. angry birds does not count Why not? I've played more angry birds on my desktop computer (in Chrome) than any other game. (Edit: lol - I'm guessing Angry Birds is was got me the downvotes?)

wmf 15y ago

Previous discussion from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2755050 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2755050

ignifero 15y ago

I do not see X dying for the foreseable future, but if there was good android support on X, many android apps are better than the accessories included in gnome/kde/xfce. I don't understand how Android is a "linux desktop" at the moment. On the other hand, Android will be the closest thing to "linux everywhere (but the desktop)" . It could power TV sets, washing machines, car navigators, watches etc. Looking forward to using it on my next Roomba.

Zigurd 15y ago

Two comments here converge on a complete response to Chris DiBona's assertion: "A platform controlled by a single vendor and locked down by hardware vendors != the Linux desktop "dream come true" "For smartphones, sure. For desktops this is not going to happen for a long time if ever." As much as Android is now both the dominant client Java and the dominant Linux userland, there are two things that have to happen before it is the Linux "dream come true." First, it should become really open, without a Google controlled two-tier structure for OEMs. Not all open source, but open to all comers: Anyone who makes an Android device that passes compatibly tests should be able to ship the Android Market on it. In this, Microsoft is more even-handed with OEMs. Any OEM can license Windows, and they get the same thing HP and Dell get. Second, Google needs to make this openness and evenhandedness happen for tablet makers, which are more like desktop PC makers than handset makers. Tablets are not tied to mobile networks, nor to mobile network operators' retail channels. There is no mobile operator dictating what the software content of a tablet must be in order for it to be accepted by their channel, so there is no excuse for the process to be less than transparent and open to every product that passes compatibility tests.

kkowalczyk 15y ago
If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other companies that signed a deal with Google. The difference between Microsoft and Google is that if you don't license Windows, Microsoft gives you nothing. Big, fat 0. If you don't sign a deal with Google, you get 95% of Android. Your demands perfectly illustrate human nature: no matter how good you have, not matter how much you have, there's always more to want and demand. With Android Google is being generous to extreme, unprecedented levels. They give away, for free, with source code, technology that would require millions to redevelop from scratch, but that's not good enough for you. And the same time, you make no demands on Apple or Microsoft to be even 1% as generous as Google is. The restrictions that Google has on Android have very good rationale: to prevent explosion of incompatibilities, something that has plagued uncoordinated desktop Linux efforts for years and has no signs of being resolved. rpm vs. apt vs. yam. Gnome vs. Qt. etc. And finally, no matter how many of your demands Google will meet, people will always come up with more. You have already demonstrated that you'll find a fault with a very big and generous gift of Android. I can easily imagine that after Google lifts the restrictions that bother you so much (even though the likelihood that you're personally affected by them is 0) someone will consider that 30% royalty in Android Market is too high.

mahmud 15y ago

I am writing this on an android tablet, best buy so far this year. And fwiw, Ubuntu is the dream come true, not android.

rkwz 15y ago

FTA: >derStandard.at: How does a company like Google balance the need between wanting secrecy on new developments and doing it open source? Chris DiBona: That varies between project. If you look at Chrome, every commit is instantly online. Android has a punctuated release model based on its marketing needs. derStandard.at: Why is the chosen model for Android and Chrome so fundamentally different? Chris DiBona: It's a different kind of market. If you look at Android we have lots of partners. We have chipset partners, we have handset partners, we have carrier partners. They all want to use Android and they all want to have something special about themselves. So they want to use Android for that specialness. What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. And the bigger question then becomes how you architect software that it's still useful around that kind of model. He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for openess.

nl 15y ago
He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for openess. I thought this was a pretty direct response: What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. ie - the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other (and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android). No surprise there, right?
- rkwz 15y ago
  >the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other >and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on Android These two statements contradict each other. All handset makers are using the same Android code with some changes. The Android 2.3 in Sony Ericsson is same as the one in Samsung or HTC. Or is Google developing separate Android OSes with each hardware vendor? My question is what's stopping Google from releasing the base Android OS? And what's stopping them from following a open development model like chromium? Sure MS/Apple/HP/RIM can gain some insight if they saw the commits but that's another matter.