7 ms·

My comment wasn't about the Linux phone (I get what you wrote) but about Linux phone apps. The smarter play would have been to fork AOSP, but if not that, at le

by yyyk 5y ago

My comment wasn't about the Linux phone (I get what you wrote) but about Linux phone apps. The smarter play would have been to fork AOSP, but if not that, at least do not write the userland in C.

marcodiego 5y ago
Using AOSP really looks like a smart move. F-droid is already a finely curated app repository and very clear about anti-features. Nevertheless, I don't think linux on phones, apart from the UI, is very different from linux on the desktop. So it can be stable and secure. If anbox manages to run well on these distros then there will be no lack of apps. The UI will take some time to mature but, after all, not using AOSP doesn't seems like a dumb move.
- yyyk 5y ago
  The threat model is different, we really do have to lock down phones a bit more because they're used for user identification (but I think not to the draconian level Google and Apple do). The result of not using AOSP is having to reimplement stuff, and it's not like this ecosystem has a lot of free labour just waiting around. Yes, Google would have diverged, but so would the community. If you're already willing to go for a Linux phone, compatibility probably isn't your main concern. I still wish them luck. With the way Apple and Google are going, there may be no other choice eventually.
miohtama 5y ago
I worked with Maemo (N900) and OpenMoko, back in a day. Before that with Nokia and MyOrigo. You are 100% correct, Apps need to be tightly coupled with the underlying UI framework. Outside AOSP, Only Flutter and Qt are credible contenders with the amount of developers and resources. It takes at least a team of 50 - 100 people to make a UI framework for a smart phone. Gnome and KDE can barely make it to desktop. Also, anything interpreted like JavaScript or Python is too slow for UI apps. Not because of CPU, but because of startup delay caused by the IO hit and getting the code running.
bubabug 5y ago
If your goal was to make a worse version of android, that would be a smart play. But mobile linux can be more than a dumbed down mobile OS. Writing apps in this way makes it capable of "convergence", which means it can run a full desktop OS.
- yyyk 5y ago
  Should we want convergence? 'Converging' OSs so far are horrible either for desktop or phone (e.g. Windows 8). Ordinary apps could have been kept in Java while still allowing a full developer environment with the typical C tools (something Android/iOS aren't interested at all to do).
  - fsflover 5y ago
    https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Frequently-Asked-Questions#213-how-well-will-convergence-work-to-use-the-librem-5-as-a-desktop-pc https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque...
SahAssar 5y ago
If you define "Linux Phone" as including AOSP (android) then the term is basically meaningless since by that definition we have had linux phones for 15+ years. The "linux phone" movement is not about creating another AOSP fork.

by yyyk 5y ago

My comment wasn't about the Linux phone (I get what you wrote) but about Linux phone apps. The smarter play would have been to fork AOSP, but if not that, at least do not write the userland in C.

marcodiego 5y ago

Using AOSP really looks like a smart move. F-droid is already a finely curated app repository and very clear about anti-features. Nevertheless, I don't think linux on phones, apart from the UI, is very different from linux on the desktop. So it can be stable and secure. If anbox manages to run well on these distros then there will be no lack of apps. The UI will take some time to mature but, after all, not using AOSP doesn't seems like a dumb move.

yyyk 5y ago
The threat model is different, we really do have to lock down phones a bit more because they're used for user identification (but I think not to the draconian level Google and Apple do). The result of not using AOSP is having to reimplement stuff, and it's not like this ecosystem has a lot of free labour just waiting around. Yes, Google would have diverged, but so would the community. If you're already willing to go for a Linux phone, compatibility probably isn't your main concern. I still wish them luck. With the way Apple and Google are going, there may be no other choice eventually.

miohtama 5y ago

I worked with Maemo (N900) and OpenMoko, back in a day. Before that with Nokia and MyOrigo. You are 100% correct, Apps need to be tightly coupled with the underlying UI framework. Outside AOSP, Only Flutter and Qt are credible contenders with the amount of developers and resources. It takes at least a team of 50 - 100 people to make a UI framework for a smart phone. Gnome and KDE can barely make it to desktop. Also, anything interpreted like JavaScript or Python is too slow for UI apps. Not because of CPU, but because of startup delay caused by the IO hit and getting the code running.

bubabug 5y ago

If your goal was to make a worse version of android, that would be a smart play. But mobile linux can be more than a dumbed down mobile OS. Writing apps in this way makes it capable of "convergence", which means it can run a full desktop OS.

yyyk 5y ago
Should we want convergence? 'Converging' OSs so far are horrible either for desktop or phone (e.g. Windows 8). Ordinary apps could have been kept in Java while still allowing a full developer environment with the typical C tools (something Android/iOS aren't interested at all to do).
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Frequently-Asked-Questions#213-how-well-will-convergence-work-to-use-the-librem-5-as-a-desktop-pc https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque...

SahAssar 5y ago

If you define "Linux Phone" as including AOSP (android) then the term is basically meaningless since by that definition we have had linux phones for 15+ years. The "linux phone" movement is not about creating another AOSP fork.