4 ms·

> Despite Android's success the rest of the consumer Linux distributions chose to ignore it and continue on with what they were already doing. Trying to have th

> Despite Android's success the rest of the consumer Linux distributions chose to ignore it and continue on with what they were already doing. Trying to have them coordinate around what is succeeding is seemingly impossible. I'm not sure I understand you here. What do you think other Linux distros should have done?

charcircuit 1y ago
>What do you think other Linux distros should have done? Collectively contributing to getting AOSP running on desktops, and then also working on backwards compatibility to be able to package their preexisting apps into Android apps. This would allow for there to be a common app platform for developers to target Linux with.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > Collectively contributing to getting AOSP running on desktops, and then also working on backwards compatibility to be able to package their preexisting apps into Android apps. This would allow for there to be a common app platform for developers to target Linux with. As a common target, AOSP isn't a very good one. AOSP ran on desktops. (Maybe it still does, haven't tried it in a while.) It was still a mobile OS, though, so it wasn't good on the desktop, but it ran. It also uses very old kernels. Other than the kernel, the Android UI is completely different from conventional Linux. Any Gnome or Qt app would have to be completely rewritten to support it, and would probably have to run in the JVM. Basically, if the Linux community followed your plan, they would have to commit a huge effort to port everything to what is essentially a completely different, incompatible OS in every respect except the kernel, and their reward would be to live in subservience to the whims of Google in supporting their product which Google themselves never had enough faith in to make it a proper desktop OS. It seems that the benefit does not justify the investment.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >so it wasn't good on the desktop, but it ran. Which is why it would benefit from people who are trying to optimize it, and extend it to offer a good desktop experience. >It also uses very old kernels. It's based off the latest LTS release of the kernel. >Any Gnome or Qt app would have to be completely rewritten to support it Which is why my comment said that distros would work on backwards compatibility to avoid such expensive work of requiring a complete rewrite amd try to make it as seamless as possible. >and would probably have to run in the JVM Android does not use the JVM. It has ART, the Android Runtime, but you can still use native code. >and their reward would be to live in subservience to the whims of Google in supporting their product which Google themselves never had enough faith in to make it a proper desktop OS The benefit is being able to reap the fruits of the billions of dollars Google's is investing into the OS. Along with compatibility with a large amount of apps. As a bonus staple Linux applications may be able to installed to some of the billion existing Android devices today. Google may not have seen the benefit of supporting the desktop, but that's where smaller players can come in to play a role in trying to focus on more niche markets where there is less possible return.
    - skydhash 1y ago
      I don't think Android is a good platform for desktop usage. First the windowing system, and the IPC mechanism. They are very limited. And one of the nice aspects of desktop computing is the ability to alter it for your own purposes (something that MacOS is running away from). Meaning you extend it for some other domain, think music production, video production,... Where you want to hook it to some hardware and have the software to talk directly to the latter. Which means having access to all the ports and coding bespoke protocols. I don't think current android API allows for that.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        >They are very limited. Sure the windowing is limited, but it could be extended. I disagree that the IPC is limited though. >Which means having access to all the ports and coding bespoke protocols. I don't think current android API allows for that. It's still all open source. The distros could add new APIs to expose new capabilities.
- airtonix 1y ago
  [dead]
- o11c 1y ago
  90% of the problems Linux has had in the last 10 years are due to trying to unify desktop UI with mobile. This is fundamentally a mistake and it is critical to avoid it.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > 90% of the problems Linux has had in the last 10 years are due to trying to unify desktop UI with mobile. To be fair, Apple and Microsoft have also failed to try to unify desktop UI with mobile.
    - o11c 1y ago
      Yeah, but they have enough other failures that this one alone can't reach 90%. Linux has had other major dramas but not failures.
- happymellon 1y ago
  A lot of effort went into Android x86. As far as I know Google has never accepted patches into Android, so everything has to be maintained outside the project in parallel, which helped kill it. Google is not your friend, and they will not work with you. Android has diverged several times, and they break everyone else without caring.
dontlaugh 1y ago
Long before Android existed, they could’ve all agreed to have the same single desktop environment, UI toolkit, app packaging and distribution method, etc. And also agreed to ship drivers, even if proprietary.

charcircuit 1y ago

>What do you think other Linux distros should have done? Collectively contributing to getting AOSP running on desktops, and then also working on backwards compatibility to be able to package their preexisting apps into Android apps. This would allow for there to be a common app platform for developers to target Linux with.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> Collectively contributing to getting AOSP running on desktops, and then also working on backwards compatibility to be able to package their preexisting apps into Android apps. This would allow for there to be a common app platform for developers to target Linux with. As a common target, AOSP isn't a very good one. AOSP ran on desktops. (Maybe it still does, haven't tried it in a while.) It was still a mobile OS, though, so it wasn't good on the desktop, but it ran. It also uses very old kernels. Other than the kernel, the Android UI is completely different from conventional Linux. Any Gnome or Qt app would have to be completely rewritten to support it, and would probably have to run in the JVM. Basically, if the Linux community followed your plan, they would have to commit a huge effort to port everything to what is essentially a completely different, incompatible OS in every respect except the kernel, and their reward would be to live in subservience to the whims of Google in supporting their product which Google themselves never had enough faith in to make it a proper desktop OS. It seems that the benefit does not justify the investment.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >so it wasn't good on the desktop, but it ran. Which is why it would benefit from people who are trying to optimize it, and extend it to offer a good desktop experience. >It also uses very old kernels. It's based off the latest LTS release of the kernel. >Any Gnome or Qt app would have to be completely rewritten to support it Which is why my comment said that distros would work on backwards compatibility to avoid such expensive work of requiring a complete rewrite amd try to make it as seamless as possible. >and would probably have to run in the JVM Android does not use the JVM. It has ART, the Android Runtime, but you can still use native code. >and their reward would be to live in subservience to the whims of Google in supporting their product which Google themselves never had enough faith in to make it a proper desktop OS The benefit is being able to reap the fruits of the billions of dollars Google's is investing into the OS. Along with compatibility with a large amount of apps. As a bonus staple Linux applications may be able to installed to some of the billion existing Android devices today. Google may not have seen the benefit of supporting the desktop, but that's where smaller players can come in to play a role in trying to focus on more niche markets where there is less possible return.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    I don't think Android is a good platform for desktop usage. First the windowing system, and the IPC mechanism. They are very limited. And one of the nice aspects of desktop computing is the ability to alter it for your own purposes (something that MacOS is running away from). Meaning you extend it for some other domain, think music production, video production,... Where you want to hook it to some hardware and have the software to talk directly to the latter. Which means having access to all the ports and coding bespoke protocols. I don't think current android API allows for that.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >They are very limited. Sure the windowing is limited, but it could be extended. I disagree that the IPC is limited though. >Which means having access to all the ports and coding bespoke protocols. I don't think current android API allows for that. It's still all open source. The distros could add new APIs to expose new capabilities.
airtonix 1y ago
[dead]
o11c 1y ago
90% of the problems Linux has had in the last 10 years are due to trying to unify desktop UI with mobile. This is fundamentally a mistake and it is critical to avoid it.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > 90% of the problems Linux has had in the last 10 years are due to trying to unify desktop UI with mobile. To be fair, Apple and Microsoft have also failed to try to unify desktop UI with mobile.
  - o11c 1y ago
    Yeah, but they have enough other failures that this one alone can't reach 90%. Linux has had other major dramas but not failures.
happymellon 1y ago
A lot of effort went into Android x86. As far as I know Google has never accepted patches into Android, so everything has to be maintained outside the project in parallel, which helped kill it. Google is not your friend, and they will not work with you. Android has diverged several times, and they break everyone else without caring.

dontlaugh 1y ago

Long before Android existed, they could’ve all agreed to have the same single desktop environment, UI toolkit, app packaging and distribution method, etc. And also agreed to ship drivers, even if proprietary.