7 ms·

It doesn't seem relevant to me that it has a Linux kernel. It's a very different platform from a traditional Linux distribution. For those who want "Linux", And

It doesn't seem relevant to me that it has a Linux kernel. It's a very different platform from a traditional Linux distribution. For those who want "Linux", Android isn't a suitable alternative. It is a great platform in its own right, though.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
As someone put it, Android isn't Linux, it's a Java stack. It could run on Windows CE if Google had made it so.
- objclxt 14y ago
  ...and it already (sort of, through RIM's Dalvik VM) runs on QNX.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Ah, is that how RIM's "give us your Android app and it will automagically work on the PlayBook" works?
- jbuzbee 14y ago
  You have a point, (except there is no Java on Android, only Dalvik bytecode ), but that's not the whole story. The experience that people have with their Android devices is very much due to the underlying Linux kernel and utilities: Device drivers, interrupt handling, multi-tasking, memory management, power-management, file systems, privileges, etc. And you can bypass the Dalvik VM with your apps if you wish.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    That's true to an extent, but I seriously doubt Android's Java stack (and it is a Java stack, although it runs on Google's Dalvik) couldn't work fine on another underlying OS.
    - vetinari 14y ago
      Google actually made quite significant changes to Linux kernel (Binder, ashmem, alarm timers, wake-locks, adb gadget support, userspace gpio, paranoid networking, etc) to make it work. So yes, it could run on another kernel, provided they would be allowed to make such changes on it too.
      - jbuzbee 14y ago
        And that's the great thing about Linux. Companies can optimize for their use and then bring their changes back into the mainline where everyone can benefit: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/android-and-linux-re-merge-into-one-operating-system/10625 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/android-and-linux-re-m...
      - KirinDave 14y ago
        It should be noted that the alarm timers and wake-locks were the big showstoppers, and the most recent kernel release[0] offered a more generic implementation which is a superset of Android's current functionality: [0] http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.5#head-e04ea6fe9005ea057124123d7834624cd445e124 http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.5#head-e04ea6fe9005ea057124...
    - jkn 14y ago
      The funny thing is that the same can be said of Linux distributions. If you discard the huge driver support and some cool technologies that underlie some things we expect both from Android and Linux distributions, the kernel becomes irrelevant. The official port of Debian to the FreeBSD kernel[1] proves this. [1] http://www.debian.org/ports/index.en.html http://www.debian.org/ports/index.en.html
      - benatkin 14y ago
        Indeed. In college the fans of "Linux" agonized over which Linux distribution or BSD distribution to use. Which goes to show that the idea of "Linux" on the desktop is very different from Android using a Linux kernel. Since more than 90% were using a Linux kernel it was only occasionally that someone would say UN*X or 'nix. If not for the trademark that probably would have happened more often.
KirinDave 14y ago
It seems relevant to me because its the only UI environment that runs in a relatively linux-compatible world that is modern, well-maintained, and performant. What else does Linux have? GTK+? Qt? A slew of also-ran desktop environments that have existed for years without gaining significant reaction in the marketplace? If we as Linux users want to make a world where there is a competitive, usable-dare I say, desirable-desktop environment for Linux, then Android wouldn't be a bad horse to hitch our wagon to. And quite frankly, I suspect there would be a lot of money in it. Were I not embarking on a we startup I consider very important, I'd have left my job to pursue this.
- benatkin 14y ago
  One thing that makes me think Android is something else is the lack FOSS apps to run on it. The distribution methods even seem a bit hostile to me. I wanted a code editor for my Nexus tablet, and the options in the Android Market were paid closed-source apps and free closed-source apps. I don't mind using the occasional proprietary app but what I and many others love about the Linux desktop is that that there is a nice FOSS app in almost every category.
  - KirinDave 14y ago
    > I don't mind using the occasional proprietary app but what I and many others love about the Linux desktop is that that there is a nice FOSS app in almost every category. There is no reason that these cannot exist on the Android platform. Unlike the Apple App Store, which demands developers place additional restrictions on their devices, the Play store has gone out of its way to keep both passive (BSD, MIT, CC) and active (GPL & APL) licenses viable. You can even have your APK deliver your sources. The distribution methods are whatever you want them to be. Supporting the Play store is almost certainly a must, but there are multiple app marketplaces and you're free to mix and match those as you see fit.
    - benatkin 14y ago
      One issue I have with the Play Store is that AFAIK there is no way to make your Play Store .apk downloadable directly from the Play Store website without an android device. If I could download and inspect one at my leisure I might find it more comforting. I suppose this could be fixed without Google's help, if someone made a third-party site with a list of vetted open source android apps with an email warning mechanism in case an open source app becomes closed in a future update. I did think about it as I went about my day and I don't disagree with you about the potential for Android-based PCs that even a longtime Linux weenie could love. The OEMs tried hard to make Android NetBooks and tablets long before the platform was ready. I discounted them for reasons that were beyond their control. Now that the platform is getting ready I can see potential for that to happen. I'm doubtful as to whether it's going to happen, but I've bet against Android and been wrong before.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

As someone put it, Android isn't Linux, it's a Java stack. It could run on Windows CE if Google had made it so.

objclxt 14y ago
...and it already (sort of, through RIM's Dalvik VM) runs on QNX.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Ah, is that how RIM's "give us your Android app and it will automagically work on the PlayBook" works?
jbuzbee 14y ago
You have a point, (except there is no Java on Android, only Dalvik bytecode ), but that's not the whole story. The experience that people have with their Android devices is very much due to the underlying Linux kernel and utilities: Device drivers, interrupt handling, multi-tasking, memory management, power-management, file systems, privileges, etc. And you can bypass the Dalvik VM with your apps if you wish.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  That's true to an extent, but I seriously doubt Android's Java stack (and it is a Java stack, although it runs on Google's Dalvik) couldn't work fine on another underlying OS.
  - vetinari 14y ago
    Google actually made quite significant changes to Linux kernel (Binder, ashmem, alarm timers, wake-locks, adb gadget support, userspace gpio, paranoid networking, etc) to make it work. So yes, it could run on another kernel, provided they would be allowed to make such changes on it too.
    - jbuzbee 14y ago
      And that's the great thing about Linux. Companies can optimize for their use and then bring their changes back into the mainline where everyone can benefit: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/android-and-linux-re-merge-into-one-operating-system/10625 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/android-and-linux-re-m...
    - KirinDave 14y ago
      It should be noted that the alarm timers and wake-locks were the big showstoppers, and the most recent kernel release[0] offered a more generic implementation which is a superset of Android's current functionality: [0] http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.5#head-e04ea6fe9005ea057124123d7834624cd445e124 http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.5#head-e04ea6fe9005ea057124...
  - jkn 14y ago
    The funny thing is that the same can be said of Linux distributions. If you discard the huge driver support and some cool technologies that underlie some things we expect both from Android and Linux distributions, the kernel becomes irrelevant. The official port of Debian to the FreeBSD kernel[1] proves this. [1] http://www.debian.org/ports/index.en.html http://www.debian.org/ports/index.en.html
    - benatkin 14y ago
      Indeed. In college the fans of "Linux" agonized over which Linux distribution or BSD distribution to use. Which goes to show that the idea of "Linux" on the desktop is very different from Android using a Linux kernel. Since more than 90% were using a Linux kernel it was only occasionally that someone would say UN*X or 'nix. If not for the trademark that probably would have happened more often.

KirinDave 14y ago

It seems relevant to me because its the only UI environment that runs in a relatively linux-compatible world that is modern, well-maintained, and performant. What else does Linux have? GTK+? Qt? A slew of also-ran desktop environments that have existed for years without gaining significant reaction in the marketplace? If we as Linux users want to make a world where there is a competitive, usable-dare I say, desirable-desktop environment for Linux, then Android wouldn't be a bad horse to hitch our wagon to. And quite frankly, I suspect there would be a lot of money in it. Were I not embarking on a we startup I consider very important, I'd have left my job to pursue this.

benatkin 14y ago
One thing that makes me think Android is something else is the lack FOSS apps to run on it. The distribution methods even seem a bit hostile to me. I wanted a code editor for my Nexus tablet, and the options in the Android Market were paid closed-source apps and free closed-source apps. I don't mind using the occasional proprietary app but what I and many others love about the Linux desktop is that that there is a nice FOSS app in almost every category.
- KirinDave 14y ago
  > I don't mind using the occasional proprietary app but what I and many others love about the Linux desktop is that that there is a nice FOSS app in almost every category. There is no reason that these cannot exist on the Android platform. Unlike the Apple App Store, which demands developers place additional restrictions on their devices, the Play store has gone out of its way to keep both passive (BSD, MIT, CC) and active (GPL & APL) licenses viable. You can even have your APK deliver your sources. The distribution methods are whatever you want them to be. Supporting the Play store is almost certainly a must, but there are multiple app marketplaces and you're free to mix and match those as you see fit.
  - benatkin 14y ago
    One issue I have with the Play Store is that AFAIK there is no way to make your Play Store .apk downloadable directly from the Play Store website without an android device. If I could download and inspect one at my leisure I might find it more comforting. I suppose this could be fixed without Google's help, if someone made a third-party site with a list of vetted open source android apps with an email warning mechanism in case an open source app becomes closed in a future update. I did think about it as I went about my day and I don't disagree with you about the potential for Android-based PCs that even a longtime Linux weenie could love. The OEMs tried hard to make Android NetBooks and tablets long before the platform was ready. I discounted them for reasons that were beyond their control. Now that the platform is getting ready I can see potential for that to happen. I'm doubtful as to whether it's going to happen, but I've bet against Android and been wrong before.