2 ms·

Traditional desktop Linux heavily involves big tech companies including IBM (Red Hat). AOSP has a massive amount of non-Google companies and individuals working

Traditional desktop Linux heavily involves big tech companies including IBM (Red Hat). AOSP has a massive amount of non-Google companies and individuals working on operating systems based on it. It would survive without Google. You're misinformed about security preview patches. It has nothing to do with Google being hostile. Additionally, our security preview releases have regularly included patches for components not specific to Android such as wpa_supplicant prior to those being publicly disclosed by the upstream projects.

fsflover 2mo ago
> Traditional desktop Linux heavily involves big tech companies including IBM (Red Hat). Yes, for some definition of "heavyly" that you chose. Yet no single megacorp can decide single-handedly on the future of Linux or do this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364745 > AOSP has a massive amount of non-Google companies and individuals working on operating systems based on it. Can you define "massive" in, e.g., percentage of lines of code? This looks unsubstantiated to me. The parent has a good point and shouldn't be flagged.
asnelt 2mo ago
> AOSP has a massive amount of non-Google companies and individuals working on operating systems based on it. based on is the important part here. Yes, AOSP would survive without Google. But as long as Google is in control of AOSP, it controls the direction in which AOSP and all downstream projects are headed. Because of breaking changes in AOSP, there is a cost in maintaining downstream changes. So downstream projects cannot veer off too far, short of a hard fork. > You're misinformed about security preview patches. It has nothing to do with Google being hostile. Does it not? From the 2025092500 GrapheneOS release notes: "We strongly disagree with broadly distributing patches to OEMs 3-4 months before the official publication date. It further delays getting patches to users and sophisticated attackers will have no issue getting the patches from one of many people at Android OEMs with early access." Sounds pretty hostile to me.

fsflover 2mo ago

> Traditional desktop Linux heavily involves big tech companies including IBM (Red Hat). Yes, for some definition of "heavyly" that you chose. Yet no single megacorp can decide single-handedly on the future of Linux or do this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364745 > AOSP has a massive amount of non-Google companies and individuals working on operating systems based on it. Can you define "massive" in, e.g., percentage of lines of code? This looks unsubstantiated to me. The parent has a good point and shouldn't be flagged.

asnelt 2mo ago

> AOSP has a massive amount of non-Google companies and individuals working on operating systems based on it. based on is the important part here. Yes, AOSP would survive without Google. But as long as Google is in control of AOSP, it controls the direction in which AOSP and all downstream projects are headed. Because of breaking changes in AOSP, there is a cost in maintaining downstream changes. So downstream projects cannot veer off too far, short of a hard fork. > You're misinformed about security preview patches. It has nothing to do with Google being hostile. Does it not? From the 2025092500 GrapheneOS release notes: "We strongly disagree with broadly distributing patches to OEMs 3-4 months before the official publication date. It further delays getting patches to users and sophisticated attackers will have no issue getting the patches from one of many people at Android OEMs with early access." Sounds pretty hostile to me.