4 ms·

Meh, Android is a locked-down OS that happens to use the Linux kernel. ChromeOS is a crippled internet-only OS that happens to use the Linux kernel. Sure, this

by jordigh 13y ago

Meh, Android is a locked-down OS that happens to use the Linux kernel. ChromeOS is a crippled internet-only OS that happens to use the Linux kernel. Sure, this makes a lot of people have "Linux" in their hands, sort of, hidden away where they'll never find it and where it doesn't matter. I'm not sure this is much of an "open source" victory.

sounds 13y ago
It's fairly straightforward to root your Android handset. For a ChromeOS device it can be even easier: just download an installer, turn off the physical safety switch or screw, and you're running a full linux distro. Still you have a point that it's hidden away. That could be seen as a plus for some: they don't want a Gnome or KDE experience. ChromeOS appears to be filling a real market niche.
- _cbb1 13y ago
  The fact that you need to root Android negates the meaning of using a Linux OS.
  - raldi 13y ago
    That's like saying the fact that you need to occasionally run sudo negates the meaning of using Linux.
    - pachydermic 13y ago
      Except for the fact that sudo is already built into your system. What? Rooting most likely voids your warranty and is definitely nontrivial to non-technical people. I have rooted my phone and installed cyanogenmod before and I wouldn't call it easy. I can't imagine average people going through that process voluntarily or without screwing it up. Yeah, to people like us it might not be that bad, but to your every day user it just doesn't make any sense to do. That's a horrible analogy, sorry. I have to agree with some other commenters here that Google using Linux as a base for android and chromeOS doesn't do much for the Linux community (not nothing, though). It really doesn't matter what kernel they are using. It's all the stuff that's build on top which matters... maybe there's something to calling it "GNU/Linux" after all - just so we could avoid misleading and misinformed commentary like this blog post.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > Except for the fact that sudo is already built into your system. What? It wasn't built into mine (Gentoo Linux). I had to install it separately.
      - raldi 13y ago
        > Rooting most likely voids your warranty and is definitely nontrivial to non-technical people. Sudo is also nontrivial to nontechnical people[1], and it doesn't even have a warranty[2]. [1] As immortalized in the mouseover of a recent xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1343/ http://xkcd.com/1343/ [2] http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/license.html http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/license.html
    - vkjv 13y ago
      That's like saying that using a sledgehammer for a nail is the same thing as using a hammer.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      I had to install sudo. If somebody else installed it, told me when I could use it, and threatened me legally when I disobeyed or helped others disobey, sudo would be a problem.
  - sounds 13y ago
    Linus Torvalds feels pretty strongly about GPLv2 as compared to GPLv3. The fact that he prefers GPLv2 is a pretty strong counter-argument: GPLv2 allows the ODM/OEM to implement a linux soltuion. The end user has no guarantee of crypto keys, software, or hardware that enables "root" access.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    Perhaps it negates the reason you use Linux, but there are plenty of reasons to use it that have nothing to do with Free Software. It's a tried and true OS with tens of thousands of eyes on its source code, it has a massive community supporting it, and it's free as in beer. Getting a very good OS for free is reason enough to use it for many people, even if they don't have complete control over it out of the box.
  - jayd16 13y ago
    The fuck? Running apps as root (or other high privileges) happens all the time on desktop linux. Does that negate "the meaning" of Linux. Are you actually complaining about how manufacturers often have locked boot loaders and you need to jump through hoops to get to an OS you like? That's not an issue with the OS.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    Depends on how hard it is to root - if it's flipping a (metaphorical) switch, that's fine. The real problem is that tools like Unrevoked[0] are needed, and that bootloaders can come encrypted (even on the HTC One, for Verizon). [0] http://unrevoked.com/ http://unrevoked.com/
Consultant32452 13y ago
It's currently better than it has ever been with in the open source movement as it pertains to mainstream computing. Never before have so many consumers had so many devices with so much open software under the hood. Of course it may not be what you hoped for, but it's hard to argue it's not better than it was, say, in the 90s.
olalonde 13y ago
It is an "open source" victory although possibly not a "free software" one. A lot of people actually believe that open source and proprietary software both have their "raison d'être" and that it's all good if they form a symbiotic relationship (think of git/Github for example). Richard Stallman obviously disagrees with this as I suspect you do: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
  "obviously" is an understatement :) Linus counted android as a victory in this video where he swears at nvidia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA
mikevm 13y ago
Most people will never find Linux just like they will never find the NT kernel. What is important for most users is the outer shell -- not the inner workings. The more the Linux kernel is used, the more contributions and bug fixes it will have from companies that use it. This might also mean better hardware support -- which we all benefit from.
- jordigh 13y ago
  > What is important for most users is the outer shell -- not the inner workings. Exactly, so if the shell is a bunch of non-free restricted crap or is under the control of someone else in a remote server... what's the point? What practical difference does it make to a user to be running Android or iOS? What difference does it make to them if there is an invisible Linux kernel underneath?
  - nr0mx 13y ago
    Why should the difference be to the user? The inner workings are important to the creators - it loosens their dependency on an external proprietary firm. The interface matters to the users. It's no coincidence that six out of ten in this list run on Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_operating_... In a roundabout way it may actually matter to users in that it enables more competition and better choice.
sroerick 13y ago
Everyone says how great Google is for Linux, but nobody talks about how good Linux is for Google. Not that I think Google is exploiting the free software movement or anything, but Google would have never had a chance with Android without the Linux kernel. The Google play stack is the opposite of a free software victory. I'm tired of hearing all the things Google has done for Linux. Maybe we could talk a little more about how free software has facilitated the growth of one of the top tech companies on the planet.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I'm tired of hearing all the things Google has done for Linux. Maybe we could talk a little more about how free software has facilitated the growth of one of the top tech companies on the planet. I think the case can be made that both are true -- Linux desperately needed a way to win public acceptance, Google needed an unencumbered foundation for various projects. Also, we mustn't forget the snowball effect -- when an operating system gets to a certain point in installed base, it becomes the operating system. All signs are that Linux will get to that point, and Google will have been one of the primary reasons.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Quite so: It took a company with the resources to give Linux a modern touch-based managed language userland to make it popular. If you want to know where the next Ubuntu is coming from, look to fully open Android distributions like CyanogenMod. With their deal with Oppo, you can make a good case that Cyanogen has done better than Ubuntu in making OEM deals.
- dTal 13y ago
  While this is generally true for many of Google's activities, had Linux not been available they could probably have used a BSD-licensed kernel for a mobile OS, as Apple have done.
jkn 13y ago
This is quite unfair. Android has had a huge impact on the phone market in terms of openness, for manufacturers as well as for end users. I took advantage of this when I put CyanogenMod on my phone using the unlocking tool provided by HTC. I didn't even think of doing something like that with my pre-Android phones. If you choose to buy a locked-down Android device, blame yourself and then blame Linus: he's the one strongly objecting to distributing Linux under the GPLv3 license, because he dislikes the very clause that would guarantee your freedom to tinker with you device's kernel. But even if every Android was as closed as a TiVo box, it would still be an open-source victory. It would just be a victory more relevant to the manufacturers world than to the users world. Chrome OS device are similarly hackable, each Chromebook having a switch to turn on Developer Mode. I took advantage of this to run a Debian chroot in my Chromebook's linux system. More generally, I find it ironic that people complain about Android and Chrome OS not being "real Linux". For years we have had flame wars about Linux vs GNU/Linux terminology, and now people say that Androids and Chromebooks don't really run Linux because they are not anything like a GNU environment. Turns out the Linux vs GNU/Linux distinction is actually useful.

by jordigh 13y ago

sounds 13y ago

It's fairly straightforward to root your Android handset. For a ChromeOS device it can be even easier: just download an installer, turn off the physical safety switch or screw, and you're running a full linux distro. Still you have a point that it's hidden away. That could be seen as a plus for some: they don't want a Gnome or KDE experience. ChromeOS appears to be filling a real market niche.

_cbb1 13y ago
The fact that you need to root Android negates the meaning of using a Linux OS.
- raldi 13y ago
  That's like saying the fact that you need to occasionally run sudo negates the meaning of using Linux.
  - pachydermic 13y ago
    Except for the fact that sudo is already built into your system. What? Rooting most likely voids your warranty and is definitely nontrivial to non-technical people. I have rooted my phone and installed cyanogenmod before and I wouldn't call it easy. I can't imagine average people going through that process voluntarily or without screwing it up. Yeah, to people like us it might not be that bad, but to your every day user it just doesn't make any sense to do. That's a horrible analogy, sorry. I have to agree with some other commenters here that Google using Linux as a base for android and chromeOS doesn't do much for the Linux community (not nothing, though). It really doesn't matter what kernel they are using. It's all the stuff that's build on top which matters... maybe there's something to calling it "GNU/Linux" after all - just so we could avoid misleading and misinformed commentary like this blog post.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Except for the fact that sudo is already built into your system. What? It wasn't built into mine (Gentoo Linux). I had to install it separately.
    - raldi 13y ago
      > Rooting most likely voids your warranty and is definitely nontrivial to non-technical people. Sudo is also nontrivial to nontechnical people[1], and it doesn't even have a warranty[2]. [1] As immortalized in the mouseover of a recent xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1343/ http://xkcd.com/1343/ [2] http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/license.html http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/license.html
  - vkjv 13y ago
    That's like saying that using a sledgehammer for a nail is the same thing as using a hammer.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    I had to install sudo. If somebody else installed it, told me when I could use it, and threatened me legally when I disobeyed or helped others disobey, sudo would be a problem.
- sounds 13y ago
  Linus Torvalds feels pretty strongly about GPLv2 as compared to GPLv3. The fact that he prefers GPLv2 is a pretty strong counter-argument: GPLv2 allows the ODM/OEM to implement a linux soltuion. The end user has no guarantee of crypto keys, software, or hardware that enables "root" access.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  Perhaps it negates the reason you use Linux, but there are plenty of reasons to use it that have nothing to do with Free Software. It's a tried and true OS with tens of thousands of eyes on its source code, it has a massive community supporting it, and it's free as in beer. Getting a very good OS for free is reason enough to use it for many people, even if they don't have complete control over it out of the box.
- jayd16 13y ago
  The fuck? Running apps as root (or other high privileges) happens all the time on desktop linux. Does that negate "the meaning" of Linux. Are you actually complaining about how manufacturers often have locked boot loaders and you need to jump through hoops to get to an OS you like? That's not an issue with the OS.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  Depends on how hard it is to root - if it's flipping a (metaphorical) switch, that's fine. The real problem is that tools like Unrevoked[0] are needed, and that bootloaders can come encrypted (even on the HTC One, for Verizon). [0] http://unrevoked.com/ http://unrevoked.com/

Consultant32452 13y ago

It's currently better than it has ever been with in the open source movement as it pertains to mainstream computing. Never before have so many consumers had so many devices with so much open software under the hood. Of course it may not be what you hoped for, but it's hard to argue it's not better than it was, say, in the 90s.

olalonde 13y ago

It is an "open source" victory although possibly not a "free software" one. A lot of people actually believe that open source and proprietary software both have their "raison d'être" and that it's all good if they form a symbiotic relationship (think of git/Github for example). Richard Stallman obviously disagrees with this as I suspect you do: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
"obviously" is an understatement :) Linus counted android as a victory in this video where he swears at nvidia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA

mikevm 13y ago

Most people will never find Linux just like they will never find the NT kernel. What is important for most users is the outer shell -- not the inner workings. The more the Linux kernel is used, the more contributions and bug fixes it will have from companies that use it. This might also mean better hardware support -- which we all benefit from.

jordigh 13y ago
> What is important for most users is the outer shell -- not the inner workings. Exactly, so if the shell is a bunch of non-free restricted crap or is under the control of someone else in a remote server... what's the point? What practical difference does it make to a user to be running Android or iOS? What difference does it make to them if there is an invisible Linux kernel underneath?
- nr0mx 13y ago
  Why should the difference be to the user? The inner workings are important to the creators - it loosens their dependency on an external proprietary firm. The interface matters to the users. It's no coincidence that six out of ten in this list run on Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_operating_... In a roundabout way it may actually matter to users in that it enables more competition and better choice.

sroerick 13y ago

Everyone says how great Google is for Linux, but nobody talks about how good Linux is for Google. Not that I think Google is exploiting the free software movement or anything, but Google would have never had a chance with Android without the Linux kernel. The Google play stack is the opposite of a free software victory. I'm tired of hearing all the things Google has done for Linux. Maybe we could talk a little more about how free software has facilitated the growth of one of the top tech companies on the planet.

lutusp 13y ago
> I'm tired of hearing all the things Google has done for Linux. Maybe we could talk a little more about how free software has facilitated the growth of one of the top tech companies on the planet. I think the case can be made that both are true -- Linux desperately needed a way to win public acceptance, Google needed an unencumbered foundation for various projects. Also, we mustn't forget the snowball effect -- when an operating system gets to a certain point in installed base, it becomes the operating system. All signs are that Linux will get to that point, and Google will have been one of the primary reasons.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Quite so: It took a company with the resources to give Linux a modern touch-based managed language userland to make it popular. If you want to know where the next Ubuntu is coming from, look to fully open Android distributions like CyanogenMod. With their deal with Oppo, you can make a good case that Cyanogen has done better than Ubuntu in making OEM deals.
dTal 13y ago
While this is generally true for many of Google's activities, had Linux not been available they could probably have used a BSD-licensed kernel for a mobile OS, as Apple have done.

jkn 13y ago

This is quite unfair. Android has had a huge impact on the phone market in terms of openness, for manufacturers as well as for end users. I took advantage of this when I put CyanogenMod on my phone using the unlocking tool provided by HTC. I didn't even think of doing something like that with my pre-Android phones. If you choose to buy a locked-down Android device, blame yourself and then blame Linus: he's the one strongly objecting to distributing Linux under the GPLv3 license, because he dislikes the very clause that would guarantee your freedom to tinker with you device's kernel. But even if every Android was as closed as a TiVo box, it would still be an open-source victory. It would just be a victory more relevant to the manufacturers world than to the users world. Chrome OS device are similarly hackable, each Chromebook having a switch to turn on Developer Mode. I took advantage of this to run a Debian chroot in my Chromebook's linux system. More generally, I find it ironic that people complain about Android and Chrome OS not being "real Linux". For years we have had flame wars about Linux vs GNU/Linux terminology, and now people say that Androids and Chromebooks don't really run Linux because they are not anything like a GNU environment. Turns out the Linux vs GNU/Linux distinction is actually useful.