View Single Post
Capt'n Corrupt's Avatar
Posts: 3,524 | Thanked: 2,958 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant
#3203
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Something derived from a traditional Linux style of distribution would necessarily be less dependent on the efforts of a single company for all the various components. Many vendors are eyeing the Google dependency as a weak point in their business plans.


All of which we've had, and are having to regain. The FS and many of the incompatibilities are a result of Android's originally closed source nature.


As has been stated before, Android goes where Google wants it to go, and paramount on their list of tasks is where vendors that play along with them want it to go so long as it lines up with their goals.



Google started from scratch, and got traction using their weight. Instead, I hear it suggested that the open source community somehow has nothing, and would be better off building on Android. That seems more than a little silly to me, especially when the community has no real hope of influencing Android's direction.


Which is absolutely nothing special, and to a great degree needless duplication due to different libcs, windowing systems, and the inability to migrate Android video drivers to other Linux platforms.


Why can't it be the other way? Why not shove the lesser Android platform into a Traditional Linux context that was here first? Why do we have to create a WINE for Linux apps on Android? Why let Google come in and usurp all the progress of the last 20 years (inb4 bashing of Linux open source community.)


I reiterate my point that it should be the Android platform that is subsumed. And the Playbook support shows that Linux is irrelevant in the grand scheme of Android things. The only problem is adding userspace stand-ins for all the silly kernel dependencies that were added to Android long ago (back when it was closed source.)


Not all "open source" is the same. Highlighted brightly by Google's withholding of Honeycomb, despite whatever comments they spout.


Android vs. Linux will exist, so long as Google is the sole holder and driver of the platform and all but a few of its parts. And you will definitely not get the Free Software types on board (of course, these days in the mobile space they are the enemy.)
I appreciate your viewpoint, but don't have the energy to debate ideologies -- Android's handling and very clearly irks you.

What I've stated is most certainly possible. Is it good business or good for the community? Is it a clean and pure solution? That remains open to debate.

It always surprises me how many individuals spring up resisting change. We say that it's good to have a market free for competition and innovation and then when something is done somewhat differently, they are targeted as the enemy, labeled as dishonorable, and influenced (if not only through certain angry voices) to return to the old way of doing things.
  • Capacitive Touchscreens
  • Ubuntu Unity
  • Android
  • Java
  • LGPL
  • Web Apps/HTML5
  • Non-source application distribution

I can find common arguments against all of these innovations notoriously led by proponents of methods preceding them.

I believe the answers as to why change is so hated to be found not in these debates but in the study of psychology.