Bringing Android/Linux Home in 2012

Two disappointments for me have been the licensing of Android and the kernel split. We seem to be stuck with the former situation but the kernel is coming home. A project of 15 developers has begun to prepare Android to merge back with Linux. There is a lot of water under the bridge and the diff is nearly the size of the Bible. The idea is to share the load and to share the benefits of a single global kernel. I don’t see a timeline but if more developers join the effort, the happy reunion could happen in 2012. If that abyss is bridged there’s still hope for the licensing.

Linux is one of the most successful projects mankind has ever attempted. Reuniting these two branches will preserve and strengthen the whole thing and make the world a better place. It certainly makes the Linux ecosystem more attractive to more people and organizations. What was a great deal, getting more for less, now becomes getting it all for less. Getting this done sooner rather than later will unite old industries around servers and networking with desktops and mobile gadgets. It’s a huge step in the evolution of IT. It makes it possible to have the same GUI on a smart thingy and an HPC cluster should the need arise and the smart thingies will get smarter, no doubt. Look for new touch interfaces on everything… planes, trains, automobiles, normal PCs and multimedia systems.

see Android Mainlining Project

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Bringing Android/Linux Home in 2012

  1. oldman says:

    “In IT we have the Linux kernel which should not exist by oldman’s logic”

    Do you really believe that the Linux kerenel in its current form would exist without the creative act of Linus Tovalds and the energy that he put into gathering together like minded people Robert Pogson?

    To borrow a phrase from you, That fact is not in evidence either.

  2. oldman wrote, “Beethovens 9th symphony could not have been created by committee”.

    That is a fact not in evidence. There are few things that cannot be made better or worse by committee. With division of labour they can certainly be made quicker. My father was a gunner in WWII. Working alone as a gunner was a pathetic imitation of the symphony of Hell they could bring to an enemy by working together. They would swarm out of a truck and have the gun embedded in a sheltering hole and firing in a few minutes. Every man knew his job and that of the others and together they could do magic. In spite of being bombed to smithereens twice, once by USA and once by Germany they did not lose a man in that gun-pit and they could fire for days on end if the supply of ammunition was not interrupted. At the Rhine they fired for three days without ceasing shredding the German line. It was music to their ears.

    In IT we have the Linux kernel which should not exist by oldman’s logic, nor OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice. Planes, trains and buses do not exist. It just cannot be done that great works come from collaboration. oldman says so.

  3. oldman says:

    “You cannot own an idea, oldman. It has to be shared to be an idea/to exist.”

    That is find Pog, but nations have decided that it is worth giving individuals the right to sole benefit from their creations in return for turining thise benefits over the world after a time. You can argue that the time is “too long”, but that is the way we do things in the modern world, and if you dont like it to quote our Australian poster Mr. oiaohm,

    “Stiff Briskets”

  4. oldman says:

    “Limiting yourself by the way you did things in the past is a common failing of people.”

    How am I limiting my self Pog? At the beginning of my career I composed using piano pen and paper. I had to wait months if not years to hear my music anywhere other than my head. Now I compose directly on to digital score paper and have the ability to hear the composition as it stands at a particular point played back in a simulation of the instruments that I compose it for. I can even create a “performance” for others to hear if I wish, and then print out the score of the music for others to look at. And I can and have done it on the long bus rides that I make from work to home – no need to be tied to any one spot. If anything Pog, I am liberated, not limited. I can create with complete independence.

    It would seem Robert Pogson, you have absolutely zero understanding of the creative act. Beethovens 9th symphony could not have been created by committee, Michelangelo’s David, could not be created by collaboration. These creations and many others are unique and personal creative acts by supremely gifted INDIVIDUALS. They and many other individual creations from throughout history stand as monuments to the individual, even as they are enjoyed by many.

    Consider this the next time your presume to lecture a creator of the new about the joys of collaboration.

  5. oldman wrote, “The internet can not help me compose music, it can not help me analyze data. All this is gone locally.”

    Wrong on all points. All those operations can be done on the web if you were flexible. I would bet that if the heroes of classical competition were in their prime today they would be organizing groups to produce huge works in an afternoon using the power of the network. Limiting yourself by the way you did things in the past is a common failing of people. They try something. It works. They keep using it until they are old and obsolete.

    I work in science. Around the time I was in my prime “big science” came to be routine. Earlier it was just the rare thing like the Manhatten Project that were big. People worked alone and wrote books and letters to share and to collaborate. Now, with the only real change being in computing power and the web, dozens of people can collaborate on huge projects without ever meeting. Dozens can get together to design and raise funding for some gadget. Others support that by theoretical predictions and test cases. The gadget then produces data which may be analyzed all over the globe for a decade or more. The obvious examples are the huge particle accelerators and experiements that run on them, but there are also IT projects, space exploration, marine exploration, geology, geophysics, genetics, medicine, etc. Many things that are challenging or impossible for individuals become almost trivial when a great collaboration takes place on the web. That can include musical composition. If David Cope were born today, I would bet his work would involve networked collaboration.

  6. oldman wrote, “I presume that by your lights edison, tesla, ford and all the other creators of technologies we take for granted should just have given their ideas away.”

    They should and they did. Ford stated he would give the cars away for free if he could charge what he wanted for parts. He was a man ahead of his time, as was Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, etc. You cannot own an idea, oldman. It has to be shared to be an idea/to exist. Ford’s greatest contribution to humanity was not a product but the idea that efficiency could lower the price of amazing products to affordable levels. Ford would get FLOSS, I am sure.

  7. oldman says:

    “What’s with that? Why is the work of a creative person worth so much more than a house-builder? The law has no business creating blessed occupations. What ever happened to equality of rights among humans?”

    So I presume that by your lights edison, tesla, ford and all the other creators of technologies we take for granted should just have given their ideas away.

    Am I understanding your correctly, Robert Pogson.

  8. oldman says:

    “The Internet, as an application, is far beyond any single or group of applications that you can come up with.”

    Nope. The specific commercial applications that I am productive with these days have nothing to do with the internet other than transport. The internet can not help me compose music, it can not help me analyze data. All this is gone locally. It is a for all intents and purposes a dumb pipe to convey data to my desktop. Nothing more.

    BTW I am getting a little tired of “dipstick”. If this bit of juvenile nastiness is your ideqa of civility, then you are truly a sad case Mr. K.

  9. Kozmcrae says:

    “Nope. I’m too busy getting work done with software that does exactly what I need it to do. And some of it makes the so called FOSS equivalents look like the IMHO crap that they are.”

    FLOSS equivalents? What’s the proprietary equivalent for the Internet dipstick?

    You are getting more work done with FLOSS than you’ll ever admit. The Internet, as an application, is far beyond any single or group of applications that you can come up with. The productivity that is generated with it must be amazing if it could ever be measured.

    How much work are you getting done with Samba? Apache? MySQL? TCP/IP? Linux? You are swimming in FLOSS and getting serious work done with it but you are too arrogant to admit it.

    FLOSS wins and because it wins, you do too @ldman.

  10. oldman wrote, “a fixed period of time.”

    Nope. Hollywood keeps getting legislators to keep moving the goalposts. They have extended the term of copyright long after the creators have died. Dead people are not motivated to creat. Neither are most elderly/retired people. What’s with that? Why is the work of a creative person worth so much more than a house-builder? The law has no business creating blessed occupations. What ever happened to equality of rights among humans?

    oldman also wrote, “The world has assigned value particular software by the mere fact that they license it. And that is a fact that you can’t ignore without seeming either silly or foolish.”

    The economic value of anything is the lowest of its cost of replacement, or price in a free market. A creative work can be replaced for a lot less money than the total value of the licensing fees in many cases. Essentially, copyright allows some to sell above market value. That is OK for a brief period of time or amount of revenue but it is economic suicide to allow folks like M$ to stifle the market indefinitely. Thank Goodness for FLOSS.

  11. oldman says:

    “Copyright was made law to promote creative arts, not to enrich people. The world does not owe programmers a living. ”

    NO doubt you believe so, but fortunately for those of us who want to get compensated for our labors there exists copyright and patent law. And in spite of what you may believe, Copyright WAS also made to encourage the creation of new goods and services by guaranteeing that the creators had exclusive benefit for a fixed period of time, after which there creations became public domain.

    “Oh, oldman believes a housebuilder should be paid by the hour but a writer of software should be paid $millions per annum forever because he wrote something. That’s not realistic, oldman.”

    In a sense Pog, you do pay for a house forever. You are on the hook for 15-30 years to the bank that loaned you the money to buy the house. You pay real estate taxes, school taxes, etc. to the community your house is in. You pay for electricity, heat, and running water and possibly sewer services for that house.

    “The market value of software is very low because, although it may cost a lot to create the first copy, the second copy costs almost nothing to produce. For the world to pay $100s per copy for millions of copies is not economically sound. The world can produce its own software for less. GNU/Linux is proof of that.”

    Reality is Pog that you do not get to set the value of someone else s goods for anyone but yourself. The world has assigned value particular software by the mere fact that they license it. And that is a fact that you can’t ignore without seeming either silly or foolish.

  12. oldman says:

    “Why don’t you sit down and read the latest EULA from Microsoft. I’m sure it will fill your heart with joy.”

    Nope. I’m too busy getting work done with software that does exactly what I need it to do. And some of it makes the so called FOSS equivalents look like the IMHO crap that they are.

  13. oldman, expressing his disdain for sharing, wrote, “People who choose to abide by the licenses that underpin the FOSS commune give up the right to fully benefit from the fruit of their labors.”

    Let’s see. I spend a few weeks writing software and share it. Meanwhile, I get to work in IT doing stuff I like all year round and be paid for it. Where is it that I am not “fully benefitted”. Oh, oldman believes a housebuilder should be paid by the hour but a writer of software should be paid $millions per annum forever because he wrote something. That’s not realistic, oldman. Lots of people work at writing software and are paid little for it. The guys who wrote DOS were paid $50K. Were they fully compensated? No one has a right to be supported by the world forever because they wrote something any more than a house builder should be paid repeatedly for building one house. Copyright was made law to promote creative arts, not to enrich people. The world does not owe programmers a living. Programmers have to earn it and they can earn money in many ways other than selling licences or copyrights. Years ago, I wrote software for free and my employers paid me because I was useful, not because I wrote software. I benefited fully from my efforts and had a good time, too.

    The market value of software is very low because, although it may cost a lot to create the first copy, the second copy costs almost nothing to produce. For the world to pay $100s per copy for millions of copies is not economically sound. The world can produce its own software for less. GNU/Linux is proof of that.

  14. Kozmcrae says:

    “Actually the internet is directly the work of the citizens of the US who via the US Department of Defense subsidized its core development.”

    ARAPNET was the seed of today’s Internet which laid the foundation for the WWW. No FLOSS, no WWW. It’s that simple @ldman. I know it’s difficult for you to see because you are, basically, swimming in it.

    You know Bill Gates tried to hijack the Internet back in 1995 don’t you. Can you imagine if he had succeeded. We would be using Microsoft’s closed garden Internet. Lucky for us FLOSS carried the day and the Internet is free.

    FLOSS wins, and that means you win too @ldman.

    That concrete analogy fits very well. FLOSS is kind of like concrete. It’s not big and showy like all those big stones and blocks but if you remove the concrete, the wall crumbles. FLOSS is like the concrete that holds the World’s IT together only dipsticks like you don’t notice because you get a stiff one looking at all those big blocks.

    Why don’t you sit down and read the latest EULA from Microsoft. I’m sure it will fill your heart with joy.

  15. oldman says:

    “But the Internet is directly the work of FLOSS.”

    Actually the internet is directly the work of the citizens of the US who via the US Department of Defense subsidized its core development. the culture that produces FOSS had nothing to do it, and IMHO could not have even come close to success if they had had to build it from scratch in their spare time at their own expense.

    “FLOSS wins”

    And the Romans invented concrete 2000+ years ago, so What?

  16. Kozmcrae says:

    “If anything its the cult of desktop applications that work for us, as opposed to the IMHO half a$$ed community only supported applications that don’t.”

    People don’t count the Internet as an “application”. Same goes for other projects as well. But the Internet is directly the work of FLOSS. It dwarfs any application or any group of applications you can think of @ldman.

    FLOSS wins.

  17. oldman says:

    “The world can produce its own IT and does not need M$ and its “partners” to do that. ”

    “No one insists that people give away their works.”

    If one can make due building on the primitive libraries available under the LGPL or make ones applications run on the commercial OS named Android, this is true. But take the easy way out and just build without looking and up get your source code “volunteered” for release to the Linux commune.

    “People offer to share their work for the good of all. Get used to that. ”

    I have no problem with what people do voluntarily. What I have problems with is the hypocrisy of calling it voluntary. The reality is that there is no more choice in the GPL than there is in any closed source commercial EULA. Just as with closed source commercial software one either accepts the terms and abides by the license or one does not and then does not get to play.

    “People who produce FLOSS are often paid directly or indirectly for their work.”

    People who choose to abide by the licenses that underpin the FOSS commune give up the right to fully benefit from the fruit of their labors. They exchange the full benefits of being a creator for the subservient and IMHO uncertain role of being the techno-janitor (maintainer) for their own creation, for the possibility exists that ones creation as expressed in code can be expropriated and “improved upon” leaving the original creator watching as someone else benefits form producing an improved version of something that they might never have been able to produce in the first place had the particular expression of that idea not forced open by license` terms.

    “Money is a utility invented to facilitate trade not to eliminate sharing. People are social beings. They are what they are and sharing is part of being human.”

    Part of being human is also having the aspiration to better ones own situation, and for the last 500 years commerce involving the exchange of currency has been the major vehicle for paths to betterment. Many of the great advances in the past 100+ years have been made by creative individuals such as Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, Tesla, Bell, McCormack and a host of others who were able to benefit financially from the sole ownership of their creations. Many of them shared as well, but on THEIR terms, not someone elses.

    To me the kind of sharing that you posit is one that is seen by many ultimately a form of involuntary servitude. It is legalized theft by license at worst, and IMHO as it grows, it is be comming subtle form of the oppression that was so characteristic of the now failed eastern bloc – A world in which people who were not properly compensated for the fruit of their individual creativity, responded by keeping their ideas to themselves and only doing what was absolutely necessary to live in the world that they were in.

  18. oldman wrote, “If anything its the cult of desktop applications that work for us, as opposed to the IMHO half a$$ed community only supported applications that don’t.

    Produce the desktop applications that are more than good enough and people will come. Continue to insist that people give away their work and things will remain as they are.”

    The world can produce its own IT and does not need M$ and its “partners” to do that. The world is richer than those monopolists, more numerous than those monopolists and collectively smarter. There is no monopoly on good ideas. Get over that. If the world actually needs particular apps, the world will create them and share them. The fact that some apps are not available on GNU/Linux is as much an indication that they are unnecessary frills as that by some magic GNU/Linux cannot have them.

    No one insists that people give away their works. People offer to share their work for the good of all. Get used to that. It happens. People who produce FLOSS are often paid directly or indirectly for their work. Others do it for the joy of it. I weld for the utility of welding and because I get to play with fireworks doing it, not because I am paid. I take pictures for the joy of it and share them with the world. I write for the same reasons. Get used to it. People share. Money is a utility invented to facilitate trade not to eliminate sharing. People are social beings. They are what they are and sharing is part of being human.

  19. oldman says:

    “The Cult of Microsoft…”

    If anything its the cult of desktop applications that work for us, as opposed to the IMHO half a$$ed community only supported applications that don’t.

    Produce the desktop applications that are more than good enough and people will come. Continue to insist that people give away their work and things will remain as they are.

    “The desktop is yesterday’s news.”

    Nope. The desktop/full function personal computer will remain as long as there are jobs to be done that don’t fir anywhere else.

  20. Kozmcrae says:

    “The desktop is a useful tool for doing IT.”

    I know many new users will never use a desktop. I will most likely never let mine go. Like you say, it’s too ingrained in the way I do things and the little screens are too stressful on the eyesight.

    Either way the desktop will not be the monster it once was. The Cult of Microsoft can try all they want to move the discussion to the desktop in an effort to belittle GNU/Linux but it doesn’t matter anymore. The desktop is yesterday’s news.

  21. Kozmcrae wrote, “By the time GNU/Linux has a significant percentage of the desktop, if it ever does, the desktop will be insignificant. It won’t matter then so it doesn’t matter now.”

    Desktops may evolve but they won’t go away. The paradigm is ingrained in billions of users’ heads and won’t go away for a generation at least. The desktop is a useful tool for doing IT. What will change sooner rather than later is that PCs will become smaller and cheaper. Many will have screens too small for “desktops” but many users are over 40 and need large screens. No advance in technology will change that unless eyeballs get reshaped. For a a few $thousand, I could see well again but I can buy a huge monitor for $100 so why bother? What will change is that GNU/Linux, MacOS and that other OS will share the desktop space. The tablet is fantastic for consumers but for producers it lacks precision in many cases. We still need more accurate pointing devices than fingers. Then there are keyboards. Youngsters can excel on tiny keyboards but old guys with large hands cannot. IT needs to be for everyone and one size does not fit all.

  22. Kozmcrae says:

    “Meanwhile on the desktop there is… What?”

    You still trying that old foil? The desktop, really. Who cares about the desktop when Linux has all but conquered everything else. By the time GNU/Linux has a significant percentage of the desktop, if it ever does, the desktop will be insignificant. It won’t matter then so it doesn’t matter now. So why do you even bother to mention it? Because it’s the last market that Linux hasn’t taken over. You just got caught with your pants down @ldman.

    FLOSS, and with it Linux, is everywhere. You boast about using FLOSS but you can’t avoid not using it so your boast, like most of them, is empty.

    Linux is providing a platform (a Microsoft word) for proprietary interests. Yes @ldman, of course it does. It works for everybody with no bias towards anyone or anything. That’s because it’s open source. You dipsticks never seem to get it. You try to push that crap in our face but all you do is point out that FLOSS works for everybody. Works, as in producing, output, profit, you know @ldman, bu$ine$$.

    Now why don’t you go curl up with a Microsoft EULA and have a good time with it.

  23. oldman says:

    “There’s a world of development going on and you’re not part of it because you are fighting it.”

    What development is that Mr. K? Please tell me what?

    Linux is providing a platform for closed source commercial software from Oracle, SAP and a whole raft of major vendors.

    The commercial OS named Android is allowing for a new market for closed source commercial applications to be opened at the expense of FOSS.

    Meanwhile on the desktop there is… What?

    I fight nothing sir, unlike you who (Pobre nino!)were tortured by microsoft.

    OK in stead of the my previous quote, I will put forward one more fitting to the sentiment that you just put forth:

    “Eines Volk, Eines Reich!”

  24. Kozmcrae says:

    “Come the revolution we shall all be eating peaches and cream….”

    Not quite. We will be using Free/free software and liking it.

    The “revolution” is old news @ldman, where were you…? Oh, that’s right. You’re head needs to be on top of your shoulders looking around, not stuck somewhere. You’re missing a lot @ldman. There’s a world of development going on and you’re not part of it because you are fighting it.

    Where were you?

    “Bu$ine$$ is bu$ine$$”
    “Applications, applications, applications”
    “Blah, blah, blah”
    “Cliche, cliche, cliche”
    “Any remark that essentially means nothing.”

  25. oldman says:

    “Basically in time it will be a Chrome and Firefox appstore.”

    “Come the revolution we shall all be eating peaches and cream….”

    (old socialist saying…)

  26. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon as you just gave up that android is still android after its been customised/extended.

    “based on Android” is the clear words.

    http://www.cyanogenmod.com is a branch it is still android even that that times it not running the same kernel or exact same core parts as google android.

    Also you don’t know Java Clarence Moon. Three companies can use the Java trademark. IBM Redhat and Oracle. All three are allows to make there own custom versions of Java. This is why Java from sun was called Sun Java that is now Oracle Java. Java from IBM was called IBM Java and Redhat to be warped called theres icetea. yes Redhat could have done Redhat Java.

    http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/detail.page?LegacyDocID=MIGR-56888 << Yes people like to forget this exists. SUN and IBM both made Java JRE and JDK's in competition to each other. And hashed out on common standard. This was the case all for the first 2 years of Java life.

    Since IBM stopped Redhat has taken up job of competition to Oracle/Sun Java to keep development going forward.

    "You cannot abandon that base interface definition and still use the trademark."
    Not true with Java in all cases. IBM and Redhat can leave the base definition and use the trademark Java. Basically if either of those had done android they would have been able to call what android is javaandroid or some other designation of java.

    Basically Oracle is limited on how bossy they can be with Java. Because too bossy Redhat and IBM can tell them to screw off.

    Really google has more control over android than Oracle has over Java.

    NT JERKFACE
    Why did they not use a standard Java implementation? Java for mobile what Google was being forced to place by SUN if they went that path. Forced a particular user interface on them. That had failed already in many products. Understandable why google would not want to join the long running list of failures.

    Google was trying to avoid falure here. They only went the custom route when they would not be allowed to produce a new stream of java. Yes they did attempt to get permission to use Java.

    NT JERKFACE
    "How about their Chrome-only app store?" is a proto type. It is not chrome only where do you get that idea. Firefox with nacl and other prototype extensions by google can use it.

    Basically in time it will be a Chrome and Firefox appstore.

  27. Kozmcrae says:

    “That means they can maintain their own sane release schedule and disrupt Google’s plans of building a centralized app store.”

    You idiot JERKFACE. Anyone can do that with Android because Google chose to use open source. You just said Google was “full of it” and gave a perfect example why they are not. Idiot!

  28. Clarence Moon says:

    Amazon and Barnes & Noble up front acknowledge that their products are based on Android although they are still at the 2.3 level, I understand. Hopefully, they will offer an update soon with whatever new features are enabled by ICS.

    They each have their own “desktop” layer that distinguishes their product from others, but the Android part is essentially standard, since you can run the same apps as any other Android tablet at that release level. That standardization is necessary to build an app market, I think.

  29. I have no problem accessing Android Market from Opera.

    Amazon and B&N are not stupid enough to offend their upstream supplier… They certainly don’t need to do that to use Android/Linux as Google intended.

  30. NT JERKFACE says:

    Pogson is in denial of how much Google is trying to keep upstream. They want to be viewed as the lovable open source company while actively discouraging interoperability and forking.

    How about their Chrome-only app store? Why did they not use a standard Java implementation? Google is full of shit but as I have said before they are like the abusive boyfriend of the open source world and cheerleaders like Pogson will always put out for them even if they get roughed up a bit.

    But I have to hand it to Amazon and B&N who both aren’t using the Android moniker for their tablets. That means they can maintain their own sane release schedule and disrupt Google’s plans of building a centralized app store.

  31. Clarence Moon says:

    As you note, Android is defined by SDK compliance as defined by Google. Sun/Oracle have the same control over java. If you are a device manufacturer such as Samsung, you are certainly free to dabble with the code as you wish, but you cannot abandon that base interface definition and still use the trademark.

    If you are willing and able to bolt on additional APIs and use them effectively with some proprietary product software, there is nothing to stop you either. Of course you can do that sort of thing with Windows or OS X as well. Every DLL that ships with any proprietary product can be considered to be an extension of the OS if you want to make that definition.

    A lot of what Google spouts is motherhood and apple pie, I think, and it may make people feel good, but it really does not empower anyone to take Android in any direction that Google does not support.

  32. Clarence Moon spouts the same irrelevant stuff, “Nothing happens with Android that Google does not plan and implement.”

    Samsung and other tweak Android/Linux any way they want. The licence allows for it.

    Further, anyone can contribute a patch through the Project Leads:“Project Leads

    Android consists of a number of sub-projects; you can see these in the git repository, as individual .git files. Tech Leads are senior Contributors who oversee the engineering for individual Android projects. Typically these tech leads will be Google employees. A Project Lead for an individual project is responsible for the following:

    Be fair and unbiased while reviewing changes. Accept or reject patches based on technical merit and alignment with the Android strategy.
    …”

    Further, “What does “compatibility” mean?

    We define an “Android compatible” device as one that can run any application written by third-party developers using the Android SDK and NDK. We use this as a filter to separate devices that can participate in the Android app ecosystem, and those that cannot. Devices that are properly compatible can seek approval to use the Android trademark. Devices that are not compatible are merely derived from the Android source code and may not use the Android trademark.”

    It does not sound that Android/Linux is closed at all.

  33. Clarence Moon says:

    It is hard to tell exacly what you are saying with this gibberish, Mr. Oiaohm, but I am sure it is the same old uninformed nonsense that you usually spout. Nothing happens with Android that Google does not plan and implement.

  34. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon what you don’t get. Is Android was always planned to merge back into mainline kernel.

    Once mainline kernel and android kernel match will be the time of wayland. So running android in a cgroup will be possible.

    Android is first step basically Clarence Moon.

    In fact Clarence Moon Google is not the only one with upstream rights to Android. Select partners can upstream into the direct project.

    Google did not select the license for Android. Google gave the phone makers a list of licenses to choose what there preferred license for the runtime was. They choose Apache License.

    Really you are wrong on the bit that you cannot call it android. http://www.cyanogenmod.com/

    Technically the android google ships is Google Android.

    Yes you can call your fork android as the second word. The android trademark is allowed to be used that way. As long the prime focus in advertising is placed on your first name for the fork no fowl.

    Google is not doing the kernel merge. The hardware makers are. Hardware makers have final say with google android.

  35. Clarence Moon says:

    I think it is becoming clear to everyone that Android is a thing unto itself and, while it is based on Linux code, it is separately maintained and managed by Google. It is licensed the way that Google has decided to license it and it contains what Google has decided that it contain. The bottom line is that Android is Google’s product.

    It is “open” in the same way that other major elements of open source are “open”, namely that you can look at the source and you can even modify it, but you, yourself, cannot redistribute the result and call it by the product name. Only Google can do that and they own the trademark. Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark, Oracle owns the MySQL trademark, and there are organizations that own Apache, PHP, and other significant FOSS trademarks.

    It seems to me that Google is keeping a pretty tight rein on what goes into Android and where and when it comes out.

  36. oe says:

    Not sure what license HP put WebOS out under when they decided to open the codebase. Do you have any idea on how this will interact with the rest of the GNU/Linux codebase? Any synergistic effects including pulling Android towards the GPL?

  37. Kozmcrae says:

    And JERKFACE strikes another mighty blow to the confidence of GNU/Linux. A few more like that and it will wither and die… Oh wait, it already has!

  38. NT JERKFACE says:

    Pizza is one of the most successful projects mankind has ever attempted. It is everywhere.

  39. lpbbear says:

    No it isn’t. By any rational metric, TOOS is a hundred times more successful. If you are correct, and Linux takes over the worl…blah blah blah blah blah”

    What a maroon!

  40. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser being one of the most successful projects does not mean anyone asked on the street has to know what is is.

    Like asking a person if they have any Linux devices in their house. You can bet they have at least 1. But most people will not say they use any. That is highly successful to be almost in every home.

  41. Dr Loser says:

    Oh well, time to rain on the seasonal parade.

    “Linux is one of the most successful projects mankind has ever attempted.”

    No it isn’t. By any rational metric, TOOS is a hundred times more successful. If you are correct, and Linux takes over the world of computers, then we’ll talk; but not right now.

    I would put sanitation, democratic government (still working on this), vaccination, and probably the colour purple above Linux.

    But, let’s just take the field of computers, shall we?

    * The IBM PC.
    * C. (Wildly successful! Most modern languages are derivative.)
    * The Z80 chip, plus the Z8530 usart.
    * Java

    The list goes on and on, and frankly Linux doesn’t figure much. Ask the average bloke in the street, for example, and they’ll say something like “The Internet.” And they’d be right. They don’t necessarily have to know what the Internet runs on. It’s just successful, that’s all.

    “It makes it possible to have the same GUI on a smart thingy and an HPC cluster should the need arise…”

    I don’t really think that is a function of Linux. And I don’t really think it is remotely sensible in the first place.

    “There is a lot of water under the bridge and the diff is nearly the size of the Bible.”

    Shame you didn’t link to the diff.

    I’m not quite sure that a dedicated core of fifteen people, plus others in their spare time, are going to be able to deal with this software chasm. Which is to ignore the volatile politics of it all. (What happens if Larry says “no?”)

    Still, as with everything Linux-related, Good luck with that.

Leave a Reply