id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

[russofris]

I don't get it. The past two pages can be summarized as:

My linux is so much better than your linux because.........

While I do not claim to know where and on what our focus should be, I'm pretty certain that this isn't it. Why Google purchased (the company developing) Android and chose their toolchain/platform is obvious. Linus expects kernel-reintegration in the next 4 years. Let's help make that happen, and remove the reasons that this argument exists to begin with.

Alternatively, you could continue to have unproductive arguments over things that we cannot change. Here's a good one that will get us nowhere:

In 2005, Google should have done the following.........

F

[Scali]

I don't get it. The past two pages can be summarized as:

Well, I specifically remarked that Android would probably have been just as successful with any other kernel (like how Apple's OS X and iOS are also very successful while not using the linux kernel). So in my opinion it is not about linux in the first place. It's about creating a proper platform.

[Kano]

@Scali

It is definitely incorrect that apps written for xp will always work with v/7/8 without hacks. ms added a filesystem overlay that could be activated in compat mode, but your statement is definitey incorrect. Old apps wrote files to program dir, thats not allowed anymore. You can say the policy for v and newer is basically the same, but using xp as example is wrong.

[Scali]

@Scali

It is definitely incorrect that apps written for xp will always work with v/7/8 without hacks.

Which is why I didn't say they will *always* work. You think I'm an idiot or something? That you're telling me something new? Dunning-Kruger much? Learn to read first. Then doubt yourself before you doubt others.

[finalzone]

Duh?
However, did you get ANY of the points I was making as to why you can't just say Android is 'just another linux distribution' just because there happens to be a linux kernel in there somewhere? The ecosystem is very different, in a very important way as far as (commercial) developers are concerned.

That is my point I highlighted. The difference of ecosystem does not matter from traditional desktop(using GNU toolkit) to embedded devices (Monta Vista). Try stating your own quote in from a skilled develpper who frequently visit said (LWN - Linux Weekly News), you will get seriously trashed for blurring Linux OS with GNU/Linux variants only know the Linux kernel can be on diffrerent platforms other than GNU based tools.

[Scali]

That is my point I highlighted. The difference of ecosystem does not matter from traditional desktop(using GNU toolkit) to embedded devices (Monta Vista). Try stating your own quote in from a skilled develpper who frequently visit said (LWN - Linux Weekly News), you will get seriously trashed for blurring Linux OS with GNU/Linux variants only know the Linux kernel can be on diffrerent platforms other than GNU based tools.

I'd respond, if I had any idea what the heck you're trying to say.
The different ecosystems were the whole point (that's the difference between a kernel and a platform. You don't develop software for a kernel, you develop software for a platform. To a large extent, the kernel is irrelevant. Which obviously the linux community will never admit. But I am not as naive as to expect that anyway)... More specifically the different culture and vision of Android vs linux distributions.

[nightmarex]

"Perhaps, I'm not even going to bother to try, because even if it were true, it would be the exception to the rule. It is common knowledge that in general packages cannot easily be used among different distributions or older/newer versions of the same distribution.".

Any and all programs including Windows ones have a chain of dependancies. As long as you have the dependancies (eg...flash,unity 3d,windows api,c lib,c++ lib,..etc) it will run. Now with your package statment, you're right that package managers can't really use another distro's PM as their are different locations of folders and such. Yet they are useable amongst eachother as most are unpackable and binary compatible therefor easy to repack. Not to mention how much safer it is to have multiple repositories as not to have mass virii spread.

Linux as a stable platform is more of a moving target than Windows and thank God. Windows got 64 bit support in what 2k5? It still is firmly locked to 32 bit.

Well now that I think about it, I will just say this. Don't like it? Don't use it? GTFO of a Linux oriented forum.

[Scali]

Now with your package statment, you're right that package managers can't really use another distro's PM as their are different locations of folders and such.

That is one part of the problem yes.
Another part is that the libraries themselves are not always backward-compatible.
Dependencies are a fact-of-life. How you deal with them is what makes all the difference.

Well now that I think about it, I will just say this. Don't like it? Don't use it? GTFO of a Linux oriented forum.

Firstly, I would say that this forum is not strictly linux-oriented. Phoronix spends a healthy amount of time on BSD-related topics as well.
Secondly, this kind of attitude is exactly why developers don't like linux. The linux community cannot take any criticism, and instead of working *with* developers, and accepting suggestions that may actually be very good for the future of linux, they just start fighting with these developers instead. Heck, just look at how people have insulted John Carmack in this thread. That guy singlehandedly put OpenGL on the map as a gaming API. He also gave linux gaming a huge shot in the arm by releasing his engine code under GPL, and releasing linux ports of popular ID games.
I am not surprised he gave up on linux.

[russofris]

Well, I specifically remarked that Android would probably have been just as successful with any other kernel (like how Apple's OS X and iOS are also very successful while not using the linux kernel). So in my opinion it is not about linux in the first place. It's about creating a proper platform.

In the instance of android, I'm not certain I agree. In 2005, Google needed something that they could transform and release quickly. Using linux allowed them to leverage an internal talent pool that they already possessed. I'm not certain the same could have been done with Darwin/BSD/Mach/Syb/WinCE with the same time-to-market. So while I agree that a device can use any kernel, and that linux may not have been the best choice from a functional perspective, I do not believe that they could have attained the marketshare that they currently have. I think that it's called -- The law of Diffusion of innovation, where google grabbed a good portion of the early majority, and most of the late majority.

There was a Ted talk that touched on this, I think it was http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sim...re_action.html , I think there was another one on android, I'll check.

If Google hadn't come out with android, we'd all have iPhones (that's not a horrible thing) and they would cost 25% more than they do now, and probably wouldn't be as good.

F

[Scali]

In the instance of android, I'm not certain I agree.

Well, I was talking from a technical point-of-view, not factoring in what kind of knowledge Google may or may not have already had access to.
My point is just that Android is something like this:
- A Java-like environment
- On top of a *NIX-like environment
- On top of the linux kernel

And as we all know, Java environments can run on a variety of OSes (*NIX or not).
It doesn't really matter whether a Java application runs on top of linux, OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, Windows, or whatever other OS. The Java application will work, as long as the Java environment is compatible.

So in the case of Android, most of the lower layers could in theory easily have been implemented with something other than a linux-based environment (heck, a big reason for the popularity of *NIX was/is because you can easily recompile the same software on any *NIX-like OS, because they all support the POSIX and ANSI C APIs. A large part is completely interchangeable by definition). At least, from a technical point-of-view.
Whether or not linux was the best choice for Google from a business point-of-view is not something I can judge properly, nor am interested in. I can only assume that Google looked at various alternative paths, and used sound reasoning to arrive at their choice for linux.

If Google hadn't come out with android, we'd all have iPhones (that's not a horrible thing) and they would cost 25% more than they do now, and probably wouldn't be as good.

I doubt it. iPhones are still way more expensive than Android phones. As far as I can recall, there hasn't been a significant price reduction on iPhones since Android was launched. Certainly not anything in the range of 25%.
Would they not be as good? Again, I highly doubt it. All Android has done so far is to copy the iPhone. It's much like how most linux/open source applications are merely copies of commercial/closed source applications. They rarely reach a level of maturity where they actually compete with the original applications directly.
I feel the same way about Android. It's a budget iPhone, but not a direct threat to the real thing. I mean, I use an Android phone, but if there was no Android, I wouldn't have gotten an iPhone anyway. I simply don't want to spend that much money on any phone/gadget.
I think the same goes for most people. If they want to spend the money, they'll get the real iPhone anyway. I haven't heard anyone getting an Android phone "because it's cheaper". What I have heard however is people who went from an iPhone to an Android phone, and complaining that it's not as userfriendly, slick and well-supported as their iPhone was, and are likely to go back to an iPhone next time.