| |||||||||||||
Android source availableAndroid source availablePosted Oct 21, 2008 19:22 UTC (Tue) by bcbarnes (guest, #51878)In reply to: Android source available by kragil Parent article: Android source available
And in the January 2018, as the distro wars and Gnome/KDE wars continue, people will continue to
say..."Really, this is the year Linux is going to make inroads into home desktops and corporate networks."
I mean come on. If Google, a zillionaire open source supporting company, can only release their
Our entire lab uses Fedora and CentOS. I'd wager most of the HPC community uses a RHEL based
(Log in to post comments)
Android source available Posted Oct 21, 2008 19:24 UTC (Tue) by bcbarnes (guest, #51878) [Link]
Well that was weird. I'm posting via Safari right now and none of those linebreaks were visible while
composing or previewing. Here, I'll post a long paragraph again. No visible linebreaks while previewing the comment.
Android source available Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:02 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
'Plain text' automatically linebreaks for you.
That's weird Posted Oct 21, 2008 19:34 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] When IBM (company with much longer involvemen in Linux) makes Fedora 7-only SDK there are no problems, but when Google supports single distribution it's weird??? Come on, it's not that unusual: it's pretty common for platform kits to be pretty rigid. You need Windows 2000 SP4 only (don't try Windows XP or Vista) and package must be installed on D:\ or "bad thing will happen" - that's typical instruction I've seen.
as soon as someone contributes patches ... Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:56 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] ... I'm sure it will then build just fine on other distros.
That's weird Posted Oct 21, 2008 23:40 UTC (Tue) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"When IBM (company with much longer involvemen in Linux) makes Fedora 7-only SDK there are no problems,"
Who said there were no problems?
Android source available Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:40 UTC (Tue) by floop (subscriber, #5889) [Link] I don't understand why a person would care about the release of the code in general, besides "hey that's great for oss", if they weren't capable of getting it to work under Fedora or Gentoo if they wanted.
Android source available Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:49 UTC (Tue) by thoffman (subscriber, #3063) [Link]
Dude.
This is hardly a consumer product. We're talking about a developer SDK here. Now, if Google released some consumer level Linux software, (e.g. Picasa) that only worked on one distro, I could see a little more cause for complaining, but this is for developers.
If a developer can't either:
then... how useful a developer are they anyway?
Android source available Posted Oct 22, 2008 15:27 UTC (Wed) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link]
It's not the "SDK" - that is available, like it should be, for Mac, Windows and Linux. The SDK is what you need to write programs for Android. This is the source code release - what you need if you want to rebuild the whole deal. Not many people really need that, and hey - it's open source isn't it, I'm sure some enterprising Fedora users can hack it to work there and send in patches.
Android source available Posted Oct 22, 2008 15:24 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
Are the critics right then? Has Linux so fragmented (like Unix did) that "Linux" users must have these arguments over which distros should be supported? Or is this just another excuse to attack Ubuntu. I use mostly CentOS on my servers, and Ubuntu on my home desktop. They are both exellent distros, but they specialize in different areas. Why do critics of Ubuntu operate on such a hair trigger?
BTW, is your lab, and a significant portion of the HPC community planning on building mobile phone OSes? On existing equipment? If you, and they were going to, would you, and they be capable of installing Ubuntu?
Or are Linux installation procedures so fragmented, as well, that expertise in installing CentOS does not transfer to installing other Linux distros?
Android source available Posted Oct 23, 2008 2:15 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> Are the critics right then? Has Linux so fragmented (like Unix did) that "Linux" users must have these arguments over which distros should be supported? Or is this just another excuse to attack Ubuntu.
Both.
----------------------
It used to be that Linux distributions differed quite a bit for very significant reasons. Some provided configuration tools and interfaces that were proprietary in a attempt to do the 'value added' approach to getting licensing costs from linux. Some people dissagreed about how you should approach package management systems and so on and so forth.
Nowadays everybody uses pretty much the same stuff. The major differences are going to be Redhat configuration tools vs Debian's package management system. Other then that people are switching to upstart, they are using network-manager for desktops, dbus, packagekit, policykit. Pretty soon they should be using about the same initramfs environments and so and so forth. Much more the same then different.
IMO one of the major goals for distributions is to eliminate the differences in the so-called 'Linux plumbing' and end up using, more or less, identical systems on the low-level. Then use the same core as a basis to then branch out and do their own thing. Update packages, experiment, etc etc.. but always each time they do a release they re-base off the same core system that they share.
This, I think, will end up going to make application developer's (open source and otherwise) lives a lot easier, as well as system integraters and people that need to document how the system works for normal folks.
....
As far as Ubuntu-hate goes. It's pointless and misdirected.
|
|||||||||||||