| |||||||||||||
Computer privacyComputer privacyPosted Jan 4, 2013 18:00 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921)In reply to: Computer privacy by pabs Parent article: Canonical to demonstrate Ubuntu on phones
Yes, that's understandable, but that's exactly where Mer has an advantage. They explicitly separated the hardware adaptation bits from the rest of the system. I.e. hw adaptation is pluggable, and the rest of the core distribution stays the same (within the same arch like ARMv7, MIPS and etc.). Since putting all kind of wild mobile kernels differences in the mainline doesn't sound like a practically rapid approach, Mer just doesn't dictate it, and hw adaptations are up to the vendors to provide. It allows moving fast and be flexible with it.
(Log in to post comments)
Computer privacy Posted Jan 9, 2013 16:31 UTC (Wed) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
I never understood what Mer people were on about with that. Does "explicitly separated the hardware adaptation bits" mean that they just don't include kernels for most devices? If so that sounds exactly like what Debian is forced to do. If not, could you explain what you mean? Sounds like they will be facing the same kind of bugs in crappy, blobby, non-mainline kernels that I did with Debian or that CyanogenMod do. Trusting hardware vendors doesn't sound like a good plan in the slightest.
Computer privacy Posted Jan 12, 2013 12:40 UTC (Sat) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
They just package up the kernel and other libraries for each target separately, not much more. So basically each device has its own kernel + userspace libraries.
That's still better than Android though, where the complete system is built for a specific target and no sharing happens at all (not even userspace components).
|
|||||||||||||