|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community

Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community

Posted Feb 3, 2010 21:59 UTC (Wed) by dcbw (guest, #50562)
In reply to: Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community by cdibona
Parent article: Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community

"I think if the Android kernel were important enough to the mainline, then
this wouldn't be a problem."

i.e. just because millions of users are using it mainline should ignore technical considerations and just take the code? That seems pretty wrong...


to post comments

Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community

Posted Feb 3, 2010 22:17 UTC (Wed) by cdibona (guest, #13739) [Link] (5 responses)

I don't see how that is wrong or arrogant. Let me break it down:

if: Android mattered more to the mainline maintainters.
then: We'd get more attention from them or they'd change their practices.

Nowhere in there did I say we were that important to them.

And be careful flinging around numbers, we have many many millions of handsets, too. It's not about that. It's about what is best on one side for the mainline kernel (and androids mods may not be that) and what is best for the people with androids in their pockets, and indeed whether it matters to harmonize the two.

If you read arrogance in that, that wasn't the intent.

Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community

Posted Feb 3, 2010 22:27 UTC (Wed) by dcbw (guest, #50562) [Link] (2 responses)

I actually did mean "millions of Android users", not millions of mainline kernel users.

The arrogance comes from expecting the kernel developers to ignore technical considerations just because there are millions of users of your code.

While having millions of users may mean it works, it may not be the best solution for the problem, for upstream *or* for your users. You may find that the solutions proposed by the kernel developers also make your life easier through easier maintenance of the code and cleaner subsystems when you have to enhance them in the future.

But you have to be /open/ to the possibility that wakelocks may not be the best solution to the problem, instead of proposing that kernel developers just accept them as-is even though they are (in the opinion of some very knowledgable upstream developers) technically faulty.

Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community

Posted Feb 4, 2010 19:25 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm glad the Android developer posted. He's conveyed something I didn't realize, that is that Google and their developers believe they are right regardless of what others think. It sounds like this might be a corporate problem in that they truly believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I don't think anyone would argue that in some instances it's better to be out of tree than in, but it's the exception, not the rule. Part of getting into mainline is listening to other people when they tell you your code is garbage and your solution is the wrong one and that a better one exists. This is especially true when the other people doing the same kind of development (embedded in this case) tell you that your approach is the wrong one as otherwise you might have an argument that what you propose is an embedded specific exception.

It's an eyeopener to me to see how arrogant the Google developers are about their code. It explains their toss it over the wall attitude precisely. I have to wonder how long Google will be able to maintain this attitude with all the other players in the Open Handset Alliance, and most particularly what will happen when Google gets tired of Android and abandons it. It's unfortunate this attitude exists, while the corporation is interested in Android it will raise their costs significantly and when they abandon it if others haven't forked the code it will die. Rather unfortunate, but as I said, it's probably a corporate problem that in the long term will see most Google code abandoned, rather unfortunate but I guess that's what happens when you can't play with others or take constructive criticism. There is an interesting sociological question on where such corporate attitudes develop and whether they are related to some demographic figure, such as average age, of the Google developers plays a role.

Greg Kroah-Hartman: Android and the Linux kernel community

Posted Oct 3, 2011 18:02 UTC (Mon) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]

But lots of embedded developers, me included, think that Android has some nice stuff, that is being blocked from mainline by stubborn-ness, ignorance and pride, rather than any substantive technical issues.

The 'they come to us' attitude

Posted Feb 4, 2010 4:42 UTC (Thu) by eparis123 (guest, #59739) [Link]

then: We'd get more attention from them ..

The linux kernel development model (or any large FOSS development model thereof) depends on initiation from the patches authors, not from 'them', the community.

I'm sorry if this sound rude, but Al Viro once commented here as I remember that the community perceives the 'they come to us' attitude as a sign of arrogant developers.

.. or they'd change their practices.

You don't really join a community by asking it to change its practices firsthand! I guess this is really obvious

"If Android code was important to the mainline kernel..."

Posted Dec 9, 2010 10:37 UTC (Thu) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link]

Replying to a really old comment... don't know if that's good or bad LWN etiquette.

To turn this phrase on its head, one could argue that:

If getting code upstream was important to Android developers:
Then they would expend more effort in accommodating concerns that the kernel developers have raised about the patches

No-one likes to maintain someone else's abandoned code.

I only bring this up now because of a recent announcement which reads like a regression to me: http://source.android.com/source/code-lines.html (that said, it has the advantage of clarifying expectations, which I applaud).

Cheers,
Dave Neary.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds