
Google: "Android is the Linux desktop dream come true" - taylorbuley
http://derstandard.at/1308186313932/Interview-Google-Android-is-the-Linux-desktop-dream-come-true?linux
======
senko
" _A platform controlled by a single vendor and locked down by hardware
vendors != the Linux desktop "dream come true"_ "

<http://twitter.com/#!/segphault/status/90546480737296384>

~~~
va_coder
There are a lot of dreams out there for Linux. One of those dreams is an easy
to use tablet that's fast, has a lot of apps and is easy to use. That dream
has been realised.

~~~
sscalia
you mean an ipad??

~~~
inportb
If you've gotten Linux on your iPad, tell me how. Now.

------
mahmud
I am writing this on an android tablet, best buy so far this year. And fwiw,
Ubuntu is the dream come true, not android.

------
rkwz
FTA:

 _> derStandard.at: How does a company like Google balance the need between
wanting secrecy on new developments and doing it open source?

Chris DiBona: That varies between project. If you look at Chrome, every commit
is instantly online. Android has a punctuated release model based on its
marketing needs.

derStandard.at: Why is the chosen model for Android and Chrome so
fundamentally different?

Chris DiBona: It's a different kind of market. If you look at Android we have
lots of partners. We have chipset partners, we have handset partners, we have
carrier partners. They all want to use Android and they all want to have
something special about themselves. So they want to use Android for that
specialness. What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want
to interact too much with the other handset vendors because they are
competitors. And Android gets caught in the middle of all of this. And the
bigger question then becomes how you architect software that it's still useful
around that kind of model._

He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for
openess.

~~~
nl
_He doesn't really say why Android development needs to be secret. So much for
openess._

I thought this was a pretty direct response:

 _What that means is that one handset vendor probably doesn't want to interact
too much with the other handset vendors because they are competitors. And
Android gets caught in the middle of all of this._

ie - the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other (and they
could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they happened on
Android). No surprise there, right?

~~~
rkwz
_> the handset vendors want to keep things secret from each other_

 _> and they could gain a lot of information if they saw the commits as they
happened on Android_

These two statements contradict each other. All handset makers are using the
same Android code with some changes. The Android 2.3 in Sony Ericsson is same
as the one in Samsung or HTC. Or is Google developing separate Android OSes
with each hardware vendor? My question is what's stopping Google from
releasing the base Android OS? And what's stopping them from following a open
development model like chromium?

Sure MS/Apple/HP/RIM can gain some insight if they saw the commits but that's
another matter.

~~~
nl
_My question is what's stopping Google from releasing the base Android OS?_

Ignoring Honeycomb, they do that - they just delay it. I thought the delay is
what you were talking about.

 _Or is Google developing separate Android OSes with each hardware vendor?_

It's not an either/or question. Each vendor has different drivers (for things
like different kinds of screens, 3D cameras etc), and if other vendors saw
these it would give away their capabilities early.

I believe that each vendor doesn't get to see the whole tree until there is a
complete release.

 _And what's stopping them from following a open development model like
chromium?_

Chromium doesn't have tight hardware integration.

A better example is something like the graphics drivers in the Linux kernel.
Nvidia & ATI have historically been very reluctant to release the code for
them and have tried to avoid it in various ways.

Handset vendors have the same motivations as the video card vendors, and so
Google has to accommodate them somewhat to get them to use Android.

------
GrooveStomp
I was thinking about this the other day - with netbooks, tablets and
smartphones running Android showing no signs of slowing down; Android really
does seem to be "the dream come true" in terms of "Is this the year of the
Linux desktop" kind of dream.

It's kind of exciting and also kind of scary. I'm not a fan of the Android
development stack at all, and this comes from someone who's been championing
Android over iOS for the past several years. I think overwhelmingly it's
probably a good thing, I just won't be dabbling too much.

~~~
rbarooah
If you don't like the stack, why do you think it is a good thing that it
should become so widespread?

------
Zigurd
Two comments here converge on a complete response to Chris DiBona's assertion:

"A platform controlled by a single vendor and locked down by hardware vendors
!= the Linux desktop "dream come true"

"For smartphones, sure. For desktops this is not going to happen for a long
time if ever."

As much as Android is now both the dominant client Java and the dominant Linux
userland, there are two things that have to happen before it is the Linux
"dream come true."

First, it should become really open, without a Google controlled two-tier
structure for OEMs. Not all open source, but open to all comers: Anyone who
makes an Android device that passes compatibly tests should be able to ship
the Android Market on it. In this, Microsoft is more even-handed with OEMs.
Any OEM can license Windows, and they get the same thing HP and Dell get.

Second, Google needs to make this openness and evenhandedness happen for
tablet makers, which are more like desktop PC makers than handset makers.
Tablets are not tied to mobile networks, nor to mobile network operators'
retail channels. There is no mobile operator dictating what the software
content of a tablet must be in order for it to be accepted by their channel,
so there is no excuse for the process to be less than transparent and open to
every product that passes compatibility tests.

~~~
kkowalczyk
If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other
companies that signed a deal with Google.

The difference between Microsoft and Google is that if you don't license
Windows, Microsoft gives you nothing. Big, fat 0. If you don't sign a deal
with Google, you get 95% of Android.

Your demands perfectly illustrate human nature: no matter how good you have,
not matter how much you have, there's always more to want and demand.

With Android Google is being generous to extreme, unprecedented levels. They
give away, for free, with source code, technology that would require millions
to redevelop from scratch, but that's not good enough for you. And the same
time, you make no demands on Apple or Microsoft to be even 1% as generous as
Google is.

The restrictions that Google has on Android have very good rationale: to
prevent explosion of incompatibilities, something that has plagued
uncoordinated desktop Linux efforts for years and has no signs of being
resolved. rpm vs. apt vs. yam. Gnome vs. Qt. etc.

And finally, no matter how many of your demands Google will meet, people will
always come up with more. You have already demonstrated that you'll find a
fault with a very big and generous gift of Android. I can easily imagine that
after Google lifts the restrictions that bother you so much (even though the
likelihood that you're personally affected by them is 0) someone will consider
that 30% royalty in Android Market is too high.

~~~
throwaway32
>If you sign a deal with Google, you also get the same treatment as other
companies that signed a deal with Google.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Agreements of that nature
are not normally made public, and the circumstances surrounding the google
maps/GPS on android thing, means this is very likely not the case.

>The restrictions that Google has on Android have very good rationale.

Im so happy that google is choosing to restrict my freedom to use my devices
for my own good, thank you google.

>You have already demonstrated that you'll find a fault with a very big and
generous gift of Android. I can easily imagine that after Google lifts the
restrictions that bother you so much (even though the likelihood that you're
personally affected by them is 0)

Android is not a gift, its intent was never to charitably donate something to
the community at large, its intent was to make google money. Their entire
platform is based off of the open-source work of others, it did not spring
forth from google fully formed, expecting reciprocation is not too much to
ask.

~~~
andylei
> Im so happy that google is choosing to restrict my freedom to use my devices

Google is not 'restricting your freedom'. You can fork android and do whatever
you want.

> Android is not a gift, its intent was never to charitably donate something
> to the community at large, its intent was to make google money

Intent is irrelevant. Pre Google: 0 commercially viable Linux based phones.
Post Google: dozens.

> Their entire platform is based off of the open-source work of others, it did
> not spring forth from google fully formed, expecting reciprocation is not
> too much to ask.

They do reciprocate. The source for android is yours to hack.

~~~
throwaway32
>Google is not 'restricting your freedom'. You can fork android and do
whatever you want.

that is a bit of a hobson's choice, sure (some of) the code is available (pre
3.0), but without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be
closed.

>Intent is irrelevant.

Intent is everything, would you be right to suspect the motivations of a
mining company conducting a review of environmental impacts, even if the
results appear sound on the surface?

>They do reciprocate. The source for android is yours to hack.

Except for of course, gingerbread.

~~~
nl
_that is a bit of a hobson's choice, sure (some of) the code is available (pre
3.0), but without a device that is open and able to run it, it may as well be
closed._

I'm not sure what you define as "a device that is open", but surely the many
unlocked handsets apply?

If not, then <http://beagleboard.org/project/android/> perhaps?

If not, then maybe the Nokia 810: [http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-
For-Devices-Article...](http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-
Articles/Porting-Android-to-a-new-device/)

Am I missing your point somehow?

------
VladRussian
there are dreams and there are nightmares.

------
wmf
Previous discussion from earlier today:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2755050>

------
ignifero
I do not see X dying for the foreseable future, but if there was good android
support on X, many android apps are better than the accessories included in
gnome/kde/xfce. I don't understand how Android is a "linux desktop" at the
moment.

On the other hand, Android will be the closest thing to "linux everywhere (but
the desktop)" . It could power TV sets, washing machines, car navigators,
watches etc. Looking forward to using it on my next Roomba.

------
0ffw0rlder
For smartphones, sure. For desktops this is not going to happen for a long
time if ever. When will AutoCAD, UGS-NX, MAYA, Photoshop, Quark Express,
MatLAB, Mathematica (other than wolfram alpha), and even more specialized
medical/industrial/scientific software be available for android? Will there
even be decent gaming under java? (angry birds does not count)

~~~
sorbus
> Will there even be decent gaming under java? (angry birds does not count)

Minecraft is written in Java.

> When will ... even more specialized medical/industrial/scientific software
> be available for android?

Presumably when the people buying the software begin to express an interest in
moving to android. I'm not saying that it will happen, just that the software
will be ported over, or new software written, when people start wanting it.

I don't think that anyone seriously believes that android is going to replace
OS X and Windows on desktops, just that, as time goes on, people will be
spending more and more time on tablets and smartphones and less on traditional
desktops and laptops. I find it a bit sad, mostly because I refuse to believe
that I'll ever be able to type as quickly on a tablet as I do on a keyboard.

------
sscalia
Haha. Yes, yes it is.

