Hacker News Reader

Comment by kllrnohj | Hacker News Reader

> (which wasn't a lot later by the way)

Wayland was started the same year that Android shipped and Wayland didn't have it's first release until 4 years later. That's obviously way too late for Android to have used it or collaborated on it.

> but the fact that they didn't want to work on big problem that benefits Linux as a whole (replacing X11), but made something that benefits only them, and that created a huge and damaging rift. That they can be blamed for.

At the time nobody wanted a replacement to X11. That was a big complaint against Wayland, too.

Getting into mailing list wars and trying to make everyone happy ensures you end up like Nokia - too late to matter and with no more money. That's not helpful to anyone.

Also please explain how Google created a "huge and damaging rift"? What damage resulted from this at all?

View on HN

> Also please explain how Google created a "huge and damaging rift"? What damage resulted from this at all?

Hardware becoming Android only. See https://lwn.net/Articles/504865/

A major part of that problem is that rift that created incompatibility and prevented reusing of the existing progress. That was the whole reason for making libhybris, to unblock that issue.

That article is long outdated. Mainline and Android kernels have mostly converged at this point.

But that's also wholly unrelated to the specific context here which was Wayland vs. SurfaceFlinger.

Wayland was your "huge damaging rift" here if anything. Divorcing itself from both xorg and surface flinger, for no particular reason at the time in the case of the later.

The article doesn't focus on drivers, but idea is the same. Android did create the rift, and it's still here. It's new "Windows" in hardware compatibility sense.

> Getting into mailing list wars and trying to make everyone happy ensures you end up like Nokia - too late to matter and with no more money. That's not helpful to anyone.

Not arguing about the rest of your post, but the above is incorrect.

Nokia didn't go bust because they tried to cooperate with the rest of the world. You can be cooperative and still say no to people.

If I'm not mistaken Android was developed in submerged mode for a long time, for business reasons.

Well you can also look at how attempts by Google and others to upstream went initially. Mainline outright rejected some of the core tenants of what Android was doing just because it hadn't been an issue on desktop/servers. Things have since slowly changed, but even stuff that shouldn't have been controversial (like ashmem) still took years and when mainline finally added an equivalent (memfd_create) it is just incompatible enough in core behavior that Android can't switch to it.

It was the other way around, it went badly because they didn't collaborate from the start. Android was a huge code drop when it was published and upstreaming wasn't exactly their primary focus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com