Hacker News Reader

Comment by bri3d | Hacker News Reader

https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/treble

This is Google's attempt to do this, in a sense, but as the sibling post points out, vendors are so resistant to adoption that it's just slowing Oreo uptake. And yes, Treble just abstracts the framework from the kernel - but it requires a much more modern baseline and the common HAL interface should make kernel front-porting much easier and therefore allow manufacturers to ship less broken kernels.

View on HN

I work at a hw vendor that builds android for our SoC and we're still on N, but it's not because we're resistant to adoption of treble.

Treble has been more like the straw or boulder to break the camels back. Not only is it a lot of work on its own, it has also triggered a bunch of refactoring.

People are actually excited about Treble and how it should make kernel and android updates easier in the future. It's just a lot of work in the short term.

Not really, it would a real attempt if it was actually enforced, but given that Nougat updates to Oreo don't require Treble certification, and the OEMs are the ones expected to deliver any kind of updates, it is pretty useless to change the current state of affairs.

I mean, Google are requiring it for all Oreo launch devices, which they all must be after the P release (you can't get certification for Nougat after P releases).

It's at least something that'll work long term.

Still if the updates aren't enforced, all we will get are Oreo devices without updates, Treble or not.

Once you have Treble you can get third-party updates (e.g. LineageOS).

That doesn't work for regular phone users.

Regular phone users don't care, which is why we're in this situation at all.

They do care on iOS.

Eh, that might be true today, but I doubt we'll see flagships shipping with Nougat still by the end of the year. I certainly won't be buying any like that primarily for this reason. OEMs will catch up sooner or later. It's a slow process, but don't write off the long game for the short one.

Once P is released they won't even certify Nougat devices anymore.

Experience tells me OEMs won't change their behavior unless legally forced to do so.

Aren't they contractually obligated to comply with CTS / VTS in order to get the Google Play stuff? The Chinese OEMs and Amazon Fire line opt-out, but pretty much the rest of the Android ecosystem opts in.

They are. Even to call their OS 'Android', not just usage of the Google Play Store.

Nowhere in Amazon Fire tablet's page does Amazon use the term Android to describe the device.

CTS/VTS does not require providing updates.

That's only a way to get shiny new Google stuff over the supplier's extremely crappy base that will be even less likely to ever get upgraded. The fact that people point it out every time I mention the mess we're really in shows how it's a step back because it takes weight off the issue.

I see what you're saying - that having a common HAL interface will allow Google to ship newer Android over the same broken kernels. However, the base requirements for the Treble kernel and certification require a level of quality beyond what most manufacturer kernels currently offer, so I think it's at least a step forward before it's a step back.

My point is that if it's indeed a small step forward, which is highly debatable, it's a huge step back from actually solving the underlying issue. Lenovo doesn't ship a half broken Linux kernel every time they release a new model. New stuff just gets rolled into upstream and then hardware gets support for close to forever. I bought an Android phone 4 months ago, selected specifically to be supported by LineageOS and in the top 20 in terms of usage. As it turns out support will not be added to the next Android version because specific kernel support would be needed and there's just no reasonable way of achieving it.

It's a fairly big step forward for the common user. There are two parts to it. The kernel used by OEMs is now mandated to be an eLTS version, which is 4.4 now, and the kernel will get backports for another 3 years I think. Treble makes porting new AOSP versions easier. It doesn't affect the kernel version too much directly, AFAIK. However, with 4.4 and treble, every device should get updates for another 3 years. And 3 years is better than 0. So there's that. About your phone purchase, there is no other manufacturer that has done a better job than Google so far. So if you care about these sorts of things, just buy whatever Google sells.

>The kernel used by OEMs is now mandated to be an eLTS version, which is 4.4 now, and the kernel will get backports for another 3 years I think.

That's only true if someone is willing to actually apply the changes over the hacked up kernel the manufacturer shipped. Even well organized projects like LineageOS don't manage to do that:

https://cve.lineageos.org/kernels

Not upstreaming changes is the issue. That's what makes you stuck on an insecure kernel, not the particular kernel version. Having an LTS kernel will help but it doesn't solve anything.

>However, with 4.4 and treble, every device should get updates for another 3 years. And 3 years is better than 0.

Maybe most devices will get an update of the Google shipped stuff for 3 years. Most will not get things like Spectre mitigations in their kernels. And because Treble will be an argument for why this issue is fixed the long term outcome keeps getting worse and this will never get fixed.

>About your phone purchase, there is no other manufacturer that has done a better job than Google so far. So if you care about these sorts of things, just buy whatever Google sells.

For what I want, a proper upstream kernel that has a chance of being supported going forward, Google phones are no better as far as I've seen. They're just subcontracted phones to one of the manufacturers anyway.

Google sells at outrageous prices for everyone on 2nd and 3rd tier countries.

Additionally it isn't even available in most of the world.

Just rhetorically, if it's the response to your concern every time you write a post, then you need to incorporate why it's not a solution in your original post. I assumed you hadn't heard of Treble and was just about to point it out to you.

You're right I should have mentioned it. I thought about it but the text was getting too long already and I was in a hurry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com