Hacker News Reader

Comment by mshockwave | Hacker News Reader

It was later reverted[1] because "there are devices in the field using usbX interfaces for tethering". Shortly after that, it got re-landed but only supported Android V+[2]

[1]: https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/packages/...

[2]: https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/packages/...

View on HN

a few months ago I was given a unihiker board that uses cdc and didn’t work with my android devices, now that I read this I tried again since I got them upgraded to android 15 in between but still doesn’t work and I’m afraid this is due to samsung implementation of android 15! Works on ipad though which was a surprise to me!

So the meta question is: Why does the device API require the system to play these name games instead of giving enough information to discover whether the thing is an honest-to-God Ethernet device?

What are Android T+, U+ and V+?

T = Android 13

U = Android 14

V = Android 15

I wonder what was the need for this obfuscation

It’s not really obfuscation. It goes back to when Android OS’s used to be named after desserts. While in development they would be referred to just by the letter as the dessert name wasn’t usually finalized

It's not deliberate obfuscation. But the end result is still obfuscated.

Not as bad as Ubuntu/Debian code names at least.

at least follows alphabetic order!

As does android.

Numbers are exactly as obfuscatory as letters. "Android 14" doesn't tell me anything other than it comes after 13 and before 15, and "V" tells me the same relative to U and W.

I have the same thought every time marketing at a major OEM changes a systematic naming scheme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com