Hacker News Reader

Comment by trimbo | Hacker News Reader

Whether these succeed or not, I simply don't get it.

Android is open source. Fork it. Improve it. Why build something completely new. Is it just to keep a brand name like "Ubuntu" and "Firefox"?

View on HN

Android is not really open-source, you can only get source code for old versions, never the latest release.

4.2.1 is the current version and the source was available on the day it released.

Android.com only lists 4.1 as available. Either way, by only making source code available on the day of release it is by definition already old. That means development happens in the dark.

android was also deemed the least open of a bunch of high-profile open-source projects: http://www.visionmobile.com/rsc/researchreports/Open%20Gover...

As far as I understand it actually is a fork of Android in the sense that it runs the Android-flavoured Linux kernel.

This, and also Android's overall userspace design is kind of idiosyncratic. I'm sure there are other legitimate designs of a Linux-based mobile OS, which don't rely so heavily on Java and a virtual machine. Ubuntu will be Qt-based, for example. That throws out the possibility to reuse the Android application framework.

Ok, but there's nothing that prevents them from implementing QT on Android using the NDK. You don't have to throw out all application compatibility to achieve something like this.

If I remember correctly then it can also run Android apps in the same WM together with other apps. It actually shouldn't be too hard to replace Android's WindowManager with some other implementation (say, QT-based) due to the nature of Binder (Android's IPC mechanism).

Haven't they merged the "android kernel" into the linux kernel recently?

Many features, not all: https://lwn.net/Articles/514901/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com