Sure, this makes a lot of people have "Linux" in their hands, sort of, hidden away where they'll never find it and where it doesn't matter. I'm not sure this is much of an "open source" victory.
For a ChromeOS device it can be even easier: just download an installer, turn off the physical safety switch or screw, and you're running a full linux distro.
Still you have a point that it's hidden away. That could be seen as a plus for some: they don't want a Gnome or KDE experience. ChromeOS appears to be filling a real market niche.
Rooting most likely voids your warranty and is definitely nontrivial to non-technical people. I have rooted my phone and installed cyanogenmod before and I wouldn't call it easy. I can't imagine average people going through that process voluntarily or without screwing it up. Yeah, to people like us it might not be that bad, but to your every day user it just doesn't make any sense to do.
That's a horrible analogy, sorry.
I have to agree with some other commenters here that Google using Linux as a base for android and chromeOS doesn't do much for the Linux community (not nothing, though). It really doesn't matter what kernel they are using. It's all the stuff that's build on top which matters... maybe there's something to calling it "GNU/Linux" after all - just so we could avoid misleading and misinformed commentary like this blog post.
It wasn't built into mine (Gentoo Linux). I had to install it separately.
Sudo is also nontrivial to nontechnical people[1], and it doesn't even have a warranty[2].
[1] As immortalized in the mouseover of a recent xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1343/
The fact that he prefers GPLv2 is a pretty strong counter-argument: GPLv2 allows the ODM/OEM to implement a linux soltuion. The end user has no guarantee of crypto keys, software, or hardware that enables "root" access.
Are you actually complaining about how manufacturers often have locked boot loaders and you need to jump through hoops to get to an OS you like? That's not an issue with the OS.
The real problem is that tools like Unrevoked[0] are needed, and that bootloaders can come encrypted (even on the HTC One, for Verizon).
Linus counted android as a victory in this video where he swears at nvidia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA
The more the Linux kernel is used, the more contributions and bug fixes it will have from companies that use it. This might also mean better hardware support -- which we all benefit from.
Exactly, so if the shell is a bunch of non-free restricted crap or is under the control of someone else in a remote server... what's the point? What practical difference does it make to a user to be running Android or iOS? What difference does it make to them if there is an invisible Linux kernel underneath?
It's no coincidence that six out of ten in this list run on Linux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_operating_...
In a roundabout way it may actually matter to users in that it enables more competition and better choice.
Android has had a huge impact on the phone market in terms of openness, for manufacturers as well as for end users. I took advantage of this when I put CyanogenMod on my phone using the unlocking tool provided by HTC. I didn't even think of doing something like that with my pre-Android phones.
If you choose to buy a locked-down Android device, blame yourself and then blame Linus: he's the one strongly objecting to distributing Linux under the GPLv3 license, because he dislikes the very clause that would guarantee your freedom to tinker with you device's kernel. But even if every Android was as closed as a TiVo box, it would still be an open-source victory. It would just be a victory more relevant to the manufacturers world than to the users world.
Chrome OS device are similarly hackable, each Chromebook having a switch to turn on Developer Mode. I took advantage of this to run a Debian chroot in my Chromebook's linux system.
More generally, I find it ironic that people complain about Android and Chrome OS not being "real Linux". For years we have had flame wars about Linux vs GNU/Linux terminology, and now people say that Androids and Chromebooks don't really run Linux because they are not anything like a GNU environment. Turns out the Linux vs GNU/Linux distinction is actually useful.
Not that I think Google is exploiting the free software movement or anything, but Google would have never had a chance with Android without the Linux kernel. The Google play stack is the opposite of a free software victory.
I'm tired of hearing all the things Google has done for Linux. Maybe we could talk a little more about how free software has facilitated the growth of one of the top tech companies on the planet.
I think the case can be made that both are true -- Linux desperately needed a way to win public acceptance, Google needed an unencumbered foundation for various projects.
Also, we mustn't forget the snowball effect -- when an operating system gets to a certain point in installed base, it becomes the operating system. All signs are that Linux will get to that point, and Google will have been one of the primary reasons.