Greetings to all readers of Desde Linux. This is my first post on this interesting blog, and I hope you like it. I currently have installed Ubuntu on my desktop computer, and recently been involved in the developer and QA community.
My first post will be an "opinion" article, although it will not be my opinions so much, but I will show you the technical evidence on which I support my claims.
The title may seem humorous to many readers; However, among many users and developers of Android and its peers in Linux, consider the Google operating system as one more distro, or failing that, something "very" close to a Linux distribution.
They base this idea on the fact that Android uses the Linux kernel (currently from the 3.3 family, see here). But there are important differences between the green robot, and any distro based on our friend Tux.
Below, several Android features that in a way prevent it from being considered a distro.
1) The Android VM
As expected, Linux works like any kernel: it is between the hardware, and the application layer (this chart illustrates it well). Various tools allow us to interact with it in our distros, such as the GCC compiler, shells, and some text editors such as Vi / Vim.
But on Android this is not the case. In its architecture, the applications are run in a virtual machine called Dalvik (see: JAVA and Android, a love-hate relationship).
This allows Android to be compatible with a wide range of cell phone hardware, at the cost of losing performance. This makes iOS Apple Lossless Audio CODEC (ALAC), exceed Android in all the test benchs, and in this way Ubuntu Touch it will perform better when its final version appears on tablets and mobile phones.
No resources wasted on a virtual machine, but a customized operating system for each model.
Windows 8 is a case apart, and its low popularity is due to the lack of vision of Microsoft, which could well take advantage of this default advantage that their cell phones have.
2) Not everything is GPL !!
Although there are more or less "free" distros, that is, with more or less proprietary software, the vast majority of applications and libraries are under the GPL license (here the types of licenses used in open source are explained).
For its part, Android has a more extensive use of the license Apache. This, like the BSD license, does not require that software developed from modified free source codes must be copyleft, so any developer can make proprietary software from code under the Apache license.
Google is greatly benefited by this license, as it can obtain all the benefits of free software, without incurring the responsibility of sharing its developments.
What is controversial is what Google does with what is GPL. For those who know English, here is an article by Florian Muller, FOSS (free-and-open-source-software) patent specialist.
It maintains that Google has been "washing" (manipulating) the header files of the modules bluez, Bionic and the file system ext4 to get rid of the GPL license.
On the Internet there are many discussions on this topic (unfortunately a lot of material in English), if you search for "GPL laundering" you will get many articles that exemplify these supposed Google practices.
However, Linus Torvalds it maintains that these complaints are "garbage", although it admits "that it has not noticed what exactly Google does about Linux headers."
But the controversy continues among free software advocates. Torvalds continues to reject such criticism, and to his detractors he is simply against the FSF, and is promoting his kernel above the principles on which GNU / Linux stands.
3) Lots of proprietary software
It is not necessary to elaborate much on this point. Many cell phone and tablet applications are proprietary software.
With respect to Android, it has many non-free binaries, as well as various libraries and firmware, and an important part of Cyanogen ....
Above all, the source code of Android 3.0 itself (everything that is not imported from Linux and the open source and free projects) was not published. Google also does not plan to release the version 3.1 code.
To see more: Is Android free software? Richard Stallman says no
Although Stallman's positions sometimes seem extreme to me, the truth is that Google only takes advantage of the benefits of free software, but does not contribute to the communities by releasing the Android code.
4) Where is the console? What about text editors? And Gnome? KDE? XFCE?….
As I already told you, between the kernel and the rest of the OS there is a virtual machine, so to run the terminal you have to use an emulator (Android Terminal Emulator).
For its part, the famous GNU text editors (Vim, gedit) are not installed by default, and you have to look for them in the Google Appstore. And Android has its own graphical environment, nothing Gnome, KDE, XFCE…. Although there are user projects to be able to install these Linux environments on an Android device.
These are the main reasons why Android cannot be considered a distro, some more powerful than others. I hope you like my post, and I await your comments. As well as recommendations for future posts.
See you, friends Desde Linux!!!
I jump ahead @NANO and say Android with its outdated, outdated, slow Java Dalvik engine sucks ...
If Android were really a GNU / Linux - Linux by volume, it would be written in C like any other application and it would not take those tremendous 4-core machines and those gross amounts of ram to work decently, we all know that iOS and WP8 work very well with 2 cores of 1Ghz and 512 of ram (they are even loose), on the other hand, on android it is a shame that phones of USD $ 1.ooo freeze from time to time in any application.
Greetings.
Oh FirefoxOS how I love you !!! <3
In fact not only FxOS, the Ubuntu Phone itself promises much more performance and if I did not misunderstand an even greater convergence thanks to Oxide.
Oxide is basically an instance of Chromium that replaces qt-webkit and that allows developing htlm5 apps much easier than with the previously mentioned engine and that can be used for Ubuntu and Ubuntu Phone, what does this mean? That your html5 app would work out of the box on both systems, without changing anything at all.
I personally see that Canonical gets some things right but doesn't see others.
Oxide For those interested
I've been disconnected from information about GNU / Linux for a while ,,,: / but, with Ubuntu phone you mean the Ubuntu edge project?
For the same reason I want Tizen to come out (it's like FxOS but more complete)… also if Samsumg takes it out they themselves could port it to all their terminals, right?
Meh, if the manufacturers of smartphones with Android gave a greater importance to it, that problem would not have really occurred. I changed the factory ROM to my Samsung Galaxy Mini because the version of Android that I had could no longer be updated in a traditional way, and I had to put the CyanogenMod 10.1 adapted for my cell phone, and this time I am more fluid than ever and that is based on Android 4.2.2).
With regard to programming languages, the most practical thing is for QT to launch a stable version for these cell phones, and thus not be suffering with Java, Eclipse and other camel humps.
And by the way, these slowdowns of those very expensive cell phones are often due to layer 8 errors of most of the users of those smartphones (rather, PDA's).
I disagree with you on the issue that the slowdown is produced by layer 8, I have a dual core computer with 1 GB of ram (any linux with 1GB of RAM is loose), it has a custom rom with Android 4.1.2 (Jelly MOD 4.0) , Kernel COCORE E-5.0 and it works super good, but that does not mean that every few days it has to be restarted because the computer stops responding and that has happened to me with all the Android that I have had, both with the official ROM's and with the custom ones Except for CyanogenMOD, which really is a blast, but still, once in a while you have to reboot. And I tell you that the installed applications are few, the typical ones of Google, Waze, Ndrive, Whatsapp and PowerAMP for music (music lover to die), I even have it without transition effects or any paraphernalia, just and necessary for my leisure and work, not even games.
I think I identify a bit with @NANO's thinking about Android, I think it's a good system, but that their APPS have to work on java seems the worst to me, if communication with the hardware were more "direct" , You would not need to have those tremendous equipment to work well, I tell you with knowledge of the facts, Windows Phone 8 and iOS work great with half the hardware that I have.
Greetings.
As far as I know, my brother who still has the factory ROM, hasn't rebooted his smartphone and hasn't had those app freezing issues. On the other hand, with my already condescending Samsung Galaxy Mini, I had to change its ROM because there was no way to update it with a new version of Android by Samsung, so I had to resort to ClockworkMod Recovery and CyanogenMod to update it in one go. once and for all, and thus I managed to install the applications that asked me for a more recent version of Android (I hope that the stable CM 10.2 comes out for my cell phone).
As for Java, I completely agree, since before the fashion of smartphones began, Java ME was used, which in one way or another, completely devoured the battery.
I always wondered why there are new cell phones with 8 cores and 2GB of RAM, what applications require that? it's just a cell phone.
I think maybe it's a "more the merrier" marketing campaign, but looking at your comment, I understand why.
Besides that they are a trend about planned obsolescence… a terminal 1.0 comes out this year and the following year comes out the 2.0 with double everything except the battery life.
Long live CyanogenMod and Omni.
Excellent article, I learned a few things reading it .. 😉
Very interesting, simple and right to understand what this is about. Regards.
No lies, no biased subjectivisms, supporting each point with reliable sources, no misinformation.
This is how you write an article, thank you and congratulations.
Excellent article, I totally agree on everything, I have always thought that Android is not a GNU / Linux distribution, much less Free Software, Google has always taken advantage of SL without contributing much to the community (example: Chromium, Chromium OS). Regards.
Excellent post, I was wrong, I believed that cyanogen mod was 100% free.
And much less now that it has become a company «Cyanogen Inc»
In fact, that's why they released OmniRom ... something like an "OpenCyanogenMod": http://omnirom.org/
Tremendous thing about the GPL laundering D: is it true?
As you say "for those who know English" here is a reference to the full article on GPL laundry: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/more-evidence-of-googles-habit-of-gpl.html
Very good article. Simple and clear. Thanks for posting.
It's simple, android doesn't follow the lsb standards, so it won't be compatible with soft distributions, it uses a type of maq. virtual java, and until recently it also forked the kernel. It is closer to being an op system. firmware than a gnu distribution with linux kernel. Anyway it uses the linux kernel, as well as busybox and so many embedded systems that don't fit into gnu.
I did not seem to read any real rationale that android is not a distro, what is it that makes something or not a linux distro? Where is that established? Who has established what is and what is not a distro?
If we spin it fine, Ubuntu is not a linux distro, it will have its own graphic server, its own desktop environment, it is owned by a company. etc..
The distros are GNU / Linux and the first part I think is the most important, the one that Android doesn't have.
A Linux distribution (often called distro for short) is an operating system built on top of the Linux kernel and often around a package management system. A Linux distribution can be specific to a certain type of hardware device, like supercomputers (eg Rocks Cluster Distribution) or embedded systems (eg OpenWrt), or be compiled for various instruction sets and be designed to run on various hardware types (eg Debian) .
Well yes, as long as a standard is not established of what a distro should carry, articles like this will come out.
There are performance issues that are undeniable, and it is stupid to say that Android is a good OS knowing the potential that linux has, and fanboys only rely on the number of their appstore to say that it is better than iOS or WP. But from that to saying that it is not a linux distro there is quite a distance.
It is both a matter of perspective and technicalities, but it all depends on how you see it, I think that one of the advantages of android is the large community of users and collaborators since for now it is still the most used OS for mobile phones, it's like USB jack 2.0, all smartphones have it except Apple products
Regarding the enormous number of apps that Android has in the Google Play Store, many of them are literally useless. I have chosen the applications that have really been useful to me such as Link2SD and S2E, as well as some multimedia applications such as Winamp.
Most likely, Android will become a fork of Linux, but in itself I would like the people of XDA Developers to adapt the Firefox OS to mid-range models such as the Samsung Galaxy Mini to fully enjoy it.
It seems to me a very interesting article, a lot of information that is good to know, now I explain why there is no need to recompile Android to use it on such a wide range of devices, as it happens with FirefoxOS or UbuntuTouch
The article is quite out of date (I think it is a copypaste of something written when Android was in version 3 [Honeycomb], let me doubt) since it does not mention ICS, Jellybean or even KitKat.
If it were not free software, AOSP (Android Open Source Project, or the so-called pure Android) could not even exist. Even less custom ROMs (Cyanogen, Paranoid, PAC, Open Kang, Illusion…).
That it does not include the GNU tools by default (and that is what hurts Mr. Stallman) does not mean that they are not free. In fact the Android code is in Google git.
Many developers collaborate in XDA to make ROMS based on the Android code, and if it is necessary to use GNU tools, Busybox is installed that comes with all that you mention (vi, vim, nano)
The SD can be partitioned in ext4 format and Android reads it by default. You can even expand the swap of the phone using a partition on the SD.
The fact that a DESKTOP graphical environment cannot be installed (there are no italics), does not mean that it is not free, apart from not being feasible due to the size of the fingers. On tablets things change.
And a Linux distribution is that operating system that has the Linux kernel. Android carries the Linux kernel, ergo it is a Linux distribution.
Not that the article is out of date, I talked about Android version 3.X, because it was the one available when Stallman gave his opinion.
It's not copypaste either, and I'm sorry you believe it, because it took me my time to gather the information to make a more or less sustained post.
And about free software, I already clarified the differences between Android and other distros. Google takes great advantage of the use of Apache licenses, and it is also true that the Android source code, of no version and that includes the current ones, was published.
Is it conceivable that there is a distro that doesn't share your code? Android is a hybrid, with its kernel and some modules under the GPL licenses, other things with Apache (which so far is not directly compatible with the GPL license), and the rest is proprietary software.
Can you conceive of a distro that runs on a VM?
I can't believe some would argue that the same can be argued with Ubuntu. While Canonical is quite apart from other communities, it is definitely linux. Most of its code and software are under the GPL license.
Pablo, your "ergo" is misused, it is a very basic simplification. Suppose that tomorrow Android does everything proprietary, but it stays with the Linux kernel. Are you going to continue considering it a distro?
You have to be careful with Google, and not get carried away by the enthusiasm that most cell phones and tablets use the Linux kernel. Well, Google is a great beneficiary of free software, but its contributions to the Linux community in general are few. Android has its own community working for Google, and it all ends there, the Linux world is not benefiting from most of the developments for Android.
It may sound extreme to you, but the Apache and BSD licenses are only used so that companies have people working for free. Communities of developers offering their time and effort to improve the products of many companies, which then make these developments proprietary.
The good thing about free software is that communities receive the benefits of their work, through improvements on what they had published. If the recipient of the freely distributed codes distributes his developments privately, he is only a beneficiary, but not a benefactor for the communities. I recommend reading the classic "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond (although this is identified with open source software, and not free).
And I answer to Felipe: that behind a distro there is a company, does not mean that it is less free or cannot be considered a Linux. Red Hat is a company, the same as Novell (has SUSE), and Mandriva. IBM uses Linux a lot, and ORACLE has its own distro (although this company really isn't trustworthy at all, just look what it did to OpenSolaris and OpenOffice)
Android does not run on a VM (Dalvik), it is the applications that are on it. The UI is written in Java, but the components (kernel and libraries) are in C and C ++. This is to ensure the interoperability of the applications on the different Android terminals.
Here the Android git: https://android.googlesource.com/
I correct myself:
Can you think of a distro that runs its applications by VM?
And as I already explained, this ensures compatibility and interoperability, but at the cost of performance.
Google's write:
"The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, Version 2.0 (" Apache 2.0 ″) "
And the GNUs write about the Apache 2.0 license:
«This is a free software license compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL.
Note that this license is not compatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL because it has some requirements that are not in that version of the GPL, for example certain provisions on indemnities and patent termination. The provision on patents is good, so for programs of a certain size we recommend using the Apache 2.0 license instead of other lax, permissive licenses. "
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.es.html#apache2
The FSF not only says that the Apache license is compatible with the GPL 3 license, it also recommends it.
Sorry to revive an old post.
The problem is not whether Android is free or not. The vast majority of distributions have proprietary software and that does not mean that they are not "Linux distributions", but they are no longer recommended by the FSF. If we are going to look at what the FSF recommends, we should not use any distribution that has, even a little, proprietary software, and these completely should not be considered free software. But I insist, that does not make them stop being "Linux distributions". According to your analysis, the fact that the FSF considers most of the distributions as non-free software (at least not completely) implies that all of them are not Linux distributions.
You lacked defining the concept of Linux distribution. In the absence of an official definition, we can rely on wikipedia:
“A Linux distribution (colloquially called a distro) is a software distribution based on the Linux kernel that includes certain software packages to meet the needs of a specific group of users, thus creating home, enterprise, and server editions. They are generally made up, totally or mostly, of free software, although they often incorporate proprietary applications or drivers. "
There it says that they generally have mostly free software, but it does not exclude that they may have a lot of proprietary software. Then follow:
“In addition to the Linux kernel, distributions typically include the GNU project libraries and tools and the X Window System. Depending on the type of users to whom the distribution is directed, other types of software are also included such as word processors, spreadsheets, multimedia players, administrative tools, etc. In the case of including tools from the GNU project, it is called a GNU / Linux distribution. »
So if it doesn't have many GNU tools, it doesn't make it stop being a "Linux distribution" either, it just isn't a "GNU / Linux distribution" which is different.
Anyway, I think that Android is a Linux distribution since it uses the Linux kernel and a lot of software on it to make it friendly with a group of users, and it doesn't matter if that software is free or not.
PS: In your article it says "here are explained the types of license used in open source", I think you were referring to the licenses used in Free Software which is not the same as open source.
I honestly do not agree with the conclusion based on the "sustenance" that you give evidence that it is not a distro. Having a particular soft does not make it "not a distro". The definition of a distro is: "Linux kernel-based software distribution that includes certain software packages to meet the needs of a specific group of users." It is now very fashionable to explain the meaning of something by alluding to what it does not mean. Don't think twice, it meets the definition of a distro.
Very article I read it complete. I had long wondered how androi was made. Thank you so much!
It is a distro! period.
Heard that iOS uses the Linux kernel. If this is true: is iOS also a distro?
You heard wrong, the iOS kernel is based on Darwin.
iOS does not use the Linux kernel. Rather, they use the DarwinBSD kernel with the Mach microkernel, just like OSX.
Thanks to both of you for the clarification!
Very good article. What's more, to add, the main factor that the smartphone suffers from such horrible slowdowns is because they are due to layer 8 errors. I have optimized my smartphone and have not had any slowdown problems.
There is an Android port to atomX86 on this page
http://www.android-x86.org/download
So far 4.2.2 is not stable well to say.
And much less for someone who is used to Debian Stability, right ?! 🙂
Good thing I tried it in Live-CD mode.
excellent article, always hated bad android implementation. its slowness and worst of all its false argument of being completely free. For those who consider it a distro just for using the linux kernel, I will mention that webOS also uses a linux kernel and not for that reason it is a linux distribution, the same happens with firefoxOS that also works under a linux kernel.
finally I would like to remind you that android does not use xorg, nor wayland and no one seems to bother (I mean the annoyance that many have with mir).
I've tried it and apparently many apps run better on Window $ Phone and iOS than on Android. I hope that with Ubuntu Phone, Linux has more users (But of course, also more programs and I hope they are Free Software)
Good article! How curious that "GPL laundering".
I don't know andrioid because I don't have a smartphone. I thought that, although it brings its own applications, by having Linux you could do the same things as in GNU / Linux, but it seems that it is not so. How does it have no terminal ?!
To say that it is an excellent article still falls short. Very good information, thanks to Android the reputation of the penguin has been stained especially by the aspect that there is already as much malware for Android almost as there is for Windows.
However, I use it, because of the Google services that synchroize and integrate with Android. XD
M'ijo, the Android thing is because many of the cell phone manufacturers do not update their devices that support Android in a homogeneous way, in addition to imitating the programmed obsolescence system that Apple does with its iDevices.
With my CyanogenMod and ClockworkMod Recovery, I have managed to get my humble Samsung Galaxy Mini to run on Android 4.2.2, knowing full well that Samsung imposed a limit on the versions that Android should support.
Android is still much more secure than windows. Staining? That people like it is staining it? That people use it for being free is staining it? That people are using Linux massively for the first time is tainting it? That linux is not in a dark alley only for the insiders, is it tainting it?
In truth, this already borders on fanaticism.
Excellent article! I liked it a lot, I encourage you to continue writing!
Very good article, I liked the links you left a lot… .. and then I agree that android is not considered a distro…. 🙂
What I don't understand is why the hell they choose to write «customized» instead of «personalized»… .q mania… .. that's as if an Englishman instead of writing in his language «customized» wrote «personalized» or «personalizing» instead of "customizing"… ..
+1
This article should be the new official reference article for the introduction to Android in Spanish.
I really want to see how Ubuntu evolve (no matter how Debian is in the background, fuch off, it is pure GNU + Linux !!), Tizen - Samsung announced that a model of the S5 may be released with this OS - and Jolla 😀
I really liked the post, although I have several doubts, then BSD and Solar (which I think runs java applications) if they are right-handed ??? And what about Slaptop? And now the other way around, should the y system have a HURT kernel? Or if I remember correctly OpenOffice requires java, right?
I do not seek to contradict or ratify your post that I think is very good, I only provide more data, of course to enliven the "flame war" XD
I believe that you can differentiate between "linux distro" and "GNU / Linux distro"
Well and now another question, as you mentioned, where to find the way to install a Desktop Envelopment? I would like to try Enlightenment e17, KDE or elementary and its Pantheon Shell
Good post !, 😀 I learned a lot today xD hehehehe
Regards!
they do not consider that android is a linux distro just out of sheer envy, with android they have achieved what no one else has done and that is to get a linux distro better than all the others but of course it is not done according to the "geek" rules linuxeros do not recognize it as a distro ...
Android would be an excellent OS if it weren't from google, and it had a GPL license, unfortunately when a corporation like google, canonical, RH, etc. wants to make money, their users are worth shit, which ironically is the most important thing
.. let's see ... let's see ... clarify this for me because I THOUGHT I WAS RIGHT IN BASING ON THIS TO SAY THAT A SOFTWARE IS OR NOT A LINUX DISTRO or compatible or acceptable to call it ANY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM -> ::: I have a hardware «x» y I can run WITHOUT EMULATORS a linux distro… .for other software to be a linux distro, it MUST ALSO run without emulators on said hardware platform perfectly… .or am I wrong?… .Now, can ANY linux distro be run WITHOUT EMULATORS on android hardware?… Can android be run WITHOUT EMULATING on a hardware designed for linux?… .Rta: therefore, “Android” CANNOT BE LINUX or a linux distro…. According to my criteria THAT SHOULD BE THE FOCUS not theoretical but PRACTICAL. but here I am not exposing my criteria but ASKING WHAT IS THEORETICAL SII… .Is it or is it not like this as I also say in theory?… ..I believe that PRECISELY THAT IS WHAT MAKES DIFFERENT SYSTEMS EXIST: NOT THEIR LOGICAL OR SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURES = BUT THE HARDWARE IN WHICH THEY SUPPORT OR DO NOT SUPPORT TO WORK xD !!! ...
... I "answer" myself so as not to make another entry ... it is to clarify this: I PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND THAT = TEEE – OOORICAAA-MENTEEE siii you can, for example, run a linux distro on an android cell phone or tablet but the HARDWARE that IMPOSES each manufacturer aims at… AND ACHIEVES !! that this theory is not applicable to practice due to its interest in SUBMITTING ITS BUYERS TO USE JAVA AND TO APPLY SAID HARDWARE DEVICE EXCLUSIVELY FOR WHAT THE MANUFACTURER WANTS NOT FOR THE FREEDOMS OF THE BUYER .... which also leaves it even out of power consider the executable software on that device as "free software"… .but those impediments of HARWARE = SIII prevent the free and full use of the linux kernell AND IN FACT THEY PREVENT IT COMPLETELY WITHOUT AN APPLICATION OF ITS that allows the communication of java with the kernell AND ONLY PARTIAL COMMANDS NOT THE TOTALITY ... in addition, all the kernell commands ARE NOT INCLUDED in the pseudokernell that android uses but ONLY WHAT IS YOUR NEED AND CONVENIENCE, nothing more ... I thought it important to clarify that IF I know this to possible people who wish answer me ...
So you have Linux parts. Even so, it has inherited many of its benefits. Security, stability, robust architecture.
Although there is something that makes me noise, why so many problems with GPL and proprietary software? Does Linux have to be synonymous with free and free?
The truth is that I see Linux more as a software architecture, more than a philosophy. Whether it is free or not, free or not, seem to me semantic issues, far removed from what is the technical definition. If I sell you a Linux, is it not Linux anymore? If it is part of your code is it proprietary, is it no longer Linux? Those definitions do not fit me.
The all-seeing eye…
That is the explanation for all the doubts my dear ones, and it is not bad at all, when a company grows bigger and more powerful, it changes its course or is "forced" to change its course. The answer would have to come from us by not using their products. Are all hardware manufacturers committed to privacy? It would be a topic for an entry to read.
Greetings.
very good article ... although doubts remain ... thanks to the comments and concerns provided ...