Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #242585 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-08 16:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-05-09 09:51 -0400 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 72 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 16:18 +0000
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 18:44 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 11:41 -0700
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-08 11:45 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-08 19:33 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 11:47 -0700
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-08 14:44 -0500
Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-08 16:42 -0400
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 22:45 +0200
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 13:49 -0700
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 13:46 -0700
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:26 +0000
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-09 02:38 +0000
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-09 05:52 -0400
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 07:37 -0400
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 06:56 -0500
Re: Windows, the OS that hides that it is VMS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 19:39 -0700
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-08 23:25 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-08 23:20 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-08 19:53 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 07:34 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 09:18 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:39 +0000
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-08 19:50 -0700
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 14:46 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:21 +0000
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:24 +0000
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-08 23:20 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 10:35 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-09 11:08 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 09:38 +0000
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 06:51 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 14:19 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 08:59 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 13:34 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 08:58 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-09 08:03 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 08:45 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 10:09 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-09 06:49 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 13:52 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 09:30 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 15:33 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-09 07:55 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-09 08:17 -0700
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 10:51 -0700
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 07:24 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2014-05-09 13:33 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-09 10:06 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-05-09 09:21 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 09:46 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 09:28 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-09 09:09 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-09 15:20 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-09 10:40 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-16 11:50 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-16 11:52 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 12:59 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-16 07:31 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 06:46 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 12:59 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-16 18:15 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 12:39 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-16 16:44 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 13:01 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-16 18:46 +0100
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 13:10 -0500
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-16 16:46 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-16 16:53 -0400
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-05-09 04:38 -0700
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 13:40 +0200
Re: An Android All-In-One @ #9 in Desktops? Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-09 09:51 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 12:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll5g5a$ha2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #243974 |
On 5/16/2014 7:31 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Lusotec wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> DFS wrote: >>>> >>>>> "the massive chore of completely integrating the code bases is not >>>>> complete." >>>>> >>>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/app-builder/linux-kernel-33-reunites- >>>>> android-and-linuxs-mainline/1089 >>>> >>>> No support in the quote for a "heavily modified [Linux] kernel" noted! >>> >>> Because 'massive chore to integrate' means lightly modified? >> >> No, and it doesn't mean "heavily modified" either! >> >> <snip> >> >> Select a Android kernel version and compare it to the equivalent main tree >> Linux version. Then select two consecutive main tree Linux versions and >> compare those. Then compare the comparisons and see if you consider the >> Android Linux version a heavily modified version of the main tree Linux >> version. >> >> For the Android Linux to main tree Linux I selected the oldest Android >> kernel, 2.6.39, that was release before anything from the Android project >> was committed to the main tree Linux. I'm assuming this version has the >> largest difference to the main tree Linux but you can prove me wrong by >> making the comparison for other version(s). I selected the most recent two >> consecutive version of main tree Linux, 3.13 and 3.14. > > I snipped the details. I simply wanted to note how DFS argues (via > "quotes") versus how Lusotec argues (via concrete demonstration). They're not "quotes" Creepy. They're direct quotes from people that know a heck of a lot more than you about the effort involved to sync Android and mainline kernels. Torvalds and Hartman say it was a lot of work, which means the Android kernel was heavily modified, which served to separate it even further from the "Linux" you advocate morons claimed it was. > And anybody who peruses the linux.kernel newsgroup every day will see dozens > of changes in the Linux kernel every day. > > I suppose DFS will also consider Microsoft's efforts to integrate hyper-V > support into Linux a "massive chore" (just like the "media" did), when a > large part of the work was simply Microsoft cleaning up after themselves. I would only consider Hyper-V integration a "massive chore" if people who know what they're talking about said it was. I defer to the experts: I'd come to you for advice on QAing Windows code and weekly allowances from the wife, but I'd listen to Torvalds and Kroah-Hartman for advice on merging Android and mainline.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 18:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ll5h2r$pi4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #244011 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 DFS wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> Lusotec wrote: >>> Select a Android kernel version and compare it to the equivalent main >>> tree Linux version. Then select two consecutive main tree Linux versions >>> and compare those. Then compare the comparisons and see if you consider >>> the Android Linux version a heavily modified version of the main tree >>> Linux version. >>> >>> For the Android Linux to main tree Linux I selected the oldest Android >>> kernel, 2.6.39, that was release before anything from the Android >>> project was committed to the main tree Linux. I'm assuming this version >>> has the largest difference to the main tree Linux but you can prove me >>> wrong by making the comparison for other version(s). I selected the most >>> recent two consecutive version of main tree Linux, 3.13 and 3.14. >> >> I snipped the details. I simply wanted to note how DFS argues (via >> "quotes") versus how Lusotec argues (via concrete demonstration). > > They're not "quotes" Creepy. They're direct quotes from people that > know a heck of a lot more than you about the effort involved to sync > Android and mainline kernels. Torvalds and Hartman say it was a lot of > work, which means the Android kernel was heavily modified, The problem with your reasoning is that "lot of work" does not imply "heavily modified". In programming the amount of work (needed) is not proportional to the amount of modifications produces. Minor changes can take a "lot of work" while large changes can take little work. > which served to separate it even further from the "Linux" you advocate > morons claimed it was. Too bad that a Linux version bump from 3.13 to 3.14 involved about 30 times more modifications than your "heavily modified" kernel. It is a bummer when facts don't support your delusions! >> And anybody who peruses the linux.kernel newsgroup every day will see >> dozens of changes in the Linux kernel every day. >> >> I suppose DFS will also consider Microsoft's efforts to integrate hyper-V >> support into Linux a "massive chore" (just like the "media" did), when a >> large part of the work was simply Microsoft cleaning up after themselves. > > > I would only consider Hyper-V integration a "massive chore" if people > who know what they're talking about said it was. > > I defer to the experts: I'd come to you for advice on QAing Windows code > and weekly allowances from the wife, but I'd listen to Torvalds and > Kroah-Hartman for advice on merging Android and mainline. Your "defer to the expert" by putting words in their mouths. Neither Torvalds nor Kroah-Hartman used the expression "heavily modified" or anything equivalent. Regards. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlN2R5oACgkQGQjO2ccW76pGAQD+Oigpt6cq0E1AwyBtb2Fr1Q7K +Y+iDpcsF3ctNggtJMcA/ix1jB3feO3//UKU5g7VLHXZcs64F7NQZcHUcrqXvw20 =d9jq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 12:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eqicn99id18rkbsvjohu31r3lvcn2g505l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #244022 |
Lusotec wrote: >The problem with your reasoning is that "lot of work" does not imply >"heavily modified". It's like talking to a brick wall. Like trying to explain to "Hadron" that setting an amplifier's gain, which is then stable, has got nothing to do with whether or not the amplifier is stable. He'll just keep repeating nonsense like "Negative feedback loops are introduced into circuits to provide stability", which is absolutely FALSE. -- "Negative feedback loops ARE introduced into circuits to provide stability and also to provide noise reduction." - "Hadron", putting his ignorance on display
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll5tbs$h3g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #244022 |
Lusotec wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > DFS wrote: > >> <repeat-o-matic idiocy snipped> > > The problem with your reasoning is that "lot of work" does not imply > "heavily modified". In programming the amount of work (needed) is not > proportional to the amount of modifications produces. Minor changes can take > a "lot of work" while large changes can take little work. > >> <repeat-o-matic idiocy snipped> > > Too bad that a Linux version bump from 3.13 to 3.14 involved about 30 times > more modifications than your "heavily modified" kernel. It is a bummer when > facts don't support your delusions! > >> <repeat-o-matic idiocy snipped> > > Your "defer to the expert" by putting words in their mouths. Neither > Torvalds nor Kroah-Hartman used the expression "heavily modified" or > anything equivalent. The DFS troll will quibble endlessly about terms, no matter how much you show him. All the more to distract you from the main point... ultimately the Android changes were merged seamlessly in to the mainstream Linux kernel, roughly *two* years ago, around kernel 3.3. We're now at kernel 3.14 (heh heh) in the stable line. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/android-and-linux-re-merge-into-one-operating-system/10625 Android has always been Linux, but for years the Android project went its own way and its code wasn't merged back into the main Linux tree. Now, much sooner than Linus Torvalds, Linux's founder and lead developer, had expected, Android has officially merged back into Linux's mainline. Let Sneerboi sneer. He's an idiot. -- "Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 13:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll5ga9$ha2$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #243972 |
On 5/16/2014 6:50 AM, Lusotec wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > DFS wrote: >> Lusotec wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>>> Lusotec wrote: >>>>> Android *never* used a "heavily modified [Linux] kernel" >>>> >>>> Where do you get your fantasies from? >>> >>> It is called reality! You and Lloyd may want to do some fact checks >>> before posting. >>> >>>> "the massive chore of completely integrating the code bases is not >>>> complete." >>>> >>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/app-builder/linux-kernel-33-reunites- >>>> android-and-linuxs-mainline/1089 >>> >>> No support in the quote for a "heavily modified [Linux] kernel" noted! >> >> Because 'massive chore to integrate' means lightly modified? > > No, and it doesn't mean "heavily modified" either! > >>>> Also: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html >> >> >>>> Also: "At LinuxCon, Torvalds explained, that “there's still a lot of >>>> merger to be done. ... but that eventually Android and Linux would come >>>> back to a common kernel, but it will probably not be for four to five >>>> years.” >>>> >>>> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-android-the- > linux- >>>> fork/9426 >>> >>> Again, no support in the quote for a "heavily modified [Linux] kernel" >>> noted! >> >> Because 'a lot of merger to be done' and 'eventually...four or five >> years away' means lightly modified? > > No, and it doesn't mean "heavily modified" either! > >>> Android's Linux and main tree Linux principal differences were mainly >>> wakelock, earlysuspend, Android security model, another frame buffer and >>> drivers. None of these involved heavy modifications to Linux. >> >> ha! You and the rest of the world - including serious kernel hackers >> Kroah-Hartman and Torvalds - have different interpretations of 'heavily >> modified'. > > You are the one claiming they consider it 'heavily modified' but they did > not use such words. Being a "massive chore to integrate" or a "a lot of > merger to be done" is not equivalent to "heavily modified". > >> I'm sensing you're another IT Sooperman. Did you merge the Android and >> mainline kernels over a sunny weekend out by the pool while sipping >> margaritas? > > I'm not a "IT Sooperman" but I at least know a bit of what I'm talking > about. But you and Lloyd don't have to believe me or anyone else. You can > simply look at the kernels and see for yourselves. Like I'm doing bellow. > > Select a Android kernel version and compare it to the equivalent main tree > Linux version. Then select two consecutive main tree Linux versions and > compare those. Then compare the comparisons and see if you consider the > Android Linux version a heavily modified version of the main tree Linux > version. > > For the Android Linux to main tree Linux I selected the oldest Android > kernel, 2.6.39, that was release before anything from the Android project > was committed to the main tree Linux. I'm assuming this version has the > largest difference to the main tree Linux but you can prove me wrong by > making the comparison for other version(s). I selected the most recent two > consecutive version of main tree Linux, 3.13 and 3.14. > > Here are the links for the versions I used, with the corresponding dates. > > https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+archive/android-2.6.39.tar.gz > (Mon Sep 10 12:57:30 2012 -0700) > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.39.tar.xz > (19-May-2011 04:21) > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/linux-3.13.tar.xz > (20-Jan-2014 02:59) > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/linux-3.14.tar.xz > (14-Apr-2014 18:44) > > I extract these tar ball and run the following commands to make the > comparisons. > > $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-2.6.39 \ > linux-android-2.6.39 | diffstat | tail -n1 > 579 files changed, 6850 insertions(+), 1988 deletions(-) > > $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-3.13 \ > linux-3.14 | diffstat | tail -n1 > 9074 files changed, 229934 insertions(+), 157688 deletions(-) > > For curiosity, lets remove the drivers tree and see what that changes. > > $ rm -Rf linux-2.6.39/drivers linux-android-2.6.39/drivers \ > linux-3.13/drivers linux-3.14/drivers > > $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-2.6.39 \ > linux-android-2.6.39 | diffstat | tail -n1 > 326 files changed, 3927 insertions(+), 1128 deletions(-) > > $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-3.13 \ > linux-3.14 | diffstat | tail -n1 > 4546 files changed, 107554 insertions(+), 69067 deletions(-) > > Excluding the drivers, the number are almost halved but the general picture > stays mostly the same. > > - From the above numbers it is easy to see that the differences for Android > Linux 2.6.39 to main tree Linux 2.6.39 is many times smaller than the > differences for two consecutive main tree Linux versions, 3.13 and 3.14. > > If the differences of two consecutive main tree Linux versions (3 months > apart) is many times larger than the differences of a Android version to > main tree Linux version then I don't see how the Android Linux version can > be "heavily modified", unless one considers two consecutive version of Linux > to be "heavily modified" times 30! Nice analysis. Wish more cola people made the effort to back up their blithering (not that you blithered). Unfortunately, it's misleading. A count of the number of changes gives no indication about the relative size and difficulty of those changes. And you can't change the statements by Torvalds and Hartman, who know much more about the effort than you; 'massive chore' and 'lot of merger to be done' and 'eventually...four or five years away' is good enough for me. It's beside the main point, anyway, which is that the modified kernel, Apache-licensed, corporate-developed and heavily marketed Android OS bears no resemblance to a traditional mainline kernel, GPL-licensed, community-developed and unmarketed Linux distro. People ignore Linux on the desktop, and they didn't choose Android on their smartphone (or tablets) because of the modified Linux kernel. In fact, Google and even Ubuntu barely mention the word Linux on their websites (which is a bit of an insult). Calling Android "Linux" is a big fat lie, but it's what advocates hang their hats on. >>> All these were >>> additions to Linux that did not replace, remove or significantly change >>> any of the existing code. They introduced some duplication with existing >>> features and that was one of the problem raised by the Linux maintainers. >>> >>> Several of the Android features were applied to Linux but due to poor >>> maintenance/interest from Google were later removed. If Linux was >>> "heavily modified" by these patches then it would be very unlikely that >>> the patches would have been merged in the first place and later removed. >>> >>> Regards >> >> Have a nice day! >> >> (that's what we say here in the States) > > And a nice saying it is! :) > > Have a nice day! You too. Don't hurt yourself lifting any heavy modifications...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 18:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ll5it9$6id$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #244015 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 DFS wrote: > Lusotec wrote: >> I'm not a "IT Sooperman" but I at least know a bit of what I'm talking >> about. But you and Lloyd don't have to believe me or anyone else. You can >> simply look at the kernels and see for yourselves. Like I'm doing bellow. >> >> Select a Android kernel version and compare it to the equivalent main >> tree Linux version. Then select two consecutive main tree Linux versions >> and compare those. Then compare the comparisons and see if you consider >> the Android Linux version a heavily modified version of the main tree >> Linux version. >> >> For the Android Linux to main tree Linux I selected the oldest Android >> kernel, 2.6.39, that was release before anything from the Android project >> was committed to the main tree Linux. I'm assuming this version has the >> largest difference to the main tree Linux but you can prove me wrong by >> making the comparison for other version(s). I selected the most recent >> two consecutive version of main tree Linux, 3.13 and 3.14. >> >> Here are the links for the versions I used, with the corresponding dates. >> >> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+archive/android-2.6.39.tar.gz >> (Mon Sep 10 12:57:30 2012 -0700) >> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.39.tar.xz >> (19-May-2011 04:21) >> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/linux-3.13.tar.xz >> (20-Jan-2014 02:59) >> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/linux-3.14.tar.xz >> (14-Apr-2014 18:44) >> >> I extract these tar ball and run the following commands to make the >> comparisons. >> >> $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-2.6.39 \ >> linux-android-2.6.39 | diffstat | tail -n1 >> 579 files changed, 6850 insertions(+), 1988 deletions(-) >> >> $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-3.13 \ >> linux-3.14 | diffstat | tail -n1 >> 9074 files changed, 229934 insertions(+), 157688 deletions(-) >> >> For curiosity, lets remove the drivers tree and see what that changes. >> >> $ rm -Rf linux-2.6.39/drivers linux-android-2.6.39/drivers \ >> linux-3.13/drivers linux-3.14/drivers >> >> $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-2.6.39 \ >> linux-android-2.6.39 | diffstat | tail -n1 >> 326 files changed, 3927 insertions(+), 1128 deletions(-) >> >> $ diff --minimal --recursive --ignore-all-space --unified linux-3.13 \ >> linux-3.14 | diffstat | tail -n1 >> 4546 files changed, 107554 insertions(+), 69067 deletions(-) >> >> Excluding the drivers, the number are almost halved but the general >> picture stays mostly the same. >> >> - From the above numbers it is easy to see that the differences for >> Android Linux 2.6.39 to main tree Linux 2.6.39 is many times smaller than >> the differences for two consecutive main tree Linux versions, 3.13 and >> 3.14. >> >> If the differences of two consecutive main tree Linux versions (3 months >> apart) is many times larger than the differences of a Android version to >> main tree Linux version then I don't see how the Android Linux version >> can be "heavily modified", unless one considers two consecutive version >> of Linux to be "heavily modified" times 30! > > > Nice analysis. Wish more cola people made the effort to back up their > blithering (not that you blithered). > > Unfortunately, it's misleading. A count of the number of changes gives > no indication about the relative size and difficulty of those changes. The number of changes gives a exact, objective and direct indication of the relative size of those changes. The difficulty of those changes is another matter that is not in debate. What is being debated is the amount of modifications, or to be precise if "heavily modified" is an appropriate description of Android Linux kernel in relation to the main tree Linux. For that, the numbers above are all that is needed. > And you can't change the statements by Torvalds and Hartman, who know > much more about the effort than you; 'massive chore' and 'lot of merger > to be done' and 'eventually...four or five years away' is good enough > for me. The statements of Torvalds and Hartman refer to the amount of work involved and give no indication of the amount of those modifications. > It's beside the main point, anyway, which is that the modified kernel, > Apache-licensed, Android Linux (the kernel) is still GPL licensed. > corporate-developed and heavily marketed Android OS bears no resemblance > to a traditional mainline kernel, GPL-licensed, community-developed and > unmarketed Linux distro. Most of Android is Apache licensed, but again, licensing was not the matter being debated. > People ignore Linux on the desktop, and they didn't choose Android on > their smartphone (or tablets) because of the modified Linux kernel. People don't choose the kernel and OS on their devices. Most people don't know what a kernel or OS are. > In fact, Google and even Ubuntu barely mention the word Linux on their > websites (which is a bit of an insult). That is not true. <https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.os.linux.advocacy/ FpiY18K4OO4/u32B_lw0RWEJ> > Calling Android "Linux" is a big fat lie, but it's what advocates hang > their hats on. Android uses Linux so there is no lie, fat or thin! Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlN2TugACgkQGQjO2ccW76pP6QD9GD1irg9VTxvhAJ8EqGhpASw1 30oQsYEd7VlNauzfv9gA/RIH5jGiHYF7aiijHnSuxxm8JXf0PuPIHeGtciIgryad =77wG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntkcn9p7hcbluu6glrhe7g3g0u1i2b3lef@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #244027 |
Lusotec wrote: >> Calling Android "Linux" is a big fat lie, but it's what advocates hang >> their hats on. > >Android uses Linux so there is no lie, fat or thin! Ah, so that's what this is all about. "Android isn't Linux, so Linux isn't winning." (rolling eyes) Let the lying, brain-damaged assholes have their (pretend) delusions. We know the truth. Linux *is* winning. :-D -- "(Android) is not a win for Linux." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 16:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll5tep$h3g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #244031 |
chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Lusotec wrote: > >>> Calling Android "Linux" is a big fat lie, but it's what advocates hang >>> their hats on. >> >>Android uses Linux so there is no lie, fat or thin! > > Ah, so that's what this is all about. "Android isn't Linux, so Linux > isn't winning." > > (rolling eyes) > > Let the lying, brain-damaged assholes have their (pretend) delusions. > > We know the truth. Linux *is* winning. :-D And DFS is losing. The Don Quixote of anti-Linux/anti-FLOSS trolls. :-D -- Q: Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together? A: To prevent the sensible ones from going home.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-16 16:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll5tsm$nnv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #244031 |
On 05/16/2014 02:10 PM, chrisv wrote: > Lusotec wrote: > >>> Calling Android "Linux" is a big fat lie, but it's what advocates hang >>> their hats on. >> >> Android uses Linux so there is no lie, fat or thin! > > Ah, so that's what this is all about. "Android isn't Linux, so Linux > isn't winning." > > (rolling eyes) > > Let the lying, brain-damaged assholes have their (pretend) delusions. > > We know the truth. Linux *is* winning. :-D Get with the program, turd: Linux won! (even if hardly anyone uses it by choice)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 04:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9aa02061-e063-42bc-9b1b-8e6fc16216e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #242585 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote: > HP is selling a Slate 21-k1000 All In One Touchscreen Desktop, > and it's number 9 in Desktop sales at Amazon ... > > The top 10 ... > http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/565098/ref=sr_bs_1 Goodness, a lot has changed within the 19 hours that RonB had posted the above; the HP Slate that he cited has dropped from #9 to #16. See: <http://www.huntzinger.com/usenet/Amazon-2014-05-09-1130GMT.pdf> > That darn Linux just keeps showing up everywhere > ... looks like the Malware Magnet OS company from > Redmond is losing its hold on their old OEMS. "Malware Magnet"? Headline from four days ago: "Symantec calls antivirus 'doomed' as security giants fight for survival" <http://www.zdnet.com/antivirus-is-dead-long-live-the-antivirus-7000029078/> In a nutshell, all OSs have become sufficiently less bad at security, such that the preferred malware vector is now through social engineering exploits of the human behind the keyboard, and that the specific OS is functionally irrelevant. > More choice on the way and ... you know ... > choice is good. Looks like someone needs to head down to his local wine store to begin to educate himself on the difference between real and faux differentiators. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 13:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87iopf41u0.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #242723 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> writes: > On Thursday, May 8, 2014 12:18:30 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote: >> HP is selling a Slate 21-k1000 All In One Touchscreen Desktop, >> and it's number 9 in Desktop sales at Amazon ... >> >> The top 10 ... >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/565098/ref=sr_bs_1 > > Goodness, a lot has changed within the 19 hours > that RonB had posted the above; the HP Slate that > he cited has dropped from #9 to #16. See: > > <http://www.huntzinger.com/usenet/Amazon-2014-05-09-1130GMT.pdf> > >> That darn Linux just keeps showing up everywhere >> ... looks like the Malware Magnet OS company from >> Redmond is losing its hold on their old OEMS. > > "Malware Magnet"? > > Headline from four days ago: > > "Symantec calls antivirus 'doomed' as security giants fight for survival" > > <http://www.zdnet.com/antivirus-is-dead-long-live-the-antivirus-7000029078/> > > In a nutshell, all OSs have become sufficiently > less bad at security, such that the preferred > malware vector is now through social engineering > exploits of the human behind the keyboard, and > that the specific OS is functionally irrelevant. You read a different article to me. I got the idea that they may as well give up! > >> More choice on the way and ... you know ... >> choice is good. > > Looks like someone needs to head down to his local > wine store to begin to educate himself on the > difference between real and faux differentiators. > > -hh -- "I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree. PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 09:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkimhi$r80$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #242723 |
On 14-05-09 07:38 AM, -hh wrote: > > Headline from four days ago: > > "Symantec calls antivirus 'doomed' as security giants fight for survival" > > <http://www.zdnet.com/antivirus-is-dead-long-live-the-antivirus-7000029078/> > > In a nutshell, all OSs have become sufficiently > less bad at security, such that the preferred > malware vector is now through social engineering > exploits of the human behind the keyboard, and > that the specific OS is functionally irrelevant. I saw the same headline. My take from it was that whether we have an anti-virus or not, no difference is being made whatsoever so we might as well simply rely on the operating system's security. See, THAT wasn't enough to stray me away from Windows but having the OS tell me that the battery which came with my laptop was "incompatible" with the machine was. -- Silver Slimer Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web