Time to unsubscribe from this thread

1 members found this post helpful.

If I'm so wrong
Why is is such a major production to put the gnu stuff back, be it on android or Linux
What gives ? Why can't anyone compile Linux or android to put it on the device ?
Why is the source not available ? Or the drivers ?
If the source was available, there would not be a problem in buying a decide and putting the OS on it
So why is it such a major issue ?'
How can it be corrected ?
Intel does not support Linux on mobile, only closed versions, tizen etc

I didn't read all the posts here, just saw everybody's fighting...

Just want to post this, it was a good *effort*....:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...m-for-the-ipad

Because hardware developers lock it down. Proprietary hardware, etc. etc. All Android is is the Linux kernel. Most of the rest of it is Java, with lots of other specific stuff.

If it were so easy, the brilliant minds of the Linux world would have done it already. If you think it's so easy why haven't you tried?

Much of Linux is community driven. By volunteers. Like this site. To make demands or statements such as "what gives" are inappropriate.

Again, Android is open-source, regardless if you want to believe that or not. What on many mobile devices is not open source is device drivers. At no point are you entitled to get open source device drivers or to demand from hardware manufacturers to build their tablets with hardware that is supported by open source drivers. This has nothing to do with Google (as I said, Android is open source), but anything with hardware manufacturers. So, in conclusion, ranting here about Google is not only totally missing the point, but also changes nothing. Go complain to hardware manufacturers or vote with your wallet, it is up to you. You could also get involved with writing device drivers for hardware that currently has no or bad open source support.
Open source is not for those that demand, but for those that do.

I saw that qmole

People want to fight instead of presenting informative information

Apple is open source too, by the definition of android, you have the Darwin kernel, yet you can't put the OSX on non Apple devices or compile it

Apple is bsd, Linux is gpl, so why can manufacturers do the same as Apple ?

No, Apple is not open. The kernel is not BSD - it is Mach. Neither is OSX, and you can't get the source.
No, Apple is not bsd. It is UNIX, and proprietary.

The GPL on Linux prevents the kernel from being taken private. Any changes to the kernel must also be provided in source. Not true for the BSD license. Unfortunately, drivers are not exactly considered part of the Linux kernel, specially when they can be loaded after the kernel boots.

Next, the GPL is limited to version 2. GPL v 3 would require including the users right to replace the kernel (as in any certificates that lock the kernel to the device must also be provided), which GPL v2 does not.

So why do we allow this on phones tablets but not on PC''s
I'm interested in getting at the problem of this and finding solutions
The point is not to argue but to find the truth and a solution
An open system that can't be installed on any mobile device is not an open system
It puts people off if people are just arguing and contradicting each other and not really interested in conveying useful information
Some useful information has been conveyed, some I knew, most I knew, the question is why and what to do about it

...yet. Next week?
It isn't us "allowing" it as much as us not having any say in the matter. We're the customers with the money, not the manufacturers with the factories.
Only some parts of the android system are open source, and some of those are licenced under the GPL. The only thing that the GPL requires is access to the source code, not that users can load onto whatever hardware they wish. The bits that aren't under the GPL ... we can't do anything with.
About the only option we have is to vote with our wallets, which is what I'm doing. But until a significant number of people start doing the same, nothing's going to change.

The same problem exists on PCs, see the infamous Intel Atom CPUs with PowerVR graphics core, that to this day do not have a fully functional driver. It is up to the hardware manufacturers to decide which OS they support and it is up to you to decide which hardware manufacturer to support with buying (or not buying) their hardware.As I said, possible solutions are:
- Developing drivers for currently unsupported hardware
- Trying to convince hardware manufacturers to provide open drivers for their hardware. You can do this in different ways, be it for example starting a petition or simple with voting with your wallets. Of course sometimes it is more complicated, Imagination Technologies (those with the PowerVR graphics cores), for example, do want to develop open source drivers, but as it seems can't find developers that want to work on that.
I think you are misunderstanding what it means if an OS is open. It means nothing more than having access to the source code, so that you can change it in every way you want. It does not mean that it has to support every hardware out there.

What do you think happened to those RT devices?
There is no solution unless you can get a court to declare it an anti-competition violation or anti-trust violation.
That is currently a choice of the manufacturer.