[SOLVED] How come no other Linux distro runs Andriod applications?

searching_for_answers · 12-27-2009, 04:04 PM

I found this Is the Success of Google's Android a Threat to Free Software? (thanks to linuxtoday.com) and in the end it says

Quote:

Worse, if efforts to enable Android apps to run on distros like Ubuntu succeed, then we may see closed-source software being used on the free software stack there, too. Ironically, Android's success could harm not just open source's chances in the world of mobile phones, but even on the desktop.

I don't see how this is a threat too Linux but that's not why I'm here. I've never understood why some say that Linux is too fragmented for developing games and other applications. I mean Savage 2 comes in one Linux(.bin file) version and it runs on most of the distributions. What is the difference between all the package formats (like .rpm and .dpkg). Why won't a application run on all systems with the Linux kernel on it? Can someone with more computer and Linux knowledge please explain this to me?

lumak · 12-27-2009, 09:55 PM

Uhhh... aren't there already official emulators for the G1 and other similar phones? Just run the apps on that.

DavidPhillips · 12-27-2009, 09:57 PM

Most packages have certain dependencies that they rely on to build and or run. The package manager is responsible for making sure everything is compatible.

This makes all of the programs much smaller than if each one included everything it needs.

MS Windows uses dll files for the same purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by searching_for_answers

I don't see how this is a threat too Linux but that's not why I'm here. I've never understood why some say that Linux is too fragmented for developing games and other applications. I mean Savage 2 comes in one Linux(.bin file) version and it runs on most of the distributions. What is the difference between all the package formats (like .rpm and .dpkg). Why won't a application run on all systems with the Linux kernel on it? Can someone with more computer and Linux knowledge please explain this to me?

searching_for_answers · 12-28-2009, 06:29 AM

Ach so! Interesting. If I've interpreted this Wikipedia article right: Dependency like .dll = library (computing)? That make sense.

But why can't all applications be .bin files if they run on every distribution. What is the advantage with .rpm? It much easier to install but they could change that.

Joe of Loath · 12-28-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by searching_for_answers

Ach so! Interesting. If I've interpreted this Wikipedia article right: Dependency like .dll = library (computing)? That make sense.

But why can't all applications be .bin files if they run on every distribution. What is the advantage with .rpm? It much easier to install but they could change that.

.bin is a general executable. For example, everything in /bin (duh) is an executable. So are simple programs like unetbootin.

.rpm and .deb are packages containing dependency information and libraries etc, as well as any binaries needed. They're just a standard container for varying contents.

searching_for_answers · 12-29-2009, 02:11 PM

Thanks again then. TREAD SOLVED