i should note that linuxonandroid is not a virtual machine, it is a chroot enviroment, which is different than a virtual machine.

Linux had the lead on touch compiz etc
 

By non running native Linux looses the lead it always had on being on the latest tech and taking full advantage
As chroot Linux cannot take full advantage of touch and graphics
Why it is even legal to hijack an open source gnu Linux and close it to displace the open one is interesting
Gnu Linux is not BSD, yet it is being used as if it was BSD to keep the open versions out and from evolving
Linux used to be ahead on hardware adoption, and there used to be excitement of getting Linux running on all the hardware and taking advantage of the hardware
Today much of this optimism and breakthroughs is vanishing, giving rise to proprietary solutions using Linux at their core
But the advantage of using Linux as an experimental platform for new hardware and user interfaces is being lost
Linux used to be on the cutting edge today the monopoly duopoly triopoly of Apple android and Microsoft, which funds and receives most of the proceeds or funds most of the propaganda, is cutting Linux out of the market
Microsoft was supposed to have been broken up as a monopoly
Today most of these problems can be traced back to Microsoft Intel mega monopolies which Google and Apple play into
With no opposition and based on national security and the NSA and mandates from Intel Microsoft virus owned companies, Linux is in effect being cut out as an option
In a chroot environment, it's a shadow of itself and not in control of the OS or apps etc or the computer or the freedom of the computer

Do they make any changes to the code and keep them secret? Or do they simply use a modified version of the kernel? The former would violate the GNU licence, if they use applications under the GNU licence and change them. Do they use applications we are familiar with? If so, do they alter them and not release their modified code?

Linux is the one being taken over by corporations while BSD systems are not, yet BSD is proprietary and Linux is free? What do you KNOW about the BSD licence or about BSD systems? Not what you believe, but what you know.

That is unlikely, since manufacturers make everything to be Windows-compatible. Unless you can provide evidence to support that claim, it is hollow.


You keep repeating the same claims without offering any substantiating evidence or theory. And your knowledge of Linux, the GNU licence, BSD and the real world seems to be lacking.

False. The chroot is to provide separation from the Android user environment. It does not prevent use of anything else.
That is only true of the BSD license - not GPL.
It still is.
Did you forget the rise of the Raspberry and Arduino? Banana Pi?... Windows didn't even run there - didn't even attempt to run there, and doesn't run there. Even the "Windows 10 for Raspberry" isn't Windows, it is only an embedded form of the Windows kernel - no GUI, no native development tools, no desktop... nothing.
news to the military... They are dropping the use of Windows from mission critical applications. No longer used for drone control, ship control...
You have never really used Linux.

Linux is a second class citizen in these chroot environments
 

No acc learned hardware, no direct access to the screen
No proper access to the full hardware
Linux is becoming a second class citizen on everything but the servers

I believe they are in fact in violation of gpl
 

Both are open
But modifying gpl and not releasing the code is a violation
In BSD even though it's open this is permissible

you are still making assertions without evidence, assertions which are incorrect
linux may not be the dominant on android tablets, but then again you can't install windows on android tablets either

canonical DOES make ubuntu for phones/tablets, and you forget all the desktop/laptops that run linux

no, linux is NOT becoming second class citizen, please stop saying that it's just plane wrong

be quiet.
please, be quiet.
I order you to be quiet!

The GPL makes very clear what is allowed and what not. Modifying GPL licensed code and not releasing the source is totally fine, unless you want to distribute binaries based on the modified code. In that case you have to make the source available to your customers, which Google (which is by the way a major contributor to Linux, not only in code itself, but also with sponsoring events like Google Summer of Code) does as they should do (I have posted the link to the source in a previous post).

Despite being a violation modifying the code and not distributing it, it's still being done
 

Here are some interesting articles, they may or may not have the correct answers

Running a mainline kernel on a cellphone

https://lwn.net/Articles/662147/


https://lwn.net/Articles/648400/

i was thinking to make my next phone a ubuntu phone.

convergence seems to be the thing we all look for, but i'm not sure how far it has been implemented yet.

opinions, backed by facts?

oh, and...

Either the OP is trolling or is rather clueless, mayhap a fool. As Tyndale hated the Romish church so does one hate Google. However, despite the uber-intrusive policies of the tech giant, the source code is open source. What part of that not clear? Why is Linux not on more tablets beyond Android? My guess is that it has to do with money and with the interest level of the typical consumer.as has been declared a Ford (Fix or Repair Daily) auto does not come with a Chrysler powerplant. Heck, I did not purchase a used iPhone so it could run Solaris.
Frankly, I think the average consumer does not know about Linux on a tablet or cares. Ignorance is a powerful marketing tool for big name corporations with billions at stake.

Whoever said this is a dead thread going nowhere is correct!

If it was so open and clear why can't people get Linux working on phones and tablets ?
 

It's not clear at all
In fact there are lots of problems
It's so fragmented and with so much proprietary code, that not only can you not easily put Linux on the devices, but the manufacturers themselves can't patch their own devices
The source code is not released, if it was it would be trivial to put it back on the device
This has some pretty serious consequences
If you read my links you on my last post you will actually see what someone thinks of running main line kernel
And why is it so hard to put the gnu stuff back on, if it's so open
Open source is being high jacked very much like Apple has done
Apple makes the same claims that their stuff is open, yet nobody would believe that, it's the same with Google
Making accusations that I don't like Google is nonsense, the goal is to get at the source of the problem, and see what the fix is
If you look at the links I posted you get one opinion, this may be the correct opinion, or there may be better opinions out there
One thing is clear, there is a problem
Apple used a bad license which is more forgiving, Google is using a gpl license
If this is allowed to happen or legal then anyone can take Linux change it and not give the changes back
Where are the drivers to the specific devices so you can rebuild the OS
The article I put up claims none of the devices run Linux, maybe not even android if you can't build the OS
If people are having so many problems putting the gpl stuff back on android, clearly something is wrong and not that open

Linux has the same problem on tablets that it had with desktops
 

If what happened with the desktops is anything to go by the tablet situation is far worse

No where near the same problem.

With desktops the peripherals were rarely builtin.