Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

itsfoss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#11

Post by ryukafalz »

CivBase wrote: post #6

> We are also announcing this week an “/e/ easy installer” that will make the flashing process much more easier, by pluging the smartphone to a PC and launching a dedicated application that will make most of the job. Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like…

> Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like I can on a PC?

A few reasons:

1. Proprietary drivers are the norm for mobile devices, whereas (with a few exceptions) this is not the case for desktops/laptops.

2. Even when the drivers are free, standard practice among device manufacturers seems to be forking the kernel for each device and working off that fork. These things don’t and can’t run on mainline Linux/Android.

See the Librem 5 and PinePhone for what are probably the only two devices attempting to fix the above problems. And even if you fixed those:

3. ARM devices typically don’t have the same device enumeration capabilities as x86 PCs, meaning you need a separate device tree for each one. I believe there are also efforts underway to improve this situation, but that’s where we are at the moment.

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#14

Post by monocasa »

ryukafalz wrote: post #11
CivBase wrote: post #6

> We are also announcing this week an “/e/ easy installer” that will make the flashing process much more easier, by pluging the smartphone to a PC and launching a dedicated application that will make most of the job. Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like…

> Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like I can on a PC? A few reasons: 1. Proprietary drivers are the norm for mobile devices, whereas (with a few exceptions) this is not the case for desktops/laptops. 2. Even when the drivers are free, standard practice…

Proprietary drivers are very much the norm on windows and mac.

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#15

Post by kop316 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #11
CivBase wrote: post #6

> We are also announcing this week an “/e/ easy installer” that will make the flashing process much more easier, by pluging the smartphone to a PC and launching a dedicated application that will make most of the job. Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like…

> Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like I can on a PC? A few reasons: 1. Proprietary drivers are the norm for mobile devices, whereas (with a few exceptions) this is not the case for desktops/laptops. 2. Even when the drivers are free, standard practice…

The separate device tree (#3) is not as big an issue as the first ones. If you are making a Linux kernel for an ARM device, you will have to make a device tree, and it should not change once written.

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#16

Post by throwawat45637 »

netsharc wrote: post #3
petecox wrote: post #2

> the/e/ name will be abandonned for something else quite soon. Good to know; a word that's more easily duckduckgoable may help with branding.

Wanted to comment on the name too.. slash-e-slash???

Obviously a reference to 4chan's ecchi board

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#17

Post by ryukafalz »

kop316 wrote: post #15
ryukafalz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like I can on a PC? A few reasons: 1. Proprietary drivers are the norm for mobile devices, whereas (with a few exceptions) this is not the case for desktops/laptops. 2. Even when the drivers are free, standard practice…

The separate device tree (#3) is not as big an issue as the first ones. If you are making a Linux kernel for an ARM device, you will have to make a device tree, and it should not change once written.

That’s true, it’s less of an issue than the others, but it’s still a per-device difference that the kernel needs to know about before you bring the system online. If you’re trying to make an installer that’ll run on any ARM device like those on x86, that’s a problem - how does the installation image know what device tree to use?

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#18

Post by ryukafalz »

monocasa wrote: post #14
ryukafalz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do phones require device-specific builds and ROM flashing just to install a different OS? Why isn't there a phone out there with a normal boot loader that allows me to install whatever OS I want like I can on a PC? A few reasons: 1. Proprietary drivers are the norm for mobile devices, whereas (with a few exceptions) this is not the case for desktops/laptops. 2. Even when the drivers are free, standard practice…

Proprietary drivers are very much the norm on windows and mac.

That’s true, I was mostly looking at this from a Linux-centric point of view. You won’t be running Windows or macOS on your phone.

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#19

Post by kop316 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #17
kop316 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The separate device tree (#3) is not as big an issue as the first ones. If you are making a Linux kernel for an ARM device, you will have to make a device tree, and it should not change once written.

That’s true, it’s less of an issue than the others, but it’s still a per-device difference that the kernel needs to know about before you bring the system online. If you’re trying to make an installer that’ll run on any ARM device like those on x86, that’s a problem - how does the installation image know what device tree to use?

If I remember when I did it for the Novena, you had to include that specific dtb file for the install. That does make it a pain, as you are correct, the installation image is board/chip specific

Re: Progress on /e/, the de-Googled Android fork

#20

Post by monocasa »

ryukafalz wrote: post #18
monocasa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proprietary drivers are very much the norm on windows and mac.

That’s true, I was mostly looking at this from a Linux-centric point of view. You won’t be running Windows or macOS on your phone.

What I'm getting at is that propreitary drivers has no bearing on the matter when 90+% of PCs are running propreitary drivers.
Post reply on HN