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

Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#181

Post by varjag »

sliverstorm wrote: post #179
varjag wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intel's contribution to the Linux kernel, is, AFAIK, limited to device drivers that make Linux run better with Intel hardware. No, not really.

I'm waiting for the part where you say more than three words to support your claim.

The amount of words is a poor metric. And sorry to point out but your original statement is not supported either, so burden of proof is on you.

To make it easier though I can point you in direction of Alan Cox commits around 2010-2013 and his work on TTY subsystem in particular.

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#182

Post by dTal »

aceofspades19 wrote: post #167
gilgoomesh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the extent that Linux is technically just the kernel and fundamental services, Android uses Linux but is not itself "Linux". To the extent that Linux implies "GNU Linux", i.e. a whole operating system and a broadly interoperable and source compatible set of *nix services, Android is not Linux any more than iOS is FreeBSD.

Then you could argue that any embedded device that runs the Linux kernel is not Linux because it doesn't use the GNU userland. I think its splitting hairs, anything that runs the Linux kernel is by definition, Linux. You can replace the GNU userland with anything you want, it doesn't suddenly make it a completely new operating system.

Sounds like the argument is a question of definitions - does "operating system" mean kernel, userland, or both? You argue that changing the userland doesn't change the OS. I could counterargue that Debian/kFreeBSD is the "same operating system" with a different kernel.

RMS believes that userland makes an OS, because he wrote a userland. Linus believes that kernel makes an OS, because he wrote a kernel. Calling Android "Linux" is like calling Windows 8 "Windows NT", i.e. correct if you're talking about kernels and wrong otherwise.

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#183

Post by Mister_Snuggles »

mdwrigh2 wrote: post #154
Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> after all, porting your apps from standard Android to an AOSP fork is easier than than porting it to Windows Phone So is this REALLY Android if you need to port your applications to run on it? How much of what makes an Android phone Android is AOSP and how much is the Google services that sit on top of it?

This isn't necessarily Google services vs. AOSP. Since they aren't going through certification there's no guarantee they've gone through CTS tests (so they APIs may differ from stock Android, either in signature or functionality).

So it sounds like we have two Androids on the market now: Certified Android and not-quite-Android-but-still-mostly-Android.

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#184

Post by cdooh »

Aoyagi wrote: post #176
cdooh wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was abandoned because "internal politics"

Funny how those internal politics are internal only now that MS bought Nokia, isn't it?

The all powerful, at the time anyway, Symbian team didn't like competition and did everything they could to muck up Maemo/Meego development.

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#185

Post by sirkneeland »

quanticle wrote: post #13

Ars Technica [1] put it best. These phones are dead on arrival. This is not the first time Nokia has done something like this. It released a Meego version of the N9, its long-in-development Symbian successor, before immediately abandoning the platform and switching to Windows Phone. This isn't a sign of some deep strategy. It's just standard Nokia platform craziness. 1: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/nokia-to…

That's not the proper chronology.

Nokia announced they were abandoning Symbian/MeeGo for Windows Phone BEFORE announcing and releasing the N9.

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#186

Post by sirkneeland »

Aoyagi wrote: post #16
quanticle wrote: post #13

Ars Technica [1] put it best. These phones are dead on arrival. This is not the first time Nokia has done something like this. It released a Meego version of the N9, its long-in-development Symbian successor, before immediately abandoning the platform and switching to Windows Phone. This isn't a sign of some deep strategy. It's just standard Nokia platform craziness. 1: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/nokia-to…

MeeGo was a) successor of Maemo on N900 (and other devices) and b) abandoned, because "burning bridges".

"burning platform" not "burning bridges" (although the number of bridges burned between Nokia leadership and employees, suppliers, developers, distributors/retailers and carriers was nothing short of astonishing. And catastrophic).

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#189

Post by sirkneeland »

glasz wrote: post #110

i can't express how i hate the nokia-microsoft-conglomerate for... this... "strategy". it appears they don't even have what could be called strategy. for years now, they've been fucking around, burning money and talent like crazy. the only thing nokia-microsoft should do is leverage windows phone's potential. and there's so much of it. (i'm saying this as an apple user). all the money for all this bullshit they are d…

"e.g they do have so bloody many customers who'd love mobile devices with the ms office suite. there, right there is you focus point."

Given that Windows Phones (mobile devices with the MS office suite) have been on the market for 3 years and not really taken off, I'd wager your theory isn't really true. Clearly having MS Office is not enough to sway many people.

Re: Nokia announces the X and X+, its first Android phones

#190

Post by mdwrigh2 »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #183
mdwrigh2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't necessarily Google services vs. AOSP. Since they aren't going through certification there's no guarantee they've gone through CTS tests (so they APIs may differ from stock Android, either in signature or functionality).

So it sounds like we have two Androids on the market now: Certified Android and not-quite-Android-but-still-mostly-Android.

No, there's one Android: the one certified by CTS and conforming to the CDD. You aren't allowed to use the name Android to describe your device without being certified as "Android-compatible".

From the FAQ on source.android.com:

"Is compatibility mandatory?

No. The Android Compatibility Program is optional. Since the Android source code is open, anyone can use it to build any kind of device. However, if manufacturers wish to use the Android name with their products, or want access to Google Play, they must first demonstrate their devices are compatible."

Post reply on HN