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

LINUX is obsolete (1992)

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)

#71

Post by dandrews »

jacquesm wrote: post #30
icebraining wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cost was the only problem, why didn't Hurd take off? Did Minix not suffer from the same problems?

Hurd simply never was ready and/or welcoming outsiders that might have pulled it in a direction where the anointed did not want it to go (such as, actually releasing something). Hurd and Minix both missed critical windows of opportunity and ended up so far behind Linux that they might as well not have bothered. For the longest time the only thing that kept new people flooding into Minix was Tanenbaums courses at VU.

Hurd not welcoming outsiders? My experience was opposite; for a short while I was a tourist on the dev list, and was never made to feel out of place.

Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)

#72

Post by lern_too_spel »

digi_owl wrote: post #47
kalleboo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that Android also runs on the Linux kernel and there are more Android phones than desktop PCs running any operating system.

Given the way Google is steering Android these days i am not sure i want it on a "desktop" any time soon. Back during early 3.x it had a spark of potential. But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal.

This comment is exactly the opposite of reality. 3.x was the most locked down Android ever. Its source was never released. Since then, AOSP has gotten strictly more functional with every release. The proprietary Google apps built on top have gotten wider distribution on the devices that have Android installed, but that doesn't make AOSP itself more locked down.

Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)

#73

Post by digi_owl »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #72
digi_owl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the way Google is steering Android these days i am not sure i want it on a "desktop" any time soon. Back during early 3.x it had a spark of potential. But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal.

This comment is exactly the opposite of reality. 3.x was the most locked down Android ever. Its source was never released. Since then, AOSP has gotten strictly more functional with every release. The proprietary Google apps built on top have gotten wider distribution on the devices that have Android installed, but that doesn't make AOSP itself more locked down.

From a user perspective, Android has gotten more locked down. This in that while previously one could access the file system directly, now on has to go via a sub-system that can deny or hide access arbitrarily.

Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)

#74

Post by digi_owl »

TsukasaUjiie wrote: post #70
digi_owl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hurd was a research project as much as a working kernel. I Think the project restarted 3 times in 10 years... Linux may have been crude etc, but it was here, it was working, and it was free (in both senses of the word). Frankly i see the lack of Linux on the desktop less about the quality of Linux, and more about MS abusing its market position and a massive failure to regulate.

"and more about MS abusing its market position and a massive failure to regulate." thats a pretty vague statement. IMO its simply the fact that Windows/OSX have set a high bar of out-of-the-box usability and shine that GNU/Linux simply hasn't reached. Not that this is a bad thing, it just might be worth accepting that we can't compete on desktop.

Back during the netbook froth, they put XP on life support using a highly focused license that ended up defining what a netbook was (in essence a small, underpowered, laptop).

This while the early netbooks from Asus and Acer ran Linux installs that can be likened to ChromeOS, with a UI somewhat like Windows 8 Metro.

What they did may very well be considered market position abuse.

Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)

#75

Post by digi_owl »

Zigurd wrote: post #60
digi_owl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the way Google is steering Android these days i am not sure i want it on a "desktop" any time soon. Back during early 3.x it had a spark of potential. But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal.

> But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal. It remains possible to choose to install, or not to install Google play Services and Google's app suite on aftermarket Android installations, and still be running Android, and running most 3rd party Android apps. Any app developers who wants to run on Amazon, Jolla, Blackberry, CyanogenMod, and on the em…

That is pretty much ignoring the driver issue, or maybe myopically focusing on the Android API layer.

Look at the changes to file system permissions, and the introduction of the storage access framework in 4.4.

And look from the perspective of joe user, not from hank hacker.

Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)

#76

Post by lern_too_spel »

digi_owl wrote: post #73
lern_too_spel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is exactly the opposite of reality. 3.x was the most locked down Android ever. Its source was never released. Since then, AOSP has gotten strictly more functional with every release. The proprietary Google apps built on top have gotten wider distribution on the devices that have Android installed, but that doesn't make AOSP itself more locked down.

From a user perspective, Android has gotten more locked down. This in that while previously one could access the file system directly, now on has to go via a sub-system that can deny or hide access arbitrarily.

You're talking about a security issue where one app could read and write another app's data. That's like saying Android is locked down because you can't read another app's heap.
Post reply on HN