Slashdot Mirror
Canonical Demos Early Stage Android-On-Ubuntu
An anonymous reader notes Ars Technica's report from the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Barcelona, where Canonical has unveiled a prototype Android execution environment that will allow Android applications to run on Ubuntu and "potentially other conventional Linux distributions." "Android uses the Linux kernel, but it isn't really a Linux platform. It offers its own totally unique environment that is built on Google's custom Java runtime. There is no glide path for porting conventional desktop Linux applications to Android. Similarly, Java applications that are written for Android can't run in regular Java virtual machine implementations or in standard Java ME environments. This makes Android a somewhat insular platform. Canonical is creating a specialized Android execution environment that could make it possible for Android applications to run on Ubuntu desktops in Xorg alongside regular Linux applications. The execution environment would function like a simulator, providing the infrastructure that is needed to make the applications run. Some technical details about the Android execution environment were presented by Canonical developer Michael Casadevall... They successfully compiled it against Ubuntu's libc instead of Android's custom libc and they are running it on a regular Ubuntu kernel."
I'd rather run Ubuntu on my smart phone.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Um, no it really hasn't. I'm a Linux supporter (currently typing this from an Ubuntu box) but the reasons why Linux is supported is that they aren't selling a full desktop. Android is popular for phones, people don't expect legacy apps to work with new phones, they don't have any mission critical software that needs to run (for most people), they get a new physical phone that looks different and so will take some time to learn it rather than dismiss it as broken the moment they can't find My Computer.
Windows Mobile is a broken OS, even the die hard MS fans know that out of the box its broken, sure, you can add software to make it usable, but a vanilla WinMo device is unusable. The iPhone is restricted to one device and one carrier, Android can run on many and is or soon will be on many different networks. Palm OS is severely outdated, but Web OS which is their replacement already has a strong following and the Pre is set to be the next thing in phones.
If Android was marketed as a full desktop or placed on "real" (ie: x86, full keyboard, decent screen) hardware it wouldn't sell because people won't learn a new OS on what they think is a Windows platform and it won't run some applications.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
They aren't marketing the Android environment as Java. That's the key difference.
Microsoft had their own implementation of Java (the VM and the language), which wasn't entirely compatible with Sun's, had additional features that were only present in Microsoft's implementation, and lots of Windows-only libraries. It implemented only a subset of Sun's Java specification, and didn't pass the test suites. They still called it Java, and encouraged developers to use their implementation instead of Sun's. Their development environment and documentation led you straight to using Microsoft's implementations of everything, rather than Sun's, and their made it very hard for developers to tell if their application could run on Sun's VM as well. So in effect, they created their own distinct version of Java, with applications written for one implementation being incompatible with the other, but still called it Java, and still tried to benefit from Sun's Java marketing (including the "Write Once, Run Anywhere" promise). Basically, they tried to usurp the platform, while still using Sun's trademarked Java name to market it. Sun really had no choice but to sue.
Microsoft's Java implementation lived on after that, under the name "J++", and later as "Visual J#". They no longer position it as "Java", but as a Java-language compiler for .NET.
Google, on the other hand, don't mention Java anywhere. You're not writing Java applications - you're writing Android applications. Those applications happen to be written using the Java programming language, and execute inside a Java VM, but that's just an implementation detail. Their main website doesn't mention Java. The first few pages of their developer site don't mention Java, until you get to the page detailing the requirements for running the SDK. They make no attempt to claim that their implementation is Java, or even compatible. They make it clear that Java applications don't work on Android, and Android applications don't work on standard Java.