Slashdot Mirror


Devs Discuss Android's Possible Readmission To Linux Kernel

MonsterTrimble writes "At the Linux Collaboration Summit, Google and Linux Kernel Developers are meeting to discuss the issues surrounding the Android fork and how it can be re-admitted to the mainline kernel. From the article: 'James Bottomley, Linux SCSI subsystem maintainer and Novell distinguished engineer, said during the kernel panel that forks are prevalent in embedded systems where companies use the fork once, then "throw it away. Google is not the first to have done something like this by far, just the one that's made the most publicity. Hopefully the function of this collaboration summit is that there is some collaboration over the next two days and we might actually solve it."'"

13 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What does this have to do with the iPad? I come to slashdot for iPad stories, not stuff real nerds have never heard of.

    1. Re:Yawn by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? I come to slashdot to read about how Google is taking yet another piece of technology we have taken for granted for many years and turning it into an online, ad-based Clout 2.0 service and tunneling it through HTTP with JSON and SOAP to their servers for a nice intense data-mining session for better targeted ads and predicting future crimes one might commit.

      Unbridled capitalism and the apathetic and ignorant citizens are to blame for that. Your personal data can be aggregated and monetized, and for the foreseeable future, there's very little legislation to prevent this and very little awareness of how pervasive such technology is. My whole generation is living with software riddled with government and corporations that have put back doors into everything, freely share data with each other, and those living in urban areas (the majority of the population) are rarely out of contact with some device or another wired into the global network, tracking their movements, purchases, communications, relationships, and every aspect of your life. Remotely-enabled webcams, cell phones that can be turned on silently to broadcast everything it hears and sees, and laptops and routers that can be readily converted into eavesdropping devices, just to name a few of the many things that are out there right now. And the only reason it's not all interconnected more seamlessly is because the technology is still rapidly evolving and hasn't reached a stable plateau where convergence is possible, although the internet has made a giant leap forward in enabling that future. The NSA spends billions each year trying to keep up with infrastructure changes and only is able to harness a fraction of that potential.

      But I mean, comeon -- what do you expect from a world where we find it okay to setup metal fences with razor-tipped wire and cameras everywhere as "official protest zones", where we have passports, credit cards, (and soon ID cards) that can be remotely scanned to identify you... put it all together. Where do you think this all ends?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Yawn by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is entertaining that a tinfoil hat will work quite well at protecting your wallet from remote scans.

      Only if you keep your wallet on your head.

  2. Backwards? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google must now balance any desire to respect the wishes of the Linux community for compatibility with the more diverse, competing - and not always logical - interests of those now adopting Android and its own plans.

    I did a double take on this statement.

    What I've seen on the kernel mailing list is more a conflict of commercial developer's desire for compatibility (across kernel versions) with the core kernel developer's more diverse (and not always logical) desire to push pet projects and make frequent cosmetic changes that creates a hellish torrent of code churn. The lack of well defined kernel driver interfaces means a lot of time spent chasing the latest changes instead of adding features or fixing bugs.

    1. Re:Backwards? by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only people I've seen clamoring for a static, unchanging driver interface are those writing proprietary drivers. Last I checked, changes to the interfaces by someone puts the onus on them to fix all the calls to it in the kernel, which is why getting your driver into the tree is considered better than keeping it closed.

      That said, if you're keeping your driver closed it's a problem you're bringing upon yourself.

    2. Re:Backwards? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The truth is, Google doesn't really get open source even though its livelihood depends on it.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    3. Re:Backwards? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Informative

      That said, if you're keeping your driver closed it's a problem you're bringing upon yourself.

      I should have been more clear. I'm talking about drivers in the main kernel source. I know the linux kernel mantra: binary only drivers are evil (I agree), out of tree open source drivers are slightly less evil. I think out of tree open source drivers can be useful when inclusion to the main kernel is denied because some critical functionality is deemed unnecessary by the gatekeepers who require it to be removed before consideration. But I'm not even talking about that.

      Last I checked, changes to the interfaces by someone puts the onus on them to fix all the calls to it in the kernel...

      That's the theory. Here is how it works in practice: A pet project or cosmetic change that touches a lot of code is implemented and then dependencies are grepped. The dependencies are fixed up in a cut and paste way. Sometimes more important drivers get some review to make sure nothing breaks. Everything else just gets shipped if it compiles. Then when that kernel is used in a distribution, sometimes years later, many drivers are suddenly broken and you have to back track to see which change took it out. If someone has a lot of time and desire to support a "lesser" driver then they can spend all of their time playing catch up, but that wears out volunteers quickly and annoys commercial vendors.

    4. Re:Backwards? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The last thing Linux needs is a set-in-stone kernel interface...

      I can agree with this, but then again I don't see anyone asking for that.

      How about something in between, say a well defined interface that is stable for a reasonable period of time with clear points of deprecation and then replacement with improved interfaces? Windows's driver interface is not set in stone with never ending backwards compatibility, you can't use Win 9X drivers on XP. Yet a binary driver that works on Windows 2K has a reasonable chance of running on Vista.

      There needs to be a balance between improvements/changes and stability/maintainability.

  3. Tricky by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "{
            '{
                    "{
                      }"
                    "{
                        }"
              }'
    }"

    I wasn't sure if 5 quotes at the end of the article was correct or not. I decided to employ brackets to handle the scenario. Taking out the wording, my findings are above. It IS correct.

    Is it bad that this was the most exciting part of the article to me?

  4. Cheaper costs by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a real problem -- Android is easily the most hackable phone out there. And that's exactly the kind of thing cell phone manufacturers in this country don't want. It's bundled services that they make their fortunes on -- selling overpriced phones, contract cancellation fees, locking in devices, and more. Android threatens to separate the market into service providers and device providers and up until now, the service provider dictated what the device providers could do.

    Imagine if you could just eject your SIM card from your phone, plug it into your computer, and browse the net, take phone calls, etc., then eject it like it's a memory card, slap it back into your phone, and go off to school, work, wherever. Or using bluetooth so that as soon as you get home, it automagically resyncs all your e-mails, text messages, and more. There's so much the technology can do -- and the only reason it's not happening is because service providers want to charge for everything, rather than simply flat-rating everything on a per minute, day, or megabyte use.

    My Sidekick recently lost the ability to send files to my computer over bluetooth. Why? Because of an OTA update that disabled that. So now I can't just sit my phone near my laptop and transfer my pictures out of it, I have to open the back up, eject the little card, plug it into my system, copy the files, and then do the reverse. Very cumbersome when before it was 'click icon, drag files'.

    It's complete and utter bullshit that cell phones are as powerful now as desktops were ten years ago sitting in the palm of my hand, and yet they have less than a third of the capability. And not a one of them is really interoperable with any other except on the most primitive level. Hell, the dialup days of computing offered more functionality and standardization than the cell phone market does. Why should a 14.4k modem and an antiquidated pentium 133 have more communication functionality than today's devices? Hell... it even cost less.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Cheaper costs by EvanED · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a real problem -- Android is easily the most hackable phone out there.

      I'm not so sure... I think the Nokia N900 has got it beat.

    2. Re:Cheaper costs by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not so sure... I think the Nokia N900 has got it beat.

      Yeah, but who's heard of the Nokia N900, or even knows what that means, outside geek circles? On the other hand, billboards and TVs everywhere are blasting out "Droid does". For bringing a hackable system to the masses, Android has it beat.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Cheaper costs by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but who's heard of the Nokia N900, or even knows what that means, outside geek circles? On the other hand, billboards and TVs everywhere are blasting out "Droid does". For bringing a hackable system to the masses, Android has it beat.

      But "the masses" aren't interested in hacking it, thus making said hackability essentially irrelevant to anyone who isn't in "geek circles" anyway.