As a point of comparison, Microsoft ships its OS across a variety of manufacturers and largely keeps it maintained across them (give or take some exceptions like enterprise environments & the like).
Even unlocked Android phones purchased independently of carriers have inconsistent lengths of support, so it doesn’t seem to be entirely a result of carriers, so…What happened here?
There is something off with your reply. GNU/Linux exists and works fine with different kind of hardware while being FOSS.
That’s because GNU/Linux uses open, generic interfaces to communicate with (often fairly generic) hardware.
Android/Linux usually uses specialised closed black-box interfaces to communicate with hardware and those usually only work on one specific device or at best a small family of devices.
This model is dictated by the vendors of the hardware.
Yes, but the question only spoke about Windows and Android so I tried not to dive too deep into other things… I assumed the community is for simple and to the point answers…
But your answer could be interpreted as “a FOSS OS can never maintained for a big variety of hardware over a long life cycle” which would be totally wrong. Android’s driver situation might be shit but that has nothing to do with an “open system” vs a “closed system”. My knowledge regarding this topic is not deep enough to give a perfect answer but I think other posts here sound more plausible.
I don’t wanna sound too defensive but I did say this
I agree that I can reword it to make that clear, but I don’t think, nor do I hope anyone will make that conclusion about FOSS…
Right? And also two things:
First, android is FOSS the same as Darwin (the system under iOS) is. Apple puts its proprietary drivers, ui, and other apps the same as android phone vendors do.
An second, Free Software/Open Source doesn’t mean that you have to ship the phone with all the code anyone pushes. You have control of your repository. You can pay developers and only include the software the build. FOSS means that the user of the software has access to the source code, as well as other rights like modifying or redistributing it.
I see in a lot of discussion about free software some people say things like ‘the code is open to everyone so you don’t know what they can put there’ as if there were no filter or anything
I don’t understand…
I made sure to mention AOSP since Pixel UI is the proprietary version. Plus, even if Android contains GMS and whatnot, I mentioned that since it’s open source, you can see what you like or do not like.
I’ll try to reword my comment later tho… It can definitely do with a bit more context. I just wanted to make sure it was simple to understand for someone who was asking on nostupidquestions. (How do we link a community on Lemmy? Like on reddit we used to type r/whatever.)
Not at all. The Darwin kernel (XNU) is semi-FOSS (as in: Apple throws source code over the fence every year or two) but nearly none of the rest is.
Not only is this practice not even close to Linux’ fully open development model, XNU is quite a minimal kernel; it’s more of a microkernel design. You need the other parts in order to have a usable system.
The Android userspace is fully FOSS. Android Framework, system libraries, system services and even the UI are fully FOSS with a fairly open development model.
I patch my Android framework to disallow apps from ever dictating how my screen should be rotated for example.
The Evil Corp. has been pulling more functionality into the proprietary GMS crap lately but it’s not very many features and alternatives exist for FOSS apps (i.e. Firebase push notifications: UnifiedPush).
OEMs take this fully open code and might make changes; mostly of cosmetic nature. Those usually aren’t published.
Many Vendors ship the regular Android userspace with little to no modification however.
Android FOSS but not Libre. Don’t confuse the two.
Only the kernel of Android is Libre. (XNU is not Libre btw.)