Some arguments go round and round with no consensus ever deemed possible. Such is the case with the kernel software we know as Linux. I've read arguments that claim anything Android is really Linux at the core and thus must be included in the popularity poll for Linux. My argument is that Android is Android, not Linux, and I put forth the analogy of installing a Chevy engine on a Ford truck chassis. What do you have when you are done?
Well, I ran across an article that explains in great detail how to install Linux on Android devices. There seems to be a whole list of advantages of doing such a thing, and it is well worth the effort if you are technically inclined. My question, then, is, "If Android is already Linux, why the heck would anyone want to install Linux on an Android device?" I realize this article isn't going to settle the debate, but it does a great job at pointing out the differences between the software.
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Fe ... e-to-Linux
Linux On Android
Re: Linux On Android
Do I have to go through this again Yogi?
I am not the one who started calling ANY OS which uses the Linux Kernel as LINUX.
RedHat is called Linux.
BSD is called Linux.
Debian is called Linux.
Ubuntu is called Linux, but runs on Debian Linux.
Linux Mint is called Linux, also runs on Debian Linux.
I could list hundreds more OS's who are referred to as LINUX.
WHY?
ONLY BECAUSE they use the Linux Kernel!
RedHat is not compatible with BSD, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, or Android.
BSD is not compatible with RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, or Android.
Debian is not compatible with Redhat, BSD, Ubuntu, Mint, or Android.
Android uses the Linux Kernel, so is equivalent to ALL OTHER OSs which use the Linux Kernel as being referred to as LINUX.
So, if no other LINUX OS is compatible with another LINUX OS, why should Android be any different?
By the way, you cannot put a Ford Engine in a Chevy, or vice versa, without making special modifications. They are not interchangeable, so your analogy doesn't hold water.
Heck, you can't even use a Chevy Starter on a Ford Engine.
But you can use any of several OSs on the Linux Kernel.
It does not mean the different OSs are compatible with each other.
So why do you keep trying to make Android stand apart from the rest of the Linux based OSs?
Android us NOT GNU, Android is NOT BSD, Android is NOT RedHat, Android is NOT Debian.
Yet ALL are historically known as LINUX, due to the kernel they run on.
I fail to see why people try to confuse this issue with smoke and mirrors.
Although I agree, the generic term LINUX should have never taken hold like it did.
But Android still falls into the nomenclature, and I see no reason why it should not.
TTUL
Gary
I am not the one who started calling ANY OS which uses the Linux Kernel as LINUX.
RedHat is called Linux.
BSD is called Linux.
Debian is called Linux.
Ubuntu is called Linux, but runs on Debian Linux.
Linux Mint is called Linux, also runs on Debian Linux.
I could list hundreds more OS's who are referred to as LINUX.
WHY?
ONLY BECAUSE they use the Linux Kernel!
RedHat is not compatible with BSD, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, or Android.
BSD is not compatible with RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, or Android.
Debian is not compatible with Redhat, BSD, Ubuntu, Mint, or Android.
Android uses the Linux Kernel, so is equivalent to ALL OTHER OSs which use the Linux Kernel as being referred to as LINUX.
So, if no other LINUX OS is compatible with another LINUX OS, why should Android be any different?
By the way, you cannot put a Ford Engine in a Chevy, or vice versa, without making special modifications. They are not interchangeable, so your analogy doesn't hold water.
Heck, you can't even use a Chevy Starter on a Ford Engine.
But you can use any of several OSs on the Linux Kernel.
It does not mean the different OSs are compatible with each other.
So why do you keep trying to make Android stand apart from the rest of the Linux based OSs?
Android us NOT GNU, Android is NOT BSD, Android is NOT RedHat, Android is NOT Debian.
Yet ALL are historically known as LINUX, due to the kernel they run on.
I fail to see why people try to confuse this issue with smoke and mirrors.
Although I agree, the generic term LINUX should have never taken hold like it did.
But Android still falls into the nomenclature, and I see no reason why it should not.
TTUL
Gary
Re: Linux On Android
The Linux kernel cannot be used in ANY operating system unless it has been modified. Thus the analogy to automobile engines stands.
I have also seen arguments that Apple OS is Linux and that even Windows should be considered Linux because it's source code is developed on Linux IDE's. Really now? The article I quote shows the differences between Android and Linux. It does not show the similarities. There is good reason for that. Android is Android is Android and will remain Android no matter what name people mistakenly assign to it. And, thank you for agreeing the name Linux being assigned to Android is an error.
I have also seen arguments that Apple OS is Linux and that even Windows should be considered Linux because it's source code is developed on Linux IDE's. Really now? The article I quote shows the differences between Android and Linux. It does not show the similarities. There is good reason for that. Android is Android is Android and will remain Android no matter what name people mistakenly assign to it. And, thank you for agreeing the name Linux being assigned to Android is an error.
Re: Linux On Android
Ahem Yogi - Please reread your opening statement in the above post.
I think you have it bass ackwards. The Kernel is not used IN an Operating System. It is the Kernel the OS must be designed to work with, it goes between the OS and the CPU.
Linux being assigned to ANY OS is an Error, not just as it applies to Android, based on the historical use of the word Linux.
There are thousands of mistaken uses of words within the computing industry, some have continued on, some have finally died out as people learned of the mistakes.
Monitors were often erroneously referred to as CRT's in the computing industry. A CRT is only ONE component of many which makes up a monitor. It is a large, main, and visible component. A TV is called a TV SET for a reason!
Errors such as the one I just mentioned came into place Long Before Linux came on the scene.
There are many nonsense terms used in computing which were stolen from common and sensible radio nomenclature.
Many of them are still in use today, and given entirely new meanings than what the words actually mean.
Bandwidth is a good example of a stolen word which is meaningless without being redefined to fit the misuse of the word.
ANY OS which was designed to operate using the Linux Kernel, in following with common erroneous use of words in the computing industry, is referred to as Linux.
This does not mean the OS's are compatible with each other. They are different OS's.
Whether you drive a Ford, Kryzler, Chevy, or anything else on four wheels, it is still a Vehicle. A Car or a Truck!
There is nothing wrong with referring to what you drive as a Vehicle. Same as saying you have a Computer.
The same applies to the Kernel. Nothing wrong with saying you drive a Car (Windows) or a Truck (Linux).
There are still different versions of Windows (Coupe, Sedan, Hardtop, Convertible, etc.), just as there are different versions of Linux (Panel, Stake, Pick-up, Box, Flatbed, Semi, etc.).
A Car may be more comfortable to drive. BUT you can get a lot more done with a more versatile Truck.
I think you have it bass ackwards. The Kernel is not used IN an Operating System. It is the Kernel the OS must be designed to work with, it goes between the OS and the CPU.
Linux being assigned to ANY OS is an Error, not just as it applies to Android, based on the historical use of the word Linux.
There are thousands of mistaken uses of words within the computing industry, some have continued on, some have finally died out as people learned of the mistakes.
Monitors were often erroneously referred to as CRT's in the computing industry. A CRT is only ONE component of many which makes up a monitor. It is a large, main, and visible component. A TV is called a TV SET for a reason!
Errors such as the one I just mentioned came into place Long Before Linux came on the scene.
There are many nonsense terms used in computing which were stolen from common and sensible radio nomenclature.
Many of them are still in use today, and given entirely new meanings than what the words actually mean.
Bandwidth is a good example of a stolen word which is meaningless without being redefined to fit the misuse of the word.
ANY OS which was designed to operate using the Linux Kernel, in following with common erroneous use of words in the computing industry, is referred to as Linux.
This does not mean the OS's are compatible with each other. They are different OS's.
Whether you drive a Ford, Kryzler, Chevy, or anything else on four wheels, it is still a Vehicle. A Car or a Truck!
There is nothing wrong with referring to what you drive as a Vehicle. Same as saying you have a Computer.
The same applies to the Kernel. Nothing wrong with saying you drive a Car (Windows) or a Truck (Linux).
There are still different versions of Windows (Coupe, Sedan, Hardtop, Convertible, etc.), just as there are different versions of Linux (Panel, Stake, Pick-up, Box, Flatbed, Semi, etc.).
A Car may be more comfortable to drive. BUT you can get a lot more done with a more versatile Truck.
Re: Linux On Android
The article I quote is not specifically an argument over naming conventions. The article, however, does show what "improvements" can be made by installing Linux into an Android device. The way I see it, the author is inadvertently pointing out that Android is not Linux. That is my point in making this post.
The Linux kernel is software - it's up to version 4.3.3 as I type this. LInux kernel software is free and open source and was developed to be modified and distributed as anyone sees fit. Using my analogy to automobiles, having a copy of a linux kernel somewhere in your computer is like having a 392 V8 hemi sitting on your garage floor. Both are useless on their own, and are intended to be the core of some larger system. The end product could be Ubuntu or a Dodge Challenger, not Linux and not a 392 hemi. I think we both agree up to this point.
My contention was, and still is, that what is commonly termed Linux is distinct and apart from what is commonly called Android. It's not about etymology, It's all about computer operating systems.
The Linux kernel is software - it's up to version 4.3.3 as I type this. LInux kernel software is free and open source and was developed to be modified and distributed as anyone sees fit. Using my analogy to automobiles, having a copy of a linux kernel somewhere in your computer is like having a 392 V8 hemi sitting on your garage floor. Both are useless on their own, and are intended to be the core of some larger system. The end product could be Ubuntu or a Dodge Challenger, not Linux and not a 392 hemi. I think we both agree up to this point.
My contention was, and still is, that what is commonly termed Linux is distinct and apart from what is commonly called Android. It's not about etymology, It's all about computer operating systems.
Re: Linux On Android
As I said Yogi, I'm not the person who started calling all the OS's which use the Linux Kernel LINUX.
Whether right or wrong, and I side with it being wrong, this is still the way it has always been done.
I take my hat off to the folks who are trying to break away from this, by calling Android Android instead of Linux.
It would be great if all Distro's would do the same thing!
But is it really any different than those who use Mickey$oft OSs?
Do you drive a car or a truck?
Do you use Windows or Linux?
Saying you run Windows, tells me no more about what OS you are running, than saying you run Linux.
Saying Windows normally means your system is using the NT Kernel, but it could be a different Kernel.
Saying Linux, always means your system is using a Linux Kernel.
Programs written for Windows 8, will NOT RUN on Windows 3.11 or Windows XP.
Programs written for BSD, will NOT RUN on RedHat, GNU, or Debian.
Just as some programs are backwards compatible, and a Win3.11 program may run on WinXP.
So are programs written for one Distro ported over to run on other Distro's, including Windows.
And I know from expensive experience that hardware drivers written for Windows XP, will not drive a device run on the Windows XP Pro MCE version OS...
I see very little difference in naming conventions between Windows and Linux, each has their own Distro's.
Whether right or wrong, and I side with it being wrong, this is still the way it has always been done.
I take my hat off to the folks who are trying to break away from this, by calling Android Android instead of Linux.
It would be great if all Distro's would do the same thing!
But is it really any different than those who use Mickey$oft OSs?
Do you drive a car or a truck?
Do you use Windows or Linux?
Saying you run Windows, tells me no more about what OS you are running, than saying you run Linux.
Saying Windows normally means your system is using the NT Kernel, but it could be a different Kernel.
Saying Linux, always means your system is using a Linux Kernel.
Programs written for Windows 8, will NOT RUN on Windows 3.11 or Windows XP.
Programs written for BSD, will NOT RUN on RedHat, GNU, or Debian.
Just as some programs are backwards compatible, and a Win3.11 program may run on WinXP.
So are programs written for one Distro ported over to run on other Distro's, including Windows.
And I know from expensive experience that hardware drivers written for Windows XP, will not drive a device run on the Windows XP Pro MCE version OS...
I see very little difference in naming conventions between Windows and Linux, each has their own Distro's.