Help Android distribution - why not

[Zilliman]

Since ever, Windows (the Microsoft Operating System for almost any PC under the sun) would come on a rather large set of 3.5" floppies, CDs or on DVD. Linux would also come on a CD or DVD.

Those OS distributions contain the operating system, of course, but also a set of drivers for most known hardware at the time of publishing. When you install the OS on your PC/laptop it would scan your machine and would try to fit the right drivers, and it would get it right for most of the peripherals your PC might be equipped with. Anything remaining you could always download the specific drivers from the manufacturer's web site.

But I have observed this is not the case with Android. When you buy a phone or a tablet you really are stuck with whichever version of Android the manufacturer has deemed appropriate to install, and their own collection of applications as they fell free. Of course you can install other applications on top, but you cannot really get a newer or different OS version and base applications.

I would like to know, academically even, why is Android so different to Windows, Linux and to Unix, which have been around for 40 years and if nothing else have got ity right by now? Both Windows and Linux cater for a vast variery of PCs equipped with myriads of combinations of hardware, but that is not a problem. Why is Android so different?

 

[El Presidente]

Never heard of custom ROMs?

Also, officially, it does in a number of cases.

Google provide factory images for the nexus devices here: https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images

HTC provide similar tools via their developer portal: http://www.htcdev.com/devcenter

You can find system images for various other manufacturers unofficially too.

 

[EarlyMon]

It's also the only mobile operating system where you can fundamentally change the operating system to a different distribution entirely.

So rather than ask why Android is wrong with a long dissertation about desktop operating systems that draw wall current and rely on hard disks to survive, consider that Android is a lot more right than you realize.

And fwiw, Android is a compact, real-time Linux. Nothing less.

As you've stated elsewhere that you've owned a number of devices, including a Nexus, it's surprising that you're that misinformed.

And throwing in the remark about others being 40 years old so Android should be as good as they are is just obviously trolling. (Obviously, Windows and Linux haven't been around that long. Unix celebrates 40 years of commercial availability in a few months. When was the last time you used it?)

Or would you like to tell us about the distribution media you get on a Windows phone and how easily you can change it because it comes from a lot of manufacturers as well?

Wait. It doesn't.

Seriously, what's your real question this time?

 

[Zilliman]

No trolling I assure you it is not my intention. Your tone however is borderline rude.

"draw wall power " and "rely on hard disks to survive" ? Why does it matter if it is some variation of hard disk, or SSD, or Flash, or EEPROM, or whatever, and whether it uses batteries or a mains adater? There is absolutely no difference between a phone/tablet and a laptop/PC. Fundamentally they are the same. Even my Arduinos are the same had they have more RAM (2K).

I would have imagined that I should be able to plug my 4 year old Samsung tablet or some old or new Android phone on to my PC and do a complete wipe/reset and download some distribution of Android that has come from Google or some other reputable organisation (say Fedora), and just like a Windows/Linux installation it would scan my tablet/phone and it would install the necessary drivers as needed.

So the question is, what is so different with Android phones and tablets that you never get an installation CD but you only ever get compiled images/binaries for the very specific device you are trying to install on.

 

[Pugs1957]

So, in order to have a mobile phone I need to have a PC just to set it up so I can use it?? That is madness! Try reading these forums and the many posts about devices being bricked by installing the wrong OS. On the other hand I've never had a PC that wasn't recoverable form some type of disaster.

 

[EarlyMon]

Because by default they're locked so that users won't tamper with a licensed telephone system.

If you can't change it, you don't need distribution media.

And you can unlock it and obtain a distribution in many cases as has been pointed out.

Unlike Windows phones that have none of the advantages that you ascribed to the desktop from the same operating system company.

So yes - it matters a great deal that a mobile system isn't a desktop.

Why don't they for tablets?

They don't seem to have to, no one seems to care that those are locked as well.

Your question still doesn't really appear to be a question so much as an attempt to provide some revelation about what's wrong with Android, and still avoiding that this is the same for iOS and Windows phones and tablets.

Why can't you install Fedora on a Microsoft Surface?

I installed Ubuntu on my Android phone in 2011.

What's the big holdup with Microsoft?

Sorry if you find the answers unsatisfactory.

 

[Hadron]

The obvious question is who is going to provide this? Google provide the base OS, and manufacturers adapt and modify it for their devices. So apart from Nexus devices Google's involvement pretty much stops at the OS release.

So in the model you'd like someone is going to maintain a database able to build a release package for all combinations of hardware for all devices any manufacturer anywhere has made. And the update tool will need to analyse your device and put together a built package for that device model (you won't download a universal installer onto a device with limited resources like a phone, running any OS and firmware version). So who maintains all of this, who decides at what point they stop supporting each device, and how does this work with the manufacturer's own additions and modifications? Would Samsung for example have to provide Touchwiz builds for every device for every version of Android on Google (or whoever)'s timescale? Or would users go to this site for AOSP updates (losing various manufacturer-specific features in the process) or wait for the manufacturer if they want those features to keep working? And if so, why would the manufacturer want to play along?

What I'm saying is that these devices are less generic and less modular than PCs, as well as more limited in their resources. Also manufacturers still want to distinguish themselves by their software, much of which requires changes to the OS as well as simple additional or replacement apps, and so you cannot simply update the OS separately from the manufacturer's framework.

Maybe when/if Project Ara goes live you'll have something closer to what you want.