Talk:Android (operating system)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Apps (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Google (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linux (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Open (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Android (operating system) is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Is Android Unix-like (without rooting)?[edit]

I took Unix-like out as, I define Unix-like as "Unix user program"-compatible, and Uniwersalista, reverted. I hesitate to revert him, as he could be right. In some sense it seems more Unix-like than I thought, but it might still be less wrong than right. See: Talk:Unix-like#What_constitutes Unix-like. Please discuss the general issue there (eg. we would agree Firefox OS is not Unix-like) but Android specific here. I installed some terminal (Dalvik, not "Unix"-program, some seem less capable without root) and could do:

ls

but not:

ls |wc -l

as wc was not available. I can not(?) install wc with Google play? apt-get? compile? How would I get my Unix programs in (without root)? Clearly the Unix way is at least not emphasized and while it seems in has pipes what can you pipe into? comp.arch (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

To me, Android is Unix-like, despite the fact it doesn't run standard shell commands out-of-the-box. If Android, as such, isn't Unix-like, then many bootable Linux installation CDs/DVDs aren't too, as many of them are missing some of the standard shell commands as not compiled into their busyboxes etc. Of course, all that can be added. Hope it makes sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
But you can easily add the programs (if not might be based on Linux kernel but not an OS, see below). Maybe nobody just wants to with Android as it is not targeted as a command line OS. I'm just not sure you can without porting. If you need porting you may as well say its a different "OS family" (you can port Unix programs to Windows too). comp.arch (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What do reliable sources say. If reliable sources say it is Unix-like we can report that in the article. If other reliable source say it is not, we can report that to. If they are silent on the subject then we should say nothing. —Jeremy (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
One reliable source even says that Android is a Linux distribution. It can't be that without being Unix-like, right? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I say it can. The Linux kernel only is not an "Operating system", you can't boot into one and run user supplied programs. Since the beginning Linus used bash with his kernel to make it Unix-like. All traditional Linux distributions have used bash or a some shell replacement to maintain it's Unix-likeness. If you take that out or something fundamental it can still be "Linux" but no longer Unix-like. Does Android allow installing "Unix programs" (runnable from a shell, leave X-Window programs out of this)? As programs have to use Dalvik, isn't there porting involved? comp.arch (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Android programs don't have to strictly use Dalvik, that's why Android NDK exists, for example. You can run any Linux program on Android if you also install all of the dependencies, for example by chrooting into a whole Linux distribution; you can even get something like that from the Play Store. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I know about the NDK, but apps have to start in Dalvik first. I'm not sure if the porting is easy. Will only a generic "wrapper" do, that would work for (all) C standard Unix programs? Still would be a hassle and I wouldn't call it supporting Unix. Clearly it is not meant to (some C code yes, however). The Debian link you gave requires root so it's Android is not "supporting" Unix there. The other link is less clear but I clicked on a similar project from it that says: "THIS APP REQUIRES ROOT : ADVANCED USERS ONLY". In any case at least Android is not Unix like without hacking and/or modification. comp.arch (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't make decisions based on whether hacking or modifications are required or not; if we had no hacking around, we'd have no things such as Linux or various BSDs. If we'd take that route, many bootable Linux installation CDs/DVDs also couldn't be classified as Unix-like (what wouldn't make much sense, in my humble opinion), as they lack pretty much everything Android also lacks out-of-the-box; Ok, they don't run Java applications. :) By the way, this thread is quite interesting, and it pretty much concludes that Android isn't Unix-like. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say if sources do not agree with me they are not reliable :) The reliable sources would confirm this.. comp.arch (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Czarkoff obviously disagrees. Perhaps we can discuss it further? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously disagree:
1. One may use Android market app to install missing parts of Arch, Debian or Ubuntu userland on Android and use it as any other Unix-like system – even as a mobile failover node for production server.
2. There is "prior art" to Android+Dalvik combination: NeXTSTEP also had huge custom runtime on top of Berkley-style Unix, but even Jobs admitted it was still Unix.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 06:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1. I might be wrong, but a lot of the apps I see require root (that isn't available by design). Can you point me to one non-root app that adds any of these? Still is it Unix-like until then? Is Windows NT (already POSIX compatible) Unix-like before adding Windows Services for UNIX?
2. I have to look into NeXSTEP, did it only have a framework that most programs used or had available but was optional? Starting inside Dalvik in non-optional in Android for user-supplied programs. It seems JavaOS-like to me :) More than Unix-like.
3. Android doesn't have a CLI, where can I go in and compile my own Unix programs from source that is very much Unix-like to me..
I do not have much time now, but would really like to know more. What I found so far: [1] [2] [3]. comp.arch (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Of course they require root for installation, as does every Unix-like system. FWIW installing software from Play Store also requires root, and corresponding permissions are granted by infrastructure.
2. NeXTSTEP is now MacOS X, so yes, it had framework that nearly every program used. Of course there were cat, sed, cp, rm and other utilities that are present on most Unix-like systems (including Android). MacOS X and Android are absolutely identical in this regard.
3. Android doesn't have pty support because it wasn't compiled in. You may compile custom Linux kernel without pty support as well. Nothing of difference. (FWIW my phone has terminal emulator as stock package.)
4. If you replace bionic with OpenBSD libc in year 2000 in that article, it will mostly hold true; if you replace bionic with System V libc, it will become a huge overstatement. Also note: one could replace bionic with modified musl, install toybox and enjoy reasonably POSIX-compliant Android.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Sorry, I meant to say without rooting (from section title) the device first. Android is NOT meant to be Unix-like, while it still uses the Linux kernel. While Android does have root-account (superuser) internally, it doesn't have the concept of root/superuser as a privileged status that the user can attain. Devices are locked down in that sense. You can (in some devices) install APK-files not from Google Play, but it is the only format of programs allowed. That, as far as I know, does not allow you root-access or allowing user supplied program to not start without using Dalvik (in a JVM-like environment). That is user programs (at least user supplied, not all internal) run in a JVM-like environment making the os more "JavaOS-like" than Unix-like, as the point of operating systems is to run programs. At least the OS would be a hybrid of both; more JavaOS-like than Unix-like. I believe NeXSTEP didn't try to exclude Unix-programs. Then we can also disagree on the Family-part of "OS Family", as a concept, elsewhere. I say we should stop using the field in Infoboxes.
2. NeXSTEP probably had theses and more utilities, but while Android has some, eg. cp, my phone does not find sed (or locate, for locate sed). I could add programs like this on OS X; and on Debian with apt-get but I believe I can't in Android with APK-files, weather from Google Play or not. And the OS allows no other way unless changed/broken by rooting (that is not "allowed") first.
3. What is compiled in stock Android, or more correctly, what is in AOSP, defines Android as an operatings system. Not what can be added, a custom-kernel, or other things requiring rooting first. BTW, what is your phone?
4. You seems to be saying Android is not "reasonably POSIX-compliant" unless some things are changed. If you change enough software (but I think you can't with stock unrooted Android) you get Windows Phone. If you add to Windows NT you get "Unix" (compatible, Unix-like) :) comp.arch (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1. You overly concentrate on rooting issue, but it is merely security policy. Android has the same security model as every other Unix-like: you can't administrate it beyond some extent unless you gain root permissions. Things work exactly the same way with any other Unix-like system, where you can do whatever you want at $HOME and need special permissions to perform administrative tasks elsewhere. "Android rooting" as a topic is a strict subset of "privelege elevation on Linux".
2. Sure you can add whatever to your Android phone. I am not sure you can do it with standard software, but it has nothing to do with OS family – it's mere package management deficiency. FWIW older Unix systems didn't have any kind of package management, so Android isn't even the most limited in this regard.
3. Wrong. AOSP is just one of numerous Android distributions, just as Ubuntu is one of GNU/Linux distributions. You should also note, that if you want to pretend that Android operating system is defined with AOSP, you'll have to admit that most "Android phones" don't run Android – all of vendors ship more or less customised firmware, and this customization goes far beyond skins and vendor apps.
4. Nonsense. If I do the same on my Arch installation, it will still be Archlinux, Linux-based Unix-like operating system. Why same isn't true for Android? Sure, you may make up your own personal definition of Android that would have all the properties you want it to have, but reality won't change: Android is another Unix-like system.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Having read and considered the arguments above, I would say that Android is indeed Unix-like. A quick google found at least one RS source that seems to agree too: "both Apple‘s iOS (and OSX come to think of it) and Google‘s Android are variations of the basic Unix operating system." (Forbes) --Nigelj (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1. The difference with regular Unix[-like], is that you are allowed (if you have permission) to gain root. On Adroid you are not allowed even with apps with all permissions they are can't do anything BY DESIGN, if they could break out of the sandbox it would be a privilege escalation: "exploiting a bug, design flaw".
2. Yes, you used to just compile from source, programs were (mostly at least) source code compatible, you can't compile (or cross-compile) regular Unix programs (let alone X Windows applications, but let's not go there) APK-files - the only "programs" allowed in. At least without porting: "porting is the process of adapting software so that an executable program can be created for a computing environment that is different from the one for which it was originally designed."
3. Google's Android (AOSP) is THE official "distribution". To be called Android (get the trademark) you have to be compatible, and I assume it also means with the security restrictions, see above. What is changed with the "clones", like Fire OS and Nokia's is just a new store. If anything they are more locked out (eg. Fire OS). There might be exceptions, "Android-based" but not "Android". I admit, this article is a little schizophrenic, trying to describe AOSP, the source code (FLOSS, not proprietary) and "practical Android", what you get as "binaries" (includes proprietary).
4. You can add a lot to an operating system (or other things) and it's still the "same thing". Doesn't mean you can remove stuff (or restrict) and still claim it's the same thing or similar enough. A typical Linux distribution is Unix-like, not if you remove everything except the Linux kernel, that alone is not Unix-like. They added stuff back, enough for some (most of) POSIX compatibility usually associated with Unix-like, but left out stuff eg. POSIX.2 it seems. The main point is that Android is meant to be different. See also Unix philosophy. comp.arch (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2014‎
I think what we have here is people saying "It's Unix-like" and one person replying, "But it's not full-blown UNIX". Yeah, it's been locked down, trimmed down, and turned into a phone or a tablet. The point still is that it has a Unix-like kernel, and trimmed-down Unix-like is still Unix-like in that all kinds of other Unix-like things could be added back (but why would you want to? It's a phone, FFS). Here's another ref: http://www.levenez.com/unix/ - you'll see Android appear, forked out of Linux 2.6.23, in 2007. --Nigelj (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I actually make some use of command line on my phone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Note 1: an arrow indicates an inheritance like a compatibility". Android is compatible with the Linux kernel (there might be a caveat, maybe not best link but would this break Unix-like illution?), that is not a full OS. "Note 2 : this diagram shows complete systems and [micro]kernels like Mach, Linux". The Linux kernel is not a complete system (OS), I have no objection to saying "Linux kernel-based". Would you say the Tivo is Unix-like? It can be made to if hacked, and the rest of the OS added. comp.arch (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Plain wrong: superuser priveledge management app for Android is accepted on Google Play. Obviously Google disagrees with your point about no root by design.
2. FYI there are many Unix-like systems that have the same properties: all BSD install media, Linux and Busybox-based initrd combination, etc. All of these constitute proper Unix-like environments. Also note, you may install terminal emulator on any Android device from Play Store, compile any Unix application using Android NDK, package it into APK, install via default installer for third-party APKs and use this application.
3. You mistake branding for operating system. Ironically, the term "Unix-like" was coined specifically to circumvent "UNIX" branding while describing OSs.
4. Every OS ever was meant to be different. Most Unix-like OSs aren't fully POSIX-compatible. Android is less POSIX-compatible then MacOS X, but more compatible then AT&T Unix System V. In all other aspects Android is as much Unix-like as MacOS X is.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out.
1. See about that app: "!!! SuperSU requires a rooted device !!!" comp.arch (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You've missed the point: SuperSU is accepted to Google Play, resides there for ages and enjoys popularity. Obviously Google doesn't regard it as something going against Android design, because it would not be allowed otherwise (see 4.4 in Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this program does on a non-rooted device ("Android"), probably nothing, it can't by design. On those devices it is no threat. It need a rooted device (modified Android, that in my view is not "Android"). "development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices" is about Google Play (that comes often with Android, but is not part of Android (AOSP)), not Android OS (design) per se. comp.arch (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
2. "you may [..] compile any Unix application using Android NDK, package it into APK". Is this really true? There are two possibilities: a) As Unix predates GUIs, we are talking about Unix-like programs that work on text files or streams, such as "wc", "sed", or applications such as "vi" or "emacs". [b) If you would count X Windows applications as Unix-like, there would be huge amount of porting.] Can you compile wc into an APK in install, and sed into an APK ind install (and maybe also vi). Can you then run "ls |wc -l" or "ls |sed "something" |wc -l" eg. ? That is the Unix way. My doubt is that you can do this. And in addition see the comment from the link you provided: "It's reasonably common to launch native executables from Android apps, but you should be aware that it's frowned upon by the Android architects. They keep making threats to disable that facility in future, as they're unable to regulate the resource usage of those processes as precisely as they do for the main app process." I suspect this running "Unix-binaries" only applies to limitted cases and only for porting, and then you are really running Android applications, supporting my assertion the Android is its own "OS Family" ["http://www.roman10.net/how-to-build-ffmpeg-for-android/]. comp.arch (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. You are still missing the point: if Android doesn't allow user privelage elevation, SuperSU is not Android software. The fact that Google accepted it to Play is Google's unambiguous statement that you are wrong.
  2. AOSP includes mksh – POSIX-compliant Unix shell, – so you can do "ls | wc -l" and every other Unix shell scripting tricks. You can use vi. (It was preinstalled on all phones I used. I assume it is included with AOSP.) The fact that Google wants to remove support of direct executable calling from Dalvik says nothing about Android as OS – it only says something about Dalvik. (And AOSP ships with many software pieces that have nothing to do with Dalvik.) You don't need to port software to Android – only recompile it (for proper linking). And even if you had to port software to Android, it wouldn't be anyhow different from other Unix-like systems: you have to port software from Linux to BSDs or OSX, and porting graphical OSX software to other Unix-like systems means complete rewrite in most cases, which doesn't stop MacOS X from being fully POSIX-compatible certified Unix.
Do your homework. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Did anyone suggest just saying "Linux-like" instead? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course not, "Linux-like" is meaningless. There were just 3 days remaining before this thread would get archived... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I wasn't going to prolong this discussion, but more than a month ago my template proposal Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Template:Unix_internals got accepted. I had been waiting a long time for it and forgotten about it. Would that be a middle ground? comp.arch (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what exactly do you mean? |family=Unix APIs? P.S.: I've started TfD discussion for your template, as it is redundant to {{Unix}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I proposed this template at the time so that Android and iOS (and Firefox OS?) could be included in the same template with with Unix-like-OSes. Since then, "Without command-line interpreter" got added to {{Unix}} (by me for clarification, that they are a special case). By "Unix internals"/APIs I mean the Linux kernel or some other kernel as in iOS (that is excluding user-space). I would have liked the the other template to only include (out-of-the-box) full (with CLI) Unix-like. Firefox OS is still a problem(?) as while it has the Linux-kernel APIs, it's probably not accessible from any program by design (but it's still there so it's inclusion in the template is technically true..). comp.arch (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Android uses the GPL version 3 license and Android 4.4.4 is Linux kernel 3.4.46 [4]. Android even runs SELinux for Mandatory access control and the Linux EXT4 file system. Renegadeviking 9/10/2014 11:26 am

(Kernel only?) updates to older Android versions[edit]

Hi, I recently got two updates for my Samsung Galaxy S III Mini:

Kernel version
3.0.31-1549853
dpi@DELL148 #2
SMP PREEMPT Thu Jun 12 11:22:11
KST 2014

The date coincides with 4.4.3 (to soon for 4.4.4 CVE-2014-0224 security update?). The other update was days before (4.4.2?) and was also with 3.0.31-sometingelse with a date in December and I assume "KST 2013" (remember for sure the 2013 part). I assume the security update for 4.4.4/CVE-2014-0224 could be in the pipeline (or 4.1.2 not affected, can't see for sure) or maybe not.. Anyone know what these updates are? Only kernel? Backported Android 4.4.x-Linux kernel (3.4+.x?) down to 3.0.31? Should I assume nothing above the kernel has not changed as Android version/API is not changed? Would all this mean that Google supports older Android versions or maybe not and that Samsung/vendors do it? comp.arch (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The update to your S III Mini is not Android 4.4.3, but could be 4.4.2. Samsung decided to update the S III to Kitkat. A Kernel update does not change your Android version. Frmorrison (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not 4.4.2, it's still 4.1.2 as it's always been. I assume nothing from (non-kernel space) 4.2.x (or never) is backported, just wanted to be sure. Does Google still patch the Linux kernels or has everything been mainlined? Still those patches are probably the same now for several Linux kernels that have been used with Android. comp.arch (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for individual versions[edit]

Well, if iOS can do it, than so can we. I've been starting work on seperate articles for each recent Android version, going by my work on Windows-related articles as an example (development, release, features, reception). I've done two so far, L, and Jelly Bean. Personally, I would prefer that these pages use their base version numbers as the title (i.e. Android 4.0), unless the specified version does not yet have a number (L), or a single codename covers multiple versions and the other versions do not contain enough substantial changes to justify a new article (Jelly Bean).

Think anyone could provide some help? ViperSnake151  Talk  00:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Market share[edit]

Don't mean to be a market crier, but I think these diagrams are somewhat more impressive then a mere number in a text. Maybe the article should adopt them:

Android market share on smartphones
 
 

Cheers User:ScotXWt@lk 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I like graphs as much as anyone else but these are effectively unsourced... – Steel 19:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is Android not a subsection of Linux?[edit]

I see no other Linux based OS's having their own entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.254.78 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What "Linux" do you mean? There is Linux kernel, which is currently used in several operating systems:
There are other operating systems based on Linux kernel which I don't know much about, so I am unsure whether they are varieties of GNU/Linux or not, eg. WebOS. There are Linux-based operating systems I did not recall while writing this response.
Did you notice the amount of blue links? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 It was Linux 3 months ago, but now its UNIX-like. Android 4.4 is running Linux kernel 3.4.  You should fix the malfunctioning bots.

http://www.ibtimes.com/android-442-kitkat-update-samsung-releases-kernel-source-code-sprints-galaxy-s3-ota-1578851

https://source.android.com/devices/tech/security/enhancements44.html

renegadeviking

"Android holds the largest number of installed-base devices"[edit]

@Steel: already Gartner seems to say Andoid IS most popular: "In the OS market, Android continues to be the OS of choice across all devices (see Table 2). Gartner estimates that Android will reach 1.1 billion users in 2014, a 26 percent increase from 2013. "There is no doubt that there is a volume versus value equation, with Android users also purchasing lower-cost devices compared to Apple users. Android holds the largest number of installed-base devices, with 1.9 billion in use in 2014, compared with 682 million iOS/Mac OS installed-base devices," said Annette Zimmerman, principal analyst at Gartner."[5]. I say "probably" to be on the safe side (because the 2014 numbers are estimates). Note the 1.1 billion number from Gartners is number for sold devices in 2014 only (estimate) and the installed base of 1.9 billion then would only make sense by adding up 2014 and 2013, and all 2012 and older Androids thrown away!

According to the table Windows seems to have a larger installed base than iOS/Mac OS considering either two or three year old devices but not mentioned.. Their "682 million iOS/Mac OS installed-base devices" seem not to match the table if as old devices as Android are kept. Maybe they consider PCs to have a life of three year and mobile two year? Still, Windows PCs would then be fewer than Android (at end of 2014 at least). And 1.9 billion > 1.5 billion WxWorks.. (and it sources seems to say other RTOS). comp.arch (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Now Gartners's rapidly declining "Others" category is not enough to be bigger than Android if kept for three (or two) years. I can only assume that it's "feature phones". However, it is/was bigger than Windows! Now, it may not be only one OS (Symbian?), it's probably fragmented in at least two big chunks, S40-non-Symbian (eg. Asha) and S60/Symbian. Another thing to inflate Windows is piracy. I took that into account by trying to get installed base of PC not just Windows. Not all PCs however run Windows.. Another thing I'm not sure is counted under PC are servers (many run on PC category hardware but probably not most..). "PC servers" are split between mostly Linux and Windows, but I'm not sure the Windows server market is big enought to matter much (I would like numbers) compared to the much bigger client Windows market. Good sources are needed but I believe Android is most popular now and that it's verifiable (by my already given sources mostly?). Andoird vs. mobile PC (laptops) at least is interesting information. More recent estimates of PC installed base is needed. Mobile subscribers are over 6 billion (but not all smartphones). PCs ever produced are over 4 billion. comp.arch (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Another possible error (if not counted towards PCs as I expect but did not consider) but not by much would by Windows tablets as of end-of-2013: 5,194,237=4,031,802 (2013) + 1,162,435 (2012) + 0 (2011).[6]

Since there was an error anyway (fixed now but have to check with Q1-2 of 2014 is enough to make Android most popular or if Q3 is also needed), premature for lead: "Android is the most popular operating system in the world, by installed base, with 1.331.87 billion devices sold (there of 126.3 million tablets) in 2012 and 2013 only, making it the highest selling tablet operating system in that timeframe and combined with smartphones the installed base is also higher than the estimated installed base for the traditional desktop/laptop PC operating system Microsoft Windows." Any idea how to improve text (when/if numbers higher)? Installed base of Windows desktop and mobiles estimated 1.919 billion at end of 2013 comp.arch (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't do original research. If some reference says that Android has a larger installed base than X then we can use that. Also this is way too much detail for the lead and should just go in the market share section. Another thing is your run-on sentences are unreadable. Sorry, but you don't seem to have the English skills to be editing English wikipedia. Bhny (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Simple calculations are not WP:OR (may not be if adding across refs?). I'll add to market share first. And/or here in the talk page. Ok, only overall picture in the lead. comp.arch (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Making calculations and then coming to a conclusion that isn't in the ref is WP:SYN. The source should have the conclusion, especially with fuzzy things like installed base. Bhny (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
comp.arch I don't doubt your enthusiasm or knowledge of the subject matter, but your recent edits have been unintelligible and backed up on this page by obvious original research. I don't know how everyone else feels here but I would appreciate it if you slowed down a little sometimes. You tend to make edits faster than people can decipher the previous ones, and justify them with lengthy, rambling talk page comments that not everyone reads for their own sanity. – Steel 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just find it to be major news if Android is number one operating system and at least doing OR for me or to convince myself is ok. I accidentally overestimated Android (added up a year, reading as a quarter) I now taking that into account Android sold 415.4 millions devices MORE than PC is Q1, Q2 and estimated Q3. As I made an error previously just a little bit bigger it seems Android is about as big now (even without adding tablets). I'm using Q3 2013 as proxy for Q3 2014 that may underestimate Android vs. PCs much. Let's see if the media catches on to this and does their own math. Probably after Q3 results are in. comp.arch (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014[edit]

Srimanand (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)