Jump to content

Talk:Android (operating system): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
51kwad (talk | contribs)
256 edits
→User Interface: new section
51kwad (talk | contribs)
256 edits
Line 244: Line 244:
== User Interface ==
== User Interface ==


The elements of the Android UI were incomplete, I thought. I have added a few more things it may contain, to fully contrast it with iOS. [[User:51kwad|51kwad]] ([[User talk:51kwad|talk]]) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The elements of the Android UI were incomplete, I thought. I have added a few more things it may contain, to fully contrast it with iOS. Perhaps the hard and soft buttons need mention too? [[User:51kwad|51kwad]] ([[User talk:51kwad|talk]]) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:41, 23 December 2013

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2007Articles for deletionDeleted
October 7, 2007Articles for deletionKept
December 25, 2011Peer reviewReviewed

USB & MTP

No mention is made of the move to MTP as the main method of connection between the Android OS and PC's. Should this be added? There are differences between the methods of connection. ICS-feature-mtp

Proprietary Android!

See my last two edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&diff=558281983&oldid=558281728

I know the Android source code (currently) isn't proprietary but it (its Linux-kernel, that often does) often includes propriatary drivers/blobs/firmware. So the 'whole package' is (often) proprietary. Even without considering Google Play, that you could say is essential which always is (would you consider that part of the operationg system, debatable, but most people would thing so). Feel free to revert or change.

NB. People use the OS, the binaries, and not the source code directly and the page is about that. And as a side note, maybe something about non-free SDK should be added ('required' (almost?) to make apps), but strictly not part of Android, and only an issue for developers. comp.arch (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, can someone help me and fix the link to not point to references. comp.arch (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly was disagreement with my recent edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&diff=558400644&oldid=558330733
Maybe this has been discussed before? I don't want to edit war. comp.arch (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this was only done for formatting reasons. I have never seen links that point to another section on the same page. If you want to quote a reference from that section, you should probably point to the reference directly instead of the paragraph. It is advisable to back up a statement like Android is non-free software by citing some reliable source, see WP:RS. And it would certainly be interesting to find out what the real legal facts are in that respect. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see people have accepted my above change it needs expanding. What is meant by Android? Where do you draw the line between the OS in strict sense that is kernel as in kernel (then it would really just be the (modified) Linux kernel and would not deserve a new name?) and OS as in including all the programs you get with the device? I think the Infoxbox should mention more that proprietary drivers since most people are getting proprietary apps thinking they are also "Android". And I just saw some quotes went missing and thought of reverting until I tracked down (and see the additions are good):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&diff=578179440&oldid=577811832

comp.arch (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that that often the end product from an OEM has proprietary elements that are unaccessible to developer (drivers, blobs, apps), but I would consider that a Derivative Work as defined by the Apache License, Version 2.0[1] The proprietary label of the derivative work should not be retroactively applied to Android. Android can be built from source and run on hardware with drivers that are freely available[2][3] The proprietary blobs include NFC, camera, Wifi and other drivers, but The core OS will still function without them. Would you label linux as "Open source with proprietary components" because it need display drivers that are not open sourced, but are still freely available? [4]
The SDK, while it does allow a dev to used the proprietary Google Services API, does not include the services by default[5] nor do you need to use them to create a fully functional Android App.
I believe that a clear distinction between the Android that consumers see and use, with all of the proprietary OEM and Google services added, and the Open Source Core OS of the Android Open Source Project needs to be made. This article should not use either to define the other. Ryftstarr (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Would you label linux as "Open source with proprietary components" because it need display drivers that are not open sourced"? Yes, if Linux would need non-free. Note this is not the best example as the Linux kernel doesn't need non-free diplay drivers. Fully free ones are available. Also it doesn't need Wifi or a RIL and still Linux kernel says "GPL v2 plus various closed source binary blobs" in infobox. For most people Android means a phone OS (started as one). In practice none of the Android phones CAN do with the open-source code. If they could Replicant (operating system) would not exist (or would have succeded). I think that also applies for tablets. Android might be the most free phone OS (besides Replicant) but it's not fully there. If/when I'm wrong let me know. comp.arch (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox caption

The caption for the image on the main articles page is wrong. It is a screenshot of Android 4.3 on LG Nexus 4.

Thank you for pointing that out. Got it corrected. -- Dsimic (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AOSP Apps being abandoned

Under the Licensing header the phrase is inaccurate.

In recent years, a number of open-source Android apps have been abandoned and replaced by closed source versions, while Google Play Services inherits and introduces development API's which are also proprietary.

Calendar app released on oct27, 2012. updates to AOSP app[6]

Google Music Released on Nov, 2011 updates to AOSP app[7]

Camera updates[8]

All have been developed and improved on AFTER the release of the corresponding google app. A handful of changes were made, but any development negates the "abandoned" label

Ryftstarr (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got the language improved a bit, so it's now slightly better describing the replacement of open-source applications. -- Dsimic (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The apps don't get "abandoned and replaced". They are still available and continue to be updated in AOSP . They may not appear in the end product devices, but that is because they are replaced by the OEM. Ryftstarr (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the line "In recent years, a number of open-source Android apps have been gradually abandoned and replaced by closed source versions, while Google Play Services inherits and introduces development APIs which are also proprietary." Ryftstarr (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The open-source applications aren't actually deleted from the AOSP repositores, but they're receiving no new features — making then pretty much obsolete when compared to their closed-source versions. I'm sure you've checked out the references, where that's clearly visible. -- Dsimic (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could the "However, most Android devices ship with additional Google software that is proprietary" be replaces with "However, most Android devices ship with additional software that is proprietary" OEM's replace many AOSP apps with their own Samsung have S-Voice, They all have their own Camera, messaging, and email clients The Nexus devices ship with Chrome and Hangouts. I don't think its accurate to single out Google.
I still think that the "In recent years, a number of open-source Android apps have been gradually abandoned and replaced by closed source versions, while Google Play Services inherits and introduces development APIs which are also proprietary." Line is very misleading as it implies that the AOSP no longer exist and that Google services are the only solution, which is not true. The updates to AOSP apps may be meager, featureless, and only done to insure that the app runs on the current OS but they are not abandoned still provide baseline functionality on the current OS. Anyone can still contribute to them[9] Ryftstarr (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally right regarding both Google and OEMs providing and shipping the proprietary software. I already went ahead and edited the first sentence, and a bit later I'll improve the second sentence as well. Please check it out. -- Dsimic (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hope you'll find it Ok now. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code clean-up? Move to proprietary?

Java (UI) in Infobox links to [[1]]. Note first that this might be unreliable (says Apache 1.1 not 2.0 license). However There is a large drop in code around 2012-2013. Anybody know why? Apps are still in ASOP but not used by many OEMs. Might it be that? comp.arch (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of ART (Android Runtime)

As per this article, Android KitKat introduces a new runtime, ART. This runtime compiles bytecode upon installation (Ahead-of-time) as compared to the current Dalvik runtime that uses Just-in-time and compiles bytecode each time an app is launched. This allows for faster execution and increased battery life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.30.249 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is meant to replace the Dalvik VM. I haven't had time to write about it, but it is due indeed. --uKER (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, this is still experimental stuff. -- Dsimic (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the "meant to replace" is meant to be literal. It doesn't completely replace it just yet. --uKER (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optional hardware section and possibly keeping/readd it later it in the versions article

Thanks for moving here. I put it in the versions article and intended to expand it (or hoped someone would) to include in what versions certain features got added or dropped as requirements. Since nothing such is mentioned I can see that it fits here.

What I mean with "Android supports OpenGL ES 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0." is that all these versions have at one point been supported as the most recent version (and I wanted to know at which Android version). For this article as it refers to the most recent version of Android, saying only OpenGL ES 3.0 might seem enough but that is wrong. Note 1.1 and 2.0 APIs are not compatible. I think 3.0 is with 2.0. Hardware that supports newer versions probably always supports all older onces. 1.1 might theoretically be an exception, not sure any hardware only support 2.0 and newer in practice.

I'll change to "OpenGL ES 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0". I assume 1.1 is compatible with 1.0 and 1.0 needs not be mentioned. Note 1.1 and 2.0 are not compatible, I think 3.0 might be with 2.0.

Regarding: "Android devices can include still or video cameras, touchscreens, GPS, accelerometers, gyroscopes, barometers, magnetometers, dedicated gaming controls, proximity and pressure sensors, thermometers, accelerated 2D bit-blits (with hardware orientation, scaling and pixel format conversion), and accelerated 3D graphics." I copied this and all seem optional. I guess screens are not optional but touchscreens are in principle. Does anyone know of a mobile device though that doesn't have a touchscreen? comp.arch (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I had exactly the same thoughts as you've just described above — it would be great to have such a list within the Android revisions history article, so we know which version required what, hardware-wise. Though, if you agree, starting that within the revisions history article would be much better with some kind of a requirements matrix instead of a list, so people can more easily chip in later, filling in what's missing. Also, that way it should be much more readable, and thus much more usable — if you agree?
Regarding Android devices having a screen not supporting touch input, I really can't recall one. -- Dsimic (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, (touch)screens are optional. Just think of all those "HDMI sticks" running Android. -- Dsimic (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no.. Not sure screens are the best example of optional hardware. Yes in the device they are optional, but HDMI implies connecting to a monitor. For Android as an operating system and as a user interface a screen is pretty much required. A GPS is completely optional, could theoretically be added through USB (not sure if supported by Android). A physical keyboard is optional but a virtual one is provided instead (some form is "required"). A mouse, I'm told, is optional (you get I pointer if connected, true?). Screens (for that reason), do not have to be touchscreens. Android doesn't work at all for blind people right? comp.arch (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having a (touch)screen is pretty much making current Android devices usable, at least in a way Android is supposed to be used. Regarding having a mouse connected, I've seen those air mice (or however they're called) connected, and there was an on-screen mouse pointer, though I'm not sure whether additional applications were installed for that purpose. Blind people and Android, hm? There seem to be some applications claiming to provide accessibility. -- Dsimic (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make sourcing this section a priority please? – Steel 14:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the subsection in this article, or to the planned subsection in Android version history § Hardware requirements? -- Dsimic (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For now, the whole hardware requirements section in this article (assuming it does stay here at all), some of which has been sitting with citation needed for weeks now. – Steel 16:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, please check it out. -- Dsimic (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information collision: what is Android.

There is collision on article start and then in the more accurate information content. Article starts with claim: "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel...." and then later it is revealed to reader with architecture: "On top of the Linux kernel, there are the middleware, libraries and APIs written in C, and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony." and it collides with the first claim what is false. Linux kernel is the operating system used in Android. The first paragraph should start in manner "Android is a distribution of Linux operating system designed for mobile devices..." (or a like). If any one watch the original Android architecture presentation, it collides even more with the claim "Android is the operating system" / "Android is Linux-based operating system" as those claims are not technically accurate. Readers who would think what they read from article, will find same problems that the statements on start are not true but are against the architecture of Android Androidology - Part 1 of 3 - Architecture Overview Golftheman (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linux kernel isn't an operating system by itself. The kernel is just the core part, and on top of it there are system libraries, utilities etc., making up together a Linux distribution. In a similar way, Android adds its own stuff on top of the (customized) Linux kernel. -- Dsimic (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on image in "History" section has grammatical errors

The caption on the image says: "Eric Schmidt, Andy Rubin and Hugo Barra at a press conference for the Google's tablet Nexus 7."

I think this should be fixed to read: "Eric Schmidt, Andy Rubin and Hugo Barra at a press conference for Google's Nexus 7 tablet."

Kylrth (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   Edit performed as requested. -- Dsimic (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GEL closed source?

It's not. Proof of this are the numerous third-party aplications available that install the launcher, which are compiled from the AOSP source. That said, I still don't think it's representative of KitKat since it's not included in all distributions of the OS. --uKER (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'd say that GEL actually is a closed-source application, please allow me to explain. This article describes GEL's actual functionality as tied into the Google Search application, and all new features for that application went into its closed-source version, as described in this article. In other words, AOSP distributions can have the GEL, but by using some kind of a shim application, in order to utilize the functionality provided through an installation of the Google Apps suite. Of course, I might be plain wrong there, as I'm not an Android hacker patching and compiling AOSP all day long. :) — Dsimic (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Android television set top box?

I've been noticing on Ebay that there's a ton of Android set top television boxes that play all kinds of Internet streams/feeds. Anyone have an idea who might have been first to this area? Kudos to Android for going into autos and television set top boxes. CaribDigita (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Android 4.4.1

Android 4.4.1 was released on December 5. Should we update the infobox to state that 4.4.1 is the latest stable release? --WikiWinters (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out! Went ahead and updated the infobox. — Dsimic (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Home

We already had consensus earlier not to acknowledge Google Home (a.k.a. Google Experience launcher) in any form on this page (aside from, possibly, a mention of it as an example of a component Google has made non-open), as it is officially exclusive to the Nexus 5 and not technically part of Android.

Additionally, the source an editor used to bring up Google Home on this page is also deemed unreliable because it is merely a forum (how major a forum is doesn't matter), and the Ars Technica "Iron Grip" article only discusses Google's practices itself and makes little mention to Google Home. This is why I keep removing it. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Regarding recent edits (edit #2, edit #2) on the Android (operating system) and Android version history articles, please allow me to explain the background of adding those notes. As we know, there have been numerous edits replacing the stock screenshot with the GEL one, and the note is there for providing additional explanation so confusion is avoided. People expect to see translucent bars for 4.4, and it should be explained why they aren't there — if you agree.
Also, could you please explain why do you keep reverting that, only because it's using a forum post as a reference – while it's a pure fact? Shouldn't you try to provide a better reference instead of performing plain deletion? — Dsimic (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put notes in articles to tell users why the Android screenshot isn't showing TouchWiz. This is a similar case. Google Home might get its own article once its actually released officially. Also read WP:V, "internet forum postings [..] are largely not acceptable as sources." ViperSnake151  Talk  21:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That totally makes sense, but on the other side I haven't seen people switching those images for the TouchWiz ones, :) while they've been switched to GEL variants at least 5-6 times so far. The trouble comes from the fact Nexus phones are taken as some kind of a reference point, regarding deciding what is and what isn't "bare" Android, while Google's recent shift to segmenting Android's features into closed-source applications is breaking that assumption. — Dsimic (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would this be a better reference for the GEL / Google Home and its relationship with the "bare" Android, instead of a forum post? If we care to explain that at all, of course. — Dsimic (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: Any comments, please? It would be polite to say something, at least. — Dsimic (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we have right now are fine. GEL is a Google app, not stock Android. This article is only about Android, not what companies (even Google) add to Android. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. With your latest edit, it is much more clear what's the relationship between Google Home / GEL and Android, especially regarding what's available on Nexus 5. — Dsimic (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forks of Android - Fire OS, when?

See: Talk:Fire OS#When was Android forked into Fire OS? And where do you draw the line between Android (AOSP) and the rest of the software? Try not to duplicate the discussion (too much) here. Should we do more in this page about forks? comp.arch (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, Fire OS should probably be mentioned in this article, in the same place where Amazon and Kindle Fire are already mentioned. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (Diff) Wasn't too hard to decide where to put it. --uKER (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, thanks. — Dsimic (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Amazon's Kindle Fire line uses Fire OS, a heavily modified fork of Android which does not include or support any of Google's proprietary components". In what ways is it heavily modified? This should be answered it the Fire OS page.. I really want to know for this fork or others. comp.arch (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, there might be another Android fork around the corner... To me, it seems logical that Fire OS is basically "leeching" on the Android's (and Linux kernel's) wast hardware/drivers support, building a customized UI on top of it, which acts as a consumer of Amazon's proprietary services and their own application store — while keeping everything tight, so any further customization is hard. That's what makes it an actual Android fork. — Dsimic (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's Aliyun OS, too. We might want to mention it within this article. — Dsimic (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AOSP

Although AOSP redirects to this article, it should now have its own article. -Mardus (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, that would introduce too much fragmentation. Just my $0.02. :) — Dsimic (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

41.178.223.108 (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no actual request made. Please resubmit your request in the form of "change X to Y", providing all reliable source. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 09:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Interface

The elements of the Android UI were incomplete, I thought. I have added a few more things it may contain, to fully contrast it with iOS. Perhaps the hard and soft buttons need mention too? 51kwad (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
  2. ^ http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Build_for_mako#Get_prebuilt_apps
  3. ^ https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers#makojwr66y
  4. ^ http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux-display-32bit-arm-319.60-driver.html
  5. ^ http://developer.android.com/google/index.html
  6. ^ https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:merged+project:platform/packages/apps/Calendar,n,z
  7. ^ https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:merged+project:platform/packages/apps/Music,n,z
  8. ^ https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:merged+project:platform/packages/apps/Camera,n,z
  9. ^ http://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Android_(operating_system)&oldid=587437577"