Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This Bloomberg article has several shortcomings.

1. "Android and Chrome OS are built on Linux, a widely used open-source programming language."

Here they mix up the Linux kernel with the Java programming language.

2. "Moving from Linux, though, could have upsides for Google. Android’s use of the technology, which is owned by Oracle Corp., is at the center of a lengthy, bitter lawsuit between the two companies. Shifting away from using Linux would help Google’s legal case that its software isn’t reliant on Oracle."

While here they mix up the Java programming language with the Linux kernel.



I agree. Some other snippets

> In the code pages, the Googlers working on Fuchsia specify that the software is not finalized.

Really, that needed to be said? An operating system with no practical use or implementation isnt finished? None of the ones in mass use right now are "finished."

>This means Google’s latest services only reach a fraction of Android users.

Google Play Services were split out from the OS back in 2013. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/balky-carriers-and-s... The author repeatedly tries to paint Android as a monolith held back by hardware manufacturers, and google, for the most part has split what we know as Android into two layers, and has fullll control of one of those two.

>"Moving from Linux, though, could have upsides for Google. Android’s use of the technology, which is distributed by Oracle Corp., is at the center of a lengthy, bitter lawsuit between the two companies. Android was also built using Java software technology, which Oracle owns and has claimed Google stole to shore up its mobile business."

Even after a correction, the article still claims Oracle has sued Google over Linux! (Not sure if your copy/paste is from after the correction.) The author demonstrates no understanding of the difference between the Linux Kernel, Common Libraries, Android Runtime, Android Application Framework, and Google Services. Moving from Linux doesnt mean replacing the Runtime or Services. Completely separate layers. Oracles disupte is over the Runtime not Linux.


> Here they mix up the Linux kernel with the Java programming language.

I parsed that comma as an "and".

> While here they mix up the Java programming language with the Linux kernel.

Did they? It might be implied that Google is dropping Java as well. Indeed other sources seem to suggest this is their strategy[1], [2], [3], [4]

My experiences with Bloomberg writers is that they're not lazy, but they elide a great deal of specificity to focus on the business effects and brands instead of technical bits and bobs.

[1]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/21/android_the_next_10...

[2]: https://www.quora.com/Is-Google-implictly-going-to-drop-Java...

[3]: https://rethinkresearch.biz/articles/google-reveals-more-fuc...

[4]: https://www.androidauthority.com/we-compiled-fuchsia-os-7104...


1. No they didn't. They incorrectly used the word language instead of Kernel. Chrome Os is not built with Java.

2. Correct


Imagine the horrors if Oracle "owned" Linux...


Then I’m sure Unix or FreeBSD would be more prevalent for servers.


Well, they did their share of contributions

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/linux/techn...

As for Java, if Google actually cared to get away with their actions, they could have bought Sun.

Surely it would have been cheaper than what they already paied their lawyers.


Well, they did build JavaOS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS


Well, SCO certainly tried to make that claim.


That first mistake isn't in the article anymore, but the second is.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: