I see a key advantage in conventional Linux over Android - it promotes collaboration and values of open source and free software better. If you look at Android's history, it started as closed proprietary project, which led to certain key design decisions which affected Android's future forever on. One key example is Android's graphical stack and graphical drivers architecture.
Since X11 was considered overengineered and in need for replacement, Android's designers decided to create something new, but they didn't take in account any community considerations and any previous effort of Linux graphical drivers. On the other hand, around the same time Wayland was started as a project to replace Xorg as Linux graphical server. Wayland however takes in account collaborative effort and previous work of graphic drivers. From http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html : *Wayland is not really duplicating much work. Where possible, Wayland reuses existing drivers and infrastructure. One of the reasons this project is feasible at all, is that Wayland reuses the DRI drivers, the kernel side GEM scheduler and kernel mode setting. Wayland doesn't have to compete with other projects for drivers and driver developers, it lives within the X.org, mesa and drm community and benefits from all the hardware enablement and driver development happening there. * Android designers didn't care about this at all. This resulted in totally independent and incompatible infrastructure, which creates unneeded competition and distraction for hardware manufacturers, and this backfires on global Linux community. To put it in practical terms, imagine some hardware vendor releasing a device targeting Android OS. You can't reuse GPU drivers of that relase for anything except Android, because of incompatible architecture. And as practice shows, most vendors aren't eager to release drivers for X11, let alone Wayland for these devices. In practice it means, you can't easily have accelerated graphical experience on this device for anything except Android. If vendor would work with X11 or Wayland, it could allow more functional ports of various community OSes on those device (including Mer derivatives). And that would probably help improving upstream projects themselves (i.e. Xorg / Wayland) which will in its turn benefit even the desktop Linux at large. So, Android defacto doesn't promote anything except Android, and doesn't benefit global Linux community. Projects based on conventional Linux architecture on the other hand benefit Linux community and promote collaboration. So from Linux community perspective, Mer is definitely preferable. I'm sure others can give different reasons as well. Regards, Hillel. On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Hui Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > I am considering one important question: What is Mer's advantage over > Android? In technical point of view, in marketing point of view, etc... > Any are appreciated:) > > In 2012 Q1, an important task for me is to convince TV vendors (even > chip vendors such as MSTAR and MTK) that Mer can replace Android well. > If I can say something about Mer's advantage, it will do great help. > > Thans a lot!
