both Linux operating systems have 1. A friendly user interface, 2. A hidden terminal, and 3. A locked down root user, to avoid dangerous actions!! Why do people seem to dislike Android when Ubuntu is similar to it??
Hidden terminal? Locked down root user? Troll post or do you not know anything about Ubuntu?
Troll post or shill, same account recently asked “why do people dislike google, they’re only doing legal data saving for stuff you search” and then ignored every bit of legitimate croticism that was handed to them.
Makes no sense to interact with such an account.
no!! I’m not a troll, but Ubuntu uses sudo commands instead of root. And using root is not encouraged… I’m sorry!!
Sudo is root. It executes commands as the root user on every linux distro.
yes I know, I’m sorry. I love both Android and Ubuntu!! And you can get sudo in Android, but it can void the warranty of your phone.
You can potentially get sudo on Android, but the ability to do so largely depends on the device. I guess there may be some devices which run on Linux and lock the user out from installing their own version or accessing super-user, but that’s a lot less common.
I would say that Android is not Linux, but it is based on Linux. The ACK is a based on the core Linux kernel, but with additions that aren’t found in mainline and a fairly different userspace and lack of a GNU C library. They’re more like cousins than siblings at this point.
- You’re uninformed (highly debatable)
- You’re uninformed (It’s right fuckin there)
- You’re uninformed (It’s not immutable)
If you go far enough out then Windows, Android, Linux, iOS, WebOS, QNX, Tizen and goddamn TempeOS all do the same thing. Reductio ad absurdum.
I know but both Ubuntu and Android do it for a purpose: Include as many people as possible, most people like Ubuntu but dislike Android. I love both, because they are the pillars of open source along with Debian.
Ubuntu is based on Debian, so I’m with you about Debian, but Ubuntu lost their way a long time back and can duck off.
the Linux leader from my Linux usergroup uses Debian 11 with Xfce so technically he is being classic. I use Ubuntu with GNOME, it’s the best for both beginners and pro.
What the hell is a “Linux leader”??
the person who organizes the Linux speeches and does other things including the website and posters. I sometimes help him get posters and other stuff done, it’s a community!!
Are you in a local user group, like a Linux club?
yes!!
You’re basically saying that virtually every Linux is the same, which to a certain extent is true and to a certain extent is not true.
Basically you haven’t said anything.
what I’m saying is that Android is a Linux distribution for mobile phones, whether it’s locked down or not depends on the developer!! Which is why Puppy Linux is also locked down and lightweight.
I don’t like Google’s Android or Ubuntu. lol
But I do like Android (AOSP) and Debian a lot though.
I like Calyx and Gentoo. They’ve been nice to me.
I’ll address all your points
- It’s just GNOME but slightly modified
- How? Gnome includes a terminal that technically exists (even if slow)
- Just use sudo
As for the differences
- Ubuntu is open source (Android =/= AOSP)
- Sudo is enabled
- Ubuntu repository
- Gnome is a proper desktop (and can even be a traditional desktop with extensions)
- Can be heavily modified
- Telemetry can be disabled
- The most controversial feature (snaps) can be removed
- Ubuntu uses the standard Linux kernel
- It’s a desktop operating system
- It’s not owned by a multi billion dollar ad company
(Android =/= AOSP)
can you elaborate on this? this is the first i’ve heard this take. rather I would say Android =/= gservices
Android generally refers to a complete Android system that includes Google software and services along with additional OEM bloat. Meanwhile ASOP is extremely bare bones and parts of it are being abandoned.
I guess AOSP is barebones, but it’s not like anything is being abandoned that matters, AOSP itself is still alive, kicking, and thriving. Interesting to hear that people consider Android, AOSP + proprietary bits. It’s not something i’ve used myself
Interesting to hear that people consider Android, AOSP + proprietary bits.
Google owns the Android trademark, and they won’t let you officially call any OS that doesn’t meet their requirements Android. And their requirements include Gapps among other things. That means AOSP is not Android.
One is owned by a multinational company and the other isn’t.
technically Ubuntu is owned by a multinational company too!!
Sure. They’re exactly the same then.
Are you talking about mobile OS? I can’t imagine using Android as a desktop.
The biggest differences are the available packages and the that Android is typically heavily locked down to prevent user access.
Oh but there is. (Chrome OS)
Oh, I forgot about Chromebooks and ChromeOS. They are similar, but there are significant differences.
ChromeOS is based on Gentoo. It is centered on keyboard and mouse input, often with touchscreen.
Android is its own flavor of Linux, entirely centered on touch input.
While I think it might be entirely possible to install and remove packages to have one act like the other, we are comparing a different Linux flavor against Android.
Also, my answer is probably generic enough to answer OP.
it’s not accurate to say android is centred on touch input. Android has some of, if not the most diverse input options, mouse and keyboard works fine, also there is a large library of apps compatible with remotes/gamepads. While that might be how a lot of people normally interact with it, android is very well developed to be diverse
android as desktop works pretty decently actually, it can be quite nice when you set it up, especially for lower end hardware, and ofc, if you need more flexibility, you can run linux in a chroot and use x11 to bring the screen to the android env. or go vice versa and use waydroid in linux and your desktop, then simply swap out when you dont need it. (though waydroid can be harder on low end hardware)
Android isn’t locked down, because you can download things from the internet, get new apps, even if you can’t access the Google Play Store!! and you can run the terminal.
If you, as the owner, don’t have root, it’s extremely locked down.
There are a few you can get root, but they’re the exception, not the rule, and having to jump through hoops for it is still a locked down OS.
Here’s a task for you: Create a new file called “Unlimited_POWER” in /
Do that both on Android and Ubuntu using the built in or preinstalled terminal, and no external devices. No new software installation. Just this task on a fresh install.
Android is a mobile operating system owned by one of the 3 largest tech companies in the world.
Ubuntu is an alternate desktop OS for users of x86 systems that can’t pay a licence, want to bring new life to old hardware or just want to use something other than Windows or MacOS.
Ubuntus terminal isn’t really hidden. The root user not being usable (heavily advised against) is a good thing for almost all situations (something I wish windows would also do by default).
Android is built entirely for mobile devices. Ya sure you CAN get it running on other devices, but why?
Friendly interfaces, is subjective tbh. I think I get where you’re coming from.
Google
Who likes Ubuntu? Snap is terrible & they’re forcing it down our throats in a way that is reminiscent to Edge on Windows.
I love Ubuntu so much :3 and I’m very happy that Canonical has worked with Microsoft and Google, Linux is becoming a liked kernel and operating system!! u
- Based on opinion, but okay, I’ll give you that one.
- Ubuntu has terminal built-in, it’s far from hidden. Most Android installs (average smart phone) don’t include a terminal, you have to either use adb from a computer, or download a terminal from an app store.
- Ubuntu’s root user is not locked down. By default the user can run any command they want using sudo, and a basic google search will tell them how to enable root login fairly quickly. By comparison, just about any android smartphone has to be “jailbroken” using an exploit in order to access root. Some phones, especially in the USA, can’t be jailbroken at all.
Ubuntu is pretty upfront about any telemetry and allows you to disable it easily. A lot of Android’s telemetry can’t be opted out of, unless you happen to have an unlocked bootloader and can install a privacy-focused custom ROM.
These are not the same, although I get the point you’re trying to make. Ubuntu has a user-friendly interface, with a goal of making Linux accessible to all. But for anybody who wants to, it’s fairly easy to dig into the internals and become a “power user.” It certainly makes no attempt to stop you from doing so. Android, on the other hand, on MOST instances, locks down everything, with little to no overrides, even from the user, many times “in the name of security.”
No.
-
They have user interfaces designed for completely different use cases and input devices.
-
Ubuntu doesn’t really hide it’s terminal.
-
Ubuntu in no way has a locked down root. A simple sudo command is all you need. In a typical Android phone, is MUCH harder to get root on.
Android and Ubuntu are much more different than you realise. From the technical details to Google’s monopolistic practices. Honestly it is shorter to list what they have in common (basically the Linux kernel and a tiny selection of GNU utilities)
wait if Android has GNU utilities, does that mean it’s GNU/Linux, I read somewhere that Android is Toybox/Linux.
It has some GNU utilities. We are talking a very small selection indeed. Some might even be completely different implementations compared to the typical GNU toolbox.
We are certainly not talking entire toolchains.
-
Plenty of people like both and plenty of people dislike both…
