[wusspuss]

>Android’s biggest contribution/change is the security model — the old UNIX one is simply way too crude, so instead android runs each application as a new, dynamically created user so that UNIX permissions actually get used properly, to a degree.

That doesn't justify any of the other Android's "traits". It's also not clear why that couldn't be done as part of regular gnu/linux, as it is being done now with Wayland + flatpak/firejail/anything that introduces that sort of security model WITHOUT destroying the entire ecosystem. That would actually seem easier as that'd involve much less reinventing.

[kaba0]

Because it predates them? Also, flatpaks/etc don’t provide nearly the same level of security that android does. A fundamental part of Android security is that it is user-controllable at runtime even, giving the user more liberty. You don’t just start a program in firejail with a given incantation and later kill it to restart with camera on.

[wusspuss]

>Because it predates them?

I know, point is Android could've been something like regular linux + flatpak, that's it. If "security" were so important to them they could just invent flatpak without reinventing the rest of the system.

>Also, flatpaks/etc don’t provide nearly the same level of security that android does.

1. There's an order of magnitude less effort being spent on them. They're like RedHat's side gig or something. So not exactly a fair comparison.

2. Who are you kidding praising Android's security? A couple of years after purchase that thing stops getting security updates anyway.

>A fundamental part of Android security is that it is user-controllable at runtime even, giving the user more liberty.

1. Initially it wouldn't allow you to reject an app's permission. You could only see what an app is allowed

2. Who are you kidding calling Android user-controllable? The thing doesn't even give you root access. Also all apps are mostly proprietary and can just refuse to work if you don't give them what they want.