He is playing with words.<p>"Fact 1: Android runs Linux. But it’s not “the Linux.”"
No, It IS "the Linux". A lot of distributions do not use vanilla Linux kernel. You are free to change whatever part you want. It does not change the fact that it is still Linux.<p>"Android was not developed by Google!"
Does he think current android platform is developed by only the original members of the Android inc? It has been 5 years.
Summary:<p>1. Android is a Linux derivative with non-mainline changes, suck as "wake locks".<p>2. Android uses a non-Java ME (the official Java for mobile devices) Java environment. It's closer to Java SE.<p>3. And it doesn't use the JVM, it uses Dalvik.<p>4. Android was not initially developed by Google. It was acquired by them. The company was composed of former Danger staff who worked on the Sidekick and such. [I'd argue this point, as Android is a completely different best than the builds that were coming out around acquisition time. The only thing that's practically the same is that both used the Linux kernel).<p>5. SQLite is pervasive in Android.
<i>It’s widely believed that Oracle has shot itself in the foot by filing this lawsuit.</i><p>Is it really widely believed? And how did Oracle shoot itself in the foot with this lawsuit?
I can smell the nerd from the first comment, which uses characters to distinguish differing pronounciations of "th". Is that a peccadillo of his own, or is it a thing?
Do you think any of the "facts" mentioned on the page are drawbacks for Android? Let's recap: forked Linux, competing with Java ME within Java eco-system and having a non-JVM virtual machine to run the programs.