> Which kernel is latest high-end Pixel running?
The one Qualcomm supports in their BSP package for Pixels SoC.
You seem to not understand who exactly provides kernels for Android and other embedded devices.
The one Qualcomm supports in their BSP package for Pixels SoC.
You seem to not understand who exactly provides kernels for Android and other embedded devices.
Oh, I perfectly understand how those things work, I've Google-certified more smartphones than I can count (which means more than 50), and that's merely one line of my resume.
In my comment, I mention Sony who upgraded their major kernel version. How does it fit your mental model of embedded system's BSPs?
I currently work in a company who provides software upgrades for a 10 years-old STB. This 10 years-old STB (that's older than the Nexus 4) is currently running Linux 5.4, and is planned to run Linux 5.14 in a few months, at millions of customers' home.
Are we bigger than Google? Gosh no, by orders of magnitude. Are we spending a lot of time on this? Well nope, we don't even need one person full-time to upgrade kernel version. Are we paying that person a lot? Nope, they could probably move to Google 500 meters away and have at the very least double salary.
Of course SoC-vendor stopped providing us with upgrades aeons ago.
But, contrary to Google, we actually have monetary incentives to keep supporting this device.
If they can't even wrangle this for their own phones, how is going to a more permissive license and embracing proprietary modules going to make the situation better?
And this stuff isn't like an http API. I gave examples above about how NT has fallen behind Linux because of their stable API and binary drivers.
Why are you so darn sure that they're wrong and the model that's been failing for the last 15+ years is really the right one?