Why Google didn't choose FreeBSD for Android?

K

kriptomahsun

I asked chatgpt about this, it gave me very good explanations about why. Most interesting thing it said was that:
  • If Android had used FreeBSD, manufacturers could have kept their kernel changes private, leading to fragmentation
Would this happen really? We can use LineageOS thanks to those firms sharing the code back. Would we have AOSP if Google used FreeBSD then?
So here is what chatgpt said:

why didn't android choose freebsd as the base then?

ChatGPT:​

Android could have chosen FreeBSD instead of Linux, but there are several key reasons why Google went with Linux as the base for Android. Here’s why:

1. GPL vs. BSD License – Control Over Modifications​

  • The Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, which forces companies to share modifications to the kernel if they distribute it.
  • The FreeBSD kernel is licensed under a permissive BSD license, which allows companies to modify it and keep those changes proprietary.
  • Google likely wanted the GPL's copyleft feature because it ensures that improvements made by device manufacturers (e.g., Samsung, Qualcomm) to the Linux kernel must be shared back.
  • If Android had used FreeBSD, manufacturers could have kept their kernel changes private, leading to fragmentation.
👉 Choosing Linux ensured that Android kernel improvements remained open-source.

2. Hardware Support – Linux Had More Drivers​

  • Linux already had a vast collection of device drivers, including support for ARM architectures, which is crucial for mobile devices.
  • FreeBSD had far fewer drivers for embedded/mobile hardware at the time (2003-2007).
  • Mobile chip manufacturers (Qualcomm, MediaTek, Samsung, etc.) were already providing Linux-compatible drivers, making Linux the logical choice.
👉 Choosing Linux meant easier hardware compatibility and faster development.

3. Stronger Community & Corporate Backing​

  • By 2007, Linux was already widely used in embedded systems (e.g., routers, smart TVs).
  • Major companies (IBM, Intel, Red Hat, etc.) were backing Linux.
  • FreeBSD had (and still has) a smaller community and fewer corporate sponsors.
👉 A larger community meant more resources, faster development, and better long-term support.

4. Linux Had a Proven Track Record in Mobile​

  • Linux had already been used in mobile devicesbefore Android:
    • Nokia’s Maemo (2005)
    • Motorola’s Linux-based phones (2003-2006)
    • OpenMoko’s Linux phone (2007)
  • FreeBSD was primarily used in servers and networking rather than mobile.
👉 Linux was already battle-tested for embedded/mobile use.

5. FreeBSD Wasn't as Power-Efficient for Mobile​

  • Linux had better power management features, such as CPU frequency scaling, which was crucial for battery-powered devices.
  • FreeBSD's power management was not as developed for mobile devices at the time.
👉 Linux provided better power-saving features, which is critical for smartphones.

6. Google's Long-Term Vision for Open Source​

  • Google wanted Android to be open-source but with control over the ecosystem.
  • The GPLv2 ensured Android's Linux kernel modifications would remain open, while the Apache 2.0 license on the user space allowed Google to keep some parts proprietary (Google Play, Play Services, etc.).
  • FreeBSD’s permissive license would have allowed manufacturers to take the code, modify it, and never contribute back, which would have led to fragmentation.
👉 Linux + GPLv2 ensured that Android stayed open while preventing complete fragmentation.

Could Android Have Used FreeBSD?​

Technically, yes. FreeBSD is a solid UNIX-like OS with good networking, security, and performance. However, in the early 2000s, it lacked the mobile focus, drivers, and power management that Linux had.

If Google had chosen FreeBSD, they would have had to:

  • Develop many mobile drivers from scratch.
  • Convince manufacturers to support FreeBSD, which was harder than using Linux.
  • Risk companies keeping all modifications private, leading to fragmentation.

Conclusion​

🔹 Linux had better hardware support and power management for mobile devices.
🔹 GPLv2 ensured Google would get contributions back, unlike BSD.
🔹 A large Linux community meant faster development and corporate support.
🔹 Linux had already been used in mobile, while FreeBSD was focused on servers.

Bottom line: Linux was simply the better choice for Android's goals.
 
cracauer@ said:
This is gibberish. First of all Google did not pick Linux, Andy Rubin's company did, which Google later bought.

The license issue is misleading. The BSD 2-clause license allows you to re-publish under the GPL.
Click to expand...
Yeah that company first created Android, but still the point stands true.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
chatGPT is not an authoritative source for anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah well but it might be right about this:
  • If Android had used FreeBSD, manufacturers could have kept their kernel changes private, leading to fragmentation

As a user, we might probably not have something like LineageOS. Companies would've easily "planned obsolence" their phones. We'd have to buy new phone every 2 years to have them work reliably. They already do that even, many good and fast Mediatek-based phones, still working in perfect condition has left on Android 9 on purpose. Many Chinese brands do that. Because why companies support that for years whereas they'd force the user to buy new ones. Because Mediatek doesn't release any sources and this makes it hard for it to have a AOSP build for them, like LineageOS.
 
kriptomahsun ... First of all: You can't just add a question mark to a sentence and think that that makes it a proper question. Secondly, how about you come up with an original thought instead of posting what some LLM garbled together more or less randomly?

You could have used an LLM to actually formulate your subject as a proper question. They're great for that sort of thing.
 
cracauer@ said:
No, you are wrong. You can take a BSD2 licensed codebase and republish under the GPL. Google could have handed out the code to vendors under the GPL.
Click to expand...
Oh I get it now. But Linux was bigger and more tested in ARM and MIPS phones, that is true. It was battle tested even way back then. FreeBSD also didn't have power management, true.
 
Chatgpt must not be aware that Google's Fuchsia OS uses BSD and other licenses, not including GPL. Care to reconsider your postulation chatgpt?
 
Google have used and preferred the BSD licences where possible, so that LLM spew may look convincing, but is mostly B/S.

Example Bionic libc:

www.zdnet.com

Patrick Brady dissects Android

Patrick Brady of Google's partner group provided a detailed technical tour of the internals of the Android platform during his recent talk at Google I/O 2008 titled "Anatomy and Physiology of an Android". Topics included Linux kernel enhancements, the Bionic library (Google's slimmed down...
www.zdnet.com www.zdnet.com

License: they wanted to keep GPL out of user-space. Bionic code uses the BSD license.
Click to expand...

Bionic libc is 3 clause BSD licenced last time I checked and is based on code from the three main BSD derived OS.

There is actually an early powerpoint presentation from google, probably not long after their aquisition of Android, which clearly lays out the the design and goal and intention to isolate GPL parts (such as the kernel).
 
cracauer@ said:
You can take a BSD2 licensed codebase and republish under the GPL
Click to expand...
This is false.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

You may be able to make changes that are under GPL but the original copyright must be maintained as per 1. & 2. Condition 3. that was removed was about acknowledging UCB & contributors.
 
while "some" of what the op wrote could be considered factual in a limited context, the thread unfortunately does come across as more of a linux/google fanboy post. Make no mistake about googles motives. Everything they do is to further their own agenda and has nothing to do with true transparency or ultruism. Google touts the "open source" mantra but then makes it difficult/impossible to to create a true android distribution from scratch unless you are a corporate partner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top