Android OS >3M lines of code vs BB10 100K lines of code

**tmurphx5** · 03-17-2013, 08:24 PM

Interesting spin on things if the numbers are correct......

"Google, Samsung, it doesn't matter. The Android OS is not supportable. The hardware requirements to make it run even remotely efficient is too great. The S4 is already considered a huge flop (overheating problems, poor build quality - cheap plastic feel, etc.). With over 3,000,000 lines of code, the OS is an albatross. It cannot be maintained. Too many bugs, too slow. The hardware it needs for future releases will not exist. The only real company with a strong future in mobility is Blackberry. Their new BB10 OS built using QNX, is lean, fast, powerful, efficient, and built for a long future of growth. At around 100,000 lines of code, the hardware needed to make it much more powerful than the S4 is easy to do. And the Z10 proves that. iOS is out of the picture, as it is stale, unfriendly, and so outdated it is also unmaintainable. So the future is BBs. They have done a great job of turning things around. Long BB all the way to $100."
Read more at Android OS >3M lines of code vs BB10 100K lines of - BlackBerry - BB

Full article.

Android OS >3M lines of code vs BB10 100K lines of - BlackBerry - BB

**beanyman** · 03-17-2013, 08:30 PM

Where did you get that info from? Sounds good. The link seems to be just a repeat but no source to prove it.

**superdirt** · 03-17-2013, 08:37 PM

100k lines of code? I will believe that when I see it. Otherwise the author brings up a good point.

Posted via CB10

**dcbo89** · 03-17-2013, 08:43 PM

While I dont doubt that android has 3 million lines of code and that that will really start to bite them in the behind as they try and move forward. I have a hard time believing that BB10 only has 100k, a a lot less than 3 million but 100k is nothing, would have thought that that was more iOS territory where the OS doesnt do anything.

**silverpig** · 03-17-2013, 08:46 PM

They are probably referring to the kernel alone.

Posted via CB10

**Shanerredflag** · 03-17-2013, 08:48 PM

It's from a Dan Dodge interview a couple years ago I think...and yes...it's only 100k.

Posted via CB10

**howarmat** · 03-17-2013, 08:49 PM

The kernel itself is over 100k lines of code. So there is no way that the OS as a complete package is that little. They seem to be comparing apples to oranges type of thing

**sydsam** · 03-17-2013, 08:51 PM

Yep, it's either the kernel or QNX. BB10 Should be more

Posted via CB10

**Shanerredflag** · 03-17-2013, 08:57 PM

Think it's taken from this article: http://www.zdnet.com/blackberry-10-f...ts-7000010650/

Posted via CB10

**out2golf** · 03-17-2013, 08:58 PM

The word needs to be put out to every media source. Let's do to Samsung as the media tried to do to blackberry. Lets bring them down. All the negatives we can give them will help blackberries rise to the top.
Go long with Blackberry

**sonbuster** · 03-17-2013, 09:01 PM

Thanks for sharing OP. let's all agree BB10 is still a lean, fast, powerful, efficient OS built for a long future of growth; much moreso than other monolithic OS's out there.

A closer look at QNX Neutrino - the rock solid foundation of BlackBerry 10

The QNX Neutrino real time operating system (RTOS) is based on POSIX, like Linux. Its main advantage is how slim and optimized the kernel is, something the founders call a Micro Kernel architecture. The first edition was in 1982, and it has been polished and ironed out ever since. The source code is just 100 000 lines, compared to, say, Linux's 9 million, or Windows's 70 million lines of code. This means extreme reliability with very little chances to crash.

**meltbox360** · 03-17-2013, 10:42 PM

I'm pretty sure its apples to apples and they are only talking about the kernels. Linux kernel is really big. Any modern os easily hits a few million lines of code.

**darkehawke** · 03-18-2013, 02:26 AM

Poor article and nothing more than an opinion piece. No facts to support his theories, and no reason given as to why is is just written off, other then it is old.
This is exactly the kind of article that was common with bashing blackberry and was rightly decried here for being so fact free.

Posted via CB10

**richardat** · 03-18-2013, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by sonbuster

Thanks for sharing OP. let's all agree BB10 is still a lean, fast, powerful, efficient OS built for a long future of growth; much moreso than other monolithic OS's out there.
l]

Did you not write the "article" the OP posted?

**richardat** · 03-18-2013, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by sydsam

Yep, it's either the kernel or QNX. BB10 Should be more

Posted via CB10

Yes, of course.....it would be incredibly pathetic if there had been a delay over a year long over 100,000 lines of code total!!! ;-)

Thorstein recently said himself the delay was because there was "millions" of lines of code that needed to be gone over again.

**bobauckland** · 03-18-2013, 03:46 AM

You cannot compare Android to QNX, BB10 is not QNX, it's QNX with A LOT of extra stuff thrown in.
Having said that, I don't doubt for a minute that Android's code would be significantly more than BB10.
As an OS that began years ago, and has had to add features as it evolved, the code would have had to grow with it. Windows was the same way, at least until Windows 7 or summat.
As a new OS, BB10 would be less code as things would not have had to be hacked or patched on, but planned for from the beginning.

How much of a difference that makes in the end, and how they both deal with growing as time moves forward, is anyone's guess.

So, overall, poor article.

**superdirt** · 03-18-2013, 06:49 AM

100k doesn't mean the kernel is better, or something

Posted via CB10

**katesbb** · 03-18-2013, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by superdirt

100k doesn't mean the kernel is better, or something

Yup, and the negative press could say the lack of code is evidence of BB10 being incomplete and unfinished. It's all "spin," everyone interpreting data to their advantage.

**peter9477** · 03-18-2013, 08:52 AM

It's apples and oranges if you look at it one way, and apples and apples the other way.

Apples and oranges because the 3M lines of code includes functionality that is not in the kernel with QNX and its 100K lines of code. (And I'm ignoring the likely gross inaccuracy in both numbers, because they're probably still relatively correct.)

Apples and apples in the sense that you are comparing the kernels in each case, and having less stuff in the kernel is exactly what makes QNX better from a design point of view, reliability, ease of maintenance, and so forth.

All it really means is that someone is showing a tiny bit of numerical evidence that says what we already know: Linux is a monolithic operating system, while QNX is microkernel-based. QNX is more modular, with a tiny core. This provides it many advantages, few disadvantages, and is a much harder structure to achieve.

QNX was designed this way over many years, and its not something they'll be able to graft onto Linux, so its a competitive advantage that could provide significant value to BlackBerry for many years ahead.

**wjptam** · 03-18-2013, 09:01 AM

You'd expect the difference in kernel sizes based on the OS architecture. We're talking a monolithic kernel versus a micro kernel.

While computer sciency types jizz themselves over the relative sexiness of different architecture, the end-consumer doesn't care. For years on the hardware side, the nerds were all excited about RISC verus CISC. Consumers didn't give a rat's ***. Every RISC architecture failed to gain traction as a main computer in the household until smartphones and iPads caused a platform shift.

Consumers care about functionality, they don't give a bleep about how many lines of code an OS is.

**Tre Lawrence** · 03-18-2013, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by wjptam

You'd expect the difference in kernel sizes based on the OS architecture. We're talking a monolithic kernel versus a micro kernel.

While computer sciency types jizz themselves over the relative sexiness of different architecture, the end-consumer doesn't care. For years on the hardware side, the nerds were all excited about RISC verus CISC. Consumers didn't give a rat's ***. Every RISC architecture failed to gain traction as a main computer in the household until smartphones and iPads caused a platform shift.

Consumers care about functionality, they don't give a bleep about how many lines of code an OS is.

Well... you are definitely not going to get a "like" from the article writer with that attitude...

**mikeo007** · 03-18-2013, 09:43 AM

An article with blatantly strong fanboy undertones and zero fact checking will never be taken seriously. You should consider writing for gadgetmasters, they could use someone with your um...skill set.

**schmeat** · 03-18-2013, 10:41 AM

The S4 is already considered a huge flop

Da fuq? S4 will smash the S3's sales. It's like how turbo nerds said the iPhone 5 would be a flop, yet when you look at sales ...

**darkehawke** · 03-18-2013, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by schmeat

Da fuq? S4 will smash the S3's sales. It's like how turbo nerds said the iPhone 5 would be a flop, yet when you look at sales ...

Exactly. How can a phone be a flop when it hasn't even been released

Posted via CB10

**Enyigma** · 03-18-2013, 11:11 AM

The consumer won't care about microkernel vs monolithic, but they will care about stable vs less stable, reliable vs less reliable and significant changes moving forward vs incrementalism.

QNX and the BB10 variant is well positioned to deliver performance now that people want and a credible promise of significant added value over the years, all on a device with similar or even lesser "specs" as the equivalent running on other platforms. Android is too bulky and complex to allow for both stability and big changes going forward. The limited ability of more powerful hardware to overcome the basic design of a monolithic system means it will get left further and further behind as time goes forward and consumers realize they aren't getting the bang for the big bucks they are dumping on powerful hardware.