Why are normal OSes not made for smartphones?

Question

Android

Hello!
Tired of this Mr. bucket for several years of use, this "OS" cannot be called an operating system.
How many crutches do you need to simply run gcc, it's just awful. The impossibility of installing the OS on alternative normal file systems, such as btrfs and ZFS. Or shake the system in squashfs, place all the data on one partition, but no, there is not even close to such a choice.
So why is the topic of open source projects that supposedly should be a full-fledged OS, like Sailfish or Tizen, so little talked about? Why are such projects not being developed as actively for smartphones as they are for desktop PCs? After all, free drivers for wi-fi, video cards, etc. are already full of open-source ones that work fine on x86 computers, so why doesn't anyone want to take on mobile platforms?
The same arch arm, it seems, can run on an armv7 processor, but how to push it into the phone?
It's also good that samba works more or less on cyan with 7.1 bucket, and on older versions in the kernel, although there was support for samba, it did not work because of the curvature of the bucket.

Answer 1

What you indicated is not necessary for ordinary users, which are 99%.
If we take open source projects, then who will be responsible for bugs if they are used? Where is the support from?
It makes no sense for phone manufacturers to keep a development team that has to tweak the OS for 1% of users. They focus on new phone models, not new OS versions.

Answer 2

Tell me, why on a smartphone gcc, zfs, etc. ?
Every tool has its own area of ​​application.

Answer 3

After all, free drivers for wi-fi, video cards, etc. are already full of open source ones that work fine on x86 computers

And how will these drivers for Wi-Fi, video cards, etc. help Android developers, where devices have neither a video card nor Wi-Fi, more precisely, there is a single chipset with integrated modules, and none of these drivers is compatible with it, there its own structure, with "firmware", etc.?

Answer 4

because "regular" operating systems are not designed for harsh environments with limited resources and power. Google solved a bunch of problems, for example, one thing is that green, in case of a shortage of a resource, can begin to destroy your activities, and "nullify" links to them - an unheard of thing in Java)))
or are you talking about alternative fs? well. Do you know that phones don't have hard drives? and the memory that is used - has ... a number of features? everything is gradually improving, but you should remember the fact about the special patch that was made to fat16 in microsoft in WinMobile5 (or 4?) in order to write file changes to the most different sectors, because the "normal driver" overwrote everything into one and the same sector (the first free one? Everything is like on a regular magnetic disk), and this led to too rapid degradation of flash memory cells, and the appearance of bad sectors in the system areas of the disk?)))
now, of course, a lot of problems have been solved, or workarounds have been found, but the problem of the mobile platform still does not disappear. mobile is not desktop. if you stick a desktop axis on mobile hardware, you will get a lot of problems, which will make your product uncompetitive. while you solve these problems, you will spend money and time, but you won’t make a product - because these are very expensive solutions, competitors, meanwhile, will do everything faster using specialized solutions and "haemorrhoidal mobile OSes on which it is very difficult to install gcc")).
and google has solved a lot of problems and offers a de facto commercial solution. not without flaws, but the decisive thing is a lot of "mobilnooo hemorrhoids")) if you don't like it - don't eat it))) support samsung with tizen. support selfishOS and so on. etc.
or the author needs to go learn "some laws of commerce"))))