With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements


Android may be a Linux-based operating system, but the Linux roots are something that few people pay much mind. Regardless of whether it is known or acknowledged by many people, the fact remains that Android is rooted in software regarded as horrendously difficult to use and most-readily associated with the geekier computer users, but also renowned for its security.

As is easy to tell by comparing versions of Android from different handset manufacturers, developers are -- broadly speaking -- free to do whatever they want with Android, but with Oreo, one aspect of this is changing. Google is introducing a new requirement that OEMs must meet certain requirements when choosing the Linux kernel they use.

See also:

Until now, as pointed out by XDA Developers, OEMs have been free to use whatever Linux kernel they wanted to create their own version of Android. Of course, their builds still had to pass Google's other tests, but the kernel number itself was not an issue. Moving forward, Android devices running Oreo must use at least kernel 3.18, but there are more specific requirements to meet as well.

Google explains on the Android Source page:

Android O mandates a minimum kernel version and kernel configuration and checks them both in VTS as well as during an OTA. Android device kernels must enable the kernel .config support along with the option to read the kernel configuration at runtime through procfs.

The company goes on to detail the Linux kernel version requirements:

  • All SoCs productized in 2017 must launch with kernel 4.4 or newer.
  • All other SoCs launching new Android devices running Android O must use kernel 3.18 or newer.
  • Regardless of launch date, all SoCs with device launches on Android O remain subject to kernel changes required to enable Treble.
  • Older Android devices released prior to Android O but that will be upgraded to Android O can continue to use their original base kernel version if desired.

The main reason for introducing the Linux kernel mandate is security -- and it's hard to argue with that.

87 Responses to With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements

  1. Harry says:

    Finally, Google is cracking the whip on Android security. A silky smooth experience with improved security. What will the haters whine about then.

    • visomvet says:

      Fragmentation. That's where iOS users have an enormous advantage over Android. Google needs to crack the whip much harder.

      • Harry says:

        I think you may be a little unfair with the fragmentation issue. It seems it comes part and parcel with a dominant market share. Look at Windows now with their 90% market share, it has a terrible fragmentation issue with at least seven W10 versions plus W7 not to mention the unsupported versions. Android has a similar issue with its 85% mobile market share and for the same reasons. How do you feel about that visomvet?

      • visomvet says:

        Yeah, but in those cases, it's not up to a random carrier to provide updates. Microsoft has a EOL cycle that is clear. Until an OS is EOL, Microsoft will support it (I know about skylake Win 10 issue of course). But the point is, Apple and Microsoft has total control of their OSes. Google does not. That's the real problem.

      • Harry says:

        Yeah, fair point. At least with this Google are moving forward.

      • visomvet says:


      • Gilfoyle says:

        Apples to Oranges.

        Windows fragmentation often does not mean anything when it comes to applications. EXCEPT UWP of course.

        For Win32 apps, .NET/Java etc gets updated on older versions of the OS, so Windows 7 can run same applications as Windows 10 if they are coded using new features of .NET/Java.

        With older versions of Android some of that carries forward but there is a definite gap in app features that older versions of Android can't run period.

        iOS does the same thing. As a new version of the OS comes out you will see apps in the store that require a iOS minimum version. Of course iOS users can simply upgrade if their hardware is 4 years old or newer.

      • Harry says:

        Fair points, can't argue with it.

      • Harry says:

        May I ask you a question not related to this article. For a few days now when i visit MSPU I'm getting " No articles to view " message. A couple of hours ago I was able to get the site and made comments. Now, it is down again. Are you getting the same message?

      • visomvet says:

        No, I haven't had any problems.

      • Harry says:

        Thanks. I'm testing out Ghostery at the moment and I wonder if there is an issue there. Not to worry, thanks for the response.

      • RejZoR says:

        There would be no problem if Android core was updated by Google and all the crap put on top was just an extra, not something that always freaking delays releases for months and eventually just forces vendors to drop support entirely because it's too expensive for them to maintain phones from 2 years ago. It's absurd and this is what's really causing this fragmentation. Not everyone can afford to buy new top of the line phone for 800€ (and those for 150€ just don't cut it) every freaking year to stay up to date on software side that could be kept up to date for everyone by default.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        I've said this for a long time. Things like Sammy's TouchWiz should be nothing more than a DE/DM on top of stock Android. All of these vendor customizations should not impair the ability to apply updates within two days of them being released.

      • RejZoR says:

        And Google should invest more in modularity to allow vendors add new functions without delaying update releases. So they can literally stick stuff on top of stock android and release it in matter f days, not freaking months...

      • MyDisqussion says:

        If Google could do that, Android would take over the market...No, wait, it already did that.

      • RejZoR says:

        It's not really the taking over part, it's the fragmentation part they need to fix. The exact same issue Linux has with 300 billion different distros and they are barely compatible with each other. It's why Windows works and Linux doesn't an d no amount of convincing will change my opinion on that. It's why Microsoft opted to push everyone to Windows 10. We may not agree entirely as users, but from aspect of maintenance and support, it's the only way to do it. Microsoft methods are still very dumb, like force feeding users with drivers that don't even have any security issues, but I know what they are trying to achieve. Android needs that. Just hopefully not in a retarded way...

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Didn't know there we so many Linux distros. I guess that's why Windows users are scared. They can't count, and their ability to make estimates are off by orders (of orders) of magnitude. Most of those 299,999,999,879 distros are one-off distros.

        The main incompatibility is in the package managers. Of late, there is also Systemd replacing sysv-init, but outside of that they pretty much run the same code.

        No one is trying to change your opinion. You may keep it should you desire to do so.

      • RejZoR says:

        The matter of fact is, both Android and all the countless Linux distros suffer from exact same problem. Version/edition fragmentation.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Fragmentation is not as big as it appears on the surface. Most distros are based on three different flavors: Debian (pbui), Redhat, and Arch.

      • RejZoR says:

        I've had to install drivers twice (because repository didn't have the ones I wanted) and I'd gladly pay for Windows to never ever have to deal with that crap. In Windows it's absolute poetry. A matter of few clicks. Not spending half a day in god damn console...

      • DaveT says:

        Fragmentation is a buzzword the haters and ankle biters cling to, but in reality it's not impacting users since the apps don't care which version of Android. And as we know, it's all about the apps.

      • ghammer says:

        Well, no. Companies like to know what will run on phones they are going to have their email, files, access on. What's been patched for the current security vulnerabilities. With Android, nobody is sure what has or hasn't been patched. With an iPhone, you know. Much simpler to run a profile that says 'No access if iOS <3.1' or whatever minimum you want. Our place insists on users upgrading to the current level with 5 days of its release.
        I'd love to be able to have an S8 or V30, but no dice using it for company stuff.

      • realDonaldTrump says:

        They are with Project Treble.

  2. Kevin says:

    As a Linux developer, I take issue with your claim that Linux is "horrendously difficult to use and most-readily associated with the geekier computer users". Maybe small minded people afraid to try better things may feel that way. Do these people also shave with a straight blade, grow and hunt their own food, ride a horse to the market or read by candle light? Of course not! So how can they be afraid of improving their PC? Please do us a favor and give Linux a try before perpetuating such stereo types. I'd suggest starting with Linux Mint, it's regarded as being stupid proof. I know more than a few dozen people in their 60's 70's and even 80's running Linux Mint for a few years now with no trouble.

    • I don't claim that it's horrendously difficult to use, I said it is "regarded as horrendously difficult to use".

    • Net_Junkie says:

      What I learned from your statement:
      -The linux desktop is superior to other OSs. All others are horribly archaic.
      -It's easy to use. Even old people with little tech savvy can use it with no issue.
      -If you disagree with the above, than you are small minded, afraid of innovation, or just plain stupid.

      Typical arrogant response filled with propaganda. You are proving the stereotypes true.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Hmm. I didn't see any statement that Linux is superior. In some use cases, it definitely is not.

        But, it is easy to use. You don't need to drop down to the command line any more. (Besides, how easy is Windows to use? I keep seeing complaints about how Microsoft keeps changing the DE/DM/UI/UX.)

        I see his statement as a gentle nudge, not an arrogant response.

      • Net_Junkie says:

        Another kool-aid drinker and troll. This is why I don't engage you in conversation.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Strange definition of trolling.

      • Net_Junkie says:

        Oh, you weren't trolling? I'm sorry. You're just stupid and argumentative then.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        But you apparently are engaging me in conversation.

      • Daniel Bradford says:

        Linux is easier to use though. Chrome OS is advertised as easy! I know countless older people who love Android. Linux isn't just Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, and the like. Even with Linux on desktops and laptops however, the main barrier to entry is installation. I've installed Lubuntu countless times on people's XP era computers and the worst problem I've seen somebody have was that they couldn't install an antivirus!

      • MyDisqussion says:

        And even then, I can think of at least two free antivirus packages for Linyx. Both of them can be configured to perform on-access scanning.

      • Daniel Bradford says:

        Fair enough. For her, it was that she specifically wanted Avast. It was the only thing she trusted

    • MyDisqussion says:

      I agree. It's Windows users who are afraid to try anything new. It's too hard, it's too different, you need to use the command line too much, I don't know the commands, and on and on.

      • Dany says:

        Are you talking about power users or typical users? Most Windows users just want things to work, they don't want to learn tons of technical computer stuff.

        Most people who drive a car don't care about the internals. They want to turn the key and drive from point A to point B. Same thing for computers. They want to be productive or entertained, they don't necessarily want to become a technician.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Valid point. Even Windows users had to get a learner's permit before they started driving. It's inertia more than anything else. The non-techies would probably do just fine on Linux, if there isn't a Windows-only specific program they need. I use Microsoft OS, but I use Linux to get work done.

      • PenguinJoe says:

        Inertia in the software world can be a very large force to overcome.

      • Michael Rose says:

        This is a bad analogy considering the complexity of driving a challenging skill that many are pretty bad at.

        By comparison using a desktop operating system be it Windows or Linux is pretty easy.

      • PenguinJoe says:

        Windows has been around since the days of DOS 3.3. The users that have moved to Windows have come from the DOS and CP/M worlds, not the UNIX world. That means they are more familiar with the DOS and Windows (CMD) command structures. Those users have very little idea what the command ld or cat does, but they are very familiar with what dir and copy does since those commands have existed since the CP/M days.

        As for the UI, Windows has a single UI that has evolved with it. Just one. Linux on the other hand has about a dozen UIs tailored to set each distro apart. You tell a non-techie Linux user that he needs to recompile his kernel to enable some new hardware driver on his hardware and he will look at you with glazed eyes. On the other hand hardware manufacturers either enable their hardware in the base Windows product or they provide simple "run me" installers for their drivers. I can't count the number of times that I came up with goofy setups for installing an ATI/AMD video card or configuring my xwindows to use a really new NVidia one. And every distro seemed to handle it differently. Some distros worked fine, others just simply failed to install. Drivers can be a tangled mess on Linux!

        Yes linux is different. It is based on UNIX which has always been different. It is only in the last few years that linux has become less "Techy" enough that non computer enthusiasts can actually install and use it. If Linux had been that way back in 1993, perhaps it would have earned a wider user base. But as it stands now there are literally millions of users that have been raised from toddlers to use Windows. They use Windows in school. They play their games on it. They write their homework on it. And if you are a Administrative assistant you have better be familiar with Windows and Microsoft Office if you expect to find a job. The only way you will get all those people to change to Linux is if Microsoft goes Tits-Up, and honestly I can't see that any time soon.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        I suspect if you put most Windows users down at a windows CMD prompt (or Powershell), they would not know how to begin. Most of them only know the GUI and click-and-drag. Very few Linux users ever need to drop to the command line. (First argument destroyed.)

        Today's distros also don't require the user to know ls (but dir works, or did you not know this?), or mkdir (no, that's the same in both.) Again, most Windows users couldn't create a directory from the command line. (Second argument destroyed.)

        Maybe it's just me, and I don't buy cutting edge hardware (I have to eat, too.) I've never had to recompile a kernel, although back when Broadcom wasn't playing nicely with the open source community, ndiswrapper and bwcutter made me swear off every buying Broadcom. (Since rescinded.) (Argument partly validated.)

        You do have some valid points. Linux was very difficult in the early days. It wasn't user friendly. You had to know what commands to run. (Kind of like a proprietary OS I cut my teeth on.) (Argument partly validated.)

        Administrative assistants generally need to know Microsoft Windows, but it doesn't pay all that terribly well. There's a lot of money in Linux system administration.

        There is a place for both. There are use cases for both. It's not an either/or. Even Microsoft is recognizing this, grudgingly accepting some interoperability with the OS out of necessity.

      • PenguinJoe says:

        And that last paragraph is where we come down to it. Use cases. You are right that admin assistants are not a high paying job, however there an awful lot of them and that means more people using Windows in their everyday lives as opposed to Linux. The last thing they want to do is move over to an entirely foreign OS. Linux has always had a special place in the hearts of the scientific, analytical and technical communities. Microsoft is not adding interop with Linux to the OS and Visual Studio out of necessity, but rather to appeal to a larger market. They are seeing people move away from Windows on desktops to Android & iOS on mobile devices. As you say there are cases where one OS is more suitable than the other. We can expand that to include Android (a Linux fork) and iOS as well since there are pretty solid use cases for those as well. But the fact remains that Windows has had that user perspective a lot longer than Linux has. That means a lot of people will feel out of their comfort zone trying to move to another OS.

        People on the whole don't like feeling uncomfortable. People feeling comfortable on OS X won't feel comfortable with windows and will be reluctant to move. Same with people that have been using Linux their entire lives will shun windows with near fanatical passion. A lot of folks have spent many thousands of dollars building up their Windows program library and will not give that up any more than a Nikon system photographer will drop his camera and lenses to move over to a Canon system. Same goes for PC users and their OS of choice.

        If it makes you feel better, IBM has put a huge effort into supporting RHEL and SuSE linux. Up to and including the fact that most of their software is written in Linux or a portable form of C++. Their Websphere runtime and dev plaforms is heavily invested in both the WIndows and Linux worlds.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Same with people that have been using Linux their entire lives will shun windows with near fanatical passion.

        Honestly, I think it's more likely to be the other way around. A Linux person will get along just fine in Microsoft OS. They may not like it, but they can.

      • PenguinJoe says:

        Not from what I have seen. Linux fandom is pretty ... fanatical :D

        Personally I use windows simply because I have many thousands of $ worth of software running in it -- Including VMWare, from which I run any Linux Distros I want to check out. If I had dropped that kind of money on Linux progs I am sure I would be doing things the other way around. But that's not the case. 40 years of CP/M, DOS. OS/2 and Windows has pretty much locked me into a mostly Windows world - at least until Microsoft goes tits-up and nobody picks Windows up to continue it.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Yes linux is different. It is based on UNIX which has always been different.

        I didn't realize it at the time, but this sentence is a non-sequitur. How can it always have been different when it existed well before Microsoft? Perhaps it is Microsoft that has always been different. No, wait, that's not even true. Many of the commands are the same:

        mkdir==>mkdir (and md)
        rmdir==>rmdir (and rd)
        more (or less)==>more

        Unix commands are usually shorter. There are a few outliers, though.


        Or the directory structure


        Let's also not forget the "." and ".."

        And the only reason they used a Microsoft slash to separate directories is that a normal slash was used as a switch in DOS 1.x.

        So now who has always been different?

      • PenguinJoe says:

        Unix existed since 1971. The original unix had mostly 2-character commands. Further unix had (and linux still has) more than one command shell (csh, bash, fish, ksh, tcsh, zsh...) which muddies the water when it comes to shell grammar and syntax. Windows command shell is derived from the CP/M command{dot}com (friggin Disqus moderation crap!!) which has brought forward some very different semantics than unix:

        drive letters separated by a colon
        multiple directory trees rooted to a drive letter
        backslash filename segment separator
        relatively short 260 character max path length (windows - was shorter under CP/M)
        FAR less shell commands

        Concepts users find confusing in Unix/Linux:

        Necessity to 'mount' a drive.
        incomprehensible (to a Windows user) file structure
        single root tree representing all storage devices in the system

        The thing is that most younger Windows users have learned how to deal with it from childhood and even in school. They have no problem dealing with the simple Windows command line since they have been doing it for all their lives.

        Granted the distros that have been coming out over the last 5 or so years have been getting better and better at insulating the user from that shell processor, but there are still times you have to get your hands dirty and delve into it. Nut let's be honest here - Windows has been around in people's homes for over 30 years now. That is a lot of user inertia that Linux has to overcome. There is no chance of that happening until Microsoft closed up shop and takes Windows with them (I suspect someone will buy Windows from them to keep it alive if that happens).

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Necessity to 'mount' a drive.

        Okay, let me see you access \someserversomesharesomedirectory without mounting, or mapping, to it.

        incomprehensible (to a Windows user) file structure
        Yes, I can see where directories like this would confuse a Windows user.


      • PenguinJoe says:

        The point is moot. Linux got there too late for the general population to get comfortable with it. Windows has been taught in middle school for over a decade now while Linux hasn't. Guess which one people will be more comfortable with. Nobody comfortable with Windows will switch to Linux unless they have a really strong reason to move. Sorry but people are like that.

    • Dany says:

      Oh please.. Linux has always been difficult to use for the vast majority of users out there. Plus, older folks usually have pretty basic computing needs. Once Linux is installed and configured for them, yeah, they can "run" Linux Mint to browse their favorite web sites, videos and pictures.

      Sorry to burst your little bubble here, but Windows is far superior in so many ways, I guess we all go through that "anti-microsoft" phase in our lives..

    • Nihil Verum says:

      For me, Linux has always been 'easier' to use (if I spoke computer, it'd likely be 'nix). On the other hand, Windows—for now—is better, as it readliy meets my software needs. Installing Linux doesn't automatically make for an improved experience for everyone if the third-party software isn't there. The operating system is essentially dependent your hardware and your software library in order to be userful to you. Hence, Linux isn't universally "better" as you claim.

  3. Pecan says:

    Sounds reasonable.
    Having abandoned MS last year I'm next giving up Alphabet Inc. though, so I'll be looking for something that is neither windows, android nor apple. That should be fun ^^. Is it even still possible to just buy a phone?

    • MyDisqussion says:

      Purism is preparing to release a Librem phone. It's $599 for the next 45 days or so, but doesn't ship until Jan 2019. There are also no specs for it. The CPU is probably not a particularly good choice, and there is no clear indication what the camera and internal storage will be. It sounds like a good, niche option though.

      • DaveT says:

        Sounds like a scam.

      • MyDisqussion says:

        They did actually produce the Librem laptops, but the fit and finish left something to be desired. I think they can pull off the phone, but I don't have the money to spare to fund an unspec'd.

    • damianpostigo says:

      only one i can think of is Tizen and don't know if that's as bad a choosing windows phone or not. Don't get me wrong i did like windows phone but lack of support was bad and now days we don't here much about Tizen. Sad part with the Lack of mobiles Os out there we are forced to choose apple or android.

      I wish someone would build a community base os where everyone could have input and come control over how it was build and also get some of the big companies on board to build there apps .

      hey you can always get a 4g flip phone lol

      • MyDisqussion says:

        Tizen , unfortunately, will not get the Google Play store.

      • damianpostigo says:

        nothing but android will get google play store this we know we are talking about something different that works at is non android that people and companies will want to use. Its just like saying Tizen wont get apple store. people need to come out with a alternative. With all the technology out today I don't understand why a community can put there heads together and build something awesome

      • PenguinJoe says:

        because you also need the support and willingness of a very widespread group of app developers to support this new linux fork. Phone OSes can be as technically advanced as anyone could want, but if it has a shit selection of apps running on it, nobody will use it.

      • realDonaldTrump says:

        Tizen has been found to be less secure than any other non DOS operating system in existence.

    • Jonathan Wilson says:

      You could always go for the (still in development) Neo900. Its not the most powerful phone but its being built to be open from day one (pretty much the only hardware in it that's not documented is the PowerVR GPU, even the AT command interface to the cellular modem module is fully documented).

    • realDonaldTrump says:

      Take Android as a starting point and make it your own. If you don't want Windows, Android or iOS then that means you'll be the OS developer.

      • PenguinJoe says:

        This is a good point, but requires you to have enough tech smarts to build and test your own roms. Or you can get one of the already cooked ones that someone else built and burn it into your phone (pretty easy really).

    • PenguinJoe says:

      What are you expecting to do with your phone after you have abandoned the 3 major phone OS providers (I don't call Tizen major because,well, the Tizen store is pretty thin as far as apps go)?

      Good luck with it.

      • Pecan says:

        I'm expecting to make and receive phone calls and texts.
        Although skymap is quite nice there isn't a single 'app' that I need. Getting answers to pub-trivia questions is possibly the biggest use I have for my smartphone so I don't see much point in buying another one. Assuming that's all that's on offer, though, I'll just write my own browser app if need be.
        I have good proper desktop computers at work, home and on my boat (aka "my other home is a yacht" *grin*) so there's pretty much never a reason to do anything on my phone, except when I'm in the pub.

  4. David S. C. Karlsson says:

    3.18 is a rather strange choice, since it's EOL...

    • MyDisqussion says:

      A kernel 4.x tree might have been a better choice. I'm not privy to why they chose that as the minimum kernel.

  5. MyDisqussion says:

    This can only be a good thing. Google says there are over 2 billion monthly active Android (Linux) devices, and when you are dealing with 4 times the number of Windows X activations, you want to make things easier and more secure. This is a step in the right direction. It will take a while to get the old devices out of the system, though.

  6. realDonaldTrump says:

    There's really no reason that manufacturers can't use the Linux 4.4 kernel on every single device they've ever made that runs Android O. Using an outdated kernel such as Linux 3.18 or any kernel prior to Linux 4.4 is dangerous because it's insecure and much more buggy.

  7. Fabio Correa says:

    Perfectly reasonable

  8. Greg Zeng says:

    The EVOLUTION of computer operating systems mirrors organic biochemical evolution, as discovered by Charles Darwin, imho. Rich environments of "organelles" are needed to create "organs, etc. These many types of infrastructures are needed for the many layers of complex, interactive super-structures.

    The Unix-based operating systems have much better than the spaghetti-code origins of Windows, which is needed to try to keep its large market share. UNIX-based & mathematically designed are: Linux, Android & the BDS-types (including the two current Apple operating systems). Within Microsoft are signs of internal staff debates that bother Nokia, etc. Should they follow Apple, etc and now move to a Unix-based operating system, like BSD, Linux, or some other version of Unix?

    On "fragmentation": Windows are like the dinosaurs of evolution. Dinosaurs still exist, bu only as bird-type creatures, due to the lower level of oxygen that favored the mammalian types, with better "CPU optimizations of lower power levels. Similar to Windows trying to run on ARM-type, or RISC type of CPUs.

    Both BSD-types & Unix-types of operating systems seem to have trouble with multiple-complex parallel operations. Mammalian complexity has yet to reach the electro-silicon worlds, which remain binary,rather than analog, at the moment.

    When the hardware problems have "evolved" to higher levels of workable complexity, the necessary software MIGHT eventually b able to use the "infrastructure foundations" that have been created. Which comes first: chicken or egg? Neither: both need to "evolve simultaneously", imho, as scientific histories have shown.

  9. M T says:

    Linux is "horrendously difficult to use"? Have you even looked at Ubuntu? It is considerably easier than using Windows.

  10. Montana says:

    Linux is the future. Time to ditch Windows. Microsoft can no longer be trusted for security and user & data privacy.

  11. PenguinJoe says:

    Lineage = Android = Google.
    In fact if you want Lineage to do anything other than sit there looking at you blankly, you have to load the Google Apps on it.

  12. matts118 says:

    Cause windows is super simple right? Updating.....Updating.....Updating.....Updating.....Updating.....Updating.....Updating.....Updating.....Updating.....Updating..... Can I use it yet??

  13. PenguinJoe says:

    It is an alternative, but how populated is it with apps? This is actually the first time I have heard of it so I doubt it is very common knowledge. I know the gapps are very heavily Android version specific. Is that the same case with these? I would not be surprised if they leave a lot of phone functionality out in the name of being more neutral across 'droid versions.

    • Tim says:

      F-Droid has many of the good (open) apps from Google Play; _ Barcode Scanner, Dimmer, Document Vewer, VLC, FBReader, Flym, Ghost Commander, Hacker's Keyboard, NTPSync, Terminal Emulator, Units, Yubico Authenticator, Aard, aLogcat, ConnectBot, OsmAnd, OpenVPN, BitCoin, etc. .
      There are a few open apps that have broken build settings like "Text Fairy" that will not be included until they are fixed.

© 1998-2020 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy.