Sure, I can. And I do on my mobile phone cause is the most covenient and fast thing to do and don't have much of a choice.
But why do I need to put termux on a device when it is already running a full-fledged linux? How would you feel if tomorrow you are forced to use Docker just because you can't have root access to your PC? For me it doesn't make any sense at all.
I'm really disappointed of seeing cool stuff locked down by default. Why? Why not be a nice player and go full open source from day one? Is that really hard thing to do? Do they lose anything by doing so?
Or at least when I turn on the device for the first time give me options to choose from:
a) A regular Android.
b) An Android that has full root access.
c) Run a regular Linux.
d) Something else.
In any case the user should easily be able to change to any of the above once running.
Is that asking too much for 800 bucks and for a device that has just entered the market?
I need to preface by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with your overarching point. Everyone should truly own their devices which means at least unlocked bootloader, full root access. I also agree that vendor customised androids are also frequently annoying. That said I don't really agree with this take:
> But why do I need to put termux on a device when it is already running a full-fledged linux?
Android is not a full-fledged Linux. It's linux kernel to be sure, but it never pretended to have usual (GNU) userspace. It even uses its own libc. Under this circumstance, I am not sure why it's unusual to have to install an extra package to get a foreign userspace working. It's not particularly different from when you have to use system package manager to install a different shell in your Debian or different libc in Alpine linux e.g. They could go full open source (like AOSP) and this situation wouldn't be any different.
> why do I need to put termux on a device when it is already running a full-fledged linux?
Well, at minimum you are going to need an input method to make syscalls. Most people find it more convenient to run software, such as bash and vim, that talks to glibc that eventually makes syscalls to the kernel on your behalf.
I think what you're asking is why termux isn't bundled with android and the answer to that seems straightforward without even considering ulterior motives: it's more than a hundred megabytes. Maybe 1% of people would use it if you're lucky, and people have a word for large pre-installed software package they didn't want: bloatware
I think we're on the same side but the argument you're using is weird. Linux is a kernel and if you meant distribution then there are still many systems that don't ship a terminal but are still free and open source software
What I think you're trying to argue for is the broader point of it being locked down. Why isn't Termux allowed in Google's store anymore? Why can you not fulfill GPL requirements in their store (you'd need to make a quine)? Why do you need to pass a dozen warning screens and lots of fearmongering online before you get to a state where you've got full access to your own device? Why do many software developers try to detect that state and then refuse to work with you? These are the lock-downs, not that you need to go and "apt install" the software you want to use
> Do they lose anything by doing so?
The ability to do whatever they want is what they lose when you're in control. DRM being one of the main applications, security is often (mostly incorrectly) touted as a reason for what's actually thwarting competition. And I'll grant them that it actually makes sense for non-techies (my grandma manages to activate the weirdest things that are hidden in menus and behind very clearly worded confirmation dialogs, while claiming she was trying to add a phone book contact), but for someone who enabled developer tools and successfully entered a tar command (xkcd reference) it does not. Businesses might want to lock down their work devices, that's a legit reason for locking down as well, but that's not applicable for phones where MDM is not enabled. The only consumer advantage of a DRM'd phone is that a second hand purchaser can be reasonably certain there's no modifications to the OS without having to know how to re-flash it. I don't think that's a good enough reason to justify it, but I did want to acknowledge there are legitimate/objective advantages to it as well even if I disagree with the overall status quo
