Open source != control. Nobody ever said it did. Linux on the desktop and servers was designed with control in mind which is why it has "control", not because it is open source. If you want that same control on an Android phone then run things as the root user. Motorola and other manufacturers are also the ones to blame for the lack of control by adding additional security and anti-tampering measures.
And don't tell me it isn't open, I'm running a modded version right now and it runs faster that the stock one (CyanogenMod 6.0). They used the source code to make it, because the source code is OPEN to anyone.
And the fact that it isn't free, well, I blame Micro$oft and their patent trolling.
Facebook openness = everyone can download everything about anyone whenever they like it or not - last like thoose advertizing firms and it wont likely be the last. Their security seems lacking to say the least!
Android (as an os) is open. You can get the source code and modify it.
Handsets aren't always howevers. Some have protections so that you can't upload your own ROM. Nothing stops you from making your own open handset. Also, you don't need to root or change your ROM to use the main feature of an "open" system: install a non-aproved app.
The article is correct. The software isn't "open", it's merely free source. Hewitt's complaint is the misuse of the word. Reminds me of the way I used to rant about the misuse of the word "mint" on ebay. Now I just let the 'rons have their mints.
Is he saying Android is not open because you cannot help develop the code for google like mozilla does?
Seems open to me. they give out the code when they are done with the builds and anyone can do what they want with it. They just wont let you develop the original code for Android is all I'm getting out of this.
lukeiamyourfather, dan117 and others I think you guys misunderstood Joe Hewitt's definition of the word "open". He is not talking about the freedom to modify your android OS re-read his statement "Open source means sharing control with the community, not show and tell.". What he is saying is that he does not like how google developes android behind closed doors (kind of like how Apple makes releases to webkit) and that it is not more of a community effort.
An ndroid is said to be "open source" and this is true. If this is a dilution of "open", and its killing him, well, we'll just have to do without him. I don't think his open control model really exists. There is always someone (Linus Torvalds?) who decides what goes in and what doesn't. Otherwise, nothing would be accomplished. But you can download the source and do whatever you want with it.
[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]Open source != control. Nobody ever said it did. Linux on the desktop and servers was designed with control in mind which is why it has "control", not because it is open source. If you want that same control on an Android phone then run things as the root user. Motorola and other manufacturers are also the ones to blame for the lack of control by adding additional security and anti-tampering measures.[/citation]
Thank you, you saved me some writing cramps I love the giveaway line, "Until Android is read/write open, it’s no different than iOS to me." he says it all when states "to me".
Actually Android IS as open as I think it is. Android is open source, specifically referring to open source code, where the SOURCE code is OPEN to the public free of charge with the ability to copy, build, modify, and distribute it free without royalties or fee's(omitting M$ abuse of the broken patent system). The matter of his panties being in a twist is that the carriers interests are not aligned with his, or the consumer for that matter. The carriers are allowed to the source and fork it however they want because it is just as open to them. And to QQ about not having daily builds or the newest SDK is really about being lazy. If you don't want to wait, do it yourself you already have a set of open source code to work off of! Amazing!
someone or some organization has to be in control of the official version. in Android's case, it's Google. you can download the source and modify it as much as you like but the modifications won't be reflected in the official version, unless you share the changes and Google accepts them and incorporate them in the current version. there are standards to be maintained and proper validation just like any software development process. imagine all the bugs and trojan codes that would find their way into the application if everything is free-for-all to tinker with!
The individual carriers change the OS the way they see fit, and put additional controls on it to further their own goals. The buying public should revolt against this and tell them we want the OS in its unmodified entirety. If the carriers want to mess with something, make them mess with improving their network and their servers.
As an example- I had a Samsung WM phone, with built-in GPS. The GPS was limited to function only with the app that the carrier sold, and would not work with any other app that you could get. This is my definition of "closed" and I don't want it. I wouldn't buy their app and now I've bought a different phone, so their scheme to milk me for a few more $$ has backfired on them.
Funny, most people side with their favourite OS based not on it's technical merits or abilities, but on idealogical grounds.
Not a good place to start from, clouds your view, the fact that this guy is Facebook developer is irrelevant, he used to be a Mozilla Man when the idea of free code was actually that.