Developer Says Android Isn't as Open as You Think

[megamanx00]

FOSS purists, a bit unreasonable. Google shows it source, and allows you to contribute

http/source.android.com/

The reason they don't want to share control is that they don't want to invite some of the problems that having a community can invite (Debian being an extreme example of this). They are more like Slackware which also takes open source code but has a central point of control (in this case one guy Patrick Volkerding) deciding what stays and what goes. They make money on the andriod market place, so it's best for them to make sure that the platform (the andriod OS) is something they control and can predict.

 

[theoldgrumpybear]

A source of information for all you flaming happy Android fanboys.

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

We all have our interpretation of open...
Mine is not 100% aligned with the wiki one, but that might be because I started off more than 40 years ago with "open source", even before Al Gore invented Open Source and the Internet /nod.

 

[ianpac]

Google has to balance openness with steering the platform to deliver the right goodies as quickly as possible to compete with the iphone. Look at how successful Linux's openness is - 1% of the desktop market. You need a driver at the controls or else it ends up with the disjointed mess Jobs was mentioning ie Linux.

 

[ianpac]

Google has to balance openness with steering the platform to deliver the right goodies as quickly as possible to compete with the iphone. Look at how successful Linux's openness is - 1% of the desktop market. You need a driver at the controls or else it ends up with the disjointed mess Jobs was mentioning ie Linux.

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]theoldgrumpybear[/nom]A source of information for all you flaming happy Android fanboys.http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_sourceWe all have our interpretation of open...Mine is not 100% aligned with the wiki one, but that might be because I started off more than 40 years ago with "open source", even before Al Gore invented Open Source and the Internet /nod.[/citation]
You saved me from typing...lol
Al Gore is such a load of sh!t...nothing but a businessman.

 

[scubadave]

[citation][nom]theoldgrumpybear[/nom]A source of information for all you flaming happy Android fanboys.http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_sourceWe all have our interpretation of open...Mine is not 100% aligned with the wiki one, but that might be because I started off more than 40 years ago with "open source", even before Al Gore invented Open Source and the Internet /nod.[/citation]

+100 if I could. Different people can have differing views.. Mine, are more aligned with this developer's.. I think Android would be more accurately described as "Shared Source" than calling it "Open Source" but thats just MY opinion..

 

[dman3k]

It's sad that people don't know what open source means. Open source is free source. Not all free source are open. Android is one of those that's NOT open, but it's free.

 

[lashton]

I think hes jealous cause he couldn't program out the memroy leak still in firefox, this guy talking about not being open source when hes a useless programmer, give me firfox source code and 7 days and that memory leak will be gone

 

[lashton]

[citation][nom]ianpac[/nom]Google has to balance openness with steering the platform to deliver the right goodies as quickly as possible to compete with the iphone. Look at how successful Linux's openness is - 1% of the desktop market. You need a driver at the controls or else it ends up with the disjointed mess Jobs was mentioning ie Linux.[/citation]
+100000000000
I think this is the most correct post ever posted you hit the nail on the head, people forget what happens when no one leads the way, you are so right you should run for president, oh wait you can't because you are too intelligent

 

[dogman_1234]

Android isn't open...eh,well.

 

[masterbinky]

I must be confused. Are people saying that Android has to be GPL, or at least require you release your source code you wrote, to be open source? Anyone really think Facebook would participate in that environment? That will just restrict business models of the available programs and we do not need to go into the consequences of that. I don’t know of anything that is stopping people from forking Google's Android and making their own flavor that will run on the phones (not that it would delight carriers). Is there any other major problem that is making the OS not open to our old school crowd? Is it a lack of drivers given to them for the hardware? Linux faced that, anyone remember writing drivers simple things like mice or printers/plotters? The kernel must be locked away somewhere! I know it’s a branched kernel but come on, is it really preventing a community from changing the scheduler or whatever they see fit? If being open is stopped by some little binary, are we saying that no one will (*cough*reverse engineer *cough*) write an alternative file. I may be honestly overlooking something since I personally don’t want to mess with Android because I find the java focus (yeah yeah there is native code that gets gimped…) a poor choice for efficent code with limited resources.

 

[smeker]

[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]

You did not understand his post. He is not talking about the control of installing apps and customising the Android phone, but read/write control of the source code. The Android source code that Google releases is already old and is not "open" as in everyone can contribute and write code.

But than most of the people today dont really have a clear understanding of what Open Source code is, most of them have never even worked on one...

 

[smeker]

Ok I see couple of people explained it down.., as I read the rest of the posts.

I like the first posts though... up and ready to criticize and flame without even understanding the article... It is pretty much what happens with every article posted on Tom's Hardware...

 

[lukeiamyourfather]

[citation][nom]smeker[/nom]You did not understand his post. He is not talking about the control of installing apps and customising the Android phone, but read/write control of the source code. The Android source code that Google releases is already old and is not "open" as in everyone can contribute and write code.But than most of the people today dont really have a clear understanding of what Open Source code is, most of them have never even worked on one...[/citation]

Of course the Android source code is open. Or else this wouldn't be available right now at that link.

http/source.android.com/source/download.html

I think you're confusing open with democracy? Again, open doesn't mean control in the device sense or the development sense. Just because a project is open source doesn't mean any jackass on the street can submit patches and take control of where the project goes. Android isn't the only open source project with a hierarchy for development. If you don't like it then fork it, because it is open source.

 

[smeker]

[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]Just because a project is open source doesn't mean any jackass on the street can submit patches and take control of where the project goes. Android isn't the only open source project with a hierarchy for development. If you don't like it then fork it, because it is open source.[/citation]
OK read the article again, especially his tweet in bolded text "like Rubin bragging about how downloading a months old code dump is the definition of open."

I am not sure where is the confusion?...

 

[smeker]

@ lukeiamyourfather:

Also your statement "Just because a project is open source doesn't mean any jackass on the street can submit patches and take control of where the project goes" is quite ignorant to the original article. Open source doenst mean that any Jack as can just write whatever they want but it means that everyone should have access to the latest dump as the code is being developed, and not just share a month old dump.... anyway it's stupid going into details about this... go and read up a bit.

 

[lukeiamyourfather]

[citation][nom]smeker[/nom]OK read the article again, especially his tweet in bolded text "like Rubin bragging about how downloading a months old code dump is the definition of open."I am not sure where is the confusion?...[/citation]

You can download the Android 2.2 source code right now which is the released version. How is that not open source? The source code is open, literally.

Again, open source doesn't mean control. If any jackass out there could "control" Android then it would be total chaos. Android is open source. Android isn't some magical land where anyone can sit in the drivers seat and "control" everything. If you want it to be more "open" then fork it and let people do whatever the hell they want with it including make broken/dumb patches. Why do I get the feeling like I'm a broken record? Open source != control.

To the quote in the article that iOS and Android are the same, try customizing and compiling the current version of iOS for a new non-Apple device (without paying anyone royalties too). Oh wait, that's right, you can't.

 

[smeker]

[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]You can download the Android 2.2 source code right now which is the released version. How is that not open source? [/citation]

Please... please... go and read up before you start posting again....

 

[lukeiamyourfather]

[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]You can download the Android 2.2 source code right now which is the released version. How is that not open source? The source code is open, literally.Again, open source doesn't mean control. If any jackass out there could "control" Android then it would be total chaos. Android is open source. Android isn't some magical land where anyone can sit in the drivers seat and "control" everything. If you want it to be more "open" then fork it and let people do whatever the hell they want with it including make broken/dumb patches. Why do I get the feeling like I'm a broken record? Open source != control.To the quote in the article that iOS and Android are the same, try customizing and compiling the current version of iOS for a new non-Apple device (without paying anyone royalties too). Oh wait, that's right, you can't.[/citation]

I get that, but I don't see why this is a big deal. Android isn't the only project out there to do that. Many open source hardware drivers developed by the hardware manufacturers are the same way. True that some open source projects allow access to the trunk at all times but that doesn't make a project that restricts access to the trunk "the same as iOS" or not open source.

 

[smeker]

This is an example of open source code:

http/ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

This is an example of controlled release:

http/source.android.com/index.html

See the difference?