Developer Says Android Isn't as Open as You Think

[smeker]

[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]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.[/citation]

The big deal is the misuse of the name "open source" but as Hewitt said, is more open than other mobile OSs out there,... but is not what open source really is.....
Anyhow it might be just a technicality, but for people that are developing on this code, it would mean a lot if they have the latest build. A bug that they might be working on might have already been fixed.... etc...

Oh yeha... and please stop with the "childish" negative post rating.... we are not in kindergarten....

 

[silky salamandr]

Didnt Jobs and the facebook guy meet earlier this week? Funny.

 

[smeker]

[citation][nom]silky salamandr[/nom]Didnt Jobs and the facebook guy meet earlier this week? Funny.[/citation]

Yeah I think Jobs was trying to boost Zuckerberg's ego a bit so he can get a deal on the Facebook's database access....

Nerds kissing each-other's asses... It's just wrong....

 

[lukeiamyourfather]

[citation][nom]smeker[/nom]This is an example of open source code:http/ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla [...] est-trunk/This is an example of controlled release:http/source.android.com/index.htmlSee the difference?[/citation]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit the statements that Android could be more open, sure it could. I do see the difference. Mozilla is a role model for open source development. That doesn't make Android "the same as iOS" though.

 

[smeker]

[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit the statements that Android could be more open, sure it could. I do see the difference. Mozilla is a role model for open source development. That doesn't make Android "the same as iOS" though.[/citation]

Yep, read the rest of the article:

While it may sound like Hewitt is saying that Android is closed up like iOS, he clarifies in a blog post that he feels Android is the most open of all mobile operating systems.

 

[cashews]

Jobs and crew have just been trying to sling dirt at android. Android phones have sold very well in the US and now sales are picking up in the international markets. Steve is just trying to break Android's good guy reputation.

Joe Hewitt has come out in the past saying how he dislikes the Android language and thinks it is a pain to program in.

 

[bpislife]

I hate phones

 

[matt87_50]

yes, for the love of GOD! as I've said before, thats NOT the 'open' we're looking for!

I don't give two shits about how open the source is!
I care about how much freedom I have, to do with my newly purchased android smartphone!
how much freedom developers have, to take advantage of all the functionality in the phones with their apps!

in this regard, for example, Windows 7 is as 'open' as I'd ever need (though I do wish you could run your own SMB file servers on it)

and AS IF facebook needs intimate knowledge of the workings of the OS! what a joke! its a F***ING WEBSITE!


THE ISSUE IS OPEN: CONTROL vs FREEDOM FOR ALL USERS OF THE OS! NOT OPEN: OPEN SOURCE!

it was stupid of that android guy to confuse the issue by making it look all about open source...

 

[palladin9479]

So now instead of just being given the source code and allowed to do with it whatever they want, please instead want to be able to submit code upstream? WTF are you guys smoking?

If you wanted to have control of Android you download the source, make any modifications then fork it and allow others to submit to you the changes. You could even develop your own branded version complete with whatever changes you, or anyone else subscribing to your theory wants.

 

[Shin-san]

I don't think he means "open source" but open platform, like Windows is on the PC. Windows is closed source, but it's an open platform. Windows Phone 7 is closed. Windows Mobile is open.

 

[matt87_50]

[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]I don't think he means "open source" but open platform, like Windows is on the PC. Windows is closed source, but it's an open platform. Windows Phone 7 is closed. Windows Mobile is open.[/citation]

thankyou! that is exactly the deal!

thats also why I'll pass on windows phone 7...
with regards to openness it is a carbon copy of the iphone,
if I wanted that... I'd just buy an iphone...

 

[sailfish]

While I respect Joe Hewitt's many contributions to the Mozilla project, I think he was being a bit too demanding on his interpretation here.

With that said, I would never suggest that he had compromised his integrity as suggested by dan117 here:

"Facebook kissing apple ass..."

 

[smeker]

Keep flaming, flamers... You can interpret the tweet however it suit your flaming needs.
It is clear what he wanted to say.
Google is doing a controlled release of it's source code.
They are trying to control the open source releases by sharing only a month old code and not having the latest trunk available to the rest of the developers.
They are saying that Android is open source so they don't get their asses sued, but when you look at it, is not really an "Open Source" since you dont have the latest trunk of code available, but rather a month old code.

So interpret that how ever you want.

 

[doopydoo22]

http/www.opensource.org/docs/osd

 

[eddieroolz]

In a way, I very much agree with his sentiment.

Carriers being able to institute hardware and software means of tinkering with the underlying OS really killed the appeal for me. The most notorious example would be the Motorola Droid 2/X. Threatening users for installing a leaked update just doesn't sit well with me. T-Mobile G2's hardware protection also goes against "open" in my definition, and so do many other attempts at preventing the phone from being rooted.

The Open Handset Alliance means just that, openness of the OS and application development for the OS. I really believe that this should also include being able to modify and install onto YOUR phone the ROM of your choice, and modify it to your heart's content.

 

[alextheblue]

[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]
That's not what he means by control. Linux isn't controlled by a single corporation - it is truly two-way open. Android is controlled by Google. iOS is controlled by Apple. Yes, you can modify it and run that, but that's not the same thing.

Just like he said: the only (in terms of openness) difference is that Android has occasional source drops. It is not a truly two-way open, community oriented project.

 

[Guest]

Read this: http/tech.shantanugoel.com/2010/10/25/android-open-source-or-not.html
And decide for yourself. The article tackles all the allegations launched against Android being open