Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 20:35 UTC
Google It was inevitable, of course, and rightfully so: Google is having its big I/O conference, so we have to talk about the lack of Honeycomb's source code. While not violating any licenses, the lack of source code doesn't sit well with many - including myself - so it only makes sense people are asking Google about it. Andy Rubin confirmed we're never going to see Honeycomb's sources as a standalone release. He also explained what 'open' means for Android.
Order by: Score:
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 11th May 2011 20:50 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

No open development means crippled open source. But I'd even say that open development is really a necessity, not a luxury, for the project which claims to be open source.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Comment by shmerl
by mrhasbean on Wed 11th May 2011 21:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And of course Thom is going to find this to be all ok - this is Google, purveyor of all that is good, wholesome and right in the world...


You're banned forever from now on. This is clearly wrong as anyone who ACTUALLY READ THE GODDAMN 435743965 ARTICLES I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT WOULD KNOW. I'm SO sick of your continuous and clearly wrong accusations about me.

Edited 2011-05-11 21:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Finchwizard on Wed 11th May 2011 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

Someone needs to take a deep breath and go for a walk.

You're a editor of the site and all I see is a child throwing a little tantrum party because what a user has said seems to hit a little too close to the truth for your liking.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're a editor of the site and all I see is a child throwing a little tantrum party because what a user has said seems to hit a little too close to the truth for your liking.


You must be new here ;) . This guy's been consistently trolling for a long time now, and I've been getting consistent complaints from readers for a long time now. On any other site, he'd been banned months ago, but I'm actually pretty relaxed about these things. However, when the consistent lies and personal attacks just keep on coming, even though the very article he is commenting to - among many - disqualifies his lies outright, then, well, I'm fully within my right to put a stop to it.

We have enough people in here who disagree with me on a regular basis without ever resorting to trolling and structural insipid lying about me.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Finchwizard on Wed 11th May 2011 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

Think you'll find I've been around for quite a long time.

Was browsing before you even registered and signed up not long after.

So I know full well how the site has grown over the last 5 years. And the hatred you have for everything Apple. It's always been pretty clear. But as of late there seems to be even more hatred and a blind eye towards everything Google does.

And I still think there's far too much personal opinions in news items that should be more blog related.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose. Having to manage large amounts of both Macs and PC's along with Linux in a network I'm always amazed at some peoples lack of real world experience with what they're reporting on, but love to have an opinion on it.

Edited 2011-05-11 22:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So I know full well how the site has grown over the last 5 years. And the hatred you have for everything Apple. It's always been pretty clear. But as of late there seems to be even more hatred and a blind eye towards everything Google does.


Typed on my MacBook Air.

And a blind eye towards everything Google does? Do you even READ the stuff I write? *sigh*

"While not violating any licenses, the lack of source code doesn't sit well with many - including myself"

"As I said in my earlier story about this, while I understand Google's reasoning, I see this is a massive cop-out. Sure, they're not violating any licenses, and it doesn't come close to the structural (L)GPL license violations by Apple, but I personally believe that you shouldn't lock away BSD/Apache/MIT-licensed code just because you took shortcuts or because you're afraid of what cheapo OEMs might do with it."

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Finchwizard on Wed 11th May 2011 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

Oh I read it.

And I must say it's probably amongst the first things where you've actually said you don't agree with it.

But looking as articles as a whole since you've started writing here, it's not hard to see your inconsistencies.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Shane on Thu 12th May 2011 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately this site reads like a blog. Has for several years now. It's full of opinion pieces and light on technical articles. The "my take" angle attached to most posts basically mimics what Gruber does at Daring Fireball. If you want journalism read Ars Technica.

Edited 2011-05-12 00:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Aragorn992 on Thu 12th May 2011 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Unfortunately this site reads like a blog. Has for several years now. It's full of opinion pieces and light on technical articles...


And thats exactly why I keep coming back here and find "neutral" sites more-or-less boring. I like the discussions and I like it when people state a controversial opinion outright.

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Oliver on Thu 12th May 2011 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

And even there it's just opinion, but they wrap it up better to lure you into this kind of thinking process. True journalism? Grow up! Become a true reader, learn to use source criticism, etc. pp.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by flanque on Wed 11th May 2011 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Fair's fair Thom, this site is full of trolls.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Odwalla on Thu 12th May 2011 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Odwalla Member since:
2006-02-01

You lost me at the whole Lord's name in vain vulgarity you put in your reply, Thom. Regardless of what your personal views are you are the editor of a site that has visitors with varying religious beliefs. As the editor you should respect that and refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive.

You were probably justified in your banning of someone who you claim has been twisting your words. The problem is that your insensitive response has now made you the antagonist.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Fergy on Thu 12th May 2011 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

You lost me at the whole Lord's name in vain vulgarity you put in your reply, Thom. Regardless of what your personal views are you are the editor of a site that has visitors with varying religious beliefs. As the editor you should respect that and refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive.

I disagree. It would make a very boring site when you have to refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive. You can make fun of the belief that Apple makes the best products in the world and you can make fun of the belief that there is a skydaddy.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Thu 12th May 2011 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You lost me at the whole Lord's name in vain vulgarity you put in your reply, Thom. Regardless of what your personal views are you are the editor of a site that has visitors with varying religious beliefs. As the editor you should respect that and refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive.


There are THOUSANDS of religions on Earth and thus no matter what you're saying you're bound to offend atleast one person. It simply is not possible to avoid offending anyone, not with that many religions.

Hell, there's even literally a registered Church of the Jedi which idolizes jedi and their ideologies. Talking about lightsabers as children's toys or the jedi as fantasy would seriously offend them.

As such; no, I disagree with you. Someone saying God or Jesus or anything similar should be allowed, especially if they don't share your religion. You have the right to be offended as much as you wish, just as others have the right to free speech.

The problem is that your insensitive response has now made you the antagonist.


To be honest, your response is just as insensitive.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Aragorn992 on Thu 12th May 2011 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Fair enough. Still, part of the fun I get from this site is reading his bullshit comments and your replies ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by morglum666 on Thu 12th May 2011 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

Disclaimer: I've been visiting and posting on this site for 5 ish years.

Thom runs the site. He knows if someone is being an asshole. Put it into perspective - who would know best if a user is just obnoxious?

The funny thing about the Internet is the lack of accountability in general. When someone like Thom starts to make a user for which he provided a free service accountable, the Internet world of keyboard commandos gets up in arms..

Morglum

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by _txf_ on Wed 11th May 2011 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Someone needs to take a deep breath and go for a walk.

You're a editor of the site and all I see is a child throwing a little tantrum party because what a user has said seems to hit a little too close to the truth for your liking.


Except it isn't the truth or anything close to it.

But either way there is no point getting annoyed by the original poster, he is probably the most marked down commenter on this site. I seldom ever see any of his comments get a positive rating (they're usually marked down into oblivion...not a sign of a meaningful but unpopular comment, more of a sign of useless trolling)

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by molnarcs on Wed 11th May 2011 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

That child is your typical hit and run troll - he posts nonsense, reasonable people devote time and energy to reply, but he completely ignores them and posts the same shit over and over again in new threads. I think some annoyance is justified in this case.
Take a look here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?472631
and here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?471309
and well... take a look yourself.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by aftermath on Thu 12th May 2011 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
aftermath Member since:
2010-10-29

I hope I’m not being unfair here. I mean, I know this guy is a nuisance to many, but this response is even more annoying than he is.

Are you honestly criticizing somebody for leave their comment in the “comment” section? Are you honestly criticizing somebody for just leaving comments in the “comment” section and not pretending like it’s also a forum or a place for discussion? Are you honestly criticizing somebody who apparently hasn’t changed his mind on topics for expressing those opinions on any article that seems relevant to him? Are you honestly going to let everybody who replies to him off the hook even though they’re equally guilty of not changing their minds on the same topics and posting the same old replies to him whenever they see a relevant post?

He’s not even a troll. Trolls at least try to fit in so that they can trick people into jumping into a flame war. Instead, this guy is just obviously offensive, and some people are so dumb that they just follow blindly into the wake of his mayhem. That’s not a troll. That’s a jerk, but the people who blindly and righteously go after him are equally bad. In fact, this guy is doing everybody a service by making the fools plainly identify themselves.

It’s fine that you don’t share the person’s opinion. It’s fine that you can’t come to terms with the fact the he won’t change his opinion. It’s fine that you can’t come to terms with the fact that he’s going to express his opinion whenever the topic comes up. What’s not fine is that you’re obviously trying to marginalize the guy because he stands out to you. Maybe he’s right. Maybe he’s wrong. However, I’m suspicious of you. If he really is just a failed troll then your annoyance isn’t justified. Are you really this mad at the messenger?

Most people on this site say the same things over and over. You know ahead of time which comments are going to come from which people about which topics and which responses they’re going to have to which other commenters. The fact of the matter is that very few people actually add anything legitimately different to these conversation, and the simple fact that somebody has a minority, dissenting, or unpopular opinion at least adds something different, even if only predictably different, to the conversation. Of course, that’s the guy that you marginalize. No wonder your "troll" ignores everybody's "reasonable" responses.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by molnarcs on Thu 12th May 2011 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I hope I’m not being unfair here. I mean, I know this guy is a nuisance to many, but this response is even more annoying than he is.

Are you honestly criticizing somebody for leave their comment in the “comment” section? Are you honestly criticizing somebody for just leaving comments in the “comment” section and not pretending like it’s also a forum or a place for discussion? Are you honestly criticizing somebody who apparently hasn’t changed his mind on topics for expressing those opinions on any article that seems relevant to him?

Don\'t be such a drama queen. Oh, by the way, yes. I\'m criticizing him for not engaging in ANY discussion, and wasting everybody time. Now I don\'t really mind him actually. He is hilarious sometimes (in kinda sad way). But lots of people make genuine attempts to inform him, and all those attempts are wasted on him. Posting the same shit repeatedly in every f--king thread about Google with zero attempt to actually discuss and engage = trollish behaviour. Maybe you haven\'t noticed, but people are having discussions here - regardless of how you call this place (comment section or forum - who cares?).

edit> Note that I\'m not saying Thom is right here. I\'m saying his annoyance is understandable, that\'s all - so yeah, your response is way over the top. I don\'t see a reason for banning him for all time and shouting about it. Thom had it\'s own share of feeding him for sport, even though he probably never reads any replies. Most old timers just ignore him. OTOH he does bring down the level of discussion on this site - which might be a legitimate reason for banning him. Disagreeing with me or you or anybody is not the problem. Saying something to the effect that \"everybody is stupid who doesn\'t see what I see\" (paraphrasing here) without 1) bothering to elaborate 2) with some elaboration (which can be actually worse) - now that\'s a problem I think.

Edited 2011-05-12 04:51 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by hackus on Wed 11th May 2011 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

You wouldn't happen to belong on the Council of Foreign Relations or the Bilderberg Group would you?

Seems like that post is more along their mindset, not on a forum discussing OS related topics in licensing.

-Hack

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 12th May 2011 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

mrhasbean has now gone.

Quite an apt user name in hindsight.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by flypig on Thu 12th May 2011 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

You're banned forever from now on.


I don't tend to agree with mrhasbean's comments, and I can understand your frustration at being accused of bias, but it's a shame if you think it's necessary to ban.

Apart from the attacks on other people's judgement (which are wholly unnecessary), mrhasbean tends to express valid opinions (they appear to be genuinely held, even if they're not true), and personally I like to see the other side of the argument put forcefully at times.

I'd urge you to reconsider.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Thu 12th May 2011 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"You're banned forever from now on.


I don't tend to agree with mrhasbean's comments, and I can understand your frustration at being accused of bias, but it's a shame if you think it's necessary to ban.
"

I personally see mrhasbean as a damn troll, but even I disagree with banning him. I am probably a little too lenient with people, it takes a lot for me to even kick someone off temporarily and a whole lot more for me to ban someone.

And well, he did do some good, too: even though he tries to troll and berate Google, Thom etc. he mostly just manages to instead incite people shooting down his arguments and posts and thus giving lots of useful reading for people, especially people who do not frequent OSNews that much or don't know enough about the topic at hand. To say it in an other way: he posts negative comments, but that just generates more often than not lots of insightful, positive comments and thus the end result is just good, not bad.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 12th May 2011 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, its sorta tough to distinguish between rampant fanboy-ism, stupidity,and out right trolls.

I'm not sure which one of those three he was. I don't blame Thom for his frustration, but I've been banned from some political sites as well for stupid reasons such as trying to bring consistent logic into discussions.

I don't mind the ban based on the history.I hope that Thom will continue to extend just as much patience towards users as he showed for this guy.

Reply Score: 2

Meta comment
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 12th May 2011 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I figured someone wouldn't like that. As much as I wished there were not people that lacked simple logic skills, they certainly do exist. Recognizing that allows me to extend a certain amount of compassion towards them.

I really do believe in Hanlon's rasor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by jboss1995 on Thu 12th May 2011 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
jboss1995 Member since:
2007-05-02

This is a little strong but Tom is right. No matter what he says people are there to criticize him. Cut him some slack, by far he is the biggest contributor of articles to this sight. Don't be so discouraging.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by vivainio
by vivainio on Wed 11th May 2011 20:54 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Bigger problem than open development is the fact that all the work Google puts into Android is entirely useless for the rest of the Linux world (i.e. the part of the world that is not prone to put their eggs to the Dalvik basket).

Whether they disclose the source code is no biggie, if the source code overall is useless.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by vivainio
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 20:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by vivainio"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, that's an odd argument. I mean, isn't the fact that Google is using a *different* approach using *existing* open source code the whole *point* behind open source?

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Comment by vivainio
by mrhasbean on Wed 11th May 2011 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by vivainio"
RE[3]: Comment by vivainio
by JAlexoid on Wed 11th May 2011 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by vivainio"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And how exactly are they stopping anyone from using the fruits of their labour in Android? It's the same argument that is applied to Ubuntu - "Wahaha!!! They are successful and they don't push their changes to us".

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by vivainio
by Soulbender on Wed 11th May 2011 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by vivainio"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Only when Linux does it. Then it is necessary and innovative (see Poettering et al).
When others do it it is detrimental.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by vivainio
by Beta on Wed 11th May 2011 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by vivainio"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, that's an odd argument. I mean, isn't the fact that Google is using a *different* approach using *existing* open source code the whole *point* behind open source?

Forking is a large part of FOSS.
But so is upstreaming, the concept of making changes and offering them up to the parent project for inclusion. A few complaints directed at Android have been that it is using a different method for handling 'handoffs' (wakelock), and it's rumoured with 3.1 to have a different USB driver stack to Linux.

This means more work to keep Android in sync with Linux kernels, and that drivers developed for Android devices don't automatically get supported in Linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by vivainio
by JAlexoid on Wed 11th May 2011 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by vivainio"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

A few complaints directed at Android have been that it is using a different method for handling 'handoffs' (wakelock), and it's rumoured with 3.1 to have a different USB driver stack to Linux.


I'm pretty sure it's the same story as with the scheduler - one size fits all is not always the best approach. And you know that if Linus will not think it's right it'll never get in to the mainline.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by vivainio
by vivainio on Thu 12th May 2011 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by vivainio"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Well, that's an odd argument. I mean, isn't the fact that Google is using a *different* approach using *existing* open source code the whole *point* behind open source?


I wasn't making any philosophical argument about open source in general - just saying, in very concrete terms, why I don't like Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by vivainio
by shmerl on Thu 12th May 2011 00:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by vivainio"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yes, this is probably one of the biggest flaws in Android from general Linux perspective. Meego is much better in this sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by vivainio
by bouhko on Thu 12th May 2011 01:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by vivainio"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

If you go back in history a bit, one of the main reason Stallmann started the whole copyleft stuff was because he was pissed because he wrote a piece of software, distributed it under a public domain license. A company then modified it and Stallmann asked them for their modifications, which they didn't want to disclose.

The point is, the roots of the Free Software movement are NOT community development. It's just that you have the four basic freedoms and that you can look at the code and do whatever the hell you want with it. This is basically a guarantee that you won't depend on a software vendor to support your software, you can do it yourself.

You should also read this interview[1] from Linus (on a french website, but interview is in english) where he says he's completely fine with Android and that forks are a big part of Open Source.

I mean, I think community development is nice, but we should stop the confusion between "community software" and "open source/free software". Some projects are both, some are not, but you DON'T have to have a community for your software to be open source. If you don't agree, start your own "Community software license" (I'm not ironic, that might be interesting).

[1] http://linuxfr.org/news/linus-torvalds-l%E2%80%99interv...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by vivainio
by _xmv on Thu 12th May 2011 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by vivainio"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Linus is controlled by lobbies, he just can't change Linux into BSD. If he could he'd do it I suppose.

As you might expect he's the number one person who could sue anyone violating the GPLv2 in Linux, but he'll never do that. Too damaging for his image and the lobbies of various companies.

He'll always be fine to anyone closing the source of non-GPL software since its allowed and favorite businesses.

Pretty sharp contrast with Stallman.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by vivainio
by Oliver on Thu 12th May 2011 08:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by vivainio"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

The rest of the 'Linux world'? There isn't that much Linux in Android as you may think. There is even as much BSD in Android, e.g. the mksh (mirbsd) shell, libc (OpenBSD/NetBSD), different tools, etc. pp.

Reply Score: 3

Open Source
by hackus on Wed 11th May 2011 21:29 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

Given the era we live in, communication systems such as personal items as phones, should not be closed in any matter with regards to the science, software or hardware or business.

It is too dangerous.

Seriously.

You just had the USA government tell you "We got Bin Laden" when nobody has see or heard from the guy since 2002 and just happened to dump the guys body in the ocean.

Yeah, the most notorious criminal of all time. They just killed him and dumped his body.

Yeah, but trust us, we got him.

Imagine a communication infrastructure with no way to confirm anything, track anything unless of course you are one of the insiders at google. Oh what a nice future that will be when we have crony law makers on the google dole that make it illegal to find out.

I don't want that sort of future, or lack of one, for humanity.

-Hack

Reply Score: 2

fragmentation
by fran on Wed 11th May 2011 21:41 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Maybe it's not the issue here but I would'nt really like Android to become fragmented.

Reply Score: 2

RE: fragmentation
by hackus on Wed 11th May 2011 22:26 UTC in reply to "fragmentation"
hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

Yeah I would agree.

In fact, I would fork a couple of times.

A couple of forks would be nice, with varying freedom to load the phone distro of your choice onto your phone.

-Hack

Reply Score: 1

finally something different
by Andrew27 on Wed 11th May 2011 22:27 UTC
Andrew27
Member since:
2010-08-06

I understand all the complaining about the source code not being released, but thanks for a good article explaining what's going on.
I must also give Thom an award for being on the internet and also weighing both sides of the issue. It's a rare thing nowadays.

LTWFTW

Reply Score: 2

Honeycomb is BETA
by weebnuts on Wed 11th May 2011 23:00 UTC
weebnuts
Member since:
2011-05-11

I don't understand why everyone is getting upset here, clearly Honeycomb is BETA and not ready for massive public consumption. They have said from the get go that Ice Cream (Sandwich) will be the proper release of Android for all hardware. They rushed Honeycomb to market to combat the iPAD. I want Honeycomb on my viewsonic Gtablet like everyone else, but I know that Google will release Ice Cream this year when it's ready, and it will be a much better product than a half-ass Beta that is Honeycomb.

So stop complaining and wait until the real release which is Ice Cream Sandwich

Reply Score: 5

RE: Honeycomb is BETA
by WorknMan on Wed 11th May 2011 23:51 UTC in reply to "Honeycomb is BETA"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't understand why everyone is getting upset here, clearly Honeycomb is BETA and not ready for massive public consumption. They have said from the get go that Ice Cream (Sandwich) will be the proper release of Android for all hardware. They rushed Honeycomb to market to combat the iPAD.


Agree with you, and the fact that they rushed it is the reason why Honeycomb hasn't done shit to combat the iPad so far. So, they probably could've just held on to it until it was ready, and it would've had the same net effect.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Honeycomb is BETA
by jeanke on Thu 12th May 2011 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Honeycomb is BETA"
jeanke Member since:
2005-08-26

So, they probably could've just held on to it until it was ready, and it would've had the same net effect.


Probably they were pressured by their hardware partners. They don't own the full stack as Apple does, so now and then they probably have to sacrifice quality for time especially if it is about following competition rather than their own roadmap.

Reply Score: 2

Doubt....
by rinzai on Wed 11th May 2011 23:35 UTC
rinzai
Member since:
2011-05-11

I'm not entirely inside the honeycomb saga, so can someone clarify this to me?

manufacturers of honeycomb devices may provide the source, no? Is there any legal barrier for that code to be used on other devices by other companies?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Doubt....
by molnarcs on Sat 14th May 2011 09:57 UTC in reply to "Doubt...."
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

The whole Honeycomb saga is storm in a teacup. Google released the source code for every part that they are legally obliged to. The rest they seem to be ashamed of - probably they were rushed by the impending Xoom release, ripped out parts and replaced them with others, making the whole release unsuitable for phones. More importantly the source code will be released when Ice Cream is released - that's how GIT works. The only thing is that Honeycomb won't be tagged (as a release) and won't be released RIGH NOW. But once IceCream is released, nobody will care about what Honeycomb once was (still, if they want, they can have the full source code in all its broken glory).

So actually most of the headlines are factually wrong - "Honeycomb will not be released" - but I guess it's important to harp on how evil Google is for not releasing broken code onto the world ATM.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by t3RRa
by t3RRa on Thu 12th May 2011 02:55 UTC
t3RRa
Member since:
2005-11-22

Wow! I think I have some kind of magic power! I have predicted that Thom would bash Apple in this article even before I clicked 'Read more'. Vote me 'Funny' ;)

Reply Score: 0

"This I can agree with."
by ourcomputerbloke on Thu 12th May 2011 03:26 UTC
ourcomputerbloke
Member since:
2011-05-12

So you don't agree, or you don't think Google are all that stuff he said? Reading all of your articles over the past few months about Google and in contrast Apple I would have thought he was pretty well on the money. On numerous occasions you've made comments about supposedly not liking something then prattle on about how it's not so bad, unless it's Apple which seem to have a different set of rules applied to them.

I also think the point about calling something opensource when the source is in no way open is a good one. I actually thought thats what it meant but obviously I need to go and read some of these licenses because from what I'm reading here it can really mean all sorts of things.

But anyway, as someone else said, if banning people for disagreeing with you is what floats your boat then this could well be my first and last post. I generally only come here to see what spin has been put on news stories anyway, so no harm done if it is.

Reply Score: 1

RE: "This I can agree with."
by t3RRa on Thu 12th May 2011 04:02 UTC in reply to ""This I can agree with.""
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

As several people and I agree, the OSNews site had become a blog site for Thom, sort of. Not a regular tech news site anymore. That might led several people stop coming.

Thom, stop bashing Apple in non-Apple related news article! You might however bash Apple in the comment section under Apple related news article only about which relates to the topic as much as possible. Sick of it. I mean it. At least if you don't want people to bash you, since there are reasons why they do, you should look back and behave well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: "This I can agree with."
by vivainio on Thu 12th May 2011 06:03 UTC in reply to "RE: "This I can agree with.""
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Thom, stop bashing Apple in non-Apple related news article!


Thom, please proceed with Apple bashing. I'd like to see osnews retaining some ideological rigor, instead of catering for everyone that may eventually click through an advertisement.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: "This I can agree with."
by Aragorn992 on Thu 12th May 2011 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "This I can agree with.""
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

"
Thom, stop bashing Apple in non-Apple related news article!


Thom, please proceed with Apple bashing. I'd like to see osnews retaining some ideological rigor, instead of catering for everyone that may eventually click through an advertisement.
"

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: "This I can agree with."
by molnarcs on Thu 12th May 2011 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE: "This I can agree with.""
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Care to point out where Thom bashes Apple for no good reason? There are plenty of legitimate reasons for bashing APPLE. Censoring Joyce's Ulysses because line art containing nudity? Banning authors only to let them in after they won the Pulitzer prize? Pointing out some ridiculous aspects of their marketing (MAGIC!!!!)? Is that what you call Apple bashing? How about Apple's vision of the future of computing, where a single entity decides what is appropriate for you, what you can and can't do with the device you own, etc... These are some of the things Thom and many of us criticize Apple for - is that what you mean by bashing?

I'm with Viviano above:

Thom, please proceed with Apple bashing. I'd like to see osnews retaining some ideological rigor, instead of catering for everyone that may eventually click through an advertisement.

Being objective is not being in the middle. A lot of journalists in different fields think that they will look more objective if they are at equal distance from the two sides they compare. A very common fallacy. However, a good journalist is first and foremost independent and consistent with his own values, and he or she must also be up front about those values. Thom is pretty up front about his values and views (software patents, customer choice, etc.) So what's your problem again? Oh, your fav corporation is being critized? Well, instead of blanket statements, why don't you react to specific claims and disprove what Thom says?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: "This I can agree with."
by t3RRa on Thu 12th May 2011 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "This I can agree with.""
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

Do you really think is that good in an article on a tech news site, the writer bashing Apple in Google Android news item for no good reason? You example is invalid since this article is not related to Apple AT ALL.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Do you really think is that good in an article on a tech news site, the writer bashing Apple in Google Android news item for no good reason? You example is invalid since this article is not related to Apple AT ALL.


It IS related, because BOTH companies are doing something similar: playing with the very definitions of open. However, the crazy thing is is that while Google is following licenses to the letter, it is getting bashed for it like crazy - whereas Apple is structurally violating the (L)GPL, and nobody seems to give a shit.

This is very much related. Me thinks you, as an Apple fanatic, simply don't like it that OSNews is one of the few - if not the only - website to point out these structural (L)GPL violations, without coming up with ridiculous rationalisations like Apple spokesperson Gruber is doing - he is saying it's okay for Apple to violate the (L)GPL because Apple isn't as hell-bent on being open as Google is! In other words, as long as you're honest about it, it's okay to be a criminal.

If you can't handle people pointing out the mistakes of your favourite pet company, then you might want to stick to cesspools like Daring Fireball and MacDailyNews.

Edited 2011-05-12 08:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: "This I can agree with."
by t3RRa on Fri 13th May 2011 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: "This I can agree with.""
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

How stupid you are. If they are related, you should also bash many of other companies currently violating licenses. AND you are not considering or taking as is of that Apple posted 'Coming soon' for the source code and just saying they are violating. That's quite a stupidity I reckon. You should wait and see what happen before state anything like that, quite serious.

And I am quite neutral to most of the companies. You are just bashing Apple for nonsensical reasons. Therefore I am telling you that you should not as an editor of a NEWS SITE. So you wouldn't get this at all? FINE.

If I am an Apple fanatic simply I am against your opinion regarding Apple, you are anti-Apple Google fanatic. Simple as that.

You have not grown up.. period

Reply Score: 3

v Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 12th May 2011 08:02 UTC
Nokia is moving away from this model
by FunkyELF on Fri 13th May 2011 19:01 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

It seems with Nokia's latest announcement that Qt5 is actually moving away from this model and more towards an open community / development.

They used to be more similar to Android.

I wonder what considerations were made by Nokia to change and if Google will do so eventually as well.

Reply Score: 2