Linked by snydeq on Fri 12th Aug 2011 19:05 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Google has finally acknowledged that its characterization of Android as open source is false and, in the end, this can only make the mobile platform stronger, InfoWorld's Galen Gruman argues. 'It's hard for believers to accept that open source brings with it difficulties, but look at the consistent failure of the other open source mobile platforms -- Moblin, Maemo, and MeeGo -- that all devolved into grad-student-like thought experiments and personal pet projects. Users don't want that, and ultimately products are sold to users.' Instead, Google has been quietly taking parts of Android back in house to develop them purposefully and deeply, and as Google has asserted more control over Android, it's improved.
Order by: Score:
being one of those disagreeing
by vege on Sat 13th Aug 2011 04:19 UTC
vege
Member since:
2006-04-07

I, as a tech enthusiast, see this not just as a loss for the FOSS ecosystem, but also as a false statement.

For one, Android as a platform has become great as an almost open source product. Claiming now, that being open source would hold back growth and development - it is pretty funny, since we are talking about the arguably most popular mobile platform.

Closing the source is not about development, it is about competition issues, like staying ahead of competition or avoid a fraction of patent and copyright issues.

It is also sad (for me) to see what Android is turning to be. Although once being the "most successful open source platform" it is now going the way of OSX: relying heavily on FOSS (Linux here, BSD there), they take control of everything on the surface and become the owners of all policies, replacing the user (device owner) in that role.

I can just hope this is not going to be a trend that ends in having iOS/iTunes like restrictions and outrageous extra-profits for Google at the expense of developers and customers.

I admit, I belong to the minority, but contrary to what the article suggests, MeeGo is much more appealing for me in this sense.

Reply Score: 12

RE: being one of those disagreeing
by ssokolow on Sat 13th Aug 2011 04:34 UTC in reply to "being one of those disagreeing"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I have to agree. I don't own a cellphone (though, being both a poor student and Canadian, that's very easy to justify on cost alone) and, when I do, It'll be when the entire stack is open source.

It's bad enough that I need the closed-source nVidia drivers to get suitable functionality out of my PC.

To me, Google's gradual closing of Android is more about blaming the process because they don't want to put in the effort to make it work.

Edited 2011-08-13 04:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

I have to agree. I don't own a cellphone (though, being both a poor student and Canadian, that's very easy to justify on cost alone) and, when I do, It'll be when the entire stack is open source.


So, try to save all the money you can and buy an N900 as soon as possible; because seems to be one of the latest almost full open source based phones living out there.

Reply Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Or Import an N9. The only phone that nokia has released recently that has impressed people.

Shame they are following the nokia tradition and self sabotaging their releases.

Reply Score: 3

RE: being one of those disagreeing
by cdude on Sun 14th Aug 2011 10:02 UTC in reply to "being one of those disagreeing"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The article spreads FUD. Android is FLOSS and there is no way to argue about that. That is what the GPL is all about.

Reply Score: 1

draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

The article spreads FUD. Android is FLOSS and there is no way to argue about that. That is what the GPL is all about.


Many parts of Android are not under the GPL. For example the libc is from NetBSD, under the BSD licence.

Reply Score: 2

Wrong
by transami on Sat 13th Aug 2011 06:21 UTC
transami
Member since:
2006-02-28

I want to use Meego, and will go out of my way to do so.

I've used Linux for a decade now and have found it to be infinitely more fulfilling than being trapped in a closed product like I was for so many years before.

The only reason people are willing to settle for closed source operating systems is b/c they don't know any better. I will grant you that Apple does a good job of it, but guess what? It's built on top of BSD. Android on the other hand is getting to be like Windows. Constantly crashing. Always something not working quite right. But hey that's what creates jobs right? So a lot of stupid people will keep using it. To bad for them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 07:50 UTC in reply to "Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I honestly wonder if you guys live in the real world.

I've used Linux for a decade now and have found it to be infinitely more fulfilling than being trapped in a closed product like I was for so many years before.


Why?? Seriously There is nothing that you can't do on MacOSX or Windows that you can do on Linux or BSD based OSes.

The only reason people are willing to settle for closed source operating systems is b/c they don't know any better.


What utter rubbish. Typical Elitism ... "other people only use stuff because they don't know any better."

People want stuff that works outta the box, most people don't want to have to tinker etc etc ... nobody buys a washing machine where you have to install the drum yourself.

I will grant you that Apple does a good job of it, but guess what? It's built on top of BSD. Android on the other hand is getting to be like Windows.


Yes it is becoming like Windows, in that it is ubiquitous ... you are just butthurt that Google have realized that open sourcing the platform doesn't give them any benefit.

Constantly crashing. Always something not working quite right. But hey that's what creates jobs right? So a lot of stupid people will keep using it. To bad for them.


What utter rubbish again.

I haven't had 1 single crash system lockup from my Windows XP machine at work that gets used 10 hours a day ... 5 days a week for 2 years.

My Windows 7 machine runs flawlessly without reboot for months.

Windows NT kernel is extremely reliable (especially after NT 4.0) and you will not see BSODs or system lockups unless you have failing hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wrong
by soulrebel123 on Sat 13th Aug 2011 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong"
soulrebel123 Member since:
2009-05-13


Why?? Seriously There is nothing that you can't do on MacOSX or Windows that you can do on Linux or BSD based OSes.


So they finally put APT on Windows? Can I also mount my home folder on a software raid-1 partition?
Can I hack a wireless network from MacOSX, now?
Can I choose among different desktop environments?
Can I configure a Windows system for complete security? Can MacOSX run on a ten years old computer as a network firewall?
Most of all, can I legally use Windows of MacOSX free of charge?
Oh and can I patch stuff or even report a bug on those systems?

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Wrong
by Neolander on Sat 13th Aug 2011 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Just one little note : there is such a thing as a bug tracker for Windows, and other Microsoft products.

http://connect.microsoft.com/

It's just that few people know about it, and that the Microsoft employees there often behave more like technical support ("Here's how you can get around the problem") than like bug smashers ("Okay, help us find out where the problem comes from so that we can truly fix it")

Edited 2011-08-13 09:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So they finally put APT on Windows?



Got me there ... I can't use a slow package management system, but I can install programs quickly and easily from .exe and .msi files (or I just unzip) ;-D.

Can I also mount my home folder on a software raid-1 partition?


http://www.softwaresecretweapons.com/jspwiki/windows-7-software-rai...

Can I hack a wireless network from MacOSX, now?


Yes ... you can do this on any computer ... seriously it us just a network protocol.

Can I choose among different desktop environments?


On Windows XP and MacOSX you can yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_shell_replacement

http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~eoster/osxx11/

dunno why you want to but yes.

Can I configure a Windows system for complete security?


Yes it called unplugging the network cable, pouring concrete over it and putting it at the bottom of the ocean ... No computer system is 100% secure.

Can MacOSX run on a ten years old computer as a network firewall?


No okay, got me there. But why would you want to use a 10 year old computer as a firewall and spend more money running it than buying a decent router ... I have no f--king idea.

Most of all, can I legally use Windows of MacOSX free of charge?


TBH if it being $0 is the only reason you are using something that just makes you a cheapskate ... I personally don't mind buying a Windows License for £120 and then get to use that product for approximately 10-14 years with support ... Lets just work out how much that costs per day of use ..

£120 / (365 * 10) = £0.03 = 3pence a day ...

I think that is the amount I usually put into the charity box when I get given change at the local store.


Oh and can I patch stuff or even report a bug on those systems?


Windows has an automatic bug reporting tool, and both systems have regular updates and patches.

If you are going to say "I can patch the sources yourself" ... I doubt very much you write your own Kernel patches so all you are doing is patching the system yourself.

Way to go buddy ... you have proved you are a ignorant cheapskate

Edited 2011-08-13 10:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong
by Veto on Sat 13th Aug 2011 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
Veto Member since:
2010-11-13

"So they finally put APT on Windows?
Got me there ... I can't use a slow package management system, but I can install programs quickly and easily from .exe and .msi files (or I just unzip) ;-D. "

Let me rephrase that: "Can I have all my programs updated effectively (with security fixes etc.) without having a bazillion update-programs running in the background and prompting me at each start-up?" (BTW. "Slow package system"?? You obviously don't know what you are talking about!)

" Can MacOSX run on a ten years old computer as a network firewall?
No okay, got me there. But why would you want to use a 10 year old computer as a firewall and spend more money running it than buying a decent router ... I have no f--king idea. "

Yeah, but that router is very likely running Linux as well - and can be customized by OpenWRT etc. :-)

"Most of all, can I legally use Windows of MacOSX free of charge?
TBH if it being $0 is the only reason you are using something that just makes you a cheapskate ... "

Ooohh, Mr. Rich Guy. Maybe people in the third world just generally are cheapskates? Personally I hate paying too high taxes because my government administration, schools etc. have to pay uncompetitive prices to monopolies... and why pay plenty bucks for something which is much cheaper and just as good?

Way to go buddy ... you have proved you are a ignorant cheapskate

Way to go buddy ... you have proved you are an obnoxious troll

Edited 2011-08-13 11:14 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[5]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I run Windows without a hundreds of update programs in the background ... it called not installing crap.

Also the 3rd world argument is bullshit ... we aren't there, £120 (for Professional) for something that is supported for 10 years isn't expensive as I already pointed out.

I actually do know what I am talking about when it comes to Linux since I was actually Linux Admin in my last job. APT was good when everything else was rubbish ... pre 2004? Personally the best package management system is on OpenBSD.

I must be a troll because I debunked all your points. Next time learn to RAEG better.

Edited 2011-08-13 12:22 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Wrong
by mahiyu on Sat 13th Aug 2011 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong"
mahiyu Member since:
2010-08-06

Also the 3rd world argument is bullshit ... we aren't there, £120 (for Professional) for something that is supported for 10 years isn't expensive as I already pointed out.


£0.03 per day (the figure you gave earlier) doesn't sound expensive, but £120 is a fair amount of money to pay out in one go for a lot of people. It's the reason I use Linux Mint rather than Windows on my media PC.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sun 14th Aug 2011 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That is for Windows 7 Professional ... which has pretty much everything built in.

I suspect home premium is much cheaper.

EDIT: Just checked £43 ... much less than a weekly food shop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wrong
by itanic on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
itanic Member since:
2008-08-03


Got me there ... I can't use a slow package management system, but I can install programs quickly and easily from .exe and .msi files (or I just unzip) ;-D.


How many steps are required to install a WAMP stack? Can you script that?


Yes it called unplugging the network cable, pouring concrete over it and putting it at the bottom of the ocean ... No computer system is 100% secure.

No, but OpenBSD comes pretty darn close, with only 2 holes in 15 years.


No okay, got me there. But why would you want to use a 10 year old computer as a firewall and spend more money running it than buying a decent router ... I have no f--king idea.

Maybe I want to run Gbps+ traffic, BGP, VRRP, rate-limiting, TCP SYN proxying, remote OS fingerprinting, etc. Ironically, any decent router these days runs Linux anyway.


TBH if it being $0 is the only reason you are using something that just makes you a cheapskate ... I personally don't mind buying a Windows License for £120 and then get to use that product for approximately 10-14 years with support ... Lets just work out how much that costs per day of use ..

Try that on 1000 servers.

Way to go buddy ... you have proved you are a ignorant cheapskate

You have proven you are an ignorant, desktop only user.

Edited 2011-08-13 12:16 UTC

Reply Score: 14

RE[5]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How many steps are required to install a WAMP stack? Can you script that?


You obviously haven't heard of powershell or the web platform installer ... it not quite a WAMP stack ... more of a WIMP stack (Windows, IIS, MySQL and PHP).

Also if you are perverse there are Windows Services for Unix.


No, but OpenBSD comes pretty darn close, with only 2 holes in 15 years.


I actually by OpenBSD CDs, I am well aware of that claim ... the thing is that that is on the "default" install which is extremely locked down.

Maybe I want to run Gbps+ traffic, BGP, VRRP, rate-limiting, TCP SYN proxying, remote OS fingerprinting, etc. Ironically, any decent router these days runs Linux anyway.


GBPS+ traffic as well as the rest on 10 year old hardware ... oh comon!!

Try that on 1000 servers.
.....

You have proven you are an ignorant, desktop only user.


The OP was obviously talking about desktops, why I mentioned MacOSX (not known for being a server) ... Yes in specialist situations Linux can be very good, embedded, server and super computer.

Well done you have missed the point.

Edited 2011-08-13 12:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sat 13th Aug 2011 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

GBPS+ traffic as well as the rest on 10 year old hardware ... oh comon!!

Easy! 10 y/o hardware is already fast enough to handle those loads. 10 years ago Pentium4's came onto the market. Cheezy 300mhz embedded low-power CPU's can handle 100mbits. 10 GB will not be hard for them.
I use my 7 y/o machine as a test Java app server with no issues, including performance testing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wrong
by mongrel on Sat 13th Aug 2011 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
mongrel Member since:
2011-08-13

well mate, you may have a bit of tech nous but you seem to be a very rude person. please add politeness as an item to your undoubtedly large repertoire.
my regards.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sun 14th Aug 2011 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is called being blunt ... I am very much like it in Real life ... some people hate me for it ... others find it hilarious.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wrong
by mahiyu on Sat 13th Aug 2011 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
mahiyu Member since:
2010-08-06

"So they finally put APT on Windows?



Got me there ... I can't use a slow package management system, but I can install programs quickly and easily from .exe and .msi files (or I just unzip) ;-D.

"

I agree with most of your points, but as someone who uses Windows 7 as my main desktop OS, I really miss the package manager from Ubuntu and Linux Mint.

When I have a fresh install of Ubuntu, I can get all my most important applications installed in one go through APT, and I get the latest versions that are in the respositories. If I am looking for a program to do a specific task, I can usually find something suitable in Synaptic.

A fresh install of Windows, however, needs each application to be installed individually, and I need to go to their websites to get the latest versions.

OK, it's a fairly minor inconvenience as I don't reinstall Windows often, but it still makes a difference to my user experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wrong
by delta0.delta0 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01


Got me there ... I can't use a slow package management system, but I can install programs quickly and easily from .exe and .msi files (or I just unzip) ;-D.


A slow package management system ? Pray do tell what is slow about apt ? please explain this point,


lets see I want to install gimp, I just want to quickly edit a picture, in windows:

1. open up web browser, go to google

1. go to google search for gimp web site.

2. go to gimp website (if it is actually the correct site and not some dodgy other site)

3. find the latest version of gimp for windows.

4. download the exe

5. install the exe

On Linux (Debian)

1. open up konsole.

2. type in sudo apt-get install gimp or sudo su then apt-get install gimp.

3. gimp installed and job done.


You call this slow ?

time apt-get install gimp
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Suggested packages:
gimp-help-en gimp-help gimp-data-extras gvfs-backends
The following NEW packages will be installed
gimp
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B/4,887 kB of archives.
After this operation, 14.0 MB of additional disk space will be used.
Selecting previously deselected package gimp.
(Reading database ... 133376 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking gimp (from .../gimp_2.6.11-1ubuntu6.1_amd64.deb) ...
Processing triggers for man-db ...
Setting up gimp (2.6.11-1ubuntu6.1) ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin ...
ldconfig deferred processing now taking place

real 0m6.151s
user 0m0.870s
sys 0m0.570s


A whole 6 seconds to install gimp, wow thats so long and tedious ..

What about un-installation of the program ?

windows:
1. click start, find control panel.
2. control panel locate add/remove programs
3. add / remove programs wait an age for it to populate the programs list.
4. find the program and click un-install click through confirmation windows until finally.
5. un-install the program ..

What's even worse, practically every s**** program on windows leaves registry entries, add/remove over a year or two and your guaranteed to begin to get inconsistencies within the registry, slower boot times and general issues. only solution reinstall

On Linux (if using kde):

1. press the K, search for konsole, or if your like me its already on your taskbar

2. type in either sudo apt-get remove --purge gimp
or sudo su then apt-get remove --purge gimp.

3. done, no traces left in system, no stupid registry. job done.

Again lets check performance:

time apt-get remove --purge gimp
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
libgail18 libwmf0.2-7 libwebkitgtk-1.0-common libbabl-0.0-0 libgegl-0.0-0 libpoppler-glib6 libgimp2.0 libwebkitgtk-1.0-0
gimp-data
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
The following packages will be REMOVED
gimp*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
After this operation, 14.0 MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
(Reading database ... 133628 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing gimp ...
Purging configuration files for gimp ...
Processing triggers for man-db ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin ...
ldconfig deferred processing now taking place

real 0m4.696s
user 0m0.610s
sys 0m0.310s


wow a whole 4.69 seconds, really SLOW.. I can see what you mean.....

Lets not forget patching, recently rebuilt friends laptop, It took 3 days for it to update itself, its such an ass way of updating, trickle of updates reboot, service pack, trickle of patches reboot continue.. continue.. service pack .. ... ... after 3 days of constantly telling it to get the latest updates it finished .. On linux ? apt-get update && apt-get upgrade && apt-get dist-upgrade everything updated in 1 beautiful swoop taking around an hour if its really out of date, you can change between versions in less than an hour and if your internet connection is super fast 15 - 20 minutes..

Can I also mount my home folder on a software raid-1 partition?

http://www.softwaresecretweapons.com/jspwiki/windows-7-software-rai...


Does that allow you to convert your home partition into raid 1 ? I think the answer is no it doesn't. Windows has no concept of /home like in Linux, your equivalent in vista/7 is c:\Users a direct rip off of Mac osx /Users/ and in windows xp that would be c:\documents and settings. Can you split that folder off to be a raid 1 partition while leaving the rest of the system as before ?

How about mounting /root /boot into a raid 1 array
and leaving /home /opt /var /usr in a raid 0 ? can you do that in windows ?

You can get software raid 1 on the drive but can you split it off any way you wish like in Linux ? what about LVM ? will it allow your to set up a raid 5 array for example allow you to setup a partition and be able to resize that partition? how about if your raid 5 array runs out of space will it allow you to add more storage on the fly using lvm or an equivalent ? we are talking about any version of Linux being able to do this regardless of desktop / server / home / pro or whatever any version of ubuntu will allow this any version of debian, in fact there is no distinction.

<snip>...</snip> couldnt be bothered to get into these two


Yes it called unplugging the network cable, pouring concrete over it and putting it at the bottom of the ocean ... No computer system is 100% secure.


Can you chroot processes in windows ? how about running virtualised instances using Xen/KVM/LXC so that you get near native performance without needing to spend thousands on a server version (great for security)?. se linux ? http://etbe.coker.com.au/2007/10/10/how-se-linux-prevents-local-roo... apparmor ?


<snip>...</snip> A lot of the modern dsl routers run Linux, even the Cisco ASA's run Linux

Most of all, can I legally use Windows of MacOSX free of charge?

TBH if it being $0 is the only reason you are using something that just makes you a cheapskate ... I personally don't mind buying a Windows License for £120 and then get to use that product for approximately 10-14 years with support ... edited...


10 to 14 years ? Windows XP was the exception to the rule what about windows vista ? Windows ME ? What about MS Office how much does that cost ? Good Anti virus software, how much does that cost ?

Oh and can I patch stuff or even report a bug on those systems?

Windows has an automatic bug reporting tool, and both systems have regular updates and patches.

If you are going to say "I can patch the sources yourself" ... I doubt very much you write your own Kernel patches so all you are doing is patching the system yourself.

Way to go buddy ... you have proved you are a ignorant cheapskate


No you have proven that your ignorant, you can patch things that are not in the mainline kernel, you dont have to write your own code to add functionality to Linux, some things are intentionally left out.. What about compiling kernel and statically compiling in all necessary modules and making the kernel non-modular ? better performance and no chance of a root kit, cant add a root kit to a kernel that doesn't support modules being loaded in (possibly during 2.4x not sure with 2.6x pretty much expect this to still work). also the bug reporting tool in windows is meh at best, forget patching it yourself not a chance..

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wrong
by Aragorn992 on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

"
Why?? Seriously There is nothing that you can't do on MacOSX or Windows that you can do on Linux or BSD based OSes.


So they finally put APT on Windows? Can I also mount my home folder on a software raid-1 partition?
Can I hack a wireless network from MacOSX, now?
Can I choose among different desktop environments?
Can I configure a Windows system for complete security? Can MacOSX run on a ten years old computer as a network firewall?
Most of all, can I legally use Windows of MacOSX free of charge?
Oh and can I patch stuff or even report a bug on those systems?
"

So in summary, all the things you listed that Linux apparently can do and Win/MacOS apparently cannot are next to useless for 99.9% of people.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sat 13th Aug 2011 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yeh... But refuting a factually incorrect statement is useful to 100% of people.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Wrong
by Aragorn992 on Sun 14th Aug 2011 05:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Yeh... But refuting a factually incorrect statement is useful to 100% of people.


The only part of the piece that I replied to, that was accurate, was that Linux is free. And using the cost as something that Linux "can do" and Windows "can't" is well .. lets just say, creatively pushing the limits of logic ;)

See another post for more info: http://www.osnews.com/thread?484833

Refuting a factually incorrect statement is useful to most but doing it with lies has the opposite effect.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sun 14th Aug 2011 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Thanks for explaining it 100times better than I ever could.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sun 14th Aug 2011 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Refuting a factually incorrect statement is useful to most but doing it with lies has the opposite effect.


"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"*
You however felt strong enough to call the statements by soulrebel123 lies**.


* Is the reason why I didn't use world lying in my original statement, in favour of "factually incorrect".
** Lie - an intentionally false statement.

BTW: The "99.9% of people" is a hyperbole that is wildly off target. 0.01% = ~6milion people or ~ 2milion actual computer users. India produces 3 milion IT graduates each year.

Edited 2011-08-14 19:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wrong
by MacTO on Sat 13th Aug 2011 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

You have effectively proven that closed source software is not for you.

But I'm going to tell you something: the people who care about the stuff that you mentioned, scientists and engineers, represent about 1% of the population. Now you could argue that there are plenty of people who are interested in the stuff that you mentioned, yet aren't professional scientists or engineers. Which would be true. Yet it is also true that a significant proportion of those scientists and engineers couldn't give a damn about a single thing that you mentioned on your list. So I'm going to suggest that you're still stuck at about 1% of the population who even cares about the same things that you care about.

And guess what? Google doesn't want to serve 1% of the market. Worse yet, they don't want to serve 1% of the market that is both fragmented among competitors and a market that would fragment their own product into competitors.

So if you want to use open source, I wish all the best to you. But please don't expect everyone to follow you if only they were a bit smarter.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Wrong
by Lennie on Sat 13th Aug 2011 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"Why?? Seriously There is nothing that you can't do on MacOSX or Windows that you can do on Linux or BSD based OSes."

I don't know about you, but I work on servers a lot of the time where Linux does have a lot of advantages over MacOSX and Windows and having the same system on my desktop is really useful.

Also my Linux desktop is a lot more stable than Windows, even Windows 7. I've seen lots of problems with it. Maybe not BSOD, but still things that needed a reboot just to be useable again.

But I do know Linux really well, much better than most know Windows I'm sure. Just so you know, I do Windows server management also, so I know Windows fairly well to.

If you take a Linux distribution which doesn't want to support all the new fancy hyped features and your hardware is properly supported it is more stable than Windows.

But finding hardware which has good drivers, especially graphics, can be a problem.

Obviously that is mostly a vendors and desktop marketshare problem, not really a Linux problem.

If the vendors give out all the information needed to make the drivers, the Linux developers would develop the driver. Just look at the Linux Driver Project.

But just to summarize: it all depends on what you use it for.

Don't say Windows is better, it isn't true. It is different. And different people have different use-cases.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The OP's comment basically came down to ... "Open is better, because it is open". Without actually reading why google are doing this.

I know it is swings and roundabouts ... depending on hardware you stability will vary with any Operating system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wrong
by _txf_ on Sat 13th Aug 2011 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

The OP's comment basically came down to ... "Open is better, because it is open". Without actually reading why google are doing this.

I know it is swings and roundabouts ... depending on hardware you stability will vary with any Operating system.


I don't think that Closed is worse than Open but I generally find that open systems also mean open and more freely shared information than closed systems.

Also regarding the article, this story is ancient. We already knew that google wasn't going to release 3.0 (probably because it was rushed, buggy and google was ashamed of the code it produced), They will be releasing Ice cream sandwich which unifies phone and tablet, probably better for everybody.

I never regarded Android as proper open source as it is more of a source dump every trimester (and there is no visible collaboration and development with others/public). But it IS an open platform (and MUCH more so than its competitors).

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I find open is better for Dev tools and libraries.

Proprietary programs tend to be better for consumers in terms of UI and ease of use.


The thing that I get really wound up about is when someone who is obviously a pretty tech savvy people would automatically move to a platform because "it is open".

Most people don't care unless the system is really taking the bad in one way or another ... then and only then will they will bother to find an alternative.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wrong
by tidux on Sat 13th Aug 2011 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

People are surprised that somebody with the skill and inclination to monkey around with a system's guts (like, say, a registered user at an OS enthusiast site) would switch to a system that makes it easier to monkey around? Is this opposite day?

Edited 2011-08-13 17:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sun 14th Aug 2011 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why do people fail to see the point on this site.

The point is was the absurd garbage spouted by the OP.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sat 13th Aug 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There are actually a lot of opensource projects that have a closed development model. In fact , most opensource projects have a controlled development model, even Linux.(I believe that Tom Lane is the guy you have to convince to get your patch over into PosgtgreSQL, otherwise it's not getting into the main dev. And it's not that easy...)
In short, Android's model is nothing new in the opensource world. It is technically opensource, but the rules for joining the platform development are really restricted.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Wrong
by itanic on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong"
itanic Member since:
2008-08-03

Seriously There is nothing that you can't do on MacOSX or Windows that you can do on Linux or BSD based OSes.


That's a totally ignorant statement, and raises the question why you are on an OS enthusiast site. Almost any operating system offers some unique features, and Linux/BSD both offer several that don't exist on MacOSX or Windows, as well as each having their own unique benefits. If you can't think of anything you can't do on MacOSX or Windows that you can do on Linux or BSD based OSes, you fail at operating systems.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I was more of a Devil's advocate comment against the usual Windows bashing and complete Bullshit that was in his comment.

I actually use OpenBSD, Icaros, Windows, IRIX and I have a fedora machine as Web server and a XBMC media box.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong
by vitae on Sat 13th Aug 2011 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Yeah, but you have to realize to some degree you're just fanning the flames.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sun 14th Aug 2011 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It's just the constant Windows Bashing of when it didn't work in some really odd use case, things that occurred on Windows version pre-XP or things that are pure lies.

I do like to throw it back in people's faces somewhat ... me and my manager does this (mainly for fun) ... in terms of Windows vs Macs.

It stops any sensible conversation on any subject ... within 3 posts ... Mr. "I use Linux for the Freedomz" jumped in ... I suppose it gets OSNews more page views.

I really like developing stuff on Windows ... I like doing Python/Ruby/Java on a *nix machine as well ... I just don't do it that much anymore, since most of the places in my area or Microsoft only shops.

Edited 2011-08-14 10:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wrong
by rr7.num7 on Sat 13th Aug 2011 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong"
rr7.num7 Member since:
2010-04-30

While I agree with most of what you wrote, this:

Windows NT kernel is extremely reliable (especially after NT 4.0) and you will not see BSODs or system lockups unless you have failing hardware.


is not true.

Yes, in general, NT is reliable but not "extremely", and yes, you can see BSODs (at least on XP) for purely software-related problems. The last one I experienced was because of a bug that made XP restart or show a BSOD, if you run a program with a certain type of manifest file. A fix was available soon after, but still, it's insane that something as simple as an XML file can crash the whole OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wrong
by Lennie on Sun 14th Aug 2011 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

But the fun only just started with Windows Vista/7/2008, the Ping Of Death is back:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS11-064.mspx

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wrong
by rr7.num7 on Sun 14th Aug 2011 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
rr7.num7 Member since:
2010-04-30

And I just found out: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2575077

So much for the "NT can't lockup unless you have failing hardware" myth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sat 13th Aug 2011 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

My Windows 7 machine runs flawlessly without reboot for months.

Windows NT kernel is extremely reliable (especially after NT 4.0) and you will not see BSODs or system lockups unless you have failing hardware.


I'm happy for you.

And my 4 y/o machine(that has hardware labelled as supported by Vista) has a crapload of issues when I switch to play games on Windows7. Main reason why Linux is my main OS now - the hardware support is nowhere near what it is in Linux. I guess the tables have turned...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sun 14th Aug 2011 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I honestly think that some of these problems are made up tbh or you guys buy the cheapest shittiest e-machine PCs.

I have never seen Vista or 7 BSOD for anything that was not hardware related ... never. I used to make a little extra cash fixing computers while at uni.

"In Real Life" as opposed to the internet is the only places that I see these problems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sun 14th Aug 2011 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yeah... My box cost me €600(monitor excl) at the time(2007) was the "cheapest shittiest e-machine". Worked perfectly with Windows XP for 3 years. And the part that is giving me the headache with Windows 7 now, is the part I looked up to be the most reliable part of all - the motherboard.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wrong
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 13th Aug 2011 09:32 UTC in reply to "Wrong"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Yes, we are "t3h st00pid wind0ze" users because we don't know any better. Good thing there are people like yourself to tell us how wrong we are for using something that works for us... *sigh*

Obvious troll is obvious.

Reply Score: 3

yeah
by MamiyaOtaru on Sat 13th Aug 2011 07:19 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

and there's a grand total of three anecdotal refutations of what Google has seen in the marketplace. Of course people exist for whom open source is a selling point. But they represent a tiny portion of the market. Google's not going to find themselves in any sort of dire financial straits by not pandering to this segment. The conclusions are likely not "wrong" even if they are for some of us as individuals, not wrong in a way that Google would care about

Reply Score: 2

.
by Icaria on Sat 13th Aug 2011 07:25 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

It seems like a false argument. Google already wield access to the Google apps and app store as a club to keep OEMs in-line and they could afford a much more open development model without sacrificing much control: if the code is hosted on Google servers, with a Google maintainer, Google would still have the final say.

I'm beginning to see Android as more indicative of internal problems at Google. All these acquisitions, all these overlapping products, all these different mindsets - it's a sprawl rather reminiscent of MS.

Hopefully Google's attempts to tighten control over Android will reach a tipping point where OEMs and other would-be distributors (obvious example being Amazon) will establish a separate Android governance entity. Hopefully this'll happen before too much of the stack becomes proprietary.

Reply Score: 6

RE: .
by pel! on Sat 13th Aug 2011 08:35 UTC in reply to "."
pel! Member since:
2005-07-07

Thank you for saving me the effort of writing that. Especially the first paragraph.

Reply Score: 0

RE: .
by cdude on Sun 14th Aug 2011 10:23 UTC in reply to "."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The stack cannot become magically proprietary. Its real Open Source and not some Open Surface Microsoft wording that changes it's meaning as soon as you turn around.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .
by Icaria on Sun 14th Aug 2011 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Most of the user-visible android stack is permissively licensed as it is and that licensing can be changed. Whether Google decide to perpetually stall on the release of sources, or use their consignment policies for contributions to unilaterally move the software to a proprietary license, the end result would be much the same: an 'app ecosystem' that won't be able to run on your Cyanogen mods and what-have-you. 2.3.x isn't going to be compatible forever.

Reply Score: 1

Yet another example...
by tomcat on Sat 13th Aug 2011 09:26 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

... of Google pimping the concept of open source without giving back.

Reply Score: 4

Pretty sure this article is incorrect.
by leech on Sat 13th Aug 2011 10:37 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

From what I understood (could be wrong on this) but didn't Google say that they only did not release the 3.x version of Android out there because they were working on converging the tablet UI with the handset one?

Besides, I also can't see how Moblin, Maemo, and MeeGo are actually even on the table as 'failed'. Sure Moblin was simply out before it's time, and Maemo (which is AWESOME, I have an N900 and it is so far ahead of being useable than I ever thought Android was (mind you last I extensively used android was 1.6, but the 2.3.4 version hasn't seemed all that different / more stable.) simply hasn't been on more than a handful of devices, and Nokia in their infinite stupidity has decided the N9 is going to be their final Maemo yet MeeGo phone... (doesn't mean they aren't going to create an actual MeeGo phone, but only time will tell...)

MeeGo hasn't even had a single device released yet, with the exception of the WeTab, and that hasn't been made widely available.

Basically who ever wrote this is a nob ;)

Reply Score: 6

a good thing..in this case
by fran on Sat 13th Aug 2011 10:53 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Let's just say it.
In this specific case i'd say it's good thing. With the amount of handset makers and mobile phone users the risk of fragmentation could eventually lead to a financial disinterest in developing Android any further.
As soon as you get Android fragmentation where Google cant incorporate it's add revenue business it will lose interest in Android.

I also don't want a thousand Android distro's and I dont want choose among 20 download files or depositries when i have to install a program.
In the Linux operating system the majority of code contributions are from corporations anyway.
Application development is another story.

Reply Score: 2

v F Google.
by crhylove on Sat 13th Aug 2011 11:28 UTC
RE: F Google.
by fran on Sat 13th Aug 2011 11:42 UTC in reply to "F Google."
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

I'm sick of hearing that Google is always taking and not giving.

It's almost giving away Android for free with every handset and just making money from adds. (targeted low profile adds)

What about Chromium, or gmail, or google Apps available for free.

What about the scores of open source projects it help sponsor.

See the sponsorships.
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/projects/list/google/gsoc2011

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: F Google.
by MOS6510 on Sat 13th Aug 2011 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE: F Google."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The stuff they gave away for free are means to get more info from you while serving adds.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: F Google.
by cdude on Sun 14th Aug 2011 10:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F Google."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

and building up an image that makes it attractive to work for google. They are #1 and have some of the best for a reason. It's the road to success and they did note :-)

Reply Score: 1

It's about leadership, not method
by cmchittom on Sat 13th Aug 2011 15:27 UTC
cmchittom
Member since:
2011-03-18

look at the consistent failure of the other open source mobile platforms -- Moblin, Maemo, and MeeGo -- that all devolved into grad-student-like thought experiments and personal pet projects.


Well, Moblin was folded into Meego when Intel and Nokia agreed to collaborate, wasn't it? So that's not a "failure." Nokia discontinued Maemo for business reasons, so while that might be "failure," it wasn't a failure of the open source method. Meego—aside from being one of the stupidest names for any project I've ever seen[1]—possibly could be considered a failure, though I think the jury's still somewhat out.

To address the larger point, though, it's not so much about method; it's about leadership. In order to have a successful project, somebody has to make decisions and have responsibility. This is actually the biggest plus to a commercial development model: your boss can say, "Bob[2], I know you want to work on SexyFeature but I've already assigned that to someone else; you work on BoringButNecessaryFeature." And then you do it (or you refuse and get fired, and somebody else does it), so the boring stuff actually gets done. Leadership—in the broadest sense—happens automatically, because companies have built-in hierarchies.

Things are different of course in an open source project, which usually has volunteers. But when you have leadership—earned, in this case, rather than built-in—the boring stuff still gets done, and so you still have a successful project. Look at Linus Torvalds or Theo de Raadt. For examples of projects without good leadership, look at 95%[3] of the projects on SourceForge—none of which you've probably ever heard of, because the developers (if there's actually more than one) couldn't (or perhaps don't want to[4]) lead a kitten out of a paper bag. And how many Linux distributions have died or stagnated because the person driving them got tired of doing it or just had less time?

The method, open or closed, doesn't matter nearly so much as the leadership[5].

[1] Just my opinion. De gustibus non disputandum est.
[2] Provided your name is in fact Bob.
[3] Totally made up number, but I'd bet I'm actually lowballing it.
[4] And that's fine. Plenty of people are perfectly content to not have their project be a "success."
[5] Unless, naturally, you're an adherent of Dr. Stallman's philosophy.

Edited 2011-08-13 15:37 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Maybe Open Source is not good for everything
by mkone on Sun 14th Aug 2011 00:30 UTC
mkone
Member since:
2006-03-14

I am becoming more convinced by the day that open source is very good for infrastructure type stuff, and not so good for end user stuff in general, and I think Google is realising that more each day.

Aa perfect example of this is user interface design. This only works with a strong dictatorial leader who gets the final say on the design. You know what they say about design by committee and camels.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I am becoming more convinced by the day that open source is very good for infrastructure type stuff, and not so good for end user stuff in general, and I think Google is realising that more each day.

Aa perfect example of this is user interface design. This only works with a strong dictatorial leader who gets the final say on the design. You know what they say about design by committee and camels.

Now, are we talking about open source or open management ?

I make the distinction because I'm interested in a model where a dictatorially-developed software makes its source freely available for educational and humanity advancement purposes.

You are free to use the source in your own projects, and redistribute as many copies as you can under any conditions fit the author's need. The sole "mandatory" constraints are that you can't release your fork under the same name as the original, and people who use your fork can't ask for support from the ones who develop the original.

I think there are already quite a lot of OSS projects who work this way, actually, and to the best of my knowledge Android was one of them. Isn't your "some decisions must be taken privately" argument invalid, there ?

Edited 2011-08-14 06:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Was about to post something similar. As long as the code is released in the end, it's open source. Sure open management and open development are nice as well but if it's developed behind closed doors, it doesn't mean it's no longer open source.

I believe Oracle is doing this with Solaris 11. They're developing it behind closed doors but then releasing the code once it's done. Still open source in the end. As far as I remember reading, Google is still planning on releasing the code for Android 3 eventually. Maybe I'm wrong on that one though.

Reply Score: 2

DOOH RTFA people
by TechGeek on Sun 14th Aug 2011 01:49 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

-1 to all the people on this comment list that didnt even RTFA! The author is full of crap!

No where in the articles that he linked to does Google say that they won't open source the next version of Android. In fact they have said they will. Obviously they are NOT against open source.

The fact that Google complained about Microsoft releasing a confidential document touches on two subjects. First, Microsoft released a court document marked confidential against court orders. Second, releasing code before Google has open sourced it is a trade secret violation, tipping Google's competitors to their plans long before Google can bring said product to market. Apple would be throwing lawyers on this if someone did this to them. Why is Google being called out on it.

As far as Maemo, Moblin, and Meego are concerned, lets see. Meego is Moblin. And Intel just announced a bunch of future ultra lights that will probably all run Meego. So I wouldn't call that a failure. Maemo, that could be a failure. But considering that the Microsoft exec who became the CEO of Nokia steered it into the toilet, I don't think you can honestly blame that on open source.

Edited 2011-08-14 01:51 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: DOOH RTFA people
by TechGeek on Sun 14th Aug 2011 01:53 UTC in reply to "DOOH RTFA people"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

In fact, looking at Nokia in relation to the current events of the day, it almost looks like a coordinated effort against Android and Open Source by Microsoft. That's not something you would expect to see against something that is a "failure".

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: DOOH RTFA people
by cdude on Sun 14th Aug 2011 10:36 UTC in reply to "RE: DOOH RTFA people"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Not only against Android and Open Source. Those who is losing most is Nokia. The company is without future. Perspective is riding on the dead Phone7 horse to fall from current 20%+n market-share to 1.5%-n within 1-2 years. What will be left is a small, expensive reseller. The fall of a titan.

Edited 2011-08-14 10:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 14th Aug 2011 01:50 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Nonsense. Meego is much younger, and it is yet to show all its potential.

Reply Score: 3

Article is on point
by WorknMan on Sun 14th Aug 2011 08:03 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether Android is open source or not; I just want to see Google do something about the vendor bloatware that is on most phones. At the moment, ALL I want is a phone w/modern specs running VANILLA Android, but I can't have that in the US and end up with a carrier that doesn't suck.

For this reason (and the fact that it takes forever on my current Android phone to get updates), I'm seriously considering whether my next phone will be an iPhone, where you can actually get OS updates as soon as they're released, instead of having to wait for 6 months.

Reply Score: 3

fud
by vbohinc on Sun 14th Aug 2011 21:08 UTC
vbohinc
Member since:
2010-04-09

A lot of companies take foss software and build their products on it, most obey the license and contribute back to the mainstream project... so still open source... and this is just a bold statement to drive more eyes to InfoWorld's webpage. And that sums it up pretty much, would like to see the official ggl response to this... ;)

Reply Score: 1

Free software confusion.
by spiderman on Mon 15th Aug 2011 18:06 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

There is a complete confusion about free software and people expectations. The problem is the media. Had they called GNU by its name from the start, the problem would not exist. But they insist on calling it linux, confusing everybody. Android is linux so it's free right? Well, no it's not linux. Or yes it is. It's not gnu. The media created this confusion.
The media is a tool of the corporations. They hype linux because it suits their business. They also hype open source like it mattered. It doesn't. Freedom matters, not open source. But then again they seed the confusion. And when someone talks with sense, they call him a freetard and point out that he needs a shave. And the people repeat it like good parrots.

Edited 2011-08-15 18:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

No longer in love
by snip3rm00n on Tue 16th Aug 2011 14:46 UTC
snip3rm00n
Member since:
2011-06-08

The fact that Google has kept the Android platform closed is a bad idea. Google prided its mobile platform on the fact that it was 'Open Source' and now it has to come out and admit it lied. I know I'm no longer in love with Android at this point and subsequently, I'm not sure how I feel about Google as a whole right now.

Reply Score: 1