Guest post by 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I honestly wonder if you guys live in the real world.
Why?? Seriously There is nothing that you can’t do on MacOSX or Windows that you can do on Linux or BSD based OSes.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
http://www.softwaresecretweapons.com/jspwiki/windows-7-software-rai…
Yes … you can do this on any computer … seriously it us just a network protocol.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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!)
Yeah, but that router is very likely running Linux as well – and can be customized by OpenWRT etc. 🙂
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 an obnoxious troll
Edited 2011-08-13 11:14 UTC
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
£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.
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.
How many steps are required to install a WAMP stack? Can you script that?
No, but OpenBSD comes pretty darn close, with only 2 holes in 15 years.
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.
Try that on 1000 servers.
You have proven you are an ignorant, desktop only user.
Edited 2011-08-13 12:16 UTC
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.
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.
GBPS+ traffic as well as the rest on 10 year old hardware … oh comon!!
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
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.
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.
It is called being blunt … I am very much like it in Real life … some people hate me for it … others find it hilarious.
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.
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..
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
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
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 ?
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..
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.
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.
Thanks for explaining it 100times better than I ever could.
“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
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.
“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.
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).
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.
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
Why do people fail to see the point on this site.
The point is was the absurd garbage spouted by the OP.
It’s the eternal battle of the zealots.
“Windows is perfect. Windows is amazing. I’ve never had a problem with Windows. I’ve never had a problem with malware on Windows.”
I know the mantra well enough to be able to pretend I’m a Windows zealot by now. Because if there’s a problem with Windows, it’s always because the user is an idiot. If there’s a problem with Linux, it’s because Linux sucks. This is what we’ve been hearing for years in here.
Probably the reverse could be heard from certain Linux zealots as well. And the battle continues…
Actually a lot of it is the other way around. There is a huge amount of Elitism in the Linux community.
The problem is that if there is anything negative said about Linux or the GPL … they descend on your like a Zerg Rush from Starcraft.
Anyway, I will point you here for some better written criticism than I could ever write.
http://piestar.net/
http://piestar.net/
You were doing fine until you posted that url. All that does is make you look retarded like the author of the website. I decided to go there and see what he talks about. The author is a clear troll who doesn’t have the first clue what the hell he talking about. Case in point:
7/26/11 – System Settings: A rant over the name of the control panel. Completely misses the real issue of package name overlap. He even linked to slashdot, which linked to phoronix which actually had the real problem mentioned.
** shakes head **
Really? Did you not read it, the article is not about the KDE / Gnome dispute …
It about the fact that there are about multiple different standards doing exactly the same thing.
and here
For starters…
One contains settings related to KDE and is written to work well within kde. The other is related to GNOME.
I could make the same claim about windows. Why the hell are there so many auto update programs? why not just have one? Theoretically this would be easier to do in windows as the entire stack is provided by one central authority.
and here
All these things come down to whether you have a monolithic design driven provider of infrastructure.
MS should have been able to do so on windows, but alas there are X number of differing toolkits (several from MS) that all work slightly differently and each application insists on having some systray auto updater.
So if MS can’t do consistency why do you expect it from a completely distributed community with no central governance?
Well they aren’t system settings if they aren’t system wide are they? Shouldn’t they be called Gnome/KDE Preferences?
I think that is one example of brokenness and fixating on 1 issue and then claiming you could say the same about an unrelated issue in another OS is kinda missing the point when it comes to the bigger picture and ultimately what is unhelpful.
I think the only person that has really stuck it altogether has been Lunduke.
Lets leave the 3rd party ones alone and concentrate on MS toolkits.
It is not nearly as bad as Linux for starters, and many are there for backwards compatibility and are not recommended for new UI development.
I believe the recommended toolkit is now WPF, it is plastered over the MSDN site. Also MFC has been around forever if you are really uncertain.
You argument is like saying Microsoft lets you still run .NET 1.1 websites in IIS 7.5 … therefore it is confusing which .NET version you should use for ASP.NET development.
If you are short on resources (compared to a large tech company), it surely would be better if GTK and the QT/KDE libs etc all pulled together on a standard toolkit?
Except there is at least a reason, same reason why MacOSX still had Carbon available (last time I cared to check).
A lot of problems exist not because it is not feasible … it is because nobody wants to work together and be pragmatic and can’t be critical of their own work/choices.
When Vista came out MS was pitching their shiny Avalon toolkit (which eventually became WPF). In spectacular fashion they completely failed to use it. I cannot think of any major app that uses WPF barring VS2010.
Office 2007 came out with the shiny ribbon interface, a completely different toolkit to the rest of windows, so Instead of extending the regular windows toolkit (or maybe dogfooding their other toolkit) they made another.
Are you really going to tell individual contributors to stop working on a project they like? Your problem is that you completely fail to understand how open source communities work. People work on things they like. Having Red Hat or any other company (with any influence in the OSS community) come along and tell everybody to drop GTK or drop Qt would spark revolt and achieve nothing.
The big advantage here is that anybody can start a project they like, and if other people like it then that project grows and with enough mass it becomes self sustaining. The other side of that coin is that if somebody does not agree or just wanted to do his own thing, will create a competing project; That is just the way it is, and there are advantages and disadvantages.
Either way there are two major toolkits. It isn’t hard to wrap your head around the number 2 (and Qt does have GTK based themes).
Then doesn’t this apply to toolkits too? If toolkits and DEs stop having maintainers and users then they get deprecated by lack of merit, otherwise they remain. Are you also going to tell the users of GNOME, KDE, XFCE, LXDE to stop using the DE they like?
Working together requires planning and time. There are plenty of successful infrastructure projects that have been shared like dbus or gstreamer and network manager; Userspace today is a lot more integrated than it used to be, and while it never will be perfect, there IS progress . Since the issue with the system settings conflict came to light, discussions on resolution have started.
Edited 2011-08-15 00:44 UTC
Large Projects and Small projects are totally different.
The scratching your own “itch” makes sense when you have a very small user base and there are a few developers working on it.
Large projects that are funded mostly by corporate entities is an entirely different matter, and most contributions are made by paid employees. So the whole “hobbiest” argument is moot.
The thing is that when there are two obviously large projects that are trying to achieve the same thing … both which are heavily funded, you would expect they would get organised … NO?
But a lot of developers in OSS companies don’t get assigned to work on project X; They choose to work on project X and the company hires to either continue to work on project X, or based on their experience with project X work on something similar.
The thing is that there is this competition going on everywhere, only it is more visible in the open source community. MS is notorious for its infighting between departments (explaining how there is a ton of NIH within MS). I think that both MS and the various large OSS projects are getting better at merging efforts on components that benefit and differentiating where it makes sense.
I’ve only worked in smaller companies and teams … if you have competition between people or groups of devs, it is generally harmful.
The point is that I get a bit fed up with open source evangelism for the sake of it. Linux is certainly good in some scenarios but pretending it is perfect for everything and Windows is the £vil$ really gets on my tits because I am a pragmatist
Yes because projects that are currently in the pipeline can’t suddenly just up and change their toolkit. VS2010 development started probably well after WPF finished.
And Office 2007 development probably began well before WPF was completed … The office 2003 toolkit looks pretty much like any WinForms application … so I expect making their own when WPF wasn’t completed was the option that carried the least risk to the project.
ooh, I read the article. And I read the original links. The dispute is over package name conflicts, not what the author of piestar wanted to rant about. The piestar author just wanted to rant because Linux gives you choices. Microsoft gives you one DE and if you don’t like it, tough crap. Same with OS X. Now I wouldn’t mind them only shipping one, but there is no reason to stop your user base from changing it with third party add ons. I understand why they do it, brand loyalty. You can’t have brand loyalty with an ever changing look. But that’s really their problem. I as a consumer, expect to be able to change whatever I want on my system. It is, after all, MY system.
The guy calls it a “pragmatic” look at FOSS, but then his articles have titles such as:
The Subverted GPL
The Fantasy of Desktop Innovation
Years behind and slowing fast.
The argument against multiple desktops
Ayatana: “Missing the pointâ€
The Non-Existent Linux Project
All of it negative. It’s really no different that the Linux Hater guy’s blog. It’s too bad too, because it ignores all that open source has accomplished. It’s one thing to want to get unreasonable zealots to calm down, but to s**tcan all of FOSS because a zealot managed to upset somebody is just plain missing the point.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but you have to realize to some degree you’re just fanning the flames.
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
While I agree with most of what you wrote, this:
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.
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thank you for saving me the effort of writing that. Especially the first paragraph.
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.
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.
… of Google pimping the concept of open source without giving back.
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
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.
What part of “Do no evil” includes pandering to the open source community, stealing as much code and man hours as possible, and then later shutting down the code and not releasing, and also helping giant corporate oligarchies lock users out of their own hardware?
F Google.
I’m sick of them. Just another POS corporation that will lie, cheat, steal, maim, and pollute to make an extra buck. Just like Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Viacom. I hope that all those corporations and the evil goons who run them die of bloody dysentery. They deserve no better.
Release the source, Google, or STFU and go play with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and the other corporate monopolists who are destroying the only natural habitat our species has: earth.
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
The stuff they gave away for free are means to get more info from you while serving adds.
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 🙂
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
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
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.
-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
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”.
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
Nonsense. Meego is much younger, and it is yet to show all its potential.
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.
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…
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
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.