Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 20:35 UTC
Google It was inevitable, of course, and rightfully so: Google is having its big I/O conference, so we have to talk about the lack of Honeycomb's source code. While not violating any licenses, the lack of source code doesn't sit well with many - including myself - so it only makes sense people are asking Google about it. Andy Rubin confirmed we're never going to see Honeycomb's sources as a standalone release. He also explained what 'open' means for Android.
Thread beginning with comment 472704
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by vivainio
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 20:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by vivainio"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

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

Reply Parent Score: 4

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

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


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

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

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


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

Reply Parent Score: 2