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 472706
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by shmerl
by mrhasbean on Wed 11th May 2011 21:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

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


Well you'd think "opensource" would actually mean that the source is openly available wouldn't you, you know, open ... source. Goes to show that if you're under the right license your project can be closed tighter than a fish's rectum and you can still call it opensource.

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

Reply Parent Score: -7

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

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


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

Edited 2011-05-11 21:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 7

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

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

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

-Hack

Reply Parent Score: 0

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

mrhasbean has now gone.

Quite an apt user name in hindsight.

Reply Parent Score: 4

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

You're banned forever from now on.


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

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

I'd urge you to reconsider.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 1