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 472741
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Shane on Thu 12th May 2011 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Shane
Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Edited 2011-05-12 00:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

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


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

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by Shane on Thu 12th May 2011 23:49 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

Controversial? I rarely see any new take on subjects here. The articles are only controversial if:

1) Someone likes Linux and the editor disses Linux
2) Someone like Apple and the editor disses Apple
3) Someone like Google and the editor disses Google

And so on. Since opinions get stated as facts, people get riled up in the comments all the time. Someone is *bound* to find something controversial. The articles promote arguments, not discussion. Bloggers have unfortunately learned that arguments get more page views.

You can even predict the pattern of what will get dissed after a while. It's like a game where you learn the editor's biases and you try to guess their take on every new headline. You'll find that you rarely get surprised.

Edited 2011-05-12 23:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by Shane on Thu 12th May 2011 23:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

I used to use OSNews as a source of curated operating system news. It has now turned into commentaria on general tech news items - a morning show where the host takes the day's headlines and spout out their opinions on each. I have my own opinion thanks, and unless you're an expert in the subject, I rather just get the news straight off the source.

Otherwise, I prefer reading some background research, analysis or interviews of the people involved. But that takes more work and more humility on the writer's part. Just saying one's opinion is easier. And that's fine. But the genre stubbly shifts from news to entertainment. These days, I come to OSNews when I want to be entertained with gems like:

"Awesome Added to Awesome, World May End
Somebody has just added the Portal gun to Minecraft. Your argument? It is now invalid."

The comment section rarely disappoints either. But in my RSS feed? Not since a few years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 1