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.
Thread beginning with comment 484814
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Wrong
by soulrebel123 on Sat 13th Aug 2011 09:29 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 Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Wrong
by Lennie on Sat 13th Aug 2011 10:16 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 Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Wrong
by itanic on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:06 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 Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Wrong
by rr7.num7 on Sat 13th Aug 2011 19:08 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sat 13th Aug 2011 22:54 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: Wrong
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 13th Aug 2011 09:32 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 Parent Score: 3