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 484835
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wrong
by Lennie on Sat 13th Aug 2011 10:16 UTC 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[3]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Wrong
by _txf_ on Sat 13th Aug 2011 13:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

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).

Reply Parent Score: 3