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 484852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 12:32 UTC 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

RE[5]: Wrong
by lucas_maximus on Sat 13th Aug 2011 15:03 in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I find open is better for Dev tools and libraries.

Proprietary programs tend to be better for consumers in terms of UI and ease of use.


The thing that I get really wound up about is when someone who is obviously a pretty tech savvy people would automatically move to a platform because "it is open".

Most people don't care unless the system is really taking the bad in one way or another ... then and only then will they will bother to find an alternative.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Wrong
by JAlexoid on Sat 13th Aug 2011 23:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There are actually a lot of opensource projects that have a closed development model. In fact , most opensource projects have a controlled development model, even Linux.(I believe that Tom Lane is the guy you have to convince to get your patch over into PosgtgreSQL, otherwise it's not getting into the main dev. And it's not that easy...)
In short, Android's model is nothing new in the opensource world. It is technically opensource, but the rules for joining the platform development are really restricted.

Reply Parent Score: 3