Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Apr 2012 22:35 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 513038
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: So it did something good, but not because it was open?
by WereCatf on Fri 6th Apr 2012 09:33
in reply to "RE: So it did something good, but not because it was open?"
RE[2]: So it did something good, but not because it was open?
by Nelson on Fri 6th Apr 2012 12:13
in reply to "RE: So it did something good, but not because it was open?"




Member since:
2007-03-26
Openness really didn't have much to do for it, and in fact, the run-of-the-mill app developer on Android doesn't really interface with any of the really low levels of the Operating System, in so far as Linux could be swapped out as the Kernel tomorrow, and App developers would be none the wiser.
The kernel has nothing to do with openness and nor would it have anything to do with app developers on any platform.
If you're encouraging app developers to interface with the kernel, then there is something deeply wrong with your OS design - apps interface with framework APIs / ABIs that then often interface with a lower level set of ABIs which then communicate with the kernel. There's a whole stack of software that sits between the kernel and the 3rd party app.
What you've done is fallen into the common trap of over emphasising the significance of the kernel in the overall design of an OS.