Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:12 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Only a few more hours until the last of the big three has its big event (Google i/o, after WWDC and Microsoft's Surface and WP8 events). They will most likely announce a Nexus tablet, as well as Android 4.1, Jelly Bean. While many of you are still on Gingerbread with your top-of-the-line phones - let me poke a few eyes out with mikegapinski's Android 4.0.4 Ice Cream Sandwich port... To the Samsung Wave. Dual-booting Bada 2 and ICS, right here.
Thread beginning with comment 523982
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The problem is - this is EXACTLY how open source development works, and thus, is a good example of how openness works. Someone wants to do something, does it, and dumps the code out there as soon as possible, and as often as possible - even if things don't work yet. This is actually a good thing, as it's basically an invitation for other people to join in and fix the issues that remain. How many cool projects are going on within closed-source companies that we never get to see because they don't follow release early/often?

This is such a core concept of open source development that I can reasonably expect not to have to explain this any longer. If you don't get this and complain about things not working in a first release, then yes, I will assume you have little to no knowledge on how open source development works - so I suggested you read up on the concept.

I never said this was a the best or perfect example of open source development - it's just an example of openness at work. That's it. Of course Linux is a better example. Of course Apache is a better example. Of course FreeBSD is a better example.

However, all the countless projects that spawned from those? They are just as much a core aspect of open source as their parent projects. So yes, a lone developer, building upon the work that came before him and from the AOSP's code, is a good example of openness at work.

Edited 2012-06-27 13:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 14:23 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by avgalen"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

You are right. Release early, release often is a very common way of developing open software and that was actually one of the reasons why people criticized Google for calling Android Open during the 3.0 days. They didn't release early and often for a while like they had been doing. Instead they took the approach "we are making very big changes and we will release again when we think it is ready". Of course you could still get the source but that wasn't the point of the Android criticism at that time. Google made it very clear that Android was their thing, that they controlled it and that they determined what would happen and when it would happen (3.0). I think they did the right thing for Android but they got some criticism because of their approach. That criticism has died down as you said because Google went back to release early release often with version 4.

I don't like this particular project. It mentions this "Main goal is to make clean, fast, stable and battery friendly rom" and they make other claims that make it sound like they care most about hardware support (source: http://polishblood.pl/?page_id=31) but from your comment about not being able to charge (still waiting for your source for that) it is clear that they aren't there yet. "Openness works" isn't a suitable conclusion for this stage of the project. If many people jump on board and actually can reach the project goal you could conclude that "Openness works" but not yet.

And then you change the topic from general openness to the openness of Android and use the words 'really' and 'the point'. So am I right to assume that the main reason for this article was to prove that Android was open?
"Seeing Android work on a completely and utterly unsupported device like this really drives the point home"

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by avgalen
by Pro-Competition on Wed 27th Jun 2012 17:32 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by avgalen"
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

I don't like this particular project. It mentions this "Main goal is to make clean, fast, stable and battery friendly rom" and they make other claims that make it sound like they care most about hardware support (source: http://polishblood.pl/?page_id=31) but from your comment about not being able to charge (still waiting for your source for that) it is clear that they aren't there yet. "Openness works" isn't a suitable conclusion for this stage of the project. If many people jump on board and actually can reach the project goal you could conclude that "Openness works" but not yet.


I really don't get your point. Sorry for the all caps but...

THE PROJECT ISN'T FINISHED YET.

It is a work in progress, and the author is sharing with us along the way. That allows us to:

1. Learn about the project, and see where it stands
2. Test what has been done, to find bugs (which saves time)

For people who are eager to experiment, they can try it. For people who want stable software, at least they can see the progress being made. Seriously, what's the down-side?

IF YOU DON'T LIKE BUGGY / INCOMPLETE SOFTWARE, DON'T DOWNLOAD IT.

It is clearly labeled as such.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Comment by avgalen
by phoudoin on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:11 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by avgalen"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

I think they did the right thing for Android but they got some criticism because of their approach. That criticism has died down as you said because Google went back to release early release often with version 4


No.
It dies because version 4.0 shows that Android is progressing nicely.
If the 4.0 version was a total failure, either UI-wise or underneath-wise or simply too late too little, you can bet that
some people will have forked AOSP 3.x code and, eventually, take the torch from Google hands.
Simply because people able to do that already exists, and develop forked Android versions.
And this ICS-Samsung-Wave guy is part of them.

All this due to one *single* tiny but critical criteria:
does information to try to do it myself is openly available (whatever the form, source code included) or not?

"Openness works" isn't a suitable conclusion for this stage of the project. {...}
If many people jump on board and actually can reach the project goal you could
conclude that "Openness works" but not yet.

Again, no.

"This project works" wouldn't be a suitable conclusion, agreed.

Notice that nobody claimed it *ever*,
but surprisingly someone still focus on such expectation. Agreed, only when it'll reach his
proclaimed goals one could say "this project works", not before.

But the claim here is not *this* project (will/already) works, but that it's a proof
that (android) openness works. This project existence - even at his current stage -
make "openness works" perfectly suitable.
Simply because openness is, *alone*, what permits such project to exists in the
first place, and inherits from a large already working base in the second place. As such, the fact that stuffs needed to develop your own android firmware
are openly available *works*, and the proof is that people actually does, like this guy.

Ironically, I'll even bet that what is needed to make the 2G/3G phone and
the battery charger working is not openly available because it's not part of AOSP (for obvious reason), and Samsung keep such information closed, in their private Bada source code, for closeness reason.


And then you change the topic from general openness

Wait. Where the article let you think it was about general openness?
From line one, the title already install the Android context. A few lines bellow the Google I/O
restate it's about Android...
Do we read both the same article?

So am I right to assume that the main reason for this article was to prove
that Android was open?


Seems we did, finally.
You disagreed so far on the argument that the ICS-Samsung-Wave project is not fully working yet.
I fail to see how this argument proved that Android is not open, or that its openness doesn't work.
It only prove that project 1) don't reach their goals at first release and 2) nobody can't be
sure it will ever.
Which nobody claimed.
Ever.

Edited 2012-06-28 14:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by avgalen
by Soulbender on Wed 27th Jun 2012 19:08 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by avgalen"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The problem is - this is EXACTLY how open source development works


Not all open source projects subscribe to the virtues of the "release early, release often" mantra.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by avgalen
by lucas_maximus on Thu 28th Jun 2012 06:20 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by avgalen"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Basement developer army arguments Thom ... really?

Reply Parent Score: 2