4 ms·

From the article: About a third of the Android code base is open and nothing more,” says Williams. “And what is open is a collection of middleware. Everything

by kqr2 17y ago

From the article: About a third of the Android code base is open and nothing more,” says Williams. “And what is open is a collection of middleware. Everything else is closed or proprietary.” Can anyone with more Android experience comment on this? What is the 2/3 that has been kept proprietary?

hypermatt 17y ago
You can download builds of the Android operating system and fully rebuild your whole phone from source, so that seems odd to me also.
- there 17y ago
  which don't contain the proprietary apps from google like maps, gtalk, app market, and youtube. in addition, a number of android phones currently on the market have closed-source hardware drivers for things like their wireless radios.
  - briansmith 17y ago
    Symbian isn't open sourcing any of those things either, AFAICT. Symbian will still have many closed source components similar to Android. Symbian also has components that are not open source, but whose Android equivalents are--e.g. its fonts and the font rendering code. In fact, the Symbian fonts have a very restrictive license--no redistribution allowed, usage for R&D purposes only. Further, during the open-sourcing process, Symbian created new ("open source special") implementations of some components; that is, the open-source implementations of some components are not the same as the implementations that real devices have been using. It will be a long time, if ever, before these open-source versions catch up to the production-quality versions. The Android license (BSD) is a lot easier/safer to comply with than Symbian's license (EPL). And, if you actually want to read the source code, Android's code is a lot easier to jump into than Symbian's is. (I'm not saying Android's code is better or that Symbian's code is bad; I'm just saying that there are many layers of indirection and unusual, Symbian-specific idioms in Symbian's code that makes it difficult to read.) Anyway, I don't understand why Symbian is so eager to start the "who's more open source" debate. On many points, Android clearly wins on open-sourciness. I'm sure Symbian wins on other open-sourciness points. Open-sourcing was a smart thing for Symbian to do, whether Android exists or not, and I think Symbian should emphasize the positive aspects of this change. That said, it would be very cool if somebody created a table that detailed which parts of Android and Symbian are open source, component-by-component, side-by-side.
joeyo 17y ago
This seems completely backwards to me. The kernel of course is open, with the possible exception of some specific hardware drivers for specific phones (Wifi and perhaps GPS). The virtual machine (dalvik) and development environment are both open. The closed parts are at the apps level: Gmail, Gmaps, Marketplace, and so on.
cdibona 17y ago
We have a few apps that aren't open source, and they have an entire operating system that hasn't shipped as open source yet. See how that works? This guy is a joker.

by kqr2 17y ago

hypermatt 17y ago

You can download builds of the Android operating system and fully rebuild your whole phone from source, so that seems odd to me also.

there 17y ago
which don't contain the proprietary apps from google like maps, gtalk, app market, and youtube. in addition, a number of android phones currently on the market have closed-source hardware drivers for things like their wireless radios.
- briansmith 17y ago
  Symbian isn't open sourcing any of those things either, AFAICT. Symbian will still have many closed source components similar to Android. Symbian also has components that are not open source, but whose Android equivalents are--e.g. its fonts and the font rendering code. In fact, the Symbian fonts have a very restrictive license--no redistribution allowed, usage for R&D purposes only. Further, during the open-sourcing process, Symbian created new ("open source special") implementations of some components; that is, the open-source implementations of some components are not the same as the implementations that real devices have been using. It will be a long time, if ever, before these open-source versions catch up to the production-quality versions. The Android license (BSD) is a lot easier/safer to comply with than Symbian's license (EPL). And, if you actually want to read the source code, Android's code is a lot easier to jump into than Symbian's is. (I'm not saying Android's code is better or that Symbian's code is bad; I'm just saying that there are many layers of indirection and unusual, Symbian-specific idioms in Symbian's code that makes it difficult to read.) Anyway, I don't understand why Symbian is so eager to start the "who's more open source" debate. On many points, Android clearly wins on open-sourciness. I'm sure Symbian wins on other open-sourciness points. Open-sourcing was a smart thing for Symbian to do, whether Android exists or not, and I think Symbian should emphasize the positive aspects of this change. That said, it would be very cool if somebody created a table that detailed which parts of Android and Symbian are open source, component-by-component, side-by-side.

joeyo 17y ago

This seems completely backwards to me. The kernel of course is open, with the possible exception of some specific hardware drivers for specific phones (Wifi and perhaps GPS). The virtual machine (dalvik) and development environment are both open. The closed parts are at the apps level: Gmail, Gmaps, Marketplace, and so on.

cdibona 17y ago

We have a few apps that aren't open source, and they have an entire operating system that hasn't shipped as open source yet. See how that works? This guy is a joker.