4 ms·

How exactly is Google getting power here? The code is totally open. They just seem to be giving themselves more flexibility and potential to build better produc

How exactly is Google getting power here? The code is totally open. They just seem to be giving themselves more flexibility and potential to build better products. If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate. (My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting: I see your point that they now unilaterally control how the kernel is engineered, but my counter argument is that I don’t think this meaningfully changes their control over the platform. They were already free to modify the Linux kernel at their whim. Having upstream control doesn’t make you emperor of derived applications. As a separate point, don’t you think it just results in less efficiency and worst products if google isn’t free to steer the project in the direction that makes the most sense for the application? It seems they can more easily make zircon for their use case, and I think that will result in cheaper and better phones.)

s2g 9y ago
How many of the core devs don't work for Google? How much of the overall project direction is decided by people who have nothing to do with Google? Saying "it's open, so they don't really control it" is like saying Linus doesn't have control of the Linux kernel. Maybe google will figure out how to make an Android style play and hold this OS hostage by withholding their services. > If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate. Yes.
- throwaway0071 9y ago
  > How many of the core devs don't work for Google? How much of the overall project direction is decided by people who have nothing to do with Google? This is why some developers are starting to hate open source. There's no technical excitement, it's all about community and governance and who has power and corporations and codes of conduct, etc... If not, you're going to fail. You get an army of experts scrutinizing your project and it's unexciting.
cpeterso 9y ago
Fuschia uses a BSD style license whereas the Linux kernel is GPL. Google or hardware vendors can modify the Fuschia code without sharing the changes with the public, for better or worse.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Google, as the copyright owner, could do that, or let hardware vendors do so, even if it was GPL. BSD-style means that anyone can do that, even Google's competitors, without any additional permission from Google.
swiley 9y ago
Everyone said the same thing about Android.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  ...and Amazon went ahead and forked it, in addition to CyanogenMod, Paranoid, Copperhead, "HALFB4kedMod 0.9Beta2(No camera)"[1] and so on. Android's openness is not just empty words. 1. Until the developer changes phones and loses interest. Nevertheless, thank goodness for XDA.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    And by now not even the caller app, or the phonebook app, or the calendar, or Homescreen, or settings, or search are open anymore.[1] Everything now requires Google's proprietary services Oh, and Google prevents OEMs from cooperating with Amazon.[2] As result, Android is almost completely controlled by Google. And you call that "open"? ________________________ [1] To disprove this, please find me the full current source code of the Google Dialer, Google Contacts, Android Nessages, Google Calendar, Pixel Launcher, and Google Search apps — all these used to be open source in Android 2.3.7, if you find me the full source code of their current versions, I'll take this point back. [2] See the ongoing Antitrust case in the EU against Google
    - ZiiS 9y ago
      You can still go fully open; https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ and https://f-droid.org/en/ https://f-droid.org/en/ I don't have Pay, and no cloud push notifications, and the GPS assist isn't quite as perfect, but the only real bugbare is no swyping keyboard.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        Sure, but that's not the same. By that argument — the core of the OS is open, just everything on top isn't — you might as well call macOS open because Darwin is open. Android is nowadays proprietary, sadly.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting: Click on the comment’s link (the “x hours ago”) to reply.
- happyguy43 9y ago
  It wasn’t that. It was rate limiting me... for some reason.

s2g 9y ago

How many of the core devs don't work for Google? How much of the overall project direction is decided by people who have nothing to do with Google? Saying "it's open, so they don't really control it" is like saying Linus doesn't have control of the Linux kernel. Maybe google will figure out how to make an Android style play and hold this OS hostage by withholding their services. > If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate. Yes.

throwaway0071 9y ago
> How many of the core devs don't work for Google? How much of the overall project direction is decided by people who have nothing to do with Google? This is why some developers are starting to hate open source. There's no technical excitement, it's all about community and governance and who has power and corporations and codes of conduct, etc... If not, you're going to fail. You get an army of experts scrutinizing your project and it's unexciting.

cpeterso 9y ago

Fuschia uses a BSD style license whereas the Linux kernel is GPL. Google or hardware vendors can modify the Fuschia code without sharing the changes with the public, for better or worse.

dragonwriter 9y ago
Google, as the copyright owner, could do that, or let hardware vendors do so, even if it was GPL. BSD-style means that anyone can do that, even Google's competitors, without any additional permission from Google.

swiley 9y ago

Everyone said the same thing about Android.

sangnoir 9y ago
...and Amazon went ahead and forked it, in addition to CyanogenMod, Paranoid, Copperhead, "HALFB4kedMod 0.9Beta2(No camera)"[1] and so on. Android's openness is not just empty words. 1. Until the developer changes phones and loses interest. Nevertheless, thank goodness for XDA.
- kuschku 9y ago
  And by now not even the caller app, or the phonebook app, or the calendar, or Homescreen, or settings, or search are open anymore.[1] Everything now requires Google's proprietary services Oh, and Google prevents OEMs from cooperating with Amazon.[2] As result, Android is almost completely controlled by Google. And you call that "open"? ________________________ [1] To disprove this, please find me the full current source code of the Google Dialer, Google Contacts, Android Nessages, Google Calendar, Pixel Launcher, and Google Search apps — all these used to be open source in Android 2.3.7, if you find me the full source code of their current versions, I'll take this point back. [2] See the ongoing Antitrust case in the EU against Google
  - ZiiS 9y ago
    You can still go fully open; https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ and https://f-droid.org/en/ https://f-droid.org/en/ I don't have Pay, and no cloud push notifications, and the GPS assist isn't quite as perfect, but the only real bugbare is no swyping keyboard.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Sure, but that's not the same. By that argument — the core of the OS is open, just everything on top isn't — you might as well call macOS open because Darwin is open. Android is nowadays proprietary, sadly.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting: Click on the comment’s link (the “x hours ago”) to reply.

happyguy43 9y ago
It wasn’t that. It was rate limiting me... for some reason.