5 ms·

There is no such thing as a free Android, except if you tear the whole Java user space away. And I'm REALLY curious about why you and 14 other people think tha

by blub 16y ago

There is no such thing as a free Android, except if you tear the whole Java user space away. And I'm REALLY curious about why you and 14 other people think that Android is such a good mobile OS. The VM is both a legal and speed liability, the Android UI is not GPU-accelerated and the entire OS is still immature (see the embarrassing bugs with the SMS or the browser security holes).

rbanffy 16y ago
> There is no such thing as a free Android, except if you tear the whole Java user space away. Isn't that part BSD-licensed? > the Android UI is not GPU-accelerated It's a bit hard when you have to support more than one device, but I believe it's a matter of time. As more and more hardware gains hardware acceleration, I assume it will come (if not already in the latest 2.x and 3.x series) > the entire OS is still immature(see the embarrassing bugs with the SMS or the browser security holes) Don't confuse the OS with the programs that run on it. You don't blame Windows when SharePoint eats up all your intranet, do you?
- blub 16y ago
  The license doesn't matter that much, it's the principles - one of them being that you don't get sued by such and such corporation if you use the code. Or Google doesn't change the terms if they lose on trial. No one has patents on C or C++ AFAIK... SMS and web browser are core mobile OS services, they're not simple programs since connectivity is very important for a mobile phone.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > No one has patents on C or C++ AFAIK... Oracle is not complaining Google is implementing Java in Dalvik. Oracle is complaining they are implementing things too similar to stuff Oracle has acquired patents about. http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/oraclegoogle-the-patents-and-the-implications/ http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/oraclegoogle-the-patents-and-...
buster 16y ago
From a technical point of view the OS is actually the best out there, imo. It's developed from the beginning with handsets in mind and as such has quite some really nice features.
- sudont 16y ago
  Which technical point of view? From an enterprise standpoint, where it's on par with the iPhone and behind Blackberry, or an API standpoint, where CocoaTouch has about 30 years of development lead-time?
  - buster 16y ago
    How the point of being far older makes it technically superior is far beyond me. You wouldn't say Symbian is the best mobile OS out there because it's one of the oldest, would you? Also, afaik CocoaTouch has been developed for iphone/ipod and thus can't be 30 years old. Anyway, features i find pretty neat are: - The concept of Activities - The concept of Intents and their connection to activities - real multitasking - XML based layout with builtin internationalization - the use of Java as widely known language - Dalvik after getting JIT compilation = nice piece of technology, a fast and capable VM for such "slow" and limited hardware - oh and it's open source (except for the google apps, just like any other app) Acitivites and Intents are just a great thing, love the concepts.
    - sudont 16y ago
      I’ll have to research Activities and Intents. It sounds counter to the app model on iOS, which—arguably—is bad for technical users. However, I consider the the fact that the UX enables my parents to use an app out of box, and not have to enable a DLL for some certain functionality. Either/or is sometimes an important part of UX. I’m not sure why you like XML so much, is it that you can write an interface programmatically? While it’s true that a nib is nothing more than a writeout of a view’s object graph, it features a higher-level mode of internationalization (nib-level) meaning that interfaces don’t have to be shoe-horned into text fields. Besides, it’s always possible to create a blank view that’s drawn into. However, Dalvik’s JIT is more a ripped feature of the JVM (hah), and Apple has worked against implementing similar, their memory management techniques are still mainly reference counting. And the open source thing? Apple’s core OS is OSS as well, Google’s strategy is the same: open source the fundamentals, leave the important bits proprietary. Apple’s children are UX and native apps, Google’s is online apps, which is why the Open Source tide line is a bit lower on iOS: Google couldn’t care less about churn and boring, long-range updates, as long as they get the users doing web stuff. Both Google and Apple both protect what’s important to their business interests.

by blub 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

> There is no such thing as a free Android, except if you tear the whole Java user space away. Isn't that part BSD-licensed? > the Android UI is not GPU-accelerated It's a bit hard when you have to support more than one device, but I believe it's a matter of time. As more and more hardware gains hardware acceleration, I assume it will come (if not already in the latest 2.x and 3.x series) > the entire OS is still immature(see the embarrassing bugs with the SMS or the browser security holes) Don't confuse the OS with the programs that run on it. You don't blame Windows when SharePoint eats up all your intranet, do you?

blub 16y ago
The license doesn't matter that much, it's the principles - one of them being that you don't get sued by such and such corporation if you use the code. Or Google doesn't change the terms if they lose on trial. No one has patents on C or C++ AFAIK... SMS and web browser are core mobile OS services, they're not simple programs since connectivity is very important for a mobile phone.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > No one has patents on C or C++ AFAIK... Oracle is not complaining Google is implementing Java in Dalvik. Oracle is complaining they are implementing things too similar to stuff Oracle has acquired patents about. http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/oraclegoogle-the-patents-and-the-implications/ http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/oraclegoogle-the-patents-and-...

buster 16y ago

From a technical point of view the OS is actually the best out there, imo. It's developed from the beginning with handsets in mind and as such has quite some really nice features.

sudont 16y ago
Which technical point of view? From an enterprise standpoint, where it's on par with the iPhone and behind Blackberry, or an API standpoint, where CocoaTouch has about 30 years of development lead-time?
- buster 16y ago
  How the point of being far older makes it technically superior is far beyond me. You wouldn't say Symbian is the best mobile OS out there because it's one of the oldest, would you? Also, afaik CocoaTouch has been developed for iphone/ipod and thus can't be 30 years old. Anyway, features i find pretty neat are: - The concept of Activities - The concept of Intents and their connection to activities - real multitasking - XML based layout with builtin internationalization - the use of Java as widely known language - Dalvik after getting JIT compilation = nice piece of technology, a fast and capable VM for such "slow" and limited hardware - oh and it's open source (except for the google apps, just like any other app) Acitivites and Intents are just a great thing, love the concepts.
  - sudont 16y ago
    I’ll have to research Activities and Intents. It sounds counter to the app model on iOS, which—arguably—is bad for technical users. However, I consider the the fact that the UX enables my parents to use an app out of box, and not have to enable a DLL for some certain functionality. Either/or is sometimes an important part of UX. I’m not sure why you like XML so much, is it that you can write an interface programmatically? While it’s true that a nib is nothing more than a writeout of a view’s object graph, it features a higher-level mode of internationalization (nib-level) meaning that interfaces don’t have to be shoe-horned into text fields. Besides, it’s always possible to create a blank view that’s drawn into. However, Dalvik’s JIT is more a ripped feature of the JVM (hah), and Apple has worked against implementing similar, their memory management techniques are still mainly reference counting. And the open source thing? Apple’s core OS is OSS as well, Google’s strategy is the same: open source the fundamentals, leave the important bits proprietary. Apple’s children are UX and native apps, Google’s is online apps, which is why the Open Source tide line is a bit lower on iOS: Google couldn’t care less about churn and boring, long-range updates, as long as they get the users doing web stuff. Both Google and Apple both protect what’s important to their business interests.