3 ms·

Isn't honeycomb just a codename for the latest version of android though? Isn't that like saying: Ubuntu LATEST will not be open sourced until...Ubuntu OLD is s

by latch 16y ago

Isn't honeycomb just a codename for the latest version of android though? Isn't that like saying: Ubuntu LATEST will not be open sourced until...Ubuntu OLD is still open ? In my mind, that makes it a whole lot more closed than open.

lyudmil 16y ago
Regardless, you may not say Ubuntu is closed source, to follow your analogy, which is what the author writes about Android. You may say that Android is not completely open source (which you could before Honeycomb was conceived) or that the latest version of Android is closed-source for now. There's no question the article is inaccurate and it's clear to me the author is trying to deliberately create an exaggerated conflict to get more page views. All in all a pretty poor article I think.
tomelders 16y ago
If I may paraphrase: It's all "open", but some things are more "open" than others
- pohl 16y ago
  Android Farm, by Google Orwell
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    With foreword by Arthur C. Clarke.
kmfrk 16y ago
Indeed. Their versions are based on candy named alphabetically. The last one was Gingerbread.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Unlike say, Ubuntu or Google Chrome, Android has always been developed behind closed doors and then opened, usually a few weeks after devices ship with it preloaded. That is a difference on the spectrum of openess, and on that measure Chrome or Ubuntu has always beaten Android. The only difference for Honeycomb is the time between device and code reveal. It's a bit of a philosophical question as to whether changing that 2 week delay to a 2 month delay moves you from "open" to "closed".
- joebadmo 16y ago
  I think it's salient to point out, too, that that shift on the spectrum is tiny compared to the spectrum-distance between Google and any other player in the industry.
- wycats 16y ago
  When I hear "open source", I think "developed in the open". While projects that occasionally dump source can be technically called "open source", they don't look at all like the open source projects I like to work or or with.
- abraham 16y ago
  Chrome was initially developed behind closed doors.
drzaiusapelord 16y ago
Honeycomb originally started as a fork for tablets only. It looked like the plan was to have the 2.x branch for phones and the 3.x branch for tablets. I think recently something happened and they are now going to standardize on the 3.x branch for everything. This leaves google with its pants down as 3.x is barely ready for tablets, let alone for phones. So now they have quite a bit of work to do and don't want to give away the goods to smaller manufacturers (who will simply make shit phones and hurt the brand) just yet. I think these smaller partners can survive waiting a couple months for 3.0 while google puts in all this work to make it acceptable. Heck, its free expert level coding for them. I'd hate to see what Sylvania or A-Open or whomever would do with a half cooked 3.0 source.

by latch 16y ago

lyudmil 16y ago

Regardless, you may not say Ubuntu is closed source, to follow your analogy, which is what the author writes about Android. You may say that Android is not completely open source (which you could before Honeycomb was conceived) or that the latest version of Android is closed-source for now. There's no question the article is inaccurate and it's clear to me the author is trying to deliberately create an exaggerated conflict to get more page views. All in all a pretty poor article I think.

tomelders 16y ago

If I may paraphrase: It's all "open", but some things are more "open" than others

pohl 16y ago
Android Farm, by Google Orwell
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  With foreword by Arthur C. Clarke.

kmfrk 16y ago

Indeed. Their versions are based on candy named alphabetically. The last one was Gingerbread.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Unlike say, Ubuntu or Google Chrome, Android has always been developed behind closed doors and then opened, usually a few weeks after devices ship with it preloaded. That is a difference on the spectrum of openess, and on that measure Chrome or Ubuntu has always beaten Android. The only difference for Honeycomb is the time between device and code reveal. It's a bit of a philosophical question as to whether changing that 2 week delay to a 2 month delay moves you from "open" to "closed".

joebadmo 16y ago
I think it's salient to point out, too, that that shift on the spectrum is tiny compared to the spectrum-distance between Google and any other player in the industry.
wycats 16y ago
When I hear "open source", I think "developed in the open". While projects that occasionally dump source can be technically called "open source", they don't look at all like the open source projects I like to work or or with.
abraham 16y ago
Chrome was initially developed behind closed doors.

drzaiusapelord 16y ago

Honeycomb originally started as a fork for tablets only. It looked like the plan was to have the 2.x branch for phones and the 3.x branch for tablets. I think recently something happened and they are now going to standardize on the 3.x branch for everything. This leaves google with its pants down as 3.x is barely ready for tablets, let alone for phones. So now they have quite a bit of work to do and don't want to give away the goods to smaller manufacturers (who will simply make shit phones and hurt the brand) just yet. I think these smaller partners can survive waiting a couple months for 3.0 while google puts in all this work to make it acceptable. Heck, its free expert level coding for them. I'd hate to see what Sylvania or A-Open or whomever would do with a half cooked 3.0 source.