8 ms·

I would not call that "open". Doing "open source" does not necessarily imply "being open". My main problem with Android is that you do not see any of the devel

by Argorak 16y ago

I would not call that "open". Doing "open source" does not necessarily imply "being open". My main problem with Android is that you do not see any of the development that lead to Honeycomb. Even if you are interested, there is no way to see where the project is going without being on the inside. Android has a completely closed development cycle until _after_ the release of the first devices. I cannot consider that 'open' in a general sense. I think the point that people want to make is that all competitors of Android are even more closed down.

davidw 16y ago
Yeah, it's certainly not 'open source' in the traditional sense of an open community. However, it's "the best we've got", and all things considered, it's pretty good: Google could have kept many things much more tightly controlled and still been somewhat 'open' (see Windows vs Mac). Steve Jobs harping about it though is sort of nonsensical: great, pick your nit, but to really make me stand up and care, go them one better, which is something he will never, ever do.
- jonhohle 16y ago
  > tightly controlled and still been somewhat 'open' (see Windows vs Mac). Huge chunks of OS X are open source. It's not necessarily equivalent to throw it into the same box as Windows (there are no "open" forks of a Windows based OS, but there are of Darwin, and FreeBSD has benefited from Apple as well.)
  - davidw 16y ago
    I meant more in the sense of how tightly controlled Mac has always been, whereas Windows ran on a variety of platforms.
  - seabee 16y ago
    Isn't Darwin open source in the same way Android is? As in, the development process can only be seen by those in the inner sanctum.
    - davidw 16y ago
      > Isn't Darwin open source in the same way Android is? Not really. Android is a complete system, with a kernel, libraries and the whole GUI on top of that. Darwin is just the kernel, and I think they've sort of phased out doing much with the 'open source' aspect of it.

by Argorak 16y ago

davidw 16y ago

Yeah, it's certainly not 'open source' in the traditional sense of an open community. However, it's "the best we've got", and all things considered, it's pretty good: Google could have kept many things much more tightly controlled and still been somewhat 'open' (see Windows vs Mac). Steve Jobs harping about it though is sort of nonsensical: great, pick your nit, but to really make me stand up and care, go them one better, which is something he will never, ever do.

jonhohle 16y ago
> tightly controlled and still been somewhat 'open' (see Windows vs Mac). Huge chunks of OS X are open source. It's not necessarily equivalent to throw it into the same box as Windows (there are no "open" forks of a Windows based OS, but there are of Darwin, and FreeBSD has benefited from Apple as well.)
- davidw 16y ago
  I meant more in the sense of how tightly controlled Mac has always been, whereas Windows ran on a variety of platforms.
- seabee 16y ago
  Isn't Darwin open source in the same way Android is? As in, the development process can only be seen by those in the inner sanctum.
  - davidw 16y ago
    > Isn't Darwin open source in the same way Android is? Not really. Android is a complete system, with a kernel, libraries and the whole GUI on top of that. Darwin is just the kernel, and I think they've sort of phased out doing much with the 'open source' aspect of it.