5 ms·
It's still open source if the source is published later, but I think being open source is not enough any more (was it ever?). Android needs open governance, rig
by blub 15y ago
It's still open source if the source is published later, but I think being open source is not enough any more (was it ever?). Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit.
- felipemnoa 15y ago>>Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit. Why? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious. What would be the benefits? Under Google's governance Android has become quite powerful and a true competitor to the iPhone. Something that no other company has been able to achieve with their own phones/OS. Microsoft, RIM, Palm/HP, Nokia; they've all failed so far. At this moment it is not broken so why fix it?
- blub 15y agoBecause right now they claim to be open, but open is just a marketing buzzword (like beta). So in my opinion they either stop bragging about how open they are or actually practice what they preach.
- Tichy 15y agoThey are open enough for competitors like Amazon forking Android and creating a version without any Google Apps on it at all. Nobody is forced to use Android. You could always license Symbian or something...
- objclxt 15y agoI don't quite buy your argument. Sure, nobody is forced to use Android, in the same way PC manufacturers aren't forced to ship PCs with Windows installed. You're making it sound like there are compelling alternatives to Android for a handset maker, but really there's not.
- blub 15y agoSure, Amazon can fork Android, but can they contribute to Google's version? Can they collaborate and make decisions together? Not under this governance model...
- Tichy 15y agoCan just add some software to Linux? I don't think so - Linus calls the shots... I don't think an OSS project where everybody could contribute would work.
- tychobrahe 15y agoYes. Pretty much anyone can contribute. Your patches just have to go trough an approval process. It is complex and takes time, but of course it is possible.
- Tichy 15y agoBut there is no guarantee to be approved. Have you tried contributing to Android?
- tychobrahe 15y agoIf the patch contains good code/documentation, doesn't break anything, works as supposed to do and is relevant to the direction of the project, I can't see why it wouldn't be approved. If my patch conflicts with the direction of the project, I can just fork. And no, I never tried because don't have a device running 2.x. I could try contributing to Honeycomb (since I happen to own a Xoom). Is there any repo I could clone containing Honeycomb? (honest question)
- Tichy 15y ago"being open source is not enough any more (was it ever?)" Meanwhile Apple rakes in billions with closed source software. What's more, people cheer them on for it and hail them as the saviors of mankind.
- blub 15y agoClosed source is not bad, if there's at least an open competitor to keep them honest. Not sure that competitor is Google though, because they seem to be more interested in controlling the platform than in creating an open platform. Open is a bit of a marketing buzzword with Android.
- gurkendoktor 15y ago> people cheer them on for it and hail them as the saviors of mankind [citation needed]? Nobody is specifically cheering because it's closed source. I would cheer even more if they had iOS and opened it up for minor tinkering.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Tichy 15y agoI just deleted my rant that I wrote as a reply to this. Look, there have been a zillion articles raving about Apple in the last two weeks. Just google for yourself, don't ask me for citations about the most blatantly obvious things. It really annoys me. No, they usually don't cheer the closedness (although it happens often enough), but they don't seem to mind it, either.