4 ms·

> it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely. Note that Linux and Android, from your list, are open source. >

by palata 3mo ago

> it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely. Note that Linux and Android, from your list, are open source. > For true cross-platform, you need to develop for 5 platforms I would argue that anyway, you should develop for multiple "kinds of devices". Writing the same code for a desktop computer and a smartphone is fundamentally a mistake: I don't want to slide big buttons with my mouse. So first, you need to design the UI multiple times: for desktop, for smartphones, and for tablets. If you want a smart watch, you need another design for it. Web apps don't solve that better. Second, if you can write a webapp that works everywhere, then you can write a native app that works everywhere. I don't see how that would be different. The problem is generally that if you run the exact same code everywhere, then it's not a good experience.

inigyou 3mo ago
Android is closed-source but with some open-source components, for only some of which they'll actually follow the license and give you the source code.
- palata 3mo ago
  AOSP means "Android Open Source Project". You can get the sources of Android, modify them, and build the whole OS. The Android SDK is open source as well. GrapheneOS is based on Android precisely because Android is open source. They couldn't do that with iOS, or Windows, or any proprietary OS. Same for LineageOS. Honestly it seems like you don't really know what you are talking about here?
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    AOSP isn't Android. Nor is the Android SDK. Also you can totally fork iOS, in binary form, on the dark web, and run it somewhere that isn't an iPhone.
    - palata 3mo ago
      Ok teach me. What is Android?
      - brazukadev 3mo ago
        Not OP but are you saying the google's "Android" OS, which comes installed in smartphones that aren't called iphone, is open source? because it is not. There is an open source version of it which is not the one you have access when you buy a phone.
        palata 3mo ago
        No. The "OS" part of "Android" is AOSP, period. What runs in your phone is AOSP, with some firmware blobs (many of which are proprietary), with some system apps that may be proprietary (like Play Services and Play Store or whatever the OEM adds). If you need to convince yourself, try to build AOSP and run it. The OP is just trying to derail the discussion. Would you say that Linux is not open source because the Linux you run on your computer most likely has to run some proprietary blobs? Or that Linux is not an OS because Linux is a kernel? What would it bring to the question of "are there open source OSes out there?", really?
        brazukadev 3mo ago
        I'd say SteamOS is not open source IF SteamOS was not open source (but it is). The Android that google ships to phones isn't open source the same way the Google Chrome browser isn't open source either. To the license level. This is quite obvious, not sure if you don't understand or simple don't agree (and prefer to be wrong).
        palata 3mo ago
        Do you even know where the discussion comes from? After enumerating "macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android", it was said: > it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely. I noted that Linux and Android are open source. To which I got the answer: > Android is closed-source but with some open-source components, for only some of which they'll actually follow the license and give you the source code. Now please explain me how "they only follow the licence and give you the source code for some open-source components of Android" is obvious, and how I choose to be wrong when I say that the full goddamn OS is open source, not because Google follows the licence (because they don't have to, they own the codebase) but because Google chooses to publish it. There are many reasons for that and I hate Google as much as the next person, but the fact remains that the Android OS is open source. So back to the original point where "developers should boycott proprietary platforms", I don't think that Linux and Android should be boycotted. Developers should use and support open source Android systems like GrapheneOS and LineageOS (which they generally have no idea about) instead of boycotting them.

by palata 3mo ago

inigyou 3mo ago

Android is closed-source but with some open-source components, for only some of which they'll actually follow the license and give you the source code.

palata 3mo ago
AOSP means "Android Open Source Project". You can get the sources of Android, modify them, and build the whole OS. The Android SDK is open source as well. GrapheneOS is based on Android precisely because Android is open source. They couldn't do that with iOS, or Windows, or any proprietary OS. Same for LineageOS. Honestly it seems like you don't really know what you are talking about here?
- inigyou 3mo ago
  AOSP isn't Android. Nor is the Android SDK. Also you can totally fork iOS, in binary form, on the dark web, and run it somewhere that isn't an iPhone.
  - palata 3mo ago
    Ok teach me. What is Android?
    - brazukadev 3mo ago
      Not OP but are you saying the google's "Android" OS, which comes installed in smartphones that aren't called iphone, is open source? because it is not. There is an open source version of it which is not the one you have access when you buy a phone.
      - palata 3mo ago
        No. The "OS" part of "Android" is AOSP, period. What runs in your phone is AOSP, with some firmware blobs (many of which are proprietary), with some system apps that may be proprietary (like Play Services and Play Store or whatever the OEM adds). If you need to convince yourself, try to build AOSP and run it. The OP is just trying to derail the discussion. Would you say that Linux is not open source because the Linux you run on your computer most likely has to run some proprietary blobs? Or that Linux is not an OS because Linux is a kernel? What would it bring to the question of "are there open source OSes out there?", really?
        brazukadev 3mo ago
        I'd say SteamOS is not open source IF SteamOS was not open source (but it is). The Android that google ships to phones isn't open source the same way the Google Chrome browser isn't open source either. To the license level. This is quite obvious, not sure if you don't understand or simple don't agree (and prefer to be wrong).
        palata 3mo ago
        Do you even know where the discussion comes from? After enumerating "macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android", it was said: > it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely. I noted that Linux and Android are open source. To which I got the answer: > Android is closed-source but with some open-source components, for only some of which they'll actually follow the license and give you the source code. Now please explain me how "they only follow the licence and give you the source code for some open-source components of Android" is obvious, and how I choose to be wrong when I say that the full goddamn OS is open source, not because Google follows the licence (because they don't have to, they own the codebase) but because Google chooses to publish it. There are many reasons for that and I hate Google as much as the next person, but the fact remains that the Android OS is open source. So back to the original point where "developers should boycott proprietary platforms", I don't think that Linux and Android should be boycotted. Developers should use and support open source Android systems like GrapheneOS and LineageOS (which they generally have no idea about) instead of boycotting them.