2 ms·

> Some sort of certification process before being allowed to ship customized builds would seem to do it. You still haven't answered what the requirement is, ju

> Some sort of certification process before being allowed to ship customized builds would seem to do it. You still haven't answered what the requirement is, just that Google should have requirements and enforce them. What requirement specifically would have prevented this error? And Android does require a certification process in order for a device to be called an Android device, just not one that would be helpful here [1]. > Or simply disallowing any custom builds at all: OS vendor builds all drivers, provides a list of supported hardware, and that's all you get to choose from. Considering how reluctant most device manufacturers are to give up their customized builds, how well do you think the ecosystem would respond to disallowing all customizations? And just because you disallow customizations, doesn't mean that all of the code suddenly comes from one company. Samsung (as the SoC manufacturer) and their component suppliers still provide (potentially vulnerable) firmware. Google has a much larger job to do in order to support even a fraction of the available chipsets, as well as a much larger job to do supporting external companies (what happens when there's a kernel bug in somebody else's phones? how long are the individual chipsets supported? etc. etc.) Besides, part of the point of Android is to allow for different companies to build phones for people who want different things, while remaining compatible with the rest of the ecosystem. Barring customization is almost the antithesis of the project's goals. [1]: http://source.android.com/compatibility/overview.html http://source.android.com/compatibility/overview.html

mikeash 14y ago
> You still haven't answered what the requirement is, just that Google should have requirements and enforce them. What requirement specifically would have prevented this error? I suggested one that you quoted directly below your question. Come on.... Yes, it would be tough to do within the ecosystem. I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not even saying it would be a good idea. I'm simply saying that it is possible. Am I bad at communicating my thoughts? It seems like people regularly reply to my comments after reading things I never intended, and attacking me for it. I don't get it. Am I including subtexts I don't intend? Do people just insist on imagining things that aren't there? What's the deal?
- mdwrigh2 14y ago
  > I suggested one that you quoted directly below your question. So far the two suggestions have been "Don't let anyone but Google write code", which is pretty much the antithesis of the Android project. Nevermind the fact that Samsung has to write code (firmware, etc.) for their SoCs anyways. > Yes, it would be tough to do within the ecosystem. I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not even saying it would be a good idea. I'm simply saying that it is possible. Alright, I kind of agree that this is a possible solution (though disagree in part because, as I've pointed out a couple times, Samsung does inevitably have to write code for the platform). I didn't understand this to be a requirement however because this "requirement for certification" is the equivalent of not allowing users to install software so they can't get a virus. Apologies for this confusion, though I would still like to see a requirement that didn't require an effectively closed system. And I think it's obvious I believe this to be a terrible solution, but you don't appear to either agree or disagree with me there :) > Am I bad at communicating my thoughts? It seems like people regularly reply to my comments after reading things I never intended, and attacking me for it. I don't get it. Am I including subtexts I don't intend? Do people just insist on imagining things that aren't there? What's the deal? Actually, I don't think you're bad at communicating your thoughts, but text is inherently a lossy protocol for communication. I do, however, think you're reading too much into what other people write. I disagree with you, yes, but I wasn't attacking you then, nor am I trying to attack you now. I really am just trying to explain why I believe one thing while trying to get you to explain why you believe another. And I believe (or at least hope) this was somewhat successful, because I certainly have a better understanding of where you're coming from now.

mikeash 14y ago

> You still haven't answered what the requirement is, just that Google should have requirements and enforce them. What requirement specifically would have prevented this error? I suggested one that you quoted directly below your question. Come on.... Yes, it would be tough to do within the ecosystem. I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not even saying it would be a good idea. I'm simply saying that it is possible. Am I bad at communicating my thoughts? It seems like people regularly reply to my comments after reading things I never intended, and attacking me for it. I don't get it. Am I including subtexts I don't intend? Do people just insist on imagining things that aren't there? What's the deal?

mdwrigh2 14y ago
> I suggested one that you quoted directly below your question. So far the two suggestions have been "Don't let anyone but Google write code", which is pretty much the antithesis of the Android project. Nevermind the fact that Samsung has to write code (firmware, etc.) for their SoCs anyways. > Yes, it would be tough to do within the ecosystem. I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not even saying it would be a good idea. I'm simply saying that it is possible. Alright, I kind of agree that this is a possible solution (though disagree in part because, as I've pointed out a couple times, Samsung does inevitably have to write code for the platform). I didn't understand this to be a requirement however because this "requirement for certification" is the equivalent of not allowing users to install software so they can't get a virus. Apologies for this confusion, though I would still like to see a requirement that didn't require an effectively closed system. And I think it's obvious I believe this to be a terrible solution, but you don't appear to either agree or disagree with me there :) > Am I bad at communicating my thoughts? It seems like people regularly reply to my comments after reading things I never intended, and attacking me for it. I don't get it. Am I including subtexts I don't intend? Do people just insist on imagining things that aren't there? What's the deal? Actually, I don't think you're bad at communicating your thoughts, but text is inherently a lossy protocol for communication. I do, however, think you're reading too much into what other people write. I disagree with you, yes, but I wasn't attacking you then, nor am I trying to attack you now. I really am just trying to explain why I believe one thing while trying to get you to explain why you believe another. And I believe (or at least hope) this was somewhat successful, because I certainly have a better understanding of where you're coming from now.