3 ms·

But, but, Android is the very definition of open! Andy Rubin said so: the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git

But, but, Android is the very definition of open! Andy Rubin said so: the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform /manifest.git ; repo sync ; make" https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable. The other important thing to note here is that Jean-Baptiste Quéru is not just some random Android developer. He is the the point person for what everyone previously believed was "open" development on Android.

tonfa 13y ago
> Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable. You can still use the result, but not with all devices (same thing as any linux distro, despite being open source, you need driver supports for your particular hardware). There are still many devices who can boot aosp (from the nexus line, from sony, etc.).
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  Did you read Jean-Baptiste's post? In this particular case, there's no video device support for Google flagship devices! ...can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support... That sort of makes it useless. I'd only be willing to buy the device argument if we were talking about a microphone or webcam, but when you lack the most basic of support (video), I think that's not a useful argument to have.
Macha 13y ago
I can't use Linux on my laptop without some closed source blobs - does that make Linux not open? No, because you can get other laptops without this problem. Likewise, you can get other Android devices such as the Nexus 10 or Galaxy Nexus which are capable of using the result. This sucks as it means you now need to choose between a device that's sufficiently open or a device that's up to date, and it's certainly worth criticising Google for, but it's not enough to claim that Android is as closed as iOS or Windows (yet - if they do the same to the next Nexus 10 and continue releasing Nexus devices that can't boot AOSP, then it's concerning, or if they drop support for the devices that are currently able to use the open source code)
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  I agree with you overall but find the Linux analogy a bit flawed since it doesn't apply to any laptops that are officially "blessed" in the way Nexus devices are with Google/Android.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  I'd buy that argument if there weren't an obvious, gigantic flaw with it: no video device support (which means you can't even boot to the Android home screen) for the new Nexus 7 Google was aware of all of these issues and still made the hardware choices they did. They could have chosen differently. These are flagship Google devices; my expectations are (I think rightfully) different for those than some random device.
  - sangnoir 13y ago
    Of course they were aware of the issue, if you read what JBQ wrote, he mentioned this was escalated 6 months ago. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to conclude that the expectation was the issue would be resolved by the time the product was available for sale. Perhaps Qualcomm even stringed them along (I'm speculating) JBQ says he's very frustrated with the "lawyers", for what exact reasons- I don't know. Maybe he feels like they are not exerting enough pressure, or maybe it's Qualcomm's lawyers he's pissed at. You cannot say Google (or at least JBQ) knew how this would turn out.
Oletros 13y ago
Linux is not open because some devices need proprietary drivers?
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  If there are official Linux-branded devices, and Linux refers to them as much as it does the kernel, then the answer is yes.
pslam 13y ago
The difference between "Open" and "Free" is that "Free" continues that script with: "; make install"
- simoncion 13y ago
  Well, if it weren't for the fact that the image flash procedure requires one to know which attached Android device one wishes to flash, and to have that device in fastboot mode, one could very easily have a generic "make install" step. Seriously, "make install" is: adb -s $DEVICE reboot-bootloader #wait for a while fastboot -s $DEVICE flash system $IMAGE_FILENAME
  - saurik 13y ago
    (Except for the binary drivers that are specificaly being discussed here... like, no: that simply doesn't work, and that's exactly what JBQ is complaining about.)
    - simoncion 13y ago
      I know that AOSP cannot create a useful system image for the new Nexus 7 and the Nexus 4. Google has made a terribly bad decision here, and I do hope that they have the wisdom to never ever make it again. Given that Rubin is no longer managing the Android project, I would bet that this is a mistake that they're gonna keep making. And, I mean, the Linux kernel makefile has a "make install" target, but it a) produces a partially-functional or completely useless kernel on a wide array of hardware unless the linux-firmware package is present b) even if linux-firmware is present or not required, it won't actually work on the majority of people's systems as it (IIRC) doesn't update initrds, or update the GRUB bootloader menu to point to the newly installed kernel Both Freedom and Openness are more complicated than an install target. That's the point that I was making. :)

tonfa 13y ago

> Well, I suppose if you define "open" as being able to build the software, but don't promise you can actually use the result, that makes it acceptable. You can still use the result, but not with all devices (same thing as any linux distro, despite being open source, you need driver supports for your particular hardware). There are still many devices who can boot aosp (from the nexus line, from sony, etc.).

binarycrusader 13y ago
Did you read Jean-Baptiste's post? In this particular case, there's no video device support for Google flagship devices! ...can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support... That sort of makes it useless. I'd only be willing to buy the device argument if we were talking about a microphone or webcam, but when you lack the most basic of support (video), I think that's not a useful argument to have.

Macha 13y ago

I can't use Linux on my laptop without some closed source blobs - does that make Linux not open? No, because you can get other laptops without this problem. Likewise, you can get other Android devices such as the Nexus 10 or Galaxy Nexus which are capable of using the result. This sucks as it means you now need to choose between a device that's sufficiently open or a device that's up to date, and it's certainly worth criticising Google for, but it's not enough to claim that Android is as closed as iOS or Windows (yet - if they do the same to the next Nexus 10 and continue releasing Nexus devices that can't boot AOSP, then it's concerning, or if they drop support for the devices that are currently able to use the open source code)

georgemcbay 13y ago
I agree with you overall but find the Linux analogy a bit flawed since it doesn't apply to any laptops that are officially "blessed" in the way Nexus devices are with Google/Android.
binarycrusader 13y ago
I'd buy that argument if there weren't an obvious, gigantic flaw with it: no video device support (which means you can't even boot to the Android home screen) for the new Nexus 7 Google was aware of all of these issues and still made the hardware choices they did. They could have chosen differently. These are flagship Google devices; my expectations are (I think rightfully) different for those than some random device.
- sangnoir 13y ago
  Of course they were aware of the issue, if you read what JBQ wrote, he mentioned this was escalated 6 months ago. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to conclude that the expectation was the issue would be resolved by the time the product was available for sale. Perhaps Qualcomm even stringed them along (I'm speculating) JBQ says he's very frustrated with the "lawyers", for what exact reasons- I don't know. Maybe he feels like they are not exerting enough pressure, or maybe it's Qualcomm's lawyers he's pissed at. You cannot say Google (or at least JBQ) knew how this would turn out.

Oletros 13y ago

Linux is not open because some devices need proprietary drivers?

Dylan16807 13y ago
If there are official Linux-branded devices, and Linux refers to them as much as it does the kernel, then the answer is yes.

pslam 13y ago

The difference between "Open" and "Free" is that "Free" continues that script with: "; make install"

simoncion 13y ago
Well, if it weren't for the fact that the image flash procedure requires one to know which attached Android device one wishes to flash, and to have that device in fastboot mode, one could very easily have a generic "make install" step. Seriously, "make install" is: adb -s $DEVICE reboot-bootloader #wait for a while fastboot -s $DEVICE flash system $IMAGE_FILENAME
- saurik 13y ago
  (Except for the binary drivers that are specificaly being discussed here... like, no: that simply doesn't work, and that's exactly what JBQ is complaining about.)
  - simoncion 13y ago
    I know that AOSP cannot create a useful system image for the new Nexus 7 and the Nexus 4. Google has made a terribly bad decision here, and I do hope that they have the wisdom to never ever make it again. Given that Rubin is no longer managing the Android project, I would bet that this is a mistake that they're gonna keep making. And, I mean, the Linux kernel makefile has a "make install" target, but it a) produces a partially-functional or completely useless kernel on a wide array of hardware unless the linux-firmware package is present b) even if linux-firmware is present or not required, it won't actually work on the majority of people's systems as it (IIRC) doesn't update initrds, or update the GRUB bootloader menu to point to the newly installed kernel Both Freedom and Openness are more complicated than an install target. That's the point that I was making. :)