5 ms·

Nonsense. You can certainly argue that "less" of Android is being open sourced than a few years ago, but it's still orders of magnitude more open than any of th

by laureny 13y ago

Nonsense. You can certainly argue that "less" of Android is being open sourced than a few years ago, but it's still orders of magnitude more open than any of the other mobile OS available on the market. Especially OS X and iOS, which are both 0% open source. Open source fanatics are impossible to satisfy, they will always find a reason why the flavor of open source that a company or an organization picked is not the "real" open source, but the simple truth is that I can load up the source of Android in any IDE and start debugging into Android's system libraries any time I need it. Good luck getting this from Apple.

ghshephard 13y ago
While I'm not suggesting that OS X is as open as, say, Android, I don't think the parent is speaking Nonsense. OS X does have and open source element, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system), so claiming iOS and OS X are "0% open source" is somewhat incorrect. I think the parent is correct in that Google is now moving the value added components of their Operating System (as opposed to the more "core" elements of the OS, into closed source and fully under Google's control. It's a rational move, and I applaud them for their cleverness.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Unless something has changed, there is no darwin for iOS and never has been. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 "Darwin is now only available as source code,[5] except for the ARM variant, which has not been released in any form separately from iOS."
Everlag 13y ago
While I agree with your reasoning in the latter sections, comparing android to basically every other mobile os and calling it an order of a magnitude of a difference is a bit strange when they are basically 0.
- laureny 13y ago
  Good point, I should have said "infinitely" instead of "orders of magnitude".
wtracy 13y ago
> it's still orders of magnitude more open than any of > the other mobile OS available on the market. Symbian? OpenMoko? The upcoming SailfishOS, Tizen, Firefox OS, and Ubuntu phone? Oh, you meant in the U.S., I guess. (Yes, I know that all the above have either already largely failed or have sketchy futures. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.) > Open source fanatics are impossible to satisfy All I want is the ability to make arbitrary changes to the software running on my phone. Why is that so hard?
- crumblan 13y ago
  Arbitrary changes? But then how can we ensure that you are charged the proper price for tethering bandwidth versus phone bandwidth? How can we ensure you are paying the right price to blacklist phone numbers? My goodness what if you remove the default apps from the phone? No, that won't do at all.
- laureny 13y ago
  > All I want is the ability to make arbitrary changes to the software running on my phone. Why is that so hard? What mainstream OS makes this easier than Android?
- the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
  > Firefox OS Considering the closed source bits of Android have no equivalent in Firefox OS I would say it's equally open source as Firefox OS.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Firefox and Ubuntu phone both run on top of an Android layer so they're not great argument against the openess of Android.
  - 4ad 13y ago
    No, absolutely not. Ubuntu on existing Android phones uses the Linux kernel with the Android patches so it can use the OEM binary drivers. It doesn't use any bits of Android. FirefoxOS is the same.
csixty4 13y ago
> Especially OS X and iOS, which are both 0% open source http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-61/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-61/ (and a lot is shared with OS X, such as the xnu kernel) http://www.cups.org http://www.cups.org
- gaadd33 13y ago
  To be fair, CUPS was around before Apple's involvement and they purchased the source + hired the developer.
  - Someone 13y ago
    That applies to a zillion other parts of Mac OS X, too, but does that matter? If it matters: to be fair, Android was around before Google's involvement and they purchased the source + hired the developer (1), and the Linux core of Android also wasn't developed by Google, IIRC. (1) they probably did more work on Android than Apple did on CUPS, but that's a gradual difference.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    It's always fun to remember a time when Mac OS X's printer support was so bad (mostly due to low marketshare) that they had to adopt the Linux printing solution, and it was an immediate and massive improvement. And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
    - threeseed 13y ago
      OSX printer support wasn't bad because of low marketshare. It was bad because it was a new operating system. And it wasn't just printers but everything. Drivers, applications, utilities. They all took years to move to OSX. And most technologically astute people (young or old) know that OSX relies extensively on UNIX software of which CUPS is just one part.
      - 13y ago

by laureny 13y ago

ghshephard 13y ago

While I'm not suggesting that OS X is as open as, say, Android, I don't think the parent is speaking Nonsense. OS X does have and open source element, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system), so claiming iOS and OS X are "0% open source" is somewhat incorrect. I think the parent is correct in that Google is now moving the value added components of their Operating System (as opposed to the more "core" elements of the OS, into closed source and fully under Google's control. It's a rational move, and I applaud them for their cleverness.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago
Unless something has changed, there is no darwin for iOS and never has been. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 "Darwin is now only available as source code,[5] except for the ARM variant, which has not been released in any form separately from iOS."

Everlag 13y ago

While I agree with your reasoning in the latter sections, comparing android to basically every other mobile os and calling it an order of a magnitude of a difference is a bit strange when they are basically 0.

laureny 13y ago
Good point, I should have said "infinitely" instead of "orders of magnitude".

wtracy 13y ago

> it's still orders of magnitude more open than any of > the other mobile OS available on the market. Symbian? OpenMoko? The upcoming SailfishOS, Tizen, Firefox OS, and Ubuntu phone? Oh, you meant in the U.S., I guess. (Yes, I know that all the above have either already largely failed or have sketchy futures. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.) > Open source fanatics are impossible to satisfy All I want is the ability to make arbitrary changes to the software running on my phone. Why is that so hard?

crumblan 13y ago
Arbitrary changes? But then how can we ensure that you are charged the proper price for tethering bandwidth versus phone bandwidth? How can we ensure you are paying the right price to blacklist phone numbers? My goodness what if you remove the default apps from the phone? No, that won't do at all.
laureny 13y ago
> All I want is the ability to make arbitrary changes to the software running on my phone. Why is that so hard? What mainstream OS makes this easier than Android?
the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
> Firefox OS Considering the closed source bits of Android have no equivalent in Firefox OS I would say it's equally open source as Firefox OS.
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
Firefox and Ubuntu phone both run on top of an Android layer so they're not great argument against the openess of Android.
- 4ad 13y ago
  No, absolutely not. Ubuntu on existing Android phones uses the Linux kernel with the Android patches so it can use the OEM binary drivers. It doesn't use any bits of Android. FirefoxOS is the same.

csixty4 13y ago

> Especially OS X and iOS, which are both 0% open source http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-61/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-61/ (and a lot is shared with OS X, such as the xnu kernel) http://www.cups.org http://www.cups.org

gaadd33 13y ago
To be fair, CUPS was around before Apple's involvement and they purchased the source + hired the developer.
- Someone 13y ago
  That applies to a zillion other parts of Mac OS X, too, but does that matter? If it matters: to be fair, Android was around before Google's involvement and they purchased the source + hired the developer (1), and the Linux core of Android also wasn't developed by Google, IIRC. (1) they probably did more work on Android than Apple did on CUPS, but that's a gradual difference.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  It's always fun to remember a time when Mac OS X's printer support was so bad (mostly due to low marketshare) that they had to adopt the Linux printing solution, and it was an immediate and massive improvement. And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    OSX printer support wasn't bad because of low marketshare. It was bad because it was a new operating system. And it wasn't just printers but everything. Drivers, applications, utilities. They all took years to move to OSX. And most technologically astute people (young or old) know that OSX relies extensively on UNIX software of which CUPS is just one part.
    - 13y ago