3 ms·

> False. The software running on your Android phone's application processor is not open source. You're skipping over an important practical distinction: The pr

by fpgeek 12y ago

> False. The software running on your Android phone's application processor is not open source. You're skipping over an important practical distinction: The precise software running on the application processor may not be open source, but it is closely related to usable software that is. Given that, it's possible to learn quite a bit by comparing the behavior of the closed-source fork and the open-source base. Is that as good as "open source all the way down"? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot better than the "opaque binary blobs all the way down" offered by most of the alternatives.

coldtea 12y ago
>Is that as good as "open source all the way down"? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot better than the "opaque binary blobs all the way down" offered by most of the alternatives. I fail to see how. It's not like a partial binary blob is better than a full on binary blob. The opaque part might do anything too...
- fpgeek 12y ago
  Well, consider the example of Carrier IQ. The Carrier IQ software was installed on some Android phones, some iPhones and some Blackberry devices: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9222319/AT_T_Sprint_confirm_use_of_Carrier_IQ_software_on_handsets http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9222319/AT_T_Sp... Where was Carrier IQ found first? Why?
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >Where was Carrier IQ found first? Why? The link doesn't say. And if anything it was not because there was an open-source part of the phone OS. For one, on active, sold, phones, the device code is compiled anyway.
gress 12y ago
I'm not skipping anything, and at least you are agreeing that shipping Android phones are not using open source software. I do not dispute that having a related system that is open-source can aid in reverse engineering. However the source of commercial Android phones is not open source, and does not have the benefits that open source would imply.

by fpgeek 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>Is that as good as "open source all the way down"? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot better than the "opaque binary blobs all the way down" offered by most of the alternatives. I fail to see how. It's not like a partial binary blob is better than a full on binary blob. The opaque part might do anything too...

fpgeek 12y ago
Well, consider the example of Carrier IQ. The Carrier IQ software was installed on some Android phones, some iPhones and some Blackberry devices: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9222319/AT_T_Sprint_confirm_use_of_Carrier_IQ_software_on_handsets http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9222319/AT_T_Sp... Where was Carrier IQ found first? Why?
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Where was Carrier IQ found first? Why? The link doesn't say. And if anything it was not because there was an open-source part of the phone OS. For one, on active, sold, phones, the device code is compiled anyway.

gress 12y ago

I'm not skipping anything, and at least you are agreeing that shipping Android phones are not using open source software. I do not dispute that having a related system that is open-source can aid in reverse engineering. However the source of commercial Android phones is not open source, and does not have the benefits that open source would imply.