51–60 of 67 posts
Has little chance of success outside of China UNLESS it's open source and the appstore and update infrastructure is outside of China for non-Chinese customers.
https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-android-alternative-fa...
> The Information‘s report differs greatly from what was reported earlier. Rather than being ready this Fall or early next year, they claim the OS is “far from ready.” It is reportedly being referred to as “Project Z” internally. The report also claims this OS would rely on 3rd-party developers to create apps for it, which may shoot down the idea of Android apps being able to run on the OS.
> According to the report, Huawei has been working on Project Z for several years, but its original intention was to be for their home Chinese market, and not a full Android replacement. If all of this is true, Huawei’s post-Android future may not be as positive as they’d like people to think.
(The Information: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/huawei-consumer-elec...)
Curiously, according to XDA's original Chinese source Huawei's CEO said the new operating system has a microkernel ("微内核") and that it's designed to support a wide range of devices using a single OS, including "mobile phones, computers, tablets, TVs, cars and smart wearable device": https://weibointl.api.weibo.cn/share/72019470.html?weibo_id=...
If that sounds familiar, you might recall Google Fuchsia with the Zircon microkernel:
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/5/9/18563521/goog...
> Fuchsia is designed to run on smart home devices, wearables, or possibly even augmented or virtual reality devices.
Notably, Huawei has already tested Fuchsia on its devices before:
https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-testing-fuchsia-os-kir...
> A new commit in the Fuchsia source code has revealed that Huawei has managed to boot the Zircon kernel on the Honor Play... You can check out the relevant commit here: https://fuchsia-review.googlesource.com/c/zircon/+/228577
Perhaps Huawei's "Project Z" is based on Fuchsia and Zircon?
If AOSP is legally controlled by Google, despite being open-source, how can Hauwei legally sell a phone in the US derived from AOSP without violating the import ban? Does the import ban not include free software? That seems like an oversight that would be quickly and easily corrected.
Google has no contractual way to prevent someone from using software released under a fully open license. Therefore the US gov has no way of forcing Google to do something they simply can't do.
I really hope this happens and that it's not just an ASOP fork and is successful outside of China. It'd be great to have a real, third, alternative operating system that has major support. I'm sick of both Android and eyeProducts. KDE Plasma is supported on barely anything. PostmarketOS is doing amazing stuff; very commendable -- but we still don't have usable OSS drivers for any mobile radios. I honestly liked Micro…
I have used Sailfish OS on a smartphone and it's awesome so far. I love it. Russian govt is using it in their offices. I hope more countries seek out alternative OSes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point Android is as open source as Windows.
Please point me at anything that resembles source code that I can compile to produce a bootable variant of Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you put restrictions on free software, isn't it then by definition non-free?
You can violate things like ITAR with open source, and the ITAR rules will take precedence. There are a lot of ways you can restrict FOSS software - even fully FLOSS DOD codes are not supposed to be obtainable from places like Iran and North Korea.
Isn't something that is restricted against the following statement from "The Free Software Definition"[1]:
> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
> We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.
... the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software - That sentence in particular seems to imply that if you restrict it, something can still be open source (OSS), but no longer free/libre (FLOSS). So if the DoD claims to have FLOSS code that cannot be used in certain cases, by definition it should be described as OSS, not FLOSS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can violate things like ITAR with open source, and the ITAR rules will take precedence. There are a lot of ways you can restrict FOSS software - even fully FLOSS DOD codes are not supposed to be obtainable from places like Iran and North Korea.
That is scary. But what gives a certain government (in this case the US) the right* to say code that has been contributed by global citizens should no longer be accessible to certain people (possible including those who contributed in the first place?) Isn't something that is restricted against the following statement from "The Free Software Definition"[1]: > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedo…
That's hard to enforce, but it's easier to restrict what those other parties can do with the code once they have it, e.g., ban their business from your country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please point me at anything that resembles source code that I can compile to produce a bootable variant of Windows.
Please point me at anything that resembles source code that I can compile to produce Play services.
How does that make Androids open source status anywhere near Windows?
I really hope this happens and that it's not just an ASOP fork and is successful outside of China. It'd be great to have a real, third, alternative operating system that has major support. I'm sick of both Android and eyeProducts. KDE Plasma is supported on barely anything. PostmarketOS is doing amazing stuff; very commendable -- but we still don't have usable OSS drivers for any mobile radios. I honestly liked Micro…