Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

digitizor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 110 posts

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#21

Post by sliverstorm »

lurker19 wrote: post #10
outside1234 wrote: post #7

i want to like rms but you get the sense that he doesn't live in the real world whenever you read his stuff. I mean, seriously, Android is about a lightyear more open than iOS and there are super good reasons Honeycomb is not out. An OEM in China would promptly put out some sort of crappy phone that uses it and wrecks the Android brand.

What has RMS written that is not real? He knows that some non-free software is compelling and profitable, but he argues that in the long run of is unstainable. And when you look at Lion and Metro and Google Apps' only half-baked Data Liberation Front and compare to what RMS wrote 20 years ago, it is clear he is very much in the real world, unfortunately. Is Android the least evil? Probably. But it is still not free.…

he just days that you shouldn't if you want to protect and promote software freedom

So what phone do I use then? There's a couple select phones that might qualify, but they are fringe, expensive and impractical.

This is what your parent is referring to. When people talk about how rms doesn't "live in the real world" they are coming from a "people who, at the end of the day, have to get sh*t done" point of view. Both viewpoints have their merits.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#23

Post by enjo »

0x12 wrote: post #17

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre... , the man raises some interesting points and is not just about your inability to inspect the source. The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against the article but that refuse to read it for so…

The 3.0 thing is a really interesting case. Android's open source model is that the code is primarily written and managed by Google, and then released all at once "when it's ready". So the only pushes are version releases and related bug-fixes.

It was pretty clear that Google never considered Honeycomb to be "complete". It was pushed out in a hurry to deal with the fact that manufacturers were pushing out terrible experiences on tablets using older Android versions. Honeycomb is merely a stop-gap to the next version (the upcoming ice-cream sandwich).

Google has been resistant to release the source precisely because I think they want to control (as much as possible) the proliferation of that code into devices that it can manage the bug fixing and release constraints on. That's why basically Google partners are the only ones with access to Honeycomb.

If the new version is released and the source code isn't, then I think RMS has a point. Ice cream sandwich better be "complete" and see a commiserate source-code push to go along with it. If not, Android has lost it's open source credibility. I think it is too early to make that call, however.

*disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge or any way to verify that my speculation is accurate:)

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#24

Post by vixen99 »

rodh257 wrote: post #3

We get it, this has been discussed over and over, Android 3.0 is not open source because the source was not released, can we move on now? Google will be releasing the source code to Ice Cream Sandwich, but for now, Android 3.0 is not open source. We didn't need Richard Stallman to tell us that.

In view of the ensuing discussion here, that may not be so.

Beware the Royal 'we'.

"It is also called the royal pronoun, the royal "we" or the Victorian "we." The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism, from the Latin nos. It is most commonly used to denote the excellence, power, and dignity of the person that speaks or writes.:"

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#25

Post by bad_user »

0x12 wrote: post #17

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre... , the man raises some interesting points and is not just about your inability to inspect the source. The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against the article but that refuse to read it for so…

Normally I take issue with people claiming that Android is not open. However, Google disappointed me with their 3.0 release.

I understand that they want to control the proliferation of 3.0 devices, and I understand that it is their work and that they should get at least some control over it -- but they are taking way too long to release the 3.x version.

I also understand the need for a closed development model, but when you've got "partners" that have access to source-code, and you do not; well, that's not a free ecosystem that enables real competition.

Android is also based on Linux, and on Eclipse, and on Apache Harmony, and on other open-source software without which Android wouldn't be what it is today, and without which they wouldn't have been so fast to market and possibly losing the critical window that they had. Android's appeal is precisely its openness -- no mobile maker would have jumped on board with another Windows-wannabe without getting paid for it.

Hopefully Google doesn't forget that.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#27

Post by redthrowaway »

enjo wrote: post #23
0x12 wrote: post #17

This thread has some people attacking RMS as a person without taking on the (guardian) article on its merits. Please read the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre... , the man raises some interesting points and is not just about your inability to inspect the source. The points that were specifically made (for those that want to rail against the article but that refuse to read it for so…

The 3.0 thing is a really interesting case. Android's open source model is that the code is primarily written and managed by Google, and then released all at once "when it's ready". So the only pushes are version releases and related bug-fixes. It was pretty clear that Google never considered Honeycomb to be "complete". It was pushed out in a hurry to deal with the fact that manufacturers were pushing out terrible ex…

RMS has a singular killer point, which is that the source code for neither 3.0 nor 3.1 has been released. Google seems to be trying to straddle the fence here, maintaining the appearances of OSS while not actually providing a development trunk. Google may claim openness in the face of this, but open without source is closed. You can't claim to be FOSS while only releasing bins.

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#28

Post by josteink »

biafra wrote: post #6
vegai wrote: post #4

Which ones do, I wonder?

All those with a locked bootloader. BTW: Is there a complete list which ones have an unlocked or unlockable bootloader? I know about the following: - Android Dev Phone 1 (HTC Dream) - Ion (HTC Magic) - Motorola Droid (unfortunately not the Milestone) - Nexus One (HTC Passion) - Nexus S (relockable) (Samsung Crespo)

Samsung Galaxy S 1 & 2 (international versions).

Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”

#29

Post by guard-of-terra »

guelo wrote: post #18

My complete speculation as to why Honeycomb wasn't open sourced is Amazon. Amazon was forced to use an older Android for their tablet instead of being able to take advantage of Google's tablet work.

And that's exactly the scenario Free Software and Open Source both targeted to avoid.
Post reply on HN