I wonder how many bootloaders and recovery images (specifically the commercial ones) uses the Linux kernel for it?
Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
31–40 of 110 posts
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#32I think Stallman raises some interesting and valid points (in his article in the guardian. It is worth reading it to the end). For example this: "On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever fr…
See also: UEFI.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#33Ahh, the second controversial Richard on HN today ;)
Love him or hate him, Richard Stallman is nothing if not consistent.
The fact is that he is right on this issue. At this time Honeycomb is not open source software.
I'm a big fan of google, and as the story says Android is the best of a bad bunch (with regards to software freedom), but it's good that we have people like Stallman who can give us cause to stop & take a reality check (or unreality check, depending on your point of view...).
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#34This 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 w…
I don't get this. Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation where people contribute and together they make software. Google has all the right to hold the code back and only share it with the partners that adhere to its demands and use their services so that the development is paid for.
Of course its another thing that doing all this they come out looking like a hypocrite preaching things like open and do no evil while practicing the exact opposite. But hey...
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
I don't get this. Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation where people contribute and together they make software. Google has all the right to hold the code back and only share it with the partners that adhere to its demands and use their services so that the development is paid for. Of course its another thing that doing all this they come out looking like a hypocrite preachin…
Googgle claims Android is open.
They don't get headwind because they don't have these rights, they get headwind because they claim one thing but do another.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#36My 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.
So that it wouldn't compete with Google's non-existent tablet? There's something more here I don't know--deals Google has made with other vendors or somesuch...?
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#37Are there Android phones with Android 3 (Honeycomb) yet? Because the article talks only about Honeycomb, so I think it is simply incorrect... As for locking the devices, unfortunately "free" also means that device vendors are free to lock the devices. If you care, don't get such a device (my philosophy: stick to the Nexus line to be safe).
No, locking down stuff like that is not 'freedom' in his (and mine) book. Locking down a device so that the _owner_ of said device cannot mess with it as he likes after paying you is not related to freedom. It removes freedom.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#38i 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.
Right. These chinese... Like - MIUI.
These guys sure ruin the Android brand with a cheap and beautiful phone after spending lots of time to make Android actually nice to look at and much more pleasing.
Disclaimer: I'm back running cyanogenmod now, but that's mostly because MIUI on my piece of kit isn't rock stable yet (neither is cyanogenmod, but..) and because I'm actually not that much into bling. But MIUI was definitely sweet and showed innovation.
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
I don't get this. Google is in this to make money. They are not running some kind of a foundation where people contribute and together they make software. Google has all the right to hold the code back and only share it with the partners that adhere to its demands and use their services so that the development is paid for. Of course its another thing that doing all this they come out looking like a hypocrite preachin…
Google is in this to make money. They are
not running some kind of a foundation ...
Google said Android is and will be open-source. Google said that it wants to foster an open ecosystem. If Google makes money off Android, that's precisely because of those promises and companies should really be held accountable when breaking promises, just like real people. As I already said, Android would be nothing if it were just another proprietary Windows-wannabe.
If some friend steals from you, will you still consider him a friend, even though he stole from you to feed his children? Wouldn't it have been easier just asking for money, instead of stealing / lying about it?
If people don't get away with it, why should companies?
Re: Richard Stallman: “Android Phones Do Not Respect Your Freedom”
#40I can understanding Google wanting control over who implements a not-quite-ready Android version. But, purely from a development perspective, if Ice-Cream Sandwich isn't fully OSS, it will decrease my enthusiasm for the platform enormously.
One of my main reasons for investing time into Android is to eventually involve myself in the sources (and not just the Kernel sources), for fun, profit and security. If they take that away, they'd be little reason for choosing it over the iPhone.