Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source • Hacker News Board

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#11

Post by yellowbkpk » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

j_col wrote: post #3

parfe wrote: post #2

Google's recalcitrance appears to stem from two issues: one is that Honeycomb is specifically designed for large-screen devices and Google is concerned that, if released, it would find its way onto unsuitable form factors; the other, hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. I'm not sure why Google caught so much slack for keeping 3.0 closed source. I…

> hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. Sounds like their were embarassed about the quality of their code.

It could also be that it takes a very large amount of time to check and verify what can be released as open source code. Reorganizing the code so that proprietary drivers and internal-only APIs are abstracted out can take a very very long time. Even if nothing has to change, the time spent checking for these things was probably better spent working on Ice Cream Sandwich.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#12

Post by drzaiusapelord » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

durin42 wrote: post #10

yardie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. They could have used some help from the opensource community to clean up the kludge....but they don't take pushes from anyone not Google.

This just isn't true. I know for a fact JBQ has reviewed patches (and gotten relevant engineers to review things) that have made it into AOSP. The Android team does pre-push code review using Gerrit, and they often lack the personnel to review every change that comes in. As a result, patches sometimes (perhaps often?) wither on the vine before anyone can code review them. Also: many potential contributors are scared…

Exactly. Honeycomb was something of a stopgap to catch up to iPad while Google went for its unified phone/tab ICS OS. Considering all the 1.6/2.1 tablets that were released this year that were just horrible, I can see why google went this route. The industry was fucking up tablets pretty badly and I can't imagine AOpen or Archos or whomever having access to a half-cooked Honeycomb source and pushing out yet another shitty product.

Instead we have gems like the Transformer, Galaxy Tab, Xoom, etc. Seems to me that google made the right move. Soon they'll all have access to ICS anyway. Lets see how badly these other companies fuck that up with their crapware, questionable UI changes, and cheesy hardware (I believe Archos or some other company is still selling resistive screens). Even if they do, we already have an established set of decent tablet products.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#13

Post by dman » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

If the code is unfit for others to read why is it being shipped in production devices?

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#14

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:01 PM UTC

qF wrote: post #8

funkah wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're fine reasons, I just think it's lame to tout how "open" they are when in practice, it's more like "open when we think it's a good idea".

According to this[1] data Honeycomb is [1] http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...

> According to this[1] data Honeycomb is Because it's a closed-source Android variant that only works on specific devices.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#15

Post by mdwrigh2 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:02 PM UTC

durin42 wrote: post #10

yardie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. They could have used some help from the opensource community to clean up the kludge....but they don't take pushes from anyone not Google.

This just isn't true. I know for a fact JBQ has reviewed patches (and gotten relevant engineers to review things) that have made it into AOSP. The Android team does pre-push code review using Gerrit, and they often lack the personnel to review every change that comes in. As a result, patches sometimes (perhaps often?) wither on the vine before anyone can code review them. Also: many potential contributors are scared…

I'd also point out that basically all tool development is done in the open in AOSP. As you pointed out, it's usually just a matter of finding the people necessary to do code reviews.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#16

Post by frou_dh » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:03 PM UTC

martingordon wrote: post #7

Do we have a term to distinguish between the two different models of open source? The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).

Sincere / insincere.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#17

Post by phuff » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:04 PM UTC

xdissent wrote: post #4

parfe wrote: post #2

Google's recalcitrance appears to stem from two issues: one is that Honeycomb is specifically designed for large-screen devices and Google is concerned that, if released, it would find its way onto unsuitable form factors; the other, hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. I'm not sure why Google caught so much slack for keeping 3.0 closed source. I…

They got lambasted for not releasing Honeycomb because "open" is one of their largest marketing platforms and the reason many people use Android. I'm glad they're going to release ICS source at some point, but can anyone be sure they'll continue to publish code for future versions? That kind of uncertainty diminishes their claims of "open" greatly in my mind. Also, a tiny nit about the headline - it's not open source…

Fwiw, many is a very relative term there. Android phones are definitely mainstream. I'd say of all the people I know that have an android phone, less than 10% even know what "open source" means.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#18

Post by ootachi » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:08 PM UTC

martingordon wrote: post #7

Do we have a term to distinguish between the two different models of open source? The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).

Chrome is in between. Most of the browser is developed in public, but large V8 features tend to be developed in secret (Crankshaft, in particular).

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#19

Post by ootachi » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:12 PM UTC

parfe wrote: post #2

Google's recalcitrance appears to stem from two issues: one is that Honeycomb is specifically designed for large-screen devices and Google is concerned that, if released, it would find its way onto unsuitable form factors; the other, hinted at by Google employees in the past, is that much of the code is a kludge unsuitable for publication. I'm not sure why Google caught so much slack for keeping 3.0 closed source. I…

Because the name is "Android Open Source Project".

It's totally fine to develop closed source software! The problem is that if you market something that's actually closed as "open", you're being disingenuous.

Apple did the same thing with Darwin, but to their credit they started backing off on the "open source" marketing once it became clear that they were heading in that direction.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#20

Post by durin42 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:12 PM UTC

dmaz wrote: post #9

martingordon wrote: post #7

Do we have a term to distinguish between the two different models of open source? The two models being the "development in public" model (Chrome, Firefox, Rails, etc) and the "release finished code" model (Android, most GPL components of closed source software, etc).

Cathedral and Bazaar works here

I'm not quite sure. Chromium (the open-source end of Chrome) is very much a cathedral in the sense of product direction, but is developed in the open. I can't come up with something that has the opposite pairing though (it'd be kind of strange).

I'm all in favor of some pithy term for "source released under an open license but not developed in full view of the public."