If the code is unfit for others to read why is it being shipped in production devices?
because Google felt they had to release something to stop manufacturers shoehorning 2.2 into tablets and making thelm look bad.
Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
21–30 of 82 posts
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#22If the code is unfit for others to read why is it being shipped in production devices?
A fine question
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#23If the code is unfit for others to read why is it being shipped in production devices?
Because the quality of the source code and the quality of the resultant binaries are two completely different things.
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#24Earlier 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…
>As for not releasing honeycomb, look at releasing the kludged code from their perspective. They probably didn't want phones released from HC that wasn't ready for phone use, thus giving them a bad name when awful "Android Honeycomb Phones" hit the market.
Wasn't Honeycomb supposed to be a tablet-only OS? In which case, Google could have removed all cellular voice functionality, stated in the readme and release notes that this is intended for non-cellular phone devices only, and released it to the wild. Heck, they also could have refused to grant any usage of the Android trademarks to any manufacturer that used 3.1 source in a phone.
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#25Earlier 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...
Why did they even bother, then? That info makes this whole thing less understandable to me, not more.
Edit: Actually, that's beside the point. I think the reason they made Honeycomb is because they thought a lot of people would buy Android tablets, because a lot of people were buying iPads. But they were wrong about that.
I'm just saying, if they did it this way one time, there's no guarantee they won't do it again. How "open" it is, is really subject to Google's whim.
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#26Do 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).
There's peer production vs. firm production. More recently, the term organic open source has caught on in some circles.
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#27"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out."
I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/, the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread").
Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put later in this thread?
(Edited to be less inflammatory)
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#28"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ , the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put…
There's a difference between "making shit up" and pre-announcing.
It's not unreasonable for them to hold back the source code until the first phone implementing the phone (the Galaxy Nexus) is available next month.
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#29"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ , the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put…
The headline is off. The linked announcement by Dan Morril said the source will be released after the devices are. So it should be future tense.
But neither is it closed source: there's been no release at all yet, so if you need a term, use "vaporware".
Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source
#30"Although the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich software development kit has been released, the source code is not yet out." I believe this is called "closed source." When I go to http://source.android.com/ , the latest release is Android 2.3 ("Gingerbread"). Am I missing a repository somewhere, or is Google "happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it", as it's put…
There's a difference between "making shit up" and pre-announcing. It's not unreasonable for them to hold back the source code until the first phone implementing the phone (the Galaxy Nexus) is available next month.
It's not "unexpected" or "uncommon", maybe. I think it's entirely unreasonable for an entity calling itself an "open source project" to withhold code under development from the public. There's no project here. But it's still better than we got from Honeycomb (or Apple, or MS), so I guess beggars can't be choosers.