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

Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

thinq.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#41

Post by pingswept »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #36
pingswept wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there's a difference. "Pre-announcing" suggests that the announcement will be followed by code release. In the case of 3.0, I think the first devices shipped back in May-- that's about 5 months ago. With that history, this seems more like "making shit up" to me.

75% of the versions of Android have been open and in all instances other than one when they've said so in advance and gave a reason. The only instance where they've said that it would be open and wasn't (3.1) was a logical follow on from 3.0 not being opened - not ideal but hardly grounds to suggest that when they categorically state that they're opening it up and that someone has been working on doing that for six w…

I should be clear: I don't mean to accuse Dan Morril of making shit up. The guy is probably speaking honestly.

But in the larger picture, Google has been calling Android open source from the beginning. They haven't released source for 3.0, 3.1, or 4.0. (Yes, the 4.0 devices haven't shipped yet, but if they're really shipping in a month, the code has been in QA for a while.) That's disingenuous, to me.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#42

Post by yardie »

cube13 wrote: post #24
durin42 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They could have done that but chances are a few of the less reputable OEMs would have ported code from Froyo or GB to get the dialer working again. The open nature of it means there is no restriction that could not be unrestricted.

But in all honesty HC was a rush job (as was most of the hardware) to keep Android in the game against Apple. I'm really looking forward to it getting "there". With 2x the resources (CPU and RAM) of an iPad it should absolutely kill it, but when the applications hesitate for a split-second I really have to contemplate what the hell is going on?

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#43

Post by nknight »

ootachi wrote: post #19
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.

The Darwin source is still being released if you want it (following the periodic code dump model), it just doesn't get much attention. For most people, it doesn't really offer a compelling case over Linux or its *BSD cousins.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#44

Post by sovande »

dabeeeenster wrote: post #23
dman wrote: post #13

If 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.

The source code is used to produce the "resultant binaries" so unless you have a very strange definition of "quality" the OP has a very valid question.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#45

Post by rsynnott »

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

Most 'cathedral' products are developed at least somewhat in the open, and often do take external contributions.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#46

Post by zobzu »

Something has to figure out that a product "IS" not open source AS LONG AS THE SOURCE IS NOT RELEASED. So no, right now, ICS is NOT open-source.

It will be the day they release the source.

Being open-source is not a design attribute. It's a process.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#47

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

pingswept wrote: post #41
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

75% of the versions of Android have been open and in all instances other than one when they've said so in advance and gave a reason. The only instance where they've said that it would be open and wasn't (3.1) was a logical follow on from 3.0 not being opened - not ideal but hardly grounds to suggest that when they categorically state that they're opening it up and that someone has been working on doing that for six w…

I should be clear: I don't mean to accuse Dan Morril of making shit up. The guy is probably speaking honestly. But in the larger picture, Google has been calling Android open source from the beginning. They haven't released source for 3.0, 3.1, or 4.0. (Yes, the 4.0 devices haven't shipped yet, but if they're really shipping in a month, the code has been in QA for a while.) That's disingenuous, to me.

I agree that they were happy claiming the kudos and moral high ground that comes with OSS without really delivering on it but the reality is that the versions you list are running on an estimated 4 million devices (tablet sales to date) of the 550,000 being activated every day. Somewhere in the region of 98% of Android devices (all the phones currently available) are running an OSS OS.

And if you don't mean to accuse someone of making shit up the easiest thing to do is to not use the phrase "making shit up".

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#48

Post by zobzu »

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…

to be precise, contributing means giving your copyright away to Google. It means all you're doing belongs to Google, not to the community, or yourself.

Oddly it puts people off from contributing patches. Oddly!

I'm all for freely contributing to projects, but I will never assign my copyright to a corporation. A not-for-profit at least, but corporation, come on.

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#49

Post by DrCatbox »

durin42 wrote: post #20
dmaz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Shared Source is nice, or half-open source.

Or, "we take all the benefits, free workforce and goodwill of free software while retaining all control and money".

Re: Google confirms Android 4.0 ICS is open source

#50

Post by elwin »

durin42 wrote: post #20
dmaz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

How about "write-closed" vs. "write-open"? Or more simply, "read-only open source".
Post reply on HN