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

Bullshit

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 233 posts

Re: Bullshit

#171

Post by blinkingled »

zobzu wrote: post #165
notatoad wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, OSX is not open. you can't take the published source code and compile it into a useable copy of OSX. you can take the published android source code and create a useable copy of android from it. the entire operating system is there. android is open source. the people criticizing android for not being open are either lying, or have forgotten that we have moved on from the 3.0 branch which was not open.

No, the drivers are generally not open. Wait, they're almost never open. So, you can make a useable copy of Android that run in.. an emulator. Woot. That's the major "Android is not open" gripe I have. Besides, we might have "moved on" from the closed source Android 3.0, but that doesn't mean much. Android 5 could be closed for all we know. In fact, it could be forever closed, at any given time. And now, Google has h…

The gripe that you have is other people are not providing free, open drivers that you can use the way you want. The point of Android being open is you can have your own hardware, write and publish your own drivers and take the Android code to create Android compatible device which is fully open. That cannot be said of other successful Mobile offerings.

Re: Bullshit

#172

Post by blinkingled »

jballanc wrote: post #166
notatoad wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, OSX is not open. you can't take the published source code and compile it into a useable copy of OSX. you can take the published android source code and create a useable copy of android from it. the entire operating system is there. android is open source. the people criticizing android for not being open are either lying, or have forgotten that we have moved on from the 3.0 branch which was not open.

You can take the published source code and compile a useable copy of OS X. In fact, for many years the OpenDarwin project did just that. What you could not do is run the Aqua GUI or many of the default applications that come with a Mac bought in the store. But that's the point. Sure, you can compile and run "Android", but is it the same as the OS that runs on a phone I buy from Verizon? Android phones sell with propr…

What you could not do is run the Aqua GUI or many of the default applications that come with a Mac bought in the store

Which isn't very useful at all. Android on the other hand allows you to run Market, Apps, Amazon Apps, your own in house apps on your device of choice by using the provided source code. You will have to write your drivers may be but that's not nearly the same as write your CF or Aqua or OpenGL implementation plus a ton of other things to make stock OS X apps works. That goes into practically impossible category.

So in other less terse wording - you can call Darwin open source but you cannot really call OS X open source.

Re: Bullshit

#173

Post by Splines »

nl wrote: post #114
KeithMajhor wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be . It's a continuum.…

Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown). It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point). Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get…

What personally bothers me about "Android is open" is that while the OS may be open, the hardware is a moving target. Android phones aren't like desktop PCs, which allow you to mix & match operating systems and hardware components as you like.

I'd rather have an open handset that allowed me to install whatever operating system I like and use with whatever carrier I would like. I want to be able to choose.

As it stands, buying an Android phone because of "Android is open" is only a show of support for the concept of "open", it doesn't actually help me in the here and now.

I realize this has less to do with Android than it does with handset manufacturers, but it's a ridiculous that it's possible to brick your phone when making non-standard software changes to it. Would you buy a laptop that had the same risks when installing linux/windows/mac osx?

Re: Bullshit

#174

Post by drivebyacct2 »

ootachi wrote: post #163
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All HTC devices since September, most devices from And if that's Marco's point, it's pretty damn poor. How does what Motorola does with the bootloader of their phone have to do with the code that Google puts out exactly?

As has been explained many times in the past, Android's relative openness compared to iOS at the source code level does not translate to measurable benefits for the majority of users because of carrier/manufacturer lockdown. Rooting is a security exploit, and I don't consider it relevant to whether the OS is practically open.

Now you're just shifting around your position. I thought it was about the unlocked nature of bootloaders? Yes, in my last post I included some that require "root" but, #1, not all of those root methods are through user-facing security exploits, and #2, most of them allow custom software out of the box from the manufacturer (specifically without rooting or really any work at all), I noted the ones that require "community" support. Your characterization is disingenuous.

Now it's about the openness at the source code level? I think you should look up the CM statistics. There is a measurable percentage (or may tenth of a percent) of Android users that run custom software, so I benefit from that. I and others will only buy devices that will have CM support.

Further, the open nature of Android absolutely trickles down to the users. There are a dozen different (and with different physical form factor) Android models that are free on contract to buy. There is only one WP7 that I'm aware of that that is true for. Lower development costs are passed on to users, I've discussed this further somewhere else on this thread.

Re: Bullshit

#175

Post by blinkingled »

bad_user wrote: post #155
blinkingled wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you make an excellent point. There is no utopian definition of open - it simply cannot exist meaningfully. So there has to be a compromising definition. I like to define it on a scale like Andy Rubin did on D8 interview. Left most is least open and rightmost is most open. I think in the current mobile space Apple sits on the far left, Microsoft a little to their right and Android farther to the right. Only Me…

Left most is turn-key software that never gets distributed. Far-left is proprietary software, such as iOS that comes with severe restrictions on how and when you can use it. You cannot install it on non-Apple devices and any app you install on it (i.e. any use case) has to be approved by Apple. Other software on the left, but closer to the center, is Windows, that does get distributed in binary form and that you can…

I think it's extremely unfair to place Android anywhere on the left side of this scale.

And I didn't place Android on the left - farther right in fact. That and I was limiting what can be on the scale to Mobile platforms - so licenses or Windows for instance do not belong there.

Re: Bullshit

#176

Post by davidedicillo »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #69
nostromo wrote: post #18

With Apple, I'm the customer, not a marketer. This makes me comfortable with our relationship. I don't really care about Ping or app store approval policies, so, meh... With Google, I can see their ability to become a shady company pretty easily, but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. Bing isn't so bad you know. But Facebook knows so much about me, and the network effects are so strong -- this is the…

App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. Switching search engines seems pointless as they all have the same business model (maybe duckduckgo is different), but blocking all the tracking and analytics stuff solves this problem. Facebook isn't a huge problem for me either. I basically use it in read only mode, blocking them on all third party sites.

> App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that.

IMHO I think that's a wrong affirmation. They restrict what developer can sell through their platform. Big different. You could then complain about not allowing not approved apps on the device, but it would be like saying that Playstation or Xbox limit your freedom by not allowing Super Mario Kart run on their consoles.

Re: Bullshit

#177

Post by jballanc »

blinkingled wrote: post #172
jballanc wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can take the published source code and compile a useable copy of OS X. In fact, for many years the OpenDarwin project did just that. What you could not do is run the Aqua GUI or many of the default applications that come with a Mac bought in the store. But that's the point. Sure, you can compile and run "Android", but is it the same as the OS that runs on a phone I buy from Verizon? Android phones sell with propr…

What you could not do is run the Aqua GUI or many of the default applications that come with a Mac bought in the store Which isn't very useful at all. Android on the other hand allows you to run Market, Apps, Amazon Apps, your own in house apps on your device of choice by using the provided source code. You will have to write your drivers may be but that's not nearly the same as write your CF or Aqua or OpenGL implem…

Sure, that's essentially my point: Parts of the Android stack are open and parts of the OS X stack are open. Whether or not the important parts are open depends on who you are. Take, for example, the other story on HN today about HTC finally opening their bootloader. That, to me, is much more important than any other part of Android being open.

Re: Bullshit

#178

Post by [deleted] »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #66
riffraff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. and personal email, and collaboration tools, and project mailing lists, and photo service, and maps service, and video hosting.. If you consider google as the search engine maybe not, but if you consider google the company the it's downright scary how hard it would be to get out of their grasp, IMO.

So? Google is "bad" because they provide a lot of really good services that are also well integrated? How dare they!

[deleted]

Re: Bullshit

#179

Post by huhtenberg »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #66
riffraff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. and personal email, and collaboration tools, and project mailing lists, and photo service, and maps service, and video hosting.. If you consider google as the search engine maybe not, but if you consider google the company the it's downright scary how hard it would be to get out of their grasp, IMO.

So? Google is "bad" because they provide a lot of really good services that are also well integrated? How dare they!

Ask yourself - why is Google actively trying to become a major provider of webfonts?

They are hiring type designers left and right and pouring money into creating a wide variety fonts - both original and knock-offs. Fonts that then they are offering for free. The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used. So, they are doing this - at least in part - in order to expand their tracking capabilities.

It's one thing when one joins G+ and decides to share most of his/her online life with Google. And it's another thing to embed a piece of JS/CSS and to start tracking other people on Google's behalf. Google is effectively exploiting the greed and ignorance of the web designers to go after people who do not want to have anything with them. This is plain unethical, but nonetheless Google is very aggressively pursuing this direction.

The same incidentally goes for Gmail. I was buying a piece of real estate not long ago, and the realtor was using Gmail. We are both in Canada. I told him that exchanging documents over an email was like sending faxes back and forth, but not forgetting to send a copy of each to some random US company (because it would make sending faxes free). Only then he realized that he was in violation of whatever privacy requirements his RE association had. The level of ignorance when it comes to online freebies is absolutely STAGGERING. Google knows that what they do online would've never flown in the real life, but they still merrily peddle their free services and constantly seek ways to go after those who don't want them. That's certainly not evil or bad. It is all "well integrated", so it must be benign.

/rant

Re: Bullshit

#180

Post by adgar »

hub_ wrote: post #161
nl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown). It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point). Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get…

But Android is not an open source project. Because Google does not open its development to external contributors, nor do they develop it in the open. They only do code drops. They don't take patches.

> But Android is not an open source project. Because Google does not open its development to external contributors, nor do they develop it in the open. They only do code drops. They don't take patches.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the factual assertions you make are completely untrue, to subjectively label something as not "open source" because you don't like the manner in which the source code is released publicly in accordance with free and open source software licensing is absolutely ridiculous.

Post reply on HN