51–60 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're conflating the reasons though...would Linux be winning in those areas without big corporate $$$?
Does it matter? Corporations adopted Linux because of it's openness, and Linux is winning in those areas because of corporations who adopted it because of.... Open doesn't mean 'hobbyist', it merely refers to the freedoms enabled by the code's license...
When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do they? I mean, Google leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they started shuttering services like it was Christmas at the Google Service Chopping Block, but I don't see them being actively evil here. It's all according to the previously openly aired plan. Googl…
AOSP is so open that the previous AOSP leader at Google quitted over the lack of openeness.
See: https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/9HHRURor...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Linus Torvalds famous for his iron grip of Linux? In a very different way, to be sure, but it's my understanding that just because you make something open source doesn't mean you have to (or even should) relinquish control. I think it's also pretty standard to open-source the core and keep the baubles proprietary. GitHub, for example, made their git interaction library open-source b…
Every open source project has someone (or some group) in control, and contributions can't land without their say so. But anyone who feels that the current leadership is doing it wrong can fork the code and try to persuade people to use their version. This is very important to the way open source software works. Google have a level of control beyond that: they undermine anyone trying to fork Android by not letting the…
I think alot of people misunderstand what open source means. It's nothing more than allowing people to see the source code, and use it (including forking). Open source doesn't require you to cooperate with anyone, it doesn't require you to give away access to APIs, it doesn't require you to do anything beyond whatever is explicitly stated in the license. Google, Canonical, Oracle, IBM, Red Hat, SUSE, etc... aren't re…
It eventually comes down to perception of value. Part of the original attraction of Android was its openness, if Google is now closing off substantial functionality, to head off competition, then it's not unfair for people to re-evaluate their enthusiasm for the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter? Corporations adopted Linux because of it's openness, and Linux is winning in those areas because of corporations who adopted it because of.... Open doesn't mean 'hobbyist', it merely refers to the freedoms enabled by the code's license...
They adapted it because it was cheaper, not because it was open. Now, open frequently tends to be cheaper, but not always, it isn't an inherent quality of openness.
Yet both use and push Linux, IBM uses SUSE Enterprise, and Oracle forked Red Hat's OS...
I really doubt either cared about whatever marginal cost they may or may not save. Linux's openness is kind of like natural selection - good features live on, bad ones die.
Open source does make better software (everything else being equal of course).
This is blatantly false. Google bought Android in 2005, two years before the iPhone was announced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I agree. Android is not about North America. Android is about India, Africa, and China.
It is banned from China (AFAIK, they use Alibaba fork). India and Africa are mostly untapped markets. The 80% market share come from America and Europe
> Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, it was decided that Google would buy Android. And Android would be open source. This is blatantly false. Google bought Android in 2005, two years before the iPhone was announced.
The iPhone certainly was in development some time prior to its announcement.
When someone like Github does this (make some parts of their code open-source, but others closed-source), journalists don't write critical pieces about them, do they? I mean, Google leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they started shuttering services like it was Christmas at the Google Service Chopping Block, but I don't see them being actively evil here. It's all according to the previously openly aired plan. Googl…
A good example of this is Amazon. They are doing this successfully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google is stuck behind a rock and a hard place. If they don't try to create incentives for a unified experience, they get bashed for encouraging fragmentation, if they do assert a level of control, they get bashed for not being completely open. This is exactly the position Microsoft was in during the mid-1990s, even before they went after Netscape. The article is saying that Google is even applying some of the same…
I don't think Apple will be a good defense if Android's market share is 80%.