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

Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

android.googlesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#51

Post by archi42 »

Jaruzel wrote: post #39
DennisAleynikov wrote: post #4

What an interesting way to go about making an uncomfortable but important decision. This is Google's platform and they should do with it what they want, it's incredible how much search has changed our interaction with our phone. There isn't a day that goes by where I'm not finding everything I need with a quick google search. If google doesn't control the searches end to end on android they would have missed out on s…

There's a new initiative called 'eelo'[1] which claims that it will be a drop-in ROM replacement for existing Android phones. Apparently it's built using a modified AOSP[2] using their own open-source software components. They are focusing on privacy and security. I'm not convinced they'll ever release anything substantial, but it's good to see another player in the Mobile OS space trying to challenge the status quo.…

Initial targets will be LeEco Le2 and Xiaomi Mi5S. They aim to also support this extensive list: https://eelo.io/img/supporteddevices.txt

Reminds me I should check out MicroG again (replaces Google services).

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#52

Post by kbenson »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42
systoll wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deliberately breaking an existing feature that caused zero trouble to any past, present, or hypothetical future user is never, in any circumstances, "perfectly reasonable". It's also not a realistic scenario. Anyone who bought a Samsung Galaxy S from Verizon got a phone with Bing as the default search engine. Some of the people who bought that phone would've preferred Google. Because of this feature, there was adde…

Isn't this pretty much the same thing Microsoft got fined for with Internet Explorer back in the heyday era of PCs?

I guess it's less of an issue when the major competition is not just doing something "pretty much" like Microsoft, but one step further in not allowing another browser at all besides Safari.

The competition is enough to get past that I guess. Or we're just in an age where monopolies aren't really litigated much. Either or both seem plausible to me.

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#53

Post by Aaargh20318 »

alangpierce wrote: post #36
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deliberately breaking an existing feature that caused zero trouble to any past, present, or hypothetical future user is never, in any circumstances, "perfectly reasonable". It may be largely inconsequential, it may be cynically obvious, it may be not worth fussing about, but not "perfectly reasonable".

> caused zero trouble to any past, present, or hypothetical future I'm sure this commit was largely motivated by business reasons, but it seems pretty reasonable from a forward-looking technical standpoint as well. Google search on Android has gone far beyond an endpoint where you give it a string and it gives you a list of URLs; it gives smart autocomplete, you can search by voice (which is smarter than speech recog…

> Google search on Android has gone far beyond an endpoint where you give it a string and it gives you a list of URLs;

I can't remember ever asking for anything more than that though. It's what a search engine should do, and no more. I had to switch away from Google to DDG exactly because they stopped doing this (instead of providing links to the actual webpage they now embed AMP pages). Fortunately, iOS allows me to switch search providers.

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#55

Post by toyg »

sethrin wrote: post #37
07d046 wrote: post #2

For the young whippersnappers, "anonymous coward" comes from Slashdot, where it was the name for anonymous posters.

I note that people are referring to Slashdot in the past tense. I don't disagree with the implied statement, but do regret its passing.

I just noticed they deleted old accounts, one of the worst mistakes long-running sites can make.

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#56

Post by j16sdiz »

userbinator wrote: post #25
matheusmoreira wrote: post #19

The Linux kernel does not accept anonymous contributions due to legal reasons. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html > It is imperative that all code contributed to the kernel be legitimately free software. > For that reason, code from anonymous (or pseudonymous) contributors will not be accepted. > All contributors are required to “sign off” on their code, stating that the code can be distribut…

For that reason, code from anonymous (or pseudonymous) contributors will not be accepted Do they require government-issued proof of identity? If not, they can't stop "pseudonymous" contributions at all (and IMHO that is a very good thing.)

I can't find the original mail (blame gmane shutdown), but this rule was created back in the IBM and SCO lawsuit age.

Somebody (linus?) decided if the author name look like real name, he would accept it.

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#57

Post by exikyut »

Two major points.

1. Chromebooks don't run Firefox. I'm sure you can get FF running, but it's not part of the Chromebook "agenda." Chromebooks are actively being used like candy in educational contexts, so we can establish shoo-in adoption and widespread acceptance. So... I think the sooner we can accept that we are no longer operating in the kind of world that prosecutes this kind of anticompetitive behavior, the better - if just for the sake of personal closure.

2. A similar situation I've seen this exact account used is https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/36911336#comment30. The whole thread (or at least the first few messages) must be read for context, but this particular comment is also being posted by nobody@, presumably due to political sensitivity. (If you ask me, it was Nick who posted that message, and he needed plausible deniability for some obscure/stupid legal reason.)

I get the impression nobody@ can be used by anybody if they can justify the circumstances. My guess/hunch is that maybe it needs an LGTM from maybe one or two others.

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#58

Post by exikyut »

ymse wrote: post #22

Interesting. I only had one Android repo on this computer, but found one commit from "Anonymous Coward" (2012): https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/4474... Can we find others? :-)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605

Re: Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

#59

Post by exikyut »

peterwwillis wrote: post #34
mrep wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can choose a different phone OS, and you can choose a different browser on that OS. Also, both of those things are open source so you can fork them if you want. How do you think it violates antitrust laws? Do you propose that all companies should be required to make all of their features available on all possible variational usage of their service?

IANAL, but the product tying interpretation of US antitrust law specifies that making one product or service a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service can be considered an anticompetitive practice. The "feature" in question in their application was "searching the web". Imagine if they shipped a default e-mail client that only allowed you to use Gmail, and you had to install a separate cli…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605
Post reply on HN