71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not what open source means.
It's exactly what open source mean.
The best open source mobile OS you can get nowadays is based on AOSP, where the A means "Android". Sure, there are people who make proprietary products out of that. But it doesn't mean that Android is not an open source OS. The OS part, again, is open source. Even the Android SDK is open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you even know where the discussion comes from? After enumerating "macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android", it was said: > it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely. I noted that Linux and Android are open source. To which I got the answer: > Android is closed-source but with some open-source components, for only some of which they'll actually follow the license and giv…
Android is a good proprietary platform so locked that in the near future it'll be impossible to "sideload" apps (install apps without Google first allow it). Google Android isn't open source.
Android is an open source OS: you can take the sources, compile them, run them on your phone and you will have a fully functional OS.
Because it is open source does not mean that nobody can make a proprietary product out of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's exactly what open source mean.
I don't know if you are trying to defend that "Android is not an open source OS" or if you are trying to play on words like the other poster? The best open source mobile OS you can get nowadays is based on AOSP, where the A means "Android". Sure, there are people who make proprietary products out of that. But it doesn't mean that Android is not an open source OS. The OS part, again, is open source. Even the Android S…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if you are trying to defend that "Android is not an open source OS" or if you are trying to play on words like the other poster? The best open source mobile OS you can get nowadays is based on AOSP, where the A means "Android". Sure, there are people who make proprietary products out of that. But it doesn't mean that Android is not an open source OS. The OS part, again, is open source. Even the Android S…
AOSP is not Android, or do you believe that GitHub is Git because the Git stands for Git? Or that Windows Registry Cleanup Assistant is Windows?
It's closer to the difference between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", which is often used by trolls like you to derail discussions. And more often than not, those who derail the discussions by saying "GNU/Linux" don't actually understand that there are mainstream Linux distributions that don't run a GNU userland, and that "GNU/Linux" is actually incorrect for whatever they are trying to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AOSP is not Android, or do you believe that GitHub is Git because the Git stands for Git? Or that Windows Registry Cleanup Assistant is Windows?
The "A" in "AOSP" stands for "Android". Your examples are preposterous. It's closer to the difference between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", which is often used by trolls like you to derail discussions. And more often than not, those who derail the discussions by saying "GNU/Linux" don't actually understand that there are mainstream Linux distributions that don't run a GNU userland, and that "GNU/Linux" is actually incorre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "A" in "AOSP" stands for "Android". Your examples are preposterous. It's closer to the difference between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", which is often used by trolls like you to derail discussions. And more often than not, those who derail the discussions by saying "GNU/Linux" don't actually understand that there are mainstream Linux distributions that don't run a GNU userland, and that "GNU/Linux" is actually incorre…
I can see that you probably met many people that tried to explain to you what GNU/Linux means and that Linux isn't an OS. All their effort trying to educate you was wasted.
I also know that natural languages are ambiguous, and that when people say "I use Linux" they mean "I use a Linux distribution". When it gets ambiguous, I know to ask "are you talking about Linux the kernel or Linux the family of OSes?", but I don't remember it happening in a constructive discussion.
My experience with people derailing the discussion to "I cannot understand when you talk about Linux as an OS, because Linux is a kernel" is that they actually do understand, but they somehow choose to derail the discussion. Interestingly, those who do that often believe that "GNU/Linux" is the right way to talk about Linux-based OSes, which I find amusing.
Many people genuinely don't understand that the Android OS (AOSP) is open source, but that the Stock Android image they receive with their phone is not. And therefore they could genuinely wonder why developers don't revolt and choose to support "an open source mobile OS". But the truth is that the best open source mobile OS is AOSP-based, it is part of the "Android" family when we use natural languages constructively.
And for some reason, there are people like you who seem to love talking endlessly about whether or not is it correct to say "Android" for "Android-based" or "Android Open Source Project", and probably also love to annoy people saying "GNU/Linux" even if the OS in question is actually not using the GNU userland.