Comments on: Google changes direction with Android Open Source Project

By: Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:37:52 +0000

Basically, because google has, in all their glory and power, decided not to back their relatively new products (I.E. MT3G), I am just not going to buy any more google phones. For the fear that some critical update is going to come out, and google wont care about my phone, because they are finally getting a phone with AT&T or whatever their reason is for not caring. This is a horrible way to do business. I have a mac, and I know that no matter what, they would not let a version of their mac OS that crashes as much as Android 1.6 and force closes as much as Android 1.6 stay out on the market. They would do a free update to their OS, much like iPhone OS 3.0 or 3.1. I dont even expect google to add all the new features. Even though that would be nice. I just want them to fix the reliability issues. I have to restart my phone at least once a day now. It sometimes takes 30 seconds just to get to the dial pad. And once I get to the dial pad, more times then not, I have to force close it. THE DIAL PAD! That is the most basic of phone operations! That should NEVER have to be force closed. Thats just my opinion.
Am I wrong?

By: mawcs

mawcs — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:44:35 +0000

First, the operation of Google’s open source project isn’t any different from the open source project of large size. Mozilla Firefox, Eclipse, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Apache (Web Server) and many, many open source projects are run this way with one company making the decisions and the community “contributing.” This model is tried and true for the open source community. Nothing new; and no reason to make a fuss.

Second, you said in the article, “Other parts of the Android framework are under the Apache License and can remain closed as long as Google likes.” This statement makes absolutely no sense. The Apache license is an open source license. In fact, it is BETTER than the GPL in many ways.

Taylor, this article demonstrates a major lack of understanding when it comes to open source. Protect your journalistic integrity and talk to some open source experts before writing an article like this.

If you really want to understand open source, go to http://www.opensource.org/.

While you are there, check out http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php

Get in touch with open source experts and poineers like Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, et al. Notice how they all have different opinions of what open source is.

By no means should you ever take the jabberings of bitter open source community members as news. It’s always there and will never go away. So someone is upset with Google’s control and they say “It’s not open source!” Come on, that’s not news. It’s an old argument. People have claimed that about Linux before.

Here’s an easy definition of “open source.” Ask yourself two questions. “Can I get the source code?” and “Can I make my own?” If the answer is “yes” to both, then it is open source.

By: little jimmy

little jimmy — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:48:50 +0000

Hmmm… afaik, I seem to be syncing the Android 2.0 source from kernel.org at this moment.

By: Les fauxpen source sont parmi nous ou l’open source Canada Dry – Philippe Scoffoni

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:56:17 +0000

[...] désigne java ou encore Android. Concernant ce dernier des changements significatifs sont apparus sur le site du projet. Google a supprimé une section indiquant la liste des pré-requis pour devenir un membre de [...]

By: Walter McGrain

Walter McGrain — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:23:47 +0000

The term “fauxpen source” has been around for years. It wasn’t “invented” in May as described by that link. Lame.

By: Rev. Spaminator

Rev. Spaminator — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:57:04 +0000

A lot of speculation going on here. We’ll have to see how this shakes out. I have a G1 and my contract doesn’t renew until next year. So if I’m eating donuts or eclairs, either way Google has a year to show us what is really up.

By: Andrew Vanvlack

Andrew Vanvlack — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:52:16 +0000

The thing I don’t understand is what are they going to do with the developers phone. Many people (incuding me) rely on a pice of hardware to test apps. I don’t see them using a cdma phone (droid) as the adp2 because its pritty mutch tied to one carrier unlike a gsm phone. Testing thing like a multi touch app is not posible on the computer. I seen in the forms some where that a android enginer was saying there was no need for a new dev phone.

By: newspeak

newspeak — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:33:36 +0000

I am putting down my pitchfork and flaming torch….android is still the best option in my opinion if they take their time releaseing eclair even if its to honer a exclusivity agreement with verizon …it doesn’t matter because it will be released eventually….I like where they are going now and when I stop liking it I will move on to their detriment …they don’t owe me anything beyond what I paid tmobile for and even then its tmobile that made the promise not google….I like googles products and as long as they keep offering cool stuff I will prolly keep useing it

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:41:01 +0000

Reminds me of OpenSolaris. Open source but last time i looked OpenSolaris was still being developed behind a Sun wall.

By: nEx.Software

nEx.Software — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:08:45 +0000

I heard that MMS required a hardware change. It wouldn’t surprise me if USB Tethering also would require a hardware change.