Android Honeycomb Will Not Be Open Sourced 295
At the ongoing Google I/O conference in San Francisco, Google today officially announced the next version of Android, named Ice Cream Sandwich, as well as Android 3.1, an "incremental platform release" of Honeycomb.
An anonymous reader writes "In an effort to understand the landscape for developers, Andy Rubin was asked if, since Ice Cream Sandwich would be open, Android 3.0 and/or 3.1 will be granted the same courtesy. Rubin answered definitively in the negative. Honeycomb on its own would not be open, because its phone functionality is very broken. Ice Cream Sandwich will take all of the Honeycomb functionality and open source it alongside code that is much more universally friendly."
Honeycomb is... (Score:2)
Honeycomb is big, ya ya ya
It's not small, no no no
Honeycomb has a big big bite
Big big taste in a big big bite.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because of this. Where mah bees at? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And while you wait for your delicious diabetes-in-a-box to arrive in the mail, you can watch the 1970s ad [youtube.com].
User perception (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember a while ago when Google announced Honeycomb would not be open sourced for the time being. A lot of people on Slashdot were unsurprisingly up in arms and, equally unsurprisingly, for all the wrong reasons. From a FOSS standpoint it's a terrible move on their part, but what many didn't understand was the reasoning:
Android has an extremely vast community of amateurs that create custom builds of AOSP. These are people with little to no coding experience, distributing specialized "ROMs" to an even greater amount of curious users who are barely a shade above the average user. So what would happen if Honeycomb were opened? There'd be a very quick uptake by those users and, given the Tablet oriented state of Honeycomb, a really really bad user experience. As pretty as Honeycomb is, that would have reflected badly on Google -- worse than what many jumping the gun on /. thought when Google initially delayed the source release.
With that in mind, I'm glad that they are deferring the code until Ice Cream Sandwich where it seems they will "do it right."
Re:User perception (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the guys who make custom ROMs are significant enough to really be of concern for Android's image, ill conceived as some of those ROMs may be. I think the bigger concern would be careless manufacturers [slashdot.org] selling bad devices to Joe User. Anyway the people who flash custom ROMs onto their devices generally know they might break some things.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:User perception (Score:4, Insightful)
Whilst tivoisation is a problem and is already happening I see another motive here - only approved partners get to release a properly functional tablet, for an entire year.
By not releasing this to the general public, Google has tight control over releases and android tablet, and that way can exercise a form of quality control they otherwise couldn't. This could be a (misguided, IMHO) attempt to compete with the iPad on consistency of user experience.
Re: (Score:2)
By not releasing this to the general public, Google has tight control over releases and android tablet, and that way can exercise a form of money grubbing they otherwise couldn't.
FTFY. I'm typically a Google fanboy, but this move seems to be specifically so that "only approved partners" (that fork over the dough) can have honeycomb. Google certainly deserves to make money off of Honeycomb, but closing off the source is not the best plan.
Re:User perception (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Google certainly has created the opportunity for itself to make money off of Honeycomb, but it certainly does not deserve to make money off of Honeycomb. No corporation deserves anything, no matter how much time and money it has put into developing a product.
It's this kind of thinking that is part of the greed-based problems that are destroying society and retarding the development of civilization today.
Re:User perception (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it just means the 'unapproved' tablet makers will continue using 2.2 and 2.3 as the basis for their tablets, which is a worse tablet experience than honeycomb - I tried out an archos 101, and despite loving my rooted gingerbread galaxy S to death, froyo really doesn't scale well to a 10" touchscreen.
If they want android to get a reputation as a shitty ipad knock-off in the tablet arena, they're doing a fairly good job of it by stopping honeycomb seeing wider release. I personally think gingerbread is significantly better than iOS on a smartphone, but I have to admit that iOS is whupping our arse in usability when it comes to the iPad.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, and Google has no one to blame but themselves when it comes to poor Android tablet sales.
2011 would have been the year of the Android Tablet. Then manufacturers delayed until easter, OK. Now it's fall 2011 for most models except for those blessed by Google.
For now we can only choose between the overpriced Galaxy Tab and Xoom (on par with the iPad in price) or the Android 2.x el-cheapo tablets, where there probably
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, I now own a wifi-only Xoom. It is a fine device, with a few really idiotic warts like no USB on the media dock. And no way to connect a mouse to it. This is really frustrating, because all it needs is a mouse and it is a full blown computer.
On the other hand, the sound that comes out of the media dock speakers is amazing, it has to be heard. The screen out of the box is not the brightest but can be adjusted up to be above reproach. The screen resolution is stunning. The user interface only gets
Re: (Score:3)
I absolutely hate the design decision that says the user should not be allowed [blogspot.com] to shut down an application. I understand Rubin's argument, but it is only an argument. Real users like to tidy things up. Having no way to make an application disappear from the active applications list is just very irritating.
My phone came with an app called TasKiller which does that. But why does it matter that a particular app is using memory if loading another app can cause the memory to be released? Think of apps in memory as a cache. You don't normally go through caches manually cleaning them out. Perhaps the problem here is the feature which shows you the apps in memory. If you didn't have that information you might be happier overall.
Re: (Score:3)
... Think of apps in memory as a cache. You don't normally go through caches manually cleaning them out.
I, and many truly high-end users do not. "Power Users", however, absolutely live to clean caches and temp files, scan their registries, and defragment their geometry-obscured hard drives. You can bet they're aching to save the 25 milliseconds it takes the OS to choose which cached app to dump before loading the newly-opened one, even if they waste 10 seconds manually killing a task each time.
Re: (Score:3)
Does anybody know why Google decided to make all their Android web pages, like the link above, not able to be scrolled unless you're using Javascript?
There are plenty of websites that require Javascript to function properly, but none (other than Android's) that require it just to scroll.
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/04/multitasking-android-way.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst tivoisation is a problem and is already happening I see another motive here - only approved partners get to release a properly functional tablet, for an entire year.
So... the plan is to achieve exactly the opposite of the Android phone effect, where Apple's product was overtaken by a veritable horde of competing products? Now nice of Google to take those steps carefully designed to ensure that Apple only has to worry about a handful of competitors in this space. How nice of Google to allow Apple to shift the debate from "which Android tablet should I get?" to "should I get an Android tablet?".
Re: (Score:3)
... Once TiVo showed the corps how to run right around GPL V2 it became for all intents and purposes useless.
Unless your intent and purpose is that you just want to be able to see and use what people do to your source code and not dictate how people build their hardware.
Ultimately these companies rise and fall by the geeks that work for them; if Google does shed its skin and shows some evil nature of closed development or something.... then things will be inconvenient for a few years, they'll bleed the developers who understand the importance of openness (which seems to be a pretty large proportion of Android's d
Re:User perception (Score:4, Informative)
Name a company that failed because they pissed off the FOSS community.
SCO
Digital Convergence Corporation
DivX, Inc
The XFree86 Project, Inc
Of course, you could argue that these were silly companies whose time had come. I'd respond that the FOSS community brought that time upon them. You'd respond with some stupid car analogy, conceding defeat in a manner obvious to everyone but yourself. Argument complete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the REAL goal is a slow but sure march towards TiVoization
It is also possible that Google learned a lesson from the backlash over the initial closed source announcement and will be more careful about walking the open source walk in future, but pride keeps Rubin from backing down specifically on Honeycomb. Pride, it's a nasty thing.
Re:User perception (Score:5, Informative)
Right, TiVo-ization. That's why Googles own devices are reflashable out of the box, and that's why Android is open source (it doesn't have to be, right?).
Your bizarre rant might make a shred of sense if Android was heavily based on GPLd code written by other people. Other than the kernel and one or two components, the vast bulk is non-GPLd code written by Google.
Re: (Score:3)
How is this any different from Linux FOSS? (Score:2)
Highlights of the day for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Also to note, a lot of the tools like the movie rentals from the marketplace will be backward compatible in the coming months as well as the developer tools like fragments all the way back to Android 1.6. And unless i missed anything, everything will be open source.
Re: (Score:2)
You can join my old Newton MessagePad 100 plugged into a serial X10 transmitter controlled via NS BASIC. Get off my lawn...
Oh that's right.... those born before '86 probably don't even realize that the iPad isn't the first non-Windows low-power "tablet" to ever hit the market....
Hell, my first smartphone was a WinCE Palm-sized PC (Originally a rebranded Everex Freestyle made by Trogon or something, then a Philips Nino) tethered to my phone with the sync cable connected to a null modem block connected to th
Re: (Score:3)
You're a new kid on the block. We were doing home automation circa 1983 with the BBC Micro. And my first smartphone was a real smartphone, preceding your lash up by a year or two: A Nokia Communicator.
Pass me my slippers, sonny.
Re: (Score:2)
Ex 86? :)
haaaaaang on ... (Score:2)
They are worried that people will put together 2.3 source with honeycomb and make a phone out of it
Geeez guys, just let it out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I predict in the next 5 years all the 'fun' stuff at google goes away and it becomes a 'job' for many who work there.
What makes you think it isn't already that way?
Gump (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Embarrassment rather than dislike of open source (Score:5, Insightful)
These comments seem very much to indicate that the source code issue, as I think most people expected, is less of a "we don't want people using this code for their purposes" and more of a "we think this code is horrible and don't want anyone laughing at it." That really suggests that, rather than be upset about the lack of open sources, people should be concerned as to why Google felt it reasonable to release software they're reluctant to release sources to because they're embarrassed.
Open source also opens organizations to criticism when they try to push out code that isn’t ready, and I think this is very much a problem for Google with Honeycomb.
Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes Google your standard large-scale code factory, producing sub-standard crap and sticking a "proprietary code" stamp on it.
Best comment so far!
Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc (Score:5, Informative)
During the Android Fireside Chat this afternoon, Google’s Dan Morill explained a bit more about the situation. As the bits and pieces that make up Android 3.1 get added into the next version, and the brand new bits that will come together and make this unifying UI get implemented, it will be appropriate to release Android Source. So, quite definitively, Android for tablets will not be open sourced until it’s been fixed to Google’s standards. There’s little information as to whether or not these, in combination with the new fragmentation initiative, will ensure that current Android 3.0 devices will be brought into the open source times or not. More and more it’s beginning to feel like the Android 3.0 concept was little more than a knee-jerk reaction to have something, even if it’s not a great something, to stay within reach of the competition, with Ice Cream Sandwich being the resolving fix to the mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
They say as much:
...More and more it's beginning to feel like the Android 3.0 concept was little more than a knee-jerk reaction to have something, even if it;s not a great something, to stay within reach of the competition, with Ice Cream Sandwich being the resolving fix to the mistake.
Right. Given the buzz that Honeycomb was a rush job I was not expecting much. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is, stable too.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you tried posting anything on Slashdot from Honeycomb's stock web browser?
For me, even the scrolling is noticeably slow, but as soon as I tap the edit field, the lag is really horrible - it's processing input at one char per second or so. Ditto on XDA forums, only there simple scrolling is even slower.
I have to use Opera Mobile on Xoom for now for anything Slashdot related.
Re: (Score:2)
there's also the possibility of it still not making its way out of the testing gauntlet - they'll have tested it on tablets, and it'll no doubt run on phones, but if a user has a nightmare of a time getting it to work for their phone, Google suffers and more importantly the users suffer.
Re: (Score:2)
That really suggests that, rather than be upset about the lack of open sources, people should be concerned as to why Google felt it reasonable to release software they're reluctant to release sources to because they're embarrassed.
Like many others in the tablet arena Google rushed something to market in order to stake out some early market share. Seems like we keep hearing similar stories. At least Honeycomb won't make it onto this [slashdot.org].
Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc (Score:4, Funny)
At least Honeycomb won't make it onto this [slashdot.org].
Shut up before Viewsonic interprets your post as a challenge!
Re: (Score:2)
That really suggests that, rather than be upset about the lack of open sources, people should be concerned as to why Google felt it reasonable to release software they're reluctant to release sources to because they're embarrassed.
Would embarrassing source lead to embarrassing object code: either hard to maintain, buggy, or with security holes?
Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the real problem that I see, but apparently the apologists do not. How can embarrassingly bad code--bad enough to compel them to fight against a potential PR nightmare rather than release it--actually inspire confidence in the robustness of the end product?
If Google say that Honeycomb source is crap, they are saying any product using it is crap. That should serve as a warning to all those early adopters opting for a Xoom or Galaxy Tab 10.1
Spinning this as some sort of personal obsession for perfection ignores the direct correlation between source code and object code, and the fact that this alleged obsession did not prevent them from knowingly releasing an unpolished or unfinished software as a commercial product hoping that nobody notices.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, remember, Google is bleeding top developers to places like Facebook and other startups since it has grown substantially and most likely doesn't have the startup mentality anymore. Releasing poor code provides as much of a job preview as a resume does for an employer. It doesn't make them look good, especially when Microsoft and Google are going through their largest hiring push ever this year.
Re: (Score:3)
And what, Facebook isn't a pile of steaming shit under the hood? Come on, everything is in perpetual beta these days. Hell, Google practically pioneered the never-quite-completed software model. Everyone is writing crap code in the consumer and even in the corporate markets, and in actuality they always have, being able to hide the pure horror of what their code monkeys have produced behind the edifice of IP rights, well, that at and optimized compilers and assemblers, so that all the shit is squashed to
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true (and I agree), but Facebook started after Google. It is Google's Microsoft Moment now. Facebook will get its chance soon enough.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3)
Open source also opens organizations to criticism when they try to push out code that isnâ(TM)t ready, and I think this is very much a problem for Google with Honeycomb.
I suspect the code is functional but poorly architected. As they say, "first you write the code, then you understand it, then you re-write it." If there's a major rewrite underway, it's at least good to tell developers to expect that any of their changes would rapidly bitrot, and not to spend too much time trying to augment this versi
Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc (Score:5, Interesting)
So now I still think it's a huge lame excuse, but perhaps one with some truth. Android devs in general don't know how to organize their code (though they are good at keeping it bug free).
Re: (Score:2)
Is Android object-code or byte-code? If the former, how does disassembling the machine code gives you insight into the "basic organization and function names"?
-dZ.
Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc (Score:5, Insightful)
Then of course this proves that Google is not creating software that is meant to be used by the community. It is creating software for a specific prorpietary hardware manufacture, and then, if other manufacturers behave, will release the code to them. Like Apple, only the kernal/stack is OSS while all the stuff that makes the phone cool to use requires Google blessing. One can't use competing product like would be possible with true OSS software. One can't rework the product to meet end users needs. The phone exists to serve the interests of Google and the mobile provider, just like any average proprietary phone. Sure the Android can be broken in to just like any other phone, but why should this be necessary for an allegedly open phone. And sure Apps can be downloaded from any site, but if google were fully open to open source why would they not want to hast any software that wasn't malicious?
At the end of the day if Android were in fact open source and in fact freely available, none of the Google equivocating would be necessary..
Re: (Score:2)
These comments seem very much to indicate that the source code issue, as I think most people expected, is less of a "we don't want people using this code for their purposes" and more of a "we think this code is horrible and don't want anyone laughing at it."
So it's the Malda excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand them and appreciate it. If you put some code out which has something fundamental unsettled (e.g. a phone functionality for something which may be used for mobile phones), then you are not only encouraging fragmentation but enforcing it. Because the manufacturers will enter a race to have "the first android 3.0 phones" (while i personally find 2.2/2.3 quite ok for phones), and then the developers will probably even have different APIs for different manufacturers.
Open source does not mean that yo
Re: (Score:2)
These comments seem very much to indicate that the source code issue, as I think most people expected, is less of a "we don't want people using this code for their purposes" and more of a "we think this code is horrible and don't want anyone laughing at it.
But that describes nearly all computer code.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, iPad sales are terrifying everyone else because they don't have anything comparable. Strategies they've tried so far:
1) "In six months we'll have a product that's as good as anything Apple is selling...er...now" (Everyone)
2) "Hey, an iPad's just a big iPhone, right? So if we make a big Android phone..." (Samsung)
3) "I don't care that it's not finished, put the bloody thing in the stores right now" (Moto, RIM, and now Google it seems)
4) "We'll put it out when we're damn well ready to! " (HP)
None of the
Is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the parts under the GPL are a small set of the code; mainly the kernel and some surrounding pieces.
Re:Is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
it's not as much about rms being right as it's about rubin being a liar.
and I suppose this is bad news if you were waiting for 3.0 android-x86. the built in emulator of the sdk is horrible. just horrible.
all mobile open source seems to end up with the same shit.
they're trying to come up with a magical 'fix fundamental issues' sprint before 3.1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is that legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the GNU Public License?
Just because RMS didn't write a LISP program to write the actual C code himself using emacs on a mainframe at MIT during the 80s doesn't mean it's not GNU.
Re:Is that legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is that legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please read your own argument again and try to see the paradox in it.
"Honeycomb source will be opened up in the future, when it is actually ready for commercial use."
I'd say that Google felt it was "ready for commercial use" since they released it as a commercial product.
Android 3 is either ready for commercial use, or not. In the latter case, it should not be released, or released as a prototype or "test" product. Its source code cannot be considered as an independent and unrelated attribute of the product, for there is a direct correlation between source code and compiled object code.
-dZ.
Bait and switch off (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that an average developer is using their systems, this could be a test, just how closed can Google go?
As for quality, this is the efforts of a for profit effort with strong branding and open code connections.
Why the functionality gap? Its their code, they are funded... Did the ipad2 cpu/gpu jump their roadmap? Has Windows suddenly got better in some area?
Re: (Score:2)
What? Apple just released the source to their latest modifications to WebKit, as they do with the other open source project in which they participate.
I don't remember an instance when Apple or Microsoft used open as bait.
-dZ.
In related news... (Score:3, Insightful)
$CompanyOtherThanGoogle has announced they will not release their source, based heavily on GPL code, until they, and only they decide its "ready".
Replace the Google with Redhat, and Android with "Enterprise Linux 6.1" and see how many people start getting upset, threaten to boycott, etc..
why is it okay when Google does it?
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. They have released the GPL bits as required, just the vast majority of Android is not GPL and Google can legally do whatever they want with it.
TFA is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Before he said any of that, he said you have to understand the nature of git: When they release Ice Cream Sandwich, the Honeycomb source will be in the patch history. What they may not bother to do is to tag the specific commit of Honeycomb.
But once Ice Cream Sandwich is released, I have no idea who the fuck would care about Honeycomb; the only reason would be for a device that had proprietary drivers that never updates to Ice Cream Sandwich, but that could be solved pretty easily by just pinning the kernel release to Honeycomb and taking the rest of ice cream.
All this hand-wringing over Honeycomb is fucking annoying at this point. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soon you might get enough to write your software. At that point Apple and MS start looking helpful.
Re: (Score:3)
All this hand-wringing over Honeycomb is fucking annoying at this point. Get over it.
Gladly. As you note, when the source comes out, everything will be (mostly) hunky dory. But I don't
have the source code yet. Without source code I can't study or modify the system.
I have to wonder, in your opinion, what is the point of having source code in the first place?
Why on earth would I be happy that it will come at some point in the future, but not
care in the least that it isn't here now? If I need the source code to do my work, then
I am waiting. I can't get my work done because I am waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the source code to modify it IS great and IS the reason to have it.
But if the Honeycomb source is as fucked up as they say it is, and as fucked up as the comments in this post have said it is, then your modifications would certainly break almost beyond repair in their massive refactoring for the next version.
If your work depends on the source to Honeycomb and you don't have it because you're a small fry, well, that sucks, sure. OTOH if they hadn't done it this way then there wouldn't be a Honeycomb,
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you understand the open source development model. If the source code is as bad as you think it is then you'd think Google would be eager to get more "eyes" on the code to fix the situation. I think this is just Google closing their source.
Re: (Score:3)
you have to take that with a grain of salt. there's no guarantees of how they will release it and if it's with patch history or not.
I mean, this is a guy who tweeted definition of open and then couple of short months later decided it was ok to protect few manufacturers by sitting on the source(and to hide that they released shit).
Re:TFA is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
When they release Ice Cream Sandwich, the Honeycomb source will be in the patch history
No, that's not necessarily true. While you can configure a server to only allow new patches to be added to the end of the commit log, that isn't mandatory. Even with bog standard out of the box git commands, they could squash the commit history into one big commit and throw away their current history. Or review every change again, and only cherry pick the ones they wish to keep. git's history is not set in stone and can easily be changed. The only limitation is that all contributors must voluntarily accept your revised history as their new baseline.
Andy Rubin's definition of open.... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429 [twitter.com]
So has his definition changed or have we always been at war with Eastasia?
Re: (Score:2)
This is complete bullshit. If reputation is more important to Google than openness, they shouldn't call themselves an advocate of openness, and neither should their supporters. It's not supposed to matter what other people choose to do with the code. That was supposed to be the "freedom" aspect of open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh. Google is a for-profit corporation. Openness is good for them insofar as it's good for their profits. I can't recall anyone claiming that Google was the FSF.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because embarrassing source code cannot possibly lead to embarrassing object code that is mitigated by mere obscurity.
Of course, since it's Google, this is A Good Thing.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes openness just needs to take a backseat in order to protect reputation.
That argument, often repeated, is right up there with "think of the children".
Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Google refuses to release embarrassing code to a world of incompetents who could potentially ruin Android's reputation by shoehorning Honeycomb into devices it was never meant to be shoehorned into". Sometimes openness just needs to take a backseat in order to protect reputation.
Seems like Google doesn't have any problem providing the Motorola's, Samsungs and LG's of the world with this 'embarrassing code' and let them sell half-baked, buggy devides running an OS that nobody can modify or improve with. Apparently 'protecting their reputation' means a lot more to them than user experience for their customers, or being 'open'.
I really don't care the least bit about what Google does with the Honeycomb sourcecode, probably they are right about holding it back because it was a rush job and not pretty to look at. That said, I think we can all safely put the hollow 'Android open, Android free!' nonsense behind us. Android is only open to the manufacturers and carriers, and Google has its priorities with them, not with you who was suckered into buying a tablet running beta software.
I'm still amazed that so many people keep up with this, if I pay $500 for a device that is not explicitly marketed as beta, as a curiosity for the adventurous, I expect it to work as advertised, including the software. If the software is so messy even Google doesn't want you to see it, ffing clean it up and make it better, before selling products based on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, so by that yardstick, why all the fuss about Apple being "late" (by a month) in releasing the Webkit changes? Yesterday everyone was telling me that they shouldn't have shipped running binaries until they were ready to release the code, as the GPL requires. (which in my opinion Apple absolutely needs to get sorted immediately)
Now because it's Android and Google they get a pass on that? If they shipped a working tablet then the source code needs to be out there *right now* - that was the whole point of A
They're keeping it in the Honeycomb Hideout (Score:2)
/80sChildhoodNostalgia
fork the droid! (Score:2)
Down with app stores. Up
Re: (Score:2)
can only run those apps in a app store that Google thinks is good for you(or it)
The word sideloading comes to mind. Also, you'd have to rewrite every app in the Debian rep: different abstractions, system calls, screen size and resolution problems, and a metric fuckton of dependencies come to mind why it wouldn't simply be "rewrite system, add Debian repositories, yay"
Apart from that, what would you achieve with a completely open-source phone, apart from stroking your ego and self-righteousness? Open-source phones already exist, but you don't see people touting them, do you? Do you know
Re: (Score:2)
The key technical innovation of the GNUPhone [newstechnica.com] is that it is completely operated from the command line. “What could be more intuitive than a bash prompt?” said seventeen-year-old Debian developer Hiram Nerdboy. “The ultimate one-dimensional desktop! Just type dial voice +1-555-1212 --ntwk verizon --prot cdma2000 --ssh-version 2 -a -l -q -9 -b -k -K 14 -x and away you go! Simple and obvious!”
The phone will also serve as a versatile personal media player. “I can play any .au file o
Re: (Score:2)
bing 'IcedRobot'.
It's a golden opportunity for that other Linux phone vendor, HP. Offer Mario and friends full time employment to integrate openjdk on webos - hey presto you've got a Larry friendly android runner.
Not that it matters, webos never made it to Oceania.
Right... (Score:2)
Someone fix the summary please? (Score:3)
"..merge Android 3.1 and Android 2.3 into..."
"..which will be called Ice Cream Sandwich.."
"...open source it alongside code that is much more universally friendly."
3.1 *is* Honeycomb. 3.0 *is* Honeycomb. Google *is* open sourcing it. No, 3.0 will not be released for public consumption.
The Xoom (running 3.0) is slated for an update to 3.1in May sometime. AFAIK, this is the only device running 3.0 out there so 3.0 will basically be deprecated.
Early 32-bit only releases of Intel Mac OS X 10.4 (Score:3)
I remember not having xnu kernel source code was one of the limitations of early 32-bit only releases of Intel Mac OS X 10.4.
Re:editors already asleep? (Score:5, Funny)
you're completely pathetic
Re: (Score:3)
Replying to yourself as AC? Bizarre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But android is open source and iOS isn't, so google is good and apple are bad.
And you Apple fans do have a useful function to perform in the Android ecosystem: your job is to embarrass Google should they lose sight of the fundamental principle that made Android great. Nobody can do this job better than you.
Re: (Score:2)
While I could wish many things- like having the CyanogenMod team be hired by Google!
Why on earth would they go to Google to become corporate drones when they have positioned themselves well to do their own startups?