Preach it brother jotobjects =) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TreKing - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, jotobjects <[email protected]> wrote: > When developers ask if this or that feature is available and the > Google support team says "you can't do that" they are just giving you > useful information about what works and what doesn't work. Maybe they > could be more sensitive and say "gee that's an interesting (dumb) idea > and maybe someday we will get around to it" :-) > > Let's try an analogy. Linux is open source, right? If you want to > change the way super user privileges are handled you can get the > source for Linux and change the kernel. But don't ask Red Hat to > provide hooks so you can do that. Red Hat doesn't want to support > your hack. You are on your own. Same thing with Android. If you > want to change the way the Home key works, you can get the source (it > is open source) and modify any part of Android you want. But you > can't demand that Google modify the internals of the system to support > your hack. They have a long roadmap of future changes and legacy > platforms to support. Some things are not workable ideas in the near > term or maybe never. > > On Dec 10, 12:45 pm, alexdonnini <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dianne, > > > > You are a smart person, and should recognize that what you state as > > being a fact, and inherently right is, in fact, simply your (Google's) > > opinion and position and, unlike most of us, you are in the position > > to enforce that opinion and position. > > > > While it is true that since Google invested significant resources into > > Android (for its own interest and good), it is acting "normally" in > > exercising control over the platform, I find it somewhat irritating > > that Google tries to portray itself as a promoter of Open Source. It > > is not. Google uses Open Source to further its corporate goals. Plain > > and simple. Nothing wrong with that. When Google's interests and thos > > of the Open Source community at large coincide, everybody is happy. > > When they don't Google enforces its position and acts based on its > > corporate interests. > > > > Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and > > implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will > > let you figure out why it is. > > > > Alex Donnini > > > > On Dec 10, 2:28 am, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Taking over the home key will not be done with a permission, period. > > > > > This is way you get to take over the home key: by having an > intent-filter > > > saying you can be home, and letting the user explicitly select your app > at > > > the point where they press home. The home key is too central to the > user's > > > security for it to be misdirected by some random application they > installed > > > a month ago that at time time seemed okay to be able to "intercept home > key" > > > (if they looked at it at all). > > > > > And as far as the lock screen goes -- nobody has said that there would > never > > > be support for third party lock screens. Right now, however, there > isn't, > > > and there is no near-term plan to do so. If you want to see why, start > > > perusing the lock screen code starting here: > > > > >http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi.. > .<http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi.. > .> > > > > > Lock screen management is extremely complicated, and not in any shape > at > > > this point to be user replaceable. At the very least, all of the > points of > > > contacts with the rest of the system (complicated interaction with the > > > in-call experience in various states, dealing with emergency dialing > that is > > > legally required and the related SIM states that go with it, deep > fragile > > > interaction with low-level power management and event dispatching, etc) > > > needs to be deeply abstracted out of the UI itself. And then there are > all > > > of the issues of dealing with this now no longer trusted third party > code > > > when it crashes or otherwise misbehaves. > > > > > This isn't just "oh those mean Android people won't let me write a few > lines > > > of code to replace the lock screen." > > > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Lance Nanek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Allowing apps like this, but requiring a permission seems like it > > > > would support the most users. > > > > > > Users who want a fancy toddler lock or screensaver or different > unlock > > > > screen or whatever could then use those apps and would just have to > > > > agree to an extra permission when installing. > > > > > > Users who don't want any app to have this level of access just have > to > > > > check for the permission being requested and not install. > > > > > > On Dec 9, 8:07 pm, Jason Proctor <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >Or purposely writing code to break them as with the promises Diane > > > > > >made on this topic. > > > > > > > oh sorry i didn't know there were promises made re home button or > > > > > lock app replacements. what were they? > > > > > > > >Making it impossible to replace the screen lock app doesn't > enhance > > > > > >security. Knowing Android engineers will purposely write code to > > > > > >break any discovered workarounds for the restrictions isn't > enhancing > > > > > >security either. > > > > > > > do you really want lock app replacements that ship your phone ID > and > > > > > lock code around the network? > > > > > > > >Fairly open != open. > > > > > > > can you, or can you not, create exactly the Android distro you > want? > > > > > yes, you can. hence, open. the owners of distros, which could be > you, > > > > > decide how open particular distros are. > > > > > > > >Apples and oranges. > > > > > > > not at all -- stick whatever drivers you like in your distro. > nobody > > > > > else's distro is obliged to take them. ditto your lock app > > > > > replacement or home button override. this arrangement is a feature, > > > > > IMHO. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > jason.vp.engineering.particle > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "Android Developers" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected] > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<android-developers%[email protected]> > <android-developers%[email protected]<android-developers%[email protected]> > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en > > > > > -- > > > Dianne Hackborn > > > Android framework engineer > > > [email protected] > > > > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time > to > > > provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such > > > questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see > and > > > answer them. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Android Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<android-developers%[email protected]> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
