On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Mark Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > GNOME itself, for example, probably didn't expect the KDE > folk to abandon their efforts and run to GNOME, yet GNOME has done quite > well for itself. That's not a valid comparison: GNOME was an effort driven out of an open community, from its start. > > Google's effectively set themselves up in > > opposition to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I > > don't see that as being either helpful or reasonable. > > New initiatives in existing markets are par for the course in open > source. For example, in your two messages on this thread, you have cited > several open source mobile projects and didn't even get them all (e.g., > Maemo). By your argument, most of those shouldn't exist, since they're > duplicating efforts of other such projects. First, I wasn't attempting to provide an exhaustive list. Second, these are, again, community projects. Maemo's a bit of an exception, indeed, and they've taken some significant lumps and criticism from the larger community for that (as well as for their unfortunate habit of providing massive code dumps, although those were nothing in comparison with the code dump that Android represents....) I don't object quite so much to Android's simple existence, as to the spurious reasons that Google, so far, has provided for it (which have amounted to unfounded slams against existing work, i.e. "too desktop-oriented", etc.) > Similarly, new open source programming languages should not exist > because they are "in opposition to the existing, mainstream (language) > open source community", which might irritate the Groovy and Scala folk, > to name two. No, that's a silly comparison, a language, which you can take or leave as you like, isn't the same thing as an entire platform. (On the other hand, given that there's an actual Java Community Process, coming out with a Java that's entirely outside of, and divorced from, that process is a lot more questionable.) > > Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story > > constitutes "propaganda". > > Well, you *did* choose to link to El Reg, which isn't exactly a bastion > of unbiased reporting... ;-) I pointed to an article which contained direct quotes from a Verizon spokesperson. Are you saying that the Register's *quotations *are somehow biased...? How's that work? Are you saying they made up those quotes, or that the substance of them is somehow invalidated by their being reported there...? I can point you at plenty of other sources which contain exactly the same quotes, if you prefer... -- 鏡石 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
