Stone Mirror wrote: > You're lapsing into extreme silliness. I haven't suggested, anywhere, or > to any degree, that anyone's "head needs to be busted".
You kvetch about Android developing their own implementation of the Java language, when many others have gone that route before. If you're going to smack Android for doing it, the least you can do is be equal opportunity about it, or not mention it at all. But, you are right, my tone was nastier than it needed to be in that paragraph, and for that I apologize. > Sigh. The quote's been repeated in Information Week, on AndroidGuys and > elsewhere. A trip to Google (remember them?) might assist you... You were the one who offered links, as I recall. > Seems right in line with the other quote. Maybe this one's made up, too. Probably not, but The Register is not trustworthy, that's all. Had you used the InformationWeek source originally, I wouldn't have commented in the first place. My recommendation is, when given a choice of sources to cite, choose the most authoritative and least controversial one. > Let me note, that as someone with (apparently) a book on Android coming > out, you've got a clear bias in favor of discounting any criticism of > the platform. I'm not discounting all your criticism of the platform. On the contrary, the quote you cited is definitely an area of concern, and some of your past posts have had valuable elements in them. I never once complained about the quote itself, other than the specific place you cited it from in the post. In fact, as I've mentioned already, my only criticism of your original post on this thread that I had planned on addressing was where you said: "Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all." And I pointed out that there are many styles of open source project, and the style that Android appears to be pursuing is not unique or necessarily bad, though it certainly has its issues. I would've been content to debate that point, but your rhetoric meandered into other tangential areas. You want to keep things "germane to the discussion"? Then stick to the counter-argument I raised: "have other projects done a big-code-drop-then-public development model and succeeded? Yes!" Don't wander off into other Android complaints (e.g., reimplementing Java). Don't complain about biases when you have your fair share of them (GNOME Mobile membership, LiMo Foundation meetings, ACCESS events, to name three). This discussion will be as narrowly-focused or as wide-ranging as you make it; I'm just responding to your points, to put forth counter-arguments for the record. I'm wrapping up a book on Android instead of LiMo in large part because Android has an public SDK available, and LiMo doesn't, as far as I can tell, so there's nothing I could write about at this point, anyway. Once LiMo ships something I can work with and has signs of having hardware soonish, if I think a book on it would be useful, I'll write one. If I'm mistaken, and LiMo has already released something a semi-random schmuck like me can get their hands on, I apologize, and please post a link. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development -- coming in June 2008! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
