Man just shut up. Something you claim to be unnecessary should in no way garner your interest so much that you are "on and off" the thing according to your words. Now, i could careless what you want to say about me but the fact is, your brain is on pause or you're just always stoned when you come here (hence your name) thats why you cannot find nothing positive about Android to say. For your sake i really hope you're getting paid for all this hard work, seriously.
On 5/18/08, Stone Mirror <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/5/18 Vamien McKalin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of >>> getting open source code onto mobile devices. >> >> >> And then >> >> >>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working >>> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off. >>> >> >> It's unnecessary yet you claim to have a significant interest, wha?? I >> don't get it. Make your mind up before you explode. Man there is >> definitely >> something wrong with you, fix it >> > > I didn't say it was a *positive *interest. > > If you can't conduct a civil conversation, maybe you shouldn't bother > responding at all. > > >> >> >> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> 2008/5/18 Vamien McKalin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>>> You have been very silent for quite a while, you seem to be only >>>> interested in the negative press releases. While I think we don't mind a >>>> bit >>>> of negative press, it's the only thing I ever see you talk about here. >>> >>> >>> Is that the royal "we"...? >>> >>> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work >>> of >>> getting open source code onto mobile devices. There's plenty of mobile >>> work >>> (apparently not, for whatever reasons, good enough for Google) going on >>> out >>> in the mainstream open source community, e.g. GNOME Mobile, Ubuntu >>> Mobile, >>> Moblin, etc. I'm still unclear why Google has completely ignored that >>> work >>> in favor of a completely idiosyncratic approach. The work in the open >>> source >>> community _is_, as Verizon says, "collaborative and collegial". Android, >>> unfortunately, is not. >>> >>> Google has made some peculiar claims as to the reasons for these >>> decisions. One is that existing technologies are "too desktop oriented", >>> which shows serious confusion about the technologies involved. They've >>> also >>> claimed that "open source projects don't release in a predictable way", >>> in >>> spite of the fact that both GNOME and Ubuntu, just to cite two examples, >>> release every six months like clockwork. >>> >>> Google has already said that they don't really expect the existing open >>> source platform community to support the Android platform, they plan to >>> do >>> it themselves. With these kinds of directions, and with the kinds of >>> statements cited above, 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. >>> >>> (To the best of my knowledge, Google never participated, even a single >>> time, in, for example, any GNOME Mobile activities, either before or >>> after >>> Android. It's not that they couldn't--they certainly had representatives >>> at >>> the appropriate conferences. They chose not to.) >>> >>> It rises the question once more, who the hell are you? From what I can >>>> tell, you seem to have no real interest in Android, thus I do not see >>>> why >>>> you need information regarding things like this. Why do you love to >>>> spread >>>> propaganda on here is one question that need answering!!!!!!!!!!! >>> >>> >>> Use fewer exclamation points, that's my advice. >>> >>> This is a _discussion_ group, says so right in the name. You have a >>> difficulty with people raising issues for discussion...? I For what it's >>> worth, I'm an active member of the open source community, and have been >>> for >>> several years, working closely with the GNOME Mobile Initiative. I don't >>> see >>> what bearing that has, however. >>> >>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working >>> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off. (And mc5 seems even >>> buggier than mc3, not a good sign.) >>> >>> Compared to mainstream open source--which offers support for not only >>> Java >>> (_community_ Java, not some mutant semi-proprietary version), but also C, >>> C++, Python, Perl, PHP, you name it--Android has significant limitations. >>> Android offers no avenue at all for adapting existing code, just for >>> starts. >>> Android requires learning a completely new method of development, with a >>> high learning curve (as illustrated by the contrast between the 750,000 >>> downloads of the SDK which Google cited, and the fewer than 1,800 >>> applications ultimately produced, a ratio of 0.2%, i.e. two applications >>> ultimately produced per 1000 downloads...) >>> >>> Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story >>> constitutes >>> "propaganda". It may not coincide with your specific prejudices, but it >>> seems perfectly fit material for _discussion_. Maybe we're only allowed >>> to >>> be uncritical about Android here. That'd seem more like "propaganda" to >>> me, >>> frankly... >>> >>> If you don't like what I write, feel entirely free not to read it. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> >>>> There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding >>>>> Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of >>>>> them >>>>> depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it >>>>> quite >>>>> interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms >>>>> that >>>>> I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's >>>>> apparent dismay.) >>>>> >>>>> According to this >>>>> story<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/15/verizon_embraces_linux/>in >>>>> *The Register*, Verizon spokesperson Jeffrey Nelson said, >>>>> >>>>> We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one >>>>> company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and >>>>> collaborative >>>>> effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers >>>>> and, at >>>>> the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how >>>>> we >>>>> were playing now. The rules are changed.' >>>>> >>>>> LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness. >>>>> >>>>> Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the >>>>> dotted >>>>> line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up >>>>> being >>>>> collegial. But it need not be." >>>>> >>>>> Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems >>>>> like I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me >>>>> on >>>>> this, Dan? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 鏡石 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably >>>> crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 鏡石 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably >> crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/ >> > >> > > > -- > 鏡石 > > > > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
