Vamien,
That was disrespectful and unprofessional.
On May 19, 12:15 am, "Vamien McKalin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 AndroidGuyshttp://androidguys.com/
>
> >>> --
> >>> 鏡石
>
> >> --
> >> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably
> >> crap. Visit AndroidGuyshttp://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 AndroidGuyshttp://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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
