Yes, obviously. But they call it Darwin not OSX. They are not trying to pass off Darwin as anything it's not. So what is your point?
-E On Mar 19, 1:05 am, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > Ermm... Have you neve seen Apple Darwin? > (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html) > > Al. > > > > Eric Friesen wrote: > > It's not an argument that Google shouldn't be allowed to have their > > closed source apps, or that carriers are taking the open source code > > and modifying it. I think we all understand why these things happen. > > The problem is that they take this approach but then want to pass off > > that closed source stuff as if it were part of their magnanimous open > > source effort. Either, A, make sure any Android phone can run the > > Market and Google Sync stuff (not necessarily by even open sourcing > > it) or B don't advertise that functionality as being a part of Android > > (like they do now). > > > A good analogy would be like this. Apple announces tomorrow that they > > are Open Sourcing OSX as an operating system to smash Windows once and > > for all. Because it's open source you can port it to any device you > > want, or add any feature you want, don't want iTunes? You can replace > > it. All apps created equal, all device drivers created equal! A month > > from now they open up a repository where you can download BSD. The > > only people who can actually commit to the Operating System are Apple > > engineers. They start some forums for interested people to discuss it. > > When people ask how they can get it to run on their PC systems they > > say "Download the code and get it to work yourself.". Then people > > download the code from the repo to get it to work themselves. They > > then post "Hey? where is the code for Finder? Where is the code for > > Carbon? Where is the code for iTunes?" > > > It would be absolutely their right to keep all their code private etc. > > But if they are doing that they should say "we are open sourcing the > > underpinnings of OSX" etc or somehow make a clear distinction that OSX > > does not include Finder, or Safari etc as opposed to videos of > > employees introducing OSX by saying "One of the great features I love > > about OSX is how easy it is to navigate files using Finder." > > > When Android.com lists the Marketplace as a feature of Android, you'd > > expect it to be a part of Android. It's a small detail, but the whole > > open source relationship is very much hurt when they say one thing and > > do another. The "Why don't you just submit a patch?" mentality found > > all over the place here doesn't feel very inviting when it looks like > > if someone did all the work to port Android to some existing handset > > hardware they wouldn't even be allowed to install all the advertised > > features of Android. And I very specifically say Android and not the > > G1. > > > I don't know if others would agree but it just seems like if the PR > > speak was a bit more inline with reality then perhaps there would be > > more motivation to keep Android on the open path as well as help keep > > the community from getting discouraged. > > > -E > > > On Mar 18, 8:32 pm, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> That's exactly what I'm saying, Disconnect. Android is a completely > >> open source OS. That's the abstraction. What gets shipped is a > >> partly-closed source fork of Android. > > >> Android Market is not a part of the OS; it's an application written > >> for it. Under what advertising campaign do you see Google implying > >> that their open source codebase includes the code for Market? The > >> only marketing Google runs is for the G1, which doesn't mention > >> anything about being open source (since the G1 isn't). > > >> That's why everyone should keep their anger directed at the > >> *carriers*, and not the Android project itself, which is an entirely > >> free and open source OS that anybody can put on any phone. > > >> -- Eric > > >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >>> Linux is a bad example here. (BSD is better.) The devices all come with a > >>> closed-source fork of "android". Try doing that with debian.... > > >>> The other posters are correct, android is advertised (by google and > >>> others) > >>> as having all of these things built in. (Easy low-hanging fruit: ANDROID > >>> MARKET....) > > >>> And its not "a completely open source OS" because -completely- is an > >>> important word.. there is an open source android OS. Unfortunately, that > >>> is > >>> not what is being shipped -by anyone-. What is being shipped is a closed > >>> source OS with some example implementations. > > >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Guys, this is ridiculous. Android, like Linux, is a completely open > >>>> source OS, and we are all running variants of it, with pieces of > >>>> preinstalled software of varying openness and licenses. All the > >>>> different RC updates are packaged for a specific client (T-Mobile), > >>>> for their customer base. > > >>>> Also, it gets said all the time on this list, but again: the G1 isn't > >>>> Android. The Android codebase is a pure abstraction, whereas the G1 > >>>> is a specific implementation of it, and is full of compromises (like a > >>>> closed-source Market app, and not having root access). The developer > >>>> phone has far fewer compromises, but even that has at least one (no > >>>> access to copy-protected paid apps). > > >>>> If you want a phone with no compromises, start a phone manufacturing > >>>> company and make one. Thanks to Android, it's a whole lot easier to > >>>> do exactly that. > > >>>> -- Eric > > >>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Muthu Ramadoss > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Anything not opensource and not part of android must be yanked out of > >>>>> the > >>>>> android website and must be part of the particular implemetation like > >>>>> g1, g2 > >>>>> etc., > > >>>>> On Mar 18, 2009 1:30 AM, "Eric Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Well this reasoning has been brought up numerous times but I think it > >>>>> is quite lame. Visit android.com. More specifically visit > >>>>>http://www.android.com/about/videos.html#category=peeks > > >>>>> Here you can see an "Android" phone boasting about features that > >>>>> AREN'T android. This would be like going to Microsoft's website for > >>>>> WindowsXP and having it boast about the features of the paid version > >>>>> of Microsoft Office. > > >>>>> If they aren't going to make these bits of code a part of Android, > >>>>> they shouldn't show them off on any OHA or android.com website. They > >>>>> should only be on T-Mobile's website for why you should buy a G1. And > >>>>> they shouldn't be bragging about how there isn't a googlephone there > >>>>> are many googlephones. Since it looks like the hardware doesn't exist > >>>>> and if it did exist, wouldn't even have the full boasted software > >>>>> stack. > > >>>>> They want to eat their cake and have it too. "Android has all these > >>>>> great features.. They just aren't actually provided" > > >>>>> On Mar 15, 11:56 am, MrSnowflake <[email protected]> wrote: > > Even > >>>>> the > >>>>> open source trees (mas... > > -- > > * Written an Android App? - List it athttp://andappstore.com/* > > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
