s/people/sheeple On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM, lbcoder<[email protected]> wrote: > > Most people I speak to buy whatever I tell them to buy. I even told > someone to return his apple phone in favor of a Dream and he did so > without hesitation. > > On Aug 11, 3:17 pm, Incognito <[email protected]> wrote: >> They will and politely say thats nice and when they go to the store to >> choose a phone they wont say "is this open source". >> >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 3:08 PM, LB Coder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Of course there are people who don't know what it means, that is just called >> ignorance. Typically though, when you explain it, they appreciate it. >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Incognito <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've never met a single average customer that feels fuzzy about open source. >> I99% of customers could care less about open source. Open source is really >> meant for developers and cellphone manufacturers. >> >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM, David Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not really, otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to even try the >> open-source thing. >> >> The reason why everything is not entirely developed in the open source tree >> are multiple, but basically boil down to the fact that product development >> has a much higher priority at the moment than building a strong and pure >> open-source community for the platform. >> >> However, the latter is still a goal that we strive to achieve, and be sure >> we will get there at some point. For example, the open-source donut branch >> really reflect the state of our current sources, with a slight delay >> compared to the internal tree. >> >> Also; I know a couple of manufacturers that are using the open-source Cupcake >> sources to build real products; so I disagree with Disconnect's assumption >> that the open-source tree is "totally useless" :-). >> >> Leaving aside the procedural/technical problems (inability to reasonably >> accept patches to anything except master, etc) its still not a project you >> can contribute to. If cupcake is the version external devs should be working >> with, are you accepting patches to it? ..no? Only for donut. >> >> That makes sense, except the donut tree is almost always broken for anything >> other than the emulator. (Most recently it was because of proprietary >> HEADERS. Yes, as in "header files describing an interface but containing no >> code". Not proprietary libraries, which is bad enough, but headers.) >> >> Outside platform devs - who own the device sold specifically for platform >> dev - are once again in the state where the recommended action is "wait for >> donut to ship on hardware, then illegally copy the bins off and use those." >> (It's against the license, no matter how many times google says to do it.) >> >> That is hardly an open source community project. Its great that its close to >> the internal tree, but that is a misleading statement when the internal tree >> includes a ton of core proprietary bins and libs. (Even the >> "non-google-experience" version, which could theoretically be public.) >> >> lbcoder's big long rosy "how an open source community project can work" >> message was great, but it has very little bearing on reality in Android. A >> couple points though: >> - they avoided gpl like the plague. Just the kernel and bluez, iirc - there >> is no license requirement to release anything else. (Most similar >> environments would have used busybox and one of the small libc's as well, >> but they didn't -- specifically to reduce the amount of source that had to >> be released.) >> - the illusion of openness is exactly that - an illusion to make consumers >> feel fuzzy about it. (and lbcoder, evidently) it's great that the >> unsupported unmaintained version is mostly open. >> - hw manufs -always- modify the source to get their specific goals met. look >> at the different symbian interfaces for example. that's not special to >> android. >> - outside collaboration is near zero still, partially due to >> backlog/workload/procedures (being worked on, mostly by poor jbq) but >> largely due to the inherently proprietary nature of the trees. >> >> If google was committed to the big rosy picture painted in the rest of his >> message, they could knock out some low-hanging fruit: a gmail client (even >> just an android-skinned version of the j2me one - no push, no contact sync, >> etc) and a market client (no-protected-apps). And I'm talking bins, not >> source so don't get all freaky at me. >> >> Those things are entirely under their control and don't interfere with the >> 'google experience' phones, but they'd bring AOSP vaguely close to every >> other mobile platform out there.. (m.google.com is a really depressing site >> if you are an AOSP user. Native apps for everything from maps to contact >> sync to youtube, for everyone but you.) > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
