Certainly, Google could become more transparent than they currently are. For non-OHA members, there's no obvious upstream process in place (much like Java prior to Coin). My guess is that Google just can't be bothered with assembling and disclosing stuff before certain milestones - not to mention keeping some of the proprietary hardware stuff private. However, I still think Google is leaps and bounds more open and developer friendly than Apple - even if they sometimes favor rapid internal development to open sourcing up front. It's the same argument used against JavaFX actually, Sun chose to remain closed because they could move faster that way - makes sense when you have an agenda to push.
> > Good luck btw. submitting patches to the iPhone OS, can you point me > > to the nearest github? > > Some Android developers wish that Google would be more open with their > OS, more like Apple. "Android is open source" apparently means that > there's a public source repository with no activity in it - except for > when Google dumps a new release there. With Android 2.0, that was one > week before the first Droid ships, so developers had very little time > to fix their apps. Apple at least gives you an SDK beta two-three > months before. For more, > seehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/google_chrome_os_closedness/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
