the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”Or is that what you were saying? If so, that's kind of a silly definition of openness--If you care about the kernel being open source, you probably also care about the rest of the OS. I'm disappointed about the delay, but Android is still way more open than iOS in the ways I care about, i.e., I can run any app I want.
All Rubin's tweet indicates is that Android is open source.
It would help if your comment was more than just a quoted tweet.
http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=255840,00.asp?h...
Google's Andy Rubin hit back at Steve Jobs Monday with a tweet that touted the openness of Google's Android platform.
Rubin, who serves as vice president of engineering at Google, posted a message to the micro-blogging site that might be somewhat confusing to those not familiar with the ins and out of Android coding.
Translation: Rubin's tweet includes the commands needed to start compiling a copy of Android on a home Linux machine. He's stressing that anyone can develop for, hack, or even create their own version of Android.
But this does say that by Andy Rubin's own definition of "open", Honeycomb is not "open". Unless there is some big part of this discussion/argument I'm missing, it's not available for download/compiling, right?
The thing that makes this so blatant is the succinctness of Rubin's definition of "open".