Comment by mycroftiv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mycroftiv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I apologize for sounding argumentative, but you are missing the point. I understand Google's motivations, there is nothing mysterious about a company trying to protect its brand by controlling the user experience. I agree their actions are rational given their goals. The problem is that the essence of free open source software, which I believed Android was intended to be, is that users are given the freedom to modify the source code - regardless of whether or not such modifications are beneficial for anyone's brand!

I am not a free software absolutist - people should be free to create and use proprietary software. However, I want to make the personal choice to use free software, and have access to the source code that is not conditional on whether my use is beneficial to any external entity. I understand that Google avoids the GPL for the non linux kernel portions of Android. I was hoping that Google would nonetheless treat Android as a free software OS where you always have access to the source code of any device. I feel like its a "bait and switch" in terms of how it has been portrayed to the community of users who care about software freedom. I don't understand why some people maintain that it doesn't change Android's openness just because Google says it will release the source code "someday".

I think this could all be avoided if Google separated the code from the Android brand. Code releases could be much more common (and include situations like Honeycomb where they don't think it's ready for general consumption) but enforce tighter control on what a vendor is allowed to call "Android".

For instance, anything derived from the Gingerbread line could be used by Samsung/HTC/whoever, and sell it under the Android name, but anyone using the Honeycomb line would be barred from using the Android branding until Google was confident that it was ready (which, really, would happen sooner if it was open for hackers to fix). At the same time, smaller groups and homebrew folks can still get access to all the code they want to hack on and run their devices.

While I do think the article makes valid claims against Android's openness, I think decoupling the branding would go a long way to allowing a community to sprout up around the code.

I think you're over-thinking this. It's clear to me that Honeycomb simply isn't done. You can see it on the xoom. It's just not ready yet. It was shipped incredibly early.

Google is holding it back because their probably just not happy with the state the thing is in. It was rushed and this is their implicit omission of it.I think this is a pride of ownership thing, nothing more.

If they're ready to ship the binaries, they should be ready to ship the source code.

Right. But they does not claim HoneyComb is open source.

(They does not deny it outright though. That's little devilish (evilish not a word!), but I can sympathy with them)

>If they're ready to ship the binaries

It's a little more nuanced than that. They believed the binaries were a good product for 10-inch tablets, but would perform badly on smaller screens. If they ship source, though, people will try to get it running on small screens.

That's what the Ars article is referring to as cutting corners (an inflammatory statement): Honeycomb could have been generic enough to be a good product on all screen sizes, but they needed to save time to let the Xoom meet its ship date.

I'm arguing that Google didn't even believe that the binaries were a good product for 10-inch tablets. My bet is that Motorola forced their hand a bit, as opposed to waiting for the software to actually be complete.

It's a pretty long list of issues with the XOOM software even today.

That's an amazingly naive observation.

My simple question to you is: why do you think that?

Shipping a mobile operating system is an impossibly complex task, but surely you can understand a parallel with a simple application: just because you wrote an app that's being successful doesn't mean you're ready to open source it the same day you release it. Maybe you want to clean it up, or refactor it, or make it easier to be reused by the open source community.

I agree, which raises the question of whether they should have shipped Honeycomb in its current state at all. It really looks like they decided that the Xoom had to ship before the iPad 2 regardless of the quality of its software, and that seems to have backfired.

Google is acting in bad faith. Google (and others) are using the "positively charged" Open Source words to promote their product, but negating their core principles.

I wonder why it has taken so long for people to realize this. After all, Google's primary business--the search and advertising platform--is as closed source and proprietary as Windows.

I think there was a lot of noise and hyper that obfuscated the real messsage. Same thing happened with "Web APIs"... there is not such thing as a "Web API"... look what Twitter/Facebook and others do when they have enough traction. Web APIs and Open Source commitments seems more like a tactic than a strategy.

The simple truth is that everybody has their own, different definition for "the essence of open source".

When you open source something, it's simply impossible to satisfy everyone. Just be patient, Honeycomb will be opensourced eventually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com