And I have a G1! Now let's see what we can do. Shane
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:14 AM, plusminus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Market (Carriers) takes 30%. Thats your chance SlideMe !! > > On 22 Okt., 12:47, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark, > > > > I think you missed my point; To me openness is not just about > > contributing code to the platform, it's also about giving all > > applications a level playing field to build apps on (i.e. not > > restricting API access to a certain set of approved applications). > > hackbods statements indicated that there will always be functionality > > which is only available to a select few approved apps. > > > > To use your metaphor; > > > > With Linux all apps are equal, and if you want to create an application > > or kernel module to do something you can and you don't need the approval > > of Linus to do so. > > > > With Android unless you have your app signed by the same certificate as > > the platform there will be some functionality you will not be able to > > access. > > > > I hope you can see where I'm coming from now. > > > > Al. > > > > > > > > Mark Murphy wrote: > > > Luca De Marini wrote: > > > > >> Looks like it is going to be completely closed.... I believe I'll stop > > >> looking for Android and look somewhere else instead... > > > > > *head explodes* > > > > > So...let me get this straight: > > > > > -- The source code is available (http://source.android.com) > > > > > -- There is a patch process in place that is already accepting patches > > > from outside contributors > > > > > And this is "completely closed"? > > > > > Android, in this area, is behaving exactly like every other major open > > > source project in existence. A core group of folk wrote code. They > wrote > > > it the way they wanted. They opened it up. They control commit rights > > > and whether to accept or deny patches. If you want it to behave > > > differently, you need to write and test replacement code, then > > > contribute it back and convince them that your patch is a good idea. > > > > > By your definition, the Linux kernel is "completely closed", because > > > only Linus and his lieutenants are capable of affecting change to the > > > kernel. Firefox, OpenOffice.org, GNOME, KDE, all the Apache projects > > > (big and small), and so forth all work this way, and so you must > > > consider them to be completely closed, too. > > > > > If you don't like the way Android is implemented today, WRITE A PATCH > > > and CONVINCE THOSE IN CHARGE to accept the patch. In the end, that's > > > what open source projects are all about. > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > Now, to deal with Mr. Sutton's likely rejoinder, that the Android core > > > team won't accept a patch changing this behavior, and therefore Android > > > is closed: > > > > > Perhaps they won't accept the patch now. Perhaps not ever. That doesn't > > > mean Android is closed. > > > > > Let's go back to the Linux kernel. I can propose whatever patches I > > > want. Linus is unlikely to accept any of them prima facia, because I > > > have no track record with respect to kernel development. And he might > > > reject them on grounds that are within his rights (e.g., attempts to > > > link in proprietary code, breaks existing APIs, shoddy implementation). > > > This doesn't mean Linux is closed. It doesn't mean my patch is > > > completely bad. It does mean my patch won't get into Linux, because > > > Linus Torvalds, in the end, is the guy who defines Linux. If I keep > > > proposing a patch that causes the kernel to crash every third Wednesday > > > at 4pm Eastern, and Linus rejects it every time as being meritless and > > > moronic, this does not mean that Linux is closed. > > > > > This is how open source works. > > > > > Similarly, we can contribute patches back to Android. It's happening > > > already. Some of those patches will be accepted quickly, as they are > > > small, non-controversial changes, particularly bug fixes. Some proposed > > > patches will get debated for a long time only to be rejected. Some > > > proposed patches will get rejected out of hand. If they tend to reject > a > > > lot of patches, they will get called rather unpleasant names. But, with > > > Android under an open source license, if they're accepting a reasonable > > > number of patches, they're as "open" as any other open source project. > > > > > Android may not meet your wishes or needs. You are welcome to call them > > > lots of names. Now that the source code is released, though, "closed" > is > > > a profanity, and if you expect to toss that live hand grenade around > > > willy-nilly, expect me and others to get very, very pissed. > > > > -- > > Al Sutton > > > > W:www.alsutton.com > > B: alsutton.wordpress.com > > T: twitter.com/alsutton > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
