I wouldn't actually consider building a working image from the source the gold standard. I think it is essential the pre-requisite to breath some life into independent activities outside Google. Al providing nightly builds are a prime example. But I agree that Google is probably working on that and it's just in line with the prevailing communication style not to make this transparent.
Btw. I would be really interested in an explanation what the rationale behind this communication style is. On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Tom Gibara <[email protected]> wrote: > My opinion, and its nothing more than that, is that the ability to "build a > working system from the public repository which represents what most users > are using" represents a gold standard that the Android community can aspire > to but not expect any time soon. I simply don't think such a simple binary > metric is adequate to evaluate such a large project. > > A few clarifications to my previous post: by Android I (approximately) mean > the public repository. When someone derives something from Android - say by > using it as the operating system for a new mobile phone - I do not regard > that as Android. Immediately, this resolves our differences on (1) and (2). > As for (3) and (4) I wasn't making a case that any of my criteria are > pre-requisites for a project to be deemed "open source", only that they > contribute to my evaluation of the openness of any given software project. > Incidentally, just because a bug's status is not being updated in the public > tracker doesn't mean it isn't being tracked internally in a separate system. > > I never expected that all of the source code necessary to build say a fully > working image for the G1 or Google's applications would be open because I > always expected Android would be a platform that would be built upon by > closed-source applications and devices. It's unfortunate that many people > seem to feel betrayed that these things are not available. I think few > people argue that the use of Linux in closed devices makes it less open and > I see Android as little different. > > Disconnect's post about the deficiencies of the current process has a valid > point to the extent that that the relationship between the closed and open > trees seems to be inverted, but why assume that Google's engineers don't > know this aren't working extremely hard to address it? I would tend to > assume the opposite. > > Tom > > > 2009/4/11 Al Sutton <[email protected]> > >> >> Tom, >> >> My metric is simple; Can I build a working system from the public >> repository >> which represents what most users are using?, and the answer to that is >> currently no. >> >> To me there are many products being labelled Android; There are the ones >> that are used on devices, there are the ports that people have made to new >> platforms, and there is the public repository, and although all these are >> different in their own way people seem to pick attributes from each and >> say >> that's what Android is. >> >> As I see things, the answers to your metrics are; >> >> (1) You can for the Android open source project, but not for the version >> of >> Android that's shipped on the G1, Magic, or ADP1. I will happily admit I >> am >> wrong if someone can give me the git revision numbers from the open source >> project which will build all the open source components of the "official" >> updates for these platforms. >> >> (2) Again, yes for the open source repo, but again builds from the open >> source repo are not what's in use by a majority of Android users. >> >> (3) I've contributed code to "closed source" products before after the >> source code was made available to me under an NDA. I did not work for the >> company at the time and I did not get paid for the contribution, so I'm >> not >> sure it's a metric of an open source project. I've also had contributions >> to >> projects considered as open source sit in a review tree for 6 months and >> then one another developer submit the same code and it gets integrated >> (this >> was a 1 line fix, and so the fix was *exactly* the same). Therefore I'd >> say >> this metric possibly isn't a charactistic that identifies an open source >> product >> >> (4) I would again disagree that bugs are ignored, as I stated in my >> original >> email there are bugs that are still marked as new after five and a half >> months. This means they haven't even reached the "reviewed" stage even >> though many later bugs have. I would also disagree it's a metric of an >> open >> source product as there are numerous public criticisms of Windows, and the >> developers complaining over problems submitting iPhone apps are well >> publicised, and both of these are closed source projects. >> >> I think the main point of our differences is that you see Android as one >> thing, whereas I see Android as the basis for many things which are >> trading >> off a brand, and to me that's like saying IBMs HTTPD is open source >> because >> it has a codebase built on Apache (Thanks to Disconnect in >> http://andblogs.net/2009/04/android-and-open-source/ for bringing the >> IBM/Apache link up). >> >> Al. >> --- >> >> * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * >> >> ====== >> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the >> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, >> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >> >> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not >> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's >> subsidiaries. >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Gibara >> Sent: 11 April 2009 12:09 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [android-developers] Re: SDKs & comparison with the iPhone >> >> >> Hi Al, >> >> >> I think my response might best have been posted to android-discuss, but >> I'll >> reply here anyway. >> >> Pre-empting a debate about whether Android is open source with the >> argument >> "...let's be honest..." isn't adequate. I don't know whether there are >> established metrics for measuring a degree to which a project rates as >> being >> "open source", but here are some of mine: >> >> (1) Can I make use of the code and do so freely? >> (2) Can I distribute the code free of onerous conditions? >> (3) Can I contribute? >> (4) Can I be openly critical? >> >> By all of these metrics I regard Android as open source. >> >> (1) I regularly access the git repository to learn how various Android >> components work. I downloaded and successfully built an SDK based on >> cupcake >> for a preview of forthcoming IMF. On a few private scratch projects, I've >> copied widget code out of the android framework and tweaked it to make my >> own UI components. I neither sought nor needed permission from Google to >> do >> any of these things because the code was licensed so as to give me these >> freedoms. >> >> (2) Since almost all of the source code is licensed under the Apache >> License >> I feel very comfortable distributing any software I derive from it since >> it's an extremely permissive and well understood license. I've seen a >> number >> of people post in this, and other groups, that the absence of some code >> from >> the repository disqualifies Android from being open source; even that the >> inability to create an installable phone image betrays a malign intent. I >> don't hold with these arguments - they would carry weight if Android was >> only operable on one model/brand of hardware but since that's demonstrably >> not the case I'm contemptuous of them. >> >> (3) I have to-date made one very modest contribution to the Android code >> base, but intend to make more when time permits. My limited experience so >> far is that the Android engineers are extremely receptive to contributions >> pitched at a technical level and supportive of anyone trying to commit >> code. >> Perhaps others have had a different experience. I do anticipate that >> programmers who think they are going to sweep in and carve out whole new >> areas of functionality inside the core frameworks will probably be >> disappointed, but due to an inadequate understanding of how large projects >> need to operate rather than by intransigent Google staff. >> >> (4) This is an important freedom that is not necessarily guaranteed by the >> preceding ones. I include a public bug reporting system as an element of >> this. Android has one and there is little evidence that Google engineers >> ignore the bugs filed there. It's clear that there is insufficient public >> visibility of the statuses of issues, but that's not the same thing. >> Reading >> the android related groups demonstrates that criticisms of Android, >> irrespective of how well founded they may be, are freely accommodated even >> though the groups are moderated by Google employees. >> >> Given the personal observations above, I find the argument that Android is >> not an open source project simply misguided. Perhaps it arises in many >> instances from a lack of experience with open-source or alternatively >> large >> scale software development. I'm not denying that there are some key >> problems, especially concerning the state of the master branch. >> Nevertheless, having closely observed the progress of the android project >> since its first public announcement I believe that things have improved >> considerably and that they will continue to improve; both the core Android >> team and the community (as with your interim builds) will have a role to >> play >> >> I'm not qualified to comment on the experience of releasing iPhone >> applications, and I'm inclined to believe what you report - that the >> experience of most iPhone developers is not as negative as many websites >> like to report. For companies and individuals who are looking to generate >> more revenue more quickly that they might with an Android application, I >> would do nothing to dissuade them from investigating other opportunities; >> the iPhone foremost. >> >> Nevertheless, I regard it as almost inevitable that those with power will >> ultimately abuse it. As a consequence I believe that Apple will ultimately >> abuse their monopoly of the App Store. In contrast, I expect the open >> source >> nature of Android to protect its community of users from egregious abuses >> that could be countenanced by present or future management of Google or >> the >> OHA. >> >> I regard the ceding of software to its related community via the process >> of >> "open sourcing" it as analogous to the establishment of a democracy which >> forces the government to be reasonable with those governed and thus >> protects >> against the worst excesses of its corruption. Companies that open source >> the >> software they produce are serving their users by protecting them against >> the >> potential actions of future management. Given the significant commitment >> that I must make to any new platform I adopt, I regard this as any >> extremely >> beneficial provision. >> >> Tom >> >> >> 2009/4/11 Al Sutton <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Now before I start on the iPhone comparison I'm going to pre-empt >> the normal >> "But Android is open source....." response by saying lets be honest >> and >> admit it as it stands Android is not an open source project because >> the >> public "open source" repository is pretty worthless in its' current >> state. >> >> The last time I tried to build the master branch it failed missing >> some >> Google internal API classes. The SDKs I've produce from the cupcake >> branch >> seem to be considered by Google employees as pretty useless with >> comments >> like "This is why we want to be clear it is "unofficial," because >> it >> is not >> actually a working SDK" being thrown around and networking in the >> emulator >> still being broken a week after users started reporting the >> showstopper >> problem (And Romain did hint that Google have a fix, I read >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/41fcefc36bd16d44 as >> "there is a version where this is fixed"). And as we all know you >> can't use >> it to build the exact versions of the open source parts of either >> of >> the two >> firmware versions that have shipped on the G1. >> >> To me it seems little more than code dump which is aimed at >> ensuring >> Google >> can keep saying "But it is open source and not just a Google >> project" >> >> Now, in the last week I had few conversations with iPhone >> developers >> so I >> could compare the Android developer experience to that of what is >> perceived >> as our nearest competitor and they are laughing at us (seriously, >> when I >> mentioned the G1 most of them responded by initially chuckling). >> The >> general >> consensus among them was; >> >> - Yes, you pay $99 for the iPhone dev kit, but you get "free" >> external >> testing (i.e. at apple) and commercial quality support with many >> queries >> being turned around in hours or a couple of days at worst. Compare >> that to >> some of the support queries on b.android.com for basic problems >> things like >> a Android failing to connect to wireless lans with hidden SSID >> (http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1041) which, >> after *five >> and a half months* is still marked as "New" and doesn't have a >> single >> response from a Google employee. >> >> - The most common cause of App Store listing rejections are things >> that >> users would complain about anyway. This includes things like >> performance >> characteristics, UI anomalies, and inconsistent behaviour. This is >> the type >> of stuff that is left for users to find out on Android and only >> comes to >> light when 1* or 2* comments are posted and even then you don't >> know >> if it's >> a one off on the users device or possibly something specific to >> their region >> (http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=2372). >> >> - The normal amount of time from submission to app store listing is >> around 7 >> days. Some apps take months to go through the approval process, but >> that is >> because of intellectual property concerns, concerns over offensive >> content, >> or is because the app has to be re-reviewed a few times to meet the >> apples >> performance and behaviour guidelines. Yes it's not as fast as >> Android, but >> you know that once it's on the market it's of a quality where >> you're >> not >> going to get bombarded with user queries about problems straight >> off. >> >> - Most of the developers actually feel valued by Apple and feel >> that >> Apple >> does what it can to make sure they get the tools they need to do >> their job >> and ensure they're apps. This has been re-enforced by allowing the >> developers to beta test the new firmware and develop against it. >> >> Personally, it's made me shell out $99 for an iPhone SDK, dust off >> my Nokia >> N81, and spend $75 on eBay on a Blackberry so I can explore the >> alternatives. >> >> Al. >> >> --- >> >> * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * >> >> ====== >> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the >> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, >> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >> >> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not >> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or >> it's >> subsidiaries. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
