according to that article nothing is open sourced. the highest is 83% so nothing is fully open sourced. So according to that article android is open, just not as open as you liked it to be.
I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.
Here are the scores that Techstalker failed to state in his comments:
Open Governance index % Based on low score= 14 (0%) and highest score =45 (100%)
Android 23%, Eclipse 84%, Linux 71%, MeeGo 61%, Mozilla 65%, Qt 58%, Symbian 58% and WebKit 68%.
Now you provide me factual data that disprove this review.
I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.
FACT: Google Android is NOT OPEN SOURCE system!
but it is its 23% open source lol. Android is open source, it happens to be more controlled open source, as that article points put there are different levels of open source and Android makes the list.
If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
You just showed your complete ignorance. Because you can flash a ROM means an OS is open source? ROFL.......ok I'm back.
Everyone who develops software knows Android is far from open. Of all the open source projects in the world Android was voted the "least open".
You can take Android source code and fully modify it to your needs if you like. This is what Amazon did and also Alibaba in China when they made Aliyun (Google claims Aliyun is an Android fork, Alibaba claims it's a Linux OS that also happens to run Android Apps). When you do this you lose access to many Google services. Funny how Google restricts access to modified versions of Android. Sounds pretty open to me.
Android OEM's who make smartphones are members of the OHA, and have strict rules to follow in terms of what they can to do Android. Ask Acer about this when they decided to make a smartphone running Aliyun. Google put the pressure on and prevented Acer from releasing a phone for a company that took Android source code and modified it (like Amazon has done). They did this literally the day before Acer was going to announce the phone. So not only does Google force you to follow their rules, they also prevent you from releasing hardware that runs another OS. Imagine if Google told Samsung they couldn't release any Windows 8 phones?
Sorry, but anyone who claims Android is Open Source is an idiot.
If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.
You just showed your complete ignorance. Because you can flash a ROM means an OS is open source? ROFL.......ok I'm back.
Everyone who develops software knows Android is far from open. Of all the open source projects in the world Android was voted the "least open".
You can take Android source code and fully modify it to your needs if you like. This is what Amazon did and also Alibaba in China when they made Aliyun (Google claims Aliyun is an Android fork, Alibaba claims it's a Linux OS that also happens to run Android Apps). When you do this you lose access to many Google services. Funny how Google restricts access to modified versions of Android. Sounds pretty open to me.
Android OEM's who make smartphones are members of the OHA, and have strict rules to follow in terms of what they can to do Android. Ask Acer about this when they decided to make a smartphone running Aliyun. Google put the pressure on and prevented Acer from releasing a phone for a company that took Android source code and modified it (like Amazon has done). They did this literally the day before Acer was going to announce the phone. So not only does Google force you to follow their rules, they also prevent you from releasing hardware that runs another OS. Imagine if Google told Samsung they couldn't release any Windows 8 phones?
Sorry, but anyone who claims Android is Open Source is an idiot.
Was open enough for amazon.
Part of being in the Open handset alliance means rules. You want use android however you please leave the alliance its simple as that. Just because android is controlled somewhat does not mean its not open.
I think this comment says it best.
"So...just how open does a platform need to be considered open? Clearly Amazon had no problem with Android's supposed 23% "openness" when it used and altered Android source code (at will and at no charge) for it's Kindle Fire. My LG Optimus V is running a free custom ROM based on modified Android code. CM7.1 that is running on my Nook Color is also just freely modified Android code.
Android is open enough to have the largest modding community on the internet of any mobile OS but closed enough to maintain control of the overall platform and make it financially viable."
I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.
Here are the scores that Techstalker failed to state in his comments:
Open Governance index % Based on low score= 14 (0%) and highest score =45 (100%)
Android 23%, Eclipse 84%, Linux 71%, MeeGo 61%, Mozilla 65%, Qt 58%, Symbian 58% and WebKit 68%.
Now you provide me factual data that disprove this review.
So whats the cutoff point to being open. 23% is enough for amazon and baido to fork android.
So whats the cutoff point?
23% is also enough for me to go and download the source code and do whatever, WHATEVER I WANT with it.
but it is its 23% open source lol. Android is open source, it happens to be more controlled open source, as that article points put there are different levels of open source and Android makes the list.
Read the report again especially page 41 and by way you shot yourself in the foot long time ago, with this comment below:
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
Thats why your viewpoints are not credible!, now you are saying there are degrees of openness, when you stated yourself it was 'FULLY OPEN'.
Back in 2011 google refused to release the source code for honeycomb, It was even confirmed by google. They said that maybe they would release it in the future once there way of doing things in it was firmly entrenched in the developer community. Those are googles words not mine. Google wants to be android known as the open os but in truth there are just as many closed parts to it as there are with other OS's. They like being known as the Open os but there not. the open source gpu states very clearly that all code will be made public not some, and if not they forfeit there license. Google can't tell everyone there os is fully open then refuse to publish the code. Its that simple and yet its what they have done.
Any developer using open source code under the gnu who contributes to googles code code for android under gnu could sue google and win. There is no second chance with gnu. One violation and your done. Its made that way on purpose. So that it remains open. Googles answer is to say its open and keep promising to release the all of the code someday. With a lot of the parts that has not happened yet like the full source for honeycomb. And by googles own admission it may never happen. The still do the same thing with the current android as well. They just need to stop telling people that all of android is open and admit that a semi walled garden is how it is. Google is the one lying not me. They are now controlling what they use from the open source community as well, which again according to the GPU license is a violation of your license and a forfeiture of your license. The rules on GPU are harsh. Again to keep open source open. Really its like one infraction and you forfeit your license.
Android isn't licenced under the GNU GPL. The modifications they made to the Linux kernel were of course released under the GPL (and eventually reincorporated into the kernel as of version 3.7), but the user space, which consists of the Dalvik VM and other Java bits, is licenced under the Apache licence, which doesn't require anyone to open source any bits if they don't want to.
One of the things I love about google, they are not afraid to fail, and the bigger they fail the more they try.
Oh for those who says google doesnt innovate, ha. The web/cloud as we know it today is built off of Google's innovations in servers and server management.
True, to some extent. But Google is one of a number of innovators in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
icould, facebook, wouldn't exist without the ground breaking work google has done on the server side.
Now that's taking it to an absurd level. Can you name the specific innovations used by Facebook and Apple that could not be replaced by something else?
But where is googles contribution to that fork ????? Chrome does not contribute, It uses khtml and apples combine fork. Hense no innovation on goggles part.
Hell google wont even give back androids full fork to the linux opensource group which is illegal according to the open source contract.
Google contributes very well to WebKit. Nothing in WebKit is KHTML/KJS. QtWebKit is a contribution from Nokia that later KDE modifies [begrudgingly] to KParts and their KHTML/KJS kludge which is now getting gutted for a straight QtWebKit. Google didn't start contributing well to WebKit until long after Safari was released.
Google splashed with their separation model that every wooed about and then Apple introduced WebKit 2 that stomps on that model and now Google Chrome is adopting a fork of it, plus custom code for their Android [parts they don't open source]. Apple gets called a non-opensource company when it's clear there is plenty of FOSS APSL code around, not to mention without CUPS funding and fully adopting to grow Linux Printing is DOA and that goes for Chrome OS.
LLVM/Clang will be the defacto standard compiler for Debian in 2 years, FreeBSD already, OS X already, Chrome OS already, SONY, IBM, Intel shortly, AMD already, Nvidia, CRAY, and much more.
The innovations in hardware alone by Apple in advanced manufacturing have completely redesigned markets 99.9999% of the globe don't have a clue about.
So whats the cut off point. answer the question. What percentage do you need to be to be considered open source?
I do not know but higher the score the more credible you would be stating, you are FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Now you provide me factual evidence that Google is FULLY OPEN SOURCE, as you stated, since reading your comments, you have tried now state there are OPEN SOURCE, which means completely different.
Seems to attack people, but I not falling for your strategy and still waiting for MORE factual evidence.
Seems to me I provided that Android is far from FULLY OPEN SOURCE!
Horse crap. Apple dumped that pile of junk and started from scratch. They brought out WebKit and KDE fanbois continue to discuss WebKit as a fork of KHTML/KJS, a real pile of junk code base.
I do not know but higher the score the more credible you would be stating, you are FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Now you provide me factual evidence that Google is FULLY OPEN SOURCE, as you stated, since reading your comments, you have tried now state there are OPEN SOURCE, which means completely different.
Seems to attack people, but I not falling for your strategy and still waiting for MORE factual evidence.
Seems to me I provided that Android is far from FULLY OPEN SOURCE!
You stated that android is not open source at all? didnt you?
Also keep in mind the V8 Javascript engine was developed by Google. No doubt one of the reasons JavaScript (and languages that compile to JS) are so popular today.
This is typical CEO speak for "We're not innovating at all but hey look neither are our competitors so Wall Street should ding our competitors and not us."
I notice a lot of people confuse the words invention and innovation. Some people on this site praise one companies innovations while ignoring another saying it is not important. It seems some people let there hatred/love for one company or another blind them to the truth open your eyes and look at the real innovation these companies are working on.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Google Search, c.1998. It's been 14 years.
Chrome and chrome os. Changed browsing forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
according to that article nothing is open sourced. the highest is 83% so nothing is fully open sourced. So according to that article android is open, just not as open as you liked it to be.
I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.
Here are the scores that Techstalker failed to state in his comments:
Open Governance index % Based on low score= 14 (0%) and highest score =45 (100%)
Android 23%, Eclipse 84%, Linux 71%, MeeGo 61%, Mozilla 65%, Qt 58%, Symbian 58% and WebKit 68%.
Now you provide me factual data that disprove this review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.
FACT: Google Android is NOT OPEN SOURCE system!
but it is its 23% open source lol. Android is open source, it happens to be more controlled open source, as that article points put there are different levels of open source and Android makes the list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
like what?
I just told you, why are you asking me again?
If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
You just showed your complete ignorance. Because you can flash a ROM means an OS is open source? ROFL.......ok I'm back.
Everyone who develops software knows Android is far from open. Of all the open source projects in the world Android was voted the "least open".
You can take Android source code and fully modify it to your needs if you like. This is what Amazon did and also Alibaba in China when they made Aliyun (Google claims Aliyun is an Android fork, Alibaba claims it's a Linux OS that also happens to run Android Apps). When you do this you lose access to many Google services. Funny how Google restricts access to modified versions of Android. Sounds pretty open to me.
Android OEM's who make smartphones are members of the OHA, and have strict rules to follow in terms of what they can to do Android. Ask Acer about this when they decided to make a smartphone running Aliyun. Google put the pressure on and prevented Acer from releasing a phone for a company that took Android source code and modified it (like Amazon has done). They did this literally the day before Acer was going to announce the phone. So not only does Google force you to follow their rules, they also prevent you from releasing hardware that runs another OS. Imagine if Google told Samsung they couldn't release any Windows 8 phones?
Sorry, but anyone who claims Android is Open Source is an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I just told you, why are you asking me again?
If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.
You just showed your complete ignorance. Because you can flash a ROM means an OS is open source? ROFL.......ok I'm back.
Everyone who develops software knows Android is far from open. Of all the open source projects in the world Android was voted the "least open".
You can take Android source code and fully modify it to your needs if you like. This is what Amazon did and also Alibaba in China when they made Aliyun (Google claims Aliyun is an Android fork, Alibaba claims it's a Linux OS that also happens to run Android Apps). When you do this you lose access to many Google services. Funny how Google restricts access to modified versions of Android. Sounds pretty open to me.
Android OEM's who make smartphones are members of the OHA, and have strict rules to follow in terms of what they can to do Android. Ask Acer about this when they decided to make a smartphone running Aliyun. Google put the pressure on and prevented Acer from releasing a phone for a company that took Android source code and modified it (like Amazon has done). They did this literally the day before Acer was going to announce the phone. So not only does Google force you to follow their rules, they also prevent you from releasing hardware that runs another OS. Imagine if Google told Samsung they couldn't release any Windows 8 phones?
Sorry, but anyone who claims Android is Open Source is an idiot.
Was open enough for amazon.
Part of being in the Open handset alliance means rules. You want use android however you please leave the alliance its simple as that. Just because android is controlled somewhat does not mean its not open.
I think this comment says it best.
"So...just how open does a platform need to be considered open? Clearly Amazon had no problem with Android's supposed 23% "openness" when it used and altered Android source code (at will and at no charge) for it's Kindle Fire. My LG Optimus V is running a free custom ROM based on modified Android code. CM7.1 that is running on my Nook Color is also just freely modified Android code.
Android is open enough to have the largest modding community on the internet of any mobile OS but closed enough to maintain control of the overall platform and make it financially viable."
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.
Here are the scores that Techstalker failed to state in his comments:
Open Governance index % Based on low score= 14 (0%) and highest score =45 (100%)
Android 23%, Eclipse 84%, Linux 71%, MeeGo 61%, Mozilla 65%, Qt 58%, Symbian 58% and WebKit 68%.
Now you provide me factual data that disprove this review.
So whats the cutoff point to being open. 23% is enough for amazon and baido to fork android.
So whats the cutoff point?
23% is also enough for me to go and download the source code and do whatever, WHATEVER I WANT with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
but it is its 23% open source lol. Android is open source, it happens to be more controlled open source, as that article points put there are different levels of open source and Android makes the list.
Read the report again especially page 41 and by way you shot yourself in the foot long time ago, with this comment below:
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
Thats why your viewpoints are not credible!, now you are saying there are degrees of openness, when you stated yourself it was 'FULLY OPEN'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
So whats the cutoff point to being open. 23% is enough for amazon and baido to fork android.
So whats the cutoff point?
23% is also enough for me to go and download the source code and do whatever, WHATEVER I WANT with it.
factual evidence please, not your twisted mind thoughts!
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
factual evidence please, not your twisted mind thoughts!
So whats the cut off point. answer the question. What percentage do you need to be to be considered open source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
Back in 2011 google refused to release the source code for honeycomb, It was even confirmed by google. They said that maybe they would release it in the future once there way of doing things in it was firmly entrenched in the developer community. Those are googles words not mine. Google wants to be android known as the open os but in truth there are just as many closed parts to it as there are with other OS's. They like being known as the Open os but there not. the open source gpu states very clearly that all code will be made public not some, and if not they forfeit there license. Google can't tell everyone there os is fully open then refuse to publish the code. Its that simple and yet its what they have done.
Any developer using open source code under the gnu who contributes to googles code code for android under gnu could sue google and win. There is no second chance with gnu. One violation and your done. Its made that way on purpose. So that it remains open. Googles answer is to say its open and keep promising to release the all of the code someday. With a lot of the parts that has not happened yet like the full source for honeycomb. And by googles own admission it may never happen. The still do the same thing with the current android as well. They just need to stop telling people that all of android is open and admit that a semi walled garden is how it is. Google is the one lying not me. They are now controlling what they use from the open source community as well, which again according to the GPU license is a violation of your license and a forfeiture of your license. The rules on GPU are harsh. Again to keep open source open. Really its like one infraction and you forfeit your license.
Android isn't licenced under the GNU GPL. The modifications they made to the Linux kernel were of course released under the GPL (and eventually reincorporated into the kernel as of version 3.7), but the user space, which consists of the Dalvik VM and other Java bits, is licenced under the Apache licence, which doesn't require anyone to open source any bits if they don't want to.
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
Google has abided by all the licencing terms it's legally bound to. Maybe do some research before spreading FUD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
One of the things I love about google, they are not afraid to fail, and the bigger they fail the more they try.
Oh for those who says google doesnt innovate, ha. The web/cloud as we know it today is built off of Google's innovations in servers and server management.
True, to some extent. But Google is one of a number of innovators in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
icould, facebook, wouldn't exist without the ground breaking work google has done on the server side.
Now that's taking it to an absurd level. Can you name the specific innovations used by Facebook and Apple that could not be replaced by something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Chrome and chrome os. Changed browsing forever.
Chrome is a broken pile of crap. It's right up there with Firefox. Both are resource hogs that can't scale for squat.
Without WebKit and LLVM/Clang Chrome nor Chrome OS exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Chrome is a broken pile of crap. It's right up there with Firefox. Both are resource hogs that can't scale for squat.
Without WebKit and LLVM/Clang Chrome nor Chrome OS exists.
Without KDE's KHTML Webkit wouldn't exist...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
But where is googles contribution to that fork ????? Chrome does not contribute, It uses khtml and apples combine fork. Hense no innovation on goggles part.
Hell google wont even give back androids full fork to the linux opensource group which is illegal according to the open source contract.
Google contributes very well to WebKit. Nothing in WebKit is KHTML/KJS. QtWebKit is a contribution from Nokia that later KDE modifies [begrudgingly] to KParts and their KHTML/KJS kludge which is now getting gutted for a straight QtWebKit. Google didn't start contributing well to WebKit until long after Safari was released.
Google splashed with their separation model that every wooed about and then Apple introduced WebKit 2 that stomps on that model and now Google Chrome is adopting a fork of it, plus custom code for their Android [parts they don't open source]. Apple gets called a non-opensource company when it's clear there is plenty of FOSS APSL code around, not to mention without CUPS funding and fully adopting to grow Linux Printing is DOA and that goes for Chrome OS.
LLVM/Clang will be the defacto standard compiler for Debian in 2 years, FreeBSD already, OS X already, Chrome OS already, SONY, IBM, Intel shortly, AMD already, Nvidia, CRAY, and much more.
The innovations in hardware alone by Apple in advanced manufacturing have completely redesigned markets 99.9999% of the globe don't have a clue about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
So whats the cut off point. answer the question. What percentage do you need to be to be considered open source?
I do not know but higher the score the more credible you would be stating, you are FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Now you provide me factual evidence that Google is FULLY OPEN SOURCE, as you stated, since reading your comments, you have tried now state there are OPEN SOURCE, which means completely different.
Seems to attack people, but I not falling for your strategy and still waiting for MORE factual evidence.
Seems to me I provided that Android is far from FULLY OPEN SOURCE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
Without KDE's KHTML Webkit wouldn't exist...
Horse crap. Apple dumped that pile of junk and started from scratch. They brought out WebKit and KDE fanbois continue to discuss WebKit as a fork of KHTML/KJS, a real pile of junk code base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
I do not know but higher the score the more credible you would be stating, you are FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Now you provide me factual evidence that Google is FULLY OPEN SOURCE, as you stated, since reading your comments, you have tried now state there are OPEN SOURCE, which means completely different.
Seems to attack people, but I not falling for your strategy and still waiting for MORE factual evidence.
Seems to me I provided that Android is far from FULLY OPEN SOURCE!
You stated that android is not open source at all? didnt you?
Also keep in mind the V8 Javascript engine was developed by Google. No doubt one of the reasons JavaScript (and languages that compile to JS) are so popular today.
This is typical CEO speak for "We're not innovating at all but hey look neither are our competitors so Wall Street should ding our competitors and not us."
I notice a lot of people confuse the words invention and innovation. Some people on this site praise one companies innovations while ignoring another saying it is not important. It seems some people let there hatred/love for one company or another blind them to the truth open your eyes and look at the real innovation these companies are working on.
Besides RIM is the only ones innovating