There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of them depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it quite interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms that I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's apparent dismay.)
We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and collaborative effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers and, at the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how we were playing now. The rules are changed.'
LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness.
Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the dotted line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up being collegial. But it need not be."
Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems like I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me on this, Dan?
You have been very silent for quite a while, you seem to be only interested in the negative press releases. While I think we don't mind a bit of negative press, it's the only thing I ever see you talk about here.
It rises the question once more, who the hell are you? From what I can tell, you seem to have no real interest in Android, thus I do not see why you need information regarding things like this. Why do you love to spread propaganda on here is one question that need answering!!!!!!!!!!!
> There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding > Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of them > depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it quite > interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms that > I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's > apparent dismay.)
> We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one > company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and collaborative > effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers and, at > the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how we > were playing now. The rules are changed.'
> LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness.
> Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the dotted > line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up being > collegial. But it need not be."
> Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems like > I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me on this, > Dan?
> -- > 鏡石
-- The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
Disclaimer: I don't work for OHA, the LiMo Foundation, any of their members, or any wireless carrier or handset manufacturer.
Stone Mirror wrote: > Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all.
Sure it is.
There is no one-size-fits-all development model for open source, and not all projects use the same development model for their lifetimes.
Having a "big bang" public open source release, with development up until then being private, is nothing new. OpenOffice.org and RealNetworks' Helix are two I have personal experience with, back when I was a consultant with CollabNet. Even Mozilla started that way, with the old Netscape Communicator code. Now, in all three cases, the big-drop-then-public approach caused problems (Oo.org is difficult to work with internally, Helix is still somewhat of an afterthought, and Mozilla had to pretty much rebuild from scratch). But, it's not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination.
Another example, perhaps more similar to the Android situation, is Eclipse. Eclipse started with a big drop of code from IBM, extracted from WebSphere, then released as open source and moved to public collaborative development. To quote from the Eclipse Web site (http://www.eclipse.org/org/):
"The Eclipse Project was originally created by IBM in November 2001 and supported by a consortium of software vendors. The Eclipse Foundation was created in January 2004 as an independent not-for-profit corporation to act as the steward of the Eclipse community."
Eclipse wasn't built from the ground up in the public eye; once the initial drop was made, ongoing development then was done publicly. And, despite the fact that there were other open source IDEs around (e.g., NetBeans), Eclipse still grew and thrived. Also, note the gap in time between the initial release (November 2001) and the creation of the Foundation (January 2004) -- per one of your points in an earlier thread, the mere fact that OHA is not a foundation today is also not unheard of.
Hence, the mere fact that Android is not open source today, and OHA is not presently an independent entity, does not mean that Google is evil, or the sun won't rise tomorrow, or anything of the sort. It just means they're doing things differently than LiMo is.
Now, could a big-drop-then-public approach cause problems for Android? Possibly. That model certainly has a track record filled with potholes. However, only time will tell, history will be the judge, and probably several other cliches I'm not thinking of right now...
-- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development -- coming in June 2008!
> You have been very silent for quite a while, you seem to be only interested > in the negative press releases. While I think we don't mind a bit of > negative press, it's the only thing I ever see you talk about here.
Is that the royal "we"...?
I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of getting open source code onto mobile devices. There's plenty of mobile work (apparently not, for whatever reasons, good enough for Google) going on out in the mainstream open source community, e.g. GNOME Mobile, Ubuntu Mobile, Moblin, etc. I'm still unclear why Google has completely ignored that work in favor of a completely idiosyncratic approach. The work in the open source community _is_, as Verizon says, "collaborative and collegial". Android, unfortunately, is not.
Google has made some peculiar claims as to the reasons for these decisions. One is that existing technologies are "too desktop oriented", which shows serious confusion about the technologies involved. They've also claimed that "open source projects don't release in a predictable way", in spite of the fact that both GNOME and Ubuntu, just to cite two examples, release every six months like clockwork.
Google has already said that they don't really expect the existing open source platform community to support the Android platform, they plan to do it themselves. With these kinds of directions, and with the kinds of statements cited above, Google's effectively set themselves up in opposition to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I don't see that as being either helpful or reasonable.
(To the best of my knowledge, Google never participated, even a single time, in, for example, any GNOME Mobile activities, either before or after Android. It's not that they couldn't--they certainly had representatives at the appropriate conferences. They chose not to.)
It rises the question once more, who the hell are you? From what I can tell,
> you seem to have no real interest in Android, thus I do not see why you need > information regarding things like this. Why do you love to spread propaganda > on here is one question that need answering!!!!!!!!!!!
Use fewer exclamation points, that's my advice.
This is a _discussion_ group, says so right in the name. You have a difficulty with people raising issues for discussion...? I For what it's worth, I'm an active member of the open source community, and have been for several years, working closely with the GNOME Mobile Initiative. I don't see what bearing that has, however.
And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working with the SDK since its initial release, on and off. (And mc5 seems even buggier than mc3, not a good sign.)
Compared to mainstream open source--which offers support for not only Java (_community_ Java, not some mutant semi-proprietary version), but also C, C++, Python, Perl, PHP, you name it--Android has significant limitations. Android offers no avenue at all for adapting existing code, just for starts. Android requires learning a completely new method of development, with a high learning curve (as illustrated by the contrast between the 750,000 downloads of the SDK which Google cited, and the fewer than 1,800 applications ultimately produced, a ratio of 0.2%, i.e. two applications ultimately produced per 1000 downloads...)
Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story constitutes "propaganda". It may not coincide with your specific prejudices, but it seems perfectly fit material for _discussion_. Maybe we're only allowed to be uncritical about Android here. That'd seem more like "propaganda" to me, frankly...
If you don't like what I write, feel entirely free not to read it.
> There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding >> Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of them >> depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it quite >> interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms that >> I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's >> apparent dismay.)
>> We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one >> company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and collaborative >> effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers and, at >> the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how we >> were playing now. The rules are changed.'
>> LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness.
>> Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the dotted >> line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up being >> collegial. But it need not be."
>> Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems like >> I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me on this, >> Dan?
>> -- >> 鏡石
> -- > The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably > crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of > getting open source code onto mobile devices.
And then
> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working > with the SDK since its initial release, on and off.
It's unnecessary yet you claim to have a significant interest, wha?? I don't get it. Make your mind up before you explode. Man there is definitely something wrong with you, fix it
>> You have been very silent for quite a while, you seem to be only >> interested in the negative press releases. While I think we don't mind a bit >> of negative press, it's the only thing I ever see you talk about here.
> Is that the royal "we"...?
> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of > getting open source code onto mobile devices. There's plenty of mobile work > (apparently not, for whatever reasons, good enough for Google) going on out > in the mainstream open source community, e.g. GNOME Mobile, Ubuntu Mobile, > Moblin, etc. I'm still unclear why Google has completely ignored that work > in favor of a completely idiosyncratic approach. The work in the open source > community _is_, as Verizon says, "collaborative and collegial". Android, > unfortunately, is not.
> Google has made some peculiar claims as to the reasons for these decisions. > One is that existing technologies are "too desktop oriented", which shows > serious confusion about the technologies involved. They've also claimed that > "open source projects don't release in a predictable way", in spite of the > fact that both GNOME and Ubuntu, just to cite two examples, release every > six months like clockwork.
> Google has already said that they don't really expect the existing open > source platform community to support the Android platform, they plan to do > it themselves. With these kinds of directions, and with the kinds of > statements cited above, Google's effectively set themselves up in opposition > to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I don't see that > as being either helpful or reasonable.
> (To the best of my knowledge, Google never participated, even a single > time, in, for example, any GNOME Mobile activities, either before or after > Android. It's not that they couldn't--they certainly had representatives at > the appropriate conferences. They chose not to.)
> It rises the question once more, who the hell are you? From what I can >> tell, you seem to have no real interest in Android, thus I do not see why >> you need information regarding things like this. Why do you love to spread >> propaganda on here is one question that need answering!!!!!!!!!!!
> Use fewer exclamation points, that's my advice.
> This is a _discussion_ group, says so right in the name. You have a > difficulty with people raising issues for discussion...? I For what it's > worth, I'm an active member of the open source community, and have been for > several years, working closely with the GNOME Mobile Initiative. I don't see > what bearing that has, however.
> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working > with the SDK since its initial release, on and off. (And mc5 seems even > buggier than mc3, not a good sign.)
> Compared to mainstream open source--which offers support for not only Java > (_community_ Java, not some mutant semi-proprietary version), but also C, > C++, Python, Perl, PHP, you name it--Android has significant limitations. > Android offers no avenue at all for adapting existing code, just for starts. > Android requires learning a completely new method of development, with a > high learning curve (as illustrated by the contrast between the 750,000 > downloads of the SDK which Google cited, and the fewer than 1,800 > applications ultimately produced, a ratio of 0.2%, i.e. two applications > ultimately produced per 1000 downloads...)
> Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story constitutes > "propaganda". It may not coincide with your specific prejudices, but it > seems perfectly fit material for _discussion_. Maybe we're only allowed to > be uncritical about Android here. That'd seem more like "propaganda" to me, > frankly...
> If you don't like what I write, feel entirely free not to read it.
>> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com>:
>> There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding >>> Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of them >>> depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it quite >>> interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms that >>> I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's >>> apparent dismay.)
>>> We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one >>> company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and collaborative >>> effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers and, at >>> the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how we >>> were playing now. The rules are changed.'
>>> LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness.
>>> Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the dotted >>> line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up being >>> collegial. But it need not be."
>>> Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems >>> like I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me on >>> this, Dan?
>>> -- >>> 鏡石
>> -- >> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably >> crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
> -- > 鏡石
-- The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
Stone Mirror wrote: > Google has already said that they don't really expect the existing open > source platform community to support the Android platform, they plan to > do it themselves.
I interpreted Mr. Morril's statements to mean that Google does not expect other existing open source projects, such as GNOME Mobile, to drop what they're doing and switch to Android en masse. Android, once released as open source, may well develop its own community of interested folk, just like any other open source project of significance. GNOME itself, for example, probably didn't expect the KDE folk to abandon their efforts and run to GNOME, yet GNOME has done quite well for itself.
> Google's effectively set themselves up in
> opposition to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I > don't see that as being either helpful or reasonable.
New initiatives in existing markets are par for the course in open source. For example, in your two messages on this thread, you have cited several open source mobile projects and didn't even get them all (e.g., Maemo). By your argument, most of those shouldn't exist, since they're duplicating efforts of other such projects.
Similarly, new open source programming languages should not exist because they are "in opposition to the existing, mainstream (language) open source community", which might irritate the Groovy and Scala folk, to name two.
Heck, on the front page of Sourceforge.net right now, three of the top six "most active" projects are ERP implementations, presumably with some amount of overlap.
Some newcomers to a space succeed nicely (e.g., GNOME busting into KDE's space). Some newcomers to a space don't fare quite so well (e.g., Helix busting into mplayer's space). But it does happen, and with some frequency. Android, in all likelihood, won't be the last entrant into the mobile open source space; they're just the next.
> Android offers no avenue at all for adapting existing code, > just for starts.
That depends on the code. Utility JARs (e.g., JavaMail) that use Android's subset of Java SE work just fine.
Existing Swing or SWT code will not. But, by the same token, when SWT was released, existing Swing code wouldn't work on it, and when JavaME code was released, existing Swing code wouldn't work on it, and when ZK was released, existing Swing code wouldn't work on it, and so on. Life, amazingly enough, went on, and those technologies each received some measure of adoption (though, in some cases, not as much as they might have liked).
> Android requires learning a completely new method of > development, with a high learning curve (as illustrated by the contrast > between the 750,000 downloads of the SDK which Google cited, and the > fewer than 1,800 applications ultimately produced, a ratio of 0.2%, i.e. > two applications ultimately produced per 1000 downloads...)
First, "fewer than 1,800 applications" apparently only counts ADC entries. Not all applications built for Android were submitted to the ADC. In fact, for a platform with zero devices in the wild, ~1,800 applications is pretty damn impressive. AT&T would have sacrificed many a goat to have had ~1,800 HDML-capable Web sites when their first mobile Web phones came out in the mid-1990's.
Second, you assume that the reason the number of SDK downloads dwarfs the number of applications submitted to the ADC is because of the learning curve. There are undoubtedly many other contributors to that disparity, including:
-- The fact that there are no devices and therefore no market (commercial or open source) for applications at this time
-- People deciding that Android isn't their cup of tea for reasons other than learning curve (e.g., didn't realize it was just Java, don't like the toolset)
-- People downloading the SDK just because it's from Google, before realizing they really didn't have anything much they wanted to do with it, anyway
There is a learning curve to Android, to be certain, but it's not significantly worse than many other Java frameworks I've dealt with.
> Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story > constitutes "propaganda".
Well, you *did* choose to link to El Reg, which isn't exactly a bastion of unbiased reporting... ;-)
-- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development -- coming in June 2008!
> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of >> getting open source code onto mobile devices.
> And then
>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working >> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off.
> It's unnecessary yet you claim to have a significant interest, wha?? I > don't get it. Make your mind up before you explode. Man there is definitely > something wrong with you, fix it
I didn't say it was a *positive *interest.
If you can't conduct a civil conversation, maybe you shouldn't bother responding at all.
>>> You have been very silent for quite a while, you seem to be only >>> interested in the negative press releases. While I think we don't mind a bit >>> of negative press, it's the only thing I ever see you talk about here.
>> Is that the royal "we"...?
>> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of >> getting open source code onto mobile devices. There's plenty of mobile work >> (apparently not, for whatever reasons, good enough for Google) going on out >> in the mainstream open source community, e.g. GNOME Mobile, Ubuntu Mobile, >> Moblin, etc. I'm still unclear why Google has completely ignored that work >> in favor of a completely idiosyncratic approach. The work in the open source >> community _is_, as Verizon says, "collaborative and collegial". Android, >> unfortunately, is not.
>> Google has made some peculiar claims as to the reasons for these >> decisions. One is that existing technologies are "too desktop oriented", >> which shows serious confusion about the technologies involved. They've also >> claimed that "open source projects don't release in a predictable way", in >> spite of the fact that both GNOME and Ubuntu, just to cite two examples, >> release every six months like clockwork.
>> Google has already said that they don't really expect the existing open >> source platform community to support the Android platform, they plan to do >> it themselves. With these kinds of directions, and with the kinds of >> statements cited above, Google's effectively set themselves up in opposition >> to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I don't see that >> as being either helpful or reasonable.
>> (To the best of my knowledge, Google never participated, even a single >> time, in, for example, any GNOME Mobile activities, either before or after >> Android. It's not that they couldn't--they certainly had representatives at >> the appropriate conferences. They chose not to.)
>> It rises the question once more, who the hell are you? From what I can >>> tell, you seem to have no real interest in Android, thus I do not see why >>> you need information regarding things like this. Why do you love to spread >>> propaganda on here is one question that need answering!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Use fewer exclamation points, that's my advice.
>> This is a _discussion_ group, says so right in the name. You have a >> difficulty with people raising issues for discussion...? I For what it's >> worth, I'm an active member of the open source community, and have been for >> several years, working closely with the GNOME Mobile Initiative. I don't see >> what bearing that has, however.
>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working >> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off. (And mc5 seems even >> buggier than mc3, not a good sign.)
>> Compared to mainstream open source--which offers support for not only Java >> (_community_ Java, not some mutant semi-proprietary version), but also C, >> C++, Python, Perl, PHP, you name it--Android has significant limitations. >> Android offers no avenue at all for adapting existing code, just for starts. >> Android requires learning a completely new method of development, with a >> high learning curve (as illustrated by the contrast between the 750,000 >> downloads of the SDK which Google cited, and the fewer than 1,800 >> applications ultimately produced, a ratio of 0.2%, i.e. two applications >> ultimately produced per 1000 downloads...)
>> Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story constitutes >> "propaganda". It may not coincide with your specific prejudices, but it >> seems perfectly fit material for _discussion_. Maybe we're only allowed to >> be uncritical about Android here. That'd seem more like "propaganda" to me, >> frankly...
>> If you don't like what I write, feel entirely free not to read it.
>>> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com>:
>>> There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding >>>> Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of them >>>> depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it quite >>>> interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms that >>>> I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's >>>> apparent dismay.)
>>>> We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one >>>> company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and collaborative >>>> effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers and, at >>>> the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how we >>>> were playing now. The rules are changed.'
>>>> LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness.
>>>> Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the dotted >>>> line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up being >>>> collegial. But it need not be."
>>>> Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems >>>> like I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me on >>>> this, Dan?
>>>> -- >>>> 鏡石
>>> -- >>> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably >>> crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
>> -- >> 鏡石
> -- > The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably > crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> wrote:
> GNOME itself, for example, probably didn't expect the KDE > folk to abandon their efforts and run to GNOME, yet GNOME has done quite > well for itself.
That's not a valid comparison: GNOME was an effort driven out of an open community, from its start.
> > Google's effectively set themselves up in > > opposition to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I > > don't see that as being either helpful or reasonable.
> New initiatives in existing markets are par for the course in open > source. For example, in your two messages on this thread, you have cited > several open source mobile projects and didn't even get them all (e.g., > Maemo). By your argument, most of those shouldn't exist, since they're > duplicating efforts of other such projects.
First, I wasn't attempting to provide an exhaustive list. Second, these are, again, community projects. Maemo's a bit of an exception, indeed, and they've taken some significant lumps and criticism from the larger community for that (as well as for their unfortunate habit of providing massive code dumps, although those were nothing in comparison with the code dump that Android represents....)
I don't object quite so much to Android's simple existence, as to the spurious reasons that Google, so far, has provided for it (which have amounted to unfounded slams against existing work, i.e. "too desktop-oriented", etc.)
> Similarly, new open source programming languages should not exist > because they are "in opposition to the existing, mainstream (language) > open source community", which might irritate the Groovy and Scala folk, > to name two.
No, that's a silly comparison, a language, which you can take or leave as you like, isn't the same thing as an entire platform. (On the other hand, given that there's an actual Java Community Process, coming out with a Java that's entirely outside of, and divorced from, that process is a lot more questionable.)
> > Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story > > constitutes "propaganda".
> Well, you *did* choose to link to El Reg, which isn't exactly a bastion > of unbiased reporting... ;-)
I pointed to an article which contained direct quotes from a Verizon spokesperson. Are you saying that the Register's *quotations *are somehow biased...? How's that work? Are you saying they made up those quotes, or that the substance of them is somehow invalidated by their being reported there...? I can point you at plenty of other sources which contain exactly the same quotes, if you prefer...
Stone Mirror wrote: > GNOME itself, for example, probably didn't expect the KDE > folk to abandon their efforts and run to GNOME, yet GNOME has done quite > well for itself.
> That's not a valid comparison: GNOME was an effort driven out of an open > community, from its start.
I fail to see how that invalidates it as a point of comparison of one open source project entering another open source project's market, which so happens to be the point of comparison I was drawing.
But, hey, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm merely providing evidence and arguments for the folk who read this thread later. They can weigh your arguments and my responses and come to their own conclusions over the merits of your position.
> No, that's a silly comparison, a language, which you can take or leave > as you like, isn't the same thing as an entire platform.
My point is that open source projects enter into existing markets, even markets with existing open source projects, all the time. You're trying to draw the distinction between "platforms" and "every other market with multiple open source options", and that just makes your argument weak.
After all, if it weren't for open source competition, we'd all be stuck writing in vi.
> (On the other
> hand, given that there's an actual Java Community Process, coming out > with a Java that's entirely outside of, and divorced from, that process > is a lot more questionable.)
Clearly, those Beanshell guys (www.beanshell.org) should be drawn and quartered. As should the SuperWaba (www.superwaba.com.br) fiends. And, y'know, that Groovy syntax looks Java-ish enough that they too should be subject to your wrath. And while the Apache Harmony team is trying to follow JDK-official procedures, I'm sure that's just a front for their Java-ish language unsavory behavior, so you better go after them too. And there are probably other projects that reimplemented the Java language that I'm forgetting off the top of my head, but you better go bust some of their heads, too.
Let me know how all that goes.
> I pointed to an article which contained direct quotes from a Verizon > spokesperson. Are you saying that the Register's /quotations /are > somehow biased...? How's that work?
By making up the quotes, for one.
I've had words attributed to me in print that I know damn well I didn't say, but they were something the article's author wanted to attribute to me. From others I've talked to, this stuff is pretty commonplace -- "editorial privilege" extends to quotes, nowadays, apparently.
> Are you saying they made up those
> quotes
Possibly. I wasn't at the event in order to have conclusive evidence one way or another. The quotes sound credible, in that I can imagine Verizon Wireless saying them. And, frankly, with Android still in the run-up to a full open source release, and given the traditional "IP" legal crap involved with not-yet-open-source projects, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if VZW did say them and really meant it. Heck, if it weren't for the last paragraph of your original message in this thread, I wouldn't have even responded.
But, more to my point, had you picked just about *any* other source for the quote, I wouldn't have quibbled. The Register, for me, is a source of entertainment and rumor; I need verification from another independent reputable source before believing much of what they say.
> I can point you at plenty of other sources > which contain exactly the same quotes, if you prefer...
Feel free.
Again, my comment wasn't so much aimed at the quote, but the place where you chose to grab the quote from. The only spot I've seen the quote is in El Reg or places that link back to El Reg, though, to be honest, I haven't spent significant time trying to find other sources of the quote.
-- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development -- coming in June 2008!
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> wrote:
> Clearly, those Beanshell guys (www.beanshell.org) should be drawn and > quartered. As should the SuperWaba (www.superwaba.com.br) fiends. And, > y'know, that Groovy syntax looks Java-ish enough that they too should be > subject to your wrath. And while the Apache Harmony team is trying to > follow JDK-official procedures, I'm sure that's just a front for their > Java-ish language unsavory behavior, so you better go after them too. > And there are probably other projects that reimplemented the Java > language that I'm forgetting off the top of my head, but you better go > bust some of their heads, too.
> Let me know how all that goes.
You're lapsing into extreme silliness. I haven't suggested, anywhere, or to any degree, that anyone's "head needs to be busted". Maybe you're mistaking me for Vamien, there.
> > I pointed to an article which contained direct quotes from a Verizon > > spokesperson. Are you saying that the Register's /quotations /are > > somehow biased...? How's that work?
> By making up the quotes, for one.
Sigh. The quote's been repeated in Information Week, on AndroidGuys and elsewhere. A trip to Google (remember them?) might assist you... In any case, it's pretty easy to discover Jeffrey Nelson's email address from the Verizon web site; feel free to write him and ask.
But in comments e-mailed to this reporter from Verizon spokeswomen Carolyn Schamberger, the carrier said it is joining the open-source group because "of LiMo's approach to providing *a truly open Operating System that isn't simply an extension of a for-profit company's business model."* (Generally, open-source software is freely distributed and can be adapted by anyone who wants to use it.)
Seems right in line with the other quote. Maybe this one's made up, too.
Let me note, that as someone with (apparently) a book on Android coming out, you've got a clear bias in favor of discounting any criticism of the platform. I didn't think that was especially germane to the discussion, but if you insist on dealing with it like that, fine, have it your way.
Stone Mirror wrote: > You're lapsing into extreme silliness. I haven't suggested, anywhere, or > to any degree, that anyone's "head needs to be busted".
You kvetch about Android developing their own implementation of the Java language, when many others have gone that route before. If you're going to smack Android for doing it, the least you can do is be equal opportunity about it, or not mention it at all.
But, you are right, my tone was nastier than it needed to be in that paragraph, and for that I apologize.
> Sigh. The quote's been repeated in Information Week, on AndroidGuys and > elsewhere. A trip to Google (remember them?) might assist you...
You were the one who offered links, as I recall.
> Seems right in line with the other quote. Maybe this one's made up, too.
Probably not, but The Register is not trustworthy, that's all. Had you used the InformationWeek source originally, I wouldn't have commented in the first place. My recommendation is, when given a choice of sources to cite, choose the most authoritative and least controversial one.
> Let me note, that as someone with (apparently) a book on Android coming > out, you've got a clear bias in favor of discounting any criticism of > the platform.
I'm not discounting all your criticism of the platform. On the contrary, the quote you cited is definitely an area of concern, and some of your past posts have had valuable elements in them. I never once complained about the quote itself, other than the specific place you cited it from in the post.
In fact, as I've mentioned already, my only criticism of your original post on this thread that I had planned on addressing was where you said:
"Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all."
And I pointed out that there are many styles of open source project, and the style that Android appears to be pursuing is not unique or necessarily bad, though it certainly has its issues.
I would've been content to debate that point, but your rhetoric meandered into other tangential areas.
You want to keep things "germane to the discussion"? Then stick to the counter-argument I raised: "have other projects done a big-code-drop-then-public development model and succeeded? Yes!" Don't wander off into other Android complaints (e.g., reimplementing Java). Don't complain about biases when you have your fair share of them (GNOME Mobile membership, LiMo Foundation meetings, ACCESS events, to name three). This discussion will be as narrowly-focused or as wide-ranging as you make it; I'm just responding to your points, to put forth counter-arguments for the record.
I'm wrapping up a book on Android instead of LiMo in large part because Android has an public SDK available, and LiMo doesn't, as far as I can tell, so there's nothing I could write about at this point, anyway. Once LiMo ships something I can work with and has signs of having hardware soonish, if I think a book on it would be useful, I'll write one. If I'm mistaken, and LiMo has already released something a semi-random schmuck like me can get their hands on, I apologize, and please post a link.
-- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development -- coming in June 2008!
Man just shut up. Something you claim to be unnecessary should in no way garner your interest so much that you are "on and off" the thing according to your words. Now, i could careless what you want to say about me but the fact is, your brain is on pause or you're just always stoned when you come here (hence your name) thats why you cannot find nothing positive about Android to say. For your sake i really hope you're getting paid for all this hard work, seriously.
On 5/18/08, Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of >>> getting open source code onto mobile devices.
>> And then
>>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working >>> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off.
>> It's unnecessary yet you claim to have a significant interest, wha?? I >> don't get it. Make your mind up before you explode. Man there is >> definitely >> something wrong with you, fix it
> I didn't say it was a *positive *interest.
> If you can't conduct a civil conversation, maybe you shouldn't bother > responding at all.
>> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com>:
>>>> You have been very silent for quite a while, you seem to be only >>>> interested in the negative press releases. While I think we don't mind a >>>> bit >>>> of negative press, it's the only thing I ever see you talk about here.
>>> Is that the royal "we"...?
>>> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work >>> of >>> getting open source code onto mobile devices. There's plenty of mobile >>> work >>> (apparently not, for whatever reasons, good enough for Google) going on >>> out >>> in the mainstream open source community, e.g. GNOME Mobile, Ubuntu >>> Mobile, >>> Moblin, etc. I'm still unclear why Google has completely ignored that >>> work >>> in favor of a completely idiosyncratic approach. The work in the open >>> source >>> community _is_, as Verizon says, "collaborative and collegial". Android, >>> unfortunately, is not.
>>> Google has made some peculiar claims as to the reasons for these >>> decisions. One is that existing technologies are "too desktop oriented", >>> which shows serious confusion about the technologies involved. They've >>> also >>> claimed that "open source projects don't release in a predictable way", >>> in >>> spite of the fact that both GNOME and Ubuntu, just to cite two examples, >>> release every six months like clockwork.
>>> Google has already said that they don't really expect the existing open >>> source platform community to support the Android platform, they plan to >>> do >>> it themselves. With these kinds of directions, and with the kinds of >>> statements cited above, Google's effectively set themselves up in >>> opposition >>> to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I don't see >>> that >>> as being either helpful or reasonable.
>>> (To the best of my knowledge, Google never participated, even a single >>> time, in, for example, any GNOME Mobile activities, either before or >>> after >>> Android. It's not that they couldn't--they certainly had representatives >>> at >>> the appropriate conferences. They chose not to.)
>>> It rises the question once more, who the hell are you? From what I can >>>> tell, you seem to have no real interest in Android, thus I do not see >>>> why >>>> you need information regarding things like this. Why do you love to >>>> spread >>>> propaganda on here is one question that need answering!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Use fewer exclamation points, that's my advice.
>>> This is a _discussion_ group, says so right in the name. You have a >>> difficulty with people raising issues for discussion...? I For what it's >>> worth, I'm an active member of the open source community, and have been >>> for >>> several years, working closely with the GNOME Mobile Initiative. I don't >>> see >>> what bearing that has, however.
>>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working >>> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off. (And mc5 seems even >>> buggier than mc3, not a good sign.)
>>> Compared to mainstream open source--which offers support for not only >>> Java >>> (_community_ Java, not some mutant semi-proprietary version), but also C, >>> C++, Python, Perl, PHP, you name it--Android has significant limitations. >>> Android offers no avenue at all for adapting existing code, just for >>> starts. >>> Android requires learning a completely new method of development, with a >>> high learning curve (as illustrated by the contrast between the 750,000 >>> downloads of the SDK which Google cited, and the fewer than 1,800 >>> applications ultimately produced, a ratio of 0.2%, i.e. two applications >>> ultimately produced per 1000 downloads...)
>>> Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story >>> constitutes >>> "propaganda". It may not coincide with your specific prejudices, but it >>> seems perfectly fit material for _discussion_. Maybe we're only allowed >>> to >>> be uncritical about Android here. That'd seem more like "propaganda" to >>> me, >>> frankly...
>>> If you don't like what I write, feel entirely free not to read it.
>>>> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com>:
>>>> There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding >>>>> Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of >>>>> them >>>>> depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it >>>>> quite >>>>> interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms >>>>> that >>>>> I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's >>>>> apparent dismay.)
>>>>> We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one >>>>> company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and >>>>> collaborative >>>>> effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers >>>>> and, at >>>>> the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how >>>>> we >>>>> were playing now. The rules are changed.'
>>>>> LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness.
>>>>> Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the >>>>> dotted >>>>> line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up >>>>> being >>>>> collegial. But it need not be."
>>>>> Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems >>>>> like I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me >>>>> on >>>>> this, Dan?
>>>>> -- >>>>> 鏡石
>>>> -- >>>> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably >>>> crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
>>> -- >>> 鏡石
>> -- >> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably >> crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
> -- > 鏡石
-- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
I can tell you like my name, yeah lots of people do ha ha. I think you are letting your anger get the better of you so just calm down like the silly rabbit you are and don't let this get out of hand. If you are unable to, I recommend anger management and a psycho-iatrist.
On 5/18/08, Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> > wrote:
>> Clearly, those Beanshell guys (www.beanshell.org) should be drawn and >> quartered. As should the SuperWaba (www.superwaba.com.br) fiends. And, >> y'know, that Groovy syntax looks Java-ish enough that they too should be >> subject to your wrath. And while the Apache Harmony team is trying to >> follow JDK-official procedures, I'm sure that's just a front for their >> Java-ish language unsavory behavior, so you better go after them too. >> And there are probably other projects that reimplemented the Java >> language that I'm forgetting off the top of my head, but you better go >> bust some of their heads, too.
>> Let me know how all that goes.
> You're lapsing into extreme silliness. I haven't suggested, anywhere, or to > any degree, that anyone's "head needs to be busted". Maybe you're mistaking > me for Vamien, there.
>> > I pointed to an article which contained direct quotes from a Verizon >> > spokesperson. Are you saying that the Register's /quotations /are >> > somehow biased...? How's that work?
>> By making up the quotes, for one.
> Sigh. The quote's been repeated in Information Week, on AndroidGuys and > elsewhere. A trip to Google (remember them?) might assist you... In any > case, it's pretty easy to discover Jeffrey Nelson's email address from the > Verizon web site; feel free to write him and ask.
> But in comments e-mailed to this reporter from Verizon spokeswomen Carolyn > Schamberger, the carrier said it is joining the open-source group because > "of LiMo's approach to providing *a truly open Operating System that isn't > simply an extension of a for-profit company's business model."* (Generally, > open-source software is freely distributed and can be adapted by anyone who > wants to use it.)
> Seems right in line with the other quote. Maybe this one's made up, too.
> Let me note, that as someone with (apparently) a book on Android coming out, > you've got a clear bias in favor of discounting any criticism of the > platform. I didn't think that was especially germane to the discussion, but > if you insist on dealing with it like that, fine, have it your way.
> -- > 鏡石
-- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
> Man just shut up. Something you claim to be unnecessary should in no > way garner your interest so much that you are "on and off" the thing > according to your words. Now, i could careless what you want to say > about me but the fact is, your brain is on pause or you're just always > stoned when you come here (hence your name) thats why you cannot find > nothing positive about Android to say. For your sake i really hope > you're getting paid for all this hard work, seriously.
Yawn.
As I've said, if you can't manage to keep a civil tongue in your head, perhaps you should consider sitting on your hands as an alternative. You're not really contributing anything here except some not-terribly-interesting invective.
>I can tell you like my name, yeah lots of people do ha ha. I think you >are letting your anger get the better of you so just calm down like >the silly rabbit you are and don't let this get out of hand. If you >are unable to, I recommend anger management and a psycho-iatrist.
I'm not angry, nor am I the one telling people to "shut up"; *you'd *seem to be the one who's getting himself into a complete lather here.
>> Man just shut up. Something you claim to be unnecessary should in no >> way garner your interest so much that you are "on and off" the thing >> according to your words. Now, i could careless what you want to say >> about me but the fact is, your brain is on pause or you're just always >> stoned when you come here (hence your name) thats why you cannot find >> nothing positive about Android to say. For your sake i really hope >> you're getting paid for all this hard work, seriously.
> Yawn.
> As I've said, if you can't manage to keep a civil tongue in your head, > perhaps you should consider sitting on your hands as an alternative. You're > not really contributing anything here except some not-terribly-interesting > invective.
>>I can tell you like my name, yeah lots of people do ha ha. I think you >>are letting your anger get the better of you so just calm down like >>the silly rabbit you are and don't let this get out of hand. If you >>are unable to, I recommend anger management and a psycho-iatrist.
> I'm not angry, nor am I the one telling people to "shut up"; *you'd *seem to > be the one who's getting himself into a complete lather here.
> Physician, heal thyself.
> -- > 鏡石
-- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably crap. Visit AndroidGuys http://androidguys.com/
> Man just shut up. Something you claim to be unnecessary should in no
> way garner your interest so much that you are "on and off" the thing
> according to your words. Now, i could careless what you want to say
> about me but the fact is, your brain is on pause or you're just always
> stoned when you come here (hence your name) thats why you cannot find
> nothing positive about Android to say. For your sake i really hope
> you're getting paid for all this hard work, seriously.
> On 5/18/08, Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work of
> >>> getting open source code onto mobile devices.
> >> And then
> >>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working
> >>> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off.
> >> It's unnecessary yet you claim to have a significant interest, wha?? I
> >> don't get it. Make your mind up before you explode. Man there is
> >> definitely
> >> something wrong with you, fix it
> > I didn't say it was a *positive *interest.
> > If you can't conduct a civil conversation, maybe you shouldn't bother
> > responding at all.
> >> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com>:
> >>>> You have been very silent for quite a while, you seem to be only
> >>>> interested in the negative press releases. While I think we don't mind a
> >>>> bit
> >>>> of negative press, it's the only thing I ever see you talk about here.
> >>> Is that the royal "we"...?
> >>> I view Android, frankly, as an unnecessary distraction to the real work
> >>> of
> >>> getting open source code onto mobile devices. There's plenty of mobile
> >>> work
> >>> (apparently not, for whatever reasons, good enough for Google) going on
> >>> out
> >>> in the mainstream open source community, e.g. GNOME Mobile, Ubuntu
> >>> Mobile,
> >>> Moblin, etc. I'm still unclear why Google has completely ignored that
> >>> work
> >>> in favor of a completely idiosyncratic approach. The work in the open
> >>> source
> >>> community _is_, as Verizon says, "collaborative and collegial". Android,
> >>> unfortunately, is not.
> >>> Google has made some peculiar claims as to the reasons for these
> >>> decisions. One is that existing technologies are "too desktop oriented",
> >>> which shows serious confusion about the technologies involved. They've
> >>> also
> >>> claimed that "open source projects don't release in a predictable way",
> >>> in
> >>> spite of the fact that both GNOME and Ubuntu, just to cite two examples,
> >>> release every six months like clockwork.
> >>> Google has already said that they don't really expect the existing open
> >>> source platform community to support the Android platform, they plan to
> >>> do
> >>> it themselves. With these kinds of directions, and with the kinds of
> >>> statements cited above, Google's effectively set themselves up in
> >>> opposition
> >>> to the existing, mainstream, mobile open source community. I don't see
> >>> that
> >>> as being either helpful or reasonable.
> >>> (To the best of my knowledge, Google never participated, even a single
> >>> time, in, for example, any GNOME Mobile activities, either before or
> >>> after
> >>> Android. It's not that they couldn't--they certainly had representatives
> >>> at
> >>> the appropriate conferences. They chose not to.)
> >>> It rises the question once more, who the hell are you? From what I can
> >>>> tell, you seem to have no real interest in Android, thus I do not see
> >>>> why
> >>>> you need information regarding things like this. Why do you love to
> >>>> spread
> >>>> propaganda on here is one question that need answering!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> Use fewer exclamation points, that's my advice.
> >>> This is a _discussion_ group, says so right in the name. You have a
> >>> difficulty with people raising issues for discussion...? I For what it's
> >>> worth, I'm an active member of the open source community, and have been
> >>> for
> >>> several years, working closely with the GNOME Mobile Initiative. I don't
> >>> see
> >>> what bearing that has, however.
> >>> And in fact, I have a significant interest in Android, I've been working
> >>> with the SDK since its initial release, on and off. (And mc5 seems even
> >>> buggier than mc3, not a good sign.)
> >>> Compared to mainstream open source--which offers support for not only
> >>> Java
> >>> (_community_ Java, not some mutant semi-proprietary version), but also C,
> >>> C++, Python, Perl, PHP, you name it--Android has significant limitations.
> >>> Android offers no avenue at all for adapting existing code, just for
> >>> starts.
> >>> Android requires learning a completely new method of development, with a
> >>> high learning curve (as illustrated by the contrast between the 750,000
> >>> downloads of the SDK which Google cited, and the fewer than 1,800
> >>> applications ultimately produced, a ratio of 0.2%, i.e. two applications
> >>> ultimately produced per 1000 downloads...)
> >>> Maybe you can explain to me how quoting a published news story
> >>> constitutes
> >>> "propaganda". It may not coincide with your specific prejudices, but it
> >>> seems perfectly fit material for _discussion_. Maybe we're only allowed
> >>> to
> >>> be uncritical about Android here. That'd seem more like "propaganda" to
> >>> me,
> >>> frankly...
> >>> If you don't like what I write, feel entirely free not to read it.
> >>>> 2008/5/18 Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com>:
> >>>> There've been a number of stories over the past several days regarding
> >>>>> Verizon's decision to become a member of the LiMo Foundation, most of
> >>>>> them
> >>>>> depicting it as a sign of trouble, ongoing, for Android. I found it
> >>>>> quite
> >>>>> interesting that the reasons Verizon gave echoed many of the criticisms
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> I've levelled against Android over the past several months (to Dan's
> >>>>> apparent dismay.)
> >>>>> We chose LiMo because it's a collaborative effort. It's not just one
> >>>>> company runs the place. We like that. We like a collegial and
> >>>>> collaborative
> >>>>> effort, where there is no barrier to entry on the part of developers
> >>>>> and, at
> >>>>> the end of the day, there is no one entity that can say 'OK, here's how
> >>>>> we
> >>>>> were playing now. The rules are changed.'
> >>>>> LiMo will be our preferred OS because of this openness.
> >>>>> Nelson went on to say, "Google said 'Here's the plan. Sign on the
> >>>>> dotted
> >>>>> line if you support.' It may end up being collaborative. It may end up
> >>>>> being
> >>>>> collegial. But it need not be."
> >>>>> Nope, that's not how open source development works. Not at all. Seems
> >>>>> like I'm not the only one with this view. Do you want to "correct" me
> >>>>> on
> >>>>> this, Dan?
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 鏡石
> >>>> --
> >>>> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably
> >>>> crap. Visit AndroidGuyshttp://androidguys.com/
> >>> --
> >>> 鏡石
> >> --
> >> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means! Probably
> >> crap. Visit AndroidGuyshttp://androidguys.com/
> > --
> > 鏡石
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
> The world is my oyster.....now only if I knew what that means!
> Probably crap. Visit AndroidGuyshttp://androidguys.com/
|
