Honeycomb Code

[AshV]

Where can you download the Honeycomb source code?

[Chih-Wei]

If you are a member of OHA, you should already get it.
If not, you have to wait until Google release it to public.

[Eric Wong (hdmp4.com)]

I suppose no one have any idea when the source code will be made
public?

Anyone?

[NeToU]

Are you sure OHA part? That's open handset alliance right?
I didn't think member companies saw it any earlier really.

[Disconnect]

Then how do you think Motorolla came out with the 2.0 Droid before the source was released?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "android-platform" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-platfo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform?hl=en.

[Shachar Shemesh]

On 23/03/11 04:00, Chih-Wei wrote:

> If not, you have to wait until Google release it to public.
>
>

Typically, this happens close to when the first device that runs the
code ships. This time, it will, apparently, take a while.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2011/tc20110324_269784.htm

Personally, I see it as a "open source is good, but if only it could be
less open..." move by Google, and am also disappointed that not one of
the many people on this list who are in a position to make a formal
statement about this here thought it wise to do so.

Google, do you really think so little of your community that you do not
even think it necessary to let us know you are intentionally delaying
release?

Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com

[Chris Slinkman]

Everyone keeps on this kick that Google is being evil by not releasing the Honeycomb source. 

Given that they built the new 3.0 platform it's up to then to see if they think it's ready for full release. For all that we know they might have needed to cut some corners to make it run on the architecture. Could it be a power play to keep it exclusive to some manufactures for a bit? Sure. They still plan to release it to the public at some point. Even if the source is released one or more releases that their are devices I still see free code as free code.

But I might be simple to please.

[Zhihong GUO]

Android is not google's proprietary products; it belongs to OHA and includes a lot of companies contribution. I believe to delay open the source of Honeycomb is a decision of OHA, not only done by Google.
Personally, I agree not open the source code to all of the device vendors, because it is easier to control the device fragmentation and product quality. And I think before Google find a good solution on fragmentation control, such policy will be a necessary choice.
OHA should now focus on the quality and innovation of Android platform, not only on the number of equipment on devices. Android need an iPhone competitor device, otherwise it is just a follower.

2011/3/28 Chris Slinkman <chris.s...@gmail.com>

Everyone keeps on this kick that Google is being evil by not releasing the Honeycomb source. 

Given that they built the new 3.0 platform it's up to then to see if they think it's ready for full release. For all that we know they might have needed to cut some corners to make it run on the architecture. Could it be a power play to keep it exclusive to some manufactures for a bit? Sure. They still plan to release it to the public at some point. Even if the source is released one or more releases that their are devices I still see free code as free code.

But I might be simple to please.

--

[Shachar Shemesh]

I should start off by saying that the one point I wanted officially
addressed is the one point everyone seems to be ignoring. Google formed
this forum in order to create a community and a discussion with it. Even
if delaying releasing of the source is a good move, I do expect it to
let us know directly. A message to this forum, specifically intended for
the AOSP community, saying "sorry, guys, Honeycomb will be delayed" is
something, I think, we (Android contributors) are entitled to demand.

I disagree with the actual decision as well, but I'm afraid if I go into
the details there, this point will get disregarded again.

[Maffiou]

I agree, this is very disappointing...

On Mar 25, 2:37 am, Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote:
> On 23/03/11 04:00, Chih-Wei wrote:
>
> > If not, you have to wait until Google release it to public.
>
> Typically, this happens close to when the first device that runs the
> code ships. This time, it will, apparently, take a while.
>

> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2011/tc20110324_269...

[Mumney Abdlquadri]

I think this is just diplomatic talk. An open source code means anyone
can contribute, if it doesnt suit what the leaders of the project
wants they wont commit it. Google does not need to make android3.0
work on phone - that is what they said it is for tablet and bigger
devices; so why now try to make it work for phones.

"Fragmentation" this is something that will always happen in
opensource. Unless the original is better than the fork. Also
fragmentation can mean more variety. Look how many Linux OSes I can
chose from.

I am just getting into this android OS stuff; It is not really open
anyway.

[Xianghua Xiao]

It's fine for Google or OHA to close the code, but please do not do
this while you're leveraging OSS from the start.

The best way to avoid fragmentation is to go proprietary from the
start, as what iOS does, why change the game rule in the middle?

To me this is lying to the public, shamelessly. There are many
successful open OSS projects are done in the public all the time.