Re: Honeycomb Code (not)
Xianghua Xiao
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.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Mumney Abdlquadri
<abdlq...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2:21 pm, Maffiou <maff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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...
>>
>> > 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
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
AshV
Chih-Wei
Eric Wong (hdmp4.com)
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
Shachar Shemesh
> 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
Maffiou
On Mar 25, 2:37 am, Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> 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.
>
Chris Slinkman
Zhihong GUO
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.
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
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.
Mumney Abdlquadri
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.
On Mar 25, 2:21 pm, Maffiou <maff...@gmail.com> wrote: