×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Android 4.0 Source Code Coming "Soon"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the on-second-thought dept.

Android 203

itwbennett writes "Good news today for those of you who have been waiting for news about whether Google would be opening up the ICS source and for those of you who thought it was gone for good. Android engineer Dan Morrill revealed new information in the Android Building Google group yesterday evening, saying that Google plans 'to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it's available on devices.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

203 comments

I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788690)

We already knew this? Except that there was the ridiculous "no comment" story on here yesterday, and this is now "refuting" that?

Re:I thought (4, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788752)

I can predict the next story already: "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Any Day Now".
Followed by "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Tomorrow".
After that there will be "Android 4.0 Source Code Coming Today".
Followed on the same day by "Android 4.0 Source Code Just Released".
And the next day "Android 4.0 Source Code Released Yesterday".
Closing with "Android 4.0 Source Code Release Confirmed".

So... please dump your comments to any of those below here and /. can skip posting them and post some actual news instead.

Re:I thought (0)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788866)

I've been reviewing the source, and IceCream is the best thing ever since sliced bread!

There I've found the Coke's formula, a copy of the Kenedy's assasination papers, the address where Elvis is hiding, and the original Fermat's solution to the Last Theorem too!!!!1!1!!eleventyone!!

Re:I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789338)

These articles are retarded. It's not like the GPL leaves Google any choice in this matter.

Re:I thought (1)

growse (928427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789504)

They've got plenty of choice for the stuff that isn't under the GPL.

They've already released the GPL components I believe.

News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788700)

Isn't this what everyone pointed out in the comments on the previous (hysterical) article?

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789412)

Was that previous thing an article? I thought that was the last thing written by Steve Jobs and he wrote that esp for slashdot. Not that I hold slashdot very high on objectivity, but man... The apple love is showing.

Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788730)

Ok, basically this makes Android Open Source again. But still it keeps the companies quite dependent: If the source code is published months after the devices are already on the market, any company that wants to use it under the Open Source terms rather than abiding to Googles conditions to get the source for integration timely will be one year behind.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the source code is being made available, and its in this regard better than most competitors. But still it means that Google can control which services companies can integrate in their phones, and prevent competition with their own services like they did with Motorola/Skyhook. It's not an open development model.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788748)

Only if the companies do not wish to develop said features on their own.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788778)

They do that already through trademark enforcement, and their Google-branded apps are not part of AOSP. I think it's pretty clear that Android isn't even open source. AOSP is, but it's only a slice of Android-proper, and isn't "open development", as you say.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789064)

I don't care if it open source, neckbeard. It's made by Google, so it is cool.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789154)

I'm glad this is the case.

Like most here, I'm unofficial tech support for family and friends.

So they download a fork of gmail, which has been "improved" with cute avatars. And also scans for passwords and credit card numbers to transmit back to base.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788814)

>Ok, basically this makes Android Open Source again.

You are confusing "open source" and "source code is available". Android is most definitely not open.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789098)

Tell that to Cyanogen.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789360)

Tell that to Cyanogen.

Who got cease and desisted [gizmodo.com]. The Google Apps that come with Android are most definitely not open, and as I understand it, people who install CyanogenMod generally get an illegal copy of the Google Apps separately, and the provider of this separate package [cyanogenmod.com] remains open to a potential cease-and-desist. Without Android Market, which is among these apps, one can't download applications exclusive to Android Market, such as the application to deposit checks to a bank account.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789742)

Do you have an Android phone?
Do you have an Android phone with Cyanogen Mod?
Have you even installed Cyanogen Mod before?

The Google Apps are just that APPS, otherwise known as applications.
The Google apps can be freely downloaded once CM is installed.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789938)

Assuming you can download the app which allows app downloads, or so GP appears to saying. If, as he indicates, there is a legal problem with loading the Android Market on a CM device than in theory CM (as a usable system, since the applications are what make the OS do anything useful) is also illegal. Now granted that doesn't mean much in a practical sense, Google doesn't seem to be the type of company to hunt down individual modders and sue them; but it's still somewhat philosophically unfortunate given that Google touts Android as an "Open" system.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37790176)

Out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to comment on something you obviously lack any real knowledge about?

You can download GAPPS with a browser. So long as your device was sold to you with Google Apps, you are violating no licenses.

http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/the-current-state [cyanogenmod.com]

This still has absolutely *zero* bearing on Android being open source.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788822)

Android has really never been an open development model: the applications that make android "android"(from the consumer perspective) are closed, and the development of each successive release has been between Google and their Best Buddy of the moment until release.

The big question has been, since 'Ice Cream Sandwich', whether it would continue to be closed development/open source, or whether it would go closed entirely, except for a few GPL-obligated kernel bits...

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (5, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788944)

The big question has been, since 'Ice Cream Sandwich', whether it would continue to be closed development/open source, or whether it would go closed entirely, except for a few GPL-obligated kernel bits...

No, that's never been a question for anyone other then the conspiracy minded. Google has been extremely clear and consistent about their reason for not releasing Honeycomb's source and about continuing with the open sourcing of Android as soon as the code base is fixed in ICS.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789146)

Mod parent under-rated.. they've said this from the start, but the trolls have been having a field day with how Android is now closed source, Google are so Evil, blah blah..

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789640)

They've said this from the start, but Open Source means you can get the source, and they're not giving the source, which means that an entire release is not Open Source. Maybe every other version of Android is, but those with those devices are running a non-Open-Source version of Android, period, the end. Clear and consistent? Clearly, consistently, not Open Source, until they release the source, at least to their customers.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789868)

Trolls, or Apple's paid sycophants that are shit scared about a decent competitor giving consumers lots of choice?

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789458)

Android has really never been an open development model: the applications that make android "android"(from the consumer perspective) are closed

Um ... the phone, messaging, browser, music apps -- in fact, pretty much everything in a consumer's "Android" except Gmail, the Market, and some mostly unknown odds-and-ends -- are open sourced. And groups like Cyanogenmod are developing these constantly. Sounds pretty damn open to me ...

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788884)

If it was worthwhile forking it then we would have seen manufacturers attempt that already. Clearly Google is by far leading development and dealing with them is not too painful yet.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (3, Interesting)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789096)

Depends. Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful. (Nokia provides a lot of services, especially in the area of location bases services they are competing with Google, and due to their offline navigation software they might pull people away from Google Maps.) Samsung is putting more effort in their Windows Phone devices.

The problem is, branching would be pointless: Android without Android App-store is not competitive. In case of Nokia, a great system was available already and they canceled it because of the lacking ecosystem. For others it will be the same problem.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Nokia, but here I state my personal opinion only. Statements are only made based on public available information.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789380)

Android without Android App-store is not competitive.

By "Android App-store" did you mean Android Market? If so, then Amazon seems to be doing just fine with its own store. The only thing I haven't been able to get on it is, unfortunately, my bank's check deposit application.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789812)

Android without Android App-store is not competitive.

By "Android App-store" did you mean Android Market? If so, then Amazon seems to be doing just fine with its own store.

Are they? My impression is that the Amazon app store is really awful in comparison to the Android Market.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (3, Insightful)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789484)

Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful.

Surely the $1 billion MS paid them to take on WP7 had something to do with it? I think Nokia was a bit silly in eschewing Android, personally ... but then, their previous decisions on phone OSes haven't really inspired confidence in their ability to pick the market.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (4, Interesting)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789534)

Nokia owns Navteq (they sell map data). With focus on Android this asset would be wasted. They provide an offline navigation software. Incidentally I'm working on the location where this software is implemented. This would have been wasted as well. Nokia has a business unit around location based services. This is direct competition to Google and would have been wasted. OTOH, Bing maps is already using Navteq data for some time, MS and Nokia are both cooperating with Yahoo for quite some time, etc. All this is public available information, and I think it is enough reason to turn down Android. So I think it was rather a decision of building the own ecosystem for MeeGo faster or going for WP.

Of course the 1Billion did not hurt either, and I can imagine that Elop did have some good contacts to MS which helped building up the trust for negotiations. But I don't think this was the decisive issue.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789554)

Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful.

I think you're missing something about Microsoft and their bank balance - this [thestreet.com] article says it best:

Wall Street had favored the popular Android system as the quick and more crowd-pleasing option. Instead, Nokia's alignment with Microsoft ties it to a partner that has deep pockets but very limited success with its Windows phones.

And also over here [reuters.com]:

[Nokia CEO Stephen] Elop said one of the key topics in the talks on doing a deal with Microsoft was convincing Nokia that it could reach "a very low price point."

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37790264)

Nokia was considering Android and dumped it, because it was too painful.

I think you're missing something about Microsoft and their bank balance - this [thestreet.com] article says it best:

Wall Street had favored the popular Android system as the quick and more crowd-pleasing option. Instead, Nokia's alignment with Microsoft ties it to a partner that has deep pockets but very limited success with its Windows phones.

yes, that was their view; wall street analysts can't have deep insight in every company they write about, and here they are also missing some obvious points. As replied to the other post:

Nokia owns Navteq (they sell map data). With focus on Android this asset would be wasted. They provide an offline navigation software. Incidentally I'm working on the location where this software is implemented. This would have been wasted as well. Nokia has a business unit around location based services. This is direct competition to Google and would have been wasted. OTOH, Bing maps is already using Navteq data for some time, MS and Nokia are both cooperating with Yahoo for quite some time, etc. All this is public available information, and I think it is enough reason to turn down Android.

And also over here [reuters.com]:

[Nokia CEO Stephen] Elop said one of the key topics in the talks on doing a deal with Microsoft was convincing Nokia that it could reach "a very low price point."

Surely this is an important factor. Only it's not about the 1 billion, but about the hardware requirements / the costs to produce a device. The average prices for smartphones are declining, and when MS sticks to strong hardware requirements it is not possible to compete in these price segment. With WP "Tango" it will be possible to serve this market as well, and I guess that Nokia got a got deal for the license per device.

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37790138)

apparently there are some forks out here : Baidu Yi OS ( http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/05/baidu-announces-android-os-alternative-confirming-its-mobile-as/ )
(haven't checked but amazon forked for their 'next' kindle) : http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20101223-92/amazons-kindle-tablet-an-android-fork-with-disruptive-pricing/

Re:Open Source vs. Open Development (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789602)

Did you know that Google allows competition on Android with their own services?

Example, did you know that Google allows hardware manufacturer or carrier to remove all Google services and apps from Android?

Example, did you know that Google does not pay anyone using Android or choosing Google services and apps in Android? Google does pay for device manufacturer and carrier part of the feed what it gains when user clicks an Ad when doing a search trough Google search widget when it is located to Android launch screen. But so does Google pay to Mozilla and every other who set Google search to search panel. It is same payment to every one.

And then third question. Did you know that Microsoft have paid tens of millions to Verizon and many other carrier in the world to sell Android phones where Google apps and services were replaced with Microsoft own services?

Example, Search is done with Bing, Emailing is done trough Hotmail, Calender and contacts are linked to Hotmail, news reader is pulling data from Microsoft news services.

Oh, and did you know that user who bought such Android device, can not remove those Microsoft services and Apps or install Google replacements? So user who bought such Android phone, is locked to Microsoft permamentally on that phone.

Google allows open development, you only need to join to that development alliance. Google does manage the Android project as someone needs to do it. But before Google release the Android source codes for everyone, it has released it to Android alliance partners. They can modify the code as they want for their handsets and prepare them to release.

The open development does not mean that every person out there is allowed to download sources and push changes to Android project.
If it would, then not even any GNU project is open development as upstream (what Android Alliance is) do not need to accept modifications or patches if not wanted.
And even GPLv2 how Linux operating system in Android is licensed, denies the other people having the source code than those who have the binary.
Even the one of the most puriest open source licenses do not force source code to be published to everyone, only for those who has the binary.

Google does not need to release Android source code (GPLv2 + Apache etc) for everyone until binaries are released and still they are following open development idea.

Honeycomb (3, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788734)

The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones. Google likely didn't want manufacturers hacking it into running on phones and giving a largely unsatisfactory experience. They always said this, and people still suspected Google of shifty evil motives. The ICS source being the unification of phone and tablet branches should keep people happy for a while...

Re:Honeycomb (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788802)

The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones.

Fine. However, as the owner of a v2.2 tablet whose manufacturer never released a software update, I'd have appreciated the opportunity to update it myself...

Re:Honeycomb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788850)

It's not anyone's fault but your own for purchasing a tablet with a phone OS loaded on it.

Re:Honeycomb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788830)

The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones

So, what you're saying is that Android Honeycomb is really really open, even if it's never released because someone might do something that isn't Offically Approved and might use it the way they wanted to, and Darwin is evilly exploting the FOSS community 'cause it's been released and you can use it however you want?

Thanks for clearing that up!

Re:Honeycomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788848)

I really don't understand this approach, the industry standard approach of combating that sort of problem is by having a trademark policy. Want to use our code, fuck it up and deploy it? Fine, just don't ruin our brand. If you want to use "Android" trademark then your implementation must do X, Y and Z if not then make your own brand and soil that instead.

Re:Honeycomb (4, Insightful)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788882)

Open Source doesn't mean "I'll release the source for this because I think it's useful to you" or "I'll not release the source to this, because we don't want you to hurt yourself, even though we're claiming that it's as easy as "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git. kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make""

Open Source means you release the source. Plain and simple.

Re:Honeycomb (0)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788964)

Yeah, ok and Honeycomb wasn't open sourced. Google doesn't deny that, but they give clear reasons for it and there never has been any reason to believe that when the code base was fixed in ICS the source wouldn't be released again. You may not agree with their decision, but they have arguably valid reasons and aren't violating any licensees so it's entirely their decision to make.

Re:Honeycomb (4, Insightful)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788992)

Personally, I agree with their decisions. If something's going to be crap, don't release it until it's fixed.
Don't be taking a holier-than-thou stance and say you're open and the competition is closed though.

Re:Honeycomb (5, Insightful)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789388)

Don't be taking a holier-than-thou stance and say you're open and the competition is closed though.

Except that they are holier than either Apple or MS -- they are releasing their code base as open source (and not doing anything to stop AOSP-based ROMs).

And here's the thing: even if Google turned around tomorrow and said that they were never going to release any more source code, period, it wouldn't matter: people such as the CM team would continue to develop the existing code, and we'd still have a fully-functional open sourced phone OS running on top of linux. That used to be every geek's dream five years ago, and we've got it in spades. You don't need any closed source (Google) code to run a fully-functional Android system -- the only things you'll miss out on without the Google apps is a native Gmail client (which doesn't matter, as you still get the native email client OSS) and the Market (which doesn't matter because you can side-load apps, and even use a marketplace like GetJar's if you want to have a market interface). There is no way you could claim that iOS or WP7 provide anything like this level of openness or freedom.

To me, that's worth a few brownie points for Google any day, and Android definitely gets my vote in the OS-of-choice awards.

Re:Honeycomb (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789598)

OK, then you don't agree with their decisions, you agree with one of their decisions, the decision not to release. They also made the decision to lie about whether Android was open.

If they don't retroactively release those sources, they are lying scum.

Re:Honeycomb (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789858)

Hey! Apple claims their operating system is open source and Apple drones will gladly remind anyone that Darwin is open source. I would venture to say that Android source code is a whole lot more usable than Darwin by a terribly long shot. So your droning for Apple is quite transparent. Google is OPEN and Apple is closed. You are not going to come here and convince anyone that Google is lying about being open. Google releases actual usable code. Google released open codecs etc. I don't know of any project that Apple initiated that is open. Webkit,Darwin,Cups were not initiated by Apple. So your attempt to put Google in a bad light here is failing horribly. Only the Apple/MS choir agrees with you.

Re:Honeycomb (4, Insightful)

Imbrondir (2367812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789006)

I think the confusion is between Open Source, and Open Development.

The id Tech engines are usually released as open source after several years in use as closed source. But when it's released it's still 100% "Open Source".

Re:Honeycomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789738)

U Self-Righteous Bro?

Re:Honeycomb (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789086)

If your only issue is preventing people from tying the android name to bad user experiences, why not simply defend the trademark and release the free stack under a different name? worked for apple, and worked for java, who didn't even bother changing name.

Re:Honeycomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789382)

I won't call it evil, but I strongly believe the source wasn't opened so as to stop lesser-known manufacturers from competing with the ones Google rely on (aka China and India).
If China/India were to join in the tablet market with cheap Honeycomb tablets, it will likely create a negative first impression for Android on tablets (poor hardware).

Is this the same source code? (1)

sunr2007 (2309530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788770)

I want to know whether this is same source code which was used by samsung+google to built galaxy nexus? or there is difference in the builds? . If its the same source code , then can i recomplile and flash to my phone? If i cannot then how its open source. see, for e.g., Linux kernel is open source .i can always over write my kernel from the distro by downloading the source from kernel.org. can i do the same with android?

Re:Is this the same source code? (0)

petman (619526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788828)

Why are your questions in the present tense? The source code hasn't been released yet, so you should pose your questions in the future tense. Try again.

Re:Is this the same source code? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788902)

The source does exist in the present, even if it's not been released. Also, English clearly isn't his first language, so you could cut him a little slack..

Re:Is this the same source code? (3, Informative)

brian.swetland (1739666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789176)

Yes, the ICS tree that will be released to AOSP is the same code used to do the build for Galaxy Nexus (among other products).

Instructions on building for Galaxy Nexus will likely end up here (alongside Nexus S):
http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html [android.com]

The handful of closed source userspace pieces necessary (some firmware, the hardware opengl libraries, samsung radio library, etc) will end up here:
http://code.google.com/android/nexus/drivers.html [google.com]
(please disregard the unfortunate use of "drivers" here -- all the kernel drivers are GPLv2, none are closed source)

What's not included is the Google Mobile Apps (gmail, gcalendar, gtalk, maps, etc). These are proprietary Google applications, not part of the core Android platform (which consists of the lower level libraries, dalvik vm, framework libraries, services, core apps like phone, contacts, launcher, settings, etc, etc).

Re:Is this the same source code? (2)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789548)

Assuming it's like Gingerbread, then yes and yes. Depending on your phone, you will probably need hardware drivers for some things, though (for which, just as with any linux distribution, you'll have to speak to the hardware manufacturers or wait until a compatible ROM is released by the phone manufacturer).

for e.g., Linux kernel is open source .i can always over write my kernel from the distro by downloading the source from kernel.org. can i do the same with android?

That's possibly not the best example for you to pick -- are you aware that Android runs on top of the linux kernel, and that you can build and install your own custom kernel on your Android system if you want?? But yes, you can download the full android source from here [android.com] and build your own AOSP ROM should you so wish.

Of course, you could have found this out by using the search engine of your choice rather than trolling /. -- googling for "android source" brings up the relevant link on the first hit.

"Soon" ? (0)

Rexdude (747457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788774)

What's with the superfluous air quotes? It's not like there's any ambiguity in Google's statement. At least wait for the devices to hit the market before judging them.

Re:"Soon" ? (3, Insightful)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788792)

I think the general idea is that quotation marks have been used because the word's a quotation. May be wrong, but that was just the impression I got.

Re:"Soon" ? (0)

Rexdude (747457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788818)

By itself the word soon doesn't seem rather quote worthy. Putting it in air quotes makes it sound as though it's completely vague. They have said it will be released once ICS based devices hit the market, not in a 'When it's done' sense that the Duke Nukem Forever team used to say when asked about the game's release.

Re:"Soon" ? (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789774)

They may mean you are using a word in an unusual way. In that case, you should only use quotes the first time.

Re:"Soon" ? (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789186)

Those aren't "air quotes". Those are quotes. "Air quotes" are the ones you do with your fingers.

Scare quotes (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789410)

"Air quotes" are scare quotes [wikipedia.org] done with fingers. Perhaps Rexdude used "air quotes" because he was unaware of the term "scare quotes".

Re:Scare quotes (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789626)

Air quotes don't have to be scare quotes. You can use the gesture to indicate that you are repeating an official party line without allowing the irony into your spoken word. Useful for expressing irony without being caught. In some countries, irony might get you shot. Hell, if you kick a little too much in front of some NYPD whiteshirts, you might get punched in the face, even if you're some old lady.

Yes, everything is about politics :p

To their disadvantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37788812)

They could actually benefit from having independent developers review their code before it gets deployed on millions of devices. Fixing any leaks now should be easier, cheaper, safer and less damaging for their reputation than doing so later.

I think Google does not understand open source (3, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788816)

Why wait till the software is stable? Even if you do believe in the myth that software ever is finished enough, isn't the one of the purposes of open source to have a few extra eyeballs to check if it is mature? There are zillions of real open source projects with both stable versions for everyday use and current state for development. Why does Google think Andoid is any different?

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (4, Informative)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788930)

Did you even read the summary? They haven't said anything about making sure it's stable (which doesn't mean they haven't done so, before any trolls leap on that), but they have said they're waiting until the devices are released. Probably because they don't want people's first impression of Ice Cream Sandwich to be a barely functional custom ROM with half the drivers missing.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (1)

petman (619526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788946)

Android is different because Google is making money out of it. Most open source projects are released for free, so if users have bad experience with it and stop using it, there's no real impact to the developers. On the other hand, if people use half-baked releases of Android and have bad experience, they might switch to other platforms and Google would lose out in terms of profit.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789514)

Most open source projects are released for free, so if users have bad experience with it and stop using it, there's no real impact to the developers.

Except that they lose people who might potentially report minor bugs or even contribute small patches. "Users are developers" is pretty much the central tenet of the open source movement.

On the other hand, if people use half-baked releases of Android and have bad experience, they might switch to other platforms and Google would lose out in terms of profit.

Google could just as easily use trademark laws to accomplish this goal -- that is what Mozilla does, that is what Red Hat does, etc. The problem is that Google's decision makers does not "get" the "open source" concept.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788986)

There is no rule that Google has to follow any particular model of open sourcing. Many open source projects have open development with stable and unstable branches. I think that's the best way to go, but that's not the way Google does things. Google knew that the Honeycomb source was entirely broken for most devices, so they didn't exactly need any outside sources pointing that out.

I think you do not understand Google ;-) (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789120)

Google wants to make money with their services. Therefore they need to make sure that manufacturers do not integrate competing services. To achieve this they need to make it a condition for using Android. But this is only possible as long as Android is not open source. So in return for not integrating competing services, Google offers the source code (half) a year earlier to complying manufacturers, making sure that unfriendly devices will always be at least a year behind.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Nokia, so I'm biased. But here I state my personal opinion only. Statements are only made based on public available information.

Re:I think you do not understand Google ;-) (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789310)

Silly me ;) I thought Google was proud to introduce an open source OS when it was introduced? And now it is not open source and comes closer to abandonware. I'm confused.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789134)

The myth of software being ever finished enough?
False dichotomy much? (Also: Universal absolutism much.)

Have you ever even used a spiral-model-like approach? Of course it can be "finished enough". At the precise point when the worth of the improvement doesn't justify the cost anymore. Plain and simple. But that's an individual thing everyone decides for himself. So when you must think in universal absolutes, "finished enough" and "not finished enough" will look like they are in a state of superposition, which you resolve by only allowing your very own "it's never ever good enough" extremist view.

It's the exact same thing with any piece of art or work: There is a moment when you decide that it's not worth it anymore, and move on to things that are giving you more.

Your problem is that you think in extremist black-and-white universal absolutes. (Otherwise knows as FOXthink) In reality, things are relative and have a gradient. (Except for the quantization in quantum physics and the speed of light apparently.)

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789142)

It is clearly not about that, I think you misunderstood the reasons behind this move.

This is about preventing the "Android ecosystem" to go berzerk with incompatibilities if systems based on Honeycomb's source code start appearing. I think they have done the right thing. A binary release and a source code release are different things, you can't just release the source just because it "runs". Especially not when it is a platform that should remain compatible and backwards-compatible.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789188)

The last thing you need is the platform to fragment and then start catering for different versions of the software........oops too late!

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (2)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789292)

"framented" is very ambiguous. You are twisting the meaning. Android remains compatible between versions. You can totally take a binary that was compiled for Android 1.0 and have it run under an Android 4.0 just fine.

About *new* features, you can't really do anything if someone is running something old. Same thing happens with new APIs for hardware that does not exist on older phones. You can't do much about it.
Yes, Android is fragmented in that many phones are running old versions. And it is not fragmented in the sense that every Android phone has run a test suite that ensures compatibility between versions.

I still don't understand why people blame Google for not releasing the source when the source release is NOT ready. Instead, they think Google is plotting to make Android close source. Even while they repeatedly say that this is temporary because they took shortcuts, which would make the open source release irresponsible because it might break the platform.

Re:I think Google does not understand open source (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789902)

Google admitted they didn't need the few extra eyeballs to tell them that he code sucked so no need to open it at that point since they already admitted the code sucked and the code was a stop-gap until it was fixed and released as ICS. Your trolling attempt is pathetic.

Wut? (0)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788926)

This information was supplied the last time /. shrilly made a story out of nothing concerning the source code. If within a few weeks there is no sign of the source then there is a story. For the time being I expect Google have enough on their plate just reinstating the old source code on new servers that they want to make sure that is working before moving all the 4.0 stuff over.

Since it's Google it's alright then! (0, Troll)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789162)

So let me get this straight.

Google say something like "honeycomb source wll be released 'at some point in the future'" while specific hardware manufacturers get access to the source code for their devices - interestingly "cheap"/smaller (e.g chinese) brands do not(?).

Google now say "we won't bother releasing the source code for honeycomb".

Google then say "we'll release the source code to ICS - but not yet" - specific hardware manufacturers get access to the source code. Everyone else has to wait.

Google's definition stretches the idea of "Open source" to it's limits. It's very "orwellian" - "some people are more equal than others"

I get the feeling that manufacturers are putting pressure on Google to protect their markets. You can't have "just anyone" producing android devices with the latest features.

It must be just me but generally with open source software everyone gets access to the source code in its current state. If you want a working, "predictable" version then you download the "stable" branch.

Google + android = open source fail.

At least with Apple you generally know where you stand.........(what did I just say!??)

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789198)

....(what did I just say!??)

Bullshit ofc :P

You are nitpicking about how Google decides to open source android, then in the end you compare Apple's model (a closed source one where you never ever get the code), favorably. Your post fails logic.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then! (4, Interesting)

msevior (145103) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789228)

Google + android = open source fail.

At least with Apple you generally know where you stand.........(what did I just say!??)

Steve Jobs says:'I'm going to destroy Android': - Jobs declared 'thermonuclear war' on Google

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/im-going-to-destroy-android-jobs-declared-thermonuclear-war-on-google-20111021-1mbaq.html#ixzz1bPhM8NJY [theage.com.au]

Now the source code to android is open everyone on the planet can get IOS features (and more). We're way ahead because of Google.

No need to be an apologist for Apple. They've got enough cash to keep you in new shiny gadgets for at least 10 years. The rest of us can build and play with linux and android.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789384)

Cool story bro.

Enjoy being Google's product, I'll continue to be Apple's customer.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789666)

Now the source code to android is open everyone on the planet can get IOS features (and more). We're way ahead because of Google.

NO, Now the source code to android is closed to everyone on the planet. They're not releasing ICS, and they haven't released Honeycomb. You are simply wrong, like everyone else in this thread claiming Android has been Open Source since 2.x. No, it was Open Source, it is currently closed, and we have only their word that this will ever change. Anyone buying an Android device while this is true is a traitor, and fuck you.

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then! (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37790070)

Man, which side of who's bed did you get out of this morning?

Last I looked, the source to Gingerbread is just as open as it ever was. I'd think Amazon and B&N would agree with me. It was never open development, nor was that claimed.

ICS is not open source yet. Feel free to doubt their word if you like, but Google has committed to opening ICS a couple of weeks after the Galaxy Nexus is released, and to be quite honest, ranting that some organisation hasn't given you enough of the source they bought, paid for and developed themselves and have freely given in the past, just comes across as childish. Don't like their development approach? Do your own, or fork theirs (and give them some credit for it).

Re:Since it's Google it's alright then! (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789322)

You fail big time at common sense.

They did not release the source code for Honeycomb because it was not ready. Why would they release the "incomplete" source code in the future, when its obsolete?

Do you REALLY want to nitpick about Google not releasing the previous, broken source code version which they did not release for a reason in the first place?

Google will release the source code to ICS a few days after it has been released on hardware, just as they almost always do.

Why do people always think about those crazy conspiracy theories when past indicates that they DO release the source code shortly after the new handsets release, and google has always been true to their word in this respect? With other releases they told us the source was coming shortly, and it came. With Honeycomb they told is the source was NOT coming until the next release, and so it was. And now they are telling us the source is coming shortly, and people speculate about there being evil intentions behind all that. Pity.

I don't trust google any more (1)

evanism (600676) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789230)

Open source, going to do this, going to do that. I get the very real feeling google are fundamentallyy failing at what they are trying to project.

They are a company seeking profits, for the sake of their shareholders. I sincerely doubt they are doing anything for the users, it's all lip service and marketing PR spin.

Re:I don't trust google any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789252)

You get the 'very real feeling' but where is the evidence to support it?

Re:I don't trust google any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789304)

I dunno man, he has a 'very real feeling', maybe it was something he ate? :o}

Re:I don't trust google any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789612)

They are a company seeking profits, for the sake of their shareholders. I sincerely doubt they are doing anything for the users, it's all lip service and marketing PR spin.

Yes, but not just that: open source code means more innovation, more handset makers being involved in the project, and plenty of stuff like watches, car radios and other stuff using the same code. Which, in turn, means more developers for Android.

What you fail to see is that making the code open source is not (only) a PR spin, it's in the very interest of Google, their profits and shareholders. That's free, open source software making money and being profitable. Don't believe me? Just ask Mr Ballmer why Windows Phone miserably failed.

Re:I don't trust google any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37789694)

But they do it oh so well! And that's why we continue using their products ...

Re:I don't trust google any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37790238)

set tinfoil_hat_on = 1

I Can't Believe... (2)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789386)

I can't believe Slashdots readers are really as stupid as the last few posts about the Android source are making them appear to be.

Google was clear that Honeycomb's code was not going to be released because they did not want people attempting to shoehorn what was effectively a tablet OS on to mobile phones. End of story.

Google has also been clear that the ICS code will be released after the devices that are shipping with it roll out, which none have yet. Also end of story.

Really, has the intelligence of the average Slashdot reader fallen so low that these two simplistic statements have been rendered incomprehensible?

Re:I Can't Believe... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789482)

Google was clear that Honeycomb's code was not going to be released because they did not want people attempting to shoehorn what was effectively a tablet OS on to mobile phones. End of story.

...so much for open source. Since when do "open source" software vendors try to prevent people from using their software in whatever manner they want?

Re:I Can't Believe... (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37790228)

Way to prove the GP's point.

The source to Gingerbread is still Apache-licenced, and is still open. Nobody, not even Google, is preventing anyone from using it in any way. Ask Amazon.

Honeycomb is not open, and never was. Deal with it. We now have a firm commitment that ICS will be opened. It's another free gift to the community - why are you so upset that you weren't given more free gifts? Do you realise how much like a spoiled brat that makes you sound?

Re:I Can't Believe... (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789684)

Is your intelligence so low that you don't understand that if you can't get the source, it's not Open Source? Google created an entirely not-Open-Source version of Android, and here you are to pat them on the back for it. It's almost like you're some kind of shill, but I suspect you're actually just stupid. You have so much invested in the idea that Google is the Good Witch that you refuse to accept that they have lied, engaged in fraud, et cetera. This isn't Oz and this isn't some naked titty wannabe wicca party, this is the real world, and there is no Good Witch. Just another corporation.

Re:I Can't Believe... (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37790290)

[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.

Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion? Are you confusing the Apache licence with the GPL, maybe?

The insults you're freely tossing around aren't helping you get your point across, I might add; kinda the opposite.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...