Beta
×

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 Ice Cream Sandwich Source Released

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the who-doesn't-like-source-code dept.

Android 285

grcumb writes "Looks like the folks at Google have made good on their promise to release the Android 4.0 source code. Android software engineer Jean-Baptiste Queru writes: 'Hi! We just released a bit of code we thought this group might be interested in. Over at our Android Open-Source Project git servers, the source code for Android version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) is now available. ... This is actually the source code for version 4.0.1 of Android, which is the specific version that will ship on the Galaxy Nexus, the first Android 4.0 device. In the source tree, you will find a device build target named "full_maguro" that you can use to build a system image for Galaxy Nexus. Build configurations for other devices will come later.' " Once nice side-effect of this is that the revision history for the non-free Honeycomb series is also available, albeit without any release tags.

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post released (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054544)

google: a little bit less evil.

Good to see... (4, Interesting)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054562)

that Google has followed through on releasing the source code. This is awesome news after Honeycomb went MIA as far as source release.

Re:Good to see... (2, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054658)

Chris Rock had a routine. He said some—too many of our men, they're proud, they brag about doing things they're supposed to do. They say 'Well, I- I'm not in jail.' Well you're not supposed to be in jail!

Re:Good to see... (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054726)

Huh? Google was supposed to release source code for Android? Pretty sure that counts as extra.

Of course, by /. standards everyone is supposed to release their source code, so by that standard, yeah Google did what they were supposed to do. On the other hand, anyone who is truly a proponent of freedom should acknowledge that, being Google's project, they are free to do with it as they like. Including not releasing source, if they see fit.

Re:Good to see... (2, Informative)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054828)

Huh? Google was supposed to release source code for Android? Pretty sure that counts as extra.

When you build off of GPL software you're legally obligated to release the modifications, so yeah, Google releasing a significant portion of Android is not "extra" it is the minimum required by law. That's not to say they did not also release some code they did not strictly have to, but since they had promised to do so, changing their mind at this stage would have been willfully misleading consumers and partners.

Re:Good to see... (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054882)

When you build off of GPL software you're legally obligated to release the modifications, so yeah, Google releasing a significant portion of Android is not "extra" it is the minimum required by law.

Only if you distribute binaries, which Google never did. Of course, the manufacturers did release binaries, so they did distribute the GPL'ed code from their websites. For example, you could always find Honeycomb's kernel code on the ASUS website [asus.com] .

That's not to say they did not also release some code they did not strictly have to, but since they had promised to do so, changing their mind at this stage would have been willfully misleading consumers and partners.

But they weren't obligated to promise it in the first place.

Re:Good to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054948)

Only if you distribute binaries, which Google never did.

You could probably argue this point either way. Samsung may have physically made the phones but the Nexus series phones are Google branded and ship with Google's Android binaries. Regardless, it's nice to see the code released and I'm pleased to hear that the Honeycomb bits are in there too (even if they are untagged at the moment).

Re:Good to see... (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054994)

Samsung was still legally the distributor, and they did in fact release the GPLv2 licensed code on their website (search for "D710" on https://opensource.samsung.com/index.jsp [samsung.com] , for example).

Only kernel is GPL (5, Informative)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055238)

The point usually made is that this applies to the android kernel source, which has indeed been promptly released directly to the kernel developers (and for download for anyone who cares). Much more promptly, by the way, than required by the licence.

It does *NOT* apply to the full android system, nor will it ever. Android itself (the various subprojects have separate licences, which I think you'll find, are all proprietary).

Just distributing a linux kernel running distribution does *not* make it GPL.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-android-the-linux-fork/9426 [zdnet.com]

Promised, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055340)

In his Ars Technica article, Ryan Paul uses "Sadly, those promises were never fulfilled"... but he doesn't really justify his use of that word. Not even sure what a promise is in the context of a corporation, but I suspect corporate promises are even more useless than human promises.

Re:Good to see... (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055422)

But they weren't obligated to promise it in the first place.

If there's some sort of hierarchy it works like:

1) Release nothing, offer service (Google search, Salesforce.com)

2) Distribute dongle-encrypted binaries (Pro Tools, AutoCad)

3) Distribute binaries (Mango, Google Android apps, iOS)

4) Distribute binaries, distribute open source to the open components (Mac OS X)

5) Distribute binaries, distribute source on binary delivery (Android)

6) Maintain public source tree, no one gets the bleeding-edge source before anyone else (Linux kernel)

7) Distribute source with a permissive license (Apache)

And thene there's the various support levels:

1) Fuck you (a lot of software)

2) Check out the forum (Apple level 1)

3) Give us a call and we'll charge you by the hour (Microsoft, enterprise Linux)

4) Submit a ticket but we won't tell you anything after that (Android)

5) Bring the software into the shop and we'll see what we can do with it in 10 minutes, if you live in a city (Apple Genius Bar)

6) Submit a ticket, recruit people to vote on it, post bounties for it, and follow it to resolution (Firefox)

You have warped sense of priorities (4, Interesting)

pem (1013437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055444)

If you put a free website as more evil than a dongle-encryped piece of crap that you pay thousands of dollars for.

Re:You have warped sense of priorities (0)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055606)

If you put a free as in beer website as more evil than a dongle-encryped piece of crap that you pay thousands of dollars for.

FTFY. Nobody gets points for distributing freeware, particularly if the freeware is just a portal to ads, pay services, and personal data mining.

People pay thousands of dollars for Linux support contracts and Linux is not a piece of crap. Well, it's a little bit of a piece of crap here and there, if it wasn't a little bit crappy they wouldn't be able to sell the support contracts, would they? :)

Re:Good to see... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055036)

That would be why none of Ice Cream Sandwich other than the kernel is under the GPL. They didn't 'build off GPL software', in fact they went to the extreme of writing their own libc in order to avoid that. The 'some code they did not strictly have to' is basically all of Android's userland.

They already released the GPL'd stuff (5, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055274)

Google did release all of Android Honycomb that was GPL'd. In particular the Kernel, and a few other userland tools. However, everything that makes Andrioid Android, and not just another linux distro is licensed under the Apache license which allows for proprietary modifications. This includes the Dalvik VM, the Harmony Java libraries, and the Android APIs. Google was perfectly with the law to not release this code, not to mention the fact that they wrote half of it themselves.

This has already been discussed ad'nausem on Slashdot, so there is no excuse for this misinformation to be moderated up. I swear only idiots that hardly read the site get moderation points anymore.

Re:Good to see... (-1, Flamebait)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054890)

Huh? Google was supposed to release source code for Android? Pretty sure that counts as extra.

No, it doesn't. They're supposed to release it. They had an excuse for Honeycomb, but that's all it was: An excuse.

And go fuck yourself with the whole "/. thinks everyone is supposed to release source code." That's not the case at all, and you're full of shit.

Re:Good to see... (0, Redundant)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054944)

Legally, they weren't.

Re:Good to see... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055026)

Of course, by /. standards everyone is supposed to release their source code

How do you come to that conclusion?

Re:Good to see... (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055252)

Because slashdot seems to require Google release code they acquired on a licence other than the GPL licence (they had their employees write it, which gives them pretty fucking favorable terms)

Re:Good to see... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055378)

In all the threads about this topic there were plenty of arguments over this issue, there was certainly no 'slashdot consensus' regarding the source code release.

Mmph (1, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055446)

There are people on slashdot who see it as their mission to paint Google evil for any reason. If they can misinterpret a license that most people don't understand and thus incorrectly hold it out as Google being evil, that's what they're going to do. It doesn't play very well, if you look around this thread - in fact, they're probably doing their "evil Google" campaign more harm than good trying it here where so many active participants actually know better. They should take their work to PCWorld and CNet, where it would work better. Yet still, they try here but don't be misled: It's not about license compliance, it's about getting some tar on Google any way they can in the minds of folk who don't know better. They're not really GPL fans or they would understand what is required, and why, and that Google is - and has always been - in compliance with the terms and above that generous with contributions of all sorts.

Re:Good to see... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055054)

Of course they can do anything they like with their code.Free software advocates do not propose to make it illegal to withhold your own source code. The issue is related to what is best for the customer. Free software advocates feel that free software is better for the customer than software that isn't free. Especially when you are talking about an OS, it is also better for 3rd party software developers to have access to the source code (this much should be obvious to anyone).

The issue of whether or not Google is "supposed to" release the source code, I think it is not much of an argument. From the beginning they promised to release source code. I don't think anyone was under the impression that they would only release source code for some versions. Everyone thought they would release source code for all the versions. As a third party developer, it's a bit of a slap in the face to commit to a platform on the assumption that it is free, only to find that you can't get access to some versions. To the extent that many people backed Android because Google promised to release the source code, Google is "supposed" to release the source code.

Now that they have finally done so, personally I'm happy. I'm still concerned that at some point in the future they will do the same thing, so I have difficulty backing them as much as I did in the past.

Re:Good to see... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055418)

First of all, Android was built upon Linux and uses other open source components. When you start building a new product, and elect to use open source components, then yes - you are subject to the terms of the open source licenses of those components.

Second, when Google started the Open Handset Alliance and invited everyone to partner, contribute and participate, it was under the promise of Android being open source. The OPEN Handset Alliance, geddit?

Once everyone came on board and there was a thriving ecosystem of application developers and hardware partners, Google suddenly decided to withhold the source code for the Honeycomb version (under what many deemed as dubious reasons). Yes, there was caution and suspicion. What, the source code was flawed? There was a need to clean it up? Well could that not have been achieved in openness?

Re:Good to see... (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055614)

Huh? Google was supposed to release source code for Android? Pretty sure that counts as extra.

Uh, since Google claims Android is open source, yes.

Re:Good to see... (-1, Troll)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054936)

This hasn't changed that. Honeycomb was designed for tablet use. This is another phone OS. So far Google has yet to open a tablet release and has opened every phone release.

Re:Good to see... (1)

Snarky McButtface (1542357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055046)

Really? [phonearena.com]

Re:Good to see... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055048)

Technically, you're clueless.

The ICS source release contains all of the HC source as well.

K?

Happy now?

No-one wants it, of course....but it's there. Consider yourself a tad more informed now than you were when you made that idiotic post.

Re:Good to see... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055062)

No, ICS is for tablets and phones.

Re:Good to see... (4, Informative)

Grave (8234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055064)

ICS is designed to work nicely on both phones and tablets. Google knew that 2.x was not really ideal for tablets, hence Honeycomb. But forking their own OS was not ideal, either, so ICS now combines the best of both and should provide a great experience on either format.

Re:Good to see... (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055142)

ICS is meant to run on tablets AND phones. Google has been more than upfront about this...

Re:Good to see... (5, Informative)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055104)

Actually, it isn't missing in action. The ICS source tree includes the honeycomb code, even though it isn't tagged... So, technically, it's there.

Here come the ports (3, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054594)

Hopefully that means we will see ICS ported to other devices in the near future, it should be interesting to see how it performs on older devices.
Good to see that ICS is an open source version of Android after the closed-source Honeycomb created that possibility (however unlikely) of other Android versions following suit.

Re:Here come the ports (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055506)

however unlikely

You must be new here. Google, the epitome of evil and all that is bad and hypocritical, will never release the ICS source, mark my words! *two weeks later* Those bastards released the source two weeks late! Light the torches!

Show me the source. (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054604)

Well here it is,

Just like Google promised, they were quite open about why they didnt release the Honeycomb source (not that it stopped ROM cookers) and that the changes in 3.x would be released in 4.0.

It's nice that a large company actually adheres to its word.

Now how long before CyanogenMod 9 is released.

Re:Show me the source. (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054634)

Screw that. When does the AndroidX86 version get released? I need to upgrade my home made Car stereo that runs Android.

I can finally get rid of the crud hack of adding on screen buttons for volume, back and home.

Re:Show me the source. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054712)

Talk to these guys:
http://www.android-x86.org/

Re:Show me the source. (4, Insightful)

Elgonn (921934) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054652)

Now how long before CyanogenMod 9 is released.

This is really what most of us care about at this point. Maybe 1% of us will actively use the code personally.

Re:Show me the source. (3, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054810)

Now how long before CyanogenMod 9 is released.

This is really what most of us care about at this point. Maybe 1% of us will actively use the code personally.

But that 1% matters as they are the device manufacturers.

Cheap Elocity or Archos tablets running ICS on display at your local Tesco's or Best Buy. Hell, I might buy one just for my car, the fact that the $200 tablets were all running 2.2 was the only thing stopping me (lets be honest, on a 7" screen 2.x was crap).

Re:Show me the source. (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055450)

the fact that the $200 tablets were all running 2.2 was the only thing stopping me (lets be honest, on a 7" screen 2.x was crap).

Really? I was willing to stick with 2.3 but bailed out when I found that even the $300 Android tablets had awfully low res screens (lower than my tiny damn phone, in fact), and incredibly unresponsive and massively frustrating touch-screens.

By all means, if you find a $200 Android tablet that's buttery smooth and super-snappy, let us all know. There tends to be a big gulf between cheap junk and first tier tablets, with no middle ground.

On the same subject, let me know when you find an Android phone with two, good quality front-facing speakers. Even the cheapest tablets surpass the most expensive smartphones there for some reason... Even the EEEPC's tiny speakers sound far better. That's easily my top annoyance, significantly reducing the utility of my phone as an all-in-one device since I really have to lug around speakers.

Re:Show me the source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054834)

Dunno, a lot of us would like to use an ICS-based MIUI as well.

Re:Show me the source. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055002)

Yeah, but MIUI just uses CM code and adds closed-source tweaks. Perfectly in their rights, but still a little sleazy IMO.

Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (1, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054716)

Just like Google promised, they were quite open about why they didnt release the Honeycomb source ...and no it isn't for Honeycomb - The history is there, but the tags aren't. Add tags to match the released devices globally, and all would be well.

It's nice that a large company actually adheres to its word.
It's easy to do it when you're opaque.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (0)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054792)

Funny, when Apple released source code in this manner (big chunks all at once) the open source community was up in arms, claiming they weren't being good open-source citizens. Remember when KHTML folks were ranting about Apple's handling of WebKit? Unless Android development opens up, this is more of a "shared source" model than a real "open source" one.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054838)

People were in fact annoyed that Google didn't contribute back to the kernel and such, but that discussion has died long ago. This isn't exactly the first release of Android's code.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054894)

They did send patches to the kernel but they was rejected since you couldn't compile outright a "working" version due to android often relying on certain things that wasn't released (hardware drivers for phones are often closed sourced which Google really can't do much about).

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (2)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055066)

The difference being that Android is Google's project and KHTML is KDE's, with Apple splitting up and making a competing fork with little chance of putting their changes back in the parent tree and Google not doing that. Not really all that funny.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055230)

The difference being that Android is Google's project and KHTML is KDE's, with Apple splitting up and making a competing fork with little chance of putting their changes back in the parent tree and Google not doing that.

Google did exactly that with the linux kernel!

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055288)

Except that it's exactly what they did with the Linux kernel, fanboi.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055106)

Well, for starters, Apple used to release all their intrusive changes to KHTML as a single patch, which made it impossible to discern what had changed and therefore "impossible" to integrate back upstream. Google has released the repository itself, with proper change history, of all the code they have been working on. That's quite a big difference, so stop spreading FUD.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055296)

So Apple was doing nothing different than Red Hat is now doing with their kernel patches? Funny how the same people who were flaming Apple defend Red Hat doing the same thing because now "Red Hat is sticking it to Oracle"! Damn hypocrites.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (5, Insightful)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055246)

Funny, when Apple released source code in this manner (big chunks all at once) the open source community was up in arms, claiming they weren't being good open-source citizens.

I actually don't remember anyone significant in the OSS community being up in arms. There were a lot of people on Slashdot, but I'm not really convinced that's the same thing.

Remember when KHTML folks were ranting about Apple's handling of WebKit?

No. I remember when one of the KHTML developers made a comment saying they wished Apple would make things easier to backport into KHTML. I further remember them politely e-mailing the Apple devs about it and then the KHTML team making numerous comments about how nice it was that Apple went out of their way to help even though a lot of the changes were in a direction the KHTML team was not really interested in emulating. I further remember people who weren't KHTML developers ranting loudly and at length in numerous forums and here on Slashdot about how "evil" Apple was and repeatedly making uninformed comments that bordered on libel. Apparently the impression that left still lingers.

Unless Android development opens up, this is more of a "shared source" model than a real "open source" one.

Not really. Until Google distributes the software they are not obligated to share any code and if they feel that the time to market advantage of keeping the code secret until they ship is important, well that's a perfectly reasonable strategy that has been quite common in OSS for a long time. It is a trade off because it discourages some players from contributing to the same project and can limit adoption by some vendors.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055424)

Unless Android development opens up, this is more of a "shared source" model than a real "open source" one.

This comes up every single time. The core Android source code (ie. not including third-party drivers, etc.) is most definitely open source, released under OSI-approved open source licenses. Android *development* is not all that open, as it's all done in-house at Google. This is a different thing than the source being open or not.

Other open source software may use a more open development model, but even then it's still up to the actual core developers what they include or not. If I want to hack up the Firefox source code to do something cool, Mozilla isn't just going to include that in the next release either. Same with Apache software. They might be more willing to look at external contributions than Google is, but it all comes down to how much the owners/managers of the project want to include from other sources. They're free to include as much or as little of your contributions or my contributions as they want.

And, of course, you're free to create your own fork of Android (you could call it "Samdroid" given your name) and allow whatever kind of development you think would be "real" open source. Let us know when you do; it sounds like an intriguing project.

Re:Not until the "incompleteness" is stated (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055334)

Just like Google promised, they were quite open about why they didnt release the Honeycomb source ...and no it isn't for Honeycomb - The history is there, but the tags aren't. Add tags to match the released devices globally, and all would be well.

I wondered how the slashbots would spin this to make Google evil when they released the source. But I really thought they'd come up with something better than "oh noes, sum tagz is missing!"

Do you even know what tags are? Dude, you've got complete revision history, complete with developers' comments of every change... read 'em and figure out what version you want to grab out of there. It's not like there's any One True Honeycomb version either. There were multiple releases, which in turn were almost certainly modified in various ways by the device vendors.

Considering that Google is under no legal obligation to release Android source at all, complaining when Google only gives you the complete source repository, omitting some tags is like whining that someone gave you free beer and pretzels but some of the salt had fallen off. Cry me a river.

Re:Show me the source. (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054934)

What was that reason, that they didn't release Honeycomb?

Srsly I never heard the rationale...

It matters to me because I support Android very much *because* it is open.

Re:Show me the source. (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055012)

"To make our schedule to ship the tablet, we made some design tradeoffs," says Andy Rubin, vice-president for engineering at Google and head of its Android group. "We didn't want to think about what it would take for the same software to run on phones. It would have required a lot of additional resources and extended our schedule beyond what we thought was reasonable. So we took a shortcut."

Rubin says that if Google were to open-source the Honeycomb code now, as it has with other versions of Android at similar periods in their development, it couldn't prevent developers from putting the software on phones "and creating a really bad user experience. We have no idea if it will even work on phones."

Re:Show me the source. (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055100)

Matias Duarte said [theverge.com] basically the same thing: "On Honeycomb we cheated, we cut the corner of all that smaller device support. That’s the sole reason we haven’t open sourced it."

Re:Show me the source. (4, Insightful)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055194)

> What was that reason, that they didn't release Honeycomb?

That, and to temporarily give higher-end tablets with better hardware a fighting chance against the onslaught of underpowered K-mart-bound tablets from China with 10" 480x800 displays and 200MHz CPUs. Google wasn't terribly picky about whom they allowed to have access to Honeycomb, as long as your hardware met their minimum spec. It wasn't ideal, but it was the only way to give tablets like the Xoom, Transformer, and Galaxy Tab a fighting chance to break out of the 480x800 ghetto and give us hardware that wouldn't have iPad owners laughing at us.

Re:Show me the source. (0)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055320)

Well they did finally release, so kudos for that but the fact remains that Google gets to determine what gets released and when. That's OK for hobbyists but not for people who would like to build a business around Android without being bound hands and feet to Google. There's a reason Amazon has basically forked Android by basing their new platform around version 2.1

Re:Show me the source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055480)

FUD. Kindle Fire rungs Gingerbread (2.3) and it wouldn't surprise many people if it got an ICS upgrade eventually.

So much for Google's links (-1, Troll)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054630)

Re:So much for Google's links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054666)

you didn't even fscking care to check the fscking link?

http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html [android.com]

Re:So much for Google's links (1)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055024)

Caffeine much? Sorry, didn't observe the title bar.

Re:So much for Google's links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054672)

Remove "Check" from the end of the URL and it loads just fine.

Re:So much for Google's links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054684)

Try deleting the "Check", which pretty clearly comes from the next sentence.

Re:So much for Google's links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054704)

Try
http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html

GitHub (5, Informative)

ttong (2459466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054640)

GitHub provides a friendly interface to view the source without having to use the repo tool and downloading the whole thing, so I'm eagerly waiting for this to get pushed there as well. Shouldn't take long.

https://github.com/android/ [github.com]

Stupid projects names (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054668)

Either stop with the stupid names for projects or go all the way and call the next one "Extremely Loud Fart and Burp" or something.

That's what bugs me about OSS. Either they pick names only a handful of nerdy pricks will actually understand (see: Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? [wikipedia.org] ) or stupid names that don't have any fucking link with what the project is all about.

If the OS, platform or whatever is called Android, can't you at least pick names that are fucking related to robots and androids?

Android 1.0: Theme Park
Android 2.0: Blackjack
Android 3.0: Hookers

Re:Stupid projects names (4, Funny)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054760)

Yeah! "Cupcake", "Eclair", "Ice Cream", what the hell kind of names are those? Sounds more like something from a dinner menu than a release list!

The OSS movement really needs to take a page from the book of professional companies like Microsoft. They know how to give their product versions classy names, like "Mango" [wikipedia.org] . See how much better that is?

Re:Stupid projects names (2)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054954)

Look, clearly the Android names are working up to something specific. The release that causes the singularity will be named Bacon.

Re:Stupid projects names (1)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054970)

I'm going to remove mod points for peeps but couldn't resist posting... Speaking of names, how about Bing? What kind of a name is that? "Here let me bing that for you", just doesn't gel.

Re:Stupid projects names (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055232)

People look at me like I'm weird, but I still find myself wanting to pronounce it "bin-gee" ;-)

Re:Stupid projects names (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055082)

If you have to eat your own dogfood, better that it have a tasty name

Re:Stupid projects names (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054878)

stupid names that don't have any fucking link with what the project is all about.

Like how Apple names their OS releases after big cats, because big cats and operating systems have so much in common?

You clearly have never worked in any real tech industry job, otherwise you would know that cool-sounding, themed, but ultimately meaningless project code names are ubiquitous.

Re:Stupid projects names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055182)

Android release names are actually better than most. The alphabetical order means that you never have to think about whether Honeycomb is more recent than Ice Cream Sandwich. Not sure what they'll do when they get to Android Zagnut (or perhaps Zabaglione), but until that time, they've chosen a naming strategy that's actually somewhat functional.

Re:Stupid projects names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055348)

Couldn't they AT LEAST pick a shorter name? I mean come on, three freakin' words?

How about "Ice Cream"? Why the hell did they have to add "sandwich" at the end?

Re:Stupid projects names (0)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055528)

Version 10.0: "Cheetah"
Version 10.1: "Puma"
Version 10.2: "Jaguar"
Version 10.3: "Panther"
Version 10.4: "Tiger"
Version 10.5: "Leopard"
Version 10.6: "Snow Leopard"
Version 10.7: "Lion"

because large cats are soooo much better than desserts....

Some, not all of Honeycomb up for tagging (maybe) (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054676)

From the discussion [google.com] :

Jean-Baptiste Queru:
"I do not intend to globally tag Honeycomb releases, but I will
consider tagging 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 in frameworks/base so that
application developers can match the code that's running on devices."

(IMHO, not good enough to not release the entire platform.)

Re:Some, not all of Honeycomb up for tagging (mayb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054724)

Do you even understand what the term "Tagging" means? Here's a hint: It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual code in the repository.

Re:Some, not all of Honeycomb up for tagging (mayb (2)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054766)

The tags aren't necessarily relevant to the outside world, and perhaps provide a little too much insight into the development process.

I once tagged something "shitFinallyFixedNow" at 4AM while working on a final project in school. Needless to say, I didn't push that tag to the professor....

Re:Some, not all of Honeycomb up for tagging (mayb (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055228)

IMHO, not good enough to not release the entire platform

How about this for rationale: Its their code and they dont owe you a darn thing.

Seriously, someone comes out with a new semi-revolutionary embedded device OS (revolutionary in that it took the market by storm and is reasonably open / easy to root), and then they release the source for the first several releases. But when they miss one, people act like theyre OWED something. You know what? Go use one of the OTHER open-source phone OSes if you feel so strongly about it.

Seriously, this sense of entitlement bugs the heck out of me. The world doesnt owe you a thing.

Not good enough! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054702)

I am going to keep waiting for 3.0 source code, rolled back to before any 4.x changes, delivered with a personal apology.

What ever happened to principles, people?

Ice Cream+Graham Crackers+Crashing (4, Funny)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054708)

Come on, we all already know goes into an ice Cream Sandwich. You get two graham crackers, put ice cream between them, and serve with a side of randomly lock up my phone for no reason. Easy.

Re:Ice Cream+Graham Crackers+Crashing (2, Interesting)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054884)

Original submitter here. Amusingly, my slashdot nick is a mis-spelling of Graham Crumb, my non de plume. Flaky indeed.

Re:Ice Cream+Graham Crackers+Crashing (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055430)

Ouch. Tough crowd of moderators tonight.

Who could downmod the parent poster in light of a sig like "Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight." This food motif, revelation and submitter's temp prestige should have some more value, seeing how we all wanted to discuss Ice Cream Sandwiches anyway.

Re:Ice Cream+Graham Crackers+Crashing (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055498)

This food motif

Yes but he missed "nom" de plume through mispelling. What a waste of another perfectly good food reference.

Re:Ice Cream+Graham Crackers+Crashing (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055464)

"lock up my phone for no reason."

there is a reason why they lock up.

What do you know.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054756)

I guess all the nay-sayers were actually wrong. What do you know.

Next thing you know they will finish cleaning up 3.0 and release that code too and all the whiners will have to find another reason to whine.

Can't wait for CM7 to port! :D

Question for those familiar with the code (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054812)

So Ice Cream Sandwich is designed to be compatible with both phones and tablets. Do you have set a specific flag when you build the code depending on what kind of device you want to put it on? Or is it relatively device agnostic? Can it determine the screen size by querying the hardware and figure out what to do automagically on its own?

Re:Question for those familiar with the code (1)

waffle zero (322430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054888)

I believe it's dependent on a calculation of the declared screen dpi (ppi) and the screen resolution.

Don't be kissing Googles ass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38054844)

They had no other choice legally, or else this wouldn't have happened.

Can I type make install? Or are we still in tivo land?

Re:Don't be kissing Googles ass (4, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054924)

They had no other choice legally, or else this wouldn't have happened.

Uh, no. First, they never distributed binaries, so they weren't required to release anything.

Second, the parts that *were* required to be released (by the manufacturers, not Google) were in fact released, and you could always get them. They're in the ASUS site, for example.

Thirdly, most of the code that actually makes up Android is Apache2 licensed, which means they are never required to release it - you can use it on proprietary code.

Can I type make install? Or are we still in tivo land?

That's up to the manufacturers, not Google.

Re:Don't be kissing Googles ass (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38054998)

They had no other choice legally, or else this wouldn't have happened.

Of course they did, the only thing they have to release is the kernel code since nothing in the ASL requires them to release source code and that's why Honeycomb didn't have to be released.

No legal responsibility. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055068)

They aren't selling it. Learn your GPL.

Now could I actually get an upgrade?? (0)

echusarcana (832151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055018)

That's great and all, but could I please have the actual item on my Googlerola Xoom tab? I'm still waiting for Android 3.2 to be released on the Xoom.

Re:Now could I actually get an upgrade?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055140)

I'm posting this from my XOOM running Android 3.2.1

The Xoom is one of the few easily unlockable/rootable devices from Motorola... take advantage of it.

Re:Now could I actually get an upgrade?? (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055290)

I can almost guarantee that there are at least a half-dozen guys who won't be going to bed tonight just so they can post a semi-working bootable ICS distro for Xoom before dawn breaks over western Europe (and earn bragging rights over their peers with Transformers, A500s, Galaxy Tabs, and Thrives). A version you're likely to regard as stable will probably take a week or two. Moto's official build will probably get released to a yawn 3 months from now, long after everyone who passionately cares about ICS has already upgraded to it on their own.

Personally, I'm thrilled. I can't wait to rip into the code that handles the power button, and try overloading it to create a new double-click gesture that means "unlock the orientation, read the accelerometer, reorient the screen if appropriate, then lock the orientation again" so I'll never, ever have to choose between the frustration of having the screen rotate inappropriately while I'm laying in bed, and screwing with 30 seconds of active gesturing to try and switch it between landscape and portrait. :)

Haters Thread (4, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055332)

OK, here's a thread to post the links to all the haters' comments where they guaranteed that Google had gone Evil and would never release ICS source.

Granted, I full well expect six people will rebuff, stating that since 4.0.1 was released but not 4.0.0 that they were precisely correct and that this is proof of Google's evil intentions.

Re:Haters Thread (3, Insightful)

msevior (145103) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055408)

Yeah I commented on an earlier article about how much better off we are with Google and Android. I got weirdest set of hate comments. People hate getting their prejudices refuted. It causes massive cognitive dissonance and is physically painful. I have my own and have observed the effect on me.

Some credit to Google (5, Insightful)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38055426)

Google are:
- releasing source code to their operating system for free, under no obligation. The Nook Tablet and Color and Kindle Fire are great examples of how this can work against Google - Android devices that make no payment to Google and do not come with access to Google's Android Marketplace, or Google's proprietary apps.

- virtually the only major silicon valley company left (compared to Apple, Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon etc) who haven't patent trolled anyone (except in retaliation of course), although they could have, Google still has thousands of patents even though companies like Microsoft have far more, some of them are a lot more important than Apple GUI animation patents. e.g. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/01/googles-mapreduce-patent-what-does-it-mean-for-hadoop.ars [arstechnica.com]

- been far better at sticking to privacy promises and openness compared to the likes of Facebook

- have entire divisions of their company and features that make no revenue for them (and are not R&D projects in hope of future earnings) but are retained. e.g. Free offline and IMAP/SMTP/POP access to gmail from day one, google docs for personal use (I can open and edit files with no ads anywhere), AOSP, Google chrome/ chromium, google.org

- principled stand on net neutrality

- taking a principled stand and pulling out of China

Somehow Google are still constantly attacked, way more than companies like Apple and Microsoft these days, they deserve some credit. Sure, they are far from the do no evil motto, but these days, doing a lot less evil than other megacorps is still remarkable.

Re:Some credit to Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38055584)

Yeah and Sony were selling PS3 consoles at a loss, how awesome of them!

Sure, they are far from the do no evil motto

And that's probably the point, what they claim to be is far from what they are.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?