Letters to the Editor
-
We're not out of jail yet!
Let's not celebrate quite yet.
I'd like to see the licensing agreement on this before we celebrate any victory. It is very easy for the cellphone companies to take nice OpenSource stuff and build a nice cozy little jail cell for their users if the licensing agreement allows it.
I notice that neither Verizon nor AT&T are on the list of supporters. Without these two companies, you're leaving off about 2/3 of the U.S. cellphone users.
-
Open Source
"An operating system for all computers everywhere, one that's open source and owned by no one and maintained by everyone"
Gee, there is one. It's called Linux. It runs on PC's and cellphones and PDA's and embedded systems and game consoles. The list goes on and on.
But, hey, I suppose can re-invent the wheel if it wants. Besides, if it's Java, it ain't really open.
-
What value does Android add?
An operating system for all computers everywhere, one that's open source and owned by no one and maintained by everyone
Since Linux already fits this description to a tee (as someone else has aptly pointed out), what value does Android add, other than the dubious one of imposing a B&D development environment like Java?
-
I sure cannot wait
...for yet another Linux distro. Yeah.
Now, a free and open, ad-supported "ecology" of phones, that would be different and would probably rock. Not sure why the idea of "another OS" is such a big deal when we could be talking about revolutionizing the cell industry which is in dire need of just such a revolution. Then again, Farhad always seems to miss the point in some odd way.
-
Open source OS: Already Exists
It's called Linux and it's the one Google is using to make android.
-
Why Linux/Java?
The answer has to be more than just "Linux", which Android will use as the OS anyway. Which Linux distribution are you going to use? Which services are going to be standard (remember that Linux is technically just a kernel)? What applications are you going to include? How are application developers going to deploy their apps on the phone?
That's why you need an actual platform, and that's what Android is. From the press release: "Android will deliver a complete set of software for mobile devices: an operating system, middleware and key mobile applications."
Java is also GPLd, so completely free and open-source, and is used pretty extensively on mobile devices. It's not overhead, it's leverage.
-
The license is Apache 2.0
qazwort: According to the Android web site, the license they'll use is Apache 2.0. They specifically say it was chosen so vendors can add proprietary extensions.
-
It's a Linux distro!
But why think so small? After all, if Android can run on a phone, why couldn't it run on a tablet PC? Or an e-book reader? Or a media player? Or, right, the desktop on your desk at work?
See what I'm getting at? For Google, a gPhone, or even an OS for all phones, is probably aiming too low.
An operating system for all computers everywhere, one that's open source and owned by no one and maintained by everyone: Any such effort would be a huge threat to a computing industry that, fundamentally, has long been bent on keeping platforms closed (whether we're talking about Apple or Microsoft). Well, that's more in line with Google's grand aims.
As other comm enters have pointed out, this already exists. It has existed for like a decade now. It's called Linux (or GNU/Linux if you're anal retentive). Where have you been, Farhad?
There has been speculation for years that Google would bring its own Linux distro to market, and this may be the beginning of that move. If they choose to start with phones, that's certainly an interesting choice. But let's be clear here, Linux is revolutionary. Google marketing Linux to the masses is evolutionary.
-
The difference between Android and Linux
is that Linux isn't optimized to allow Google to monetize access to any and all services.
This is Google's new approach, having apparently realized that they simply can't take on Microsoft head to head in the software arena, much like Apple has. Apple moved to being strictly a hardware and services company, and Google has become the access company. Open Social is another example - 25 seconds after they lose out to MS on the Facebook deal, they announce that they want to open source the entire social networking universe. Open Source is Google's friend.
But you know what? I'm fine with that. The open nature of the architecture they envision ensures that the quality of the access they provide will remain high and improve constantly if they want to continue bringing in the billions, and someone is always going to monetize access now that Google has shown them that it can be done and how to do it. And if, as an added bonus, I no longer have to reboot my phone once a week that's all the better.