News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google admits Android 'both open and closed'. Parent comment

Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed' by wvenable on Thursday April 14, 2011 @12:05PM (#2447318)
> People are trying to make this a licensing issue, when it definitely it is not.

I agree. In fact, that was my original argument.

> the only valid concern I see for Android is that development is not done in the open.

I don't actually care if the development is not done in the open. What I actually care about is being ability to modify and install alternative versions of the software on my devices. I have had to throw away a lot of perfectly good hardware because the software was old and outdated with no way to update it. I've also had to deal with bugs with no way to fix them. Of course, none of this is Google's problem because they don't make the hardware.

> they can always buy alternative devices, or build their own devices (isn't that the purpose of Free Software anyway?).

The purpose of Free Software to build hardware? I think you've got something wrong there. As a programmer, I don't build hardware. I build software.

> If openness is really what people need, open devices will win

No, because most people are not programmers (or highly technical) and therefore have no need or ability to run alternative software. So no, openness will not win out. This appeal to the masses is not a good argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed' by bad_user on Thursday April 14, 2011 @02:32PM (#2447886) 

    The purpose of Free Software to build hardware?
No, you got it wrong. The purpose of Free Software is to escape from the monopolies created by proprietary software (i.e. only the parent company of such software can provide support and fix it for you); which is not the same with other products, like cars, for which you can always find a local repair-shop. So even if normal people are not developers or hardware builders, they can rely on local businesses that may be cheaper, while also helping the local community.

A valid point nonetheless. Search for any of RMS's talks and he'll bring this point up.

    No, because most people are not programmers
I've got dozens of non-programmers as friends. Many of them own iPhones. All of them know about jailbreaking, many of them did it -- some with net-tutorials, some by paying local smarty-pants that unlock phones for a living.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed' by wvenable on Thursday April 14, 2011 @03:26PM (#2448074)
> The purpose of Free Software is to escape from the monopolies created by proprietary software

Which is effectively impossible if the device running the software is locked down! Android, as Free Software, could be made effectively meaningless if I'm not able to tinker with that very software installed on my device. The FSF agrees, hence the GPL3. Telling me to make my own hardware, exactly what you said, doesn't help me at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google admits Android 'both open and closed' by wvenable on Thursday April 14, 2011 @03:21PM (#2448052)
Sadly, that still shows that open will not win out in the market. Your friends jailbreak, sure, but they're still buying the most proprietary locked down device out there. Ask any of those iPhone owners if they'd give up their iPhone if it was no longer ever possible to jailbreak it.
[ Parent | on HN ]