Android Honeycomb Will Not Be Open Sourced

At the ongoing Google I/O conference in San Francisco, Google today officially announced the next version of Android, named Ice Cream Sandwich, as well as Android 3.1, an "incremental platform release" of Honeycomb. An anonymous reader writes "In an effort to understand the landscape for developers, Andy Rubin was asked if, since Ice Cream Sandwich would be open, Android 3.0 and/or 3.1 will be granted the same courtesy. Rubin answered definitively in the negative. Honeycomb on its own would not be open, because its phone functionality is very broken. Ice Cream Sandwich will take all of the Honeycomb functionality and open source it alongside code that is much more universally friendly."

Comments

Re:editors already asleep?

[Anonymous Coward]

hide behind your chosen pseudonym some more feeb
you're completely pathetic

User perception

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a while ago when Google announced Honeycomb would not be open sourced for the time being. A lot of people on Slashdot were unsurprisingly up in arms and, equally unsurprisingly, for all the wrong reasons. From a FOSS standpoint it's a terrible move on their part, but what many didn't understand was the reasoning:

Android has an extremely vast community of amateurs that create custom builds of AOSP. These are people with little to no coding experience, distributing specialized "ROMs" to an even greater amount of curious users who are barely a shade above the average user. So what would happen if Honeycomb were opened? There'd be a very quick uptake by those users and, given the Tablet oriented state of Honeycomb, a really really bad user experience. As pretty as Honeycomb is, that would have reflected badly on Google -- worse than what many jumping the gun on /. thought when Google initially delayed the source release.

With that in mind, I'm glad that they are deferring the code until Ice Cream Sandwich where it seems they will "do it right."

Re:User perception

[markkezner]

I don't think the guys who make custom ROMs are significant enough to really be of concern for Android's image, ill conceived as some of those ROMs may be. I think the bigger concern would be careless manufacturers selling bad devices to Joe User. Anyway the people who flash custom ROMs onto their devices generally know they might break some things.

Re:User perception

[hairyfeet]

Uh huh, I'd say the REAL goal is a slow but sure march towards TiVoization which I said would happen for...oh about a year now. Once Google said they wouldn't allow any GPL V3 (which RMS wrote to specifically keeping companies from TiVoing GPL software) I figured it was only a matter of time.

You watch these early moves are 'feelers" to see how big of a stink it causes in places other than Linux forums. When Google sees the fanbois are all onboard and making with the excuses and Joe Consumer frankly doesn't care they trot out a nice "its for security!" statement (probably timed right after some Android malware hits the news) and it'll be code signing or eFuses all the way.

As much as I don't agree with RMS on ...well hell pretty much everything, he was right on this. Once TiVo showed the corps how to run right around GPL V2 it became for all intents and purposes useless. Anybody using GPL V2 now might as well be using BSD or PD for all the "freedom" it protects now. After all what good is the code if you aren't allowed to modify it or run it on the device for which its intended?

I just hope moves like this teach the community two important lessons: 1.-There is no such thing as a "friendly" corp. They can come up with little slogans like do no evil, they can make shiny devices, it frankly doesn't matter what they do, because if it comes down to making more money and/or gaining more power or not fucking you? Well bend over pal, because here it comes. 2.- GPL V2 needs to be dumped ASAP and replaced with GPL V3, because as it is using GPL V2 is simply giving corps your labor for free while they don't have to give you ANYTHING in return. eFuses and code signing cost almost nothing and gives the corp all the control of proprietary while at the same time gaining all the effort that has been put into embedded Linux by the community.

Re:User perception

[Nursie]

Whilst tivoisation is a problem and is already happening I see another motive here - only approved partners get to release a properly functional tablet, for an entire year.

By not releasing this to the general public, Google has tight control over releases and android tablet, and that way can exercise a form of quality control they otherwise couldn't. This could be a (misguided, IMHO) attempt to compete with the iPad on consistency of user experience.

Re:User perception

[Talisein]

... Once TiVo showed the corps how to run right around GPL V2 it became for all intents and purposes useless.

Unless your intent and purpose is that you just want to be able to see and use what people do to your source code and not dictate how people build their hardware.

Ultimately these companies rise and fall by the geeks that work for them; if Google does shed its skin and shows some evil nature of closed development or something.... then things will be inconvenient for a few years, they'll bleed the developers who understand the importance of openness (which seems to be a pretty large proportion of Android's devs), and eventually they'll be as irrelevant as Microsoft.

Re:User perception

[arkhan_jg]

Except that it just means the 'unapproved' tablet makers will continue using 2.2 and 2.3 as the basis for their tablets, which is a worse tablet experience than honeycomb - I tried out an archos 101, and despite loving my rooted gingerbread galaxy S to death, froyo really doesn't scale well to a 10" touchscreen.

If they want android to get a reputation as a shitty ipad knock-off in the tablet arena, they're doing a fairly good job of it by stopping honeycomb seeing wider release. I personally think gingerbread is significantly better than iOS on a smartphone, but I have to admit that iOS is whupping our arse in usability when it comes to the iPad.

Re:User perception

[hxnwix]

Name a company that failed because they pissed off the FOSS community.

SCO

Digital Convergence Corporation

DivX, Inc

The XFree86 Project, Inc

Of course, you could argue that these were silly companies whose time had come. I'd respond that the FOSS community brought that time upon them. You'd respond with some stupid car analogy, conceding defeat in a manner obvious to everyone but yourself. Argument complete.

Re:User perception

[AlXtreme]

I have to admit that iOS is whupping our arse in usability when it comes to the iPad.

Exactly, and Google has no one to blame but themselves when it comes to poor Android tablet sales.

2011 would have been the year of the Android Tablet. Then manufacturers delayed until easter, OK. Now it's fall 2011 for most models except for those blessed by Google.

For now we can only choose between the overpriced Galaxy Tab and Xoom (on par with the iPad in price) or the Android 2.x el-cheapo tablets, where there probably is a huge opportunity for tablets between those two extremes.

Oh well, 2011 isn't over yet.

Re:User perception

[NoAkai]

Well that was a quick argument... Now what am I going to do with the rest of my day?

Re:User perception

[IamTheRealMike]

Right, TiVo-ization. That's why Googles own devices are reflashable out of the box, and that's why Android is open source (it doesn't have to be, right?).

Your bizarre rant might make a shred of sense if Android was heavily based on GPLd code written by other people. Other than the kernel and one or two components, the vast bulk is non-GPLd code written by Google.

Re:User perception

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...accounts are free, so what is with all the ACs? It is starting to feel like a *chan here, with a good 70% or more comments AC. As for your "mindstate" test? in no particular order: Not sure about JFK because they haven't released all the info yet, the laser reflectors should tell anyone that Apollo did land on the moon, Elvis is dead, still can't figure out how two planes took out three towers on 9/11 or how you get three towers to fall straight down when it is a royal bitch to pull that off even with controlled demolition, enough for you? Oh and Obama was born in America but probably does have a few skeletons he don't want found (like all politicians).

As for why they haven't done so? More and more have, just look up how many Android devices won't allow you to use your own ROMs or update the things with unapproved ROMs. There is also the whole "EEE" thing, as in "embrace, extend, extinguish" which I believe we are getting around to the last E right about now. Google devs have stopped trying to commit their changes to the kernel, now they are closing off Honeycomb.

Now a question for YOU good sir: If they are NOT gonna end up TiVoing the thing then why not allow GPL V3? After all even GPL V3 says they don't have to hand the world the code, simply everyone that buys a device is allowed access to the source. Also GPL V3 was made by RMS to close down "TiVo tricking" which RMS rightly saw was an end run around GPL, because if you look at the entire reason for the GPL in the first place it was because RMS lost functionality when MIT got a new printer and he was refused the source so he could fix the problem himself and thus the GPL was born.

So other than TiVo tricking why not allow GPL V3? As other have pointed out this does NOTHING for all the CCC (Cheapo Chinese Crap) out there, and if anything makes it worse as they'll simply continue to keep cranking out 2.0 tablets and using the Android name to drive sales, so why?

A final little note to all those complaining about the CCC: Perhaps as hackers you just have a different definition as to what is good? Because right now I've got a hot little seller in the Cruz Micro 4Gb tablet. While most here would think it is shitty for running Android 2.0 with just 256Mb of RAM and 4Gb of space, frankly my customers love the thing. It started when I ordered one for a neighbor and mushroomed as she has gone around showing off the thing. Sure it isn't an iPad but who gives a shit? For reading eBooks, playing tunes, and light web surfing it works just fine and at $150 while making me a little profit it is turning out to be quite popular. Hell watching her play with the thing I might get one myself just for playing with.

Personally AC I hope you're right but I bet you're wrong. As we have seen time and time again corps love control damned near as much as profits, and thanks to TiVo every company using Android has a "ignore GPL free" card, and by closing it Google can hard code any kind of "phone home" or data mining they desire, and as we all know data mining is Google's bread and butter. As a final prediction let me say this: It will start with the phones, followed quickly by the tablets. I still believe this is a "feeler" to gauge public reaction and when Google doesn't see pitchforks they WILL close it down for good, probably in 4.0 if not earlier.

Re:User perception

[MichaelSmith]

I absolutely hate the design decision that says the user should not be allowed [blogspot.com] to shut down an application. I understand Rubin's argument, but it is only an argument. Real users like to tidy things up. Having no way to make an application disappear from the active applications list is just very irritating.

My phone came with an app called TasKiller which does that. But why does it matter that a particular app is using memory if loading another app can cause the memory to be released? Think of apps in memory as a cache. You don't normally go through caches manually cleaning them out. Perhaps the problem here is the feature which shows you the apps in memory. If you didn't have that information you might be happier overall.

Re:User perception

[Riceballsan]

IMO This dosn't sound like a moneygrubbing move, it sounds to me like googles gameplan actually makes sense. With android for phones the issue was half the phone developers made great implementations, the other half released horrible mockeries of the original concepts (burried the good under their vendor specific changes, AT&T flat out blocking non-app store programs etc...). What google is doing is pretty much saying the first batch of google endorsed tablets need to be good, once the consumer knows what an android tablet should be then they can give developers the freedom to improve or fsck it up, once the users have had a baseline to know what normal is for comparison, instead of getting a half backed knockoff and thinking "this tablet sucks, all android tablets must suck".

Re:User perception

[Compaqt]

Does anybody know why Google decided to make all their Android web pages, like the link above, not able to be scrolled unless you're using Javascript?

There are plenty of websites that require Javascript to function properly, but none (other than Android's) that require it just to scroll.

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/04/multitasking-android-way.html

Re:User perception

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Well that was a quick argument...

No it wasn't.

Re:User perception

[Digital Vomit]

Google certainly deserves to make money off of Honeycomb

Google certainly has created the opportunity for itself to make money off of Honeycomb, but it certainly does not deserve to make money off of Honeycomb. No corporation deserves anything, no matter how much time and money it has put into developing a product.

It's this kind of thinking that is part of the greed-based problems that are destroying society and retarding the development of civilization today.

Re:User perception

[rayd75]

... Think of apps in memory as a cache. You don't normally go through caches manually cleaning them out.

I, and many truly high-end users do not. "Power Users", however, absolutely live to clean caches and temp files, scan their registries, and defragment their geometry-obscured hard drives. You can bet they're aching to save the 25 milliseconds it takes the OS to choose which cached app to dump before loading the newly-opened one, even if they waste 10 seconds manually killing a task each time.

Highlights of the day for me

[Cutting_Crew]

Highlight of the day for me was the ability for an android app to connect to my home appliances termed Android@Home Anything from a light bulb to the sprinkler system outside. Of course the manufacturers of specific household items will have to work closely with android to deliver on the hardware side but as was demonstrated on live stream today, it can and has been done already. Kudos to those companies that are getting on board.

Also to note, a lot of the tools like the movie rentals from the marketplace will be backward compatible in the coming months as well as the developer tools like fragments all the way back to Android 1.6. And unless i missed anything, everything will be open source.

Re:Highlights of the day for me

[BasilBrush]

You're a new kid on the block. We were doing home automation circa 1983 with the BBC Micro. And my first smartphone was a real smartphone, preceding your lash up by a year or two: A Nokia Communicator.

Pass me my slippers, sonny.

Gump

[jvillain]

Google open source is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get.

Re:Gump

[drb226]

This honeycomb-flavored one is rock-solid! I can only lick the outside...can't get to the gooey honey goodness inside...

Re:Gump

[palegray.net]

You are absolutely begging for an onslaught of suggestive replies. Please allow me to be the first: keep licking the rock-solid outside and the honey goodness will come out eventually.

Embarrassment rather than dislike of open source

[William Ager]

These comments seem very much to indicate that the source code issue, as I think most people expected, is less of a "we don't want people using this code for their purposes" and more of a "we think this code is horrible and don't want anyone laughing at it." That really suggests that, rather than be upset about the lack of open sources, people should be concerned as to why Google felt it reasonable to release software they're reluctant to release sources to because they're embarrassed.

Open source also opens organizations to criticism when they try to push out code that isn’t ready, and I think this is very much a problem for Google with Honeycomb.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[slacker775]

That's exactly how I'm reading it too. So it's ok to run this pile of garbage code, but not good enough to look at and quite possibly improve. Does that make it official that Google just doesn't 'get it' when it comes to open source?

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[metalmaster]

Google fell prey to a manufacturer. If I read and understood correctly, the current state of honeycomb was put together to get the XOOM tablet out by its launch date.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[MonsterTrimble]

They say as much:

During the Android Fireside Chat this afternoon, Google’s Dan Morill explained a bit more about the situation. As the bits and pieces that make up Android 3.1 get added into the next version, and the brand new bits that will come together and make this unifying UI get implemented, it will be appropriate to release Android Source. So, quite definitively, Android for tablets will not be open sourced until it’s been fixed to Google’s standards. There’s little information as to whether or not these, in combination with the new fragmentation initiative, will ensure that current Android 3.0 devices will be brought into the open source times or not. More and more it’s beginning to feel like the Android 3.0 concept was little more than a knee-jerk reaction to have something, even if it’s not a great something, to stay within reach of the competition, with Ice Cream Sandwich being the resolving fix to the mistake.

Is that legal?

[gman003]

I'm not well-versed in Android, nor a lawyer, but I do know that if you release anything that uses modified GPL code, you have to release the code under the GPL as well. And I find it hard to believe that Android didn't modify any of the GNU/Linux/whatever code they used. Anyone more knowledgeable in the subject care to comment?

Re:Is that legal?

[Lanteran]

Hm, oh I don't know.. the linux kernel?

Re:Is that legal?

[phantomfive]

They did modify parts that are under the GPL, and they release those parts. The individual manufacturers release the parts the modify, as well (see for example, this page).

Unfortunately, the parts under the GPL are a small set of the code; mainly the kernel and some surrounding pieces.

Re:Is that legal?

[kvvbassboy]

Ughh.. My last sentence was badly framed. What I meant to say is, they can withhold the source code, as long as the haven't released Android for distribution.

Re:Is that legal?

[Penguinoflight]

You mean the GNU Public License?
Just because RMS didn't write a LISP program to write the actual C code himself using emacs on a mainframe at MIT during the 80s doesn't mean it's not GNU.

Re:Is that legal?

[drb226]

Yes, the rest is under the Apache Licence 2.0 which apparently allows proprietary modification. Thus we see (yet again) that RMS was right, even though he sounds like an old cook.

Re:Is that legal?

[gl4ss]

it's not as much about rms being right as it's about rubin being a liar.

and I suppose this is bad news if you were waiting for 3.0 android-x86. the built in emulator of the sdk is horrible. just horrible.

all mobile open source seems to end up with the same shit.

they're trying to come up with a magical 'fix fundamental issues' sprint before 3.1.

Re:Is that legal?

[dzfoo]

Please read your own argument again and try to see the paradox in it.

"Honeycomb source will be opened up in the future, when it is actually ready for commercial use."

I'd say that Google felt it was "ready for commercial use" since they released it as a commercial product.

Android 3 is either ready for commercial use, or not. In the latter case, it should not be released, or released as a prototype or "test" product. Its source code cannot be considered as an independent and unrelated attribute of the product, for there is a direct correlation between source code and compiled object code.

            -dZ.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[93 Escort Wagon]

At least Honeycomb won't make it onto this.

Shut up before Viewsonic interprets your post as a challenge!

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[Palmsie]

Well, remember, Google is bleeding top developers to places like Facebook and other startups since it has grown substantially and most likely doesn't have the startup mentality anymore. Releasing poor code provides as much of a job preview as a resume does for an employer. It doesn't make them look good, especially when Microsoft and Google are going through their largest hiring push ever this year.

Re:editors already asleep?

[tripleevenfall]

Replying to yourself as AC? Bizarre.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[bill_mcgonigle]

Open source also opens organizations to criticism when they try to push out code that isnâ(TM)t ready, and I think this is very much a problem for Google with Honeycomb.

I suspect the code is functional but poorly architected. As they say, "first you write the code, then you understand it, then you re-write it." If there's a major rewrite underway, it's at least good to tell developers to expect that any of their changes would rapidly bitrot, and not to spend too much time trying to augment this version.

At least that's the impression I get from folks who are really happy with their Nook Colors on Gingerbread - if it were buggy they'd likely be complaining.

Still, they Google to release the code so that we can verify that the binaries are not compromised through recompilation. That's the only way to validate a platform as base-level secure these days.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[phantomfive]

I thought it was a huge, lame excuse when I first heard it, but since then I've been disassembling portions of Honeycomb to see what I can find. Of course you can't tell everything from disassembled binaries, but you can tell the basic organization and function names etc. I give it as my (not so) humble opinion that the Honeycomb codebase may very well be quite scattered and an inexcusable mess.

So now I still think it's a huge lame excuse, but perhaps one with some truth. Android devs in general don't know how to organize their code (though they are good at keeping it bug free).

In related news...

[QuantumRiff]

$CompanyOtherThanGoogle has announced they will not release their source, based heavily on GPL code, until they, and only they decide its "ready".

Replace the Google with Redhat, and Android with "Enterprise Linux 6.1" and see how many people start getting upset, threaten to boycott, etc..
why is it okay when Google does it?

Re:In related news...

[wolrahnaes]

Nope. They have released the GPL bits as required, just the vast majority of Android is not GPL and Google can legally do whatever they want with it.

TFA is wrong

[Talisein]

Before he said any of that, he said you have to understand the nature of git: When they release Ice Cream Sandwich, the Honeycomb source will be in the patch history. What they may not bother to do is to tag the specific commit of Honeycomb.

But once Ice Cream Sandwich is released, I have no idea who the fuck would care about Honeycomb; the only reason would be for a device that had proprietary drivers that never updates to Ice Cream Sandwich, but that could be solved pretty easily by just pinning the kernel release to Honeycomb and taking the rest of ice cream.

All this hand-wringing over Honeycomb is fucking annoying at this point. Get over it.

Re:TFA is wrong

[wrook]

All this hand-wringing over Honeycomb is fucking annoying at this point. Get over it.

Gladly. As you note, when the source comes out, everything will be (mostly) hunky dory. But I don't
have the source code yet. Without source code I can't study or modify the system.

I have to wonder, in your opinion, what is the point of having source code in the first place?
Why on earth would I be happy that it will come at some point in the future, but not
care in the least that it isn't here now? If I need the source code to do my work, then
I am waiting. I can't get my work done because I am waiting. Until when? Who knows?
If I don't need the source code, why would I care if it was open sourced in the first
place?

Open source is useful *because you have the source code*. I can't quite comprehend
the confusion as to why someone would be unhappy to have an "open source" system
where you aren't allowed to see the source code until the planets are aligned...

Re:TFA is wrong

[gl4ss]

you have to take that with a grain of salt. there's no guarantees of how they will release it and if it's with patch history or not.

I mean, this is a guy who tweeted definition of open and then couple of short months later decided it was ok to protect few manufacturers by sitting on the source(and to hide that they released shit).

Re:TFA is wrong

[complete loony]

When they release Ice Cream Sandwich, the Honeycomb source will be in the patch history

No, that's not necessarily true. While you can configure a server to only allow new patches to be added to the end of the commit log, that isn't mandatory. Even with bog standard out of the box git commands, they could squash the commit history into one big commit and throw away their current history. Or review every change again, and only cherry pick the ones they wish to keep. git's history is not set in stone and can easily be changed. The only limitation is that all contributors must voluntarily accept your revised history as their new baseline.

Re:TFA is wrong

[Bill_the_Engineer]

But if the Honeycomb source is as fucked up as they say it is, and as fucked up as the comments in this post have said it is, then your modifications would certainly break almost beyond repair in their massive refactoring for the next version.

I don't think you understand the open source development model. If the source code is as bad as you think it is then you'd think Google would be eager to get more "eyes" on the code to fix the situation. I think this is just Google closing their source.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[MightyMartian]

And what, Facebook isn't a pile of steaming shit under the hood? Come on, everything is in perpetual beta these days. Hell, Google practically pioneered the never-quite-completed software model. Everyone is writing crap code in the consumer and even in the corporate markets, and in actuality they always have, being able to hide the pure horror of what their code monkeys have produced behind the edifice of IP rights, well, that at and optimized compilers and assemblers, so that all the shit is squashed together so tight that it's sheer awfulness is hidden in machine code.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[fermion]

This may very well be true, but the fact that it is crappy code made for a specific merely indicates why the google model is not open. One can argue a key ingredient in the OS model, what makes is superior to closed source, is there is potentially objective eyeballs on the proces. Opening the software when it is done is little better than closed source code. It is one reason why people freaked when Oracle got a hold of OO.org and created libreoffice.

Then of course this proves that Google is not creating software that is meant to be used by the community. It is creating software for a specific prorpietary hardware manufacture, and then, if other manufacturers behave, will release the code to them. Like Apple, only the kernal/stack is OSS while all the stuff that makes the phone cool to use requires Google blessing. One can't use competing product like would be possible with true OSS software. One can't rework the product to meet end users needs. The phone exists to serve the interests of Google and the mobile provider, just like any average proprietary phone. Sure the Android can be broken in to just like any other phone, but why should this be necessary for an allegedly open phone. And sure Apps can be downloaded from any site, but if google were fully open to open source why would they not want to hast any software that wasn't malicious?

At the end of the day if Android were in fact open source and in fact freely available, none of the Google equivocating would be necessary..

Andy Rubin's definition of open....

[Karlt1]

http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

So has his definition changed or have we always been at war with Eastasia?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!

[bonch]

Sometimes openness just needs to take a backseat in order to protect reputation.

This is complete bullshit. If reputation is more important to Google than openness, they shouldn't call themselves an advocate of openness, and neither should their supporters. It's not supposed to matter what other people choose to do with the code. That was supposed to be the "freedom" aspect of open source.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[dzfoo]

That's the real problem that I see, but apparently the apologists do not. How can embarrassingly bad code--bad enough to compel them to fight against a potential PR nightmare rather than release it--actually inspire confidence in the robustness of the end product?

If Google say that Honeycomb source is crap, they are saying any product using it is crap. That should serve as a warning to all those early adopters opting for a Xoom or Galaxy Tab 10.1

Spinning this as some sort of personal obsession for perfection ignores the direct correlation between source code and object code, and the fact that this alleged obsession did not prevent them from knowingly releasing an unpolished or unfinished software as a commercial product hoping that nobody notices.

        -dZ.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[Daniel Phillips]

They say as much:

...More and more it's beginning to feel like the Android 3.0 concept was little more than a knee-jerk reaction to have something, even if it;s not a great something, to stay within reach of the competition, with Ice Cream Sandwich being the resolving fix to the mistake.

Right. Given the buzz that Honeycomb was a rush job I was not expecting much. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is, stable too.

Someone fix the summary please?

[bl8n8r]

WTF?  Why is this summary so far off-base?  The short version, FTFA:

"..merge Android 3.1 and Android 2.3 into..."
"..which will be called Ice Cream Sandwich.."
"...open source it alongside code that is much more universally friendly."

3.1 *is* Honeycomb.  3.0 *is* Honeycomb.  Google *is* open sourcing it.  No, 3.0 will not be released for public consumption.

The Xoom (running 3.0) is slated for an update to 3.1in May sometime.  AFAIK, this is the only device running 3.0 out there so 3.0 will basically be deprecated.

Re:Someone fix the summary please?

[Lonewolf666]

Not automatically. But it leaves open a back door to go from open to closed.

So you have to judge the openness on a per-project basis. Right now, Honeycomb lacks released sources and is therefore not open. It may become open again with version 3.1, as some other posters wrote.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[biglig2]

Well, iPad sales are terrifying everyone else because they don't have anything comparable. Strategies they've tried so far:

1) "In six months we'll have a product that's as good as anything Apple is selling...er...now" (Everyone)
2) "Hey, an iPad's just a big iPhone, right? So if we make a big Android phone..." (Samsung)
3) "I don't care that it's not finished, put the bloody thing in the stores right now" (Moto, RIM, and now Google it seems)
4) "We'll put it out when we're damn well ready to! " (HP)

None of these is working too well for them, they get no comfort from Apple's supply chain problems, and so their panic is increasing. Even though I'm an Apple Fanboi, I'm kinda hoping something works for them soon because I'm scared of what they might try next.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!

[John Betonschaar]

"Google refuses to release embarrassing code to a world of incompetents who could potentially ruin Android's reputation by shoehorning Honeycomb into devices it was never meant to be shoehorned into". Sometimes openness just needs to take a backseat in order to protect reputation.

Seems like Google doesn't have any problem providing the Motorola's, Samsungs and LG's of the world with this 'embarrassing code' and let them sell half-baked, buggy devides running an OS that nobody can modify or improve with. Apparently 'protecting their reputation' means a lot more to them than user experience for their customers, or being 'open'.

I really don't care the least bit about what Google does with the Honeycomb sourcecode, probably they are right about holding it back because it was a rush job and not pretty to look at. That said, I think we can all safely put the hollow 'Android open, Android free!' nonsense behind us. Android is only open to the manufacturers and carriers, and Google has its priorities with them, not with you who was suckered into buying a tablet running beta software.

I'm still amazed that so many people keep up with this, if I pay $500 for a device that is not explicitly marketed as beta, as a curiosity for the adventurous, I expect it to work as advertised, including the software. If the software is so messy even Google doesn't want you to see it, ffing clean it up and make it better, before selling products based on it.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!

[jo_ham]

Ok, so by that yardstick, why all the fuss about Apple being "late" (by a month) in releasing the Webkit changes? Yesterday everyone was telling me that they shouldn't have shipped running binaries until they were ready to release the code, as the GPL requires. (which in my opinion Apple absolutely needs to get sorted immediately)

Now because it's Android and Google they get a pass on that? If they shipped a working tablet then the source code needs to be out there *right now* - that was the whole point of Android in comparison to iOS, I thought?

Remarkable, but unsurprising doublespeak on /.

If it wasn't ready, they shouldn't have released it on the Xoom, but they realised that the "soon, we will have an iPad killer" was getting into a sort of Duke Nukem Forever situation, with Apple one-upping them with the iPad 2 before Android was anywhere close to ready to take them on properly.

Honeycomb code too Sucky to see the light of day?

[unil_1005]

That's why I code at night.

Early 32-bit only releases of Intel Mac OS X 10.4

[yuhong]

I remember not having xnu kernel source code was one of the limitations of early 32-bit only releases of Intel Mac OS X 10.4.

Re:Embarrassment rather than dislike of open sourc

[shutdown -p now]

Have you tried posting anything on Slashdot from Honeycomb's stock web browser?

For me, even the scrolling is noticeably slow, but as soon as I tap the edit field, the lag is really horrible - it's processing input at one char per second or so. Ditto on XDA forums, only there simple scrolling is even slower.

I have to use Opera Mobile on Xoom for now for anything Slashdot related.