Slashdot Mirror


AOSP Maintainer Quits

In a post on Google+, Jean-Baptiste Quéru, long-time maintainer of the Android Open Source Project, has said he'll no longer be working on it. "There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support, especially when I'm getting the blame for something that I don't have authority to fix myself and that I had anticipated and escalated more than 6 months ahead." Quéru is referring to the recently-released Nexus 7 revision, for which Google has not provided factory images of Android 4.3. This seems to be because GPU maker Qualcomm is refusing to release the blobs necessary to boot the device.

42 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Google can fix it with a hammer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best way to solve this problem is for Google to announce that they will not to use any parts that don't include open source drivers. The blobs will be released real quick.

    1. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is exactly what google should do.
      If your drivers are not in the mainline kernel, your parts do not go into nexus devices.

    2. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why?

      Why would google do that?

      Google doesn't give a damm about open source really. They care about profits.

      Customers don't give a damm about open source either. Just a tiny tiny % of geeks care.

      They are not going to screw over profits and customers for a tiny tiny % of users... that's just stupid.

    3. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except Google will find itself without a Nexus device to sell. Especially since Google has started toning down their Nexus line and starting offering "Google Edition" phones which are stock Android phones.

      Because you think companies like Samsung, HTC, LG, etc care that the drivers are open or not? They sign the NDAs and get access to partial source code they need to create their devices.

      As for using obsolete fabs and such - it's still expensive. Masks still cost around $100,000 each, and you need 10 or more of them still for a modern chip, so a tapeout run still costs a couple of million dollars.

      FPGAs can be used, but when I used them, the dev systems used FPGAs cost $30K each, and the entire system ran at 10MHz. Oh, and you needed 4 FPGAs to simulate a subset of the chip. (That said, if you have 10 hours or so, Android DOES boot...).

      The big problem still is the 3D stuff - all highly patented - implementing an open core will basically violate piles of patents, including many dating all the way back to when companies like S3 existed.

      Of course, you can run Android in pure 2D mode, as 2D graphics are mostly patent free, but performance stinks. At the very least, a plain old framebuffer with no hardware acceleration can be implemented using open and free drivers.

    4. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People dont give a shit how a structurally sound a bridge is constructed either, only a tiny tiny % of its users do.. Just because only a few know enough to care doesnt change the argument. Very often it is the unpopular ideas that are correct.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are public safety issues at play in a device you carry with you at all times,devices that will live in our walls, our appliances, everything. Open Source is the cement, the steel beams that will hold up future information society, dont be so dismissive of its true importance. How are we ever going have a galactic computer if we allow art to determine what can and cant be done on a computer? We should get it right and not sell out for movies.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are public safety issues at play in a device you carry with you at all times,devices that will live in our walls, our appliances, everything.

      Ok then all mobile phone software should be closed source to prevent people from messing with something that can potentially harm them.

    7. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Alternatively, all mobile phone software should be open source because it makes third-party security audits possible.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Then they should use intel parts.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Patents do not preclude open source, and really, they work with it quite nicely. To get a patent, you need to publish your ideas rather than rely on trade secrets. Really, copyright law applies more to the source code, but it is still protected.

    10. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is exactly what google should do.
      If your drivers are not in the mainline kernel, your parts do not go into nexus devices.

      Two results:

      1) Nexus devices run like crap because open drivers suck and are unable to use hardware.

      2) Nexus are the most open devices, but damn does battery life suck.

      The first is because you don't need the GPU, but Android performance stinks without acceleration. And the stuff open-source has access too tends to be fairly limited. so performance is never as good as it can be.

      The second is because there are two truly "open" SoC manufacturers out there. First is Freescale, though the GPUs are PowerVR and those are NDA'd to heck and back. The other is... Intel, who actually has a completely open graphics stack.

      Perhaps that's what Google should do - work with Intel to put the x86 into the next Nexus device. Then you have a completely open stack, save the phone firmware (not a problem for tablets). Of course, I don't think Intel's ARM emulator is open, so we can toss that out - but it'll encourage app devs to build for x86.... win-win-win!

      I'm sure you can live with phones and tablets that get half the battery life for now, right? Because it's open!

    11. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Well, I think he's right... whatever authority you use to force people to open up their code could just as easily be used to open up said code to audits without actually open sourcing it. You can use said authority to pick whatever third-party you would like.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given the existence of the Google Summer of Code projects, the ongoing publication by Google of Java patches, and the contribution of Google employees to fascinating projects on github.com, quite a large percentage of Google employees both use and publish open source and freeware. Numerous business partners and collaborators work with it extensively, especially when they see me publishing my patches or updated code and see that they benefit from my ongoing involvement. And they are willing to pay my company more because our projects are available, as source, so that work can be evolved or continued even if one of our developers changes employment.

      I've certainly helped engineers try to reverse engineer software without source 10 years later, and it is _barbaric_. The last time, I fortunately found that the developer had actually cannibalized software I'd written decades ago to build the application. It was a reminder of why a GPL can be so much more powerful than an Apache or BSD license: the developer had not chosen to publish their modifications to their clients, for various legal and workflow reasons.

    13. Re:Google can fix it with a hammer. by gunzy83 · · Score: 2

      Just because they're hand-picked doesn't mean they're not as good. No company is going to hire an auditor that simply passes them, and no auditing company will risk their reputation by giving a company a passing grade for an insecure system.

      iOS still has less vulnerabilities than Android, so I'm not sure how you can back up your raging fanboyism.

      Please link your evidence of less vulnerabilities for iOS or you are just showing your raging fanboyism.

  2. Let anyone forget... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lest anyone forget, or for lack of never knowing, that this reason is likely only the tip of the iceberg.

    It's not to discount it as a significant factor, but anyone who's quit from a position knows it's not just one thing, usually, there are several - lack of pay/low pay, poor work structure, poor work environment, demeaning personalities, etc.

    Getting endless gripes and complaints about lack of support for something as popular and 'open' as the Nexus 7 when they've got no ability to fix the situation - but should, by Google's own marketing claims - has got to be pretty disheartening on its own, but I'm certain it's not the only thing.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Let anyone forget... by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The task is not possible" can be a pretty compelling argument for giving it up.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Let anyone forget... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      It sounds like obnoxious people were blaming him for the problem, which is completely beyond his control. Walking away seems like a good decision. It's up to Google to fix this.

    3. Re:Let anyone forget... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also worth noting that this was his full-time day job at Google (possibly more than full-time, if it went as this kind of project often goes). That's sometimes a good situation, because you're getting paid rather than putting in unpaid nights/weekends on the project. But sometime it can actually be worse, and more stressful, because it's your real job and you have to work on it daily. At least if you get burned out on a volunteer open source project, you can ignore it for a bit, step back from the mailing list and bug tracker for a little while things settle down, and then come back to it later with some fresh energy. But if it's your actual day job that is harder to do, unless you have an exceptionally flexible boss.

  3. Well, I guess that settles that by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Up until this news, I was seriously considering buying one.

    1. Re:Well, I guess that settles that by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Join the club. I guess I will have to stick with the original one a little longer.

      I would pay extra for a device with all the drivers in the mainline kernel. So far that seems impossible in the tablet/phone area.

    2. Re:Well, I guess that settles that by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. I'd be willing to pay considerably more, and would consider it a major point of sale feature. It would mean I wouldn't be at the mercy of the device maker for firmware updates, at the very least. (A vanilla build of android from source is practically garanteed to work if all device drivers are in mainline kernel. If push came to shove, I could roll my own damned update.)

      At this point I seriously wonder why there aren't people clamoring to produce fully open hardware SoC solutions for this market. Even lower powered devices on obsolete fab processes would be very desirable given the lockouts presented by the major players. A shiny toy is worthless if you can't actually use it.

      The only thing I can come up with for why this hasn't happened is the employment of thermonuclear patent portfolios. Again, refusal to hold a patent bomb would further influence my purchase choice. Combined, i'd be willing to pay over 200$ more. (But I must have BOTH features. Mainline support, and peace of mind for not supporting the patent madness.)

      Seriously. Show me a device that does both of those things, and can actually fit in a pocket, and I will buy it.

    3. Re:Well, I guess that settles that by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some of us don't have tiny girly pockets, in which case the Nexus 7 is indeed borderline pocket-sized.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:Well, I guess that settles that by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is an easy mistake to make.

      The reality is that pockets on women's clothing are often tiny, or outright missing. This is why women carry purses, and why they constantly ask male friends/lovers to hold things for them. This is because female clothing is tailored to accentuate the curvature of the female anatomy, and pockets distract from this effect. Take note the next time you go clothing shopping with the girlfriend. While she's in the changing room, just look casually at the clothing there in the lady's section. You will note that slack pants almost never have pockets of any kind, and female jeans tend to have oddly shaped or diminutive pockets. Skinny jeans especially.

      Clothing designers (cough) design clothes (for skeletons) this way on purpose. They expect that the woman will have a matching handbag to match "her outfit." This is *why* women have 50 purses, and insist that they need to buy a new one every time they get a new outfit.

      Seriously, you'd have trouble getting an ipod mini into the pockets on women's skinny jeans. Forget about getting a 7in tablet in there.

      (Having 2 sisters sucked big time while growing up.)

    5. Re:Well, I guess that settles that by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ever tried to get in your girlfriends pants through the pockets?

      You're supposed to RTFM.

      $ man woman
      No manual entry for woman

  4. Re:It's Qualcomm's decision to make by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It'd be one thing if this was in a third-party android device; nobody is insisting that Google must require every Android device to have open drivers, too. But this is Google's flagship device that's supposed to show off their platform. If they really "encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable", they could lead by example by making sure that's true of their own device!

  5. Much Noise, No Change by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quitting AOSP doesn't solve the problem. It makes it worse.

    What we can do, is start a campaign of "name and shame", that starts asking key questions of Qualcomm spokesdrones, why?

    And here is the real bits that should concern people, I rather doubt there is anything all that special about the blobs of code needed, or even the underlying hardware. Further, given the Copyright and Patents that SHOULD be protecting the "intellectual property" of Qualcomm, there is NOT A SINGLE REASON to release the code.

    Even if the Lawyers want to be involved, how about writing a waver for AOSP so they can include the blobs needed, or the APIs to code themselves what is needed (probably showing up the crappy programmers at Qualcomm) etc etc etc.

    There are plenty of ways around this issue, but if Qualcomm won't play nice, then it is time to start playing hardball. Believe me, a very loud "name and shame" Campaign would work. Here is just a one suggestion.

    1) Android Apps detect if the device is running a Qualcomm chip (of any kind) and simply puts a blurb up that says "Your device is using Qualcomm Chips. Qualcomm doesn't fully support Android Open Source Projects, so please consider as part of your next Android Phone/Device one that doesn't use Qualcomm chips. Thank you.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Much Noise, No Change by gnoshi · · Score: 2

      Texas Instruments seems good, based on their history with the Galaxy Nexus.
      Samsung isn't necessarily friendly to AOSP, but they do make their own SoC (Exynos) so at least Samsung isn't hamstrung by another manufacturer when making drivers. They also have a pretty good history for long-term updates.
      It is worth noting that Qualcomm also makes the SoC for the Nexus 4, which has been updated to 4.3. Still, they hung the HTC One S out to dry, and there is this example too.

      Not to encourage crime or anything but it would be awesome if the drivers source for some Qualcomm devices was leaked. Or if Google (and other manufacturers) actually created adequate legal contracts with the hardware providers for their Nexus devices so this shit didn't happen.

    2. Re:Much Noise, No Change by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Texas Instruments seems good...

      Except for the small problem that last year Texas instruments quit making SOCs for tablets and phones...

  6. Replicant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just a reminder that the Replicant project is trying to make a completely free and open source version of the Android software stack, including the parts that interface with the hardware.

    1. Re:Replicant by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      .... that works on hardly any hardware, because it lacks drivers.

  7. By the Way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The GPU in Intel's upcoming Baytrail tablet SoC already has 100% GPL mainline Linux drivers in at least the 3.10 kernel... just sayin'

  8. One odd thing... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not surprised that Qualcomm are being dicks about driver source(though I would assume that they have some haha-nominally-GPL-compliant shim for interacting with the Linux kernel, like Nvidia does); but the lack of a factory image seems very weird indeed.

    Do they somehow think that anybody who wants to steal their precious secrets (and has the resources to actually be a threat), is going to be stopped by the need to buy a $200 consumer electronics widget and crack it open? If the device is shipping, the driver binaries and firmware blobs are shipping with it, in millions of units. They aren't going to stay secret long against anybody who cares.

    1. Re:One odd thing... by onkelonkel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If memory serves, back in the day Radio Shack used to sell a $20 "Video Image Stabilizer" that was marketed as a way to clean up "home videos", but was understood by everyone to be a quick easy macrovision filter.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  9. Re:It is time to wake up by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You had me until you brought out the "dumb sheep" trope. You would be more effective in persuading people if you could leave out the hyperbole and tired, cliched insults.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  10. Re:It's Qualcomm's decision to make by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well then good thing the Linux kernel isn't licensed under the GPL. It's licensed under a modified GPL allowing for binary drivers.

    Stop spreading misinformation. There is no exception for binary drivers. There is a clarification that the kernel copyright "does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of 'derived work'." User programs; not drivers. Otherwise it's stock GPLv2.

    Here's the actual license so you can see for yourself.

    A few companies like nVidia get around this by never distributing the drivers with the kernel. In nVidia's case, they use the same driver for Windows and Linux, so they can also argue that there is nothing Linux-specific about the part they're distributing. Even so, many see this as a grey area. The Android case is completely different, both because these are Linux-specific drivers and because they are being distributed with the Linux kernel on the same media as part of a complete operating system. This is just as much a violation of the license as distributing a closed-source program which depends on a GPL library.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  11. Just wondering... by carou · · Score: 2

    Is there an upper limit to the number of times we can sarcastically quote "Open Always Wins!" after news articles like this one, before it stops being funny?
    I know we haven't reached it yet, I'm just asking for information.

  12. Android is deprecated by frinkster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Read between the lines.

    Queru is gone. Rubin is gone. The Chromecast, whose original and main purpose was to get Android devices connected to external displays, ran Android in prototype builds but was released with Chrome OS. Look who runs the Android group now... The head of the Chrome OS group, who is still the head of the Chrome OS group.

    I'd give it no more than 2 years before the Nexus & Motorola products are released with Chrome OS and Android is 3rd-party device only with all Google services removed.

    Face it, Google just isn't getting what they wanted out of the platform.

    1. Re:Android is deprecated by Applekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Face it, Google just isn't getting what they wanted out of the platform.

      Or they got exactly what they wanted: market penetration. The majority of happy Android users will have no problem upgrading to a closed Chrome Mobile as long as they get keep their apps (which will then be emulated in an Android VM, a VM within a VM if you will). And Google dropping old, smelly, and open Android means they won't keep their apps on future Android devices.

      If I could go back in time and tell myself 5 years younger that Google, not Microsoft, was going to lead the next wave of Embrace Extend Extinguish, I'd have laughed in my own face.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:Android is deprecated by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Face it, Google just isn't getting what they wanted out of the platform.

      Or they got exactly what they wanted: market penetration. The majority of happy Android users will have no problem upgrading to a closed Chrome Mobile as long as they get keep their apps (which will then be emulated in an Android VM, a VM within a VM if you will). And Google dropping old, smelly, and open Android means they won't keep their apps on future Android devices.

      ChromeOS isn't closed - well, no more than Android is. ChromeOS is actually based on Gentoo, believe it or not, so if anything the foundation is even more open.

      However, in general everything in ChromeOS is web-based, and web-based apps in general don't have touchscreen UIs. I'm not sure that we'll ever see full Android-ChromeOS convergence. If we do, the result will be a platform that is actually much closer to the traditional Linux distro.

  13. Fat binaries by tepples · · Score: 2

    a lot of apps in the Market rely on native ARM code

    That's a problem only if A. these applications are written in assembly language (highly unlikely), or B. the publishers of major NDK applications have announced their refusal to build fat (ARM/x86) binaries.

  14. The enemy is everywhere, and it is YOU. by hackus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looking at the submissions lately for AOSP and finding out just how pissed off I am about recent events including this one, which just made my day.

    Something to consider while you dine this evening:

    1) Increasingly Handsets and anything that shows video is being locked out.
    2) This post is just one example, but I can cite others if you can't google about the whole sickening GPU/DSP issues in the industry which just keep getting worse with everything that is LINUX.
    3) The convergence in my mind, that it just so happens that governments are ape shit over knowing everything you do. Further, if I may point out, the huge contracts cellular providers are getting behind the scenes to make this happen from DARPA.

    Which to me, makes me wonder if the idea of knowing exactly how the video and camera hardware work is something by design, is not something your local friendly cellular provider wants you to know.

    Think of the hardware GPU/DSP on your phone as partitioned as sorta "that room" you never go into while working at your local friendly Time Warner NOC for example.

    I mean, wouldn't it just be dandy if the DSP/GPU hardware is BLOB'ed and secret so that the NSA/CIA can turn it on any time, preferable in a manner other software on the phone knows nothing about.

    Think about that next time you AOSP a compile and include those nice little BLOB's.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:The enemy is everywhere, and it is YOU. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Well, suddenly I feel vindicated for buying a rockchip-based USB stick. At least I'll have a path to Linux, as the OSS Mali driver is already good enough to run Q3, and there is already a Linux kernel for RK3188 (although I couldn't get it to build an actual kernel image, it did build objects...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"