Agreed. For me this is great news, as I prefer Gnome 3 to Unity, but Gnome isn't well integrated in the latest Ubuntu release.
For example, in the "Online Accounts" config it's possible to add your Google account, and it's claimed that it'll synchronize your contacts, calendar, mail, etc., but none of those were synchronized for me. I had to configure Empathy separately, install the Gnome Contacts tool myself, and I still have no idea how to get the calendar entries to show up when I click the clock on top. I also couldn't get automatic login to start Gnome instead of Unity. I've considered removing Unity altogether, but I haven't had the patience to risk a few hours of system recovery if that goes south.
The entire UI also crashes from time to time (though it restarts immediately and automatically), though I'm not sure if that's Gnome's fault, or Ubuntu's.
Say that you have an author who writes an incredible book. He or she dies a week after its publication. Under your scheme, the author's family gets one week's revenue even though the author put in five years of his or her life to create the book in question. That's hardly reasonable.
Funny. If I die I don't think that my company will continue giving my wage to my family. And the weird thing is that nobody thinks it should be any other way!
What does an artist's family have that's so special compared to anybody else's?
My point is that in healthy industries (i.e., where there is actual competition and they don't depend on government lobbying to conduct their business) companies risk more and try out different business strategies in order to be able to supply what their customers need while sustaining their business.
Media companies, on the other hand, are being dragged kicking and screaming into the digital era. Hell, they've been dragged almost every time there was any kind of format shift (radio, cassettes, recordable CDs, etc). Meanwhile, other companies which embraced those technologies (like Apple and Netflix) are cleaning up, even if they've had to do it while fighting the media companies at every step.
I wasn't disputing the phenomenon, just sharing a funny story:-)
In my personal experience, at least beer seemed to have the same effect as eating ice, or drinking cold water: it helps while the cold liquid is in your mouth, but as soon as it's gone, the pain comes back just as strong as before.
As far as I understand it, Google doesn't care if you use Firefox or Chrome. Their objective in developing Chrome was to push the standard browser capabilities so that their web apps would be more functional.
Firefox is riding the wave, so from Google's point of view it'd make no sense to risk the bad publicity (and possible legal problems) of getting caught playing those games with Firefox. As long as you're not using IE or stuck in some old browser version from last year, I don't think they care much.
My biggest reason: I switched when Firefox was more of a pig and took a lot of vertical space on the top for a bunch of controls I rarely use.
Now Firefox is better, but I don't see any compelling reason to switch back.
Honestly if I was starting over now, I'm not sure which I would choose. Chrome is still faster on startup and I still prefer the interface a bit though there's not that big a difference. The few plugins I use are available for both, though Firefox's work a bit better (adblock and ghostery). Also, some sites break on Chrome for some reason, but work just fine on Firefox. For example, 9gag on Chrome doesn't show half of the posts on the main page, and can't load the comments on a given post (though that one's probably related to my blocking Facebook on external sites).
Chrome's sync is just about perfect. I know Firefox also has a similar offering, but I haven't tested it so I can't comment.
Mythbusters tested this. Actually they testes many so-called cures for the burning sensation, and alcohol was one of them.
It wasn't really working, but then as the guys got drunk suddenly they didn't care as much. Kari, who was judging the results and in the end she concluded: "alcohol is a cure for spice like it's a cure for ugly -- it doesn't really help, but at least you don't care".
I remember reading that FAQ few years ago, and they were even more candid about it. It used to say something along the lines of: "Yes, technically we have access to every website you visit, even if it's encrypted. We promise, however to respect our user's privacy and never look, but ultimately it's up to you if you trust us. If you don't, please do not use Opera Mini to access sensitive websites".
Unfortunately I can't find that quote anymore. I guess some MBA must've found it "unprofessional" or something.
Wow, I just checked my feed and you're so right. It's like 80~90% female domination in there. I don't usually spend much time in Facebook, so I never really noticed it.
Most of it is, as you say, pointless, but the few interesting posts are enough for me to keep the account:-)
Seriously, just stop. You're arguing from a position of ignorance and instead of informing yourself you're just stubbornly re-stating the same falsehoods.
The phrase you highlighted uses the word "distribute" in a different sense from how you're using it. GPL code doesn't care which other code it's zipped with, or packaged in the same CD, or kept in the same repository. Otherwise where would you draw the line? The license only states that if you use or link to GPL code, than the whole program must also be released as GPL.
Define 'separate'. They're certainly not separate when you download the Android development environment, which includes an Android emulator. It's shipped as one cohesive product. Whatever separation is kept in Google's development labs is irrelevant - they are being distributed as one product, and the GPL is a licence that is concerned with distribution.
Dude, that's irrelevant. Look, I'm not going to explain the GPL license on a Slashdot comment box. Read up particularly on tivoisation (which is a much worse situation) and how it led to GPLv3, which Linus rejected for Linux, BTW, and which still wouldn't matter in the case of Android.
Here's what I think. I think that the people who would normally be up in arms about this are also heavily invested in Android, both financially and emotionally. They own Android devices and love them. They are not about to point out the elephant in the room.
That's also irrelevant. The only people who'd be able to sue Google about it would be Linux kernel contributors. There are thousands of them, do you think each and every one loves Android and Google? Did you know that Microsoft is a Linux kernel contributor?
Precisely my point. Who is going to go up against Google's lawyers over a GPL violation?
Ok, two things: 1. It's one project, but the Linux sources are separate from the rest, so the licences need not be compatible. There are no stipulations in the GPL or Apache licenses that say that you need to keep the source code separate from code with other licenses.
2. I'm pretty sure that if there were any incompatibilities, someone would've noticed it before. It's not like this is an obscure project someone created last week. I'm also sure that Google has a lawyer or two on their payrole.
Android is double-licensed: the Linux kernel is GPLv2 and the rest is Apache v2. The kernel for 3.0 has been published in accordance to the license. I'd give you a link to it, but kernel.org is still down.
The rest, which is really the most interesting part is what they're holding back, and they're allowed to by the Apache license.
Perhaps. I was just quoting from memory, but I doubt I'd be able to find a link. I think it was in one of the Q&A sessions in this year's Google I/O.
My impression was that they were expecting to release the source at any time in one of the point updates, but kept postponing it. Since the answers were from an engineer and not from a marketing/management type, I expected him to be honest.
How exactly is that different from "Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0"?
It's different in the sense that it will be published.
I would just like to remind you, and everyone else, of Andy Rubin's tweet about Android:
"the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”"
If Google is going to go against their own definition of 'open', and their supposed commitment to release the source code, that's their choice. But don't spin it, don't apologize for them, don't defend them. It's especially galling on a site where a large chunk of the subscribers crucify Apple and anybody who even remotely expresses a like for Apple's method of doing things.
I'm not apologising for anyone. I just stated a fact -- it will be released, although not in a timely manner. It's not a detail either. It may be important in order to build custom ROMs for devices which might not be able to run the next version for some reason.
You are the one attaching opinion to my words which I purposely left out. If you care so much, here is my opinion: I think it's bullshit that they are dragging their feet in this. I used to think that their "closed until release" development process was a fair compromise between keeping new features hidden for marketing or competitive purposes and abiding by the open-source ideals they set themselves up to. But that's only true as long as they play by the book. I didn't like the arbitrary way they decided to withhold the source, and I thought the fragmentation excuse was bullshit anyway.
So there you have it: my opinion, which still has nothing to do with the fact that 3.0 will be released.
Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0
As far as I know, this isn't true. What they said was that they were going to skip releasing the source to Honeycomb (3.0) and release the next version when it's ready.
Due to the nature of the source control system (in Android's case that'd be Git, I guess) the release will come with the complete commit history attached, so you can recreate Honeycomb if you wish. They did say that they weren't sure if the Honeycomb releases would be properly tagged, though.
I heard this is standard procedure even for radio amateurs who build large antennas on their roofs. Build the antenna and wait a month or so before turning it on. When people complain (and apparently, someone always does), show them the disconnected cable, and they'll go away.
2. The dreaded low internal memory issue. Seriously, who thought (and still thinks) that giving the users access to 128MB of internal storage would be enough?
Probably a guy like me. I always uninstall apps I don't use, if only because they take space and crowd the launch menu. Seriously, that menu sucks. The apps are clearly organized by categories in the market, why are they then dumped all together in the menu? At least give us a chance to organize them manually!
But I digress. I'm not saying that your use case isn't valid, far from it. I have a good friend who is exactly in the same situation (with a Desire, no less). He's a self confessed "app hoarder", and that's fine, it's just not something that I'd have thought until I saw it, since I always keep the number of installed apps to a minimum. Maybe it's the same for HTC's engineers.
I had a Galaxy i7500 and while it's true that they did get Froyo running on the hardware, I wouldn't call it nicely. "Barely usable" would be a better description.
Having said that, the community's 1.5 and 1.6 builds were much better than the Samsung counterparts.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. For me this is great news, as I prefer Gnome 3 to Unity, but Gnome isn't well integrated in the latest Ubuntu release.
For example, in the "Online Accounts" config it's possible to add your Google account, and it's claimed that it'll synchronize your contacts, calendar, mail, etc., but none of those were synchronized for me.
I had to configure Empathy separately, install the Gnome Contacts tool myself, and I still have no idea how to get the calendar entries to show up when I click the clock on top.
I also couldn't get automatic login to start Gnome instead of Unity. I've considered removing Unity altogether, but I haven't had the patience to risk a few hours of system recovery if that goes south.
The entire UI also crashes from time to time (though it restarts immediately and automatically), though I'm not sure if that's Gnome's fault, or Ubuntu's.
Say that you have an author who writes an incredible book. He or she dies a week after its publication. Under your scheme, the author's family gets one week's revenue even though the author put in five years of his or her life to create the book in question. That's hardly reasonable.
Funny. If I die I don't think that my company will continue giving my wage to my family. And the weird thing is that nobody thinks it should be any other way!
What does an artist's family have that's so special compared to anybody else's?
My point is that in healthy industries (i.e., where there is actual competition and they don't depend on government lobbying to conduct their business) companies risk more and try out different business strategies in order to be able to supply what their customers need while sustaining their business.
Media companies, on the other hand, are being dragged kicking and screaming into the digital era. Hell, they've been dragged almost every time there was any kind of format shift (radio, cassettes, recordable CDs, etc).
Meanwhile, other companies which embraced those technologies (like Apple and Netflix) are cleaning up, even if they've had to do it while fighting the media companies at every step.
The media industry doesn't have to provide you with what you want. They'll do what they think will make them more money.
Usually companies make more money by supplying their customers with what they want.
At least that's what happens in healthy industries.
Come to think of it, me a few friends sometimes drink "Mad Dogs".
They're vodka and raspberry syrup shots with a few drops of tobasco on top.
You're right -- the tobasco isn't nearly as strong on the vodka as it normally is on food.
I wasn't disputing the phenomenon, just sharing a funny story :-)
In my personal experience, at least beer seemed to have the same effect as eating ice, or drinking cold water: it helps while the cold liquid is in your mouth, but as soon as it's gone, the pain comes back just as strong as before.
I haven't tried harder stuff.
As far as I understand it, Google doesn't care if you use Firefox or Chrome. Their objective in developing Chrome was to push the standard browser capabilities so that their web apps would be more functional.
Firefox is riding the wave, so from Google's point of view it'd make no sense to risk the bad publicity (and possible legal problems) of getting caught playing those games with Firefox.
As long as you're not using IE or stuck in some old browser version from last year, I don't think they care much.
My biggest reason: I switched when Firefox was more of a pig and took a lot of vertical space on the top for a bunch of controls I rarely use.
Now Firefox is better, but I don't see any compelling reason to switch back.
Honestly if I was starting over now, I'm not sure which I would choose. Chrome is still faster on startup and I still prefer the interface a bit though there's not that big a difference.
The few plugins I use are available for both, though Firefox's work a bit better (adblock and ghostery).
Also, some sites break on Chrome for some reason, but work just fine on Firefox. For example, 9gag on Chrome doesn't show half of the posts on the main page, and can't load the comments on a given post (though that one's probably related to my blocking Facebook on external sites).
Chrome's sync is just about perfect. I know Firefox also has a similar offering, but I haven't tested it so I can't comment.
Mythbusters tested this. Actually they testes many so-called cures for the burning sensation, and alcohol was one of them.
It wasn't really working, but then as the guys got drunk suddenly they didn't care as much.
Kari, who was judging the results and in the end she concluded: "alcohol is a cure for spice like it's a cure for ugly -- it doesn't really help, but at least you don't care".
Opera Mini has the same problem.
Instead of avoiding the issue like Amazon though, they admit it openly: http://www.opera.com/mobile/help/faq/#security
I remember reading that FAQ few years ago, and they were even more candid about it. It used to say something along the lines of:
"Yes, technically we have access to every website you visit, even if it's encrypted. We promise, however to respect our user's privacy and never look, but ultimately it's up to you if you trust us. If you don't, please do not use Opera Mini to access sensitive websites".
Unfortunately I can't find that quote anymore. I guess some MBA must've found it "unprofessional" or something.
According to other posters they can't keep that data.
Granted, that post was from an Anonymous Coward, and I didn't check, so caveat emptor.
I say we wait for them to do that before accusing them of doing so.
Wow, I just checked my feed and you're so right.
It's like 80~90% female domination in there. I don't usually spend much time in Facebook, so I never really noticed it.
Most of it is, as you say, pointless, but the few interesting posts are enough for me to keep the account :-)
My guess is that if he was commenting in an unreleased HTC or Samsung model, it'd have been a non-issue.
But Nokia is MS's dark horse, in which they're betting everything. Those managers are pretty nervous right now.
Seriously, just stop.
You're arguing from a position of ignorance and instead of informing yourself you're just stubbornly re-stating the same falsehoods.
The phrase you highlighted uses the word "distribute" in a different sense from how you're using it.
GPL code doesn't care which other code it's zipped with, or packaged in the same CD, or kept in the same repository. Otherwise where would you draw the line?
The license only states that if you use or link to GPL code, than the whole program must also be released as GPL.
Define 'separate'. They're certainly not separate when you download the Android development environment, which includes an Android emulator. It's shipped as one cohesive product. Whatever separation is kept in Google's development labs is irrelevant - they are being distributed as one product, and the GPL is a licence that is concerned with distribution.
Dude, that's irrelevant.
Look, I'm not going to explain the GPL license on a Slashdot comment box. Read up particularly on tivoisation (which is a much worse situation) and how it led to GPLv3, which Linus rejected for Linux, BTW, and which still wouldn't matter in the case of Android.
Here's what I think. I think that the people who would normally be up in arms about this are also heavily invested in Android, both financially and emotionally. They own Android devices and love them. They are not about to point out the elephant in the room.
That's also irrelevant. The only people who'd be able to sue Google about it would be Linux kernel contributors. There are thousands of them, do you think each and every one loves Android and Google?
Did you know that Microsoft is a Linux kernel contributor?
Precisely my point. Who is going to go up against Google's lawyers over a GPL violation?
At least you're funny :-)
Ok, two things:
1. It's one project, but the Linux sources are separate from the rest, so the licences need not be compatible. There are no stipulations in the GPL or Apache licenses that say that you need to keep the source code separate from code with other licenses.
2. I'm pretty sure that if there were any incompatibilities, someone would've noticed it before. It's not like this is an obscure project someone created last week.
I'm also sure that Google has a lawyer or two on their payrole.
Android is double-licensed: the Linux kernel is GPLv2 and the rest is Apache v2.
The kernel for 3.0 has been published in accordance to the license. I'd give you a link to it, but kernel.org is still down.
The rest, which is really the most interesting part is what they're holding back, and they're allowed to by the Apache license.
Perhaps.
I was just quoting from memory, but I doubt I'd be able to find a link. I think it was in one of the Q&A sessions in this year's Google I/O.
My impression was that they were expecting to release the source at any time in one of the point updates, but kept postponing it.
Since the answers were from an engineer and not from a marketing/management type, I expected him to be honest.
How exactly is that different from "Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0"?
It's different in the sense that it will be published.
I would just like to remind you, and everyone else, of Andy Rubin's tweet about Android:
"the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”"
If Google is going to go against their own definition of 'open', and their supposed commitment to release the source code, that's their choice. But don't spin it, don't apologize for them, don't defend them. It's especially galling on a site where a large chunk of the subscribers crucify Apple and anybody who even remotely expresses a like for Apple's method of doing things.
I'm not apologising for anyone. I just stated a fact -- it will be released, although not in a timely manner.
It's not a detail either. It may be important in order to build custom ROMs for devices which might not be able to run the next version for some reason.
You are the one attaching opinion to my words which I purposely left out. If you care so much, here is my opinion: I think it's bullshit that they are dragging their feet in this.
I used to think that their "closed until release" development process was a fair compromise between keeping new features hidden for marketing or competitive purposes and abiding by the open-source ideals they set themselves up to.
But that's only true as long as they play by the book. I didn't like the arbitrary way they decided to withhold the source, and I thought the fragmentation excuse was bullshit anyway.
So there you have it: my opinion, which still has nothing to do with the fact that 3.0 will be released.
Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0
As far as I know, this isn't true.
What they said was that they were going to skip releasing the source to Honeycomb (3.0) and release the next version when it's ready.
Due to the nature of the source control system (in Android's case that'd be Git, I guess) the release will come with the complete commit history attached, so you can recreate Honeycomb if you wish.
They did say that they weren't sure if the Honeycomb releases would be properly tagged, though.
I heard this is standard procedure even for radio amateurs who build large antennas on their roofs.
Build the antenna and wait a month or so before turning it on. When people complain (and apparently, someone always does), show them the disconnected cable, and they'll go away.
2. The dreaded low internal memory issue. Seriously, who thought (and still thinks) that giving the users access to 128MB of internal storage would be enough?
Probably a guy like me.
I always uninstall apps I don't use, if only because they take space and crowd the launch menu.
Seriously, that menu sucks. The apps are clearly organized by categories in the market, why are they then dumped all together in the menu?
At least give us a chance to organize them manually!
But I digress. I'm not saying that your use case isn't valid, far from it.
I have a good friend who is exactly in the same situation (with a Desire, no less). He's a self confessed "app hoarder", and that's fine, it's just not something that I'd have thought until I saw it, since I always keep the number of installed apps to a minimum.
Maybe it's the same for HTC's engineers.
My thoughts exactly.
They claim they run Android apps, so it's probably just a skin, a custom home and a few customized default apps.
I had a Galaxy i7500 and while it's true that they did get Froyo running on the hardware, I wouldn't call it nicely.
"Barely usable" would be a better description.
Having said that, the community's 1.5 and 1.6 builds were much better than the Samsung counterparts.