You mean that you want anyone to be able to read your emails, without *any* restrictions? Is that your idea of DRM?
What an utterly bizarre non-sequitur. What does it have to do with the discussion at hand?
I said in the post before that "Please come back when you can explain how you can have an input/output system not be molested with agendas without restriction of some sort." He implied that I must think DRM is a good thing. I gave him an example where he most likely (or anyone practical* would not want email (incoming and outgoing, hence input/output) being molested, changed, altered, read, etc. without the restriction of his permission.
As to the discussion at hand, ArsonSmith claimed he should be able to see all of Google's source code, otherwise he can't come up with a way to make it safe. I argued, he is asking Google to give a potential robber the keycode to the alarm in order that they *may* be more secure. If the keycode is always available, then how is that being secure? While security through obscurity doesn't make you completely safe, neither will giving away the information to make a copy of your house key. It will however, make it more unsafe. So you say build a better lock? Sure, but you don't need to see their source code to do that. Just make a good lock and offer it for challenge. I am sure the principals of how their technology *works* in principal is known, or at least can be surmised on how it is done.
You know, I just realized I was trolled. Very good show ArsonSmith. Google didn't say the reason was for security, just that it would allow gaming of their system. That is two different things. It is kind of like the online video game dilemma. No anti-cheat will ever make cheaters not be able to game the system. (and if so, it should be obvious and easy to put into practice, huh?) But not allowing them to see the inner workings will make it harder. Only human moderation will truly combat cheating, or gaming the system.
This manefesto is some hardcore bullshit. Not just for the reasons that everyone else has been saying (as true as they may be)
You mean untrue as they may be.
The thing that got me is that Google flat out acknowlegdges that there is a problem with the Android platform splintering, and says they are trying to avoid the problem with android. Well guess what? the only way to actually do that is pressure vendors regarding android extensions, which violates section 9 of the open source definition.
Really, the *only* way? Now we see why you can't start a multi-billion dollar company. You think you know everything. But let us see what it says.
"Section 9" - 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Hell, that says that you *can't* force everything on the platform open source. So, if you closed some programs, that would in fact be plausible DUE to section 9. And that is why it was written, so that you might could make a standard, and that standard could in fact be open, so your point was moot anyhow, there *is* a way. I just wanted you to see you need to understand what you reference.
Really, the whole point of open source is endless variation
Somehow, I think you miss the point. I do not think it is so that we WILL have a million different versions, just that we can change it to our needs, if needed.
the whole point of open source is.. and user control
Right.
(which includes vendor control. Under the open definition vendors have every right to add proprietary and closed add ons), neither of which google apparently wants Android to have. The truth is this: Google doesn't actually want Android to be open.
Wait, what? Vendors may want closed addons, but Google not wanting that makes *them* closed? Somehow I think Mr. Stallman would disagree with you. In fact I do believe the GPL states something open source can not be modified to be closed when redistributed. Open source likes to stay open. Nothing wrong with that. However, you are right, in openness, you may use closed add ons. But that would in fact to some be less open. I agree that in a way it would not. But you saying they do not want it to be open by saying it must be open is... off. But in fairness to your point and section 9, I will do more research and see if we can't influence Google to do the right thing, if they are not.
The whole compatibility issue would solve itself instantly if they closed it, even a little. This manifesto is as much about rewriting the definition of open as anything else.
No, I think it is about how one company is venturing to be more open, and how they will continue. And you bash them for it. Good job!
In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that they have self-labeled themselves the messiah of open, they would have dropped this charade a long time ago and closed Android, since it benefits everyone involved, including handset vendors and (in 99% of cases) consumers.
You labeled them that. You did. They did say we are an example to follow. See any other big corps. doing that, with anything really open? And do not say Microsoft, or you automatically lose, for now.
I really can't think of any reason beyond the PR stuff why Google would want Android open, and I challenge anyone on the internet to come up with a good one.
How about me, can I try? Why would *anyone* want any software open? There are your reasons. Or how about their blog post? Because it promotes a free Internet.
labrats5, you can't simultaneously be mad they are "not being open" and also "they won't close Android". I mean I guess you can, but you are contradictory.
I'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications. Yeah, you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best. I realize the reasons why they haven't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data (the one thing I actually care about) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.
What are the reasons they haven't done it? Have you asked for it on the Data Liberation website? I am sure they way they are talking they don't see a reason not to do this. If and when they do (but you said you can already export, so not sure what you are asking) will you really believe?
To add to the last line, pressure companies that cannot work under the same advertising model that Google does. And personally, I rather don't see whole world filled with ads because Google destroyed the closed source companies.
Why can't they work under the same advertising model? Works for Google. You would rather not see the world filled with ads... I think this is the root of your hate. You hate them because they are advertisers. I dislike advertising in general as well, but they do it with grace. They even will allow adblockers in Chrome, because again they get it. They know it will pressure advertisers to make enjoyable ads. If that is the pressure you are talking about, so what? What is the problem?
Without advertising, we would not have hardly anything we have today. But I am sure you fail to see that.
Yes they happen to be in the industry of the Internet, working as a marketing agency. That is why they can afford to give away lots of things for free and to push their own agenda.
I do not think they should make their core business all open source. But saying they are pushing for open source in general is just bullshit.
Does it matter *how* they can do what they are doing? They are smart enough to, so as long as it is benevolent, who cares if they did it, even if it was selling worms? (Oh, wont somebody think of the worms! Call PETA!) Also, the blog posting isn't advocating for closed source... and where they say they can they intend to release it as open. I think your BS detector is off.
quote>
Their main open source contributions are mostly Chromium and Android (which on later one someone before made a good comment about its open source version usefulness without all the drivers and proprietary things).
Wah! They released something free! Not what I wanted, yet! But Wah! Do you hear yourself? Oh, they released it for free, but they didn't release proprietary stuff, Wah!!!!! Man o man. What will make you happy, that Google gives away *EVERYTHING* and it harms their search business and they die off and we are stuck with companies like Microsoft? You fail to see how negative you are. Can you be happy they are doing this, for what it is?
But what they are doing is to pressure other companies to open their things, and getting peoples support with the "free! open! go go google!" words who don't see past those, aka dirty tactics. Just like Microsoft's mess with manufacturers some years ago and the following lawsuits.
Who are they pressuring? Who? Tell me where, and how, or please quit spreading FUD. Saying they are open and suggesting others do the same is not pressure. If anyone feels condemned, it is of their own volition. Yes, I am glad they are getting my support, we need good ideas like this. Not bait and switch. I will swallow more than I would like to, if you at least be honest, unlike Microsoft, for instance. Name me one major company that has done what Google has. Many have come close, but none have changed the world with positive ideas in the ways that Google has, and will. Sure there is open source and Geeknet, but they perhaps think too small. Yea, you heard me, too small.
Sweet! Thanks, RedK. But I bet you will not here it from sopssa soon.
My father wanted me to watch a 2 hour video on what is going on behind the scenes in this country. I told him I know all *I* need to know right now. He said, how so? I said well, I know evil, and I trust it. I trust it like I do anyone in any relationship. I trust an enemy to try to thwart me.
Knowing this, I do not need to know the street it is on, just the neighborhood to see what path it is on. Not that details are not necessary.
The point is, I asked him, What is the cure for darkness? It is the light. I warned him to be wary of focusing on the darkness. He didn't like that much, and I can understand as I was in his shoes. One day he shall be wise enough to take free advice and consider it carefully.
He insists that *people link me* are running from the dark. I told him, no, I am not sitting in it, or advancing toward it. I am running toward the light. Once I have light, I can move away from the light as I carry it with me, and it obliterates darkness that approaches me. Negativity breeds negativity, positivity breeds positivity. This is also why Google is winning, even with nay sayers.
So, if they opened their search engine tech other people could make use of it on a smaller scale. However, Google doesn't want to do anything like that against its' own products. It just wants everyone else to.
Read the article, not if it doesn't make sense to open it. They seem so confident to me that they would open it is there wasn't more harm than good.
Not saying Google is a particularly bad company, but they have their finger on so much data so we should always keep a watchful eye on them. I don't trust any organization we can't directly influence or control. We never should.
Always keep watch, always, no matter how big or small. Who will you trust? Anybody? And yo can directly influence them.. sigh. Just read his blog post for goodness sakes!
PS. Ye, I use the site feature sometimes. And there's a few URL's you can use such as google.com/microsoft which search Microsoft sites.
So you do trust them, where you are comfortable. Good for you!
It's like you automatically accept them simply because they use touchy-feely OSS buzzwords to reel you in.
It's like you automatically hate them simply because they use touchy-feely OSS buzzwords to reel you in. You don't bother to concede they DO it as well.
everyone is suddenly eager to let a closed source company index all their emails, conversations, and more.
Ah, so since they are not 100% open, you think they are evil. Enjoy your small world of commerce. Well, small world period. As much as I do not like Microsoft's tactics, I can concede they have helped contribute to the Internet and computing in general in certain ways, not that I agree with all of them.
They got you Codebuster! I felt in a way like you do, but I fell better now. Thanks you other guys! Also, they are like Tiger Woods, once they try to crawfish (cheat) they will lose it all.
He does acknowledge that Google stops short of open sourcing everything. But then, as Google so often does, he rationalizes the fact that the company has no intention of open sourcing the two things - its search and ad platforms - that have turned Google into something very close to an internet gatekeeper.
He said no intention, he says it wouldn't make sense. Different things sopssa, different things. Internet gatekeeper? THAT is a troll! Like my Uncle who owns a cab company said, "Competition is good, it means I can charge what I want, and if they don't like it, I can say, go use those guys. Don't like it, too bad!" You can't expect him to not charge a premium for premium service. Google I am sure knows competition is good. I think people like you hate on them because of their success, and if so it is a shame you hate anything, much less good things.
You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot. Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company." In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content. This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.
I am a fan-boy (for once), but not a dummy. Nothing wrong in promoting things that are truly good. If words were enough, I would believe Microsoft. *rolls eyes* Google's actions speak volumes. They want an open Internet. What is wrong with that? Nothing, just like there is nothing wrong with fisherman protecting the oceans and being open about it. Actually, it is the moral and "smart" thing to do in the end. Eric Schmidt said, 'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'. And on the Internet, he is right. Kudos for telling the truth, when he likely knew the likes of the Register would try to turn it around on him.
Please come back when you can explain how you can have an input/output system not be molested with agendas without restriction of some sort. Know that I am with you on this (and it seems they are too), except for they seem to be right at the moment.
You mean DRM is also a good thing?
You mean that you want anyone to be able to read your emails, without *any* restrictions? Is that your idea of DRM?
I call mechanic: "How much will it cost to fix my car?" mechanic: "Bring it in and we'll have a look, find out what's wrong and write up a quote for you." Me: "You can't just tell me over the phone?" mechanic: "Well, what kind of car is it?" Me: "I don't know, look i just want to know how much it will be to fix."
Very bad analogy. Besides, a good mechanic can give you an idea of what is wrong if you describe the symptoms accurately and how to fix it, without seeing it. Now I understand you, you have "crappy" mechanics and think everyone is like you.
Yes I did. But Google isn't really opening any other services either that benefit them, like the earlier poster said (gmail, youtube and so on).
And just like another poster responded it wouldn't make the web more open. Competition is there. Google is saying I will show you how to make a pie, but I willnot give you my select blend of herbs and spices. What is wrong with that?
Google only opens things that benefit them to offer their services and advertising, it's not about making everything open.
And it seems "openness" is the new buzzword, after years of FOSS people saying to everyone its a great thing.
Only benefits them? No, it benefits many. They happen to be in the industry of the Internet. You want them to release stuff that hurts it? What are you saying? They even point out that helping the Internet helps them. That is showing real responsibility and not shortsightedness, like say Microsoft.
They never said it was about making everything open. Are you sure you read that blog? I am almost sure you didn't, have a reading deficiency, or are a troll like someone else said. He even says it is a Rashomon-like, in the first paragraph.
That's just it. They're not human! Google is a corporate entity and therefore motivated primarily by profit.
Yet, they are ran by humans who are smart enough to realize the potential and being human. They do not act like the Borg. *cough Microsoft* I wish they were a private company in some ways, but the cool thing is that they can still be who they are and public so that I can invest in a "real future".
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
They're the Microsoft of search and online advertising. Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.
How can they be the Microsoft of search when Microsoft is already there? (Hell, Bing?) Just because they are the biggest does not equate to acting like Microsoft. They have shown that the Anti-Microsoft approach can indeed and will win, yet everyone bashes them for it?
Gimmicks... please. I see a big difference in Google's contributions to openness and Microsoft's often forced legally , but yet "we chose to"
tactics.
...it's better if you have a good public image. They just have been destroying it themself lately.
From the article that you link to's link on the Register,
To quote Eric Schmidt: "'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'"
What is wrong with that? Nothing. It is true. On the Internet nothing is truly anonymous. Anyone who says otherwise is spreading FUD against his statements. Kudos for him for telling it like it is.
I do think Google may owe an apology to CNET, but that only goes as far as what the Register cares to provide for information on the subject. They destroyed their credibility with me on the rest of the article.
For example, if you have modified Chrome browser and have a "distribution" of it, and Google wants you to include some new patch, you HAVE to apply that patch or you're no longer within the terms of the license.
Open Source != Free Software.
That seems fishy, but I can surmise why they would do that. But I agree perhaps they should make it completely open, even if they never did it for malicious reasons.
I would, but I can't see the code to audit it and make an informed suggestion on it.
How convenient. You say that they should make a decision based on principle, but fail to give how they could do it differently (even if but in principle as well) while negating their own argument. As far as I can see, they are still right.
You are still asking them to give a potential robber the key-code to "make them more secure". What if they are already about as secure as can be? But now the robber also knows the code. And now you have to make a whole new one and all of the hassle and "cost", for essentially nothing.
Please come back when you can explain how you can have an input/output system not be molested with agendas without restriction of some sort. Know that I am with you on this (and it seems they are too), except for they seem to be right at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean that you want anyone to be able to read your emails, without *any* restrictions? Is that your idea of DRM?
What an utterly bizarre non-sequitur. What does it have to do with the discussion at hand?
I said in the post before that "Please come back when you can explain how you can have an input/output system not be molested with agendas without restriction of some sort." He implied that I must think DRM is a good thing. I gave him an example where he most likely (or anyone practical* would not want email (incoming and outgoing, hence input/output) being molested, changed, altered, read, etc. without the restriction of his permission.
As to the discussion at hand, ArsonSmith claimed he should be able to see all of Google's source code, otherwise he can't come up with a way to make it safe. I argued, he is asking Google to give a potential robber the keycode to the alarm in order that they *may* be more secure. If the keycode is always available, then how is that being secure? While security through obscurity doesn't make you completely safe, neither will giving away the information to make a copy of your house key. It will however, make it more unsafe. So you say build a better lock? Sure, but you don't need to see their source code to do that. Just make a good lock and offer it for challenge. I am sure the principals of how their technology *works* in principal is known, or at least can be surmised on how it is done.
You know, I just realized I was trolled. Very good show ArsonSmith. Google didn't say the reason was for security, just that it would allow gaming of their system. That is two different things. It is kind of like the online video game dilemma. No anti-cheat will ever make cheaters not be able to game the system. (and if so, it should be obvious and easy to put into practice, huh?) But not allowing them to see the inner workings will make it harder. Only human moderation will truly combat cheating, or gaming the system.
This manefesto is some hardcore bullshit. Not just for the reasons that everyone else has been saying (as true as they may be)
You mean untrue as they may be.
The thing that got me is that Google flat out acknowlegdges that there is a problem with the Android platform splintering, and says they are trying to avoid the problem with android. Well guess what? the only way to actually do that is pressure vendors regarding android extensions, which violates section 9 of the open source definition.
Really, the *only* way? Now we see why you can't start a multi-billion dollar company. You think you know everything. But let us see what it says.
"Section 9" - 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Hell, that says that you *can't* force everything on the platform open source. So, if you closed some programs, that would in fact be plausible DUE to section 9. And that is why it was written, so that you might could make a standard, and that standard could in fact be open, so your point was moot anyhow, there *is* a way. I just wanted you to see you need to understand what you reference.
Really, the whole point of open source is endless variation
Somehow, I think you miss the point. I do not think it is so that we WILL have a million different versions, just that we can change it to our needs, if needed.
the whole point of open source is .. and user control
Right.
(which includes vendor control. Under the open definition vendors have every right to add proprietary and closed add ons), neither of which google apparently wants Android to have. The truth is this: Google doesn't actually want Android to be open.
Wait, what? Vendors may want closed addons, but Google not wanting that makes *them* closed? Somehow I think Mr. Stallman would disagree with you. In fact I do believe the GPL states something open source can not be modified to be closed when redistributed. Open source likes to stay open. Nothing wrong with that. However, you are right, in openness, you may use closed add ons. But that would in fact to some be less open. I agree that in a way it would not. But you saying they do not want it to be open by saying it must be open is... off. But in fairness to your point and section 9, I will do more research and see if we can't influence Google to do the right thing, if they are not.
The whole compatibility issue would solve itself instantly if they closed it, even a little. This manifesto is as much about rewriting the definition of open as anything else.
No, I think it is about how one company is venturing to be more open, and how they will continue. And you bash them for it. Good job!
In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that they have self-labeled themselves the messiah of open, they would have dropped this charade a long time ago and closed Android, since it benefits everyone involved, including handset vendors and (in 99% of cases) consumers.
You labeled them that. You did. They did say we are an example to follow. See any other big corps. doing that, with anything really open? And do not say Microsoft, or you automatically lose, for now.
I really can't think of any reason beyond the PR stuff why Google would want Android open, and I challenge anyone on the internet to come up with a good one.
How about me, can I try? Why would *anyone* want any software open? There are your reasons. Or how about their blog post? Because it promotes a free Internet.
labrats5, you can't simultaneously be mad they are "not being open" and also "they won't close Android". I mean I guess you can, but you are contradictory.
I'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications. Yeah, you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best. I realize the reasons why they haven't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data (the one thing I actually care about) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.
What are the reasons they haven't done it? Have you asked for it on the Data Liberation website? I am sure they way they are talking they don't see a reason not to do this. If and when they do (but you said you can already export, so not sure what you are asking) will you really believe?
To add to the last line, pressure companies that cannot work under the same advertising model that Google does. And personally, I rather don't see whole world filled with ads because Google destroyed the closed source companies.
Why can't they work under the same advertising model? Works for Google. You would rather not see the world filled with ads... I think this is the root of your hate. You hate them because they are advertisers. I dislike advertising in general as well, but they do it with grace. They even will allow adblockers in Chrome, because again they get it. They know it will pressure advertisers to make enjoyable ads. If that is the pressure you are talking about, so what? What is the problem?
Without advertising, we would not have hardly anything we have today. But I am sure you fail to see that.
Yes they happen to be in the industry of the Internet, working as a marketing agency. That is why they can afford to give away lots of things for free and to push their own agenda.
I do not think they should make their core business all open source. But saying they are pushing for open source in general is just bullshit.
Does it matter *how* they can do what they are doing? They are smart enough to, so as long as it is benevolent, who cares if they did it, even if it was selling worms? (Oh, wont somebody think of the worms! Call PETA!) Also, the blog posting isn't advocating for closed source... and where they say they can they intend to release it as open. I think your BS detector is off.
quote>
Their main open source contributions are mostly Chromium and Android (which on later one someone before made a good comment about its open source version usefulness without all the drivers and proprietary things).
Wah! They released something free! Not what I wanted, yet! But Wah! Do you hear yourself? Oh, they released it for free, but they didn't release proprietary stuff, Wah!!!!! Man o man. What will make you happy, that Google gives away *EVERYTHING* and it harms their search business and they die off and we are stuck with companies like Microsoft? You fail to see how negative you are. Can you be happy they are doing this, for what it is?
But what they are doing is to pressure other companies to open their things, and getting peoples support with the "free! open! go go google!" words who don't see past those, aka dirty tactics. Just like Microsoft's mess with manufacturers some years ago and the following lawsuits.
Who are they pressuring? Who? Tell me where, and how, or please quit spreading FUD. Saying they are open and suggesting others do the same is not pressure. If anyone feels condemned, it is of their own volition. Yes, I am glad they are getting my support, we need good ideas like this. Not bait and switch. I will swallow more than I would like to, if you at least be honest, unlike Microsoft, for instance. Name me one major company that has done what Google has. Many have come close, but none have changed the world with positive ideas in the ways that Google has, and will. Sure there is open source and Geeknet, but they perhaps think too small. Yea, you heard me, too small.
Sweet! Thanks, RedK. But I bet you will not here it from sopssa soon.
My father wanted me to watch a 2 hour video on what is going on behind the scenes in this country. I told him I know all *I* need to know right now. He said, how so? I said well, I know evil, and I trust it. I trust it like I do anyone in any relationship. I trust an enemy to try to thwart me.
Knowing this, I do not need to know the street it is on, just the neighborhood to see what path it is on. Not that details are not necessary.
The point is, I asked him, What is the cure for darkness? It is the light. I warned him to be wary of focusing on the darkness. He didn't like that much, and I can understand as I was in his shoes. One day he shall be wise enough to take free advice and consider it carefully.
He insists that *people link me* are running from the dark. I told him, no, I am not sitting in it, or advancing toward it. I am running toward the light. Once I have light, I can move away from the light as I carry it with me, and it obliterates darkness that approaches me. Negativity breeds negativity, positivity breeds positivity. This is also why Google is winning, even with nay sayers.
there are corporations which had their corporate culture shaped in front of our eyes, like microsoft. corporate culture makes or breaks corporations.
I have tried to explain this to others. It all rolls downhill in the end.
If this is true, mod parent up!
So, if they opened their search engine tech other people could make use of it on a smaller scale. However, Google doesn't want to do anything like that against its' own products. It just wants everyone else to.
Read the article, not if it doesn't make sense to open it. They seem so confident to me that they would open it is there wasn't more harm than good.
Not saying Google is a particularly bad company, but they have their finger on so much data so we should always keep a watchful eye on them. I don't trust any organization we can't directly influence or control. We never should.
Always keep watch, always, no matter how big or small. Who will you trust? Anybody? And yo can directly influence them.. sigh. Just read his blog post for goodness sakes!
PS. Ye, I use the site feature sometimes. And there's a few URL's you can use such as google.com/microsoft which search Microsoft sites.
So you do trust them, where you are comfortable. Good for you!
It's like you automatically accept them simply because they use touchy-feely OSS buzzwords to reel you in.
It's like you automatically hate them simply because they use touchy-feely OSS buzzwords to reel you in. You don't bother to concede they DO it as well.
everyone is suddenly eager to let a closed source company index all their emails, conversations, and more.
Ah, so since they are not 100% open, you think they are evil. Enjoy your small world of commerce. Well, small world period. As much as I do not like Microsoft's tactics, I can concede they have helped contribute to the Internet and computing in general in certain ways, not that I agree with all of them.
They got you Codebuster! I felt in a way like you do, but I fell better now. Thanks you other guys! Also, they are like Tiger Woods, once they try to crawfish (cheat) they will lose it all.
They are talking about both things actually:
He does acknowledge that Google stops short of open sourcing everything. But then, as Google so often does, he rationalizes the fact that the company has no intention of open sourcing the two things - its search and ad platforms - that have turned Google into something very close to an internet gatekeeper.
He said no intention, he says it wouldn't make sense. Different things sopssa, different things. Internet gatekeeper? THAT is a troll! Like my Uncle who owns a cab company said, "Competition is good, it means I can charge what I want, and if they don't like it, I can say, go use those guys. Don't like it, too bad!" You can't expect him to not charge a premium for premium service. Google I am sure knows competition is good. I think people like you hate on them because of their success, and if so it is a shame you hate anything, much less good things.
What I would *REALLY* like to see open-sourced and/or available for private use would be the Google-Docs API's.
Perhaps in time they will. Why don't you go to the Data Liberation front and request it?
Please come back when you can explain how you can have an input/output system not be molested with agendas without restriction of some sort. Know that I am with you on this (and it seems they are too), except for they seem to be right at the moment.
You mean DRM is also a good thing?
You mean that you want anyone to be able to read your emails, without *any* restrictions? Is that your idea of DRM?
I call mechanic: "How much will it cost to fix my car?"
mechanic: "Bring it in and we'll have a look, find out what's wrong and write up a quote for you."
Me: "You can't just tell me over the phone?"
mechanic: "Well, what kind of car is it?"
Me: "I don't know, look i just want to know how much it will be to fix."
Very bad analogy. Besides, a good mechanic can give you an idea of what is wrong if you describe the symptoms accurately and how to fix it, without seeing it. Now I understand you, you have "crappy" mechanics and think everyone is like you.
Yes I did. But Google isn't really opening any other services either that benefit them, like the earlier poster said (gmail, youtube and so on).
And just like another poster responded it wouldn't make the web more open. Competition is there. Google is saying I will show you how to make a pie, but I willnot give you my select blend of herbs and spices. What is wrong with that?
Google only opens things that benefit them to offer their services and advertising, it's not about making everything open.
And it seems "openness" is the new buzzword, after years of FOSS people saying to everyone its a great thing.
Only benefits them? No, it benefits many. They happen to be in the industry of the Internet. You want them to release stuff that hurts it? What are you saying? They even point out that helping the Internet helps them. That is showing real responsibility and not shortsightedness, like say Microsoft.
They never said it was about making everything open. Are you sure you read that blog? I am almost sure you didn't, have a reading deficiency, or are a troll like someone else said. He even says it is a Rashomon-like, in the first paragraph.
But they don't seem like an open source company to me...
Where do they claim to be? Open company, not open source only.
That's just it. They're not human! Google is a corporate entity and therefore motivated primarily by profit.
Yet, they are ran by humans who are smart enough to realize the potential and being human. They do not act like the Borg. *cough Microsoft* I wish they were a private company in some ways, but the cool thing is that they can still be who they are and public so that I can invest in a "real future".
They're the Microsoft of search and online advertising. Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.
How can they be the Microsoft of search when Microsoft is already there? (Hell, Bing?) Just because they are the biggest does not equate to acting like Microsoft. They have shown that the Anti-Microsoft approach can indeed and will win, yet everyone bashes them for it?
Gimmicks... please. I see a big difference in Google's contributions to openness and Microsoft's often forced legally , but yet "we chose to"
tactics.
That is pretty good. However, all they did was prove Google right, even at the end of the extreme. I like it.
...it's better if you have a good public image. They just have been destroying it themself lately.
From the article that you link to's link on the Register,
To quote Eric Schmidt: "'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'"
What is wrong with that? Nothing. It is true. On the Internet nothing is truly anonymous. Anyone who says otherwise is spreading FUD against his statements. Kudos for him for telling it like it is.
I do think Google may owe an apology to CNET, but that only goes as far as what the Register cares to provide for information on the subject. They destroyed their credibility with me on the rest of the article.
Google doesn't give two shits about "empowering" anyone. They just realized that small websites were an untapped revenue source.
You are making 2 distinct statements. On the first, you seem to be wrong as evidenced by their actions. On the second, so what? Jealous much?
For example, if you have modified Chrome browser and have a "distribution" of it, and Google wants you to include some new patch, you HAVE to apply that patch or you're no longer within the terms of the license.
Open Source != Free Software.
That seems fishy, but I can surmise why they would do that. But I agree perhaps they should make it completely open, even if they never did it for malicious reasons.
As you say, open does not equal free...
I would, but I can't see the code to audit it and make an informed suggestion on it.
How convenient. You say that they should make a decision based on principle, but fail to give how they could do it differently (even if but in principle as well) while negating their own argument. As far as I can see, they are still right.
You are still asking them to give a potential robber the key-code to "make them more secure". What if they are already about as secure as can be? But now the robber also knows the code. And now you have to make a whole new one and all of the hassle and "cost", for essentially nothing.
Please come back when you can explain how you can have an input/output system not be molested with agendas without restriction of some sort. Know that I am with you on this (and it seems they are too), except for they seem to be right at the moment.