Re: The dream: Qt on Android
 

No, no, no. To say that you're not gaining much is to use hindsight as a predictor of what is going to happen in the future. Again, one could have said the VERY SAME for early Linux.

'Not gaining much' is a topic for historians. Small changes in license, focus, ideology, management, etc, can mean large changes in outcome. For instance through some combination of features, Android has garnered widespread adoption in a very short amount of time, and may continue to blossom still.

Innovation should not be stifled due to tribalisms.

As a result of these combination of 'small-gain' differences Android has accomplished in the mobile market what no other GNU/Linux system has accomplished -- and not for lack of effort. IIRC its adoption has also surpassed Linux on the desktop -- a long sought after goal, even by titans of industry (eg. IBM, HP, Dell, Novell).

These 'small gains' may seem rather significant 10 years on.

Re: The dream: Qt on Android
 

No one knew where Linux would go, but since BSD was a minefield people had few places to turn. The FSF was already planning an GPL'd kernel, and Linux came out of nowhere and filled the role. Linux, though, did not throw the efforts of the BSD developers by the wayside and the software for each platform transfers easily.

And a huge amount of this is due to the fact that Google has thrown their weight behind it. I don't doubt they could have achieved the same with a native Linux system.

You are implicitly assuming that this is innovation without acknowledging that it essentially throws previous gains on the fire, and reduces the possible contributors down to those employed by Google and their favored partners.

As for a "tribalism," an insular tribe that hides everything and does everything on its own isn't very friendly. If there is innovation to be had in what Android does, only Google and Android benefit from it.

I can go compile daily developmental images of MeeGo, and run early betas of various distributions and packages step by step through development. Android is totally closed until it is released to the AOSP except to the companies that are working with Google.

Not for lack of effort, but for lack of profile.

Indeed, as actual open source software is pushed by the wayside for Google's pseudo-open system of software.

Re: The dream: Qt on Android
 

Yes, it should be well known, especially today, that an ecosystem extends beyond its codebase. But I disagree with the codebase counts for that little. I cannot say with the same degree of ease that Google's weight would have been solely adequate to lift GNU/Linux to the status of Android on mobiles.

Afterall, a system's structure has huge implications on how it's used. For an anecdote, see Java.


But it doesn't. This is entirely too extreme a statement to be taken seriously. You yourself alluded to the increased ease of interoperability between BSD and Linux, which implies that there is a degree of interoperability (which BTW has been demonstrated) between Linux and Android. That it is less practical is another story, but it's not as though Android is firewalled from '30 years of development'.



You know I'm not talking about Google as a tribe, but referring to the staunch fanboism that, like clockwork, rears its head when something challenges the status quo with something different.

For kicks, consider release of the N900, perhaps more accurately titled 'The cellular radio that drove the fanbois mad'.


No argument there.


Lack of profile? Ahem, Nokia.

I don't think that linux's adoption failings can be trivialized quite so simply.


The source is open. I think you're talking about the release methodology. Certainly even the basement OSS developer source remains 'closed' until it's committed to the tree.

Re: The dream: Qt on Android
 

It is not, inherently, walled off. It is practically, however.

When that challenger is, as a whole, less open and less compatible with what exists I can see why people might be annoyed at the newcomer claiming that they're "open."

I know you're accusing me of being a "fanboi," but there's a massive, massive world of open source full of innovation that existed before Android came around that doesn't work with it due to the decisions of a closed source company that Google bought.

Bionic isn't an innovation over glibc, for instance, but it was proprietary to start. And that's why it exists. Same for the GUI and tied rendering engine, and for Dalvik.

They can. Nokia never gave Maemo the profile it needed to take off, nor did they give the development teams the freedom or support required. A base GNU/Linux system could easily be coupled with a good UI, there is nothing inherent about such a system that holds it back.

Release methodology, development methodology. They are very closed and secretive about things going forward, unlike most major open source projects. Just because the source is open means nothing, I can get source code for operating systems pretty much anywhere. Whether the project is open enough that participation doesn't require being a Google partner is another question entirely (as end-users can participate in the AOSP, but not Android.)

Well the "basement" developer might not have anyone watching what they do or work with anyone else. But major projects tend to hold discussions over mailing lists, maintain public svn/git repos and make available changes on a daily basis (instead of monster dumps after devices with the hardware hit the market.)

A lot of my problem with Android is that it stems from a closed source project that adopted the Linux kernel out of convenience, and Google said "we're open source" but added a whole bunch of conditions to that "openness" that are simply alien to pretty much every project.

No one has issues with innovation, and yes there is silly tribalism. But whether Android is truly innovative (since the whole point of using Dalvik seems to have failed to deliver) remains to be seen, and its lack of openness compared to pretty much everything else that is open is plain as day. Saying "it's innovative and your opposition is just fanboyism" isn't a way to sell your argument.

Re: The dream: Qt on Android
 

Ok, I understand your perspective. I fear any further argument will degrade into a battle of semantics.

I had a lot of fun, though! :)