Active Topics
-
[Announce] genwall a simple iptables firewall (90)
to Applications by paoletto - 1 day, 8 hrs ago -
N9 as WiFi repeater/extender? (1)
to Nokia N9 / N950 by paoletto - 1 day, 9 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS flashing files (89)
to SailfishOS by monkeyisland - 2 days, 9 hrs ago - more...
sovok |
2009-08-31
, 16:31
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#21
|
Originally Posted by SD69
Exactly...
|
|
2009-08-31
, 16:40
|
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#22
|
Why ? The manufacturers didn't force Google to choose the license and are perfectly in line with what the license allows them to do. Or are we mixing Open with Free with regard to governance again ?
|
|
2009-08-31
, 16:48
|
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#23
|
Originally Posted by attila77
And Google didn't force manufacturers to lock down their devices.
Why ? The manufacturers didn't force Google to choose the license and are perfectly in line with what the license allows them to do. Or are we mixing Open with Free with regard to governance again ?
I'm not mixing up anything.
|
|
2009-08-31
, 17:28
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#24
|
Originally Posted by attila77
They are and i like this model of full choice.
The manufacturers didn't force Google to choose the license and are perfectly in line with what the license allows them to do.
However after all the consumers decide by buying those products.
It wil be interestig to see how open Android implementations will perform against closed ones.
Personally i think it won't matter to the average user and design/usability will win.
|
|
2009-09-02
, 15:46
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#25
|
I did some research about those topics and this is what i found out.
In fact you can build the whole SDK from scratch. (Excluding those proprietary extras).
Using a combination of QT/Gtk/X11 was considered too CPU intensive and not suited for mobile devices.
Of course it's another topic if this decision was correct but IMO it's a valid excuse for not using those defacto standards.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
The SDK contains proprietary elements like integration with Google Maps but those are not essential to Android as an operating system.
IMO its more important to understand why (for Maemo reference see Andre Klapper's post above).
In fact you can build the whole SDK from scratch. (Excluding those proprietary extras).
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
From what i found out this was a design decision.
Which is why its as problematic as iPhoneOS to me. Sometimes, using open or defacto standards is more important than open source. Sometimes, a proprietary yet compatible product is better than an open source product which does not use open or defacto standards. Case in point: X11. TCP/IP stack. No X11 or TCP/IP stack sucks for me.
Using a combination of QT/Gtk/X11 was considered too CPU intensive and not suited for mobile devices.
Of course it's another topic if this decision was correct but IMO it's a valid excuse for not using those defacto standards.