Android Source Code Gone For Good? 362
First time accepted submitter vyrus128 writes "Many people were upset at the revelation, reported here in May, that the Honeycomb version of Android would not be open sourced. But Google promised that the next version, Ice Cream Sandwich, would have full source available. Now that ICS is out, though, the source is nowhere in sight. In the thread, Android's Jean-Baptiste Queru offers the following, as to the question of whether source will ever be made available: 'At the moment I don't have anything to say on that subject.'"
Umm.... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a?pli=1 [google.com]
Lies damm lies and Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Let's start with the lie in the summary.
"Now that ICS is out, though, the source is nowhere in sight. "
ICS isn't out. It has been shown but it is not out.
And we have this statement " - To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’
branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the
recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices. "
Source: http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c73c14f9b0dcd15a?pli=1 [google.com]
In other words this is all click bait and the summary should be appended.
The source will be released when the phones are released aka when the program is distributed the source code will be released.
Wow now Slashdot is now Trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
- To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’ branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Informative)
They're letter codes with a dessert theme. The first letter of the name is in alphabetical order.
C = Cupcake = 1.something
D = Donut = 2.0
E = Eclair = 2.1
F = FroYo = 2.2
G = Gingerbread = 2.3
H = Honeycomb = 3.0
I = Ice Cream Sandwich = 4.0
I'm not sure what the B version was called. The next version will presumably start with J. Jelly maybe?
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Funny)
A = Alpha
B = Beta
Re: (Score:2)
A = Alpha B = Beta
Apple Turnover
Banana Bread.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hallelujah, our problems are solved. We have banana bread.
Re: (Score:3)
Still waiting for Ubuntu's Obstreperous Ostrich.
Intel is the company that has taken it to ridiculous extremes. They have so many variants of their CPUs, with such bizarre and inconsistent designations, I (who used to be a computer tech) no longer even bother to keep track of most of them. I just look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Onanistic Orangutan
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Also, minor version bumps sometimes have no name. Honeycomb isn't just 3.0, it's more like 3.x (3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 are all "Honeycomb"). Now, that may just be Honeycomb, which is an oddball anyway since it doesn't run on phones and isn't open source. But it may also be that going forward, only major version numbers will have desert names. So Jellybean or whatever it ends up being called
Re: (Score:2)
There was no 2.0 official release? What the heck did my original Droid come with then? It was API level 5, and was quickly replaced with 2.0.1 (API level 6). 2.0 came out in November 2009, 2.1 didn't come out till January 2010. 2.0 doesn't have a dessert name as far as I can tell, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Be Perceived As Evil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they ever decide to stop releasing the source, self entitled trolls like you still have no right to complain: They've released more OS source code than Apple and Microsoft combined ever will.
No one can criticize them because, in your opinion, some of the others are worst (and Google has done some good). Obviously all criticism will be completely invalid.
If things could be worse, the current situation is obviously good.
Re: (Score:2)
If they ever decide to stop releasing the source, self entitled trolls like you still have no right to complain: They've released more OS source code than Apple and Microsoft combined ever will.
Of course Microsoft or Apple never pretended their OS was open source either. And if Google wants to come right out and say we're moving to a closed source platform too, that's their right. But the whole "we might drop some source sometimes for some versions at some time" is neither here nor there. "Buy Android, it's open source" (2.x) "Forget Android and get an iPhone/iPad, same closed source shit" (3.x) "Oooh, it's open source again" (4.x) "Damn, they didn't release source again" (5.x).
I mean Google has
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Informative)
To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’
branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the
recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.
The Sky Is Falling? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, essentially, this "story" is nothing more than I-Hate-Google-The-Sky-Is-Falling conspiracy speculation nonsense.
Is Slashdot pandering for page-views?
Re:+5 Funny. (Score:2)
Is Slashdot pandering for page-views?
Does a bear shit on the pope?
(Probably not but let's run with it as a headline)
Where's my mod points when I want 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Does a bear shit on the pope?
Only if it is Kurt "The Pope"
Please forward all bear poo to kurt@thepope.org
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
what good will it be to get the source?
See obvious answer here. [cyanogenmod.com]
Having the source to the drivers would be preferable as then they could be improved as well, but nothing other than being a purist stops you from using the binary blobs as-is and improving the code that is open source.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he's a bit misinformed on the differences between the internals of OSX and your standard Linux distro (which conceptually are almost identical), but I think he's getting more annoyed at your average Linux evangelist's attitudes than the technicalities.
There have been some installs of Ubuntu where I'm sure I never had to touch the command line to do any usery stuff, so I know it's not true that the CLI is always necessary in Linux. I do think he's wrong there. However I got sick of Ubuntu, and with Min
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I was being honest about not needing the CLI in Ubuntu. I realised one day that I hadn't needed to do any weird configuration at all for a couple of Ubuntu installs. I still chose to use apt-get over synaptic (the GUI equivalent) a lot of the time, and likewise I like to use Remote Desktop and VNC from the command line, but there are GUIs for those who want them. Apache I did make a couple of symlinks for on the CLI, but there is probably a GUI tool for making symlinks (they're a bit like Shortcuts
Re:Umm.... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, a ton of devices use AOSP - Kindle Fire, Nook, many tablets and phones, so those will get 4.0 when it comes out.
The other reason is if you have the True Android Phone. Or several now - the Nexus One, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus phones, which are completely open and trivial to enable installing your own OS. Which is the whole point of Android.
The other phones? They're merely Android compatibles. Most have roots and other stuff that let you get them closer to the true Android phones.
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Informative)
There are remarkably few binary blobs in Android lead devices (some OEMs add more proprietary goop to their own phones though).
http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html [android.com]
Nexus S, for example, requires these pieces above and beyond the available open source userspace and kernel code:
- opengl userspace libraries (ImaginationTech)
- radio interface library (Samsung) -- glue between the Android Telephony stack and the Radio
- firmware for bt/wifi chip (Broadcom)
- GPS userspace library (Broadcom)
- NFC firmware / loader library (NXP)
- auto-calibration library for orientation sensor (AKM)
The closed pieces are available here, under a license that allows you to use them in your own builds, and even to redistribute (non-commercially) entire flashable OS images including them.
We continue to work to reduce the number of closed binaries needed on the lead Android devices. We have *never* shipped a lead device that includes any non-gpl/bsd kernel code.
Re:Umm.... (Score:4)
We continue to work to reduce the number of closed binaries needed on the lead Android devices. We have *never* shipped a lead device that includes any non-gpl/bsd kernel code.
Thank you! Great work and I can't wait to get my hands on the Galaxy Nexus!
Sue! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? They said they'd make the entire source available, GPL source is already available.
It's also your right to feebly troll the article, and you could have done so much better.
Re: (Score:2)
It's you're right to feed the trolls....congrats you're doing it well and have mastered your craft.
2/3 ain't bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, of course, they can do what they want and get away with it. But one reason users and companies adopted Android was because Google promised to keep it open source and royalty free.
Bad title. (Score:2, Insightful)
Only Ice Cream Sandwich is up in the air, not all Android source code.
The title implies that it was all taken down, which is simply not true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad title. (Score:4, Informative)
Now 4.0 is out.
4.0 is out? Where? The first phone running 4.0 (the Galaxy Nexus) doesn't come out til next month.
Re:Bad title. (Score:5, Informative)
4.0 is out? Where? The first phone running 4.0 (the Galaxy Nexus) doesn't come out til next month.
You can run ICS quite happily in the android emulator from the SDK right now. So, yeah, it's out.
The source isn't out yet, but Google's been very specific that it will be released in the next few weeks ("We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices" [google.com]) just as Gingerbread was.
This post is a joke -- it focuses on the comments on an engineer who has nothing to do with the ICS code release, and says as much. However, some people seem so convinced that Google's gone full-evil that they're jumping on every "no comment".
Don't /. editors check stories for troll submissions these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't /. editors check stories for troll submissions these days?
You must be new here!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no, it's just the usual Apple fanboy trolls trying to stir FUD up about Android as always.
Like all the FUD about fragmentation, which they've suddenly gone silent about since iOS itself has become fragmented whilst not being designed from the outset to cope with it as well as Android was.
On that note, where's the iOS and Windows Phone source code? Oh wait, nevermind.
The genius of Apple marketing is that their fanboys are so addicted to their brand that they don't even have to do much, the fanboy tr
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that the partners have become more powerful, and convinced Google that they should have a competitive advantage over the clone manufacturers in China.
Or Google's trustworthiness and responsibility to the community is declining.
Impatient, much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Impatient, much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Right, or in the words of Matias Duarte [thisismynext.com] "On Honeycomb we cheated, we cut the corner of all that smaller device support. That’s the sole reason we haven’t open sourced it."
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where the Slashdot summary pulled the (strangely unlinked) quote from JBQ, but in his most recent post in Google+. he confirmed the source is coming: https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/HB5qQHeNKBQ [google.com]
JBQ is the guy who almost resigned in protest over the Cyanogenmod debacle (when Google demanded that they don't bundle the Google apps with their rom), and he's the guy in charge of releasing the code to the Android open source project.
So when he says the source is coming, I'm incline
Too Early, comes with official update push (Score:5, Insightful)
SDK has been released, SDK Roms should be out soon and by December ICS source should be under heavy development for CM 8 and other roms if history is any indicator.
Google reported on the live stream last night plans to put the ICS source up, something they said they had no plans to do with Honeycomb.
Re: (Score:2)
CyanogenMod 9. They're skipping 8 because 8 was supposed to be for Honeycomb.
Re:Too Early, comes with official update push (Score:5, Interesting)
CyanogenMod 9. They're skipping 8 because 8 was supposed to be for Honeycomb.
Well, I hope the Cyanogenmod project continues. Steve Kondik is now working for Samsung: what that will do to his priorities (and to what is actually allowed to do on CMx) is hard to say. I hope it goes on: that one project has advanced the state-of-the-Android-art considerably. For the past couple of years, I won't even consider a device that I can't root and put my CM on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I hope the Cyanogenmod project continues.
They've quite publicly stated that they are ... and the CM7 code review has been as busy as ever.
Steve Kondik is now working for Samsung: what that will do to his priorities (and to what is actually allowed to do on CMx) is hard to say.
He's still approving CM7 code, so I'd say he's managing OK ...
I hope it goes on: that one project has advanced the state-of-the-Android-art considerably. For the past couple of years, I won't even consider a device that I can't root and put my CM on.
Funnily enough, it's even possible that Google might agree with you [slashgear.com] -- that story claims that they choose a set of CM developers to work on the Galaxy Nexus and ICS.
I also suspect that -- given Samsung famously gave the CM7 devs a Galaxy SII each in exchange for getting CM7 running on the SII -- that Samsung has no wish to see CM7 die either. Or at l
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty much a fact Google sees the value in it, because their (perfectly valid and legal) initial decision to tell Cyanogenmod to stop bundling Google's apps (Maps, Market, etc.) soon turned into a "you know what, just download the bundle from us and it'll be fine"
Re: (Score:2)
I know a few people who work for Samsung doing open source projects (EFL and such). They are devoting, pretty much, all of their paid time to that open source project.
If Steve Kondik was hired by Samsung in order to work on CM, expect more output from him, not less.
Shachar
Legal battle inside the walls (Score:2)
There is probably a battle between lawyers and engineers going on within the walls about whether to release the sources or not. Give the engineers some time before you start bashing them, and instead give them more reasons to use as ammunition against the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
There is probably a battle between lawyers and engineers going on within the walls...
Good and evil.
Calm yourselves. (Score:2)
Incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The SDK contains the emulator, which in turn contains the operating system. Whether or not this constitutes a 'release' is a matter for debate (I would argue that it doesn't), but the OS is definitely out there for public consumption.
bullshit.. it's coming, just not before the device (Score:3)
Dan Morrill
Oct 20, 4:29 am
Hi!
As you know, like many other projects the Android Open-Source Project was
affected by the recent kernel.org downtime. So, we’re pleased to let you
know that the Gingerbread source code is now available again, and AOSP git
servers are back online.
Even before the kernel.org downtime, it was clear that AOSP was sometimes
taxing kernel.org’s git infrastructure. When we did the Gingerbread source
release, for example, load due to AOSP made part of kernel.org unusable for
several days. This isn’t fair to kernel.org’s staff or the community, so for
some time we’ve been preparing our own git hosting on Google servers.
We were finishing up just as kernel.org experienced their downtime, so the
Gingerbread source is now available on Google’s servers. Accordingly, the
git URLs have changed.
Here are the instructions to access the new git servers:
- You need to get the latest version of the repo tool:
curl https://dl-ssl.google.com/dl/googlesource/git-repo/repo [google.com] > ~/bin/repo
- You need to initialize a new repository:
repo init -u https://android.googlesource.com/platform/manifest [googlesource.com] -b
android-2.3.7_r1
- The full instructions are at
http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html [android.com]
There are a few limitations to be aware of:
- Our priority has been getting the main source code mirrors back online,
so for the moment gitweb source browsing and Gerrit Code Review are still
unavailable.
- We are now working on bringing AOSP’s Gerrit Code Review site back up,
and hope to be able to say something here soon.
- It might be a little while longer before gitweb comes back,
unfortunately, since Gerrit Code Review is the next priority.
- To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’
branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the
recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.
- As these new servers are, well, new, there may be hiccups if we
encounter unexpected issues. However we’re keeping a close eye on them and
will respond to any issues as quickly as possible.
Finally, we’d like to send a huge “thank-you” to the kernel.org community
and Oregon State University Open-Source Lab staff. They’ve done an
incredible job hosting the AOSP source code mirror and Gerrit Code Review
for nearly 3 years. Without them, it’s safe to say that AOSP would not be
where we are today.
Thanks, and happy coding!
- Dan
FUD Alert. FUD Alert (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?
I haven't followed Google's behavior with the Android source code that closely, but what legal requirement are you talking about? I thought Android was Apache licensed?
Re:FUD Alert. FUD Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?
I haven't followed Google's behavior with the Android source code that closely, but what legal requirement are you talking about? I thought Android was Apache licensed?
Regardless of Android's license, there is no legal requirement for Google to release any code except portions to which they do not hold the copyright and are licensed (to Google) under viral conditions (i.e. GPL). Google's own code (as long as it is not classified as a derivative of someone else's work under the GPL), even if it was released under the GPL (or any open source license) in the past, does not have to be provided freely because Google is the copyright holder and therefore is not subject to the license as if they were a licensee.
As far as I'm aware, Google is adhering to any licensing terms that they are subject to. They also open source some of their own code, as well. Non-story.
Re: (Score:2)
This is FUD based on nothing. Google has said for quite some time that Gingerbread was available, that Honeycomb would be closed and only suited for tablets and that Ice Cream Sandwich would have the source available once it was released. Google was true to their word and everything for 2.x is available and 3.x is closed. The post linked to in the main article is the sources they are required to release (GPL) now that the Ice Cream Sandwich SDK is available. It should be noted that Ice Cream Sandwich itself as an OS has not been released and is not available on any shipping product. They've already said "We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices." It's not available on devices yet.
So why are we all still here?
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to suggest that you were incorrect and that /. reported on Google saying that 3.1 would merge the two [slashdot.org], but in re-reading the linked article from back then [pcpro.co.uk], it appears that you're correct. They always said that ICS would merge the two together. Oh well, guess I shot down myself on that point. Yay for facts prevailing, regardless of my memory.
As for the source code commentary, I think it's ethically dissonant (read: hypocritical) for a company claiming that their OS is "open" to close the source f
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, but Google also said that Android was truly open,and even made fun of Apple about that in public.
Then 3 month later they released HoneyComb and we've never seen the source, and we'll never see it in fact.
The fact is that Google will or will not release Android source (the non-GPL parts) whenever they feel like it, if they feel like it, and will stop releasing whenever they feel like it, if they feel like it. And that their "word" is not worth very much either.
They will most likely release ICS sou
Re: (Score:2)
...they released HoneyComb and we've never seen the source, and we'll never see it in fact.
I almost hate to defend them on this point, frustrated as I am about the fact that they haven't released Honeycomb (I understand why, but it sets a really bad precedent). Saying that we'll never see it is just wrong, though. They give full access to their version control, so when they open up ICS (and I have no reason yet to believe that they won't) you'll get to see every change made from Gingerbread to now.
Re: (Score:2)
The Honeycomb code was open to tablet manufacturers and ASUS actually released.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have more information about that, I'd like to see it. Everything I can find says they released the kernel, which is no more than they (all) were obligated to under the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has said for quite some time that Gingerbread was available, that Honeycomb would be closed and only suited for tablets and that Ice Cream Sandwich would have the source available once it was released. Google was true to their word and everything for 2.x is available and 3.x is closed. The post linked to in the main article is the sources they are required to release (GPL) now that the Ice Cream Sandwich SDK is available. It should be noted that Ice Cream Sandwich itself as an OS has not been released and is not available on any shipping product. They've already said "We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once itâ(TM)s available on devices." It's not available on devices yet.
Not disputing the FUD.
But... Android is "open source" on the same terms Solaris is "open source" now? You have to laugh at this, the most lauded example of Linux and Open Source making it mainstream.
Re: (Score:2)
No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they release the source for an OS that isn't even out in the wild yet? They've already said that the source will be released once the Galaxy Nexus is in stores (probably so that the Nexus is actually the first phone running 4.0. I'm there will be plenty of custom ROMs for other phones/tablets within days of the ICS source being released)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it would be nice for them to release the source code sooner rather than later, but it's a big leap from wanting more frequent/faster releases to saying that the AOSP is dead like the article title is implying.
Slashdot is turning into Fox News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Works for Politicians as well.
Oh, and the Republicans want to eat your babies.
And Democrats want to rape your sons and daughters.
Re: (Score:2)
Fear mongering headlines followed by outright lies in the summaries, and people eat it up...
Google has brought this on themselves by being less than forthcoming.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is the same as being "less than forthcoming."
That's the opposite of what he said (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting JBQ's post from today: "yes, that means ICS will be coming to AOSP".
https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/HB5qQHeNKBQ [google.com]
Groklaw may give the clues (Score:2)
Here is the latest article http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20111019223707715 [groklaw.net]
"The trial date in Oracle v. Google, previously set for October 31, has been vacated. No new date has been set. "
So, my guess is that Google awaits the outcome for this trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, now I don't have to say it. Google would be ill-advised to add more fuel to the fire of the Oracle v. Google case. And it does not matter whether there is or isn't infringing code -- copyright or patent. The additional time wasted in litigation is additional money and potential risk.
Anyone complaining about Google not releasing source code when the whole of the Android platform is being threatened either isn't seeing the larger picture or isn't interested in Android's future.
Hey, where's the "disable advertising" checkbox? (Score:2)
My karma's still excellent, where'd that checkbox go? Because crap articles like this make me want to check it. I mean, maybe they will, maybe they won't. But there seems to be little basis to say they won't from the oh-so-thin facts in TFS.
Already addressed (Score:3)
I thought it odd I saw this thread on Slashdot after I'd read this article:
http://www.zdnetasia.com/android-4-0-to-be-open-source-in-coming-weeks-62302580.htm [zdnetasia.com]
"Rubin said Ice Cream Sandwich will be open source "in a couple of weeks" when Samsung's Galaxy Nexus ships and manufacturers will be free to push the update to their current range of devices. Going open source means manufacturers will be able to put Android 4.0 into their own devices and cut their own ROMs for existing products."
LOL (Score:2)
Re:Well then why bring it up? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google has said all along: "We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices."
What's with all the Android-baiting on Slashdot lately? Did Microsoft buy some more advertising?
Re:Well then why bring it up? (Score:5, Insightful)
I welcome that kind of pressure to keep Google honest. Something has to push back against the many pressures to keep Google dishonest, and to keep Android source unavailable. Pressure from the large geek community is good.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of things (like politics, for instance) would be better if we called people on their bullshit - constantly - rather than let them get away with it.
Thankfully we finally have people leveraging the power of the Internet and aggregating data with things like Politifact and the Obameter, so the populous can be more informed if they want to be more informed. Sadly, a lot of them still don't seem to care.
I do feel a fair bit of hope that there are a lot of younger people who try to be more connected to the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really not that worried about this possibility, simply because Google would be fools to not release the code and they know it. They've benefited greatly from contributions to projects like Cyanogen, and the collective will of the Internet tends to come up with a lot of good ideas for them to integrate back into the official distribution.
I suppose it's possible that they *could* just decide "oh, we'll let them keep playing with Gingerbread and just steal any good ideas we see," but I think they know tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but it's not just a word. It has power that can't be willed away. If you use it like that you're asking for trouble, regardless of your intention. I find it offensive (as would most other residents of the United States, I'd guess), particularly when used the way you just used it. You can't make that reality go away by saying "get over it, people".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
(and for the love of God, get over the word, it is a word like other words, your hypersensitivity does not make it special, it really doesn't have much to do with skin color but with content of character, just for once stop knee-jerking and realize it)
"Nigger" comes from the Spanish "Negre", which literally means "black". So it has ONLY to do with color.
You using that word and then explaining why your use of that word isn't meant to discriminate means you perfectly well understand that current society will interpret it as discriminatory.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and in USAGE this word is a derogatory term.
As I stated before, saying you use a certain word with a different meaning than recognized by current society does not make it so.
The meaning of words is determined by the masses (those you want to understand what you're saying), not the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
As a counter point. In Estonian language the word neeger means a polite version of african origin or a person with black skin color etc. It has absolutely no context here because there never was any involvement in slave labor etc and the population of black coloured people here is rather slim (order of 100 or less in the whole country), mostly due to the climate. However if you take the other words one can use i.e. must mees (black person) etc, those have an undertone of rudeness to them.
Same in Portuguese, which was the language where the words supposedly came from (since "we" were the first Europeans to buy African slaves).
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it, if you are male and I tell you "Stop being such a fucking cunt" then it's an insult to you that you're acting like a woman and an implied insult that women are cunts. Those meanings aren't separate, they're the basis of the whole insult. Here's a derogatory term for a whole group and you're just as bad as them. Any way you use it amounts to "You're as bad as being a black person and being a black person is very bad." Naturally black people would object to that even if they're not the direc
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never taken cunt to mean woman, despite the obvious physiological link. To me a cunt is just a person who acts like a cunt. Which is similar to a dick or an asshole.
Re:Well then why bring it up? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is it anti-Android sentiments are assumed to be the product of Microsoft?
You notice nobody at Slashdot is discussing the OS itself?
Despite other commentators recognizing that a new release of the most popular smartphone OS in the world is a big event, and that the new version is a significant improvement, all the discussion here is about what Microsoft has said about it, or more lame versions of the long-running trolling over source code.
Meanwhile, this is what the real world is saying:
"Android ICS offers a massive array of improvements over its predecessors bringing the best of both Gingerbread and Honeycomb while providing a raft of new innovations."
http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/android-4-0-ice-cream-sandwich-everything-you-need-to-know-954464 [techradar.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the phone version of Android, 2.X, is still Open Source. Only the tablet version (3.X) and ICS, which isn't available in any product are closed.
Re:Well then why bring it up? (Score:4, Informative)
1) No one does that. 2) It is open. CyanogenMod makes Gingerbread available to an awful lot of devices with source and everything. It's the latest code currently available on Android phones, in actual fact.
I hope that when you grow up, you become more honest. Otherwise, you'll be unsuitable for politics.
Re: (Score:2)
For different meanings of "run" ... it typically takes at least 1-2 weeks to create a working AOSP-based ROM for the !Nexus devices.
Ha ... that might go faster now that Samsung has Cyanogen on board. Or he may be told to leave it alone. I dunno.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I even come here anymore?!
I ask myself that same question rather frequently. And then I come here again. And I write things.
Less often since I've been using G+ though.
Re: (Score:2)
- To reiterate, these servers contain only the ‘gingerbread’ and ‘master’ branches from the old AOSP servers. We plan to release the source for the recently-announced Ice Cream Sandwich soon, once it’s available on devices.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because even if the source to the application framework isn't available, you can still (a) install your own applications on top of it without google's permission and (b) install your own kernel under it.