[Nuke]

i put debian on my oldest still functional rig (that wasnt the porn laptop). havent really done anything with it yet.

[castor]

I want my Ubuntu Edge Phone... want want want ...

Why can I not has it?! 

I use WP now, but would rather use even Android over anything controlled by Shuttleworth. They guy seems to think that Linux=Ubuntu, and good riddance to other distros.

[jr2]

If any distro could claim that, wouldn't it be Debian?? Or maybe Red Hat or Slackware/SUSE?  I know Ubuntu is popular, but jeez...

[Bobboau]

red hat maybe, slackware, no.

[SypheDMar]

As others have said, the issue is that Google claims to be open source when it quite obviously isn't. Not to mention that it's not that hard for them to embrace and extend the open source parts of the OS until there is no open source version of Android.

Is this Google World different from Microsoft World back in the day?

Is there anyone who thinks that the Microsoft World back in the day was actually any good for consumers?

i originally took the thread as looking for an alternative to Google World by using either Microsoft or Apple or nothing, but I realized that was not the case. In my defense, I can stand Google World if it doesn't become worse than Microsoft World and if Cyanogen and other open source ROMs are available.


By the way, is there a phrase besides [company] world? I only used it because I couldn't think of a term at the time.


Off topic: Ubuntu today is very different from Ubuntu of ages past. Ubuntu is very different from Debian in the present. GUI wise, vanilla Ubuntu looks a lot like Mac and feels a lot like Aero.


And Nuke is making a distinction between open source and FOSS, where the definition of "free" can be found here: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

Note that FreeSpace Open is the former but not the latter.

I've seen anti-Ubuntu people saying that Shuttleworth thinks Linux = Ubuntu, but I have never seen anything that even supports that statement. There are many other cases against him (Ubuntu-centric, not-community driven, terrible at marketing, disregards the upstream, does not work alongside with other open source projects, splits and angers the Linux community, etc.) but the Linux = Ubuntu seems more like propaganda that the anti-Ubuntu people have against him for the sake of Ubuntu's popularity and Canonical's control over its development.

[Ghostavo]

You may dislike him for many things, but terrible at marketing? The guy with arguably the most popular linux distribution?

[SypheDMar]

I was thinking about his recent marketing endeavors. Refer to Ubuntu Edge, Unity, and Mir. Refer to the criticism Edge got after the campaign ended when Shuttleworth claimed it was never meant to succeed. Also, some would argue that Android is the most popular Linux distro, but Ubuntu is an impressive feat that Shuttleworth did.

I actually like Shuttleworth and Ubuntu for the record. He makes me think of a nicer Torvalds, sharing some similar personality traits. The vocal fanatics within the open source community are petty, zealous, and damaging. After watching the open source community's constant bickering, I've been getting tired and less enthusiastic about the movement. Not counting Google, Canonical is the only company that is really pushing for commercialized open source software on a grand scale. This probably belongs to an entirely different thread, and if it was, I'd like to continue to vent out my frustration towards the open source community.

[karajorma]

i originally took the thread as looking for an alternative to Google World by using either Microsoft or Apple or nothing, but I realized that was not the case. In my defense, I can stand Google World if it doesn't become worse than Microsoft World and if Cyanogen and other open source ROMs are available.

I think the point is that they'd be available but basically useless since you couldn't do much with them at all.

[Fury]

By the way, is there a phrase besides [company] world? I only used it because I couldn't think of a term at the time.

Platform and its ecosystem.

Linux's greatest enemy is its own community. Biggest improvements have originated from companies, such as Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, SuSe, etc and not from the individuals of the community. Of course there are exceptions, people who have contributed majorly to Linux outside of their employment. Apt comparison of Linux community at personal level would be a big family full of talented children but no adults. Children who always fight and have tantrums.

No doubt a community can work together, as evidenced by Debian. One of the oldest and popular distros now. But even Debian has had its fair share of trouble from its own supporting community. I believe charismatic and capable leader personalities have strong impact on the community and can make it work better. Unfortunately such personalities are extremely rare in the Linux community, they're less about being charismatic leaders and more about bolstering their own ego and generally being dicks.



I don't really know much about Shuttleworth's personality, but at least he has made Ubuntu a huge success at the expense of his own financials. You see, as far as I know Ubuntu has not made profit like ever (yet). But the more popular it becomes, the more people and particularly companies opt to buy their supporting services, thus generating income and paving road to further improvements that benefit the Linux community, despite people complaining about lack of upstream contribution.

I can't but wonder what kind of impact will SteamOS have. Can't wait to try it out.

And meanwhile, you can keep your eyes out on Firefox OS for phones.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/

[SypheDMar]

Bumping this not-so-dated thread, which should actually be renamed "Android is not FLOSS" because it is evidently open source.

It's been nagging at me that the arguments against Android makes a lot of sense yet also seems wrong. And I remembered why some days ago, but I didn't post it at the time. And here it goes:

Google has absolutely zero obligation to maintain the Android apps. The fact that they released these apps to the public is essentially their gift to the masses (unless Google never made those apps libre, in which case this argument falls apart). In order for the open source community to work, the community has to maintain and keep their products relevant. Since Google is a for-profit organization, it has every right to replace its default open source apps with its own proprietary apps.

Which brings up the argument about any open source Android being completely useless. Re-reading the article, it talks about how Samsung apps try to replace but generally fail to replace Google's stock apps. It also describes the problems of Amazon's need of licensing a map app. This was the one argument that I didn't know much about until I read an article that gave me the idea to post this. This link talks about how even Firefox OS has its own dedicated map app and how Ubuntu also will have one. Knowing this, the whole "open source community will never be able to do anything with Android" falls apart. Because the open source community has every arsenal to make an open source alternative to Google's Android.

I apologize for my lack of cohesion. It's been a long week already. I welcome any criticism against my argument.

[karajorma]

Google has absolutely zero obligation to maintain the Android apps. The fact that they released these apps to the public is essentially their gift to the masses (unless Google never made those apps libre, in which case this argument falls apart). In order for the open source community to work, the community has to maintain and keep their products relevant. Since Google is a for-profit organization, it has every right to replace its default open source apps with its own proprietary apps.

Given that they leveraged the open source ideals behind Android to make it successful in the first place, before it actually become popular, many would argue that they do actually have a moral obligation to not turn around and say "**** you guys, it's ours now that it's worth something"

[Bobboau]

but what is the 'it'?
"android" is the operating system, the fact that they have non-free apps does not mean the operating system is not free. this is an extremely common practice in open source, make a solid bare bones open source product and make money selling high quality closed source plugins. it is not google's fault no one in the community seems interested in replacing/maintaining the open source components. it seems as though it's free enough.

[karajorma]

Given that Google say "If you make a non-Google phone we kick you out of the treehouse forever" it pretty much IS Google's fault that no one is interested in the maintaining them. With the exception of Amazon, why would anyone be interested in maintaining the other open source components with that threat hanging over their head?

Google are quite clearly leveraging a dominance in the mapping market (amongst others) to create a dominance in the phone market. Quite frankly that makes them at least as anticompetitive as MS were back during the browser wars.

[Luis Dias]

And all in the name of "free" and "not evil", etc.,etc.

That's the worst part for me.

At least Microsoft were never opaque about their own evilness.

[Bobboau]

Given that Google say "If you make a non-Google phone we kick you out of the treehouse forever"

to manufactures, yes.
what really puzzles me is why there is not an android equivalent to debian. a totally community driven android distro

[Fury]

what really puzzles me is why there is not an android equivalent to debian. a totally community driven android distro

There is? http://www.cyanogenmod.org/about

And more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_firmwares

[karajorma]

The problem is that they're always going to be OS's for dabblers unless someone is willing to break with Google and sell them. Imagine where Debian would be if Microsoft had said that anyone shipping a Linux PC would never be able to buy Windows from them again.

[Ghostavo]

Or AMD with Intel, if Intel had been even more extreme.


It strikes me as a double standard that Google is able to get away with things that any other company in the world would be crucified for.