Thread

Android 17 is the first since 3.x to add new APIs without releasing to the AOSP

1180 points · 723 comments · theanonymousone

wps · 1789760710 · focus · HN ↗
The amount of roadblocks Google is putting up for GrapheneOS is just ridiculous. None of their decisions make any sense, from the delayed source patches upstream, to the embargos, attestation issues, etc. Google simply regrets android being open source.
1. godelski · 1789763541 · focus · HN ↗
  I hope people remember this when advocating for chromium. Just because it is open source doesn't mean they don't control it. We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.
  > Google simply regrets android being open source.
  Android wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't open source. With all the work from outside Google. The same is true chrome.
  But they won't learn that on their own. They are breaking the deals. So we move. We force their hand
  1. nomel · 1789763674 · focus · HN ↗
    > So we move. We force their hand
    What do you have in mind?
    PaulCarrack · 1789763840 · focus · HN ↗
    > We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.
    sieabahlpark · 1789764059 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    luqtas · 1789766571 · focus · HN ↗
    oh yes sure. just like we can shift the population into installing Debian into their machines so we also deter M$ and Apple abuse /s
    Rohansi · 1789769659 · focus · HN ↗
    It's so much easier to switch browsers than platform/OS. Unless you have an iPhone or iPad.
    olyjohn · 1789773426 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mitxela · 1789779298 · focus · HN ↗
    How did that happen, anyway? Tabs? What's the next killer feature after tabs? Maybe sync?
    NOTanAlagent · 1789779988 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    grahamburger · 1789781587 · focus · HN ↗
    Haven't all the major browsers had sync for ages? I've been using Firefox's built-in sync for so long I don't even remember what it was like without it.
    epihelix · 1789791866 · focus · HN ↗
    Adblock, I would have thought. And Google can't compete in this space, by their very nature.
    This is the message that Firefox needs to push: Hate ads? Use Firefox.
    EbNar · 1789794451 · focus · HN ↗
    Considering that Firefox by itself doesn't block anything without extensions, that seemingly less than 10% of users use extensions and that tgere5are already quite a few snappier browsers that block ads by default...
    mitxela · 1789822576 · focus · HN ↗
    Ooh, I think you're right. Even better if it can bypass more annoyances, cookie popups, captchas and (if legal) paywalls. Maybe it should have Libredirect built in. It could be a user agent, instead of a site owner agent.
    godelski · 1789787894 · focus · HN ↗
    You act like it hasn't been done before.
    Also, switching browsers is trivial. I do it on my parents' machines and they don't notice
    [deleted] · 1789769045 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    shevy-java · 1789764032 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, it is time to realise that GPL and similar variants, are better in the long term. I like MIT too, but GPL worked so much better for the linux kernel. Google and others abuse the ecosystem of open source contributors here.
    microtonal · 1789764485 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean the Linux kernel that the GrapheneOS project has to request every update for and then has to wait up to weeks to get a Google Drive link?
    The GPL is worth nothing if nobody is enforcing it aggressively.
    dvdkon · 1789767729 · focus · HN ↗
    The GPL is the only reason they even get that. More enforcement would certainly be good, but it's not like the GPL is worthless without a legal team backing you up.
    nomel · 1789768045 · focus · HN ↗
    Could you quote the part of the GPL that they're not adhering to (which you seem to be implying), in this situation?
    microtonal · 1789796198 · focus · HN ↗
    There has been a long discussion about this a while ago on HN when these delays came up. The relevant blurb:
    Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
    Many people argued that 'customarily used for software interchange' is worded-as is to always be relevant to the times when the license is applied and that providing access to a Git repository is customary nowadays. In fact:
    - The upstream Linux tree is distributed through Git.
    - The relevant Pixel kernel sources used to be distributed through Git.
    IANAL, so I am not sure how this part of the license will hold up in court, but the spirit is clear. Providing a Google Drive link is not customarily used for software interchange.
    Also, I think it is fairly clear that the procedure is put in place to make everyone's life difficult, given that the relevant source used to be distributed through Git.
    mitxela · 1789779340 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, as opposed to the Fuchsia kernel where they wouldn't even get that. We're lucky Google is institutionally incapable of creating things.
    JumpCrisscross · 1789765710 · focus · HN ↗
    Donate to Ladybird <a href="https://ladybird.org/" rel="nofollow">https://ladybird.org/
    jm4 · 1789766369 · focus · HN ↗
    They have their own problems. They may be "open source", but they don't accept contributions. I'm skeptical it will ever become more than a hobby project.
    tech234a · 1789767198 · focus · HN ↗
    Commit activity actually increased after they blocked external contributions in June: <a href="https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/graphs/commit-activity" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/graphs/commit-ac...
    whimblepop · 1790112704 · focus · HN ↗
    Does "external" contributors effectively mean drive-by contributors? I assume there's still more than a single developer, and it's somehow possible to be admitted as a member of the project if you have some existing public reputation.
    tech234a · 1791253031 · focus · HN ↗
    Website says: "Ladybird is open source, developed by a small team in the open. You can help by filing bug reports, creating reductions, testing websites, reporting security issues, and sharing technical feedback." [1]
    [1]: <a href="https://ladybird.org/" rel="nofollow">https://ladybird.org/
    whimblepop · 1791317374 · focus · HN ↗
    I bet if you contribute in those various other ways for a while, you can probably eventually submit patches. Not as exciting as being able to jump right in, for sure. But it sounds like there's a way in, and I guess you can carry your own patches in a downstream fork in the meantime.
    ragnese · 1789769020 · focus · HN ↗
    Is not accepting contributions the only/biggest issue you have with the project? I'm honestly becoming more and more okay with the "cathedral" style of open source. Depending on the project, catering to "the community" can lead a loss of focus, lack of a cohesive "vision" or scope, and just generally trying to be everything to everyone without the resources to maintain a giant beast.
    With something like a browser (engine), I'm totally okay with someone saying "I'm an expert and I'm trying something with my own vision/priorities. I don't want input from random people that I have to spend time evaluating."
    seb1204 · 1789774008 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes I can relate to this. Picking good, valuable feedback out of the noise has become a chore.
    takeda · 1789774295 · focus · HN ↗
    It's on BSD license, Google or someone else can again Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
    bigstrat2003 · 1789793371 · focus · HN ↗
    That is not possible. Google, or anyone else, can make a fork of the project. But they can't take away the original from the commons.
    akho · 1789813122 · focus · HN ↗
    This post is _about_ how that is both possible and common.
    Only GPL is somewhat immune, because Stallman was always right.
    takeda · 1790010293 · focus · HN ↗
    The reason why they can make Android close source but not the kernel used is because the former is has ASF 2.0 while the later has GPL license.
    soraminazuki · 1789788084 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    GalaxyNova · 1789804382 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think he said anything factually incorrect though?
    soraminazuki · 1789806541 · focus · HN ↗
    And yet again comes someone pretending as if a far right rant embracing racism and white victimhood is some sort of objective truth seeking. It's unfortunate that this has become so normalized here.
    hobo123 · 1789819864 · focus · HN ↗
    Where in those comments is the "white replacement theorist"?
    soraminazuki · 1789822298 · focus · HN ↗
    > White males are actively discriminated against
    The words are unambiguous and not up for debate.
    hobo123 · 1789824423 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm assuming he was talking about a specific situation where discrimination occurred? Anyway that's two completely different things.
    simondotau · 1789831164 · focus · HN ↗
    “Not up for debate” is a much scarier string of words than anything that guy has said.
    soraminazuki · 1789862898 · focus · HN ↗
    Debating the meaning of words in order to avoid owning what you explicitly said or supported whenever it's inconvenient should be condemned. What kind of person would be scared by that over someone supporting an advocate of the ethnic cleansing of London?
    simondotau · 1790155535 · focus · HN ↗
    If someone says a word has a different meaning, then that necessarily affects the meaning of what they said. You are not in a position to assert that your interpretation of their words is more objective than theirs, unless you're explicitly intending to be intellectually dishonest, or come with further evidence proving their intellectual dishonesty.
    soraminazuki · 1790176988 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're being intellectually honest, you would explain which parts of the words I quoted is ambiguous instead of questioning my integrity with vague hypotheticals.
    simondotau · 1790651539 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know anything about the specific statements you were referring to, nor did I ever claim to. It's entirely possible I might even agree with you on the specifics.
    None of that is necessary for my comments to be intellectually honest. My prior posts in this thread stand on their own as statements of principle: that declaring an interpretation "not up for debate" is intellectually empty. If you choose a normatively loaded assertion in place of a good-faith argument about meaning, you're not resolving the disagreement; you're simply declaring your own interpretation authoritative, to no end.
    That's literally how primary school children argue in the school yard.
    isityettime · 1789855023 · focus · HN ↗
    It seems to me like the more intellectually honest characterization of things like hiring quotas and admissions quotas is "discrimination in the interest of the good" or "compensatory discrimination" rather than "this isn't discrimination". It's not a little-known practice and it doesn't negatively affect only white men (it also negatively affects East Asian men, for instance).
    If you think those hiring practices are justified against a backdrop of ongoing white supremacy, patriarchy, etc., say that. If you think they're only a small adjustment in the big picture in a world where tacit norms of credibility, transgenerational wealth, and interpersonal connections still overwhelmingly favor white men, say that. But when someone says "hiring practices actively try to tell people apart by race and ethnicity in a way that disfavors my odds" and you reply amounts "nuh-uh, and you can't say that!", you frankly weaken the left. Stop it.
    s1artibartfast · 1789852615 · focus · HN ↗
    These tweets all seem extremely reasonable and resonates with my experience.
    White males don't have a monopoly on discrimination but it certainly exists.
    When I worked at a fortune 50 company my annual bonus was dependent on how many minorities I hired. When I was job shopping I was told directly by recruiters that white males should not apply, but if I know any minorities to send them their way
    soraminazuki · 1789862208 · focus · HN ↗
    Where is the data that shows there are a disproportionate number of white men among the unemployed population? Without that data, this kind of rhetoric can only be seen as a pretext for actual discrimination.
    Also, you think jumping to support someone who got backlash for claiming that only a third of the London population (aka white people) are "native" to the city and the rest should be driven out of their homes is "extremely reasonable"? It boggles my mind that people are lining up to say how normal this is. It's anything but.
    s1artibartfast · 1789869924 · focus · HN ↗
    No disproportionate number of men are required for their to discrimination going on. Its not a competition.
    Discrimination could occur at the individual level. If I fire someone the color of their skin, but the numbers balance out somewhere, I still committed an act of discrimination.
    Also,I dont care about their back story. I suspect you and I have very different understanding of truth if you think them having said something offensive means everything else they say is false.
    That sounds exhausting. I'll judge the truth of a given statement by its contents.
    soraminazuki · 1789875255 · focus · HN ↗
    None of that makes any sense whatsoever. In your hypothetical scenario where "the numbers balance out," that's by definition indiscriminate termination. You can't discriminate without it showing up in the numbers because that's how math works.
    It's also offensive that you accuse me of fallaciously bringing up an unrelated story. You said the "tweets all seem extremely reasonable," including the one where Kling viciously defended DHH's call for ethnic cleansing in London. There is no "backstory" here.
    s1artibartfast · 1789884896 · focus · HN ↗
    Then we have different definitions. Discrimination is a matter of bias and motive. Statistics are irrelevant.
    For some definitions of systemic discrimination, you may look for an effect, but even that doesn't rule out two way discrimination.
    If a black person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, and a white person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, there is still a hell of a lot of discriminatory behavior happening.
    If you personally hold that events themselves cannot be discriminatory, even if they are motivated by racial bias or malice, you will continually run into disagreement with others.
    The overwhelming majority of people and legal systems recognize that events can be discriminatory. If you fire someone and provide their skin color as the reason, you will lose that discrimination lawsuit in every state in the US, no matter your statistical fetish.
    soraminazuki · 1789917941 · focus · HN ↗
    Statistical fetish? That's one hell of a way to turn your lack of proof into an ad hominem attack.
    If people are being fired for being white and male, then the number of unemployed white men increases. It's that simple.
    s1artibartfast · 1789919080 · focus · HN ↗
    oh come on, at least try to engage with what I said
    s1artibartfast · 1789886013 · focus · HN ↗
    PS, I dont see anything I would call vicious, any mention of london, or any mention of ethnic cleansing
    soraminazuki · 1789918646 · focus · HN ↗
    The tweet clearly mentions that he "stands with @dhh" citing backlash against his "racist and transphobic views." You called that "extremely reasonable" and you should own it.
    saghm · 1789767221 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm reading your comment on Firefox. You can probably read mine and write a reply on it too!
    godelski · 1789787952 · focus · HN ↗
    That's crazy! I'm commenting from Firefox! What a crazy world! How is this even possible?!

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.