Thread

1. 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. saghm · 1789767178 · focus · HN ↗

         > But they won't learn that on their own

         I think they're fully aware of this. They just don't care, because the goal of "get market share super high" has been reached, so now they have no need for it to continue being open.

         I don't disagree about what that means we should do; I just don't think we should assume they're being naive here. It's like writing a program to play chess; you should select your move assuming the opponent is smart and will make the optimal counterplay rather than assuming weakness, and then if they end up being less smart than that, you're still in a good place.

         1. godelski · 1789787533 · focus · HN ↗

            Tbh I don't think fighting open source is Google's best play. I think it is in their own best interest to keep it fully open. It is free labor by those who are most passionate. It gives strong signals at what people want, this direction you develop. It strengthens security as more people try to test it. It means people work on forks rather than alternatives. All this is true even with a monopolistic market share.

            So yes, I do think they are being naïve. The stance is myopic. It is only a good move in the short term, and barely even that. It is under the false belief that we operate in a zero sum game.

            1. pjmlp · 1789788941 · focus · HN ↗

               Most successful open source projects have devs being paid by big corporations, including Linux itself, which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring.

               Also in the last century most software was commercial, and thanks to business friendly licenses we are back to demos, PD, Shareware and co, only with new names for a younger generation.

               Google will do just fine.

               1. b112 · 1789808385 · focus · HN ↗

                  which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring.

                  Correlation is not causation.

                  What I lived through, was Linux taking off like a juggernaut, and IBM embracing it as a result. Large corps came along for the ride, they didn't drive it and at best paid for some gas.

                  DEVs being paid is simply what it is. The entire scsi/sata stack was originally re-authored by 3ware for example.

                  Why?

                  To sell stuff, and the guy was an advocate too.

                  It's always been this way, under the great wonder of the GPL, blessed be it.

                  1. pjmlp · 1789828976 · focus · HN ↗

                     It was so relevant that even Wikipedia discusses this, we were using Solaris, HP-UX and Aix for actual production deployments. Linux was our MP3 server.

                     1. b112 · 1789830378 · focus · HN ↗

                        Meanwhile every startup in SV was using Linux, Facebook was using Linux, Google, and everyone in between. This was early 2000. It had immense momentum without big boys like IBM coming in (and IBM was massive compared to Google or Facebook of that day).

                        1. pjmlp · 1789834641 · focus · HN ↗

                           Really? Every single one?

                           You must have a good source of information for such a statement.

                           Do you want examples why Solaris was selling so well before the .com crash?

                           1. b112 · 1789836638 · focus · HN ↗

                              There are several 'early 2000s' after the .com crash. Linux growth was phenomenal, and as tends to happen with growth, starts with smaller market share.

                              There is no conflict in "linux was growing without the big boys' and 'it started with small market share'.

                              And yes, you can find exceptions to the rule, although regardless, do you see me saying "exclusively"? What does someone using Solaris, have to do with Linux only growing due to external help?

                        2. lstodd · 1789840463 · focus · HN ↗

                           FreeBSD 4 was big in early 2000s.

                           1. b112 · 1789846061 · focus · HN ↗

                              Yes, yet it was. There were the BSDs, some more popular than others. A lot of the time, especially back in the earlier days, stuff was more regional.

                              There certainly were mailing lists, usenet, forums, all of an all-encompasing scope. But there were also very local user groups, and pockets of wildly more and less usage depending upon region. The Internet was young, and many made decisions predicated upon what they saw around them.

                              Especially back in the day, when Google was seen as good, and Facebook not really evil yet, everyone wanted to emulate them too.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.