‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

1180 points · 723 comments · theanonymousone

  1. wps · · 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 · · 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. StilesCrisis · · focus · HN ↗
        Hard forking doesn't solve the problem of closed source.

        If the goal of a hard fork is "the community will invest equal resources that Google does today" then you wildly underestimate how many engineers work on Chrome.

        1. MiroslavPokorny · · focus · HN ↗
          Can anyone actually share 1 - 3 examples where a hard fork of a living os project has actually succeeded ?

          If AMZN couldnt make their fire whatever it was called fork of Android really grow, what chance has the community got ?

          1. hex-m · · focus · HN ↗
            OwnCloud -> Nextcloud, OpenOffice -> LibreOffice, Elasicsearch -> OpenSearch, privacyIDEA -> eduMFA
            1. MiroslavPokorny · · focus · HN ↗
              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Apache_OpenOffice" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Apache_OpenOffice

              Difficulties maintaining a sufficient number of contributors to keep the project viable have persisted for several years. In January 2015, the project reported a lack of active developers and code contributions.[49] There have been continual problems providing timely fixes to security vulnerabilities since 2015.[50][51][52][53] In September 2016, OpenOffice&#x27;s project management committee chair Dennis Hamilton began a discussion of possibly discontinuing the project, after the Apache board had put them on monthly reporting due to the project&#x27;s ongoing problems handling security issues.[54][55][56]

              Sounds like AOO is effectively dead, so this example is a fail to my challenge.

              OpenSearch &amp; ElasticSearch both seem alive, as well as OC &amp; NC.

              Neither <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;privacyidea&#x2F;privacyidea" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;privacyidea&#x2F;privacyidea or <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;eduMFA&#x2F;eduMFA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;eduMFA&#x2F;eduMFA say either is a fork of the other.

              I think you failed to share 3, 2 seem to valid examples of my challenge but the other 2 are questionable.

              1. AnssiH · · focus · HN ↗
                LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice.org in 2010, way before the difficulties of Apache OpenOffice (which didn&#x27;t even exist back then).
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.