I really do like the idea of a challenger to the linux monoculture (among devs)/the windows monoculture (among consumers), but I really hate the idea of google getting yet more power.
If it was pretty much anyone else doing this.
If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate.
(My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting:
I see your point that they now unilaterally control how the kernel is engineered, but my counter argument is that I don’t think this meaningfully changes their control over the platform. They were already free to modify the Linux kernel at their whim. Having upstream control doesn’t make you emperor of derived applications.
As a separate point, don’t you think it just results in less efficiency and worst products if google isn’t free to steer the project in the direction that makes the most sense for the application? It seems they can more easily make zircon for their use case, and I think that will result in cheaper and better phones.)
Saying "it's open, so they don't really control it" is like saying Linus doesn't have control of the Linux kernel.
Maybe google will figure out how to make an Android style play and hold this OS hostage by withholding their services.
> If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate.
Yes.
This is why some developers are starting to hate open source. There's no technical excitement, it's all about community and governance and who has power and corporations and codes of conduct, etc... If not, you're going to fail. You get an army of experts scrutinizing your project and it's unexciting.
BSD-style means that anyone can do that, even Google's competitors, without any additional permission from Google.
1. Until the developer changes phones and loses interest. Nevertheless, thank goodness for XDA.
Everything now requires Google's proprietary services
Oh, and Google prevents OEMs from cooperating with Amazon.[2]
As result, Android is almost completely controlled by Google.
And you call that "open"?
________________________
[2] See the ongoing Antitrust case in the EU against Google
Android is nowadays proprietary, sadly.
If you're going to dismiss "open-core" and corporate-controlled open projects out of hand, I have bad news to tell you Gitlab, Red Hat, VS Code and hundreds of other projects the rest of us non-purists are grateful for providing their source under licenses that allow for modifications or forking...
They stopped updating most system apps code, and never continued even providing the code.
Originally, everything was open source at least.
Click on the comment’s link (the “x hours ago”) to reply.
Sure, Google runs the core development, but everyone will benefit from this eventually.
Control the platform, control the market around the platform.
Sure it's 'open', but at the same time, heavily subject to the authority of the owners.
See also the systemd/gnome impact to linux ecosystem..
posix in general keeps unices and unix likes (including linux here) more open than other systems since the API is less fluid / under the influence of a single group..
this phenomenon won't occur here.
Look at seL4, minix3, genode, helenos.