ITT: People making assumptions based off the tagline without reading the article
Basically not much changes, they’re just gonna wait to post their code until it’s done instead of letting it be viewed in progress
Google will develop the Android OS fully in private; Will continue open source releases.
Submitted 1 week ago by Tea@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-development-aosp-3538503/
Comments
JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 week ago
iarigby@lemmy.world 6 days ago
That’s a huge change. Reviewing one years’ worth of code at once is practically impossible, this significantly reduces the chances of a third party spotting malicious changes in the code.
ozymandias117@lemmy.world 6 days ago
That’s already how it functionally worked for each major release
Here’s their previous strategy: web.archive.org/web/20220917195332/…/codelines
Google works internally on the next version of the Android platform and framework according to the product’s needs and goals
When the n+1th version is ready, it’s published to the public source tree
The source management strategy above includes a codeline that Google keeps private to focus attention on the current public version of Android.
We recognize that many contributors disagree with this approach and we respect their points of view. However, this is the approach we feel is best and the one we’ve chosen to implement for Android.
As far as I can tell, this would really only affect QPRs, since the public experimental branches that get made after they throw the next release over the wall is going away
oppy1984@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Meh, reasonable. Thanks for posting the clarification.
smokinliver@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
How does this affect custom ROMs like lineageOS?
dadpunk@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Wondering the same about GrapheneOS
azalty@jlai.lu 1 week ago
Platform developers, including those who build custom ROMs, will largely also see little change, since they typically base their work on specific tags or release branches, not the main AOSP branch. Similarly, companies that release forked AOSP products rarely use the main AOSP branch due to its inherent instability.
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 week ago
Depends on how much they contribute back. Graphene has a history of contributing to AOSP, so it will make things more difficult for that, but not really for the ROM development itself. I’m not sure how Lineage is structured these days.
DrDystopia@lemy.lol 1 week ago
Sounds like good news for mobile linux!
essteeyou@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Right after Linux on desktop takes off, which is sure to happen any day now.
DrDystopia@lemy.lol 1 week ago
I don’t need desktop linux to “take off”, I’ve happily used it for a decade. I don’t need mobile linux to become mainstream. I just need it to be a bit better than it currently is.
Player2@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I personally finished deleting windows off of all of my machines recently. One by one we will add up over time
JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
Haven’t you heard? It’s the year of the Linux desktop.
pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
It’s the year of the Linux desktop, today. Next year it’s the year of Linux on Mobile.
(I’m not going to clarify how much of this post is fanaticism and how much is humor. Even I’m not sure.)
stsquad@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
It’s not like Android is especially open to drive-by contributions anyway. I don’t think really changes much for the downstream consumers of the releases.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
It means my GrapheneOS updates will probably he a little later.
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 1 week ago
And yet Graphene will still probably need more private and secure
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 week ago
How so? If Graphene is based off a release branch, there shouldn’t be change in timing. Sure, maybe a little for inspection, but as far as I know Graphene isn’t based off
mainanyway.
Fizz@lemmy.nz 1 week ago
This is terrible news. I don’t think anyone can replace Google’s contributions.
pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
We’ve had this fear about Unix and various database engines, in the past. But we managed.
hoppygarden@feddit.org 1 week ago
time to switch to graphene or e/os?
Takeshidude@lemmy.world 1 week ago
graphene is a fork of stock android, so wouldn’t this affect them?
pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
Yes. This hurts the GrapheneOS project. It won’t stop the project, but it makes their work harder.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
now I’m less worried about goggle being required to sell android. this way it does not matter anymore
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Why would you think it doesn’t matter?
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
we were worried about android being sold off because of what bad things the new owner would do with it
mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 6 days ago
Wow never would have I tought that a company releasing an Open Source project was only to privatized a few years later, how strange. Not like this has happened long ago and we already have a licence specifically made to counter this bullshit…
secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 6 days ago
Wack. Was planning on using post market OS again soon anyways
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 week ago
To summarize the article: they will deliberately open-source any updates several years later, or whenever they feel like, to ensure Stock Android is the only OS you use and new features available for people who pay Google money, which also includes security updates.
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 week ago
This is not at all a summary of the article. They’re moving to trunk-based dev to reduce merge conflicts coming in from the public on AOSP.
I don’t like it, because those few devs who contribute to AOSP without an agreement currently will have lagging code, but what you describe is just plain wrong. Is it possible? Sure. But it always has been, that doesn’t mean that’s what is happening.
Crashumbc@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Is it possible? Yes Is it likely given Corpo take over of civilization? Also yes…
Patch@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Even then, not really. Not legally, anyway. Open source licences require that the user be provided with the source code (if requested) alongside the binaries. If they roll out an update to Android (to code which is under an open source licence), they have to release the code at essentially the same time. Rolling out an update and then withholding the source code for an unnecessarily long time would be against the terms of the licence.
pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
Good clarification It’s also worth clarifying that choosing hidden trunk based development instead of public truck based development makes it clear that community contributions aren’t one of their priorities.
azalty@jlai.lu 1 week ago
That’s not what’s implied at all. Please don’t spread misinformation
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Look at the FUD getting voted to the top. This place is just as bad as Reddit.
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 week ago
Please elaborate your nonsense comment.