Starting next week, Google will significantly reduce public access to the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) development process. Key parts of the next Android release's development, including platform changes and internal testing, will occur in private. While the source code will eventually be released publicly as usual, the day-to-day development and decision-making will be hidden from the public eye. This shift aims to improve efficiency and reduce early leaks of information about upcoming Android features. Google emphasizes that AOSP will remain open source, and they intend to enhance opportunities for external contributions through other avenues like quarterly platform releases and pre-release program expansions.
The 2008 blog post argues that Windows wasn't truly "free" for businesses, despite the common perception. While the OS itself came bundled with PCs, the associated costs of management, maintenance, software licensing (especially for Microsoft Office and server products), antivirus, and dealing with malware significantly outweighed the initial cost of the OS. The author contends that these hidden expenses made Windows a more expensive option compared to perceived free alternatives like Linux, particularly for smaller businesses. Ultimately, the "free" Windows license subsidized other revenue streams for Microsoft, making it a profitable, albeit deceptive, business model.
Hacker News users discussed the complexities of Microsoft's "free" Windows licensing model for businesses. Several pointed out that while the OS itself might not have a direct upfront cost, it's bundled with hardware purchases, making it an indirect expense. Others highlighted the ongoing costs associated with Windows, such as Software Assurance for updates and support, along with the costs of managing Active Directory and other related infrastructure. The general consensus was that "free" is a misleading term, and the true cost of Windows for businesses is substantial when considering the total cost of ownership. Some commenters also discussed the historical context of the article (from 2008) and how Microsoft's licensing and business models have evolved since then.
This 2010 essay argues that running a nonfree program on your server, even for personal use, compromises your freedom and contributes to a broader system of user subjugation. While seemingly a private act, hosting proprietary software empowers the software's developer to control your computing, potentially through surveillance, restrictions on usage, or even remote bricking. This reinforces the developer's power over all users, making it harder for free software alternatives to gain traction. By choosing free software, you reclaim control over your server and contribute to a freer digital world for everyone.
HN users largely agree with the article's premise that "personal" devices like "smart" TVs, phones, and even "networked" appliances primarily serve their manufacturers, not the user. Commenters point out the data collection practices of these devices, noting how they send usage data, location information, and even recordings back to corporations. Some users discuss the difficulty of mitigating this data leakage, mentioning custom firmware, self-hosting, and network segregation. Others lament the lack of consumer awareness and the acceptance of these practices as the norm. A few comments highlight the irony of "smart" devices often being less functional and convenient due to their dependence on external servers and frequent updates. The idea of truly owning one's devices versus merely licensing them is also debated. Overall, the thread reflects a shared concern about the erosion of privacy and user control in the age of connected devices.
Austrian cloud provider Anexia has migrated 12,000 virtual machines from VMware to its own internally developed KVM-based platform, saving millions of euros annually in licensing costs. Driven by the desire for greater control, flexibility, and cost savings, Anexia spent three years developing its own orchestration, storage, and networking solutions to underpin the new platform. While acknowledging the complexity and effort involved, the company claims the migration has resulted in improved performance and stability, along with the substantial financial benefits.
Hacker News commenters generally praised Anexia's move away from VMware, citing cost savings and increased flexibility as primary motivators. Some expressed skepticism about the "homebrew" aspect of the new KVM platform, questioning its long-term maintainability and the potential for unforeseen issues. Others pointed out the complexities and potential downsides of such a large migration, including the risk of downtime and the significant engineering effort required. A few commenters shared their own experiences with similar migrations, offering both warnings and encouragement. The discussion also touched on the broader trend of moving away from proprietary virtualization solutions towards open-source alternatives like KVM. Several users questioned the wisdom of relying on a single vendor for such a critical part of their infrastructure, regardless of whether it's VMware or a custom solution.
Summary of Comments ( 61 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484927
Hacker News commenters express concern over Google's move to develop Android AOSP primarily behind closed doors. Several suggest this signals a shift towards prioritizing Pixel features and potentially neglecting the broader Android ecosystem. Some worry this will stifle innovation and community contributions, leading to a more fragmented and less open Android experience. Others speculate this is a cost-cutting measure or a response to security concerns. A few commenters downplay the impact, believing open-source contributions were already minimal and Google's commitment to open source remains, albeit with a different approach. The discussion also touches upon the potential impact on custom ROM development and the future of AOSP's openness.
The Hacker News post "Google will develop Android OS behind closed doors starting next week" (linking to a 9to5Google article about changes in Android AOSP development) generated a significant number of comments discussing the implications of the shift to a more private development process.
Several commenters expressed concern that this change will negatively impact the open-source nature of Android. They argued that less public development means less community involvement, which could lead to slower bug detection, less innovation, and potentially a less secure operating system. Some worried that this move signals a broader shift away from Google's commitment to open source, possibly driven by competitive pressures or a desire for tighter control.
A few commenters drew parallels to other platforms and projects that have adopted similar private development models, speculating on whether Android might follow the same trajectory. Some pointed to the potential for fragmentation within the Android ecosystem if custom ROM development and community contributions are stifled.
Others offered a more nuanced perspective. They acknowledged potential downsides but also suggested that a more closed development process could have benefits, such as improved efficiency, faster release cycles, and better coordination within Google's development teams. Some suggested that Google might still maintain some level of transparency, even if the full development process isn't publicly visible. There was discussion around the distinction between "open source" and truly "open development", with some arguing that Android's open-source nature has been somewhat superficial for a while, given the dominance of Google's own implementations and services.
A recurring theme was the question of what this means for custom ROM development and the wider Android modding community. Some worried that this change will make it significantly harder to build and maintain custom ROMs, limiting user choice and potentially harming innovation. Others were less concerned, pointing out that many custom ROMs are primarily based on AOSP anyway and suggesting that the impact might not be as dramatic as some fear.
Finally, several commenters focused on the security implications of this move. Some argued that less public scrutiny could lead to more vulnerabilities going unnoticed. Others countered that a more controlled development environment might actually enhance security by making it harder for malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities during the development process.
Overall, the comments reflected a mix of concern, skepticism, and cautious optimism. Many expressed a desire for more clarity from Google about the specifics of this change and its long-term implications for the Android ecosystem.