|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Honeycomb's Closed Development
Honeycomb is following the Cathedral model of programming. While this model is not a favored method of the open-source community (and is hardly seen anymore), it still exists, and is still a valid open source release model (albeit with flaws). Honeycomb has not been 'released' yet, but the source code will be released (allegedly) with the release of Honeycomb. It is for this reason that I changed the wording in the infobox from closed-source to closed development. That way there is no way for the article to be false. If Honeycomb's source is released, 'closed-source' is untrue, as many open-source programs have (at least at some point in their dev cycles) had closed development, and still been considered open-source programs. Closed development has no chance of being wrong or misconstrued, as it is as specific and literal definition as can be given. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that Google went on the record to say Honeycomb's source will be release eventually. Ian1337 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- A code which is not released, and for which the developer says that he does not put any date for when it will be opened to the public, is not Open Source. Never mind what Google says. When (if) they release it, it will be Open Source again. It is not. Besides the product is released, and some products from Google associates have been priced and shipped. It is not like the development is not finished yet. In the Cathedral model, the code is Opened when the final product is released. The final product has been released, and the code has not been opened yet, and Google do not say when it will be. Quoting the wikipedia article: "The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers". This is not the case here. Hervegirod (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- What day was Honeycomb released? - SudoGhost (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- You can buy at least one tablet with Honeycomb (the Xoom), it is not closed development, there is a software which is included in a released product which source code is still not released. Hervegirod (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Droid and cleanup
This article says that the first Android phone to become a big hit was the Motorola Droid. I think this should be mentioned, along with other significant handsets like the G1 and Samsung Galaxy S, and the article should have a greater emphasis on its commercial history and popularisation.
I think the current article is a bit of a mess, frankly. It's poorly written, badly structures, and has a strange and unnecessary emphasis on obscure technical details and dumps of information. Contrast this with the lucid Windows Phone 7 article. -220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also it suffers from the usual confusion between operating system and graphical interface system, section Linux compatibility is written haphazardly:
- Android's kernel is derived from Linux but has included architecture changes by Google outside the typical Linux kernel development cycle. Android does not have a native X Window System nor does it support the full set of standard GNU libraries, and this makes it difficult to port existing GNU/Linux applications or libraries to Android. However, support for the X Window System is possible. Google no longer maintains the code they previously contributed to the Linux kernel as part of their Android effort, creating a separate version or fork of Linux.
- X is not part of the operating system and neither the Java based replacement, so the sentences that I mark red, are irrelevant and confusing regarding the operating system. Android is a Linux fork that doesn't communicate updates with the Linux main branch. Therefore it can be said to be a Linux. The Android distribution doesn't provide X by default, but the Java replacement. That should be treated in a separate paragraph. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed Move - Feedback Needed
I propose moving the title from Android (operating system) to Android (software stack)
Rationale: Android is not an operating system, it is a software stack as stated by Google itself - see . The page reads "Android is an open-source software stack for mobile phones and other devices." Google says it again and expands on the idea here:  That page reads "Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware, and key applications." Those are pretty definitive statements that come right from the organization that drives the project.
In addition to aligning the article title with the view of the company that drives the project, the proposed title is more accurate. Referring to Android as an "operating system" suggests that it is something less than it actually is. If you take the middleware and applications out of Android, what you are left with isn't Android, it's just a bunch of code that, even if it could run a phone, would offer severely degraded utility and functionality.
I realize how common it is to see/hear Android referred to as an OS, but that's not much of an argument to keep the current title. Wikipedia needs to record things as they actually are, stating facts supported by reliable sources. There was a time when the teeming masses believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Although that was the prevailing view at the time, it wasn't correct. Since we know that Android isn't really an operating system, I think we need to move the title to Android (software stack) or Android (solution stack) since that is what is more correct, despite the prevailing understanding of the teeming masses.
Software stack vs. solution stack: Currently the Wikipedia article Software stack redirects to Solution stack. There are 36,300,000 Google results for "solution stack" but only 360,000 for "software stack". Despite Google's use of "software stack", perhaps Android (solution stack) is the better title?
Do you agree that the title should be moved? If so, is it Android (solution stack) or Android (software stack)?Ch Th Jo (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not commenting for or against the change, but thought I'd add this in (from 'What is Android' section of developer.android.com): "Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications." - SudoGhost (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME says "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". Using the same definition you could define Linux, Windows, iOs etc. as a software stack, but most people know them as operating systems. Dcxf (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- This makes sense, I agree with Dcxf. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- It should stay "operating system" WP:COMMONNAMEBhny (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- It should be changed to "Software system" or "Software stack" as the Linux kernel in the Android is the operating system and Android is more than just the Linux, everything from Linux OS to middleware to applications. The "Android (Operating System)" is not technically correct at all and clash with the operating system technologies and makes difficult for people to actually find out problems and make decisions based wikipedia information so it is against purpose of wikipedia. LInux is not microkernel but monolithic what means it is the operating system as monolithic kernel is the original and still very much used OS architecture and Server-Client (aka microkernel) is much younger (about 30 years newer than monolithic) OS architecture. Windows or iOS are neither ones operating systems. They are as well software systems and they include operating systems among other software (system programs, system libraries, application programs etc). NT is the OS in the Windows and XNU is the OS in iOS (&Mac OSX). NT microkernel does not have name but just version number while XNU microkernel is called Mach. The problem is the marketing has wanted to use mystical "operating system" term what has been now used as it would mean same thing as "product". But when you start coding operating system and you want to get even a simple program to work, the marketing term does not fit at all. Neither it works if there is reason to explain how device (computer) boots as OS is first software what bootloader loads and executes and then OS starts executing other (non-OS) software like INIT or similar what finalize the system booting in wanted order. Now this article is trying to say that Android is not same operating system as Linux. Even Android includes the Linux OS. No matter how much software is stacked to be ran by OS, does not change the fact what the OS is under them. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Let's see the research. Some believe that more reliable sources refer to Android as an OS rather than a software stack but no one has provided any evidence of that. Opinions don't count for much in WP, and without data, opinions are all we've got so far. Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Google news results: Android operating system shows 2,350 results, where Android software stack shows only 78. Seems to fit squarely into WP:COMMONNAME. Putting quotations around the phrases returns 913 for "Android operating system", and only 1 for "Android software stack" - SudoGhost (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- A better name than "software stack" would be "Android (smartphone platform)" with 127 hits. So I agree that "software stack" certainly fails the WP:COMMONNAME policy. On a side note, Android (platform) would probably be more common with 4730 hits. Regards SoWhy 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "platform" (or "smartphone platform") does not work as platform means software platform what does not include operating system or application programs. Software platforms are like Java or Qt or more complicated combinations of libraries and prorams (not system- or application programs). The technically correct would be simply "software system" as computer is build by two different parts, hardware system and software system. They are both needed but they are still independent, like hardware can brake and vice versa. You can keep same hardware system but change software system to totally different and having totally different user experience with that. Or keep same software system and change hardware system to get totally different processing speed or use capabilities. The "Software stack" could work if it would be very well explained it means the software system and not just typical software stack like what KDE SC or Core technologies are. It does not matter how many results google brings (how popular some term is) as technology rules all those out how the machine (hardware/software) works and it is done by science and not marketing or internet blogs and forums etc. If popular opinion rules over the computer science (technology, facts, sience) then wikipedia is broken in the first place as it would be case that (as example) if 80% people believe human can fly then wikipedia article of that should be changed so and not to reflect science that human does not have wings and can not fly but human can build machines what can fly by using specific scientific rules of physics etc. Android article is about software, so it is about computer science and not about public opinions or believes what marketing generates to sell stuff. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Android is an operating system, exactly like Unix is an operating system. I think there's only a confusion when somebody doesn't know that an operating system, and a kernel are not the same thing: An operating system is more than a kernel, and includes all the other libraries, programs, and even data, which come with the system and were not specifically added by the user. So the Unix operating system, for example, includes the Unix kernel *and* a whole lot of libraries (e.g., the C library), applications, compilers, windowing systems, manual pages, images, sounds, and so on. So android is an operating system - there is no need to invent a new term "software stack". The term "software stack" fails to capture the essense of operating systems, which is that this stack isn't just any stack, it's one which spans all layers - right from the hardware up to the end user. So please don't rename. Nyh (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
If any of you guys want to change the category of Android (operating system) from operating system to software stack please be consistent and reach a consensus with editors of other pages like iOS (Apple) and Microsoft Windows. Because you are going to have more detractors than Nicolaus Copernicus when he wanted to displace the Earth from the center of the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)".
The most concise option here is simply (software), which redirected here, so I've moved to that title. Android means several things, and none of them are especially more notable than the others. The generic title avoids giving confusing impressions to readers too early on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Going by the "use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context", iOS and Symbian are topics within the same class and context. They are both referred to as operating systems. They do not have the same disambiguating phrases however. The example above doesn't fit here, because Android (software) is not a simpler form of Android (operating system) Fewer characters does not always mean simpler. This, in addition to the previous consensus to keep the article's title at Android (operating system) is why I moved it back, per the consensus and WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost 14:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- You've misread NCDAB. If iOS were iOS (operating system) and Symbian were Symbian (operating system) then we would use "the same disambiguating phrase" (that's the thing in brackets) as them. But they aren't. Secondly, the argument, repeated several times, is that Android is more than an operating system, which is why the current title is misleading. Thirdly, "software" is not only more concise, but also a far simpler concept than "operating system". In fact, I can't think of any way in which this could not be considered "simpler". The previous consensus was on a different proposal and wasn't even that strong (from what I can see, it only had about half a dozen participants and wasn't even posted to RM). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with SudoGhost. An OS is not simply software as the casual reader knows it (i.e. as in "application") but rather a complex stack of many different programs that regulate many uses of the device the OS is installed on (and, with smartphone operating systems, the hardware is often designed to fit said OS as well). Also, such naming is common for those topics, see ARX (operating system), Integrity (operating system), RMX (operating system) etc.
- On that topic, please enjoy this
- for moving the page without discussion when you clearly could see that a move of this page would not be uncontroversial. Whether your argument is correct or not (imho, it's not), it's not your decision to move something without consensus to do so. Regards SoWhy 14:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- thumperward, that's why I said above, "They do not have the same disambiguating phrases however." Operating system is the common name, what is technically correct does not apply when naming the articles, as I'm sure the disambiguation for a great many technology articles would then need to be changed if that were the case. What is used is the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. In most reliable sources, Android is referred to as an operating system. In common usage software is a program that is run on an operating system. To the average reader, Android would have software, but would not be software. To name the page otherwise would likely just confuse people. - SudoGhost 14:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is the more in "Android is more than an operating system"? Because then iOS (Apple) and Microsoft Windows are also more than an operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just going to weigh in and give the opinion that the problem rests with common use of the phrase "Operating System." In common parlance, when someone refers to an OS, they are also including the basic application software that it is bundled with. So even Windows is in theory more than "just an operating system" because it also includes additional default applications (I'm thinking of say, MSPaint and Solitaire). Android is much the same, when one speaks of the "Android OS" they generally are referring to more than the basic OS system (which is a part of Android), but also to the middleware and basic applications that are bundled with it. All of this is to say that while Android_(operating_system) may not be 100% technically, it meets WP:COMMONNAME criteria because in colloquial speech when one speaks of an OS one is also including middleware and basic applications as a part of that package. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know the rules of wikipedia speaking/usage, but as a programmer I am obligated to say what I have to say. NO, Android is NOT operating system as Amiga emulator for PC is NOT operating system. I won't tell you what is it, but surely it is LINUX operating system with SOMETHING (call it as you wish). Log into Android by the Busybox and SEE what it REALLY is. It is plain linux distro, a very small one. Like ANY embedded linux in ANY device. So please, call it as you wish but not and OS (my guess would be Software Platform or software Stack as originally Google calls it - do you think if Google wasn't ashamed to use OS, it would invent it's own names?). By the way, removing almost ALL Google related software from Android STILL doesn't break an OS - it is still working and kicking, I can run any linux app without any Google crap on my HTC Desire HD. That's the truth. And dont mix "common knowledge" with "encyclopedic definitions" - we are obligated to write what it IS, and not what people CALLS IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS. Ask yourself a question - Windows 3.0 - is it an operating system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
best-selling open source?
How come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The sources listed will give you more information, like this one. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "world's best-selling Smartphone platform" is potentially misleading. The convention on Wikipedia seems to be that "best-selling" means "largest number of total sales" (see List of best-selling video games, List of best-selling books.) However, the source cited for Android being the best-selling smartphone platform merely states that it had the highest number of sales in a three-month period(2010 Q4), not in the entire history of smartphones. Given that Symbian has been around for nearly a decade longer than Android, it wouldn't surprise me if its total number of sales was still higher than Android's. In my opinion, replacing "best-selling" with "fastest selling" might be more accurate. Captain Canuck16 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Best-selling does not imply largest market share. It implies it has the most sales in a specific (recent) period.Haha01haha01 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Does the statement "world's best-selling Smartphone platform" cover the sales of devices that are NOT smartphones? if so, then this statement needs to be rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danigro456 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- in that case, you need to specify the "specific (recent) period". Otherwise, "best-selling" simply means "most cumulative sales". If the source says "best-selling in Q4 2010", you can use it to state "best-selling in Q4 2010", but not to state "best-selling" without qualification. --dab(𒁳) 10:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
How should all the modifications hardware manufacturers do be called? (like HTC Sense) fragments? distributions?
How should all the modifications hardware manufacturers do be called? (like HTC Sense) fragments? distributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- It has always been my understanding that things like HTC Sense and (Not) Motoblur are proprietary sets of standard or built-in apps. For instance, HTC sense replaces the standard Android app that manages the home screen as well as several others I believe. I don't think fragments would be the correct term, because this would generally refer to non-standard versions of the OS that have splintered off the core Android releases from Google. I would term them as proprietary default application packages, which is admittedly a mouthful, but they are changes to the basic apps that are bundled with the Android software stack (see above for extensive discussion on terminology of OS vs. Software stack). As noted, the Android developers website describes Android as "a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications." From this, HTC sense (or other packages) are proprietary replacements for those key applications. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Imho, the best term for things like HTC Sense is probably shell. It changes the way people use the most common applications by replacing the standard-shell without changing the system itself (kind of like KDE and GNOME for Linux/Unix do). Regards SoWhy 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're probably right, that's a much simpler explanation than mine...MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Android Software Patents / Microsoft
Considering Microsoft is going after a 4th manufacturer (Samsung) for licensing patents fees over Android, you would think this would be mentioned in the article. I may get around to adding it. Psilocybin (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Correction of the classification of Android.
In one of the very first paragraphs introducing Android, we get this:
"The Android open-source software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java-based, object-oriented application framework on top of Java core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine featuring JIT compilation."
The problem with that is that it's flat out wrong. I'd love to edit it, however I cannot seem to clarify how Android works concisely.
Android is an open source software stack. However, that stack does not consist of Java applications. These applications are developed in the Java language, but are immediately converted by the dx utility into .dex files. The Dalvik interpreter runs these dex files and is a register-based VM instead of a stack-based VM as Java VMs are. This is the whole contention between Oracle and Google. Google used this in order to get around licensing of Java.
The unmodified sentence incorrectly informs people that Android runs java. Android does not, in-fact, run any java at all. The applications are developed in the Java language, but at no point does that language actually touch the Android device.
Could someone help me modify this sentence and/or paragraph to clarify this?
126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)ThantiK
- I took a stab at this. I think bytecodes are a bit too techy for the lead section but hopefully it is a little more clear that it is not strictly running "Java" or the Java core libraries per se. Dcxf (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good work. The paragraph in question is still a bit jargon-heavy, but it's now much better than it was. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It's advised to note it's place in the market share in the intro paragraph up top
To put things into perspective, you should include it's place in the smart phone marketshare. Sticka (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Update mechanism and rooting
I just read the article but found no information about what i was looking for so perhaps someone could extend the article and insert these topics. There is a seperate topic about what changes where made in the different versions. However i have no idea how i am able to get these updates on an Android phone. Are they automatically distributed like in other Linux distributions? Does it happen via the app store? Do i have to download some files and install them? Are apps also updated? I have also heared that sometimes you will not get any further updates. Since there will always be new exploits in i.e. the webbrowser you probably need to root the phone to get updates. But i have no idea if that is possible on all phones or restricted by the OS or Phone. Thanks. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Just found out about the rooting article which is mentioned under "List of Android OS-related topics". However if it is needed to have a secure phone as mentioned in my questions about updates above, i think it deserves to be mentioned in the text. If it's not i don't care. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Lookout Android Malware Rise.png Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Lookout Android Malware Rise.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011|
- What should I do?
|A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. |
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
What about criticism of it's User Interface?
Like how it is so differen't than ones on Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu?220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any such criticism. Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu are desktop operating systems, and Android is for mobile devices. If you have any reliable sources that discuss this criticism, by all means please list them here and I'd be happy to discuss them. Thank you. - SudoGhost 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
For touch interfaces you don't want a GUI environment like you have on a desktop, because the interface is fragmented into places you touch for control and places you use for viewing content, because the mouse pointer is so small relative to the size of the screen, this is possible, but on a mobile platform, a windowing interface is cumbersome. Also on a mobile platform, like the iPhone, I think it is somewhat good to have eliminated the file system, cause I think 90% of the time users waste is with locating content in the file system. I mean really, would you want to be looking for your music files while cruising down the highway at 60MPH? You have to consider this, the efficiency of the interface could actually save lives. Rofthorax (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
But it isn't purely a phone OS, it is used in desktops, laptops, tablets, and netbooks.
Besides, didn't Windows CE, a OS used on early smartphones, although a totaly different OS on the inside, have the same layout as Windows 9x? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If I find another IP user vandalize this page, I will request for an indefinite semi-protection.Mike289 16:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Considering the fact that no vandalism has occurred in the past few days, least of all vandalism frequent enough to warrant an indefinite protection, I find it highly unlikely that such a request would be approved, per WP:SILVERLOCK. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not seeing a single vandal edit after August 2, with the possible exception of August 5. Don't worry though, there are plenty of eyes on the article. - SudoGhost 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I still feel this page should be semi-protectedMike289 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
References to Android Issue Tracker posts
Can we have some consensus on whether or not Android issue tracker posts are WP:USERGENERATED and therefore not reliable sources? It seems clear to me that they are user-generated: they are initiated by random internet users who are usually only identified by an email address fragment, and subsequent posts to the topic are the same. Their use as sources also encourages inclusion of very non-notable technical issues and wishlist items, as previously discussed here:  . Dcxf (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would certainly say that it falls squarely under WP:USERGENERATED. That I can personally add an issue and then try to turn around and use that as a source makes it unreliable. - SudoGhost 13:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you prefer no reference than a reference from the source? You do not need to read user comments (like you do not read ads in many references in wikipedia), just read Google comments and status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Because material in articles has to be attributable to a reliable published source. Even the very occasional comments by Google staff on the issue tracker are usually anonymous, and the original issue description is never written or updated by Google. The postings are often inaccurate, outdated, or refer to old or custom versions of Android. They are not suitable source material for an encyclopedia article. Dcxf (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- What about issues reviewed by Google? Is Google good enough to be referenced? There are still some Google references that should be removed if Google is not good enough to be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't fix the problem that the original issue description, and all the rest of the content on the page, is user-generated and potentially inaccurate. Dcxf (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Source releases and POV pushing
So we've got an editor inserting loaded phrases with edit summaries such as "remove whitewashing". If Lun Esex (talk ·contribs) feels that the wording is inadequate he should discuss it here. I'll be removing the loaded phrase again shortly, as one blog quote does not a "controversy" create. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"Criticism" section has grown to about a quarter of the article
What is to be done with it? As predicted in WP:CSECTION, this section seems to be functioning as a bit of a troll magnet. The lengthy "Malware and security" and "Privacy" sections seem to give undue weight to relatively minor issues, using material that is mostly sourced from firms selling virus protection. The new "Closeness" section is a scattered bunch of negative points with no attempt at NPOV, about the issues of compatibility requirements and Honeycomb closed source which are already covered elsewhere in the article. Delete the whole section, or try to integrate it with the article? Dcxf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- While I would keep the second paragraph of the Malware and security section, as it was covered by multiple reliable sources in the news, I agree that the rest of that section appears to be firms selling virus protection, and not much more. If the second paragraph is kept, I think it should be moved elsewhere in the article, as it really isn't a criticism, but just a fact. Maybe I'm not reading between the lines or something, but I don't see any criticism there.
- For the privacy section, I think there might be some value in keeping it in the article if better sources could be found, but trimming it down to a sentence or two, because I'm not seeing how "These databases form electronic maps to locate smartphones, allowing them to run apps like Foursquare and companies like Google to deliver location-based ads." is a criticism of Android. The only information that is sourced in that section is that Wi-Fi locations are used by Foursquare and location-based ads, that there is third-party software that identifies information that could hypothetically be accessed, and that flashing the ROM voids the warranty. There's no criticism there, and the rest of it appears to be completely unsourced.
- I'm still looking into the other two sections, IP infringement claims and Closeness, but the first two sections as written don't really belong as "criticisms". - SudoGhost 11:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I merged the bizarrely named "closeness" section back with licensing. I think the rest should be merged or deleted too. Bhny (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I remember going through a previous criticism section and working as much as possible into the article where it belonged, and removed the criticism header in the process. I wonder when it found its way back in. Hmph.
"Openness" comes up often enough that it's a reasonable concern for people, so some of yesterday's editions can probably be kept as long as it's sourced and phrased properly. Discussion about malware too probably deserves a mention, but I'm sure sure where and I also think we need to resist the temptation to just keep parroting the latest dangers and scary figures churned out by the security firms. Paragraphs dedicated to specific exploits I think is a bit much as these come and go with little lasting impact.
As for the Oracle thing, this section gives considerable undue weight to what is really just one of many patent lawsuits currently being argued over. Having said that, patents are a significant issue at the moment and a really thoughtful few paragraphs could be written about them, Google and everyone else's different attitudes towards them (inc. the Motorola Mobility purchase and stuff), etc, however the current IP infringement section is not that, and it wouldn't be listed under "criticism" anyway. I might take a stab at the weekend unless someone else gets there first. – Steel 13:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the criticism header leaving the sub-sections. I think that's a good start. Now the sections need to be trimmed down or merged. Bhny (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Removing the criticism section and putting its content in the relevant paragraphs is OK, but the result has sometimes become inacurate or false. For example: "Android's kernel is derived from the Linux kernel. Google contributed code to the Linux kernel as part of their Android effort, but certain features, notably a power management feature called wakelocks, were rejected by mainline kernel developers, so the Android kernel is now a separate version or fork of the Linux kernel". This presents the facts as if Google worked voluntarily for the kernel, but that they were forced to fork because some specific features were rejected by the kernel people. But this is false, they forked since the beginning, and they contributed very little back to the kernel according to the kernel guys, and some of the contributions they put were rejected (for reasons that ought to be explained here). However, what I'm saying is not intended to be a criticism on your own effort to improve the article. It's normal that some quirks remain after a paragraph reorganization. Hervegirod (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The whole article has a NPOV problem. A quick look at the iOS article shows nothing about Privacy (despite iOS having severe privacy problems), and no Malware section, despite there being plenty of iOS malware --Snakeskincowboy (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This amount of criticism is perfectly justified with a device that has so much "Big Brother"-Award potential than one running the Android OS--188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
Android version history merge
Wikipedia is not a collection of changelogs. The current article is an indiscriminate list of changes between every version of the operating system and as such does not conform to Wikipedia policy. To make it do so would make the article so short that its independent existence would be an unnecessary split in content, which would be better served in this article. Sceptre(talk) 20:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: the AFD was closed as keep so there is plenty of time to edit the article, and who knows what size it will be when this is finished? The current article is already (mostly) at summary level, not detail level, so just needs editing down a bit. Dcxf (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just so you know, AfD results have no bearing on merge discussions: you can't argue that AfD can only decide whether an article should be deleted, and then use an AfD to oppose the merging of content. As AfD has been presented as the former, then it can't be used in the latter. Sceptre(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the version history should go back to the way it was before. A table of all the versions on the main article page. The separate article for version history and a summary on the main page just doesn't flow as well. Why was this done in the first place? --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was split by consensus mainly because the main article was too long, but also because a lot of information about older versions, while useful as a reference and interesting to people who want to know more about the way it evolved, is probably not that interesting to most people as part of the description of the operating system. Dcxf (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- But in its current form, it fails WP:NOT. To make it conform, the article's size would be such that it would not be a good spinout article: if an article is split due to size constraints, if the sizes of the two articles are small enough that the combined size would result in an article that would not require splitting, then they should be combined again. Sceptre(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it fails WP:NOT in its current form. If you compare the sources with the summaries in the article, it's already for the most part a summarized list of the significant changes in each version. It could use some editing but it probably wouldn't reduce the size to the point where it should be merged again. Dcxf (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
|The Galaxy Nexus is out in at least one region now, so let's move on from this |
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
The latest release version should list the most recently released version not versions that have been announced or demoed. As of today (10/20/2011) no phones have been released with or updated to ICS so the most recent version is still 2.3.7 (Gingerbread). --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Technically 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) is not a "latest_preview_version" / "latest_preview_reliese" but I've added it as such to the INFOBOX --Mkouklis (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ice Cream Sandwich shouldn't be listed in the Infobox at all. Ice Cream Sandwich is a future release not a current version. Until it is actually released is should only show in the version history and maybe a mention of it in the first 1 or 2 paragraphs of the article. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is there anyway the info box can be changed so that it says "Latest preview release" instead of "Latest unstable release"? By saying "unstable" it gives the impression that the OS is not stable when it could just not be released to the public yet. I can't figure out how to change the text of "latest_preview_version". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I removed 4.0 since it isn't in preview or unstable release. Dcxf (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- As of today (11/15/2011) Android 4.0(Ice Cream Sandwich) has not been released. The infobox should not state that it is the most current version.--Jimv1983 (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Various sources actually say it was released yesterday.
- Including this (blog?) http://www.gsmarena.com/google_finally_releases_ice_cream_sandwich_source_code-news-3384.phpJenova20 10:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Releasing the source code for developers is not the same as the OS officially being released. No phones on the market are currently officially running 4.0(Ice Cream Sandwich). The released date should show either 1. The day a phone running ICS goes on sale or 2. The day a current phone gets an official update to ICS. Since neither one of those has happened yet the OS has NOT been released yet. The first phone to have ICS will be the Galaxy Nexus. That phone is not out yet. --Jimv1983 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fair point.
- Remember to act in good faith though mr Jimv1983 Jenova20 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why it is so hard to understand. As of today(11/15/2011) Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich(ICS) has NOT been released. Google may have released the source already but that is not the same thing as the OS being released. With that logic you could say that Windows 8 has been released because the Developer Preview and Development SDK has been released. I really don't want to get in an edit war over this but to say that ICS has been released is incorrect and very misleading. The current version is 2.3.7. As I said before, the official release is the day the OS is officially running on a device. For this to happen either a phone has to get a Google authorized update or a phone has to be released running ICS right out of the box. Since neither of these is true it is not out yet. The first device that will run ICS is the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and it is NOT out yet. I'm just trying to provide the most accurate date possible. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be this blunt but your logic is stupid. Android is hardware independent operating system. Stable 4.0.1 version has been released to public (not just developers). It is not alpha or beta software or a RC or some kind of developer preview. It is the full thing, real deal. It is exactly the software that will run on on Galaxy Nexus down to every line of code, as confirmed by Google. If we are going to use that kind of logic then for example Gentoo Linux is never released because even though full source code of the stable branch is available and has been compiled by third parties, Dell doesn't sell laptops running it and thus it has not been released. Melmann(talk) 16:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Good point.
- Can i suggest renaming the field then from "Latest stable release" to "Latest available release", "Latest release", "Latest release available in stores" or something less confusing?
- If you have to revert everyone who changes it and explain this then it's not clear enough Jimv1983 and also a big waste of time for people having to look at the changes to the page with every edit.
- Thanks Jenova20 16:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The article is about the operating system, not a phone running the OS or anything else. Your idea of using the 'date' of the release of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone is bad, because it is the release date of the phone, not the OS! Google has released the sources code of the OS, it can be compiled and installed in phones (it has been already done). Do you expect Google to release binaries? Melmann's example is good, Gentoo releases only the sources for the OS, it is the same thing. --KDesk (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did state that was an example.
- The fact of the matter is that ICS IS available, just only to a select few at the moment.
- Jenova20 09:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I only said the release date of the Galaxy Nexus should be used because it is the first phone to officially get ICS. If, for example, the Nexus One, Droid Charge or Galaxy S II where the first to officially get ICS than the day the update goes out to the first device would be the release date. Of course the source release is meant for developers. It wouldn't be much good to anyone else. The real purpose of the source code release is so that companies like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc can start updating their skins to use it. --Jimv1983 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just pointing out that the field in the table doesn't sound right to this policy you have and everyone is misunderstanding it.
- If either: it made more sense or you just added ICS then you wouldn't have to keep reverting people who add that and neither would i.
- If you don't plan to change either then for the next how many weeks/months people will just keep changing it to ICS.
- Thanks Jenova20 16:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- The logic that "the official release is the day the OS is officially running on a device" does not make much sense. I perfectly admit that the source code is not exactly the same thing as the program (not counting scripts), just like a recipe for a cake is not the same thing as a cake, but in many many open-source projects there simply is no release of compiled/binaries, therefore the release of source clearly counts as the release of the software. Take the example of Linux (the kernel): when a new archive with the source is posted to kernel.org, then it clearly counts as a release, it is irrelevant if Ubuntu has adopted the new kernel, or if there are PCs with that kernel on the market, "anyone" can grab the kernel and use it. The comparison stated as "With that logic you could say that Windows 8 has been released because the Developer Preview and Development SDK has been released" is even less logical, because: 1- Windows 8 is a developer PREVIEW (aka alpha/beta), while Android is a "final" release and 2- The Windows SDK is not a usable version of Windows, much less a final version. I also want to say I fully agree with Melmann and KDesk. I would also request that the info about the version 4.0 being the latest one do not be reverted, since it goes against the general consensus in wikipedia of counting source-releases as final releases and in addition to that, there is also no consensus (yet) for that in this talk page. Finally, even if we follow the logic above (release of the OS = release of the phone): the phone has already been released, so I hope at the very least we can agree the version 4.0 can be considered "released". Cheers to all --SF007 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- tl;dr The source-code is out, so it counts as a release --SF007 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone have ICS running on a phone NOW (besides Google of course)? NO! Could any one install it on a phone right NOW? NO! The general public does not have the ability to run ICS on ANY phone right now. It's officially released when the general public has the ability to actually use it on a phone. Currently that is not the case. Even with Linux the group that releases a version(Ubuntu for example) actually makes it available to install on an actual computer. That is currently not possible with ICS. So, it has not officially been released. It will remain that way until someone can actually use it on a phone. Saying ICS is already released gives people the false impression that they can actually use it on a phone right NOW which is NOT true. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the kernel of an OS is just a component of the OS and could never be used by it self anyways. It would have to be incororated into a full OS and the OS itself would be released when it could be installed on an actual computer.--Jimv1983 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are mistaken SF007. No phone running ICS has been released. It was only demoed. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)