Changes to Android Open Source Project

Android source code will be released twice per year instead of every quarter.

We simply can not trust Google. It kind of became the Microsoft of the 1990s now.

Is there any good faith read of this that people can lend credence to? The one I could maybe come up with (with their mention of stability) is "we want OSes derived from AOSP to be stable, instead of following main too closely". They mention third party devs working off of stable too... so maybe they're like "instead of dealing with outside contributors messing around with our 'wip' stuff, we'll sign up for integration work".

We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device. No root access, remote control by apple and google, all wrong.

Every time Android gets worse and less open, especially with recent ID verification for APK installs, I think Canonical's 2013 comment on closing Bug #1 ages even more like milk: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

    Bug: Microsoft has a majority market share

    Almost always, a majority of PCs for sale have Microsoft Windows pre-installed. In the rare cases that they come with a GNU/Linux operating system or no operating system at all, the drivers and BIOS may be proprietary. [...] A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software.

    Android may not be my or your first choice of Linux, but it is without doubt an open source platform that offers both practical and economic benefits to users and industry. So we have both competition, and good representation for open source, in personal computing.

    Even though we have only played a small part in that shift, I think it's important for us to recognize that the shift has taken place. So from Ubuntu's perspective, this bug is now closed.

Ok, so at this point we’re getting iOS kernel source releases more often than AOSP drops? Maybe they should rename to i Open Source at this point because they seem to be doing a better job than Google at this now.

I wish I could understand why it is so difficult to build an un-googled android image.

One reason, I guess it's not possible because it's a complex OS?

But is the real obstacle being smartphone brands not publishing their hardware drivers?

It is so easy to install linux on a PC, yet I don't see the same happening for android while it's actually running a linux kernel, so it really begs the question.

I like the android way of security, where "rooting" your device to install updates is insecure, but using a horrifyingly out-of-date android (because your manufacturer, the only one who can update your device, didn't bother) is secure.

Those AI translations are really bad these days... In german it says in the subline "Verwenden Sie das Android-Betriebssystem, um Ihr Gerät mit Strom zu versorgen.", that means: Use Android to power your device with electricity.

Please don't show me your crappy translations any more.

Android started out as an open ecosystem that is slowly being closed. How much funding would it take to re-create a credible open-source ecosystem for phones?

So here's what I don't get. What's the point of this? Like, what is the downside to Google releasing the source to a version as they ship it?

I thought QPR2 and QPR4 were the only releases anyone cared about regardless.

redirect your efforts into other areas. I'd love a simpler device like https://www.waveshare.com/esp32-p4-wifi6-touch-lcd-7-8-10.1.... to be well supported with a lightweight friendly OS. This is about as root as you can get for those who want root access. You'll have to put in an effort yourselves or you'll forever be using slop devices and software.

>ensure platform stability for the ecosystem

Aka "We will do less releases because certain OEMs don't want to be seen as outdated as they don't want to spend the resources to rebase even 4 times per year."

android is plagged with planned obsolescence. Don't know if that's going to help.

AOSP has felt different lately, what’s going on? Not much. ~

More like a change of tone.

Quarterly releases given more emphasis. More precise stability language. Rather than feeling like an afterthought, feature flags are now receiving first-class treatment.

My view.

The isolation of platform work is earlier.

Landing flags are occurring more frequently than ever.

By “Stable,” it appears the Intuit team is suggesting “boring” which is deliberate.

I have been using a simple lens.

The surface of the platform is slow and predictable.

A gated and reversible design.

The OEM risk will be pushed later.

I wonder how other people see it.

Is Android giving off more conservative vibes?

Are flags cutting down on breakage, or just relocating it?

Has your testing strategy changed if you’ve shipped against AOSP?

In a practitioner’s take, not in a press narrative.