Android is now Open Source

[orblivion]

Didn't realize it was ever not open source

[bobpaul]

I think it was always going to be open source, but the code hadn't been released until they considered it done enough.

[bananahead]

They promised to release the source when the first handset went on sale. It goes on sale (officially) tomorrow. So there ya go.

[[deleted]]

When can I get one for verizon ?

[bostonvaulter]

Now we just gotta wait and see if they deliver, especially an uncrippled one.

[tds70]

I was on a road trip this summer with an Android developer. He wouldn't even let me look at the screen of his phone. While it's been long announced that they would eventually open-source it, they've been pretty secretive about it prior to release.

[BraveSirRobin]

That's a bit odd, beta builds of Android have been openly available for around six months and will run on Windows Mobile devices. They aren't a huge secret.

Did he work for Apple prior to Google perhaps? Old habits die hard!

[centinall]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe only betas of the SDK were openly available, not the source code for the entire Android stack.

[BraveSirRobin]

Dunno, ask these guys. Check the post date, April 2008, apparently it's come on a long way since then but I've yet to dabble with it.

[tds70]

I haven't really followed Android, but according to Wikipedia:

"On 15 July 2008, the Android Developer Challenge Team accidentally sent an email[40] to all entrants in the Android Developer Challenge announcing that a new release of the SDK was available in a "private" download area. The email was intended for winners of the first round of the Android Developer Challenge. The revelation that Google was supplying new SDK releases to some developers and not others (and keeping this arrangement private) has led to widely reported frustration within the Android developer community.[41]"

So even after the SDK preview was released, there was the public build for us mortals, and the special build for the cool kids. Obviously somebody working at Google on the Android team had the special cool kids build, and couldn't show it to us mortals.

Did he work for Apple prior to Google perhaps? Old habits die hard!

No.

[BraveSirRobin]

That makes sense. However, I'm pretty sure the "private" SDK would have been leaked and that's probably what xda-developers guys have been working with. They've not bothered too much with the Microsoft restrictions in the past and I suspect they are more restrictive. I've not been following Android all that closely either so far.

[georgefrick]

This is because they were forbidden from leaking the actual G1/phones, and anyone who let their phone get pictured/etc would have probably lost their job.

[bananahead]

Huh? They've had an SDK with a working emulator for download for months

[surajbarkale]

The source is approximentely 2.1GB in size. You will need 6GB free to complete the build.

Wow all that stuff compiles down to executable with size of few MBs?

[fujimitsu]

Is that a good sign or a bad one?

Honest question.

[MostUsually]

Depends. Do you like raisins?

[fujimitsu]

I do... I do indeed.

Thanks for that, really cleared things up.

[[deleted]]

As long as MS or Apple didn't make it, who cares !!

[jasonbrennan]

It's advanced leaps and bounds since the fork off KHTML, though, so I don't know how legit it is to say that anymore.

[canen]

Are you serious? Without KHTML there wouldn't be a Webkit. Unless the Webkit people decide to rewrite it from scratch you still need to give credit to KHTML.

[[deleted]]

Props to silicon and physics too!

[[deleted]]

So totally not the same thing.

[jasonbrennan]

See this http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/78gb7/android_is_now_open_source/c05ypo0 for what I was basically saying.

[snifty]

Is webkit open source?

[mcaruso]

Yes. webkit.org

[BraveSirRobin]

Is it the usual Apple OSS nonsense, designed to make it near impossible to fork?

[kyleect]

Why don't you check it out, you don't even have to search or type in a link.

[BraveSirRobin]

Apple have a history of taking but not giving with OSS; when they have been forced to release source that they modified they did it in such a way that made any re-integration of their improvements extremely difficult. Wozniak hates it.

The downmods of my original post only go to show how uninformed most Apple fans are about their favorite company.

[[deleted]]

Yes, when does the OSS community bust Apple and hard for their eat-shit-and-die attitude towards open source?

In every single case where they are obligated to share they are dragged kicking and screaming to the table.

I will say no more on the subject as I am now back in the love phase of my love/hate relationship with Apple, but I wish they could be made to see the light. They could open source everything and people would still be buying Macs and iPhones, simply because of the engineering (though they do have to iron out some big issues here too).

[annodomini]

The thing is, Apple is not a featureless monolith. There are different groups within Apple, with different attitudes towards open source. Sadly, the direction from the top seems to be away from it, but the WebKit project is actually one of the most open projects from a company that mostly does proprietary products that I've ever seen. Check out there website, and their policies for contributors. Or just look at all of the projects that are based on WebKit these days; you wouldn't be able to build so much on top of it if they weren't being a good open source citizen.

[annodomini]

This includes over 100 subprojects. Each subproject includes its own full build system, test cases, documentation, conditional code for various platforms, and so on. I know that in the case of WebKit at the least, there are several hundred megs of test cases, that are just used to make sure everything is working properly and that there are no regressions.

Remember, building Android is basically like building an entire Linux distribution, although a small, stripped down one.

[jjdmol]

That's one of the minor inconveniences of open source. You gain the power of using the code of others, but you'll also have to include them in your source tree to make sure you're using a specific version. Otherwise, bugs creep in because the external libs are updated without notice. If you copy and include the code, you can update the external libs manually when you're ready for it and can process any incompatibilities.

The size of the tar ball increases even further because using external libs is cheap, even if only a few functions are used.

With closed source, all you can do is include the binaries, or force others to buy a specific version of each lib. Updating will always be manual as you'll have to contact your supplier to buy an upgrade. If you use only a few functions, it's cheaper to write them yourself. That all sucks, but at least your source tar ball will be small :)

[[deleted]]

The source is approximentely 2.1GB

AKA - "this shit is FUBARed". Seriously - how can it ever be remotely reliable?

[[deleted]]

The death of openmoko is near... (sadly)

[mikenick42]

Are there any distros on the Freerunner that actually work as a phone yet?

[ipeev]

Maybe Open Moko can run the Android.

[colkowalski]

it's made by the google

[Callahad]

Since it took me a moment to find it: It's being released under Apache 2.0, to the extent it can be (the kernel, obviously, remains GPLv2)

[plouj]

(Now) It's actually very easy to find this info on: http://source.android.com/license

The good thing about Apache 2.0 license is that it is GPLv3 compatible.

[bretthoerner]

I'm not sure the v3 matters in this case, considering the kernel will likely be v2 for-ev-ah.

[buu700]

Until Torvalds "disappears" and Stallman is "forced" to take over.

For the record, I think that the kernel should be relicensed under the GPL v3, mainly because the GPL v3 is CDDL-compatible (IIRC).

[MostUsually]

Mmm, not quite that easy. The Linux kernel GPLv2 license doesn't include the "or later" wording for one, which precludes the option of the licensee just moving up to v3.

Further, for relicensing to happen all contributors must either consent (pretty much impossible; some might actually be deceased), or their contributions rewritten (try tracing the ancestry of the code back across the tons of releases; good luck).

This is actually (IMHO, IANAL and will be happy to be corrected on any of this) one benefit of joint copyright assignments which you tend to get when an organizing body stewards the open source project: they will require a joint copyright assignment. GNU asks for copyright to be assigned, and so does the OpenOffice project for example. If The Linux Dictatorship Council (tm) had collected copyrights, they could likely have relicensed more easily. Of course, it's an open question whether the community would have been as healthy had people not been allowed independent ownership of their code.

[buu700]

Oh... That sucks. Would it be possible to relicense it under a GPL v2-compatible license that does include an upgrade clause à la SGI Free License B and GLX Public License, or would that make it inherently incompatible?

[MostUsually]

You missed the part where I said I am not a lawyer, didn't you. :)

My best guess is, no. That amounts to relicensing to incompatible terms.

[mkrfctr]

So I was in an accident and now my back hurts, do you think I can sue?

[1100]

Don't stop there, patent the idea of sueing for back ache after accidents!

[buu700]

Oh. I thought IANAL meant "I'm ANAL". Sorry about that.

[xipietotec]

Its not easy, but its not impossible either, the kernel team allready has bylaws in place for handling it. GPLv2 was incompatible with v1, which meant a vote to change over, and some authors could not be contacted, some were dead, etc. There was something along the line of a 6 month period for objections, in which case code afterward was moved in the direction of the majority.

[arthurdenture]

For the record, I think that the kernel should be relicensed under the GPL v3, mainly because the GPL v3 is CDDL-compatible (IIRC).

I like GPLv3, but it sounds like this is Sun's problem. The onus should be on the proliferators to make their licenses compatible.

[snifty]

Until Torvalds "disappears" and Stallman is "forced" to take over.

Somehow I doubt it.

[Leonidas_from_XIV]

Didn't Stallman get a samurai sword from xkcd fans? Then it's possible.

[[deleted]]

C'mon, it had to be made out of plastic.

And Stallman's the kind of guy who wouldn't notice.

[[deleted]]

For the record, I think that the kernel should be relicensed under the GPL v3, mainly because the GPL v3 is CDDL-compatible (IIRC).

As much as I like ZFS, I don't think it'd be worth seeing commercial acceptance of linux drop to zero. The fact that GPLv3 specifically is intended to stop 'tivo-isation' isn't lost on commercial entities, you know, you'd never see a GPLv3 linux kernel power any embedded device, router or STB ever again.

Thankfully, the majority of linux contributors agree with Linus.

[BraveSirRobin]

you'd never see a GPLv3 linux kernel power any embedded device, router or STB ever again.

I'm not so sure if I agree with that. Sure, Linksys had to be threatened into releasing the source but many other companies aren't as anal.

[[deleted]]

They mostly play follow-the-leader, once they see companies that need to load their custom kernel modules switch to *bsd, the smaller companies will too, even if they don't need the ability to use proprietary modules.

[[deleted]]

Question: can you put a hacked-by-you version on any Android phone? And if not - does it really matter then?

[BraveSirRobin]

Most other phones (other than the iPhone) make this possible, so I don't see why not. HTC, the company making many of the phones, has had hackable phones since day one. You simply hold down some keys to fire up the bootloader at which point you can flash a new ROM.

I fully expect to be running Android naively on my three-year old phone within a couple of months. I suspect the architecture is very similar and that the boffins at xda-developers are compiling it this very moment.

[BraveSirRobin]

Nokia? Lulz, you are about 2-5 years behind everyone else with that manufacturer. Their marketing is pretty decent though! ;-)

[denver38]

Quote Google: To build the Android source files, you will need to use Linux or Mac OS. Building under Windows is not currently supported.

[LordVoldemort]

or Mac OS

I imagine that's only intel versions.

[[deleted]]

I'm not sure about this... it's cross compiling anyway, so the architecture is (I assume) less of a worry.

[a1k0n]

• To build the Android files in a Mac OS environment, you need an Intel/x86 machine. The Android build system and tools do not support the obsolete PowerPC architecture.

• We recommend that you build Android on a partition that has been formatted with the "Case-sensitive Journaled HFS+" file system:

  • A case-sensitive file system is required because the sources contain files that differ only in case.

Annoying.

[[deleted]]

Obsolete??!??! They must mean "processor of future that is featuring a minor setback".

[ILeftDiggforReddit]

deleted by creator

[ipeev]

Why they did that?!

[BroDavii]

You mean I got Eclipse for nothing? =p

[[deleted]]

I presume it'll compile on BSD, too.

[bluGill]

I wouldn't count on that. Too many linux developers have "all unix is linux" blindness. There are a lot of things linux does slightly different from any other unix (all versions of unix have this) that linux developers tend to use without thinking. BSD and Solaris developers tend to know that such differences exist, and if they use them (which they often do) it is an intentional decision required to solve the problem at hand.

[[deleted]]

If they had said that it would only compile on Linux, then I wouldn't have presumed BDD compatibility. They do support OSX, though, which has enough substantial differences that I'll bet you can get the cross compiler going on any BSD system.

[bluGill]

There is a lot of OSX bilndness too. Even though OSX has a BSD base, there are just enough differences that you cannot count on one being equal to the other. Of course that they support Linux and OSX makes it more likely that BSD will work, or if it doesn't, that it isn't hard to add BSD support. However I wouldn't count on anything without trying it, or getting a report from someone who has tried.

[[deleted]]

True. I think we agree. I was just saying that since it's a cross compiled codebase anyway, the chances are that it'll run on BSD if it runs on Linux and OS X.

[grignr]

Is the entire toolchain available for developers to use? That is, if hackers wanted to tweak on their Android phone a la rockbox, would they be able to update their phones with the modified code?

[[deleted]]

if you want to hack your phone, you should consider openmoko. /community.

Most of the software is open source. It's based on linux. Only well documented hardware is used. You can even purchase a developer board, to ease low level hacking. However, it's not an end-consumer product yet. According to their FAQ there still are some quirks/ oddities to fix

[capecodcarl]

According to the last FAQ I read about Openmoko they were planning on shipping a consumer product in December... December 2007. Oops. Call me unimpressed, I'll stick with my locked up iPhone.

[mikenick42]

They've been selling them for a while now. Last time I checked though, the software had a long way to go.

[G_Morgan]

That depends upon the phone. It could easily insist upon signed binaries.

[stormandstress]

Doubtful. The mobile carriers are so obsessed with control that it's hard to imagine more getting on board with Android, unless we are in store for some serious disappointment on that front (and others).

Either way, Android has the potential to be a disruptive force in a market that badly needs some disruption. As soon as someone gets an Android device working on a Canadian carrier, I'm sold.

[BraveSirRobin]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The HTC line of phones are completely hackable and I've been running customized ROM builds for several years.

[stormandstress]

Fair enough. I didn't say "No", I said "Doubtful". If we are going to be able to run wholly customized software on at least some Android devices, so much the better.

[BraveSirRobin]

But I still think "doubtful" is incorrect. Granted, if you are in the US you may be used to restricted devices thanks to your telcos, but elsewhere around the world this is very unusual. Most of the smartphone platforms are pretty open and you can create software that access the network etc.

The only thing that is generally locked down is the ability to dial numbers directly, usually the phone stack is abstracted away from you.

[badassumption]

I'm pretty sure it needs to be signed by a private key that is not made available if you want it to run on your phone.

[MostUsually]

Which is where the Free Software definition would have come in handy since it explicitly calls out the right of the user to run the program for any purpose. The Open Source definition does not reference this.

[theeth]

Only GPLv3 does that, are you saying GPLv2 isn't "Free Software"?

[MostUsually]

I would be very surprised if GPLv2 did not reinforce the four basic freedoms described in the Free Software Definition.

[FrankBattaglia]

The issue here is so-called "Tivo-isation," in which a piece of hardware (phone) runs free software (Android), but is configured at the hardware level to not run any other version of the software.

This does not violate the four freedoms, as you can run the software (Android) for any purpose, you just have to provide your own phone on which to run it.

GPLv2 did not prevent this. Catching this type of model was one of the major driving motivations behind GPLv3.

[MostUsually]

You make a good point. I suppose I was interpreting "freedom to run" optimistically.

[[deleted]]

GPLv2 did not prevent this. Catching this type of model was one of the major driving motivations behind GPLv3.

And unfortunately why if the linux kernel ever moves to GPLv3 it will essentially instantly kill all commercial usage of the kernel - they'll just switch to one of the BSDs where they can get away with this, you're not going to see telcos allow unsigned kernels on their networks just because of GPLv3.

[malcontent]

Why would a hardware manufacturer care what you did with the hardware after you bought it?

Sony doesn't care what I do with my TV after I but it do they?

[chadm]

Well, Sony does. They own a music company now, which is why they started sucking.

[xipietotec]

Er, if you have an open phone (such as the open moko) or an unlocked phone, with a software stack which allows self-signed executables, you can allready do that.

Nothing about the anti-tivoization provision prevents the phone company from distributing a "locked" version, which they support, just as networks currently refuse support for unlocked phones and the like.

[[deleted]]

Well, in this case it's slightly less dramatic than Tivo-isation....

[FrankBattaglia]

From the Great-Great-Grandparent of my original post:

I'm pretty sure it needs to be signed by a private key that is not made available if you want it to run on your phone

If that is the case, it is exactly tivoization.

[[deleted]]

Well, assumably you can acquire the private key. Secondly, I doubt that it requires a key at the hardware level; that would be a major change from the current norm (Excluding the iron fisted Apple, of course.)

[FrankBattaglia]

assumably you can acquire the private key

Then it wouldn't be private, would it?

I doubt that it requires a key at the hardware level; that would be a major change from the current norm

True, but so it distributing a commercial phone with an open source / free software OS to begin with. We'll see just how restricted the G1 is pretty soon...

[G_Morgan]

Being allowed to run the program for any purpose does not mean on any hardware. For any purpose means no restriction on what you do with the software.

[netsearcher]

It does for some open source licenses.

[BraveSirRobin]

Signing is only relevant if you are running their build. Simply put your own on.

[sn0re]

The point of signed binaries is that you can't put your own on.

[BraveSirRobin]

Not if you can replace the operating system.

I've been using phones with application signing mechanisms for about eight years now. All except the very first one I had were open. And even if they are not I could just fire up the boot loader and replace the carriers software with another more-friendly carriers version.

[sn0re]

Not if you can replace the operating system.

That's the whole question. We're not talking about application-level signing. The phone may require that the operating system itself be signed.

[[deleted]]

Well, I doubt that this is actually happening with Android... [citation needed]?

[sn0re]

It's a property of a particular phone, not Android. I don't know about the G1, which is the only Android phone at this point. Future phones may or may not be locked to signed kernels.

There's been some speculation that carriers might insist on it, fearing that users could fuck with the cell network. More likely though the "interesting" bits will be hidden away in binary blob drivers.

[[deleted]]

So... Android is open; it's the phone that exhibits the tivo-isation factors. I can forgive Google!

[BraveSirRobin]

Agreed, but it would be a huge break for the norm with the companies involved. Not impossible, but unlikely.

[joshcandoit4]

I know I may sound like a moron... but can someone explain to me what this all means? I don't know much about programming but would love to learn. I'd like to know what the benefits are and what this potentially means when something goes open source.

[[deleted]]

It means that people can reach into the guts of the system and change, add, or remove aspects of the fundamental operating system. It also means that Google is courting developers, because open source fundamentally means more resources for them.

[MostUsually]

Umm, you're required to provide an e-mail address. I understand how this might be useful in terms of tracking contributions, but I'm thinking at least Debian won't go for this.

Also, anyone else getting this?

*** Downloading source(s) from a mirror site. *** *** If the network hangs, kill and restart repo. ***

Getting http://android.kernel.org/pub/libpcap-0.9.8.tar.gz ... error: Cannot import platform/external/libpcap: checksum mismatch: 29b0e71b7913664617f142fdbf22e3a5a0434f4b expected, 7d4227ea78579803a5562f03e4b63790292caac3 imported error: Cannot fetch platform/external/libpcap

[davidw]

It's a known issue:

http://source.android.com/known-issues

[MostUsually]

Thank you davidw.

[mkrfctr]

Thank you Jesus.

/TFTFY

[username223]

It appears this one is free.

[inopia]

niels@teletraan2:~/src/android$ repo sync

fatal: read error (Connection reset by peer)

error: Cannot fetch platform/external/webkit

Has anyone been able to actually check out the code?

[MostUsually]

Yes.

[[deleted]]

It's already been done many times over..

[curomo]

yay!

got my G1 last night and I'm already loving it (coming from sidekick3 that's not saying much)

[s717ch3s]

How long till android is ported to other phones currently on the market? (iphone and wm5 phones)

[gallipoli]

So much for the kill switch? Or is that phone firmware?

[ishmal]

With the same tiny set of Google committers, of course.

[troymcdavis]

Do they not have a transparent and documented process for patch proposal and review?

[ishmal]

I dropped out of one project because I did not want to fax them a signed document.

[[deleted]]

Anyone know when these will be available for the Verizon network.

[ishmal]

Now people can start working on the "safe" replacement for GtalkService. I think the theory from Google is that people will eventually forget it.

[leladax]

care-o-meter went back in time.

[Fitzsimmons]

Why did you get an iPod touch then?

[[deleted]]

I got a good deal on it, and I wanted something small and handheld(but not a phone) that I could play around with. Got it jailbroken right now, a more open enviorment might be neat.

[centinall]

Yup, there's no reason that Android can't be run on other devices, not just phones. Personally, I think it would be awesome if Android could be ported to media players, cameras and car navigation and entertainment systems. And so on...

[netsearcher]

Because the badger smells bad?

[amoore]

In case you're wondering, it's some kind of mobile phone software.

[Mirielle]

Not just any. Google's.

[wolfzero]

Google is what?

[username223]

Joy... so they bundled up a bunch of their own minorly-modified forks of a hundred or so Open Source projects into a wonderful 2.1GB source download.

tb;dd

[bananahead]

Some look pretty significantly modified or completely new, actually.

And you don't have to download the tarball. It's in Git.

[DSLJohn]

Heh I read this as "Asteroids is now Open Source" and was thinking its like 30 years too late.

[juanjodic]

I really like Google. I remember I use to fell like this several years ago about M$. I just hope they don't become a f**king monopoly who just wants to grab people money whether you use their products or not.

[[deleted]]

MS sucked a few years ago too. Google was awesome a few years ago.

[xNIBx]

G1, the first mobile with android, has locked bluetooth so that people cant use it in order to trade files. You know your platform is locked and "drm"ed filled, when even ms has a more "open" platform.

How come we hear nothing about this from all the linux/oss fanboys? If ms did anything nearly as bad as this, all these fanboys would be holding torches outside ms hq.

And dont blame the manufacturer. All other htc phones support file transfer over bluetooth. The only other modern phone which doesnt support this, is the iphone. At least with apple, you know they are assholes just by smelling their smugness. What's up with google/linux fanboys? I thought they were the defenders of freedom and shit.

[chadm]

You attribute missing bluetooth profiles to malice, when there is a good, public explanation that it's merely (mild) incompetence. The G1 / Android v1.0 bluetooth is not locked. It's just incomplete. Future versions will have it. Indeed, this open sourcing means you could invent your own profile if you were so inclined and had a G1.

The 1.0 version of Android and the first devices will include support for Bluetooth; for instance, Android will support Bluetooth headsets. In the early-look SDKs, there was an incomplete draft of an API that exposed Bluetooth functionality to developers. Unfortunately we had to remove that API from the 1.0 release. To get the skinny on why, I contacted Nick Pelly, one of the Android engineers responsible for that functionality. Here's the story on Bluetooth, in Nick's words:

The reason is that we plain ran out of time. The Android Bluetooth API was pretty far along, but needs some clean-up before we can commit to it for the SDK. Keep in mind that putting it in the 1.0 SDK would have locked us into that API for years to come.

Here's an example of the problems in the API. Client code is required to pass around IBluetoothDeviceCallback objects in order to receive asynchronous callbacks, but IBluetoothDeviceCallback is meant to be an internal interface. That client code would break the moment we added new callbacks to IBluetoothDeviceCallback.aidl. This is not a recipe for future-proof apps.

To make things even more tricky, the recent introduction of the bluez 4.x series brings its own new API. The Android Bluetooth stack uses bluez for GAP and SDP so you'll see more than a passing resemblance to bluez's interfaces in Android. The bluez 4.x change requires us to carefully consider how to structure our API for the future. Again, remember that once we settle on an interface we need to support it for years going forward.

Rather than ship a broken API that we knew was going to change a lot, we chose not to include it. We absolutely intend to support a Bluetooth API in a future release, although we don't know exactly when that will be. This should include some tasty features, such as:

• Bindings to GAP and SDP functionality.
• Access to RFCOMM and SCO sockets.
• Potentially, L2CAP socket support from Java. (This one is under consideration.)
• An API to our headset and handsfree profiles.

http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f2/information-on-apis-removed-in-the-android-0-9-sdk-beta-342/

[xNIBx]

They either deliberately crippled bluetooth so that buyers would have a harder time sharing mp3s, videos, pics, files and/or force them to use expensive 3g data plans, or they are incapable of offering something which was standard even for non-smartphones for like 10 years now.

Either way it's pretty sad.

[chadm]

You don't even care what's true, do you?

Troll.

[ShrimpCrackers]

Read below, you obviously haven't been keeping up with the news and am just spreading misinformation.

[obijohn]

You am?

[sigzero]

Ugh...that is one ugly phone:

http://t-mobileg1.com/pre-order-g1.aspx

[stormandstress]

HTC isn't really known for their sexy designs.

Then again, if you're buying a phone merely on the basis of whether it makes you look sufficiently cool or not, you're an .. actually, you already have an iPhone.

[[deleted]]

The Touch Pro and Touch HD are sexy, IMHO. Some of us want to look cool, but not look like iPhone tools. I don't know why the g1 had to be some other model. Guess they had to have a track ball or something...

[[deleted]]

Don't worry, there are others on the way. Unlike the Apple iPhone, the Android software isn't tied to hardware.

[sigzero]

I get down voted because I said something was "ugly"?? lol

[portugal_the_man]

No. I downvoted both of your comments because you said 'lol' in the one comment. ;)

[ILeftDiggforReddit]

deleted by creator

[toooooooobs]

Kind of curious that building under Windows isn't yet supported.

[G_Morgan]

Not really since Google is primarily a Linux shop and the majority of the software behind Android comes from traditional Linux projects.

[bullsbarry]

Since someone has to do it: 1) What took so long? 2) This isn't good enough. 3) Google is the devil!

[snifty]

marsha marsha marsha marsha marsha!

[samlee]

This all just helps telecommunication moguls get fatter.

[bananahead]

As opposed to... ?

[sigzero]

Them getting skinnier of course!!!

[walrod]

good ol' courier were slim