lots of free apps on android store, and android is free

True, Android is "free", but it is also owned and supervised by Google and developed in the interests of Google and its subsidiaries in order to gain supremacy over Apple and Microsoft. To my mind, Android seems more like a way of promoting Google's goods and services rather than truly free software. Richard Stallman says similar things in a pretty technical article that can be found here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman

There is even a new term for this I just came across - "openwashing" - like "greenwashing" it gives the impression of being ethical while promoting a corporate agenda.

"lots of free apps on android store, and android is free "

Android is bloody awful.

You can't use many of Androids features because to do so requires you to have a generic Google account, this is compulsory. A Google account is designed to collect your personal data because that is what Google does as a company...its a data miner.

You can of course set up a junk account just so you can use your Android phone but how confident are you that it isn't quietly lifting your data and piping it through to its servers through that account? Confident, not so confident, not at all confident?

If there is a facility on your Android phone that won't work without you signing up for a Google account...assume by default that Google is lifting your data. Assume by default that Google is doing it quietly as a background process. Assume by default that Google is up to no good.

We mustn't forget that the UK Government have recently had an unusually large number of meetings with Google. According to the DT there have been 23 meetings between Conservative ministers and Google since June 2010. These meetings have been coached as being part of the attempted collusion process between government and digital giants over new copyright and IP rights. But government meetings with large scale companies (especially giant American ones) usually entails a doubled-up agenda.

Its not very likely that these meetings were to meet up for a chinwag over tea and cake! Anything is possible under the national security.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9276468/Tory-ministers-met-Google-chiefs-23-times.html

The clinic sounds great, but why spoil the article with the misinformed "what is free software"?

All software comes with a license. The free software movement defines a number of standard licenses, but in most English-speaking nations, the author is free to also 'invent' their own license. I say 'English-speaking' because in most of Europe, their is no tradition of copyright freedom (in the sense that the author gets to make the rules) and draconian copyright-laws and government-run 'rights' bodies severly curtail the ability of the programmer to state how they wish their own authored-work to be distributed.

In almost all nations, software falls under draconian patent regimes, and big corporations 'own' all the fundamental methods a programmer requires to create even a simple program (in Japan, for instance, one company owns the patent for putting any game-related 3D on a computer screen). Even so-called free software is frequently subject to attack by patent-troll companies (did you know that ending a 'string' with a NULL falls under a patent?).

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
WRONG- many laws have been passed restricting the rights to program, and run programs, particularly in the area of so-called 'hacking' (even when the system you 'hack' is your own. People have gone to prison for writing free programs that circumvented DRM on Rupert Murdoch's N. American Satellite TV services. Curiously, Murdoch had rogue programmers in Israel mass crack the DRM of competing european TV companies, and yet suffered no legal penalty.

* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it
WRONG- many very useful free programs do NOT provide the source code, because the author makes the rule, not the state, or a bunch of ingrates.

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour
WRONG- even free software fulls under the rules of the nation in which the author lives. Even the most radical free-software movements in the USA are PROUD to deny access to free software by the citizens of Iran, for instance. The people at the very top of the so-called free-software movements proudly support warmongering horrors like Obama.

* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
WRONG- you are free to respect the terms of the license, or not use the software. Many common free-software licenses DO allow distribution of modified code PROVIDING (and this is the really important part) the terms of the license are abided by.

So if this article gets it so very wrong, what is right? Simply that free software is free- as in 'it doesn't have to cost you anything'. Of course, even that fact really isn't true. You have to get the software somehow, and that will tend to involve money. Downloading costs. Physical media costs. If you want someone else to stick the 'free' software on a disk and send it to you, that will almost certainly cost too.

The free software movement is FAR better defined as cheap access to computers and online services/communities, freedom to program, freedom to work and create with others (especially online), and freedom to distribute the fruits of your labours howsoever you wish. Software is not politics. The self-defined hardcore nutcases at the top of organised 'free-software' groups attempt to put as much restriction on the licenses used for free-software as does Microsoft. The best free-software is produced by individual authors who program for the love of it, and release their code in as unrestricted a form as possible. However, regardless of license, ALL free software has the potential to be very useful under the right circumstances, and movements like ANDROID (despite being driven by the despicable Google) provide essential competition to senile old giants like Microsoft.

Sadly general Linux (as represented by distributions like Ubuntu) has zero interest in being user-friendly, or serving the needs of the public. The world needs Android (Linux-derived) for the desktop, with stable APIs and properly working drivers (with no concern whatsoever about whether the drivers are 'closed'- which in the world of computers simply means that they work properly, efficiently, and activate ALL functionality of your hardware).

BTW neither 'free'-software or 'open-source'-software is free from interference by the security services. All major Linux distributions are riddled with 'back-doors'. Just because, in theory, someone could go through the source-code with a fine tooth comb, does not mean that anyone ever will. Their are numerous documented cases of quite small open-source products having unspotted malicious code for years after release. Besides, few people compile and build their own code- instead they use pre-created binaries, and these are easier targets again for illicit modifications. You cannot ever check a large binary, since different compilers, different versions of the same compiler, and different compiler settings all produce different code.

It is fashionable for no-nothing idiots to attack Android. Here are the facts.

1) the software (so-called 'tool-chain') to develop software for Android (either in Java, or natively in C++ or assembler) is free, unrestricted, and works amazingly well if you have any ordinary PC, and any ordinary Android device to connect via USB.

2) Android is fully open-source, and uses the most popular (independent) open-source libraries to do most anything (same as Apple, although few realise this).

3) Android apps can be written that almost exclusively depend upon the users code- and this includes full-blown assembler.

4) creating programs for Android requires ZERO permission from Google, and ZERO payments.

5) Google has a commercial side- hardware devices with Android pre-installed, and Google run app-stores. Many restrictions apply to these commercial situations, but that is Google's right, and does NOT impact on our ability to use and develop for Android.

6) Some Android devices make it difficult to download and use apps, unless one has a Google account, and uses the official app-store. So what? Google places no restriction on companies producing Android devices (so long as they follow the license) which means there exists a sea of Android devices that do NOT have these lock-downs. Indeed, the biggest complaint ordinary users have is when their device does NOT allow access to Google's app-store.

7) Android is gradually approaching the day when it becomes a full-blown desktop OS, replacing MS Windows. Android is NOT designed exclusively for touch, having long supported a physical keyboard and mouse.

8) Unlike most Linux distributions, Android provides a growing list of stable, always available APIs. Unlike Linux, Android focuses on quality of service for ordinary users, and confgures the kernel accordingly.

9) Android supports and encourages CLOSED drivers. Unlike the ranting idiots from the Linux community, Google understands that a modern computer must give the user the reliable, powerful experience that their hardware is capable of. No software developer with a brain wants open-source drivers. They want drivers that work, everytime, and work well.

Sadly, Linux is politics, whereas Android is business. Ordinary Linux had more than a decade when it could and should have replaced Windows, but it didn't even come close. Why was Microsoft so successful? Because it created the world's best generic platform. You COULD use Microsoft's tools and/or libraries, but you certainly did not have to. Windows didn't care, it ran it all!

Did you know that the dictator of the Linux world, Linus Torvalds, still insists that the kernel is tuned to give terrible single-user performance, crippling the performance of all popular apps, including games? Linux has great success in the server world (especially scientific computing, and the Internet), and Linus demands that the kernel functionality respects ONLY this form of use. Android, on the other hand, is Linux tuned ONLY to the needs of ordinary users.

When Android dominates the mobile and desktop OS market in a few years time, the OS (and office-suite) will be free for all (completely eliminating Microsoft's main revenue streams). The future will see people paying for services, rather than software packages per se.

Tightly regulated app-stores (from MS, Apple, Google etc) are a cause for concern, but far more from a freedom-of-speech and censorship front. Do we want software to end up like videos in the UK (subject to government approval before distribution is allowed). The rules that Apple applies in its app stores are truly sickening, but it has seen the most incredible commercial success. Android, as-is, will always allow side-loading of apps from sources not under Google's direct or indirect control. However, this does not mean that 'think of the children' monsters in government will not pass laws making unregulated software of any type illegal. Google would have ZERO problem with an apparent non-Google government action making official Android app stores the only legal place to access Android software.

The official government ratings on computer games are the worst kind of slippery slope, which is why the USA has rejected this attack on citizen freedom over and over and over again, even when game censorship was pushed by some of the most influential politicians in America. The example of computer games WILL be used to regulate all software under the excuse of 'security', 'anti-extremism', 'patent-and-copyright protection', 'consumer-rights to bug-free software', 'enforced insurance against software failure', etc, etc, etc. As Microsoft gradually dies, it will actively PAY politicians to pass laws to make 'free' software as expensive as possible, and regulation is the easiest way. This simply plays into Google's hands, whose motto "never be seen doing evil" requires that Google manipulates others into doing its dirty work. Android is great, but Google is everyone's enemy, so we must always fight to take the good, and reject the bad.

@Luke is being very harsh here, and also has not done his research. The definition of free software is very clear and not really up for discussion. It is not to do with price, either. Although free software is also free in the sense it does not cost money to buy.

Check the GNU website ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) for the definition of the 4 things that make free software free, i.e.:

"A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so."

 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

At the end of the day, the best tool for the job is the best tool for the job.

You can whine about Windows 7 etc, but sorry - its pretty darn good. Well supported, versatile and popular. There are alternatives if you don't want to pay the fee..... feel free to use. They come with their own pros and cons.

Android is very popular and does a great job. I opens up a whole load more options for tablets and phones beyond the apple solutions. If you don't want to use it - don't use it.
Most people arn't willing to wait around for a linux tablet or whatever.

All this living-under-a-rock with freedom software is great if you are Jason Bourne, but most people arn't.

Makes me laugh the comments on here.

Apple - US Corporation.
Microsoft - US Corporation.
Google - US Corporation.
Yahoo - US Corporation.
Facebook - US Corporation.
Twitter - US Corporation.
MySpace - US Corporation.

But no, you're all quite right.

The US would never use computers to build a global corporate superstate with the sole intention of spying on the whole world. They would never work hard to get that software onto everybodies cell phone in order to spy on you in 'real-time' either.

Amerika is your friendo.

P.S I suppose one of you is going to say I'm anti-Amerisemitic now?

Your arrogance is laughable. If you think you are important enough to spy on real-time then you are a real arrogant prick. No one is interested in small-fry like you. Especially not America.

Linux is American. So you can't use that either.

And computer components are made in the far east - so you can't use those either
yep...... your graphic cards and CPUs have embedded software in their control units, so you're fucked there too because they could be tampered. Stick to playing with rocks little boy.

Love to hear how can use a smartphone and all the advantages of modern communication whilst at the same time pandering to the requirements of the conspiracy theorists.

Perhaps you should go back to using one of those phones made of damp string and 2 cans.

I'm happy with a Windows 7 laptop and a Android phone
Used to own an iTouch, but prefer android

Never used Linux. So sue me.

"Your arrogance is laughable. If you think you are important enough to spy on real-time then you are a real arrogant prick. No one is interested in small-fry like you. Especially not America."

Apple - US Corporation.
Microsoft - US Corporation.
Google - US Corporation.
Yahoo - US Corporation.
Facebook - US Corporation.
Twitter - US Corporation.
MySpace - US Corporation.

Nuff said.

Nuff said indeed.

Trying ringing any of those companies up and saying "Have you heard of me?"
They wont know who the fuck you are, and they wont want to know lol! like nuff said init

Too interested in making cash for the shareholders rather than sat around in a smokey room watching a monitor showing you brushing your teeth

nuff said

Apple - US Corporation.
Microsoft - US Corporation.
Google - US Corporation.
Yahoo - US Corporation.
Facebook - US Corporation.
Twitter - US Corporation.
MySpace - US Corporation.

Nuff said.

"All this living-under-a-rock with freedom software is great if you are Jason Bourne, but most people arn't."

I have a Windoze 7 laptop and ALL the programs on it are free software. When Windoze finally cracks up and pisses all over my desk, I'll kill it and install a Linux system which works fine. My mother who knows nothing about computers at all has been using a Linux computer for about 2 years. No problems at all. I have 6 websites based on Apache Linux systems and they run year on year without complaint. I wouldn't even consider going with Windoze or god forbid, a Java system.

Putting an Android Java based system on a desktop unit...now your talking complete disaster there son. Might be fine for toys like smart phones but not for serious computing on a decent unit.

Its still the case that Windoze and Java plankton systems are vastly outnumbered around the world by Linux systems. About 80% of all website servers around the world run Linux Apache based systems.

You can buy a system, get it set up, and run nothing but free software and work completely normally without going anywhere near a Windoze system. By far the best programs I use on a daily basis are all free

Windoze is for consumers who use their computers more like toys than workstations. Obviously, you also have a large number of public services using Windoze systems too but that's because Microsoft targets foreign government contracts. That doesn't make it a good system. I can't count the number of times I've been on the phone only to listen to an operator apologising to me because their workstation has to be rebooted! Happens all the time.

That's Windoze for ya.

Apple - US Corporation.
Microsoft - US Corporation.
Google - US Corporation.
Yahoo - US Corporation.
Facebook - US Corporation.
Twitter - US Corporation.
MySpace - US Corporation.


So, basically you are saying you won't ever use anything that is made in the USA?
bah! bah! America-is-evil! bah! bah! im a sheep!

What would happen if you touched an iPad? Would you explode?

Suggest looking at technology for what it is, rather than who made it. Rather than just writing it off because it has "made in usa" on it. its a bit like a racist writing off black people because of their skin colour.

It sounds like much of your experience is with serverside technology - yes, I'd agree with you that Linux systems are great there. The LAMP model is free and well supported.

MS do have a great dominance in that area to with things like sharepoint and .net which are well developed for and ultimate provide faster tools for building enterprise systems than linux (hence thats why people use it - software developers/companies arnt stupid - if there was a cheaper/better tool to do the job they'd use it).

So, yes, Linux for backend systems and programming etc.

But where it falls flat on its arse is the UI stuff. Flash, Illustrator, photoshop, dreamweaver, indesign and a myriad of other software with much better UI tools than what is available in Linux.
(GIMP is a PS clone - its good for general use - but not for professional use. Again, why would a company fork out £400+ on a licence if it could use GIMP for free? Because PS is needed for the job).

People don't pay money on software for fun. They pay for it because it happens to be the best tool for the job. (obvious, that isn't the whole truth - but it is a large part of it).
If you just want to do general computer stuff, or are hard into your programming server side etc, then linux is great

If you are into creative stuff in a big way, then MS windows or MAC iOS are probably the better choice.

If you are middle of the road and want one machine to do everything and want the most flexible, then MS Windows is probably the best. Windows 7 is a vast improvement over existing versions, its pretty good.

"But where it falls flat on its arse is the UI stuff. Flash, Illustrator, photoshop, dreamweaver, indesign and a myriad of other software with much better UI tools than what is available in Linux.
(GIMP is a PS clone - its good for general use - but not for professional use. Again, why would a company fork out £400+ on a licence if it could use GIMP for free? Because PS is needed for the job)."

"If you are into creative stuff in a big way, then MS windows or MAC iOS are probably the better choice."


These two statements pretty neatly sum up why Microsofts system is ultimately doomed.

If you break it down into the absolute basics, the really hard and persitant logic. You've got on the one hand Linux's clear logical dominance from a technical perspective and Microsofts mastery of UI. Into this you have free software which is obviously very significant in terms of Microsofts future operability.

So what you have is Linux owning the important technical arena in terms of reliability and cost effective deployment and Microsoft owning the consumer UI arena. The thing that really divides them and provides clear space is "Free Software". You say that GIMP isn't a professional tool and that's true in a lot of ways but what happens when it improves to the point that its output IS professional. It doesn't take an awful lot to bring it up that far. Adobe will have a competitor. Same with Flash, InDesign and so on.

My point is that Microsoft's power doesn't really stack up when you consider that it can't compete with Linux on the level that really means something. It only takes a relatively small incremental evolutionary step forward in the competance of product by the free software brigade to seriously have an impact on Microsoft. But Linux is both competent AND free, meaning Microsoft has no answer for it.

Microsoft is a profit seeking business defending a position in which pricing has no effect. Its base products which define it as a system are not good enough reason to entrust that it will always be around: free software only needs to catch up and you have a done deal.

I think this is why "cloud computing" is such a big thing at the moment. Microsoft can see what's on the horizon and is seeking to enclose its failure within a walled garden behind which sits its paid-for services used by those who are using strictly neutered devices such as smart phone's and heavily restricted tablets. Microsoft and Google are seeking to take the consumer market "in-house" in a last ditch effort to keep control over shrinking market share.

In a lot of ways the privacy debate surrounding this won't end up being such an issue because it will only be consumers effected. The vast bulk of computer users around the world will be using independent free systems with full control over their data. Microsoft will progressively shrink and die naturally. Google will be left with a largely useless indexing system that it still won't be able to derive any great income from.

Free as in free'dom will ultimately win out.