Developer hits back at Intel's Android fragmentation claims
Sylvie Barak, EE Times -- EDN, December 8, 2011
SAN FRANCISCO—In response to Intel Corp's claims that he was fragmenting the Android operating system, Chih-Wei Huang has hit back at what he calls "prejudiced" PR tactics to discredit his work.
Last week Intel claimed Huang was fragmenting the Android platform by releasing code meant for x86 chips on his own Android-x86 group, which is not part of Google's official AOSP (Android Open Source Project).
Huang vehemently denied undermining Intel's efforts, saying he and a partner had been working on the project since June 2009, well before Intel's involvement, partially for work and partially out of interest.
"I like free software or open source," Huang told EE Times. "I have been a Linux user and developer for over ten years. Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel, but has an entirely different software stack. That's very interesting to me."
Huang explained he didn't have an ARM development board, and therefore decided to experiment with Android using a more common platform, the x86. During his tinkering, Huang said he encountered some difficulties porting the Android code to x86 and wanted to share those with others, thus starting the Android-x86 project.
A source at Google told EE Times that this initial project of Huang's hadn't generated a huge deal of interest, but Huang said his group now boasts some 2,600 subscribers.
"People expect us to port each Android release to their favorite x86 tablet and netbook," he said adding, "I don't want to let them down."
Huang hotly denied Intel's claims he had not submitted his code to the Google-run AOSP, saying that at least 26 of his patches have already been merged with the official x86 code, viewable on the AOSP tree.
For its part, Google sees no obligation to AOSP to support x86. Google simply chooses a lead device for every new release of Android, and works with one company to optimize the software for that particular device's chipset.
For instance, Android Ice cream Sandwich is optimized for TI's OMAP platform. Only once that optimization has been achieved does Google open source the binaries to that particular version, allowing other vendors a crack at the code.
"It's nice to see independent developers maintaining their own trees, but typically each chip vendor maintains its own tree, its own port and shares that port with its customers," a source at Google told us, adding that simply because Huang had submitted code, it didn't mean Google should simply accept it as official support for Intel's platform.
"At the end of the day, it's Intel's platform and we can't take code from anyone out there and say, ‘hey this looks great', because it's up to Intel to support it. It's up to Intel and other x86 vendors to support their customers at the end of the day," he said.
"This is an old story, really," noted Android expert and commentator Russell Holly. "The CyanogenMod developer team used to submit every single thing they did to AOSP but got tired of it being rejected for no good reason. When they started working more closely with Sony Ericsson, there was hope that more of their work would find its way to AOSP," he added, pointing out that Google's big business partners always came first, even if it meant snubbing individual developers.
The difficulty, explained Huang, is that the AOSP review source Web site has been down for almost three months now, and Google still hasn't brought it back online, making it impossible to submit any new code, regardless of whether or not it is ultimately accepted.
"Nobody from the open source community can submit patches to Google right now," Huang explained, noting that he was unsure whether Intel was still able to submit patches to Google privately. If that was indeed the case, said Huang, it was a very "unfair game."
Android source code used to be hosted on kernel.org, like much other Linux source code, but a particularly vicious hack has meant Google had to move the code to its own servers. The firm said it was "working to restore access as quickly as possible," and that its priority had been restoring its git servers to get the code back online, in order to upstream the Android Ice Cream Sandwich build.
How Open is Android?
"The truth is we worked on x86 porting much earlier than Intel, and have worked hard to push our efforts into the Android open source project," said Huang, adding that, ultimately, it was Google that decided what would or would not be merged with the official source code. Huang claimed that while around 30 of his patches have been accepted, others have simply been rejected or ignored for unknown reasons.
While Huang's code hangs in the balance, however, the developer claimed that Intel had submitted "some buggy patches" to AOSP, which Google accepted, and which Huang now feels the need to patch.
A source at Google couldn't confirm Huang's assertion, but told us "there's no such thing as bug free code, no code is perfect."
Adding to his list of grievances, Huang claimed an Intel engineer also "stole" one of his previous patches, and resubmitted it under his own name, noting that if he were to reveal the whole list of things Intel had done to thwart his efforts, it would "embarrass" the company significantly. Intel refused to comment on Haung's claims.
Huang himself seems to be beginning to doubt the "openness" of Android as a platform, noting "it's not a traditional open source project like the Linux kernel, apache or Mozilla. In a traditional open source project, developers and contributors decide, but Android is tightly controlled by Google."
It is Google, said Huang, that decides when or whether to open source parts of Android, and what patches to merge. "Google decides everything. The developers outside Google have no way to get deeply involved," he asserted.
A source at Google admitted that Android was certainly a "different kind of open source project" but maintained that no one had to go through Google to build an Android device.
"Once the code is uploaded, it's a bit of a Pandora 's Box, you can't take it back, people can do what they want with it," he said.
Indeed, the source posited that Google was not likely to be concerned about Huang's efforts to port Android to x86, instead, it was probably Intel who didn't want others developing Android for rival x86 platforms.
Intel had previously told press that porting to netbooks and computing platforms other than mobile phones and tablets flew in the face of Google's wishes, but a Google source said this was untrue.
"The target for Android has always been devices that primarily use touch input," he said, clarifying that form factor made little difference to the firm.
Android expert Holly posited that the main reason Google was allowing Intel such a measure of control over the x86 port was less about vendors maintaining their own trees and more about trying to keep the firm interested in Android as Microsoft Windows 8 began generating buzz.
"With all the excitement surrounding Windows 8 right now, it would make sense that Google would risk annoying others to make Intel happy and keep them that way," he said.
"Plain and simple, Google maintains the AOSP because it gives the firm a banner to wave for open source," said Holly. "The truth of the matter is that Google's business partners will always come first, and the company has shown a history of pandering to those partners to get what they want."
Holly went on to say it was not something Google was comfortable talking about and that it was not the first time the firm had been called out by smaller developers complaining about the lack of true openness in the AOSP.
Some have posited that Intel's x86 chip rival AMD could have spurred Huang's interests and attempts at porting the operating system to laptops, but Huang said the firm's involvement had been overstated.
"AMD contributed two tablets to us, and some of their engineers tested the images I provided to them," he said adding that AMD, just like ARM vendors such as Nvidia, Texas Instruments and Qualcomm, was simply offering help to port Android to its chipset. "AMD has not made a significant contribution yet, but I expect they will in the future," he concluded.
This story was originally posted by EE Times.
