> I don't see how Firefox OS is necessarily any more open than Android is. Firefox OS still has a very centralized, limited-access organization behind it. This organization basically completely controls the development of Firefox OS. In practice, the wider community doesn't really have any say over the functionality that's supported, or the direction that's taken.
You couldn't be more wrong. Firefox OS is developed in the open, on GitHub. You can submit pull requests. Others have. They've been accepted. FFOS is implementing a very cool text selection concept that came from the community, for example.
Android is developed behind close doors. Only release versions are opened sourced. Android does not accept patches from non-Google employees.
> Android gives us the option of using Java, or using C and C++ via the NDK, for example. That's far more choice than we have under Firefox OS.
On FF you have the option of using any language that compiles to JavaScript, which has all of the same API capabilities as JS. This is not true on Android, where every attempt to port a JVM language to Davlik has failed (thus far).
Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel.
I base this on statements made in the #android IRC channel in the past by Google developers working on Android.
As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components.
> Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel.
I confirm that Mozilla has fixed a number of bugs and/or performance issues in Android. In fact, if my memory serves, Chrome for Android simply couldn't load without our patches :)
However, if my memory serves, getting these patches accepted has proved pretty difficult. I'm not the author of the patches, so I couldn't tell you why.
> As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components.
Well, given that XPCOM components have 100% access to the file system, hardware, etc. and can easily brick a phone, we didn't really spend time making that footgun user-friendly. So you can easily add an XPCOM component, but only if you build an image of FirefoxOS yourself. Not too hard to do, just probably not the answer you hoped for.
You couldn't be more wrong. Firefox OS is developed in the open, on GitHub. You can submit pull requests. Others have. They've been accepted. FFOS is implementing a very cool text selection concept that came from the community, for example.
Android is developed behind close doors. Only release versions are opened sourced. Android does not accept patches from non-Google employees.
> Android gives us the option of using Java, or using C and C++ via the NDK, for example. That's far more choice than we have under Firefox OS.
On FF you have the option of using any language that compiles to JavaScript, which has all of the same API capabilities as JS. This is not true on Android, where every attempt to port a JVM language to Davlik has failed (thus far).