
Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009) - dreamingincode
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/GlobalSearch/+/592150ac00086400415afe936d96f04d3be3ba0c
======
matheusmoreira
The Linux kernel does not accept anonymous contributions due to legal reasons.

[https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html](https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html)

> It is imperative that all code contributed to the kernel be legitimately
> free software.

> For that reason, code from anonymous (or pseudonymous) contributors will not
> be accepted.

> All contributors are required to “sign off” on their code, stating that the
> code can be distributed with the kernel under the GPL.

> Code which has not been licensed as free software by its owner, or which
> risks creating copyright-related problems for the kernel (such as code which
> derives from reverse-engineering efforts lacking proper safeguards) cannot
> be contributed.

Does the same reasoning not apply to Android?

~~~
ajross
That is because of the desire for the kernel to be able to prove authorship
(i.e. that it wasn't "stolen" code that got committed).

This is a Google commit, it's not owned by the author. Clearly Google owns the
copyright, it was done at Google's direction and for reasons that are
relatively obvoiusly in line with Google's interests. There's no meaningful
ambiguity here.

Corporations donate code all the time, even to Linux, and the "true" human
author doesn't necessarily correlate with the names on the git commit. This is
no different.

Fundamentally this is just a joke. Anyone who put their name on that commit
would open themselves up to ridicule, so the project management lampshaded the
issue with a faceless commit.

So, yes, the same reasoning applies to Android. And this is perfectly fine.
There are things to complain about, but IP hygine doesn't qualify.

~~~
mikekchar
Yeah, the requirement for an identifiable entity in order to merge code is ass
covering and nothing more. They want to know who the author is in case of
copyright infringement. In that case they can say, "If you want to sue
someone, sue them. They claimed that they were able to merge this code."
There's no _legal_ requirement to do this; it's just a good idea.

You can allow random people to merge code into your repository, but if there
is a legal problem, expect people to knock on _your_ door. As you say, in the
case of the Android change, it's obvious that the commit is anonymous on
purpose.

~~~
jacobush
They will always knock at your door, but you have anon contributors, you can't
point any fingers.

~~~
jdbernard
Which means you can't pass the responsibility along. Without someone else to
point the finger at you will be left holding the bag if the anonymous
committer committed stolen, copyrighted code.

------
scrollaway
This is why I love open source (as in source-available, not necessarily free-
software). Transparency trumps everything.

Whoever chose to commit anonymously (or gave the order to) knew they were
doing something shitty and didn't feel comfortable doing it "in public".

It doesn't _prevent_ things like that from happening but it makes you question
if it's the right thing to do. Sometimes that's the best we can hope for.

~~~
geofft
> _Whoever chose to commit anonymously (or gave the order to) knew they were
> doing something shitty and didn 't feel comfortable doing it "in public"._

That isn't necessarily true (although it definitely seems possible in this
case, especially given the choice of name). The other possible reason is that
they knew they were doing something perfectly reasonable but controversial,
that other people would dislike, and they didn't want the Internet pitchfork
mob coming after them.

It is interesting that major corporate-run-open-source projects like Android
have individual names associated by commits. It's a huge change from software
engineering in general - the general public doesn't know what I personally do
at work, and can't come after me for it - and there's not even a need for it
for open-source reasons: since copyright is owned by Google, there's no
requirement to identify the individual employee more precisely. _Everything_
could have been committed by nobody@google.com.

If the person behind this commit had the position that they stand behind this
commit but they only intend to stand behind it 40 hours a week and then they
want to go home, I would sympathize with that.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Deliberately breaking an existing feature that caused zero trouble to any
past, present, or hypothetical future user is never, in any circumstances,
"perfectly reasonable". It may be largely inconsequential, it may be cynically
obvious, it may be not worth fussing about, but not "perfectly reasonable".

~~~
systoll
> Deliberately breaking an existing feature that caused zero trouble to any
> past, present, or hypothetical future user is never, in any circumstances,
> "perfectly reasonable".

It's also not a realistic scenario.

Anyone who bought a Samsung Galaxy S from Verizon got a phone with Bing as the
default search engine. Some of the people who bought that phone would've
preferred Google.

Because of this feature, there was added additional effort in using the phone
due to the need to switch the search engine. And likely some of them didn't
even know about the option, and wound up with an experience worse than they
would've without it being present.

Adding to this, there is malware that changes this setting.

I think this was a valuable option to have -- but there are no features that
cause zero trouble to anyone.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Isn't this pretty much the same thing Microsoft got fined for with Internet
Explorer back in the heyday era of PCs?

~~~
archi42
That'd exactly my thought as well. Maybe Google Search is not big enough in
terms of market share to trigger an investigation? Or the authorities didn't
think of it?

~~~
llampx
Google learned from Microsoft and is much more politically savvy.

------
ymse
Interesting. I only had one Android repo on this computer, but found one
commit from "Anonymous Coward" (2012):

[https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/4474...](https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/4474ac408105bb31f945ddab53a24ed148e34227)

Can we find others? :-)

~~~
exikyut
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605)

------
gnode
Maybe this practise should be extended, such that several Anonymous Cowards
simultaneously commit the change, each being able to live in the belief that
it wasn't their commit which effected the change.

~~~
ninjin
For those unfamiliar with this reference to the idea of “diffusion of
responsibility” [1], this is fascinating stuff.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blank_cartridge)

------
foo101
Can someone who has more context around this commit explain what is going on
here?

What does this commit do?

Why did this commit get accepted in the commit history tree published at
android.googlesource.com?

~~~
emilsedgh
I think a Google employee was tasked to remove the search engine choice and
hardcode google search into Android.

He didn't want his name to be attached as the person who did this (and we can
assume it was some sort of protest to the change) so he committed this as
"Anonymous Coward".

Also "Anonymous Coward", as others pointed out, was the way Slashdot
referenced guest comments.

~~~
cerberusss
> was the way Slashdot referenced guest comments

It still is.

------
czr
I initially thought this was a SlashDot reference
[[http://wiki.c2.com/?AnonymousCoward](http://wiki.c2.com/?AnonymousCoward)],
and not intended to suggest that the commit itself is cowardly. But it seems
like this is the only change by that user
[[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fandroid...](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fandroid.googlesource.com%2F+%22Anonymous+Coward+%3Cnobody%40android.com%3E%22)],
so I guess it _was_ intended to make a statement.

------
07d046
For the young whippersnappers, "anonymous coward" comes from Slashdot, where
it was the name for anonymous posters.

~~~
sethrin
I note that people are referring to Slashdot in the past tense. I don't
disagree with the implied statement, but do regret its passing.

~~~
toyg
I just noticed they deleted old accounts, one of the worst mistakes long-
running sites can make.

~~~
jlv2
My account is still there. 4 digit user id.

------
peterwwillis
So, their browser on their operating system has features which only work with
their search engine. How does this not violate antitrust laws? Product tying,
at the least?

~~~
mrep
Because you can choose a different phone OS, and you can choose a different
browser on that OS. Also, both of those things are open source so you can fork
them if you want.

How do you think it violates antitrust laws? Do you propose that all companies
should be required to make all of their features available on all possible
variational usage of their service?

~~~
realusername
Android has 75% market share, it's not like you can avoid it, they have
practically a monopoly. As much as people like Apple here, it's nowhere near
the same market share as Android.

Also you should put quotes around open-source, AOSP does not run on any real
device due to a lot of android parts being private + private drivers. It took
me one month to run a custom kernel on my Samsung to get the basic hardware
working, it's as far as open source as you can get. Android is a "look but
don't touch" kind of open-source.

~~~
peterwwillis
Back in the day Microsoft actually used the existence of Linux as a legal
argument that they could not possibly be a monopoly. The judge didn't buy it.

~~~
Fnoord
It was mostly Apple and MacOS which were used as the excuse, not Linux. And
Microsoft kept both on life support by supporting software for them (e.g.
Internet Explorer pre Safari).

------
exikyut
Two major points.

1\. Chromebooks don't run Firefox. I'm sure you can get FF _running_ , but
it's not part of the Chromebook "agenda." Chromebooks are actively being used
like candy in educational contexts, so we can establish shoo-in adoption and
widespread acceptance. So... I think the sooner we can accept that we are no
longer operating in the kind of world that prosecutes this kind of
anticompetitive behavior, the better - if just for the sake of personal
closure.

2\. A similar situation I've seen this exact account used is
[https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/36911336#comment30](https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/36911336#comment30).
The whole thread (or at least the first few messages) must be read for
context, but this particular comment is also being posted by nobody@,
presumably due to political sensitivity. (If you ask me, it was Nick who
posted that message, and he needed plausible deniability for some
obscure/stupid legal reason.)

I get the impression nobody@ can be used by anybody if they can justify the
circumstances. My guess/hunch is that maybe it needs an LGTM from maybe one or
two others.

------
tcgarvin
For those who aren't familiar, Gerrit (the code review system used by Android
at this point, think GitHub Pull Requests but better/worse) uses "Anonymous
Coward" naming for those users it doesn't otherwise have a good name for.

Others point out this usage probably finds its origin in Slashdot culture,
which is likely true, but also probably a ternary relationship in this
instance.

------
eboyjr
I would love to know if this commit was directly to master or if it was merged
by someone (or something) else...

------
mongol
Was it Slashdot that "invented" the nickname Anoynmous Coward? Or did it exist
before?

~~~
exikyut
Unfortunately Trends only goes back to 2004, but...
[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22anony...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22anonymous%20coward%22)

~~~
mongol
Slashdot's use of it certainly goes back to the previous century though..

------
DennisAleynikov
What an interesting way to go about making an uncomfortable but important
decision. This is Google's platform and they should do with it what they want,
it's incredible how much search has changed our interaction with our phone.
There isn't a day that goes by where I'm not finding everything I need with a
quick google search.

If google doesn't control the searches end to end on android they would have
missed out on some good innovations like instant apps and google now. I love
that this is one aspect of this totalitarian control they didn't compromise
on, cuz it's keeping them in the dominant position with a good flow of data
coming in!

~~~
Jaruzel
There's a new initiative called 'eelo'[1] which claims that it will be a drop-
in ROM replacement for existing Android phones. Apparently it's built using a
modified AOSP[2] using their own open-source software components. They are
focusing on privacy and security. I'm not convinced they'll ever release
anything substantial, but it's good to see another player in the Mobile OS
space trying to challenge the status quo.

\--

[1] [https://www.eelo.io/mobile-phones/](https://www.eelo.io/mobile-phones/)

[2] [https://source.android.com/](https://source.android.com/)

~~~
archi42
Initial targets will be LeEco Le2 and Xiaomi Mi5S. They aim to also support
this extensive list:
[https://eelo.io/img/supporteddevices.txt](https://eelo.io/img/supporteddevices.txt)

Reminds me I should check out MicroG again (replaces Google services).

