From all the criticism leveled at this device, I have to say, at least it can be trusted. No matter how ugly or lacking in certain areas, should I ever have a need for a phone that does more than handle voice calls and texts you can bet it would be running an open source OS.

mines the one with the 4 year old Nokia in the pocket.

But it is *not* running an Open Source OS. Google claims it will, eventually, but it hasn't released the source yet.

Plus there is really no suggestion that the platform where the OS is running (i.e. the hardware) will be open. It may just turn out to be like a TiVO: soft and chewey open source middle with a hard, closed shell.

-dZ.

Yes, it had better be really, given that it's a legal requirement of using (amongst other things) the linux kernel...

"people who want a Java machine but don't want to pay Sun will use Dalvik"

Err, or use the OpenJDK...

Yes, you are correct, I hadn't thought about the firmware. Still, if the firmware interacts with the outside world via the software then the firmwares actions are open to subversion.

it should be pretty darned good, linux on a mobile - and engineered mostly by google. My only concern is the recent quality of some of their applications... the main one I'm thinking of is Chrome.... if the phone is as flakey and resource heavy as that device, then maybe the Symbian guys are right, and linux (albeit this version of linux) isn't quite ready as a mobile phone platform. God I hope they are wrong though...

It would be pretty darned sweet to have a decent looking mobile (not the G1 attempt obviously) that I could develop for without being crushed by Apple (AppStore NDA hell) or Symbian (only allowing 1 year max for signed application certificates is disgusting, and causes massive confusion to end users).