9 ms·

Choice of search engine on Android nuked by “Anonymous Coward” (2009)

265 points by dreamingincode 8y ago

07d046 8y ago
For the young whippersnappers, "anonymous coward" comes from Slashdot, where it was the name for anonymous posters.
- hurpaDurpa 8y ago
  In this instance, one might wager that it was somebody's "Alan Smithee" moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee
- sethrin 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    I just noticed they deleted old accounts, one of the worst mistakes long-running sites can make.
    - FrozenVoid 8y ago
      Maybe only accounts which have not logged in years. My account seems fine and i check it a few times per year. Slashdot is fairly active these days(of course its isn't the giant of IT it was) .
    - jlv2 8y ago
      My account is still there. 4 digit user id.
- draw_down 8y ago
  Sooner we forget about it the better, I say.
foo101 8y ago
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?
- DennisAleynikov 8y ago
  There used to be a search engine switcher view, but google needed there to be only one correct way of searching the web. so somebody just committed this joke from Slashdot where anons are "anonymous cowards" to remove that previously available option to change engine.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  There used to be a search engine switcher view, but google needed to make money.
- dooglius 8y ago
  >Why did this commit get accepted in the commit history tree published at android.googlesource.com? As opposed to what? Do you expect them to maintain an alternate tree without the change that doesn't match published binaries?
  - millstone 8y ago
    Google has an alternate tree. It’s used for prerelease and cancelled hardware, among other things. But probably not for this. An alternative would have been to bury the change in “misc cleanup” commit. Kudos for at least being honest.
- emilsedgh 8y ago
  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.
DennisAleynikov 8y ago
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!
- Qwertie 8y ago
  I use an alternative search provider on my android (custom rom) Phone and don't feel like I have lost anything other than the ability to stay sane on a stock android device.
- dlbucci 8y ago
  I'm not seeing how those two things are related. Google could have still developed Instant Apps/Google Now without restricting users choice of search engine. And if those users missed out on those features because they use duckduckgo or whatever, so be it. At least it was their choice, right?
  - srtjstjsj 8y ago
    DennisAleynikov is saying that Google's forcing everyone to use Google Search generates data that Google uses to make DennisAleynikov's search experience better, which he appreciates. Selfish, but honest.
    - DennisAleynikov 8y ago
      Yes you got the jist of it. Apple is trying to be the Anti-Google in this regard with privacy first defaults but they are guilty of making very agressive decisions to keep control of their phones. Safari is the only browser that can be used on iOS and it's responsible for its market share today! It's viable competition for chrome.
czr 8y ago
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.googlesource.com%2F+%22Anonymous+Coward+%3Cnobody%40android.com%3E%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fandroid...], so I guess it was intended to make a statement.
scrollaway 8y ago
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.
- gsnedders 8y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if part of the motivating factor is the fact the decision was made well above the person who wrote the code, and it wouldn't be fair for the person who wrote the code to take all the flack publicly. And, well, I'm unsurprised that the manager didn't end up with their name on it.
- millstone 8y ago
  How does “transparency trumps everything” apply here? There’s nothing transparent about this. The anon tasked with committing this change surely had no influence on the decision, so it’s doubtful the OSS nature drove any questions.
- geofft 8y ago
  > 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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 8y ago
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?
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Linux Kernel changes are released under GPLv2, and would therefore not include anonymous commits. Everything else is Apachev2 licensed, and presumably Google can do whatever it wants with its own project and IP.
- ajross 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.
peterwwillis 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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?
  - fyfy18 8y ago
    This is no different than when Microsoft got hit by fines and was forced to include the browser chooser. You were still free to install Firefox or Linux, but the issue was that the defaults on new PCs used Microsoft products, and most people use the default options.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - srtjstjsj 8y ago
      Of course it's different. For 1, what was the market landscape for smartphone websearch in 2009? For 2, The Microsoft decision was the result of complex litigation relating to the specifics of microsoft's position in the market, defining what the "market" even was, and the nature of newly invented web browsers, and the conclusions reached in that trial were quickly disregarded by the prosecutor/government within a few years. There's no bright-line law here.
  - realusername 8y ago
    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.
ymse 8y ago
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/+/4474ac408105bb31f945ddab53a24ed148e34227 https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/4474... Can we find others? :-)
- exikyut 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605
mongol 8y ago
Was it Slashdot that "invented" the nickname Anoynmous Coward? Or did it exist before?
- exikyut 8y ago
  Unfortunately Trends only goes back to 2004, but... https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22anonymous%20coward%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22anony...
  - mongol 8y ago
    Slashdot's use of it certainly goes back to the previous century though..
- Fnoord 8y ago
  They innovated it for sure but before that the more neutral term "Anonymous" was used for a long time (although anonymity is a relative term). The Coward part makes it part of Slashdot's cultural heritage.
eboyjr 8y ago
I would love to know if this commit was directly to master or if it was merged by someone (or something) else...
exikyut 8y ago
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.
gnode 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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#Blank_cartridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blan...
tcgarvin 8y ago
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.

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

hurpaDurpa 8y ago
In this instance, one might wager that it was somebody's "Alan Smithee" moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee
sethrin 8y ago
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 8y ago
  I just noticed they deleted old accounts, one of the worst mistakes long-running sites can make.
  - FrozenVoid 8y ago
    Maybe only accounts which have not logged in years. My account seems fine and i check it a few times per year. Slashdot is fairly active these days(of course its isn't the giant of IT it was) .
  - jlv2 8y ago
    My account is still there. 4 digit user id.
draw_down 8y ago
Sooner we forget about it the better, I say.

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?

DennisAleynikov 8y ago
There used to be a search engine switcher view, but google needed there to be only one correct way of searching the web. so somebody just committed this joke from Slashdot where anons are "anonymous cowards" to remove that previously available option to change engine.
ucaetano 8y ago
There used to be a search engine switcher view, but google needed to make money.
dooglius 8y ago
>Why did this commit get accepted in the commit history tree published at android.googlesource.com? As opposed to what? Do you expect them to maintain an alternate tree without the change that doesn't match published binaries?
- millstone 8y ago
  Google has an alternate tree. It’s used for prerelease and cancelled hardware, among other things. But probably not for this. An alternative would have been to bury the change in “misc cleanup” commit. Kudos for at least being honest.
emilsedgh 8y ago
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.

DennisAleynikov 8y ago

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!

Qwertie 8y ago
I use an alternative search provider on my android (custom rom) Phone and don't feel like I have lost anything other than the ability to stay sane on a stock android device.
dlbucci 8y ago
I'm not seeing how those two things are related. Google could have still developed Instant Apps/Google Now without restricting users choice of search engine. And if those users missed out on those features because they use duckduckgo or whatever, so be it. At least it was their choice, right?
- srtjstjsj 8y ago
  DennisAleynikov is saying that Google's forcing everyone to use Google Search generates data that Google uses to make DennisAleynikov's search experience better, which he appreciates. Selfish, but honest.
  - DennisAleynikov 8y ago
    Yes you got the jist of it. Apple is trying to be the Anti-Google in this regard with privacy first defaults but they are guilty of making very agressive decisions to keep control of their phones. Safari is the only browser that can be used on iOS and it's responsible for its market share today! It's viable competition for chrome.

czr 8y ago

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.googlesource.com%2F+%22Anonymous+Coward+%3Cnobody%40android.com%3E%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fandroid...], so I guess it was intended to make a statement.

scrollaway 8y ago

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.

gsnedders 8y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if part of the motivating factor is the fact the decision was made well above the person who wrote the code, and it wouldn't be fair for the person who wrote the code to take all the flack publicly. And, well, I'm unsurprised that the manager didn't end up with their name on it.
millstone 8y ago
How does “transparency trumps everything” apply here? There’s nothing transparent about this. The anon tasked with committing this change surely had no influence on the decision, so it’s doubtful the OSS nature drove any questions.
geofft 8y ago
> 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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 8y ago

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?

peterwwillis 8y ago
Linux Kernel changes are released under GPLv2, and would therefore not include anonymous commits. Everything else is Apachev2 licensed, and presumably Google can do whatever it wants with its own project and IP.
ajross 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.

peterwwillis 8y ago

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 8y ago
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?
- fyfy18 8y ago
  This is no different than when Microsoft got hit by fines and was forced to include the browser chooser. You were still free to install Firefox or Linux, but the issue was that the defaults on new PCs used Microsoft products, and most people use the default options.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - srtjstjsj 8y ago
    Of course it's different. For 1, what was the market landscape for smartphone websearch in 2009? For 2, The Microsoft decision was the result of complex litigation relating to the specifics of microsoft's position in the market, defining what the "market" even was, and the nature of newly invented web browsers, and the conclusions reached in that trial were quickly disregarded by the prosecutor/government within a few years. There's no bright-line law here.
- realusername 8y ago
  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.

ymse 8y ago

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/+/4474ac408105bb31f945ddab53a24ed148e34227 https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/4474... Can we find others? :-)

exikyut 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489605

mongol 8y ago

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

exikyut 8y ago
Unfortunately Trends only goes back to 2004, but... https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22anonymous%20coward%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22anony...
- mongol 8y ago
  Slashdot's use of it certainly goes back to the previous century though..
Fnoord 8y ago
They innovated it for sure but before that the more neutral term "Anonymous" was used for a long time (although anonymity is a relative term). The Coward part makes it part of Slashdot's cultural heritage.

eboyjr 8y ago

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

exikyut 8y ago

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.

gnode 8y ago

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 8y ago
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#Blank_cartridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Blan...

tcgarvin 8y ago

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.