Database Users

CyanogenMod 6.1 is on its way! And its easy to get on Captivate!

Sorry if this has already been posted.
I apologize for not keeping the site up to date, I’m a slacker We also had a database issue and lost the last post about 6.0′s release, if you were wondering why it went missing.
6.1 is the current work-in-progress and is coming together nicely. There’s a few new features like touch-to-focus in the camcorder, dismiss notifications by swiping, kernel updates for most devices, and improved performance. There will also be support for a few new devices- Acer Liquid, HTC Wildfire and Samsung Vibrant. My eye is also on the new HTC phones that are about to get released like the G2.
A lot of people ask me about adding support for their phone, but we can only support phones that we actually own. The CM team is always looking for new hackers to join up with us to add support for their favorite device. Get in touch with me if you’d like to help.
CyanogenMod is open source. The quality of code being added to CM has vastly improved because of the code review system that we’ve put in place, Gerrit. It’s the same system used by Google to manage the Android Open Source Project. It allows anyone to submit code to the project in a highly-visible way and gives us a way to examine and improve it before it’s actually merged. We want your code, so send us your patches. If there’s something you don’t like, change it.
Nightly builds of CM are always available if you’re brave and want to try out the latest code. If you’re running nightly builds, the best way to stay up to date on new changes is to follow @cmsrc on Twitter.
Our user base is approaching a quarter of a million users. This project has come a long way Thanks for all the support, we are only as strong as the community!
Source- Cyanogenmod.com
Porting a vibrant rom to the captivate is not hard

no wayyyy this is finally coming to our cappy, i'd be beyond happy

Hate to sound like a douche, but is there anything in there (besides maybe some of the features of CM6.1) that we havent known for a long time? No release date, we know thier working on it, and we know they are working with the vibrant.

Well if you look here it still shows as in progress for version 6.0...They have said in the past that the vibrant won't be supported till 6.1 and then someone will still have to port it to the captivate..
https://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?key=0Aledx886TFpZdHdwNzNKZzJLczJjTnA5ekFWRzNxX2c&hl=en&authkey=CNf7ie8G
So I don't think we will be seeing anything soon...

so, i'm sure everyone will get a good laugh, because everyone talks about how this is the best thing about to come since sliced bread........
but what is SO great about this?

buddy17 said:
so, i'm sure everyone will get a good laugh, because everyone talks about how this is the best thing about to come since sliced bread........
but what is SO great about this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Froyo! Plus lots of custom stuff.

well i knew it was based on 2.2....but the "custom stuff" is what i meant. What are some of the big things it does that are so great

I'm new to the whole Android scene so excuse my ignorance but can someone explain how CM6.1 can possibly be put on a GalaxyS phone when there is no source code for the kernel?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

sdotbrucato said:
I'm new to the whole Android scene so excuse my ignorance but can someone explain how CM6.1 can possibly be put on a GalaxyS phone when there is no source code for the kernel?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The other custom roms seem to use the 2.1 kernel.

I checked that spreadsheet about 3 weeks ago, and it was still in development like it is now for the vibrant.

buddy17 said:
well i knew it was based on 2.2....but the "custom stuff" is what i meant. What are some of the big things it does that are so great
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not really about a wealth of extra features. Cyanogenmod has extra configurability. In addition it is a bit more cohesive than typical roms. I definitely preferred it over the stock Nexus One rom and the stock nexus one rom is better than stock Captivate.
The rapid updates and support is enough for me to use Cyanogenmod.

z28james said:
The other custom roms seem to use the 2.1 kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But 6.1 is Froyo, all the ROMs I've seen are Eclaire... How are they using a 2.1 kernel with Froyo?
I was under the impression the reason for no Froyo ROMs on the Captivate was due to lack of source from Samsung?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

Who needs this when we have cognition?!

designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
exactly

designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'm sure when this comes out you'll be able to strip the FroYo out of it and make it your own, and better

CM6.1 will come to the captivate after is released to the vibrant, kernel differences are minimal between the two so porting CM6.1 to the captivate will only require few kernel changes.

yeah i'm sure the port will be done in the time it takes to heat up a pop tart.

designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 Finally got my Cappy right where I want it. CM is awesome, I'm just tired of all the hype, not to mention the waiting for this stuff to happen.

designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everyone who is waiting to use Voice Actions, Chrome-to-phone, and any other cool 2.2-only apps.

Yeah, like real Flash or having the speed boost of the JIT compiler.

[Q] Why can't we compile our own 2.2 OS?

Let me start by saying I'm fairly new to Android, and that this probably should go in a general Android forum, but since I'm a Fascinate user, this seems appropriate to me. I've searched, but haven't found a real explanation, and I'm not one to take things as fact without a reasonable explanation.
So it seems like everyone is waiting for an official 2.2 release for the Fascinate, flashing 2.1 ROMs but not capable of upgrading to 2.2+; but I'm wondering why we can't just compile our own OS for our phones? Android is a Linux-like OS, and I know Linux users would never stay on an old version if a newer (better?) version was available. I'm talking down-and-dirty tweak-every-option-by-hand Slackware here. Is the source available for download? If so, why can't we do something with it? Is something in the phone completely locked and unhackable? Is it the fear of having a $500 paperweight? Is it difficult to regain Verizon network connectivity?
Again, forgive the noob question, and thanks in advance for any help you can give me!

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=792986
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=883004
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=882946

There is currently work being done by jt, birdman, and the other skew of developers trying to develop a working AOSP version of 2.2/2.3. The biggest struggle that they have encountered was the RIL (Radio Interface Layer) binaries. Samsung produced some bogus complex proprietary binaries with no properly working source code. Because this phone is CDMA and not GSM, we can't simply use galaxy s files.
Anyways, the point is that there is work being done to bring it to our phone. They have a working AOSP 2.1 that is currently in alpha stage. Jt basically built his own RIL for this phone to get it working.
If this RIL works, we may end up with 2.3 sooner than later.

eulipion2 said:
Let me start by saying I'm fairly new to Android, and that this probably should go in a general Android forum, but since I'm a Fascinate user, this seems appropriate to me. I've searched, but haven't found a real explanation, and I'm not one to take things as fact without a reasonable explanation.
So it seems like everyone is waiting for an official 2.2 release for the Fascinate, flashing 2.1 ROMs but not capable of upgrading to 2.2+; but I'm wondering why we can't just compile our own OS for our phones? Android is a Linux-like OS, and I know Linux users would never stay on an old version if a newer (better?) version was available. I'm talking down-and-dirty tweak-every-option-by-hand Slackware here. Is the source available for download? If so, why can't we do something with it? Is something in the phone completely locked and unhackable? Is it the fear of having a $500 paperweight? Is it difficult to regain Verizon network connectivity?
Again, forgive the noob question, and thanks in advance for any help you can give me!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You obviously have not searched hard enough, as this has been discussed in many places. I would suggest you start by searching this forum (edit: or seeing the links and posts above).
I will say, however, that recent achievements by (edit: the developers mentioned above) have made your suggestion quite possible. If you want to get a taste of what is to come, see the aosp alpha sticky located in the development section. The rom still has bugs, but it is a giant step forward for the Fascinate.
Sent from my Galaxy-S Fascinate

Florynce said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=792986
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=883004
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=882946
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^^^^^
10char

I must add/point out that the work these guys are doing could easily pave the way for Cyanogenmod- and other well-featured roms to be compiled/ported and used on Fascinate as well.

I've read the above links, but they didn't really quite answer my question. I guess I'm wondering why a Linux-based OS isn't acting/being treated like a Linux-based OS.
Let's say I go out and buy a new computer today. I want to put Linux on it. I get the machine home, download my distro of choice and make an install cd. As I'm installing, I configure the installation either for my specific hardware or I can use a generic profile if my hardware isn't listed.
Now say a new version of the Linux kernel comes out. I can upgrade without having to wait for a version for my hardware. Or if I install MyDistro v1 when I get my machine, and MyDistro v2 comes out the next day, I don't have to wait for someone to develop a version to work with my hardware.
So my question is more of a why can't we upgrade our distro like other Linux variants? Is it because there's no generic replacement for the Samsung RIL? If I were to download the source and do a generic build, or even a specific one, I wouldn't be able to install it because...?
Sorry to be a pain, but I genuinely have no clue. Again, thank you for the insight!

2.2 will boot on the I500 just nothing works. If you would like to help http://opensource.samsung.com/
The source code can be found there. Please feel free to help the development along.
I suggest you read through the reply's to your question and pay special note to those bringing up the RIL as that seems to be the biggest hurdle right now.

I think maybe the answer you are looking for is that it is possible to do it, it's just extremely difficult because Samsung's open source is very shoddy and isn't based on AOS, which is what is used for most other phones.
Since the developers don't have a build that works, they have to work from the ground up with AOS and get every last feature on the fascinate working without using Samsung's code (TouchWiz, widgets, etc).
The links they gave you explain most of it but you have to sift through the posts. There is a dev named jt (amongst others) who is working on a ROM that is upgradable based on AOSP and it looks very promising.
edit: It's also worth noting that when I say "not based on AOS" I mean that it is proprietary software used by Samsung-only phones and is not coded by Google. It still, of course, is based on Android OS. It would be akin to a ROM coded by Samsung for their phones rather than generic ROMs that could be downloaded by other phones.

Perfect, thanks!

Try thinking of it as buying an Ubuntu laptop from dell. Sure its " Ubuntu" but not stock. It so full of bloat and badly written drivers that aren't supplied openly for the user that it would be hell trying get the latest version of ubuntu to run on it.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App

For clarification.... so I can wrap my brain around this. Is this situation kinda like having bought a new computer that's running an os, but has no installed device drivers and nowhere to download them from, so they have to be written by hand?
Edit: that last post came thru while I was writing this one, I think it basically answers my question...

So what the devs on here are trying to do is develop a "generic" profile that can work on our phone (as well as others?), creating a solid base to allow users to upgrade and change at-will without having to wait for official releases?
See, that's the part I'm having a hard time with. No generic profile built into the OS to use in the absence of a hardware specific one?
LoverBoyV said:
Try thinking of it as buying an Ubuntu laptop from dell. Sure its " Ubuntu" but not stock. It so full of bloat and badly written drivers that aren't supplied openly for the user that it would be hell trying get the latest version of ubuntu to run on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On a sidenote, I bought a Dell netbook witih Ubuntu. Didn't waste time with Ubuntu, but I chose it because I didn't want MS to get money from a license fee. Installed Mac OS X on it the day it arrived

Ya know, I tried to do the same thing with my inspiron 1525 notebook, with snow leopard 10.6.3 since I have a spare hard drive. Spent a whole day with numerous guides, trying this n that. Got it to actually boot to the desktop once, bit as I was putting the drivers in, it went into KP and from that point on, I could never even reinstall back to the desktop again.

Well, Samsung is giving us a simple/reliable update to Froyo with unique functionality, as soon as possible.
Source: (Twitter, About 12pm 1/2/2011 from Samsungtweets via Cotweet - http://twitter.com/Samsungtweets/samsung-usa )
Samsungtweets We are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S Galaxy S owners as soon as possible.
Samsungtweets We want Galaxy S owners to have simple/reliable upgrade. We r running tests due to complexity/unique functionality
EDIT: gave more specific time and source of tweets. Post is meant to be objective, without definition of ASAP for this context.
Swyped w/ XDA App. When in doubt, mumble.

soba49 said:
Well, Samsung is giving us a simple/reliable update to Froyo with unique functionality, as soon as possible.
Source (Twitter, 6 hours ago):
Samsungtweets We are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S Galaxy S owners as soon as possible.
Samsungtweets We want Galaxy S owners to have simple/reliable upgrade. We r running tests due to complexity/unique functionality
Swyped w/ XDA App. When in doubt, mumble.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure if this is meant to be funny or not haha. Are those recent tweets?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App

They seem to post the same things over and over, of course this is also because people constantly ask when is froyo coming, and every time they say there is no definite date. It is coming soon that that is all they will say; yelling, moaning and crying isn't gonna make it come any sooner, just sit back and it will eventually come.

AOSP equals future support?

So, let me start off by saying that I have searched, read and spent time trying to understand this... but still don't. Which answers why I'm posting this question.
First, what exactly is the reason that an AOSP rom is being developed and a Vanilla Froyo ROM is being developed?
Is the AOSP rom the important one here? Does the working AOSP rom with working kernel mean that we would have 2.2, 2.3.... and so on supported regardless of Samsung?
I understand that Samsung has not supported tremendously up to this point, I understand 2.2 has not been released for the CDMA version yet, and I understand the code they have released is "crappy." When I hear everyone talk about the great work the devs are doing, are they referring to mainly working on the AOSP? If this rom is built, will we be able to just keep developing it for the new versions of Android?
Sorta like in Back to the future when they break off the real timeline and go into the alternate 1985?
Samsungs Android - 2.1, 2.2.... EOL
Dev's Android - 2.1, AOSP, 2.2, 2.3?
Is this how it works? Basically just trying to understand what needs to happen for the Fascinate to get to at least 2.3... not WHEN or even IF it'll get to 2.3.
Thanks

AOSP means Android Open Source Platform.
It's a version of Android built entirely from sources provided by Google. It's completely Vanilla and comes with zero customer or manufacturer customizations. It's easily root-able, and able to be customized completely by the user if desired.
AOSP ROMs are desirable because they tend to be a bit faster and lighter due to their lack of crapification.
AOSP builds are only distributed in their complete and compiled form by Google for their developer handsets (Currently the Nexus One and Nexus S), and not by any carrier or manufacturer.

Okay, I appreciate that definition... I think I've gotten what AOSP is exactly... but I guess my question is does AOSP have any involvement in a future for this phone if Samsung decides to close its doors. Is a working AOSP, radio, kernel... whatever basically devs developing a future of this phone parallel to whatever Samsung does for it?
Like, I see from other threads that the ROM for Froyo and Gingerbread isn't necessarily the problem, its the radio and the RIL? If that is the case, what needs to happen for everything to figured out and for us to have a bright future for the Fascinate? Samsung has to release code for the RIL and radio? Are we SOL without Samsung helping here or will the devs definitely figure something out to get 2.2, 2.3... and so on for the Fascinate?

Bwangster12 said:
Okay, I appreciate that definition... I think I've gotten what AOSP is exactly... but I guess my question is does AOSP have any involvement in a future for this phone if Samsung decides to close its doors. Is a working AOSP, radio, kernel... whatever basically devs developing a future of this phone parallel to whatever Samsung does for it?
Like, I see from other threads that the ROM for Froyo and Gingerbread isn't necessarily the problem, its the radio and the RIL? If that is the case, what needs to happen for everything to figured out and for us to have a bright future for the Fascinate? Samsung has to release code for the RIL and radio? Are we SOL without Samsung helping here or will the devs definitely figure something out to get 2.2, 2.3... and so on for the Fascinate?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's kinda like building an office park, or strip mall or something. You toss up the basic vanilla buildings, and when it's finally done, companies move in and tweak it how they deem fit.
With a working ASOP build, it'll remove some of the shackles of Samsungs bs code.

So... the AOSP build IS THE KEY here? I understand it isn't working yet, but if the devs get AOSP working, does that mean we will get a 2.2, 2.3 and so on regardless of what is released by Samsung?
I'm just trying to figure out what is happening to keep the G1, Droid, Droid 2... supported by ROMs like Cyanogenmod and others, that hasn't happened yet for the Samsung Fascinate.
I'd like to get the Fascinate, but am sorta waiting because I don't wanna be stuck with a phone for the next 2 years that will max out at MAYBE 2.2 if we are lucky.

I don't know where to start with your confusion.
Samsung has not given 2.2 to us. This means that we do not have froyo...
The RIL is an interface layer between the os and the radio. I'm not too sure about it, but anyways...
The developers are working around the fact that samsung has not given further tools that they need to get froyo ported over. Currently they are working on a 1.6 RIL to get froyo working. On another note, vanilla aosp is a good thing because it gives developers more freedom to customize the roms. It also allows for them to be able to port over other roms.
I really don't understand your confusion. If you want a better explanation , I recommend getting on irc.

If I were you, I'd wait. Next gen phones are coming from vzw in the next few months which will essentially blow the existing tech soon.

Bwangster12 said:
So... the AOSP build IS THE KEY here? I understand it isn't working yet, but if the devs get AOSP working, does that mean we will get a 2.2, 2.3 and so on regardless of what is released by Samsung?
I'm just trying to figure out what is happening to keep the G1, Droid, Droid 2... supported by ROMs like Cyanogenmod and others, that hasn't happened yet for the Samsung Fascinate.
I'd like to get the Fascinate, but am sorta waiting because I don't wanna be stuck with a phone for the next 2 years that will max out at MAYBE 2.2 if we are lucky.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Basically, that's the hope at least. If there are changes in say, 2.4 that require something that couldn't be hacked around with ASOP, we'll be stuck waiting for Samsung. But with a working ASOP, the groundwork is laid for updates to be ported over a bit more quickly by the devs.
Regardless of the future of this device, the Fascinate is one of the better Android handsets on the market. The screen is brilliant, it's the perfect size, and it's damn fast. The only thing that drags it down is the factory setup (although I personally think it's idiotic to ding the phone because of the inclusion of Bing like some people/reviewers have.)

I'm trying to understand what is going on instead of being one of the millions to ask about updates for this phone. I see phones like the droid series and read that they basically are being supported forever and then I see the Samsung Fascinate, and while I understand that the code is crappy/not released to community... I'm trying to figure out what needs to happen for it to be a supported device like the droids have been.
Bottom line, nothing at all is going to happen unless Samsung releases more than just a 2.2 update? If I see 2.2 drop like tomorrow, does that mean anything for a future, or is it just 2.2 update and we will just get devs releasing their versions of 2.2 roms?

RacerXFD said:
I really don't understand your confusion. If you want a better explanation , I recommend getting on irc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read his questions as:
"Will a working ASOP build mean better developer support/faster developer released updates?"
I did skim them though.

RacerXFD said:
If I were you, I'd wait. Next gen phones are coming from vzw in the next few months which will essentially blow the existing tech soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a good point. There's an LTE Samsung handset coming out soon, so it might be worth holding out for a little.
Although the Fascinate is no slouch.

Pretty much what I am asking. Like of everything that could possibly happen, Samsung releasing 2.2, AOSP being finished, blah blah what is the key that a consumer should look for to say...
"Well, now the Fascinate has no negatives to it and I have no fear that in a year, we won't still be stuck on 2.1 or 2.2 because Samsung screwed us."
Doesn't necessarily seem like Samsung needs to do MUCH to future this phones life and turn over the keys to the devs (like HTC seemingly has done), but I'm trying to understand what that thing is they need to do. Release a newer kernel, RIL, 2.2 ROM, some code that magically allows devs to port over future roms eternally...
I don't think I care if the phone has LTE capability. I won't get LTE and a regular 3G phone is beyond enough for me. LTE is zero impact for me.

Bwangster12 said:
Pretty much what I am asking. Like of everything that could possibly happen, Samsung releasing 2.2, AOSP being finished, blah blah what is the key that a consumer should look for to say...
"Well, now the Fascinate has no negatives to it and I have no fear that in a year, we won't still be stuck on 2.1 or 2.2 because Samsung screwed us."
Doesn't necessarily seem like Samsung needs to do MUCH to future this phones life and turn over the keys to the devs, but I'm trying to understand what that thing is they need to do. Release a newer kernel, RIL, 2.2 ROM, some code that magically allows devs to port over future roms eternally...
I don't think I care if the phone has LTE capability. I won't get LTE and a regular 3G phone is beyond enough for me. LTE is zero impact for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does SAMSUNG need to do? Release their source code, and not just incomplete parts of it.
Will that happen? I doubt it, but it might. Clearly the companies ears are perking up with all the yelling by the consumers.
What can we do in the meantime? Support the devs and wait for them to crank out a working ASOP build and Froyo.

Yes, would be nice to have a fully working AOSP build, and then Froyo... but they are seperate from each other right?
AOSP build is being done for 2.1? It can't just be magically updated to 2.2 can it? Does Froyo have to be officially released for them to update it to AOSP 2.2?
Basically... AOSP will only be updated to whatever version Samsung has released?

Bwangster12 said:
Yes, would be nice to have a fully working AOSP build, and then Froyo... but they are seperate from each other right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Android Open Source Project means "Android" in general. It can be 2.1, 1.6, 2.3, whatever. The devs elected to start with 2.1.
AOSP build is being done for 2.1? It can't just be magically updated to 2.2 can it? Does Froyo have to be officially released for them to update it to AOSP 2.2?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you've followed anything in the dev folders, clearly not. JT's "Vanilla" Froyo looks like an AOSP build.
Basically... AOSP will only be updated to whatever version Samsung has released?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. At least not our version.

Bwangster12 said:
Yes, would be nice to have a fully working AOSP build, and then Froyo... but they are seperate from each other right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's hard to answer your question because AOSP and Froyo refer to two completely different things, which can be the same or separate.
AOSP is basically Android, built from clean, unmodified source code directly from Google, without any changes by carriers or manufacturer.
Froyo is simply the 2.2 version of Android.
So, you can have Froyo that's modified by a carrier and/or manufacturer. This wouldn't be AOSP. And you can have Froyo, built directly from Google code. This would be AOSP. You can also have Eclair (Android 2.1), or any other version of Android that's AOSP or not AOSP depending on whether it was built directly from Google code, or modified by a carrier or manufacturer.
AOSP doesn't refer to a single, particular version of Android, but the state of the code that was used to compile whatever version you want to talk about.
Bwangster12 said:
AOSP build is being done for 2.1? It can't just be magically updated to 2.2 can it? Does Froyo have to be officially released for them to update it to AOSP 2.2?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lot of the issue surrounds the kernel. When Google releases a new version of Android, it runs on a particular version of the kernel, which supports it's particular features. Manufacturers have to modify the kernel to support their particular hardware. So, since Samsung has only released source code for the kernel for Android 2.1, we're stuck on 2.1.
The versions of 2.2 from Kaos and JT are running on the Android 2.1 kernel that's been hacked to enable 2.2 to boot and run correctly. It works, but it's far, far from ideal. It doubles (if not more) the amount of work necessary to get 2.2 running, which is the reason for the rather slow pace of development.
So for your question, once Samsung releases 2.2 (the system and kernel), it'll be much easier to get an AOSP build of Android running, since the devs will only need to worry about the system instead of hacking together a kernel and RIL (radio interface layer) as well.
At least this is my understanding of the situation. I'm sure people with more knowledge and experience can correct me where I'm wrong, but I think this is the basic gist of it.

ChrisDDD said:
It's hard to answer your question because AOSP and Froyo refer to two completely different things, which can be the same or separate.
AOSP is basically Android, built from clean, unmodified source code directly from Google, without any changes by carriers or manufacturer.
Froyo is simply the 2.2 version of Android.
So, you can have Froyo that's modified by a carrier and/or manufacturer. This wouldn't be AOSP. And you can have Froyo, built directly from Google code. This would be AOSP. You can also have Eclair (Android 2.1), or any other version of Android that's AOSP or not AOSP depending on whether it was built directly from Google code, or modified by a carrier or manufacturer.
AOSP doesn't refer to a single, particular version of Android, but the state of the code that was used to compile whatever version you want to talk about.
A lot of the issue surrounds the kernel. When Google releases a new version of Android, it runs on a particular version of the kernel, which supports it's particular features. Manufacturers have to modify the kernel to support their particular hardware. So, since Samsung has only released source code for the kernel for Android 2.1, we're stuck on 2.1.
The versions of 2.2 from Kaos and JT are running on the Android 2.1 kernel that's been hacked to enable 2.2 to boot and run correctly. It works, but it's far, far from ideal. It doubles (if not more) the amount of work necessary to get 2.2 running, which is the reason for the rather slow pace of development.
So for your question, once Samsung releases 2.2 (the system and kernel), it'll be much easier to get an AOSP build of Android running, since the devs will only need to worry about the system instead of hacking together a kernel and RIL (radio interface layer) as well.
At least this is my understanding of the situation. I'm sure people with more knowledge and experience can correct me where I'm wrong, but I think this is the basic gist of it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, thank you for this answer... this makes sense to me.
So, have HTC and Motorola released newer kernels for the devs of roms like Cyanogemod to update their ROMs, despite HTC and Motorola not actually releasing newer versions? I mean, how is the G1 updated as far as it has. Did HTC release a 2.2 kernel to allow devs to put 2.2 on it?

That's were I'm start confused as well.
I understand that Samsung has some proprietary kernel level code and drivers.
But, I'm curious what is the difference between Linux kernel versions used for different versions of Android. It doesn't sound like major version change and hence should not change anything dramatically. It should be mostly bug fixes. That's why jt was able to get kernel work.
As in relation to ASOP for SF, I see it like attempt to adapt Samsung code to current android interfaces. Once again, these interfaces should not change dramatically between versions, because these are evolutionary. So, I assume when done it is pretty much paved road up to 3.0 at least. That said some new features might not work at all, because we do not have working initial binaries from Samsung.
By the way mrbirdman has GB in progress.

Alright... so this may sound like I'm oversimplifying it, but I don't mean to.
Why can't the dev community just create a "custom" kernel to work with their versions of 2.2, 2.3 and so on? You say that they are working to hack the 2.1 kernel Samsung has released so it allows 2.2 to run on the Fascinate... but why can't they just make a 2.2 kernel? Is that sorta what Cyanogenmod is doing to get a 2.2 Froyo build to work on a G1?
Based on the amazing things I've seen the dev community do, building ROMs from scratch, I guess I don't understand how the kernel can't be built specifically for each new version... forgetting about what Samsung releases.

Bwangster12 said:
Why can't the dev community just create a "custom" kernel to work with their versions of 2.2, 2.3 and so on?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Theoretically they could, it would just be a lot of work. Hardware drivers might not be compatible with the kernel version designed for 2.2 or 2.3. I don't think manufacturers are required to release the code for their drivers, so if a driver wouldn't work, one would need to be written from scratch, and without the detailed knowledge of the hardware itself, that is very difficult.
Hardware support is very integral to the kernel, so a kernel for one phone wouldn't run at all on another. So in addition to the difficulty of putting together a totally independent kernel, it would need to be done separately for each and every phone out there, and how many versions of the Galaxy S alone are there? How many HTC phones, how many Motorola and LG and Sony and so on.
It's just not realistic for people doing this, essentially, in their spare time.
So, what the devs generally do is wait until a carrier releases a version of Android (System, kernel, radio, etc.), and with all the hardware support in place and working, they can focus on building custom or AOSP versions of the system.
It's not that they couldn't build their own kernel, it's just a matter of practicality, audience and the shelf live of the particular phone. As it is, a new generation of phones are already either coming out or on the near horizon... and our phone is what, 4 to 5 months old?
Bwangster12 said:
Based on the amazing things I've seen the dev community do, building ROMs from scratch, I guess I don't understand how the kernel can't be built specifically for each new version... forgetting about what Samsung releases.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The misunderstanding is in the complexity of compiling a custom system, and developing a custom kernel. They are hugely different in terms of complexity.
Think of a ROM as taking Windows 3.1 and simply tweaking the components that are installed by default - what accessories are installed, what wallpaper is selected, the color scheme of the windows. Not terribly complicated.
Think of the kernel as having to compile DOS, complete with custom drivers for all the hardware - CPU, graphics, memory, storage, multitouch, sound, radio, modem, WiFi, networking, power management, USB support, file system support, etc. all by hand.

[Q] Is there any project about Honeycomb on HD2?

Is there any project about Honeycomb on HD2? Do you know somebody tries to port it?

there was a thread in the dev section with honeycomb but i think most efforts now are getting gingerbread working propelrly and with sense 3 coming out honeycomb has taken a backburner to it all

Lack of interest from devs I guess, and community. Seeing as everyone loves sense and gingerbread. And I don't think most are keen on the idea of a tablet ui on a phone.

If you go to the SD builds, there's a regularly updated build that emulates Gingerbread. I used it last night and quite liked it, and I may try it again when I have the time
EDIT: Sorry, Honeycomb

smeddy said:
If you go to the SD builds, there's a regularly updated build that emulates Gingerbread. I used it last night and quite liked it, and I may try it again when I have the time
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
honeycomb or gingerbread? they are different os's

it is bootable now, let push imilka more
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=978939

its not stable i'll wait for something more stable

sarp_pasha said:
its not stable i'll wait for something more stable
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No more work can be done on Honeycomb until Google release all the source code needed, getting everything working on Gingerbread sense appears to be the main focus for most now but still issues like camcorder and glitches,etc to sort out alongside some other small issues.

and they aren't planning to release the source 'till ice cream thingy is released, sometime around.after the end of teh year, they dont want people putting it on phones, cos they used trickery to make it work on tablets(is their official stance) ((all part of their slow gentle move towards controlling their own phone OS, in an iOS/WP7-like way, in my uneducated, wildguessworklike opinion, , ))

[Q] Honeycomb on KF? Vs ICS

Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.

freeqaz said:
Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, I think it's a good idea, and that you should do it. You'll probably get a lot of people saying there's no point cause ICS is what honeycomb should've been. I've never used honeycomb before, so I don't know how different it is from ICS but I'm sure there are some.
I think you should do it to give this device and its users another ROM choice, with a different android version. Or even just for the fact that you might want to use it, do it for yourself and post it here just to see if people want it. I'd try it out, even if ICS is out and stable haha
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk

Personally, I think it's a good idea, .... I've never used honeycomb before...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.

krelvinaz said:
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like to check it out. It's not like I'm telling him that he needs to do this, he asked what people thought of the idea because he was interested in doing it, and I voiced my opinion.
Though I do agree that it might be easier to work with apps and then maybe work on a ROM, but hey, if he's willing to attempt it and learn how everything works, why stop him? The more devs, the merrier lol

Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?

My understanding is there was never a source release for honeycomb
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, that is, AFAIK, why there was never a CM8. I don't think it would be worth OP's time to try to reverse-engineer a Honeycomb tablet and shoehorning it into the KF.
However, the OP might want to donate some of their time to the ICS port
It is open source after all...

[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Hit up this Google announcement, they did indeed release the source.
This release includes the full history of the Android source code
tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb
releases. However, since Honeycomb was a little incomplete, we want
everyone to focus on Ice Cream Sandwich. So, we haven't created any
tags that correspond to the Honeycomb releases (even though the
changes are present in the history.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
groups.google dot com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4XZJCZnqF8
The only thing that I really want to know is if there is a significant driver difference between ICS and Honeycomb. If there is, then there is a reason to try to port 3.0 over because it would have more driver support. There are 3.0 devices out in the wild. If there isn't a driver difference between 3.0 and 4.0, then it's futile and all efforts should be spent on 4.0.

theholyfork said:
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed.
And when they released the source for ICS, they elaborated on why they included Honeycomb in the Source tree: To essentially display the hacks they were forced to use to push Honeycomb to market. Honeycomb was never AOSP'd because it wasn't reliable for wider use.
Based upon the fact that Google was basically too ashamed to release Honeycomb to AOSP, I don't think it would make much sense to target a broken platform (Honeycomb).
IMO, if you're going to spend time trying to work on getting a more tablet-oriented version of Android running, it's probably going to be *easier* to work with ICS than Honeycomb. Moreover your contributions could assist the greater KF community in getting a stable base of ICS for all.