Database Users

EVO 4G ROM Leaked today.

The shipping ROM of the HTC EVO 4G has now been leaked. The RUU_Supersonic_1.32.651.1_Radio_1.39.00.04.26_release_171253.exe file is the official ROM present on the devices that will go on sale on June 4th (and probably originates from one the handsets offered yesterday during Google I/O). You can grab the file here. I guess that the next logical step will be an attempt to port this ROM to the HTC HD2.
http://www.mobiletechworld.com/2010/05/21/official-shipping-htc-evo-4g-rom-available-for-download/

I wonder how long it will take......Hopefully not longer than June4th

SPENONE said:
I wonder how long it will take......Hopefully not longer than June4th
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My prayers are with your post

plzlordplzlordplzlordplzlord.....
Im sure the awesome modders here in the greatest mobile phone fourm in the UNIVERSE can work their magic

hd2 is watching u!

reorx24 said:
plzlordplzlordplzlordplzlord.....
Im sure the awesome modders here in the greatest mobile phone forum in the UNIVERSE can work their magic
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 lol. can't wait to see android on this hd2.

I think it is better to wait for froyo if this rom can be installed on the HD2.

this i would love to see

Could someone who knows about the difficulties associated with porting ROMs quickly describe how feasible getting a work of port of android from the EVO 4G over to the HD2 would be?
I imagine the fact that the camera is different would cause problems?

laserviking said:
Could someone who knows about the difficulties associated with porting ROMs quickly describe how feasible getting a work of port of android from the EVO 4G over to the HD2 would be?
I imagine the fact that the camera is different would cause problems?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lawl, you guys must be smoking some pretty good pot. This will take months. You are assuming that every single internal part save for the camera is identical. I'm pretty certain it won't be. It'll be a long time before any port of Android is working on the HD2. Until then, it's best you not get your hopes too high because you'd surely be disappointed if you think a working port is feasible in 4 ~ 8 weeks.

this topic has been beaten to death over and over guys. i'm not trying to come off as a ****, but please search and read before making posts, because it upsets the devs. A LOT of parts are different between the HD2 and EVO, they don't even use the same touchscreen. This is going to take some time. Be patient.

a quick Google search will reveal picture and video evidence of this already working, along with Windows Phone 7 succesfully ported on the HD2. problems arise with the assignment of the hard buttons more than anything else.

PoisonWolf said:
Lawl, you guys must be smoking some pretty good pot. This will take months. You are assuming that every single internal part save for the camera is identical. I'm pretty certain it won't be. It'll be a long time before any port of Android is working on the HD2. Until then, it's best you not get your hopes too high because you'd surely be disappointed if you think a working port is feasible in 4 ~ 8 weeks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got no such expectations, for one I pointed out at least the camera is different and I assume a whole lot of other stuff is too.
Anyway, here's a question I've never seen addressed in any topic but is interesting for layman plebs:
What information do official HTC devs have access to which XDA devs don't, which makes churning out working drivers, etc. for phones doable for the former and nigh-on impossible for the latter? Please don't misinterpret this post as accusing XDA devs of being lazy or anything, I'm just curious as to why it's so difficult.

laserviking said:
Anyway, here's a question I've never seen addressed in any topic but is interesting for layman plebs:
What information do official HTC devs have access to which XDA devs don't, which makes churning out working drivers, etc. for phones doable for the former and nigh-on impossible for the latter? Please don't misinterpret this post as accusing XDA devs of being lazy or anything, I'm just curious as to why it's so difficult.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The knowledge that a hefty paycheck is arriving at the end of every two weeks and that if they don't perform, they'll get replaced with another person who is qualified and willing to deliver on said schedule. Things change when you do it as a hobby and when you're struggling to make a better life for yourself and/or spouse and kids.
Even a somewhat working version of Android on the Blackstone came out what, 12 months after its release? Making Android work on a Windows Mobile device is not some plug and play magic or drag and drop process as a lot of you are making it out to be (not directly at you, in general). While I'm only a beginner in programming, I know the difficulty that goes into making a good single working software, let alone making an entire OS work on a completely different set of hardware.

laserviking said:
I've got no such expectations, for one I pointed out at least the camera is different and I assume a whole lot of other stuff is too.
Anyway, here's a question I've never seen addressed in any topic but is interesting for layman plebs:
What information do official HTC devs have access to which XDA devs don't, which makes churning out working drivers, etc. for phones doable for the former and nigh-on impossible for the latter? Please don't misinterpret this post as accusing XDA devs of being lazy or anything, I'm just curious as to why it's so difficult.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The official developers get the hardware datasheets from the manufacturers and software apis because they are licensed to work on these devices. If xda devs got those things, it would be much easier.

CraigBirnie said:
a quick Google search will reveal picture and video evidence of this already working, along with Windows Phone 7 succesfully ported on the HD2. problems arise with the assignment of the hard buttons more than anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android has not been ported yet. I don't know where you saw that, but its probably fake. There have been videos of WinPhone 7, but it hasn't been established whether its fake or not.

CraigBirnie said:
a quick Google search will reveal picture and video evidence of this already working, along with Windows Phone 7 succesfully ported on the HD2. problems arise with the assignment of the hard buttons more than anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh hey, thanks for the link.
Kids on here are incredibly stupid.

zarathustrax said:
The official developers get the hardware datasheets from the manufacturers and software apis because they are licensed to work on these devices. If xda devs got those things, it would be much easier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! I knew there had to be a missing link somewhere.

HTC threatens handset hackers with legal action for distributing ROMs

READ YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/06...kers-with-legal-action-for-distributing-roms/

I guess I know what i'll be downloading all day till I got work

That's for Windows Mobile.
hTC can't stop anyone distributing AOSP ROMs, but they could throw the hammer down on distributing their Sense ROMS.

Because of all that nonsense (no pun intended ), I've commited myself to getting this. I'll be more than satisfied.

wcdisciple said:
Because of all that nonsense (no pun intended ), I've commited myself to getting this. I'll be more than satisfied.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man, i think you're not getting tired of emphasise how good apple is. Please don't take it offensive, but why are you in this forum if you will buy / have bought an iPhone?
HTC is only one company of many building phones with Android. Whether you like Sense or not is your decision. G1 and MT3G (with google) were never intended to run with Sense. And no one can sue us for using AOSP ROM's. So i have no problem with it compared to apple, who will preselect the software for you...
Jailbreaking the iPhone isn't legal by the way...
PS: don't want to start an Apple/Android war, but leaving one company suing others for another company suing people since years and taking it for the reason why, seems a bit curious to me...

hudl said:
Man, i think you're not getting tired of emphasise how good apple is. Please don't take it offensive, but why are you in this forum if you will buy / have bought an iPhone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's been on a rampage with it.
On a better note: I don't think this will stop ROM development. Didn't xda go through the same thing, but HTC didn't care about the actual developed ROMs?
Edit: Can't find anything to support that. :/ Remember reading it somewhere - might have been bs, but I swear it was on xda news.

HTC threatens handset hackers with legal action - WORST MISTAKE EVER
HTC is seriously making a mistake with that one.
Ive only been satisfied with my purchase of anything they have come with AFTER flashing a Rom into it.
If this continues I promise you they will regret it.
They will lose customers that WILL choose to go to other manufacturers.
The Devs and all who create on a constant basis are not hackers.
They innovate to make HTC a better phone than the competitors because of the work that are done by these fine people.

legend221 said:
HTC is seriously making a mistake with that one.
Ive only been satisfied with my purchase of anything they have come with AFTER flashing a Rom into it.
If this continues I promise you they will regret it.
They will lose customers that WILL choose to go to other manufacturers.
The Devs and all who create on a constant basis are not hackers.
They innovate to make HTC a better phone than the competitors because of the work that are done by these fine people.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But they didn't take it down because of them being custom ROMs. They were all just the basic stock ROMs that came with the phone. Honestly, there's not much of a difference as both custom and stock contain IP. However, I think they would've taken down xda a long time ago if they were worried about custom ROMs.

r3s-rt said:
Honestly, there's not much of a difference as both custom and stock contain IP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a HUGE difference between stock and Custom Rom, anyone that has ever flashed a Rom will tell you this.
r3s-rt said:
However, I think they would've taken down xda a long time ago if they were worried about custom ROMs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A similar C&D almost stopped the progression of a certain legendary Dev on the android scene.
Luckily, there was a workaround and everyone was happy flashing and seeing for themselves how much better our phones have been on a customized, fast and stable Rom.

legend221 said:
There is a HUGE difference between stock and Custom Rom, anyone that has ever flashed a Rom will tell you this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you serious? So you're telling me all HTC widgets involved in a sense ROM aren't IP? Or Google Apps included in most ROMs aren't IP? Google Maps? Market? Anything? That's actually pretty funny. No THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between a stock ROM and a custom ROM on the IP subject with the exception of JUST a few. Like.... 2 or 3? Do you even know what intellectual property is?
A similar C&D almost stopped the progression of a certain legendary Dev on the android scene.
Luckily, there was a workaround and everyone was happy flashing and seeing for themselves how much better our phones have been on a customized, fast and stable Rom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And no, the similar C&D did NOT almost stop ROM development. If that was the case, NO ROM would come with Google Apps included. However, they DO, and are they are NOT getting C&Ds. If you think Google isn't looking at XDA to see what's happening, you need to start thinking a bit more.
Edit: Also, not every ROM is based off of cyanogen. While there are A LOT that are, not ALL are.

r3s-rt said:
Are you serious? So you're telling me all HTC widgets involved in a sense ROM aren't IP? Or Google Apps included in most ROMs aren't IP? Google Maps? Market? Anything? That's actually pretty funny. No THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between a stock ROM and a custom ROM on the IP subject with the exception of JUST a few. Like.... 2 or 3? Do you even know what intellectual property is?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not everyone even cares about widgets. I only use the calendar one for example. Widgets are not the issue, we are talking about Roms overall because if HTC starts implementing a stricter enforcement of people not having the ability to use or host the Rom of their choice and preventing Devs to freely distribute their work then we are all held mercy to whatever HTC has pre-installed from the factory. A major FAIL for them.
r3s-rt said:
And no, the similar C&D did NOT almost stop ROM development. If that was the case, NO ROM would come with Google Apps included. However, they DO, and are they are NOT getting C&Ds. If you think Google isn't looking at XDA to see what's happening, you need to start thinking a bit more.
Edit: Also, not every ROM is based off of cyanogen. While there are A LOT that are, not ALL are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google knows its in their best interest to keep letting everyone that wants to flash a custom Rom. Some people buy specific phones (the past phones of mine as well) only if they are rooted or can install a custom SPL and flash their flavor of a Rom. The Cyanogen reference was an example not for every case, we are aware of the Windows Mobile, etc sections of xda.

legend221 said:
Not everyone even cares about widgets. I only use the calendar one for example. Widgets are not the issue, we are talking about Roms overall because if HTC starts implementing a stricter enforcement of people not having the ability to use or host the Rom of their choice and preventing Devs to freely distribute their work then we are all held mercy to whatever HTC has pre-installed from the factory. A major FAIL for them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're not continuing what you originally said. You said there's a huge difference between a custom ROM and a stock ROM. Now, this statement should have been based on IP terms, as this is clearly what the topic is supposed to be about. My point is that IP is still included in any ROM. It doesn't matter what you use - that is completely irrelevant to the subject matter. They clearly are not enforcing all little bits of IP. If that was the case, as I've said multiple times, xda wouldn't be here right now. HTC is WELL AWARE along with Microsoft and Google of what goes on here. I promise you they pay once lucky bastard to sit here and probe this site, along with others, all day everyday and flag anything they see unfit. The main thing they seem to not like is ROM libraries. That's just from my experience.
To sum this up" We are NOT at mercy of what is pre-installed from factory or they would have sent out much more C&D letters much sooner than this. XDA has over 2 MILLION users. That's all I'm saying.
Google knows its in their best interest to keep letting everyone that wants to flash a custom Rom. Some people buy specific phones (the past phones of mine as well) only if they are rooted or can install a custom SPL and flash their flavor of a Rom. The Cyanogen reference was an example not for every case, we are aware of the Windows Mobile, etc sections of xda.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best interest? Are you serious, bro? Android is marketed as an open-source platform. That's not in their "best interest." It's in their intents! The unrootable is because of cell phone carriers! Guess what?! The Dream came out as a Development phone! The Google ION (more commonly the myTouch 3g)? Development phone! The cyanogenmod reference was taken for what it was - an C&D from GOOGLE! NOT HTC!

r3s-rt said:
You're not continuing what you originally said. You said there's a huge difference between a custom ROM and a stock ROM. Now, this statement should have been based on IP terms, as this is clearly what the topic is supposed to be about. My point is that IP is still included in any ROM. It doesn't matter what you use - that is completely irrelevant to the subject matter. They clearly are not enforcing all little bits of IP. If that was the case, as I've said multiple times, xda wouldn't be here right now. HTC is WELL AWARE along with Microsoft and Google of what goes on here. I promise you they pay once lucky bastard to sit here and probe this site, along with others, all day everyday and flag anything they see unfit. The main thing they seem to not like is ROM libraries. That's just from my experience.
To sum this up" We are NOT at mercy of what is pre-installed from factory or they would have sent out much more C&D letters much sooner than this. XDA has over 2 MILLION users. That's all I'm saying.
Best interest? Are you serious, bro? Android is marketed as an open-source platform. That's not in their "best interest." It's in their intents! The unrootable is because of cell phone carriers! Guess what?! The Dream came out as a Development phone! The Google ION (more commonly the myTouch 3g)? Development phone! The cyanogenmod reference was taken for what it was - an C&D from GOOGLE! NOT HTC!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for giving that one guy the heads up on what goes on and what doesnt go on around here if he indeed does exist. If theres anything we dont need is anyone giving them more fuel to thier fire.
No one said the C&D came from HTC, seeing as you are a reader on xda I knew I didnt have to explain this to you. hahaha. It is in Google's best interest to let the Devs continue thier greatness because guess what many would jump ship to Windows Mobile devices or other OS including the iPhone even though there are not Roms for it I believe. If Android Development was not allowed to continue, at least most people would stop buying Android powered phones I believe.
Yawn........ time for bed now.

Why are you all under the assumption that the majority of HTC sales all run off of custom firmware? Do you really believe that sales are going to be effected that much because of HTC's decision?

legend221 said:
No one said the C&D came from HTC
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even read the article? If you are referring to the one cyanogen got, I never said it did. Seeing as you are just a reader (not) I didn't have to explain this to you. But I did. Please, if you're going to try and get a point across, respect me enough to actually read what I said.
legend221 said:
Thanks for giving that one guy the heads up on what goes on and what doesnt go on around here if he indeed does exist. If theres anything we dont need is anyone giving them more fuel to thier fire.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had to edit this is. Really? Have you been snorting cocaine or something? That's pretty damn paranoid. If you don't think that happens, you just need to get off the internet as that's just basic knowledge. If you were HTC, would you not watch us? If you wouldn't - stay out of sales forever.
Binary100100 said:
Why are you all under the assumption that the majority of HTC sales all run off of custom firmware? Do you really believe that sales are going to be effected that much because of HTC's decision?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not under that assumption; I take you include me in the all. I just stated that at least this won't affect custom ROMs and he went on about how custom ROMs are so different and don't contain IP. That's what I've been trying to get across in all my posts. And no, I don't think their sales will be affected .

r3s-rt said:
Did you even read the article? If you are referring to the one cyanogen got, I never said it did. Seeing as you are just a reader (not) I didn't have to explain this to you. But I did. Please, if you're going to try and get a point across, respect me enough to actually read what I said.
I had to edit this is. Really? Have you been snorting cocaine or something? That's pretty damn paranoid. If you don't think that happens, you just need to get off the internet as that's just basic knowledge. If you were HTC, would you not watch us? If you wouldn't - stay out of sales forever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're still on what I said?
Get over it and realize not everyone is going to agree with you or your thoughts.
The one on drugs is YOU, damn get out of the forums and do something else with your time man. hahaha
That's why its a forum and NOT your personal website.

legend221 said:
You're still on what I said?
Get over it and realize not everyone is going to agree with you or your thoughts.
The one on drugs is YOU, damn get out of the forums and do something else with your time man. hahaha
That's why its a forum and NOT your personal website.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any one with intelligence will tell you that 90% of custom ROMs contain IP. The fact that you are swearing up and down that they don't is just.... stupid.

r3s-rt said:
Any one with intelligence will tell you that 90% of custom ROMs contain IP. The fact that you are swearing up and down that they don't is just.... stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fact of the matter is that without proprietary IP, you can't even start the thing up. There is more IP than just widgets, launchers, and apps... there are DRIVERS and other such buried nonsense.
SOME of this IP *IS* distributed, have a look at developer.htc.com -- HTC eventually relented and opened their kernel modifications since they were committing a GPL violation, but there is other stuff on that page that is being distributed that IS proprietary IP, specifically, the "HTC Proprietary Binaries for ADP1". And those binaries don't even include all the proprietary binaries needed to make full use of the phone, such as the GPU drivers and the video decoder drivers.
THANKFULLY, the phone's owner IS licensed to use all of those binaries, so they can just keep them. Note that they're also included in the FULL SYSTEM IMAGES that HTC ITSELF distributed from developer.htc.com.
*** and that is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the android platform and wimo.... the fact that HTC distributes ***all*** of the proprietary binaries straight from their website. It means that it ***IS*** possible to generate fully AOSP (but non-functional) system images, and the USER can combine them with the binaries provided by HTC to make a working system.
From what I've seen, HTC REALLY DOESN'T CARE and/or actually WANTS users to build custom roms for their phones. They send out the cease and desist order for distribution of wimo roms, PROBABLY in accordance with MS's demands. MS probably said to them -- "listen, you either try to put a lid on piracy or we're going to stop sending you MSTRASH." HTC distributes GOOGLE apps in the roms on their website because THAT'S WHAT GOOGLE WANTS.

lbcoder said:
The fact of the matter is that without proprietary IP, you can't even start the thing up. There is more IP than just widgets, launchers, and apps... there are DRIVERS and other such buried nonsense.
SOME of this IP *IS* distributed, have a look at developer.htc.com -- HTC eventually relented and opened their kernel modifications since they were committing a GPL violation, but there is other stuff on that page that is being distributed that IS proprietary IP, specifically, the "HTC Proprietary Binaries for ADP1". And those binaries don't even include all the proprietary binaries needed to make full use of the phone, such as the GPU drivers and the video decoder drivers.
THANKFULLY, the phone's owner IS licensed to use all of those binaries, so they can just keep them. Note that they're also included in the FULL SYSTEM IMAGES that HTC ITSELF distributed from developer.htc.com.
*** and that is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the android platform and wimo.... the fact that HTC distributes ***all*** of the proprietary binaries straight from their website. It means that it ***IS*** possible to generate fully AOSP (but non-functional) system images, and the USER can combine them with the binaries provided by HTC to make a working system.
From what I've seen, HTC REALLY DOESN'T CARE and/or actually WANTS users to build custom roms for their phones. They send out the cease and desist order for distribution of wimo roms, PROBABLY in accordance with MS's demands. MS probably said to them -- "listen, you either try to put a lid on piracy or we're going to stop sending you MSTRASH." HTC distributes GOOGLE apps in the roms on their website because THAT'S WHAT GOOGLE WANTS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Didn't even think about all that.
2. That's exactly what I thought. Microsoft is so scared of a lonely developer doing better than what their out-the-ass payed developers do. Honestly, why would the manufacturer of the phone give a damn what you do with it when you buy it? No matter what way you look at it: their task is to sell the phones they manufacture.

[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.

Redevelopment of apps now that gingerbread is on the horizon

Hey,
I am NOT a dev, but I would like to know what kind of work work is going to be required now that gingerbread is on the forefront?
For example, VPlayer, doesn't work... it FC... How much work is it going to take to get the program back up and running???
Im just asking because, as much as I hate to admit it, fragmentation (as everyone calls it) is going to start causing issues. I get that google wants to offer the best and the latest and greatest, but if everytime a new API get sent out, and devs' have to rewrite their work, how much time is it going to take to get the proggy back up and running??
Thanks!
Theo

theomajigga said:
I am NOT a dev,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should've stop right there.
You realize that at this point only 1(!) phone is running official 2.3 Gingerbread and it's Samsung Nexus S. It's a drop in a bucket comparing to all of the phones that are running official 2.x firmware.
Furthermore, if an app is properly developed against 1.x or 2.x SDK then it will work with gingerbreadas as all APIs are future-compliant. The only problem would be is if an app is developed using 2.3 APIs and you would try to use it on earlier roms or if it used undocumented/unofficial APIs that were not supposed to be used and were discontinued in future releases.
We don't know what 's causing vPlayer not to work, could be many things (kernel, unfinished rom development, missing libs) or it could be things in vPlayer that were improperly implemented.
Send a log to developer and see if he/she can help you. Given that you're not running official (or at least stable!) release, you may not get far though.
But please, don't jump on that "fragmentation" train, it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

borodin1 said:
You should've stop right there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off, I didn't ask for you to be a ****, if I would have posted this in the dev forum that would have prompted you to respond as such.
borodin1 said:
You realize that at this point only 1(!) phone is running official 2.3 Gingerbread and it's Samsung Nexus S. It's a drop in a bucket comparing to all of the phones that are running official 2.x firmware.
Furthermore, if an app is properly developed against 1.x or 2.x SDK then it will work with gingerbreadas as all APIs are future-compliant. The only problem would be is if an app is developed using 2.3 APIs and you would try to use it on earlier roms or if it used undocumented/unofficial APIs that were not supposed to be used and were discontinued in future releases.
We don't know what 's causing vPlayer not to work, could be many things (kernel, unfinished rom development, missing libs) or it could be things in vPlayer that were improperly implemented.
Send a log to developer and see if he/she can help you. Given that you're not running official (or at least stable!) release, you may not get far though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the answer, i guess.
borodin1 said:
But please, don't jump on that "fragmentation" train, it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that that is out of the way, can I ask you HOW you can honestly say that Android isn't fragmented. Seriously ask your self... I LOVE android, I really do, G1-cliq-MT3G-Nexus One-HD2(androided)-MT4G, but I can't even lie about that. There is 9 API levels!! 2.3, 2.2, 2.1, 2.0.1, 2.0, 1.6, 1.5, 1.1, 1.0.
NOW I DO UNDERSTAND THAT ALMOST 45% ARE ON 2.2 and 40% ARE ON 2.1.
Ok, so now most apps are going to be working on that 84% of phones running level 7+.
But this ALSO doesn't account for the manufacture API's that are implemented buy some of them, which I KNOW causes some problems. (skype on the Samsung Galaxy Series) just to name one very big one. Skype works on other devices with 2.1, but it doesn't on the Samsung 2.1? as a consumer, I'd ask wtf, even with their limited knowledge of android.
Fragmentation is defined as is the inability to "write once and run anywhere". Rovio complained about this. Albeit not directly, but they said that they were having issues with people on some phones, with some versions of software, and that it wasn't going to work across the board.
I hate to admit it but there are certain things that need to be done to insure that Android will not only be the "Mobile OS" but it will also be the demanded one (IMHO):
1. Cut the bull**** manufacture stuff out, make only ONE set of API's, with 0 proprietary API's. Make it stuff that you can get if you want through the Android Market (custom UI's and such).
2. Control the god-damn market, find spammers, find shady devs re-uploading their apps multiple times to get ad dollars.
3. Get everybody on board to updates, require that all devices with X specifications be updated Y months after a source is released. That will get again get everyone on the same API level, and will make all apps compatible (maybe slow).
4. For the love of all holy, USE THE BEST COMPONENTS YOU CAN FIND! AND MAKE IT A STANDARD At least for the primary functions of the phone. For example, the Nexus One (my fave so far) did NOT have a competent touch screen, 2 point, and a BAD 2 point at that, and that is considered to be the new dev phone. Well who the HELL would want to dev for a platform that can only recognize two points (barely) that doesn't always even get them right? I sure as hell wouldn't. Finally I get the MT4G, the FIRST thing i did was test the touch screen, and guess what... It still is sub-par. 4 points, where my friends Galaxy S can do 6 or something. Now you are going to ask me, who uses 6 points idiot? Some games, do, and to top **** off, if you can't recognize 2 points properly, close together, how can some of the basic multi-touch functions work? (google maps on the N1)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I'm realistic. A mobile platform can't win like this.
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~damithch/df/device-fragmentation.htm

Honeycomb-only for tablets not mobile!!!

http://mobile.computerworld.com/dev...erworld.com/17612/google_android_30_honeycomb
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

I will buy it
Sent from my Nero powered Vibrant

heres a link to the video from engadet, because that website doesn't have it.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/05/google-shows-off-android-3-0-the-entirely-for-tablet-honeycom/

This news has been around for awhile. The 3.0 is basically 2.3 with a bit more and will allow android to run on a screen bigger than 7". This is not a exclusion of 3.0 but, rather just a modding of 2.3

As long as it retains the Android functionality, adds google docs integration and Netflix app I know what I will be getting for Christmas next year unless it is released earlier

oka1 said:
This news has been around for awhile. The 3.0 is basically 2.3 with a bit more and will allow android to run on a screen bigger than 7". This is not a exclusion of 3.0 but, rather just a modding of 2.3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just another version of Android, so that's obvious.
The bigger issue here is how much of the functionality will be backported to existing Android handsets.
For example, the Google Talk Client in that video supports Native Video chat. Will Existing phones with FFC get a backported GTalk client, or will it require a firmware upgrade (which will probably never come to the likes of an Evo, MT4G, and Epic4G)?
It's extremely frustrating to use a platform with so many functionality gaps that requires you to upgrade you phone virtually every 6 months just to get trivial Quality of Life updates, or do the Custom ROM upgrade treadmill thing...

oka1 said:
This news has been around for awhile. The 3.0 is basically 2.3 with a bit more and will allow android to run on a screen bigger than 7". This is not a exclusion of 3.0 but, rather just a modding of 2.3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google hasn't announce the Honeycomb for mobile phones yet, the current handsets on the market if they will get the upgrade might already be obsolete, the upcoming dual processor powered handsets will be more suitable for the new OS release, and I am pretty sure the time the news will trickle down we might as well just be on the market for the new handsets. I understand not everyone shares the same view but I know for myself I would not be holding onto my Vibrant till it evaporates into dust

N8ter said:
It's just another version of Android, so that's obvious.
The bigger issue here is how much of the functionality will be backported to existing Android handsets.
For example, the Google Talk Client in that video supports Native Video chat. Will Existing phones with FFC get a backported GTalk client, or will it require a firmware upgrade (which will probably never come to the likes of an Evo, MT4G, and Epic4G)?
It's extremely frustrating to use a platform with so many functionality gaps that requires you to upgrade you phone virtually every 6 months just to get trivial Quality of Life updates, or do the Custom ROM upgrade treadmill thing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What functionality gaps? There are phones out right now with video calling, why does it matter if its native? if the upgrades are trivial, why are you worrying about them?
You do realize you don't have to upgrade from custom roms, you can stick to using an older one. I already know the answer to that, I find your sig hilarious because its your sig.

j0hnZ said:
What functionality gaps? There are phones out right now with video calling, why does it matter if its native? if the upgrades are trivial, why are you worrying about them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Because video calling on Android is fragmented to hell right now. Some people use QIK. Some people use Tango. Some people use Yahoo, Fring, etc. I'm not installing 3-5 applications on my phone (2-3 of which runs battery whoring services in the background) just to video call. A native solution is necessary, unless a more umbiquitous 3rd party like Skype brings Video Calling to Android.
That's why a Native Solution is needed. So that you can just look in Google Talk and video call with anyone you know who has it installed on their Android phone OR Computer/Notebook/Netbook.
2. It's trivial in a way that it should be easy to backport them to lower Android versions. That's why I worry about them. Phones aren't cheap - contract or not. This was particularly an issue going from Android 1.5 to 1.6,a nd FroYo to Gingerbread is looking somewhat similar, IMO. Again, fairly obvious...
You do realize you don't have to upgrade from custom roms, you can stick to using an older one. I already know the answer to that, I find your sig hilarious because its your sig.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're missing the point. You don't have to use anything. You can be totally stock forever. So what...
Custom ROMs have issues and the release cycle of them is too fast, yet they're endorsed here as if they're official ROM builds. When one build fixes an issue, it often introduces another issue (I read change logs, and I do keep up with them somewhat, even though I don't use them). It puts you into an upgrade treadmill that I simply can't (and won't) deal with. I don't have time to constantly reflash my phone - like most of the flashers here do.
The fact that you don't have to upgrade you ROM doesn't mean you won't have to upgrade your ROM.
Official ROMs and devices will get thoroughly reviewed by me in the future, especially since I plan to move off of T-Mobile and only stick with carriers that give 30 day return policies.
Glad you like the sig /rolleyes

Morrill: No minimum processor requirements for Honeycomb http://bit.ly/eK9qrG
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

alvintimothyjr said:
Morrill: No minimum processor requirements for Honeycomb http://bit.ly/eK9qrG
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about RAM?
Well, probably won't be an issue for Galaxy S phones since the Nexus S probably has the same RAM configuration as ours...

N8ter said:
1. Because video calling on Android is fragmented to hell right now. Some people use QIK. Some people use Tango. Some people use Yahoo, Fring, etc. I'm not installing 3-5 applications on my phone (2-3 of which runs battery whoring services in the background) just to video call. A native solution is necessary, unless a more umbiquitous 3rd party like Skype brings Video Calling to Android.
That's why a Native Solution is needed. So that you can just look in Google Talk and video call with anyone you know who has it installed on their Android phone OR Computer/Notebook/Netbook.
2. It's trivial in a way that it should be easy to backport them to lower Android versions. That's why I worry about them. Phones aren't cheap - contract or not. This was particularly an issue going from Android 1.5 to 1.6,a nd FroYo to Gingerbread is looking somewhat similar, IMO. Again, fairly obvious...
I think you're missing the point. You don't have to use anything. You can be totally stock forever. So what...
Custom ROMs have issues and the release cycle of them is too fast, yet they're endorsed here as if they're official ROM builds. When one build fixes an issue, it often introduces another issue (I read change logs, and I do keep up with them somewhat, even though I don't use them). It puts you into an upgrade treadmill that I simply can't (and won't) deal with. I don't have time to constantly reflash my phone - like most of the flashers here do.
The fact that you don't have to upgrade you ROM doesn't mean you won't have to upgrade your ROM.
Official ROMs and devices will get thoroughly reviewed by me in the future, especially since I plan to move off of T-Mobile and only stick with carriers that give 30 day return policies.
Glad you like the sig /rolleyes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get that they have all the different video calling options will make it difficult how about one that integrates all of them into one app ala trillian? Then if your someone who likes to talk to people on different messengers you can have an all in one variety without limiting others to your specifications.
I know TW has a few final builds that you can use until you get a new phone. As far as the manufacturers its all about making money. Android provides a base for these manufacturers to add components the market might want and that is what makes them money. They can offer high and low end devices and still say hey you can have apps. I don't really care for this, and it is one of the things I like about the iphone and WP7. It still comes down to asthetics, I can do what I want on my android phone and make it look however I want and for the most part without voiding my warranty.

If you're *****ing about Android, STFU, QQ, and move to your beloved iPhone.
If it seriously bothers you THAT much, just sell your phone and purchase a non-android solution.
thanks.

scrizz said:
If you're *****ing about Android, STFU, QQ, and move to your beloved iPhone.
If it seriously bothers you THAT much, just sell your phone and purchase a non-android solution.
thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Finally someone who gets that all he is is an Android hating troll

N8ter said:
It puts you into an upgrade treadmill that I simply can't (and won't) deal with. I don't have time to constantly reflash my phone - like most of the flashers here do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm wondering why exactly you feel your opinion is of any relevance to anyone but yourself on the xda DEVELOPERS forum. This is a development community, not a social comments board. The people who are here are (mostly) here because they are interested in developing and tweaking their phones. Why do we want to hear your biased opinion about Android if you aren't even willing to participate in the primary activity shared by members of this site?
Furthermore, you complain about the primary activity linking everyone here. You call it a "treadmill", implying that the activity invested into it leads nowhere, and insult the hard working devs who invest their PERSONAL time for nothing but thanks. Why don't you go complain to another community you aren't insulting, implied or otherwise?

Thegreatheed said:
I'm wondering why exactly you feel your opinion is of any relevance to anyone but yourself on the xda DEVELOPERS forum. This is a development community, not a social comments board. The people who are here are (mostly) here because they are interested in developing and tweaking their phones. Why do we want to hear your biased opinion about Android if you aren't even willing to participate in the primary activity shared by members of this site?
Furthermore, you complain about the primary activity linking everyone here. You call it a "treadmill", implying that the activity invested into it leads nowhere, and insult the hard working devs who invest their PERSONAL time for nothing but thanks. Why don't you go complain to another community you aren't insulting, implied or otherwise?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the general forum.
Didn't read the rest.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

Thegreatheed said:
I'm wondering why exactly you feel your opinion is of any relevance to anyone but yourself on the xda DEVELOPERS forum. This is a development community, not a social comments board. The people who are here are (mostly) here because they are interested in developing and tweaking their phones. Why do we want to hear your biased opinion about Android if you aren't even willing to participate in the primary activity shared by members of this site?
Furthermore, you complain about the primary activity linking everyone here. You call it a "treadmill", implying that the activity invested into it leads nowhere, and insult the hard working devs who invest their PERSONAL time for nothing but thanks. Why don't you go complain to another community you aren't insulting, implied or otherwise?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this were true their wouldn't be a WP7 forum lawl...

Thegreatheed said:
I'm wondering why exactly you feel your opinion is of any relevance to anyone but yourself on the xda DEVELOPERS forum. This is a development community, not a social comments board. The people who are here are (mostly) here because they are interested in developing and tweaking their phones. Why do we want to hear your biased opinion about Android if you aren't even willing to participate in the primary activity shared by members of this site?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
You've shown disdain towards Android, the Vibrant, and the developer community here in general. Why keep coming back? If you dont agree with the entire reason this forum exists (modding, tweaking and developing) then why not move to a forum with less of that going on? The general forums are filled with enough trash to turn anyone into a cynic, so if I wasnt here for the dev community, I would have been gone a long time ago.

scrizz said:
If you're *****ing about Android, STFU, QQ, and move to your beloved iPhone.
If it seriously bothers you THAT much, just sell your phone and purchase a non-android solution.
thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1......................