Related
I read both on Twitter and online about Palm Pre's "WebOS" being based on the same kernel or structure that is designed for Android/G1.
Is anybody in the works on seeing if its possible to run WebOS on a G1?
Note: I guess I'm asking to not to replace the Android but to say that if its possible and that it can be done.
webOS runs on the Linux kernel, but nothing else beyond that is open source. How are you going to port an operating system to a different microarchitecture and hardware specification without its source code? Answer: you're probably not.
Why would you want to though?
It may be cute, but the platform has yet to prove itself. Developers are going to be cautious about developing for that platform due to how palm has so severely stagnated over the last few years. Unless the platform shows signs of really catching on, I would just ignore it.
I can't believe how much HTC is screwing us. Ok, I guess I totally get it. I wrote a post about this but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.
Does anyone else want HTC to opensource the drivers for the Hero? I think it would breath new life into the phone and send a sign that HTC supports their hardcore users.
giovannizero said:
I can't believe how much HTC is screwing us. Ok, I guess I totally get it. I wrote a post about this but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.
Does anyone else want HTC to opensource the drivers for the Hero? I think it would breath new life into the phone and send a sign that HTC supports their hardcore users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i completely agree. the hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it. i vote... hell yes!!
cp0020 said:
the hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC only writes the software that Sprint pays it to write. All direction and control of development on single-carrier devices comes from that carrier. Its a business decision, basic cost/benefit analysis. There's not enough financial incentive for Sprint to pay for any more updates to the Hero. If people would stop shelling out cash for the latest and greatest (Evo 4G) each time it comes out and stop tolerating oppressive contracts with ETF fees, then devices wouldn't get abandoned so quickly.
cmccracken said:
HTC only writes the software that Sprint pays it to write. All direction and control of development on single-carrier devices comes from that carrier. Its a business decision, basic cost/benefit analysis. There's not enough financial incentive for Sprint to pay for any more updates to the Hero.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
glad your on board.....
cp0020 said:
glad your on board.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
cmccracken said:
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just letting you know i wasnt trying to be a smartass before. sorry if it came off like that. your probably right but we can still dream lol
cp0020 said:
just letting you know i wasnt trying to be a smartass before. sorry if it came off like that. your probably right but we can still dream lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You were being a smart-ass, but I wasn't offended. I would have done the same.
cmccracken said:
You were being a smart-ass, but I wasn't offended. I would have done the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol now that were best friends again let me buy you a beer lolol
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
cmccracken said:
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
liquidtenmillion said:
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're thinking of drivers that are distributed via loadable kernel modules. On the Hero, there is only one module (wlan.ko, for the wifi chipset). Everything else is built into the GPL'ed kernel. The entire kernel from GPL sources is the "binary blob" distributed by HTC.
liquidtenmillion said:
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The justification is that the HTC drivers are included in a monolithic compilation of the kernel and therefore fall under the GPL as a modification to the kernel. The binary blobs you are referring to are not distributing a modified kernel with the drivers such as HTC did, therefore do not fall under GPL. You do not have to distribute your code if you work alongside GPL software, only if you modify it.
I posted up your blog post on digg, link.
Also I tweeted a link to the article, link; please retweet.
gu1dry said:
I posted up your blog post on digg, link.
Also I tweeted a link to the article, link; please retweet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Retweet'd because I agree that they should be open, but I am not entirely inclined to believe they are required to open the drivers. Similar to their power control software, its their code - it just lives next door to the kernel.
I am however really ticked that they haven't released Kernel Code even though they have obviously used that...they where quick with Legend and Desire.
I know we already have "Kernel Code that works" from the eris - but it's still not OURS and toast had to do a hell of a lot of work to get that. Work that shouldn't have even needed to be done. Compiled Code ships...source should ship as well.
Retweet'd because I agree that they should be open, but I am not entirely inclined to believe they are required to open the drivers. Similar to their power control software, its their code - it just lives next door to the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it would live "next door" to the kernel if they were .ko loadable kernel modules. HTC compiled it straight into the kernel. Thus, under GPL2, they *are* part of the kernel, and therefore must be released as open source as well.
.ko binary drivers were a practical real-world compromise to allow proprietary binaries to coexist without screwing up the efforts of others to independently build their own kernels that make use of them. That's the key contention here. A .ko module allows you to treat it as a black box with a well-defined interface, and rewrite everything else around it. A monolithic binary blob is the software equivalent of a circuit board with bare, carrier-free chips soldered directly to it, then sealed in a blob of epoxy like a big IC that can't be meaningfully modified without breaking the whole thing.
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code. Not only is it completely NOT in the spirit of open source, but in fact may even be illegal (although I have not done quite enough research to say exactly what is and isn't GPL, I know the kernel IS GPL, the OS itself I am GUESSING is GPL as they have claimed it to be open source). I understand that certain APPLICATIONS are not open source (market, youtube, gmail, etc) but if the operating system is supposed to be open source (and/or GPL) why are more people not outraged that they will not release it?
I understand they want to prevent every fly-by-night operation from building garbage tablets that "cheapen" the name of android tablets, but for better or worse that's what android is, and it's what makes android great. If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb. If you're not happy with the performance, you can go buy a nice xoom or transformer.
I know we all love android, and its open source nature, but just because we hate apple/M$ doesn't mean we have to love every action google takes.
compuw22c said:
If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the nook has honeycomb.
austin420 said:
the nook has honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
lynyrd65 said:
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, prerelease sdk too. Personally, I think this may be what pushed Google to do what they did. That or Motorola freaking out saying "You PROMISED we'd be first, we invested time and energy here you better do something about this". Android was supposed to be "The People's OS". Unfortunately things seem to be changing hands and its becoming more about keeping carriers and manufacturers happy. Not necessary I say. Pandora's box has been opened, no matter what google does, carriers and manufacturers will still use Android. To stop carrying android phones would be suicide on their part. Give us all root access as part of stock android and be done with it!
Sent from my pocket rocket
compuw22c said:
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
mkasick said:
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources.
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
jnadke said:
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I do understand what a kernel is and what it does (small main-brain controller of hardware, usually with a few modules built into it). I've recompiled mine on my media server a few times. I do see your point though, you're right, not much you can do with it all by itself for sure.
I also understand that they aren't breaking the law, I guess I just thought part of the gpl was that to use gpl software in a project, that project must also comply (which I now understand is false). Always assumed that to be the reason Apple uses a UNIX kernel rather than a LINUX kernel for osx.
So I guess they do have a right to do what they're doing, but the idealist in me still wishes they'd do the right thing...
Anyone wanna make a Ubuntu port to phones...complete with dialer, launcher, dalvik vm (for running android apps)? j/k
Sent from my pocket rocket
mkasick said:
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said...
Help support autism awareness,it only takes 2 seconds to help make a difference...
http://picketfenceblogs.com/vote/3616
I don't understand how if Android is Opensource and borrows code from Linux kernel and other OpenSource projects, how Google can legally hold back the honeycomb sourcecode?
I'm not really interested in Honeycomb source myself, nor the OS dev scene, but what I DO care about, is that some of my favorite apps are broken on my Tablet, and the developers all point the finger at Google, saying the flash API changed in Honeycomb, and they need the source to get it working.
The biggest broken apps for me are:
Opera Mobile 11
BBC iPlayer App
Opera even come out and tell us why Flash does not work on Opera Mobile 11 on Honeycomb:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.opera.browser&feature=search_result
(What's New Tab)
"Flash not supported on Android 3.x due to Google not releasing necessary platform code"
"Open source" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Linux kernel source is available under the GPLv2, this mean that is you ship a product you must provide the source, hence its the device manufacturers responsibility to give us the kernel source because it's them we buy the product from.
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
All the API's that people _should_ be using are documented, the problem is that the products you mention are trying to mimic the native browser and use internal only method calls, if you step out of the approved API box then you have problems like this.
Why BBC iPlayer needs flash I don't know, all 3.1 tablets can play the flashhigh and flashhd (h.264) iPlayer streams natively I use get-iplayer and transfer the files to my Transformer for viewing and it works beautifully. I guess the Android app team are just lazy (or iPhone developers who don't know Android very well)
SilentMobius said:
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
brunes said:
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
seshmaru said:
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's correct that it is not copyleft, and I was aware of this. All android releases however are released under the Apache license, which means the source for android itself has to be there, but any further modifications can use whatever they want. So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
seshmaru said:
So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't! That is the *whole* point. Honeycomb, at this point in time, is *not* an open source project because no source has been released, and the license of its antecedents is not a copyleft licence.
Honeycomb is, broadly speaking, a derivative of an earlier Android build (Froyo/Gingerbread whatever), and in this respect it is no different to say HTC's Sense builds which are also not open source.
Regards,
Dave
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Have also wondered this myself.. but reading all of this has made me more confused than I was before.. who's right? :S
It's correct that Google hold the copyright for the bulk of the android framework, and as the copyright owners they are not subject to license terms, so they don't need to release anything but that only works for Google products. If the licence had been GPL then manufacturers would need to supply source with their products, not Google but ASUS/Samsung/HTC/etc/etc.
Short version: Google don't need to release anything, app developers shouldn't use internal APIs and rely on having platform source to make things work.
That said I want to change some of the browser behaviour and plumb back in handling for the .mkv file extension (because the container parsing is already in there) So I'd love to get my hands on the HC source, no matter how messy.
david279 said:
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Divine_Madcat said:
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they did worry, that's exactly why they made honeycomb you derptard and exactly the reason they aren't releasing the source to honeycomb.
And yes they don't want manufacturers shoehorning a tablet OS into a phone just so they can say OH OUR PHONE HAS ANDROID 3.0 INSTEAD OF 2.3.
Derptard... certainly a new one for the books. haha
Mods: please, this is a temporary post pending moderator elevated privelege to start forking my build via proper Android Development Section, everything I post is valid and true. No mock ups. Please, do not delete this thread. It is purely education and informational pre-release details to explain down to details most but not all details, as a developer i dont just release security structure or anything deemed sensitive.
A PROJECT UNIQUE AND NEVER BEFORE UNIFIED OR ATTEMPTED SUCCESSFULY. De-Androidinzation and bulding, slipstream and super-enhancing, raising Linux core from the dead to Linux-based and minimally VM until the day comes where I can project it out to substitute it with a replacement, only as good or better performance but not cross-coding as mobility has been so confined to since the start.
Introduction: to a very genetic-autonomous and not even a contender of its class to match it
Hello Fellow co-developers. I am anything but new around here, and I've grown frustrated and impatient trying to revive my XDA credentials I've had auto saved for years and yeasrs. Please, if you find interest in what you see following A PROJECT UNIQUE AND NEVER BEFORE UNIFIED OR ATTEMPTED SUCCESSFULY. this notification, message moderators or seek to at very least a head-start as I cannot even start a thread in the appA PROJECT UNIQUE AND NEVER BEFORE UNIFIED OR ATTEMPTED SUCCESSFULY. ropriate section, due to having to create an account. I've come to a sheer intolerable irritating boredom with Android, and the fact that well, Google and relative developers, and/or mainline toolchain dev's are well, diddling and we see an entire circus from Donut to Lollipop, then when they rollover on 6, and only then...and with nothing that is cheap to meet the proper standard for the hardware it takes to not back-grade your hardware and Android base version 1.6 (DOH'NUT). Yes, such non-sense as SDcard support when the damn things are ready to evolve into the next format. Don't get me, wrong, I'm glad it made the changelog, but still a mock-up and in a developers eyes so much more could have or should be incremented to a more attainable adjustment and even features. But, this post is not about Google, Android, and a lousy slipstreamed Apps2SD knockoff repurposed as adoped storage. I've always tested roms, tweaked, modified and until I found performance, stability, and can go 2 weeks without losing 40 hours of dedication getting it where she needs to be, I started porting per-say, drawing back the resource-loving java base they use in every phone regardless the base, or OS....but I have yet to see anyone shoot for the Linux-Cabal. A tip-the-scale fork of Android where rolling release and as come the updates increment, so shall the independance of too in the Android cocktail for my liking.
Let's just put it out there, I've been stabilizing and unifying a custom build (at this point for Moto ARM), and yes I know waht I am saying but to title it a ROM A PROJECT UNIQUE AND NEVER BEFORE UNIFIED OR ATTEMPTED SUCCESSFULY. would be mislabelling and a blow to what I think the OS deserves. More Linux backbone, compiled and debugged to hell and back step by step. I don't have any plan...YET to play god and cut out any serious concept such as framework, VM, but I have a goal, and a very vast plan drafted for the next quarter. I know any Linux Penguin-Dorks, and developers who know their cards and where I'd bet my bytes in any arena vs most other Os's.
History and Pre-requisuite (in order to enter and initialize a new fork officially, and establish a support system consisting of credible, daily-active and feedback producing beta-testers as well as the system and policies they will adhere to throughout initial first phase. This is not another AOSP or clone of source and hidden bugs you have to come to discover the hard way. I am offering only until another phase anyway, to primarily and MotoG3 ONLY, device dependent. push, shove and patch my tamper-resistant modules will enforce any interopibility. Remeber these are encrypted with MULTI-LAYER mutli-bit and a subset of different combination encryption algorithms and not APK, were weaning that dependence slowly but eventually here. Modules, system core hard up and real time individiual file encryption layering system. Safe from FBI and NSA and Israeli counter-parts. Included but not enforced are optional ability of IPC (Tor-lke) supreme sms, voice chat, and push to talk functionality, and among per file on top entre data drive encrypto....comms will be dual-end encrypted, obviously all of which can be enabled/disabled, configured and tweaked to ones preference.
Until I have proper authority and have enough resonsibility good-boy credits, there will be nothing. And I mean no beta program, no releases, no source code except I will move along to the next accepting Android community, which is my last thought and not at all in my interests. I am a developer 16 years, on a broad number of languages, on many arch's, from pascal, html, basic to visual basic, c, c++ C#, java, to ASM (yes Im old school, an I only dispense above and beyond what I would set as a mile stone.). All my projects in the past, creating the very first OpenGL wrapper, and utilizing a direct-injection loader that was always available in HL.exe. Primarily for Counter-Strike, as Valve global banned any cdkeys and steam accounts associated with at first any Alias nearing the format of my preferred handle. As they rolled out VAC for the first time, I watched every (neraly) system hook based all in one hacks go down as KIA-dead soldiers, while my opengl-wrapper emulated the driver, allowing my to get raw data to maipulate, block, pass-trough to the real-deal OGL.dll. My OpenGL in suspended development and without requirement to play tag with steam and losing 100 purchases of Counter-strike making a VAC-undetected, play for a day or 2 then POOF. Another good key gone up on Joolz, like his sorely lost system hook as it was spitting calls to the Windows API, the HL api, and just many easily noticed flags that his only circumventing was heading on VAC module manipulation, playing with memory in process, unloading and this damn module was live, as in every server change a slipstreamed update could be pushed and suddenly the VAC process, and all the memory offsets surgically and delicately rendered harmless. Too much working hard than the efficient smart ways I came up on. Why try and reinvent the wheel when you know the wheel is superior to date. Kid wasted his entire adolescents, and his family savings trying to serve up something that guarenteed, yes you will be the best hacker online, yes you will be detected by the end of the weekend, and the advantages well, there were none except a trial what hacking a system hook was like. As for my opengl, well at first for Valve, they did their thing wiping out the hundreds of hacks but only 1 or 2 who had stood any sort of equality to the efficacy, stability, virtual impossibilty to detect as I took a native function very seldom known and not documented, and even those who did, none had the brains to probe and go from a function with no instruction or info to the process and how to invoke and follow it through. I didn't reinvent the wheLet's just put it out there, el, but I gave it redbull-wings, titanium belts, nitrogen, and embedded withtin the system from which VAC also called home and well, all its code and dependent libraries, modules and api calls gatehered and had conferences and played golf. VAC could not for years, learn how to attack itself, and this was a fluke at first. Next I started to get out the matches, fire playin time....and i love to push buttons see where or how far i can get.
LONG story short, my very first C++ project, very atypically, was a win32 video card gfx driver, and wrapper and then put Joolz down deep, I was able to hybridize a opengl driver to bear code of no relation at all, not even close whatsoever, and without trying to break and enter a bank and crack a safe while risking setting off an alarm just to steal a 20$ bill. Get what I mean, this was at the age 0f 13. Lost my E-DEV virginity and any dev working in a windows environent, on win 98 knows that for a first project, you don't just self-teach yourself to code then start squatting and pushing out dynamic link libraries like they are ever coded to spec in MS eyes, and its just not a novice coder challenge. The following project, most of your in FTA satellite likely have heard of the latest of a technology innovated on my part and consult with few others on my FTAbins team. Also the author of the handbook aka the bible to the absolute and very well drafted, and at its time prior to increases vastly in bandwidth, it was predecessor and stepping stone for entry to IPTV. Yes Nagra2 was never cracked, it was actually a breach of trade secrets and confidential patented technology on the behalf of a disgruntled and underpaid dev who was a team lead on the the maiden of its release. For the unaware. Nagra2 is the security protecol and encryption system designed to scramble satellite television signals, as far as from my involvement only Dish Network as far as satellite, but also used and more so in europe, australia, uk and asia, on cable boxes (digital) usually those whom took input to your subscription via smart card.
But they double-time develloped and debted themselves over a exploited draft (N2) that really didnt secure a damn thing, only was a deterrant but always 24 hours behind every key roll. NKS is the patented tech, as nagra3 was exponetially much more secure and utilized 5 times the bit depth for each key, and rolled on predefined and update at randomly subscriber only pushed updates. Virtually impossible to crack, but with the aid of more advanced on completely different architechture and embedded firmware nontheless, i wasn't that intelligent i suddenly could learn 5 more instruction sets from x86. But with very little effort, and suceeding with no difficult to overcome blowbacks. Developing not an exploit, but a shadow, if you cant beat em. Join em. and that we did, nothing troubled DN ecm dev's more than trying to circumvent a system that utilized subscriber keys, and encrypted, offshored and live-streamed direct in millseconds behind a authentic event trigger, key roll or key changes and ecm's. ecm's become counter-effective when those you target are identical to your nonIKS subscribers
Thats just some history shared on 2, early on, but also serous and major accomplishments to certify and add credibility to what I claim to do and if doing this at 13 and 15 respectively, both drawing hundreds of thouseands to hundreds of millions from each of 2 entirely different classification corporations. But a thorn in both eyes while dancing circles around them, not even hitting puberty are 2 that only opened channels to knowledge, and expanding my IQ in area's and subjects I would never have thought prior,
I am not ready and urgently tryinHistory and Pre-requisuite g to put something out not prepared to dump unassessed to public, but in context I only initially had prospects of private membership availability and even that I have not authorized either. I am running an XT1540, but kicked alot of Moto framework, slipstreamed Sony framework minus the headache inducing svox, and bits and pieces of certain framework manipulation, but only in areas of absolute necessity.
Minus the not-well supported termux app and api, my build is just as extensive, with a integrated system bin directory containing apt, dpkg, a indirect but priveleged api bridge to all things android and its framework. Wifi-N enabled, 2.4ghz and 5ghz on one that only natively ever offered 2.4 G. Also, some off the books properties, I've been able to extend and further dominate the radio and modem accessibility, more specifically on UMTS/AWS bandf here in Canada on WIND. Now alot is new but I've yet to encounter very many warnings let alone any real conflicts or stability or performance setbacks. CPU is unlocked, can be volted and clocked as well as GPU, and although schedulers are there, much needs my expertise and some fine tuning before I'd even open my mind to considering it in control of fatality-potential software on another persons device.
Now, with apt and a 3 more repos than termux can match. Many would give their left nut just to have even 1/4 of the full capability (and i mean capability of all thats fully stable and operational to perfection as of right now). I had to nearly wrestle my device from a buddy of mines hands, and very promptly vacate his residence as he was dying to just get a particular build of metasploit not freely available to public, and on that part metasploit is integrated discreetly but as building block and one of many that basis the security infrastructure I am still actively forking. Stringray-safe, no prying eyes or cloning cell towers to snoop through anything private.
Currently my personal attention has me fired up towards recompiling Pale Moon custom build, and likely a entirely new browser with FF initial base but this fork of Palemoon is gecko oriented and Android API elevated privelege, it has features that even addons of chrome have yet to scratch. Capable out of the box as a IPC/Tor private browser or entire device firewalled, Tor/IPC and crypto down to the teeth. I have my own fork of recent builds of Adobe flash module, and stagefright is a secured as well. All exploitable lose ends are presently beyond par, as Android hasnt even come to that extent yet.
Anyways, I wrote this just thinking of some of my favourite features. I'll tally a list and re-post this alll in a better edited and spell-checked draft. Yes, i will post screenshots, but ONLY on request. If i have to screenshot otherwise we would all be loading alot of png files needlessly.
Xposed & MOD EDIT: warez reference removed & 3C Pro potential unified hybrid of sorts in consideration too. Pending confirmation. Also, I've been fortunate to be in possession of a Perfect-ADB i nicknamed it as it is a custom build with everything it should have plus some, and finally for right now....TWRP just makes me angry how we have 2 dozen random versions available but each has its own catch, the newer the worse it is it seems. this is unacceptable. too many builds, too many cooks in the kitchen, and off the primary source obviously. like a cocktail of suicide soda. just add 10 flavours, flash it, if it boots slap latest and DISTRIBUTE! unacceptable, this is a development resource credible well established website and name, sigh, but one thing at a time.
i will be remaining on my lonesome adding, pulling and testing my flavours and shiny sparkles with neon colors until the day i can start my devdb. and the day i do that i will immediately open up to members. with consideration of development and vetted testers prior to extensive durability and relibility testing..
Til then, mkocmut1986 @ gmail.com should you require contact.
or PM me. I got my hands full, and im but one dev as you can tell and constantly 100 new innovations to add.
Can you tell this story in short in noob language Not everyone is a developer here.
Sorry @mkocmut That was so long I skipped it... How about a tl;dr version?
@mkocmut: Well I read all the parts, all the history but one question: what was the purpose of writing all this?? BTW, great writing, enjoyed it. And yeah, I would appreciate a few screenshots if you can bother uploading some png files here, thanks.[emoji1] .
Broadcasted from Zeta Reticuli
Says: "LONG story short..."
Goes on to write 11 more paragraphs...
You're a passionate fella, I'll give you that much. Heheh, strangely enough, your post kinda made my day. (-:
A wouldn't mind u posting a link to ur beta port??
mkocmut said:
Introduction: to a very genetic-autonomous and not even a contender of its class to match it
Hello Fellow co-developers. I am anything but new around here, and I've grown frustrated and impatient trying to revive my XDA credentials I've had auto saved for years and yeasrs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would be interesting if you at least tell us what's your old username.
mkocmut said:
Modules, system core hard up and real time individiual file encryption layering system. Safe from FBI and NSA and Israeli counter-parts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You totally forgot about the KGB...
THREAD CLEANED - Please don't post references to warez/software that violates XDA Rules
Wow! The room is spinning after reading all of that! It's left me with a feeling of huh? But either way I am almost certain that you are very passionate in all the above and I'm cool with that. So preach on brotha!
Good luck man. @mods : if someone quotes the whole OP, burn him!
sounds cool to unlock the cpu + gpu hope all your plans will be made possible
HelpMeruth said:
sounds cool to unlock the cpu + gpu hope all your plans will be made possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How u getting on dev?
Any updates?
Sent from my SM-G900V using XDA Labs
Newyork! said:
Would be interesting if you at least tell us what's your old username.
You totally forgot about the KGB...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Late reply, but the KGB has been gone since the last millennium
---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------
mkocmut said:
Modules, system core hard up and real time individiual file encryption layering system. Safe from FBI and NSA and Israeli counter-parts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Worried about Israeli intelligence? If you're not involved in terrorism, you'll be fine, and if you are, then I'd want the Mossad to have your info.
Sounds more like drunken late night ramble than anything else. Especially since there hasn't been a peep out of him since.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
riggerman0421 said:
Sounds more like drunken late night ramble than anything else. Especially since there hasn't been a peep out of him since.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We can still hope that this will ever be released right?
Sure, why not? Keep the dream alive.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
Hey, Whats up? :laugh: