Related
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.
Android 3.0 Preview SDK is now available
More infos you can find here:
http://developer.android.com/sdk/preview/index.html
Saw that yesterday.
But as far as I know it is Tablet only.
Yes,but multiple screen support is there,but needs developing
again!
Well since it is not going to work on a Hero, Don't see the use in posting it here, but maybe better for general dev?
Some similar threads about Gingerbread,Android 2.1 SDK
here to,so think we can stay here!
Android 2.3 works,maybe 3.0 too,Devs can make it possible!
I'm not a developer, but Honeycomb would be difficult even for the likes of Desire. It is very tablet orientated. The next Android for mobile phones is 2.4 Ice Cream, by the time it comes out a lot of the devs would've moved to a different phone.
Sent from my Hero using XDA App
As i understand it google have anounced it there not goung to be any hardware ristrictions on android 3.0. I have a feeling that differnt features will atomatically enabe/disable themselves dependind on the specs of the divice running it. You can already see an example of this in latest google maps which checks the gles version in build.prop to decide weather or not to implement tilt and compass.
Sent from my HTC Hero using Tapatalk
Their maybe no hardware restrictions, but there will be minimum requerements.
And you say devs can make it possible.
You see devs around??
Its a warzone out there....
Most of em are gone, so I am just focusing on 2.3,
and I don't get the comment you made on well there is a 2.2 SDK topic. Duh, but we all knew that is definitly possible to run on the Hero. 3.0 99% That it will never been 100% same as the 2.2 Sense is.
But we will see. The Hero is almost a dead device. So.
And you say it yourself
HTC Hero sold- not a real Gingerbread and Power to low for new Android
Sooo BTW That statement is so wrong...
If you knew anything about android, you would know honeycomb is TABLET ONLY. there is no chance of seeing this on rmthe hero. Wait for 2.4 ice cream but I can't see that on the hero either seeing as there's no devs left.
I think a mod should delete this thread
sjknight413 said:
If you knew anything about android, you would know honeycomb is TABLET ONLY. there is no chance of seeing this on rmthe hero. Wait for 2.4 ice cream but I can't see that on the hero either seeing as there's no devs left.
I think a mod should delete this thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Noo needs to
rdejager said:
Their maybe no hardware restrictions, but there will be minimum requerements.
And you say devs can make it possible.
You see devs around??
Its a warzone out there....
Most of em are gone, so I am just focusing on 2.3,
and I don't get the comment you made on well there is a 2.2 SDK topic. Duh, but we all knew that is definitly possible to run on the Hero. 3.0 99% That it will never been 100% same as the 2.2 Sense is.
But we will see. The Hero is almost a dead device. So.
And you say it yourself
HTC Hero sold- not a real Gingerbread and Power to low for new Android
Sooo BTW That statement is so wrong...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No its not only for tablets, this has already been established.
All of the apps have multiple DPI res folders in them (MDPI, HDPI, Extra Large, NoDPI) so it will work on phones - not just tablets.
And Yes,I see Devs for 2.3 so the same Devs maybe developing/porting 3.0
http://pocketnow.com/android/android-30-honeycomb-how-it-might-work-on-smartphones-video
And Yes I said Power to low for new Android versions
does not mean this will not works.
Perhaps not so smooth and not with all functions.
but
you might be right, however 2.4 is I think going to be pretty much the same OS as 3.0 however the 2.X codeline is for phones while the 3.x codeline is for tablets.
Which is definitely the stupidest thing I've heard of in a very long time.
Any developer would twitch at the concept of two different OS codelines to maintain which would otherwise be very similar, unless of course google's keeping some bizarre building structure where it's all one shared resource except whatever is unique to each release line. But that isn't something I personally have seen done before.
Mostly the way they broke up the numbering by a huge value of, wait for it, ONE (2.x versus 3.x) to differentiate between phones and tablets... well that's pretty silly too. Numbering shouldn't be relevant. It should be called two different things, like Android versus AndTab or something like that. But then that would mean we're all talking on our Roids (versus ours tabs) which is, admittedly, kind of rude ;-)
I'm more interested in how they solve this over 20 years. Are we going to expect an Android 2.200.9132 for my phone and 3.7.20 for tablets?
riemervdzee said:
I'm more interested in how they solve this over 20 years. Are we going to expect an Android 2.200.9132 for my phone and 3.7.20 for tablets?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and 4.89.20 for laptops?
They will stop changing the whole OS sooner or later, and just provide smaller focused updates. It's very stupid to have 10 different major android versions running at the same time. If 80% of the devices are running Android 2.4.x, things should be easier. They're just following the Ubuntu-like releasing schedule: 2 versions a year. That's the way I see it. They WILL have to stop doing this, they can't go on improving forever.
goodnews xD
im expected.
Android 3.0 Honeycomb won’t be Coming to Smartphone, just for Tablets,says Google:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379271,00.asp
Ganii said:
Android 3.0 Honeycomb won’t be Coming to Smartphone, just for Tablets,says Google:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379271,00.asp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea
it'll be 2.4 for us phone ppl
RaduG said:
They will stop changing the whole OS sooner or later, and just provide smaller focused updates. It's very stupid to have 10 different major android versions running at the same time. If 80% of the devices are running Android 2.4.x, things should be easier. They're just following the Ubuntu-like releasing schedule: 2 versions a year. That's the way I see it. They WILL have to stop doing this, they can't go on improving forever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hardware moves fast, demand for said hardware even faster. They have to keep up, if not ahead!
I had a feeling this would be the case since we first saw shots of 3.0 running on a then-unidentified Motorola tablet. Looking at it now, there's absolutely no way that this is plausible to run on handsets; for one, it likely demands a decently high hardware spec to run efficiently, and even if you've got something like the Optimus 2X for example, the screen's far too small to allow for efficient usage.
In all honesty, it's likely we'll see divergence of Android into 2 distinct OSes; handset-based (2.3 onward) and tablet-based (3.0).
Well there's the question, why would you want Honeycomb on your fascinate? I mean, it looks nice from what I saw of the xoom demo but it really doesn't look like it would be nice on a phone just yet, so why ask/want it, why not wait until something actually meant for a phone is developed?
I just don't understand the want/"NEED" for honeycomb on my fascinate, can't we just keep it to actual phone OS's for now?
gabenoob said:
Well there's the question, why would you want Honeycomb on your fascinate? I mean, it looks nice from what I saw of the xoom demo but it really doesn't look like it would be nice on a phone just yet, so why ask/want it, why not wait until something actually meant for a phone is developed?
I just don't understand the want/"NEED" for honeycomb on my fascinate, can't we just keep it to actual phone OS's for now?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same reason everyone wanted DJ05, DL09 and DL30...they always want something new. Instead of optimizing what they have and being content, they rather complain and wish for something better to come along.
I get that, but whats with the wanting of this new thing if its not even meant for a phone; I mean I wouldn't want something clunky and literally designed for something bigger on a 'tiny' device. It would just be wrong. I fail to see how even those who continually ask for new shiny things would overlook the real incompatabiliteis with a phone. I can see asking for Gingerbread, but even that's a bit much. I mean, we have Froyo, and now my brother with his fancy incredible is actually jealous of my phone. I think things are great, and I understand the desire for new shiny things, but honeycomb really isn't for phones, so why be ignorant of that?
gabenoob said:
I get that, but whats with the wanting of this new thing if its not even meant for a phone; I mean I wouldn't want something clunky and literally designed for something bigger on a 'tiny' device. It would just be wrong. I fail to see how even those who continually ask for new shiny things would overlook the real incompatabiliteis with a phone. I can see asking for Gingerbread, but even that's a bit much. I mean, we have Froyo, and now my brother with his fancy incredible is actually jealous of my phone. I think things are great, and I understand the desire for new shiny things, but honeycomb really isn't for phones, so why be ignorant of that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
keep in mind though...froyo wasn't meant for our specific phones either...we're all running a leaked version. For all we know, after a year of addl development the next ota update may be honeycomb...
jenisiz said:
keep in mind though...froyo wasn't meant for our specific phones either...we're all running a leaked version. For all we know, after a year of addl development the next ota update may be honeycomb...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
honeycomb is for tablets!!
ace5198 said:
honeycomb is for tablets!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3.0's UI is meant to be able to scale down to phone sizes. The current developer preview doesn't work exceptionally well when that's done to it (it's buggy, but obviously meant to), but it's not anywhere near a finished product (it's really meant to show the APIs).
Android also isn't being forked, there isn't going to be a Phone version and a Tablet version, future phones will be running the 3 series (they might wait for 3.1, but they will run 3). They will pretty much have to if any of them want to use the newer dual-core CPUs that should be just about to hit the phone segment.
Also, don't forget that Android 3.0 adds a fair bit of new APIs, not all of which are meant exclusively for tablets (there's a fair bit of HW acceleration stuff, IIRC).
KitsuneKnight said:
3.0's UI is meant to be able to scale down to phone sizes. The current developer preview doesn't work exceptionally well when that's done to it (it's buggy, but obviously meant to), but it's not anywhere near a finished product (it's really meant to show the APIs).
Android also isn't being forked, there isn't going to be a Phone version and a Tablet version, future phones will be running the 3 series (they might wait for 3.1, but they will run 3). They will pretty much have to if any of them want to use the newer dual-core CPUs that should be just about to hit the phone segment.
Also, don't forget that Android 3.0 adds a fair bit of new APIs, not all of which are meant exclusively for tablets (there's a fair bit of HW acceleration stuff, IIRC).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im sure that it could be scaled down to use on a phone.. and actually i believe somewhere i seen that it was.. but everything ive read said its desinged specifically for tabs.. im sure there will be a 3.1 or 2.5,,6,7,8 or whatecer for the new apis.. but everything ive read says 3.0 is for tabs.. im not saying im right.. but thats just what ive read
ace5198 said:
im sure that it could be scaled down to use on a phone.. and actually i believe somewhere i seen that it was.. but everything ive read said its desinged specifically for tabs.. im sure there will be a 3.1 or 2.5,,6,7,8 or whatecer for the new apis.. but everything ive read says 3.0 is for tabs.. im not saying im right.. but thats just what ive read
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The new user interface is designed for tablets, as well as parts of the new APIs. Nothing prevents you from replacing the launcher, and hopefully by the time Honeycomb stabilizes, the new Launcher won't just force close at lower resolutions (but this isn't meant to be a preview of the new interface, but of the APIs).
I don't understand you question.
Honeycomb is simply the natural progression of Android. Hence why its 3.0. Eventually all Android devices will be on 3.x of some kind just as iOS was able to merge its variant it made for the iPad with the rest of the family.
Google had a separate team continue to small upgrades in the 2.x line while the AAA team worked on a tablet enahnced 3.0 Honeycomb variant.
I'm sure as this year moves (early next) on we'll see a 3.1 version come out that has the appropriate scaling features to handle screens of all sizes.
This is evidenced by the same Gmail app being used in both. Just different views based on overall screen size. Also, 3.0 and 2.3 have code to allow devs to make different views based on screen size. The base code is there, its just now gotta be merged to be one line again.
So, why do I want honeycomb? I don't. I want to continue to be using the latest version of Android, what its build version is is not important. (2.3, 2.4, 3.0, 3.1) As long as its made to work with the hardware I have and adds improvements, I want it.
Stop the debate:
http://www.bgr.com/2011/02/03/google-will-not-bring-honeycomb-to-smartphones/
mexiken said:
Stop the debate:
http://www.bgr.com/2011/02/03/google-will-not-bring-honeycomb-to-smartphones/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All that says is 3.0 i.e. Honeycomb won't be on phones. I am sure a later 3.x version will once the code has been merged from 2.x.
I thought 3.0 is where we finally get hardware accelerated UI, is this correct?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
superchunkwii said:
All that says is 3.0 i.e. Honeycomb won't be on phones. I am sure a later 3.x version will once the code has been merged from 2.x.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And this thread is about Honeycomb... Not 3.x versions.
crookshanks said:
And this thread is about Honeycomb... Not 3.x versions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honeycomb is 3.0
gabenoob said:
Well there's the question, why would you want Honeycomb on your fascinate? I mean, it looks nice from what I saw of the xoom demo but it really doesn't look like it would be nice on a phone just yet, so why ask/want it, why not wait until something actually meant for a phone is developed?
I just don't understand the want/"NEED" for honeycomb on my fascinate, can't we just keep it to actual phone OS's for now?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd want the built-in data encryption features.
-deleted-
Misread somethin'
Hmm alright; what I was asking is that where it stands now it is a Tablet OS, why would anyone want something like that on a phone. As shown in the link, google does not mean for Honeycomb to be brought to phones (3.0) but maybe at a later date a later variant of the 3.1 series will.
The original question I had in mind was why would anyone want it, in its current state, on a phone, as I've seen threads asking for it; and for the life of me I can't find a good reason.
superchunkwii said:
Honeycomb is 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was referring to your "later 3.x versions" comment. This thread was about why anyone wanted 3.0 specifically, not later versions.
crookshanks said:
I was referring to your "later 3.x versions" comment. This thread was about why anyone wanted 3.0 specifically, not later versions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely right, my post was to the validity of the entire discussion as its obvious 3.0 is just the initial tablet offering and as Android continues through 3.x it will be on phones as well.
Basically, I find the entire constant discussion here, BGR, other sites about Honeycomb being a Tablet OS and why is Google diverging Android to just be stupid. To me the version "3.0" should have been enough to satisfy everyone that eventually features you see in Honeycomb will be on phones. Like Google's going to lock themselves in 2.x for the rest of Android phone's life.
Honestly I don't understand it. Other than a very small number of users, myself not included, do people really see a big difference in the use of their phones? I use mine for calling, texting, e-mail and occasional web browsing. Other than flash support, I haven't noticed any ground breaking improvements over DJ05 with DL30. I can't imagine Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Lucky Charms or Poptart making a huge difference in the day to day use of my phone either.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Honeycomb cures cancer.
Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.
freeqaz said:
Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, I think it's a good idea, and that you should do it. You'll probably get a lot of people saying there's no point cause ICS is what honeycomb should've been. I've never used honeycomb before, so I don't know how different it is from ICS but I'm sure there are some.
I think you should do it to give this device and its users another ROM choice, with a different android version. Or even just for the fact that you might want to use it, do it for yourself and post it here just to see if people want it. I'd try it out, even if ICS is out and stable haha
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk
Personally, I think it's a good idea, .... I've never used honeycomb before...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.
krelvinaz said:
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like to check it out. It's not like I'm telling him that he needs to do this, he asked what people thought of the idea because he was interested in doing it, and I voiced my opinion.
Though I do agree that it might be easier to work with apps and then maybe work on a ROM, but hey, if he's willing to attempt it and learn how everything works, why stop him? The more devs, the merrier lol
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
My understanding is there was never a source release for honeycomb
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, that is, AFAIK, why there was never a CM8. I don't think it would be worth OP's time to try to reverse-engineer a Honeycomb tablet and shoehorning it into the KF.
However, the OP might want to donate some of their time to the ICS port
It is open source after all...
[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Hit up this Google announcement, they did indeed release the source.
This release includes the full history of the Android source code
tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb
releases. However, since Honeycomb was a little incomplete, we want
everyone to focus on Ice Cream Sandwich. So, we haven't created any
tags that correspond to the Honeycomb releases (even though the
changes are present in the history.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
groups.google dot com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4XZJCZnqF8
The only thing that I really want to know is if there is a significant driver difference between ICS and Honeycomb. If there is, then there is a reason to try to port 3.0 over because it would have more driver support. There are 3.0 devices out in the wild. If there isn't a driver difference between 3.0 and 4.0, then it's futile and all efforts should be spent on 4.0.
theholyfork said:
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed.
And when they released the source for ICS, they elaborated on why they included Honeycomb in the Source tree: To essentially display the hacks they were forced to use to push Honeycomb to market. Honeycomb was never AOSP'd because it wasn't reliable for wider use.
Based upon the fact that Google was basically too ashamed to release Honeycomb to AOSP, I don't think it would make much sense to target a broken platform (Honeycomb).
IMO, if you're going to spend time trying to work on getting a more tablet-oriented version of Android running, it's probably going to be *easier* to work with ICS than Honeycomb. Moreover your contributions could assist the greater KF community in getting a stable base of ICS for all.
I've got a question I tried to answer myself, but I couldn't resist to post it on the forum.
Is the ICS leak a great step forward for all Atrix users ?
For those who wanted HWA, fingerprint scanner, working camera, of course it is... But is it a step forward for the release of a STABLE CM10 with a STABLE kernel ? This question is more open to a debate than a simple answer.
This leak didn't provide any option for those who have the wrong tegrapart (Mine is OK), or a lapdock, or those who use Chrome and want a generally reliable ROM (Stability, I/O perfs, battery life). They have to make a compromise but we still didn't reach THE ROM(s) that makes everybody happy.
The missing thing to get the ROM(s) that will make us all happy is the kernel source... Why didn't we get it with the ICS leak ? Well let's exclude this question from this thread and maybe talk about it after this debate is (almost) closed.
Personally I'm happy to have this new ROM, it's fast, smooth etc. but my lapdock is still borked so I'm really frustrated not to have this awesome tablet display that works with EVERYTHING but not MOTOROLA's own peripheral... Damn it !
So, what's your case ? Of course you may have found satisfaction with the ICS leak, but are you as frustrated as I am to be this close to the ultimate goal ?
The debate is open, I hope I broke the ice for some people who are in my case and feel like forgotten.
I think that leak does not come with the source code. Thus there will not be any practical improvement right now.
Or, most likely ever. I doubt things will go much farther, and I'm usually the optimistic one
no chance
nope, i think the ics leak was just a one off leak from what motorola actually got round to doing before they abandoned the project, which personally is really bad the roms are just crappy (no offence to developers but the lack of resources means they will always be crappy), everyone says the roms are good but every ics rom iv used is awful, overheating, bugs, battery life sucks, cameras lag, and doesnt compare to a stable cm7 which works completely fine and does everything ics can do anyway.. hmm... i guess everyone just keeps giving themselves false hope, although the possibility of a stable ics is much more than the chance of jellybean & as for the cm10/jellybean thing dont get your hopes up the signs of HWA are non existent and i really dont think they ever will be unless somebody makes a kernel from scratch which for a mobile device would take endless hours of work and testing each boot would probably get your through about 50 atrix phones from hard bricks etc... and i dont think our developers have the time or money to do so... even with donations.
its just not worth it, the atrix is a dying breed if you dont like cm7 then buy a new phone, its that simple, confuses me why everyone acts like cm7 is some sort of bugged crappy software that doesnt work? yet its still a very stable software.
i think everyone should stop concentrating on ICS and jellybean until we actually hear news that will be helpful to creating a stable build and in the mean time focus on improving cm7 with mods and other things, right now cm7 is basically abandoned and the thing its been abandoned for has been on hold for around 3 months.
Pixelguy said:
nope, i think the ics leak was just a one off leak from what motorola actually got round to doing before they abandoned the project, which personally is really bad the roms are just crappy (no offence to developers but the lack of resources means they will always be crappy), everyone says the roms are good but every ics rom iv used is awful, overheating, bugs, battery life sucks, cameras lag, and doesnt compare to a stable cm7 which works completely fine and does everything ics can do anyway.. hmm... i guess everyone just keeps giving themselves false hope, although the possibility of a stable ics is much more than the chance of jellybean & as for the cm10/jellybean thing dont get your hopes up the signs of HWA are non existent and i really dont think they ever will be unless somebody makes a kernel from scratch which for a mobile device would take endless hours of work and testing each boot would probably get your through about 50 atrix phones from hard bricks etc... and i dont think our developers have the time or money to do so... even with donations.
its just not worth it, the atrix is a dying breed if you dont like cm7 then buy a new phone, its that simple, confuses me why everyone acts like cm7 is some sort of bugged crappy software that doesnt work? yet its still a very stable software.
i think everyone should stop concentrating on ICS and jellybean until we actually hear news that will be helpful to creating a stable build and in the mean time focus on improving cm7 with mods and other things, right now cm7 is basically abandoned and the thing its been abandoned for has been on hold for around 3 months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not that simple. Once you've had a taste of Android 4.X, its nearly impossible to go back. I'm stuck on Epinter's CM10 because of that, every time I try switching back to a CM7 based rom I find it randomly jittery and with a lot of small annoyances. Both of which I never noticed before trying Joker's CM9.
Even when I switched from CM7 to CM9, I remember CM7 was more or less perfect in its current state. Work stopped on it because there's not much else that can be done with it. Its hit its peak, and for those not spoiled by the more polished versions of Android it is indeed the ideal rom for our device. That does not mean work should stop on ICS/JB, though. The big issue we have is the kernel, of which there are several projects in the works to port kernels from other devices. Its something that'll take (a lot of) time, but long term it'll be much better for our devices than making barely noticeable changes to Gingerbread roms.
With that said, you are right in that the ICS leak is more or less useless without source code. Crappy battery and display issues on some variants of Atrix completely ruin it.
Having the kernel source would solve many issues, but after Motorola abandoned the device it's very unlikely they'll commit any more resources into releasing the half working source code. Of course we'd like to see the source released as it existed under development, but from what I understand, the the source that gets released isn't always exactly the same as what they work with when they compile it and things like extremely helpful comments in the code get removed because of things like NDA's. And although many of the libs and drivers can be extracted from the ROM, the code to use them has been lost.
As it stands, the Atrix Rebirth Project is probably the best chance for seeing a fully functional kernel source for ICS and beyond. But as has been pointed out already, interest in the device has been dying, and even if the project does manage to make it happen, it's not going to happen overnight.
Jotokun said:
Its not that simple. Once you've had a taste of Android 4.X, its nearly impossible to go back. I'm stuck on Epinter's CM10 because of that, every time I try switching back to a CM7 based rom I find it randomly jittery and with a lot of small annoyances. Both of which I never noticed before trying Joker's CM9.
Even when I switched from CM7 to CM9, I remember CM7 was more or less perfect in its current state. Work stopped on it because there's not much else that can be done with it. Its hit its peak, and for those not spoiled by the more polished versions of Android it is indeed the ideal rom for our device. That does not mean work should stop on ICS/JB, though. The big issue we have is the kernel, of which there are several projects in the works to port kernels from other devices. Its something that'll take (a lot of) time, but long term it'll be much better for our devices than making barely noticeable changes to Gingerbread roms.
With that said, you are right in that the ICS leak is more or less useless without source code. Crappy battery and display issues on some variants of Atrix completely ruin it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmm i used pinters cm10 for a week and went back to MROM cm7 and customised it to my liking with ICS themes and text changers, looks just like ICS runs just as smooth as a buggy JB rom, thats the problem the performance of CM10 roms without HWA is about the same as a good CM7 rom... just with a few features like google now which nobody really uses anyway, although i understand where your coming from when it comes too the UI and animations on JB roms they are very nice but id rather sacrafice them and have a phone that will work 100%
I'm very naive to the inner workings of android
I also returned to mrom from epinters cm 10 and icsrom because of lack of camcorder or terrible battery life.
Now with mrom I have a very smooth launcher and all apps working. I do miss jellybeans nice interface, but what are the more fundamental improvements that gingerbread lacks? Besides feeling outdated and old of course :/
Sent from my MB860 using xda app-developers app
Zero usefulness. Novelty item at best.
It's interesting to read opinion of no-developers is it something useful or not. Only developers could say something about it. Also most of you are so pessimistic, complaining that developing is dying.
xda-developers is for site and forum for developers. If you think that developing is dying, come on, do something about. Join Atrix Rebirth Project, start to learn how to develop kernel and rom. There is a lot of guides here and on Internet. Instead of spending time on forum and waiting that someone else do it for you and for free. If you don't have time to learn, contribute on another way: support developers, donate money or device, try to find solution, use your contacts to get leaked sources...
The easiest way is to buy a new device and start complain after a while
I have been very pleased with the stock GB rom. I have a Nexus 7 and an old HTC Aria, both running the latest version of JB and, other than a more up-to-date appearance, there's really nothing I can't do on the Atrix that I can do on the JB devices.
Its amazing what the developers have been able to do with the HTC Aria. It has very little memory, but they have created virtually unlimited program memory by using an extended partition on the SD card. The Aria also runs JB almost flawlessly.
If JB could run on the Atrix 4G the way it runs on my Aria, I would use it. But from what I've read, it has a long way to go. I am not even sure I would even be able to root my Atrix, which has the latest GB update from Motorola.
Sent from my MB860 using xda app-developers app
Slymayer said:
I've got a question I tried to answer myself, but I couldn't resist to post it on the forum.
Is the ICS leak a great step forward for all Atrix users ?
For those who wanted HWA, fingerprint scanner, working camera, of course it is... But is it a step forward for the release of a STABLE CM10 with a STABLE kernel ? This question is more open to a debate than a simple answer.
This leak didn't provide any option for those who have the wrong tegrapart (Mine is OK), or a lapdock, or those who use Chrome and want a generally reliable ROM (Stability, I/O perfs, battery life). They have to make a compromise but we still didn't reach THE ROM(s) that makes everybody happy.
The missing thing to get the ROM(s) that will make us all happy is the kernel source... Why didn't we get it with the ICS leak ? Well let's exclude this question from this thread and maybe talk about it after this debate is (almost) closed.
Personally I'm happy to have this new ROM, it's fast, smooth etc. but my lapdock is still borked so I'm really frustrated not to have this awesome tablet display that works with EVERYTHING but not MOTOROLA's own peripheral... Damn it !
So, what's your case ? Of course you may have found satisfaction with the ICS leak, but are you as frustrated as I am to be this close to the ultimate goal ?
The debate is open, I hope I broke the ice for some people who are in my case and feel like forgotten.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah right ! talking about this leak ... is a >small< step foward !
Just imagine Michael Montuori out of here, Or the Bill ?! epinter !? Faux, or jocker that has made a wonderfull job and the other in the early days of the atrix .... all source code builder out of this atrix family at once !
Well ... Motorola doesnt have a great support for the moment ! as their Blur OS is ****ty slow ! :S
I own a Car dock, A HD Multimedia Dock and a great lapdock !
I approve that this is still frustrating (and i know the devs out there are NOT getting Paid enough for a better work than MOTOROLA itself,) that motorola own product doesnt have support yet ! but still have on a direct DHMI cable straight to the tv !! WTF ?!?!!
Well, its not going to change anything here, i mean this thread ... but .. well .. you know ! YEAH its awkward and " fais chier bordel" hahaha
Our devs are GREAT but unfortunately, we still need that damn MOTO support for their drivers source for the new OS :S
Meanwhile
sathelate said:
Well, its not going to change anything here, i mean this thread ... but .. well .. you know ! YEAH its awkward and " fais chier bordel" hahaha
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would even say "Bordel à couilles de constructeur de mes deux !". I'm writing this using my lapock... On my tiny screen, with my main screen at 45° so I can still read what I'm writing. I dreamt about WT3.0 with working LAPDOCK, it would have been so gorgeous, but it's currently not happening. "Nique cette merde !", I'm buying a Windows Phone next year when the ecosystem gets more apps and stuff. The news are getting warmer for this OS ! The amazing keyboard made in WP7/8 will replace my lapdock I use as a keyboard.
Development IS actually dying, look at the Atrix 4G development section where there used to be several ROMs under active development there are now just a few. Nearly everything that can be done has been done with the exception of what the Atrix rebirth project is doing. But there is no guarantee of success. If you have the money or a device to donate to the rebirth project, great, by all means go for it. Maybe one of the other tegra based moto devices might help a bit too. Unfortanately I think it's pretty hard to hold any level of optimism for the device after such a long string of let downs.
Sent from my MB860 using xda app-developers app
I see the ICS leak as interesting but not overly useful.
Now, if they'd also leaked the source code, I don't doubt that the devs could have created a fully-features and stable ICS/JB within a couple of months. However, with no source for such a buggy leak, we're reliant on a few people trying to create a kernel almost from scratch. I wish them well, but I'm not holding my breath...
When you feel like the development is hopeless , waste all of your time and try fixing things yourself get a new phone.
BravoMotorola said:
When you feel like the development is hopeless , waste all of your time and try fixing things yourself get a new phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like you? And you think that you're smart. That's exactly what vendors wish, get a new device. Bravo
Edit: With your latest posts in Atrix forum you're the same as maggedo or member with Atrix in name. Ups, you have Motorola
How long N4 will be the best device for you? What I see not so long
I think it's interesting how people work:
First everyone was crying about the fact, that Motorola left us out in the cold and now that we have a actually really good leak, people cry that it's not good enough... That's just sad. The leak is useful and it's a big step into the right direction. A lot of people put in hours of work for you (and for FREE!!!), to make this leak better. All you need is PATIENCE. Be grateful that some devs stick to this EOL-device and provide great work for us.
-Just my 2 cents-
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
BravoMotorola said:
When you feel like the development is hopeless , waste all of your time and try fixing things yourself get a new phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And... What about people who can't get a new device ? I bought mine like 6 months ago, it was for my birthday and I can't waste money on a newer phone like this.
But there must be some kind of "break-even" ahead.
How many hours of work and energy may be put from the most "valuable brains" into the leak (without having sourcecode), until they must decide: "enough is enough, it just will never turn out as "stable"?
From what I've understood there exists some good chances that maybe some day valuable parts of the XOOM kernel get migrated to the Atrix (see respective thread under development area).
May the last remaining devs of a dying device - whose work I greatly respect and appreciate! - join forces and turn more efforts into porting the xoom?