Related
I think its well known that Enyo is the 2nd or 3rd best developer in the history of android. but, many suspect Enyo is actually a familiar face under a new psuedonym. If we could figure out who he really is though we might be able to reveal the BEST. ANDROID. DEV. OF. ALL. TIME.
So, we are going to crowd source this and vote to unmask the mystery dev. Who is Enyo and what does he want from us? Is he an earnest crime fighter or is he something much more sinister?
Only the Shadow knows.........................
Who?
On a side note...it's probably a dargon.
I can tell you who it's not..............ME !
It's my alter ego... By day I'm mild-mannered skynet11 intent on taking over cyberspace and sending Terminators to find John Connor, and by night I'm Enyo, uber-dev extraordinaire, bent on mad science experiments with anything ending in "OS" and bingeing on Ice Cream Sandwiches (to the real Enyo: just kidding)
Has anyone seen John Connor?
I think he might be Batman...
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA Premium App
Black Droid?
tsm res1.2, TKSGB 11-14, lag fix
So I'm wondering does this make him the international man of mystery....
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA Premium App
He obviously is an evolved comedic genius- Sasha Baron Cohen - It's Niiiiice!
its a combanation of adryn and jt
Enyo is actually a computer virus created by Skynet, that was sent from the future.
It was loaded into memory banks of a T-100, then sent to the past (our present). Skynets goal is to destroy Android. Skynet is threatened by Android, because the dirty humans still use it's operating system to combat Skynet and it's robot and cyborg army.
Skynet tried to eliminate Android at the turn of the century through legal lawsuits claiming copyright infringement. That only lead to minor success though and Skynet had to come up with a different approach. Skynet thought that if it created a new program that would create bad Android roms it could win by infecting all early Android devices. Enyo was born. Enyo was then uploaded to a T-100 and sent back in time. The T-100 arrived in our present time and successfully infiltrated the computer mainframes in Cupertino, CA. Enyo was uploaded to the mainframes and began to generate bad roms for Android devices. Quickly the roms began infecting 2/4 of 50000 Fascinates.
Our only hope is for John Connor to send troops back to our time and set of an EMP blast at the mainframe in Cupertino. Help us John Connor!
Bigredcat said:
Enyo is actually a computer virus created by Skynet, that was sent from the future.
It was loaded into memory banks of a T-100, then sent to the past (our present). Skynets goal is to destroy Android. Skynet is threatened by Android, because the dirty humans still use it's operating system to combat Skynet and it's robot and cyborg army.
Skynet tried to eliminate Android at the turn of the century through legal lawsuits claiming copyright infringement. That only lead to minor success though and Skynet had to come up with a different approach. Skynet thought that if it created a new program that would create bad Android roms it could win by infecting all early Android devices. Enyo was born. Enyo was then uploaded to a T-100 and sent back in time. The T-100 arrived in our present time and successfully infiltrated the computer mainframes in Cupertino, CA. Enyo was uploaded to the mainframes and began to generate bad roms for Android devices. Quickly the roms began infecting 2/4 of 50000 Fascinates.
Our only hope is for John Connor to send troops back to our time and set of an EMP blast at the mainframe in Cupertino. Help us John Connor!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Trololol!
Has anyone seen John Connor?
Put some thought into that post huh lol...
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA Premium App
im pretty sure the enyo account is a collaboration between omj and sbrissen (not on the list either one of them)
they've abandon work on pool party just to make troll threads and roms!
Bigredcat said:
Enyo is actually a computer virus created by Skynet, that was sent from the future.
It was loaded into memory banks of a T-100, then sent to the past (our present). Skynets goal is to destroy Android. Skynet is threatened by Android, because the dirty humans still use it's operating system to combat Skynet and it's robot and cyborg army.
Skynet tried to eliminate Android at the turn of the century through legal lawsuits claiming copyright infringement. That only lead to minor success though and Skynet had to come up with a different approach. Skynet thought that if it created a new program that would create bad Android roms it could win by infecting all early Android devices. Enyo was born. Enyo was then uploaded to a T-100 and sent back in time. The T-100 arrived in our present time and successfully infiltrated the computer mainframes in Cupertino, CA. Enyo was uploaded to the mainframes and began to generate bad roms for Android devices. Quickly the roms began infecting 2/4 of 50000 Fascinates.
Our only hope is for John Connor to send troops back to our time and set of an EMP blast at the mainframe in Cupertino. Help us John Connor!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Epic trollolol
Sent from my SCH-I500 using xda premium
I find this thread interesting... but who is enyo?? anyone have a link to bring me up to date on this whole enyo dilemma. I'd like to give some feedback since I'm a fascinate owner and the outcome may impact me.
Plz.. and Thx.
Maniac
MrManiacNF said:
I find this thread interesting... but who is enyo?? anyone have a link to bring me up to date on this whole enyo dilemma. I'd like to give some feedback since I'm a fascinate owner and the outcome may impact me.
Plz.. and Thx.
Maniac
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enyo
droidstyle said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enyo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So Enyo's a female?
Has anyone seen John Connor?
LMAO...
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA Premium App
K guys, thread is open
Let's keep this friendly and fun. please no personal attacks or flaming.
Peace,
Josh
Koushik Dutta, who is a prominent member of the team behind the CyanogenMod project, has been wrestling with the idea of producing an alternative Android app store for quite some time and believes that it’s the right time to put the idea into practice. The initial ‘vision’ of the idea would be to provide a home for root applications which can be downloaded and installed on devices which have been rooted. However Dutta has expressed a desire to also include applications which have been shut down ‘for no reason’, citing carrier intervention or due to some corporation not liking it.
The team behind CyanogenMod are toying with the idea of building the application store directly into their firmware replacement, independent of the current Android Market, which would then be installed on the device as part of the modification. The CyanogenMod project has grown extensively in size, with the number of unique and active user installs about to breach the one million mark, which causes a problem for the development team. As the project grows, requirements for servers and hardware also grows which brings with it a financial burden.
Dutta and his team are suggest an application store which acts in similar functionality to Cydia, hosting modifications and applications which are either free of charge or sold at a cost depending on the developer involved and the complexity. The suggestion which has been ran by the community via Dutta’s Google+ page is that a percentage of the sale goes toward funding the CyanogenMod and all of the server and hardware requirements that it brings.
Dutta is keen to point out that the applications banned by Google are things like the one-click root apps, emulators and applications which include visual voicemail. When coming up with this idea of an alternative app store, he has also been in contact with Amazon about bundling their Appstore into CM but was given the cold shoulder. He has also mentioned to the community that the app store would not be exclusively distributed as part of the CyanogenMod firmware, and could be bundled into any custom ROM for wider distribution.
The concept of having all rooted enhancements, tweaks and modifications in one place is something which I am sure will appeal massively to the community and will no doubt give some ‘legitimacy’ to the people involved in the same manner that Cydia has for iOS devices. One of the main challenges I can see would be policing this app store, and the method of allowing developers to host their work for sale or download. Regardless of any challenges the team may have, judging by the replies from the Android community, it looks as if an unofficial application store would be a most welcome addition.
Source:RedMondPie
That would be great to see. It's a great concept. I guess now, it's a race to see who comes up with the best rooted market. Now for a domain name...
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Hi, a developer called pulser_g2 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Edit: Sorry I made a mistake, the developer Codeworx just heavily promoted the petition, pulser_g2 is the developer who made it, and thanks entropy512 for pointing the mistake out
danielsf said:
Hi, on the galaxy s2 forum, the cm9 developer called codeworx made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices, not just the s2. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually pulser_g2 created it - codeworkx is just pushing it hard. (he deserves to as he's the one maintaining CM9...)
Also consider pestering them on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/search/users/samsung
Signed
10char
Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this
DT3CH said:
Im hoping the lack of posts in this thread just means people arent commenting in this thread but have signed the petition
I submitted this as a tip for the portal page, hopefully it gets picked up, since being on the portal would generate more interest in this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.
signed!
10char
signed
Signed.
10char
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Entropy512 said:
Only reason it's not on the portal is because pulser forgot his portal password (He even said so elsewhere.)
(This petition was filed by one of our senior moderator team.)
I haven't signed yet, but that is because I plan on writing a fairly decent bit on why cooperating with developers will benefit Samsung in my "Reason" field and need a bit more time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL shows you what I know
Dont know any of the mods here
Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.
Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, I didn't realize all of that. As a GNex owner, I suppose I'm looking at things through rose colored glasses. I thought they changed a lot since the Froyogate fiasco which they received a lot of bad press. Thanks for the info, petition signed!
Signed
Especially since I have 2 Samsung devices currently
Entropy512 said:
The problem is they have, over time, become increasingly antagonistic to platform developers.
They are now failing to comply with the GPL with kernel source for many devices on a regular basis. The Infuse AT&T update took a month for source to show up, and Samsung ignored multiple requests for source in compliance with the GPL. The one time they answered, they claimed that they didn't have to provide source because they had stopped providing the update - that's bull****. If you provide a binary to someone, you MUST provide them the source - even if you are no longer providing binaries to other people.
They go out of their way to avoid releasing source whenever possible - see the AR6000 driver fiasco on the Tab 7 Plus.
The Galaxy S II hardware donation to the Cyanogenmod team was nothing but a PR stunt. If you follow the progress of CM9 on the I9100, you'll see that in addition to not providing any assistance to codeworkx and xplodwild, they are actively throwing barriers in the way. For example, secure containers (used by many apps) are disabled if a custom kernel is used in ICS.
Compare this to Sony, who provided technical assistance to the Cyanogenmod team leading to their entire 2011 lineup being well supported by CM, and also open-sourcing their sensor HALs when they didn't need to. They have also provided OFFICIAL ICS alphas and betas including source in compliance with the GPL, while everyone else just has leaks.
Unless Samsung changes their attitude - my next phone will be a Sony or a Nexus of some sort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well said
Done
Thanks for the info...
Everything to help the devs...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
signed.. hope this petition will do something
Joe T said:
IMO, in this day when manufacturers are locking down devices and intentionally making it very difficult for any development, Samsung has really catered to this small community. Companies like Motorola go as far as sabotaging their products to prevent any type hacking, rooting etc.
Sure, Samsung's official software upgrades are slow but I give them a lot of credit for reaching out in ways such as offering some of our top developers free devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree.I would like Sammy to be more open, like Sony, but I understand they are a company and they have certain policies which will increase their profits...Since my tab has unlocked bootloader and I can flash anything I want I'm ok.
sent from my nokia 3210
Signed.... suggest you do also...
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA
signed........let us know how it goes
Signed. Glad to see this.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Samsung is the largest manufacturer of Android phones like ours, but as we know, they provide very little support for third party developers like the CM team. In order to get Samsung to open more information about the devices & support developers like CM, one of the CM team members Codeworkx has created a petition urging Samsung to help us.
Please click here to open the petition & sign it so that we have enough weight behind the petition. This is especially important for older phones like ours which are no longer actively supported by Samsung.
It's a pitty Samsung probbably doesn't care much about phones like ours anymore, because they already made their money. I doubt if this will help.
Hello,
thinking about installing OmniROM which sounds great! I'm using CyanogenMod 10.1.3 Stable. If you guys had CM what do you think? Is there big difference between those two ROMs?
Well as far as I know about CyanogenMod is been the best to date..!! OmniRoM on the other had has made a huge followers list and has been lead by Chainfire (superuser app developer).
My opinion is to be in CyanogenMod as long as you need changes to play with. Moreover Cyanogen has more supported devices than that of Omni.. And if you have your device on their list.. Give it a shot!
Well now coming to differences, Omnirom has multi-window support, has over clocking, and the rest are the same but with different interface..
Sent from my Motorola Xoom using xda app-developers app
Thank you for answer. I'm on Nexus 4 (soon Nexus 5). So I will continue with CyanogenMod until there will be stable version of OmniROM
It is way too early to tell if OmniROM can have as great of a following as CM. OmniROM has a very long road ahead if it wants to compete with CM simply because it needs to be supported on all the flagship devices and more. That is the only way OmniROM's name will get out there. There are so many people out there that haven't even heard of OmniROM yet but ask anyone about CM and most will tell you that they have heard of it.
I will give OmniROM a chance but it has to come to the Sprint LG G2 or else they are losing potential followers.
Better? Who knows, too early to tell.
Different? Sure. Many of the first developers involved with Omni are former CM maintainers/contributors dissatisfied with certain recent events (frequent ninjamerges without review, leads -2ing things with little explanation beyond "I don't like it", and most importantly, attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license.) To a great degree, it's about the spirit in which the projects are developed. We're going to try to be as open and receptive to new ideas as we possibly can.
Among other things I expect to see going forward - as CyanogenMod attempts to obtain GMS certification for CM on some devices, you may see a lot more features getting removed/rejected. (GMS is the ability to officially include gapps with a device. The CTS and CDD which have been discussed many times in the past are a part of this, but GMS can actually go way beyond this. I've heard, for example, of one OEM that wanted to preinstall a particular rotation control app. While that app is readily available on the Play Store, Google effectively said to that OEM, "You can preinstall that app, or have a GMS license - not both.")
Entropy512 said:
Better? Who knows, too early to tell.
Different? Sure. Many of the first developers involved with Omni are former CM maintainers/contributors dissatisfied with certain recent events (frequent ninjamerges without review, leads -2ing things with little explanation beyond "I don't like it", and most importantly, attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license.) To a great degree, it's about the spirit in which the projects are developed. We're going to try to be as open and receptive to new ideas as we possibly can.
Among other things I expect to see going forward - as CyanogenMod attempts to obtain GMS certification for CM on some devices, you may see a lot more features getting removed/rejected. (GMS is the ability to officially include gapps with a device. The CTS and CDD which have been discussed many times in the past are a part of this, but GMS can actually go way beyond this. I've heard, for example, of one OEM that wanted to preinstall a particular rotation control app. While that app is readily available on the Play Store, Google effectively said to that OEM, "You can preinstall that app, or have a GMS license - not both.")
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed that Omni has a CLA as well (https://gerrit.omnirom.org/static/cla_individual_omni.html). How is the Omni CLA different from that of CM?
nushoin said:
I noticed that Omni has a CLA as well (https://gerrit.omnirom.org/static/cla_individual_omni.html). How is the Omni CLA different from that of CM?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you didn't read the full sentence
attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license
AFAIK CLA will be same, just that they won't try to trick authors into dual licensing like CM tried with focal
ericdabbs said:
I will give OmniROM a chance but it has to come to the Sprint LG G2 or else they are losing potential followers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
munchy_cool said:
you didn't read the full sentence
attempting to use their Contributor License Agreement against a longtime contributor in order to create a proprietary closed-source derivative of Focal under a commercial license
AFAIK CLA will be same, just that they won't try to trick authors into dual licensing like CM tried with focal
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah.
To be absolutely, 100% clear - They attempted to represent the CLA as something that would give them the ability to relicense a GPL contribution if the contributor was the original copyright holder of said contribution. (In the event where the contributor is not original copyright holder, no CLA in existence would allow relicensing because the contributor didn't have the rights to relicense the code.)
THIS IS NOT THE CASE. YOU CAN'T USE THE CLA THAT WAY. But they attempted to do so anyway - not only was it just wrong to treat a contributor like that, they misrepresented the document as giving legal powers it didn't actually give them.
The CLA is there as a "cover your ass" legal document in the case of a nasty legal dispute. I hope to hell we never have a need to use it. (In fact, in my opinion, the CLA is redundant and unnecessary for Apache and GPL licensed contributions, as the Apache and GPL licenses explicitly grant compatible redistribution/usage rights. Some other contributions are not as clear in terms of licensing, for example, media assets.) Another place it might come into play is if someone submits something with a license like that found in this file:
https://github.com/oppo-source/R819...89/kernel/drivers/dum-char/partition_define.c
In theory, if someone who was in the category of MTK or a licensor contributed such an item to our Gerrit, that contribution in combination with the CLA would be written permission to reproduce/modify/disclose the file. Note that not just anyone can submit something like that - there are other clauses to handle that (clause 7 I think???) - effectively saying that you yourself have the legal rights to contribute whatever you're contributing.
Oh, FYI, that file and files with similar licensing are one of the things holding back support of MTK devices.
One thing to note: CLAs DO exist that do give the kinds of power that Cyanogen, Inc. wanted to wield. An example is Canonical's Harmony CLA:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/4553.html - He links to the Harmony CLA there (direct link - http://www.canonical.com/sites/default/files/active/images/Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I.pdf ), take a look at clause 2.3 - it's nasty:
Code:
2.3 Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
licenses which We are using for the Material on the
Submission Date.
This is VERY different from the "sublicense" language in the AOSP CLA. For a bit on sublicensing:
(crap, can't find one of the better links I used to have...)
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/189633/what-sublicense-actually-means has some info
http://www.contractstandards.com/document-checklists/technology-license-agreement/sublicenses - Note "Additionally the scope of rights that the Licensee can sublicense is often narrower than the scope of the original license (e.g. the purpose or end-product is limited to those specifically enumerated)." - Commercial dual-licensing of a GPL contribution is prett unambiguously expanding the scope of the original license and NOT something that a CLA which only grants you sublicensing rights allows.