Database Users

Android 2.3 out

So now that Android 2.3 is out, what would it take to get it on the Gtab?

wiredmonkey said:
So now that Android 2.3 is out, what would it take to get it on the Gtab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 I would also like to move my gtab from 2.2.0 to 2.3.0.

+1
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App

My guess, since ViewSonic hasn't released source is that it will be some time. Perhaps the Vega or Zpad devs will get to it first.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

I think there is supposed to be a official update of the 20th.
I bet it will be Android 2.3 plus whatever app store Viewsonic managed to dig up.

The best thing about 2.3 for tablets like this without 3G is the VoIP phone calling.

Android 2.3 SDK is out. There's no OTA update for Nexus One yet. Nexus S release was announced for December 16th, so there will be something out by then for N1 presumably.
Not sure how much luck we'll have rolling our own Gingerbread build quite yet. We still have no kernel source or any other source code from Viewsonic for that matter. Basically, I'm pretty sure I'll have Gingerbread on my Nexus One well before my G Tablet.
BTW, there is some explicit stuff surrounding large screen support in the Gingerbread SDK. Sort of a recognition that there are now tablet devices out there even though they won't be blessed until the 3.0 release.

popezaphod said:
My guess, since ViewSonic hasn't released source is that it will be some time. Perhaps the Vega or Zpad devs will get to it first.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm new to Android, but why do we have to wait for Viewsonic? Can't the standard Android 2.3 source be compiled for the Gtab?

I'd recommend everyone calling Viewsonic support and asking them, if they get enough questions they may find some type of answer so we can guage their actions.
I do know that 2.3 has been worked on for this specific OEM device by Malata(zpad). The Woow! device is supposed to be released fairly soon with it. There are nvidia engineers working for Malata who will be on top of this, and I doubt it will take over a month to get it on our device one way or another.

wiredmonkey said:
I'm new to Android, but why do we have to wait for Viewsonic? Can't the standard Android 2.3 source be compiled for the Gtab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.

rothnic said:
I'd recommend everyone calling Viewsonic support and asking them, if they get enough questions they may find some type of answer so we can guage their actions.
I do know that 2.3 has been worked on for this specific OEM device by Malata(zpad). The Woow! device is supposed to be released fairly soon with it. There are nvidia engineers working for Malata who will be on top of this, and I doubt it will take over a month to get it on our device one way or another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One month is better than six. With what we've seen so far, I wouldn't expect 2.3 any time soon, at least from VS. I know you Devs will get it to us way sooner.
Everyone excited about this VS "update" coming this month, I wouldn't get too terribly excited. Definitely wouldn't expect more than Flash for the Stock ROM. If VS is smart they'll pay Roebeet for his efforts and make TnT Lite the "update"

tcrews said:
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha.

Umm, I wouldn't expect anything but 2.2 from Viewsonic. Looking at the quality of their release software, besides bugfixes to make the stock ROM "usable" I doubt they will care about supporting this thing.
Once the source is released your time would be better spent thanking whichever dev decides to take this massive undertaking of porting 2.3.

tcrews said:
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not quite. you can use the sdk to build a rom.
its very hard and time consuming. but it can be done.
just look at what punk.kaos has done with the eris. there is already a (Very Buggy) gingerbread rom for the eris.

No, you can't use the SDK to build a rom but you can use the crippled system.img they provide in it and try to hack something together. Hacking that and using an older kernel isn't really the way to go. Compiling a rom is going to require source.
Building a rom, to me, is compiling from source. Otherwise you are tweaking someone else's rom or worse...trying to use an image created for the emulator.
Not to downplay his efforts or skill...but that is not a rom to use other than for experimenting or "learning" from.
babybacon said:
not quite. you can use the sdk to build a rom.
its very hard and time consuming. but it can be done.
just look at what punk.kaos has done with the eris. there is already a (Very Buggy) gingerbread rom for the eris.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Viewsonic 10" GTab...

tcrews said:
No, you can't use the SDK to build a rom but you can use the crippled system.img they provide in it and try to hack something together. Hacking that and using an older kernel isn't really the way to go. Compiling a rom is going to require source.
Building a rom, to me, is compiling from source. Otherwise you are tweaking someone else's rom or worse...trying to use an image created for the emulator.
Not to downplay his efforts or skill...but that is not a rom to use other than for experimenting or "learning" from.
Sent from my Viewsonic 10" GTab...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Idk man. kaosfroyo on my eris has been wonderfully fast and stable (especially for as slow as the eris is) ever since v22. these things take some tweaking.

Why the epic 4g CyanogenMod port is not backed by the CM team my opinion.

Hello,
This was brought up in another thread that is now locked.This post asked the question.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=11287492&postcount=40
and this is the blog post by Cyanogen
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/a-note-on-unofficial-ports-and-how-to-get-it-right
From what I can make from the blog post that Cyanogen put up on the CM website the Epic 4g as well as the other Galaxy S CM ports are not backed by Cyanogen because they do not go through the normal chain of how they add their code into their source code tree.The Galaxy S CM github has many changes to the stock android code that could possible and probably does break the code from being compiled for other phones. The framework is modified to work with the Samsung RIL that our phones use. The CM team will make additions to the stock android code not modifiy the stock code itself. So from my understanding of thing this is why Cyanogen does not consider what the CMSGS team has done as a part of the mainline CM code base. I believe this goes for all the Galaxy S phones not just the Epic.

Does being backed by the CM team make it get done any quicker? If so....
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

Being backed by the Cm team would definitely speed up the porting process, Cyanogen had the Evo Release Client up and running in a little over a month without source

So its a matter of pulling the source together and prperly placing it into their source control so their build bot can properly dov what build bots do...build...then CM helps with the port process?
If I think I'm following that right...somone better start uploading code to Cyanogens t&c's(terms and conditions) so we can have some epic awesomesauce.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

Most importantly, no major hardware functionality should be broken.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What this statement implies is that no Cyanogenmod port is ever gonna be official right away; there's always an in-progress period where major functions are broken. Regardless of other issues, that's where our Epic port is at right now and part of the reason why it's not official.

Poryhack said:
What this statement implies is that no Cyanogenmod port is ever gonna be official right away; there's always an in-progress period where major functions are broken. Regardless of other issues, that's where our Epic port is at right now and part of the reason why it's not official.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True but there is code that is changed in the Galaxy S port that doesn't get changed at all in other CM ports as far as I know.

If we had HTC Epic's instead of Samsung Epic's and still identical devices... CM would officially support the Epic.
Period. They can say whatever they want but we all know this to be the case. You can't tell me Samsung changes their code that much more then HTC... last I checked Sense was a much more in depth overall to the underlying OS then Touchwiz is.. but maybe not.

The thing is, HTC uses the same hardware across the board (snapdragon processors, same camera etc.) which makes Rom ports much much easier to pull off, whereas the Hummingbird in the Galaxy S is only in the Galaxy S and only the Unlocked Galaxies and Gsm have froyo source so far.

Thanks for osting this skeeter
Android Creative Syndicate- From spontaneous ingenuity, comes creative brilliance

063_XOBX said:
The thing is, HTC uses the same hardware across the board (snapdragon processors, same camera etc.) which makes Rom ports much much easier to pull off, whereas the Hummingbird in the Galaxy S is only in the Galaxy S and only the Unlocked Galaxies and Gsm have froyo source so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The changes in the code have nothing at all to do with the cpu its all for the radio which even having froyo source will not help a bit with.Its all in the way the code changes were done. Rather then adding to the base code in CM the code was directly changed which is what Cyanogen has an issue with doing so basically could and probably has broken the radio code for other cdma phones, I don't know what or if any of the code in the frameworks was changed for the gsm Galaxy S phones so I can't say for sure that it the source from the CMSGS github wouldn't work on another GSM phone I only know that changes were made to get it working on the Epic and Fascinate.I don't think what the CMSGS team did was wrong they did what they had to do to get things working and from the time I spent working on it it didn't seem like there was much input from the CM team at all but that was probably happening in another irc channel that I was not invited into if they were involved.I was hoping that the Galaxy S would have had more interest from the CM team as a whole I know a phone or two was collected and donated to at least one dev and i also heard that Koush was supposed to take over the Captivate port of CM I am not sure if that ever happened or not but the Epic and Fascinate were from the beginning the red headed step children of the Galaxy S line it really is too bad that there wasn't for developers around to help work on it and make an offical Cyanogen backed CM port.I blame it all on the Evo personally if the Epic came out first it would be the Epic sporting all the kernel and roms that you can find in the Evo forum instead we are left with a handful or less of devs and a phone that is far from the potential that it has.

This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

dreamsforgotten said:
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where's the thank spam? hah.
I've slowly been dipping myself into the Developer 'pool' for the epic if you will..and at first when I started working nobody really ever helped out..they just threw me a link and was like..start reading blah blah blah..
Reading only gets you so far; Imho you learn better when you've got the experience of working first hand with the material you're trying to learn.

dreamsforgotten said:
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When it comes to working on CM most of the work that needs to be done is all coding which we have very few if anyone java coders. Also you can use extract-files.sh on a phone running straight DK28 to get the propietary files needed to build CM with.When it comes to everything else most of the devs have taught themselves how to do the things they so by trial and error and alot of reading the internet. I know I have little coding skill so its would be hard to teach someone something you don't know how to do yourself and alot of the other things like putting togther device files to build android even on the google site has no real information on how to do it at all the best way I think is to just compare what the other phones use and piece it together from that.

Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.

theimpaler747 said:
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can see its not that Cyanogen doesn't want to support the galaxy s devices its that it seems they don't give any input to the devs that are working on CM for the galaxy s. They have basically split off from the main CM source tree itself and run their own source tree. It seemed like (and this is from the limited amount I saw on irc) that there was no input from the CM team they just let them work on their own. CM has ways to setup the code so the source tree remains workable across the board on all the devices it supports, the cmsgs team has just taken a different route on things and gone their own route thus making it not backed by cyanogen, was it the right way to do it who knows but it has made all the galaxy s devices redheaded step children in the eyes of Cyanogen and the CM team as a whole by the looks of it. I know from the point of view of having an Epic the major hold up to it is having coders with the proper skills to do the coding in general we had one coder working on it I don't know if he is still involved or not at this point. All I know is to make is a backed by Cyanogen CM port the coding that has been done so far would have to be completely redone in the ways that the rest of the CM team adds code to the CM source tree with as little to no modification of the stock CM code as possible.
Also I would like to add that I am not trying to put anyone down that is working on the CMSGS team they have done CM working on these devices and am in no way bad mouthing the work that has been done. This is just my view on things and why Cyanogen doesn't back the galaxy s CM ports.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

theimpaler747 said:
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, trying to comprehend everything that is going on here, I feel like the CMTeam does not feel the Epic is worth porting to CM7 due to it's delay on a FroYo source, which I am positive would make the Epic's porting much easier.
However, it still makes me wonder why they could not have used 2.1 to port to CM7, as like you said, the Hero has been able to do.
It also confuses me that the Captivate has even been able to run a Gingerbread port (I believe cyanogen) then. I realize that the Captivate has no 4G or a slide or anything, but the fact that they were willing to work off of 2.1 I assume gets me wondering why no one has tried making a CM port for the Epic's 2.1
I am trying to understand this as best as I can, so please forgive me if I seem to be giving false input on this conversation.

Its the time taken to port a phone, combined with the number of phones above yours on their list. The fact is they have a list of other phones they feel like investing their time in over the galaxy s line in general which is even more of a reason all knowledge of development on the Epic should be layed out even in pieces like the rest of the information here. Honestly thinking "leak it to noobnl, then we'll get all the goods" isn't going to cut it. Java coders, ubuntu fanatics who have compiled a few apps, and new people willing to learn should be putting heads together compiling new ****. If we dont start a group effort of making a bone stock aosp froyo altering the existing drivers were not going to be much further with source code. And it should be layed out here irc dont work for everyone.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

acer1096xxx said:
Well, trying to comprehend everything that is going on here, I feel like the CMTeam does not feel the Epic is worth porting to CM7 due to it's delay on a FroYo source, which I am positive would make the Epic's porting much easier.
However, it still makes me wonder why they could not have used 2.1 to port to CM7, as like you said, the Hero has been able to do.
It also confuses me that the Captivate has even been able to run a Gingerbread port (I believe cyanogen) then. I realize that the Captivate has no 4G or a slide or anything, but the fact that they were willing to work off of 2.1 I assume gets me wondering why no one has tried making a CM port for the Epic's 2.1
I am trying to understand this as best as I can, so please forgive me if I seem to be giving false input on this conversation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But like I said, there's CM7 (Android 2.3 if you don't know) for the HTC hero, with no 2.2 or 2.3 source code. So why not us?

theimpaler747 said:
But like I said, there's CM7 (Android 2.3 if you don't know) for the HTC hero, with no 2.2 or 2.3 source code. So why not us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright, this is what I believe.
The Hero does not have 4G, or a QWERTY keyboard, two things the Epic does have that could make a pure AOSP port more difficult without a source. Also, HTC runs Snapdragon throughout the whole system, making tweaks a lot more simpler than SGS's Hummingbird Processor, which uses something else (I can't remember) with their system as well.
The last part I'm not sure if that makes a big deal or not, since I have seen a (what I think) CM7 port for the Samsung Captivate, so it may simply be because of 4G and the QWERTY keyboard.
I see what you're saying though. I guess the CMTeam should have no problem making a CM7 port based off of the Epic's 2.1 source...maybe they're just waiting because 2.2 might make it easier and supposedly 2.2 is coming soon so there'd be no point in starting now...otherwise I have no clue.

acer1096xxx said:
Alright, this is what I believe.
The Hero does not have 4G, or a QWERTY keyboard, two things the Epic does have that could make a pure AOSP port more difficult without a source. Also, HTC runs Snapdragon throughout the whole system, making tweaks a lot more simpler than SGS's Hummingbird Processor, which uses something else (I can't remember) with their system as well.
The last part I'm not sure if that makes a big deal or not, since I have seen a (what I think) CM7 port for the Samsung Captivate, so it may simply be because of 4G and the QWERTY keyboard.
I see what you're saying though. I guess the CMTeam should have no problem making a CM7 port based off of the Epic's 2.1 source...maybe they're just waiting because 2.2 might make it easier and supposedly 2.2 is coming soon so there'd be no point in starting now...otherwise I have no clue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we also have 'limited functionality' w/ 2.1 as far as the phone's full capability.
2.2 will unlock some hidden potential IMO. Could be the reason why all the hubbub to 'wait for 2.2'.. again, just speculating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

its not stable i'll wait for something more stable

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

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

[CRAZYTHEORY] Joint HC Developement?

Hello there,
I have this theory... I want to hear your opinions to see if I'm just crazy or I'm correct in thinking this.
After seeing how the unmodified Acer Iconia Galaxy ROM + modified ASUS Transformer kernel (Clemsyn's) worked on a Transformer I started to think that this could be because of all the Honeycomb tablets are running a pretty similar OS configuration ("stock-like" Honeycomb).
Am I right in thinking this (I haven't actually used any other HC tablet except the Iconia)?
If this is right, it kind of explains why an unmodified ROM developed for the Iconia works with our device, as they are using pretty similar systems. The main difference, of course, is the hardware. This explains the wifi, battery and other issues in this example. This was partly corrected from the use of an ASUS TF kernel (Clemsyns) with the same ROM since the kernel provides the needed interfaces, modules, whatever for the respective hardware.
Of course, the kernels between the devices, I'm assuming as I haven't actually compared the source, are pretty similar aside from certain hardware modules that have been left out during compilation, as they are both just modified Linux kernel. This explains why the Iconia ROM worked (mostly) even when using an Iconia kernel.
So am I right with all the above, or am I missing something obvious, or am I just crazy (2am and my PC's made my room very hot afterall)?
Okay, so if the above is correct, couldn't/shouldn't we be doing some cooperative developement with other Honeycomb device developers? Or at least the Iconia developers, as I'm not sure about other devices. I mean, if the ROMs are pretty much compatible, all that would need to be done is have a respective kernel for the respective device flashed on-top of the ROM, right?
Anyway, laugh at me, flame me, tell me to go to bed, whatever, but I'd like to know what your thoughts are.
And on a related note:
Has anyone actually tried flashing any other "other-device ROMs" onto a TF with a TF kernel and got it working?
I'd love to try, but my internet is terrible... I swear someone else on the network constantly has their BT speeds uncapped 24/7 (share-house's are ****ty).

I think that's pretty much the goal of the CyanogenMod project. Only reason they haven't begun on a Honeycomb version is because Google never released the AOSP. Hopefully this will change with ICS.

Yes, the OEMs are working together with google behind the scenes.
More than likely Google has "forced" them to contribute code in order to participate and enjoy early code.
Unified code at the OS level would be a godsend and allow for Windows - style updates.

poltak11 said:
After seeing how the unmodified Acer Iconia Galaxy ROM + modified ASUS Transformer kernel (Clemsyn's) worked on a Transformer I started to think that this could be because of all the Honeycomb tablets are running a pretty similar OS configuration ("stock-like" Honeycomb).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I'm aware, pretty much all the current crop of Honeycomb tablets are all based on the Nvidia Ventana reference platform, so it's not too surprising that they are all very, very, similar software-wise.
Regards,
Dave

JCopernicus said:
Yes, the OEMs are working together with google behind the scenes.
More than likely Google has "forced" them to contribute code in order to participate and enjoy early code.
Unified code at the OS level would be a godsend and allow for Windows - style updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But as the OEMs are working together, why aren't independant developers here on xda? I mean, I'm just thinking that a lot more nice work would get done if there was unified developement going on between the HC devices instead of seperate forums, and seperate ROMs that seem to be very similar.
And yes, I do agree about the closed source problem. But Google said this is just a temporary thing, right?

It's hard to write too much code when you don't have the original to start with.
No one really wants to write Honeycomb from scratch.
sassafras

sassafras_ said:
It's hard to write too much code when you don't have the original to start with.
No one really wants to write Honeycomb from scratch.
sassafras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand this, of course, but excuse my ignorance when it comes to Android Developement, but what are the developers of PRIME and Clemsyn's ROM and all the other HC ROMs working with at the moment, as there is no source other than the GPL'd kernel?

poltak11 said:
I understand this, of course, but excuse my ignorance when it comes to Android Developement, but what are the developers of PRIME and Clemsyn's ROM and all the other HC ROMs working with at the moment, as there is no source other than the GPL'd kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are working with the OTA. It is all compiled things. They can add things on top of it, but they can't do modifications to it because its already compiled (source code not provided).

zephiK said:
They are working with the OTA. It is all compiled things. They can add things on top of it, but they can't do modifications to it because its already compiled (source code not provided).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.

poltak11 said:
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chances are there will be a CyanogenMod type project once Android tablet sources are released.
However, there will always be developers who are primarily interested in doing their own thing, which is perfectly acceptable too.
Regards,
Dave

poltak11 said:
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a reason CM hasn't officially touched any Honeycomb tablet. There's no source. Once they open up the source with ICS then everyone will be working on it through github.

[Q] Xoom gingerbread rom

Now I know this is a ridicilous idea as it defeats the whole purpose, but would it be possible to port gingerbread to xoom, or is there already a gingerbread rom that would work. The bootloader was unlocked in under two hours so could cyanogenmod be ported like it has been to the nook color. I absolutely love honeycomb, and think it is superior to gingerbread, but seeing it on the xoom would only further its abilities. If any developer would be up to the worthless but awesome challenge, or simply has an intriguing idea, please reply.

well i cant say i know much about porting. but all of these honeycomb tablets (correct me if im wrong) are directly based on the ventana development kit. or at least extremely similar. so. my advice is start here. there are some 2.2 + 2.3 builds to play with.
http://developer.nvidia.com/tegra/devkit-ventana

I will take a look in a while, and if I make any progress, then I will post back.
haha, i will have to make sure to get rid of boot.bin. Not really in the mood for flashing a new bootloader.
All the needed image files are here.

Wow, this tegra development kit is absolutely amazing. It includes all the drivers and software for the nvidia tegra 2 platform. I am going to play with this software, and see what I can do. I'm not very patient, so do not expect anything but if I ever get anything working I will post back. Kind of interesting that nvida would release froyo and gingerbread builds for a platform that is as you said almost identical to the xoom,gtab, and other "honeycomb" tabs.Well, hopefuly honeycomb aosp will be released eventualy. Anyways thanks for the link.
Thanked ya