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.
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.
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, , ))
Last night, +Steve Kondik took to twitter to vent a little bit:
"CM has been getting a lot of crap lately for taking so long with a release. Guess what? It's not that easy. We don't just call something stable unless we mean it. *Also, RC1 is soon!* The most stable devices will get the RC first. The system we've put in place should allow other devices to catch up quickly. More details later this week "
Now to combat the obvious questions:
# As Steve stated, this will not be for all CM9 supported devices. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus can be considered safe bets, but the final list won't be available until release day.
# As always, the proper day of release is difficult/impossible to predict, but we anticipate a code freeze going in place tomorrow at the earliest.
# Yes, this means we will actively be running two separate RC phases (CM7 and CM9). Bug's should be reported to the issue tracker once the release is made, not in the comments on our posts.
# There has been a lot of talk surrounding Linaro in CM. While CM 9.0 won't ship with all the patches on gerrit, quite a few of them are already incorporated and others are sane enough that they will likely be there. There are still some issues surrounding the updated gcc used for the Linaro patches that don't play nice with AOSP.
# Nexus One: For the time being, the N1 will not be supported. We can get it to build/boot/run, but the hacks required break Google's CTS, so until that is rectified, you won't see any build with CM's official stamp of approval.
CM9 News
And from a followup a few hours later:
******
+Ricardo Cerqueira sat down with XDA recently for a developer interview
To piggy back on our comment about the N1 and CTS, Ricardo describes why we don't just shrug off that requirement.
Because it opened a can of worms that can’t be closed again. Getting it to work needed some very ugly workarounds that directly go against Google’s compatibility document for ICS. An app developer targeting ICS as a minimal version for his apps has the right to expect some functionality to be guaranteed on a device that claims to be ICS, that wasn’t (and isn’t) true for ICS builds with these hacks. That’s one the main reasons CM9 does not officially include a bunch of devices that are “working.”
...and some users understand that, but a lot don’t, and they’ll submit error reports on those apps, or they’ll rate it badly at the Play store. This is not a hypothetical scenario, it has happened whether we like it or not, asked for it or not, CM’s userbase is large enough to matter, even if you don’t count derivatives. We have a responsibility not to cause that kind of grief to app developers and we did. With all the mostly bull**** talk about fragmentation, we actively contributed to a break in the platform, no matter how small. That’s not a good thing :X People SHOULD know these builds contain hacks, but you’ve surely realized by now that they don’t
******
dookie23 said:
....so until that is rectified, you won't see any build with CM's official stamp of approval.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so.... is that ever gonna get rectified
charlie_su1986 said:
so.... is that ever gonna get rectified
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder what are the hacks he mentioned in the post. Was it the hboot hack, m2sd hack or swap partition...etc?
what is all the fuss about CM9 not releasing a rom officially when we have quite a few talented devs that have already given us the choice of running a near perfect ICS Rom on our nexus one?
EDIT: BCM offers CM9 features, AOKP offers us users the choice of AOKP features and texasice rom has a twist of its own features to. I do not see a problem with CM not releasing an official rom
Kannibalism said:
what is all the fuss about CM9 not releasing a rom officially when we have quite a few talented devs that have already given us the choice of running a near perfect ICS Rom on our nexus one?
EDIT: BCM offers CM9 features, AOKP offers us users the choice of AOKP features and texasice rom has a twist of its own features to. I do not see a problem with CM not releasing an official rom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing the talented devs make awesome progress on kang'ing CM9 and things are coming together nicely. What I am getting at is not whether Cyanogenmod is releasing a CM9 rom officially for the Nexus One, but it's what Ricardo Cerqueira said about the hacks breaking Google CTS. This could mean that apps might not run or worse yet, FC's for no reason.
Now, the real questions are, what are these hacks Ricardo was talking about and is that gonna get rectified?
the hacks they talk about could be small stuff like ta camera fix etc since vendors do not always release new drivers.I would say that the nexus one is using a few hacks for drivers in order to make everything work better
I suspect it's a combination, both messing with HBOOT partition sizes (which is not a *bad* thing, but involves a lot more risk than just flashing a new ROM) and the nasty driver hacks that the poor dev's have had to do to try to working around the lack of a Broadcom driver, since they saw fit to release neither a driver nor sufficient documentation. It's hard to see how either could be overcome for an "official" CM9 release. I feel like it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem; with sufficient dev attention things could probably be brought into acceptable shape, but unofficial ports will never have sufficient dev attention.
Disclaimer: I really appreciate all the work that's been done by everyone on all the community ROMs. It's a hard, often thankless job, whether you're debugging mystery driver issues on an older phone or trying to coordinate a release for dozens of different devices with angry, impatient fans. While I'd love to have an official, flawless ICS ROM, at least we get more love from the community than we did from Google
decoherent said:
I suspect it's a combination, both messing with HBOOT partition sizes (which is not a *bad* thing, but involves a lot more risk than just flashing a new ROM) and the nasty driver hacks that the poor dev's have had to do to try to working around the lack of a Broadcom driver, since they saw fit to release neither a driver nor sufficient documentation. It's hard to see how either could be overcome for an "official" CM9 release. I feel like it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem; with sufficient dev attention things could probably be brought into acceptable shape, but unofficial ports will never have sufficient dev attention.
Disclaimer: I really appreciate all the work that's been done by everyone on all the community ROMs. It's a hard, often thankless job, whether you're debugging mystery driver issues on an older phone or trying to coordinate a release for dozens of different devices with angry, impatient fans. While I'd love to have an official, flawless ICS ROM, at least we get more love from the community than we did from Google
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with this post i would put the blame on google for not pushing the vendors for the broadcom drivers since android is open source after all but once again great works by our devs and thanks for letting us experience the latest versions of android on our devices
EDIT: i must admit that i have better devices to use than the nexus one but the community keeps me coming back for more
Sent from my Nexus One using xda premium
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?