Related
Seems LG knows something Samsung doesn't? They say Google not allowing ui over lay on honeycomb at this time... Maybe vanilla 3.0 after all?
http://phandroid.com/2011/03/24/lg-says-google-wont-allow-custom-uis-on-honeycomb-samsung-says-huh/
Sent from my Tab using XDA Premium App
This is very interesting. Because Samsung was verrrryyyy careful to note that TouchWiz4.0 would be coming to "some devices" in "some markets". and wouldn't even hint at which those were.
Also it should be noted that they're calling TouchWiz4.0 a "UX" or User Experience, rather than a UI (User Interface). Although this is kinda stupid because they're re-skinning basic Honeycomb UI elements like the back/home/multitasking buttons and the entire settings menu, etc. Sounds like a UI more than a UX to me.
Sounds like they're going to try and develop TouchWiz4.0 and then fight Google on it. If anything, Google will push it back until they just include a few widgets and call it a day. I'm perfectly okay with this.
This sounds awesome btw, and I hope Google follows through with it. Its good for them to try and protect Android as a brand and keep it from getting bastardized by all the manufacturers and carriers.
You guys should remember that Samsung has previously squeezed through Google's rules. Google tried to stop Android from being put on tablets too early by not allowing GAPS (Google Apps, e.g. the Market) to be shipped on those devices, however there was an exception to this rule and surprisingly enough it was the original Galaxy Tab. I also believe the Notion Ink Adam had the market installed, but I don't know how they managed that one.
If what LG states is true, Samsung and maybe even other major manufactures like HTC do not have to follow this rule. I assure you, TouchWiz will somehow make it to these tabs somehow, Samsung seems to be special.
martonikaj said:
This sounds awesome btw, and I hope Google follows through with it. Its good for them to try and protect Android as a brand and keep it from getting bastardized by all the manufacturers and carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree. I think it would be great for Google to be firm footed about this. It's mainly the UI customisation that has caused so many manufacturers to cancel or postpone Android OS updates. I don't care if a manufacturer can produce a better UI than stock, I'd still rather have stock so that OS updates can be more timely.
Manufacturers can still customise the UI/UX somewhat via the application layer and their own widgets. Look at Launcher Pro for example.
I think Google need to create a supported mechanism for manufacturers to customise/skin/theme Android via official API calls. This gives manufacturers the differentiation they want and keeps everyone working ontop of official API calls.
Google should simply require that any modifications to the stock Android Experience be made "optional" by the manufacturers. Everybody wins.
RickBaller said:
Google should simply require that any modifications to the stock Android Experience by made "optional" by the manufacturers. Everybody wins.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. That way Samsung can advertise it all they want in promotional material etc., but there is a switch in the settings menu to turn it all back to stock. Maybe this will be Samsung's compromise, who knows. It sounds like Google would prefer if it was stock and no questions asked. Manufacturers can customize all they want with widgets and apps, just leave the OS stock!
What people don't realize is that as long as carriers have any part of the update process, you will always get updates late. Why do you think the iPhone has no carrier logo, no carrier apps, and all updates are through iTunes? Apple knows that carriers are slow as **** and mess up everything they touch.
ryude said:
What people don't realize is that as long as carriers have any part of the update process, you will always get updates late. Why do you think the iPhone has no carrier logo, no carrier apps, and all updates are through iTunes? Apple knows that carriers are slow as **** and mess up everything they touch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I totally agree. Having firmware that toggles between stock and custom sounds like it will take even longer to release that the custom firmwares of today. The only way it could work is. If Samsung release them separately. Stock would be released first. They can then take as much time as they need to release their custom variant. That would be best of both worlds. Having said that I still think i'll be using home brew roms from xda as it will be tonnes better than what samsung produce.
Android should have a central repository like Ubuntu so it's always up to date on every device. Google made a mistake not doing something like that in the beginning. Now it's probably too late.
"An LG spokesperson." Yeah, dunno if I would actually believe this person. It's like asking a retail salesman at the store when the release date is for the new phone.
Also, do you guys really want to loose Touchwiz? Besides the rfs file system which is still yet unknown, I wouldn't mind Touchwiz if it includes all the codecs. The Vibrant was a beast of a media player right off the bat and if I get a tablet, I would want it to play anything from the get go. Although, the other topic posted a video saying the Touchwiz update would be optional so who knows.
DKYang said:
"An LG spokesperson." Yeah, dunno if I would actually believe this person. It's like asking a retail salesman at the store when the release date is for the new phone.
Also, do you guys really want to loose Touchwiz? Besides the rfs file system which is still yet unknown, I wouldn't mind Touchwiz if it includes all the codecs. The Vibrant was a beast of a media player right off the bat and if I get a tablet, I would want it to play anything from the get go. Although, the other topic posted a video saying the Touchwiz update would be optional so who knows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good point about the codec support. What's involved with Samsung adding codec support? Is it a case of just having the codec files added to the Android OS or does it require native modules to be installed within the Android OS? I guess it's the UI elements I have the most issues with TouchWiz. Non-UI elements that enhance the phone such as additional codecs are a welcome benefit. They probably add hardly any extra time to incorporate into a stock Android OS release.
Techno79 said:
That's a good point about the codec support. What's involved with Samsung adding codec support? Is it a case of just having the codec files added to the Android OS or does it require native modules to be installed within the Android OS? I guess it's the UI elements I have the most issues with TouchWiz. Non-UI elements that enhance the phone such as additional codecs are a welcome benefit. They probably add hardly any extra time to incorporate into a stock Android OS release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think he's just saying that Samsung has more incentive to add in the codec support if they're going to customize with TouchWiz4.0.
Although I'd like to see them add the codec support either way considering they could use it as a huge selling point.
I was thinking, can't google just release a open-sourced release that can be used for ALL android phones? I understand why Samsung would want its Touchwiz in it, and tmobile would want their apps in the phone, but if Google started doing that, would it work? Like they put out a few versions of the next Android, and it just starts working? The different versions could be that theres one for small screens, bigger screens etc.
I'm just thinking, couldn't they just eliminate fragmentation with that?
What about drivers for the phone? Those are closed sourced most of the time, They release them for the nexus though.
Google can definitely release the rom, or the aosp as they do but can't be fully functional with drivers. Like cm7 early on for our phone but I believe they reversed engineered the drivers
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
xriderx66 said:
I was thinking, can't google just release a open-sourced release that can be used for ALL android phones? I understand why Samsung would want its Touchwiz in it, and tmobile would want their apps in the phone, but if Google started doing that, would it work? Like they put out a few versions of the next Android, and it just starts working? The different versions could be that theres one for small screens, bigger screens etc.
I'm just thinking, couldn't they just eliminate fragmentation with that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They already do.
That's what AOSP is.
I agree, Google should handle OS updates the same way Windows/Linux operate. Google should release the OS with compatible drivers for all devices.
As long as your phone has the specs to run the latest OS fast enough, great!
SamsungVibrant said:
I agree, Google should handle OS updates the same way Windows/Linux operate. Google should release the OS with compatible drivers for all devices.
As long as your phone has the specs to run the latest OS fast enough, great!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since when has Linux or Windows come with all the drivers? Have you ever done a fresh install of Windows or Linux before?
This is known as Fragmentation.
You have many choices/options of hardware but it's up to manufactures & carriers to provide compatible drivers.
Hence, iPhone & Nexus phones are so stable. I think Samsung is skating on thin ice by offering their Galaxy S to too many carriers with too many variables.
My next phone will be Nexus Prime/Galaxy Nexus!!!!
Sigh
I realize that everyone has differing opinions on this, but this isn't "fragmentation" in the same manner that Google refers to "fragmentation". I'm not picking, but it's the most misused phrase in the Android world. Fragmentation isn't about different devices with different drivers and individual frameworks like TouchWiz, Sense and Motoblur. Fragmentation is about companies doing things like installing Android on hardware that doesn't meet minimum specs (yes, Google has minimum/recommended hardware specifications), and running devices that are cut off from the Market altogether.
The reason why that's called "fragmentation" is because it's a poor representation of Android. It may be open source, but it's still being used in a manner not intended.
But then people would just expect their"old"phones to do new things. Why upgrade software when Tmobile wants you to buy new hardware.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using xda premium
reuthermonkey said:
Since when has Linux or Windows come with all the drivers? Have you ever done a fresh install of Windows or Linux before?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I've done a fresh install of win 7 and Kubuntu, and both find all the drivers I need flawlessly. Took Kubuntu/Ubuntu a while to be as easy as windows, but it's there now.
Really don't know what you meant either, Windows 7 goes and finds all the drivers you need if it doesn't already have a compatible one. It is a flawless easy install.
SamsungVibrant said:
Yes I've done a fresh install of win 7 and Kubuntu, and both find all the drivers I need flawlessly. Took Kubuntu/Ubuntu a while to be as easy as windows, but it's there now.
Really don't know what you meant either, Windows 7 goes and finds all the drivers you need if it doesn't already have a compatible one. It is a flawless easy install.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The key words are "find drivers." Windows automatically finds what driver you need by downloading them from the net. Google would have to create a program that lets you update while getting required drivers..
I think that why ima go with the Nexus Prime. Its basically a GS2 but you get the android updates (I think)
dunkerya said:
What about drivers for the phone? Those are closed sourced most of the time, They release them for the nexus though.
Google can definitely release the rom, or the aosp as they do but can't be fully functional with drivers. Like cm7 early on for our phone but I believe they reversed engineered the drivers
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
False. Google gets the device first, loads Android on it the way they would like it loaded, drivers and all, and then hands it back to the manufacturer. The manufacturer then changes the source as they choose.
They make drivers for parts they didn't manufacturer? That makes no sense.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
dunkerya said:
They make drivers for parts they didn't manufacturer? That makes no sense.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know but it wouldn't be too hard to get drivers from part/chip manufacturers.
Doesn't Microsoft make drivers to parts they didn't manufacturer?
SamsungVibrant said:
I don't know but it wouldn't be too hard to get drivers from part/chip manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently it is. See: Vibrant GPS.
Doesn't Microsoft make drivers to parts they didn't manufacturer?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. There are generic drivers based upon standards, like NDIS, VGA, etc... that are freely available to distribute and provide very basic functionality. Non-standards drivers (that is, most drivers used since about 1994) are proprietary and must be obtained from the manufacturer.
Or do you not recall having to go out and search for hours to find the right drivers for windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, and Me (uggh)? Ever use linux before the likes of apt-get/yum and automated gui installs? Install printers over parallel ports? Serial mice?
I'm gonna guess no.
reuthermonkey said:
Apparently it is. See: Vibrant GPS.
No. There are generic drivers based upon standards, like NDIS, VGA, etc... that are freely available to distribute and provide very basic functionality. Non-standards drivers (that is, most drivers used since about 1994) are proprietary and must be obtained from the manufacturer.
Or do you not recall having to go out and search for hours to find the right drivers for windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, and Me (uggh)? Ever use linux before the likes of apt-get/yum and automated gui installs? Install printers over parallel ports? Serial mice?
I'm gonna guess no.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
god thats a pain in the ass.
xriderx66 said:
god thats a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not miss those days. Not a single bit.
reuthermonkey said:
Apparently it is. See: Vibrant GPS.
No. There are generic drivers based upon standards, like NDIS, VGA, etc... that are freely available to distribute and provide very basic functionality. Non-standards drivers (that is, most drivers used since about 1994) are proprietary and must be obtained from the manufacturer.
Or do you not recall having to go out and search for hours to find the right drivers for windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, and Me (uggh)? Ever use linux before the likes of apt-get/yum and automated gui installs? Install printers over parallel ports? Serial mice?
I'm gonna guess no.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who cares about windows 95, it's almost 2012 and Win 7 has practically all the compatible drivers you need upon install, and if it doesn't it searches and finds it for you. Not to mention windows update notifies you of new updated drivers also.
There is no reason Google can't direct Android in the same direction to make everything easier. They just have to work out deals probably with hardware/chip manufacturers for drivers or something. I think it would also help end fragmentation if Google just handled the OS release and updates and took the control away from phone manufacturers and carriers.
SamsungVibrant said:
Who cares about windows 95, it's almost 2012 and Win 7 has practically all the compatible drivers you need upon install, and if it doesn't it searches and finds it for you. Not to mention windows update notifies you of new updated drivers also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So that answers that.
It helps to know a tiny bit of history to understand why things are the way they are. How old are you? 14?
There is no reason Google can't direct Android in the same direction to make everything easier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for that whole "open source" thing.
They just have to work out deals probably with hardware/chip manufacturers for drivers or something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"or something" being the important part here. How, exactly is google going to "work out deals" with driver manufacturers, when they don't have any control over what hardware each phone uses? Moreover, unlike Android (which is distributed under the GPL) drivers are proprietary and don't fall under the same GPL license. Different driver manufacturers may have different licensing models with different handset makers as well. What microsoft does is quite different. But since you don't know anything about the history, I'm really not going to waste my time detailing Microsoft's approach, or the fact that it took them about 20 years to get there.
I think it would also help end fragmentation if Google just handled the OS release and updates and took the control away from phone manufacturers and carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would end fragmentation a whole lot, because phone manufacturers and carriers would no longer sell Android devices, and we'd go back to iOS and Blackberry (or WP7). Chances are, manufacturer profit margins would go up if they did that, since there'd be less competition, and less room for hardware innovation too. That sure would be easier though.
A simple fix
a simple fix to this whole fragmentation problem would be:
1. Android Release all OS Updates
2. Each device manufacturer uploads individual device drivers to google just like github maintainers take care of each device like cyanogenmod
3. Service Providers like T-Mobile/AT&T/Verizon could issue updates and customizations to the market. Just like T-Mobile does, they have their own T-Mobile Market Section. This would allow them to add customizations to the launcher, and certain apps. Google could have an Agreement with each provider that when your phone updates, it could either WGet updates, or have the market auto download and install them.
This is a simple fix. Stupid Simple, because it would make all manufacturers device maintainers, updates are central organized, and everyone can get their updates, manually or automatically.
Thank you reuthermonkey.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Just wondering if there is a specific answer as to whether the IR blaster will/can work in custom ROMs.I have read/heard that in some ROMs, like CM 10.1 I believe, that it doesn't work "yet". So should I assume that it's catch-as-catch-can?
For full disclosure, I'm still using my N4 but am strongly considering grabbing an S4, primarily because I can't stand the N4 battery life anymore, want LTE again ( I had an S3 briefly) and a better camera would be nice. But, I will almost certainly root and flash something more stock but definitely want to keep the IR functionality.
Thanks in advance for the help.
It's highly unlikely that custom non-TouchWiz roms like CM10.1 will be able to use the IR blaster. I'm hopeful that the upcoming Google Edition of the GS4 will have functionality so it can be ported to AOSP roms.
snakecharmer23 said:
It's highly unlikely that custom non-TouchWiz roms like CM10.1 will be able to use the IR blaster. I'm hopeful that the upcoming Google Edition of the GS4 will have functionality so it can be ported to AOSP roms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? I'm not a developer by any stretch, but does that mean that they have no way of accessing the hardware? What if you were to use a 3rd party remote app, like Peel?
Push the SamsungWatchOn app to your phone and see if it works.
C13v3r0n3 said:
Push the SamsungWatchOn app to your phone and see if it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't. I tried it. There are no drivers for the IR Blaster. I would say unless the Google edition has it we are SOL. No apps work it that I tried, and I tried most all of them in the Play Store.
The Google edition of the S4 will not use the Samsung apps or make use of some of the hardware from what I understand. No S-view or gestures or temp sensors or IR or any of that. Which is a huge bummer if you ask me. We don't need T-Wiz but make use of the hardware and capabilities at least.
Just do yourself a favor and download Smart Remote. Problem solved.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using xda premium
justlaxin13 said:
Really? I'm not a developer by any stretch, but does that mean that they have no way of accessing the hardware? What if you were to use a 3rd party remote app, like Peel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm no dev either.... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that the Google version won't leave half the hardware useless.
my comment is not to bash, it's just my opinion. i get that people want to run stock android because they are used to it from other devices or they may just like the look and feel of it. i like stock android also, just not on my gs4. there is hardware on this phone that stock android can not take advantage of. like all the sensors and aspects of the camera. i just cant bring myself to have stock android knowing that i paid for a phone that can do other things yet i cant use those other things. i dont know what the google edition of gs4 will have, but something tells me it will just be like us putting an aosp rom on our devices right now and not having the drivers to take advantage of the other aspects of the phone hardware. makes me feel like why did i buy this phone with these sensors on it if i cant use them? i should have instead got a different phone that has a 1080p screen with a quad core cpu with ext sdcard, minus the extra gs4 hardware that makes it unique, so that the stock android can take full advantage of.
What about touch squid? Does that work?
Sent from my GT-N7100
@rbiter said:
What about touch squid? Does that work?
Sent from my GT-N7100
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no ir blaster driver in rom = no app that can run the hardware. needs to be a touchwiz based custom rom. like mdob rom.
I'm 100% positive they will make use of the IR Blaster or atleast include simple drivers for developers to run with.
Let me make this clear, Samsung is NOT going to produce the device with an IR device on the developer edition if they don't plan on giving Google drivers. As if Samsung is gonna waste money on perfectly good IR Blasters to never ever be used....
It's either gonna have the IR Blaster and have simple functionality, or the hardware will be scrapped to save money.
snakecharmer23 said:
I'm no dev either.... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that the Google version won't leave half the hardware useless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WELL you might as well cross your fingers, toes, eyes, and hold your breath.
ZPaul2Fresh8 said:
Just do yourself a favor and download Smart Remote. Problem solved.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung includes an 'irda' driver in their open source, isn't that the driver? If that's the case, couldn't someone compile that driver into a kernel and then we could use apps like Smart Remote?
No rom will work if the Samsung Framework is not installed. If it were as easy as just installing the IR driver in the ROM, i'm pretty sure all roms would be compatible with it by now, or some dev would create a patch for it
Nothing to see here you need Touchwiz to use it. I would not bet on the Google edition having it. Google will not have all the bells and whistles like everybody things.
You need ir blaster stick with stock rom and forget the rest.
The framework is definitely needed for stuff like WatchOn or anything that calls the IR Blaster through the framework, but an app like SmartRemote that calls the hardware directly through the drivers wouldn't need the framework.
I didn't look too much at the irda drivers but I an fairly certain that one could just compile support for that in and if the app is non-samsung that the support should be there the same as any external ir blaster.
Please read forum rules before posting
Questions and help issues go in Q&A and help sections
Thread moved
Thank you for your cooperation
Friendly Neighborhood Moderator
Thermalwolf said:
I'm 100% positive they will make use of the IR Blaster or atleast include simple drivers for developers to run with.
Let me make this clear, Samsung is NOT going to produce the device with an IR device on the developer edition if they don't plan on giving Google drivers. As if Samsung is gonna waste money on perfectly good IR Blasters to never ever be used....
It's either gonna have the IR Blaster and have simple functionality, or the hardware will be scrapped to save money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt the actual hardware will be scrapped. This would require a change to their hardware manufacturing process which will be a costly change for them. It seems that the Qualcomm S4s are almost completely identical less firmware and software changes, which would occur after the hardware build.
Because the production volumes of the S4 are so high, the cost of adding these sensors is probably trivial, either cents or fractions of a cent per unit. Changing the production lines to modify the manufacturing, after all of the labor, QC, etc., is likely to cost more per phone than simply including the part, at least at the production volumes we can reasonably expect to see.
Given the volumes on this edition of the S4 will most likely be nowhere near the volumes of the ATT or VZW standard models, the cheapest way for Samsung to create this SKU would be to re-badge the existing hardware with the vanilla software. After all, this is exactly what they did with the i337m.
Of course, this doesn't guarantee drivers will be available for the IR. However, this model is targeted to the enthusiast market, and they would likely see sales of the new SKU cannibalized by other models if they didn't include basic functionality.
After all, why would I buy the Google edition with no IR support when I can go buy the T-Mobile model, with a choice of carrier subsidy, if the end result is essentially the same? I could just buy that one and flash CM10 or equivalent if I don't get IR either way, and I can get that from my friendly neighborhood retail outlet.
Since this model seems to be marketed to enthusiasts, the amount of loss they would sustain by not including an IR driver could be substantial enough that it wouldn't make economic sense to have created the additional SKU in the first place.
Again, this is all speculation, but this is where I'd place my bet. Now watch, since I've stated this, Murphy's Law will kick in and I will be completely wrong...
Sent from my SGH-I337 using XDA Premium HD app
Well if the follow the HTC model the IR blaster will just be disabled
Wayne Tech Nexus
Can I do by chance T-Mobile S4 or Samsung original ROMs on the Google Edition of this phone? Or, T-Mobile ROM on the Unlocked International/World version? I want this because, basically, I want to buy unlocked, but in the case of the Google Edition, be able to install original Samsung ROMs or T-Mobile ROMs to restore lost functionality. On the case of a world phone, it would be purely to restore T-Mobile WiFi Calling. I plan to use this on T-Moble mostly, so I want it to work. HOWEVER, I want to be able to play with ROMs, swap out to stock Android or Google Edition ROMs for play, on occasion. Is it really easy to install a T-Mobile ROM on GE/Unlocked World Phones? and does everything work the same? Like, there won't be a part of the T-Mobile ROM not working, will there be?
I'm just bumping this because I'm curious too. I would love to flash AOSPA to my google edition, and theoretically the t-mobile is the same device.
jpculp said:
I'm just bumping this because I'm curious too. I would love to flash AOSPA to my google edition, and theoretically the t-mobile is the same device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I am aware its not possible right now.
jetlitheone said:
As far as I am aware its not possible right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why is that? They are using GE ROMs on T-Mobile phones. Why couldn't someone install or flash a T-Mobile ROM to a GE phone? Is there a particular problem they encounter right now?
There is big reason to want to do this, of course. The GE ROM is missing all the Samsung specific software, like camera features, probably finger tracking and pointing software, etc. Also missing, T-Mobile WiFi Calling support, because T-Mobile rather making this a hard to get feature by tightly concealing it inside some custom additions to the frame work rather than a separate app.
Because the hardware is the same, which it is, isn't it? I am having hard time figuring out why it wouldn't work. Is there some BIOS limitation, hardware limitation going on here?
None of the I9505 variants are using the stock GE rom. I9505G has different partition sizes so the devs had to change those first to make them compatible. I'm sure there are other differences because otherwise TWRP team wouldn't be taking this long to release the recovery for I9505G if it was just partition difference.
Sent from my GT-I9505G using xda app-developers app
deaffob said:
None of the I9505 variants are using the stock GE rom. I9505G has different partition sizes so the devs had to change those first to make them compatible. I'm sure there are other differences because otherwise TWRP team wouldn't be taking this long to release the recovery for I9505G if it was just partition difference.
Sent from my GT-I9505G using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Already released: http://teamw.in/project/twrp2/192
moops
deaffob said:
None of the I9505 variants are using the stock GE rom. I9505G has different partition sizes so the devs had to change those first to make them compatible. I'm sure there are other differences because otherwise TWRP team wouldn't be taking this long to release the recovery for I9505G if it was just partition difference.
Sent from my GT-I9505G using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
partition sizes? so you're saying the ROM doesn't take care of filesystem stuff, or changing the layout of the partitions on the system during installation? it just reuses the old partitions and possibly filesystems? so installations aren't truly "clean" just like gaining root access is always some clunky hack/workaround?
I mean, wouldn't the ROM just flash itself, and it's preferred layout within the flash memory, not even care about what it was before? I got this weird feeling about Android, that things are too hacked together, that's why I hate it. Why not develop a method to install Linux/Android from scratch, like manual bootloader installation, manual partition, manual formatting, manual installation of kernel and software to get it all working, just like a "fresh" "clean" install of an OS on any other computer? Is this already possible somewhere? I actually prefer to do all the installation and set up myself. They could also design the ROMs to include this information, or the flash utility to do most of it automatically.. I am surprised it doesn't do this already.
Let me ask another question, is it possible to go through and do a clean install of Android from an Android ROM? Like say you restart and repartition everywhere, recreate the filesystem, all settings, all files, etc? possibly even remove files or programs you don't want, but in a clean fashion? or add some you want to add?
masturbaker said:
I mean, wouldn't the ROM just flash itself, and it's preferred layout within the flash memory, not even care about what it was before?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, flashing ROMs does not re-partition the NAND.
masturbaker said:
partition sizes? so you're saying the ROM doesn't take care of filesystem stuff, or changing the layout of the partitions on the system during installation? it just reuses the old partitions and possibly filesystems? so installations aren't truly "clean" just like gaining root access is always some clunky hack/workaround?
I mean, wouldn't the ROM just flash itself, and it's preferred layout within the flash memory, not even care about what it was before? I got this weird feeling about Android, that things are too hacked together, that's why I hate it. Why not develop a method to install Linux/Android from scratch, like manual bootloader installation, manual partition, manual formatting, manual installation of kernel and software to get it all working, just like a "fresh" "clean" install of an OS on any other computer? Is this already possible somewhere? I actually prefer to do all the installation and set up myself. They could also design the ROMs to include this information, or the flash utility to do most of it automatically.. I am surprised it doesn't do this already.
Let me ask another question, is it possible to go through and do a clean install of Android from an Android ROM? Like say you restart and repartition everywhere, recreate the filesystem, all settings, all files, etc? possibly even remove files or programs you don't want, but in a clean fashion? or add some you want to add?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not that simple. You seems to think that this is an Android's problem but this is the way it is in any programming. Apple can get away with one OS because they only have one type of hardware. For example, if you have to develop the CM for each device, you have to take account for everything from the screen size to SoC.
Back to your first question, if partition sizes are different, you can't flash roms because the rom that you are trying to flash could have bigger or smaller size and this could ruin the filesystem.
Sent from my GT-I9505G using xda app-developers app
deaffob said:
It's not that simple. You seems to think that this is an Android's problem but this is the way it is in any programming. Apple can get away with one OS because they only have one type of hardware. For example, if you have to develop the CM for each device, you have to take account for everything from the screen size to SoC.
Back to your first question, if partition sizes are different, you can't flash roms because the rom that you are trying to flash could have bigger or smaller size and this could ruin the filesystem.
Sent from my GT-I9505G using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is that simple, though. it's just the problem with Android, is the tools aren't designed to be like this right now. the software is designed to do what it does now, because it was designed to not take care of these problems automatically.
I understand the issue right now is that the developers are focused in hacking Android, rather than opening it up and putting back in what's missing from the manufactures. stuff like user account management, being able to run all the command line tools from a shell, repartition, this and that. the current developers seem to think that everyone wants to keep their existing software in place without being able to clean install or reinstall any of it, so the tools don't start off the the beginning, don't make perfect clean back ups, and are just really bad hacks to everything in general. there is no solid OS development on android because of this. they don't think you want to have access to modify or treat the system just like it was any other computer, so they focus on cheap hacks instead of giving you full access and explanations on how to do everything. I'd like to see guides on how to manually do things myself, instead of using other peoples tools and programs to do it. I love to dive in and get physical with the OS, rather than do things the cheap and hacky way. i would also like an android kernel which has root without need for hacks.
Yes, each phone is different. But it doesn't mean that the kernel/OS couldn't be designed to handle this, without a different build for each phone. What you want to do is modularize the features of the phone, including driver for CPU, GPU, screen, resolution, color profile information, and specific hardware features. you should be able to do this exactly the same as in Windows, or Linux - the phone would load up only the relevant modules for the hardware components present on the phone. if the CPU architecture was vastly different, a different build could be offered to optimize performance. but other than that, there isn't a big different between the many phones out there. they all got ARM processors, often based on the same architecture, or similar design as each other. ie, a QUALCOMM or Samsung or NVidia CPU, each one that runs the same ARM code/instructions code, with small differences at best. they all got screens and touch input, there is a difference in WiFi and wireless chipsets, but that should all be handled by a driver from the hardware vendor (I am sure there is drivers in Android, but i haven't looked myself - you should be able to swap them out and load them up in different operating systems without hassle, because typically, in Linux, drivers are built to function with the major version of the kernel, not a specific build of a kernel). Because Linux is virtually the same all around, you should be able to build a driver that works in more than one kernel, and have is made available just like in Linux today, where you load it up only if you need it. If Android is not like this, the whole platform sounds like it was really poorly implemented...
masturbaker said:
it is that simple, though. it's just the problem with Android, is the tools aren't designed to be like this right now. the software is designed to do what it does now, because it was designed to not take care of these problems automatically.
I understand the issue right now is that the developers are focused in hacking Android, rather than opening it up and putting back in what's missing from the manufactures. stuff like user account management, being able to run all the command line tools from a shell, repartition, this and that. the current developers seem to think that everyone wants to keep their existing software in place without being able to clean install or reinstall any of it, so the tools don't start off the the beginning, don't make perfect clean back ups, and are just really bad hacks to everything in general. there is no solid OS development on android because of this. they don't think you want to have access to modify or treat the system just like it was any other computer, so they focus on cheap hacks instead of giving you full access and explanations on how to do everything. I'd like to see guides on how to manually do things myself, instead of using other peoples tools and programs to do it. I love to dive in and get physical with the OS, rather than do things the cheap and hacky way. i would also like an android kernel which has root without need for hacks.
Yes, each phone is different. But it doesn't mean that the kernel/OS couldn't be designed to handle this, without a different build for each phone. What you want to do is modularize the features of the phone, including driver for CPU, GPU, screen, resolution, color profile information, and specific hardware features. you should be able to do this exactly the same as in Windows, or Linux - the phone would load up only the relevant modules for the hardware components present on the phone. if the CPU architecture was vastly different, a different build could be offered to optimize performance. but other than that, there isn't a big different between the many phones out there. they all got ARM processors, often based on the same architecture, or similar design as each other. ie, a QUALCOMM or Samsung or NVidia CPU, each one that runs the same ARM code/instructions code, with small differences at best. they all got screens and touch input, there is a difference in WiFi and wireless chipsets, but that should all be handled by a driver from the hardware vendor (I am sure there is drivers in Android, but i haven't looked myself - you should be able to swap them out and load them up in different operating systems without hassle, because typically, in Linux, drivers are built to function with the major version of the kernel, not a specific build of a kernel). Because Linux is virtually the same all around, you should be able to build a driver that works in more than one kernel, and have is made available just like in Linux today, where you load it up only if you need it. If Android is not like this, the whole platform sounds like it was really poorly implemented...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright don't take offense, but I think you have many wrong ideas on basic computer programming. Hacking basically means that exploring the limits of what is possible, thereby doing something exciting and meaningful. Hacking and programming aren't technically different. I don't get what you mean when you say 'hacky' or 'cheap' way. Like I said this isn't Android's problem. This is the way it is in any OS including Linux, Windows, OSX, iOS, etc.
We have had a way to do clean backups/restores for a long time. I don't know what you mean by 'bad hacks' on this regards. The way it does backups is the same way in any other system.
Android developers do not think that 'everyone wants to keep their existing software in place without being able to clean install or reinstall any of it.' If this were true, there wouldn't be so many ways to do backups either through individual app or NAND.
When you say 'there is no solid OS development on android' what do you mean by that? Android is the mobile OS that had gone through the most OS developments by independent programmers in the history. Everything from the corporate developments such as TouchWiz and Sense to the independent developments like Cyannogen and Paranoidandroid, each and everyone made significant deviation from the original AOSP source.
Where did you hear that Windows or Linux use one kernel for all hardware? Each and every hardware has different kernel that's specially made for the hardware.
deaffob said:
Where did you hear that Windows or Linux use one kernel for all hardware? Each and every hardware has different kernel that's specially made for the hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mostly all distros use a standard kernel build, which is the same across each install. sometimes you can find customized versions, or builds, or architecture dependent builds. like i can build Linux kernel for AMD64 architecture, and it works on both Intel and AMD. or i can build for i686, and it works on all modern 32-bit and 64-bit x86 processors. if I build it for i386, it works on processors dating back to the Pentium 1/2. I can also do a build specific to the Intel Ivy Bridge, or AMD Bulldozer architecture, which sometimes makes it faster on modern processors, but can be run on older ones with reduced speed. it is the same kernel, across every CPU it is run on. generally, I bet, the kernel in Android is built for "ARM" and it loads up and works on all ARM processors. sometimes you can compile it for specific architectures, and that may break it on others, but that is not how it's commonly done. On Windows, there is one kernel, that works on all OSes. recently Microsoft has begun doing architecture specific builds, like Windows 7 64bit has a kernel built for Intel and a separate for AMD, which gets installed depending on which one you have. The difference is not much, just mostly the compiler will be set with architecture specific flags which merely optimizes order and execution of operations usually. sometimes it enables the use of CPU specific features like SSE, etc.
the way it gets by using one build of the kernel, is through use of drivers and modules to support other hardware specific functions and features. most of the hardware specific features are in the modules and drivers. Distributions like Windows, Redhat and FreeBSD use a precompiled kernel that is the same in every installation, regardless of architecture, unless you compile it yourself or choose a more custom build. but the difference is generally only whether it's optimized for an Intel or AMD CPU, and code designed for both is generally just as fast as the architecture specific builds. on Android, the difference is, the CPU within each SoC, is probably virtually identical. each one based on a specific ARM core or design (which they bought and licensed from ARM, so it is a design shared amongst vendors), which is the ARMv7-A architecture on modern Android phones, whether it's NVidia, QUALCOMM, or Samsung. there is not a whole lot of difference in each vendors product other than the GPU and wireless chipsets, but most chipsets other than NVidia do share the common GPU architecture as well (Adreno 320), meaning the kernel/drivers should be identical. support for GPU and other chipsets within the phone should be handled by a driver or module.
Hello,
I just wanted to know if the Android Wear Project is also getting open source, cause we have so many Smartwatches that are allready based on Android (Gear, Moto Actv,...) so porting Android Wear over to them is not the hardest thing.
If you find something, please let me know!
Regards
Yes, IMO a VERY important question that hasn't been answered yet.
I would be concerned that Google felt it was TOO open with Android proper and tried to restrict Wear even more.
If the current preview emulator is a good indication, then Wear is just another variant of Android. Many normal apps can run on it right now, though with issues. I tested my own app and it more or less worked, with a squished UI.
So I think a LOT of the Wear code is effectively already IN AOSP already.
But will Google release enough Wear specific code for custom ROMs to be built ? I very much hope so.
i
That will be gr8
custom launchers
like wht devs did on galaxy gear (they installed nova launcher on it)
or using custom keyboard like minuum beside voice input.
system dump;
source
Praying for a port of Android Wear for Galaxy Gear!!!!
traxxasislife said:
Praying for a port of Android Wear for Galaxy Gear!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Prayer is the only remote hope you have, I think.
There are reasons Gears are going cheap now.
You really think Samsung won't take every opportunity to sell you new wearables, EVERY year at least ?
EVERY few months, new, "in fashion" designs.
Every year, moar cores, LOL.
We'll be overclocking on both wrists to keep our hands warm in winter...
mikereidis said:
We'll be overclocking on both wrists to keep our hands warm in winter...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's genius! Perfect winter accessory:silly:
Android wear without wear
Couldn't we just built a custom android wear version which is based on one of the regular open source android versions? Like e.g. android kitkat with a special launcher and a way to display notifications similar to android wear
Finkes said:
Couldn't we just built a custom android wear version which is based on one of the regular open source android versions? Like e.g. android kitkat with a special launcher and a way to display notifications similar to android wear
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMO they're going to need to for it to be usable by the pro-android anti-google crowd.
I have the LG G Watch and I have it unlocked with TWRP and a custom ROM on it. However it still can't connect to my phone unless I have a Google account on it, so I can use the Play Store to download the Android Wear app and connect it via Bluetooth.
So I figured "fine whatever, I'll just put it in airplane mode and use it as a regular watch until someone comes up with an Open Source solution" right?
Wrong, turns out I CAN'T EVEN CHANGE THE TIME! It updates that from the phone which updates from the time servers on the net. Good thing I have an older phone that I can stick Google on to work with it I guess.
All I want is my texts on my watch without having to get spied upon by the almighty Google.
Also, they should call it AWOSP because it sounds awesome.