Related
I found this article VERY interesting, and thought some of you may enjoy it.
Posted by Google themselves; http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-not-rooting-its-openness.html
If you don't understand that, the people at digimoe made it more clear...
http://digimoe.com/google-says-andr...droid-os-is-made-for-rooting-nexus-s-included
As a developer phone, that's certainly true. I don't know. I mean Samsung doesn't have a reputation for locking their phones down hard, even on the non-google line. A reputation for **** development and longterm support, perhaps. And maybe that was google's thinking in choosing them as the Nexus 1 follow up. Certainly google has plenty to gain by helping Samsung out on the Galaxy S line. We'll see what the future brings.
But it's also easy for Google to talk about openness while sitting in the comfy confines of Mountain View. Can anyone go find me Google's support number for the Nexus S?
Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.
good read.
T313C0mun1s7 said:
Not exactly Google's number, but there is this:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/help
Google provides the OS, but Samsung is the manufacturer and the one in charge of quality control is responsible for support. This is as it should be.
They do provide a direct support phone number, it is just for Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.
WoodDraw said:
My point was that it's easy to call for openness when you don't care about the consequences. Would you rather Tmobile/Samsung provide a link to root your phone at the time of purchase that also immediately voids your warranty? I doubt most here would take that offer.
I like Google's talk about openness, as selective as it may be. But I suspect the manufacturers and carriers roll their eyes when they get these lectures, and I don't necessarily blame them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for 1 thing, they are choosing to of their own free will sell a device that is based on a free, open source operating system that has a license that states a requirement of openness, and even that their source modifications are required to be submitted back to the source tree.
The drivers are proprietary, and that is fine - even if it is the reason for the requirement for us to use leaked ROMs to get all the hardware to work. Rooting does not change the drivers, and this discussion ended at rooting. That said even after rooting the parts that get changed are just the open source parts that the devs have the source for because it is in the AOSP depository.
If they don't want to support your changes to the OS that is their prerogative, but they still have a responsibility to support the hardware for defects.
At some point I would like to see someone with the money, time, and conviction sue their carrier when they refuse to honor the warranty because it was rooted. See that clause breaks many of the original licenses that make up the various parts of the OS. In fact they are required to provide a copy to the GPL or at least a link to it AND the source itself. They know they can't win this, which is why I think they like to say it voids the warranty, but as long as the phone looks like it is stock (which is more about not supporting errors you introduced) then they don't really look too hard.
If they don't want to let people exercise their rights under the various open source licenses, then they should stick to devices with enforceable, proprietary operating systems like iOS, Windows Mobile, Symbian, and Web OS.
"Openness" is an excuse, obviously.
I like how Google is trying to save face, and that other site is trying hard to help them along.
People these days seem to just be less concerned about security.
Actively fixing security holes doesn't matter for an OS that cannot be esily pushed out to users as updates. Does it really matter if you fix security holes, but half o fyour users never recieve those fixes?
Well, yea, it does... Just not as much as they think it does.
Also the sandboxing thing is a joke, studies have been conducted and lots of Android apps are sharing data with each other foe the benefit of Advertisers, etc.
How come they got Android 2.3 on the iphone but noone can get ios on android hardware?
I would think at least partly it's due to lack of trying (doubt many Android developers would want to use iOS)... but the thing is, Android is designed to run on a lot of different hardware, whereas iOS runs on specific hardware, so they can do lots of specific checks if they really wanted to to make sure it's running on a real iPhone. This is just my educated guess of course.
The iPhone currently has a handful of carriers and only 4 hardware configurations. I'd imagine that a fair amount of information about the internals gets leaked as well.
I am unaware of the specifics of android development on that platform, but the biggest advantage their developer community has is less overlap and redundancy in their efforts (lack of fragmentation). Also note that Android is open source-IOS is not, so we only tend to see iPhone OS installed on Apple hardware.
I also have my suspicions that their grass isn't really all that green. Personally, I tend to favor fragmentation, as it fosters innovation(but YMMV!).
You didn't ask my opinion though
Cheers.
Android is open source so it can be adapted to almost all hardware. iOS is closed source so to adapt it you'd have to reverse engineer. And that is illegal. It's that simple. And been asked before. You should try searching, reading and thinking, it's wonderfull, doesn't hurt and you might learn something.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
The reason's pretty simple. In order to effectively port an OS to any particular device, you really need access to the source code.
On the one hand, with Android, Google literally gives the source code away. You know that AOSP term everyone throws around? It stands for Android Open Source Project, and is the website (source.android.com) where anyone can download the full Android source code and do basically whatever they want with it.
Then, there's Apple. They guard iOS' source code vigilantly and litigiously -- I mean, their over-protectiveness even extends to what apps they'll let run on (non-jailbroken) phones. So needless to say, they don't make it easy to take their OS apart and port it to other devices. Really, they make it as hard as possible.
Great answers guys thanx!
Yeah! Thanks for the answer Ik Desire! You Rock!
Hello,
Im currently writing an academic paper on android and openness in my master's programme. If all goes well, it will be submitted for a conference soon.
I'm looking for your opinions on having an android device open for operating system level modifications or not. As you may know, some phones have a signed bootloader such as the Motorola Milestone, t-mobile g2 (who made the phone reinstall stock OS when breached), and probably many others. Google however, make their devices open, even though they are sold as consumer devices. Many others do not bother to install circumvention mechanics.
Obviously, the people here will be biased towards allowing modification to the OS, therefore, i would like to get a discussion going, to discern what problems and possibilities you see in the long run for hardware manufacturers.
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
I would really appericiate your opinions and discussion!
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
As a beginner app developer, this has yet to bother me. I do enjoy being able to add apps that add functionality to my phone but I haven't bothered to get down into the "root" area. So no I do not check nor does it impact my decision...I own a Samsung fascinate by the way
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
My opinion on measures to prevent changes is all about PR and performance. If enough people hacked a phone and the hack caused the phone to work below is ability then the only news report you will see is the phone sucks.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
This is also a give and take if question 2 is not of a concern to them, then its def a gain for the company and to all of the developers out there that do search for the best phone and nick pick around until they find it.
Are there enough of those kind of people out there to affect a companies buttom line. Maybe not yet but in another couple of years who knows.
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
It hasnt yet been a deciding factor on which device to get, primarily because sooner or later they all get cracked open.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
One reason could be that the carriers demand it as a way to keep any revenue that they get from the preinstalled bloatware.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
The percentage of people that actually tinker in this area is very slim, so the manufacturers most likely don't see that as a big market opportunity.
Don't have any answers, but would like to read your paper when done...sounds interesting and a Masters Thesis is always fun to read! LOL
It's not a thesis, just a short article. I might make a survey for it but I need to ask the right questions.
Not all devices get fully customized, root is common, but in my phone for example it is not possible to load a custom kernel, as the bootloader checks for signed code (Motorola's secret key). There's been a massive uproar from the owners of the Milestone, as people didn't expect to be hustled like that when getting an android phone. The main problem is of course, that Motorola takes a long time to release updates. Even as of today, Froyo has still not been released for my phone by Motorola.
While I am not sure about it, I suspect Sony Ericsson X10i owners are in the same boat, and they will get a really rotten deal, seeing as 2.1 has been officially declared the last version the device will recieve. Yet, an enthusiast could release a perfectly fine version of 2.3 if the phone accepted custom firmware and he had access to drivers etc.
So basically, you buy a piece of hardware that is very capable, but The Company decides for you which software you could run.
Imagine if you bought a Windows Vista PC right before Windows 7 was released, and the only way you could get Windows 7 on it was if that particular PC manufacturer released an official update containing all it's bloatware and applications you don't want. Since the update needs to go through all kinds of verifications and approvals, it might be delayed for a half a year, or maybe 9 months, after the new OS release. Why do we accept this on our phones and tablets?
Hi,
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
For me personally, yes, most definately. I like to be able to get in and play, see how things work, change stuff. And i think custom ROMs IMO are a big drawcard of Android.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
To try and ensure the device works as they want it to. Minimise support costs etc.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Definately. Encourages improvement of existing features, and development of new stuff beyond the manufacturers initial product scope, which can be integrated in future products.
Android OS its self is an example of this - the developer community is writing apps, logging bugs, and contributing code to the benefit of future releases of Android, which in turn benefits device manufacturers.
- jc
my two cents
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your decision?
>> Personally, I feel like the ability to modify my phone at the core level is something I as a power user can use to tailor my phone's experience in the way I need to make it the most efficient device it can be. This is especially necessary as my phone is my primary connectivity device (I really only use my laptop for things the phone just really isn't capable of handling yet, such as video conversion)
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
I think this is less the decision of the manufacturers and more of the carriers themselves. This really is because each device has to be tailored to be sold to the average user, rather than power users (read: 85-90% of people who will read this reply) and as a result is designed with an experience in mind. To the suits, anyone who take a phone that is supposed to have a specific experience in mind, and changes that, it becomes a different phone, and anyone who looks at that phone will see that. This means, TMo/HTC can't sell a G2, because everything that my office mates will see when they look at my phone is my android customizations, not a G2. my office mate, who is shopping for a phone, can get an android phone anywhere... but they can only get a /G2/ from TMo/HTC. Similarly, if I like my G2 experience, when i get a new phone, i will be more inclined to continue enjoying that experience with a G3, rather than buying any on sale android phone and making it just like my last one. Hence the need to have a G2 experience on every G2 phone. Just my 2 cents. I am not a businessman, lawyer, or doctor.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Yes, but nowhere near as much as they can get by keeping their cards close to their hand. see my answer to number 2.
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
your right,I almost forgot about legal stuff! +1 for pointing this out!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft does have Windows 8 running on ARM, the only thing they haven't done is release a dev build. We'll either get it at a later date or we'll have to wait for the beta.
NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Nitro_123 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it will support ARM, I'd say it's doubtful that it would be released on a disk that you could just load onto your existing device, it will probably only come preloaded on devices by OEMs.
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Traditionally MS haven't been worried about piracy of their mobile OS's. Their mobile OS efforts have mainly been about keeping people in the Windows eco-system, and to a much lesser degree selling licenses for CE to OEMs making embedded devices. In most cases of mobile OS roms being posted, they've just been updated/enhanced roms for existing Windows mobile devices and so haven't really cost sales and have possibly enhanced the ecosystem.
They're generally much much more concerned about piracy of their main OS. It remains to be seen how they will react to people trying port the ARM version of Windows 8, but they could easily react as strongly as they would for a normal x86 windows.
NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's never stopped developers from porting anything before...
I think at this point the largest hurdle is getting a build from an ARM dump. And drivers...can't forget about drivers.
NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
dhiral.v said:
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It most likely won't.
ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
dhiral.v said:
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean the arm copy...it'll most likely never be sold as a seperate product. Just built in
1. WinMo wasn’t open source either. Unlike WinMo, Windows licenses can be purchased.
2. Considering the fact that Intel and Google are now working together, the likelihood of cross compatible hardware specs are high for both Arm and Intel chips
3. This OS if it stays in close to current form will be a sort of hybrid of mobile/desktop OS. The mobile side will create a need for sideloaded apps, tweaks, reg hacks etc.
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
TechJunkiesCA said:
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This porting work will indeed happen. Just not on this forum aparently/unfortunately. Discussions about illegal software is a far cry from hosting illegal software. Developers often experiment with breaking laws for learning about a system. exe - tutorials about changing esn # with specific notes that you should not do it. It's just an experiment.
My question is it against the rules to discuss or link to other sites that house these ports? It used to be at least overlooked. See example below and there are countless others in the older stuff.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=362344&page=3
In the past XDA was much more loose about this type of stuff and was my first place to look for the dream goal of putting a desktop class OS on a PDA.
ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point...people will try. But the bootloaders are most likely different. Maybe devices with hacked bootloaders (captivate) would be possible.
sent from my epic 4g. with the key skips.
You are 100% right NikolaiT...
If you own a valid license it can't be illegal anyways be it ARM version or not.
We'll see how microsoft releases the product and how many different versions there are in what form.
Indeed, i think we need to leave the legalities aside, and use the assumption of....
You have your Legal and valid licence key, this is how you can get it working on x y and Z
Of course, if it is only Sold as OEM then legally you dont have leg to stand on, OEM copies are for the sole use on the hardware in which is was purchased with, i think the licence says it allows a number of hardware upgrades but you are not intitled to rip it off one PC and dump it on another one. (assuming its the same as a Win 7 Licence), yes people do do it, but that doesnt make it legal or condonable, so if thats the case the XDA couldnt allow anything to do with it
But lets say it can be brought as a retail package, then there is nothing to stop us from attempting to install it on anything we like, infact it may even be easier than we think given that MS usually gives a shed load of drivers, the tricky bit will be getting the bootloaders to allow it.
eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forbidden, not illegal. The EULA doesn't really have any legal basis whatsoever. Apple can deny you support on your product if you break the EULA though.
Hey,
I have really been wanting to root my Galaxy-S8, and the only computer I have available to me currently is a Acer Chromebook. I've been doing a little research on the subject, and it doesn't seem like there's a lot of info on the topic - is that a sign I'm wasting my time?
Really curious if this is possible...
hammer280 said:
Hey,
I have really been wanting to root my Galaxy-S8, and the only computer I have available to me currently is a Acer Chromebook. I've been doing a little research on the subject, and it doesn't seem like there's a lot of info on the topic - is that a sign I'm wasting my time?
Really curious if this is possible...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Root is only achievable on a nougat system Oreo and pie nope. I don't know if it's possible from a chrome book most of the rooting tools are based for windows. But jrkruse safestrap rev 5. Is the way
TheMadScientist said:
Root is only achievable on a nougat system Oreo and pie nope. I don't know if it's possible from a chrome book most of the rooting tools are based for windows. But jrkruse safestrap rev 5. Is the way
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhmm...
Actually, I'm afraid that's incorrect. I understand this post was from 2019, but Chromebooks have never been able to use Windows packages and programs. Their OS is Chrome OS, which is basically android but with an enhanced chrome browsing experience. And everyone knows that Android is solely Linux based,... as android uses the linux kernel. You see, Linux is open source, right?... therefore, using the Linux kernels, the android developers were able to implement the various modifications that fit their needs.
Now, the Chromebooks, have actually brought even more Linux computing to the table. First off, they have a full fledged Linux distro in beta, that you can enable... Actually even without enabling the linux beta, Chromebooks all have access to the developer shell. As well as Chrome's very own "Crosh" terminal. Both of which are operable using linux commands. (Not windows)
And on just another note...
Google, over the past few years, actually has been working on a new Chrome browser. And by "past few years", I mean even at the time off this original post, up untill now, they've continuously been working on this thing. Lol Yes, I know... Incredible isn't it? Lol Any way, even though it is still currently being worked on Chromebook users now have access to this new brower, via enabling it through turning on a few flags in "Chrome://flags". So the main idea for this browser is actually to decouple the browser from the OS, giving the new Chrome Web browser, much more of a separation. (Which I'm definitely in favour of, and is far less confusing lol). So this new browser, has yet to actually be "officially named" (probably will just stay as "Chrome")... But for now, the developers have made it identifiable to us users, and have been referring to it as "LaCrOS". So, I just want to point out, that the name "LaCrOS" is actually derived from both the words "Linux" and "Chrome OS".
One thing, maybe is what you were thinking of, is that some Chromebooks (like my own) use the amd x86 processors, instead of Arm64, which is the same processors that you'd find in any windows computer (that is aside from, well... now Apple lol) But even though The Chromebooks that use x86 processing offer more of a powerful performance (as well as a powerful consumption of battery & memory) they still very much are Linux based machines... And are VERY VERY different than a windows computer. In order to run any Windows program or package on a Chromebook, you'd need some type of emulator allowing you to do so. Chromebooks, alike Androids, without use of an emulator, are only able to read, install, and run .apk files and not a windows .exe file.
Gorvetco said:
Uhmm...
Actually, I'm afraid that's incorrect. I understand this post was from 2019, but Chromebooks have never been able to use Windows packages and programs. Their OS is Chrome OS, which is basically android but with an enhanced chrome browsing experience. And everyone knows that Android is solely Linux based,... as android uses the linux kernel. You see, Linux is open source, right?... therefore, using the Linux kernels, the android developers were able to implement the various modifications that fit their needs.
Now, the Chromebooks, have actually brought even more Linux computing to the table. First off, they have a full fledged Linux distro in beta, that you can enable... Actually even without enabling the linux beta, Chromebooks all have access to the developer shell. As well as Chrome's very own "Crosh" terminal. Both of which are operable using linux commands. (Not windows)
And on just another note...
Google, over the past few years, actually has been working on a new Chrome browser. And by "past few years", I mean even at the time off this original post, up untill now, they've continuously been working on this thing. Lol Yes, I know... Incredible isn't it? Lol Any way, even though it is still currently being worked on Chromebook users now have access to this new brower, via enabling it through turning on a few flags in "Chrome://flags". So the main idea for this browser is actually to decouple the browser from the OS, giving the new Chrome Web browser, much more of a separation. (Which I'm definitely in favour of, and is far less confusing lol). So this new browser, has yet to actually be "officially named" (probably will just stay as "Chrome")... But for now, the developers have made it identifiable to us users, and have been referring to it as "LaCrOS". So, I just want to point out, that the name "LaCrOS" is actually derived from both the words "Linux" and "Chrome OS".
One thing, maybe is what you were thinking of, is that some Chromebooks (like my own) use the amd x86 processors, instead of Arm64, which is the same processors that you'd find in any windows computer (that is aside from, well... now Apple lol) But even though The Chromebooks that use x86 processing offer more of a powerful performance (as well as a powerful consumption of battery & memory) they still very much are Linux based machines... And are VERY VERY different than a windows computer. In order to run any Windows program or package on a Chromebook, you'd need some type of emulator allowing you to do so. Chromebooks, alike Androids, without use of an emulator, are only able to read, install, and run .apk files and not a windows .exe file.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ummm. As I stated years ago. I didn't know. I didn't say yes.
We didn't need a long drawn out explanation of a chrome book. And so you know. I've had a hp windows laptop that I've swapped back and forth between windows and chrome os. For my kid.
Your post is completely irrelevant. As it is so old of a topic. Either way the methods for these devices are completely depreciated.
I am one of the people who helped out on these devices with heavy testing. Plus much much more.
By you telling me I was incorrect just shows that you are acting like a pompous know it all and trying to prove me wrong where I specifically said I didn't know. How does me saying I don't know make me incorrect?
On a side note. We here at xda don't much care to drag up old deals topics that have long since been gone and irrelevant.
Clutters the pages with old useless information
It wasn't irrelevant. I disagree.
Furthermore, the original question was regarding Chromebooks specifically, and not Chrome OS. So my apologies, but shouldn't even the oldest of threads be contemporized if the new information or tools now available have changed since then? But as I did mention, this was not the point of what I wanted to make clear.
I did not say anything regarding the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of utilizing a Chromebook to obtain root on an seperate android device. Nor did I state that you were incorrect. I'm well aware, that it would be ignorant and frankly just unfair to disparage you based on the knowledge available at the given point in time. However, it's unfortunate that you felt obligated to retaliate in such a manner, as It was very clear of what my actual intensions here were, and that it was not in any way a means to belittle you.
There is something you may just have me on though. For in the sense that I guess I am unsure of the protocol here at XDA. But I still do not feel that attacking me was the right way to go about your response. You see, I'm a member at both GitHub, and Stack exchange. So I guess I just assumed that because there is plenty of room for misinterpretation, and at times even errors, so honestly, some of the best ways to further our understanding is when we converse and can learn from one another. In any case, I had noticed that your comment could very easily be misinterpreted, and not everyone is on the same advanced level as you might be. So its best to not just assume, but actually it is encourage to give your answers as if you may be explaining to someone who isn't familiar with the subject at all, and using examples and explaining as clearly as possible are excellent way to do this, and usually can be most appreciated.
As for trying to prove you wrong, I do then appologize, as that was not my intentions. I only wished for it to be acknowledged, that a Chromebook, regardless of the year, then and now, in no way has the ability to utilise any Windows rooting tool. I did not state this to offend any one. It was only to contribute a very descriptive and detailed body of information, ensuring that the difference between windows executable files and that of Androids are to be both known and understood, to avoid anyone's time being wasted on a task or and idea that would get them nowhere.
It is necessary to do this, as for the chance an unknowingly individual may come across this thread, looking for answers similar to the question at hand. As you should know, even "old topics" should be rectified as such. Unless in the event they are to be removed, locked or relocated to a more appropriate forum.
The only thing here I believe to be irrelevant, is that you felt inclined to point out what I had already stated and took into consideration. So again, that way it is clear, I would just like to point out... that regardless of the year, whether it be 4 years ago, 4 months ago, or whether it be today. I amend the information I provided, and consider it to not only be "relevant" but I hope it proves to be useful and potential prevent or deter someone who would have been then proceeding to inquire about how to run "Windows rooting tools" on a chromebook.