Database Info

[Source code][GINGERBREAD]Android 2.3 just dropped

http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.3.html
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Oh my. +99
Sent from the future.

I await all ROMs with gingerbready Greatness!!
And to be honest, I thought we'd be a little ways into Jan before we seen the source code. Glad it took just 1 day after the Nexus S release. Now, the many-months wait for OEMs to get Official updates out to the devices =\

if that was sent from the future, that comment must mean that you are afraid for us because something is WRONG with gingerbread because you would have KNOWN about this already! LOL so HOW IS IT?!?!?

Yay!
Sent from my Epic 4G

Yet still no official 2.2 for us.... awesome.

Is this different from what was dropped last week?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

How did GB source C drop before FroYo????????

If you are referring to what I posted, it was source code
For the Nexus S kernel Android version 2.3
And yes, pretty cute we have available source code for a new
OS before we seen a piece from any Android 2.2 source code for our Epic
jaaka78 said:
Is this different from what was dropped last week?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Now for the million dollar question. What are you predictions for a working 2.3 rom for our Epics?

sprice5 said:
Now for the million dollar question. What are you predictions for a working 2.3 rom for our Epics?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Slow down, Sprice. Gotta get 2.2 first.

sprice5 said:
Now for the million dollar question. What are you predictions for a working 2.3 rom for our Epics?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the million dollar question is what are the predictions for an official 2.2
rom for our Epics? jk but I think after samsung and sprint gets ahold of it first.
Otherwise it would be another AOSP like cyanogen.

I've got a related (and hopefully not stupid) question regarding the process.
So, I know we're waiting for the 2.2 kernel source for our epics, obviously.
Generally, what's the process in between Google dropping a version's source, and it being released (by samsung) to us? This is not a complaint-- I'm really just curious how it works.

decalex said:
I've got a related (and hopefully not stupid) question regarding the process.
So, I know we're waiting for the 2.2 kernel source for our epics, obviously.
Generally, what's the process in between Google dropping a version's source, and it being released (by samsung) to us? This is not a complaint-- I'm really just curious how it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know someone can explain better than I can.
Google drops the stock rom. This wont run on our phones without drivers, and support for specific hardware for our device. Then you have Sprint carrier modifications like VVM, ota updates, 4G and other configured apps. After all the work is done, developers can go back and modify things to their liking.
Otherwise you would have a from the ground up like CM,
where its a lot of trial and error, getting the ROM to support hardware/software.

sprice5 said:
Now for the million dollar question. What are you predictions for a working 2.3 rom for our Epics?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm no developer or expert, but i'd give it a week or two before we see a slew of ROMs, maybe less. Its great that Cyanogen has 4G working on the Evo, so cant wait for 4G-enabled CM6/7 for our Epics. As for an official 2.3 update from Samsung.... March is my earliest guess
hayabusa1300cc said:
I think the million dollar question is what are the predictions for an official 2.2
rom for our Epics? jk but I think after samsung and sprint gets ahold of it first.
Otherwise it would be another AOSP like cyanogen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say we get official 2.2 updates in a few weeks. The leak is out, so they are probably just cleaning it up for release. The plain-jane (no custom ROM) leak works flawlessly on my phone tho.

At this point Noobnl is going to deliver faster than Samsung is on the Froyo. He's got CM pretty much done it seems. Whenever Cyanogen's done with gingerbread source for CM7(im presuming) noobnl will hopefully start on that as well.

I bet that the hardware drivers for 2.2 will work with 2.3, sounds like 2.2 to 2.3 is a lot less of a change than 2.1 to 2.2, but I could be wrong.
sent from my nexus s with a keyboard

For Samsung it's more rational for them to use their dev's time to spend on making new working firmware for new devices that are debuting at CES and to ready the firmware for those devices.
Samsung's strategy has changed over the years and is now executing the mantra "first out the door with new technology." While this is great for those of us who like new toys, it's a set back when we want long term support for our new toys. If their R&D resources are tied up working out new firmware for the next gen, they lose focus on their current customers.
If you've kept up on the latest engadget, gizmodo, boy genius, etc etc news - you'll know there's a dual core super duper galaxy whatever chip coming out soon. That's where the resources are now. For a company that has been lagging behind in innovation for the last few years in the mobile area, this is their new direction... Innovate quickly and be the first to market. Support resources are but a second thought; overhead.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...uct-crisis-as-choi-tries-to-triple-sales.html might give you a better perspective of the company.

So if I am reading this right....
Once we have CM6 running on our epics it will be a lot easier for us to get Gingerbread installed; for that matter any new verisions?

Does this really need to be in the Epic section?

Gingerbread for Galaxy S soon? :S

So uhh, i dont know if anyone has seen this.. but here you go
http://androidcommunity.com/galaxy-s-android-2-3-gingerbread-update-imminent-20110225/
It looks like a legit release for 2.3 for Galaxy S. If thats the case, how hard would it be to port it from that to the captivate?
and a march release
Oh and btw... dont flame me if its wrong or anything.. im just a guy posting something he found... which may help out the community -.-

supaphreek said:
So uhh, i dont know if anyone has seen this.. but here you go
http://androidcommunity.com/galaxy-s-android-2-3-gingerbread-update-imminent-20110225/
It looks like a legit release for 2.3 for Galaxy S. If thats the case, how hard would it be to port it from that to the captivate?
and a march release
Oh and btw... dont flame me if its wrong or anything.. im just a guy posting something he found... which may help out the community -.-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think this has been posted a couple of times (can't remember, but I know I've seen it around the web a couple of times). Either way, right now it's a "friend of a friend said this" type thing. Until there is some proof myself and many others will remain skeptical.
Another issue is that the Galaxy S phones are much more popular in other parts of the world. With Samsung trying to charge all the carriers upgrade fees like they did with 2.2, causing a lot of the delays, the carriers may not be interested in upgrading the phone to 2.3 even if Samsung has it ready. Especially since we're going to see the SGS 2 and multiple other newer and better phones out by then. The Captivate and other SGS phones will be low end phones by then, and the carriers probably won't want to pay Samsung for updates to an old phone.

oh man! so theres the possibility of never seeing a legit 2.3? :S i guess il have to live with CM7.

ANY custom rom will be better than the rom its based off of.
WHO CAN?
XDA CAN!!

AJerman said:
Another issue is that the Galaxy S phones are much more popular in other parts of the world. With Samsung trying to charge all the carriers upgrade fees like they did with 2.2, causing a lot of the delays, the carriers may not be interested in upgrading the phone to 2.3 even if Samsung has it ready. Especially since we're going to see the SGS 2 and multiple other newer and better phones out by then. The Captivate and other SGS phones will be low end phones by then, and the carriers probably won't want to pay Samsung for updates to an old phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This "issue" was debunked a long time ago.

Miami_Son said:
This "issue" was debunked a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Was it? I hadn't heard that, but I didn't pay that much attention to the AT&T release of 2.2 since I've been running 2.2 for months.
Either way, even if it doesn't come to a money issue, it's still going to come down to the same issue. The SGS 2 will have replaced the SGS by the time Samsung would have Gingerbread ready, and I wouldn't doubt at all if this phone never saw another update. It was hard enough to get 2.2 out of Samsung when this phone was their flagship, let along getting them to push one more update when it's replacement is already ready.
Edit: Just read an article about that, you're right. I hadn't seen Samsung's reply to that rumor. I guess that just makes Samsung lazy and not lazy and greedy, haha.

Miami_Son said:
This "issue" was debunked a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was debunked by Samsung denying it, which means it wasnt really debunked.
I wouldn't expect them to be public about such things....you can have a "price to prioritize" or something which is essentially the same thing but allows you to say you aren't charging for the upgrade.
I'm not saying I know what's going on, I'm just saying I don't trust Samsung at their word.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

AJerman said:
I guess that just makes Samsung lazy and not lazy and greedy, haha.[/i]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you assume it was samsung that held back the update? It was more than likely ATT, being that other providers had already released the update.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I896

fatttire said:
It was debunked by Samsung denying it, which means it wasnt really debunked.
I wouldn't expect them to be public about such things....you can have a "price to prioritize" or something which is essentially the same thing but allows you to say you aren't charging for the upgrade.
I'm not saying I know what's going on, I'm just saying I don't trust Samsung at their word.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure there would be some sort of outcry from carriers if Samsung was lying. There would probably be more legal ramifications if Samsung lied about not charging for updates rather than some bad publicity about charging for the updates.

shust82 said:
Why do you assume it was samsung that held back the update? It was more than likely ATT, being that other providers had already released the update.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I896
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung did its part in holding up the update by not wanting to pay the fee the service providers were charging. Same goes with all carriers that were way behind on the 2.2 update.

I'll be skipping it. I had problems with the 2.2 update and just flashed my first ROM. So much faster and the battery lasts a ton longer

Trusselo said:
ANY custom rom will be better than the rom its based off of.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're stating the obvious. Why would anyone modify a ROM to make to inferior to the original? It would be nice if there were an original 2.3 to base something on.

opcow said:
You're stating the obvious. Why would anyone modify a ROM to make to inferior to the original? It would be nice if there were an original 2.3 to base something on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
he means custom source-built rom.

a.vandelay said:
he means custom source-built rom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No what he is doing is his usual routine of taking a dump on any post where someone mentions being interested in Samsung firmware releases, because he thinks what is already out via third-parties is all anyone with a brain should want. And yet the AT&T Froyo release resulted in, in my opinion, the best ROM yet from DesignGears.

opcow said:
No what he is doing is his usual routine of taking a dump on any post where someone mentions being interested in Samsung firmware releases, because he thinks what is already out via third-parties is all anyone with a brain should want. And yet the AT&T Froyo release resulted in, in my opinion, the best ROM yet from DesignGears.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you obviously haven't tried any 2.2.1 i9000 roms then... Because they blow the doors off any official froyo rom from samsuck. I tried cog 4 and torch and it lagged beyond belief, no offense to dg, but its samsucks fault.

davwman said:
you obviously haven't tried any 2.2.1 i9000 roms then... Because they blow the doors off any official froyo rom from samsuck. I tried cog 4 and torch and it lagged beyond belief, no offense to dg, but its samsucks fault.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was running the official Rogers 2.2. and it was better than the official 2.1 that I played around with for a few days first to compare. However, putting Firefly 2.3 (and Andromeda 1.2 before that) I can certainly confirm that the custom rom route is definitely the way to go. MUCH faster (lagfix probably has huge impact on this) far more functional (rooted) better battery consumption (custom kernels) and IMO far better support. I can tell you I fully expect that XDA and the like would provide far superior peer based support than you'd get from your provider. Of course chances are if you weren't putting custom stuff on your phone you'd be far less likely to need it, but the collective knowledge here for general support of devices is far more impressive than some tech support drone that you'd speak to if you called in to you provider.

shust82 said:
Why do you assume it was samsung that held back the update? It was more than likely ATT, being that other providers had already released the update.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I896
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's be honest, this phone could have come with 2.2 on it already when it shipped. Samsung took quite a while to get 2.2 ready even for the I9000s. There are always going to be carriers delays after it's ready, but Samsung took their time as well.

AJerman said:
Let's be honest, this phone could have come with 2.2 on it already when it shipped. Samsung took quite a while to get 2.2 ready even for the I9000s. There are always going to be carriers delays after it's ready, but Samsung took their time as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Froyo was announced less than 2 months before this phone shipped. The source wasn't available until less than a month before. I see no problem with shipping with 2.1 under these circumstances.

davwman said:
you obviously haven't tried any 2.2.1 i9000 roms then... Because they blow the doors off any official froyo rom from samsuck. I tried cog 4 and torch and it lagged beyond belief, no offense to dg, but its samsucks fault.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've used 2.2.1 ROMs and they are great. If I recall Serendipity is one and it was my favorite prior to Andromeda (which is 2.2 i9010 based and very fast). Cog 4.1 is the first of DGs ROM I've used for more than a day in months; I haven't been a huge fan. As soon as i9000 kernels became mostly trouble free I moved on. I'm not saying the others were bad and I'm not saying 4.1 is better than brand x, I just like it better than previous DG ROMs I tried.
As for your lag problems with Cog 4.1, I don't doubt you, I just don't have it, but I'm using the Paragon kernel which may account for our different experiences.

Extra! Extra! 2.3.4 code leaks for the GT-I9000!

http://www.samfirmware.com/apps/blog/entries/show/7340353-android-2-3-4-hits-galaxy-s-gt-i9000-

Excellent. Looks like "JVP".
Maybe they've finally fixed those stupid Gingerbread bugs flopping around...

2.3.4 patches rageagainstthecage, right?
Assuming if/when the Cap gets its promised (but vague North America Galaxy S) Gingerbread update, does that mean rooting becomes that much more difficult?
Have any of the US Galaxy S variants had a leaked, purported stock Gingerbread build?

I saw that a couple of days ago. i'm thinking that this is the ACTUAL release and we'll start to see the Armani code, then the other captivates soon.

AdamOutler said:
I saw that a couple of days ago. i'm thinking that this is the ACTUAL release and we'll start to see the Armani code, then the other captivates soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that'd be sweet.
So since this is 2.3.4, does that mean that the re-oriented kernels already out for 2.3.3 will work, or will they have to be tweaked to work with 2.3.4?
i897 running Andromeda 3

Madtowndave said:
Well that'd be sweet.
So since this is 2.3.4, does that mean that the re-oriented kernels already out for 2.3.3 will work, or will they have to be tweaked to work with 2.3.4?
i897 running Andromeda 3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
reoriented kernels arent needed for armani.

SamsungJohn just said on Twitter that all newer Samsung devices would see 2.3.4 very shortly... It's supposed to be an OTA update.

OTA?
AdamOutler said:
SamsungJohn just said on Twitter that all newer Samsung devices would see 2.3.4 very shortly... It's supposed to be an OTA update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seeing with the past problems with OTA and ATT/SAMSUNG I would doubt that it would be OTA. Also would this cause problems with our custom roms on GB already? Will the be "marked" for not updating?

AdamOutler said:
SamsungJohn just said on Twitter that all newer Samsung devices would see 2.3.4 very shortly... It's supposed to be an OTA update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the funniest thing I've read today! Thanks

I stand corrected... it was samfirmwarw... not samsungjoh.

Didn't realize that...that'll be a great kernel to get source on me thinks ;-)
Pirateghost said:
reoriented kernels arent needed for armani.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i897 running Andromeda 3

AdamOutler said:
SamsungJohn just said on Twitter that all newer Samsung devices would see 2.3.4 very shortly... It's supposed to be an OTA update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its safe to assume even if that's true for the international/european versions, it does not include the us carrier customizations.
Just think of it as samsung rewarding those that buy the device at full price rather than subsidized.

BenKranged said:
Its safe to assume even if that's true for the international/european versions, it does not include the us carrier customizations.
Just think of it as samsung rewarding those that buy the device at full price rather than subsidized.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a far leap from international version to US version. They boyz here can do some nifty magic.

Yeah it will take some tinkering, but as said, the devs here should be able to pull together a working build

stuff said:
Yeah it will take some tinkering, but as said, the devs here should be able to pull together a working build
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U havn't followed the dev section now have you!?! DAGr8 allready posted Simply SGS II RC1 yesterday and guess what its base is jvp.U gotta love the development for the cappy

yeah I doubt the usa market will see ota. here is to going though
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA Premium App

axis01 said:
It's not a far leap from international version to US version. They boyz here can do some nifty magic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was referring to samsung/us carriers releasing official versions for the american variants. Since samsungjohn said ALL newer devices.
Some of us like to make use of the audience chip.

BenKranged said:
I was referring to samsung/us carriers releasing official versions for the american variants. Since samsungjohn said ALL newer devices.
Some of us like to make use of the audience chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand but the guys on Andro have made their in call volume very good now. Don't know how much better the audience chip would be but it can't be much.

axis01 said:
I understand but the guys on Andro have made their in call volume very good now. Don't know how much better the audience chip would be but it can't be much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think he's referring to taking advantage of the Audience chip's ability for noise cancellation.
Sent from my Captivate

I"m running Simply SGS II RC2.2a 2.3.4 it has a few minor bugs, but all in all not too bad. Just installed xcaliberinhand's JVP kernel and will let it run for a couple of days to see if there are any issues.

If the bootloader is unlocked, why no gingerbread?

I'm not sure that I understand unlocked bootloaders. If there is no lock, why is there not already a gingerbread Rom out for this phone? What is stopping any dev from making a gingerbread Rom?
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA App

Having to rewrite that majority of the code for the OS for the infuse might be a little bit of a time constraint.
/sarcasm
But really, there is no proper port out for the infuse and I think the devs are just waiting for a gingerbread ROM to leak out, whether it is from the Canadian Infuse or elsewhere

seh6183 said:
I'm not sure that I understand unlocked bootloaders. If there is no lock, why is there not already a gingerbread Rom out for this phone? What is stopping any dev from making a gingerbread Rom?
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Simple. The Android userland license doesn't require manufacturers to release source code for the userland portion of the Android stack - the only thing that manufacturers must release source code for is the kernel.
So all device-specific userland code must be reimplemented to get AOSP running on a device.
In many cases, even if someone had device-specific Froyo userland source, a lot of changes were made from Froyo to Gingerbread that require device-specific stuff to be reimplemented. (Look at the state of xdandroid for example - Gingerbread is missing a LOT of stuff that works in Froyo.)
So what is stopping developers from a Gingerbread ROM for the Infuse?
1) Time
2) Time
3) Time
4) Probably lack of documentation on some of the device-specific stuff, fortunately the Infuse is very architecturally similar to the Galaxy S series.
5) Time
6) Lack of the right device in the right developer's hands - the Cyanogenmod guys are so experienced at device porting that between that despite 4), they could likely target the Infuse quickly if one of them had a device. None do yet, there are some threads where people are trying to line up hardware donations.
Please not that to my knowledge, there are ZERO AOSP-source-derived builds for the Infuse for any Android version. All ROM builds currently in existence are "tweaked" variants of the stock Android userland stuff.

Ah hah, I see now. I was assuming this Rom I am using on my inspire was not an official gingerbread Rom, now I know that it must be.
Given samsungs track record for updates. I'm nervous to switch to this phone because it may never receive gingerbread
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA App

Unlocked means you can flash anything... Doesn't mean you have that thing to flash.
Sent from my Infuse 4G

MikeyMike01 said:
Unlocked means you can flash anything... Doesn't mean you have that thing to flash.
Sent from my Infuse 4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got it.
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA App

seh6183 said:
Ah hah, I see now. I was assuming this Rom I am using on my inspire was not an official gingerbread Rom, now I know that it must be.
Given samsungs track record for updates. I'm nervous to switch to this phone because it may never receive gingerbread
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying it's impossible to port AOSP GB or the Cyanogenmod source tree to the Infuse, I'm just saying it hasn't happened yet. The Infuse has been out for a few months less than the Inspire, and it took some time for CM7 to become stable on the Inspire too.
In the case of the Inspire it apparently has. The Cyanogenmod team seems a bit HTC-focused, however that's because Samsung seems to be a slightly later player in the Android game. Samsung is clearly interested in catching up - they already donated a GSII to one of the Android devs.
My guess is that the Infuse is similar enough to the GS i9000 that once the right dev gets their hands on one it won't be long. After all, we're using the CWM from the i9000.

The thing to keep in mind, the most important thing actually, is that all of these things take time AND the efforts of a team of people to accomplish. Every well-known/famous/appreciated dev I've ever spoken too about this very topic all says the same thing - they can't do these things alone OR they can do it alone but it'll take forever to get done.
Hence my donation thread

this is my 6th android phone, and I can say it's the only one I'm not in a huge hurry to put a custom ROM on
I loaded ADW EX on it, and the phone's fast enough to run it buttery smooth with no lag. I also absolutely hate Cyanogenmod's camera software, and really enjoy the native camera software on Samsung devices.
I was considering the Evo 3D instead of keeping the Infuse (still in 30 days) but I'm not sure I could move back to an HTC screen. I hated the screen on my mytouch 4g (went there from the Vibrant). Samsung also flat out makes far better camera hardware and software on their phones.
I don't see any reason to get a different phone right now

new infuse source code posted

new infuse source code is available on Samsung open source release center.
it doesn't specifically say gingerbread but there are now 2 listings for i997 usa.
will download it later. not sure if this is uckl2 which they were in violation of gpl by not releasing sources or if its lb3 and we should expect yet another update in the coming days. we'll see I guess.
https://opensource.samsung.com/index.jsp;jsessionid=9772B2876689860AEB70F77E9A56FC38

I'm also gonna download and check it out when I get home... hoping for gingerbread ...
sent from my SGH-I717 using XDA premium app

hoping for B3,

I'd personally rather see b1. B3 is smoother and less laggy, no touchscreen issues...but having "long" messaging issues that I didn't have with b1. I'll sit back shut up and be patient while the dev's work their magic and hopefully super one click will be rocking and rolling. Thanks for all you do guys.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App

that's a modem issue. source code is for kernels
not to mention it wont be lb1 because lb1 isn't official, lb3 has potential to be very soon. it could be kl2 because kl2 was released to the public, Samsung didn't release the code then pulled the update and hid behind the update being pulled to say they didn't need to release the code anymore which is a piss poor excuse being that the code was supposed to be there upon initial release. Samsung likely was trying to buy time with att or the public by saying they had unexpected issues. typical Samsung USA move.

Dani897 said:
that's a modem issue. source code is for kernels
not to mention it wont be lb1 because lb1 isn't official, lb3 has potential to be very soon. it could be kl2 because kl2 was released to the public, Samsung didn't release the code then pulled the update and hid behind the update being pulled to say they didn't need to release the code anymore which is a piss poor excuse being that the code was supposed to be there upon initial release. Samsung likely was trying to buy time with att or the public by saying they had unexpected issues. typical Samsung USA move.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, they simply ignored all requests for UCKL2 source... I NEVER saw a response to any source code request.
GPL-violating ****ers... The I777 is likely to be my last non-Nexus Samsung device if Sony keeps it up with their (uncharacteristic for Sony) level of developer support.

I got a response. 2 actually. both identical, and they said the update was being held and sources would be released when the problems were fixed.
obviously bull**** because the sources were supposed to be released with the update. seems planned. like kl2 was just an appeasement for the anxious customers.
the odd thing is that Samsung was doing very good with source releases for the last year or so. guess they wanted to see what they could get away with.

Obligatory "will this source help with bluetooth issues on non-infuse roms" post

lol

Dani897 said:
that's a modem issue. source code is for kernels
not to mention it wont be lb1 because lb1 isn't official, lb3 has potential to be very soon. it could be kl2 because kl2 was released to the public, Samsung didn't release the code then pulled the update and hid behind the update being pulled to say they didn't need to release the code anymore which is a piss poor excuse being that the code was supposed to be there upon initial release. Samsung likely was trying to buy time with att or the public by saying they had unexpected issues. typical Samsung USA move.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
source code is for kernels?
hey dani, does it mean we`ll get new custom kernel soon?

kangshoo said:
source code is for kernels?
hey dani, does it mean we`ll get new custom kernel soon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check Entropy's DD second to last page.. as of now.
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk

well yes, ill try but ill need guidence... no promises... hell im not even that optimistic that ill get anything done..
entropy however has already patched some code into the dd kernel but it doesnt fix hdmi yet. entropy dd is based on hellraiser which linux bozo tried to bake froyo mhl drivers into but the adapter causes a forced reboot, even with some new mhl code it still force reboots, entropy is flying blind but he may come up with something.

Well its a step in the right direction... maybe since it seems they are finalizing GB for our device, maybe they start ICS development. Just a thought, probably won't happen though
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App

dustinhayes93 said:
Well its a step in the right direction... maybe since it seems they are finalizing GB for our device, maybe they start ICS development. Just a thought, probably won't happen though
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HA! seriously though...atleast GB finally hit...then got pulled (face-palm)

why is it that an older Model of an Phone Called the Motorola Atrix I & II will get ICS but we Infuse Owner which phone came out after the Atrix will not be getting it at all. ?

Atrix =dual core.... Infuse=single core
sent from my SGH-I717 using XDA premium app

dman3285 said:
Atrix =dual core.... Infuse=single core
sent from my SGH-I717 using XDA premium app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nexus s = single core
but ics LoL

Nexus=has kernel. Infuse=doesn't have kernel. Any questions?
sent from my SGH-I717 using XDA premium app

inick73376 said:
why is it that an older Model of an Phone Called the Motorola Atrix I & II will get ICS but we Infuse Owner which phone came out after the Atrix will not be getting it at all. ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Atrix 2, you damn straight will get it.
Sent from my MB865 using xda premium

inick73376 said:
why is it that an older Model of an Phone Called the Motorola Atrix I & II will get ICS but we Infuse Owner which phone came out after the Atrix will not be getting it at all. ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you can discuss this in one of the many existing ics threads...
you can blame Samsung USA for this. although Samsung Korea put a lot of effort into updates for the i9000 all of the American galaxy s counterparts have been slow on updates and are lucky to get more than one major update. also the infuse is based on the galaxy s which is almost a year older. when the subject of ics on the galaxy s came about Samsung stated that they didn't have the rom storage or ram to run ics with touchwiz over top of it. while the infuse has the ram it has identical partitions to the galaxy s and has even more usage of the current rom storage.
on one hand Samsung played that game with gingerbread. saying they "might" update the i9000 to gingerbread but then it became the first non nexus device to receive the update internationally. on the other hand they have the s2 as a new flagship with the s3 on the way and might not want to continue with the dated i9000. basically if the i9000 doesn't get ics we have zero hope.
now that that's over with, can we keep the discussion to gingerbread or pending update related talk please.