Basically, what i want to know is, what is so fundamentally different between phones and PCs that makes it that much harder to flash a different OS on a phone than it is to to install a new OS on a PC. Even switching from Windows to Ubuntu is pretty idiot proof. Aren't there fewer varieties of processors out there for phones than there are for PCs?
Does it have to do with producer/manufacturer modifications of the OS(but that wouldn't affect the hardware, right?)? Is it because phone OS's have to omit drivers(or something else i do not know is required for an OS to function) for multiple device components to save space?
Thank you for your time.
|
|
|Irrelevant to the question
|
|
To give you some background about my level of understanding in computer science. The only exposure i have are an Introduction to Programming(Java) class that i took in college and OpenCourseWare videos of a few introductory programming lectures. And the articles etc from various tech websites like Ars Technica, AnandTech, etc.
As for my goals from asking these questions, i would like to be able to create my own custom ROMs, or apps at the very least. And yes, i know i have a LOOONG way to go.
Thank you again for reading this far into my thread.
In short, Google do make updates available to all phones. It's the manufacturers who stand in the way. They decide which of their devices get updates and when.
The whole thing is also complicated by the awful customizations that each manufacturer makes to Android OS so that every official update needs modifying to work with those customizations.
Good luck with your future endeavors
DirkGently1 said:
In short, Google do make updates available to all phones. It's the manufacturers who stand in the way. They decide which of their devices get updates and when.
The whole thing is also complicated by the awful customizations that each manufacturer makes to Android OS so that every official update needs modifying to work with those customizations.
Good luck with your future endeavors
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But then what is stopping us rooted fellas from just flashing stock Android onto our phones the same way we swap Windows for Ubuntu on our PCs?
ArdorNg said:
But then what is stopping us rooted fellas from just flashing stock Android onto our phones the same way we swap Windows for Ubuntu on our PCs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely nothing
This is why we have XDA!
DirkGently1 said:
Absolutely nothing
This is why we have XDA!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So why are all the ROMs out there phone specific? Is it possible to create a ROM that can be flashed on all phones?(is it already available? And if so, where?)
ArdorNg said:
So why are all the ROMs out there phone specific? Is it possible to create a ROM that can be flashed on all phones?(is it already available? And if so, where?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No generic ROM no. The most widespread custom ROM is Cyanogenmod but because of hardware differences between devices each build has to have the appropriate drivers to tailor it to a specific device.
Security measures are another factor too as different manufacturers use different methods to lock down the phones. This means that the process of flashing ROMs can vary as well.
When Google releases a new version of Android it is available to everyone to use but you can't just slap it onto any old device as it is and expect it to work. The chefs need to work their magic to make it compatable with the individual devices.
DirkGently1 said:
No generic ROM no ... because of hardware differences between devices each build has to have the appropriate drivers to tailor it to a specific device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My question was why can't they build the Android like other PC OSes, with drivers for all available hardware? There are definitely fewer varieties of hardware for smartphones than there are for PCs, no? Is it because of space constraints or are there other issues at play?
It's up to the manufacturers to make their devices compatible with Android rather than Googles responsibility to make Android compatable with a thousand varying hardware components, and the millions of hardware combinations that could potentially make a handset!
I'm sure they could create Generic drivers that work so-so, but i'd rather have devices that actually work well and not have to download ROMs which are the size of your average XP install.
DirkGently1 said:
It's up to the manufacturers to make their devices compatible with Android rather than Googles responsibility to make Android compatable with a thousand varying hardware components, and the millions of hardware combinations that could potentially make a handset!
I'm sure they could create Generic drivers that work so-so, but i'd rather have devices that actually work well and not have to download ROMs which are the size of your average XP install.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmmmmm. So drivers are the only constraint?
Then i guess i have a more specific goal then! If no one has done it already... I'm sure there are people who wouldn't mind the large size. Though actually writing it would probably take so long that we can only release a 2.3 generic ROM when 2.7 comes out... which kind of defeats the purpose... except maybe for the folks still stuck on pre-Froyo devices... That and how to keep the extra drivers from being bloat...
Why is it not possible to "just" install latest Android on entry-level phones
I'm just curious, given that android has a linux kernel ( although modified ).
Why is it not possible to just download the latest android os and install
it on any 600+ Mhz 256+ Mb ram entry level phone.
I understand that it takes forever for phone companies ( samsung, htc, etc )
to issue updates because they have to tailor a lot of custom signature
bloatware for their updates, which in some instances makes it not possible
to provide updates on older phones.
But for a pure vanilla install, I just don't see why Google or the Android
division can't release the base OS that people may install on the fly, never
mind if it wipes everything out. I know for a fact that the latest ubuntu / linuxmint
can be installed on hardware from over 5 years ago, with less than 10%
of the current high end specs; this ( for me ) makes android landscape
rather confusing... and quite deceptive.
It as alot to do with the different drivers each device.uses for the radio, screen, touch button and so on.
You have to take into account device-specific drivers, hardware, and a lot more. Imagine if every time a new version of Android was released, devs would have to prepare for every possible legacy chip, and new ones. Android would be a huge, bloated mess. It just isn't feasible.
Plus, from a carrier/phone manufacturer point of view, if you could just get the latest features by installing a simple update, than what would be the incentive for you to buy a new phone?
Hopefully this is a semi-helpful explanation (I'm sure I've left out some stuff that some others will add).
@closeone, I don't see why this can't be feasible. this is exactly what linux distributions already do, release new versions and still provide support for old devices.
I can understand the carrier/phone manufacturer perspective, it is what it is.
But what i don't get is why android development can't provide complete support, for at least the devices released from a year ago. At some point, these devices still
have to comply to certain standards;
Ultimately, I'm getting the impression that Google is starting to expect the users to throw away their smartphones year in and year out.
prokofiev said:
@closeone, I don't see why this can't be feasible. this is exactly what linux distributions already do, release new versions and still provide support for old devices.
I can understand the carrier/phone manufacturer perspective, it is what it is.
But what i don't get is why android development can't provide complete support, for at least the devices released from a year ago. At some point, these devices still
have to comply to certain standards;
Ultimately, I'm getting the impression that Google is starting to expect the users to throw away their smartphones year in and year out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No you can but like Linux it takes some work to get proper drivers and hardware features. The Android OS is a developer based platform. So it can be done. Look at CM they do it just fine. It is alot of work though
ok, I'll concede that it takes time and effort to achieve this goal. Still,
I'm inclined to think that a huge company like Google behind this platform,
they can do for android what Ubuntu, Debian, etc. do for Linux.
prokofiev said:
@closeone, I don't see why this can't be feasible. this is exactly what linux distributions already do, release new versions and still provide support for old devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would have to get all the different device manufacturers in the world to not only release their proprietary driver code but, for a standard one for all rom, include all possible drivers in it.
Linux comes on discs and can afford to use lots of space for drivers that a basic phone could not.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
...of the year 2015.
moderators: I'm very sorry (not really) for the sarcastic spam, but I've grown more and more unhappy with Samsung in regards to them keeping their promises. At this point, other than my P6210 tablet, I've sold every single one of my android devices that are controlled by samsung.
I still have a galaxy nexus, but thankfully the source for that is controlled by google - not samsung.
Q1 has come and gone. No ICS. Hell, they STILL won't release the source for the damn wifi driver! The same source that qualcomm (who owns atheros) released under the GPL, but samsung says that they (samsung) get to choose between GPL and BSD and they are choosing BSD. Why? What good does it do Samsung to NOT release the source? If Apple.. er.. samsung wants to treat their customers this way, I can take my future business elsewhere.
If I wanted a closed platform, I'd buy an iphone or ipad.
Gary
I agree
And I feel that with the increasingly number of similar tablets that Samsung puts in the market, the hopes for further updates are extremely low. Maybe we will have a first revision of ICS, but better it is good, because I don't think they will fix whatever is wrong.
I will agree with Gary in terms of how closed Samsung is making their "open" device. Though that is coming from a developer. From a consumer perspective having or not having ICS makes no difference to them. Unfortunately as our world becomes more tech illiterate the more these devices will become more and more locked down and cause stagnation in innovation.
Sorry to hear you leaving though you were a great help here.
I'm not leaving the p6210... its the only samsung device I'm keeping. However, until and unless Samsung gives me something more than incomplete and outdated source, there's nothing else for me to do. I can't fix the wifi bugs, because Apple..er..Samsung won't release the source.
If they ever get around to pushing out ICS (big "if" there) AND they release the source, I'll play with that. I might even find the time to just port AOSP (or even better - AOKP) over.
After using a galaxy nexus for a few days, I don't miss touchwiz at all.
Well that's good to hear... It sounded as if you were leaving us there. Though supposedly someone is making headway with wifi with the cm9 ics build. You might want to check in there.
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2
Even Huawei Springboard (my 2nd tablet) already received ICS, I also disappointed a bigger company like Samsung get update slower then Huawei
Sent from my GT-P6200 using XDA App
fewt said:
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL is not a driver, GPL is a open source licence.
Yes, I know the difference between GPL & BSD (both are OSS licenses.) I was asking if the GPL version would work if it was updated with the p6210 WIFI PCI ID.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2
fewt said:
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For doing an AOSP type implementation where 100% of the source is available, yes - it might.
For trying to do a kernel that would work with the rest of the samsung firmware, no - it won't. There are 3 parts that have to work together here: the actual driver (ar6003.ko in samsung's firmware), wpa_supplicant (which, on stock p6210 implementations has a ar6003 specific interface compiled in) and the rest of the firmware (settings page, etc.)
The "rest of the firmware" calls wpa_supplicant to do the dirty work of the wifi driver, and wpa_supplicant makes calls directly into the driver.
I'm sure I typed all this before, in another thread months ago, and went into great detail. The short version is this:
I need the source for the ar6003 driver and the source for wpa_supplicant (for the ar6003 interface.) Both of these are released in "GPL/BSD" dual licenses by their authors, meaning that samsung can, in theory, choose which license model to use when they include that code. Samsung has told me that they are claiming BSD for both and therefore will refuse to release the source to any modifications that might be included.
I've tried pulling in the generic ar600x code from mainline linux, but it wasn't working for me with the rest of the samsung stuff... and I simply don't have the time to mess with that for endless hours just because samsung is trying to be apple-like and make android a closed platform.
garyd9 said:
For doing an AOSP type implementation where 100% of the source is available, yes - it might.
For trying to do a kernel that would work with the rest of the samsung firmware, no - it won't. There are 3 parts that have to work together here: the actual driver (ar6003.ko in samsung's firmware), wpa_supplicant (which, on stock p6210 implementations has a ar6003 specific interface compiled in) and the rest of the firmware (settings page, etc.)
The "rest of the firmware" calls wpa_supplicant to do the dirty work of the wifi driver, and wpa_supplicant makes calls directly into the driver.
I'm sure I typed all this before, in another thread months ago, and went into great detail. The short version is this:
I need the source for the ar6003 driver and the source for wpa_supplicant (for the ar6003 interface.) Both of these are released in "GPL/BSD" dual licenses by their authors, meaning that samsung can, in theory, choose which license model to use when they include that code. Samsung has told me that they are claiming BSD for both and therefore will refuse to release the source to any modifications that might be included.
I've tried pulling in the generic ar600x code from mainline linux, but it wasn't working for me with the rest of the samsung stuff... and I simply don't have the time to mess with that for endless hours just because samsung is trying to be apple-like and make android a closed platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wpa_supplicant is what's probably killing you if it has been forked, more so than the driver itself. Makes perfect sense why it is such a pain.
Do you know of a thread somewhere that describes how to get started building kernels for these things? I'll play around with it, I don't have much experience with Android outside of some hacking with adb but I know my way around Linux as well as most.
I'll start poking around more, but thanks for the short version it is appreciated.
Zadeis said:
I will agree with Gary in terms of how closed Samsung is making their "open" device. Though that is coming from a developer. From a consumer perspective having or not having ICS makes no difference to them. Unfortunately as our world becomes more tech illiterate the more these devices will become more and more locked down and cause stagnation in innovation.
Sorry to hear you leaving though you were a great help here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree that consumers don't care. Call me naive that I didn't scour the internet deep enough to find good, honest feedback, but the only reason I chose the more expensive Samsung 7.0 was its IR blaster and its advertised ability to control the home theater components with it. That feature is bolded and blaster all over Samsungs feature list and descriptions.
So I get me GT7+ 2 months ago and how does it work? It doesn't do what I want. Peel, the only IR app available for the tablet force closes every time, and updates have proven fruitless. I email the developers of Peel and what do they tell me? They won't fix (or can't fix) the problem until they get updated ICS drivers for the SG7+. So for now I am **** out of luck until Samsung updates. I try to get a hold of Samsung tech support and get nowhere. The best I got was from a "Live Chat" bot that said ICS will be available in the future. No more specifics could be given.
And to add insult to injury, the screen on my Tab is fritzing out and needs to be sent back for service already. On paper the SG7+ looks great but for me it's been nothing but a hassle.
I want ICS so I can have everything work as advertised. It probably never will so I'll chalk this one up to experience and sell the POS.
Just remember that samsung never actually promised ICS for this device. There were "leaks" (completely unofficial) and "targets", but never any legally binding promises.
Why should samsung spend the money developing ICS for people who own a device when that device is ALREADY 6 months old? At the rate samsung is coming out with new devices, they need that money developing for newer devices.
In a sick kind of way, this makes sense to me. (Samsung seems to be forgetting, however, that I buy a new tablet every 6-12 months and my next one will NOT be a samsung device due to the experience I'm having with them over this one.)
What doesn't make sense to me is the way that they are withholding source code. It just doesn't profit them or even save them money. There isn't even anything proprietary in the ar6003 drivers and wpa_supplicant code. No trade secrets. It's almost as if they are deliberately chasing AWAY technical people... but that just doesn't make sense when your primary OS is an open one that depends on geeks.
The only thing I can figure out is that they are, in fact, hiding something. Perhaps they are embarassed about the programming? Perhaps they cut corners and don't want it to become public knowledge? Maybe they just have a nasty streak and are deliberately trying to prevent any repeat customers. I'm just taking wild guesses here - I honestly don't know.
The flip side to that is that you are aware of the fact ICS will have an impact to functionality on a current situation. Most people won't, as you put it, scour the internet to find the solution or future solution, to a problem and actually understand that an OS update will have a great impact on their experience with their current product. I had a discussion with someone the other day on this mindset and how it has been driving me nuts. (This person also considers them self an average user and not like most of us on this forum) You know that android 3.2 is on your your Tablet. YOU know what android 4.0 ICS is and how it impacts you. Most don't. That is what I was trying to conveying.
Though I am surprised that you are having issues with it on account I have had no problems with it (even though I haven't used it much).
P.S. Sorry about the irritated tone I do not mean any harm it's just a sore subject with me :/
Zadeis said:
The flip side to that is that you are aware of the fact ICS will have an impact to functionality on a current situation. Most people won't, as you put it, scour the internet to find the solution or future solution, to a problem and actually understand that an OS update will have a great impact on their experience with their current product. I had a discussion with someone the other day on this mindset and how it has been driving me nuts. (This person also considers them self an average user and not like most of us on this forum) You know that android 3.2 is on your your Tablet. YOU know what android 4.0 ICS is and how it impacts you. Most don't. That is what I was trying to conveying.
Though I am surprised that you are having issues with it on account I have had no problems with it (even though I haven't used it much).
P.S. Sorry about the irritated tone I do not mean any harm it's just a sore subject with me :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The latest release od Peel finally has it working on such a basic level that's it is no more useful that the remoate that shipped with my television. It can tuen my TV on & off, it can change channels, and it can adjust the volume of the television. When I want to add another device such as a cable box or AV receiver? No go. It will power the device in setup but it will not save it to the application for future use. I blame buggy peel software. It can obviously fire the codes it needs but they're going to blame Samsung and say it's a driver issue. The only way I could believe that possible is if the radio frequencies vthe two devices used were too close together to be discerened by the GT7+. Regardless, it's a feature which does not work as it explicitly advertises and, as Gary points out multiple times, they refuse to release the source code so crafty & eager developers (which I am not) can make their own functional software.
Peel doesn't use RF... it fires the infrared emitter on the device. I actually played with the "peel" software once. For about 10 minutes. I found it a complete joke and froze the software. I never really cared much about that aspect of the tablet. To me, its for reading ebooks, playing games, and "tinkering." Okay, more for tinkering - but don't tell my wife that. She already yells at me about how expensive my toys are.
garyd9 said:
Peel doesn't use RF... it fires the infrared emitter on the device. I actually played with the "peel" software once. For about 10 minutes. I found it a complete joke and froze the software. I never really cared much about that aspect of the tablet. To me, its for reading ebooks, playing games, and "tinkering." Okay, more for tinkering - but don't tell my wife that. She already yells at me about how expensive my toys are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bought this Tab for the exact same reasons, I was actually going to get the Kindle Fire as all I really wanted was an e-reader, but the IR Blaster changed my mind. I set up Peel for my home theater and used it once than decided my universal remote for my dish actually works better and haven't used it since. I came in knowing from reading teh threads that Samsung wasn't the greatest at support or putting out updates but all I wanted really was the ability to root it to remove bloatware. IMO HTC devices are much better and easier to customize as HTC is more open about sharing the source code and also provide their own program to unlock their devices. But they at one time were as tight fisted as Samsung and getting updates out of them is still excruciatingly slow. Hopefully Verizon will be getting a One X device soon as I'm up for an upgrade in July and right now the best HTC device they have is the Rezound.
fcorona76 said:
The latest release od Peel finally has it working on such a basic level that's it is no more useful that the remoate that shipped with my television. It can tuen my TV on & off, it can change channels, and it can adjust the volume of the television. When I want to add another device such as a cable box or AV receiver? No go. It will power the device in setup but it will not save it to the application for future use. I blame buggy peel software. It can obviously fire the codes it needs but they're going to blame Samsung and say it's a driver issue. The only way I could believe that possible is if the radio frequencies vthe two devices used were too close together to be discerened by the GT7+. Regardless, it's a feature which does not work as it explicitly advertises and, as Gary points out multiple times, they refuse to release the source code so crafty & eager developers (which I am not) can make their own functional software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would Peel blame Samsung? From what you described, the hardware is working properly but the functionality to save multiple devices is missing in software.
I think this is what Zadeis is trying to get at with regards to expectations - Peel sounds like it's either broken or not designed to meet your expectations. Either way, it's not something that's going to be addressed by an ICS update.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the GT7+ doesn't work as advertised. But the proper course of action here is to seek remedy with Samsung, not wait for a software update. When you get a bad meal at a restaurant, you send it back. You don't eat it, then hope dessert will be better.
Apologies if my tone comes off as harsh or unsympathetic, I do not intend to be either, but pinning too many hopes on to an OS update is just setting yourself up for more frustration down the road when it doesn't match your expectations.
---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------
garyd9 said:
What doesn't make sense to me is the way that they are withholding source code. It just doesn't profit them or even save them money. There isn't even anything proprietary in the ar6003 drivers and wpa_supplicant code. No trade secrets. It's almost as if they are deliberately chasing AWAY technical people... but that just doesn't make sense when your primary OS is an open one that depends on geeks.
The only thing I can figure out is that they are, in fact, hiding something. Perhaps they are embarassed about the programming? Perhaps they cut corners and don't want it to become public knowledge? Maybe they just have a nasty streak and are deliberately trying to prevent any repeat customers. I'm just taking wild guesses here - I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you already answered this question in what you meant as a joke earlier... Apple.
Samsung makes Apple's SoCs. GT7+ uses Samsung's own Exynos SoC. I think chances are good that Exynos and the A5 share IP and therefore, Samsung might be withholding the source code because the modifications they've made include IP that is covered by whatever NDA exists between Apple and Samsung.
so what is the latest news on ics update for the 6210 ? , guessing samsung said no ics love for us ? , or .... just wondering what latest news is ..
h2g2 said:
Samsung makes Apple's SoCs. GT7+ uses Samsung's own Exynos SoC. I think chances are good that Exynos and the A5 share IP and therefore, Samsung might be withholding the source code because the modifications they've made include IP that is covered by whatever NDA exists between Apple and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are a bit confused, I think. The exynos isn't the problem. While samsung hasn't exactly given us full technical documents on it, they added support for it in the mainline linux kernel - publishing enough source. They pretty much HAD to do that, as CPU support in linux can't be done as a module, and therefore must be opensourced in order to run linux at all.
The issue, at least in the case of the 7+, is the wifi chip/driver. It's an atheros 6003 chip. Qualcomm (who owns atheros) released the driver for that under the GPL. Samsung has claimed to me that they (samsung) are licensing it from Atheros under terms that allow them to choose to re-release the driver under either GPL or BSD terms and that they (samsung) are choosing the BSD model (which doesn't require the release of source.) In theory, Qualcomm could FORCE samsung to release the source, but I doubt qualcomm really cares too much. In fact, the module itself as released in binary form in the 7+ firmware (at least up to LA1) actually claims GPL licensing. (Can be verified by using modinfo on ar6000.ko) However, only the copyright holder can enforce the licensing.
A nearly identical situation exists with wpa_supplicant and the intergration between ar6003 and wpa_supplicant. In that case, I know for a fact that the author allows either GPL or BSD terms so wouldn't force the issue.
Those are the only two things I, personally, care about right now. If I had the source for those two parts, I'd be able to not only FIX the wifi issues on the p6210, but also enchance the functionality. I'm also unable to make certain unrelated changes to the kernel, as doing so without being able to recompile the ar6003 driver will render the existing ar6003 non-functional.
Hackers have shown us for all this years that hardware is not the same as software, no matter the manufacturers wants us to believe.
HTC's HD2 is a proof of that: it can run several versions of different operating systems based on different kernels -- just like PC's do.
But as said, manufacturers wants us to buy new hardware all the time, so they lock the possibilities of installing new software, or upgrade the existing -- it's that and also the hardware licenses hell.
So, I think it's time now to set what can we expect from the ChaCha from now on: not much more.
You can create new software that make new things using the existing hardware and limitations, but until someone has the option of access the deeper level of hardware, where you can set what to boot, I think it's all done: the field of play is Android and nothing more can be put there instead.
It seems that the mobile world has embraced linux as the universal kernel and nothing more can be do besides it (android, maemo, meego, tizen, webos...), but Apple and Nokia (and many other manufacturers -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applications_of_ARM_cores) have shown us the the ARM cores can be used for many other things.
So, what's the point of this thread?
The ChaCha is my favourite hardware platform, no matter if it doesn't have the best components (slow CPU, average RAM, low internal memory, so-so camera, etc) but anyway I'd like to see someday it to run an operating system that make the most of it, something that it's as clear as fresh water that Android doesn't do.
Thanks for reading.
You're not the first one to wish such a miracle... Hands up if you want a phone built with Apple's materials running Android OS. The point is, manufacturers don't want us to use what we paid for.
Sent from my Desire S using xda app-developers app