Being a fan of Linux, and an Ubuntu user, I guess I thought Android was going to be a lot more openly tweakable, but from looking over these threads it looks like it's actually not that easy to do things that I would have assumed would be easily accessible tweaks... like theme/appearance/fonts/icons, etc... In fact it looks like some pretty intense hacking is going on with slow progress in bypassing , etc...
Maybe I'm not understanding correctly. I don't have the G1, but my girlfriend does and I've been enjoying it from over her shoulder... I guess I just expected something more 'open' along the lines of what I've become used to with Ubuntu.
I kind thought Android would be to iPhone, what Linux OS is to Apple OS, but it definitely doesn't seem like that's the case. It seems like Android is just as locked down as iPhone but with fewer apps and not-as-slick interface for the same price as an iPhone.
I had been thinking about getting this phone... maybe I just need to wait for more apps to come out?
Any thoughts?
As of right now we do have a little more opensource than anything else. And like all new software it will take time to learn what to do. Obviously people didn't get Mac OS 3 and immediatly know how to hack it so they could do things they weren't meant to do. And of course same goes with mobile phones. When WM5 came out they had to learn about the new OS and it takes awhile.
So far the freedom we have already surpasses that of any other. We have internet sharing (for those with root) that is far better than the old USB or BluetoothPAN method(which btw is going to be a new profile, it is in the source)
I am willing to bet that as soon as it hits 1.0 that we will see it go entirely open with the ability to flash the rom and all.
That makes sense... I just have to be patient Thanks for the reply!
Open source != open system.
Open source means just that... you can see the source code. That's it. It doesn't imply or confer any other right of access, and with most open source licenses the licensor (Google & HTC) is free to build closed systems just as locked down as one based on proprietary code. Many commercial systems (Android included) are underpinned by open source code for cost savings or stability/security reasons.
Edit:
what Linux OS is to Apple OS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's comparing apples to oranges. Linux is not an operating system; it is an open source kernel on which an operating system can be built.
Fact of the matter is, OS X's Mach kernel is partially descendant from BSD, so you could say the center of OS X is open source as well. More info at wikipedia's Darwin entry. For being a "fan of Linux" you don't seem to understand some of the core principles.
If I am not mistaken Mac's are unix based right? many the kernel is similar to linux... which is why the filesystem structure is similar as well.
But you are correct open source means you can see the source... but usually when someone can see the source they find a way to get around security holes that lock down the system.
With open source and developers an open system is possible. And we already know we can do it because we have modified the updates that are sent which change the system files. so all you need to do is put a new boot.img and a new recovery.img and replace the root system directory... before you know it you can have this running any version of android and/or anything else that will run on an ARM6 device.
Don't make it so complex. It's meaningless to play the words game.
To make it simple:
As a developer, on G1, we are not able to do what we can do on a linux PC, and that was my understanding about the open source smartphone OS.
To be practical, for the same project I ported for Android, Windows Mobile and iPhone, I would say: Windows Mobile is the most open one (friendly) for developer. You can even make your own driver on it. So I would say Windows Mobile = smart version of Windows Desktop. But I cannot say Android = smart version of linux.
I really hope Google can push a little bit to the carriers to open the root for us. Android really needs to be more developer friendly. Otherwise, it is hard to compete with iPhone, since the key part of Andorid was "openess".
jashsu said:
Open source != open system.
Open source means just that... you can see the source code. That's it. It doesn't imply or confer any other right of access, and with most open source licenses the licensor (Google & HTC) is free to build closed systems just as locked down as one based on proprietary code. Many commercial systems (Android included) are underpinned by open source code for cost savings or stability/security reasons.
Edit: That's comparing apples to oranges. Linux is not an operating system; it is an open source kernel on which an operating system can be built.
Fact of the matter is, OS X's Mach kernel is partially descendant from BSD, so you could say the center of OS X is open source as well. More info at wikipedia's Darwin entry. For being a "fan of Linux" you don't seem to understand some of the core principles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a developer, on G1, we are not able to do what we can do on a linux PC, and that was my understanding about the open source smartphone OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's like you've never even heard of embedded linux before. Show me where on the G1 advertising or packaging it claims to be a Linux PC.
To be practical, for the same project I ported for Android, Windows Mobile and iPhone, I would say: Windows Mobile is the most open one (friendly) for developer. You can even make your own driver on it. So I would say Windows Mobile = smart version of Windows Desktop. But I cannot say Android = smart version of linux.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WM gives the developer deeper system access. That's awesome for developers maybe, but calling it a "smart" is probably going a bit too far.
I really hope Google can push a little bit to the carriers to open the root for us. Android really needs to be more developer friendly. Otherwise, it is hard to compete with iPhone, since the key part of Andorid was "openess".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
jashsu said:
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And run it, how?
From my understanding, the only way to get a firmware onto the phone ATM is from the recovery menu, which will only install signed updates from Google. Yes, we've got a way around that for now, but it requires root access.
How would you install a self compiled version of Android onto the G1 on the official RC30?
Gary13579 said:
And run it, how?
From my understanding, the only way to get a firmware onto the phone ATM is from the recovery menu, which will only install signed updates from Google. Yes, we've got a way around that for now, but it requires root access.
How would you install a self compiled version of Android onto the G1 on the official RC30?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No clue. I'd probably do it with a Freerunner or something that is specifically designed as an open system. The recovery menu is not the only way to write to internal memory; i'm sure the HTC bootloader has some provision for usb access.
You have all of the Android operating system at your disposal in the form of source code (provided you agree to the license). If you want to write/port low level drivers for it go right ahead. You just can't run it on the G1. They chose to lock down the Android implementation on G1 and you're dissatisfied with that. That's like being dissatisfied that a house has locks on it when the architect gave away the blueprints and floor plans for free.
jashsu said:
That's like being dissatisfied that a house has locks on it when the architect gave away the blueprints and floor plans for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except when you buy a house, they generally give you the keys.
Gary13579 said:
Except when you buy a house, they generally give you the keys.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I know, it's a flawed analogy.
If you want to have free reign over your Android, I suggest you get a Neo Freerunner to play with. I say play because the open source portion of Android is missing a lot of closed source Google added value apps (Maps, Gmail, etc) that define the G1. Also the porting process is still ongoing.
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.[/QUOTE said:
Stop playing the work game and understand the simple Thing that Developers want full Access to device in order to build Software Beyond Generalised Application, like bluetooth drivers, codecs, themes, different home shell the way we do in Windows Mobile
You said take OpenSource and Customise the OS by bypassing some security for shell access. Now Lets understand 98 % device get automatically f**ked with RC30 and there is no Reversal!!! If you can build any Customised Android Package which can bypasss Security for shell access and also Bypass Signature checking just do it for me so i can Revert to Shell Access from f**king RC30.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hetaldp said:
Stop playing the work game and understand the simple Thing that Developers want full Access to device in order to build Software Beyond Generalised Application, like bluetooth drivers, codecs, themes, different home shell the way we do in Windows Mobile
You said take OpenSource and Customise the OS by bypassing some security for shell access. Now Lets understand 98 % device get automatically f**ked with RC30 and there is no Reversal!!! If you can build any Customised Android Package which can bypasss Security for shell access and also Bypass Signature checking just do it for me so i can Revert to Shell Access from f**king RC30.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
98% of G1s might get derooted with RC30, but guess what? 99% of users don't need root or don't care. Tmo and HTC didn't build the G1 as a device for devs to hack and play with. That's why its a subsidized $179 phone and your unlimited dataplan is $25.
99% Percent people dont want it but if we develop some Application which is beyond the SDK thing we must have to have root access to all device in order to Install it.
Adobe is releasing Flash Plugins for Browser lets see they can do it by just releasing APK Package in Market or a Pushed OTA Update. If Adobe requires OTA Update then Smaller Company and Developers see hard time to develop such Extension without Googles Permission.
Just make your Science clear before commenting it
hetaldp said:
99% Percent people dont want it but if we develop some Application which is beyond the SDK thing we must have to have root access to all device in order to Install it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course. I am just saying that there is a sense among some people that they are entitled to root access simply because G1 is built on Linux. You are not entitled to anything of the sort. If root is important to you then sell your G1 to someone who doesn't care about root (there are a lot of these people) and buy a Freerunner.
Every OpenMoko phone I have seen looks like they are competing for ugliest phone ever. I know the G1 isn't that pretty, but oh my god, I would be embarassed to carry that in my pocket.
I already own more then 6 Smartphone. And i don't use G1 also becuase of Microsoft Exchange things. I dont have any Complaint for Exchange Connectivity.
Here the Question is how can i develop some more powerful Application / extension / core Part and Distribute it across all G1 users the way we do it in Windows.
This means my core Application can run in free Runner (OpenMoko) but it will not be available in G1 user group. There will be handfull user who may use free Runner but its not my Market. I require bigger community to sell the Software buddy.
Here the Question is how can i develop some more powerful Application / extension / core Part and Distribute it across all G1 users the way we do it in Windows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you need to get below the VM on stock ota G1 then most likely your product will need to become a part of the Android platform (meaning open sourcing). The integrity of the os and user data is one of the main reasons the Android sdk only supports the VM.
I'll be interested to see how Adobe's flash implementation for G1 works. Flash is closed source, and Google has explicitly stated that the entire Android platform is open source. My guess is they will patch the Browser to accept signed binary plugins. Perhaps Google's signature will require a peek at the source. I'm only speculating though...
Yeah using SDK we can only Develop Application which run itself in the Sandbox cna they can communication with other Application using intents, you can share Data using content Provider, share the Setting using Preference. We can develop some services in apps to handle Asynchronous process.
We we ca not do is recompile the Whole Modded Source, replace or test drivers, codec, low level binaries.
The SDK is fairly powerful out off the Box for Standalone things. !
Thats why i have made a different demand to google in this thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=444893
The only thing tmobile is worried is tethering, as they give unlock code after every 90% day Subsidized Handset unlocking is not a big worry for them.
Just think If you want to develop On Screen keyboard it require more powerful access to core system and its beyond Google Sandbox approach.
jashsu said:
It's like you've never even heard of embedded linux before. Show me where on the G1 advertising or packaging it claims to be a Linux PC..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Show me where did I say Android = a linux pc. Same, I didn't say Windows Mobile = Windows XP/Vista.
I hate to play the word game.
jashsu said:
WM gives the developer deeper system access. That's awesome for developers maybe, but calling it a "smart" is probably going a bit too far..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why I thought very high with Android. But the limited development access makes it worse than WM.
jashsu said:
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you please show us how to get the root from the f__king rc30?
Do you rebuild the whole linux on your pc if you just want to make a simple application?
Hi all,
I am currently working on a research project that requires modification of the WinCE source code. Surprisingly, MS facilitates this by offering the platform builder along with a substantial portion of the WinCE source code - basically enough to make a platform functionally equivalent to Windows Mobile.
I've tested my work using the device emulator, but would now like to run some experiments on real hardware. So, I am looking for a phone that will allow me to do this; download my customized WinCE image and run it on the phone. From what I can tell, this boils down to having access to a board support package (BSP) for the specific hardware, which would allow me to compile an image fully compatible with the chipset and peripherals. However, I have gleaned from various sources that manufacturers aren't typically loose with BSP's. I currently have a Wizard, but have not had any luck finding a BSP.
Does anyone know of a smartphone with a corresponding BSP for WinCE/Mobile that is accessible to developers or enthusiasts? Here are further details of my plight:
- I work in an academic setting (Technology manufacturers are oftentimes willing to cut deals with academic researchers. It makes for good PR).
- I may be able to muster up some money, if necessary.
Thanks in advance,
-Matt
I am not a developer so I don't understand why it is so hard to receive updates on some android devices.
Today, particularly I am concerned with the ICS update . Why is it that even though TF meets all the hardware requirements it still can't receive ICS?
To a n average user like me this is like saying "we both have similar computers but Windows 7 won't work on yours and it's nothing do do with hardware".......
it is not the same at all. For windows computers all of the components are supported by their respective manufactures and all of those manufactures write the drivers for the operating system. By doing this you can install windows (or linux) on most platforms because of the cumulative support. In android there are many more steps. Most drivers have to be written by a single manufacturer which may get hardware from other manufactures but they do not provide software support for that hardware. writing those drivers takes some time and implementing them into each release of android as it changes the parameters it accepts ect. then each device has to be tested rather than just testing one part to make sure everything is in order then it goes through google who do even more checks to make sure that it is near perfect before it is released to the general public
Hello,
First off, apologies if I have posted this in the incorrect forum.
The company I work for is looking to update one of it's product lines and has been toying with the idea of using Android as a development platform. Up until now the philosophy has always been to develop simple, bespoke embedded software that provides only the functionality that is needed at the time. The device itself will be a medical device, and as such will have no telephony requirements (and associated things like contacts, calander and the large majority of the pre-installed Android apps).
I have read, and understand it is possible to re-compile Android from source and remove all of these non-required functionality. My question is really if that is worth doing? i.e. stripping out all un-needed applications that get build into a stock ROM. Or would it be a more efficient to use some form of OTS embedded Linux platform?
Something in Android 4.0 that does seem to be useful is the support for Bluetooth HDP.
Kind Regards,
Simon
Well there are other devices that aren't phones that use Android. Take the motoactv for example. It's a fitness watch that runs a stripped version of Android, but it's still Android and applications can still be programmed and installed to it.
I am a retired programmer with too much time on my hands; as such, I wrote a complaint to a regulatory body about how I can't install the operating system I want on my device because it will render it unusable (if I can't call for help on a phone because of drivers, what good is it?). I received a response requesting an interview with an officer who specializes in anticompetition cases and I would like to make sure I have my eggs all in one basket.
The current mobile phone market I liken to the desktop OS market of the 90s, where you had companies like Xerox, Microsoft, IBM, and so on; in the 90s, there were antitrust lawsuits where a particular company was accused of intentionally creating barriers to customers seeking to install software by other companies on personal computers. Obviously, that was settled in the 2000s, but IMO it did appear to make a positive change even if we are still fighting against IE. This may not be relevant, but that's what my mind went to when I realized I couldn't uninstall the Play Store.
Nobody uses "cellular telephones" as telephones anymore; instead, they are mobile computers. Computers in the 80s/90s had plenty of OS options (you may recall using OS/2 or BSD), but you can't do that with mobile computers... is that a good thing?
In my retirement, I'd like to develop and build a mobile phone operating system that is not android (nor lineageOS); this would either be Linux or BSD-based with a simple package manager, but the user would have the option to compile their own software also. This would ideally *not* hinder the underlying function of the device (i.e. telephony), but I don't see how manufacturers could be compelled to provide binary drivers. The current mobile market makes it obviously a very high barrier to entry for any who want to develop new operating systems for mobile computers. Is this anticompetitive? Perhaps not, but I'd like to hear some opinions and if you would kindly point me towards some resources I would appreciate it.
IMO the OS is not the problem - a command line based OS can be written by any talented student nowadays - preferably in C++, yes there are enough templates on the Internet, it is the device drivers what have to fit the hardware that make the whole thing difficult. I know that some OEMs put their device drivers' source code to the public.
jwoegerbauer said:
IMO the OS is not the problem - a command line based OS can be written by any talented student nowadays - preferably in C++, yes there are enough templates on the Internet, it is the device drivers what have to fit the hardware that make the whole thing difficult. I know that some OEMs put their device drivers' source code to the public.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To install a new OS on a phone, the phone must first be booted into a bootloader such that the 'image' of the OS can be loaded. The image for the OS should be built with the drivers present such that when booting, the OS kernel can load the relevant drivers as it probes the hardware in the phone, and then the software installed on the user layer can access that hardware through the relevant system calls. How possible is it for the bootloader to load a custom OS in the general sense? The majority of instructions I find are on enthusiast/developer websites with the actual manufacturers giving basically no input (that is to say, I haven't seen on manufacturer's websites or instruction manuals where they give instructions for booting your choice of OS).
Would it be fair to say that mobile developers, like Google/Samsung/LG/Amazon/etc are restricting users from being able to install their own OS on their device? Is driver access a reasonable thing to ask for?
Again, I'm retired, so I have time on my hands, but I'm old and there's realistically not a lot of that time left. I don't want to try developing my own BSD-based mobile OS if there's no way for me to install it on my own devices; that effort could go into another project if it is otherwise wasted. I suppose it is worth asking whether I should bother returning the bureau's request for an interview.