Related
【ROM 4.3.1【UN-OFFICIAL PURE AOSP】InsomniaAOSP【10/22/13 v.1.0】
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Open Source
What is the Android Open Source Project?
We use the phrase "Android Open Source Project" or "AOSP" to refer to the people, the processes, and the source code that make up Android.
The people oversee the project and develop the actual source code. The processes refer to the tools and procedures we use to manage the development of the software. The net result is the source code that you can use to build cell phone and other devices.
Why did we open the Android source code?
Google started the Android project in response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure that there would always be an open platform available for carriers, OEMs, and developers to use to make their innovative ideas a reality. We also wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no single industry player could restrict or control the innovations of any other. The single most important goal of the Android Open-Source Project (AOSP) is to make sure that the open-source Android software is implemented as widely and compatibly as possible, to everyone's benefit.
You can find more information on this topic at our Project Philosophy page.
What kind of open-source project is Android?
Google oversees the development of the core Android open-source platform, and works to create robust developer and user communities. For the most part the Android source code is licensed under the permissive Apache Software License 2.0, rather than a "copyleft" license. The main reason for this is because our most important goal is widespread adoption of the software, and we believe that the ASL2.0 license best achieves that goal.
You can find more information on this topic at our Project Philosophy and Licensing pages.
Why is Google in charge of Android?
Launching a software platform is complex. Openness is vital to the long-term success of a platform, since openness is required to attract investment from developers and ensure a level playing field. However, the platform itself must also be a compelling product to end users.
That's why Google has committed the professional engineering resources necessary to ensure that Android is a fully competitive software platform. Google treats the Android project as a full-scale product development operation, and strikes the business deals necessary to make sure that great devices running Android actually make it to market.
By making sure that Android is a success with end users, we help ensure the vitality of Android as a platform, and as an open-source project. After all, who wants the source code to an unsuccessful product?
Google's goal is to ensure a successful ecosystem around Android, but no one is required to participate, of course. We opened the Android source code so anyone can modify and distribute the software to meet their own needs.
What is Google's overall strategy for Android product development?
We focus on releasing great devices into a competitive marketplace, and then incorporate the innovations and enhancements we made into the core platform, as the next version.
In practice, this means that the Android engineering team typically focuses on a small number of "flagship" devices, and develops the next version of the Android software to support those product launches. These flagship devices absorb much of the product risk and blaze a trail for the broad OEM community, who follow up with many more devices that take advantage of the new features. In this way, we make sure that the Android platform evolves according to the actual needs of real-world devices.
How is the Android software developed?
Each platform version of Android (such as 1.5, 1.6, and so on) has a corresponding branch in the open-source tree. At any given moment, the most recent such branch will be considered the "current stable" branch version. This current stable branch is the one that manufacturers port to their devices. This branch is kept suitable for release at all times.
Simultaneously, there is also a "current experimental" branch, which is where speculative contributions, such as large next-generation features, are developed. Bug fixes and other contributions can be included in the current stable branch from the experimental branch as appropriate.
Finally, Google works on the next version of the Android platform in tandem with developing a flagship device. This branch pulls in changes from the experimental and stable branches as appropriate.
You can find more information on this topic at our Branches and Releases.
Why are parts of Android developed in private?
It typically takes over a year to bring a device to market, but of course device manufacturers want to ship the latest software they can. Developers, meanwhile, don't want to have to constantly track new versions of the platform when writing apps. Both groups experience a tension between shipping products, and not wanting to fall behind.
To address this, some parts of the next version of Android including the core platform APIs are developed in a private branch. These APIs constitute the next version of Android. Our aim is to focus attention on the current stable version of the Android source code, while we create the next version of the platform as driven by flagship Android devices. This allows developers and OEMs to focus on a single version without having to track unfinished future work just to keep up. Other parts of the Android system that aren't related to application compatibility are developed in the open, however. It's our intention to move more of these parts to open development over time.
When are source code releases made?
When they are ready. Some parts of Android are developed in the open, so that source code is always available. Other parts are developed first in a private tree, and that source code is released when the next platform version is ready.
In some releases, core platform APIs will be ready far enough in advance that we can push the source code out for an early look in advance of the device's release; however in others, this isn't possible. In all cases, we release the platform source when we feel the version has stabilized enough, and when the development process permits. Releasing the source code is a fairly complex process.
What is involved in releasing the source code for a new Android version?
Releasing the source code for a new version of the Android platform is a significant process. First, the software gets built into a system image for a device, and put through various forms of certification, including government regulatory certification for the regions the phones will be deployed. It also goes through operator testing. This is an important phase of the process, since it helps shake out a lot of software bugs.
Once the release is approved by the regulators and operators, the manufacturer begins mass producing devices, and we turn to releasing the source code.
Simultaneous to mass production the Google team kicks off several efforts to prepare the open source release. These efforts include final API changes and documentation (to reflect any changes that were made during qualification testing, for example), preparing an SDK for the new version, and launching the platform compatibility information.
Also included is a final legal sign-off to release the code into open source. Just as open source contributors are required to sign a Contributors License Agreement attesting to their IP ownership of their contribution, Google too must verify that it is clear to make contributions.
Starting at the time mass production begins, the software release process usually takes around a month, which often roughly places source code releases around the same time that the devices reach users.
How does the AOSP relate to the Android Compatibility Program?
The Android Open-Source Project maintains the Android software, and develops new versions. Since it's open-source, this software can be used for any purpose, including to ship devices that are not compatible with other devices based on the same source.
The function of the Android Compatibility Program is to define a baseline implementation of Android that is compatible with third-party apps written by developers. Devices that are "Android compatible" may participate in the Android ecosystem, including Google Play; devices that don't meet the compatibility requirements exist outside that ecosystem.
In other words, the Android Compatibility Program is how we separate "Android compatible devices" from devices that merely run derivatives of the source code. We welcome all uses of the Android source code, but only Android compatible devices -- as defined and tested by the Android Compatibility Program -- may participate in the Android ecosystem.
How can I contribute to Android?
There are a number of ways you can contribute to Android. You can report bugs, write apps for Android, or contribute source code to the Android Open-Source Project.
There are some limits on the kinds of code contributions we are willing or able to accept. For instance, someone might want to contribute an alternative application API, such as a full C++-based environment. We would decline that contribution, since Android is focused on applications that run in the Dalvik VM. Alternatively, we won't accept contributions such as GPL or LGPL libraries that are incompatible with our licensing goals.
We encourage those interested in contributing source code to contact us via the AOSP Community page prior to beginning any work. You can find more information on this topic at the Getting Involved page.
How do I become an Android committer?
The Android Open Source Project doesn't really have a notion of a "committer". All contributions -- including those authored by Google employees -- go through a web-based system known as "gerrit" that's part of the Android engineering process. This system works in tandem with the git source code management system to cleanly manage source code contributions.
Once submitted, changes need to be accepted by a designated Approver. Approvers are typically Google employees, but the same approvers are responsible for all submissions, regardless of origin.
You can find more information on this topic at the Submitting Patches page.
Compatibility
What does "compatibility" mean?
We define an "Android compatible" device as one that can run any application written by third-party developers using the Android SDK and NDK. We use this as a filter to separate devices that can participate in the Android app ecosystem, and those that cannot. Devices that are properly compatible can seek approval to use the Android trademark. Devices that are not compatible are merely derived from the Android source code and may not use the Android trademark.
In other words, compatibility is a prerequisite to participate in the Android apps ecosystem. Anyone is welcome to use the Android source code, but if the device isn't compatible, it's not considered part of the Android ecosystem.
What is the role of Google Play in compatibility?
Devices that are Android compatible may seek to license the Google Play client software. This allows them to become part of the Android app ecosystem, by allowing users to download developers' apps from a catalog shared by all compatible devices. This option isn't available to devices that aren't compatible.
What kinds of devices can be Android compatible?
The Android software can be ported to a lot of different kinds of devices, including some on which third-party apps won't run properly. The Android Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) spells out the specific device configurations that will be considered compatible.
For example, though the Android source code could be ported to run on a phone that doesn't have a camera, the CDD requires that in order to be compatible, all phones must have a camera. This allows developers to rely on a consistent set of capabilities when writing their apps.
The CDD will evolve over time to reflect market realities. For instance, the 1.6 CDD only allows cell phones, but the 2.1 CDD allows devices to omit telephony hardware, allowing for non-phone devices such as tablet-style music players to be compatible. As we make these changes, we will also augment Google Play to allow developers to retain control over where their apps are available. To continue the telephony example, an app that manages SMS text messages would not be useful on a media player, so Google Play allows the developer to restrict that app exclusively to phone devices.
If my device is compatible, does it automatically have access to Google Play and branding?
Google Play is a service operated by Google. Achieving compatibility is a prerequisite for obtaining access to the Google Play software and branding. Device manufacturers should contact Google to obtain access to Google Play.
If I am not a manufacturer, how can I get Google Play?
Google Play is only licensed to handset manufacturers shipping devices. For questions about specific cases, contact [email protected].
How can I get access to the Google apps for Android, such as Maps?
The Google apps for Android, such as YouTube, Google Maps and Navigation, Gmail, and so on are Google properties that are not part of Android, and are licensed separately. Contact [email protected] for inquiries related to those apps.
Is compatibility mandatory?
No. The Android Compatibility Program is optional. Since the Android source code is open, anyone can use it to build any kind of device. However, if a manufacturer wishes to use the Android name with their product, or wants access to Google Play, they must first demonstrate that the device is compatible.
How much does compatibility certification cost?
There is no cost to obtain Android compatibility for a device. The Compatibility Test Suite is open-source and available to anyone to use to test a device.
How long does compatibility take?
The process is automated. The Compatibility Test Suite generates a report that can be provided to Google to verify compatibility. Eventually we intend to provide self-service tools to upload these reports to a public database.
Who determines what will be part of the compatibility definition?
Since Google is responsible for the overall direction of Android as a platform and product, Google maintains the Compatibility Definition Document for each release. We draft the CDD for a new Android version in consultation with a number of OEMs, who provide input on its contents.
How long will each Android version be supported for new devices?
Since Android's code is open-source, we can't prevent someone from using an old version to launch a device. Instead, Google chooses not to license the Google Play client software for use on versions that are considered obsolete. This allows anyone to continue to ship old versions of Android, but those devices won't use the Android name and will exist outside the Android apps ecosystem, just as if they were non-compatible.
Can a device have a different user interface and still be compatible?
The Android Compatibility Program focuses on whether a device can run third-party applications. The user interface components shipped with a device (such as home screen, dialer, color scheme, and so on) does not generally have much effect on third-party apps. As such, device builders are free to customize the user interface as much as they like. The Compatibility Definition Document does restrict the degree to which OEMs may alter the system user interface for areas that do impact third-party apps.
When are compatibility definitions released for new Android versions?
Our goal is to release new versions of Android Compatibility Definition Documents (CDDs) once the corresponding Android platform version has converged enough to permit it. While we can't release a final draft of a CDD for an Android software version before the first flagship device ships with that software, final CDDs will always be released after the first device. However, wherever practical we will make draft versions of CDDs available.
How are device manufacturers' compatibility claims validated?
There is no validation process for Android device compatibility. However, if the device is to include Google Play, Google will typically validate the device for compatibility before agreeing to license the Google Play client software.
What happens if a device that claims compatibility is later found to have compatibility problems?
Typically, Google's relationships with Google Play licensees allow us to ask them to release updated system images that fix the problems.
Compatibility Test Suite
What is the purpose of the CTS?
The Compatibility Test Suite is a tool used by device manufacturers to help ensure their devices are compatible, and to report test results for validations. The CTS is intended to be run frequently by OEMs throughout the engineering process to catch compatibility issues early.
What kinds of things does the CTS test?
The CTS currently tests that all of the supported Android strong-typed APIs are present and behave correctly. It also tests other non-API system behaviors such as application lifecycle and performance. We plan to add support in future CTS versions to test "soft" APIs such as Intents as well.
Will the CTS reports be made public?
Yes. While not currently implemented, Google intends to provide web-based self-service tools for OEMs to publish CTS reports so that they can be viewed by anyone. CTS reports can be shared as widely as manufacturers prefer.
How is the CTS licensed?
The CTS is licensed under the same Apache Software License 2.0 that the bulk of Android uses.
Does the CTS accept contributions?
Yes please! The Android Open-Source Project accepts contributions to improve the CTS in the same way as for any other component. In fact, improving the coverage and quality of the CTS test cases is one of the best ways to help out Android.
Can anyone use the CTS on existing devices?
The Compatibility Definition Document requires that compatible devices implement the 'adb' debugging utility. This means that any compatible device -- including ones available at retail -- must be able to run the CTS tests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SOURCE
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
INITIAL RELEASE 10/22/2013 @ 5:54 am
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
InsomniaAOSP v1.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Standard Core gapps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WORK IN PROGRESS ALL MAINTAINERS COLLABORATE IN GIVING CREDITS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android Open Source Project
CodeKill13
Ubuntu
Linux Mint
Github
Flar
Peter Poelman
itsme
Stericson
JesusFreke
CyanogenMOD
AOKP
PacROM
Rootbox
Evervolv
ParanoidAndroid
slimroms
Team-Hydra -Device Trees-Kernel
Team Horizon
The mikmik
AndroidSpin
Android Police
VanirAOSP
CodefireXexperiment
albinoman887
TheMuppets
Htc
Samsung
TheBr0ken
snuzzo
T-Macgnolia
ljjehl
Saif Kotwal
pr0xy man1Ac
Djwuh
ammikam
!I am not responsible for anything that happens to you or your device as a result of flashing this rom. If you decide to install this rom then you've taken responsibility for any risks involved !!
reserrrrved
Nice to see another 4.3.1 rom for our sensation
Keep the good work, will flash it tommorow
Sent from my HTC Sensation using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Looks good shall test in the morning , thanks
Sent from my HTCSensation using Tapatalk
Tried it already from DK's thread on other forum.
There are issues with languages, not everything is translated to russian for instance.
Also there are plenty of CM ringtones, why is that?
WiFi hotspot is not working, cannot even detect an access point.
Launcher has weird wallpaper alingment, that doesn't fit at very left or right...
All these are minor issues to polish in the future.
Oh, why there's a theme engine, is it a part of AOSP now or a bonus from CM?
I'm glad see another pure (or maybe not so much) AOSP ROM.
Since there's no new SuperXE ROMs we welcome the new effort with a big smile on our never well shaved faces.
Noobel said:
Tried it already from DK's thread on other forum.
There are issues with languages, not everything is translated to russian for instance.
Also there are plenty of CM ringtones, why is that?
WiFi hotspot is not working, cannot even detect an access point.
Launcher has weird wallpaper alingment, that doesn't fit at very left or right...
All these are minor issues to polish in the future.
Oh, why there's a theme engine, is it a part of AOSP now or a bonus from CM?
I'm glad see another pure (or maybe not so much) AOSP ROM.
Since there's no new SuperXE ROMs we welcome the new effort with a big smile on our never well shaved faces.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahah..I agree with this " our never well shaved faces".. New ROM to play with....Good job
Nice to see it's playing again. Don't let our Senny dead.
oooo another AOSP for my Sensation! Bring it on! Thank you!!
---------- Post added at 04:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 AM ----------
Any listing of what is working and what is not?
Good work, i'll try it
anyone got any feedback on this one?
Sage said:
anyone got any feedback on this one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, +1, feedback is important for the rom cooker
Is this really pure AOSP without any mods?
I mean "stock" android 4.3.1 ?
Just for the record that I am not running this rom anymore and the bugs I noticed and know of are:
Quit hours not working
Clock Widget settings gives a FC
Setting the navigation bar in Insomnia setting will FC the system UI and can't be recovered and need a factory reset
Browser and the Mail-App have a screen glitches.
I saw this InsomniaAOSP purity test!
Executive Summary
The future is here, and ahead of schedule. Come join us, the weather's nice.
This blog post describes the installation and configuration of a prototype of a secure, full-featured, Android telecommunications device with full Tor support, individual application firewalling, true cell network baseband isolation, and optional ZRTP encrypted voice and video support (ZRTP does run over UDP which is not yet possible to send over Tor, but we are able to send SIP account login and call setup over Tor independently).
Aside from a handful of binary blobs to manage the device firmware and graphics acceleration, the entire system can be assembled (and recompiled) using only FOSS components. However, as an added bonus, we will describe how to handle the Google Play store as well, to mitigate the two infamous Google Play Backdoors.
Introduction
Android is the most popular mobile platform in the world, with a wide variety of applications, including many applications that aid in communications security, censorship circumvention, and activist organization. Moreover, the core of the Android platform is Open Source, auditable, and modifiable by anyone.
Unfortunately though, mobile devices in general and Android devices in particular have not been designed with privacy in mind. In fact, they've seemingly been designed with nearly the opposite goal: to make it easy for third parties, telecommunications companies, sophisticated state-sized adversaries, and even random hackers to extract all manner of personal information from the user. This includes the full content of personal communications with business partners and loved ones. Worse still, by default, the user is given very little in the way of control or even informed consent about what information is being collected and how.
This post aims to address this, but we must first admit we stand on the shoulders of giants. Organizations like Cyanogen, F-Droid, the Guardian Project, and many others have done a great deal of work to try to improve this situation by restoring control of Android devices to the user, and to ensure the integrity of our personal communications. However, all of these projects have shortcomings and often leave gaps in what they provide and protect. Even in cases where proper security and privacy features exist, they typically require extensive configuration to use safely, securely, and correctly.
This blog post enumerates and documents these gaps, describes workarounds for serious shortcomings, and provides suggestions for future work.
It is also meant to serve as a HOWTO to walk interested, technically capable people through the end-to-end installation and configuration of a prototype of a secure and private Android device, where access to the network is restricted to an approved list of applications, and all traffic is routed through the Tor network.
It is our hope that this work can be replicated and eventually fully automated, given a good UI, and rolled into a single ROM or ROM addon package for ease of use. Ultimately, there is no reason why this system could not become a full fledged off the shelf product, given proper hardware support and good UI for the more technical bits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardening-android-security-and-privacy
Pretty much what Guardian ROM is doing. I look forward to all the new builds
Truth. Transparency. Technology
Hi everyone,
I always thought that Nexus devices comes with a pure AOSP version with some little closed-source extras, like GApps (Google Mobile Services, Play Store, Gmail, YouTube, Maps...) or hardware drivers. And for a "librist" like me, it seems fine : OS and main userspace parts are opensourced, and Google services are closed-source. All was fine in my beautiful world.
But with some search, I discovered that every time that Google push an AOSP apps on the Play Store, it is actually a closed-clone of the AOSP one.
For example :
AOSP Keyboard is not Google Keyboard (=missing gesture)
Camera is not Google Camera (=missing Photosphere)
Launcher is not "Google Experience Launcher (GEL)" (=missing Google Now Integration, normal, but also transparency)
Music is not Play Music
Search is not Google Now
recently : Email (not Gmail)
etc.
I was not worried about "additionnal closed source services/app of Google in Android" as they are what they are : additionnal.
But the new politic of Google seems to be "we have our Touchwizz/Sense of our own, now".
The main problem is : as far as I can see on the GIT source and with Android Emulator, when Google begins to develop his "alternative closed source apps of an AOSP opensource apps", the AOSP apps seems to be abandonware.
You can compare the look of Google Search (and disable Google Now, to compare properly without Google closed services) and AOSP Search. AOSP Search seems to be from FroYo design... The same with Music player.
What's your point of this situation? Does Google try to make his own front-end interface to AOSP Android like Samsung Touchwiz or HTC Sense?
What devices comes with AOSP by default and not "Android by Google" now, if Nexus is no more the case?
BONUS : Jean-Baptiste Queru, head of AOSP, resigns from Google. I don't know what happens to replace him...
Note : I am French so, if my English is not easily-readable, please forgive me .
*bump*
Here is a point of view of an official Android developers from Google (source : arstechnica[DOT]com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/?comments=1&post=26199423)
There is a good discussion to be had about Microsoft using Android, and a lot of good reasons for them to not do so... which makes it especially unfortunate that instead this was turned into yet another article here of increasingly specious and misleading claims about the "open-sourceness" of Android and Google's hidden plan to Control Android And Then The World.
First, let's make a clear statement. If Android was to be in the same position as Windows is in the PC industry, we'd have a radically more open computing environment, where it is a lot easier for small players to compete against the dominant platform on a more level playing field. I don't think anyone can argue against this. When we were designing and implementing Android at Google, this was actually one of our goals -- to create a more level playing field for everyone -- and that design perspective hasn't significantly changed over the years.
So let’s start with the setup:
Quote:
Google has worked to make Android functionally unforkable, with no practical way to simultaneously fork the platform and take advantage of its related strengths: abundant developers, and abundant applications.
Already we see the clear bias that the article is going to take. There is however another way to state this: Google provides a lot of value on top of Android, with an ecosystem that is difficult to compete with, of cloud-based applications and services that are useful to users and developers. This is at least as true a way to describe as the quoted statement from the article, and I will argue it more accurately states the situation.
The arguments start out soft, but still misleading:
Quote:
The first is the Android Open Source Platform (AOSP) codebase. This provides the basic bones of a smartphone operating system: it includes Android's version of the Linux kernel, the Dalvik virtual machine, and portions of the basic user interface (settings app, notification panel, lock screen).
AOSP is far more than the basic bones of a smartphone operating system. It is a complete smartphone operating system. The examples you provide for what it includes are very misleading -- what about the launcher, contacts app, dialer and phone app, calendar app, camera and gallery and on? The fact is, if you build AOSP today and put it on a phone, you will have a pretty fully functioning platform.
The thing you don’t have is stuff related to cloud services, and this is not an evil secret plan of Google, but a simple fact we have been clear about from the initial design of the platform: Android as an open-source platform simply can’t provide any cloud services, because those don’t run on the device where the platform code runs. This is a key point that seems to be completely missed. If you want to understand what Android is, how it is designed, and how the pieces fit together, you must understand this point.
One of the things that is interesting about platforms today vs. the traditional desktop is that these cloud services are becoming increasingly central to the core platform experience. This presents a special challenge to an open-source platform, which can’t really provide such cloud services as part of the standard platform implementation. In Android our solution to this is to design the platform so that cloud services can plug-in and integrated with it in various ways. These may be stand-alone apps like Google Play Music, they may be plug-in services like the calendar and contacts sync providers, they may be Google proprietary APIs on top of the platform like Google Play services.
Note, however, that in all of these cases the platform has been designed to provide an open, flexible, and rich enough API that these Google services can be delivered using the same standard SDK that other app developers use. This is part of the goal of creating a more level playing field for everyone. (There are some exception where things are very difficult to safely expose to developers, but they are rare -- the Play Store’s privileges for managing your apps is one, and even there we do provide in the platform side-loading APIs so that other app stores can be implemented.)
So, GMS is Google’s proprietary code implemented on top of Android for interacting with Google’s services. There is nothing nefarious about it being proprietary -- it is interacting with Google’s proprietary back-end services, so of course it is proprietary.
Thus this makes perfect sense:
Quote:
The split between AOSP and GMS is not constant, either. Google has slowly been migrating more and more functionality to GMS. For example, in the latest Nexus 5, the core phone user interface—the thing that you use to launch apps and show icons—has been rolled into the GMS Search app.
What has happened here? Google now has their own launcher that integrates with Google’s back-end services. And what is wrong with this? Why is this worse than Facebook or Yahoo doing their own proprietary launcher? It is bizarre to complain about this, especially when Google has open-sourced everything else in their launcher except the parts that are specific to their proprietary services!
And this is the same thing:
Quote:
Similarly, APIs have made the move. AOSP contains a location API, but GMS contains a newer, better one, with additional features. Google encourages developers to use the GMS API, and the AOSP Location API mostly dates back to Android 1.0, and hasn't seen any substantial changes since Android 1.5.
First, it s very misleading to act like the platform’s location manager has been unmaintained since Android 1.5. Important features like passive providers and criteria-based updates were added much later than that; but, even ignoring verifiable facts, the Google Play services location APIs didn’t appear until last year, so what you are actually implying with this is that Google basically didn’t do any significant improvements to location from 2009 to 2013. Probably not true.
The reason for the introduction of Google’s location API, however, is again because of back-end services. Location has become increasingly dependent on cloud services: for a while now network-based location, but increasingly more things. We went for a long time with parts of the platform’s LocationManager basically not implemented because it couldn’t be, with the need for some proprietary thing to be dropped in on top of it to have a fully functioning API. As time went on this became an increasingly bad situation because we don’t want our platform to be defining APIs that it can’t also provide an implementation of, to serve as the basis for everyone to share and a reference for how it should work. So, the decision was made that Google should take responsibility of further evolution of that API since that evolution is increasingly tied to cloud services.
Quote:
Each new release increases the level of integration with Google's own services, and Google is moving more and more new functionality to GMS, leaving AOSP a barebones husk.
This is such an exaggeration that it is really hard to know how to address. AOSP is a barebones husk? Please. AOSP is far richer and more powerful today than it was in 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0. And most importantly, one of the things we have been doing over the years is providing increasingly rich facilities for any cloud services provider to plug in to the platform. For example, in the most recent 4.4 release we have our very extensive new storage framework API, which Google uses to provide their Google Drive services to any application, and allows any other cloud storage provider to do the same thing, operating on equal footing with Google.
Quote:
That's not a small category, either, since features such as in-app purchasing are in GMS.
This gets emphasized as a significant point, but, honestly, how would you propose that in-app purchasing not go through GMS? Some general platform API to allow the app to do an in-app purchase with whoever wants to be a “purchase provider?” I can’t imagine this being a solution that people will be happy with.
Quote:
Technically, however, a company with sufficient development resources could provide its own GMS replacement. The overhead would be not insignificant, especially as—to ensure optimal compatibility—the replacement would have to replicate not just correct functioning, but any bugs or quirks of the GMS implementation.
Of course, the vast vast vast majority of the work here is implementing the back-end services in the cloud, not the proprietary glue code that runs on the device. Failing to address this is deeply missing about what is going on.
Quote:
There are also lots of little awkward aspects of the GMS API; it includes such capabilities as "share with Google+" which few companies have any real counterpart to.
In other words you don’t have your own social network, so you can’t implement Google’s API for sharing to its social network? Okay, then just have the API do nothing? Or heck, share to Facebook?
Quote:
Another example: there is an API for handling turn-based multiplayer gaming. A company could implement this API and have its own server infrastructure for managing the gaming sessions, but obviously these gaming sessions would be completely separate from Google's gaming sessions, fragmenting the player base in a way that game developers are unlikely to be keen on.
Now this could be taken as just a good argument for why Microsoft wouldn’t get as much of a competitive advantage by using AOSP, since they would still be competing with Google’s cloud services. But then it is immediately followed by:
Quote:
As an added bonus, should the ultimate resolution of Google's long-running legal battle with Oracle be that APIs are, in fact, copyrightable, this kind of wholesale reimplementation of GMS would become legally actionable. Google could, if it chose to, shut it down through the courts.
Where in the world did this come from? Google is the one fighting against that. Microsoft actually filed an amicus brief supporting Oracle. Yet you write this almost as if this case would serve part of Google’s evil plan to control Android?
Quote:
The second option—AOSP with a few extra custom extras—has the upside of providing an opportunity for Microsoft to integrate its own services… It would certainly mean omitting any high-profile title using in-app purchasing, so, say, Plants vs. Zombies 2 or the latest iteration of Angry Birds would be out.
It’s strange to focus on in-app purchasing here. The issue is that you don’t have the Google Play store, so you need to get app developers to publish their apps on your own store. In fact providing a compatible in-app purchasing API and otherwise making it easy for them to publish their app without changing it is probably the lesser problem.
Quote:
Google has pushed very significant pieces of functionality into GMS, including messaging and the Chrome browser. The AOSP counterparts are buggy, feature deprived, and by at least some accounts, barely maintained. If a company wants to use AOSP without GMS, it has a lot of work to do if it wants to produce a high quality experience. The open source parts just aren't good enough.
Again the exaggerations. Chrome is available open-source as Chromium (of course without the integration with Google’s back-end services, but why in the world would Microsoft want those?). What parts of AOSP are “buggy” compared to Google’s stuff? In fact a lot of Google’s proprietary apps are built on top of the corresponding AOSP app -- that includes Google’s Launcher, Calendar, Email, and even Gmail now. Messaging has diverged from Hangouts, but Hangouts is deeply integrated into Google services, and there is a similar situation with Music. It would be nice if some of these apps were better maintained, but (a) there are lots of equivalent apps (often based off the AOSP version) that people have written which you could license and use, and (b) implementing these apps is pretty small potatoes compared to all the cloud services Google provides.
Quote:
For Microsoft, the effort required to build a GMS workalike on top of AOSP is going to be comparable to the effort required to build the Windows Phone shell and APIs on top of Windows.
Again, the vast majority of work here is providing the back-end cloud services. Not, as keeps being implied, the proprietary bits that Google has running on Android.
Quote:
Moreover, it still implicitly gives Google control over the platform. Various aspects of how Android is used are determined by the underlying APIs: sharing between applications, for example, is done in a particular Android way. Any platform using Android in this way would have only a limited ability to take the platform in a different direction from the one Google chose.
Okay this is just weird. Yes, the Android platform has a well-defined sharing facility, and if you want to have an Android-compatible platform you will want it to work the same way. Just like, I don’t know, Ubuntu has a C library and you probably don’t want to change that. How in the world is this different from every other open-source platform in the world? How is Google being all controlling here?
Quote:
The fourth option—use AOSP with an entirely new software stack on top—gives freedom and flexibility, but to what end? The kernel isn't the important bit.
Wait, what? The only way I can figure out how to interpret this is to suggest that they use Linux (the kernel) but nothing above it. That can’t be what you mean, right? I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to be saying, except that it again seems to be implying Google is being all nefarious.
Quote:
If Android were an open platform in the way that Firefox OS or Ubuntu for smartphones were an open platform, the forking suggestion would make more sense.
I’ll admit I am not super-familiar with these two, so I have a question: what are the things that they have that are not in AOSP?
And finally we have further blanket statements about how Google’s goal is to make Android increasingly closed, AOSP isn’t real open source, etc, etc. I’ll just leave with the final sentence:
Quote:
Suggestions that Microsoft scrap its own operating system in favor of such a fork simply betray a lack of understanding of the way Google has built the Android platform.
Actually, I don’t think you have an understanding of how Google has built Android. I have been actively involved in designing and implementing Android since early on, and it was very much designed to be an open-source platform. Part of that design was to allow Google (or anyone) to build integrated cloud-based services on top of it, and that aspect of Android design has gotten richer as the years go on. What you are concerned about is not a design problem in Android, but the richness of Google’s cloud-based services.
At least Android creates a much more equal playing field for others to compete with Google’s services than is provided by the proprietary platforms it is competing with. I also think a good argument can be made that Android’s strategy for addressing today’s need to integrate cloud services into the base platform is an entirely appropriate model for a “real” open-source platform to take.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been working on my own assistant application framework for some time now, and I am coming up to a point where it is functional for an alpha release. There aren't really any other FOSS assistants on the market other than Mycroft, and I noticed that there is no development happening on Saiy/Utter!.
I've been developing it heavily using a Unix mentality which is meant to reduce the mental overhead when it comes to creating skills or new/replacement modules. I paid a lot of attention to the development of the framework so that individual components can be developed or replaced independently, allowing it to be more of a platform than a standalone application. This should also allow it to be easier to dive into individual parts of the application.
There is still a lot to go in terms of making it useful out of the box, but it's almost all there in back end, and I think I'm finishing up the concrete features and flags that it needs to operate with skills and modules that other users develop.
As it is right now, it does offline speech recognition using Vosk STT, and intent matching/entity extraction using the Stanford Core NLP library. I have it set up with a mock Calendar Skill to test its matching and finalize how I want it to interface with complex tasks. Currently it *WILL NOT COMPILE OR WORK* since I am still working out bugs on the alpha. When I am ready to release an actual alpha I'll branch the code, and I'll post/host nightlys somewhere (maybe also put it on F-Droid and Google Play).
I intend to interface it with Termux/Tasker, Google Assistant, Alexa, and Mycroft, as well as at a chatbot feature, but those are all secondary to the task of a stable working assistant/platform. I encourage feedback and questions about how it works and how it could be hacked on to do other things, so that I can write documentation that is as transparent and understandable as possible. Hopefully the code is a bit self documenting as well. I strive for readability over cunning.
Here's the link: https://github.com/Tadashi-Hikari/Sapphire-Assistant-Framework
Let me know what you think
This may be stupid, but I couldn't find any resources regarding this. We have custom recoveries for android devices but why isn't there custom bootloaders like there is for PCs ? Like in the PC space we have the likes of reFind and gnu grub.
Thanks
There are some instances of alternate bootloader projects. Just that they are not popular,
[Bootloader] LK for Xperia T
LK for Xperia T LT30p Only - Unlocked Bootloader Required WARNING 1: This modification makes changes to the devices partition table. I (lilstevie) am not responsible for any damage to your device or data loss that may occur. WARNING 2: ICS...
forum.xda-developers.com
EFIDroid
EFIDroid is a easy to use, powerful 2ndstage-bootloader based on EDKII(UEFI). It can be installed one-click with the EFIDroidManager app. You can add/remove/edit multiboot ROM's. There's no special support needed by ROM's or RecoveryTools(no...
forum.xda-developers.com
The developer of EFIdroid stopped developing in 2019.
efidroid on Android 9 and 10 devices ? · Issue #152 · efidroid/projectmanagement
Hi, I just want to know if efidroid supports devices with 6 GB RAM and 64/128 GB Storage devices running Android 9 and Android 10 ? thanks.
github.com
Not to mention you would need OEM's to cooperate....
Thanks @karandpr for that github comment a lot of info there. Thanks @galaxys too. So a quick summary would be that the reason is that for the bootloader to work smoothly there has to be support from the kernel too, which the OEMs should do and probably would not. But I didn't think about the support in the kernel was an issue. That does seem to be a lot of work and I see the reason now.
al_l_en said:
Thanks @karandpr for that github comment a lot of info there. Thanks @galaxys too. So a quick summary would be that the reason is that for the bootloader to work smoothly there has to be support from the kernel too, which the OEMs should do and probably would not. But I didn't think about the support in the kernel was an issue. That does seem to be a lot of work and I see the reason now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think Google intends to open up android anymore. They want restrictions like iOS but pretend to be open source for the "goodwill". What's the use of AOSP if you cant effectively install it on a device or your important apps don't work?
I believe PinePhones are the ones that can have truly open-source compatible hardware. The specs are underwhelming but the community is really good.
You can get spares easily and the battery is removable.
Only thing is they are mostly out of stock.
karandpr said:
I don't think Google intends to open up android anymore. They want restrictions like iOS but pretend to be open source for the "goodwill". What's the use of AOSP if you cant effectively install it on a device or your important apps don't work?
I believe PinePhones are the ones that can have truly open-source compatible hardware. The specs are underwhelming but the community is really good.
You can get spares easily and the battery is removable.
Only thing is they are mostly out of stock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah those are great but the problem is that they are not usable for "normies" which will prevent mass adoption and hence cannot have a sustainable business model.
But I think google is not the only one to blame, like couldn't the OEMs actually provide bootloaders that can boot signed os images. Or is there any technical or security difficuties in doing that.
al_l_en said:
Yeah those are great but the problem is that they are not usable for "normies" which will prevent mass adoption and hence cannot have a sustainable business model.
But I think google is not the only one to blame, like couldn't the OEMs actually provide bootloaders that can boot signed os images. Or is there any technical or security difficuties in doing that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Normies are afraid to change the default browser, so bootloader is really out of their leagues.
Phone tinkering is a hobby, not a necessity. Phone tinkering itself is not a sustainable model.
Google is to blame primarily. Because they have a stringent list of requirements for devices to pass CTS. You can read the bootloader requirement and judge yourself.
Android 11 Compatibility Definition | Android Open Source Project
source.android.com
Without passing CTS, devices cannot use Google apps, they cannot get push notifications and they cannot pass SafetyNet checks used by most banking apps.
At the end of the day do I want to spend 100s of hours to bring a feature to an android phone which will probably be used by 10 users and deprecated by the time I finish doing it?
or do I want to buy a phone which will allow me to tinker freely in a community and ecosystem which allows modification?
For our tinkering pleasures, Pinephone is the way to go for now. They have support from Manjaro, Debian and KDE. Which is a big thing IMO.
Or else there you can roll your thing in RaspberryPi?
While going through related details I found an article about google probably switching to hardware based safetynet checks which could be ending google play compatibility on custom roms.
It really seems like google is using security as an excuse to make sure that there are no competitors in their business space.
Maybe this is because I have been only doing web development and only started learning app dev, but the reasons google use for CTS like for enforcing DRM, is also handled on websites while allowing openness and being neutral (or maybe the web is not as secure as something like this, so forgive me if I am wrong). Android could really take pages off the web ecosystem for being a neutral platform.
I really appreciate the patience for hearing out and also the references(and the rabbit holes that it was followed by) really taught me a lot about general android architecture.
al_l_en said:
While going through related details I found an article about google probably switching to hardware based safetynet checks which could be ending google play compatibility on custom roms.
It really seems like google is using security as an excuse to make sure that there are no competitors in their business space.
Maybe this is because I have been only doing web development and only started learning app dev, but the reasons google use for CTS like for enforcing DRM, is also handled on websites while allowing openness and being neutral (or maybe the web is not as secure as something like this, so forgive me if I am wrong). Android could really take pages off the web ecosystem for being a neutral platform.
I really appreciate the patience for hearing out and also the references(and the rabbit holes that it was followed by) really taught me a lot about general android architecture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Theoretically, Google can end GPlay compatibility on Custom ROMs anytime they wish. It's just that lot of App Developers don't use SafetyNet the way it is intended and Google doesn't roll out its strict check. They do it once in a while.
They don't have any competitors in their business space. It's a very well-thought monopoly.
CTS restricts Google Play API access to vendor operating systems. So vendors like Samsung, OnePlus and others have to play by their rules. IIRC, the cost of Play API is around 15$ per device but it is subsidized for large quantities.
End users don't really care about Play API. But App Developers do.
Without Play services, there is no easy way to integrate push notifications, ads, maps, analytics, metrics, and so on. Rolling your own thing will take years to develop and won't work as seamlessly as the play service counterparts.
I don't think Google will ever cede their monetary interests for open collaboration.
karandpr said:
I don't think Google will ever cede their monetary interests for open collaboration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah that's for sure. The only way this monopoly can break is when an opensource alternative to google play services and other apis exist and while doing that it must be compatible with the existing google apis. And that is probably not going to happen in a long time. Although microg does solve this to some extent, but still it is a second citizen.
Some of the functionality is already there, like most of the google apps like docs and drive could replaced by nextcloud and then maps could be replaced by osmand. If some company, preferably an OEM, comes and integrates all of these into a package maybe there's hope. I think /e/ os tries to do this to some extent.
You might find this resource useful. As they have gone over a comprehensive set of bootloader software and tried to outline their primary features in detail. Hopefully, you’ll be able to determine the best one for your use case. https://www.ubuntupit.com/best-linux-bootloader-for-home-and-embedded-systems/