Related
This is what makes me crazy about Google and Android (and yes, companies like Samsung) - the uneven distribution of updates (I know, I know). In this case, some devices are already receiving 4.0.4 while many of us are still stuck waiting for the (empty?) promises to update to 4.0.
Just sayin'.
http://androidcommunity.com/android-4-0-4-ics-rolling-out-for-nexus-s-xoom-and-galaxy-nexus-20120328/
Google just develop the OS itself. Whether the device run the system depends on hardware vendor.
The current situation is like MS just released Windows 7 but your PC(part) manufacturer has not released new driver yet.
That is a good way to look at it and completely agree with it. The laptop I have hasn't seen a graphics driver update in 6 months now. Something that should be kept up to date on a monthly basis
If it really comes down to it hopefully Samsung will get their act together and release the full source code for our Tablet. Than at that point we can take matters into our own hands.
C'mon guys. The 4.0.3 had lots of bugs. I updated it on my GF'S Nexus S when just been released and battery was drained in few hours. Devs from all devices (for example Xoom - which I have) had to work out to fix issues that have been fixed by Google after months in 4.0.4
So I'm not so disappointed for having not received the 4.0.3 (even 'cuz we have too few devs). I trust in Samsung and believe there will be avaible on April Let's wait
N.b.
I have a Galaxy Note and the only ROMS for ICS avaibles are leaked from the Chinese version of my device. ICS has not been released yet (and we're talking about NOTE...)
Sent from my Galaxy Note with DarkyROM 3.3
i don't really care what bs version samsung is going to release for tab plus's ICS.
the only thing i care is the source code! the faster they release the source code, the faster someone could work on CM9 for tab7plus. THAT is what matter!
gingerboy92 said:
i don't really care what bs version samsung is going to release for tab plus's ICS.
the only thing i care is the source code! the faster they release the source code, the faster someone could work on CM9 for tab7plus. THAT is what matter!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ICS source from Samsung has no real effect on CM9. CyanogenMod is an AOSP ROM which means that it's not built from Samsung's sources, it's built straight from Google's upstream sources. That's how devices like the HP TouchPad, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet have CM9 builds now - none of these devices ever had ICS sources released.
Right now, the only thing that's really holding back CM9 development on the tab7plus is a lack of tab7plus owners contributing to a CM9 port.
yeah Im waiting for CM9, gave up on Samsung. If they release it great. Id rather CM9 anyday, even with no wifi!!
h2g2 said:
ICS source from Samsung has no real effect on CM9. CyanogenMod is an AOSP ROM which means that it's not built from Samsung's sources, it's built straight from Google's upstream sources. That's how devices like the HP TouchPad, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet have CM9 builds now - none of these devices ever had ICS sources released.
Right now, the only thing that's really holding back CM9 development on the tab7plus is a lack of tab7plus owners contributing to a CM9 port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not the kernel source, and don't forget the wireless chip/adapter/card(?)'s source code.
but yeah, i do agree. we need more devs to work on our tab!
We're still lacking driver source (i.e. our Atheros wifi driver) so even if we got someone to port CM9 to our tabs, we'd have no wifi functionality. The only way to get drivers (with no proper source code released for them) is to reverse engineer the driver(s) themselves, which is a difficult task to say the least.
The reason why most of us say we're waiting for our tabs "ICS Source" is because we're hoping Samsung actually releases our wifi Driver Source code this time.
But...if I remember correctly...someone had pointed out that although Samsung had not released proper source code for our wifi driver, another Sony device that uses it had released code that we could "possibly" use. No one has really confirmed nor denied anything past that recently. Maybe Gary can comment on this issue soon, could clear up a lot of questions for me and everyone else
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
the real problem here is that samsung is "promising" ICS "soon". it would be easier if they say they are going to release it next year or even not going to release it at all.
gingerboy92 said:
not the kernel source, and don't forget the wireless chip/adapter/card(?)'s source code.
but yeah, i do agree. we need more devs to work on our tab!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kernel source doesn't mean driver sources. Remember that drivers don't need to be integrated into the kernel - if Samsung (or the manufacturer of the device) chooses to implement the driver as a binary-only lkm, there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release the source code for the driver.
This has been a problem with Linux drivers in general for a while. I could be wrong, but my sense is that if the needed driver isn't already available in source code from the manufacturer directly, it's unlikely that Samsung will include it in their kernel sources.
---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------
Ceelos09 said:
We're still lacking driver source (i.e. our Atheros wifi driver) so even if we got someone to port CM9 to our tabs, we'd have no wifi functionality. The only way to get drivers (with no proper source code released for them) is to reverse engineer the driver(s) themselves, which is a difficult task to say the least.
The reason why most of us say we're waiting for our tabs "ICS Source" is because we're hoping Samsung actually releases our wifi Driver Source code this time.
But...if I remember correctly...someone had pointed out that although Samsung had not released proper source code for our wifi driver, another Sony device that uses it had released code that we could "possibly" use. No one has really confirmed nor denied anything past that recently. Maybe Gary can comment on this issue soon, could clear up a lot of questions for me and everyone else
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess is that if Samsung has not released the needed sources previously, they probably won't do so with ICS. This is just pure speculation on my part, it's possible Samsung's failure to release wifi driver source was an oversight on Samsung's part but if that were the case, it seems like they would have fixed that already.
I don't know what chip the GT7P uses but some Googling suggests that it's an Atheros 6000 series. If that's the case, the Linux driver source is available: http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/ar6k
ar6k isn't part of the mainline Linux kernel so there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release it as part of their kernel source release. Whether Samsung is obligated to release their ar6k driver source is probably dependent on their agreement with Atheros (ie, just because an open source Linux ar6k exists doesn't preclude the possibility that Samsung licensed a non-GPL version of the driver).
h2g2 said:
Right now, the only thing that's really holding back CM9 development on the tab7plus is a lack of tab7plus owners contributing to a CM9 port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is the best way for us Tab 7.0+ owners to contribute?
h2g2 said:
Kernel source doesn't mean driver sources. Remember that drivers don't need to be integrated into the kernel - if Samsung (or the manufacturer of the device) chooses to implement the driver as a binary-only lkm, there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release the source code for the driver.
This has been a problem with Linux drivers in general for a while. I could be wrong, but my sense is that if the needed driver isn't already available in source code from the manufacturer directly, it's unlikely that Samsung will include it in their kernel sources.
---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------
My guess is that if Samsung has not released the needed sources previously, they probably won't do so with ICS. This is just pure speculation on my part, it's possible Samsung's failure to release wifi driver source was an oversight on Samsung's part but if that were the case, it seems like they would have fixed that already.
I don't know what chip the GT7P uses but some Googling suggests that it's an Atheros 6000 series. If that's the case, the Linux driver source is available: http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/ar6k
ar6k isn't part of the mainline Linux kernel so there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release it as part of their kernel source release. Whether Samsung is obligated to release their ar6k driver source is probably dependent on their agreement with Atheros (ie, just because an open source Linux ar6k exists doesn't preclude the possibility that Samsung licensed a non-GPL version of the driver).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for the clarification.
bittersound said:
What is the best way for us Tab 7.0+ owners to contribute?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In a general sense, there is no answer as it depends on what the problem is. If there are willing developers who don't have access to hardware, you can always donate hardware or chip in to help with that. If there aren't enough willing developers, well, you just have to learn to code or chip in for a bounty to get a developer interested. If, on the other hand, it's a lack of vital documentation or source code from Samsung, well, there's not much you can do except perhaps get some sort of letter writing or phone call campaign over to the appropriate corporate offices.
In a specific sense, best bet is to go over to the development sub-forum, find someone with a project you'd like to support and ask them what help they need.
Gary once mentioned he would help with porting CM9, but he did make it clear to us that it would be a while until he would jump in to help. Life must be keeping him busy atm.
For now, I'm working on learning some code, maybe I'll be of "some" help down the road.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
I'm currently trying to choose my first smartphone, and am having real trouble narrowing it down. At the moment it's between an S3, One X+ or a Nexus 4. However this isn't a versus thread, I'm asking about the development communities for Samsung and HTC devices.
1. Which company (HTC and Samsung) is more supportive to developers, and which flagship phone has the best support from developers themselves?
I'm guessing since the S3 is more popular, it has better developer support, but I also hear that Samsung refuse to release an Exonys source code or something, whereas HTC allows bootloaders to be unlocked, but that doesn't mean it's particularly easy to install custom kernals or roms to HTC devices. Do either of those issues affect the S3 or One X?
2. Which device out of the S3 and One X currently has stable roms that have most original features working (like fully functioning GPS, wifi, camera and all that)?
If I were to get a non-Nexus device, ideally I'd like to flash it back to stock Android to have them as close as a Nexus device as possible, or with a custom rom based on stock android.
3. If you had to order all the manufacturers in terms of the quality and quantity of bug-free custom roms available, and ease of installing them, how would you order it?
For example, Nexus > Samsung > Motorola > HTC > Asus, or whatever.
Also for those asking why I don't simply go for the Nexus 4, it's because the build quality issues frighten me a bit.
Smeghead_ said:
I'm currently trying to choose my first smartphone, and am having real trouble narrowing it down. At the moment it's between an S3, One X+ or a Nexus 4. However this isn't a versus thread, I'm asking about the development communities for Samsung and HTC devices.
1. Which company (HTC and Samsung) is more supportive to developers, and which flagship phone has the best support from developers themselves?
I'm guessing since the S3 is more popular, it has better developer support, but I also hear that Samsung refuse to release an Exonys source code or something, whereas HTC allows bootloaders to be unlocked, but that doesn't mean it's particularly easy to install custom kernals or roms to HTC devices. Do either of those issues affect the S3 or One X?
2. Which device out of the S3 and One X currently has stable roms that have most original features working (like fully functioning GPS, wifi, camera and all that)?
If I were to get a non-Nexus device, ideally I'd like to flash it back to stock Android to have them as close as a Nexus device as possible, or with a custom rom based on stock android.
3. If you had to order all the manufacturers in terms of the quality and quantity of bug-free custom roms available, and ease of installing them, how would you order it?
For example, Nexus > Samsung > Motorola > HTC > Asus, or whatever.
Also for those asking why I don't simply go for the Nexus 4, it's because the build quality issues frighten me a bit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm gonna km this now before it turns into what we both know will happen.
I will put it to you this way. No ROM is bug free and never will be. To many personal options for the dev the test out. XDA is not about ROMs. It is about development. While you may think they are the same, they are not. Development is all about trying new things and making new stuff up as you go along. Not how stable you can make a ROM.
Each device has its followers and its fans. You will find most of the OG developers prefer HTC ad this is where we all started. Then enter the android devs they tend to lean to the nexus as it was built to use the open source drivers. Unlike the rest. Samsung makes good screens but the refusal to release the code or anything to help is an end game for most.
People will always jump to the newest thing. This is how they are programmed to be. Get a device that does what you need and the rest will follow
Thread closed
Batcom2
Hello, just got my Nexus 5 in the mail and I'm happy to join this community along with my previous device forum
But my question is what's the difference between CAF and AOSP? And how would I tell if a ROM is based on CAF or AOSP?
I did a little research myself where CAF is Code Aurora Forums and that CM is now based off of it. It's also what's behind Qualcomm's kernel work and whatnot. AOSP is android as it is now. It was formerly based off CAF but bridged off a while back then and the .libs are a lot different from CAF now. Right?
(Thanks @poondog for getting me started on this!)
But how would I be able to tell if a ROM is CAF or AOSP? Would that really impact what kernels I flash and such? (like CAF ROM only CAF kernel)
Also what would the advantages between the 2, if there are any?
Thanks a lot!
Sincerely,
072665995
bump
CAF=cyanogen 11 based roms, not all kernels work unless they state CM support in the OP which isnt many nowadays.
AOSP=the majority of roms in the original development section, also you will have a larger choice of kernels to play with.
its your choice some people have always loved CM i personally love AOSP but i have used CM in the past but with the N5 the majority of kernel development is with AOSP.
I think you could look into using multirom and test AOSP and CM at the same time but be aware of kernels not supporting CM just read the OP carefully to avoid problems.
i dont know if this helps, if not ill get my coat...
Noob question: Isn't cyanogen based off of AOSP anyway since they're both android?
paranoidsuperhero said:
Noob question: Isn't cyanogen based off of AOSP anyway since they're both android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/About
" So what is the difference between Android and CyanogenMod?
About 1-2 times a year, the vanilla Android operating system (known as AOSP, or the Android Open Source Project) is internally developed, then released to the public, by Google. They provide the source code to anyone who wants to download it. The CyanogenMod community, comprised of unpaid volunteers and enthusiasts from around the world, takes this newest Android code and "ports" it to dozens of new and older (aka "legacy") devices. At the same time, other CyanogenMod developers start adding features, fixes, and improvements that Google didn't include to the CyanogenMod code, which benefits all the devices. The CyanogenMod community has a whole infrastructure for people to build and test experimental versions, report bugs, and contribute back to the source code.
Sometimes features that started in CyanogenMod have appeared in newer version of "official" Android. And every time Android does a new "code dump" of their latest version, CyanogenMod benefits from Google's changes.
In this way, CyanogenMod is one (but not the only) community distribution of what started as vanilla AOSP. The Android community is vibrant, with numerous "modders" and "themers" and "performance enhancers" taking the source code and doing incredible things to it. Generally, there is a spirit of sharing knowledge and empowering people to experiment with controlling their devices, often giving old phones new life, and hopefully having fun in the process. "
I've used a few other androids before with custom ROMs, and a major obstacle to stability seems to often be the fact that manufacturers typically don't include open source drivers, which leads to reverse engineered open source drivers being developed on xda, which often aren't as good as the binaries that can only be used with stock based ROMs.
Since the OPP ships with cm11, does this mean that it uses open source drivers that will work well with any open source ROM?
I'm not dev, but my guess is not entirely. Qualcomm is extremely protective of it's IP, which is why the Nexus 7 2013 source got pulled momentarily I think. This device run their SOC do I assume it'll use their drivers.
But as you can see there are a good number of roms for it already, so it's still a dev friendly device. They released their kernel source so it's useful for making AOSP roms and regular CM11, but certain features from CM11S is not available. CM isn't fully open source either from what I understand.
If the device was running pure AOSP with no Google services and using Texus Instruments OMAP chips, then it'll probably be more open.
But probably don't take what I say seriously.
eksasol said:
I'm not dev, but my guess is not entirely. Qualcomm is extremely protective of it's IP, which is why the Nexus 7 2013 source got pulled momentarily I think. This device run their SOC do I assume it'll use their drivers.
But as you can see there are a good number of roms for it already, so it's still a dev friendly device. They released their kernel source so it's useful for making AOSP roms and regular CM11, but certain features from CM11S is not available. CM isn't fully open source either from what I understand.
If the device was running pure AOSP with no Google services and using Texus Instruments OMAP chips, then it'll probably be more open.
But probably don't take what I say seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I appreciate your honesty lol you've given me some interesting things to research. In the future I may be avoiding Qualcomm devices, I'm sick of having to decide between stability and crappy ui and features, vs the awesome of cyanogenmod or other community Roms with unstable reverse engineered drivers.
Hardware manufacturers have got to quit messing with android so much, Samsung makes great hardware but pretty crappy software, I'm tired of having to choose.
My next phone will either be an OPP or a Nexus 5 I think. On that magical day that I have cash to blow....
eksasol said:
I'm not dev, but my guess is not entirely. Qualcomm is extremely protective of it's IP, which is why the Nexus 7 2013 source got pulled momentarily I think. This device run their SOC do I assume it'll use their drivers.
But as you can see there are a good number of roms for it already, so it's still a dev friendly device. They released their kernel source so it's useful for making AOSP roms and regular CM11, but certain features from CM11S is not available. CM isn't fully open source either from what I understand.
If the device was running pure AOSP with no Google services and using Texus Instruments OMAP chips, then it'll probably be more open.
But probably don't take what I say seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TI OMAP left the mobile market for SoC.
Well I appreciate your honesty lol you've given me some interesting things to research. In the future I may be avoiding Qualcomm devices, I'm sick of having to decide between stability and crappy ui and features, vs the awesome of cyanogenmod or other community Roms with unstable reverse engineered drivers.
Hardware manufacturers have got to quit messing with android so much, Samsung makes great hardware but pretty crappy software, I'm tired of having to choose.
My next phone will either be an OPP or a Nexus 5 I think. On that magical day that I have cash to blow....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't avoid Qualcomm, they pretty much own the market share when it comes to SoC. They're not bad people, their SoC are undoubtedly the best on the market. And there aren't many phones at all that offer other system on chips. The only others being NVIDIA Tegra but they're not really on phones anymore, Samsung Exynos is on international devices... if you buy a international Samsung Note/S5 then chances are it won't support U.S. LTE bands (unless you live outside of the U.S./NA).
At the end of the day, the factory images are there. And yes the N7 were pulled but its back and has been there for awhile.
The real difference is that aosp is built and tested on Nexus devices and CM uses aosp (google) to build there platform from.
So any other device is for lack of better words is a port from android nexus development aka android built for and test on nexus.
So in a way the one plus is just like any other non nexus device. You can't just repo sync a Google aosp repo and build for this phone. Without changes being made to make it work.
Not knocking the One it's a really nice piece of hardware.
Hi everybody here
I'm totally new to Samsung Development (I owned Sony Devices for many years)
I heard all across the Internet that Exynos Devices doesn't have any AOSP ROMs, all ROMs for them are TouchWiz Based.
But today I've found this : Galaxy S6 Sources By Samsung
Does this mean this device will get love from AOSP Developers? i.e CM Team?
You know, the only reason that stops me from buying this TOTALLY AWESOME device is this.
I'll buy an S6 ASAP if I it gets AOSP Support :good:
Please say if this lovely device gets AOSP or not.
Thanks, Many Regards :fingers-crossed:
Considering this is already looking to rank as one of the best selling Android devices of all time, I would highly doubt anyone suggesting we won't have AOSP based roms at some point in the near future. The exynos processor does make the matter more complicated, but not impossible. So I'd say buy with confidence if this is the only thing holding you back.
Some discussion on this topic here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s6/general/dev-s6-t3075461