Related
Just posted a pretty lengthy message on the T-Mobile forums... Post replies there if possible.
http://forums.t-mobile.com/t5/T-Mobile-G2/T-Mobile-Why-I-m-returning-my-G2/m-p/502593
Dear T-Mobile,
I thought I would write you this little note to explain why I have returned my G2. You see, Google created the Android Operating System to provide an Free, Open-Source alternative to proprietary Smart-Phone Operating Systems such as Windows Mobile and the iPhone. Google has done this to untangle the Smart-Phone ecosystem from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. The mantra of Open-Source software is: "If you don't like something, you can download the source and change it yourself!" Evidently, you do not understand this concept.
In case you were somehow unaware, the Linux kernel is protected by the GNU Public License (version 2). You can read the full license here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
By selling a locked-down device (such as the G2), you defeat the capability of developers to contribute to the Android platform. Many features in the mainline Android project have come from the "modder" community. Furthermore, your supplier, HTC, refuses to comply with the GNU license. Numerous attempts to contact them about this violation are met with the following form response:
"HTC will typically publish on developer.htc.com the Kernel open source code for recently released devices as soon as possible. HTC will normally publish this within 90 to 120 days. This time frame is within the requirements of the open source community."
This is not acceptable. Read the license - it is clearly states that source code must be made available to those who ask for it.
Adding insult to injury, you have also misrepresented the device by being less-than-honest about its specs and capabilities. Many users are surprised to find they only have 1.3GB available on a 4GB phone. Say what you will about "reserved space" - this is not the case on *any* other Android handset. Meanwhile, you have taken cash on the side to pre-load certain "useful applications" (crapware such as Photobucket) - which cannot be removed by the user. And to no one's surprise, you have removed built-in features of Froyo (such as Tethering.)
It's unfortunate that you have chosen this path for your Android handsets. Neither HTC nor T-Mobile own Android, Linux, or the numerous other software components contained therein. You cannot simply do with them as you please. Hopefully you will release future handsets without these restrictions - until then I will continue to support the efforts of those who unlock your software protection.
Regards,
An ex-G2 owner
Personally, I think you are blowing this "anti-root" debacle out of proportion.
G2 will be rooted, just give it time.
I will give you the 4GB w/ 1.3GB free space argument. No argument here.
SuperFly03 said:
Personally, I think you are blowing this "anti-root" debacle out of proportion.
G2 will be rooted, just give it time.
I will give you the 4GB w/ 1.3GB free space argument. No argument here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So wait... They should put all phones on read-only lock-down, refuse to provide source when obligated to do so by the GPL, mislead customers with specs (not just the 4GB), tear things out of the OS, fill my limited memory with useless applications that I dont' want, and cannot delete, etc....
I think it's safe to say, root aside, that they have failed on all these fronts. I'm not expecting them to just hand over persistent root - but it's my goddamn device. **** Tmo and HTC for all of the above.
How do you REALLY about htc and t-mobile?
I'm sure they're all getting out their tissues for you.
You can get off of the soapbox now.
HamNCheese said:
So wait... They should put all phones on read-only lock-down, refuse to provide source when obligated to do so by the GPL, mislead customers with specs (not just the 4GB), tear things out of the OS, fill my limited memory with useless applications that I dont' want, and cannot delete, etc....
I think it's safe to say, root aside, that they have failed on all these fronts. I'm not expecting them to just hand over persistent root - but it's my goddamn device. **** Tmo and HTC for all of the above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The requirement is 90-120 days after release right? We are 5 days into release.
The 4GB, as I said, I have no argument against because it is a bit misleading but then again there is an 8GB SDHC card.
The useless applications can be removed when rooted. Until then, I haven't seen an Android phone not come with at least a few useless applications. They suck but they can be removed eventually.
I agree with you that is your device that you paid for... I'm not a fan of content protection. I, in fact, hate it but the 1000 people who don't buy a device because of it don't compare to the 2million people who do buy the device so I don't get too worked up about it.
I think you are being a bit dramatic.
I totally agree with this letter root is my deciding factor on wether I'm purchasing this phone. And I'm purchasing it out rite. The whole 500. It irritates me I'm told what to dob with something I spent so much money on. I purchase a mts because I assumed I could root and write to system and what not because I wanted a phone with a keyboard and this was all that was out but I hated the espresso ui. Granted I can change roms but the lack of system writeable acess and no kernel has killed our mts development. The forum is a ghost town. I have a rooted g1 and let people use it as a loaner. Not one person has ever messed it up with root acess. Who is anyone to tell me what I can do with something I purchas. Would you buy a house and let someone tell you you can't changes the drapes or carpet. If your into cars or motorcycles you wouldn't purchase one and be told you can't upgrade the parts. I've never bought a computer I couldn't change my os on. And wasn't jailbreaking and unlocking made legal. So technically aren't anti root methodes illegal
Phone just came out dude give it time... there will be updates
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
HamNCheese said:
So wait... They should put all phones on read-only lock-down, refuse to provide source when obligated to do so by the GPL, mislead customers with specs (not just the 4GB), tear things out of the OS, fill my limited memory with useless applications that I dont' want, and cannot delete, etc....
I think it's safe to say, root aside, that they have failed on all these fronts. I'm not expecting them to just hand over persistent root - but it's my goddamn device. **** Tmo and HTC for all of the above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Misleading specs = bad, and possibly illegal
Bloatware = effing annoying
Not providing source = annoying, but the source requirement is worthless unless someone higher up in the chain enforces it
Removing things from the OS? Guess what: that's the other side of open source.
The G2 has its issues, and I don't fault people for returning it. I also personally prefer open hardware - the freedom to break what I have bought. But I agree with SuperFly03 that you are blowing things out of proportion. T-Mobile and HTC also have a right to make money and protect themselves from perceived customer abuses.
I like your letter and agree with you, if you were to create an electronic petition I would sign it as a 7+ year T-mo user paying $140+/mo for the last 3yr. I did sign such a petition 2yr ago after the g1 release, "keep android open" as I recall. Truth is your only other options are much more restrictive outside of the android OS. So much focus of Devs is on keeping android free and open that nothing the coperations do can stop them IMHO. Just keep the Devs beer/coffee coffers full and rejoyce in all that android was meant to be. BTW "Bandit Splash"
Buy a Moto Razr and call it a night.
- Fly like a G2
I would agree with you. Bloat ware is becoming popular with htc. I moved to the G2 from the EVO because of the non sense ui. Further more I think your letter is appropate for tmo. I decided to buy the phone out right from my work (Radioshack) without any service and running on wifi I have no disappointments yet. Besides spending the $500+ for the phone...
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
ezcape said:
Buy a Moto Razr and call it a night.
- Fly like a G2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or, never buy this bull**** from a carrier again. Instead, buy un-subsidized, or un-locked phones direct. Like my Nexus One.
I don't doubt that it will be rooted within a month... That's not the point. Hell, if it is, I might just buy it again. But I won't support either T-Mobile or HTC with this crap as-is.
SuperFly03 said:
The requirement is 90-120 days after release right? We are 5 days into release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. There is no specific time requirement (this was addressed in GPLv3, which has some other issues.) The GPL went into effect the moment the executable code was "distributed" (technically late September, when the first people got their deliveries - maybe earlier - depends on definition of "distribution"...)
I don't expect a next-day turn-around, but HTC pulled the 90-120 days out of their ass. If I ask for source, and they do not provide it, they are non-compilant. Period. End of story.
The point of all this? Call attention to the fact that they are abusing the GPL. All of the Android manufacturers see Android as a cash-cow. They are taking Linux and doing whatever-the-**** they want with it.
It's wrong, and I'm calling them on it. Nothing more.
I'm disappointed (and fairly angry) that I had to sign a 2 yr contract & pay cash out of pocket just to get a Device that has been been falsely advertised and has Disabilities...
T-mo always comes out w/ BS devices that suck, ones no-one else wants, and it seems they shafted us with their flagship Android successor.
HamNCheese said:
Or, never buy this bull**** from a carrier again. Instead, buy un-subsidized, or un-locked phones direct. Like my Nexus One.
I don't doubt that it will be rooted within a month... That's not the point. Hell, if it is, I might just buy it again. But I won't support either T-Mobile or HTC with this crap as-is.
Wrong. There is no specific time requirement (this was addressed in GPLv3, which has some other issues.) The GPL went into effect the moment the executable code was "distributed" (technically late September, when the first people got their deliveries - maybe earlier - depends on definition of "distribution"...)
I don't expect a next-day turn-around, but HTC pulled the 90-120 days out of their ass. If I ask for source, and they do not provide it, they are non-compilant. Period. End of story.
The point of all this? Call attention to the fact that they are abusing the GPL. All of the Android manufacturers see Android as a cash-cow. They are taking Linux and doing whatever-the-**** they want with it.
It's wrong, and I'm calling them on it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They can do what they choose with Android, Google backs them as they did officially state that limiting Android to a vanilla, untouched build would essentially violate the fundamentals of having an 'open' OS.
Its up to the consumer to decide what they like and they don't.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
SmartHat said:
I'm disappointed (and fairly angry) that I had to sign a 2 yr contract & pay cash out of pocket just to get a Device that has been been falsely advertised and has Disabilities...
T-mo always comes out w/ BS devices that suck, ones no-one else wants, and it seems they shafted us with their flagship Android successor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be fair, you didn't HAVE to sign a 2 year contract. It's really not worth it to save a couple of hundred bucks off the initial cost of the phone. Heck, I've seen unopened G2s on craigslist for around $400 already...
That being said, I still have until tomorrow to decide if I'm going to return this POS. I bought it outright, and my money is on this phone never being rooted. I know it hasn't been long yet, but it's not gonna happen.
EDIT: if this rumored OTA includes wifi tethering, I'll be happy. Also supposed to have a radio update...I guess I will wait and see!
seancneal said:
To be fair, you didn't HAVE to sign a 2 year contract. It's really not worth it to save a couple of hundred bucks off the initial cost of the phone. Heck, I've seen unopened G2s on craigslist for around $400 already...
That being said, I still have until tomorrow to decide if I'm going to return this POS. I bought it outright, and my money is on this phone never being rooted. I know it hasn't been long yet, but it's not gonna happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HamNCheese said:
Or, never buy this bull**** from a carrier again. Instead, buy un-subsidized, or un-locked phones direct. Like my Nexus One.
I don't doubt that it will be rooted within a month... That's not the point. Hell, if it is, I might just buy it again. But I won't support either T-Mobile or HTC with this crap as-is.
Wrong. There is no specific time requirement (this was addressed in GPLv3, which has some other issues.) The GPL went into effect the moment the executable code was "distributed" (technically late September, when the first people got their deliveries - maybe earlier - depends on definition of "distribution"...)
I don't expect a next-day turn-around, but HTC pulled the 90-120 days out of their ass. If I ask for source, and they do not provide it, they are non-compilant. Period. End of story.
The point of all this? Call attention to the fact that they are abusing the GPL. All of the Android manufacturers see Android as a cash-cow. They are taking Linux and doing whatever-the-**** they want with it.
It's wrong, and I'm calling them on it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good god... the phone has been out less than 6 days and there is so much negativity.
Wow... this is sad.
Please read this license page:
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
under which Android is licensed. Android is released under the Apache Software License 2.0. Some parts may be GPL, such as the Linux Kernel, but overall the "Android" parts are covered by ASL v2.0 not GPL.
Clackamas said:
Please read this license page:
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
under which Android is license. Android is released under the Apache Software License 2.0. Some parts may be GPL, such as the Linux Kernel, but overall it is covered by ASL v2.0.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I refer to the GPL, I'm referring to Linux - the kernel. The Android license does not cover the kernel. I could care less about the source of dashboard and all that. The Apache license allows some bits to be closed. But Linux is the problem here - the kernel source does not fall into that category at all.
Good god... the phone has been out less than 6 days and there is so much negativity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine - which should be clear by now.
The time issue has to do with the 14 day "buyer's remorse" return period. My tracking number has to be visible by Thursday to be accepted, as I got the phone 2 weeks ago Friday.
HamNCheese said:
When I refer to the GPL, I'm referring to Linux - the kernel. The Android license does not cover the kernel. I could care less about the source of dashboard and all that. The Apache license allows some bits to be closed. But Linux is the problem here - the kernel source does not fall into that category at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And like many, you don't understand the GPL either.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
As Linus points out: Software using the standard interface and derived works are excluded. So, companies such as NVIDA and ATI can release drivers for the kernel without having to release the source to their "derived words". I am also unclear exactly where in the license it says source code must be immediately available. Surely it is a market disadvantage to require the release of such immediately with the product. That would be a significant liability to companies wishing to use GPL based code. 90 - 120 days isn't unreasonable. And the fact that the kernel version being used is publish means that > 90% of the source code is available at product release shows the spirit of intent.
ViewSonic is putting together a developers' site for all our Android products, and would love your input as to key items to include. Obviously we may not be able to include everything, but want to create something you'll find useful and valuable.
Please post your wishes here!
Thanks,
-Adam
1. HDMI out.....not through a dock
2. IPS or better screen
3. 1GB + Ram
4. 16GB + internal sdcard
5. USB ports
6. Mini and micro sdcard support
7. Released source
8. 3G/4G option
9. Optional ssd
10. GPS option
11. Bluetooth
12. WIFI of course
13. Support updating operating system for at least 2 years instead of "release and forget.....*cough* sam *cough* sung"
14. Leave the bootloader unlocked for the crazies like me that want to hack no matter the consequences. If I brick I'll eat it.
15. Keep up the good customer service you currently have
16. Quit making promises about flash when you don't have control over Adobe lol
OH yeah......Can I have my Honeycreams please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: BTW....I am retired and would make a perfect person to test new products for you. Hint Hint
thebadfrog said:
1. HDMI out.....not through a dock
2. IPS or better screen
3. 1GB + Ram
4. 16GB + internal sdcard
5. USB ports
6. Mini and micro sdcard support
7. Released source
8. 3G/4G option
9. Optional ssd
10. GPS option
11. Bluetooth
12. WIFI of course
13. Support updating operating system for at least 2 years instead of "release and forget.....*cough* sam *cough* sung"
14. Leave the bootloader unlocked for the crazies like me that want to hack no matter the consequences. If I brick I'll eat it.
15. Keep up the good customer service you currently have
16. Quit making promises about flash when you don't have control over Adobe lol
OH yeah......Can I have my Honeycreams please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I think that pretty much covers it, especially the part about honeycreams.
edit: it would be great if viewsonic devs put together a recovery package suited for the gtab since the only version of cwm that seems to work on this device is bekits modified version v.08
OfficialViewSonic said:
ViewSonic is putting together a developers' site for all our Android products, and would love your input as to key items to include.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It sounds like VS is asking for suggestions about what to include in the developer's site - that is, what information would be useful for developers creating apps to run on the GTablet and other VS Android tablets...as opposed to a wish list of features for the devices themselves.
Twitter feed answered by an engineer/development team member.
If you want to go hardcore.
Provide things like git hosting to selected xda developers.
Create some sort of cloud based compiling system and provide that to the developers as well.
Wait...you wanted suggestions for a web site. Look at this forum and add very strong mods to keep the clutter down. If your "official" site is not gonna allow the fun things we like to do to our tabs it probably won't gather much attention. However just keeping your online manuals and source files updated would be great. Allowing a private area for people to test UATs instead of them leaking into XDA would be kinda nice as well. I understand for legal reasons you couldn't have certain topics but it would be nice if just 1 provider of tabs would at least acknowledge the benefits of having the devs do their magic.
I was aware of what he wanted....just thought I would get my dream machine out there
It does seem like there could be a model out there for a vendor to create some sort of NDA protected developers program for early adoption.
Not releasing any files prior to official launch, but acknowledging that at launch those files will be stripped from another device. For example if company X has a legacy product Y1 and in the fall Y2 is coming out with a newer OS that could potentially be applied to Y1 then instead of waiting for Y2 to come out and people break their Y1's trying poor approaches to modification (and damaging your brand in thier eyes) you provide a group of developers lead time access without permission to release until say 3 months after Y2 comes out. This is double edged that it protects your competitive market strategy of Y2 while respecting the investment Y1 customers have made and recognizing the expectations of the users of the overall operating system you have choosen to utilize.
Had to read it twice but ^^^^^^^^^^^^what he said. There are several people here that would love this kind of opportunity. (This guy included)
Hi,
I'm not one of the devs here, but, from working w the Gtab, some of the things that would be useful would be:
- info on the BCT and partitions. There's some generic info around the web, but it seems like mostly reverse-engineered, read: guesses.
- source for bootloader and recovery (these may be proprietary, but maybe release under NDA?)
JMHO...
Jim
Adam
What would the company like to get out of starting such a project? That would dictate what should be included from a logical standpoint.
If only for research and testing then that would be something totally different especially for the folks here that know how to play with code? I would just guess if given the right information, tools and a place to share and explore the android system with support from your company , it would be taken to a level that the average user of mobile devices right now couldn't even imagine.
Android will in all likely become the system of choice surpassing the mighty Redmond and great apple.
I step back from my soapbox and blend back into lurking mode
Thanks,for responding to our calls and emails "for action and after purchase support." I bought from a retailer who was not allowing returns nor refunds, however, I did get a service plan. After working with it, I would not return it. Thanks to the incredible hardware and developer support from this site.
-Add direct movie streaming capability like from Netflix
-Easy beaming to other devices
-Easy tethering
-VPN
-Firewall or data encryption
-Public network privacy protection
-Standard auto attachment slot for GPS, music streaming, etc. making it interchangeable (I have an auto Navi/GPS (plus usb & bluetooth) about the size of this panel--thinking future forward--truly wishful thinking).
-Smart reader for scanning business cards, docs, etc. into it
-3G, 4G plus talk, fax modem capability
-Task Switcher or Manager
All I can think of now, will add more in case I forgot something.
Not a dev myself, but if this project was able to give us consumers some of my below suggestions, im sure many of us would be very happy and willing to continue to purchase VS products.
1) Real working market (I realise this is dependant on VS sorting things out with Google).
2) Required lib / drivers to use USB GPS and USB 3G.
3) For times when compatibility of software can be a task issue, the option to be able to dual boot to say WINCE. So basically WINCE support. This is for those like myself who cannot use our work related networks due to the limited proxy configurations support that Android currently has.
1: forum for known bugs list in current factory rom
2: forum for workarounds and non warranty breaking fixes for forrum #1
3: link to xda, with the caviot that using instructions from the sight could break warenty/brick/Bork the gtablet, for those who are fearless. (I have have purchased viewsonic monitors for my whole computing career, you could use an image boost. I love your brand so I think spending money reping android would bring a lot of life back to you. )
4:full software disclosure. At this point its all about power, ui, and price. You have the power and the price... recognize that 98% of your tab sails are to people who take your ui and toss it without a second thought. Not being mean, just honest.
USB
I would like to see is better support for USB drives. I would like to be able to use all my hard drives and thumb drives. Thumb drives work now but some times I plug them in and they are not recognized, forcing me to reboot.
For that matter move drivers for USB devices in general.
notsob2002 said:
Adam
What would the company like to get out of starting such a project? That would dictate what should be included from a logical standpoint.
If only for research and testing then that would be something totally different especially for the folks here that know how to play with code? I would just guess if given the right information, tools and a place to share and explore the android system with support from your company , it would be taken to a level that the average user of mobile devices right now couldn't even imagine.
Android will in all likely become the system of choice surpassing the mighty Redmond and great apple.
I step back from my soapbox and blend back into lurking mode
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We are looking to provide a centralized source for all the code/content/specs/details/etc you need for our Android-based products. But rather than guess what to put there for y'all, we'd prefer to ask! ;-)
OfficialViewSonic said:
We are looking to provide a centralized source for all the code/content/specs/details/etc you need for our Android-based products. But rather than guess what to put there for y'all, we'd prefer to ask! ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's kind of funny that here you are asking for dev input and not a single one of our wonderful devs (you know who you are) have posted a response. I assume they are doing their communicating behind the scenes with you but that is purely a hunch on my part.
Anyway, I LOVE my gTab running VEGAn beta 5.1.1 but fully support your interest in helping our cookers so they can make your product as well as their product better.
sjmoreno said:
It's kind of funny that here you are asking for dev input and not a single one of our wonderful devs (you know who you are) have posted a response. I assume they are doing their communicating behind the scenes with you but that is purely a hunch on my part.
Anyway, I LOVE my gTab running VEGAn beta 5.1.1 but fully support your interest in helping our cookers so they can make your product as well as their product better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that the intent of the request was for what features would you like them to provide on their site, not in their products.
I think a forum, such as this, would be nice, especially if you can get the viewsonic developers to sign on to responding in a timely manner.
If you (viewsonic) are serious about reaching out to the developers, I think you have a great opportunity to make your system open and developer/modder friendly and become a leader in that category. could definitely be a great opportunity for you guys.
Oh, and perhaps a legal repository for .apks which are not available to us in the market for easy installation...
I assume VS goal is to sell tablets. You have developed a good hardware platform at a great price point. A few changes and you have a great platform. To sell more tablets you need slick firmware. The devs at XDA have accomplished that with minimal support. Full support would work wonders. Suggest ask the devs what they need, in what order and what detail. Might even give them access to your dev team. Website should have dev only section and a well updated what is going on section to elliminate the repetitive " are we there yet" questions.
If you are sincere in this offer, it should provide a great benefit to both VS and it' s users. Lookout ipad here we come.
All Android devices need work to play in the corporate environment. Security needs to beefed up, the ability to integrate with MS Exchange servers, work with proxy, vpn, and whatever other security stuff is comes out. IPV6 is a requirement too.
OfficialViewSonic said:
We are looking to provide a centralized source for all the code/content/specs/details/etc you need for our Android-based products. But rather than guess what to put there for y'all, we'd prefer to ask! ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, go ahead and start the forum and post a link for us so we can start using with all the information that you have and can release and make adjustments as needed. You never know what will happen it may be more helpful to people than they may think and if nothing else it would be beneficial to people who just bought one of your products and don't understand the product and its capabilities.
Thanks for having the forethought to ask because most companies probably wouldn't even think of trying to get independent development for their product from outside of their sales or IT department! Thinking like that might actually make you the leader in a soon to be crowed market
I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
1. about 'ar6000.ko'
: source code of atheros chip set is not GPL.
We get BSD/GPL dual license from Atheros company.
We choose BSD license, so we do not have any obligation to publish source codeof it.
2. wpa_supplicant
Wpa_supplicant is also BSD/GPL dual license. (and we also choose BSD license)
________________________________________________________________
WPA Supplicant
==============
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Jouni Malinen and contributors
All Rights Reserved.
This program is dual-licensed under both the GPL version 2 and BSD
license. Either license may be used at your option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sadly, they seem to have failed to meet the conditions of the BSD licensing as well. I've sent them another message stating this:
Concerning the atheros AR6000 driver and the wpa_supplicant binary. In denying the making available source for both the ar6000 module and the wpa_supplicant binary, you state that you get both of these with dual GPL/BSD licensing and choose the BSD license. That is fine, however you failed to meet the terms of the BSD license. In particular, for both items, the BSD license states: " Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." You have failed to state your licensing terms and this disclaimer in reference to the above stated items in either the printed documentation or the legal licensing screen embedded within the settings app on the device. As a matter of fact, you've failed to provide any licensing notice for GPL or BSD licensing for either item.
Regardless, I'm asking for these items in order to attempt to FIX BUGS that have been left in the device. It's been well documented in the forums for users of these devices that the wifi chipset drivers are causing crashes, freezes, "sleep of death" situations, etc. Samsung's support has been EXTREMELY unresponsive in attempting to resolve these issue, and I'd be willing to bet that reports of these issue aren't even getting through to your development teams.
Therefore, I once again ask that you release the source for the ar6000 module and wpa_supplicant binary that you have NOT followed the licensing terms of (regardless of which license you've chosen.) Oh, and there's no licensing string embedded in the ar6000.ko module either. modinfo ar6000.ko reveals nothing (for the ar6000.ko module on the GT-P6210 with KL1 firmware.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I don't expect for Samsung to be responsive and/or helpful. I think the best that anyone can expect is that they release an updated firmware that includes the proper licensing information.
Gary
Check and mate Sir. I despise these OEMs. You GO gary. Whatever happened to opensource? What are they so afraid of?
Anything we can do to help, let us know. Even if it means just spamming their inbox.
It's not like I buy the tablet because it has such an epic driver....
I buy it for the hardware...
When your entire OS is practically open source... not open sourcing the drivers for the wireless chip seems like shooting yourself in the foot just because you can.
Thanks garyd9 for fighting the good fight.
When companies do stuff like this for critical things, it _really_ makes me want to spend my money elsewhere.
In regards to the SOD issue, I've noticed that quite a few honeycomb tablets have this issue or something similar to it. I've only personally seen it with Samsung branded ones (10.1 and 7.0+), but have heard similar issues with asus and and acer.
Perhaps its a honeycomb issue?
Gary
give em hell!
If you'd like to help, please click the link near the top of the OP to submit the article to the XDA portal. Perhaps if this issue is shown on the front page, and enough people notice, Samsung could be convinced to "choose" GPL over BSD.
Thank you
Gary
Did you get any useful /proc/last_kmsg dumps of SoDs? Enabling wifi may only be making a difference because of the wakeups.
That said - I am completely shocked that Broadcom's drivers are open source and the ar6000 driver isn't. I've lost a lot of respect for Atheros AND for Samsung over this. I can understand if it's BSD - but seriously, what trade secrets could Samsung have in a freaking Atheros driver, and for something like this, what possible business reason could they have for witholding source for that ONE module? It's freaking stupid.
I was hoping that they'd start becoming more developer-friendly as a result of hiring Cyanogen, but they're being asshats at this point. They donated a device to Codeworkx (or someone else on Teamhacksung) to get CM7 ported, but have not given him a shred of assistance with the porting effort. Basically, trying to get "Supported by CyanogenMod" credits without ANY significant effort.
As much as I hate Sony - SE seems to be doing the best of any manufacturer in terms of supporting people doing platform-level development.
Edits:
You know, this is proving to be a clear and recurring pattern. I have never seen XDA get anything useful out of SamsungJohn for example, all he does is come over, tease us with something, and never follow up.
Over in the Captivate forums - he came in and posted that source code was out, then left without any followup - by the time he made this announcement, people had already found the source and were working with it - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=997098
He then came and teased us with the Samsung Developer Program - guess what, it provides NOTHING for developers doing platform work - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1392847 - John also didn't come and respond to any of the feedback
Prior to that there was the Samsung Developers Conference tease - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1291758 - nothing useful came out of this for anyone doing platform work. In fact, John just dropped off the face of the earth, I'm assuming that not a single person from XDA actually was brought by Samsung to the event, otherwise there would've been a followup/debrief post. Anyway, the "big announcement" was just the Galaxy Nexus release announcement. Big deal - that's a dev phone because Google forces it to be one, it's more of a Google product than a Samsung one.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=954896 (and many similar posts) - He just crossposted to a ton of forums saying something awesome was coming. Something awesome never came. The linked thread from many of his posts doesn't even exist. Actually, most of his 67 posts are just crossposting this tease - NOTHING ever came out of it.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-shows-affection-to-cyanogenmod-gives-its-devs-a-free-ga/ - As a PR stunt, Samsung threw a Galaxy S II over the wall to one of the CM developers. Without a doubt, Dan Hillenbrand (codeworkx) and Atin Malvaya (atinm) have not received any support from Samsung since Sammy threw a device over to them. The GSII is likely to be codeworkx's last Samsung device, he has become so frustrated with Samsung (Check his posts in the CM9 thread for I9100). Compare this to Sony Ericsson's effort here - http://blogs.sonyericsson.com/wp/2011/09/28/sony-ericsson-supports-independent-developers/ - They have given FreeXperia MASSIVE amounts of support, and it shows - http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/sony-ericsson-xperia-support
imnuts07 asked for some help regarding Droid Charge kernel source issues - https://twitter.com/#!/SamsungJohn/status/152835654303236097 - All he responded with was "how can we help" - no further response, imnuts07 didn't get anywhere until jt1134 gave him some pointers. (It turned out to be more proprietary module vermagic bull****...)
After all this, it's clear that with regards to platform developers, Samsung's intent is to do the bare minimum to meet their legal obligations with the GPL and no more. Even source code which they COULD release and have no valid reason for withholding is withheld if they are able to (such as the ar6000 module source code). I thought that the Galaxy S II was a step forward towards devices with 100% open source kernels, however it is clear that the GSII was just a fluke. I'm getting sick and tired of dealing with module vermagic headaches. I've spent at this point a few hundred hours of my spare time working on improvements to various products of theirs(maintaining kernels for three different products - Samsung Infuse, AT&T Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Player 5.0), and their consistent message back has been "go away, screw you, stop bothering us".
There may be a small bit of hope - I've been contacted by someone at samsung (perhaps due to your rant combined with my constant pestering on their open source website.) It isn't much, but the first line of collaborating is communication. They seem more interested in fixing the bugs than sharing code, but I'll take what I can get.
Oh, and the last_ksmg memory was corrupted when the one person who had adb, my kernel and root installed was able to check it. (As you know, the file won't be generated if header area for the ram console can't be found or is in bad shape.)
We'll see what happens, but I'm not going to hold my breath with the lunar new year coming up.
Take care
Gary
so how many people do we need to sue??
chrisrotolo said:
so how many people do we need to sue??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No lawsuits required. Although... that might explain the poor customer support from Samsung. Perhaps they've been afraid that Apple will sue them for patent infringement if they help a customer?
Not that I've ever had any GOOD support from Apple... mostly just clueless kids taking guesses. Even their so-called "geniuses" are mostly clueless.
In typing that, I realized that I'm probably one of the hardest people in the world to provide technical support to. When I have a question, it's only after I've exhausted the combined knowledge of myself and whatever google can provide... meaning the only good response from phone support would be "Would you like to cross-ship an exchange or wait for the repair?"
can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;
Speaking from personal experience ,when dealing (even on corporate high level) with Samsung there is nothing to gain but some weight due to stress.
They do care( up to a degree) about some customer relations and I've seen very nice, honest and helpful people there. But this is where it all ends.
The farther you go the worse it gets. Somehow they got this Apple attitude of profit and secrecy all over their structure. Apple calls themselves "innovators" to reason the secrecy, but Sammy are nowhere near. If I was to say they do act like copycat killers I risk getting called names- though they "adapt" almost everything, from design to business models. The Korean HQ has drawn quite strict regulations for the rest of the world.
We should remember that Samsung is a HUGE corporation. Android devices D&R is a tiny faction, ruled like in Middle Ages. They have the road map and they ever raise the stake every time. From my point of view, I sincerely understand those people for not jumping out with the source code. If you get paid 100k+, you don't help anyone but yourself. The decisions are not theirs. The people taking decisions don't give a rat's a55 about GNU or Linux, Minux or whatever. On top of that, there are some people that MIGHT have some influence in changing this policy ( the brown bearded, we call them) but those are the pride ridden SOBs.
You can read this from their mobile device history. They had to go into that, given the fact they build everything, from ships to home furniture. They got a share of the market because they were big and had some bright minds there. I know for a fact that, at the beginning, working @ cell phone dept was like sentenced to prison, only the undesirable but indispensable were sent there. Huh, those people left, some for Apple and some for others ( LG,Sony and Hyundai). Panasonic and Toshiba flops are some examples of how, in a degree, cultural burdens lead to a fail. HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce. On the other hand, Samsung can get a write-off for their mobile dept. without a blink. Bada is a perfect example. It was close to write off so they decided to make it open- see HP. They are too big to follow rules and beside being big, they hold the power few have- the power TO BEND rules, that is.
Getting any serious, development like help from Samsung is close to what ''Acts of God" are described in car insurance.
htc9420 said:
HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.
garyd9 said:
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't be so quick to judge him...
I just got the impression that the point of the post was to promote HTC while bashing everyone else.
Perhaps I spoke (typed) too soon. If so, I apologize.
No, the HTC thing was just one line, and what I perceived as some general comments on why some manufacturers (Panasonic, Toshiba) seem to have kind of flopped in the market.
There was definitive Samsung-bashing - but he's just joining with us in frustration.
Check PMs gary.
garyd9 said:
I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Gary,
I'm the developer for a CyanogenMod port for the Samsung phone (GT-I5500). Samsung have released their source for an older version of the AR6kSDK, which I have put on github here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.0. This source is quite old, and doesn't support combo scanning, but it's newer than the ath6kl source release contained in the 2.6.35 kernel.
Last night I scoured the internet trying to find some newer source, and came across a release by Sony for one of their e-book reader products. I have uploaded the source onto github which you can check here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.1
The above git's description links to the location of the original source tarball on Sony's server, but if you prefer, just clone the git and checkout the first commit, as it's the unmodified source.
I have made some changes already to get the module to initialize properly, but at present it's not even scanning properly. Perhaps it will work better for you without modifications, especially if your device is not AR6003_REV2 (which is the revision on my phone).
chrisrotolo said:
can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my friend mat has done this for me as he knows his stuff. it was a very powerful letter i must say haha. just waiting for a response
gary, thanks for all your efforts man! this is my first samsung android device, have they always been this bad in witholding source?
This thread is available for comments on the featured portal article.
Thanks for the extensive read! Too bad that a community project like CyanogenMod will be harmed through the company that controls it.. I am waiting for a move from OnePlus, they should be able to build a good case.
it's a clear case of back biting by Cyanogen Inc. They have done this to a lot of developers when Cyanogen Inc was formed, and now they do this do their partner.
The emails sent by Kirt clearly show they were aware of what the agreement was, and that they had already decided to end the relationship with OnePlus. Those emails are rude as hell and I guess Kirt needs a rap for that.
Micromax is nothing but an Indian company who has put a brand name on Chinese phones. Yeps Chinese phones were very popular in India and with Android all they needed was to put a name on phones. Yes, they do sell like hot cakes because of the pricing but yes they are no-where close in terms of quality to HTC or Sony.
All in all, a bad move by Cyanogen and it's not the first time. Yes, they may be pioneers in the Android custom rom world but right now it's the success getting to them and they are going to fall hard.
What can I do about it, well ever since the incident with xplodwild I have stopped using CyanogenMod or any roms based of it. Yes, I want the latest Android version running on my device but not from someone who cheats and stabs people behind the back.
It's time for PA, Omni, Slimkat and others to rise to the occasion. Yes, building a rom as popular as CM will take time but patience is the key.
Over and Out.
Edit
One thing I forgot to mention, I am from India and trust me I would never buy a MicroMax device even if it's running CM. I wanted to buy a OnePlus One but after all the lies they had in the basket I had to pass. Yes, I want the latest hardware at the cheapest price but not from peeps who lie.
PS:- This is my personal opinion
Peace.
Looking forward to California Case. Anyways, XDA has many AOSP roms other than CM running good on OPO. Any device that gets love of people/dev stays alive.
Looks little dangerous for startup hardware partners.
I'm an OnePlus and CM customer (not only a user, I've paid for their products) and I'm worried. I though OPO was going to be CM flagship and they were going to make an effort to show they can produce and deliver good software, I'm afraid I can't confirm that.
Of course Micromax is a more lucrative project but they have customers.
I chose OPO because of the hardware and because of CM, I've been using CM for years. I didn't chose this phone for the money, I could have paid $600 for another phone, I just didn't like any other phone, I trust Nexus line mostly because of the software but I don't like Nexus 6 so CM software was a nice solution at the time.
So my next phone won't come with CM since I can't trust this company anymore. For me the most important point to choose a phone is software support and CM is no different than Samsung or LG updating their products.
Thats Ridiculously Buggy
I don't understand how childish The cyanogen team's action to send an email and just cut off a tie with legally well documented contract with oneplus.by the way,its us...the users will suffer the most.Maybe oneplus will move on with the launch of their own ROM for their devices but I doubt cyanogenmod's future and reputation in the Dev forums...
Kirt deserved my piss.
They (Cyanogen Inc) have dropped the development dreams since back then when Cyanogen Inc was up and running. And since then too so many good dev's noticed it and left Cyanogen Inc to start a better one like Omni's/PA's.
It is sad to see a super-great phone development, aimed for the enthusiasts, went this way. Cyanogen = Bad for business. They were like stupid cartels in Mexico downtown. Their rom is not that excellent anyway, i am more interested on AOSP-based team nowadays.
guille26 said:
I'm an OnePlus and CM customer (not only a user, I've paid for their products) and I'm worried. I though OPO was going to be CM flagship and they were going to make an effort to show they can produce and deliver good software, I'm afraid I can't confirm that.
Of course Micromax is a more lucrative project but they have customers.
I chose OPO because of the hardware and because of CM, I've been using CM for years. I didn't chose this phone for the money, I could have paid $600 for another phone, I just didn't like any other phone, I trust Nexus line mostly because of the software but I don't like Nexus 6 so CM software was a nice solution at the time.
So my next phone won't come with CM since I can't trust this company anymore. For me the most important point to choose a phone is software support and CM is no different than Samsung or LG updating their products.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One thing I have to say is - I've spoken to one member of OnePlus' new internal software team. If the rest of the team as as competent as he is (as in: I know his work and he's smart), they'll do well.
You make a good point - Cyngn is doing a lot of things that people used to go to CyanogenMod to get away from. What is interesting is that OEMs are also noticing this market trend, which is why you're seeing Motorola put forth minimal skinning (a massive difference from the disaster that was Blur), and Sony's skins are fairly light and minimal. (In my opinion, they are done with enough care that they're almost always a positive improvement. Sony devices are the only ones where I've frequently found no desire to unlock the bootloader to flash something else or even to root. My Xperia Z3 is STILL, after more than a month, bone-stock. I'll eventually work on Omni for it, but right now... It's nice and solid as it is, it would be hard to improve upon that.)
Similarly, OnePlus' new team are intelligent enough to realize that just by doing a base Qualcomm CAF bringup with a few minor tweaks, you can actually do far better than the OEMs that go overboard with ricing.
As to Kirt - of interest is his past work. He was the founder of Boost Mobile.
Also of interest is that Cyngn has signed a pretty juicy exclusivity deal with an OEM that is universally hated in those areas where Cyanogen has brand recognition.
Entropy512 said:
Also of interest is that Cyngn has signed a pretty juicy exclusivity deal with an OEM that is universally hated in those areas where Cyanogen has brand recognition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We Indians change our phones a lot. The reason for that is we are not tied to any carrier contracts with our devices, we buy them at full price. We loose our phones, break them, they get stolen whatever be the reason but we change phones whether it's by choice or by force.
That's one the reasons we cannot spend 50,000 INR on a device every time we buy one, we have to look for cheap options and that's where Micromax cashed in. Touchscreen phones from a brand for less than 15,000 INR is good enough.
Very rarely do people care about the quality, all they want is a touch screen phone. Now the nerds and techies like us know the truth about Mediatek devices and that's why we prefer OEM's like HTC, Samsung, Sony etc.
But Micromax, No way! I was even surprised when Google tied up Micromax, karbonn and Spice. All of these supposed OEM's have just rebranded Chinese phones and put Android on them.
The only truly Indian OEM which I had hope from was Notion Ink, but they couldn't compete with the big guns.
"as long as OnePlus didn’t breach the agreement in the first 30 days, Cyanogen “shall not engage in the integration of CyanogenMod with any other mobile device manufacturer for the purpose of distributing such device in the permitted territory”."
This part of the article is incorrect as if you look at what was actually written in the report it states:
"Provided OnePlus is not in breach of this Agreement, for a period of thirty (30) days after the Launch Date, Cyanogen shall not engage in the integration of CyanogenMod with any other mobile device manufacturer..."
If you look at the position of the comma in the actual statement in the report, you can see that these conditions are only applicable for the first 30 days after launch
How disheartening that Cyanogen has gone so corporate so fast. I wonder if it's just the new faces they have for the company and Steve Kondik & Co. were as surprised by what happened as OnePlus was. I can't imagine the actual devs have changed that much, but they definitely let the new corporate "suits" they hired run them into the ground fast.......
WA_Bob said:
How disheartening that Cyanogen has gone so corporate so fast. I wonder if it's just the new faces they have for the company and Steve Kondik & Co. were as surprised by what happened as OnePlus was. I can't imagine the actual devs have changed that much, but they definitely let the new corporate "suits" they hired run them into the ground fast.......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This isn't even corporate. This is like kids playing monopoly.
How can you terminate a contract, by just a one line email?
Sadly, I'm running CM on 4 of my devices(including the 1+1). I think I'll go and find alternatives now.
I guess we can almost sum up all these disputes through this sentence: "... choosing to not issue updates to a device for political [and economic] reasons". Business is business. We do not care about users.
Political & economic purposes against faith & community.
vvarma1 said:
"as long as OnePlus didn’t breach the agreement in the first 30 days, Cyanogen “shall not engage in the integration of CyanogenMod with any other mobile device manufacturer for the purpose of distributing such device in the permitted territory”."
This part of the article is incorrect as if you look at what was actually written in the report it states:
"Provided OnePlus is not in breach of this Agreement, for a period of thirty (30) days after the Launch Date, Cyanogen shall not engage in the integration of CyanogenMod with any other mobile device manufacturer..."
If you look at the position of the comma in the actual statement in the report, you can see that these conditions are only applicable for the first 30 days after launch
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well spotted, I had already rectified this in the article and marked it as a correction, then I saw this comment. You are correct in that the exclusivity on integration assistance was a 30 day deal.
So my question is, will this mean that CM is going to stop updating international OPO's in the future? That's going to piss a lot of people off, and I'm going to have to be the one to explain to my fiance why my phone advice to her turned bad.
Might be time for me to convince her to let me replace it with Omni or something else.
dibblebill said:
So my question is, will this mean that CM is going to stop updating international OPO's in the future? That's going to piss a lot of people off, and I'm going to have to be the one to explain to my fiance why my phone advice to her turned bad.
Might be time for me to convince her to let me replace it with Omni or something else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what Kirk said ("Carl. We will be terminating our relationship with one plus. I will get back to you with more details shortly."), there might well be issues. Nobody knows, but that kind of message seems rather like CM are ending working with 1+.
It is rather unusual though - you don't "break" a contract by telling the other party you will do it, and send details later. That's just not how you do business. You negotiate the specifics, and try to have a clean, quiet, and drama-free break-up, without headlines or press releases. Both sides would discuss the terms and settlements, and legal would sign off on it. That's how it usually works. In this case, this is highly unusual.
pulser_g2 said:
From what Kirk said ("Carl. We will be terminating our relationship with one plus. I will get back to you with more details shortly."), there might well be issues. Nobody knows, but that kind of message seems rather like CM are ending working with 1+.
It is rather unusual though - you don't "break" a contract by telling the other party you will do it, and send details later. That's just not how you do business. You negotiate the specifics, and try to have a clean, quiet, and drama-free break-up, without headlines or press releases. Both sides would discuss the terms and settlements, and legal would sign off on it. That's how it usually works. In this case, this is highly unusual.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that struck me as REALLY strange and more than a little bit off-putting. I agree, it is certainly not "usual behavior", even among backstabbing companies out there.
I'm wondering if I shouldn't root her device for her, TiBackup everything, and migrate her to another ROM or something.
pulser_g2 said:
Well spotted, I had already rectified this in the article and marked it as a correction, then I saw this comment. You are correct in that the exclusivity on integration assistance was a 30 day deal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So that means One plus One broke their side of contracts , since Cyno' went ahead and entered into agreement with Micromax.
It will be pretty nice to keep tabs on this topic as it enters into Californian Courts,
As I am pretty much sure that this will be having much (bad?) effect on the whole Licensing ecosystem of Android modding (say like Slimkat, PA etc whoever decides in future to go Cyano way.)
ps : It seems the funny part that " Sent from Ipad "sig was not noticed by Kirk while sending the email.
So, CM has become something to avoid... very, very sad.
As previously said, all this clearly shows that unfortunately CM (the company) has no interest in the benefit of its users, and they only intention is in lining their pockets as soon as possible, by any means and forgetting any ethics. So, that also means that as users we should avoid CM and any device or system that depends on it, and so reccomend to NOT BUY devices as those form OnePlus and MicroMax that uses it: CM has become a stain that corrupts the devices on which it resides. Lets hope OnePlus develops as soon as possible an alternate OS ***AND RELEASES IT IN AN OPEN ENOUGH LICENSE*** so we can reccomend its devices again to our friends. Also, lets hope that, if CM (the company) has any legal responsabilities as it appears to be, they become clear soon enough in a judgement and if so, any repairement measures are made available to OnePlus because they seem to be, after end users, the most wronged party in this sad development.
In my opinion, the truly back guys in this story are clearly those running the company CM.
Not so fast.
People who wanted to switch, how about waiting for a OnePlus made ROM to come out next year? Lollipop based
https://forums.oneplus.net/threads/contest-oneplus-rom-you-name-it.208689/
hey folks,
PREFACE:
I'm posting this so that others thinking about purchasing the device may get a perspective that they won't find in a YouTube product review, on the huawei subreddit, etc... I'm also posting to bring awareness to device owners/this community... Before replying, please have a look through the thread; I'm starting to provide a lot of info, that may give better insights to the problems I see...
NOTE:
I'm not bashing you for buying this device, so don't take my criticisms personally... I will try to provide as much info as I can. feel free to ask questions, share your own insights/experiences, etc...
First, i'd like to point out that the hardware is great, EMUI is better than i expected and has some nice extras (compared with stock android). There are many aspects that I do like about the phone, however there are many problems too. I take issue with a few things that I will outline in this post && in the thread;
- huawei revoking the bootloader unlock service
- huawei is extremely developer unfriendly/hostile.
- huawei's poor management of customers, poor policies && support
- huawei's "technical support" staff lack any real knowledge of their products.
- huawei as a company seems to be shady, imho && lacks any transparency.
It is very unfortunate, because i do like the device (the hardware/build seems to be very good). the leica cameras + camera software are great. i do like the native dark theme, the CPU is fast, nice display, etc.. but given the above and also after poking around the kernel code, in depth;
- huawei's kernel sources are by far the absolute worst kernel source code that I've seen in my life.
- it appears huawei has intentionally obfuscated their changesets, by how they distribute them...
- the code doesn't follow C standards, nor any consistent coding style / best practices typically found in the linux kernel.
- the published source code may not even be what's running on the device (EDIT: It's not. I've now verified this, follow the link at the bottom).
- they are also using a technology that allows live patching the running kernel remotely (so even if the sources are the same, it can be patched at runtime anyway. cant be properly audited)...
- they are a full year behind on linux LTS.
I have contacted huawei directly via email, phone and live chat (EDIT: everyday now, since I posted this thread and I will be continuing to do so). They have given me the run around continually and their staff were not able to give me any satisfactory answers to my concerns, nor did i get the impression they even gave a crap ... They have only added to my suspicions (significantly) and along with the recent bad press that huawei has had in US, UK, Canada (where i am) and Australia; i don't trust huawei, their lack of transparency and lack of cooperation; is rather unsettling... Likewise, I find their hostility towards developers and users who would like to service their own devices (via OEM unlock) to be a brutal policy. (especially since their justifications are mostly FUD/untrue.).
- Audio latency is also horrible on the P20 Pro. it experiences anywhere from 50-500ms of latency with pro audio type apps. (noise app by roli in playstore shows just how bad it is, so does Beatonal app, many others too.) the device uses x6 the audio buffering compared the OG pixel. (the OG pixel has no problems with low latency at all, with far lower specs).
so to recap; it's pretty sad and unfortunate,
- i can't run my apps. (love my music creation apps)
- i have no control or ownership over my P20 Pro. apparently only huawei and the Chinese gov't do.
- i don't trust or have faith in the manufacturer.
- the kernel source code is disgusting and incomplete.
- I find some of the technology used troubling at best.
Here's some links in the thread, where some of the above is discussed in more detail;
some kernel source related issues outlined in more detail by me:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=78186512&postcount=37
(note: I'm discussing evira kernel, but nearly all of the issues apply to the distributed kernel sources that evira is based on)
if you are interested in helping me verify if the kernel sources actually reflect what's running on your device, follow this post;
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=78182210&postcount=32 (this would be very helpful, as it will be ammo that I bring to huawei).
The distributed kernel sources are absolutely NOT the kernel sources used to compile the kernel that's running on your device:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=78188018&postcount=42
(this is an update to the above help request; I've now verified that at least L29/LO4 running kernels differ from the provided sources)
livepatch/OASES/Karma technology used by huawei, zte and others:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=78574615&postcount=86
So wait, you've only had it for a few days and you're trying to make a warning against buying the phone?
Giraff3 said:
So wait, you've only had it for a few days and you're trying to make a warning against buying the phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not exactly. I'm outlining my experience and why i am returning the phone, so that others who may have similar requirements and/or concerns avoid making the same mistake, by purchasing this phone only to be unhappy with it.....
the length of time that I've owned the phone isn't a factor because it doesn't fix any of the issues that i point out... *why would you even think that after reading what i wrote???* ... if it was just a matter of getting used to the device, that would be another story.
to be clear; i don't have any issue with the UX, performance, build quality or any of that jazz, really. the cameras are great, phone is a beast. However, huawei's policies, their lack of transparency, the device being locked down, their source code being sketchy, other security concerns and yeah; the audio latency... big problems (for me, possibly others)...
holding on to or having used the phone for a longer period of time doesn't fix any of these issues... if i wasn't into software development, didn't care about unlocked bootloader, etc - i might very well be happy with the device... It's a great phone, if none of these details/issues effect or matter to you...
the fact you can't run a launcher like Nova does it for me, terrible mistake
ant78 said:
the fact you can't run a launcher like Nova does it for me, terrible mistake
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use Nova just fine.
ant78 said:
the fact you can't run a launcher like Nova does it for me, terrible mistake
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you mean? I've had the P20 Pro since end of August, installed Nova Launcher the moment I took it out of the box and been running fine since. Mind you the lack of bootloader unlock or having to pay for it doesn't fly well with me but haven't found myself needing to root this device like all my previous devices for customization. The P20 Pro has let me do everything I wanted.
StatikBlue said:
What do you mean? I've had the P20 Pro since end of August, installed Nova Launcher the moment I took it out of the box and been running fine since. Mind you the lack of bootloader unlock or having to pay for it doesn't fly well with me but haven't found myself needing to root this device like all my previous devices for customization. The P20 Pro has let me do everything I wanted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No idea what they are talking about 3rd part launchers work just fine. It's just less obvious how to change them vs. stock android... but I had Apex launcher installed 15 minutes after turning on the device, wasn't hard to figure out.
the lack of unlocked bootloader is problematic, beyond just having root ~ once huawei stops pushing updates, if you still own the phone; no way to service or update it.... and for me, I actually like to audit my devices and know what's going on inside of them (and that's why I spend days going through their kernel source code too) ~ pretty hard to audit anything on the device though, without unlocked bootloader + root.
I do agree though, there is lots of stuff baked into the rom, so customization OOTB is pretty good...and i do like that...
On the other hand though, I like having AdAway, AFWall and other root apps.... and at least one of the issues that I mentioned; the audio latency problem ~ I could probably fix if I was rooted... I'm actually pretty shocked that huawei software engineers think that high latency is somehow acceptable....
the latency makes playing instruments on my phone impossible ~ latency has to be low, the sound must play as I touch the notes ~ but instead, there is an extremely long delay / completely unusable. The latency is worse than most early / very old android devices...
So you're saying the phone is great then? Bootloader is easily unlocked and if you want to make unsubstantiated claims that Huawei is spying on us you might want to back up with some proof. There would probably more development on this phone if the US didn't stop Huawei from selling it there over unproven spying claims.
Giraff3 said:
So you're saying the phone is great then? Bootloader is easily unlocked and if you want to make unsubstantiated claims that Huawei is spying on us you might want to back up with some proof. There would probably more development on this phone if the US didn't stop Huawei from selling it there over unproven spying claims.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's just the US being the US man. Trump and his clown posse are more of a threat to the citizens then Huawei would ever be.
Giraff3 said:
So you're saying the phone is great then? Bootloader is easily unlocked and if you want to make unsubstantiated claims that Huawei is spying on us you might want to back up with some proof. There would probably more development on this phone if the US didn't stop Huawei from selling it there over unproven spying claims.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm saying it's a mixed bag, not that it's a great phone... some aspects of the phone are great, some are absolutely terrible. ~ even if I ignore the security issues, poor quality of their source code ~ I'm still left with a locked device, slow updates, a company with crappy policies, crappy support, no accountability && a phone that can't even run my applications; the audio latency is worse than most ancient android devices. seriously... in 2018, several hundred ms of latency is unacceptable (samsung devices, google devices, etc - do not have this problem... and apple products NEVER had this problem, even 10years ago).
Bootloader is easily unlocked by paying shady third parties, who I don't know and who I don't want to give my personal nor unique identifiers to... give me a frickin' break and *stop acting like this is some ideal situation, it's not*.... Huawei has screwed end users by discontinuing the service, their justifications is BS... If they want to void a warranty of unlock bootloaders; that's fine, then do that - but don't lock users out of servicing their own devices that they've purchased with their own money and that THEY OWN.... again, it's BS... and guess what; Google doesn't even void your warranty over oem unlocking, it's a supported feature ~ if you brick your device (through your own stupidity), they may invalidate it ~ but unlocking the device, does not void your warranty (i know from direct experience).... I don't buy into Huawei's excuses at all...
The fact that huawei are live patching the kernel, means that they can essentially backdoor your device at any time. you have ZERO idea what the kernel is doing, no way to proper audit the code.... The fact that they've obfuscated their own changes and their source code for the device has all sorts of problems, says a lot ~ They've went well out of there way to provide their source code like this... There is absolutely no way that during development, they were using these sources.... they've intentionally done this.... why do that, if you have nothing to hide? ... it's highly suspicious and dubious, at best... That is proof enough to cast serious doubt on Huawei.
Huawei is using the same kernel live patching technology in both mobile and IOT ~ no wonder the US wants to purge all of huawei's hardware from their infrastructure and why the gov't doesn't want it's employees using Huawei's devices and also why they are putting pressure on Canada to do the same (for our 5G networks)...
huawei has plenty of controversies; intellectual property theft, espionage, etc. it's not like the US is the only country that that is distrusting of huawei's activities.... e.g: Canada excluded huawei from being involved with the gov't secure network infrastructure too (years ago, long before the USA). We've also denied several Huawei employee's permanent residency, over concerns of espionage, gov't subversion, etc...
You can't really blame the USA for the lack of development for this device... there would be way more development if Huawei didn't screw over users by taking away the unlocking service ~ the US blocking their gov't employees from using Huawei devices && the US carriers dropping their devices, has very little to do with the lack of development... I'm not a fan of the current US prez, nor politics ~ but you can't really blame them, when Huawei controls whether or not you can unlock your bootloader ~ it's Huawei's policy, not the US gov't's policy...
and it's huawei's own fault that they're getting bad press.
Google and your information
But you trust pixel?
kolembo said:
But you trust pixel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google operates with far more transparency, than huawei... no contest.
A very large part of google's development happens out in the open, their devices are more secure, their code quality is to a much higher standard... like I said; Huawei's code is by far the worst kernel code that I've ever seen... Google actually takes security seriously, Huawei does not (or they should be shipping quality code, distributing their sources in a non-sketchy way, their kernel would be more reasonably up-to-date, they would operate with more transparency, etc.)...
Does Google collect a lot of data? yes. (most tech companies and gov't do).
Do I think they should be, no ~ as I believe that in general, people need better protections in their online / digital lives. Many rights that people have ''in the real world'', we don't have online ~ that's a problem.... But it's also improving to some extent...
At the end of the day; If I have to pick between google's approach and Huawei's approach ~ google is much better... Regardless, the majority of android devices shipping, will have GAPPs installed; which means the P20 Pro that I bought wouldn't be sharing any less info with google than any other device does ~ Pixels don't have a bunch of magical extra code designed to shovel more data to google, if that what you are thinking...
This guy for real? You want optimized kernels, and all that crap go to iOS but don't slander a device without a ounce of knowledge. Huawei have great customer service representatives Maybe you spoke to one that wasn't very intellectual (every company has them) try speaking to there representatives on Facebook/Twitter they are much better on there
TheDevGuy9497 said:
This guy for real? You want optimized kernels, and all that crap go to iOS but don't slander a device without a ounce of knowledge. Huawei have great customer service representatives Maybe you spoke to one that wasn't very intellectual (every company has them) try speaking to there representatives on Facebook/Twitter they are much better on there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not slander, when it's true.
I've talked to several of their reps and support staff (on 3 separate occasions.). They may very will be better in a public facing forum, but the fact that on multiple non-public interactions; where they didn't have to be worried about PR => they were pure crap to deal with.... I would hardly call that "great customer support".... it sounds like you think "saving-face" = great customer support. (it isn't)... Also, great customer support involves being knowledgeable about the products and services.... Look at your own thread title; "The lack of knowledge is concerning" from September;
https://forum.xda-developers.com/hu...concerning-t3847975/post77741568#post77741568 ... you can't have it both ways.
I'm correct about the issues that I pointed out, in particular with the kernel code.... You may not like it, but that's your problem, not mine... And no, I don't need to go to iOS to have an optimized kernel or have a device that can provide low latency for audio for applications that need it... Other decent devices manage it just fine in android-land...
A good android/linux kernel that has good coding styles / following standards, where compiler warnings are actually taken seriously, fixed properly and where the code can be can be audited, etc ~ These are reasonable expectations one should have out of ANY android vendor. While no one is perfect and you can knit pick any of the vendor's code -> The P20 Pro's kernel, as I said; is literally the worst kernel source code that I've seen in my life... It's worse than any QC/msm kernel that I've ever seen, worse than any of samsung's kernel code, etc.. (you don't believe me??? download the CLT's kernel sources, breakout your cross compiler, enable some extra warnings and actually look through the god damn code yourself! (Does that sound good to "TheDevGuy"???).... then come back and talk to me.
I've spent several days (hours and hours) now going through it, looking at what Huawei is actually doing in the kernel with livepatch, OASES and how some of their specific features work, poking through driver code, etc, etc (i do this with all vendor code for devices that I own)....
Out of curiosity, How much time have you spent???
I'm guessing it's actually you that is " without a ounce of knowledge" and you're just triggered because you didn't like what I had to say.
There are some valid points, and i am aware of p20 pro flaws but do we really need a separate thread for every personal rant?
forever_lol said:
There are some valid points, and i am aware of p20 pro flaws but do we really need a separate thread for every personal rant?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey, i get what you're driving at, but when researching the device - i couldn't find a lot of the info that i was after and i don't think some of what I've touched on has been discussed here.... i know a few people are upset or don't like what I've said, but at the same time - i hope they can appreciate where i'm coming from, that I've actually went way out of me way and spent a lot of my free time, digging through the kernel sources...
there is also still a possibility that i may get stuck with this phone, if my carrier screws me around or has changed their policy - and if that does happen; i can pretty much promise that XDA community for this device are going to benefit;
- I've rebased their kernel on a proper git tree, with all mainline commit history, intact.
- I'm in the process of fixing all of the immediate GCC warnings and some other code issues.
- I'll get it compiling with the latest GCC (possibly clang too).
- I'm figuring out how all of huawei's features work
- i have experience porting/backporting kernel features.
- I'm experienced / know my way around the Linux kernel, having been hacking on it since long before XDA or android existed.
i don't really see much kernel development going on for this device, so who knows; even if i end up exchanging the phone, i still may end up cleaning up the sources and publishing them for other people to use (who may be comfortable using git / cherry-picking, etc - but may have difficulty getting huawei's somewhat broken source code to compile, ootb...
Who would have thought Huawei spies on its users? Geezas. Nobody.
It's not like they have done before.
Wait..
They have.
And bad software? Well, that's Huawei's middle name.
FluFlu said:
No idea what they are talking about 3rd part launchers work just fine. It's just less obvious how to change them vs. stock android... but I had Apex launcher installed 15 minutes after turning on the device, wasn't hard to figure out.
the lack of unlocked bootloader is problematic, beyond just having root ~ once huawei stops pushing updates, if you still own the phone; no way to service or update it.... and for me, I actually like to audit my devices and know what's going on inside of them (and that's why I spend days going through their kernel source code too) ~ pretty hard to audit anything on the device though, without unlocked bootloader + root.
I do agree though, there is lots of stuff baked into the rom, so customization OOTB is pretty good...and i do like that...
On the other hand though, I like having AdAway, AFWall and other root apps.... and at least one of the issues that I mentioned; the audio latency problem ~ I could probably fix if I was rooted... I'm actually pretty shocked that huawei software engineers think that high latency is somehow acceptable....
the latency makes playing instruments on my phone impossible ~ latency has to be low, the sound must play as I touch the notes ~ but instead, there is an extremely long delay / completely unusable. The latency is worse than most early / very old android devices...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
erm I think you will find that in Huawei's latest firmware updates they have disabled custom launchers, you can install them but when you pick them as your default launcher you will get an error message and it crashes, there's a thread on here about it.
neflictus said:
Who would have thought Huawei spies on its users? Geezas. Nobody.
It's not like they have done before.
Wait..
They have.
And bad software? Well, that's Huawei's middle name.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that's some high-level cynicism, right there.... coupled with apathy.
I've never personally dealt with Huawei directly, nor peaked at any of their code (until very recently... and I doubt that I am the only person in this situation), so it shouldn't be surprising that I've chosen to comment about it. (for others who may not be aware).
with you having such disdain and having previous experience with huawei - why did you even buy the phone?
just curious.
You talk so much... I didn't even bother reading all what you said. Given that your frustration isn't about the phone itself but Huawei as a company, why did you buy the phone in the first place?