Related
Admins, thank you for EVENTUALLY listening to us.
However, can we take this a tad further? Somebody's obviously spent quite some time moving threads across and the result is....
a mess, same as every other XDA-Devs forum.
Is there any scope at all for even more sub forums under the existing x7510 one? Obvious ones that jump to mind is a sub forum just for bricked devices, another just for ROMs and perhaps one for performance related matters.
Having different sub forums makes everybody's lives easier and it means you guys have the opportunity to deliver highly targeted advertising (which should bring in more money for you). Everybody wins!
Alternatively we can just go with the present formula, which basically consists of 20 or so stickies at the top, followed by a mish-mash that makes it very difficult to find things even when using the search function.
I would LOVE to see how you lot structure folders on your own systems! If it is anything like XDA-Devs then I gues you often experience that "now-where-did-I-save-it" feeling!
I say patience...and thanks for the child-forum! Maybe we could make a sticky on how to use some prefix or header labels at the beginning of the thread title, e.g. Bricked: after Kaiser rom update my x7510 went black - HELP! or ROM-DL: official HTC X7510 at last! for ROM download links...
@ NanoRuler
I have read your comments here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=437317 and elsewhere and now in this thread.
I feel I have to say there are a few things you have said that I find more than a little offensive - just a some of your comments in relation to Admin / Mods / Organisation:
"piss-poor organisation"
"admins here are stubbornly refusing to create a dedicated sub forum"
"admins, especially seeing as they cannot even be bothered to respond to any request"
"My, what an excellent example of good organisation....NOT"
Mixing the above style of comment into your posts, along with your tone in your first post in this thread, is not likely to endear you to Mods, Admins and long standing members here. You see there may be quite a lot of truth in what you say, but it is spoiled by those barbed and untrue comments.
We do monitor how things are going and how things can change, but you have to realise that only a couple of years ago the membership was only a couple of hundred, now it's grown to 195000 active menbers (We MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT!) and a membership well over 1 Million. Add to this that the whole show is kept on the road by a handful of voluntary Mods and 1 Admin who does not have 100% of her time dedicated to the site.
The idea that she has "piss-poor organisation" and has "stubbornly refused to set up a forum", aside from being untrue, is also insulting. As you might imagine with only one Admin, you have to wait to see what overall demand is before leaping in to create new Forum. It does create added Moderation work when new Fora are added and there is nothing more disappointing for members to find a forum that never gets answers because nobody goes there. The demand is guaged over a period of time and when the level seems sufficiently high the Forum is created.
With the level of paid staff = slightly less than 1, you cannot achieve military style organisation and everything working like a Swiss watch. (... and do you know I don't think I'd like it if it did.)
Yes we have a few rough edges (that's what makes us so lovable) and believe me I agree we can improve things over time, only don't expect perfection from such a small team. We rely on members to contribute and make helpful suggestions and to do it politely 'cos we do the best we can with the resources we have - and that includes limited time.
Mike
EDIT: It was me who moved a lot of posts from the Athena Forum to here. You know, while I was doing it I was thinking, this will be awkward without sub-fora for ROM-Development etc. (You see I was thinking along the same lines as YOU). It somewhat cheesed me off though,when I came here, to be told it was a "mess". I disagree, "Mess" is too strong a word, but I do agree we may need a Development Forum at some point.
OK, let's take this from the top, shall we?
"piss-poor organisation"
Please go to this forum, http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=374, then tell me how to find a recent ROM in amongst everything else. I accept your arguments about the growth of XDA-Dev's (hey, despite my objections I remain a fan!) and the lack of admins and moderators. But let's be fair here, have you guys actually ASKED any more members to help out?
I KNOW what's involved being a Mod in a busy forum, I was one at MCMCSE.com, but you can still spread the load a tad more, and delegate tasks more (such as delegate the ability to create sub forums to Mods).
If anything, this struggle to contain the load supports MY argument that XDA-Dev's is NOT very well organised at all. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20 so it is easy for me to now say having seperate sub forums just for ROMs will make things better organised for everybody, and yes, I probably wouldn't have set it up that way had I been asked when XDA-Dev;s was started. But just because there was an oversight in the beginning does it now mean it must be perpetuated?
"admins here are stubbornly refusing to create a dedicated sub forum" and
"admins, especially seeing as they cannot even be bothered to respond to any request"
Hmmm....let me see..... Many requests over a period of more than three months and nobody even bothered to reply to us? Yes, that IS stubbornly refusing. As was stated here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=420259 "Mod Edit: Darn I was enjoying watching them suffer!!" was probably intended as a joke, but may well have been a freudian slip!
If you guys weren't being stubborn about it, why didn't you just come back to us and state your reasons for delaying. Why blank us for more than three months?
I think you'll find you guys pretty much scored an own-goal there.
"My, what an excellent example of good organisation....NOT"
Again, you've almost admitted that XDA-Dev's is NOT the best organised forum in the world. That comment was made in response to rorydaredkign's suggestion that using a few stickies would solve all our woes. It was NEVER aimed at this site, its admin or mods, but was only ever aimed at Rory's silly suggestion!
Nobody expects perfection, least of all me. Just don't blank us and don't ignore us. I find THAT insulting, because when you ignore somebody you're also saying through your behaviour that they aren't worthy of your attention. ('ll certainly bear this comment of mine in mind should you choose not to reply )
Nobody expects military organisation, either. Over-organising can be far worse than not organising at all.
Again, at the time that I stated so, admins/mods WERE refusing to create a seperate x7510 sub forum, so I have to disagree with your claim that what I had said was untrue. I'm a lot of things, but I'm NOT a liar, nor have I ever been. (Sadly "endearing" isn't a term typically used to describe me, either!)
Now, having said all of that, I'll also say that I WAS pissed off, especially by the lack of response/action, so I accept that I may have been too quick to accuse.
I wish to apologise for that to the admin, the mods and most members here.
Finally Mike, I NEVER intended the word MESS to describe the seperate x7510 section. Moving everything here in record time must have been an enormous pain and such a move can never immediately result in any degree of order.
Right, I can't change my signature message in that post, so this post is made purely to show the updated signature.
-Edit:- And yet, the signature has changed!
Hi
Okay, I accept there are some vailid points you make. I can assure you there is and has been no deliberate action to stop (or slow down) a forum being created. I think you do have a point about not hearing anything on whether a forum would be created for 3 months. I don't know if I'm proud to say it but that was probably due to a bit of "muddling through", rather than any deliberate action to ignore the forum request. (Almost a case of wait for the clamour for a forum to get very loud and then create it / if not then the request withers on the vine. NOT the most respectful way to deal with the membership I agree but with no guaranteed or co-ordinated hours being put in by Mods and admin (responsibilities for other things)then a more planned approach tends to remain as a good idea but does not get delivered in practice.
Whether Mods should have powers to create forums is an interesting one. Also not one for me to answer. The Admin reports to a Management group and I guess it would be their and her decision. I can see such a suggestion meeting some resistance if only because Mods come and go fairly frequently and to have power over the structure of the boards might be thought a step too far.
... and now I must go to work... late already
Mike
EDIT: I think it's likely you have a lot to offer this Forum, you are obviously interested and have ideas about it. All I would say is, start with the assumption that the Mods and Admin are not against you but with you. We may be slow to change things, for all the reasons I give, but there is no deliberate action to ignore members and you can always send a PM to Mods or Admin if you think something is being missed by us.
Now is time to BUILD the x7510 section!.
Thanks mike for moving the X7510 3Ds here, I am ready to listen suggestions and to better organize the section.
May be Mickyprima or Irus or some other chef would like to be the FIRST in releasing a new ROM?
A sticky "Rom development" thread is needed?
I agree, "it is a start", next step is up to you ( I have an X7500)
sergiopi said:
Now is time to BUILD the x7510 section!.
Thanks mike for moving the X7510 3Ds here, I am ready to listen suggestions and to better organize the section.
May be Mickyprima or Irus or some other chef would like to be the FIRST in releasing a new ROM?
A sticky "Rom development" thread is needed?
I agree, "it is a start", next step is up to you ( I have an X7500)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I moved the more obvious 7510 threads, but not being overly knowledgable about the device, it's entirely possible there are several other threads that need moved.
Also there were a couple that I stickied, because they appeared of on-going importance, but I could be wrong about them. So yes, as sergiopi says, feedback is needed.
Mike
EDIT: side note - many of the moved threads I gave a two day expiring redirect - so they will still appear in the Athena section for a couple of days - just in case that confuses anybody!!
NanoRuler said:
Obvious ones that jump to mind is a sub forum just for bricked devices, another just for ROMs and perhaps one for performance related matters.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there is no such subforums for x7500 either...except for the one for ROMs of course, and I think that could be a good idea, or maybe rename this section as x7510 and x7510 ROMs.
slow...but sure...
NanoRuler...you need to remember that the 7510 is still a very *new* device and not many members/peeps have it. I have searched the net high and wide for info on the 7510 and to be honest the only place where I get any real info is at these boards...so it may be lacking in many things right now but it is the BEST you can find online...and I know over time things will improve as more people buy this device. I have mine for a few weeks now but I still prefer my universal only cause the 'cooks' have not started working their magic as yet and out of the box I think the 7510 is kinda lame/lacking...
I am reminded by something my dear grand-mom would tell me back in the day...'It's not what you say, but how you say it'.
Count me in if more hands are needed to get things moving faster...and thanks to all the peeps in this forum for making this place a blast to visit.
youmeus said:
NanoRuler...
I am reminded by something my dear grand-mom would tell me back in the day...'It's not what you say, but how you say it'.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AGREED -- whatever the usefulness of NanoRuler's comments, the negative attitude that is so evident (even in follow-up msg. -- I didn't perceive any real change or even a genuine apology) turned me off and I found myself skimming over much of what he said.
brucewilsonpa said:
AGREED -- whatever the usefulness of NanoRuler's comments, the negative attitude that is so evident (even in follow-up msg. -- I didn't perceive any real change or even a genuine apology) turned me off and I found myself skimming over much of what he said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And you did WHAT exactly to campaign for a seperate section? Yeah, I thought so, buddy!
Currently I think you will find YOUR attitude is not exactly positive, particularly so seeing as you are raking up ground that has already been covered.
And you perceived no real change, nor a genuine apology?
I made my my apologies, after having defended myself first. In fact, I do believe I could clearly show that I was wrongly accused in some parts. Yet despite this I felt the need to apologise - I was not forced, sweet-talked or otherwise coerced into an apology. If that's nor real or genuine enough for you, well, though luck matey!
How bloody dare you judge me or anybody else? Who exactly do you think you are?
In your case you've just "skimmed" to the end, in your case too, I will be polite and allow you to pick the 1st word, but the second word most certainly is "off".
It is time to start talking about x7510 again here instead of members mood, attitude, friendliness...
Wow! I merely shared my perception and end up being attacked and castigated. No offense intended but surely I'm allowed to share with you how you appear to come across -- why are you so quick to assume I (or others) are "judging" you? I think the tone of your msg. vindicates my "perception" -- you can villify me and attack me but this is the last word I offer. Let's get back to discussing the important stuff.
Hmmmm....here's what you said:
"even in follow-up msg. -- I didn't perceive any real change or even a genuine apology) turned me off and I found myself skimming over much of what he said"
THAT is judgemental. In case you don't believe me, look up the meaning of the word.
Don't back off with statements like "I merely shared my perception and end up being attacked and castigated", "No offense intended but surely I'm allowed to share with you how you appear to come across" and "I think the tone of your msg. vindicates my 'perception'".
If you merely wanted to share your opinion regarding how I came across, why didn't you think to do so in a PM, as opposed to a public critique? Why raise it at all well after the fact, when everybody's moved on? And finally, the tone of my message was exactly correct in response to somebody criticising me out of the blue.
At least have the courage of conviction to stand by your earlier statement, instead of trying to wash it away with dribble.
More importantly, have you signed up to put YOUR x7510 potentially at risk to test Cmonex's new unlocker? See, I don't simply spew hot air - I also walk the walk, which is why I've signed up.
Now unless you have something useful to contibute, do us a favour and don't post for a while?
1800 devices were sold this week, and I would expect that a good portion of those users will be headed here.
Again, this is just an early report from one user who just got their device, so it could be a one-off. But I would go on the assumption that they are all getting 4349, to play it safe.
To the moderators:
I would highly recommend that the development area be altered ASAP to break up the 1.1 and 1.2 ROMs. I would also recommend that a disclaimer be added to all 1.1 ROMs, including anything CM7 based, that specific steps need to be taken if a 4349 user attempts to use these ROMs. I have been asking for this since April, and I am respectively asking again.
Again, this could just be a one-off user with 4349. But given that one Woot! user has it, and new TigerDirect users have 4349 as well gives me the impression that this could be the norm for all new devices. And I think it's in XDA's best interests to prepare the development site accordingly, given what we know about 1.1 down-leveling.
To the 1.1 devs / modders:
Same request. From someone who had the opposite occur with TNT Lite 5, this is a potentially devastating situation if these users flash your 1.1 based ROM.
To new Woot! users:
You should read this first, please: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1035983 Don't jump into modding until you have confirmed what stock version you have, please.
I agree, If we can prevent a user from flashing the wrong ROM due to their bootloader, we will save many users from needless grief and reduce the number of posts for help to those who really need it.
Roebeet, sure glad to see you back posting and helping...
brookfield said:
I agree, If we can prevent a user from flashing the wrong ROM due to their bootloader, we will save many users from needless grief and reduce the number of posts for help to those who really need it.
Roebeet, sure glad to see you back posting and helping...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I picked the right week to do so.
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Agreed. The SD development sections are much easier to navigate after being segregated into 1.1 and 1.2
jerdog said:
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't this a pretty basic usability issue? This would help new users, but more fundamentally it's just good organization, no?
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I kinda disagree with this statement. In other sub-forums on XDA, they require all posts in the dev section to follow guidelines on the title at the very least. Simply requiring that all posts in that section be classified the same way is all that is needed (with all the disclaimers and everything).
Example:
[Rom][1.2BL] Uber Fake Rom!!1?! (Now with extra frosted flakes) - [1.0 - 6/10/11)
Tostino said:
I kinda disagree with this statement. In other sub-forums on XDA, they require all posts in the dev section to follow guidelines on the title at the very least. Simply requiring that all posts in that section be classified the same way is all that is needed (with all the disclaimers and everything).
Example:
[Rom][1.2BL] Uber Fake Rom!!1?! (Now with extra frosted flakes) - [1.0 - 6/10/11)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And that's a good statement - if you notice those posting actual development ROMs/MODs already follow this as a rule of thumb. But it is not an XDA requirement. It has been suggested to Devs that they follow this anyways.
Clean up on "Isle 9" please. I think being structured by bootloader is a great idea. Especially since there are projects now other then Android being worked on. And in the future when Windows 8 is released.
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not simply break out the ROM section, rather than put more of the onus on the developers? The developers already have enough to do with developing and will in all likelihood already advise which bootloader to use. Make it a little easier for them.
We all know that what we do is at our own risk; all that is being asked is to break the ROM section into a 1.1 and 1.2 subforum.
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree. The breaking into a 1.1 and a 1.2 sub-forum of the development section seems pretty much critical to avoid any unnecessary headache for XDA gTab users. Saying what you said above is like throwing a 10 year old behind the wheel of a car and saying: "You accept the risks of your own actions, so go ahead and start driving and we'll see where this leads us."
You wouldn't do that under any circumstance, so you provide "buffers" (training, mentorship, test driving, books, etc) which in our case would be the sub-forums separating boot loader types to attempt to put forth a friendly effort to help users avoid a headache.
The sub-forums would look something like this:
Android Development:
General Development (CWM, radios, tools, app dev, etc)
1.1 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
1.2 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
Not putting forth the effort to at least provide a somewhat protected atmosphere for the XDA gTab users is negligence. I have been a member of the XDA community in an observer/user fashion for much longer than my membership reflects. From my experience with XDA, I have noticed a trend on the gTab community in more recent times that is not reflected on the other device forums I have utilized (HD2, Tilt, Tilt2, G2, G1, MyTouch, and a few more that I cannot remember). The vast majority of those kept higher and more enforced standards than the gTab forums have lately, but still looked out for the users by putting certain "buffers" and preventative measures into place to try to keep users from messing up their pricey hardware due to negligence.
Yes, negligence on the user's part is their fault by not following some instructions laid out for them, but it doesn't mean that the leadership can't at a minimum provide some buffers out of a good faith gesture. I hope you don't take this in a disrespectful way or anything, just voicing my observation on things I've seen over the past few months and figured as the gTab moderator (even though you're selling yours), you'd probably want to know what the community members of your device forum are observing.
Thanks for your hard work, but this is something that's inevitable and should not be avoided or curtailed for a later date.
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense, but speaking as a non-1337 who's been dealing with 1337s for years, this post sounds like the typical 1337 attitude.
Dividing up the development section into 1.1 and 1.2 will save many headaches. Noone is here to stroke anyone's ego as a 1337. We're just trying to make the process go as smoothly as possible here.
flipovich said:
I disagree. The breaking into a 1.1 and a 1.2 sub-forum of the development section seems pretty much critical to avoid any unnecessary headache for XDA gTab users. Saying what you said above is like throwing a 10 year old behind the wheel of a car and saying: "You accept the risks of your own actions, so go ahead and start driving and we'll see where this leads us."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're not talking about putting people behind a car. We're talking about people accessing a forum that is for development. Any usage of the forum and the developed solutions presented is at your own risk.
flipovich said:
You wouldn't do that under any circumstance, so you provide "buffers" (training, mentorship, test driving, books, etc) which in our case would be the sub-forums separating boot loader types to attempt to put forth a friendly effort to help users avoid a headache.
The sub-forums would look something like this:
Android Development:
General Development (CWM, radios, tools, app dev, etc)
1.1 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
1.2 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not a precedent at XDA nor would it be approved. There is some segmentation under a device but that is by OS - not by a bootloader in an OS.
flipovich said:
Not putting forth the effort to at least provide a somewhat protected atmosphere for the XDA gTab users is negligence. I have been a member of the XDA community in an observer/user fashion for much longer than my membership reflects. From my experience with XDA, I have noticed a trend on the gTab community in more recent times that is not reflected on the other device forums I have utilized (HD2, Tilt, Tilt2, G2, G1, MyTouch, and a few more that I cannot remember). The vast majority of those kept higher and more enforced standards than the gTab forums have lately, but still looked out for the users by putting certain "buffers" and preventative measures into place to try to keep users from messing up their pricey hardware due to negligence.
Yes, negligence on the user's part is their fault by not following some instructions laid out for them, but it doesn't mean that the leadership can't at a minimum provide some buffers out of a good faith gesture. I hope you don't take this in a disrespectful way or anything, just voicing my observation on things I've seen over the past few months and figured as the gTab moderator (even though you're selling yours), you'd probably want to know what the community members of your device forum are observing.
Thanks for your hard work, but this is something that's inevitable and should not be avoided or curtailed for a later date.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not taken as disrespectful at all. And whether or not I own the device has nothing to do with the level of effort put into the forum. It is not the role of a moderator to police the information and provide checks and balances for the users. It is the role of the developer or poster to do that. Moderators are here to keep threads on topic, keep users from trolling, cleanup spam, etc.
Developers should mark their projects as to the relevance for the user - i.e. [BL1.2] or whatever. It's important for users to be held responsible for their actions and we are a development community - not a hand-holding community.
It is also the role of users to report posts that they see as problematic to the OP and if the OP doesn't make changes then you can bring the moderators in to assist as appropriate. It's also the role of users to help keep things sorted by reporting posts that need moved elsewhere, etc. and to report those who are abusive so that they can be actioned.
My goal was not to ruffle feathers. I'm just stating my concerns and suggestions, whether they are feasible or not.
The newer 1.2 ROMs here on XDA seem to add these differences to their titles and first posts (as mentioned), but my concern is the older 1.1 ROMs, especially ones that were created before this new branch was released. For example, some of the CM7 based ROMs, and even CM7 itself, are not safe to use if you are flashing directly from 4349 stock. And I've also made suggestions in the Cyanagenmod forums, for the same reasons.
And I appreciate the suggestions and involvement. Thanks!
Thanks
I never heard of the g tablet before this week, but the TD Ebay deal was too good to pass up. I got one with 1.2-4349 on it. First thing I did was downgrade it thanks to the heads up info from this forum. With some reading was also able to put Veganginger on it. First attempt, it locked it up when rebooting after a successful install. But again, this forum was right on top of it. I followed the info for using nvflash and got back to a stock rom, ran clockwork again and installed Vegan no problem.
Not much to comment on the tablet itself yet, it just arrived yesterday, but so far its been fun just making the updates.
Just wanted to say thanks for all the info.
I've read through this thread and I do not believe a separate sub-forum is necessary. As such, I am closing this thread before the discussion becomes out of hand.
The differences between the Gtab versions lie in software alone. There is currently a method available to revert to 1.1 using nvflash in order to regain ROM compatibility with 1.1 ROMs. This, coupled with a simple warning as to which bootloader is compatible will ensure that everyone is satisfied.
In the past, we have only given separate development sub-forums for devices where a revision change is tied to a physical hardware change. As this is simply a (reversible) software difference, Jerdog has taken the correct approach by suggesting that the developers and moderators delineate which ROMs are compatible with which bootloaders.
Will Verduzco
XDA Senior Moderation Team
Why has the ''is this necessary'' thread been deleted ? and the other one locked ?
There was more people against this opening of a sub-forum than there was for it.
Please listen to us and remove this tmobile section, It isnt needed, and deleting the threads that wanted this section gone is way out of order.. We didnt break any rules..
This is our section, our phone, We dont need nor want this silly tmobile section.. So please remove it !!
If you think im wrong............Im not, Allow me to open a poll as to whether we should keep it or not ??
c'mon mods be fair ??!!??!!
It got removed because it would just start issues with other members of the forum for people who want it or not same thing with this thread.
This is the wrong section your posting in anyway.
What's so hard about looking in other section and looking in T-Mobile section.
The administrators on the site said they want it as a local moderator just spoke to them about it, Majority want it anyway.
well the poll says different... At least leave this thread for a few days and get some statistics before making a decision.
--
To be fair i agree with azzle here,bit stupid to have some extra thread for tmobile..end of the day this can all be kept in the android dev section. This is daft.
suprised the mod agreed to this anyway,unless he was pm'ed by everyone asking for it,now if thats the case..then fair enough
OK people, i have re-named this thread and moved it to its proper section. I will allow this to continue, unless it turns into a flame war. We all have opinions, i ask you to respect others.
The extra dev section was asked for, and the admin gave it. Its unlikely its going to be removed, so we will have to live with it.
cheers man ! If its what the people want.. Keep it.. I just think its gunna cause so much confusion when development really gets going.. That things would have been better left how they were..
Im all up for the Q&A Section... If there happens to be differences between Tmobile and International version, I will add it to my threads FAQ section...
Reviewers said:
What's so hard about looking in other section and looking in T-Mobile section.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whats so hard of not having that section and making double download links (as rom makers will make 2 different versions anyway).
Let the vote stay here for atleast 2 days, then you can see some "results"
Reviewers said:
It got removed because it would just start issues with other members of the forum for people who want it or not same thing with this thread.
This is the wrong section your posting in anyway.
What's so hard about looking in other section and looking in T-Mobile section.
The administrators on the site said they want it as a local moderator just spoke to them about it, Majority want it anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point is, we have so little development as it is, that splitting the forum into two makes it look like we have even less development, and that could deter people away from the phone and thus more development. Both phones can use both roms so there is no point. If there are small issues such as wifi, we can have stickies.
joshnichols189 said:
The point is, we have so little development as it is, that splitting the forum into two makes it look like we have even less development, and that could deter people away from the phone and thus more development. Both phones can use both roms so there is no point. If there are small issues such as wifi, we can have stickies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True I'm not going to argue with that cause ur right.
but It's not hard looking in both sections.
If there are incompatible features between t-mo-us and the international One S, keep them both, if not, merge them. Or at least rename it t-mo US, as t-mo has presence in other countries as well.
The second tmous thread is not needed, if the dev of the rom would simply add to there title.
[rom][sense 4.0] [tmous/EU] [NAME OF YOUR ROM][ANYTHING EXTRA AOSP/STOCK] [Updated XX/XX/XXXX]
Reviewers said:
True I'm not going to argue with that cause ur right.
but It's not hard looking in both sections.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying it is, and I usually ventured to the Verizon side when I had a GSM Galaxy Nexus I just don't want development on this device stunted.
Sent from my HTC VLE_U using xda premium
I am going to request another subforum for my own gsm operator. Or maybe even forum for my own mobile :what:
Seriously, this is ridiculous.
Sent from my HTC One S using xda premium
Agreed josh. I was told by senior mods that they did it because "it's what users wanted". Well, that's kind of interesting, because we're NOT wanting it, and we're those users. The initial confusion came on launch day, and that was because nobody was familiar with whether the devices differed. Guides simply need to be updated to reflect compatibility. Now, instead, we've got 2 forums, and in an attempt to alleviate the confusion, they have only caused further confusion, because now it REALLY looks like the devices are different when they are in fact NOT.
When a dev gets into modding, one of the obvious questions is "How many different devices do I have to work with here?". Based off our forum layout, it looks like we've got 2 different devices. This could lead developers to believe that there's more work to be done than necessary to achieve compatibility with both.
ndsvic suidas
I am on the fence with this one.
While I agree that if a rom developed for EU works - for the majority - and only does not function on a scale that reaches very select users, then the dual dev section is not needed.
However, in that same logic, if a rom developed that is incompatible with the counterpart phones due to whatever reason, and something happens while it was not labeled as EU/US or TMOUS or whatever tag a dev would use, then that would start a stir in the forum, IMO, deterring users from moving to this phone and potentially hurting development.
While i agree that it should be SOP to label the rom as EU or US, at the very least posting inside the thread if its for EU or US in the download links. Having a split forum this early in the development phase could hurt the growth of the phone's custom roms.
This being my second android phone, I myself am considering taking a shot at developing a custom TMOUS minimalist rom. (running as little as possible and having the bare necessities required to run the phone) Thinking of a battery saver galore build, completely Sense Free.
I came from the Nexus S, and the dev forum was split into 2 forums - 1 for the GSM Nexus S, and 1 for the CDMA Sprint Nexus S 4G.
I was a i9020T GSM model. In the very same forum, mods and devs posted ROMs for i9020T, i9020A (att), and i9023 (SLCD model , mostly overseas). Not once was there ever a problem. I just think it's kind of silly that we're being told "it's what users want", and yet we clearly don't want it, atleast the majority don't. I was told it was to help with new users, but here's the thing....this isnt newbforums.com or something. This is XDA DEVELOPERS. Enthusiasts and the tech crowd come here. I'm not saying new users don't, because we see them every day, but they've got their own issue with getting up-to-speed, and I fail to see how fragmenting the community into 2 dev forums helps alleviate the issue. Newbs will be newbs. They just have to read stuff....
Is it possible that I can agree with everyone? Probably a result of my incessant blind optimism.
Clearly, there is a divide here. Some people want the separate forum, others don't. Both arguments seem to stem from the same desire... to maximize development for their specific phones. I emphasize like crazy with you.
People that don't want the split fear that this will slow development by dividing troops and possibly give the appearance of a lesser interest from the dev community. However, having two sides essentially working on the "same" device may even prove beneficial in the end.
People that do want it are likely "we" Americans who always fear upon a devices release that there will be some minor radio variance that will cause our new, $600 baby to turn paperweight. Having a T-Mo(US) thread gives someone like me, with a lesser experience in the dev world, more confidence to take the leap into modding a device. I'm more likely to set up a dev environment, root my phone, and become more active in the community. The more people willing to get their feet wet should help everyone, regardless of continent, in the end.
Lastly, the apparent lack of interest may instead be a lack of knowledge. What other snapdragon S4 Krait phones have been released? AFAIK, there hasn't been a single device dropped with this chip, so development will be decidedly difficult until HTC makes available their GPL code. They probably aren't terribly eager to give other phone manufacturers the fruits of their labor, and money, by aiding them prep the S4 phones/tablets that will inevitably follow.
I am incredibly eager to sink my teeth into the underbelly of the one S. I can accept that for the time being, customization may likely be limited to sense-based mods, as I for one am certainly unwilling to part with what is one of the most impressive cameras ever released on a phone. But I do incredibly miss my notification pull down power switches.
majalo said:
Is it possible that I can agree with everyone? Probably a result of my incessant blind optimism.
Clearly, there is a divide here. Some people want the separate forum, others don't. Both arguments seem to stem from the same desire... to maximize development for their specific phones. I emphasize like crazy with you.
People that don't want the split fear that this will slow development by dividing troops and possibly give the appearance of a lesser interest from the dev community. However, having two sides essentially working on the "same" device may even prove beneficial in the end.
People that do want it are likely "we" Americans who always fear upon a devices release that there will be some minor radio variance that will cause our new, $600 baby to turn paperweight. Having a T-Mo(US) thread gives someone like me, with a lesser experience in the dev world, more confidence to take the leap into modding a device. I'm more likely to set up a dev environment, root my phone, and become more active in the community. The more people willing to get their feet wet should help everyone, regardless of continent, in the end.
Lastly, the apparent lack of interest may instead be a lack of knowledge. What other snapdragon S4 Krait phones have been released? AFAIK, there hasn't been a single device dropped with this chip, so development will be decidedly difficult until HTC makes available their GPL code. They probably aren't terribly eager to give other phone manufacturers the fruits of their labor, and money, by aiding them prep the S4 phones/tablets that will inevitably follow.
I am incredibly eager to sink my teeth into the underbelly of the one S. I can accept that for the time being, customization may likely be limited to sense-based mods, as I for one am certainly unwilling to part with what is one of the most impressive cameras ever released on a phone. But I do incredibly miss my notification pull down power switches.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I respect your opinion. Please email HTCdev and express your displeasure at their daily willful GPL violations. That code lawfully belongs in the hands of the open source community.
edited.
See, what we're trying to get at is that there isn't any "flash this version or that version", because there's only 1 version: the HTC One S. Unless you're flashing radios, and custom ROMs should typically NEVER have custom radios unless clearly indicated, then it doesn't matter.
And the Galaxy S was divided into subforums because the actual hardware cofigurations, button layouts, chips, etc, varied quite a bit from model to model, whether it was the international SGS, the T-Mo Vibrant, The Verizon Continuum (vastly different), or the ATT version.
The One S is a single phone, with 2 slightly different radio versions. Other than that radio, they are absolutely identical.
I have recently purchased a second hand Samsung Galaxy Tab E (SM-T377W) from kijiji in Canada, but, to my dismay the FRP has been tripped. I have tried to follow ashyx and rootJunkie but even with an otg cable I am not able to access the settings/browser.
I have searched everywhere (I can think of) but am unable to find a stock firmware. any assistance would be appreciated.
Device:
Name: Samsung Galaxy Tab E
Model: SM-T377W
F/W: MMB29K.T377WVLU2API2 (gtesltebmc)
Country: Canada
I'm not sure what other info is useful, so I will reply as prompted.
Thanks in advance
IridianDesigns said:
I have recently purchased a second hand Samsung Galaxy Tab E (SM-T377W) from kijiji in Canada, but, to my dismay the FRP has been tripped. I have tried to follow ashyx and rootJunkie but even with an otg cable I am not able to access the settings/browser.
I have searched everywhere (I can think of) but am unable to find a stock firmware. any assistance would be appreciated.
Device:
Name: Samsung Galaxy Tab E
Model: SM-T377W
F/W: MMB29K.T377WVLU2API2 (gtesltebmc)
Country: Canada
I'm not sure what other info is useful, so I will reply as prompted.
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello and welcome to xda-assist,
FRP is a justified security measure to protect a stolen device, you surely know that..
XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures, best advice we can provide is to find a way to contact the original owner. Sorry but nothing we can do here to help.
Edit: even stock firmware won't reset the FRP, that's no option
Sam Nakamura said:
FRP is a justified security measure to protect a stolen device, you surely know that..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sam,
Thank you for your reply. I do understand the reasoning behind FRP and its role in the security measures related to the theft of devices. I have checked the IMEI with the blacklist maintained by the network providers here. The device has not been reported lost or stolen, I can provide the IMEI in a pm, if independent verification would allay your concerns.
As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, any security measure implementation invariably imposes restriction on legitimate use cases. Whilst I'm sure the boffins at Samsung and related manufacturers went to great lengths to minimise the impact, it would appear that the scenario I find myself in was not one of them.
I essentially purchased the phone from an online classified ad system. Your advice to contact the original owner was, funnily enough, one of the first I explored. Unfortunately, the ad has since been removed along with the contact information. Since I, myself, was unaware of FRP until this, I can believe that the seller was unaware also, so I don't suspect nefarious intent.
I was not familiar with FRP when I purchased the phone, and believed that checking the IMEI would ensure it hadn't been stolen. I have since researched the topic and now have a passing understanding of its strengths and shortcomings. I have not in my research found an official method to disable it. If you are aware of one I would appreciate a link.
Sam Nakamura said:
XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures, best advice we can provide is to find a way to contact the original owner. Sorry but nothing we can do here to help.
Edit: even stock firmware won't reset the FRP, that's no option
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I find your claim that XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures a tad hypocritical, as a simple search of XDA's own forums for 'FRP bypass' will yield at least 10 pages of results and anything more than a cursory glance at the threads will demonstrate that hypocrisy.
Thank you for letting me know that the firmware avenue I was pursuing would be fruitless, at least I can stop chasing that particular white rabbit.
I shall continue to research and at worst, I will become the victim of an actual theft.
P.S. On a side note, XDA IS a valuable resource. Thanks for all your efforts Dev's, keep up the great works
IridianDesigns said:
Sam,
Thank you for your reply. I do understand the reasoning behind FRP and its role in the security measures related to the theft of devices. I have checked the IMEI with the blacklist maintained by the network providers here. The device has not been reported lost or stolen, I can provide the IMEI in a pm, if independent verification would allay your concerns.
As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, any security measure implementation invariably imposes restriction on legitimate use cases. Whilst I'm sure the boffins at Samsung and related manufacturers went to great lengths to minimise the impact, it would appear that the scenario I find myself in was not one of them.
I essentially purchased the phone from an online classified ad system. Your advice to contact the original owner was, funnily enough, one of the first I explored. Unfortunately, the ad has since been removed along with the contact information. Since I, myself, was unaware of FRP until this, I can believe that the seller was unaware also, so I don't suspect nefarious intent.
I was not familiar with FRP when I purchased the phone, and believed that checking the IMEI would ensure it hadn't been stolen. I have since researched the topic and now have a passing understanding of its strengths and shortcomings. I have not in my research found an official method to disable it. If you are aware of one I would appreciate a link.
I find your claim that XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures a tad hypocritical, as a simple search of XDA's own forums for 'FRP bypass' will yield at least 10 pages of results and anything more than a cursory glance at the threads will demonstrate that hypocrisy.
Thank you for letting me know that the firmware avenue I was pursuing would be fruitless, at least I can stop chasing that particular white rabbit.
I shall continue to research and at worst, I will become the victim of an actual theft.
P.S. On a side note, XDA IS a valuable resource. Thanks for all your efforts Dev's, keep up the great works
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As much as understand your frustration, I only have your words and can't verify if true
About hypocrisy, remember that xda is huge and there might be the threads you mentioned but xda is more than one person, some do have no issues with this or some threads might be just unreported to the mods..
I'm a private person, I'm not employed by xda-assist or xda-developers so I have to draw my personal line which basically is "can't verify - can't help" that's all, nothing personal..
I mean you just can't expect official xda support from xda for breaking FRP when even the manufacturer denies it.. and deep insight you know that
Anyways, good luck
Sent from my Lenovo A3500-FL using XDA Labs
Sam Nakamura said:
As much as understand your frustration, I only have your words and can't verify if true
About hypocrisy remember that xda is huge and there might be the threads you mentioned but xda is more than one person, some do have no issues with this or some threads might be just unreported to the mods..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again I thank you for your response Sam,
Please don't misinterpret, I am frustrated with the situation, a much deeper conversation than necessary in this venue, not with XDA.
I mentioned in my reply that Canada has a Cellular Blacklist, for precisely the purpose of providing an independent means to verify the legitimacy of a device, thus facilitating private trade with accountability. To address your concerns I offered the IMEI in order for you to conduct your own verification. Cellular Blacklists are not a concept unique to Canada.
Sam Nakamura said:
For myself I'm a private person, I'm not employed by xda-assist or xda-developers so I have to draw my personal line which basically is "can't verify - can't help" that's all, nothing personal..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand your personal stance and can respect a person who holds to their principles, especially when mine differ. I prefer to begin with trust until proven otherwise. I have been burned by that before though, hence checking the blacklist. I don't take it personally and I mean no disrespect to you.
Sam Nakamura said:
I mean you just can't expect official xda support from xda for breaking FRP when even the manufacturer denies it.. and deep insight you know that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I mentioned in my reply, XDA is an excellent resource, with a great deal of knowledge and guidance from veterans for newbies like myself. I understand that XDA encompasses a much larger community than the official core XDA teams. It was to this community I was directing my question. Perhaps I erred by posting to the wrong forum, if so I apologise. I am aware of how lawsuit-happy many large companies tend to get.
In terms of the posts I mentioned, it was not a critique. As I had intended to address the community, I took your reply to encompass that. I was merely pointing out that whilst 'XDA Official' may disavow assistance, 'XDA Community' appears to embrace it. I in no way am trying to imply XDA endorses it.
IridianDesigns said:
Again I thank you for your response Sam,
Please don't misinterpret, I am frustrated with the situation, a much deeper conversation than necessary in this venue, not with XDA.
I mentioned in my reply that Canada has a Cellular Blacklist, for precisely the purpose of providing an independent means to verify the legitimacy of a device, thus facilitating private trade with accountability. To address your concerns I offered the IMEI in order for you to conduct your own verification. Cellular Blacklists are not a concept unique to Canada.
I understand your personal stance and can respect a person who holds to their principles, especially when mine differ. I prefer to begin with trust until proven otherwise. I have been burned by that before though, hence checking the blacklist. I don't take it personally and I mean no disrespect to you.
As I mentioned in my reply, XDA is an excellent resource, with a great deal of knowledge and guidance from veterans for newbies like myself. I understand that XDA encompasses a much larger community than the official core XDA teams. It was to this community I was directing my question. Perhaps I erred by posting to the wrong forum, if so I apologise. I am aware of how lawsuit-happy many large companies tend to get.
In terms of the posts I mentioned, it was not a critique. As I had intended to address the community, I took your reply to encompass that. I was merely pointing out that whilst 'XDA Official' may disavow assistance, 'XDA Community' appears to embrace it. I in no way am trying to imply XDA endorses it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As xda-assist team we do no technical support, we just help the folks out there to find there way thru the different boards here on xda, we help them to help themselves, to find information and learn how to do things by their own..
As you mentioned you already found different threads referring to FRP it's best to study them and ask questions there..
Maybe you're lucky and find a solution..
Anyways, I appreciated your understanding
Good luck
Sent from my OnePlus 2 using XDA Labs
Hi guys. Couldn't find a thread on this but perhaps it's been discussed in other OnePlus subforums. Wanted an answer relating to the Nord though in case a new ROM is my only option in this regard. My question is: How concerning were the changes to OnePlus's privacy policy a few years back as they pertain to the Nord?
I'm not being unrealistic here, I'm not expecting anything close to absolute privacy but going back a bit to the pre-2018 privacy policy days - is that something that's possible or recommendable with this particular phone?
How easy is it to stop this data gathering - is it as significant as having to use Lineage or is this just a case of disabling the right settings? I understand you have to agree to the policy before you can even start using the phone.
Appreciate all the help as this will be a big deciding factor in going back to OnePlus!