Database Info

[DISCUSS]Fragmentation-Potential of android if OEMs used something like Xposed?

Ok, first up
Rules of this discussion
This is a discussion not a baited question and I certainly hope not a flame war.
If you have an opinion please do share and discuss :good: all opinions will be valid. My only rules are please refrain from personal attacks to any member responding, if your opinion differs you can only discuss your take on a specific point in total exclusion anyone who posted that has a differing opinion to you. In other words I am making a rule that you can't respond directly to the previous person about how "you think they are wrong because".....you may only express your opinion, trust me....we are humans we will understand how it is similar or different. I want to try it this was in hope this might reduce the likelihood of fights/arguments or this thread getting locked.
How this came about
Now, how this came about is my wondering of where the future of Android is headed? I know Google has some plans with Android silver and there has been long discussions and opinions on potential "scheduled releases" so it left me wondering how this fits in with OEMs with the push to try release their version of "branded" firmware within similar time frames to Google's vanilla android/Nexus/soon to be "silver" Android? I started to ponder the potential of OEMs releasing standard Android with all their customization bundled up in say something similar to Xposed framework.
The current status
I understand that several OEMs have their own frameworks already, like touchwiz, rosie, sense what ever, but they still rely on a heavily modified version of the Android framework at their core; what if all of those changes were shifted to an "Xposed like" solution. Note: I explicitly say "Xposed like" for the fact that Xposed is actually a developer solution and is not licensed for commercial use and never was.
Discuss
All objections aside, Do users here think that potential for Android would be greatly improved if this was a possibility?
You are open to your opinion now, and I am already pre-empting many of the responses any number of objections of what it couldn't and wouldn't happen, so lay them out here, I am actually keen to see if other people have the same objections as I currently do and even more interested in hearing from members that have potential solutions to the various challenges
Maybe a simple Pros and Cons combined with challenges and solutions.
Pros:
Android could potentially become less fragmented
Android releases could become more streamline and speedier
Cons
Could mean a lot less diversity (and this is some of the reasons people appreciate and love Android)
OEM customisations would become less personalised and much easier to port (this is a pro for us but a con for OEMs who invest heavily in many of their customisations so that users can only have certain functionality on their devices)
If you think another layout or even a poll would be better then let us know and share your thoughts on where this thread should go
Cheers

Rule 12 - A New beginning

Good morning/evening,
As discussed in the other thread we started regarding changes to our site, we promised that we would change things around a bit and one of them was the long standing Sharing Rule (also known as Rule 12). We have worked diligently with the administration and moderation teams to turn the one we had into something that would make developer's works a bit safer from stealing and other unsavory things.
This thread is not meant as an announcement but rather as an open discussion platform so that you (the members/developers) can weigh in before we write it in the stone tablet along with the rest of them. This will be an open discussion regarding this topic only. Also, unlike the previous thread, which was more of a TownHall type of thread, this one WILL be moderated. In other words,
* keep the thread on topic;
* Unrelated posts will be removed;
* Members not adhering to the above two will be disciplined.
We look forward to having good, meaningful feedback from all of you (otherwise we would have added this to the rules like we always do). We want to have good, positive change into this community to make it into a pleasant atmosphere for all.
Without further ado, I give you the beta draft of Rule 12
Rule 12 - Sharing
XDA-Developers is based on the principle of sharing to transmit knowledge. This is the cornerstone of our site. Our members and developers freely share their experience, knowledge, and finished works with the rest of the community to promote growth within the developer community, and to encourage those still learning to become better. There are those, however, who take advantage of this model and try to make personal gains from the hard work of others.
In order to preserve the delicate balance between sharing for the good of the community and blatant self-promotion, regular members and developers alike must understand (and agree) to the following:
12-1. Give credits where due - Credits and acknowledgements for using and releasing work which is based on someone else's work are an absolute must. Works reported to have no credits will be taken down until proper acknowledgements are added by the member in question;
12-2. Courtesy - While most of the work released on our site falls under the umbrella of open source, that is not the only license model being used by developers on xda-developers. In order to prevent problems, we ask that if you decide to base your work on someone else's that you check the license model being used (as it might not be as permissive as one may think);
12-3. Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
12-4. Developers can issue take down requests (by contacting the Dev Relations team) under the following circumstances:
- in-process builds start showing up on forums when the developer is not yet ready to release the work;
- cases in which another developer is too aggressively soliciting donations or misrepresenting the work (kanging);
- unofficial builds where an official build is already available;
In summary, we want people to have access to work and knowledge alike. Sharing is good and courtesy and ethics go a long way.
Developers with questions, comments, complaints, or concerns about our rules (or anything!) should send a PM to our Dev Relations team (efrant or sykopompos) or to a Moderator. We are here to help!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have at it!

Liking what I am seeing. Well done

zelendel said:
Liking what I am seeing. Well done
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey bud
Kinda miss seeing you around
Hope you are well....

I like it

looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:

BeansTown106 said:
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's clarify, for all those developers that have no issue with unofficial builds, they can stay. This would only come into play for those developers who do not wish to allow unofficial builds. A suggestion would be to add that to your OP (many just use a C&P OP with specifics for the device being posted) if you don't want unofficial builds posted.
We will not be removing unofficial builds just for the sake of removing them. The current procedure would be followed, where you would report the post using our Report post feature, making mention in the report that you do not allow unofficial builds of your work.

Much better than the old version. One suggestion: When mentioning licenses, make it explicit that distributing any GPL software (like Linux or TWRP) requires making the source code available.

BeansTown106 said:
looks good to me, no unofficial builds of officially supported devices is the icing on the cake :good: :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.

_that said:
Much better than the old version. One suggestion: When mentioning licenses, make it explicit that distributing any GPL software (like Linux or TWRP) requires making the source code available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We did consider that. But there far too many different types of licenses out there to put them in writing. Thus, we needed a more general model. The gpl requirements still stand, not because of our rules but because of gpl itself. Our rules never have and never will truncate license requirements.

jerdog said:
Let's clarify, for all those developers that have no issue with unofficial builds, they can stay. This would only come into play for those developers who do not wish to allow unofficial builds. A suggestion would be to add that to your OP (many just use a C&P OP with specifics for the device being posted) if you don't want unofficial builds posted.
We will not be removing unofficial builds just for the sake of removing them. The current procedure would be followed, where you would report the post using our Report post feature, making mention in the report that you do not allow unofficial builds of your work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea thats what i figured, basically developers who allow unofficials can stay, and those who dont are now allowed to report for takedown
coal686 said:
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that seems fair enough and makes total sense

Don't see any flaws in there. Great job!
Sent from my YUNIQUE using XDA Labs

egzthunder1 said:
Hey bud
Kinda miss seeing you around
Hope you are well....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All is well. Hope they are with you as well.
I'm always around lol just wanted to step back for a bit while everything was sorted.
This revision to the rule is long in coming. And seems just about perfect. Ill post my thoughts more after my gf birthday dinner tonight.

coal686 said:
Just to clarify that point, it only applies if the official build is already out.
Scenario: A ROM team says they don't plan to support phone X because no one on the team owns it and is fine with someone else porting it. So, a non-affiliated developer ports the ROM, but a year later, a member of the official team gets phone X and wants to officially support it. At the point of the release of the official build, no other unofficial builds are allowed, but the original one is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be fair to that developer if his unofficial build that he worked on for the last year was shut down just because someone on the official team changed his mind on owning a device.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for the ROM team to work with and pass on knowledge that helps the unofficial developer and maybe even include him on the team if his work is good.
By the way, none of this is set in stone, so if anyone disagrees with the handling of the above scenario or anything in the revised rule, please provide feedback. We don't necessarily want to get too bogged down in minutiae, but we also want the rule to properly reflect what the community wants. Because in the end, XDA is the community and we are here to support each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Very well explained.

Hopefully this goes some way to help developers feel like they want to be here and have a bit more control of their work. Great initiative

Nice job!

I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).

Jonny said:
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In that case, ROM developers can just start modifying the Apache license to say explicitly that unofficial builds of officially supported devices are not allowed to be distributed. Because they complied with the AOSP's Apache license when forking the work, they can set their own terms at will. I don't like that though because then every ROM is going to have their own license terms and it'd become a complete nightmare to work with.

Jonny said:
I agree with Zelendel and I think, as does he, that this revision to rule 12 is just about perfect, the only thing I would question is the unofficial builds thing... Technically if the work is licensed under Apache (sort of) or GPL (definitely) then we don't have much say in the matter (3rd party license should still outweigh our rules).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's the case, someone could post a GPL-licensed tool to circumvent payment in paid apps on XDA. So clearly 3rd party licenses do not outweigh forum rules.

The Flash said:
In that case, ROM developers can just start modifying the Apache license to say explicitly that unofficial builds of officially supported devices are not allowed to be distributed. Because they complied with the AOSP's Apache license when forking the work, they can set their own terms at will. I don't like that though because then every ROM is going to have their own license terms and it'd become a complete nightmare to work with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree totally, that would make our job a nightmare like you said. I don't think we are ever going to get a solution that makes everyone 100% happy but I think the new change is about the best we are ever going to get, it's great that it has been well received by both mods and devs

I'm not a dev so i know this doesn't apply to people like me, but can this be explained to me - I'm not clever enough to figure this out:
Rule 12-3 from your new beta draft states:
Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my previous post in that other thread:
Attention:
Redistribution, modifying files used within this project's file or integrating with other projects are prohibited with no exceptions other than my projects.
Making mirrors, re-uploading to another servers are also prohibited with no exceptions.
If you will do something which prohibited ask me for permission. If you do without my permission i will report you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He never owned the htc/samsung/lg created rom in the first place, and didn't create any of the mods within his rom.
From what i can tell with the new rule, as long as he gives credits to the original creator of the mods within his rom, he can still lock his rom down as he hasn't broken any rules.
I probably have the complete 'wrong end of the stick' here...

[ROM][unlocked][douglas] Lineage-14.1 [OCT 27 2020]

Removed For Lack of Initial TimeLine Knowledge And To Not Step On Toes

Reserved..

What's the point of this? Why you're sharing the ROM without my permission? Couldn't you just create a post in the LineageOS 12.1 thread with the link (instead creating the new thread - what I was going to do soon..-)?
At this point I'll release LineageOS 14.1 as-is tonight (and yes, I'll create my own thread - which was the initial idea.. -) because people doesn't seems to be able to wait for it.
Thanks for sharing my work (can we also say steal?) without my permission :good:
---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------
btw,
12.3. Re-releasing other's works as your own is forbidden. The code that you release into the wild must have something beyond minor aesthetic changes that makes it better than the last. As this can be subjective, kang reports will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you feel that your code has been kanged, please contact the Dev Relations team (listed below) if you cannot solve the issue amicably via PM. Please understand that you will be asked to provide evidence to substantiate your claim;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Rortiz2 said:
What's the point of this? Why you're sharing the ROM without my permission? Couldn't you just create a post in the LineageOS 12.1 thread with the link (instead creating the new thread - what I was going to do soon..-)?
At this point I'll release LineageOS 14.1 as-is tonight (and yes, I'll create my own thread - which was the initial idea.. -) because people doesn't seems to be able to wait for it.
Thanks for sharing my work (can we also say steal?) without my permission :good:
---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------
btw,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me just clear the air here. Fisrtly, one cannot "steal" something that is openly, publicly and freely available on github. In regards to the legal mumbo jumbo you posted, makes 0 sense to me and means nothing, since that is not the case we have here. I never once re-released anything, nor said anything about taking credit for the work you did. I simply put the rom together from open source materials, just as anyone in the world can /could do and released something that was not built and released. Big differences there. Now, had I hacked your github and started building and releasing your private folders, then what you are talking about would be on par with what you are posting. Long story short, I found the source, built the rom and tested it. I then uploaded the Rom and was in the middle of making this Main post when I came across your cm12.1 post mentioning 14.1. I then tagged you out of mutual respect for your work and personal feelings so that I would make sure that I wasn't stepping on your toes. I now know your feelings and that I am stepping on your toes. Because I have respect for you and your work, I have no problem deleting this thread and the Rom. Just didn't make sense to me at the time that somebody had done all that work and released no rom, so I thought I would be nice and help people out. The better thing to maybe have done, for the benefit of others confusion, is to make the 14.1 thread ahead of time, even if it's blank until release. Silly one would have to read hundreds of pages of cm12.1 stuff to get the gist of what's going on with unrelated 14.1 stuff. I do Apologize for any confusion on my part and any bad feelings you may now harbor. The Rom is your work and now that I know the timeline of things, I'll back off and let you handle it. I will be focusing on getting out more recoveries to compliment your rom. The recovery kernel is built using your sources but the device tree for it was fully made by me, so no confusion there. Again, sorry for basically beating you to the punch of your own release. Like I said, had I not read the cm12.1 posts, I never would have had a clue to any of this. Hopefully you can accept my apologies, move forward and be friends...

PizzaG said:
Let me just clear the air here. Fisrtly, one cannot "steal" something that is openly, publicly and freely available on github. In regards to the legal mumbo jumbo you posted, makes 0 sense to me and means nothing, since that is not the case we have here. I never once re-released anything, nor said anything about taking credit for the work you did. I simply put the rom together from open source materials, just as anyone in the world can /could do and released something that was not built and released. Big differences there. Now, had I hacked your github and started building and releasing your private folders, then what you are talking about would be on par with what you are posting. Long story short, I found the source, built the rom and tested it. I then uploaded the Rom and was in the middle of making this Main post when I came across your cm12.1 post mentioning 14.1. I then tagged you out of mutual respect for your work and personal feelings so that I would make sure that I wasn't stepping on your toes. I now know your feelings and that I am stepping on your toes. Because I have respect for you and your work, I have no problem deleting this thread and the Rom. Just didn't make sense to me at the time that somebody had done all that work and released no rom, so I thought I would be nice and help people out. The better thing to maybe have done, for the benefit of others confusion, is to make the 14.1 thread ahead of time, even if it's blank until release. Silly one would have to read hundreds of pages of cm12.1 stuff to get the gist of what's going on with unrelated 14.1 stuff. I do Apologize for any confusion on my part and any bad feelings you may now harbor. The Rom is your work and now that I know the timeline of things, I'll back off and let you handle it. I will be focusing on getting out more recoveries to compliment your rom. The recovery kernel is built using your sources but the device tree for it was fully made by me, so no confusion there. Again, sorry for basically beating you to the punch of your own release. Like I said, had I not read the cm12.1 posts, I never would have had a clue to any of this. Hopefully you can accept my apologies, move forward and be friends...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Yes, you're completely right there (my bad): you can't actually steal something that is public in the web (I'll try to keep my future work in private repos until it's stable then). I was just really pissed off to see someone shared the ROM that I was working on (so hard for almost 6 months) in a new thread without even waiting for me to allow you or something. But whatever, no offence here (I accept your apologies) and as I previously said (telegram) thanks for understanding my decision and thanks for deleting the ROM. I'll try my best to get stable 14.1 working as fast as possible and I'll release it once it's ready. If people really wants to try the beta of LineageOS 14.1 I'll create an special post in the 12.1 thread with all the stuff later.
About the recoveries I know you just used my kernel tree, I was talking about the device tree/vendor tree you used to build 14.1 (which are the ones I've been working on this months).
Regards and sorry for the confusion.

Hey Rortiz2.
Rortiz2 said:
If people really wants to try the beta of LineageOS 14.1 I'll create an special post in the 12.1 thread with all the stuff later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would make sense. If you do not want to publish your ROM yet fire at least a non-open beta to get the ROM faster and more stable. Let me know if I can support you here in any way.

I would love to be able to test lineage 14.1 on this device, I have been using 12 on it since it released

TWRP for Tilapia Nexus 7 3G

Hi, Anybody on XDA.
I Have started this thread, because I cannot find an answer to my Question, posted in Nexus 7 ROM Development.
"TWRP enquiries are Not Permitted in ROM Forums or Threads".
So my simple Question is as follows.
Whom is "Original TWRP Developer" for this device.
Asus Nexus 7 (2012) Tilapia (3G) 32GB 7" Tablet, same for Grouper (WiFi) .
Limited information is available on XDA, as many Developers have lost interest or abandoned, further updates for these devices, only @AndDiSa is updating lately, in 2021, & for last 4 years, as per OP.
Latest TWRP versions 3.4.0-0 (2020) and 3.5.0-9.0 (2021) releases on TWRP.ME are Robot generated, within "Team Win Jenkins" Server with Developer, being listed as "Jenkins". Some pseudo name, that the Server created.
Original TWRP Versions from 2012-2013 being 2.8** are obsolete, next was v3.3.0-0 that works for LOS 14 ROMs, being based on Android 7.1.2 released in 2017. So ALL versions, work successfully on @AndDiSa ROMs.
So after lots of research, I cannot locate whom, was the ,"Original Human Developer", that "Team Win" had moved into "TWRP Development and Support" for later updated versions.
Now available, when released, with latest security patches, every few months, via http://TWRP.me Repositories for Multiple Devices.
There are no changes in Format, in Partitions, that can be Backed up and Restored.
So being able to communicate with a Human, instead of a Machine.
Users can ask questions, directly as PM, within XDA.
Just want to know, whom is that person, ?????
Please Reply, if anyone can answer, my Simple Question.
Thanks & Cheers BeeJ1109

HI ALL,
4 days Nothing Surely someone can answer, or acknowledge that this thread has been read.
Please respond with something, anything.
I got told to start a new thread for TWRP by some official in XDA.
Having a go at me, told to leave the OP or Dev alone, He only answers questions about ROM, Not allowed to ask questions about TWRP.
So I did as requested.
NO Responses at this Time.
Cheers

BeeJ1109 said:
HI ALL,
4 days Nothing Surely someone can answer, or acknowledge that this thread has been read.
Please respond with something, anything.
I got told to start a new thread for TWRP by some official in XDA.
Having a go at me, told to leave the OP or Dev alone, He only answers questions about ROM, Not allowed to ask questions about TWRP.
So I did as requested.
NO Responses at this Time.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As stated in my PM: No one has any obligations to you or anyone else on this forum. You can ask a question but if no one can or even wants to answer it, that's just tough luck. You could try a different approach by proactively working out the answer on your own or rephrase the question. I personally don't believe knowing whom developed TWRP is going to help you. Finding the contributor(s) of your device here has more value. If there are none or they have discontinued support, well, that's just tough luck too I guess.

Timmmmaaahh said:
As stated in my PM: No one has any obligations to you or anyone else on this forum. You can ask a question but if no one can or even wants to answer it, that's just tough luck. You could try a different approach by proactively working out the answer on your own or rephrase the question. I personally don't believe knowing whom developed TWRP is going to help you. Finding the contributor(s) of your device here has more value. If there are none or they have discontinued support, well, that's just tough luck too I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for more useless info.
For your interest, there issues with this TWRP, discussing the issues, will at least be communicating with a human.
Simple, but I suspect you are on a different page.
Contributors for this device are no help, so far. The device may have unique restraints, but I doult that. It is 32GB Device, Samsung devices with 8GB have a larger System partition. Nexus 7 has 639 MB allocated, which severely limits, loading Gapps for starters, naming a partition to unique name being staging. Therefore certain apps are looking for persist partition.
Not supporting /system/add-on.d functions limits backup and restore, requiring Magisk root and Gapps to be reinstalled everytime a new ROM is updated. Another unique feature to this device.
Maybe I am being too Technical for you to understand.
Possibly the only person that understands my concerns is @AndDiSa the ROM Dev. Whom refuses to discuss TWRP.
So maybe, I will just put the device away in the drawer, like it was for last 7 years.
No big deal, I have lots of other devices, to play with.
Telling me to rephase my question or try to investigate it myself and people are not obligated to reply, are not helpful.
You are so full of your self importance, as so-called the appointed Forum moderator, that I feel you are missing the point, I am just asking a question, and adding some info, that is relevant to the questions.
So lighten up, as it is not life or death. Relax I really don't care.
I did as you asked, got no replies, apart from your thoughts.
In my opinion, Some on XDA are helpful, others are not.
Goodbye

BeeJ1109 said:
Thank you for more useless info.
For your interest, there issues with this TWRP, discussing the issues, will at least be communicating with a human.
Simple, but I suspect you are on a different page.
Contributors for this device are no help, so far. The device may have unique restraints, but I doult that. It is 32GB Device, Samsung devices with 8GB have a larger System partition. Nexus 7 has 639 MB allocated, which severely limits, loading Gapps for starters, naming a partition to unique name being staging. Therefore certain apps are looking for persist partition.
Not supporting /system/add-on.d functions limits backup and restore, requiring Magisk root and Gapps to be reinstalled everytime a new ROM is updated. Another unique feature to this device.
Maybe I am being too Technical for you to understand.
Possibly the only person that understands my concerns is @AndDiSa the ROM Dev. Whom refuses to discuss TWRP.
So maybe, I will just put the device away in the drawer, like it was for last 7 years.
No big deal, I have lots of other devices, to play with.
Telling me to rephase my question or try to investigate it myself and people are not obligated to reply, are not helpful.
You are so full of your self importance, as so-called the appointed Forum moderator, that I feel you are missing the point, I am just asking a question, and adding some info, that is relevant to the questions.
So lighten up, as it is not life or death. Relax I really don't care.
I did as you asked, got no replies, apart from your thoughts.
In my opinion, Some on XDA are helpful, others are not.
Goodbye
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi again BeeJ1109
I will not engage in any open emotional discussion. If you wish to do so, you are free to contact me via PM. The standards that you are holding me by can just as well be reflected upon yourself. I have made great efforts in assisting you and I never made any promises. XDA is not a customer service; though it is often mistaken as one. It's about contributing and mutual respect. I was not trying to be helpful, I'm merely asking for some respect towards the community and its members.
And you are absolutely correct: some are helpful, others are not. That is not limited to XDA.

Question ROM recommendation

Hello, I recently upgraded my ancient One Plus One (Cyanogen) to Poco X3 Pro. I haven't been keeping up with the developments in the rom community at all. As the whole Cynogen situation flew over my head. So I was wondering which one is currently the most robust rom out there. From what research I've done Lineage OS and Arrow OS seem to be the most popular for Poco X3 Pro. So I wanted to get the opinion of the community to make an informed choice, what OS will last me as long and function long as Cynogen did on my old phone has?

I'm currently on lineageos, I tried crdroid, paranoid Android, havoc os, xiaomi.eu, pixel experience, pixel extended, MSM xtended, kraken proyect, evolution X, derpfest, and I must forgot one or two more. The best experience I had was with havoc-os. All works great, superb stability and plenty customisation. Every rom I try after that just dissapoints me. They are so cluttered with malfunctioning features to be reliable or are so clean and minimalistic that you forgot is a custom rom, what is good if you gain speed and performance, but thats didn't happen to me.

I am on lineageos, super clean, as i don't mind lack of customization, and it's the mother of all roms as basically all roms are based on it and normally it's the last rom to abandoning a device....

Not on your list but I'm finding Derpfest as great on this device as on my previous devices.

THREAD LOCKED
As per the Forum Rules:
5. Create a thread topic or post a message only once, this includes external links & streaming media.
-snip-
-snip-
Duplicate threads and posts will be removed
Always post in an existing thread if a topic already exists, before creating a new thread.
-snip-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please search the forum for existing/similar threads before posting a new thread. For continuing discussion, kindly use the existing thread: https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/little-rom-choice-help.4296913/
Regards,
shadowstep
Forum Moderator