Just curious as to which dev you think will put out the first stable rom based on t959 source? Not that first or fast is best, but i am sure they are all runnin on hyper-speed. My guess is dfa. I am a fan of all the big 3, but Masters updates are on point. Obviously Eugene killed the kernel race(nice job).
Blue 32 in the 4th.
My guess is Whitehawxx and or untermensch will have a deodex version out today
Then Einherjar/trigger/TW and Master team will get something out who know between those 3
I think they are all more surprised how much the leaks were right......
Isn't trigger part of the enjijar team?
And trigger is by bricked?
What the hell? it's kernel source, not Rom source....
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
No it's the entire FroYo source.
The ROMs here are fine, the kernels are the ones we needed the source for as they used to be based on the i9000 JPX FroYo source which hogged battery.
Our source is based on KA6 FroYo which should equal to better life!
Alanrocks15 said:
No it's the entire FroYo source.
The ROMs here are fine, the kernels are the ones we needed the source for as they used to be based on the i9000 JPX FroYo source which hogged battery.
Our source is based on KA6 FroYo which should equal to better life!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NO, no it's not. It's KERNEL SOURCE. the only rom source we have is from google.
It's source for a froyo kernel build KA6. Nothing more.
Can a experienced user please respond and tell us if its kernel source or froyo source???
i know what i'm talking about. it's kernel source. nothing more.
If it was rom source, then the GT-i9000 would have had rom source for a while. they've only had kernel source. And that's what we have now. kernel source.
If you don't believe me, then download the source and try to compile it yourself. you'll only end up with a kernel.
the only rom source we have is the AOSP source from google.
Time to set everyone straight.
It's Just KERNEL SOURCE!
The Platform dir within the source has NOTHING to do with a ROM, hell, doesn't even have anything to do with the kernel either.
Yes kernel code, but an intergeated kernel in one of these roms first was my poll question, not a flashable kernel. Thats all. Sorry to confuse.
feckmu said:
Yes kernel code, but an intergeated kernel in one of these roms first was my poll question, not a flashable kernel. Thats all. Sorry to confuse.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's already done
You guys really crack me up.lol Not everyone even if they read tutorials, actually understand some of the foreign (Technical/Terms) language that some of you guys speak. Some of you have unbelievable arrogance to assume that everyone speaks geek. I do understand most of what I have read here and have been able to make my Vibrant really preform much better than stock. But not all are able to. Some in fact do need to be hand held a little. But if that is not your thing then ignore them when they ask for help. But to belittle demean and flat out act an ass on a public forum is ghetto fabulous. I'm in healthcare and I know that even when I am trying to speak in simplistic terms that I still talk over most patient's heads. It's up to me to try to help them understand the best way I know how. So why don't some of you get your asses off of your shoulders and stop trippin'
FAIL hahahaha
Related
Forgive me if this is answered somewhere, I did search.
So Eugene got his hands on the 2.2 source code. It was apparently leaked to him by a contact he has. So Sammy hasn't officially released the 2.2 source code?
So my second part of this question is this:
If Eugene has a leaked source code, why are there so many tests in his thread? I mean if it's the source code shouldn't it just work perfect once compiled?
I'm obviously no developer so that's why I have these "noob" questions. I just wanted to get some info on this subject of this source code Eugene has is all. Just don't understand all these tests if its the actual source and if it is the actual source code, why aren't the rest of the devs, including Cyanogen , jumping all over this and making ROMS based off it?
Thanks for any help regarding these questions of mine
The source that most are using is from either Euro9000 but then Samsung released the Captivate 959D (ATT) 2.2 source code. It is pretty close to our T-959 (TMO) and since that release in the last 10 days or so, every Dev has gone through this source code and updated their ROMS. The captivate and Vibrant are almost the same in build but not exactly the same.
To the second part, since they are not exactly the same... then testing to tweak it correctly for the Vibrant platform is necessary. That is why all the testing
Hope that helps
From what I've read source had only been mentioned in regards to the kernel, nothing else. I've also read that some of samsung's changes to the kernel have resulted in greater battery drain than the 2.1 kernel.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Thanks for your help and answers!
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
So I had always heard that we would see CM development ramp up after the 2.2 source was out. I went over to http://cmsgs.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page to see how things were going. This place is almost dead except for git updates and a little irc discussion. I was thinking it may just be because so few of the developers on XDA know about CMSGS. Well its a project to put AOSP builds of cyanogen on SGS phones like the Vibrant. If you dont know about the project head over and stur up some conversation, and maybe some code.
Forum http://cmsgs.com/phpbb/
Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/CMSGSTeam
Wiki http://cmsgs.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Building for the Vibrant http://cmsgs.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Build_CyanogenMod_for_Samsung_Vibrant#Setup_Directories
The code https://github.com/cmsgs
On a serious note, I think everybody really does know about Cyanogenmod (CM7) and if they had the capabilities and want to do so, they would be helping. I knew about CM before I discovered XDA. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, the reason CM7 is a slow going process right now is that the source to the drivers have not been released... That is unless the latest source release contains those...
ahronzombi said:
So I had always heard that we would see CM development ramp up after the 2.2 source was out. I went over to http://cmsgs.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page to see how things were going. This place is almost dead except for git updates and a little irc discussion. I was thinking it may just be because so few of the developers on XDA know about CMSGS. Well its a project to put AOSP builds of cyanogen on SGS phones like the Vibrant. If you dont know about the project head over and stur up some conversation, and maybe some code.
Forum http://cmsgs.com/phpbb/
Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/CMSGSTeam
Wiki http://cmsgs.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Building for the Vibrant http://cmsgs.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Build_CyanogenMod_for_Samsung_Vibrant#Setup_Directories
The code https://github.com/cmsgs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have a vibrant? Stupid question I know but its confusing when you have Nexus One and G1 on you signature. Anyhow how do you make a signature lol sorry? Well hopefully more people help the dev thats porting CM7.
A good CM6 isn't even out yet. Hence I see the purpose for it since the source code is out. Who cares about some broke ass CM7. We will have to wait months if ever the source code comes out for gingerbread on the vibrant. I see no point trying to port the CM7 to the vibrant at all. I do see a lot of sense to get a nice clean running CM6, hence the post is a good one.
BlackVision said:
A good CM6 isn't even out yet. Hence I see the purpose for it since the source code is out. Who cares about some broke ass CM7. We will have to wait months if ever the source code comes out for gingerbread on the vibrant. I see no point trying to port the CM7 to the vibrant at all. I do see a lot of sense to get a nice clean running CM6, hence the post is a good one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We don't NEED source for CM7. Considering almost no phones have Gingerbread source, they wouldn't even be working on CM7 like they are if this was a deal breaker. You know the saying "don't knock it 'till you've tried it"? Maybe you should adhere to this as CM7 actually runs pretty well on the Vibrant already.
Now, to respond to the OP. I realize a lot of people were expecting some change in development speed for CM7 with the release of source, but there was no reason for this. Nothing has changed or should change. The source we have now is barely applicable if at all to CM7.
Honestly, though, if you look at the list of bugs, it's not that long or severe. The only real non-issue issue is the complicated installation, which they have no reason to improve until they're satisfied with the rom.
MWBehr said:
Honestly, though, if you look at the list of bugs, it's not that long or severe. The only real non-issue issue is the complicated installation, which they have no reason to improve until they're satisfied with the rom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you point me in the direction or post a "how to" to the installation of CM7?
kaizasoshi said:
Can you point me in the direction or post a "how to" to the installation of CM7?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go to the i9000 android development forums, it will explain everything.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Or go to the Vibrant General section for some more CM7 info..
@dumdidum on twitter said he ordered a Vibrant so Im sure he will help port it to the Vibrant once he receives it.
they already started adding the vibrant to the source the other day but i been running it fine from the i9000 plus what scrizz said for the modem and a toggle headset widget
BlackVision said:
A good CM6 isn't even out yet. Hence I see the purpose for it since the source code is out. Who cares about some broke ass CM7. We will have to wait months if ever the source code comes out for gingerbread on the vibrant. I see no point trying to port the CM7 to the vibrant at all. I do see a lot of sense to get a nice clean running CM6, hence the post is a good one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think thats a good place to start, i would prefer CM6over any existing vibrant rom (sorry not a insult to existing roms)
If their were any dev's that really wanted CM on their Vibrant it would have been done by now or there is something that is really holding them back. I don't know why anyone would want to lose functionality for a little extra speed. Side by side CM7 on the Nexus S is almost identical to the Vibrant running BionixV, why would you want to give up video codec's and a better UI for that? I would love to get Bionix V on my Nexus over CM or stock Gingerbread any day.
I use to see Cyanogen as a god of android back when I had the G1. His ROM was the ONLY thing I ever put on my G1.
I know that the Cyanogen team really only does a lot with HTC handsets since HTC is AWESOME with giving out the source to their drivers. And I was so hoping to see it on my Vibrant, but in all honesty I've given up the dream of seeing a stable build for the Vibrant.
Samsung don't play nice like HTC with what sources they release so I know it's tough for CM team go get a 100% stable rom for Vibrant.
The devs we have here that do make roms for our phones are the greatest. Team Whiskey, Team Einherjar, Eugene, Master... They all do such great work and also calaborate and make my Vibrant so awesome and sleek. So honestly I am not holding my breath for a stable and easy to install CM Mod ROM for our phones. Tho I would like to see one, I'm totally happy with the ROMS we do have to pick from..
Anyways, Good luck to all of you devs who are working on porting CM over or working on an actual CM ROM for our phones.
But for now, I'm loving those ROMS we do have.
Ill help as soon as I can get a new motherboard for my pc
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
Im working on building a update.zip from CM source, but i cant promise ill succeed as there isnt a lot of documentation for this device due to the lack of people working on this branch of cyanogen. If i get a flashable update ill post it, maybe that will inspire someone who can actually dev and not just build existing source code.
Okay this is where im stuck, its a documentation issue look at http://cmsgs.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Build_CyanogenMod_for_Samsung_Vibrant#Configure_Build
when i get to lunch cyanogen_vibrant-eng i get this error
Code:
build/core/product_config.mk:190: *** _nic.PRODUCTS.[[device/samsung/vibrant/full_vibrant.mk]]: "build/target/product/full_base.mk" does not exist. Stop.
** Don't have a product spec for: 'cyanogen_vibrant'
** Do you have the right repo manifest?
Im sure its a simple config fix, if someone can figure this out and update the code or the wiki we may have fixed the one part of the build process that scares devs away. Im too stupid to fix this
Moved of: Samsung Vibrant > Vibrant Android Development
To: Samsung Vibrant > Vibrant Q&A
Please put your questions to: Vibrant Q&A
Ill b up and running soon working on a vibrant specific build once I'm completely done with ToXic 1.0 =3
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
I am considering buying the SGS2 very soon. I am going to root it but here is my question. If I wait to get pushed the ATT update to 4.0 ICS do I have to flash back to stock just to root it? I want to wait for the stock push of 4.0 and just wipe off the bloatware and not have to worry about custom ROMs etc. Thanks for the help.
Currently running captivate with cognition 4.5.3 froyo.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Re: Root sgs2 after ATT update to ICS
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
You should be able to root after the update. But we don't know yet for sure.
Way too early to tell. You aren't going to see an official AT&T ICS OTA update for many months - if the Captivate is any indicator, not for at least a year.
Just wait for a Rom to be made , im sure one will be as soon as the sources are avail... I stopped doing the Ota upgrades when i realized its easier to just change the Rom.... So root... imo
Entropy512 said:
Way too early to tell. You aren't going to see an official AT&T ICS OTA update for many months - if the Captivate is any indicator, not for at least a year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm hoping ATT/Samsung push it sooner because it's still one of ATT's highest end phones.
Of course, this is just wishful thinking.
Sent from my A500 using xda premium
Reading this thread, suddenly triggering me asking this question, I don't know why I haven't asked before: is there any ongoing development for ICS ROM?
I assume most of the custom ROMs surface in here are Gingerbread based OS.
votinh said:
Reading this thread, suddenly triggering me asking this question, I don't know why I haven't asked before: is there any ongoing development for ICS ROM?
I assume most of the custom ROMs surface in here are Gingerbread based OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No source for ics yet so there is no development. Look in general forum there is a sticky talking about it. There is also Cm9 but it's not fully working yet on our device.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA App
eep2378 said:
No source for ics yet so there is no development. Look in general forum there is a sticky talking about it. There is also Cm9 but it's not fully working yet on our device.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is development
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA App
eep2378 said:
No source for ics yet so there is no development. Look in general forum there is a sticky talking about it. There is also Cm9 but it's not fully working yet on our device.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google did release ICS source codes about a month ago, I'm sure you know that.
Alright, so only CM dev. team currently working on this then.
Thanks
votinh said:
Google did release ICS source codes about a month ago, I'm sure you know that.
Alright, so only CM dev. team currently working on this then.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's base platform source for Nexus devices with not a single bit of source for anything specific to the I9100 or I777.
You really need to educate yourself on what source has and has not been released, and what that source means and is used for, before posting crap like this.
Basically, I could spend a few hundred hours trying to port the 2.6.35.x drivers for Samsung-specific items to a vanilla Linux 3.0 kernel - only to have a halfassed buggy release ready after Samsung releases official ICS with kernel source for the I9100, which can be ported to the I777 in a matter of a few hours of work.
The CM dev team is not working on ICS for the I777 either - to get anything even working on the I9100 they had to resort to something they almost NEVER do, which is an initramfs repack of a binary kernel. Getting an I9100 binary kernel to work properly on an I777 is simply not possible - you can repack the initramfs all you want, the audio routing code will be different and so will the touchkey mapping code.
The only ICS development that will occur on the I777 prior to I9100 kernel source getting released (or an I777-specific leak showing up) is some basic reverse engineering efforts (mainly focused in audio routing), since the library swap Hellraiser uses can't be done with ICS (depends on audio blobs extracted from an I777 device.)
Entropy512 said:
That's base platform source for Nexus devices with not a single bit of source for anything specific to the I9100 or I777.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did i ever mention about Nexus devices which running ICS, ehhh?
You really need to educate yourself on what source has and has not been released, and what that source means and is used for, before posting crap like this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wowww!!!
Just posted once sentence and being tagged with "crap like this"? LOL
By reading my English, do you understand that I just said Google has released ICS source codes? Did you see I am saying Google has released ICS source codes for I9100 or this specific i777, huh? Did you read and understand or just premature assumption?
Or you are telling me that you never know Google has release ICS source code?
Basically, I could spend a few hundred hours trying to port the 2.6.35.x drivers for Samsung-specific items to a vanilla Linux 3.0 kernel - only to have a halfassed buggy release ready after Samsung releases official ICS with kernel source for the I9100, which can be ported to the I777 in a matter of a few hours of work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you the one who create Entropy512 DD kernel? If yes, every minute you spent is well appreciated, left alone a few hundred of hours.
If so, yes, you seem to be very smart in Android field but in life, learn to grow up and act nicely, politely to others. Get some love, kiddo.
The CM dev team is not working on ICS for the I777 either - to get anything even working on the I9100 they had to resort to something they almost NEVER do, which is an initramfs repack of a binary kernel. Getting an I9100 binary kernel to work properly on an I777 is simply not possible - you can repack the initramfs all you want, the audio routing code will be different and so will the touchkey mapping code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, I don't know who is working on what so I asked. One of the poster mentioned about CM, so I just repeat it.
If they currently do it, great.
If they currently do not do it, it's ok.
I am just asking, 'cuz in B&N NOOKcolor forum, a lot of XDA dev. is WORKING on ICS ROM from ICS source code that released a while a go.
I thought XDA dev. in this room will also do the same.
The only ICS development that will occur on the I777 prior to I9100 kernel source getting released (or an I777-specific leak showing up) is some basic reverse engineering efforts (mainly focused in audio routing), since the library swap Hellraiser uses can't be done with ICS (depends on audio blobs extracted from an I777 device.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good too know.
I've learnt something.
Thanks
votinh said:
Did i ever mention about Nexus devices which running ICS, ehhh?
Wowww!!!
Just posted once sentence and being tagged with "crap like this"? LOL
By reading my English, do you understand that I just said Google has released ICS source codes? Did you see I am saying Google has released ICS source codes for I9100 or this specific i777, huh? Did you read and understand or just premature assumption?
Or you are telling me that you never know Google has release ICS source code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another poster said we were waiting for source.
You replied to him saying Google posted source over a month ago. Thus implying that you thought that Nexus platform source would actually be sufficient on its own to get our device running ICS - it isn't, it's nowhere close.
I'm sick and tired of repeated "WHERE'S ICS? GOOGLE POSTED SOURCE OVER A MONTH AGO!" posts.
Entropy512 said:
Another poster said we were waiting for source.
You replied to him saying Google posted source over a month ago. Thus implying that you thought that Nexus platform source would actually be sufficient on its own to get our device running ICS - it isn't, it's nowhere close.
I'm sick and tired of repeated "WHERE'S ICS? GOOGLE POSTED SOURCE OVER A MONTH AGO!" posts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Another poster" I assume you meant "eep2378, one that posted right above my "crappy post"?
Firstly, if eep not getting itchy, why you?
Secondly, I don't know what he meant about ICS for Nexus, and even if he meant that, he didn't spell out so I thought he meant the general ICS source code. In his next sentence, he actually mentioned about CM team working on it, even not fully function, w/o waiting for this specific phone ICS source code, so I thought he meant they, CM team are using the general source code, just like XDA dev. in B&N NOOKcolor room.
Thirdly, and if eep irritated about my post, I apologize him.
Now back to you, let's square and clear up all confuse, hardness.
You're a talented kid, good, keep it up. If you know something, teach us, I'm sure a lot of others will learn from you and quietly appreciate.
Be socialize with people around you, in real life or in cyber.
To the ICS related questions, if you don't want to answer, DO NOT answer, there's no one forces you to do so. There is no point to irritate about it.
votinh said:
"Another poster" I assume you meant "eep2378, one that posted right above my "crappy post"?
Firstly, if eep not getting itchy, why you?
Secondly, I don't know what he meant about ICS for Nexus, and even if he meant that, he didn't spell out so I thought he meant the general ICS source code. In his next sentence, he actually mentioned about CM team working on it, even not fully function, w/o waiting for this specific phone ICS source code, so I thought he meant they, CM team are using the general source code, just like XDA dev. in B&N NOOKcolor room.
Thirdly, and if eep irritated about my post, I apologize him.
Now back to you, let's square and clear up all confuse, hardness.
You're a talented kid, good, keep it up. If you know something, teach us, I'm sure a lot of others will learn from you and quietly appreciate.
Be socialize with people around you, in real life or in cyber.
To the ICS related questions, if you don't want to answer, DO NOT answer, there's no one forces you to do so. There is no point to irritate about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok let me try to clear up some confusion:
1) Nexus source code has nothing to do with I9100 or I777
2) I didn't mention anything about ICS for Nexus because(see #1) and this is the I777 forum NOT Nexus(another reason why I didn't mention it)
3)I mentioned CM9 because(RIGHT NOW) its the only thing that even approaches getting ICS on I9100 forget the I777. And Even Codeworkx(OP for CM9 aka Dev) is WAITING for ICS SOURCE to drop FOR THE I9100.
Only then, as Entropy said, are we able to get it working on the I777
4)I'm not "itchy" or irritated in the least and there is no need for an apology. Having said that I am fairly tired of reading posts about ICS source code being dropped/when are we getting ICS?/ Can ICS run on my I777?, etc.
Finally, ICS source code dropped FOR THE GALAXY NEXUS!! What does that mean for us?? SEE #1!!
@Entropy, I responded to you in another thread(in Q&A) Porting Bezke ICS KP8(yeah I know another one lol) regarding comments you made on Captivate and I9000 kernels being similar but I9100 and I777 not sharing the same similarities.
I'm sure you never went back to that thread, but didn't want bother you via pm
---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------
Nick281051 said:
There is development
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the I777? Where?
I don't want to sound ignorant, but Samsung always releases the kernel source along with the ROM?
I apologize for my noobish question, but how are the ASOP builds starting to roll out w/o source being released?? I understand you can compile aosp builds on your own, but doesnt the source code provide all the tweaks you need to optimize it on a device to device basis?
There's no ICS source for the Captivate either, but we are officially supported on CM9. Very glad!
Sent from my Captivate using Tapatalk!
if there is good source from another device that is near this one then porting could be possible.
The short answer is a combination of two things based on what I can tell.
They are actually using the existing kernel for the leaked ICS roms and beginning to dissect them. As far as I know, the current AOKP roms being used are using either an unmodified original kernel from ULD3 or 'very slightly' modified/patched kernel from ULD3 with a few tweaks for overclocking support and whatnot.
As far as what is happening with the Captivate, I believe they are taking heavy sections from the Gingerbread source code and splicing it in to their ICS kernel and changing what they need to for ICS compatibility.
Also, similar devices that have ICS source code floating around can also be spliced up.
I am only speculating here since I am not involved in the projects, if someone knows more than I, feel free to speak up.
I've asked in two ROM threads and nobody seems to know... why do the ICS and JB ROMs all use the Froyo kernel? According to Wikipedia's article on Android history, ICS uses Linux kernel 3.0.1 and JB uses 3.1.10. However, both JB ROMs I've tried (Paranoid Android 1.95 and joker's CM10 0.1.1) use 2.6.32.9, which the article says is the Froyo kernel. Shouldn't we at least have the 2.6.35 kernel Gingerbread comes with? Why Froyo?
Just wondering. I'm not even sure why it matters, or if it matters. A fellow geek just thought it was weirder than having 102% battery when fully charged, so I figured I'd ask.
Dark Reality said:
I've asked in two ROM threads and nobody seems to know... why do the ICS and JB ROMs all use the Froyo kernel? According to Wikipedia's article on Android history, ICS uses Linux kernel 3.0.1 and JB uses 3.1.10. However, both JB ROMs I've tried (Paranoid Android 1.95 and joker's CM10 0.1.1) use 2.6.32.9, which the article says is the Froyo kernel. Shouldn't we at least have the 2.6.35 kernel Gingerbread comes with? Why Froyo?
Just wondering. I'm not even sure why it matters, or if it matters. A fellow geek just thought it was weirder than having 102% battery when fully charged, so I figured I'd ask.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because of the lack of what the devs need. We would need to wait for the official Atrix/Photon ICS leaks to get those kernels
Sent from my undervolted, underclocked, power saving Motorola Atrix.
tatperson said:
Because of the lack of what the devs need. We would need to wait for the official Atrix/Photon ICS leaks to get those kernels
Sent from my undervolted, underclocked, power saving Motorola Atrix.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try not to think of it in terms of Android versions, but rather, Linux Kernel versions. I believe it is because the 2.6.32 kernel is considered near perfect in terms of stability. Many Linux distributions use that kernel when they want to offer an extremely stable experience to their user base. For bleeding edge features but less stability, most distributions will use version 3+ of the Linux kernel. My guess is that since it is a standard of sorts because of being well-tested, it's just easier to rely on until we are provided with a later version. Just my two cents.
And why wait for Google release of Android 5.0? Why won't we do it ourselves.
tatperson said:
Because of the lack of what the devs need. We would need to wait for the official Atrix/Photon ICS leaks to get those kernels
Sent from my undervolted, underclocked, power saving Motorola Atrix.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, that would make sense if we had the GB kernel, 2.6.35. We have the Froyo kernel, and, AFAIK, there's not even a Froyo ROM for the Photon. Why would there be? It's a Gingerbread phone.
Acvice said:
Try not to think of it in terms of Android versions, but rather, Linux Kernel versions. I believe it is because the 2.6.32 kernel is considered near perfect in terms of stability. Many Linux distributions use that kernel when they want to offer an extremely stable experience to their user base. For bleeding edge features but less stability, most distributions will use version 3+ of the Linux kernel. My guess is that since it is a standard of sorts because of being well-tested, it's just easier to rely on until we are provided with a later version. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This makes sense, and I understand what you mean about Linux kernel versions. I understand the kernel is modular. Once when I was trying Ubuntu, I got a kernel update. Didn't affect anything, just had to reboot. Couldn't tell what it changed.
Also, I just noticed that AOKP Build 8 uses kernel 3.0.1, according to the screenshot on the left. Kinda torn on trying AOKP. On one hand, I'm not a "pink unicorns" kind of guy. On the other, the default wallpaper and status bar icons are nice. Another AOKP ROM featured a pretty cool textured status bar. But when I asked what AOKP had over CyanogenMod, the only answer I got was "swagger". In fact... well, that's a completely different topic. New Topic button, here I come. Hopefully the powers that be will see this as valuable conversation, not spamming up the boards...
//edit: AOKP screenshot lies, it uses the same kernel as the rest (screenshot is of another device, to be fair).
Dark Reality said:
Well, that would make sense if we had the GB kernel, 2.6.35. We have the Froyo kernel, and, AFAIK, there's not even a Froyo ROM for the Photon. Why would there be? It's a Gingerbread phone.
This makes sense, and I understand what you mean about Linux kernel versions. I understand the kernel is modular. Once when I was trying Ubuntu, I got a kernel update. Didn't affect anything, just had to reboot. Couldn't tell what it changed.
Also, I just noticed that AOKP Build 8 uses kernel 3.0.1, according to the screenshot on the left. Kinda torn on trying AOKP. On one hand, I'm not a "pink unicorns" kind of guy. On the other, the default wallpaper and status bar icons are nice. Another AOKP ROM featured a pretty cool textured status bar. But when I asked what AOKP had over CyanogenMod, the only answer I got was "swagger". In fact... well, that's a completely different topic. New Topic button, here I come. Hopefully the powers that be will see this as valuable conversation, not spamming up the boards...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AOKP has more features than cyanogen, and dont mind the pink unicorn. Its only a boot animation. And the AOKP team changed it here recently so it really doesnt look as obtrusive as it used to. CNA happens to be my personal favorite.
Well, I kept the boot animation from CM10, which I really like, so whatever ROM I stick with will probably just use that, unless I find something better.
Using AOKP now. A little annoying that I can't add lock slider items, but I can live with it. I see what they mean by swagger -- it's a toggle. I think it's like "Awesomeness Detection" in Rockband 2. That is, a toggle option that does nothing but confuses the user or makes them think they're doing something special. A placebo. But in reality there is no code to it. (I'm assuming about AOKP. Harmonix confirmed this about Rockband 2 -- 3 years after the game shipped.) But yeah, boot animation is fine for now (if a little small). And I'm actually using an AOKP wallpaper. It's the one with the shadow of the guy with the swords. Pretty awesome. (Is that what UnicornPorn.apk is? The wallpapers?)
Curious about CNA but I'm going to give AOKP a few days to settle in. Battery is a big thing for me though.
its actually a nvidia thing, i imagine a quick google search between linus and nvidia will tell ya how he feels about them ;P. (if you dont believe me the transformer lineup has 2.6.39 as its ICS kernel)
you can use any kernel version you want so long as it has all the proper stuff in it, the big thing most people overlook tho is not a lot of people look at the linux kernel and see all the commits. which if you are making kernels i highly suggest you do as there was some awesome battery saving stuff in 2.6.38 as well as some overall speedups.
the version number changing is used to signify a stable release. like 3.0 or 3.1, 3.2 etc.
its entirely possible (hell sometimes needed for some kernel sources) to take what the OEM provides take the corresponding linux kernel (in this case 2.6.32) and overlay the oem code. the reason why most dont do it is cuz it takes a long time. once you have the linux tree merged with your device specific files you can then backport patches much easier.. and at that point you could have a 3.x kernel using the same 2.6.32 stuff from the oem. wont help you overall on booting and fixing camera etc in ics but it will give ya plenty of improvements in just the kernel itself
Dark Reality said:
I've asked in two ROM threads and nobody seems to know... why do the ICS and JB ROMs all use the Froyo kernel? According to Wikipedia's article on Android history, ICS uses Linux kernel 3.0.1 and JB uses 3.1.10. However, both JB ROMs I've tried (Paranoid Android 1.95 and joker's CM10 0.1.1) use 2.6.32.9, which the article says is the Froyo kernel. Shouldn't we at least have the 2.6.35 kernel Gingerbread comes with? Why Froyo?
Just wondering. I'm not even sure why it matters, or if it matters. A fellow geek just thought it was weirder than having 102% battery when fully charged, so I figured I'd ask.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well from a laymen point of view i run and love most of th3bills roms(PORTS) from jokersax.com and considering my mopho(photon) is over a year old and getting almost 7000 antutu and 4000+ quadrant scores(which makes a new GALAXY NEXUS STOCK LOOK SLOW)...i don't care what kernel when im blazing like that.lol If its kicking azz dont fix