It looks like official CM9 builds are starting to come out again. . .
I tried to search for a definitive answer and came up empty. I know that we are not supposed to ask "when?" but I just wanted to confirm "IF" the HP Touchpad will be getting official CM9 Nightly builds.
I apologize if I should know this. . . I just couldn't find a definitive answer.
I am enjoying CM9 Alpha 2 right now. . . You devs Rock!!!
Jsorvik said:
It looks like official CM9 builds are starting to come out again. . .
I tried to search for a definitive answer and came up empty. I know that we are not supposed to ask "when?" but I just wanted to confirm "IF" the HP Touchpad will be getting official CM9 Nightly builds.
I apologize if I should know this. . . I just couldn't find a definitive answer.
I am enjoying CM9 Alpha 2 right now. . . You devs Rock!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try here-
http://techerrata.com/browse/nightly_kangs/tenderloin
Yep... I know about the kangs. Just curious if official cm9 nightlies were in the future...
What are different between CM9 Alpha 2 ROM and kings ROM, it is come from different development group of people ?
hki_peter said:
What are different between CM9 Alpha 2 ROM and kings ROM, it is come from different development group of people ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
a kang, means stolen code. So it's a rom based on cm9 with tweaks. That's the short version.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
Jsorvik said:
Yep... I know about the kangs. Just curious if official cm9 nightlies were in the future...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dalingrin endorses these nightlies, thats official enough for me.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Safidk said:
a kang, means stolen code. So it's a rom based on cm9 with tweaks. That's the short version.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
stolen code
If we are using kang rom it is safe ?
Kang doesn't mean stolen. You can't steal open source code...
Kang means it was compiled by someone that isn't part of the official team/the person who made the code & isn't officially supported. So like when people say "Self-Kang" it means that they made the code themselves, but it's not officially supported by CM.
[TSON] said:
Kang doesn't mean stolen. You can't steal open source code...
Kang means it was compiled by someone that isn't part of the official team/the person who made the code & isn't officially supported. So like when people say "Self-Kang" it means that they made the code themselves, but it's not officially supported by CM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
KANG does mean stolen code m8, it's a very old term, and it's not something specific to android or open source software.
I'll try to find a article for you.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
This is from another forum:
This is the definition you would look for in Wikipedia Kang - A term used for stealing others intellectual property and claiming it as your own. (ie. When a developer uses another developer's work, and then publishes the end product as their own.)
Like building a cyanogen rom from source and making small edits and redistributing it. Not exactly as bad as it sounds like the definition suggests... sometimes, it it.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
Or...why not just look here on XDA, in their WIKI, and see how XDA defines it?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/wiki/Glossary#Kang
Safidk said:
KANG does mean stolen code m8, it's a very old term, and it's not something specific to android or open source software.
I'll try to find a article for you.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As mentioned, you can't kang open source'd code.
You can, however, fail to attribute that code, and that's generally what kang'd refers to now.
[nothing personal, just incorrectly using kanged is starting to pet peeve me almost to the point of the rampant incorrect usage of bricked. using 'vector' by a layman (ie, non military tactician or graphic designer) to make things sound more sophisticated is a close 3rd]
Related
I am not trying to be rude, but curious about it. When can I expect AOKP officially support AT&T SGSII? Probably I9100 has to be first officially supported by AOKP, then AT&T version will be supported next.
I know task650 keeps very wonderful AOKP rom. But one feature I miss from official version is keeping old ones. I think task650 updates about every two days, and it is hard to follow his every move.
Love you task650.
You'll know just by following the thread. Task will most likely know first before we would.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
I'd rather have an aokp officially supported by task than by att
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
jdbeitz said:
I'd rather have an aokp officially supported by task than by att
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 tasks aokp > anything att supported
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA
Nah
AT&T version means all the bloatware included. AT&T is working on a ICS version for our phones, however the guy they hired to do it has probably never touched a phone before and is the only one working on - hence the reason it is taking so long to get released. They are more worried about new phones then old ones, and this will always be the case.
I also don't think AT&T will ever release a Vanilla build of Android for any phone. Heck even look at the Nexus, even that had some AT&T stuff in it.
I'm pretty sure that the OP meant that he wishes the i777 was officially supported by the AOKP team on their website, which has nothing to do with AT&T.
That said:
1. No one knows when if/when it will be officially supported. I think the AOKP team would need to own the phone first. Regardless, I think Task does a way better job maintaining his build, fixing issues faster than the AOKP team.
2. If you need an archive of older versions, just go to Task's repository: http://goo.im/devs/task650/aokp/i777
I don't believe the AOKP team will ever support the SGS2. If they want to, they already would. Right now, task's AOKP is an official.
Yeah I'd have to agree. Tasks version will be as official as it gets. I won't complain!
I <3 task. No homo.
Lawrence of a Labia said:
I'm pretty sure that the OP meant that he wishes the i777 was officially supported by the AOKP team on their website, which has nothing to do with AT&T.
That said:
1. No one knows when if/when it will be officially supported. I think the AOKP team would need to own the phone first. Regardless, I think Task does a way better job maintaining his build, fixing issues faster than the AOKP team.
2. If you need an archive of older versions, just go to Task's repository: http://goo.im/devs/task650/aokp/i777
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You got my question right. I used a word "AT&T" to differentiate from international SGSII. Thanks for the link, sort of things I wanted. I just want Task to make a some reference stable version, such as Milestone used in AOKP.
herofmm said:
You got my question right. I used a word "AT&T" to differentiate from international SGSII. Thanks for the link, sort of things I wanted. I just want Task to make a some reference stable version, such as Milestone used in AOKP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're basically all stable so I'm not sure what you're talking about, and he does do milestones just like aokp btw
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Nick281051 said:
They're basically all stable so I'm not sure what you're talking about, and he does do milestones just like aokp btw
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but he doesn't support them. I think what he's wishing for is a datum build, a build that it is kosher(or even expected) for people to continue using after newer builds are released. Such a milestone build would be supported until the next milestone is released.
This isn't how Task operates though, and it's his rom, his rules. To him every build is a milestone build.
mattdm said:
Yes, but he doesn't support them. I think what he's wishing for is a datum build, a build that it is kosher(or even expected) for people to continue using after newer builds are released. Such a milestone build would be supported until the next milestone is released.
This isn't how Task operates though, and it's his rom, his rules. To him every build is a milestone build.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly lol and it shouldn't be an issue unless you're having a problem
Sent from my Inspire 4G using Tapatalk 2
Every build is stable. There are really no major issues or Task wouldn't release it. Minor bugs always are gonna exist. So pick the latest release ans just stick with it for a while. Bam. Stable release. ;-) on a side note old releases are unsupported so if u have a question and yer on an old release it won't be addressed.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Go task!
GO TASK! I seriously would rather run task instead of that ****ty samsung firmware.
bpavlakis said:
GO TASK! I seriously would rather run task instead of that ****ty samsung firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not what we're talking about...
Half of these posts are not even on what the OP asked.
Task basically makes it official for our device, it probably won't come our way in another form.
This has nothing to do with AT&T or Samsung firmware for future posts.
This thread has had its question answered. Don't feed the trolls
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Phalanx7621 said:
This thread has had its question answered. Don't feed the trolls
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. This has been answered to the best of our ability. Frankly, we just dont know if there will ever be any "official" AOKP for our device... but Task is doing a damn fine job giving us as close as we can get.
I can't understand that why there are no
offical CM9.
Anyone knows reason?
Please give the reason that why there are
no offical CM9
Sent from my MB861 using xda premium
Probably because there is no official ics yet
Then why CM team do not build offical CM9?
Sent from my MB861 using xda premium
No ICS drivers yet
Sent from my MB860 using XDA
honghk0126 said:
Then why CM team do not build offical CM9?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Atrix Dev Team has not released an official CM9 because ICS for the Atrix has not been released, hence there are no Atrix-specific drivers available to use. The unofficial CM9 ports (I hate that stupid term "kang") are Frankenstein monsters cobbled together from the current CM9 sources, with some code and drivers from other phones (and maybe even some CM7 code) thrown into the mix. Even though they do work, there are still problems and performance issues, which is to be expected from a cobbled-together ROM. Basically, nothing can happen until ICS for the Atrix is released, which will provide the necessary drivers and resources for an official CM9 port to happen.
MJPollard said:
The Atrix Dev Team has not released an official CM9 because ICS for the Atrix has not been released, hence there are no Atrix-specific drivers available to use. The unofficial CM9 ports (I hate that stupid term "kang") are Frankenstein monsters cobbled together from the current CM9 sources, with some code and drivers from other phones (and maybe even some CM7 code) thrown into the mix. Even though they do work, there are still problems and performance issues, which is to be expected from a cobbled-together ROM. Basically, nothing can happen until ICS for the Atrix is released, which will provide the necessary drivers and resources for an official CM9 port to happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can we sticky this single post? It was save on a number of threads.
Like the term Frankenstein monsters. But if I remember correctly Frankie was kind, misunderstood and moved a bit awkwardly at times. Much like current cm9 for atrix. NOT SUCH A BAD LIL MONSTER.
affiatic said:
Like the term Frankenstein monsters. But if I remember correctly Frankie was kind, misunderstood and moved a bit awkwardly at times. Much like current cm9 for atrix. NOT SUCH A BAD LIL MONSTER.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With that ability to put a positive spin on anything, you should go into politics.
Thanks for your specific answer!
But, I am using MB861, Korean version and there aren't any plan to ICS for Korea Atrix.
Is it can be a problem for offical CM9?
P.S I must wait until 3Q for offical CM9..
LOL
Sent from my MB861 using xda premium
I know there was a problem w/the original EPIC where code wasn't released, and therefore there was no CM7 or CM9 on the phone for quite a while.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1753057
However, now that source has been released, is it safe to say that there will be timely releases of CM9/CM10 on the phone?
tonu42 said:
It'll happen when it ****ing happens. Don't ask for etas you newbie.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know cause your so seasoned yourself! Dang this seems like an honest question not any kind of demand!!
tonu42 said:
It'll happen when it ****ing happens. Don't ask for etas you newbie.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check your pm.
Thread cleaned, keep it together.
well if the Samsung Charge was any indicator, source did not include the RIL code because it is Samsung proprietary, not Android specific, and they never have released the RIL source to anyone for that phone....
we have to hope the sheer popularity of this phone will persuade Samsung to release the RIL source otherwise it is a very long laborious journey ahead to get AOSP or any CM builds working
usually they can get everything working except data and voice and SMS....sometimes the camera is a major PITA....the Samsung Fascinate was at that status for months and then one day someone fixed the RIL and it suddenly got mainlined
the short answer to the OP is no, the source code release by itself doesn't make CM possible
Hey guys!
Yesterday I read an article about "CyanogenMod no longer delivers support for devices with snapdragons 1"
And as our device is a "cooper one", it seems we are not gonna make it..
Source 1: "CyanogenMod ya no entregará soporte para equipos con Snapdragon S1" - bitly.com/MCS7bU
Source 2: "CyanogenMod formally confirms ceased support for Snapdragon S1 devices past Gingerbread" - bitly.com/MCSGT5
And here is the official post of Cyanogenmod's Team (from Google+):
CyanogenMod 01/08/2012
CM 9+, N1 (and other S1 SoC)
The Nexus One, along with the other first generation Snapdragon devices (devices with the QSD8x50, MSM7x25, MSM7x27 and MSM7x27T SoCs), will not be supported beyond the CM 7.x (Gingerbread) branch.
We’ve been holding off on finalizing this, looking for ways that we could make this work and be happy with the release. Sadly, it never panned out, and we’ve decided that it’s time to stop our efforts.
The Nexus One in particular would have required a custom hboot to repartition the internal memory (which itself was limited to 512 MB, like most devices of that generation) and the proprietary libs available (from 2.3) would have required compromises in the CyanogenMod code that we are not willing to make. The wide variety of MSM7x2x(T) devices, on top of these problems, also have a complete lack of media libraries that are compatible with the new APIs introduced in ICS (video decoding and encoding, specifically). The pieces just aren’t there.
Does the capability to run ICS or Jellybean exist on these devices? Yes, with enough time, effort, and hacks it can be made to work. Do we feel the experience is worth all of that? No.
To measure our releases, we use the same subjective criteria as users do: “speed”, “jank”, “butter”, but also factor in user experience (UX) and other intangibles. However, beyond this is something that we can (and do) use as a ‘pass or fail’ mechanism, the Android Compatibility Test Suite. The CTS is used by device manufacturers to ensure that their changes to Android source do not break Android API, platform and other standards. This, in turn, brings stability to the Play Store for app developers. Breaking CTS would lead to a bad and inconsistent experience for app devs, which in turn would lead to a bad experience for you guys as users. If CyanogenMod was perceived to be blatantly violating CTS, developers could eventually blacklist CyanogenMod users from using their apps (or worse, Google could blacklist CyanogenMod from the Play Store altogether). No one would win by going down that path.
If, in the future, a solution is found that passes CTS, we will revisit the topic.
For users that are adamant about trying to run ICS and beyond, options exist. We are not going to recommend other builds however, as they are more than likely breaking CTS, and therefore our quality assurance standards as well. You can find them if you look in the usual places.
-The CyanogenMod Team
Edit The list of affected devices are as follows: blade, bravo, bravoc, buzz, c660, click, cooper, desirec, e510, e720, es209ra, espresso, hero, heroc, inc, legend, liberty, morrisson, motus, one, p500, passion, robym, s5670, supersonic, tass, u8150, u8220, z71, zero
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: bitly.com/MCSZxf
So... What do you think ?...
Damnit...
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
How bout this? That is ICS
Shadow xD said:
How bout this? That is ICS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He means future support, that means future updates will take longer because now porting is needed to make it work.
The title is wrong.
You should say we won't get future support from Cyanogenmod.
AOSP still can be compile from source I guess.
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
galaxyace152 said:
The title is wrong.
You should say we won't get future support from Cyanogenmod.
AOSP still can be compile from source I guess.
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How can I edit it ?....
EDIT>Go Advanced. Be more careful next time.
eagleeyetom said:
EDIT>Go Advanced. Be more careful next time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, understood =/..
¬¬
We never had and never will have OFFICIAL CM9+ support. UNOFFICIAL builds are what we'll have to live on..
Is this just saying that we wont have official CM9/CM10 support (which we all knew)?
Or is it saying that we will no longer get support from them for CM7?
Sent from the cracked screen of my GALAXY Ace.
tomb20 said:
Is this just saying that we wont have official CM9/CM10 support (which we all knew)?
Or is it saying that we will no longer get support from them for CM7?
Sent from the cracked screen of my GALAXY Ace.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think CM 7.2 cooper is the last rom they do for Gingerbread.....
I mean... No more Official Roms for Galaxy Ace
JuampyXnaker said:
I think CM 7.2 cooper is the last rom they do for Gingerbread.....
I mean... No more Official Roms for Galaxy Ace
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We will get GB roms.
We just won't get official CM9/10 and support from them for the above.
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
Yup.. CM7.x is after which the support ends.
Cm7.3 ?
Sent from my GT-S5830 using xda premium
CoolCatGetHome said:
Cm7.3 ?
Sent from my GT-S5830 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They've moved on from CM7, lol
King ACE said:
They've moved on from CM7, lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope they are further developing cm7 for the devices wich dont get official cm9/cm10 support
Sent from my GT-S5830 using xda premium
CoolCatGetHome said:
Nope they are further developing cm7 for the devices wich dont get official cm9/cm10 support
Sent from my GT-S5830 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That will be awesome as Gingerbread is best for the Ace.
ICS slows it down like hell!
galaxyace152 said:
That will be awesome as Gingerbread is best for the Ace.
ICS slows it down like hell!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree, ICS+ was made for better devices than the ace.
Gingerbread works better for the ace.
tomb20 said:
Gingerbread works better for the ace.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and aosp GB works hell smoother.. even at this moment cm7 lags in front of aosp :silly::laugh:
cm7 may not see cm7.3 but it is alive for patches to existing system not further features
madman said:
and aosp GB works hell smoother.. even at this moment cm7 lags in front of aosp :silly::laugh:
cm7 may not see cm7.3 but it is alive for patches to existing system not further features
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah! I saw the quadrant for AOSP in Ace! It was some 2100 or something!
Can someone explain to me the difference between the Android and Ported Development categories? I read the posts at the beginning of each, but they weren't very helpful in distinguishing the two.
I'm interested in flashing a JB ROM, but I see several JB ROMs in Ported, but only one (CM10) in Android. What's the difference between the ROMs in each category?
Thanks in advance.
Ported development usually implies that the ROM has been hell raised , or that the work done to the ROM was a kang. Android Development is all "original" development.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Phalanx7621 said:
Ported development usually implies that the ROM has been hell raised , or that the work done to the ROM was a kang. Android Development is all "original" development.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is helpful, thanks.
drjim said:
That is helpful, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you feel helped then please press Thanks button instead of just saying thanks, in that way atleast his thanks count will increase. Just my 0.02, sorry if you feel bad
Phalanx7621 said:
Ported development usually implies that the ROM has been hell raised , or that the work done to the ROM was a kang. Android Development is all "original" development.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is AOKP a Kang or an original development?
paarkhi said:
If you feel helped then please press Thanks button instead of just saying thanks, in that way atleast his thanks count will increase. Just my 0.02, sorry if you feel bad
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will do. I don't feel bad.
votinh said:
Is AOKP a Kang or an original development?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I felt it was a kang due to its name but I'm not sure (android open kang project)
Sent from my SGH-I777
122ninjas said:
I felt it was a kang due to its name but I'm not sure (android open kang project)
Sent from my SGH-I777
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aokp since it isn't available directly to the i777 (no official support by team kang) it took a lot of work by task and ktoonsez to get it to work (not to mention their custom apps for it) so that's why even though it is android open kang project it isn't just ported development.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Nick281051 said:
Aokp since it isn't available directly to the i777 (no official support by team kang) it took a lot of work by task and ktoonsez to get it to work (not to mention their custom apps for it) so that's why even though it is android open kang project it isn't just ported development.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. Yeah it's in Android Development because of the amount of customization and work it takes to bring it here. Its much much more than a simple hell raise haha. To the OP--You should stop on over to his thread and check it out ;-p
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
No doubt that Task's AOKP is an awesome firmware, I don't know how much work that Task & Ktoonsez put in, 90% maybe? but I thought it is heavily based on CM and the KANG sources, am I right?
votinh said:
No doubt that Task's AOKP is an awesome firmware, I don't know how much work that Task & Ktoonsez put in, 90% maybe? but I thought it is heavily based on CM and the KANG sources, am I right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Task has said that it is easy to sync cm sources but it's a ***** to sync aokp sources if your device is not officially supported (which ours isn't) so although they didn't make the changes to the rom itself like team kang does, they put in a lot of work to get it to compile and work properly.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Since we're on the subject, can someone explain what hell raising means? I can't find a decent explanation anywhere.
dsmboost said:
Since we're on the subject, can someone explain what hell raising means? I can't find a decent explanation anywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was a term coined in the infuse forum first I believe, it's basically porting from a similar device. There's like 5 files that differentiate between the software for our phones and the software for the i9100.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2