Anyone see android police blurb for the fix update?
(If this is legit, I am going to find the post that I predicted it and got laughed down and get my told ya so's.)
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
It appears to be legit and yes, I am surprised to be honest, especially for those small changes.
But I won't complain about still getting their attention for our device.
Seems like quite a timely coincidence. I feel as though we're being mocked.
The update is 19.3MB in size.
Does this mean they have another 90 days to release the source code? If not shouldn't the source code be released this month?
musicfreak190 said:
Does this mean they have another 90 days to release the source code? If not shouldn't the source code be released this month?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Judging by the size of the update and items listed, I am guessing it will not contain a new kernel.
Which theoretically means that their timeline should not be extended, but they seem to do what they want.
Santod,
Do you think they will definitely release it this month or not even lol?
musicfreak190 said:
Santod,
Do you think they will definitely release it this month or not even lol?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have my doubts honestly. But who knows.
I didn't think we would see another OTA and here we are, so you never know.
But based on my back n forth conversations with them, they do not seem to be in any hurry to put it out.
They keep claiming that they need it to be proven stable by both the Carrier and the Developer.
With this new update, I could see them saying that they will need longer now to verify that stability.
I really don't know though, only they do and they aren't sharing much info about it with the general public it seems.
But by law the source does indeed need to be released eventually right?
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
I think getting updates out faster and releasing kernel source faster should be 2 Goals Google should push for the manufacturer this year.
Technically, there is no time limit, and if you read the GPL strictly.... all releases have to have the source code released with it (at the same time).
It does not matter though. The only people who can complain or sue, are people who legitimately own copyright of a part of the kernel or work it is derived from.
Santod, are you going to pack up this small update as a flashable for people running your stock roms?
Milimbar said:
Technically, there is no time limit, and if you read the GPL strictly.... all releases have to have the source code released with it (at the same time).
It does not matter though. The only people who can complain or sue, are people who legitimately own copyright of a part of the kernel or work it is derived from.
Santod, are you going to pack up this small update as a flashable for people running your stock roms?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My post from the OTA thread:
I intend to do something with it for the stock roms.
I will know better once I have the files in hand if I will rebuild and upload all 4 roms, or if I will just put up a deodexed and an odexed flashable zip.
Like I say, I will know better once I have the new files. But I do intend to do something with them for everyone.
Milimbar said:
Technically, there is no time limit, and if you read the GPL strictly.... all releases have to have the source code released with it (at the same time).
It does not matter though. The only people who can complain or sue, are people who legitimately own copyright of a part of the kernel or work it is derived from.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is correct. Not sure why people *continue* to throw this 90 day time frame around.
Is the part about only people whose work is in the kernel correct? I do understand that they only have to release the bits that they've changed, not the entire tree. Of course, that would only slow a kernel dev down while he/she patches a clean source tree with HTC's changes...
Finally, to the previous post, there is no "law", at least in the criminal sense, that HTC may or may not be breaking.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
santod040 said:
With this new update, I could see them saying that they will need longer now to verify that stability
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As noted above, as far as the GPL is concerned, "stability" doesn't factor in. The ROM could be total crap or non-booting - they doesn't change compliance. The day VZW and HTC pushed the last OTA update, their source (changes) should have been available as well.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
hallstevenson said:
That is correct. Not sure why people *continue* to throw this 90 day time frame around.
Is the part about only people whose work is in the kernel correct? I do understand that they only have to release the bits that they've changed, not the entire tree. Of course, that would only slow a kernel dev down while he/she patches a clean source tree with HTC's changes...
Finally, to the previous post, there is no "law", at least in the criminal sense, that HTC may or may not be breaking.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
As noted above, as far as the GPL is concerned, "stability" doesn't factor in. The ROM could be total crap or non-booting - they doesn't change compliance. The day VZW and HTC pushed the last OTA update, their source (changes) should have been available as well.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as the GPL is concerned ,no stability does not factor in.
As far as what HTC states they are delaying it for, it DOES factor in.
I never said it was correct to do, accurate, fair, or compliant, just stating what they have stated to me regarding it.
santod040 said:
As far as the GPL is concerned ,no stability does not factor in.
As far as what HTC states they are delaying it for, it DOES factor in.
I never said it was correct to do, accurate, fair, or compliant, just stating what they have stated to me regarding it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The response they give you sounds about like the same one I get every time.
Sent from my personally built from source CM10.1 N7.
They have a stock answer for these queries. Important thing is that they're consistent too.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
hallstevenson said:
Is the part about only people whose work is in the kernel correct? I do understand that they only have to release the bits that they've changed, not the entire tree. Of course, that would only slow a kernel dev down while he/she patches a clean source tree with HTC's changes...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the GPL itself (all versions)
Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities.
hallstevenson said:
Finally, to the previous post, there is no "law", at least in the criminal sense, that HTC may or may not be breaking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are indeed breaking a law, it is for Breach of contract. That is what people who sue over GPL violations go to court with.
My point was, people will have to have enough interest in the issue to file a court case against HTC. No prosecutor is going to initiate a case, for instance. And if no one does anything, HTC gets off free and clear. Ultimately, it's always the FSF that files (isn't it ?) and they do it on principle, NOT because users want it.
As for only having to publish what they changed vs the entire thing, did that change ? I'm not doubting you, but I'm positive that at one point, only what was changed had to be provided. For example, Dish Network uses Linux for their DVRs and provides source code, but they always had a disclaimer warning people that what they're providing is, by itself, pretty useless for "building" anything. That could have involved proprietary libraries or drivers that hook into the Linux kernel that they do not have to provide code for.
I'm using santods first deodexed ics stock Rom. It is trying to apply the update and I keep having to reject it. Is there a way I can turn off the notifications and stop it from trying?
mooneyspam said:
I'm using santods first deodexed ics stock Rom. It is trying to apply the update and I keep having to reject it. Is there a way I can turn off the notifications and stop it from trying?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See my post in the OTA thread.
---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------
For those concerned or faced with an update already trying to be pushed, I just made this:
OTA_Killer.zip
Link Updated
Related
Not sure if we've had this response so far but I wanted to share it.
______
Dear Dave,
Thank you for your continuous interest on our product.
In particular, we''d like to recommend to use toolchain 2009q3 version. Our development team recommend this version.
(arm-2009q3-67-arm-none-linux-gnueabi-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.bz2)
Please send full details of your build error log.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Oh, where to begin..
I believe that's the toolchain they recommend in their "instructions".. Regardless, we figured that out rather quickly.
The problem here is that what they released to us was not their production source code. It was some early development version of it, with a number of issues, the most prominent being it didn't even compile as provided.
The fact that we had to patch sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c so that the phone wouldn't drop audio 5-10 seconds into every phone call is pretty much concrete proof that what we were given was development code, not production code.
I'm going to pass on the exact same message back, we'll see what happens.
Probably nothing.
at this point it's fairly pointless. we have been hastling them for almost a month now, and they've done nothing. despite all the issues with the code, our dev team has gotten their provided kernel source to boot and run with no issues, hence the overclocking kernels available. even if they did release the actual source now it's basically worthless. unless it's for a higher kernel version we can use for a froyo rom.
sonofskywalker3 said:
at this point it's fairly pointless. we have been hastling them for almost a month now, and they've done nothing. despite all the issues with the code, our dev team has gotten their provided kernel source to boot and run with no issues, hence the overclocking kernels available. even if they did release the actual source now it's basically worthless. unless it's for a higher kernel version we can use for a froyo rom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not whether I its pointless or not, they need to be held accountable for uploading bad source which I believe is against the gpl. Funny how their build sh is configured for 2010 and they recommend 2009q3...
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
I agree, but is sending them a million emails that they mostly ignore really "holding them accountable"? I think not.
So ignoring them is the answer?
I think not.
Feedback is the most civil thing at this point. If its ignored, I'm sure more stern action can be taken, if the community as a whole decides to.
It works but it does not ring. You can use it to test roms if a (developer) needs one. PM me.
send it to the CyanogenMod dev's so we can get the eris on the supported devices list =D
Yeah, I thought one of the things we needed for official support was to send them a phone. Not that the current ports aren't great(tazz's and workshed's) but official support may help resolve some of the minor bugs that are encountered.
Guys, they don't need a phone. What they want is someone to submit a working vendor tree for the Eris on github, following the cm rules. But then that individual has to 'maintain' the tree and become part of the official cm team.
I would, but can't really commit to being the maintainer right now.
I just wanted to up date. The phone speaker phone does not work but he head set does.
workshed said:
Guys, they don't need a phone. What they want is someone to submit a working vendor tree for the Eris on github, following the cm rules. But then that individual has to 'maintain' the tree and become part of the official cm team.
I would, but can't really commit to being the maintainer right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is a vendor tree?
Sent from my GSBv1.9 ERIS using XDA Premium App
wildstang83 said:
What is a vendor tree?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most of the source code is not device specific, but since each device is different... There has to be some code that only applies to that particular device. That's the vendor tree. It's basically some build files that grab the correct drivers, libs, and other files for that specific device. Officially supported devices have their trees integrated into the main CM source, so that the device can be selected at build time.
We do the same thing with the Eris, except the tree is pulled in from a separate repo before building.
dwrecording said:
I just wanted to up date. The phone speaker phone does not work but he head set does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If a dev doesn't want it, I would sell it on eBay if you're not up to buying a speaker to replace it yourself. Someone will buy it. Probably make at least $40-$60 or more.
Sent a PM like 6 hours ago lol. Also, since I decided to be a retard and take my phone swimming with me in the Pacific ahaha. I could really use this !
EDIT: I'm kind of a dev. I do have 2 ROMs out...............
roirraW "edor" ehT said:
If a dev doesn't want it, I would sell it on eBay if you're not up to buying a speaker to replace it yourself. Someone will buy it. Probably make at least $40-$60 or more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you could try:
http://swappa.com/
says an eris goes for 90-120$
i dont know how "hot" they are selling but always worth a shot
Seriously, no response to my pm or multiple posts ? Ok.
spc_hicks09 said:
Seriously, no response to my pm or multiple posts ? Ok.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hate lack of communication. If he changed his mind he should just tell you. No offense to the OP if I'm out of line.
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?
Hey guys, I am using Leedroid ROM v.5 and I want to know which kernel is the best for battery life, performance, beats audio and stability? I own kernels from Lee and from Chad as well included the "forbidden" ones. What do u prefer? I dont know the difference..
Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515m using Tapatalk
Castellano2 said:
Hey guys, I am using Leedroid ROM v.5 and I want to know which kernel is the best for battery life, performance, beats audio and stability? I own kernels from Lee and from Chad as well included the "forbidden" ones. What do u prefer? I dont know the difference..
Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515m using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im gonna be 100% truthful, even though it is not to my benefit to be..
my source is public how, and i offer features no one ever has in the past.
people like leedroid and others are prolly already making use of these features into their kernels, such as ics/sense 3.5 hw acceleration and better sound drivers what include native HTC 2way call record...
i have not commited HBR bluetooth or usb hostmode or other mods yet, since my previous ones are being used, and no one is giving credit.
so, since others are using my work as well as theirs... its basicly up to who you want to use...
the more commits i make, i know the more i will be kanged. nothing i commited yet is anything major - just a base, updates, and minor changes, and porting drivers from 1 device to another. my future modifications involve serious time and effort, and as of now with the kanging going on, im not 100% sure i will ever commit those for release here on XDA.
sorry if i sound like an ass - but the previous drama caused by what people "assumed" i did cost me a lot of time and money. and now others are doing the same i was accused of, but i got screen shots to prove it...
all i want is everyone to do what they expect others to do... -- is this asking to much?
Yea I'm looking for a good ics kernel. Guess I'll wait til Chad drops his.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Yeah, that's ****ed up Chad.
Chad's kernel for the win.
to be clear... from what i can see - leedroid seems to be giving proper credit.
the 2 people who had an exact copy of my GIT on github with NO reference to me or my git had pulled their repos last night.
I believe Chad is better but when I am using ROM from Lee.. Maybe his kernel would be more stable on his own ROM
Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515m using Tapatalk
Chad man its a shame what's been goin on lately, I've been flashing every single one of your kernels and only your kernels since I noticed u back in September. Every kernel release has improved my experience with this device, and frankly u are the only kernel dev I follow and respect. The lazy half ass so called devs that kanged your source are worthless to me and a whole lot of others who follow u and your work. They know who they are and its only obvious who they are, IMPOSTERS! Instead of a thanks button on the bottom of their posts they should implement a f**k off button, they would then have thousands of middle fingers they could look at each time they log in. Keep up the good work Chad. Without people like u Chad them haters wouldn't have anyone to envy and hate on and bite.
chad thanks for the great work for real... i have tried many urs is most stable.. and sure if someone is using ur source will be as well... but thanks for being open and clear.... go man.. cant wait to try urs on ice cream... chad are u going to make any work for galaxy S3 when it comes.... it will be a killer... thanks again for all ur work
Thanks again for all your work Chad. I flashed your kernel last night and it's very stable with no issues. I used Clockwork Recovery to flash because I didn't have TWRP installed. Does anyone know if I should have any issues or does this not really matter?
Hey Chad does your kernel have any adverse affects on OG Evo 4G or would you say they are more a EVO 3D kernel...sorry if this is a dumb question but after all I am a noob
Chad my man I gotta say without a doubt u r the kernel king and for those kangers out there.... [email protected]#k off and get a life. The rom I run has always had ur kernels and always been stable. No random reboots or anything. I am soooo glad ur back an glad I still have a few of ur older rls. Thanks bro
mugetsu666 said:
Chad my man I gotta say without a doubt u r the kernel king and for those kangers out there.... [email protected]#k off and get a life. The rom I run has always had ur kernels and always been stable. No random reboots or anything. I am soooo glad ur back an glad I still have a few of ur older rls. Thanks bro
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 couldn't have said it better
chad.goodman said:
all i want is everyone to do what they expect others to do... -- is this asking to much?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've just come in fresh, been here at XDA for only a few days and so I've missed most of this story. But, what is adamant is the politics of this entire industry.
Corporations create industry, that's what they're designed to do. But, when they also attempt to govern outside their market, it's the restrictions imposed that may unwittingly enforce the like of scavenger type behavior. Not only with developers, but down to the end user and all in between.
Whatever you determine to be 'Open Source', in any of the many flavours out there, it'll remain as the prime victim; within its own industry, other industries, marketing, and aggressive closed source realms. The balance can only go to members of the bar association whom happily trump first place in the share of cash.
So, you'll have kanged devs, pirates, believers, non-believers, and all the like.
But, with all the politics, ramblings, hostility and time off, it can only make one fear the resilience of what actual leading talents remain.
...so, as quoted above...
WTF GAF GOI and game on!
:: No offense to lawyers, just sticks and stones.
binaryhabit> That is possibly one of the hardest posts of which I've ever tried to make sense. lol.
To everyone else> What's with the hate of Kang's? As long as chad is getting his representation for his work in those kangs, there isn't a problem. If anyone does not acknowledge the hard work of others when they use there work.. then it should be flagged up. There is no need to start suddenly having a go, and trying to take sides.
Chad does a lot of good work, congratulate him and support him, and point out where others should be acknowledging his work if they have used it.
This all doesn't help answer the OP's questin however.
To me, the answer is just try the ROM's out, and see which works best for you.
Scougar said:
binaryhabit> That is possibly one of the hardest posts of which I've ever tried to make sense. lol.
To everyone else> What's with the hate of Kang's? As long as chad is getting his representation for his work in those kangs, there isn't a problem. If anyone does not acknowledge the hard work of others when they use there work.. then it should be flagged up. There is no need to start suddenly having a go, and trying to take sides.
Chad does a lot of good work, congratulate him and support him, and point out where others should be acknowledging his work if they have used it.
This all doesn't help answer the OP's questin however.
To me, the answer is just try the ROM's out, and see which works best for you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A recognized developer with grave concerns about their code not being correctly authored, thereby "kanged", by other developers in their own projects; all the while being the only accused of breaking these license agreements.
Chad Goodman had made their comment public and I simply decided to comment on that.
If your understanding is incomprehensive of what I said, then I can only surmise your own bias.
Because, I simply agreed with the comment, not the author in their entirety; as I simply don't have the full details.
binaryhabit said:
A recognized developer with grave concerns about their code not being correctly authored, thereby "kanged", by other developers in their own projects; all the while being the only accused of breaking these license agreements.
Chad Goodman had made their comment public and I simply decided to comment on that.
If your understanding is incomprehensive of what I said, then I can only surmise your own bias.
Because, I simply agreed with the comment, not the author in their entirety; as I simply don't have the full details.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
to set the record straight - for the last time - i will not discuss this issue on xda ever again, and i hope XDA staff leaves this post for all to read.
a xda RD broke the rules of XDA and trashed my threads and was allowed to get away with this. this rd accused me of kanging his work. to define the work kang = "to use ones work without giving proper credit, or claiming the work as your own"
the rd encouraged his followers to trash my threads as well - this rd and the followers never had any business the the 3d threads.
yes - i "some" of this RDs gpu related code in my very 1st kernels - but this is not kanging as credit was given in my OP and other users on XDA found proof of this using googles cached pages, that had copies of my OP where credit was clearly given.
(these screen shots were posted within my threads - but later got deleted by xda staff)
i, as well as other users simply posted screen shots that proved credit was given - but xda mods and admins decided at the time to delete this evidence, but left the posts accusing me of kanging - this was very poor judgement on XDAs part, put with the fact the other RD was allowed to break several of XDAs own rules with zero repercussions in it self is evidence of favouritism.
i was later accused of kanging yet someone elses code, who was a moderator of this specific forum. but yet, my commits on my public git repo were dated 2 weeks before the commits of the other developer. how can i kang someone when my commits were public 2 weeks before that of the other developer? to some (well most) people, since the other developer is more "well known" is the only facts considered when i am accused of kanging - not googles cached web pages, or GIT commit time stamps - once again, screen shots were posted, XDA's staff deleted my entire thread and screen shots, while leaving posts accusing me of kanging - more favouritism.
it comes down to this - every time i was accused of something (yes every freakin time), the accusing had zero proof. i had google's cached web pages to back me up, but most of the xda users may not know this because - xda's staff deleted my posts.
to test the fairness of sr mods on xda - i honestly found several RDs on xda who do not comply with GPL, and yes, about 80% of xda RDs do not comply. - i reported these threads, and some, 3 months later are still not complaint with gpl - but do you or other people care? no...
people were on my ass because I did things no other developer on XDA has been able to do - so other developers wanted my code, so they could appear to be as great as the XDA users make them out to be.
people were NOT and ARE NOT on the asses of the existing RDs who fail to comply with GPL, because they have not done nearly as much as i have. want specifics, look at XDA USER feed back in my threads... or ask other xda users - dont take my word for it.
i never once said i was better than any other developer, and I never will say that, so dont say i did.
and yes, some of what i had done was because i had access to closed source code
but some stuff was all me - such as 100% stable working kernel on hw001 and 2.17 based roms - and 90% working, 100% stable on hw002 and 2.17 based roms - every other kernel for the 3d has reboot, lock up, and misc issues on 2.17 - mine dont. (again - dont take my word for it, read the threads here on xda)
kanging.... how can i kang something that dont exist? how can i be accused of kanging when my commits were weeks prior to the ones i kanged??
leedroid himself is a good developer, and is one of the few who is gpl complaint.
and yes, i removed my non-gpl complaint kernels from xda, and made a gpl complaint one - not because XDA said i had to, cause i did not have to due to a NDA. i did it in a attempt to reduce drama. i have chat and email transcripts from XDA staff that state my beats kernels are in fact exempt from XDA's gpl policy. again to make everyone happy - i pulled them from xda, and made the same kernel but without beats, and on a HTC base.
to this day, i see my commits on my public repo (that us no longer public as of 3-12) on other well known developers gits with no credit given - time stamped WEEKS after my commit - but im accusing of kanging them??
EXAMPLE #1:
-i make a thread on XDA and create a repo on 1-7-2012 for a specific type of kernel - i commit and sync my git, so all of my code, and commits are public.
-a well known developer who has been on xda for years as a RD creates a repo on 1-20-2012 for the same type of kernel and commits all his files
------->based off of the time line there, my work was done 1st. im not gonna say he kanged me cause i never compared the repos. all this developers followers accused me in public forum on xda of kanging him (as well as private message, gtalk, and email). i was accused because this developer was on xda longer than me, and is more well known. the fact is i commited 1st, therefore i did not kang.
EXAMPLE #2:
today (03/14/2012) i browsed GIT repos of several "well known" and "great" developers. knowing my repo was created and my files commited on 1-7-2012, if i see the same exact code in another developers git commited AFTER 1-7, i should receive credit for it. when in reality, several developers have used my code, and made their commits after 1-7, but since these developers are more well known and have been on xda for years, everyone publicly posts i kanged them, when in fact the code changes were an exact match, i will say with no doubt these developers kanged me. they used my work, gave no credit, and some even claimed credit - but yet my commits were before theirs.
like i said several times, how can i kang something that did not exist at the time i commited it????????
am i publicly trashing the threads of the developers who kanged me? no im not - i try to ignore it, until these same developers trash my thread, or their followers start to trash my thread. i do not like to accuse people of things, even when i got stacks of solid proof, in public forum like the other RDs on xda... i try to be professional - but sometimes people can only take so much before they snap.
people - just because "joe" or "jim" or "ross" has been developing kernels on xda for 2 years and I am only here for 6 or so months does not mean i kanged them cause my repo contains identical code as theirs (some even copied my intentional spelling errors in the comments of the code)... again - look at the time stamps of the commits. look at the dates threads are created.
quite honestly i dont give a rats ass that im not given credit - i care that im accused of kanging, and people trash my threads, threaten legal action in public forum, send me 100s of emails to my gmail account daily and xda allows the thread trashing to go on, leaves the posts accusing me of kanging to remain, but when i post nothing but a screen shot of my repo, or of a thread to show its creation time - my posts are deleted. (why not deleted both? or none??)
...yes i got more examples - but i think i made my point clear.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
a reminder: kang defined = to use other peoples code without giving proper credit, or claiming the work as your own.
i have NEVER kanged anyone - period. and i have screen shots that prove all (yes more than one, some dont post on XDA anymore though) the developers you all defend and back up kanged me.
like i said a few statements above, at one point all of these screen shots were posted here on XDA - but xda chose to defend the honor of their long time developers, at the expense of making me look like an ass.
this is 1 of 2 reasons I dont post my work on xda anymore - cause of the actions of XDA's staff - not because of all the accusing, flaming, destroying of my threads, etc that everyone assumes.
reason 2 of 2: all the drama, accusing and what not has caused some xda members to file false claims with gpl-violations against me. a specific user made this threat in public forum here on XDA directly under a post with a link to my repo, and screen shots of the repo. this person trolled to other parts of XDA where he had no business, and reported ALL of my threads as well - some of this drama caused legal action against me where i had to hire a lawyer.
i give you all something for free, and ask and expect nothing in return except respect and common courtesy , but yet - im paying legal retainers??? money i CAN NOT afford to pay...
i never even wanted my kernel on XDA - it was strictly for me and a few friends - but i was encouraged to share it with everyone, and I did, and it was the most used kernel for the shooter platform, and more downloads than any other kernel including tiamat's - must be doing something right? as of 3/1/2012 - a total of all versions downloaded exceeded 300,000 in 6 months (combined total downloads for all devices, all versions from 3 hosting sites)
it was the only kernel that did not have BSOD issues on incomming calls, it had 2wcr, beats audio, and things got getter with almost every release - yes some releases were failures... but 100% stability... 30+ days uptime... come on...
im also prolly gonna be stuck with a 2nd $3000 legal retainer based off of the recent actions of 1 specific XDA member.
...yes I won the cases (the 1st two, 3rd one as of yet has not be filed by mr hotaru) - but still gotta pay the lawyer
and yes i legally can post my BEATS kernel in public forum without posting source to the beats drivers....if i wanted to.
as part of my test of fairness of the XDA staff, and to prove there is in fact some double standards and favouritism - some kernels with no source code, wrong source code, out of date code, or code that is just missing files... i reported these threads
wanna now the outcome? PM me cause if i post it here, i know for a fact i will get banned.
summary
1: everytime i was accused of something i had 100% solid proof that showed otherwise someone just decided to keep this info from the general public, while allowing the posts accusing me to remain
2: if anyone is being kanged, it is in fact me, and i have git timestamps to prove this (and screen shots of such comparisons)
with all the BS - i have lost motivation to develop, and honestly - this is why there have not been many updates, and i have never finished my DEFCONFIG files for other devices..
why should i??
i seriously am soo close to a 100% working 2.17 hw002 kernel - but have no desire to fix it. i
personally own hw001, im running my test 6 kernel on mean rom right now and its 100% working, 100% stable - it works for me...
working camera, video, mhl/hdmi, landscape video, rotation - its all good - done without source from HTC, cause they are sticking to their 120 day time limit to release source....
...so yes, with ZERO source to work from - i made my kernel 2.17 complaint with hw001 phones. and fixed eveything but landscape video and camera preview (related to landscape video) for hw002 users... who else has done this? no one until i or htc releases source...
will i update when htc releases source, prolly not - cause i know i could have my kernel fixed b4 that happens if i put my mind to it.
i give everyone something for free, and im stuck with legal fees cause of people like <not listed to help prevent me from being banned>
anyone wants details or the screen shots - PM me
or just google the stuff, and look at the cached pages from 6 months ago
doubt me or my word about my kernels- read other users feedback on xda
doubt me or my word on kanging - again - google is your friend, and I have no way to change google's time stamps...
every statement i made comparing my kernel to other kernels is based off of XDA USERS feedback and their public posts here on xda - read up for your self. again - i never said i was/am better than anyone else - and i never will say that.
to answer the OP's question
use leedroids kernel - he is good, i shared my entire repo with him (not beats, but - yes.. new sound drivers), and he will have more updates than me, and he will know what parts to use to bring the best experience to his users.
i expect a vacation and loss of RD status after this post...so nice knowing you all.
and im sure this post may even be deleted before everyone gets to read it...seems to be a pattern with my posts/threads - even stuff related to actual development.
hell - i even made a ville ruu thread the other day that i had to ask XDA to remove cause of the trolling, hatemail, etc..
trying to share things with the community and i get **** on... so why bother...
You got hatemail for uploading that ruu? Wow, what a bunch of babies.
chad.goodman said:
to set the record straight - for the last time...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off, I'd like to thank Chad for publicly expressing these concerns to the broader community without apprehension.
Second, I'm surprised there's barely a reply.
I'll keep this rant brief:
The user Chad Goodman may by (U.S.A x;x.x) freely choose to mediate lawful concerns held accused by any responsible source of medium whereby both parties are bound by (U.S.A x;x.x) and in trust of an agreement on (date) of the stipulated terms and conditions of the legally bound U.S.A. based hosting authority.
The user Chad Goodman may warrant their concerns without the fear of repression by the owners, operators, or parties of the hosting authority, or by fear of other members within its registrar, so long as Chad is in compliance of (U.S.A x;x.x) and the terms and conditions of the hosting authority, all of whom are legally responsible and bound by (U.S.A x:x.x).
Basically, to alienate any person of this right brings a good case of discrimination and defamation in itself. There is also a potential case of intentional interference with a prospective business because of the closed source code that obviously marketed, and possibly funds, the developers work and any related bodies of interest, or associates.
Defamation is costly($300k min) and specifically reserved for the wealthy elite, but this case may open with intentional interference.
GPL is not an excuse for subversion.
xcpefrmreality said:
You got hatemail for uploading that ruu? Wow, what a bunch of babies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just add it to the talent pool... and unfortunately say it all farewell.
Chad I knew from the og evo forum you were having problems I remember when your kernel was first taken Down from that forum but I did not know it went to this extent I am am avid user of your kernels even when I had my og EVO and couldn't get it to work I still tried finding a Rom it would work with. But then I came to the shooter and seen your work was back and was happy as ever and still glad that you have stayed imho you are the best kernel dev xda has and you deserve the credit but if this continues I don't blame you for leaving but I wish you luck man thank you for being good to us.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA
bigjack216 said:
Chad I knew from the og evo forum you were having problems I remember when your kernel was first taken Down from that forum but I did not know it went to this extent I am am avid user of your kernels even when I had my og EVO and couldn't get it to work I still tried finding a Rom it would work with. But then I came to the shooter and seen your work was back and was happy as ever and still glad that you have stayed imho you are the best kernel dev xda has and you deserve the credit but if this continues I don't blame you for leaving but I wish you luck man thank you for being good to us.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well said man....we always appreciate ppl such as yourself
Firstly, this question is in no way intended to insult JamieD81 and I apologize in advance for any insult unintentionally implied.
I am running Jamie's builds of ParanoidKangDroid and am impressed with it's stability, as I was with all of the previous ROMs that he has shared with us.
Due to my love of PA's Hybrid Tablet mode (Jellybeer's take on it leaves the clock too small and disproportionate for my tastes), and the desire to have the latest version of Android I was running the ROM that is banned here (from what I took to be due to the builder passing off other's work as their own).
A not too thorough glance through System Settings leads me to think that ParanoidKangDroid is the ROM that was being plagiarized.
Am I anywhere near correct? If not no big deal, I've got a ROM that is more stable than that one, and comes from a ROM builder of great reputation. If it is the properly credited & branded version of the plagiarized ROM, then it is great to see a PROPER version on here.
Its not plagiarized, its built from pk's sources which roms are on the d2 devices, reason the roms were taken off from my understanding is between manel and a mod, not anything to do with roms in this section.
Me and manel have both been heavily warned in the past *note my attitude change on xda for the last while? There is a reason for that, I took the mods serious
Hopefully that clears it up a bit for you.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
I think the OP might be speaking of JellyBam, not Vanilla Rootbox. Wasn't the JellyBam dev trying to pass off the work as his own?
JamieD81 said:
Its not plagiarized, its built from pk's sources which roms are on the d2 devices, reason the roms were taken off from my understanding is between manel and a mod, not anything to do with roms in this section.
Me and manel have both been heavily warned in the past *note my attitude change on xda for the last while? There is a reason for that, I took the mods serious
Hopefully that clears it up a bit for you.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jamie, I am in no way implying the you have plagiarized anything, ever. I don't even know what the deal is with Manel. As the poster above me had correctly supposed, the plagiarizer is the Jellybam team. Which I am reluctant to give any credence to.
Your PROPER build of paranoidkangdroid is very similar to the improperly branded works of those that I mentioned in the previous paragraph which led me to believe that they misappropriated that work as their own.
Again, i regret any and all negative implications that you have taken from my first post and have the utmost respect for your works and your activity here.
My Note would be next to useless without your efforts.
pTeronaut said:
Jamie, I am in no way implying the you have plagiarized anything, ever. I don't even know what the deal is with Manel. As the poster above me had correctly supposed, the plagiarizer is the Jellybam team. Which I am reluctant to give any credence to.
Your PROPER build of paranoidkangdroid is very similar to the improperly branded works of those that I mentioned in the previous paragraph which led me to believe that they misappropriated that work as their own.
Again, i regret any and all negative implications that you have taken from my first post and have the utmost respect for your works and your activity here.
My Note would be next to useless without your efforts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe the term should be "alleged plagiarizer". AFAIK, only one Dev accused him.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717
dparrothead1 said:
Maybe the term should be "alleged plagiarizer". AFAIK, only one Dev accused him.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there is being politically correct... then there is just nonsense talk to fill space.
All it takes is 1 accusation FROM THE DEV HAVING HIS WORK STOLEN.
the ACCUSER is still on xda to release his roms as he wishes
the ACCUSED was BANNED from xda....
you can call an orange a "sweet and tangy citrus fruit that is the combination of red and yellow".... but that still makes it an orange.
jellybam was direct ripoff of P.A.C.man rom
Opinions vary.
Edit: Oh, and BTW....I'm live in Florida....so I definitely know what an orange is!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717
Facts do not
Certainly did not mean to start a war and this is my last thought on this.
You are correct...facts are facts....but.....does anyone know ALL the facts?
Let's say, just for arguments sake, you have a set of 10 facts. All, of which, are true. When pondering on a solution you leave facts number 2, 4, 6 and 8 out of your equation. You are subject to reach an entirely different conclusion.
Had an old boss one time that would always tell me, "Son, just remember...there are always three sides to every story...yours, mine and the truth somewhere in the middle. Our job is to find that middle."
And as an arbiter for many years dealing with union negotiations, his advice served me well.
Go in peace, my Friend.....after all, it is just an electronic device!
Nexus 7 Running JellyBam v7
pTeronaut said:
Jamie, I am in no way implying the you have plagiarized anything, ever. I don't even know what the deal is with Manel. As the poster above me had correctly supposed, the plagiarizer is the Jellybam team. Which I am reluctant to give any credence to.
Your PROPER build of paranoidkangdroid is very similar to the improperly branded works of those that I mentioned in the previous paragraph which led me to believe that they misappropriated that work as their own.
Again, i regret any and all negative implications that you have taken from my first post and have the utmost respect for your works and your activity here.
My Note would be next to useless without your efforts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No worries was just clearing things up
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app