Related
Well, there are only two kernel developers here in the P500 forum, franco and fserve. There is no doubt that the work both of you have done is off the charts, tweaking every little thing that can be tweaked to such an extent that there hardly is anything left to tweak. And there is no doubt that most, if not all, of the people using your kernels love the work you guys put out.
With that in mind, however, there are a couple of things (specifically bugs) that we request, not demand, to be fixed. As we all know, our phone is affected by two things that I, as well as many other users, believe are two major bugs: the cpu spiking to 100% when touching the screen and the axis inversion bugs. Even with both of your kernels as good as they are now, these bugs hinder their true capability, thus hindering the phone's true capability. Both of you might just be thinking, "Well, there is paolo's kernel, go use that." And as kernel developers, you have every right to think that and decline this request. But seeing how good both of your kernels are, why not make it better?
Please consider this, as many of us believe both of your kernels can be made better with these bugfixes.
The poll is there as an estimate and measure of how many users believe that these bugfixes will make your kernels better.
sweetnsour said:
Well, there are only two kernel developers here in the P500 forum, franco and fserve. There is no doubt that the work both of you have done is off the charts, tweaking every little thing that can be tweaked to such an extent that there hardly is anything left to tweak. And there is no doubt that most, if not all, of the people using your kernels love the work you guys put out.
With that in mind, however, there are a couple of things (specifically bugs) that we request, not demand, to be fixed. As we all know, our phone is affected by two things that I, as well as many other users, believe are two big bugs: the cpu spiking to 100% when touching the screen and the axis inversion bugs. Even with both of your kernels as good as they are now, these bugs hinder their true capability. Both of you might just be thinking, "Well, there is paolo's kernel, go use that." And as kernel developers, you have every right to think that and decline this request. But seeing how good both of your kernels are, why not make it better?
Please consider this, as many of us believe both of your kernels can be made better with these bugfixes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed
PES2012 is hard to play with the lags but suprisingly Pes2011 does not have lag...I read once that Sippolo said its a 2 minute fix for the cpu spike bug
i think its ok to fix bugs even when most users can profit.
but, what about users who have new/other phones now?
i know from franco he's not developing on .35 currently because he has a new phone
and the P500 is used by his father - no way to develop on every day. the next reason is as we
all know, the P500 is a nice device for android beginners but most of us have seen
the new things like Nexus S, Galaxy S-2, HTC devices or other high end phones. I'm sorry
to say that but the P500 is some old and almost used in countries where such high end
devices cant be payed for, or, in most cases too - most users who bought this device
are very young (when i think how old i'm) - and, good developers have a real job to get
enough money for high end devices ... so, these developers cant support such low budget
devices all the time.
For me this means, i'm developing on P500 because its most funny for me to see all these
**** LG hardware bugs, but decided too that there is no way to develop on P500 the next year
too, so the next phoenix-android gingerbread will be the last release for the P500 device too.
I dont know what mik_os is doing, i think he has a real job too and no time to develop all
the time for this device ...
But, ok, these words sounds very sad for most users - i think, there are other ways or users
who take the developers work and can support such devices for a few months. for me it
doesnt matter if users are coming to me and asking how they can develop on my code.
Android should be open source, that means for me there is a community who want to develop
on - and not everybody is a real developer but can learn something, and that can only be reached
with help and understanding each other. Everybody can say "I want Gingerbread on my phone, i want
ICS on my phone, i want a hell kernel on my phone" - but these work cant be developed by google,
its the task for the community, so lets start here and now and stop crying for franco, fserve, mik or
others! Learn to help your self! Be a part of a real community!
I understand what you are trying to say andy, and after reading your post, i must say that i have to agree with you.
As much as I want to start developing myself, I have no idea where to begin. Just a question, which language must I learn to start android development? (is it java or c++? ive seen both languages mentioned but i do not know which one. is there one specific for roms and one specific for kernels? because i think i might give kernel development a try once i learn the appropriate language)
sweetnsour said:
Ah, this thread was short-lived
I understand what you are trying to say andy, and after reading your post, i must say that i have to agree with you.
As much as I want to start developing myself, I have no idea where to begin. Just a question, which language must I learn to start android development? (is it java or c++? ive seen both languages mentioned but i do not know which one. is there one specific for roms and one specific for kernels? because i think i might give kernel development a try once i learn the appropriate language)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Developing on android doesnt mean you have to write code by yourself all the time.
Sure, its good to know about C/C++, Java, Shell scripting, makefile reading/writing and other things
but in most time we can copy or integrate existing patches. So, you only know about the bug and
where to fix it with what programming language. For the first time, search for the bug on google
and/or github - with some luck users can find a fix that needs only to copied in the local code.
To start developing on android, its a good choice to understand in details how android is working
and even a good thing is to know about Linux. On windows, you cant develop on Android OS so
you need at least a small Ubuntu/Linux Mint/RedHat or SuSE system with compilers and Java installed.
The next required knowledge is to know how Android is interacting with files:
What is Java for, what is C/C++ for, how Android is booting and what are JNI libraries.
We can open a thread so we can explain something or users can ask for specific things there.
andy572 said:
Developing on android doesnt mean you have to write code by yourself all the time.
Sure, its good to know about C/C++, Java, Shell scripting, makefile reading/writing and other things
but in most time we can copy or integrate existing patches. So, you only know about the bug and
where to fix it with what programming language. For the first time, search for the bug on google
and/or github - with some luck users can find a fix that needs only to copied in the local code.
To start developing on android, its a good choice to understand in details how android is working
and even a good thing is to know about Linux. On windows, you cant develop on Android OS so
you need at least a small Ubuntu/Linux Mint/RedHat or SuSE system with compilers and Java installed.
The next required knowledge is to know how Android is interacting with files:
What is Java for, what is C/C++ for, how Android is booting and what are JNI libraries.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info! I will keep this in mind.
andy572 said:
We can open a thread so we can explain something or users can ask for specific things there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good idea (this sounds like sticky material)! would you like to open it? it would not make sense for me to open it since I'm not a developer
First of all i would like to thank andy, mik_os, franciscofranco, fserve, ciaox,knzo, docotornotor and many others who i may have forgotten for their impeccable work towards this community and for working their asses off. You'll are invaluable assets to the community and i could'nt imagine using my phone without you'll.
Reading andy's post i must have to agree with him because you devs have worked so hard towards our phone even though many of you''ll don't own one. Also you bared with the many spams, useless comments on your threads without saying a word. Also many of you have jobs in RL for which you have to work hard, and developing for a phone which you don't even own/primitive phone would seem to you as a waste of time and i can thoroughly understand that. Even though i dunno scat about developing, i do know that it is highly time consuming and resource oriented.
So as you'll probably know that the 2 most irritating bugs on our phone are the touchscreen driver lags, and the axis inversion bugs. Me, as well as thousands of p500 users can't thank franciscofranco and fserve for their dedicated work towards our phone and for developing two awesome kernels which made our p500 superfast. Any p500 user could match his phone's performance to our higher end phones and show its capablities off even though it being a low-ish end phone. I think i am speaking for the thousands of p500 owners all around the world and i would like to take this opportunity to request you kernel developers to fix these bugs and include them in your fanstastic kernels. India itself has the largest number of p500 owners all around the world and this phone is still popular as of today and if you'll didn;t know it is THE BEST SELLING SMARTPHONE phone in India. Therfore tons of us users would love if u fixed these two final bugs as they in my opinion are the biggest performance drainers all credits to ******y LG developers. As sweetnsour said, you devs have every right to decline this request as there is already the paulos kernel and plus you devs have worked your asses off to tweak our phones to its fullest extent and i don't think there may be any more tweaking left to do
However i do believe you devs collaborate in this one final project. Me, as well as every member of this community can't thank you enough for your hard work! We also have many talented devs [ciaox is 13 wtf? ] who can continue development of this phone. Looking at the dev section, many new roms have come up since mik's cm7 port and each rom outperforms the other[no disrespect to mik_os, he started the cm7 era!].
I hope fserve and franciscofranco take this post in regard and work towards fixing these bugs !
Thank you.
ps. sorry for my bad english.
@ andy572
Open ur own website and tell us more! I wanna build my own ROMs but i kinda fail it... With ur small free time? Can u exxplain?? It would be grateful to others!
Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk
Uhm... Fserve has already patched his Goldenleaf Kernel with Der_Caveman + Waleedq + Sippolo's workaround to fix axes inversion and cpu spikes.
The related Fserve's kernels are Goldenleaf 111107 and 111108 (I prefer this one). Cheers!
if u didnt know, axis inversion is not possible to fix 100% because it is a hardware issue.........
there is only little you can do about it in the coding part
Yes, I know it's an hardware problem, however a workaround is better than nothing!
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA App
for me it
doesnt matter if users are coming to me and asking how they can develop on my code.
Android should be open source, that means for me there is a community who want to develop
on - and not everybody is a real developer but can learn something, and that can only be reached
with help and understanding each other. Everybody can say "I want Gingerbread on my phone, i want
ICS on my phone, i want a hell kernel on my phone" - but these work cant be developed by google,
its the task for the community, so lets start here and now and stop crying for franco, fserve, mik or
others! Learn to help your self! Be a part of a real community!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well said~
fserve's goldenleaf has added Sippolo's workaround
For me as a user, i would say THANK YOU to you guys for bringing this community alive. Thank you for your hardwork and effort that you put in. I would say that my p500 runs fastest than galaxy s stock 2.3.3. Im not joking as my phone is smooth thanks to you guys. no bugs for most of the roms i tested. I may not be a dev but i understand a lil bit. So once again thank you guys
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA App
I agree with most of what Andy said, except the part that our phone is obsolete.
I'm not a dev but I found plenty of tutorials available that explained how to successfully compile a kernel from source and extract a .config from an existing kernel. I never found a perfect how to but by meshing various methods together I was eventually successful. After reading francos github commits I discovered the toolchain he was using which was the final ingredient.
From there I used a diff tool to compare franco and Paulos sources, this is how I found the camera flicker fix. When I saw big differences in the source I googled it and/or copied it over then compiled and tested it. It took about 5 tries before I found the flicker fix. This learning process took more than just a couple of hours, it was frustrating but eventually rewarding. I still don't know anything about C or Java, so Andy is right, read/research, copy/paste, trial and error actually works.
Considering that Paulos kernel has resolved these issues and franco hasn't means you should be able to use the same technique. These bugs seem to affect gaming the most, which I don't do, so I haven't had the motivation to look into it.
franco and fserve are more than willing to include fixes. fserve posted a test kernel that included my find within a day. Within a week franco had released a new version that included it.
Open a discussion thread, I think it's a great idea! This is a developers forum after all. Thousands of noobs should be able to combine their efforts to fix these issues. Let's make it happen instead of waiting for it to happen.
Thank You !!!
Suggestion : Why dont Fserve or Franco use and edit Paulo's V6 Kernel'?
is it possible'?
OT.. .
Mistakes are the PORTALS of DISCOVERY .. .
so Cmon.. . Lets commit mistakes
Why don't ask them yourself?
Btw: PaoloM70's 2.6.35.14 V6 Kernel source:
http://www.multiupload.com/18Y712HS9G
so there is no multitouch bug and screen touch lag in paolao kernel?
@sweetnsour . I feel like Ciao X would be a good person to ask about this one. He is young so I feel will continue to work on our p500. I could be wrong. But I also think you could learn much about your goal( which by the way I think it's WONDERFUL you want to learn to develope ) I KNOW I'm not cut out for it, and so I can be honest while I am no actually HELP to this community when it comes to developing. I AM. A HUGE fan, supporter and appreciate of all the passion and art and great works that come out of this wonderful community!!! Anyway, I digress CIAO CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THIS???
Optimus T
OpenOptimus (froyo)
latest franco kernal
748/480
Interactive X
Jonny Green
"im not a Dev but I flash alot"
TL;DR
If you want to help me, post on MY thread about my kernel bugs. --REALLY--
(or dev something, lol)
(or donate me, i really love that )
FOR NOW, i need people to tell me which is the WORST game to play on p500 using gbs v19 kernel, AND it need to be free (or not if you give me the money).
So i can test this touchscreen bug.
Please, post, on my thread for .32 kernels and on franco thread for .35 kernel.
Thanks
fserve said:
TL;DR
If you want to help me, post on MY thread about my kernel bugs. --REALLY--
(or dev something, lol)
(or donate me, i really love that )
FOR NOW, i need people to tell me which is the WORST game to play on p500 using gbs v19 kernel, AND it need to be free (or not if you give me the money).
So i can test this touchscreen bug.
Please, post, on my thread for .32 kernels and on franco thread for .35 kernel.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for weighing in! There are two apps you can try using:
For a game, try playing glow hockey (use the two player mode). When your fingers cross, you will be controlling the opposite puck.
To see what is really going on, check out the app "multitouch vis test". You will see the bug when you cross your finger either horizontally or vertically.
Sent from my LG-P509 using xda premium
EDIT: I was talking about the axis inversion bug, not the CPU lag bug. Not sure what the worst free game for that would be, but neocore would be good for testing this bug.
I'm confused - what are the differences/advantages/disadvantages/progress/status of the two options of CM9 ROMs?
MunJeni
WinSuk
"official" CM9 (which I haven't really seen yet)
Maybe I'm the only one confused, but these two ROM developers seem to be working both together and separately.
Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled that multiple people are working on an ICS ROM for the Aria. I just want to know what the differences are.
Thanks,
Dan
They use different kernels. as far as I know thats pretty much it. I'm running munjini's currently and it works great for the most part
80+% of munjeni's ROM came from mine, if that helps. Yet everyone is exploding over it
I think that the projects should be merged with the best parts in each one. You both do great work and it should be best for the community to combine efforts and avoid confusion and supporting two projects.
CaptainMaki said:
I think that the projects should be merged with the best parts in each one. You both do great work and it should be best for the community to combine efforts and avoid confusion and supporting two projects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Already tried that.
CaptainMaki said:
I think that the projects should be merged with the best parts in each one. You both do great work and it should be best for the community to combine efforts and avoid confusion and supporting two projects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried but all my commit pushed to WinSuk github was reverted so I opened separated git using initial repo from WinSuk and started working separated... but builds between WinSuk and me is not drastically diferent, thing about 2 roms is good thing becouse we have 2 diferent tests and we are at finish abble to merge good things between 2 roms!
if you both be able to work together in the end that would be awesome and the best for the community.
Again, thanks for both of you on all the hard work you put into this.
Big thanks to you both. I have been running the Munjeni May 10 build for just a few days now but it is working great. I love how fast the GPS gets a lock (easily 20x faster than CM7.2).
what navigation software are you using. cause I'm still have trouble with getting a fast lock on some of them.
CaptainMaki said:
what navigation software are you using. cause I'm still have trouble with getting a fast lock on some of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stock Android Maps and Navigation. However, the first time it did say I was a full 2 states away. Letting it settle for a day seemed to do the trick.
Yes yes, you may think that I'm crazy for attempting to compile AOSP, but in fact im just obsessed with getting AOSP to work (on my previous device I spent a full year on it without success), thanks to the experience I know much more know about the environment.
I've done several pure aosp builds so far, and they result in a ~280mb system folder, which is kinda the size of aosp I guess (atleast for xxhdpi)
But they end with errors of course, anyways. I used the devices specs with updated overlays,and added dependencies (such as hardware) to the environment.
But since the aosp environment is very mean to new devices its once again a real struggle. as expected, but I like the challenge.
Anyways, Im currently trying out this hybrid-ish environment. which contains the items listed above but with several elements of the AOKP environment added (only the essential ones for compatibility).
Compiling goes so far so good. hope I will get a working build. (don't expect this to happen tho)
Oh and since samsung is releasing the S4 Google Edition (AOSP) soon it must be possible. (the google edition is the qualcomm varian afaik)
More info soon!
I'm going to drop this here for now until I have time to mess with it more.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/android-building/_F67iLDcVzQ
Note: This leads me back to my previous question as to how we are supposed to build with this.
At face value it seems we're only getting fairly close to what we were with other OSRC releases.
Going to look at more later tonight.
Skilled devs can get pure aosp to work properly. It was done for sprints gs3 without using CM code.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2
You don't necessarily need proprietary binaries to be released to build AOSP, although it does make it much easier. Sometimes you have to resort to trial and error and debug tools.
drewX2 said:
You don't necessarily need proprietary binaries to be released to build AOSP, although it does make it much easier. Sometimes you have to resort to trial and error and debug tools.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree completely. Without the prop' libraries and drivers that the OEM has built to manage the board you can most certainly expect the related hardware to fail or be only partially functional at best. Some other 3rd party generic driver would still be required if this example were true. In the good old AOSP days (maguro for example) had roughly a dozen proprietary files required for the device tree to build. With more and more OEMs making different hardware configs and spin-off APIs trying to lock down a lead in the game it has inflated that number greatly. In this instance, for example, S4 requires roughly 165 proprietary files in the vendor/ and device/ tree. Furthermore, with many of those stacks being required to pass for a successful boot complete (audio for example) there is little chance for even semi-functional usage without the required libraries and drivers.
broodplank1337 said:
(edit)...I'm crazy for attempting to compile AOSP...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're compiling pure AOSP already for this board. I'm not sure what your repo structure looks like but if you are based off a CM or AOKP base clone then you got some work cut out for you. The CM tree compiles completely different than AOSP. All EaglesBlood builds are compiled from our same main branch, which consists entirely of only pure AOSP + our own EB coding. There is no CM codeblock nor anything else polluting (no pun). Since CM and others have some custom hybrid APIs and such you may run into issues that are difficult to resolve or even identify. If you aren't the one committing those patches then it is difficult to know at a glance of what has been heavily CM-ified vs closer to native code; or unless you're very in-tune with CM, gerrit and GIT.
We'll be releasing AOSP 4.2.2 as soon as we get the kernel config where we want it to be. Stay tuned. http://www.eaglesblood.com
oOo B0XeR oOo said:
I disagree completely. Without the prop' libraries and drivers that the OEM has built to manage the board you can most certainly expect the related hardware to fail or be only partially functional at best. Some other 3rd party generic driver would still be required if this example were true. In the good old AOSP days (maguro for example) had roughly a dozen proprietary files required for the device tree to build. With more and more OEMs making different hardware configs and spin-off APIs trying to lock down a lead in the game it has inflated that number greatly. In this instance, for example, S4 requires roughly 165 proprietary files in the vendor/ and device/ tree. Furthermore, with many of those stacks being required to pass for a successful boot complete (audio for example) there is little chance for even semi-functional usage without the required libraries and drivers.
I think you misunderstood what I said. First of all, I am speaking from *experience*. I have ported AOSP to devices without RELEASED proprietary binaries and I have handled every step in porting; from display, audio, to calling, wifi, bt, etc. Released means the manufacturer provides a nice little package for you. I had to in many cases, figure out which libs from a stock rom were needed. Additionally, you can utilize libs from completely different devices as a temporary patch. I am very comfortable with kernel development and the android framework. If you were too, you would know what I am saying is true. Here is one tip, nearly every board is like another (within the same class; eg. MSM8960, APQ8064) with only slight variations (e.g. modem). Once you understand that, it becomes easier.
We're compiling pure AOSP already for this board. I'm not sure what your repo structure looks like but if you are based off a CM or AOKP base clone then you got some work cut out for you. The CM tree compiles completely different than AOSP. All EaglesBlood builds are compiled from our same main branch, which consists entirely of only pure AOSP + our own EB coding. There is no CM codeblock nor anything else polluting (no pun). Since CM and others have some custom hybrid APIs and such you may run into issues that are difficult to resolve or even identify. If you aren't the one committing those patches then it is difficult to know at a glance of what has been heavily CM-ified vs closer to native code; or unless you're very in-tune with CM, gerrit and GIT.
We'll be releasing AOSP 4.2.2 as soon as we get the kernel config where we want it to be. Stay tuned. http://www.eaglesblood.com
I agree with you on some points about CM code, however, you're group has been porting devices that were working or nearly working with base android code. Talk about an easy route. I can see you haven't had to do any hard work yet. Going from 4.1 -> 4.2 on a non google AOSP supported device or a device that has no CM build available for it is a whole different story. How do I know? I've done it. I was the first to build CM for HTC DNA and both CM/AOSP for Oppo Find 5. Next time before you "completely disagree," make sure you know what you're talking about.
Lastly, although I agree with you on some points about CM code, you should give them credit because your stuff is probably based on their stuff more then you lead others to believe; like nearly every other "dev group" out there. And by no means, am I some CM lover (I've had my quarrels with them), but you should give respect and credit to those who make what you do possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See Above.
drewX2 said:
I think you misunderstood what I said. First of all, I am speaking from *experience*. I have ported AOSP to devices without RELEASED proprietary binaries...
...How do I know? I've done it. I was the first to build CM for HTC DNA and both CM/AOSP for Oppo Find 5. Next time before you "completely disagree," make sure you know what you're talking about.
[/QUOTE
Great, hi-five to you, but before making bold assumptions...
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/aosp-jellybean-build-for-the-t-mobile-g2x/
drewX2 said:
...(CM) you should give them credit because your stuff is probably based on their stuff more then you lead others to believe; like nearly every other "dev group" out there. And by no means, am I some CM lover (I've had my quarrels with them),....
See Above.
[/QUOTE
I never suggested anything about CM, they are top-notch. I said we dont use their base code like "every other dev". Sorry you have had quarrels; and there is nothing "probably based off them" as I just told you our repo is straight AOSP & EB.
Likewise you should "know what you're talking about", prior to making assumptions and speculations.
^read above
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im currently working on this as well...anyone have anymore success? Im currently fighting my way through compile errors...but I would love to be able to atleast get a bootable pure aosp from source...ill keep at it...but if anyone has gotten it yet please help speed up my process and enlighten me on what you did to compile a working aosp
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
I guess we all are I'm working on one too. Lots of research on correcting errors
Cm10.2 anyone??
Sent from my GT-I9505G using Tapatalk 2
deleted
Wrong post
I did it successfully with help of some external repos
forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2397511
I received a request by a few people asking about MultiRom....
I know that @Skin1980 ported multirom to your device some time ago, I also know that as he did a good job, it wasnt perfect..
As I talk to @Tasssadar almost everyday (Hes the Creator/Owner of MultiRom) . I have a fully working Port of MultiRom V32 With a fully working Modified TWRP 2.8.6.X.
and the Kexec Patch that I use is not the same as the ones you have grown you know. Mine is independent from the other patch. This one was created with the help By @tasssdar. Do to
the G3's strange memory locations. Anyhow. It does Work with Stock OEM roms. using a special hooks file.
If anyone wants a little more nfo on it, let me give you 2 links,
Links: MultiRom V32 G3 (D851) T-Mobile
Links: MultiRom V32 G3 (D850) AT&T
If you are interested in me porting it over here, Then respond, otherwise I wont waste my time.......
My Device is in my Sig, I have the D851..
Anyhow, I will check back and see if anyone is interested, after one day, Its final.....
That would great.
That would be freakin awsome.
Please port
I will be honest, I dont mind porting this over, But my head is really not with all this anymore. I have been stressing my self out
by fixing this and fixing that, and listening to everyone cry and wine about whats working whats not working.
To the point that I need a break. I do what I do to help the community, This is what XDA is for. I dont mind doing what I do.
I didnt know how to do anything till I did alot of reading and had some really good people teach me the ropes.
But that wasnt an overnite job, Kinda took me a few months of learning before I was able to take on the job of coding and porting and knowing
what went where and why.. and the differents between all the source codes avail.
So, with all that said, Just give me some time to clear my head............
I think it would be great I loved multirom couldn't run without it until everything got updated to 5.1 then roms would not install properly. Take all the time you need and don't let external factors stress you out. I look forward to the amazing work you and all the developers have done and continue to do. Peace!
I would love a working multirom
can someone tell me why the developers have 2.3.4 rom in development, with bugs and little support ??? when it is better to devote time to a single good and seriously attended !!!!
Sent from my Redmi 3S using XDA-Developers Legacy app
Same question. There are a few devs who would work on one build then abandon the project completely, and make another build of a different ROM.
Because most of that So called Development is just copy paste job. those guys don't actually develop anything by themselves. otherwise they could have fixed it, instead they wait for actual developers to fix it and just copy from them. :silly:
kraatus90 said:
Because most of that So called Development is just copy paste job. those guys don't actually develop anything by themselves. otherwise they could have fixed it, instead they wait for actual developers to fix it and just copy from them. :silly:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed
[email protected] said:
can someone tell me why the developers have 2.3.4 rom in development, with bugs and little support ??? when it is better to devote time to a single good and seriously attended !!!!
Sent from my Redmi 3S using XDA-Developers Legacy app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kraatus90 said:
Because most of that So called Development is just copy paste job. those guys don't actually develop anything by themselves. otherwise they could have fixed it, instead they wait for actual developers to fix it and just copy from them. :silly:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. You will know then answer when you try to compile one ROM (Not developing).
2. Compiling a ROM is not just a Copy & Paste work. If it's so... Do yourself.... (its just copy & paste nah..?)
So here is a answer. I'm also started Android Development just 2 weeks ago. And i compiled 4 different ROMs : Lineage, Candy, Slim, Glaze. I'm not doing it for you. But for me. I wanted to learn, no one can start from "Coding Everything from Scratch" especially legacy softwares like kernel and other things. So we start from compiling.... When we successfully compiled a ROM by facing and fixing many Errors. We move on to a new ROM, Coz New ROM will give new errors and we can learn to fix them. You may ask "Why you cant learn from Improving a rom...?" and my answer is "NO ONE IS GONNA TEACH ME HOW TO IMPROVE A ROM". Self learning needs lots of trial and error. So we building many ROMs. If you don't like that or you are a cry baby who cries for "XXXXX is not working" or "Poor XXXX". Just stick with STOCK ROM. XDA is for Learning and Not Only for SERVING YOU A BUG FREE, FULLY OPTIMIZED, FULLY FEATURED CUSTOM ROM for FREE.
Sorry.... if anything hurts anyone... I mean it.
dineshthangavel47 said:
1. You will know then answer when you try to compile one ROM (Not developing).
2. Compiling a ROM is not just a Copy & Paste work. If it's so... Do yourself.... (its just copy & paste nah..?)
So here is a answer. I'm also started Android Development just 2 weeks ago. And i compiled 4 different ROMs : Lineage, Candy, Slim, Glaze. I'm not doing it for you. But for me. I wanted to learn, no one can start from "Coding Everything from Scratch" especially legacy softwares like kernel and other things. So we start from compiling.... When we successfully compiled a ROM by facing and fixing many Errors. We move on to a new ROM, Coz New ROM will give new errors and we can learn to fix them. You may ask "Why you cant learn from Improving a rom...?" and my answer is "NO ONE IS GONNA TEACH ME HOW TO IMPROVE A ROM". Self learning needs lots of trial and error. So we building many ROMs. If you don't like that or you are a cry baby who cries for "XXXXX is not working" or "Poor XXXX". Just stick with STOCK ROM. XDA is for Learning and Not Only for SERVING YOU A BUG FREE, FULLY OPTIMIZED, FULLY FEATURED CUSTOM ROM for FREE.
Sorry.... if anything hurts anyone... I mean it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why did you took it personally lol? it was just an observation. yes there are people who want to learn and they have to start somewhere. nothing wrong in that. but when you see same people doing exactly same thing for a long time and not improving upon that. it becomes clear what they are doing.
and i never ask for fix this fix that, cuz i know who are actually developing and who are just waiting for fix to be developed by someone else. so no point asking. you sound like someone who wants to learn. but that doesn't mean everyone else is like you. there are people who as i said haven't learn anything but just copy paste cherry-pick for donation money. i rarely see anyone with their own piece of code. happens even more with kernel btw.
and yes i have compiled cm13 2 year ago that's the reason why i know this, and currently using my own (copy-paste haha) kernel for both MG5/nexus 5x. although i haven't released it. nor i'll. (source is on my git if you don't believe).
Anyway, best of luck for your learning, i hope you will learn a lot and will be able to fix problems by yourself instead of waiting for others. it's a long road ahead :good:
First of all, people always mistake ROM/Kernel etc development (not talking about app and other development which are indeed) as profession of devs, they do it in their FREE time because they like it, for example you play basketball because you like it.
Secondly, when there is shortage of ROMs, you yourself would complain about it, please correct me if I'm wrong. Different ROMs have different flavours, and everyone of us likes tasting different flavours. If you're worried about why a thread owner isn't updating it, you can migrate to other one instead of complaining about it.
Some guys have enough skills to compile ROMs, but not the ability to work on source code. So they wait for fixes by those who work on source, and update their ROMs as soon as bug is fixed. Also, compiling can be the start of learning development for guys.
Although I agree with @kraatus90 on some points, there are some things that I don't. First of all, there's no point of redoing the whole kernel, vendor, tree source stuff when you can use the available code with some modifications, obviously the one who uses it have to give proper credits to the bringup dev and other contributors. Also it should be moral duty of the forker to improve the forked code, be it in small or big ways. Simply forking, compiling and PUBLISHING is certainly disheartening and condemnable.