Develop Bugs

2.3.3 sense kernels!

i know most of the devs said in order to have custom kernels for the new sense leak we have to wait for the official release or source to drop. i guess my question is, why not take the current shipped kernel and tweak it a bit and add sbc mod to it for the time being?
is this even possible and if so is anyone like toast/netarch working on this?

at this point i think it was said that the current kernel was very incomplete so devs are waiting for htc to drop the KERNAL source code

fixxxer2008 said:
i know most of the devs said in order to have custom kernels for the new sense leak we have to wait for the official release or source to drop. i guess my question is, why not take the current shipped kernel and tweak it a bit and add sbc mod to it for the time being?
is this even possible and if so is anyone like toast/netarch working on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mainly, the 2.2 kernel is based on 2.6.32, while the 2.3 kernel included with the last leak was based on 2.6.35. Two different trees totally. With no source for the newer kernel yet, it's almost impossible to do anything... at least easily.
It's easier to just wait for HTC to drop their source for the .35 kernel they are going to use, then the devs can go to town on it fixing what's broken as usual.
I'm not a kernel expert, so there may be things I left out or assumed.

3 months later and still no source code

jbrawley1 said:
3 months later and still no source code
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3 months? Its only been a little over a month since the official 2.3 update
We're comin from a pure power source.

HTC has released the source code in a month or less in the past for the Evo.
Unfortunately, I don't expect that to happen this time because several of the bugs with the current 2.3.3 release seem kernel related to me. So my guess is we won't see source until after they release the next update. I just can't see them releasing source for something that is so screwed up, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Yeah, if there is already so much talk of another update, then that would make sense. Plus, according to HTC they have 90-120 days to release the source code.

I thought it was 30 days. I know toast wants kernel source for evo 4g and evo shift. Hopefully HTC realizes its been over a month. I don't think it matters if 2.3.3 has bugs, since it was officially released I think they are required to post kerenel source of what they used for 2.3.3
Maybe we should give a reminder to @HTC on twitter
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

deviouskater said:
I don't think it matters if 2.3.3 has bugs, since it was officially released I think they are required to post kerenel source of what they used for 2.3.3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think their is any requirement for them to release source until they get it working. For example, I can almost guarantee we will never see source for the 4.22.651.2 update, and as I said before, it wouldn't surprise me if we got another update and never see source for the current 4.24.651.1 update either. I can think of several good reasons why they wouldn't release source with known problems.
Every time I back out of an app and have to wait for sense to reload, or whenever I try to switch to an app that was supposed to be running in the background and it has to reload and start over, it is obvious that this kernel has serious issues. I would bet HTC is working on it now to figure out what those issues are.

[Q] Why dont we have GB Sense Kernels?

So... i know that there aren't any devs working on modifying the kernels from the 2.3 Sense Leak, but this is something I dont really understand.
Netarchy and crew (among many others) had kernels pushed out for the EVO WAAAAYYY before they released any source info. and even when we moved to 2.2, there were kernels ready soon after.
Obviously, the brightness fix is in a ton of working 2.2 kernels. Why cant we pull that out and put it in another kernel? Maybe add SBC and/or some battery tweaks?
I know that devs dont want to have to start over if there is a major difference in the Kernels from beta to release, but what would be the major change? Wouldnt the 2.3 be a good place to start messing around, and then make small adjustments when the full kernel is released? You could easily get a leg up on other devs and incorporate it into the TONS of 2.3 Roms that are out there now.
Im ignorant as hell when it comes to kernels and compiling, but speaking on a tiny modicum of common sense, there should be a way to prod and poke this kernel into submission.
ignore me if in being dumb. I just felt like i had to ask this.
EDIT:
Id like to keep this a conversation between people who want this and people who know. Please dont add your 2cnts in to say the same things we have all heard (we need source, cant do it, no reverse engineering, blah blah)
If you are a dev and can give some REAL PROPER insight, we would love to hear it. even if its to tell us to stuff it LOL.

rawdikrik said:
So... i know that there aren't any devs working on modifying the kernels from the 2.3 Sense Leak, but this is something I dont really understand.
Netarchy and crew (among many others) had kernels pushed out for the EVO WAAAAYYY before they released any source info. and even when we moved to 2.2, there were kernels ready soon after.
Obviously, the brightness fix is in a ton of working 2.2 kernels. Why cant we pull that out and put it in another kernel? Maybe add SBC and/or some battery tweaks?
I know that devs dont want to have to start over if there is a major difference in the Kernels from beta to release, but what would be the major change? Wouldnt the 2.3 be a good place to start messing around, and then make small adjustments when the full kernel is released? You could easily get a leg up on other devs and incorporate it into the TONS of 2.3 Roms that are out there now.
Im ignorant as hell when it comes to kernels and compiling, but speaking on a tiny modicum of common sense, there should be a way to prod and poke this kernel into submission.
ignore me if in being dumb. I just felt like i had to ask this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done until HTC releases source code for the kernel, or until HTC releases a new, working kernel. The kernel that is out now, that causes the brightness issue, is basically an incomplete kernel, from a leaked rom. Something that is fully working, and more stable is needed.

k2buckley said:
Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done until HTC releases source code for the kernel, or until HTC releases a new, working kernel. The kernel that is out now, that causes the brightness issue, is basically an incomplete kernel, from a leaked rom. Something that is fully working, and more stable is needed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I appreciate you saying that... but it doesnt explain why we had kernels for 2.1 and 2.2 before any source was released. I would like to hear from the devs directly.
Thanks for chiming in though.

From the little and probably wrong information I'm making up, you can't decompile kernels from a Rom, you need source to download from, then apply your mods and then can compile a fixed kernel
Edit: complete speculation, if it is in fact true i will modify post to reflect my all knowing powers

NewZJ said:
From the little and probably wrong information I'm making up, you can't decompile kernels from a Rom, you need source to download from, then apply your mods and then can compile a fixed kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you... but this is what I am trying to avoid. Id like to remove the misinformation and get a real set of reasons and information. We can all speculate. I want a real answer... and im sure im not the only one.

rawdikrik said:
Thank you... but this is what I am trying to avoid. Id like to remove the misinformation and get a real set of reasons and information. We can all speculate. I want a real answer... and im sure im not the only one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't make kernels unless they are 1.) reverse-engineered 2.) or HTC releases the source code for a specific device.
Too time consuming. And by the time, it goes through a psuedo-SDLC, HTC would have probably already released the newest one and devs here already working on a custom kernel.
Hope that answers your question

I believe net said he would work on one as soon as the source is released....I think I read it in his thread
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

pinky059 said:
Can't make kernels unless they are 1.) reverse-engineered 2.) or HTC releases the source code for a specific device.
Too time consuming. And by the time, it goes through a psuedo-SDLC, HTC would have probably already released the newest one and devs here already working on a custom kernel.
Hope that answers your question
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So in other words the reasons that they arent bothering is because they dont want to invest the time when it could become obsolete before it is even released?

mutant13 said:
I believe net said he would work on one as soon as the source is released....I think I read it in his thread
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont see that happening any time soon.
Not only that, but i think i remember NET working on one before any source came out for 2.2 and 2.1, especially to fix the FPS cap.
I think that he didnt want to touch it because it is beta and can change between now and an official 2.3 release, like most devs have stated.

rawdikrik said:
I appreciate you saying that... but it doesnt explain why we had kernels for 2.1 and 2.2 before any source was released. I would like to hear from the devs directly.
Thanks for chiming in though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not a problem. I don't have an answer for you about kernels being released for 2.1 and 2.2 before source was released, other than that you're most likely mistaken about that. Based on what I've been told by devs, and what I've seen devs say (netarchy said he'd work on this kernel as soon as source was released, and that there was nothing that could be done prior to source being released....he said it in his kernel thread), it is nearly impossible to mod/tweak a kernel without the source code. Without source code, it would need to be reverse engineered. By the time that was to happen, a new kernel would already be released most likely.
That's all I got on that issue. So basically, no custom kernels without kernel source.

k2buckley said:
Not a problem. I don't have an answer for you about kernels being released for 2.1 and 2.2 before source was released, other than that you're most likely mistaken about that. Based on what I've been told by devs, and what I've seen devs say (netarchy said he'd work on this kernel as soon as source was released, and that there was nothing that could be done prior to source being released....he said it in his kernel thread), it is nearly impossible to mod/tweak a kernel without the source code. Without source code, it would need to be reverse engineered. By the time that was to happen, a new kernel would already be released most likely.
That's all I got on that issue. So basically, no custom kernels without kernel source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I may very well be COMPLETELY WRONG. LOL. Im not against that. I am right now doing my homework to confirm what ive been thinking.
EDIT: After doing some homework, it looks like Net and Toast were making changes to the stock 2.1 kernel before any source was released. This i remember because the 2.2 Kernels that they first made broke the camera, which wasnt fixed until the source was released. I remember waiting with my hand over f5 til HTC released the source.
They we working hard on using Kernels from other devices and tryign to get the FPS cap removed along with getting the HDMI working.
All i did was go over this ANCIENT thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=719763&highlight=source

rawdikrik said:
I may very well be COMPLETELY WRONG. LOL. Im not against that. I am right now doing my homework to confirm what ive been thinking.
EDIT: After doing some homework, it looks like Net and Toast were making changes to the stock 2.1 kernel before any source was released. This i remember because the 2.2 Kernels that they first made broke the camera, which wasnt fixed until the source was released. I remember waiting with my hand over f5 til HTC released the source.
They we working hard on using Kernels from other devices and tryign to get the FPS cap removed along with getting the HDMI working.
All i did was go over this ANCIENT thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=719763&highlight=source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, maybe there are certain things that can be worked on without source, but I believe for this type of problem (brightness issue), source is needed. Probably similar to how you said that the 2.2 kerneles broke the camera at first, and couldn't be fixed until source was released. This is the same type of deal. Hopefully Sprint will release an OTA within 30-60 days. I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything before that, unfortunately.

k2buckley said:
Well, maybe there are certain things that can be worked on without source, but I believe for this type of problem (brightness issue), source is needed. Probably similar to how you said that the 2.2 kerneles broke the camera at first, and couldn't be fixed until source was released. This is the same type of deal. Hopefully Sprint will release an OTA within 30-60 days. I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything before that, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The word around the grapevine is that sprint isn't releasing the OTA until after the release of the evo 3d (marketing scheme, you know how it is).

AbsolutZeroGI said:
The word around the grapevine is that sprint isn't releasing the OTA until after the release of the evo 3d (marketing scheme, you know how it is).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I heard that too. That wont be til June/July and then they have another 60days of waiting time they usually take to release source.
and that is IF They do the upgrade, since usually they only want a single upgrade in the life cycle of a product. They will most likely REALLY think about it, to not risk stealing sales from the newer phones coming out over the summer.

AbsolutZeroGI said:
The word around the grapevine is that sprint isn't releasing the OTA until after the release of the evo 3d (marketing scheme, you know how it is).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct. I predict the 3D to drop within 30-60 days from now though. Then shortly after that, the OTA will probably roll out. As rawdikrik said, source will probably come a month or two after the OTA. The good thing though, is that if/when an OTA is released, it will have a working kernel in it. So even without source being released, a working kernel will be in circulation at that point, which will most likely resolve the brightness issue.

Evo 3D is supposedly hitting June so I'm going to say July just to give it some breathing room. If OTA hits around August maybe September, then its another 30-45 days to release source. So were talking around September-October ish for complete source. This is all speculation but sprint/HTC operate that way. My guess is september for a fully working kernel for GB based on the source code. Stupid marketing scheme to get us to buy the evo 3D.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App

I'm so going to buy the EVO 3d

not sure how i feel about the 3d gimmick...
Can we keep this on topic though? THanks guys... Im just waiting to hear something from the big dogs.

Keep in mind it's entirely possible that we will see another leaked kernal long before the OTA is out, this one fully functional. This is especially true if(as many of you seem to suspect) this "leak" was actually no leak at all but an intentional way to let the Chefs and Power Users test their new ROM for them and get feedback on it.

Not sure if you (the Op) have ever tried programming... But (in perspective of the difficulty), basically this would be like me writing a "Hello World" app in Java or C++, and it having an extra space in between the words that bothered you. You would have to cipher through hundreds of lines of code in a hexidecimal editor trying to find the "call" to the display API, and then find which variable or constant it was using for the text output, and change it.
Then you would have to re-compile, and hope it worked without breaking anything else already in place. If you broke something, it's INCREDIBLY hard to debug without real source code.

The GPL obligates Samsung to give us the kernel source

Samsung has given us a kernel source. However, from all the devs, I have heard that this is not the source code for the kernel that is on our phones, and the resulting compiled kernel is not exactly the same as the stock flashed kernel.
The GPL doesn't obligate Samsung to release a source for a kernel, it obligates Samsung to release the source for our kernel.
Maybe if enough of us contact Samsung on this issue, they will release the correct source. I found a way to contact their open-source department about this.
Go to:
https://opensource.samsung.com/
Select Mobile => Mobile phone from the dropdown
Search on the page for SPH-D710 (that's our phones' model number)
On the far-right there is an envelope you can use to contact them.
Use it and ask that they release the actual source code for the shipped kernel version.

I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.

jirafabo said:
I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did the OG Epic fellows ever manage to get Samsung to release the real source?

jirafabo said:
I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no 90 day grace period. The kernel source code must be made available when the compiled kernel is made available.

Really, the only recourse is to sue. And since Google owns the copyright, my guess is that they would have to be the ones to sue (not a lawyer, so not 100% sure).
The odds of Google suing Samsung are about as good as the odds of OJ finding the real killer, so we are basically screwed.
Situations like this seriously undermine the open source nature of Android. If it happens enough to where Android loses market share because people doubt Google's commitment to open source, then they might do something about it. Since this issue probably only matters to a few percent of Android users, that's not very likely.
Don't get me wrong - I'm still a big fan of Google, but their philosophy of "do no evil" cannot be maintained forever as a publicly traded corporation. In the long run, "shareholder value" and the bottom line will win. Even more the reason to do what we can to keep Android as open as possible.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Maybe if enough of us contact Samsung on this issue, they will release the correct source. I found a way to contact their open-source department about this.
Go to:
https://opensource.samsung.com/
Select Mobile => Mobile phone from the dropdown
Search on the page for SPH-D710 (that's our phones' model number)
On the far-right there is an envelope you can use to contact them.
Use it and ask that they release the actual source code for the shipped kernel version.

Some one with some pull around here needs to contact Cyanogen... He does work for Samsung after all.
Samsung Galaxy S II

I don't think it is clear whether
1) source is the wrong source
2) source is incomplete but builds ok
3) source is broken/buggy
4) source is correct, but build parameters are slightly off

Okay, so I just received a response from Samsung actually.
♦ classification : Mobile Phone ♦
♦ model name : SPH-D710 ♦
Dear Customer,
Thank you for your continuous interest in our product.
Supported kernel version(EG30) is correct.
Where did you check the version?
Sincerely yours,
You may find the source code
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could a dev chime in on how we know the source version provided is incorrect? I have seen this referenced numerous times, with it cited as a possible reason LOS seems exacerbated on custom ROMs. If no dev sees this, can anyone point to one of the threads where a dev said this so that we can ask them for more information?

manekineko said:
Okay, so I just received a response from Samsung actually.
Could a dev chime in on how we know the source version provided is incorrect? I have seen this referenced numerous times, with it cited as a possible reason LOS seems exacerbated on custom ROMs. If no dev sees this, can anyone point to one of the threads where a dev said this so that we can ask them for more information?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I was surprised to get a response from them so quickly.
If we don't get a response from a dev it wouldn't be to hard to investigate ourselves.
-Compile kernel from source (they give instructions)
-Flash to phone
-show different version # compared to stock

I just got the same reply. We need some info on what to say back. Developers please chime in. Thanks
Sent From My Evo Killer!!!

Okay, so I tracked down one of the places where I've seen reference to the fact that the source Samsung released isn't right.
The ACS Stock Kernel thread says:
Well as everyone knows, the source released from samsung was some bull****... LoStKernel, makes the best use of that source and adds lots of tweaks, and in my opinion is the best compiled custom kernel available...
But, some people stand by the point that only the stock pulled kernel is free from LoS, or is the LoS is least Rampant for them in that kernel.. But they want CWM too!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I private messaged the dev of that kernel, chris41g.
I also contacted zedomax, since he's also a kernel dev and I figure as such he might know something about this.
If anyone can think of anyone else that can shed more light on this, feel free to chime in.

manekineko said:
Okay, so I tracked down one of the places where I've seen reference to the fact that the source Samsung released isn't right.
The ACS Stock Kernel thread says:
I private messaged the dev of that kernel, chris41g.
I also contacted zedomax, since he's also a kernel dev and I figure as such he might know something about this.
If anyone can think of anyone else that can shed more light on this, feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good. Please post when you get some info as I would love to email Samsung back about this.
Sent From My Evo Killer!!!

Evo3d people have some individuals who would request a kernel source whenever a new kernel was released. I forget specific names, but these people would get in touch with the legal department of HTC, and the source would usually be out within a month...

I've heard back from Zedomax and chris41g.
Zedo didn't know anything about this kernel source differing issue.
chris41g says that it is obvious the source and the stock kernel differ. According to him they have different version numbers and different configs, which should show up in dmesg and kmsgs. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually have an Epic 4G Touch, so he's not able to explain in more detail.
Can any who is on a compiled from source (not stock) kernel take a look at this and provide any more information on this?

If you talk.to Chris, tell him we can hook up my phone and he can access anything needed with TeamViewer like he did when he made one of his kernels
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium

JohnCorleone said:
If you talk.to Chris, tell him we can hook up my phone and he can access anything needed with TeamViewer like he did when he made one of his kernels
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, I messaged back Chris and let him know.

Keep up the work on this cause musclehead
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium

They will likely not release it in any other form. Chances are, they stripped proprietary bits from it before release, and didn't adjust the source to make usable after doing so. Its basically up to developers to fix it in this case.
If this is case, which I'm sure it likely is, as I've had conversations with Samsung about these types of things before, there really is no recourse other than someone stepping up and fixing the source. Samsung isn't required to release proprietary bits, and they're also not obligated to release source code that builds and boots the device right out of the box.
Good luck.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App

jt1134 said:
They will likely not release it in any other form. Chances are, they stripped proprietary bits from it before release, and didn't adjust the source to make usable after doing so. Its basically up to developers to fix it in this case.
If this is case, which I'm sure it likely is, as I've had conversations with Samsung about these types of things before, there really is no recourse other than someone stepping up and fixing the source. Samsung isn't required to release proprietary bits, and they're also not obligated to release source code that builds and boots the device right out of the box.
Good luck.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This makes no sense, as the "proprietary bits" are the changes that are made to the kernel that fall outside of the vanilla kernel that google releases. You're saying those changes dont have to be released makes no sense. Otherwise everyone would just be re-releasing the same stock kernel that google puts out. All changes to the kernel made outside of whatever comes stock MUST be released according the to the GPL. So it doesnt matter what conversations you may or may not have had with whatever Samsung personnel. All that needs to be provided in this case is the differences in what we have and what they released. If a non-disputable change is found and easily comparable, then they have no legal choice.

[INFO] Good News Abound - The state of DEV

I thought I'd clear some things up.
If I'm wrong please don't flame me, I'm only doing my best to subdue the general discontent in [sgh-t989]/[android development]...
Steve Kondik, also known as the creator of the godfather of all ROMS (cyanogenmod) personally owns one of our t989s (source:twitter). That, combined with the fact that this is a FLAGSHIP t-mo device probably means that our phone will be supported from the day that 9.0.0 drops.
Now, let me tell you what this means.
As you all know, for a device get non-kang CM9 our hardware must be fully supported. Camera, GPS, bluetooth, egl drivers all must work.
When a huge scale ROM like CM9 is cooked for so many devices I understand it goes something like this
[AOSP modified by Cyanogenmod(teamdouce)] +
[Android Kernel, also modified by Cyanogenmod]+
[Device tree]+
[A virgin sacrifice]=
CYANOGENMOD
Now the interesting bit, is that as soon as the device tree (Eg. Specific driver modifications for GPS, Camera, GPU) includes our device the device tree can be used to power OTHER AOSP ROMS like Miui
I know that gingerbread MIUI already makes use of the CM7 device tree, so in all likelihood they will use the CM9 device tree as well!!!
So in conclusion.
-Because CM9 has a high likelihood of dropping on our devices as soon as it comes out (most likely within the next 30 days)
-Because other AOSP-Based roms depend on the cyanogenmod device tree
-WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF FLASHING OPTIONS SOON
-Probably including CM9 AND MIUI v4 <<<<--------THAT **** CRAY
Thanks for your time, hope it helped
Don't forget the thanks button feels good when you push it.

there are a lot of other devices with cm9 alpha and we are still not an officially supported device. Still unofficially being worked on

I for one is not counting on it, frankly...
No matter how beautifully you phrase things, WE GOT NOTHING YET.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA App

[A virgin sacrifice] =
SO FREK'IN EXCITED!!!!!

thanks for the info bro looking forward to it

jessejames111981 said:
there are a lot of other devices with cm9 alpha and we are still not an officially supported device. Still unofficially being worked on
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the thing is, many of those are KANGed as in not officially supported by CM team
of the few that officially are supported is Nexus S i9020 and SGS i9000
even the "classic" SGS2 i9100 is not fully supported by CM yet, there's more bugs than... well it's not usable as a daily driver
that was just before the end of last year
they might have improved it a bit by now
even the Nexus S version of CM9 is still very buggy, that's why i have the stock official ICS4 instead on my Nexus S

Please please use words like
"death of an era." Instead of virgin sacrifice. I don't believe in that
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium

iwasblown said:
Please please use words like
"death of an era." Instead of virgin sacrifice. I don't believe in that
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe in idiots, can you make them all go away?

It takes time for this stuff guys. Anyone remember how long it took to jump from donut to eclair to get a stable rom? And look how few devices there were that actually ran android. This whole "if its not done in 2 weeks then its never happening" thing is a bit unfair. Let the devs dev and those who do not can wait for them quietly.

Why this statement?
From a glaxay better than yours.

tl;dr
I am basing my entire post on the fact that Steve Kondik has our device and should theoretically be working on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve Kondik aka Mr. Cyanogen also works for Samsung. I am sure he gets ALL Samsung devices...

corwest said:
It takes time for this stuff guys. Anyone remember how long it took to jump from donut to eclair to get a stable rom? And look how few devices there were that actually ran android. This whole "if its not done in 2 weeks then its never happening" thing is a bit unfair. Let the devs dev and those who do not can wait for them quietly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It only takes 2 weeks to modify the stock rom or cm7/9.
Its the expectation that is built when people act like quantity is all that matters. There are basically only 2 people making roms; Samsung and CM team, everyone else just waits on these 2 so that they could tweak and modify one of those 2. The funniest part is that the use of the word "kanging" is thrown around among these other people.

housecat93 said:
I thought I'd clear some things up.
If I'm wrong please don't flame me, I'm only doing my best to subdue the general discontent in [sgh-t989]/[android development]...
Steve Kondik, also known as the creator of the godfather of all ROMS (cyanogenmod) personally owns one of our t989s (source:twitter). That, combined with the fact that this is a FLAGSHIP t-mo device probably means that our phone will be supported from the day that 9.0.0 drops.
Now, let me tell you what this means.
As you all know, for a device get non-kang CM9 our hardware must be fully supported. Camera, GPS, bluetooth, egl drivers all must work.
When a huge scale ROM like CM9 is cooked for so many devices I understand it goes something like this
[AOSP modified by Cyanogenmod(teamdouce)] +
[Android Kernel, also modified by Cyanogenmod]+
[Device tree]+
[A virgin sacrifice]=
CYANOGENMOD
Now the interesting bit, is that as soon as the device tree (Eg. Specific driver modifications for GPS, Camera, GPU) includes our device the device tree can be used to power OTHER AOSP ROMS like Miui
I know that gingerbread MIUI already makes use of the CM7 device tree, so in all likelihood they will use the CM9 device tree as well!!!
So in conclusion.
-Because CM9 has a high likelihood of dropping on our devices as soon as it comes out (most likely within the next 30 days)
-Because other AOSP-Based roms depend on the cyanogenmod device tree
-WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF FLASHING OPTIONS SOON
-Probably including CM9 AND MIUI v4 <<<<--------THAT **** CRAY
Thanks for your time, hope it helped
Don't forget the thanks button feels good when you push it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like to believe, I really would. And I hope this does come to fruition. However, even if it doesn't, the few ROMS we do have are pretty good, and our phone still outperforms almost anything else available right now, so I'll still be happy.
I do have one request, though. Can we figure out a way to make CM based ROMS happen without a virgin sacrifice? There are so many other things in life that require those, that they are starting to become scarce

The fact that lots of other phones have alphas and repositories available to even make kangs does not fare well for our device.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using xda premium

guys chillax..slayher already has it booting..and that's news from december

good to know, thanks

Great phone, needs more dev time and hopefully that comes along with it when ics hits.
We got shafted early with the nexus release so close to the T989 and a dev that promised things but ran away.
New year brings new hope. Great respect for the devs that care about our phone.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA App

Let's hope the mods don't ban what little devs we have left...
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using xda premium

AznDud333 said:
guys chillax..slayher already has it booting..and that's news from december
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't follow, what do you mean by booting?

synergeticink said:
I don't follow, what do you mean by booting?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booting

Kernel 3.4 and Android 4.4 on Galaxy Nexus: pay some developer to do the hard work?

Hi all,
I am Samsung Galaxy Nexus owner and I would like to run Android 4.4 KitKat on my Galaxy Nexus. But I am not a developer. From my understanding if we want a GOOD 4.4 build we need to port a 3.4 kernel and fix a lot a bug/small issues. This is an hard work and we need some good developer(s) on it.
14,000+ guys signed the petition. This is not a very effective strategy to get what we want. We should pay someone to work on our device: hard work requires motivation and a lot of time.
We should start a fund-raising campaign in order to pay a skilled developer to work full time.
10$ * 10,000 = 100,000$
20$ * 5000 = 100,000$
If we raise even a fraction of this amount... we can afford some man/hours.
What do you think? Is the porting feasible if we pay the right person(s)? Are you in?
(I am not a developer AND I will not start a fund-raising campaign.)

Let me get this straight. You want to start a bounty on getting 3.4 kernel and 4.4 kitkat on the gnex, but you don't want to personally be the one to start it? That's lazy man, and sounds to me like you want 4.4 at other people's expense. If you want it so bad then you should be the one to start it.

R2DeeTard said:
That's lazy man, and sounds to me like you want 4.4 at other people's expense. If you want it so bad then you should be the one to start it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you misunderstand my statement. I am no one in this forum: it is unsafe if people start to give money to to a possible fund raising campaign that i will start (IMAO). I will be happy to contribute ($$) if anyone that can be trusted start it. The right person should be e.g. a long-life xda user, maybe a well-known GNex rom builder. I will be happy (discuss all the details, etc) to help this person as much as I can.

New update on OMAP-Tuna platform from 3.4 thread, guess we may have a 3.4 / an updated kernel for 4.4

Something like this was done for the HTC One (one of the versions) to motivate the devs to find a way to unlock the bootloader... They did it in record time. Hope this gains momentum as did the HTC One case. Yeah, I know, this is WAY more difficult than that, but it can be done so I hope to see the 3.4 kernel soon

Let's start a kickstarter campaign! Would need to source devs who can and are willing to fix the gpu glitches and other bugs....

R2DeeTard said:
Let me get this straight. You want to start a bounty on getting 3.4 kernel and 4.4 kitkat on the gnex, but you don't want to personally be the one to start it? That's lazy man, and sounds to me like you want 4.4 at other people's expense. If you want it so bad then you should be the one to start it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some folks just like it like that, he could kill a cow, butcher it make a ground beef patty, make his own buns, grow his own tomatoes, make his own cheese.... But i bet he rather stop by Burger King.
WHATCHOO TALKING BOUT WILLIS?

for kernel 4.4
look at this kernel
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2423338

Uneducated here. What benefit does a 3.4 kernel serve for us? Are there new drivers for the OMAP that's needed for 4.4, or is it those 'man and mountain' situations?

alpha-niner64 said:
Uneducated here. What benefit does a 3.4 kernel serve for us? Are there new drivers for the OMAP that's needed for 4.4, or is it those 'man and mountain' situations?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually don't think it's gonna benefit our device much. Heck, all 4.3 kernels still work on 4.4 provided they don't come with their own ramdisk. Even cm11 kernel source is almost unchanged from cm10.2.
Graphical glitches? All solved by now?
Random reboots? Solved in cm11.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

It would be useful...
akash3656 said:
I actually don't think it's gonna benefit our device much. Heck, all 4.3 kernels still work on 4.4 provided they don't come with their own ramdisk. Even cm11 kernel source is almost unchanged from cm10.2.
It would be useful. There are some major improvements in memory, filesystem, and block-layer (read: SSD TRIM) stuff in post-3.0 kernels. Your device will be faster and use less memory.
I would argue though, that if someone's gong to tear into the 3.0.x-OMAP code and try to engineer a 3.4 kernel to work on the Galaxy Nexus hardware, it probably makes more sense to go 'all the way' and port those changes up into 3.10 or 3.12 (if 3.12 looks like it will be a 'longterm' release). There's no reason that Android won't run on a newer kernel. Android-ia (Intel's Android-on-x86 project) has Android working against newer kernels than Google does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

mangeek said:
akash3656 said:
I actually don't think it's gonna benefit our device much. Heck, all 4.3 kernels still work on 4.4 provided they don't come with their own ramdisk. Even cm11 kernel source is almost unchanged from cm10.2.
It would be useful. There are some major improvements in memory, filesystem, and block-layer (read: SSD TRIM) stuff in post-3.0 kernels. Your device will be faster and use less memory.
I would argue though, that if someone's gong to tear into the 3.0.x-OMAP code and try to engineer a 3.4 kernel to work on the Galaxy Nexus hardware, it probably makes more sense to go 'all the way' and port those changes up into 3.10 or 3.12 (if 3.12 looks like it will be a 'longterm' release). There's no reason that Android won't run on a newer kernel. Android-ia (Intel's Android-on-x86 project) has Android working against newer kernels than Google does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know but some or most of the stuff you mention have been backported by current (or previous) kernel developers.
Well if anyone wants to do any >3.0 kernel, its up to them to see which newer version is the most viable version to jump to.
Having that said, I have no experience in making kernels or following the changes in Linux kernel religiously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse