4 ms·

> As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them

> As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press. Then stop locking the bootloader and let me put the latest version of CM on my phone. I'm not going to buy Motorola and I'm not going to buy Samsung. Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running on the Galaxy S devices... Motorola is keeping the bootloader (and thus kernel) on their phones restricted. They're also not even close to timely on their updates. My D1 is running Gingerbread fairly stably, especially considering it's ONE maintainer disappeared two weeks ago due to personal financial concerns. OTOH, only one device is running GB from the manufacturer/carrier and that is Google's own phone. Let me use my damn phone, I'll take care of the updates. I don't know how much simpler we can make installing CM7 and I know there are some/many/random-number people who have gone CM just to get the latest Android version.

joeyo 16y ago
> Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a violation of the GPL?
- wmf 16y ago
  Not if it's a driver.
  - joeyo 16y ago
    Good point.
  - krakensden 16y ago
    You mean, not if it's a driver with a GPL-compatible shim (a la nVidia).
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Part of the problem is that they haven't shipped Froyo officially. But yes, manufacturers, even HTC, have been up to 6 months late delivering code as required via GPL.
  - wmf 16y ago
    If Samsung release full source to their Eclair port, the community would be happy to forward-port the drivers to Froyo. But without source they can't.
    - drivebyacct2 16y ago
      Are we missing even Eclair source? I know Froyo and GB have changed things enough with some of the drivers that forward porting has been harder than expected... but if Eclair's source is missing, it seems the proper response is some sort of campaign to get Samsung in gear. I do think that HTC responded to GPL complaints when they had held out so long on releasing their kernel mods.
      - wmf 16y ago
        As I said elsewhere in the thread, vendors don't have to release source for drivers (kernel modules); AFAIK every Android phone uses proprietary GPU drivers at least. So even if a vendor released all the source that they're required to release, that may not be enough to create a custom ROM with a future version of Android.
- metachris 16y ago
  Just developing GPL software for a certain part of an embedded system doesn't necessarily require all other hardware parts to be GPL'ed as well, just as your BIOS being proprietary doesn't violate the GPL if you're running Linux. Would be great to see a fully open-source phone some day. I believe OpenMoko was striving for this goal, too.
rufugee 16y ago
Really? Does this howto (http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/index.php?title=Compile_CyanogenMod_for_Vibrant http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/index.php?title=Compile_Cyanogen...) not get CM7 running on the Vibrant?
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  * THIS HOWTO HAS NOT BEEN TESTED YET * But yes, I think someone is hacking on the Vibrant, but last I asked in #cyanogen or #koush, I was told that no one wanted to work on the S-G-S phones until more source was released by Samsung. Also, that guide follows the same template as all their other build guides. If it works, I'm impressed, but I suspect it is a preliminary copy/paste job waiting to be filled in or expanded upon.
machrider 16y ago
This story was the one that broke the camel's back for me, in terms of waiting for Samsung/T-Mobile to ship a 2.2 update for the Vibrant. I dug around and found "Eugene's Ginger Clone" 2.2 ROM and installed it yesterday. My Vibrant is noticeably snappier, battery is lasting longer, and it's now devoid of bloatware. Latest release announcement here: http://eb-productions.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=samsungsgs&action=display&thread=144 http://eb-productions.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=samsungs... Video overview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCKsiH0wWgg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCKsiH0wWgg

joeyo 16y ago

> Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a violation of the GPL?

wmf 16y ago
Not if it's a driver.
- joeyo 16y ago
  Good point.
- krakensden 16y ago
  You mean, not if it's a driver with a GPL-compatible shim (a la nVidia).
drivebyacct2 16y ago
Part of the problem is that they haven't shipped Froyo officially. But yes, manufacturers, even HTC, have been up to 6 months late delivering code as required via GPL.
- wmf 16y ago
  If Samsung release full source to their Eclair port, the community would be happy to forward-port the drivers to Froyo. But without source they can't.
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Are we missing even Eclair source? I know Froyo and GB have changed things enough with some of the drivers that forward porting has been harder than expected... but if Eclair's source is missing, it seems the proper response is some sort of campaign to get Samsung in gear. I do think that HTC responded to GPL complaints when they had held out so long on releasing their kernel mods.
    - wmf 16y ago
      As I said elsewhere in the thread, vendors don't have to release source for drivers (kernel modules); AFAIK every Android phone uses proprietary GPU drivers at least. So even if a vendor released all the source that they're required to release, that may not be enough to create a custom ROM with a future version of Android.
metachris 16y ago
Just developing GPL software for a certain part of an embedded system doesn't necessarily require all other hardware parts to be GPL'ed as well, just as your BIOS being proprietary doesn't violate the GPL if you're running Linux. Would be great to see a fully open-source phone some day. I believe OpenMoko was striving for this goal, too.

rufugee 16y ago

Really? Does this howto (http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/index.php?title=Compile_CyanogenMod_for_Vibrant http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/index.php?title=Compile_Cyanogen...) not get CM7 running on the Vibrant?

drivebyacct2 16y ago
* THIS HOWTO HAS NOT BEEN TESTED YET * But yes, I think someone is hacking on the Vibrant, but last I asked in #cyanogen or #koush, I was told that no one wanted to work on the S-G-S phones until more source was released by Samsung. Also, that guide follows the same template as all their other build guides. If it works, I'm impressed, but I suspect it is a preliminary copy/paste job waiting to be filled in or expanded upon.

machrider 16y ago

This story was the one that broke the camel's back for me, in terms of waiting for Samsung/T-Mobile to ship a 2.2 update for the Vibrant. I dug around and found "Eugene's Ginger Clone" 2.2 ROM and installed it yesterday. My Vibrant is noticeably snappier, battery is lasting longer, and it's now devoid of bloatware. Latest release announcement here: http://eb-productions.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=samsungsgs&action=display&thread=144 http://eb-productions.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=samsungs... Video overview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCKsiH0wWgg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCKsiH0wWgg