6 ms·

Instructions for flashing a phone or tablet device with Ubuntu

42 points by madmaze 14y ago

warfangle 14y ago
Note that step #2 is currently illegal in the United States, and providing instructions to do so is similarly illegal in the United States.
- frugalfirbolg 14y ago
  Sounds like step #2 is using a tool supplied by the device manufacturer. The person running the tool is not reverse engineering or otherwise performing unauthorized bypass of DRM. Likewise, the HTC unlock tool is not affected.
- pranjalv123 14y ago
  It's illegal to unlock a carrier-locked device for use on another carrier. This doesn't do that; this unlocks the bootloader to allow you to load another OS.
- andrewaylett 14y ago
  I don't think that's the case in this scenario -- jailbreaking is illegal, but this isn't jailbreaking, it's unlocking. The manufacturer put this functionality in for you to use (if you accept the consequences), in contrast to Apple's complete locking down.
  - Rudism 14y ago
    Jailbreaking is still not illegal. Only carrier-unlocking a device is illegal, which is unrelated to both jailbreaking and unlocking the boot loader. Here's a quick and dirty breakdown: Jailbreaking -- Modifying the software/OS on your device to give you "root" or administrative access, which allows you to do things on the phone that are normally restricted. NOT illegal. Doing this generally involves getting a copy of the "su" (superuser) executable that's been compiled for the OS on the phone in question. Unlocking the boot loader -- Android phones from the factory do not allow you to install alternate OSes on them until you do this. Doing this simply puts the phone into a state that is receptive to flashing new OSes, and is functionality that's built in to the phone. As far as I know there's no equivallent concept on the iOS side. NOT illegal. I think doing this just involves invoking some special commands via the official adb tools while the phone is connected via usb, and wipes all of the data from your phone when you do it. Unlocking/Carrier unlocking -- Phones that you buy from carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, etc. are usually carrier-locked, meaning they'll only work with SIM cards that came from whatever carrier you bought them from. It means you can't (for example) sign up for a Verizon plan and get their subsidized price on a new phone, then cancel your plan immediately (paying whatever exorbitant early termination fees they charge which hopefully still nets you at less than the full cost of the phone you got), and bring the phone to T-Mobile for a cheaper pay-as-you-go plan. The only way to do that would be to carrier-unlock the phone. This IS illegal. I'm not really sure what this generally involves but I know for at least some phones it's just a matter of dialing up a special keycode on the phone.
- sprokolopolis 14y ago
  From what I understand, the "unlocking" that is currently illegal is unlocking from you carrier, not unlocking a bootloader. Furthermore, these are Nexus devices (development devices) that have no extra protection or encryption on the bootloader. They are made to be unlocked.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  Unlocking phones is only illegal due to the DMCA's restriction on bypassing DRM. I looked through the source code of the utility (fetched with apt-get source), and it looks like is not what is happening. Effectivly, what the command does is (politly) ask the phone to unlock itself. The code that actually talks to the phone is: "usb_write(usb, cmd, cmdsize)" Where cmd=="oem unlock" If that is not enough to justify that this is not illegal DRM circumvention, after issuing the command, you must accept the terms of unlocking that is presented to you on the device.
yebyen 14y ago
This might belong on AskUbuntu, but I thought I'd start here... The ASUS Transformer EeePad ubuntu flash instructions have not been updated since 2011. Does this new method apply to ASUS Transformer pads? Is anyone trying to make it? I haven't flashed Ubuntu since I was able to try it with OLife Prime (method for TF-101), and the included image was an ancient Natty, not upgradeable to current version without breaking everything, so I gave up and went back to using Android+Chroot. Is there any reason why these instructions would need to change? Would appreciate a reply from any Transformer Pad users who have tried any method of installing a recent Ubuntu (or even Debian.) Where are the hangups? Kernel drivers? Touchpad?
- madmaze 14y ago
  I believe you may be confusing the "ubuntu" you are mentioning with the "ubuntu for phones" version of ubuntu. The main difference is an optimized interface http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone
  - yebyen 14y ago
    OK, but the instructions say for Nexus / Galaxy devices, well I believe that ASUS Transformer is an equivalent device except for having the option of a nice keyboard dock. Hoping that someone knows more than me. The ubuntu that you mentioned my mentioning is ancient. I'm just looking for a modern way to get the latest, I would try Ubuntu for Phones unless I learn that it won't work for some technical reason / will brick my device if I try. My biggest gripe with using Ubuntu in a chroot is that the kernel included with most Android distros does not support SYSV IPC, which rules out any local apache or sql servers. This is obviously not Ubuntu's fault, but I don't have the knowledge to compile and install a kernel on an ARM device that won't use GRUB for booting (or too scared to try.) Otherwise, it's pretty good using the chroot, and I would need a compelling reason to switch (like possibly this new phone interface.) EDIT: Same questions all around apply to Tizen.
    - disposabubble 14y ago
      Have you tried the Debian Kit for Android? It is not a chroot OS, but is installed 'side-by-side' with Android. I successfully installed Ubuntu Lucid and LXDE using it to my TF201. Not sure about Apache, but Eclipse works well. I tried their Precise too, but ran into problems. Edit: I guess this will not solve your kernel problems, but I'll leave it here for people thinking about Debian Kit for Android, which is not documented as working on TF201, afaik.
ghrev 14y ago
Has anyone seen mention of Ubuntu plans for it to work with the toro Galaxy Nexus (Verizon)?
jrogers65 14y ago
I'm glad that ARM tablets are finally getting a decent operating system. Android is a pain for productivity - only one visible window, applications are killed in the background when you want them to persist, switching windows is tedious if you have many applications open at the same time, various deficiencies in third party applications like waking the screen and draining your battery, a Google account is required to do basic things like download apps, it's not possible to download APK's from the market in case you want to perform offline installations, plugging in an external hard disk results in a crash and reboot too often, media sound volume is reduced whenever an email notification comes in. That last bug has been around for three years - http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=5012 http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=5012 - and this is a piece of commercial software, not someone's hobby OSS project! Not to mention that it's based on GNU/Linux [EDIT: NOT GNU, just Linux] yet misses important features like a good package manager, X11 and alternative window managers. Things like Debian Kit For Android address some of these issues but it still feels like a compromise. I understand that it was originally designed as a smartphone OS but it just doesn't scale well to tablets. Another alternative which is looking extremely promising, even moreso than Ubuntu, in my opinion, is Plasma Active - http://plasma-active.org/ http://plasma-active.org/
- freehunter 14y ago
  >it's based on GNU/Linux yet misses important features I don't like this misconception. Yes, it uses a Linux kernel, but it's not a Linux operating system. It's nothing like a Linux OS, like you mentioned. It's not even trying. I mean, my Roku box sitting in front of my TV is based on the Linux kernel as well, and it doesn't have a package manager, X11, or alternative window managers. Based on the Linux kernel is completely different from a Linux OS. Android isn't trying to be Linux for smartphones. You're complaining that your car is a frame on wheels but it's too heavy for a horse to pull. They're designed for completely different purposes.
  - jrogers65 14y ago
    It seems I was mistaken about there being much GNU code in Android. I'm complaining that the software which came with my hardware is not fit for purpose and does not make good use of the horsepower. It would have been easy to include the things I mentioned in Android and a niche market would have been catered for as a result. A different decision was made and some of the customers are unhappy. I'm well within my rights to complain about something I paid for.
freehunter 14y ago
The certifiate verification failed due to a common name mismatch. Host: wiki.ubuntu.com Common name: .canonical.com Alternative subject names: regex([^.]\.canonical\.com), regex(canonical\.com) Looks like they're using the canonical.com cert on ubuntu.com, which it's not registered for.
chinchang 14y ago
Oh man...only Nexus devices are supported :(

42 points by madmaze 14y ago

Note that step #2 is currently illegal in the United States, and providing instructions to do so is similarly illegal in the United States.

frugalfirbolg 14y ago
Sounds like step #2 is using a tool supplied by the device manufacturer. The person running the tool is not reverse engineering or otherwise performing unauthorized bypass of DRM. Likewise, the HTC unlock tool is not affected.
pranjalv123 14y ago
It's illegal to unlock a carrier-locked device for use on another carrier. This doesn't do that; this unlocks the bootloader to allow you to load another OS.
andrewaylett 14y ago
I don't think that's the case in this scenario -- jailbreaking is illegal, but this isn't jailbreaking, it's unlocking. The manufacturer put this functionality in for you to use (if you accept the consequences), in contrast to Apple's complete locking down.
- Rudism 14y ago
  Jailbreaking is still not illegal. Only carrier-unlocking a device is illegal, which is unrelated to both jailbreaking and unlocking the boot loader. Here's a quick and dirty breakdown: Jailbreaking -- Modifying the software/OS on your device to give you "root" or administrative access, which allows you to do things on the phone that are normally restricted. NOT illegal. Doing this generally involves getting a copy of the "su" (superuser) executable that's been compiled for the OS on the phone in question. Unlocking the boot loader -- Android phones from the factory do not allow you to install alternate OSes on them until you do this. Doing this simply puts the phone into a state that is receptive to flashing new OSes, and is functionality that's built in to the phone. As far as I know there's no equivallent concept on the iOS side. NOT illegal. I think doing this just involves invoking some special commands via the official adb tools while the phone is connected via usb, and wipes all of the data from your phone when you do it. Unlocking/Carrier unlocking -- Phones that you buy from carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, etc. are usually carrier-locked, meaning they'll only work with SIM cards that came from whatever carrier you bought them from. It means you can't (for example) sign up for a Verizon plan and get their subsidized price on a new phone, then cancel your plan immediately (paying whatever exorbitant early termination fees they charge which hopefully still nets you at less than the full cost of the phone you got), and bring the phone to T-Mobile for a cheaper pay-as-you-go plan. The only way to do that would be to carrier-unlock the phone. This IS illegal. I'm not really sure what this generally involves but I know for at least some phones it's just a matter of dialing up a special keycode on the phone.
sprokolopolis 14y ago
From what I understand, the "unlocking" that is currently illegal is unlocking from you carrier, not unlocking a bootloader. Furthermore, these are Nexus devices (development devices) that have no extra protection or encryption on the bootloader. They are made to be unlocked.
gizmo686 14y ago
Unlocking phones is only illegal due to the DMCA's restriction on bypassing DRM. I looked through the source code of the utility (fetched with apt-get source), and it looks like is not what is happening. Effectivly, what the command does is (politly) ask the phone to unlock itself. The code that actually talks to the phone is: "usb_write(usb, cmd, cmdsize)" Where cmd=="oem unlock" If that is not enough to justify that this is not illegal DRM circumvention, after issuing the command, you must accept the terms of unlocking that is presented to you on the device.

yebyen 14y ago

This might belong on AskUbuntu, but I thought I'd start here... The ASUS Transformer EeePad ubuntu flash instructions have not been updated since 2011. Does this new method apply to ASUS Transformer pads? Is anyone trying to make it? I haven't flashed Ubuntu since I was able to try it with OLife Prime (method for TF-101), and the included image was an ancient Natty, not upgradeable to current version without breaking everything, so I gave up and went back to using Android+Chroot. Is there any reason why these instructions would need to change? Would appreciate a reply from any Transformer Pad users who have tried any method of installing a recent Ubuntu (or even Debian.) Where are the hangups? Kernel drivers? Touchpad?

madmaze 14y ago
I believe you may be confusing the "ubuntu" you are mentioning with the "ubuntu for phones" version of ubuntu. The main difference is an optimized interface http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone
- yebyen 14y ago
  OK, but the instructions say for Nexus / Galaxy devices, well I believe that ASUS Transformer is an equivalent device except for having the option of a nice keyboard dock. Hoping that someone knows more than me. The ubuntu that you mentioned my mentioning is ancient. I'm just looking for a modern way to get the latest, I would try Ubuntu for Phones unless I learn that it won't work for some technical reason / will brick my device if I try. My biggest gripe with using Ubuntu in a chroot is that the kernel included with most Android distros does not support SYSV IPC, which rules out any local apache or sql servers. This is obviously not Ubuntu's fault, but I don't have the knowledge to compile and install a kernel on an ARM device that won't use GRUB for booting (or too scared to try.) Otherwise, it's pretty good using the chroot, and I would need a compelling reason to switch (like possibly this new phone interface.) EDIT: Same questions all around apply to Tizen.
  - disposabubble 14y ago
    Have you tried the Debian Kit for Android? It is not a chroot OS, but is installed 'side-by-side' with Android. I successfully installed Ubuntu Lucid and LXDE using it to my TF201. Not sure about Apache, but Eclipse works well. I tried their Precise too, but ran into problems. Edit: I guess this will not solve your kernel problems, but I'll leave it here for people thinking about Debian Kit for Android, which is not documented as working on TF201, afaik.

ghrev 14y ago

Has anyone seen mention of Ubuntu plans for it to work with the toro Galaxy Nexus (Verizon)?

jrogers65 14y ago

I'm glad that ARM tablets are finally getting a decent operating system. Android is a pain for productivity - only one visible window, applications are killed in the background when you want them to persist, switching windows is tedious if you have many applications open at the same time, various deficiencies in third party applications like waking the screen and draining your battery, a Google account is required to do basic things like download apps, it's not possible to download APK's from the market in case you want to perform offline installations, plugging in an external hard disk results in a crash and reboot too often, media sound volume is reduced whenever an email notification comes in. That last bug has been around for three years - http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=5012 http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=5012 - and this is a piece of commercial software, not someone's hobby OSS project! Not to mention that it's based on GNU/Linux [EDIT: NOT GNU, just Linux] yet misses important features like a good package manager, X11 and alternative window managers. Things like Debian Kit For Android address some of these issues but it still feels like a compromise. I understand that it was originally designed as a smartphone OS but it just doesn't scale well to tablets. Another alternative which is looking extremely promising, even moreso than Ubuntu, in my opinion, is Plasma Active - http://plasma-active.org/ http://plasma-active.org/

freehunter 14y ago
>it's based on GNU/Linux yet misses important features I don't like this misconception. Yes, it uses a Linux kernel, but it's not a Linux operating system. It's nothing like a Linux OS, like you mentioned. It's not even trying. I mean, my Roku box sitting in front of my TV is based on the Linux kernel as well, and it doesn't have a package manager, X11, or alternative window managers. Based on the Linux kernel is completely different from a Linux OS. Android isn't trying to be Linux for smartphones. You're complaining that your car is a frame on wheels but it's too heavy for a horse to pull. They're designed for completely different purposes.
- jrogers65 14y ago
  It seems I was mistaken about there being much GNU code in Android. I'm complaining that the software which came with my hardware is not fit for purpose and does not make good use of the horsepower. It would have been easy to include the things I mentioned in Android and a niche market would have been catered for as a result. A different decision was made and some of the customers are unhappy. I'm well within my rights to complain about something I paid for.

freehunter 14y ago

The certifiate verification failed due to a common name mismatch. Host: wiki.ubuntu.com Common name: .canonical.com Alternative subject names: regex([^.]\.canonical\.com), regex(canonical\.com) Looks like they're using the canonical.com cert on ubuntu.com, which it's not registered for.

chinchang 14y ago

Oh man...only Nexus devices are supported :(