Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

forum.xda-developers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#71

Post by [deleted] »

JonnieCache wrote: post #31
yock wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I've read is that the UX on the custom roms isn't exactly breathtaking. Am I mistaken?

Forget the mods, you can download and flash any stock rom you like, leaked straight from samsung: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=846913 You're right, the mods are all pretty disastrous IMO. Also if you're worried about those leaked 'stock' roms, theyre just TAR files afaik, people on that forum regularly pull them apart and diff the binaries against those compiled from samsung's official source code…

[deleted]

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#72

Post by joeyo »

wmf wrote: post #67
joeyo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Not if it's a driver.

Good point.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#73

Post by fleitz »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #52

As an Android user (and promoter to my friends/family), I'm starting to get worried about Google's approach to the product. Not because of "fragmentation" (which to me is an argument that essentially says "Android isn't going to ever be successful because its too successful now"), but because of the lack of attention it seems to be getting from Google . It isn't just the OS itself-- several of Google's own apps are g…

There's just one hole in your plan. The more bugs you have on your phone the more searches it generates :)

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#74

Post by EnigmaCurry »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #52

As an Android user (and promoter to my friends/family), I'm starting to get worried about Google's approach to the product. Not because of "fragmentation" (which to me is an argument that essentially says "Android isn't going to ever be successful because its too successful now"), but because of the lack of attention it seems to be getting from Google . It isn't just the OS itself-- several of Google's own apps are g…

To be fair, Listen isn't an official google project, it's a 20% project, and the devs that started it probably just got bored with it, and/or busy.

http://groups.google.com/group/listen-discuss/browse_thread/...

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#75

Post by drivebyacct2 »

rufugee wrote: post #69
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Fr…

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

* 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.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#77

Post by metachris »

joeyo wrote: post #59
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Fr…

> 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?

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.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#78

Post by akgerber »

bokchoi wrote: post #70
quanticle wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand it, Windows Phone 7's API is Silverlight with a few restrictions related to screen size and the like. I haven't coded anything for Windows CE, but making a Silverlight app for Windows Phone 7 is about a difficult as making a WCF app for Windows, or an ASP.Net app for the web.

Why was this downvoted?

It confused the SDK for application developers with the hardware dev kit for OEMs, and was thus off-topic.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#79

Post by akgerber »

ergo98 wrote: post #45
evilduck wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if the in-house development costs rivaled or exceeded what something like Windows Mobile cost to license. That implies that Windows Mobile doesn't require similar in-house effort, on top of the OEM license fees. Windows phones still require the same hardware driver development effort, and WM7 is already starting to receive the carrier-bastardization treatment. I'd say Android's licensing being…

I have no idea how the Windows Phone 7 dev kit works, however with CE it literally was configuring some flags and resources, and that was it. Microsoft did a tonne of heavy lifting to make it so. There were boxed in drivers for virtually everything, and customization was absolutely minimal. And when you bought a MotoQ, it was stock CE.

All current Windows Phone 7 devices are restricted to the Qualcomm QSD8x50 platform, so there isn't much customization to be done as the hardware is nearly the same for every vendor.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#80

Post by wmf »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #68
joeyo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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.

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.
Post reply on HN