Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:12 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Only a few more hours until the last of the big three has its big event (Google i/o, after WWDC and Microsoft's Surface and WP8 events). They will most likely announce a Nexus tablet, as well as Android 4.1, Jelly Bean. While many of you are still on Gingerbread with your top-of-the-line phones - let me poke a few eyes out with mikegapinski's Android 4.0.4 Ice Cream Sandwich port... To the Samsung Wave. Dual-booting Bada 2 and ICS, right here.
Order by: Score:
v Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:36 UTC
RE: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's the first release. What did you expect? Do you think the early iOS builds had everything working?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by avgalen"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

I expect that charging a battery is a hardware function that will work independent of software.
I expect that a mobile device can be used as a mobile device.
I expect that an OS-maker will first focus on getting hardware to work and later on getting software to work.

and I expect that when somebody says "Openness. It works." a better example is given than this to make people enthusiastic about openness.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Release early, release often.

Read up on it.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by avgalen"
RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Non-geeks will never hear anything about this project.


OH NOES.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by avgalen
by JAlexoid on Wed 27th Jun 2012 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by avgalen"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Too bad this site is mainly non-technical folk oriented /s

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by JAlexoid on Wed 27th Jun 2012 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

3. This article just falls under the "look, I got a webserver running on my coffeemaker". It shouldn't be pointed to as a good example of openness.

Yes it is not a good example, it is the best example of openness.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by avgalen
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by avgalen"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

TBH, it depends.

I prefer stuff that is polished and finished then a preview of something that kinda half works.

It is a matter of opinion as to whether it works.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by phoudoin on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

I guess that why such stuff is available under a big alpha/preview/try_at_your_own_risk/author_will_take_no_responsibility_ whatever_the_consequences_nuclear_war_included disclaimer.

No promises.

Now read those long EULA of these so-called polished/finished closed software: surprise, they say exactly the same (but in a more lawyer terms)!

There is no warrant of software completeness, polishness or featureness. The only difference is that closed software won't say publicly what they *do* know is not working fine in their product.

Meanwhile, many open project will share publicly their progress, issues and shortcomings included.
They often pay the price of process transparency for that, people calling their product unfinished.

But the same people will call a product sold in a good looking box as finished because 1) the box looks fine 2) they never will recognize they bought a product not finished/polished as they through and 3) they can't know how much the product is finished or not, the development state being secret.

It's not a question of openess vs closed, it's a question of transparent vs secret.
Aka does ignorance is really bliss?

Reply Score: 10

RE[6]: Comment by avgalen
by lucas_maximus on Thu 28th Jun 2012 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by avgalen"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

All closed source source is the ebilz and they hide stuff from you </sarcasm>

It doesn't have to be closed or open, I want things complete.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by avgalen
by phoudoin on Thu 28th Jun 2012 08:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by avgalen"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

It doesn't have to be closed or open, I want things complete.


Everybody does.
But willing is never enough to have it.
*Someone* have to actually do it happen.

And regarding ICS on a Samsung Wave, so far, the best hope is not the manufacturer - as a naive one would expect - but... yes, an hobby project, which has yet to reach usability state but *still* is the best hope.

And this hope existence is possible *only* because of openness.

Oh, sure, we can goes sidetracks and debate of the interest or not to have ICS on a Samsung Wave, and maybe there is not such such point beyond technical curiosity.
But the facts remains: if there is one, it *may* become a reality *because* of openness.
The existence itself of such project is the topic here, not his *current* status.

Which is, I think, the main point of the article.
Check title again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by Astarornakarsk on Sun 1st Jul 2012 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
Astarornakarsk Member since:
2012-07-01

Sorry, eh... but if he comes from Poland we must assume the product will be polished.

(no offense was intended, in case some gets susceptible I have a joke about myself: I am waiting for the moment when I can watch clips from a browser window on my Blade 2000 running NetBSD 6, using hardware acceleration from its XVR-1200).

Cheers

Edited 2012-07-01 08:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by Astarornakarsk on Sun 1st Jul 2012 08:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
Astarornakarsk Member since:
2012-07-01

Uhm... but if he comes from Poland we must assume the experiment will be polished, no?



(Disclaimer: for those who may get susceptible at it, I have a joke about myself: I long for the moment I'll be able to watch clips from a browser window in Opera on my B2000 using the hardware acceleration of its XVR-1200)

Cheers

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by avgalen
by Soulbender on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by avgalen"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I expect that charging a battery is a hardware function that will work independent of software.


So in other words, it is unrelated to the openness.

I expect that an OS-maker will first focus on getting hardware to work and later on getting software to work.


Why would you expect a software company to focus on hardware?

I expect that when somebody says "Openness. It works." a better example is given than this to make people enthusiastic about openness.


Maybe you're putting too much importance into what some random guy on the internet say about stuff.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by avgalen"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Apparently this OS plays some role in charging the battery on this device (seriously shocking to me). I am actually wondering where Tom got this information from because I couldn't find it on the page he linked to.

And I don't expect "a software company to focus on hardware?". I expect "an OS-maker will first focus on getting hardware to work".

I am a big fan of Thom and mostly agree with what he writes. But this time I didn't so I voiced my opinion. He didn't seem to like it and his responses were so-called clever one-liners instead of actual on-topic related answers.

On a side-note, I am now not sure anymore if Thom actually wrote that article or just posted someone else's article. As there is no other name mentioned I am assuming Thom wrote it:
Comments: Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:12 UTC
Article: posted by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by phoudoin on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Apparently this OS plays some role in charging the battery on this device (seriously shocking to me).


More probably on this hardware platform something not set by default should be done by software to enable battery charging.

It doesn't means that every androphone behave the same, or that Android enforce it (which will be hard anyway).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I am a big fan of Thom and mostly agree with what he writes. But this time I didn't so I voiced my opinion. He didn't seem to like it and his responses were so-called clever one-liners instead of actual on-topic related answers.


How else am I supposed to respond to someone who clearly doesn't understand how open source development works? Am I really expected - in 20-fcuking-12 - to explain how open source development works?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by avgalen"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

You should respond respectful, knowledgeable and factual. Not childish (oh noes), cursing (20-fcuking-12) and insulting (calling me "who clearly doesn't understand how open source development works")

I have addressed every issue and answered every question that was put in front of me. You haven't done anything constructively in your comments.

Please reread my comments, follow the link I provided and then tell me if you really think that this project is a good example of how openness (in general) works. Or were you perhaps just talking about Androids openness?
Anyway, there are much better examples out there as mentioned later in the comments and I am assuming CyanogenMod would be as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The problem is - this is EXACTLY how open source development works, and thus, is a good example of how openness works. Someone wants to do something, does it, and dumps the code out there as soon as possible, and as often as possible - even if things don't work yet. This is actually a good thing, as it's basically an invitation for other people to join in and fix the issues that remain. How many cool projects are going on within closed-source companies that we never get to see because they don't follow release early/often?

This is such a core concept of open source development that I can reasonably expect not to have to explain this any longer. If you don't get this and complain about things not working in a first release, then yes, I will assume you have little to no knowledge on how open source development works - so I suggested you read up on the concept.

I never said this was a the best or perfect example of open source development - it's just an example of openness at work. That's it. Of course Linux is a better example. Of course Apache is a better example. Of course FreeBSD is a better example.

However, all the countless projects that spawned from those? They are just as much a core aspect of open source as their parent projects. So yes, a lone developer, building upon the work that came before him and from the AOSP's code, is a good example of openness at work.

Edited 2012-06-27 13:40 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by Morgan on Fri 29th Jun 2012 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Apparently this OS plays some role in charging the battery on this device (seriously shocking to me).


It's most likely a driver issue. The same thing happens when you install Gentoo on a Nokia N900; for all the "openness" of that device, without the proprietary power drivers it won't charge or run from the power supply under alternate OSes. And if the manufacturer is unwilling to release a public driver, the only option left is to reverse-engineer one.

Sounds a lot like early Linux development to me; not shocking at all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by avgalen
by No it isnt on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by avgalen"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Practically all ROMs will have the same beginning: some guy or group of people get bits and pieces running, and show them off to the public. Others join in on the fun, exchange knowledge and experience, fork, start over, improve on others work. In the end, you either get a fully working system, or the device gets too dated and developers lose interest.

Whiny kids on messageboards contribute only whines.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by avgalen
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 27th Jun 2012 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by avgalen"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You can expect all you want but battery charging management requires software.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by avgalen
by Radio on Wed 27th Jun 2012 11:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by avgalen"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Whereas Steve Jobs snapped his fingers and iOS came to be, perfect from the get go.

Closedness be blessed, for it allows blind idiots to blindly pontificate. I do not see anything wrong, therefore everything is and was always right.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by avgalen
by phoudoin on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by avgalen"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

This is nothing more than a hobby project. Impressive, cool, but unusable for daily use


Same was true for Linux, Apache, Python and so many open source projects.
And yet, they eventually becomes very usable for daily use, as testified by millions of Internet servers, or smartphones or the billions of web pages served by Apache every day.

Unusable is the initial step of any project, open or closed.
Get over it.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by avgalen"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

I completely agree. These are actually all great examples of "what openness looks like" and they have changed the (software)world.

I am not complaining about this project. It is a nice hobby-project that some people will learn a lot from and that will give some other people a good time playing around with another OS.

I am complaining about picking this as an example of what openness looks like. Because if we would show people this example they would all turn their back on openness and say "closed gives us working stuff, open is far inferior".

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by avgalen
by MOS6510 on Wed 27th Jun 2012 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by avgalen"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

And I agree even more completely.

The average customer will start to associate "open" with "not working". Right now they think "open" means "you can install stuff without paying for it, hahaha".

And if non-working stuff like this gets praised people might even believe that this result is like reaching the top of Mount Everest: that's it, it can't get any better.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, because OSNews is totally a site for those "average customers".

We're a geek site, and you guys know this. This is such a non-discussion, which seems more born out of a dislike for Android than anything else.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by avgalen
by avgalen on Wed 27th Jun 2012 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by avgalen"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Thom, you are a very good writer but a bad reader. "which seems more born out of a dislike for Android than anything else". Where do you even get that from? Nobody in this whole thread has mentioned anything negatively about Android.

We (I am not alone anymore) don't want to see "I got x running on y"-articles anymore and we especially don't want them to be made examples when they work badly. That is all, no opinion about Android at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by avgalen
by phoudoin on Wed 27th Jun 2012 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by avgalen"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

The average customer will start to associate "open" with "not working".


Only if open projects start to not working more and more. And why such thing will happens now more than yesterday?
Plus the avergae customer barely knows what's open and what's not.

Right now they think "open" means "you can install stuff without paying for it, hahaha".


Precisely. The average customer don't care about open, closed, what he care is price/feature ratio.
Except if open projects starts to have less and less working features, I failed to see why open projects will be associated to not working in average customer mind.

Plus average customer won't notice that someone ported Android ICS to his Samsung Wave until 1) he becomes geek enough or 2) the port is stable enought to get wider media coverage outside android geeks circles.

In both case, the fact that the port was possible because Android code is open *but* not working at start wont matter that much, and most probably only the former will be remembered, if any.

What will matter is that he could use an better Android version on his quite old Samsung smartphone...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by avgalen
by phoudoin on Wed 27th Jun 2012 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by avgalen"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

they would all turn their back on openness and say "closed gives us working stuff, open is far inferior".


Well, in this exact situation, it's more "for my Samsung Wave, open gives me hope that non-working-yet new stuff could works someday, while closed wont gives new stuff *ever*."

And I'm not sure that cast such negative light on the open side, really.
There is no shame to say "not working yet". What's a shame is to lie. And it's far easier to do when nobody but you can looks at internals to figure out himself...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by avgalen
by lucas_maximus on Thu 28th Jun 2012 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by avgalen"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Sorry, If I release software, open, closed, for fun or for project, I will make sure it damn well works.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by avgalen
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by avgalen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sorry, If I release software, open, closed, for fun or for project, I will make sure it damn well works.


It does work. Just not every feature. That's how open source works - even at your pet company.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by avgalen
by lucas_maximus on Thu 28th Jun 2012 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by avgalen"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

A phone that can't make phone calls == doesn't work.

"Let me reboot my phone into Android before I make a 999 call".

I appreciate the code is out there, but expecting it to be just taken up because it is "available" doesn't mean it will.

As I said many times, most open source projects only really work when their is commercial interest. I can't see it happening here.

BTW mate, my pet company ... I don't work for, or affiliated with ... and I buy OpenBSD CDs. ;-)

Edited 2012-06-28 19:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:54 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

So the phone part of the phone doesn't work ...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by phoudoin on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

So the phone part of the phone doesn't work ...

But the smart part of the phone does
;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Thu 28th Jun 2012 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So it can't be that smart if it can't do the "dumb phone" bit can it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by phoudoin on Thu 28th Jun 2012 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

smart and dumb are not exclusive, as often proven ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by NuxRo
by NuxRo on Wed 27th Jun 2012 14:05 UTC
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

Interesting.
So far I'm a happy Bada 2/Wave II user, but I'd be willing to give Android a spin.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by NuxRo
by Tractor on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by NuxRo"
Tractor Member since:
2006-08-18

So do I.
But i would really like the basic features to properly work first, such as phone call and battery charge :p

My fear is that this mod will never get farther than becoming an Android playstation for Wave, rather than a daily usable phone OS.
But should it cross that mark, i will be among the happier users of it.

Reply Score: 1