Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Mar 2013 11:05 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "With the Samsung Galaxy S4 presumably coming soon, many are excited about the possibility of running a more stock Android-based experience, like CyanogenMod, on the hardware. It looks like that's going to be a slower transition than many were hoping, as the current Samsung CM maintainers have said that they have no plans to support the device." If you like custom ROMs, don't buy Samsung. As simple as that.
Order by: Score:
The reason is interesting
by Sjon on Tue 19th Mar 2013 12:02 UTC
Sjon
Member since:
2012-04-12

Some of the decisions they have made to help do this just aren't very developer-friendly, and some even violate the GPL

[...]

There are two variants which will be a pain to maintain, [and] the bugs we have on the S3 will probably be there on S4, too (camera), and we all know Samsung ability to release sources while staying in line with mainline. Yes Qualcomm releases sources, but Exynos sources we had were far from [working on] actual Galaxy products. I'm pretty sure the same will happen for this one.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The reason is interesting
by butters on Tue 19th Mar 2013 15:06 UTC in reply to "The reason is interesting"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I wonder if/when we'll ever have an open-source kernel driver for big.LITTLE machines. The Exynos 5 Octa is the first such machine on the market, and it will be interesting to see how this bimodal strategy plays out against the middle-road taken by Krait and Swift.

At the very least, it will be important for the future of the Linux kernel to support these kinds of heterogeneous processor architectures. And if ARM wants to get their upcoming A57/A53 designs into the datacenter, they need mainline kernel support.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The reason is interesting
by phoenix on Tue 19th Mar 2013 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE: The reason is interesting"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Linaro (sp?) is doing a bunch of work in the mainline kernel scheduler to support aMP (asymmetric multi-processing). This would allow you to access *all* of the CPU cores (A7 and A15) and gain finer-grained control over which processes go to which cores. My guess is that it won't appear in Android until 5.0. But, at least it's being worked on.

Reply Score: 3

Custom ROMs = CyanogenMod?
by chithanh on Tue 19th Mar 2013 12:06 UTC
chithanh
Member since:
2006-06-18

It's quite a stretch going from the lack of CyanogenMod support for the Samsung Galaxy S4 to the advice "If you like custom ROMs, don't buy Samsung."
Nobody else is prevented from doing custom ROMs and CyanogenMod for other Samsung phones continues to work fine.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Custom ROMs = CyanogenMod?
by Spiron on Tue 19th Mar 2013 13:20 UTC in reply to "Custom ROMs = CyanogenMod?"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

The general rule of thumb in the Android ROM atm is if CyanogenMod can't make a ROM then it's got to be difficult to make one. That's not to say impossible it's just that when they run into problems most of the others will ALSO run into the same problems. And as to CyanogenMod working on other Samsung phones/devices, yes it does work but it's the whole spirit of needing to give the company a concrete message that creating devices which the comunity can't tailor to their needs ISN'T okay and will be punished by not having our sales. Whether this action actually gets anybody anywhere is a different discussion

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Custom ROMs = CyanogenMod?
by static666 on Tue 19th Mar 2013 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Custom ROMs = CyanogenMod?"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

That's not to say impossible it's just that when they run into problems most of the others will ALSO run into the same problems.

We see changes in motivation and people stepping in and out of free open-source projects every day and it is absolutely normal.

Why do these people rage, shout, cry about being deceived, push own political agenda of not buying that and but buying this, without any details besides personal blog rants, posts of mysterious Samsung employees, promises of help, but no requests or denial of that help? Why don't they write an open letter to Samsung stating what exactly they need and why?

IMHO, when somebody is not up to the task, they should just step down and go on with their life. If need be more will come and finish the job, considering that work is still relevant and motivating enough for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Custom ROMs = CyanogenMod?
by FunkyELF on Tue 19th Mar 2013 14:30 UTC in reply to "Custom ROMs = CyanogenMod?"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

It's quite a stretch going from the lack of CyanogenMod support for the Samsung Galaxy S4 to the advice "If you like custom ROMs, don't buy Samsung."
Nobody else is prevented from doing custom ROMs and CyanogenMod for other Samsung phones continues to work fine.


Perhaps by custom ROMs they meant to say AOSP ROMs or ROMs built from source as opposed totaking an existing stock ROM and de-bloating it.

CyanogenMod ran terrible on my T-Mobile Galaxy S3 even though Steve Kondik personally used the device.
Battery life was horrible and bluetooth didn't work.
I sold it for $400, got a Nexus 4 and couldn't be happier.

Reply Score: 4

KOed
by Gestahlt on Tue 19th Mar 2013 13:42 UTC
Gestahlt
Member since:
2011-10-17

For my own company (and also Private) it was a KO Criteria for smartphones to be able to run custom mods like Cyanogenmod. So i own 2x Samsung S2 and 1x HTC One.

The reason is to have recent android versions if the phone is considered EOL from the Manufacturer or the Manufacturer doesnt provide the desired Android version.

Reply Score: 2

Wait and see.
by tkeith on Tue 19th Mar 2013 13:44 UTC
tkeith
Member since:
2010-09-01

Just because the current maintainers have no plans doesn't mean a new one won't come along. Plus there will always be "debloated" stock based roms that will be close to stock. This is the case with many less popular devices. I though Cyanogen got a job with Samsung, strange that they would be so poor with releasing source. What about the Nexus 10, doesn't that have a exynos processor?

No big loss to me, the S4 doesn't really appeal to me at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wait and see.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 19th Mar 2013 14:14 UTC in reply to "Wait and see."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yes Cyanogen works for Samsung. Unfortunately, he's not ceo of Samsung so their are limits to what he personally can accomplish.

Now Cyanogenmod is more than just Cyanogen himself. Its those others that have decided to recommend against Samsung.

Reply Score: 4

What's the point?
by bowkota on Tue 19th Mar 2013 14:21 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

I've always said that if I were ever to buy an Android phone, the first think I would do was run cyanogenmod on it. In fact, I've insisted on all my tech friends who bought an Android device to do the same thing and they all had positive things to say.

What's the point in buying a Samsung device if you won't get cyanogen on it. I'd rather buy an HTC.

Reply Score: 3

Ofiicial Cyanogenmod comment
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 19th Mar 2013 15:23 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

From Cyanogen himself:

https://plus.google.com/u/1/100275307499530023476/posts/8hPLjoCDBkK

An individual contributor to the project doesn't speak for the project as a whole.

Reply Score: 7

v GPL, I want my contribution back.
by progormre on Tue 19th Mar 2013 16:19 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

GPL V2 has no such requirement. If you submitted code under this license, then you have no reason to complain.

GPL V3 does.

The kernel is staying GPL V2 for two reasons:

1) The founder and head of the "official" kernel prefers it to V3.

2) It would require asking everyone who had ever contributed to the kernel's permission to change the license.


If you consider the time you spend hacking on the kernel a waste, it was due to your lack of understanding in the GPL V2 license.

You should note, that Samsung does fulfill its GPL V2 license obligations.

opensource.samsung.com

You can find all of the GPL V2 source code that was used in the Galaxy Note (Model number GT-N7100).

Reply Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Except that, no, they don't. The sources that are available from Samsung do not match the binaries shipped by Samsung on their S2/S3/Note devices. Many of the CM Samsung device maintainers have given up trying to get the right source from Samsung.

Have a read through this to get the inside scoop on just how poorly Samsung complies with the GPL:
https://plus.google.com/101093310520661581786/posts/cdPnNjLAb4F

Reply Score: 5

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I was not aware of such shenanigans. Although they are kind of minor, It would be nice if someone actually had the bankroll and sufficient attitude to actually sue them for the violations that crop up. It kind of seems like they are more incompetent at providing source than malicious.

Reply Score: 2

static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

It would be nice if someone actually had the bankroll and sufficient attitude to actually sue them for the violations that crop up.

Say, Apple? ;)

Pretty sure they wouldn't pass on opportunity to harass their main competition through some disguised civil suit or w/e.

But isn't every GPL violation easily settled by simply complying and providing current source somewhere online?

Edited 2013-03-19 22:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You're assuming they actually have the source for that build tagged and stored as such.

I'm not assuming that they do. If they do then either they just suck at following through on the request, or they really are trying to hide small modifications that they've made in those builds for what ever reasons ( binary modules making use of GPL ONLY Interface? compiled no GPL module directly into kernel?, Embarrassed about the off color language embedded into variable names? Embarrassed about the code quality? )

Reply Score: 3

This just in
by sec0ndshadow on Tue 19th Mar 2013 18:03 UTC
sec0ndshadow
Member since:
2013-01-03

j/k guys...


EDIT: wrong link :/
https://plus.google.com/103583939320326217147/posts/4xRCtRGq5Qe

Edited 2013-03-19 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

by far not that simple
by puidelup on Tue 19th Mar 2013 18:52 UTC
puidelup
Member since:
2013-03-19

"If you like custom ROMs, don't buy Samsung. As simple as that."

It is by far not that simple.

1) samsung as a device maker is custom rom friendly. samsung as a chip maker is custom rom unfriendly.

2) galaxy s4 is not a device. it is a family of devices. galaxy S4s for US have quallcom SOC. those will run CyanogenMod just fine. international galaxy S4s with the samsung exynos SOC, those will not run AOSP based roms well or at all.

3) there will be lots of custom roms based on crapwiz. those will work ok on all S4s. tey will be a little bit debloated and maybe a little prettier than stock, but still the crapwiz i have come to detest.

The problem is that its close to impossible get AOSP (non crapwiz) to run on an exynos SOC at this time.

I got rid of my galaxy ass 3 for this reason. I miss the AMOLED screen sometimes, but that sacrifice was totally worth it. Worth the effort to import it from Germany...

Reply Score: 3

I'll take that one step further
by leos on Tue 19th Mar 2013 18:53 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

If you like Android, don't buy Samsung.

Reply Score: 3

puidelup Member since:
2013-03-19

WOW. Just WOW!!!

Although Thoms conclusion is not correct IMHO, your generalization *is* correct...

funny, and sad at the same time. ;) ;)

Reply Score: 3

Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15

WOW. Just WOW!!!

Although Thoms conclusion is not correct IMHO, your generalization *is* correct...

funny, and sad at the same time. ;) ;)



wow ...

My generalization : If i want to really know something about anything stop reading flashy OSNEWS headlines ... and do / think the opposite of what i read on the comments

Reply Score: 1

Samsung Good
by Yagami on Tue 19th Mar 2013 19:38 UTC
Yagami
Member since:
2006-07-15

Funny , since i own a samsung i9000 ( galaxy S ) and a nexus 7 tablet.

And i have better and more cyanogenmod based roms for the samsung i9000 than for the nexus 7 tablet.

Samsung Galaxy S is one of the best devices to flash. And it runs great, even for its age.

Its kinda stupid to not recommend Samsung when Htc / Sony / etc are far worse. Only recent ( 1 year i think ) Htc started to open its bootloaders. Sony ... well , i had a sony arc s ... gave it away ... stupid locked bootloaders.

On samsung ... rooting , flashing , unlocking is super easy ( at least on my galaxy s )

Reply Score: 3

RE: Samsung Good
by _txf_ on Tue 19th Mar 2013 21:06 UTC in reply to "Samsung Good"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Its kinda stupid to not recommend Samsung when Htc / Sony / etc are far worse. Only recent ( 1 year i think ) Htc started to open its bootloaders. Sony ... well , i had a sony arc s ... gave it away ... stupid locked bootloaders.


Actually Sony is quite a lot better now. They even provide AOSP compatible binary blobs. Not the best situation, but far better than others...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Samsung Good
by Yagami on Wed 20th Mar 2013 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung Good"
Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15

"Its kinda stupid to not recommend Samsung when Htc / Sony / etc are far worse. Only recent ( 1 year i think ) Htc started to open its bootloaders. Sony ... well , i had a sony arc s ... gave it away ... stupid locked bootloaders.


Actually Sony is quite a lot better now. They even provide AOSP compatible binary blobs. Not the best situation, but far better than others...
"


Yes , much much better than those bad companies that actually submit filesystems to the kernel tree ....

!!! Bad Samsung , dont submit open source , you evil company !!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Samsung Good
by phoenix on Tue 19th Mar 2013 21:20 UTC in reply to "Samsung Good"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Original Galaxy S: great for running/developing custom ROMs.

Some Galaxy S2 models: great for running/dev custom ROMs.
Other Galaxy S2 models: crap for custom ROMs

Some Galaxy S3 models: great for running/dev custom ROMs.
Other Galaxy S3 models: crap for custom ROMs

See the pattern yet?

If the Galaxy device uses a Qualcomm SoC, then it's fairly easy to get/dev ROMs for it. Some things may not work, but the basics are there.

If the Galaxy device uses a Samsung SoC, good luck getting drivers for it.

Oh, and Sony provides all the tools you need to unlock the bootloader. There's even a simple website with all the info, straight from Sony. Granted, the carrier has the option of removing support for easy-unlocking of the bootloader. But there's even methods to get around that, all nicely documented.

Surprisingly, Sony has become very custom ROM developer-friendly since the release of the 2011 Xperia phones.

2012 LG phones are also surprisingly easy to develop for. In fact, there's even a free (or $1 donation) app in the Play store to unlock the bootloader on the Optimus G (Freegee app). Does it get any easier than that? ;)

Edited 2013-03-19 21:23 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Samsung Good
by static666 on Tue 19th Mar 2013 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung Good"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

IMHO.

Sony, LG, other OEMs, utilizing standard components, providing a rehash of AOSP on one side, and Samsung, having developed their own SoC, putting much effort into TouchWiz, on the other. HTC is somewhere in the middle, providing heavy software customizations while staying dev friendly.

Being a CM user, I still can understand why they may be reluctant to embrace alternative ROMs to the fullest, especially when it comes to latest developments and trying to protect IP of those SoCs. But of course there are many little things they can easily do, like opening the bootloader or releasing glue code together with binary blobs.

I do believe the job of supporting S4 is not impossible in the current or even worse state of affairs, but the amount of reverse-engineering and overall complexity may be quite higher than current average maintainer of Samsung CM ports would be happy to handle. Hence we get the fallout of easy-mode devs who expect a fresh 600-page datasheet and code examples for just about everything.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Samsung Good
by Yagami on Wed 20th Mar 2013 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung Good"
Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15

[quote] Oh, and Sony provides all the tools you need to unlock the bootloader. There's even a simple website with all the info, straight from Sony. Granted, the carrier has the option of removing support for easy-unlocking of the bootloader. But there's even methods to get around that, all nicely documented. [/quote]

Bull... that website is only for unlocked phones. If you have a carrier locked phone, you are out of luck. Only method is paying for wotan server IF YOUR LUCKY and have a xperia arc s before february last year. If your phone if after that , not even wotan or setools can unlock it.


But hey, its easier to spread bullshit and not actually know what you are talking about, right ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Samsung Good
by phoenix on Wed 20th Mar 2013 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Samsung Good"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

" Oh, and Sony provides all the tools you need to unlock the bootloader. There's even a simple website with all the info, straight from Sony. Granted, the carrier has the option of removing support for easy-unlocking of the bootloader. But there's even methods to get around that, all nicely documented.


Bull... that website is only for unlocked phones. If you have a carrier locked phone, you are out of luck.
"

Mayhaps you should learn to read entire posts before spouting off at the mouth.

Only method is paying for wotan server IF YOUR LUCKY and have a xperia arc s before february last year. If your phone if after that , not even wotan or setools can unlock it.


I've yet to hear of a single Sony-Ericsson or Sony phone that could not be unlocked using the testpoint method at the very least.

But hey, its easier to spread bullshit and not actually know what you are talking about, right ?


Considering I have a 2011 Xperia phone that's carrier locked, perhaps you should look in the mirror?

Edited 2013-03-20 15:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Samsung Good
by Yagami on Wed 20th Mar 2013 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Samsung Good"
Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15


Mayhaps you should learn to read entire posts before spouting off at the mouth.


I dont know what you didnt understood ... if you dont have your bootloader unlocked , you have to go to the wotan ( paying ) method, which is not easy , not well documented and not always works.

I've yet to hear of a single Sony-Ericsson or Sony phone that could not be unlocked using the testpoint method at the very least.


Just because you are deaf, doesnt mean its true.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1754928&page=3 one -> you cannot unlock after "it seems any xperia that is newer than 12W14 cannot be unlocked by OMNIUS. " as quoted on the site.

http://forum.gsmhosting.com/vbb/f473/st18i-unlock-problem-1508813/ -> We have now reports on newely produced QC8255(T)-based phones (starting from 12W14) are unable to connect using Testpoint.

ok, so , i guess now you have heard.

Try using a thing called "google" or "duckduckgo" ( for the anti google here ). Its nice and you will hear about some more.

Considering I have a 2011 Xperia phone that's carrier locked, perhaps you should look in the mirror?


You just think you know everything about anything , right ?!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Samsung Good
by Yagami on Wed 20th Mar 2013 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung Good"
Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15

[quote] 2012 LG phones are also surprisingly easy to develop for. In fact, there's even a free (or $1 donation) app in the Play store to unlock the bootloader on the Optimus G (Freegee app). Does it get any easier than that? ;) [/quote]

Yes .... tools on playstore for Samsungs to unlock and tools for bootloader unlock and carrier unlock.

Reply Score: 2

Some people dont get it,
by FadeFx on Tue 19th Mar 2013 19:50 UTC
FadeFx
Member since:
2011-08-01

If cm team does not support the s4 there will be only photoshoped debloated "custom" roms that are not that custom at all, as they are just modified versions of Samsung stock roms and do not mean that android versions not supported by the manufacturer will be available. If there is no cyanogen mod, there is also no aokp or paranoidandroid as they both build on cyanogenmod. My personal advice is

DON'T BUY SAMSUNG THEY WILL LIE AT YOU LIKE THEY ALREADY HAVE LIED AT US

the thing is that they gave s3 devices to teamhacksung members to port cm to the s3 and promissed to support them where they can. They just did nothing after...

Reply Score: 2

No statement yet
by IndigoJo on Tue 19th Mar 2013 20:54 UTC
IndigoJo
Member since:
2005-07-06

The CyMod team have said they haven't made any decision yet, and won't until they get their hands on an S4:

<a href="https://plus.google.com/117962666888533781522/posts/7jywLJdswki">...

Reply Score: 2

RE: No statement yet
by static666 on Tue 19th Mar 2013 21:45 UTC in reply to "No statement yet"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

Being a port maintainer most probably requires one to own the device at least, a top-end and expensive one in the case of S4. I can understand current maintainers questioning whether it makes sense to make that investment themselves.

They may as well be just waiting for free devices from Samsung, or even invites to various conferences, media/entertainment events, etc. All inclusive.

Oh and btw, users are still to make their decision too, of whether custom ROMs would be necessary on S4 at all. One still has to see what Samsung has got in store for their latest flagship. Maybe less bloat and more frequent updates?

Reply Score: 2

RE: No statement yet
by Yagami on Wed 20th Mar 2013 10:18 UTC in reply to "No statement yet"
Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15

The CyMod team have said they haven't made any decision yet, and won't until they get their hands on an S4:

https://plus.google.com/117962666888533781522/posts/7jywLJdswki



yeah , to quote the link :

"Let’s start with the simplest form of this: CyanogenMod does not pre-announce support or lack of support for devices. Ever. Even for the Nexus 4, we did not announce support until a nightly build was available. "

So , they did this "we wont support thing ... " for every device ... but

this time is because Samsung is evil.

Or because this is a bullshit article just to please the Anti-Samsung hyppies that think being anti or pro a company makes them smarter and cooler than other people.

So ... this week is what ? I have apple , google and Samsung ?

Do we love Microsoft this week or is it next one ?

Reply Score: 1

the obvious scenario
by unclefester on Wed 20th Mar 2013 09:24 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

The obvious scenario is that Samsung will adopt a unique Samsung OS in the near future. This will either be Tizen or some sort of Android fork. The last thing Samsung would want is a fairly vanilla Android distro running on their flagship devices.

Reply Score: 2

sarreq
Member since:
2010-03-14

"Update: CyanogenMod on its Google+ account reminds us all that of its official position on the Galaxy S4 -- which is to say it doesn't have one yet. CM also reminds us all that individual developers' do not speak for CM as a whole. (Which is why the quotes in the following piece are from Team Hacksung and not CyanogenMod.) CM adds that it intends to wait for retail release of the Galaxy S4 before commenting on support, as it does for all new devices."

Reply Score: 2