Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Andrew J Blitch
82 followers
82 followers
About
Posts

Post has shared content
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Android Central: AT&T's new Sponsored Data plans are a very bad thing. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwt9OK9g8
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
After reading posts on xda and a few posts on various android related sites - i realize people have NO clue

I wanna touch on the subject of the latest GPE samsung S4 device and its kernel and rom

On various sites - even RDs on XDA insist that the GPE rom is TW based.
Im sorry -  but a XDA RD making such a claim should be cause for a ban, or atleast loss of their RD title.

Why do they make this claim?
they feel that since the GPE android 4.3 rom for example is TW based because the same kernel that works on the TW android 4.3 rom will work on the GPE AOSP rom, and the GPE kernel will work on the 4.3 TW rom.

I have said for atleast 2 years now, if not - maybe 3
kernels are NOT sense based or aosp based
kernels are NOT touchwiz based of AOSP based
EVERY ROM on an android device is AOSP based - CM, SENSE, TW, MOTOBLUR, etc are all "enhancements" added OVER the pure AOSP base given to the OEM by google - the CORE UI is still AOSP.

Now - I say UI - casue the operating system is linux
the user interface is AOSP
the customizations, additions, enhancements are CM, TW, SENSE, etc

Think about it like this
DOS = Operating System
Windows 3.1 = User Interface, or Operating Environment

now
LINUX = operating system
AOSP ROM = operating environment / user interface

now back to the kernels - aosp vs tw / aosp vs sense / etc
the i9505g is the google play edition S4
the m919 is the identical device, but for TMO retail w/ TW
the hardware is 100% identical

We wont touch on android 4.4 yet, as there is no TW for 4.4, but when TW for 4.4 comes out -the GPE edition 4.4 kernel will work on TW

now
Android 4.3 AOSP/GPE
Android 4.3 TouchWiz
use the same kernel cause the kernel is NOT specific to TouchWiz or pure virgin AOSP - it is specific to the version of android being used - in this case 4.3

NOW - since RDs on XDA think CM is the center of the universe, they come back and say this

"if the kernel was in fact based on the version of android vs the UI, the 4.3 GPE kernel would work on the android 4.3 build of CM (cm 10.2 i think), and the 4.4 GPE kernel would work on the android 4.4.x build of cm (CM 11).  Since the TW kernel (yes, i said touchwiz) does not work on the same version of android on the CM side, the kernel is NOT AOSP."

and now a question..
based off of the statement above (an actual reply from a XDA RD)
since we all nexus devices are pure GOOGLE aosp - why does the nexus kernels NOT work on CM of the same android version? 
...think about that.....

Now - a little education
CM uses their own kernel - they do not use a GOOGLE AOSP kernel.
for some reason (dont know if its lack of skill, or if its just they way they want their rom) - CM uses pre-compiled parts from different roms.  for example - their KK 4.4.2 rom for the S3 has code and pre-compiled parts of 4.3 and even 4.2 in it.  this may be caused by again, lack of skill of the CM developers, or lack of time - as no one has re-written the device specific drivers for non-nexus devices to actually comply with the nexus standard/format - so for their 4.4.2 rom - it may contain closed source binaries from samsungs TW 4.3 rom, since they are available...
so - what we have now is parts of 4.3, and 4.4
we can keep doing this - and see just how many versions of android are in a complete CM 11 build - but I will stop here.
since we now have atleast 2 versions of android (4.3 and 4.4) - we have version conflicts - and now we need to modify the kernel to fix this to allow it to run.
===> THIS IS WHY CM HAS ITS OWN KERNELS AND EVEN NEXUS KERNELS WONT WORK ON THE NEXUS BUILDS OF CM.  NOT BECAUSE KERNELS ARE AOSP VS TW/SENSE BASED.

in the past I have build AOSP for a non-nexus device using code only from google - no CM, no CAF - 100% pure google aosp
the device specific files were just modified versions of the nexus version of the phone i compiled (same SoC).  and the prebuilts came from the TW version of the rom - of the SAME version of android.  The kernel was based off of google (well - linaro) source - not CAF or CM
funny thing - when I did this - the TW kernel also worked...

hope i made this clear enough for people to understand
but the bottom line is
===> kernels are not AOSP or TW based, they are android 4.3 based or android 4.4 based!!!!   <===
Add a comment...

Thanks for the add Matt, looking forward to seeing what y'all are all about!

A well thought-out rant (if that makes sense) from our friend idcrisis of CrossBreeder fame. Really eye-opening, that.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=46095572

idcrisis' post at the bottom

Post has attachment
Photo

Post has shared content
So, I wanted to post more fun facts about a specific feature that has been in my kernel since the days I was back on XFA

1st fact:
I left XDA just about 1 year ago.

While I was on XDA, my friend Eric and I made kernel based mpdecision and kernel based thermald.  Since "Authored on" and "commited on" dates can easlity be faked, I will talk about push dates.. the date the repo server, be it github.com or bitbucket.org physically receive the patch.

On Jan 3rd, 2012 I pushed experimental versions of both of these mods to code.google.com for my open source kernels I posted on XDA.

This patch was uppdated on Feb 26th and pushed to bitbucket, and the binary containing both of these features was uploaded to XDA for the masses to consume.

After a few more updates and test kernels, the feature was advertised on XDA on March 8th 2012, and openly discussed on xda starting on this date.  my OP title was even modified to include the words "mpdecision" and "thermald"

11 months ago as of today showp1984 (aka Dennis Rassmann ) invents this same feature after I had already left xda.

Now, if we look at showp's repo - and look at the date github physically received the code ( here is the link -> https://github.com/showp1984/bricked-pyramid-3.0/commits/master/arch/arm/mach-msm/msm_mpdecision.c ) we can see his source was authored 11 months ago, but pushed to the repo on Jun 22, 2012.

so - as shown in the link above, his code was not even public until AFTER I had this feature in the hands of end users, as well as it being openly discussed on xda in my threads.

even if we go by his authored by date, I still clearly had it 1st.

yet Dennis Rassmann claims to this day that I kanged / stole this code from him.

He also accused me un public on xda of kanging his "3d fix patch" - a patch that was line for line identical to the code found in the rezound kernel found at htcdev.com.  Since I got the code from htc, htc was gi ven credit - and this upset showp, as he felt the patch was his, so I guess it is same to assume htc stole the code from showp/Dennis Rassmann.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
I wish to address the false information (in other words, the lies) being said about me by Eric Appleman (aka llstarks), Dan Pasanen (aka invisiblek) and their associates.

Eric is spreading lies and false information about me "breaking the law" in regards to me releasing kernels. He is also saying im out of GPL compliance, and my kernels are available to the general public, so I wish to address a few of these subjects.

First, I know a lot of people who believe in Open Source, such as other developers, resent me, and don’t like me, due to the fact I stopped release source. I wish to remind everyone that the opinion these others may have of me has zero impact on the actual laws, contracts, or license agreements that will be touched upon in this post.

The GPL is a software license agreement. In other words, it is a "contract" so to speak. It is not a law, it does not have any penal or civil codes connected to it.

When you violate the GPL, you loose your rights granted to you by the GPL. Some of these rights is being able to use the source code used for the linux kernel, modify it, and post it (pubic-ally or privately). Now, im not picking on anyone, but below is a perfect example of a GPL violation that would have resulted in the developer being discussed below loosing any and all rights granted to him under the GPL.

Paul Reioux (aka faux123 ) , who is a well known developer, and well respected on XDA-Develoeprs.com violated the GPL for several months. How do I know this? He admitted to it. Since he admitted to it, there is no investigation needed - He lost all rights granted to him under the GPL v2.0. This means he can not legally distribute any linux. Any kernel he released on or after the date he admitted to violation the GPL is a violation of copyright law, as he lost his rights under GPL v2.0 to distribute any linux kernels. While it appears he has become compliant with the GPL again, he still has no rights until every copyright holder agrees to grant him a "new license". My friend Eric who is active on this forum is a copyright holder. He also worked for a company that is a copyright holder. Eric openly stated he will never agree to grant Paul Reioux a new software license. This means every kernel Paul Reioux released is a true violation of copyright law. Paul Reioux said he could not post source as his wife was having medical issues (that lasted for about 3 months). While his wife was having medical issues, he did fail to keep his source repos current, he openly admitted to this. But - I would like to point out the fact that during this same time frame, he had time to update and support his paid apps that he sells on google play, as well as maintain and post "social network" builds of his kernels, for more than 1 device.

Eric Appleman is 100% OK that Paul Reioux violated the GPL because Paul Reioux is "cool with him" (the exact quote from Eric Appleman in IRC was "I dont agree with the fact that faux123 violated GPL, but we are cool with each other").

When Paul Reioux was reported to gpl-violations, Eric Appleman immediately made attempts to move the focus from Paul Reioux to myself. Everything that was said about me was already said on the gpl-violatins mailing list, but when Paul Reioux came up, Eric Appleman felt the need to repeat what he had already said about me. When anything at all was said about Paul, others put great effort into changing the subject to "chad" and "anthrax" in an attempt to bury faux's non-compliance, to make people forget or overlook it.
Eric Appleman has lied, stating anyone and everyone could download my kernels. If you read XDA, you will see many people are upset they can not download it. I share my work with a select few.

I would like to now quote some information from gnu.org regarding GPL v2.0, and comment on each of the quote

Eric Appleman insists that I must make source available to anyone who requests it, even if they do not have access to my kernel. He said any 3rd party should be allowed to ask for and obtain source code. This is wrong. The only information posted about 3rd parties requesting source in the GPL is quoted below. I do not commercially distribute my kernel, The link is here -> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

What does this “written offer valid for any third party” mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
I would also like to quote part of the GPL that states if I did sell my kernel for a fee, I could also charge for source code, as long as the charge for source did not exceed the charge of the actual kernel. Link here -> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.I would also like to quote 2 more parts from gnu.org here. First is at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic and states the following:

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
Second is post I want to quote is the definition of "distribution" found here -> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCInternalDistribution

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
Now I would like to point out a few facts about the 2 posts I just quoted. "Organization" and "Company" are not defined in the GPL, so the common meaning of the word is used. By googles definition of organization, anthrax-kernels is in fact an organization. I would also like to point out that anthrax-kernels is a branch of a company I have a federal tax id number for, so this in fact makes it a company as well.

Eric Appleman insists that the author of the GPL does not define anthrax-kernels as an organization. It does not matter if this is true or not, as it was not addressed within the gpl v2 software license text, it was mentioned just recently.

Even if my kernels were public, not 1 person has asked for (or requested) source until after the thread at gpl-violations were 2 days deep.
Some more quotes I would like to address.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCCanIDemandACopy
If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?
No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.As stated above, I can pick who I give my kernel to, and who I dont give it to. Eric Appleman, Dan Pasanen, and anyone associated with them or their team are not permitted to use my kernel by me. This means if they get a copy of my kernel, it was not from me. Being Eric Appleman claims he has a copy of my kernel, if he wants source, it is up to him to request it from the person who leaked my kernel to him. It has already been discussed on the gpl-violations mailing list that if person/company A gives a kernel to person/company B, and person/company B gives it to person/company C it is up to person/company B to provide person/company C with source if person/company C requests source. So, if I give my kernel to a member of my organization, I do not need to provide source, as I am not distributing my kernel. Now if you give this kernel to Eric Appleman for example, and he requests source, that is 100% on you, as you are the one who distributed the kernel.

And, as stated here -> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCGPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
If i released my kernel to the public, I would only need to make source code available to the programs users.

Since I have left XDA, my kernels are not for public use or distribution, and I have never posted any kernels that were available to the general public since the day I left XDA. . While I was on XDA, my kernels posted, and supported on xda were public, and I have a full public repo available for these kernels to anyone who asked for it (or for those who would look at my OP on xda would find a link if they read the entire post).

If there are any public links to my kernel, they are unauthorized by me. Any kernels downloaded from any such link, mirror, or what ever you wish to call it is considered a leak. Unless I have given you written, signed and notorized approval to have my kernel, what you have is considered a leak.

Any kernels I release to the public in the future will also have full current and correct source code.  Any "public" kernel released by me to the general public will have information in /sbin/readme  on how to acquire source (since per the GPL I only need to provide source to the programs users - once the program is installed, they can read how to obtain source).

I would like to point out the fact that Eric Appleman requested on xda in public forum for all to read a request. He made a request for someone to post publicly a leaked version of a pre-release samsung kernel, knowing there would never be any source available for that exact build. So, its ok if you violate the GPL as long as your cool with Eric Appleman, and/or his associates.

I would also like to point out that while both Eric Appleman and Dan Pasanen both had accounts here (well multiple accounts) - they were never granted download rights, so they never even had access to any of my kernels via my site using their login information. If they used someone elses log in information, that is considered a leaked kernel they downloaded. So, even if anthrax-kernels is not an organization or company - the only 2 people who ever asked for source never had access to the binary from me, therefore are not entitled to any source. Dan did have a public link containing old htc evo 3d kernels, he asked for source code for the kernels contained in that file download site, and his request was granted - he was linked to a repo containing my htc evo 3d source code from those kernels.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded