Related
Hi !
Does anyone actually know if android can be installed / flashed on current devices ? Or it's only for certain devices that come with it preinstalled ?
Please don't post things like: "i would love it if it did" or "omg, android is great"...
I'm looking for an answer from someone who actually knows or someone who knows exactly how this stuff works...
Thanks
PS: Menneisyys, i hope you'll post something
I don't think that you'll be getting your answer any time soon as nobody has seen the thing yet.
But i would speculate that as HTC is one of the partners, it might be possible. HTC probably wont reinvent their phones again for the android.
Not a programmer...
but i was listening to leo laport yesterday and it seems that ggls world domination strategy would be all including. so it seems very likely that they would allow some version of it for use on other phones.
http://techguylabs.com/radio/ShowNotes/Show403#toc5
At this point, since there there is no release yet and nobody has/can play with it, it's probably hard to say. However, knowing Google, there is a good possibility they will come out with an app that allows you to use your current phone (speculation).
I heard that Android based on some Java-sintacsys - maybe it is good for us?
Well, the SDK has been released, get it here: http://code.google.com/android/. A demo video is available on the page to show you what it's capable of thus far--looks promising. I'm no coder, but I wish someone would develop this for current HTC devices. As an incentive, Google launched an Android Developer Challenge (http://code.google.com/android/adc.html), where developers of "innovative, useful apps" can win up to $275,000.
leetsauce said:
Well, the SDK has been released, get it here: http://code.google.com/android/. A demo video is available on the page to show you what it's capable of thus far--looks promising. I'm no coder, but I wish someone would develop this for current HTC devices. As an incentive, Google launched an Android Developer Challenge (http://code.google.com/android/adc.html), where developers of "innovative, useful apps" can win up to $275,000.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I grabbed the SDk and got a basic hello world up and running. From what the video said and what I can glean from various sites. The Android OS is designed to run on existing hardware. I would imagine that includes HTC machines. Its a complete OS though not an app so I would imagine you have to blow away WM6 and put android on in order to take advantage of its functionality. The actual coding appears to be extremely easy.
I can see google or the community releasing a "shell" of Android.
The more people with it the more money for them. If you watched the video they are really trying to push the location based services from GPS, cell towers, IP address... can anyone say more cash for ads.
I wouldn't mind having it on WM and its open source so there a good chance we will see it.
Alpine would be perfect for Android
Alpine would be a perfect phone if recycled with android !!
Good processor, lots of mem and a big screen for touch sensasions!!
Is it a dream or could that become reality?
Is Android compatible with HTC Touch-style hardware or does it require the numberpad?
There is a linux-2.6.23-android-m3-rc20.tar.gz kernel file on the android google code project site, there is also ADB utility - Android Debug Bridge (comes with SDK), it has an option of flashing a device (over usb) or an emulator (which is also included in the package)...the question is how to compile that kernel and make it run on our HTCs, and what kindof boot loader does it require? Maybe guys from Xanadux know better
It's also interesting how JAVA is being used after becoming open source, it appears that android is mostly independent from the JAVA API, the only relevance I found was only basic stuff like java.util, java.io and etc (included in the android.jar)...
i think that android will work on htc devices because pretty much they are the ones that will be releasing the first devices preloaded with android and i think that white device was made from htc. I see a potential here so i ask some one to make a thread on porting android to any or a specific device. good luck and may the force be with you.
ps. i hope its a htc wizard
I'd say we'd be waiting to see the HDK come out before we can put it on our own devices, can't wait though.
A dream
The Android SDK includes an emulator, see here http://www.ohadev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15
Quote: "It seems that the main binary is emulator; this includes a qemu-0.8.2, which runs (in system mode) the ARM kernel image at lib/images/kernel-qemu.
Two more images are mounted from lib/images : the system.img (which appears to be the rootfs, and userdata.img, which gets replicated (and mounted from there) at $HOME/.android/userdata.img."
This guy (http://mamaich.uni.cc/fr_pocket.htm) got Qemu compiled for ARM, buggy/crashing, no visible update for several years, see also here http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/in...e_to_running_ms_dos_8_12&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Question: Anyone have any more recent news/experiences about Qemu on ARM/HTC?
So, theoretically one could try running the Android Kernel image from the SDK emulator on Qemu on PocketPC.
Even if it works (highly unlikely), this megasandwich AndroidImage->Qemu->PocketPC would probably be fantastically slow, with dodgy/absent I/O support.
Real solution is to wait for a modifyable Kernel which can run natively on the HTC ARM processor.
Did not someone from google mentioned at the day of the release that android will run on any ARM9 based device?
dirac said:
Real solution is to wait for a modifyable Kernel which can run natively on the HTC ARM processor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no such thing as "HTC ARM processor". All major ARM-based CPUs
are supported by Linux, it's the device drivers for external hardware that are
often missing because of the missing documentation.
cr2 said:
There is no such thing as "HTC ARM processor". All major ARM-based CPUs
are supported by Linux, it's the device drivers for external hardware that are
often missing because of the missing documentation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im sure that HTC will release drivers for all their devices since they are partners in the Open Handset Alliance..
prodinho said:
Im sure that HTC will release drivers for all their devices since they are partners in the Open Handset Alliance..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are some doubts that the (future) drivers will be released as free software, and not some binary blobs like nvidia, ati and m-systems did it in the past.
Binary linux kernel drivers are evil
So I've been having a discussion in another thread regarding the use of older versions of MSOS's on PPC. That spawned a question on my part:
Is there a development group here somewhere that is working on a Linux OS, or another OS for PPC?
Linux will run on just about anything, its' lightweight OS needs little memory and cpu power. So how hard would it be to design a light Linux based OS for a PPC?
Obviously it would take a group of people, much like those groups developing Linux distros and programs.
I think there is memory to be saved, and speed to be had. And if someone were smart enough to wrap a dialer and vendor agnostic connectivity around it, it would take off.
Any interest in this?
http://wiki.xda-developers.com/index.php?pagename=Xanadux
or android
or
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...H_en-GBGB243GB243&q=linux+for+pocket+pc&meta=
Wow, I'm disappointed.
There are hundreds of WM5 & WM6 custom ROMs' being developed by hundreds of top notch developers...... and only ONE Linux port?
very underwhelming...
You may also want to check out OpenMoko (http://www.openmoko.org) or just try and put together your own.
Splitter said:
Wow, I'm disappointed.
There are hundreds of WM5 & WM6 custom ROMs' being developed by hundreds of top notch developers...... and only ONE Linux port?
very underwhelming...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a whole different thing. All those roms you are talking about are just modifications of an existing OS.
The linux port amounts to building an OS from scratch, and it's a lot harder.
edzilla said:
It's a whole different thing. All those roms you are talking about are just modifications of an existing OS.
The linux port amounts to building an OS from scratch, and it's a lot harder.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed.
Actually porting Linux to an HTC device wouldn't be so bad. Some people have found out how to flash ROM's theoretically without needing a bootloader even.
The problem really boils down to drivers for Linux. We can't even get proper video drivers working with the Kaiser under Windows Mobile (the proper drivers were never included, so video output is slowwww) though the hardware supports 3d acceleration! HTC denies our requests for hardware specs to develop our own. And this is trouble we're having with drivers for Windows!
Really it boils down to this hardware. This type of hardware being proprietary as you can get. You've got processors and controllers that are highly proprietary and the vendors are tied in to 100 different non compete non-disclosure agreements and can't provide specs. Even the qualcomm chips borrow code from broadcom -- which means qualcomm can't publish how those portions of their chips work! Microsoft then licenses code from these vendors with promises not to share source. HTC licenses code from broadcom and qualcom swearing not to publish it. Etc etc...
Now, your a Linux developer. How do you integrate drivers in to your kernel when the chip instruction set isn't even documented? Control codes aren't published? Reverse engineering is the only way, which can take years. Developers here have learned simple controls such as to change LED's or discovered the standard interface for USB/SD cards. That's about it.
It's hard for an open source OS to survive in a closed-spec hardware world. PC's are open and well documented and very standard. However, every phone is different, and different production runs may even have significant changes in internal hardware design.
It's really a waste of time to seek Linux on mobile devices until hardware becomes standardized. Which is never because companies like qualcomm and broadcomm via and others are not fans of open source. This is the market and those who dominate it.
If this saddens you, it should -- but it's just the way it is.
Dear members of the forum,
I've been trying to decide which path to take to get started with mobile development on modern devices. I've done some windows mobile development and quite a lot j2me development in the past, and I am very keen to explore these modern platforms.
However, I'm trying to understand the opportunities in Android platform and IPhone, and I need your help to complete some of the missing bits.
Android does not seem allow native code access to hardware for obvious reasons. It appears you can write native libraries, but they can't access hardware either.
IPhone on the other hand, seems to offer compiled code access to hardware, making it easier to port things like vlc player.
On the other hand, Android gives you the OS source code, and you can add custom modules to kernel. I've never been deep into kernel hacking, other than applying a few patches every now and then.
Do you think it would be possible to exploit the open source nature of Android, to have compiled code access to hardware? I was thinking about developing software at the kernel level, using low level access, and then exposing a certain amount of control to UI layer.
Do you think this approach as a possible alternative to native access to device hardware (apis), as in IPhone and windows mobile?
I am not worried about deploying my code to other phones, these will be projects for personal purposes only, but I would like to know if I can find a way of squeezing performance of the say, HTC Hero to the max by using native code, rather than Java.
For a more solid example, how would you go ahead if you were to start a project for porting VLC Player to HTC hero? Would you say this is not possible?
Kind regards
Seref
Some peoples compiled mplayer for android probably helpful for your decision
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=575500&highlight=mplayer
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code. Not only is it completely NOT in the spirit of open source, but in fact may even be illegal (although I have not done quite enough research to say exactly what is and isn't GPL, I know the kernel IS GPL, the OS itself I am GUESSING is GPL as they have claimed it to be open source). I understand that certain APPLICATIONS are not open source (market, youtube, gmail, etc) but if the operating system is supposed to be open source (and/or GPL) why are more people not outraged that they will not release it?
I understand they want to prevent every fly-by-night operation from building garbage tablets that "cheapen" the name of android tablets, but for better or worse that's what android is, and it's what makes android great. If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb. If you're not happy with the performance, you can go buy a nice xoom or transformer.
I know we all love android, and its open source nature, but just because we hate apple/M$ doesn't mean we have to love every action google takes.
compuw22c said:
If you just want to get your feet wet, you should be able to take a cheap nook color and load up honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the nook has honeycomb.
austin420 said:
the nook has honeycomb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
lynyrd65 said:
Based on the sdk.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, prerelease sdk too. Personally, I think this may be what pushed Google to do what they did. That or Motorola freaking out saying "You PROMISED we'd be first, we invested time and energy here you better do something about this". Android was supposed to be "The People's OS". Unfortunately things seem to be changing hands and its becoming more about keeping carriers and manufacturers happy. Not necessary I say. Pandora's box has been opened, no matter what google does, carriers and manufacturers will still use Android. To stop carrying android phones would be suicide on their part. Give us all root access as part of stock android and be done with it!
Sent from my pocket rocket
compuw22c said:
I just had to start a thread on this issue because I think it's surprising more people aren't angry at Google for taking an 'open', GPL licensed (at the very least the kernel) set of code (Honeycomb) and not releasing it to the public in the form of source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
mkasick said:
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources.
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
jnadke said:
Beat me to it, but I figured I'd re-quote you with a shortened version in bold.
It's been long known. Android is OPEN SOURCE (Apache). It is not FREE SOURCE (GPL).
Further, I think the author misunderstands what the linux kernel is. You can't really do much with it alone, but it is a powerful piece. On a train, it's like the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels of the train, but you still need the body and the train tracks to go anywhere (Android).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I do understand what a kernel is and what it does (small main-brain controller of hardware, usually with a few modules built into it). I've recompiled mine on my media server a few times. I do see your point though, you're right, not much you can do with it all by itself for sure.
I also understand that they aren't breaking the law, I guess I just thought part of the gpl was that to use gpl software in a project, that project must also comply (which I now understand is false). Always assumed that to be the reason Apple uses a UNIX kernel rather than a LINUX kernel for osx.
So I guess they do have a right to do what they're doing, but the idealist in me still wishes they'd do the right thing...
Anyone wanna make a Ubuntu port to phones...complete with dialer, launcher, dalvik vm (for running android apps)? j/k
Sent from my pocket rocket
mkasick said:
There are quite a few folks who are unhappy with Google for their decision not to release Honeycomb platform sources, and there's a good debate there. However, there's nothing unlawful about Google's actions.
First, the majority of Android source code isn't GPL licensed, but rather Apache License v2.0, which does not require publication of modified sources. This is why Samsung hasn't (fully) released sources for the Epic's Android platform code, which is much more problematic for us.
Second, AOSP is the sole copyright owner of much of the Android platform code. This enables them to release and relicense that source code however they wish, even if the code were nominally GPL licensed (although it's Apache).
Third, the portions of Honeycomb that are GPL licensed, to which AOSP is not the sole copyright owner, have been publically released. However, this code is mostly comprised of the Linux kernel and a few underyling libraries. In other words, it isn't the interesting/useful part of Honeycomb.
Furthermore, just to clarify, the GPL does not require source code to be published publicly, just that it be made available to those who legitimately acquite the binary code, i.e., who actually purchase Honeycomb tablets. That said, public publication of that code is often the easiest/most efficient method of making it available to tablet owners.
Edit: The copyright of much of the Android sources are claimed by "The Android Open Source Project", which is the "overseeing" organization Google established. I'm not sure what the policies of code licensing are among Google and other AOSP partners, but the point is that AOSP as the copyright owner is not bound by the existing license for that code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said...
Help support autism awareness,it only takes 2 seconds to help make a difference...
http://picketfenceblogs.com/vote/3616
I don't understand how if Android is Opensource and borrows code from Linux kernel and other OpenSource projects, how Google can legally hold back the honeycomb sourcecode?
I'm not really interested in Honeycomb source myself, nor the OS dev scene, but what I DO care about, is that some of my favorite apps are broken on my Tablet, and the developers all point the finger at Google, saying the flash API changed in Honeycomb, and they need the source to get it working.
The biggest broken apps for me are:
Opera Mobile 11
BBC iPlayer App
Opera even come out and tell us why Flash does not work on Opera Mobile 11 on Honeycomb:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.opera.browser&feature=search_result
(What's New Tab)
"Flash not supported on Android 3.x due to Google not releasing necessary platform code"
"Open source" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Linux kernel source is available under the GPLv2, this mean that is you ship a product you must provide the source, hence its the device manufacturers responsibility to give us the kernel source because it's them we buy the product from.
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
All the API's that people _should_ be using are documented, the problem is that the products you mention are trying to mimic the native browser and use internal only method calls, if you step out of the approved API box then you have problems like this.
Why BBC iPlayer needs flash I don't know, all 3.1 tablets can play the flashhigh and flashhd (h.264) iPlayer streams natively I use get-iplayer and transfer the files to my Transformer for viewing and it works beautifully. I guess the Android app team are just lazy (or iPhone developers who don't know Android very well)
SilentMobius said:
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
brunes said:
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
seshmaru said:
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's correct that it is not copyleft, and I was aware of this. All android releases however are released under the Apache license, which means the source for android itself has to be there, but any further modifications can use whatever they want. So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
seshmaru said:
So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't! That is the *whole* point. Honeycomb, at this point in time, is *not* an open source project because no source has been released, and the license of its antecedents is not a copyleft licence.
Honeycomb is, broadly speaking, a derivative of an earlier Android build (Froyo/Gingerbread whatever), and in this respect it is no different to say HTC's Sense builds which are also not open source.
Regards,
Dave
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Have also wondered this myself.. but reading all of this has made me more confused than I was before.. who's right? :S
It's correct that Google hold the copyright for the bulk of the android framework, and as the copyright owners they are not subject to license terms, so they don't need to release anything but that only works for Google products. If the licence had been GPL then manufacturers would need to supply source with their products, not Google but ASUS/Samsung/HTC/etc/etc.
Short version: Google don't need to release anything, app developers shouldn't use internal APIs and rely on having platform source to make things work.
That said I want to change some of the browser behaviour and plumb back in handling for the .mkv file extension (because the container parsing is already in there) So I'd love to get my hands on the HC source, no matter how messy.
david279 said:
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Divine_Madcat said:
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they did worry, that's exactly why they made honeycomb you derptard and exactly the reason they aren't releasing the source to honeycomb.
And yes they don't want manufacturers shoehorning a tablet OS into a phone just so they can say OH OUR PHONE HAS ANDROID 3.0 INSTEAD OF 2.3.
Derptard... certainly a new one for the books. haha