I'd like this to happen but I'd also like to have the proper flashing tools fully working. Many tools have been found but nobody can get them working. I want them working because they will allow us to recover from bad flashes.
Petition against Intel Corporation for unlocking boot-loaders and jelly bean update
Started by
kabirsaini2011
, Jan 05 2013 08:52 AM
#21
Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:48 AM
Removing the signed status of the bootloader through an unlock would be a good solution. It would allow us to flash our own images and may even allow us to 'port' ROMs from the RAZR i.
I'd like this to happen but I'd also like to have the proper flashing tools fully working. Many tools have been found but nobody can get them working. I want them working because they will allow us to recover from bad flashes.
I'd like this to happen but I'd also like to have the proper flashing tools fully working. Many tools have been found but nobody can get them working. I want them working because they will allow us to recover from bad flashes.
#22
Posted 06 January 2013 - 11:37 AM
rickywyatt, on 05 January 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:
its a exe called download-tool it works on windows and there is a program for linux too
and it has the source code too
xfstk.zip
xFSTK-1.0.4a.zip
and it has the source code too
xfstk.zip
xFSTK-1.0.4a.zip
Linux? Interesting. I have xFSTK-1.1.0a but not the older one and I don't have the Linux version. Tried to find them
#23
Posted 06 January 2013 - 11:38 AM
flibblesan, on 06 January 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:
Removing the signed status of the bootloader through an unlock would be a good solution. It would allow us to flash our own images and may even allow us to 'port' ROMs from the RAZR i.
I'd like this to happen but I'd also like to have the proper flashing tools fully working. Many tools have been found but nobody can get them working. I want them working because they will allow us to recover from bad flashes.
I'd like this to happen but I'd also like to have the proper flashing tools fully working. Many tools have been found but nobody can get them working. I want them working because they will allow us to recover from bad flashes.
#24
Posted 06 January 2013 - 03:44 PM
rickywyatt, on 05 January 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:
its a exe called download-tool it works on windows and there is a program for linux too
and it has the source code too
xfstk.zip
xFSTK-1.0.4a.zip
and it has the source code too
xfstk.zip
xFSTK-1.0.4a.zip
http://www.scribd.co...SP-SOP-Tom-v1-0
Quote
honeycomb.3.2.zip
2011-09-23.2-external-android-honeycomb-medfield.tar
kit_DV1_ww38.zip
firmwares
keys
lfstk
xfstk
2011-09-23.2-external-android-honeycomb-medfield.tar
kit_DV1_ww38.zip
firmwares
keys
lfstk
xfstk
interesting also has a asus email on it
#25
Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:14 PM
Could it have a signing key in it?
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
I may not know a lot, but there are others that do. If you have a problem, just ask
Sent with magic :)
I may not know a lot, but there are others that do. If you have a problem, just ask
Sent with magic :)
#26
Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:30 PM
hecatae, on 06 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:
I no he works at asus and he gave me the tool but I don't no how to use it and that's why iv only gave to flibs as I don't what people killing there phones
#27
Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:19 PM
hi,
i found this on XDA, it may help us to have CWM on the san diego. Even if i think the binaries from CMW are not fully runnable on x86.
We have to edit the step3.sh to map our partitions and the chargemon script to be able to boot CWM, and take charger binary from san diego.
http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=2020897
My 2 cents
i found this on XDA, it may help us to have CWM on the san diego. Even if i think the binaries from CMW are not fully runnable on x86.
We have to edit the step3.sh to map our partitions and the chargemon script to be able to boot CWM, and take charger binary from san diego.
http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=2020897
My 2 cents
#28
Posted 07 January 2013 - 06:50 AM
benichou, on 06 January 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:
hi,
i found this on XDA, it may help us to have CWM on the san diego. Even if i think the binaries from CMW are not fully runnable on x86.
We have to edit the step3.sh to map our partitions and the chargemon script to be able to boot CWM, and take charger binary from san diego.
http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=2020897
My 2 cents
i found this on XDA, it may help us to have CWM on the san diego. Even if i think the binaries from CMW are not fully runnable on x86.
We have to edit the step3.sh to map our partitions and the chargemon script to be able to boot CWM, and take charger binary from san diego.
http://forum.xda-dev...d.php?t=2020897
My 2 cents
#29
Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:22 PM
There was some news at CES from Intel about their phone platforms. Intel announced the Z2420 based Lexington platform, it appears to be a cheaper lower-performance version of the Z2460 based Medfield platform.
Lava are one of the companies that will be using Lexington. As they are almost the same platform I can't see why Intel, or Lava for that matter, would stop supporting Medfield, at least not until the Medfield replacement Merrifield is ready. Most of the effort to support Lexington would be shared with supporting Medfield.
Anyway it's not an announcement of ongoing support but I would be surprised if 4.0 really is the end of the line.
Lava are one of the companies that will be using Lexington. As they are almost the same platform I can't see why Intel, or Lava for that matter, would stop supporting Medfield, at least not until the Medfield replacement Merrifield is ready. Most of the effort to support Lexington would be shared with supporting Medfield.
Anyway it's not an announcement of ongoing support but I would be surprised if 4.0 really is the end of the line.
#30
Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:31 PM
gwebb, on 08 January 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:
There was some news at CES from Intel about their phone platforms. Intel announced the Z2420 based Lexington platform, it appears to be a cheaper lower-performance version of the Z2460 based Medfield platform.
Lava are one of the companies that will be using Lexington. As they are almost the same platform I can't see why Intel, or Lava for that matter, would stop supporting Medfield, at least not until the Medfield replacement Merrifield is ready. Most of the effort to support Lexington would be shared with supporting Medfield.
Anyway it's not an announcement of ongoing support but I would be surprised if 4.0 really is the end of the line.
Lava are one of the companies that will be using Lexington. As they are almost the same platform I can't see why Intel, or Lava for that matter, would stop supporting Medfield, at least not until the Medfield replacement Merrifield is ready. Most of the effort to support Lexington would be shared with supporting Medfield.
Anyway it's not an announcement of ongoing support but I would be surprised if 4.0 really is the end of the line.
exactly... and not only that Intel Developer Site also has Jelly Bean Emulator Image for Developers... so sooner or later I am still optimistic that Medfield and (Xolo / SD) will get a Jelly Bean update soon
#31
Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:51 PM
#32
Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:10 AM
#33
Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:23 AM
#34
Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:25 AM
#35
Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:55 AM
Zhiming Zhou, on 10 January 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:
can u release this? I really want to flash custom kernel on XOLO, haha
I can but if you brick your phone you do it at your own risk pm me and ill send link
#36
Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:45 PM
As long as you absolutely leave the stock recovery app in place then you may be able to recover from a non-booting kernel. But don't flash everything at once. I did that. It's not good.
#38
Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:20 PM
so any new news on jellybean status for our device?
#39
Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:26 AM
#40
Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:29 AM
Hmm, not had a look at the petition since signing it, pretty poor turnout. 
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Matthew 23:12
Matthew 23:12
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users







Sign In
Create Account


Back to top









