[ROM 07-12] TripNMiUI S001.1RC.1.12.2 | RELEASE CANDIDATE | ENDTIME Kernel

[Guest JassyCliq]

Sue him for not giving up the source, then. :D

That's an option... ;)

Plus I did also ask that if he did not want to for any reason to post his code (which he must after a certain number of days) that he could just post his kernel with the config file left in.

[Guest BummAround]

That's an option... ;)

Plus I did also ask that if he did not want to for any reason to post his code (which he must after a certain number of days) that he could just post his kernel with the config file left in.

That's a bit far-fetched & I wouldn't count on it.

As an end user, I just want the LATEST of his ROM (and its coveted kernel). :)

[Guest JassyCliq]

That's a bit far-fetched & I wouldn't count on it.

As an end user, I just want the LATEST of his ROM (and its coveted kernel). :)

As an end user you should take into consideration what would be possible if he released his source for the 3.0.4 Sensation kernel (that is if it exist) Other Developers that work with kernels for a living or hobby will be able to come together and add more features, such as gpu overclock, sd readahead, lower heat, better battery life, etc... (which is what open source is all about) If he really is as good as he claims, there is no way that these developers could NOT help.

In the end him releasing his source only benefits the end user.

(This is of course all theortical and is reliant on the chance that he did indeed do what no other kernel developer has done [which talked about it like it was nothing])

And that being a "bit far-fetched"? No its called the GPL, if he violates that he can be sued and I'm pretty sure he doesn't want it to go that far. ;)

Edited October 30, 2011 by JassyCliq

[Guest j_r0dd]

That's a bit far-fetched & I wouldn't count on it.

As an end user, I just want the LATEST of his ROM (and its coveted kernel). :)

Wanting proof that this is actually a 3.0.4 kernel is wrong it what respects? I guess you really don't understand the fact that no other android device has that kernel version running on it yet. That would be a huge accomplishment to port over the proprietary stuff to make this work. To do that with such ease, as the OP stated a couple pages back, is huge. First 2.6.38.8 and now 3.0.4. I would love to see a 3.0.4 kernel in Cyanogenmod. Guess what? There isn't one yet for any device in Cyanogenmod! I'm not trying to "sue" anybody. You're just an end-user that has no clue about GPL or the open-source community. I respect GPL and I have no problem posting my source code freely for the world and it is available on my github.

Edited October 30, 2011 by j_r0dd

[Guest BummAround]

It's a lonely, lonely place, being a "king of the hill".

Not everybody that calls him/her-self "developer" is as talented. Such a sad fact of life.

Now please do tell us, which forum(s) send you guys? :blink:

Edited October 30, 2011 by BummAround

[Guest zetnord]

Hey guys i just new here..and i used this Rom..well this rom is really great and fast i very like it..but i just curious is there any one had a problem with the camera .. i can't use the volume buttons to zoom in/out even i already set ..is there any one of u had a same prob with me ??

[Guest dipje]

Linux kernel 3.0.x is basicly linux 2.6.39 or 2.6.40 or something. They just 'renamed'' it to 3.0 to make a jump to indicate the progress that's been made.

The differences between the latest 2.6 kernel (which trip already had running and used in his ROM(s)) and 3.0 is not that big, so it's very good possible to merge the changes in his current android source.

Use diff to take the differences between the _original_ 2.6.38.8 kernel and the _original_ 3.0.4 kernel. Then apply that diff on his current android 2.6.38 tree. You probably have _some_ manual fixes to do, but it's very well possible.

We did the same thing with the HTC Hero to get a kernel for running Android 2.1 when HTC didn't had the update ready yet.

[Guest BummAround]

Linux kernel 3.0.x is basicly linux 2.6.39 or 2.6.40 or something. They just 'renamed'' it to 3.0 to make a jump to indicate the progress that's been made.

The differences between the latest 2.6 kernel (which trip already had running and used in his ROM(s)) and 3.0 is not that big, so it's very good possible to merge the changes in his current android source.

Use diff to take the differences between the _original_ 2.6.38.8 kernel and the _original_ 3.0.4 kernel. Then apply that diff on his current android 2.6.38 tree. You probably have _some_ manual fixes to do, but it's very well possible.

We did the same thing with the HTC Hero to get a kernel for running Android 2.1 when HTC didn't had the update ready yet.

At last, somebody who knows what is he talking about. :)

Now, still eagerly waiting for Trip's latest...

[Guest jjben]

waiting is a good feeling

[Guest j_r0dd]

It's a lonely, lonely place, being a "king of the hill".

Not everybody that calls him/her-self "developer" is as talented. Such a sad fact of life.

Now please do tell us, which forum(s) send you guys? :blink:

you're in idiot, seriously. i asked him for source not you for fanboyism.

Edited October 30, 2011 by j_r0dd

[Guest TripNRaVeR]

you're in idiot, seriously.

He is not :) Looking at youre post count, you talking about "sue" me.. Well bring it on then..

It only says that indeed you have been send by... fill in yourself

ps. if i would release sources then it would be on a private page with only acces to registerd people and i will be the one for user account approval..

sounds just like xda right?

Edited October 30, 2011 by TripNRaVeR

[Guest BummAround]

you're in idiot, seriously. i asked him for source not you for fanboyism.

It's OK to be fan of a genius.

Oh, I'm sorry I just hurt your feeling. :lol:

Note: In the forum that sent you here, there once were real geniuses like "AdamG", "Koush" (all those super nice old-timers), but then there are some wannabes. Sad. :rolleyes:

Edited October 30, 2011 by BummAround

[Guest zivotinjnja]

you're in idiot, seriously. i asked him for source not you for fanboyism.

Agreed. I am glad that more people are starting to realize this.

Edited October 30, 2011 by zivotinjnja

[Guest BummAround]

Agreed. I am glad that more people are starting to realize this.

Poor souls of the world must unite, eh? Wow. :blink:

[Guest TripNRaVeR]

There are so many dev's that dont released there sources. So i'm not going into that discussion anymore. The source will be released when its time to release them.

[Guest j_r0dd]

He is not :) Looking at youre post count, you talking about "sue" me.. Well bring it on then..

It only says that indeed you have been send by... fill in yourself

ps. if i would release sources then it would be on a private page with only acces to registerd people and i will be the one for user account approval..

sounds just like xda right?

I'm not here for XDA lol. My post count means nothing because I registered just to ask a couple questions. Btw, still haven't got a straight answer. GPL= General Public License. I guess that is too deep for a master hax0r. Your fanboy told me to sue you. Trust me I got better things to do than to sue a drugged out Raver. I am not a GPL lawyer. I ask for source that falls under GPL I get declined by you. I was asked by a friend to just look into this, so I am. I'm not here to get into a pissing contest.

[Guest BummAround]

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL.

However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

Source: www.gnu.org

Edited October 30, 2011 by BummAround

[Guest stroobach]

Hey guys i just found out that of you go to messeges options messege options and change it to bubble it doesnt fcs.. :)

Edited October 30, 2011 by stroobach

[Guest yoogie]

Haha Bumm, Trip is not the developer of the kernel. He however is the developer of his own code. He cannot violate his own code, but the work of thousands of developers who decided to distribute their code along with the kernel covered by the GPL version 2.

And Trip is definitely bound by this license. He must provide access to the source code in any convenient way. He is not forced to upload it or make it publicly available, but upon request he must provide it to everyone. I am sure the way he describes it (registered site) is sufficient as long as nobody is prohibited access.

But please let's get back to business.

[Guest JassyCliq]

Haha Bumm, Trip is not the developer of the kernel. He however is the developer of his own code. He cannot violate his own code, but the work of thousands of developers who decided to distribute their code along with the kernel covered by the GPL version 2.

And Trip is definitely bound by this license. He must provide access to the source code in any convenient way. He is not forced to upload it or make it publicly available, but upon request he must provide it to everyone. I am sure the way he describes it (registered site) is sufficient as long as nobody is prohibited access.

But please let's get back to business.

I was about to state that. What he was probably trying to refer to was this:

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.

So in case you missed it, he isn't forced to release source if he uses it privately. But if he releases his kernel publicly then according to the GPL he is required to make his source available.

Let me also mention that at first all i had asked for was for him to include his config file in his kernel, i did not start to talk about kernel source until he clearly said that he wasn't going to release it.

And for those of you "Developers" saying that it was an easy task to update the 2.6.35 kernel to 3.0.4 kernel, it is no easy task. You would think its that easy but you would have to rewrite a ton of proprietary code (means that only the companies who make the product have the source code) He would then have to make the Linux kernel into an Android kernel, and for those of you thinking that theyre the exact same thing, WRONG. There are many changes that the Android team at Google do to make it the Android kernel. Why do you think developers like faux123, cayniarb, pershoot and other BIG kernel developers havent been able to do it?

Edited October 30, 2011 by JassyCliq

[Guest TripNRaVeR]

Lol i allready said that it will be released when it is time to release it. And i just went to github searching for pyramid kernels, and i saw many many devs who uploaded the original kernel source without modifications and then google the kernel and seeing that they are way more further then the stuff that is online available...

I can upload the HTC sources if that is what you like? :)

To others, working in the meantime also on more ram hack, i added some things to the source and we can set the memory by a "human readable value", problem is that it wont boot. I'm guessing that i'm providing the wrong hexas in the function. Is it even possible to find out the correct hexxa's ?

#define PHY_BASE_ADDR1  0x48000000

#define SIZE_ADDR1      0x24000000

//#define SIZE_ADDR1      0x35100000

//#define SIZE_ADDR1 0x23800000

#define mem_size_mb 768 


static void __init pyramid_fixup(struct machine_desc *desc, struct tag *tags,

     char **cmdline, struct meminfo *mi)

{

 printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: mem_size_mb=%u\n", __func__, mem_size_mb);

 skuid = parse_tag_skuid((const struct tag *)tags);


 mi->nr_banks = 1;

 mi->bank[0].start = PHY_BASE_ADDR1;

 mi->bank[0].node = PHYS_TO_NID(PHY_BASE_ADDR1);

 mi->bank[0].size = SIZE_ADDR1;

 if (mem_size_mb == 1024)

  mi->bank[0].size += 0x10000000;

}

[/code]

[Guest farfromovin]

I previously swore off your ROM, but I figured I'd stop by to at least test out BT on the next pre-beta I wish all this GPL talk would just go over to PM. CM isn't releasing their source while it's in Alpha... just sayin'.

[Guest JassyCliq]

I previously swore off your ROM, but I figured I'd stop by to at least test out BT on the next pre-beta I wish all this GPL talk would just go over to PM. CM isn't releasing their source while it's in Alpha... just sayin'.

Cm isn't releasing their ROM source, they're not required to. Kernel sources on the other hand are. Which bumbledroid (iirc) has his source up on github.

@TripNRaVeR if your source is not ready then would you leave your config.gz in your next kernel? Unless you have something to hide?

[Guest farfromovin]

Cm isn't releasing their ROM source, they're not required to. Kernel sources on the other hand are. Which bumbledroid (iirc) has his source up on github.

@TripNRaVeR if your source is not ready then would you leave your config.gz in your next kernel? Unless you have something to hide?

Ahh, didn't know that.

[Guest JassyCliq]

It understandable this stuff can be confusing