HTC Finally Releases Hero Source Code

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HTC Finally Releases Hero Source Code

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 22, 2009 @11:17AM from the shouldn't-heroes-be-more-forthcoming? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "After months of prodding by developers, HTC has finally released the long-requested Android source code for the HTC Hero. This follows up on a recent report on Slashdot concerning device manufacturer HTC's perceived stonewalling over releasing source code for the device after repeated attempts to initially obtain source were met with vague responses."

123 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

HTC by sopssa · 2009-10-22 11:20 · Score: 1

It's great HTC started releasing Android phones too, their Windows Mobile phones have been really nice (with their own tweaks and UI redesign to make it more useful)
Anyone know what kind of custom stuff they're build for Android?
1. Re:HTC by AnEducatedNegro · 2009-10-22 11:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Anyone know what kind of custom stuff they're build for Android?
  Sense UI and a few applications. Nothing spectacular, android steals all the glory. In fact, don't waste your time on the HTC Hero.. wait another week and get the Samsung Moment. Faster proc, onscreen keyboard and physical keyboard, better battery life.
  
  I love my HTC Hero but boy is it slow at times. And I'm not just talking about waiting for an app to load, there are times when the entire device just decides to freeze up for 2-3 seconds while queuing input.
  
  aEN
2. Re:HTC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know, but I hope it includes a grammar checker!
3. Re:HTC by delire · 2009-10-22 11:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Sounds like you need to upgrade the firmware..
  
  People are reporting huge speedups after doing so.
4. Re:HTC by eihab · 2009-10-22 12:03 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I love my HTC Hero but boy is it slow at times. And I'm not just talking about waiting for an app to load, there are times when the entire device just decides to freeze up for 2-3 seconds while queuing input.
  Give it a second, It's going to space! [1:30]
  
  --
  If you can't mod them join them.
5. Re:HTC by AnEducatedNegro · 2009-10-22 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  yea except sprint phones already ship with the upgraded firmware.
  
  aEN
6. Re:HTC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 15:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  wait another week and get the Samsung Moment.
  Damn my impatience! I waited a moment and ended up with the Samsung Week.
7. Re:HTC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  Bah, stop calling software for phones firmware! It is software not firmware!
8. Re:HTC by atamido · 2009-10-22 16:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I love my HTC Hero but boy is it slow at times. And I'm not just talking about waiting for an app to load, there are times when the entire device just decides to freeze up for 2-3 seconds while queuing input.
  Sounds like my iPhone 3G. From the initial 2 firmware to the current 3, there are constant multi-second pauses. Heck, just unlocking it can sometimes take close to 10 seconds. And yes, I've had my phone replaced so I know it's not the hardware. And I reboot it regularly. It's a great device, but a mediocre phone.
9. Re:HTC by timmattison · 2009-10-22 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I got all the way through the ordering the Hero when I noticed an advertisement for the Samsung Moment pre-order on Sprint. The Moment has a real keyboard, faster processor, but only a 3.2MP camera instead of the Hero's 5.0MP camera. Personally I don't care about the camera and the fact that they're going to be the same price really put the nail in the coffin on the Hero for me.
  
  Then again, supposedly I can use my old SERO plan on the Hero but not on the Moment. That would be a reverse-deal-breaker. :P
10. Re:HTC by AnEducatedNegro · 2009-10-22 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  ok two things.
  
  1) the 3.2MP camera has a flash, the hero lacks it and you end up with a lot of blurry useless pics. i will never buy a phone without a flash again. and yes i take pictures with my phone, they take perfect for-facebook pics
  
  2) you can use your old sero plan, as long as you have unlimited internet otherwise you'll have high bills and the customer reps will laugh at you. however you should not buy your phones in the store, they are trained to make sure you have everything plans. this is where the clueless monkies at best buy come into play. tell them you have an everything plan and they will continue on like there is no problem. however consider their current everything deal. $70 (after taxes) = unlimited text, data (including tethering), calls to any mobile phone, and 450 daytime minutes for google voice. can you complain?
  
  aEN
11. Re:HTC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  Actually there are several ways to improve the performance.
  a) If you are on a european HERO upgrade to the latest firmware
  b) Get App Killer, Android does not terminate running applications they have to do it themselves
  c) Adding a decent swap partition also helps tremendously (on phones which are rooted)
  in many cases b) is the cause for the biggest slowdowns.
12. Re:HTC by anti-pop-frustration · 2009-10-22 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  don't waste your time on the HTC Hero.. wait another week
  Or better yet, wait a few more weeks and get an Andoird 1.6 phone, with a WVGA (800x480) display.
  
  I'm fed up with all smartphones using 480x320, that's one area where the iphone did hurt the market: it set a low standard for display resolution. Japanese manufacturers (Sharp etc.) have been releasing phones with FWVGA (854 x 480) displays for a few years now, I really don't understand why the western market has been lagging behind all this time.
13. Re:HTC by MemoryDragon · 2009-10-22 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well before rushing out buying the Samsung wait for the first user reports, the first android Samsung got raving reviews by websites but was flamed to death after a few weeks in the android forums and many reverted back to HTC selling the Samsung phone, the reasons simply were bugs in the drivers (Samsung uses slightly different hardware than htc) and hardware glitches which manifested itself over a few weeks of usage (Stuck buttons, no multitouch, lost calls etc...).
  Also if you already have an Android phone, I would not buy any phone yet, in a few months the first NVidia tegra based phones will hit the market, then things will become really interesting especially with OpenGL SE which will be part of android then (if it not already is), I assume mid next year or so and then it will definitely a good time to upgrade. For now it is neither fish nor flesh. The first generation of android phones is out, most vendors still are on their first iteration hardware (htc is on the bugfixed third iteration of their first gen which is just an indication that the OS has gotten serious optimizations over the last year) and there are still quirks to debugged out by every vendor.
  The main problem is that most phone manufacturers simply relied on the promises of Microsoft to deliver something which can match the iPhone with winmo 6.5 and basically got a rude awakening several months ago, when Microsoft (again) just made empty promises so they are all jumped onto Android relatively late. Anyway better late than never. But all of this is reason enough to wait a few weeks to see which bugs still are there and which are fixed, especially with the Samsung phones. (Samsung already made a new firmware which fixed several bugs in their first gen phone, but others still persist)
  Anyway, I still would recommend, before rushing out and buying a Samsung or Motorola, wait another few weeks until the serious user reports hit the forums then you can start (usually 2 weeks after the phone has been released the user reports become serious and show all flaws and weaknesses)
14. Re:HTC by quadrox · 2009-10-23 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, thanks for that link, that clip is hilarious.
15. Re:HTC by jonnythan · 2009-10-23 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, they don't. Sprint phones ship with 1.5 (Cupcake). We are waiting for 1.6 (Donut) to be released for the device.
16. Re:HTC by Ash+Vince · 2009-10-23 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I do not care about a keyboard anymore, I just want a phone that fits in my jeans pocket comfortably when I am down the pub. I used to own a Kaiser and it seems the Moment is about the same size. I found on my Kaiser that I never actually got round to opening the keyboard and just used the on screen windows mobile keyboard. If I can make do with that for 2 years even though I have perfectly good keyboard a second away then a Hero is fine.
  This for me is the nicest thing about the Hero: Although it is not actually that small, it feels small. I think a lot is down to the shape of the back making it feel much flatter while in your pocket. The first thing my mate said when he held it was how much smaller it was than his iphone. Then when you put them both side by side you realise it is actually slightly bigger.
  The device lagging constantly would piss me off if it happened, but since I have never had this happen once I reckon this is just people believing their device lags because they read a review that said it lagged. I know that this may have been a problem in the early versions, but the latest firmware seems spot on, especially when you compare it side by side with Windows Mobile.
  Anyway, all this is completely off topic since this discussion is about them finally releasing the source code. I am quite glad they have just to shut the RMS fanboys up, but it does not really make much difference to me as I generally do enough coding from 9 until whatever time I escape the office at night. Although I suppose it might help a few people get started on developing alternate interfaces for android.
  The real question that I do find interesting though is whether they always planned to release the source code or whether this has happened as a result of the bad press. I have to admit I am leaning towards this always being planned anyway as if they had decided to be stubborn they probably would have held off until someone actually served them legal notice.
  Does anyone who actually knows anything about law know if the GPL requires immediate release of the source code or if it can be done in a timely manner? I suppose even if it does require immediate release there are precious few companies who would push back a release date so they could get the source code to their product out at the same time as the product itself and be in full GPL compliance.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
17. Re:HTC by LurkerXXX · 2009-10-23 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  The size factor is why I love my Pre. Still linux, but it's just a nicer form factor for keeping in your pocket.
18. Re:HTC by MemoryDragon · 2009-10-23 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well the Spring Hero has Cupcake with additional drivers to enable CDMA, I expect things to become somewhat faster with the 1.6 update (which no one using a hero has currently), but the performance fixes are already in.
  If you want more performance then you probably either have to wait for the 1.6 update or you have to use a custom kernel and probably enable swap (which should give the biggest boost)
  Also have in mind you have to terminate background applications from time to time and remove some of the widgets to get more performance.
  (Still waiting for my HTC Hero which should come next week)
19. Re:HTC by darthflo · 2009-10-23 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  wait another week and get the Samsung Moment.
  Have you already had the chance to test it out? I'm considering replacing my X1 (WinMobile) with something running Android, but couldn't find anything that's superior in all areas. (The Moment looks rather large for it's display size and doesn't have the 480x800 resolution; the X3 lacks the slide-out qwerty keyboard and is somewhat resolution-impaired, the Motorola Droid (might just get that) doesn't look as sleek as the X1 and has a grid-styled qwerty instead of the offset layout real keyboards, the X1 and the Moment have...)
  Any advice?
20. Re:HTC by darthflo · 2009-10-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  SE Xperia X1, HTC Touch HD, Touch Pro 2 and (iirc) the Touch Diamond 2 have WVGA (480x800 px) displays and are out since quite some time; they were preceded by several VGA (480x640) smartphones. All Windows Mobile, though.
  Motorola's releasing the Droid/Sholes/Tao soon - 480x852 px with Android 1.6 (or 2.0, not sure). Also planned for soonish release are several devices with 360x640 px displays (SE X3, Samsung Moment et al.).
  480x320 is an iPhone phenomenon. Devices with superior displays have been out there the whole time, you just have to look for them a bit. :)
Not so bad... by Sarten-X · 2009-10-22 11:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm assuming good faith, but personally, I'm not concerned that it took so long to release the source code. Most likely, the developers were under a deadline to have the phone in working order, and had to postpone lower-priority tasks to meet that deadline. These lower-priority tasks were probably such trivial things as comments, changed names, formatting, and all those other bits that get neglected under heavy pressure.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
1. Re:Not so bad... by mevets · 2009-10-22 11:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've been in situations that appear like this in companies before. Usually it is stage fright, the developers know they took outrageous short cuts to meet schedules, and don't want to publish it until SP1, when they have had time to remove the hacks and crap. These are the good guys. One company I worked for thought that the source was harder to understand than the (disassembled) binary; they had a point.
  Sometimes I wonder how much of a role of embarrassment plays in the decision to keep the source code private. Happy Launch Day Windows 7!
2. Re:Not so bad... by iYk6 · 2009-10-22 11:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm assuming good faith, but personally, I'm not concerned that it took so long to release the source code. Most likely, the developers ... had to postpone lower-priority tasks to meet that deadline.
  You think that meeting legal requirements is a low priority task? And that pirating free software goes with good faith?
3. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  yes
4. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 12:39 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sometimes to coders, legal requirements is a lower task than creating a quality product.
5. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 13:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, it's most likely because they are Chinese (Taiwanese, same thing) and don't give a shit about open source anything. Having worked with Chinese and Taiwanese OEMs, I can tell you firsthand that getting them to abide by any open source licensing is like pulling teeth. If it's free to download, it's free to use however they like, period.
  Posting anon because naive politically-correct types with zero Asian development experience will mod me down.
6. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'll keep their low priority to license agreements in mind when they start trying to enforce EULAs.
7. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  wah wah wah
8. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 16:27 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Koreans, too. Not the same AC. But the same sentiment. What little respect you find for the GPL originates in the West, and I really don't think it's unPC (or PinC?) to say so. I mean, the mentioned countries don't care much about our copyright, and the GPL depends on that to be effective, anyway. That's not to say that *nobody* cares but from what I have seen the large firms don't, anyway.
  Luckily, I think we're past the day when most companies could go on ignoring it indefinitely. Good job, pokers and prodders.
9. Re:Not so bad... by Sarten-X · 2009-10-22 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's not so much that the "legal product" aspect is low priority, but as mentioned above, simply pushed too far back. There is a fair amount work involved in preparing source code for public release. It has to be retrieved from wherever it's stored (which may be distributed), cleaned of any sensitive information, separated from what isn't going to be released (data files, compilation scripts, etc.), packaged, and finally placed in a public location. I simply doubt that with all the pressure involved in a project like this, that process was a high priority. The fact is that 90% or more of the target market doesn't care about the source, but they would care about having the release date pushed back.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
10. Re:Not so bad... by jonwil · 2009-10-22 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  The GPL requires the release of the source as used to build the binaries. If the source code has been modified (no matter what has been done to it), its a GPL violation.
11. Re:Not so bad... by feitingen · 2009-10-22 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes I wonder how much of a role of embarrassment plays in the decision to keep the source code private.
  
  This is usually the biggest concern for me when i develop something, if its something i am proud of and can release freely, then it's gonna be GPLed, if i am embarrased of it, i'm not going to release it, unless people email me about it and promise to not mention me.
  
  --
  This sig is intentionally left blank.
12. Re:Not so bad... by Toonol · 2009-10-22 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  Chinese (Taiwanese, same thing)
  
  I think there's strong cultural behavioral differences between the two.
  
  Anyway, though, I agree with your statement about the difficulty in getting them to abide by licensing. It's not just them, though; it's a problem with most societies outside of North America and the EU (and Japan, Australia, Israel, etc.). I don't think they're as concerned with legal niceties.
13. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  please please PLEASE don't call that pirating. Just as downloading something shouldn't be made worse by using a scary name, so shouldn't license violations.
  Yes, they should've complied right from the start. Yes, GPL violations are very bad.
  But don't go calling them pirates, if you do you're no better than the MAFIAAs.
14. Re:Not so bad... by MemoryDragon · 2009-10-22 19:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Even in the EU you can see differences. I am from central Europe, and sometimes I can only shake my head on the US you have to abide by the law no matter what mentality. We here have the mentality that law is done by people and sometimes the law is not fair so public disrespect and civil disobediance has to be done. That starts with small things but can also go big.
  My personal opinion is this is the best way to cope with laws because as everything in life even laws are not a black and white thing, but if you live that way you have to live with getting punished (which literally no one cares here, unless the punishment starts to hurt severely)
  So we dont have a black and white view on law. I assume if you go further east this becomes more along the lines of a nationalistic view of
  we only care about laws which are done by us and no one else.
  (We dont have that view on due to our history)
  I guess our view is due to our history we have run through 2 fascistic governments
  in the last 100 years and the laws back then neither wair fair nor could you obey
  them without getting into conflict with your personal conscience.
  There is always something above the law because law is done by man.
15. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  These are not a group of coders in a basement we are talking about, but a large company. They surely have a legal department, for whom legal requirements is the only priority.
16. Re:Not so bad... by dayjn · 2009-10-22 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  There are many people in the USA who agree with your view. I'm one of them. I suspect you're getting a biased view from what you read on the internet. If I had mod points, +1 Interesting.
17. Re:Not so bad... by twoblink · 2009-10-22 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  As someone currently in Taiwan and who's worked for dozens of IT companies..
  In asia, "Copyright = Right to Copy". PERIOD. Taiwanese don't even respect their own lives, just look at the traffic!! Let alone respect laws. There's a reason why the former president if Taiwan is in Jail for life. Respecting GPL or any of that "nonsense" is not for the Taiwanese..
18. Re:Not so bad... by selven · 2009-10-22 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  The GPL requires the release of "the preferred form for making modifications" to a work. So if you have some code that you work on and you use an obfuscator on it then compile that you have to release the original code, not the obfuscated stuff.
19. Re:Not so bad... by Sockatume · 2009-10-22 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  It was never a "legal requirement". It's Apache licenced, so changes to the original (available) Android source don't have to be added back in. It's to encourage commercial devs to develop "exclusives" like the HTC Sense features. Noncommercials are free to release the source on their modifications, but it's not an obligation.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
20. Re:Not so bad... by brainiac+ghost1991 · 2009-10-23 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  The kernel is GPLv2 licensed, so they legally had to release that
21. Re:Not so bad... by Rogerborg · 2009-10-23 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for saying that, it saves me pointing it out. The "tidying up" argument is total, utter bullshit. You must release or make available the code used to make the binary. It's not optional, and releasing some similar, sanitised code at a later date is not sufficient. If you're not ready to release the source, you're not ready to distribute the binary.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
22. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's not a matter if the law is fair or goes against your conscience.
  It's a matter that here, if you break the copyright law you will be sued, lose your house, your car, and all your stuff. We don't like losing our stuff.
23. Re:Not so bad... by Sockatume · 2009-10-23 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose it's based on the Linux kernel, isn't it, huh? So it would be. :self-facepalm:
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Nice by blind+biker · 2009-10-22 11:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure, I know, they were supposed to, by law. But they at least didn't drag their feet too long, and deserve some kudos for choosing an open-source platform to begin with.
What, if any, is the (physical or otherwise) obstacle for this device to become a hacker's darling? Here "hacker" is used in that old, positive meaning.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:Nice by wasabii · 2009-10-22 12:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What, if any, is the (physical or otherwise) obstacle for this device to become a hacker's darling? Here "hacker" is used in that old, positive meaning.
  I guess the same as every other Android phone? A signed flashing process that needs to be cracked?
  The only reason people can install custom Android copies on the G1 is because of a leaked SPL and the root console bug. Oh, and the ADP.
2. Re:Nice by stinerman · 2009-10-22 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, I know, they were supposed to, by law. But they at least didn't drag their feet too long, and deserve some kudos for choosing an open-source platform to begin with.
  I disagree here. Simply choosing to use open source software and then trying to stiff people their rights granted under that license isn't any better than choosing a closed source platform.
  Let's not beat around the bush here. If there weren't enough people demanding the code, it would have never been released. I don't know about you, but I don't applaud anyone who is doing exactly what is required of them and no more.
3. Re:Nice by PipsqueakOnAP133 · 2009-10-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is, you don't know for sure if they had the intent to release the source or not.
  You're simply assuming that they wouldn't have because it forwards your argument.
Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 11:54 · Score: 1, Interesting

I can't believe Verizon will FINALLY have a phone which can legitimately be decrippled. Maybe they won't even try to cripple it at all. Too bad too, because if Verizon gave up on that little game, anyone who didn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO have a iPhone would be with them due to network strength. Let's hope the dust clears within the next 1 month and 1 week when my AT&T contract finally expires.
1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  Amazing. The person who tells the truth gets modded down but the person who is spreading FUD gets modded up? This place is getting more like Digg each day.
2. Re:Wow by psm321 · 2009-10-22 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. I just tried Verizon again against my better judgement and not a _single_ phone they had was uncrippled. I looked around myself and the salespeople also said that there was none.
3. Re:Wow by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2009-10-22 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  ... anyone who didn't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO have a iPhone would be with [Verizon] due to network strength.
  I'd have been with them since 2000 or so, when I first needed a cellphone, if they'd just put in ONE MORE TOWER. My Nevada place is on AT&T's LAST tower in the outskirts of the Reno-Taho/Carson City/Minden-Gardnerville/southbound-US395 coverage area and Verizon's last TWO towers are behind TWO hills and don't cover the valley. B-b
  Sprint/Clearwire could have a bunch of customers, too, if they'd just put in a couple hotspots to relay from their Gardnerville tower to this dead spot. Right now all it's got is slow dialup (28k) and a mom-and-pop WiFi WISP(at $85ish/month to share a pair of T1s with several towns).
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Code cleanup by Smidge204 · 2009-10-22 12:30 · Score: 3, Funny

They were probably stalling for time while they read over the source code to remove all the swear words and personal attacks against coworkers...
=Smidge=
1. Re:Code cleanup by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  And look for any inappropriate easter eggs like p0rn pong and captain insemination.
2. Re:Code cleanup by dbc · 2009-10-22 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Who knows if that was truly the case here, but I can believe that it applies in some cases. Grown-up programmers don't put that slosh in the comments to begin with. Sadly, you see a fair amount of that in close-source code. Less than in the old days, but still too much.
3. Re:Code cleanup by AresTheImpaler · 2009-10-22 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  They were probably stalling for time while they read over the source code to remove all the swear words and personal attacks against coworkers...
  Man, they should have taken more time so that our outrage wouldn't go away... I need to find another reason to be outraged!1!!! Has apple released all their source code? omg! who is violating the GPL?!?!?
4. Re:Code cleanup by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  Dammit Steve, you better have gotten rid of those.
5. Re:Code cleanup by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  omg! who is violating the GPL?!?!?
  Um, your mom? Surely that deft maneuver she used to undo my zipper with her tongue ring must have been copyrighted by someone...
6. Re:Code cleanup by MemoryDragon · 2009-10-22 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  I dont know must be probably a US mentality, I have yet to see some european sourcecode which had a swear word in it, probably the main difference here is that programmers here simply cry them out into the air (we dont have the cubicle system but small offices mostly) so they do not have to type it in.
7. Re:Code cleanup by Webcommando · 2009-10-23 00:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They were probably stalling for time while they read over the source code to remove all the swear words and personal attacks against coworkers...
  =Smidge=
  Don't forget they had to remove the 1000's of TODO's that were still in the code comments with several "We really should fix this before release" and a couple of "This works but I'm not sure why."
  
  --
  I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
not android source code by wcoenen · 2009-10-22 13:03 · Score: 5, Informative

This is not actually about android source code as the summary says. Android source code is distributed under the Apache License, which doesn't require you to "give back" modifications to the open source community. This is just about the GPL-ed part: the linux kernel.
1. Re:not android source code by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · 2009-10-22 15:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's an awesome point. To drive that home a little further for the folks at www.phonenews.com, here's the snip from the above link to wikipedia
  
  Licensing
  Since 21 October 2008, Android has been available as open source. Google opened the entire source code (including network and telephony stacks[23]) under an Apache License.[24]
  With the Apache License, vendors are free to add proprietary extensions without submitting those back to the open source community.
  After the negative attitude I read on the link at "phonenews" from the article, I'm really wishing HTC hadn't released it... Just to put those folks at "phonenews" in their place. They don't know what they're talking about, spewing a bunch of hate towards people from India and they're just trashing on HTC.
  I've been a author / user / supporter of open source software for over 10 years now and I'm still really shocked at the attitude and misconceptions that some folks have about what should be released and how fast it needs to be done. Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?
  I've also personally worked with HTC on several mobile phones and I've found them to be very forthcoming. They're busy as hell, working insane hours continuously, and if they can't satisfy the Trolls at phonenews, that's too bad.
2. Re:not android source code by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2009-10-22 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?
  
  As I recall, they're required to either ship with source or release the code to all who ask for it.
  
  --
  "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
3. Re:not android source code by mmj638 · 2009-10-22 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?
  July 2009. Over three months ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Hero
  
  Even if HTC were not compelled by law to release their source code (which I believe they were, because the kernel is not the part under the Apache license), they would still have been compelled to do so in order to keep their word, given that they have been talking about releasing the source for months.
  
  So it's good that after all this time it's happened.
4. Re:not android source code by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  What I personally think is that some of the guys crying for the sourcecode wanted to get the code of the touchflo widgets, well they will be in for a bad surprise and will have to learn a lesson regarding licenses.
5. Re:not android source code by ivucica · 2009-10-22 23:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, just provide users of binary releases either source, or a written offer valid for a few years to provide source. Certainly not to everyone.
  
  a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
  b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
  c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
  
  [snip]
  
  If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
6. Re:not android source code by Daengbo · 2009-10-22 23:33 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party,
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
7. Re:not android source code by ivucica · 2009-10-22 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  Err... precisely my point?
8. Re:not android source code by haruharaharu · 2009-10-23 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  any third party means anyone
  
  --
  Reboot macht Frei.
9. Re:not android source code by ivucica · 2009-10-23 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops. I missed the 'any'. Thanks.
10. Re:not android source code by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  That's an awesome point. To drive that home a little further for the folks at www.phonenews.com, here's the snip from the above link to wikipedia
  
  Licensing
  Since 21 October 2008, Android has been available as open source. Google opened the entire source code (including network and telephony stacks[23]) under an Apache License.[24]
  With the Apache License, vendors are free to add proprietary extensions without submitting those back to the open source community.
  After the negative attitude I read on the link at "phonenews" from the article, I'm really wishing HTC hadn't released it... Just to put those folks at "phonenews" in their place. They don't know what they're talking about, spewing a bunch of hate towards people from India and they're just trashing on HTC.
  I've been a author / user / supporter of open source software for over 10 years now and I'm still really shocked at the attitude and misconceptions that some folks have about what should be released and how fast it needs to be done. Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?
  I've also personally worked with HTC on several mobile phones and I've found them to be very forthcoming. They're busy as hell, working insane hours continuously, and if they can't satisfy the Trolls at phonenews, that's too bad.
  This will invariably get lost as I'm posting as AC just to get the point across. Are you referring to the author of the linked article (myself) or to the commenters? I initially wrote the article as I did because t saw the situation as nothing more than impatient people that are holding HTC to pretty unrealistic standards, especially seeing as kernel source was already released for their other major Android devices in similar timeframes with no previous uproar from the development community.
  I do apologize about any confusion that came across from the article regarding kernel/Android source, I have a habit of speeding through trying to distill information with the intent to pack as much information as possible while avoiding excessive hyperbole or elaboration. If it helps, I'll go back and correct it for clarity.
  I can't win them all every time, but I chose to do this full-time in 2007 to improve my reporting skills.
  Thank you for reading, everyone. Please continue reading if you find it useful.
  Humberto Saabedra
  Chief Editor
  PhoneNews.com/Newsroom Network
A little unfair... by pablo_max · 2009-10-22 13:11 · Score: 4, Informative

I would venture to say that any decision to delay the release of code has very little to do with HTC trying to stonewall.
Contrary to what people think, you are not allowed to do what ever you want to a phone.
Naturally, Andriod has access to the phones protocol and RF layers. Giving the user access to these layers is a VERY, VERY bad idea.
To sell a mobile phone in North America, a manufacture must obtain PTCRB certification. This is a very stringent set of tests which look at all layers and all the hardware, including the antenna performance. We are talking more than 6000 tests and more than $800K!!
Once they pass..this SVN (Software version number) is locked in. ANY changes in code or hardware and the manufacture must make an ECO with PTCRB and make some additional checks.
The main reasons for this is network health and link budgets.
The carrier must be able to count on your phone acting in a predetermined way in order to keep the network on the air. Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!
I can promise you that the carriers will NEVER allow a situation where YOU can alter those layers and kill the network.
I am sure HTC need a fair amount of time to figure out how to lock it down and still let you mess with the OS.
1. Re:A little unfair... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 13:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sounds like bad design to me.
  What if a router could be brought down just by a single misbehaving client? I think the company that made that router wouldn't sell many routers.
  Just sayin'.
2. Re:A little unfair... by h4rr4r · 2009-10-22 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean the that the main reason for this is bad network design.
  If one single phone could do that then their engineering dept needs to be fired.
  Imagine if computer networks worked this way.
3. Re:A little unfair... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  They do. My network card is made out of an ICBM. Flip the evil bit, and voil@*^$&@$*&%@$*&T%*#&%&*^NO CARRIER
4. Re:A little unfair... by Miamicanes · 2009-10-22 14:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A major complication is the fact that today's PDA phones are basically cellular winmodems. Ever wonder why a Samsung SPH-i300 with ~40MHz 680x0-ish Dragonfire didn't feel all that much slower than a 400MHz dual-core ARM running WinMo? Part of the problem is WinMo's bloat... but an even bigger part of the problem is the fact that cpu #2 spends basically 100% of its time being a software-based faux DSP anytime the radio is in use... and occasionally steals cycles from cpu #1 while it's at it. In contrast, the humble i300 was literally a cell phone radio bolted to a PalmOS PDA, connected by LITERALLY a serial port. In every meaningful way, the two were completely independent. Dialed a number on the LCD-rendered keypad? The Palm side sent what was basically an ATDT command to the phone side. Incoming call? The phone side did the actual ringtone (the beefy speaker was connected to the phone; the palm side just had a wimpy piezo), and sent ###RING xxxxxxxxxx down the serial port for the Palm to decide what to do with it. Pressed the green button to answer the call? The Palm side sent (literally) ATA down the serial port to the phone. And so on.
  The good thing about Winmodem-like cellphones is... um... er... uh... well, I'm sure there's something good about it. But anyway, the bad thing is that it means that you're basically talking about a gigahertz-rate raw DAC and ADC creating a software-defined radio. The supreme irony is that the hardware in a G1 probably COULD be hacked to do UMTS at 850MHz on AT&T... but it would be utterly illegal, precisely because it would wreak havoc with AT&T's network and mess up your neighbors' service while you spent saturday afternoon debugging it.
  As I understand it, a phone running Android (or Windows Mobile, for that matter) is kind of like a PC running Linux under VMware under Windows (or vice-versa). You have the hypervisor-like "Supreme Controller" that runs the software that makes it a radio, with Linux-nee-Android running under the hypervisor. So you really ARE root as far as Linux/Android is concerned, but behind the curtain, Root has a metaphorical deity of his own to serve. I'm not entirely sure how it's enforced, and how much of it is handled by actual hardware partitioning (ie, whether the CPU takes a cue from memory curtaining, so that the core running the radio has ram and registers that the core running the UI and apps can't touch), but that's a rough summary of what happens behind the scenes on an Android phone.
5. Re:A little unfair... by h4rr4r · 2009-10-22 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like the old way really is the better way. I want a dataphone that connects like my laptop, It just talks to the verizon broadband card via serial.
  #and no stupid verizon app needed on ubuntu.
6. Re:A little unfair... by jeffstar · 2009-10-22 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  if it is a wireless router, a single misbehaving client can render it useless.
  not surprising that it is possible to jam cell a cell tower with a cell phone if the phone was somehow set to constantly transmit random data at full power. If the tower can't hear the other phones because yours is shouting at it constantly there is nothing you can do to stop that.
7. Re:A little unfair... by jeffstar · 2009-10-22 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  it is wireless, a shared medium. only one client on any given frequency at any given time. it will always be possible to jam radio signals. no amount of engineering can change this
8. Re:A little unfair... by lordlod · 2009-10-22 14:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The good thing about Winmodem-like cellphones is... um... er... uh... well, I'm sure there's something good about it.
  It's cheaper. Cost is the God in consumer electronics upon which everything else is sacrificed. The could be saving up to $5 per phone doing it this way. Ship 20 million phones and that's $100 million dollars in the bank. The effort made in consumer electronics to save four cents (over 10 million units) would probably make your head spin.
  The difference in the two approaches isn't as much as you are making out to be. The dedicated radio chip is still running a microprocessor written in software. By combining the two processors in the single package you save cost and space (more cost).
  The major downside to this is debugging the radio processing where it's interfered with by other actions on the phone, having two cores probably helps a lot with this. That said, assigning three engineers full time for a year to figure it out is trivial compared to the savings you get.
  (I spent a year of my life fixing a 'creative' electronic circuit that saved us 8 cents per board).
9. Re:A little unfair... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  "Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!"
  I call shenanigans! If this were true at all, then terrorists or whatever we're currently supposed to be afraid of would have done it already, and we'd know about it. Some Nokias and an eeprom burner are pretty cheap, although I'm not sure if H1N1 has hands yet.
10. Re:A little unfair... by w0mprat · 2009-10-22 15:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The radio software and SPL (second program loader) in a HTC Android phone are closed source, Android sits on top of this and is more analogous to a VM running on a light OS underneath. (As someone points out below, you may think have root on your droid, but you don't really have root). Thus it is not really harmful to have the Android code out there, as the low-level software that would do the most harm is proprietary and fairly well protected.
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
11. Re:A little unfair... by bushing · 2009-10-22 15:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A major complication is the fact that today's PDA phones are basically cellular winmodems. [...] In contrast, the humble i300 was literally a cell phone radio bolted to a PalmOS PDA, connected by LITERALLY a serial port.
  [...]As I understand it, a phone running Android (or Windows Mobile, for that matter) is kind of like a PC running Linux under VMware under Windows (or vice-versa).
  This is not true, at least not in the case of the iPhone (which has an Infineon baseband processor connected to a Samsung "Applications Processor" by "LITERALLY a serial port") or the Palm Pre (Qualcomm baseband, TI OMAP AP).
  Qualcomm's product info page for the MSM7201 processor used in the HTC Hero says that it includes "Integrated ARM11 applications processor and ARM9 modem, QDSP4000 and QDSP5000 high-performance digital signal processors (DSP)". It would seem likely that the ARM9 core (in combination with one or both of the DSPs) does all of the modem work; I see no reason to suspect that the ARM11 ever "steals cycles from cpu #1".
12. Re:A little unfair... by Miamicanes · 2009-10-22 15:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  > The effort made in consumer electronics to save four cents (over 10 million units) would probably make your head spin.
  Tell me about it. It's what condemned many very, very expensive first-generation CD-Rs to the coaster bin (no ram buffer to speak of, so if the CPU got distracted for even a fraction of a second, the CD was toast), and sent almost every Samsung SPH-i330 to an early grave (a few cents saved using mask rom instead of flash, coupled with a fatal bug that bricked them within a few weeks of use and couldn't be fixed). Not to mention the problems due to aggressive cost-cutting that have plagued videogame consoles for decades. Red Ring of Death, anyone?
13. Re:A little unfair... by cliffjumper222 · 2009-10-22 16:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Mod this guy up, the parent doesn't know what he's talking about. Most smartphones use dual cores or bridge architectures where the applications processor and the modem processor are separate and communicate over a serial link, be it USB, shock-horror a UART or shared memory. And even more shock horror, yes they might even use AT commands to do talk to each other - even today!
14. Re:A little unfair... by RAMMS+EIN · 2009-10-22 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  ``The carrier must be able to count on your phone acting in a predetermined way in order to keep the network on the air. Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!''
  If that is true, I foresee Interesting Times. There are always ... individuals ... who think it's great fun to break things, not to mention people who actively seek to do harm ...
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
15. Re:A little unfair... by pablo_max · 2009-10-22 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Actually..that's not quite true. You can share the same channel, you need only a different UL/DL slot configuration.
16. Re:A little unfair... by RAMMS+EIN · 2009-10-22 17:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  All your points are valid, but they don't negate the fact that if you use code under a license that requires you to make your code or modifications available to those you distribute the binaries to, you have to abide by the terms of the license and do so.
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
17. Re:A little unfair... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, yes I... err it dose.
18. Re:A little unfair... by jeffstar · 2009-10-22 17:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  you have divided the channel into slots in order to share it. slots are assigned by time (TDMA) or frequency (CDMA/FHSS) or other means.
  still only one transmitter per frequency per moment in time
19. Re:A little unfair... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 18:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The bootloader and radio firmware are indeed closed source, but the linux kernel and android userspace run on their own cpu (an ARM11) while the radio firmware runs on its own cpu (an ARM9). They chatter via shared memory. Once the bootloader has loaded the kernel, the kernel's in charge of the apps cpu. No VM or hypervisor exists (at least not on the Qualcomm 7xxx/8xxx chipsets -- you could, of course do it differently elsewhere).
  You do need to talk to the ARM9 to have it setup the DSP for you, for it to handle telephony tasks, and so on.
20. Re:A little unfair... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-22 19:52 · Score: 0
  
  The carrier must be able to count on your phone acting in a predetermined way in order to keep the network on the air. Believe it or not, one single phone could bring down an entire tower!
  Then this is a shocking vulnerability that should be fixed. Hiding the code from the user is a half-arsed hack around it - sooner or later, it's going to happen.
21. Re:A little unfair... by ripnet · 2009-10-22 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they are seperate. How do you think they got phone / sms / data working on the Kaiser on the Android port if all the DSP etc is software ???
22. Re:A little unfair... by willy_me · 2009-10-22 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  still only one transmitter per frequency per moment in time
  Not true with CDMA. The entire point of CDMA is that it enables radios to do just that - multiple transmitters operating at the same time. Sounds like magic, but just check out the wiki page for more info. They refer to it as spread-spectrum technology.
  And the ideas behind CDMA have made there way into 3G and 4G standards so all future cell products will all support multiple transmitters to a certain extent.
23. Re:A little unfair... by Lumpy · 2009-10-23 00:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Contrary to what people think, you are not allowed to do what ever you want to a phone.
  Um yes I can, Please give me the LAWS that state otherwise.
  I can do ANYTHING I WANT with my phone. I have an openmoko on AT&T and they cant control my phone other than turning off service. I can do anything I want with my phone, and the worse they can do is turn off service.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
24. Re:A little unfair... by Lumpy · 2009-10-23 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, I have yet to find a Cellphone that has the modem DSP a soft DSP that is a driver in the OS that is running it. and I have been inside every cellphone model made in the past 5 years.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
25. Re:A little unfair... by dlgeek · 2009-10-23 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, a transmitter you can fit in your pocket can "take down" (block) cell service for a pretty decently sized area around it. Jamming, RFI, etc are pretty much unavoidable in any RF based system. You can mitigate them to some extent, but there's pretty much no way any network architecture can prevent me from taking down an area of service with a strong enough jammer.
  
  Cell phones can also jam each other with bad programming (hence the required testing) if they do things like transmit in the wrong timeslot (GSM) or with the wrong hamming codes (CDMA). Because the "wire" interface is RF, there are all kinds of ways for a phone with a bad radio to interfere with all the phones on the tower.
26. Re:A little unfair... by Lumpy · 2009-10-23 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Are you nuts? only with maybe a 1000 watt transmitter blasting across the band on a high gain antenna directly at the cell tower. There is no way in hell you or anyone else can modify a callphone to jam a tower. hell good luck even jamming a single channel with your tiny power output on a handset..
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
27. Re:A little unfair... by NitroWolf · 2009-10-23 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to what people think, you are not allowed to do what ever you want to a phone.
  Um yes I can, Please give me the LAWS that state otherwise.
  I can do ANYTHING I WANT with my phone. I have an openmoko on AT&T and they cant control my phone other than turning off service. I can do anything I want with my phone, and the worse they can do is turn off service.
  If you believe this, then the FCC would like to have a word with you. Just have a seat over there, the lawyers will be right in to explain exactly why you are going to pay several hundred thousand dollars in fines for operating an unlicensed transmitter.
28. Re:A little unfair... by darthflo · 2009-10-23 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Know that joke where two guys encounter a bear while camping? A puts on his running shoes, B goes "Why are you putting on your shoes, there's no way for you to outrun a grizzly", A replies "I don't need to. Only need to outrun you."
  It's the same thing with jamming a tower, really. You don't need to transmit stronger than the tower, you couldn't do it, anyways. But that's not a problem -- you only need to transmit enough to distort any other phones enough so the tower can't understand them anymore. A directional antenna with some gain or being closer to the tower ought to be enough to distort a large part of, if not the whole cell.
29. Re:A little unfair... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Android runs almost stock linux kernel. Vanilla linux is not hard-realtime capable so it's not good for soft-DSP which requires latency guarantees. Modern SoC's have dedicated DSP hardware anyway(with safeguards against abusing networks). I think that Windows Mobile is realtime OS though (it's Windows CE derived).
  What I'm not sure is whether a manufacturer is required to release binary kernel drivers shipped with devices. Some are certainly shipping SGX graphics driver, but I think the kernel part of it is GPL-ed already?
30. Re:A little unfair... by Stupendoussteve · 2009-10-23 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  All that they released was the linux kernel, version 2.6.27, along with their modifications to it. This is both not locked down (it can't be, they have to release what they shipped) and the kernel alone is not going to suddenly let you break the network.
  Aside from that, the rest of Android from the HTC Hero is kept to themselves, as the license allows. The article title and article itself are very badly labeled, this is not the Android source code. Releasing this does not magically allow you to mess with the OS on the HTC Hero. It doesn't even allow you to build the Sense UI for another platform.
31. Re:A little unfair... by jeffstar · 2009-10-23 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Code Division multiple access divides a frequency band up using the code.
  imagine you had 64 individual frequencies making up a frequency band and a 64-bit code. the exact frequencies uses by each transmitter is determined by their code, which changes constantly.
  So long as each transmitter has a code that is orthogonal to the other codes, they will never be transmitting on the same frequency at the same time.
  That is essentially what it says in the wiki as well, but a lot more eloquently.
  You can share a channel or frequency band or chunk of spectrum, but you are always dividing it up in some way so that there is only ever one transmitter on one individual frequency at any time.
32. Re:A little unfair... by Lumpy · 2009-10-23 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  your "distortion" will only affect an area around you for around 100 feet. that's it. if you hada 10 watt one you could cover 100 meters but you certianly will not disrupt communications outside a small circle around you.
  I know, I have messed with Cellphone jammers. even 10 watts is not highly effective.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
33. Re:A little unfair... by willy_me · 2009-10-23 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well what you described is called Frequency-hopping spread spectrum and is utilized in FH-CDMA (or so says Wikipedia).
  Here is a quote from the wiki that I linked to previously:
  
  If sender0 has code (1,–1) and data (1,0,1,1), and sender1 has code (1,1) and data (0,0,1,1), and both senders transmit simultaneously, then this table describes the coding steps:
  You can see reference to "both senders transmit simultaneously" - this is what CDMA traditionally does. And here is a quote from the Wiki page on DSSS:
  
  If an undesired transmitter transmits on the same channel but with a different PN sequence (or no sequence at all), the de-spreading process results in no processing gain for that signal. This effect is the basis for the code division multiple access (CDMA) property of DSSS, which allows multiple transmitters to share the same channel within the limits of the cross-correlation properties of their PN sequences.
  Note that transmitters share the same channel.
  This always made sense to me because when you compare similar phones that work on different networks, their battery life differs. For example, the RAZR on a CDMA network has the same standby time, but only half the talk time as a RAZR on a GSM network. This is because the CDMA network requires sending 32 bits for each data bit being sent. (Ok, the 32 is an estimate...) If it operated as you described the power usage would be the same.
34. Re:A little unfair... by jeffstar · 2009-10-24 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  i think we agree here, but CDMA is a total brain fuck that I barely understood 6 years ago and haven't thought about since.
  I couldn't read the wiki page, it made my head hurt.
  we agree that the transmitters share the same channel.
  the channel is made up of frequencies
  the exact frequencies in the channel that are used are determined by the code
  the senders have different codes
  therefore when the senders transmit, they don't use the *exact same frequency* at the exact same time, although they are sharing the same channel.
35. Re:A little unfair... by Random5 · 2009-10-24 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Way to not know what you're talking about. Any fixed frequency wireless network can be taken down by a single client behaving badly, computer WiFi networks included (well assuming the client has sufficient transmission strength). I'm not so sure how easy it would be with something like bluetooth which hops frequencies repeatedly, but it's still definitely still possible to disrupt. Wired computer networks are a different matter these days because they're entirely switched, but a malicious client on an unmanaged switch can still wreak havoc with other PCs on that switch.
36. Re:A little unfair... by willy_me · 2009-10-29 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  we agree that the transmitters share the same channel.
  Yes
  
  the channel is made up of frequencies
  No - at least not wrt this discussion
  
  the exact frequencies in the channel that are used are determined by the code
  No, all use the same frequency.
  
  the senders have different codes
  Yes
  
  therefore when the senders transmit, they don't use the *exact same frequency* at the exact same time, although they are sharing the same channel.
  No - they send at the same time...
  For Frequency-hopping spread spectrum, yes, it is how you described. It is used in Bluetooth and wireless sensor networks (802.15??). It is also popular with the military because it is difficult to jam. Basically, it's used in peer to peer networks where you do not have a single coordinator. (Well, bluetooth sort of has one - but I'm sure you understand..)
  But CDMA (as in cell networks) use DSSS - multiple transmitters at the same time. When I first heard of it, like you, I called BS. But it is real and it works. It relies on a central coordinator and will not work in p2p type networks. I'll try to explain...
  The nodes encode their data with their unique code (making it 32? times larger).
  The nodes then transmit their encoded data (1|0)+ at the same time. The packets from each node must overlap perfectly at the coordinator. The requires that they send at different times depending on how far away they are from the coordinator. It also requires that they send at an appropriate power level such that the signal strength from each node is the same when measured at the receiver. fyi - this is very hard to do and is why CDMA spent so much time in development...
  Now with the waves all arriving at the same time, they overlap. If three nodes are transmitting, it results in the following possible waves... N1:+1,-1,+1 N2:+1,+1,+1 N3:+1,-1,-1 -> for a resulting wave of +3,-1,+1
  So the coordinator receives a wave that is not limited to 1 and -1. There are multiple signal strengths - a number determined by the size of the code. This is how the signal can hold more information then what was transmitted at the individual nodes (see, not magic). The coordinator then decodes the data sent from individual nodes by applying an algorithm - it is simple but I do not know it off the top of my head.
  So CDMA is complex but makes excellent use of the spectrum. The size of the code is what limits the number of nodes that can share a channel. But a 32bit code does not imply 2^32 nodes. The maximum number is 32*32 - but that does not allow for error so half that is recommended. A large code also requires more bits be sent for each data bit. A 32bit code results in 32 times as much data to send - which fyi, is what kills the battery and is why GSM has more talk time then CDMA.
  All 3g and future 4g standards make use of CDMA - at least in a limited fashion. They basically combine multiple different schemes (time division, frequency division, code division) in an attempt to inherit the best qualities of each scheme with discarding their pitfalls. It is not a "one size fits all" type problem.
  Make sense? When I finally figured it out it was like, wow... wow.... ok, I finally get it... wow.... ;)
Sweet by commodoresloat · 2009-10-22 14:18 · Score: 1

Does this mean I can finally kick some ass on Guitar Hero?
If I told you, I'd have to kill you ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-10-22 15:06 · Score: 0, Troll

If you promise not to tell anyone, I'll let you in on this secret source of information.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It's not pirating if the intent is good by SuperKendall · 2009-10-22 15:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

You think that meeting legal requirements is a low priority task?
That depends on who might sue you. Certainly to technical people it would generally be a low priority, and even to business managers anxious to get something out in the market and revenue going. The company lawyers don't win every battle you know.
And that pirating free software goes with good faith?
It's not pirating if the intent is to comply. Just like it's not really pirating if you truly download media with intent to review.
In other words, cut people some slack - generally they mean well, and in this case specifically they obviously meant well since they complied fully.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:It's not pirating if the intent is good by jonwil · 2009-10-22 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  There is also often some conflicting issues vis a vis who may sue you.
  One notable example was the kernel for one of the Motorola EZX linux phones. This kernel contained a driver to support SD memory cards (the phone has a MicroSD slot like many other phones these days do) built into it (and not as a module). Motorola released kernel source for this phone that was missing the SD card driver because the negative outcome of being sued by the SD card association for violating the SD card NDA/license (which may well have meant Motorola being unable to use the SD card spec in future products) was deemed by the lawyers to be MUCH bigger than the negative outcome of not releasing the SD card driver code.
  What eventually happened is that the SD card association (at the urging of Motorola and others) released a cut-down version of the specs dealing with the bits kernel drivers would need to deal with, allowing Motorola to release the source in question.
2. Re:It's not pirating if the intent is good by dissy · 2009-10-22 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola released kernel source for this phone that was missing the SD card driver because the negative outcome of being sued by the SD card association for violating the SD card NDA/license (which may well have meant Motorola being unable to use the SD card spec in future products) was deemed by the lawyers to be MUCH bigger than the negative outcome of not releasing the SD card driver code.
  I never understood how a such a decision could be reached.
  On one hand, they could choose the situation where they release the SD driver and get sued by the SD association.
  At that point they can't legally use SD technology, but can still release their phone!
  On the other hand, violating the GPL, sure they will be allowed to use SD technology in the future, just not ship any product.
  A phone without firmware still can't use the SD card, nor do anything else, including boot!
  When you are legally barred from distributing your firmware (GPL was revoked in this decision), then it is still not possible to use the SD slot, since the driver requires a kernel to load it to work which they can't distribute.
  I can't see how a non-booting phone with a non-working SD slot is a better option than a working phone with a non-working SD slot.
  lawyers *rolls eyes*
3. Re:It's not pirating if the intent is good by jonwil · 2009-10-22 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Except that they released the phone anyway and violated the GPL in the process (releasing the code for everything except the SD car driver)
Not GPL by paul248 · 2009-10-22 16:29 · Score: 1

The last I heard, the only GPL'd part of Android is the kernel. Everything else is Apache/BSD. So, aside from the kernel, HTC wasn't really "dragging their feet," since they released their modifications voluntarily.
Edimax by RAMMS+EIN · 2009-10-22 17:15 · Score: 1

For a look at a company who does things differently, have a look at Edimax. For example, for their NS-2502 NAS appliance, they provide a link to the source code right on the product page.
Unfortunately, the source code doesn't come with instructions for compiling it into a firmware package that you can install on the device, but then, it doesn't look like the GPL actually mandates that, either.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
As far as I see, it's only kernel source ... by kojot350 · 2009-10-22 18:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I see only kernel source here: http://developer.htc.com/ so it looks like they released only the part they had too.

--
[ $[ $RANDOM % 6 ] == 0 ] && rm -rf / || echo *Click*
1. Re:As far as I see, it's only kernel source ... by MemoryDragon · 2009-10-22 19:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah why should they release the other part, touchflo is their bread and butter, without that they simply would be just another phone vendor and even one with mediocre low end specced hardware. Touchflo is the part which stands out compared to the rest of the phones.
  I would only release the source either if I was in their position.
Not the game by 1s44c · 2009-10-23 00:40 · Score: 1

Did they have to make it sound like they released the source code to the classic game?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.E.R.O.
thank you by Anonymusing · 2009-10-23 02:53 · Score: 1

I love that clip. "You're in a chair. IN THE SKY!"

--
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
RE:. the first iphone must have failed tasting by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-23 03:01 · Score: 0

remember how they were killing at&t's network, when they first came out... some sort of bug that would suddenly overwhelm the tower with spurious packets....