Slashdot Mirror
Ars Checks Out CyanogenMod's New Installer
Ars Technica runs through the pretty and simple (but Windows-only) installer that is one of the first big fruits of the newly commercialized CyanogenMod project, and finds it very worthwhile. However, and despite being far easier for ordinary mortals than the error-prone process of the old way to put on CyanogenMod, it's not perfect: reviewer Ron Amadeo ran into troubles using it on his Nexus 4, and cautions: "If CyanogenMod Inc. really wants to lower the barrier to entry, they next thing they need is a way for users to just as easily go back to the setup they had before installing CyanogenMod. Currently, the installer is a one-way street. If the user decides CyanogenMod isn't for them and wants to go back, they're stuck. Even worse, they could run into the situation I did, where CyanogenMod installs but everything is broken. I've done this enough that I know how to go back to stock, but for a novice, they would have been abandoned with a broken phone."
You've hit the spot. We've turned into automata that need to be fueled with fifty or so things at once. We can't focus. And even though slashdot's gone downhill recently, much of its demise is a mark of our paradigm shift. I don't expect good times, though. I expect pain, and I expect it fast.
Slashdot has always been Thus.
It has always been a crows sourced link repository. It was never intended as a publisher of first record.
As for you seldom coming here, I see you posting every day on every story.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Anticipating more models to be added to the list.
Verizon likes to lock their bootloaders, so there's no support for Verizon devices other than the Galaxy Nexus.
Bootstrap?
So what happened to back up before upgrade. Can' t the installer backup, and then revert.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Has Netcraft confirmed it?
Unlocked phones are becoming more available, and more carriers offer "bring-your-own-device" plans. So this should be offered as something you get installed by small phone retailers or, for more volume, bulk importers of phones and tablets. It's useful for people who don't want to be tied to Google or Apple online services.
uh ... go ask your carrier for upgrade then .
waiting ..
waiting.
waiting.
CyanogenMod to me is for people who want their smartphone to be a hacker tool. Definitely nothing wrong with that, but that's not most people.
I'm a programmer who paid $500 for a very expensive phone. For that price, I need it to be the perfect phone. In other words, to be able to make and receive calls and text messages without fail. Not a device that has periods where I'm doing "development" and the phone is offline for some reason or other.
When smartphones come way down in price and we can all afford to buy three of them, for sure I'll have one for hacking. But no way am I going to fiddle around with a $500 device, and potentially destroy it. I'm not that well paid of a programmer. I don't see why people are doing this. I don't see why people are obsessed with latest version of the phone operating system. Who cares? Will it do anything new you will actually need?
I'm not saying don't have fun with your phone. I have about 300 apps installed on mine. Have fun with it. But keep in mind that you're holding in your hand a very expensive *telephone*, not some hacker toy.
I think you missed the other AC's point. He seemed to argue, together with the other AC (which I suspect given the 3 minute interval is the same), that we've somehow entered a paradigm shift and turned into multitasking beings. Of such "multitasking" that we can no longer focus on lengthy articles, because that forces us to single-task for a while, something that we are just not capable of handling well now.
In a way, I do see this in the younger generation. It's the web-browser effect. The facebook effect. Whatever it is, it's changing the way we work. Much like we've offloaded some of our important memory cells to Google, we're offloading our major focusing tasks to a larger micro-management of many small concurrent tasks, some of which we can't avoid. Not to often I see people going to facebook when they hit a roadblock in the thought. And when they're back, they've solved it. We're changing, there is no doubt about it.
Is it for the better, or for worse? Maybe neither?
VDD.
uh ... go ask your carrier for upgrade then .
This is a fair point. CyanogenMod's strength is that it offers an upgrade path to a great many devices that have been abandoned by their manufacturers.The Samsung Galaxy Nexus, for instance hasn't seen an upgrade from my carrier in well over a year. CM also offers a clear way to de-googlify your phone, for those worried about Google's monitoring their activity. If you want the benefits of (say) Google maps and navigation, you have to consciously download and install the gapps.
> "If CyanogenMod Inc. really wants to lower the barrier to entry, they next thing they need is a way for users to just as easily go back to the setup they had before installing CyanogenMod
Reflash your phone back to stock if needed. Sometimes you have to search but typically the manufacturer provides a service tool that can be used. Or you can just take it back to the store you bought it from and make their techs do it.
As far as backing up your data, there are apps to do that.
I installed cm10.1 on a Samsung captivate today. Took it from its stock froyo build straight to ics in just 30 minutes. The instructions are more complicated than a one button upgrade but really the problem isn't that there is no way back. The problem is that people don't demand the same service for their purchase from the manufacturer.
Whilst a big fan (and user at home and work) of open source projects, I've never quite seen the point of this project, other than to escape the not actually very walled garden of Google (seeing as you can side load any software you want onto your device).
And this article reads like an achetypal description of how user unfriendliness to the point of having a high chance of ruining your device for the average user means that a complete back to the drawing board approach is needed for this project in terms of getting it adopted by anything other than a minority of hobbyist enthusiasts.
My Nexus 7 is the least customized computer I've ever owned, as it does really impressive stuff easily, and Android development is still in the "too inneficient, not enough libraries and tools available" phase for me to invest much effort into it (kudos to those who are driving it forward though : some of the apps I use have had the barely indisguishable from magic effect on me!)
That really IS silly. I get so tired of greedy bastards who think that their "intellectual property" is worth quintillions of dollars. But - people DO need to eat, they need homes, some of them hope to raise kids, some like to have their own private transportation.
A company isn't evil just because it's "for profit". They may BECOME evil, in the pursuit of profits, but profits aren't evil.
Real life has a way of destroying idealist's dreams. Unless, of course, you are posting from some alternate dimension in which no one needs or wants profits. How does everyone eat over there? You should share your secrets with us!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You should talk to Steve Jobs about that. I'm sure the NSA can hook you up with a direct line - they know everyone else's business.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Unless, of course, you are posting from some alternate dimension in which no one needs or wants profits. How does everyone eat over there? You should share your secrets with us!
Its easy. When Mom stomps twice on the floor above his basement lair, it means dinner is ready.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The NSA can listen in to spirits beyond the grave? I guess it doesn't surprise me to hear that the NSA is wiretapping Hell.
Don't be a twit... Canonical Ltd. is for profit, along with a ton of other companies who develop or maintain open-source projects.
Really your go-to phone that is not upgraded is the Samsung Galaxy Nexus? I have system upgrades from Google every 3 months on that thing.
It has always been a crows sourced link repository.
Crow sourced. That does actually explain a lot...
Unless you have a Verizon or Sprint Nexus...
Arse check you out. wait...
CM also offers a clear way to de-googlify your phone, for those worried about Google's monitoring their activity.
this is why google will buy them.
Real life has a way of destroying idealist's dreams. Unless, of course, you are posting from some alternate dimension in which no one needs or wants profits. How does everyone eat over there? You should share your secrets with us!
The secret is a different mindset. To keep going you need to avoid losses. You don't necessarily need to make a profit. As you can't walk that line reliable it is good to err on the profit side, but you don't need bigger profits every months.
Actually you do, because you have to combat inflation, and keep investors happy. If you are a publicly traded company you have to continue to grow. If you are not, you can't just "sit" on your laurels and do nothing as other competitors will crush you out of the market.
Once upon a time CM bundled the common Google apps like Calendar, GMail, Market etc. Google came down hard on them, and CM were forced to put those apps into a separate package — they couldn't bundle them with the standard CM image anymore.
In short, CM is de-googlified by default because Google told them so.
I though the whole point of Nexus phones was to not be controlled by providers?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
"publicly traded"
That is unnecessary for some people. If your sole motive is profit, then maybe being publicly traded is a good thing. Small businesses, however, manage to keep on going, year after year, sometimes decade after decade, eking out a modest living for themselves, and their employees, and showing a modest profit. Such businesses often have no desire to compete on national or international markets.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Unless you have a Verizon or Sprint Nexus...
If you have one of those, you've been ripped off. Nexus aren't tied to carriers.
No sig today...
There is a difference between wages and profit.
Wages are necessary.
Breaking even is necessary.
Profit is a religious thing.
Oh, and you don't get to create artificial scarcity just to guarantee someone a viable business.
Could you give a less awful example than Canonical?
Red Hat and IBM are mentionable. IBM have been one of the evillest companies on earth, by hopefully unambiguous standards. Red Hat are awwww-right.
Intelligence down, productivity down, ineffective+gameable metrics up.
Have you even seen how schools and businesses measure people nowadays?
Rule #1 of mobile phones: never buy one from a telco. It is always more expensive and they add crap.
As I read it, the complaint is that you can't revert to the old OS if you install a new OS.
Show me any OS installer that does that!
Whinging from an idiot in my books.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
however, a for-profit company, with their paws all over a device such as a wireless phone and all the surveillance, logging and tracking that CAN be done (and can be done with little or no user knowledge), and the value of such intrusive data collection..... the profits will inevitably get in the way of the company doing what's right for the device's owner. they MAY BE 'good' now... but they will turn evil. they always do.
You don't have to log in to Facebook if you really don't want to.
I'm from Portugal.
VDD.
Unless you have a Verizon or Sprint Nexus...
If you have one of those, you've been ripped off. Nexus aren't tied to carriers.
Or the AC in question has never touched a Nexus and is just trolling.
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Microsoft doesn't give you an entire functional open source OS while keeping back just a few proprietary apps.
Can you state exactly how AOSP is "crippled"? The version Google ships with their devices is exactly the same OS, only some of the apps are different proprietary versions. Like Linux or BSD or any open source OS it can run closed source apps.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Can I get the APK outside Google Play? I don't have a Google Account anymore. Funny note: cyanogenmod doesn't even come with Google Play. If you are looking for a store, I'd recommend 1mobile :http://www.1mobile.com/
Lots of crapware and fakes (search for minecraft), but there are official apps too and the store manage updates.
Be or ben't
If profit is not necessary, could you give me one reason why anyone would fund a startup? Could you explain how to build a factory if the bank won't give you a loan? How to expand internationally once you've invested all your personal wealth into your business? Why would someone risk being a business owner and not an employee? See, all these are things that are typically solved by equity investment, or (partly) giving up your ownership, and these investors, for the large risk they are taking, expect a return - profit. Interestingly, as an example, in Islamic finance it is okay to turn profit but it's forbidden to give loans and ask for interest which is understood as making money without taking a risk. Or, in other words - the business generates value for customers (otherwise they would not buy its products), for employees (who get wages), for loan providers (because you pay interest on your loans) and finally for owners who are running the largest risk - a risk that there won't be anything left to pay for their investment in the company. You would suggest to let them take losses but not have the option of getting profits... and I think it would not work :)
There is also the fact that if the stock is public, if you are not posting better profits -each quarter-, investors will sue, and they don't give a flying fsck about a company charging off profits for better R&D, they want their stock up right now, and they will file suit to get it.
This is why Dell threw in the towel and went private. Now they can do R&D, and not be shackled to only thinking about each quarter.
You're arguing that profit is one method of amassing the capital to start or expand a business under capitalism. This is not the same as arguing that profit is necessary.
To answer your question:
1) One might start up a business because they want a job and they want to be their own boss. That's why I did it;
2) To start up this business, I used savings from wages from working as a regular employee;
3) I've never needed a loan, 'cos I'm awesome, but if I did, I'd take it from my local credit union, which merely has to break even by setting interest rates to offset the cost of defaulters.
HTH!
> If you have one of those, you've been ripped off. Nexus aren't tied to carriers.
Unfortunately, the Verizon and Sprint Galaxy Nexi WERE tied to carriers. They were built with a Qualcomm chipset whose drivers were all basically closed and unique to Sprint/Verizon. Qualcomm won't even sneeze without the carriers' permission, so Google was hamstrung and couldn't release newer firmware for them. That's why Google walked away from supporting CDMA phones in disgust, and refused (at first) to license LTE radio modem firmware for the Nexus 4 -- it was the same problem, but in GSM-space. Qualcomm would only license LTE firmware for Nexus 4 phones that were carrier-locked to T-Mobile (because Qualcomm will only license radio modem firmware to carriers), and Google was in no mood to let anybody tie its hands again.
Google doesn't give you "an entire functional open source OS" either - it gives you patches to GNU/Linux to enable an already "functional open source OS" to work better on mobile devices. But it leaves out the apps which make it "entire". And denies access to the one of the most valuable features of any Linux distro - the official software repository. Oh, and there's usually a pesky binary driver problem, but perhaps we can blame device manufacturers for that.
MS meanwhile builds its own operating systems from scratch and allows you access to the source for the base OS on its own semi-useful terms, e.g. Windows Embedded Compact. Also crippled in the sense that you don't get the source for higher level stuff.
Line for line, MS is offering you access to more of its own code than Google, if you want to look at it like that. But Google is bound (luckily!) by a more open licence. On balance, they're equally crappy.
> Rule #1 of mobile phones: never buy one from a telco. It is always more expensive and they add crap.
Unfortunately, if you're American and stuck with Verizon or Sprint for reasons of coverage or some other factor, you really don't have any other choice. Sprint won't activate non-Sprint phones, and a non-Verizon phone without Verizon's radio modem firmware operating on Verizon can't authenticate to EVDO, so your data speeds will max out at ~150kbps 1xRTT.
In theory, AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM... but if you care about LTE, they're both almost as carrier-locked as CDMA now. I know of exactly ONE phone (HTC One) that's even theoretically capable of doing LTE on BOTH AT&T and T-Mobile, and that's because it was built with the Renesas LTE chipset (now owned by Broadcom, originally developed by Nokia as an alternative to Qualcomm's stranglehold and licensing clusterfuck). So, sure, you can go out and buy an unlocked GSM phone to use on AT&T or T-Mobile, but unless it's an unlocked HTC One, it's not going to do LTE on either network.
Google "LTE lock-in" for lots of sad examples of how American carriers, with the active cooperation of their best buddy Qualcomm, managed to infect and corrupt an officially open standard into one that's as carrier-locked and de-facto proprietary as Sprint/Verizon CDMA.
Or you could buy a unlocked Nexus 5 directly from Google which supports LTE on AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint.
..."novices" shouldn't be bothering trying to install a custom ROM on to their phone to begin with...
I understand where you're coming from but I suspect your point is philosophical (rather than financial) in nature; this distinguishing of income into wages (reasonable, morally acceptable) and profits (greed) strikes me as rather... pointless and pedantic.
The only people who will have a problem with this are those who are unable to follow simple instructions, which are all over the Internet, in particular at xda.
People like this should just stick to iPhones, because they are too stupid to use technology without constant hand-holding.
There is a difference between wages and profit.
Wages are necessary.
Breaking even is necessary.
Profit is a religious thing.
Oh, and you don't get to create artificial scarcity just to guarantee someone a viable business.
That's correct. Not for profits can continue to run indefinitely without ever making a profit as long as what they are doing remains valuable to people who support their existence and non-profit-making.
Most companies, however, must make a profit to justify their tying up working capital that could be profitably engaged elsewhere.
A nonprofit startup can be funded by another nonprofit or a group of backers who form the nonprofit. Once established, they operate much like other companies except there is never any pretense that they will pay back their investors or share the cash they generate with them, as for-profit corporations pretend to do.
There is a difference between wages and profit.
Only on paper. What is the material difference between income paid as wages and income paid to investors?
If profit is not necessary, could you give me one reason why anyone would fund a startup?
Why don't you ask the investors of Amazon.
Not for profits can continue to run indefinitely without ever making a profit
Nonprofits that "run indefinitely" spend the majority of their revenues on fundraising and compensation, not on accomplishing their tasks. The ones that actually try to do something quickly discover that their revenues fluctuate wildly, making planning and retention virtually impossible. So they either morph into the fat and lazy kind of nonprofit or else they perish.
Most companies, however, must make a profit to justify their tying up working capital that could be profitably engaged elsewhere. [emphasis mine]
What is "profitably" if not "as evidenced by the ability to make a profit"? Through what mechanism do you propose that "working capital" be allocated more effectively? Also, are we taking about profit as the arbitrary but precise quantity of currency determined by the subjective process of accounting, or profit in an abstract sense as the surplus of capital between what was created and what was expended to create it?
One group earned the income by doing actual work.
I think the reason the Galaxy Nexus isn't getting KitKat is because it uses a Texas Instruments SoC - they left the business about a year ago.
CM doesn't "DE-GOOGLIFY" as much as "DE-BRAND" or "DE-CARRIERIZE". CM is still Google stuff. It just isn't got all the Manufacture and Carrier Branding. Actually CM is pretty much a straight port from Google's Android with a handful of modifications built in.
Especially if you're self-employed, a freelancer etc; they're both the same thing, or at least coming out of the same pot. The difference usually comes down to how they're taxed.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The Android OS is fully Open Source, hence the existence of companies like CM who can edit and rewrite the code to better suit their needs. Android OS is Open Source, but the Google Apps (Maps, Phone, Launcher, etc) are not.
And the VERIZON GALAXY NEXUS was the 1 and only Nexus that was Carrier Branded and didn't get it's updates directly from Google but rather Verizon. It was a bastard child of the Nexus Family and why there was only 1 Nexus device ever on Verizon. Verizon and Google butted heads and they parted ways. Hence why the Nexus 5 is available on every carrier EXCEPT Verizon.
And they don't have schools or businesses there?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You are basing a rather large statement about profits based on a very limited perspective. It's nice you started your own business with savings - but not all businesses can be bootstrapped.
For example, if a research scientist finds a compound that has potential to be a new blockbuster drug - he'll need a few hundred million to develop it and get it through the FDA. Whose wages are going to cover that exactly? Would we all be better off if such things were never developed? Certainly not.
There's nothing wrong with profit made from an honest business that provides needed goods or services. And really - wages are just profit on an individual scale anyway. (You're selling your labor for profit) People should save their scorn for scammers or those who see no personal responsibility to help others.
I'm from Uranus.
VEE.
I mean that reality is probably different.
VDD.
Meanwhile the other group fronted the capital to start the business and infused capital to keep the business running.
So wages paid to employees and profit paid to investors is really the same thing: reward for doing something to help the business.
I'lll believe you when it looks like K5 does today. THAT is a dead website.
They don't allow CM to provide the packages. What Google did was acknowledge installing a back up of GApps (by the user) on CM as legitimate.
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Microsoft doesn't give you an entire functional open source OS while keeping back just a few proprietary apps.
While I agree that it is far from as closed as Microsoft it certainly is more than "just a few proprietary apps", pretty much all the stock apps are proprietary as is Google Play Services which provides APIs like GCM, SSO, multiplayer apis, cloud saves, location, maps, ads. Google Play Services is a great idea to combat the problems of phones not being able to update to the latest versions of the operating system by providing new OS features as APIs in a separate APK that users can install on older versions of the OS but why did they make it proprietary and closed? Programs that use any of these new features require the proprietary google platform atop stock Android so these programs become "Google Play Services" programs rather than "Android" programs, a very clever move if you want more control of the platform.
There are numerous examples of nonprofits that spend the majority of their revenues on activities other than fundraising. For example Oxfam and the American Heart Association. Oxfam raised 918M Euros and spent 77M on fundraising. AHA raised $674M in 2012 and spent $80M on fundraising.
By profit, I mean in a general sense an increase in the net value of an enterprise, accruing to the benefit of the owners of that enterprise.
This distinguishes a for-profit company from from a nonprofit, where there may be an increase in the net value of the enterprise, but this increase is not returnable to the owners (if any) of the enterprise. For example. Oxfam cannot be sold to pay its shareholders nor is any excess in revenue generated by operations and fundraising legally distributable to its owners as return on investment.
You can imagine a nonprofit doing almost anything, including manufacturing, distributing and selling goods to the public. If a nonprofit were to do so, any extra revenue generated from the sales of the computers would not be distributed to investors and stockholders. It would be working capital. In the United States and many other countries, such an organization might not be eligible for tax exemption because the laws governing tax exempt organizations are restrictive. If their sole purpose were to make and sell computers to the public, they would pay taxes like for-profit corporations do. If their purpose were to make and sell computers at cost to schools for the purpose of education, they could be tax exempt.
There are numerous examples of nonprofits that spend the majority of their revenues on activities other than fundraising. For example Oxfam and the American Heart Association. Oxfam raised 918M Euros and spent 77M on fundraising. AHA raised $674M in 2012 and spent $80M on fundraising.
A fair counterpoint, although Oxfam is not that old. Just because it works for some organizations does not mean it would work for all of them, though.
By profit, I mean in a general sense an increase in the net value of an enterprise, accruing to the benefit of the owners of that enterprise.
Fair enough, but the sentence I was asking about does not make any more sense given that definition.
You can imagine a nonprofit doing almost anything, including manufacturing, distributing and selling goods to the public.
Yes, I can imagine it. So, you want to run a nonprofit making computers and I want to run a for-profit making computers, we should both be allowed to do so. Your enterprise may be more successful, or mine may be. But if mine succeeds where yours fails, wouldn't that mean that your nonprofit was the entity "tying up working capital that could [have] be[en] profitably engaged elsewhere"?
In the United States and many other countries, such an organization might not be eligible for tax exemption because the laws governing tax exempt organizations are restrictive.
So... we should eliminate taxes so that everyone can run their nonprofit or other businesses in the manner of their choosing without interference?
'crowS sourced' you clod, one crow can't do much, whereas a flock of crows can shit on lots.
For a nonprofit, the tying up of working capital in unprofitable enterprises isn't a concern at all. It's not their goal. A for profit is established to financially benefit its owners so opportunity cost matters to the owners.
People tend to want profit, which is why there are so many more for-profit than nonprofit enterprises. But that doesn't mean that for-profit enterprises are the only way to work.
For a nonprofit, the tying up of working capital in unprofitable enterprises isn't a concern at all.
But it is a concern when we're talking about calling "profit a religious thing". There are opportunity costs whether people care about them or not and there are government-imposed restrictions that induce significant distortions in the functioning of the economy. The gist of this discussion has been that profit is unnecessary and therefore for-profit enterprises can be replaced with nonprofits at essentially no cost.
The people who know best how to exploit capital in a particular place and time (call them "entrepreneurs") and the people who have excess capital to be exploited (call them "investors") are rarely the same. But there are many potential entrepreneurs and many potential investors; the demands of the former for capital far exceed the supply of capital from the latter. Through what mechanism do you propose to allot the available capital to be most effectively exploited, if not the arrangements that individuals among the two groups decide for themselves to form?
Nonprofits may be a part of the picture, and I fully concede that they can and do exist for some purposes, and may be effective at achieving their goals. However, that does not provide in any way a sufficient argument for the restriction of for-profit enterprises, and certainly not for their elimination altogether.
... 2) To start up this business, I used savings from wages from working as a regular employee; ...
So, that savings from your wages that was above and beyond your living expenses, what would you call it? Sounds like profit to me.
It's a proportion of the value of my labour to the company.
You are a business and your time and effort is your product. The costs of living such as food, clothing, lodging, transportation, etc. are your expenses. Your wages minus your expenses is your profit.
The crap are you talking about? It's a measure of the ridiculousness of someone's worldview when they end up with absurdities like "a person is just a type of business".
To break your analogy immediately: profit is by definition something a business does NOT use for its own enjoyment- it is primarily the reward to the owners of its capital; whereas by your analogy, profit is something a human DOES use for its own enjoyment. The underlying factor here is that businesses are not humans.