CyanogenMod 9 is stable; 10 is underway
Posted Aug 10, 2012 16:46 UTC (Fri) by servilio-ap (subscriber, #56287)
Not even in nightlies? I have been running nightlies in the HP Touch for months and it has been very stable (for the features that work, that is).
>, but is it true that it lost the ability to remove permissions from apps?
Yes, that is lost.
Posted Aug 10, 2012 16:55 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465)
Posted Aug 10, 2012 17:37 UTC (Fri) by servilio-ap (subscriber, #56287)
It is not clear if the decision was to take out the permission management altogether when the powers that be weighted in on the issue.
Also found a couple of G+ posts where people ask about this but haven't got any answer, e.g.:
I wonder if something like is what transpired with WhisperCore:
It was developed by the same people behind RedPhone and TextSecure.
There are alternatives, like PDroid, but it would be most useful if at least permission management was included out of the box, putting control back in the hands of the user.
Posted Aug 10, 2012 19:46 UTC (Fri) by sb (subscriber, #191)
Posted Aug 10, 2012 19:48 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Aug 10, 2012 21:03 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
When you host something on an FTP server, it's usually because you have some relationship with the admins of that server. You can't get binaries up on ftp.kernel.org without talking to the kernel.org people. Whereas if you use megaupload or one of the thousand other file lockers, all it proves is that you know how to wait 15 seconds and click through some HTML forms.
I realize there are exceptions to these generalizations-- for example, the lwn.net web forum is one. Google+ seems to be another bright spot in the sea of mediocre web 2.0 walled gardens. But in general, there is a reason why mailing lists and ftp are preferred.
Posted Aug 10, 2012 22:58 UTC (Fri) by ldarby (guest, #41318)
The FTP protocol needs to die already, it's nearly 30 years old and has various problems with NAT and a terrible latency that HTTP simply does not have. On that point, those random filesharing sites that make you wait need to die as well!
Posted Aug 10, 2012 23:43 UTC (Fri) by ldarby (guest, #41318)
ROM = Read Only Memory = Semiconductor hardware that stores information which cannot under any circumstances be modified.
Using "ROM" to refer to an operating system (or more generally, a set of software) that can be installed into re-writeable memory, is just bizarre...
Posted Aug 13, 2012 18:26 UTC (Mon) by Nico57 (subscriber, #63763)
"Image" sounds even more confusing. :)
You could go for "system image", "system archive" or simply "system update", but ROM tends to be the most universally understood and less ambiguous term.
Posted Aug 13, 2012 19:46 UTC (Mon) by ldarby (guest, #41318)
Image (ISO) => CDR(W)
Image (software) => Phone with EEPROM
How much sense does burning a CDROM to a CDRW make? The same amount as flashing a ROM to a phone.
"EEPROM Image" would be correct and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what it actually was, and then instantly got abbreviated to just ROM, because no one would want to say "ee-ee-prom image". Pretty much like almost no one wants to say "Guh-nooo-linux" - too many syllables.
Posted Aug 13, 2012 20:17 UTC (Mon) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
Of course, Android is nominally open source, so it shouldn't be necessary to mess with binary-level modifications. However, the fact that one can't actually build the unabridged equivalent of the Android system image shipping on any real hardware from just the published source code means that we are still at least partly at the "mod" stage rather than "distributions". Android has quite a bit of maturing to do to catch up with Linux on that front.
Posted Aug 14, 2012 8:02 UTC (Tue) by mastro (guest, #72665)
Posted Aug 14, 2012 17:37 UTC (Tue) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613)
That said, calling an RFS-image a "ROM" is really just legacy terminology, carried over to a replacement technology. Much like the term "broadband" is used to denote all fast network connections, even those not utilizing a broad frequency band...
Posted Aug 10, 2012 21:05 UTC (Fri) by faramir (subscriber, #2327)
Posted Aug 10, 2012 22:17 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670)
Also: if someone who is actually a real known person participating a discussion produces software I might consider looking at it or even installing it. If thed00d at hotmail does the same, then not so much.
Posted Aug 13, 2012 21:02 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
It's not much harder to purchase a random domain name and put a ftp server on some home cable TV connection. That is the sort of thing that was extremely common for years and years in Linux. It doesn't provide any sort of additional assurances or security beyond what a http link to 'megaupload.com' or whatever does.
> Also: if someone who is actually a real known person participating a discussion produces software I might consider looking at it or even installing it. If thed00d at hotmail does the same, then not so much.
Whatever. They are no more 'not anonymous' then 90% of 'old school' open source programmers out there.
fundamentally you are (and other people) complaining about here problem is the lack of maturity regarding the infrastructure that the new wave of developers are bringing in from experiences alien from your own. Whether you are aware of it or not, it doesn't matter. It is effectively a generation gap.
As projects mature so will the infrastructure they use.
If you wait around to get involved then it will just be that much more painful to try to convince these people to adopt practices that traditional OSS developers have developed over the past 20 or 30 years.
Posted Aug 10, 2012 21:42 UTC (Fri) by clump (subscriber, #27801)
Posted Aug 11, 2012 22:15 UTC (Sat) by mfuzzey (subscriber, #57966)
Posted Aug 10, 2012 17:50 UTC (Fri) by servilio-ap (subscriber, #56287)
But the researchers haven't released the source for it.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds