[amitk26]

Originally Posted by vjoy3

Did I say one of the good things I liked on my N1 was the live wallpapers.

Like I was saying earlier, Froyo version of Android should be out late next week. As expected, N1 will get it first. And it will be faster than 2.1 - EXCLUSIVE: AndroidPolice.com’s Nexus One Is Running Android 2.2 Froyo. How Fast Is It Compared To 2.1? Oh, Only About 450% Faster | Android News, Reviews, Applications, Games, Phones, Devices, Tips, Hacks, Videos, Podcasts - Android Police

Hope this keeps critics of Dalvik at bay for time being.

Froyo release is 28th May AFAIK , Still a long way to go a non optimized J2ME VM is 900 to 1000 times faster then Dalvik ;-) , 450% is little on optimistic side as some of the test results I have using same loop which I gave in other thread are little lower.

And when is SKIA being replaced by something like X + Cairo so we can have a true multitasking with multiple UIs ?

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by vjoy3

Did I say one of the good things I liked on my N1 was the live wallpapers.


Would not be surprised if JIT and lot more goodies are seen on Froyo.
So much for dooms day sayers, am already looking forward for the Sep-Oct 2011 release of Android Gingerbread...2.3 or 3.0 ?...whatever

Vijay

Vijay ,

One request

If you have an N1 running Froyo can you check if the JIT uses NEON instruction and Neon API lib or not. If this is achived using NEON it would just mean that 2.2 performance is for higher BOM cost using Cortex and not for cheaper ones so the point on non performance of Dalvik still holds true.

As typical J2ME are able to achieve performance 900- 1000 times on ARM11 ( with out Neon) as well it should be fully possible but just need to find how much is due to optimization and how much just because they are now using processor and tool chain properly.

Regards

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by amitk26

A little correction first may be little OT the License is Apache 2 and not BSD the big difference is that Apache 2 is not as liberal as 3 clause BSD and makes disclaimers for patents , Also code can no be relicensed like in case of BSD 3 clause. While most communities using Apache use IP tools to seach for infringements before code release google remained silent and now you can see a can of worms opening up.

Mind explaining the part in bold?

Google deliberately introduced various incompatibilities like removing Sys V IPC for no apparant reason other then breaking the compatibility so that other FOSS code can not run. To top of it the whole model is geared towards google experience ( and thus their business) under clock of altruism.

One of the wonders of a FLOSS (or FOOS, as used here), is that anybody having the sufficient knowledge can prise out the source code from Google (or whoever else) for the Free (as in freedom) part of Android OS and do whatever is required to put back the SysV IPC code; and prise out the "google experience".

You seem to fully belie about the greediness of manufactures, Through out this thread point after point you seem to come up with a single point of argument that manufacturers do not contribute drivers and below kernel code to android and that is the single reason for features not working like Alarm or poor UI response.

Well, that is correct, no? If proper drivers are not provided, the user will have hell of a time using the hardware, no?

I would not touch a Motorola product with a bargepole anymore, since I have burnt hands once with something as simple as a PCI modem. They no longer support it, but they also refuse to provide the tech specs. Several graphics card manufacturers have teh same attitude.

This is after ignoring the fact that google already has private GIT repositories for TI and Samsung processors not yet released in market and also the full kernel code is available in GIT repository of Kernel.org for released product.

If you have purchased a product with the software version for respective processors, you have the right to demand source code for the kernel, at least.

If you say hardware manufacturers are greedy , but any hardware is agreegate of licenced code purchased from so many small 3ed party companies like Audio Video Codecs , Many times implementation is free but there are license issues for example if you plan to make a product using MP3 you can easily pick FOSS Lame MP3 codec under LGPL license but still while productising royalty need to be payed to fraunhoffer institue germany as they are holders of IP rights on MP3.
Almost all AV codecs have this issue except FLAC ,

That really is really not a but with Android.

Orgs and Vorbis perhaps. So hardware manufacturers can never release some of the code.

It is "Ogg" amd "Vorbis". See Vorbis.com: FAQ

But Is google not greedy by using community resources and preexisting code from other communities and then imposing their data mining of the users to further their business. I gave an example earlier

It is called "business model". And I would not call the phone / hardware companies "greedy" either.

I just wish if some Indian companies and acadamic institutes can start Inandroid defining their own roadmaps minus the business for google.

Oh yeah. I have some experience how the Indian academics work on FLOSS. I would rather call them parasites.

Originally Posted by amitk26

Froyo release is 28th May AFAIK , Still a long way to go

Today is 14 May 2010. Are we speaking of 28 May of some other year? ;-D

[vjoy3]

Apache 2 and not BSD? - Derivative.

Unless threatened with a pile of law suits, most of these greedy manufacturers find loop holes such as user space driver or pushing the intelligence to user space and sharing a lame driver to kernel for the sake of claiming their 'openness'.

kandroid.org has been around for quite sometime, and it has some good stuff too. Same goes with chinese operators. Android does not stop anyone from branching off to have their own experience based phones.

Android is getting used in many other products too including the touchpads like Adam or Samsung's own..besides a basket of other gadgets.

No point try to make google look like 'big brother'.

Eventually their goal is in adv. revenues. They want you to click google.com. Simple.
If you recollect few years back when android was still in conceptualization and iPhone was the craze - they were a happy bunch the day hits to this site due to iPhone users hit record high.

Openmoko/Maemo/...blah-blah.. Haven't heard of em for sometime so need someone to keep reminding that they really exist(ed?). BTW, I too had started a pet project during college days in the name of opensource coz the ones I KNEW of then were not open enough - heard of it

Did you say 1000 times?. Just wait for few months. Couple of years back even the idea of google working on a phone was laughed at and see now where they are.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Mind explaining the part in bold?

Almost everyone suing each other for patent infringement in news.
Unlike GPL V3 there is no clause which can protect community.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

One of the wonders of a FLOSS (or FOOS, as used here), is that anybody having the sufficient knowledge can prise out the source code from Google (or whoever else) for the Free (as in freedom) part of Android OS and do whatever is required to put back the SysV IPC code; and prise out the "google experience".

Yes but that anybody has to fork out code and bear cost. Freedom of code + freedom of governance is a must for a multibranch system which Kernel.org is doing beautifully. This point is pretty academic may be and for now you can ignore.

As of now Google Model is to provide code to one preferred vendor and others do not receive same code. Earlier it was HTC this time DELL is the chosen one probably followed by HTC.

I am sure there is nothing wrong in this just a business model, but calling others greedy due to their business model is a sign of evangelism

FLOSS licenses like GPL and LGPL rule out discrimination based on anything including end use.

Now if Google makes discrimination based on business , It would be wrong to expect that others will not discriminate in turn becuase it is result of negotiations between business executives and not interaction between engineers.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Well, that is correct, no? If proper drivers are not provided, the user will have hell of a time using the hardware, no?

Yes but the asserting that all bugs are due to proper driver not being provided by company X is incorrect specially when those drivers are available and some people are making custom images using them.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

If you have purchased a product with the software version for respective processors, you have the right to demand source code for the kernel, at least.

And that Source code for S3C6410, S3C100 and OMAP 34XX is already available at Kernel.org so if someone says that it is because these manufacturers don't provide kernel code blah blah happens would be wrong.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

It is "Ogg" amd "Vorbis". See Vorbis.com: FAQ

Thanks for correction

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

It is called "business model". And I would not call the phone / hardware companies "greedy" either.

Thanks again this is what I have been saying all along.
People should not confuse business model with quality of product or ethics.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Oh yeah. I have some experience how the Indian academics work on FLOSS. I would rather call them parasites.

Fully agree here

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Today is 14 May 2010. Are we speaking of 28 May of some other year? ;-D

That 'long way' part is for the performance improvement of Dalvik not release date.

Dalvik on ARM11 is some 900 to 1000 times slower then a normal unoptimized J2ME , Here the claim is 450% increase in performance so I said it is still a long way to go.


However as per the figures I have if you compare 2.1 and 2.2 comparison on same hardware and everything being same the difference is 178% and not 450% as some web sites are claiming.

That 450% may be true under some other conditions perhaps I am not very clear on that.

It is important becuase if you profile the CPU usage Dalvik takes 25% CPU and SKIA 30 - 50% as of today in many cases.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by vjoy3

Apache 2 and not BSD? - Derivative.

Unless threatened with a pile of law suits, most of these greedy manufacturers find loop holes such as user space driver or pushing the intelligence to user space and sharing a lame driver to kernel for the sake of claiming their 'openness'.

Please read BSD and Apache 2 for a change try to understand what are differences and may be open a thread. Or better do this at FSF rather then at team-bhp.

That lawsuit threat is in GPL and LGPL and not in Apache 2 by the way.

Again focussing on business Ehh what happened to the technicalities of 450% claim and comparison with another lame JVM from greedy vendor like IBM or Sun.

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Please read BSD and Apache 2 for a change try to understand what are differences and may be open a thread. Or better do this at FSF rather then at team-bhp.

IIRC, Apache and GPL licences are compatible. Means you can take code from one and use it in the other. That is what designers of both licenses (FSF and the Apache Foundation) were saying.

So, what is the problem if applications with Apache licensed code are used on a GPL'ed OS? Or even if apache licensed code gets into GPL'ed work, neither the FSF nor the apache guys have a problem.

Now, who is complaining about licensing issues?

That lawsuit threat is in GPL and LGPL and not in Apache 2 by the way.

And is present in all businessess. Remember the Bajaj vs. TVS spat on dual spark technology? Bajaj are claiming using dual spark on small engines is an innovation.

should be fully possible but just need to find how much is due to optimization and how much just because they are now using processor and tool chain properly.

Honestly, I will have problems telling C code from COBOL, but, I feel that using the tool chain and processor properly IS a part of optimisation.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

IIRC, Apache and GPL licences are compatible. Means you can take code from one and use it in the other. That is what designers of both licenses (FSF and the Apache Foundation) were saying.

So, what is the problem if applications with Apache licensed code are used on a GPL'ed OS? Or even if apache licensed code gets into GPL'ed work, neither the FSF nor the apache guys have a problem.

Now, who is complaining about licensing issues?

Noone is complaining but some one just picked on a slight correction.
There is a difference between BSD and Apache 2.0 , and you asked to eloberate so it came up and honestly GPL V3 was designed to address an important issue which Linux community faced and Android is facing the same today :-) but that is none of my business big guys will settle it and may be pass the cost down to consumers later on.

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Honestly, I will have problems telling C code from COBOL, but, I feel that using the tool chain and processor properly IS a part of optimisation.

well one should not need a canon to kill a mosquito that's all as of today the so called greedy guys sell things lot cheaper. Of-course to folks in US it does not matter as they prefer to get cheap with operator subsidy and don't mind paying for next 2 years.
The cheap product is invariably the one which uses resource most efficiently. Since very begining of this great debate the whole point was never about business model but someone just kept on bringing in again and again.
My point was how good it is to end user and at what cost could it have been better ? And what are the roadblocks.

[vjoy3]

N1 now available at a shop near you. Official Google Blog: Nexus One changes in availability

Given the low volume, HTC getting a better version and 4G replacing N1 as the most preferred phone by th carrier, this was bound to happen.

Off course the great debate continues coz someone continues labeling anyone who disagrees as lacking knowledge.

Optimisation hits performance first. Primary reason for price is not the sub optimised software, but greedy phone manufacturers charging for proprietary stuff they ship in the phone(and fail to publish software for those - a little bt more complicated hardware & software than your RTC & alarm app). Any person who has really worked on android would know the stuff these manufaturers keep hidden using Apache 2.0 (not BSD - big deal someone quickly walked thru the licenses to harp on how they differ. Hope not as much different as licenses from M$ and Linux...essentially freeing programmer from having to give back to the community)

Good, now we are agreeing that things can get better and Android is not doomed by OS4 and Symbian leaving it far behind in market share - guess this falls under PR efforts from google instead of buisness model for some.

BTW, there is a Froyo on the Google front lawn ready to be unwrapped. My guess is that Froyo will be announced @Google I/O next week.

Vijay

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by jocreative

Bricked it in a month. Did not know the firmware only comes with tethered jailbreak. Had to plug it into the computer everytime after a reboot.

There is a post about Android for iPhone within last couple of pages on this thread. Seems that iPhone uses a Samsung processor.

[abhibh]

This makes me feel like buying a touch screen ANDROID phone.

YouTube - Samsung I9000 Galaxy S demo video - Take 2

P.S. I am not really a fan of touch screen phones.

[aZa]

Hey android ppl Help me out here

1. Does the "native" (??) FACEBOOK application on the Android 2.1 Eclair supports Facebook chat, like the one on iphone?

2. Amongst HTC Tatoo and Samsung i5700 which one is better technically? Does HTC tatoo support Eclair ?

3. Samsung Spica, i see it comes in white also but is it available in white in india?

[carboy]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

So, what is the problem if applications with Apache licensed code are used on a GPL'ed OS? Or even if apache licensed code gets into GPL'ed work, neither the FSF nor the apache guys have a problem.

Apache & BSD are 'free' licenses. Free as in speech, not free as in food.
GPL is a restrictive license.

Theo DeRaadt, founder of OpenBSD doesn't like the GPL License.
Here's what he said about it.

GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.

What he says is perfectly true. Consider this.
- I write a program which does a simple substring search & release it under the BSD license.
- You take my program & modify it to use the Robin-Karp algorithm to make it faster & release it under the GPL.
- Now, if I want to take your program & modify it to use a Bloom filter along with Robin-Karp, I can't do it because I can no longer release my program under my original BSD license.

In other words, BSD & Apache are free licenses.
GPL is a restrictive license.

About the other topic discussed in thread - google good or bad?
It becomes very simple once you understand what is google's product & who are google's customers.
Most people think that search is google's product & we are google's customers.
In reality, we are google's product & advertisers are google's customers.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by carboy

About the other topic discussed in thread - google good or bad?
It becomes very simple once you understand what is google's product & who are google's customers.
Most people think that search is google's product & we are google's customers.
In reality, we are google's product & advertisers are google's customers.

Fully agree to you Carboy , About good or bad , I do not think it as either I was trying to compare the product Android OS 2.2 with it's competition.

Even If the Android would have been closed source OS and iPhone for instance was open sourced the feature comparison would not have changed a bit.

Somehow criticism of technicalities was taken as criticism of business model and google which dragged the discussion to another topic.

If so called 'greedy' manufacturers do not give things for free ( as in speech) for profit, google also does not release the control on the data for same motive profit so painting this as altruistic endeavor is nothing but fanboyism.

[abhibh]

Originally Posted by aZa

Hey android ppl Help me out here

1. Does the "native" (??) FACEBOOK application on the Android 2.1 Eclair supports Facebook chat, like the one on iphone?

2. Amongst HTC Tatoo and Samsung i5700 which one is better technically? Does HTC tatoo support Eclair ?

3. Samsung Spica, i see it comes in white also but is it available in white in india?

1. No it still doesn't support the chat AFAIK. But AIM application supports FB chat in it.

2. Tattoo supports Eclair. Both are equally superior to each other. Samsung has better processor 800 Mhz compared to 5xx of Tattoo. On the other hand Tattoo has 256MB ram compared to 128MB ram of Spica.

Samsung lacks FM and losses out on 3G (3.6Mbps). Tattoo has Class 10 EDGE compared to Class 12 of Samsung but wins at 3G (7.2 Mbps)

3. Jeetendra