Only a few more hours until the last of the big three has its big event (Google i/o, after WWDC and Microsoft’s Surface and WP8 events). They will most likely announce a Nexus tablet, as well as Android 4.1, Jelly Bean. While many of you are still on Gingerbread with your top-of-the-line phones – let me poke a few eyes out with mikegapinski’s Android 4.0.4 Ice Cream Sandwich port… To the Samsung Wave. Dual-booting Bada 2 and ICS, right here.
mikegapinski has picked up work on an older effort to port Android to the Wave, and hopped right on the ICS train. He released his first public ICS ROM for the Wave a few days ago, and it just so happens that my brother owns a Wave, running Bada 2. And, to make it even better, he just bought a brand new Galaxy SII, leaving me free to install Ice Cream Sandwich on his Wave.
It’s easy to do, and it works. There’s quite some stuff missing of course, but overall, it’s actually remarkably usable and full-featured. Wifi works, for instance, and you can login with your Google account and all that. It’s a tad bit on the slow side here and there, about on par with older iOS and Android devices. The Wave is from 2010, has a 1Ghz single-core processor, 128MB RAM, a PowerVR SGX 540 GPU, and an 800×480 3.3″ display (a pretty decent 283ppi, actually). 2G/3G doesn’t work yet, the touchscreen needs calibration, and it can’t read battery state nor charge the battery while in Android, but mikegapinski is aware of these issues.
Openness. It works.
In all seriousness, this is what openness looks like. The ‘Android is closed’-meme has died down considerably, but you’ll still see it rear its ugly head every now and then. Seeing Android work on a completely and utterly unsupported device like this really drives the point home: Android is open – whether you like it or not.
quote1: it can’t read battery state nor charge the battery while in Android
quote2: In all seriousness, this is what openness looks like
…and you wonder why most people don’t care about openness.
This is nothing more than a hobby project. Impressive, cool, but unusable for daily use
It’s the first release. What did you expect? Do you think the early iOS builds had everything working?
I expect that charging a battery is a hardware function that will work independent of software.
I expect that a mobile device can be used as a mobile device.
I expect that an OS-maker will first focus on getting hardware to work and later on getting software to work.
and I expect that when somebody says “Openness. It works.” a better example is given than this to make people enthusiastic about openness.
Release early, release often.
Read up on it.
1. I don’t appreciate that you change the topic from “good example of openness” to “I know it’s crap because I can’t even charge a battery or make a phonecall on my Phone but that is okay because I released it in the open and now everyone can work on it although I am mentioning on my own page that ‘a time to choose a job is getting closer and closer’ so I will soon abandon this project without ever getting it to do anything useful”
2. Release early, release often is what I normally do at work. I have also learned not to release TOO early because that confuses non-developers.
3. This article just falls under the “look, I got a webserver running on my coffeemaker”. It shouldn’t be pointed to as a good example of openness.
4. I read a bit on the xda-forum and for an example of openness it doesn’t inspire much: “also I believe platform sources are at polishblood github, though I can’t confirm they’re up to date at the moment.” (source: “http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=27932017&postcount=8…
I am impressed by the effort people are putting into this.
I am unimpressed by their priorities of making things work.
Non-geeks will never hear anything about this project.
OH NOES.
Too bad this site is mainly non-technical folk oriented /s
Yes it is not a good example, it is the best example of openness.
TBH, it depends.
I prefer stuff that is polished and finished then a preview of something that kinda half works.
It is a matter of opinion as to whether it works.
I guess that why such stuff is available under a big alpha/preview/try_at_your_own_risk/author_will_take_no_responsibility_ whatever_the_consequences_nuclear_war_included disclaimer.
No promises.
Now read those long EULA of these so-called polished/finished closed software: surprise, they say exactly the same (but in a more lawyer terms)!
There is no warrant of software completeness, polishness or featureness. The only difference is that closed software won’t say publicly what they *do* know is not working fine in their product.
Meanwhile, many open project will share publicly their progress, issues and shortcomings included.
They often pay the price of process transparency for that, people calling their product unfinished.
But the same people will call a product sold in a good looking box as finished because 1) the box looks fine 2) they never will recognize they bought a product not finished/polished as they through and 3) they can’t know how much the product is finished or not, the development state being secret.
It’s not a question of openess vs closed, it’s a question of transparent vs secret.
Aka does ignorance is really bliss?
All closed source source is the ebilz and they hide stuff from you </sarcasm>
It doesn’t have to be closed or open, I want things complete.
Everybody does.
But willing is never enough to have it.
*Someone* have to actually do it happen.
And regarding ICS on a Samsung Wave, so far, the best hope is not the manufacturer – as a naive one would expect – but… yes, an hobby project, which has yet to reach usability state but *still* is the best hope.
And this hope existence is possible *only* because of openness.
Oh, sure, we can goes sidetracks and debate of the interest or not to have ICS on a Samsung Wave, and maybe there is not such such point beyond technical curiosity.
But the facts remains: if there is one, it *may* become a reality *because* of openness.
The existence itself of such project is the topic here, not his *current* status.
Which is, I think, the main point of the article.
Check title again.
Can we stop believing in the million man army fallacy.
Most successful open source projects are funded.
Yes. They all got funded right from the very beginning. They did not start out as small project, got good, and then got funding. Nope, nosiree, they all got finding right from the very first line of code written.
Sigh.
😐
Well there are load of projects that don’t get it, why because there is no interest from big companies.
This project may never attract any attention (when something else is running perfectly fine).
While I think it would be awesome if it did, I don’t hold out much hope.
Sorry if I tried extrapolating too far for you.
Edited 2012-06-28 19:59 UTC
Nope.
History shows that it works well.
And in open movement, the last 20 years show that it’s progressing everywhere, from internet protocols to everyday mobile features.
Meanwhile, there’s far less god-like-savior historical achievement.
And?
How does it change the fact that, at first, most of it wont be possible at all without something being open enough to allow the project to kick-off.
Nobody claimed that open projects all succeed. Most don’t, indeed. But anyone who happened to work on closed projects knows that many of them don’t reach their objective too and are eventually considered successful for markcon reason, because failure is an heavier word in the corporate land.
What is claimed is that some project wont even starts without openness fundation. You don’t needs to fund a project to port iOS 5 on a Samsung Wave, for instance. What you need *first* is iOS 5 being open. Or… you needs to fund 86+ billions to buy Apple Inc.
First things first.
That isn’t the point I was making and you know it.
Without some sort of commercial backing (even if it is paid developers that use the software and add features even though that isn’t their main role) the project is doomed in the majority of cases.
The basement dweller army is a fallacy … maybe I should be even more specific with everything I say.
Anyway here is the TM
http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/basementdeveloperarmy/
Edited 2012-06-28 19:44 UTC
And my point that in this specific case, it’s doomed from day one without Android being an open project.
It may take a large amount of people or maoney or whatever to achieve some goal, but it often take a vry small but critical step to begin the journey toward that goal.
Human history is full of events that happened because at start a tiny step was or wasn’t made by one single person.
So far, Samsung didn’t make any move toward porting Android ICS to their Wave phone. Maybe this hobby projet is pointless, but maybe it’s the first baby steps toward that goal. Samsung may or may not somewhat support it somewhere before the achievement, and may be nobody cares that much because nobody care about ICS running on a Wave.
But that’s not the point.
The point is these first baby steps were made possible *because* of openness.
It’s not a warrant of success, sure.
But one hope is better than none.
The fact that most people will never notice it doesn’t matter: success is not the same as celebrity.
Lets ignore the point that it may never go anywhere, I am done with this.
It was a stupid article and it is a stupid argument.
Edited 2012-06-29 07:30 UTC
Sorry, eh… but if he comes from Poland we must assume the product will be polished.
(no offense was intended, in case some gets susceptible I have a joke about myself: I am waiting for the moment when I can watch clips from a browser window on my Blade 2000 running NetBSD 6, using hardware acceleration from its XVR-1200).
Cheers
Edited 2012-07-01 08:32 UTC
Uhm… but if he comes from Poland we must assume the experiment will be polished, no?
(Disclaimer: for those who may get susceptible at it, I have a joke about myself: I long for the moment I’ll be able to watch clips from a browser window in Opera on my B2000 using the hardware acceleration of its XVR-1200)
Cheers
So in other words, it is unrelated to the openness.
Why would you expect a software company to focus on hardware?
Maybe you’re putting too much importance into what some random guy on the internet say about stuff.
Apparently this OS plays some role in charging the battery on this device (seriously shocking to me). I am actually wondering where Tom got this information from because I couldn’t find it on the page he linked to.
And I don’t expect “a software company to focus on hardware?”. I expect “an OS-maker will first focus on getting hardware to work”.
I am a big fan of Thom and mostly agree with what he writes. But this time I didn’t so I voiced my opinion. He didn’t seem to like it and his responses were so-called clever one-liners instead of actual on-topic related answers.
On a side-note, I am now not sure anymore if Thom actually wrote that article or just posted someone else’s article. As there is no other name mentioned I am assuming Thom wrote it:
Comments: Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:12 UTC
Article: posted by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 10:12 UTC
More probably on this hardware platform something not set by default should be done by software to enable battery charging.
It doesn’t means that every androphone behave the same, or that Android enforce it (which will be hard anyway).
How else am I supposed to respond to someone who clearly doesn’t understand how open source development works? Am I really expected – in 20-fcuking-12 – to explain how open source development works?
You should respond respectful, knowledgeable and factual. Not childish (oh noes), cursing (20-fcuking-12) and insulting (calling me “who clearly doesn’t understand how open source development works”)
I have addressed every issue and answered every question that was put in front of me. You haven’t done anything constructively in your comments.
Please reread my comments, follow the link I provided and then tell me if you really think that this project is a good example of how openness (in general) works. Or were you perhaps just talking about Androids openness?
Anyway, there are much better examples out there as mentioned later in the comments and I am assuming CyanogenMod would be as well.
The problem is – this is EXACTLY how open source development works, and thus, is a good example of how openness works. Someone wants to do something, does it, and dumps the code out there as soon as possible, and as often as possible – even if things don’t work yet. This is actually a good thing, as it’s basically an invitation for other people to join in and fix the issues that remain. How many cool projects are going on within closed-source companies that we never get to see because they don’t follow release early/often?
This is such a core concept of open source development that I can reasonably expect not to have to explain this any longer. If you don’t get this and complain about things not working in a first release, then yes, I will assume you have little to no knowledge on how open source development works – so I suggested you read up on the concept.
I never said this was a the best or perfect example of open source development – it’s just an example of openness at work. That’s it. Of course Linux is a better example. Of course Apache is a better example. Of course FreeBSD is a better example.
However, all the countless projects that spawned from those? They are just as much a core aspect of open source as their parent projects. So yes, a lone developer, building upon the work that came before him and from the AOSP’s code, is a good example of openness at work.
Edited 2012-06-27 13:40 UTC
You are right. Release early, release often is a very common way of developing open software and that was actually one of the reasons why people criticized Google for calling Android Open during the 3.0 days. They didn’t release early and often for a while like they had been doing. Instead they took the approach “we are making very big changes and we will release again when we think it is ready”. Of course you could still get the source but that wasn’t the point of the Android criticism at that time. Google made it very clear that Android was their thing, that they controlled it and that they determined what would happen and when it would happen (3.0). I think they did the right thing for Android but they got some criticism because of their approach. That criticism has died down as you said because Google went back to release early release often with version 4.
I don’t like this particular project. It mentions this “Main goal is to make clean, fast, stable and battery friendly rom” and they make other claims that make it sound like they care most about hardware support (source: http://polishblood.pl/?page_id=31) but from your comment about not being able to charge (still waiting for your source for that) it is clear that they aren’t there yet. “Openness works” isn’t a suitable conclusion for this stage of the project. If many people jump on board and actually can reach the project goal you could conclude that “Openness works” but not yet.
And then you change the topic from general openness to the openness of Android and use the words ‘really’ and ‘the point’. So am I right to assume that the main reason for this article was to prove that Android was open?
“Seeing Android work on a completely and utterly unsupported device like this really drives the point home”
I really don’t get your point. Sorry for the all caps but…
THE PROJECT ISN’T FINISHED YET.
It is a work in progress, and the author is sharing with us along the way. That allows us to:
1. Learn about the project, and see where it stands
2. Test what has been done, to find bugs (which saves time)
For people who are eager to experiment, they can try it. For people who want stable software, at least they can see the progress being made. Seriously, what’s the down-side?
IF YOU DON’T LIKE BUGGY / INCOMPLETE SOFTWARE, DON’T DOWNLOAD IT.
It is clearly labeled as such.
No.
It dies because version 4.0 shows that Android is progressing nicely.
If the 4.0 version was a total failure, either UI-wise or underneath-wise or simply too late too little, you can bet that
some people will have forked AOSP 3.x code and, eventually, take the torch from Google hands.
Simply because people able to do that already exists, and develop forked Android versions.
And this ICS-Samsung-Wave guy is part of them.
All this due to one *single* tiny but critical criteria:
does information to try to do it myself is openly available (whatever the form, source code included) or not?
Again, no.
“This project works” wouldn’t be a suitable conclusion, agreed.
Notice that nobody claimed it *ever*,
but surprisingly someone still focus on such expectation. Agreed, only when it’ll reach his
proclaimed goals one could say “this project works”, not before.
But the claim here is not *this* project (will/already) works, but that it’s a proof
that (android) openness works. This project existence – even at his current stage –
make “openness works” perfectly suitable.
Simply because openness is, *alone*, what permits such project to exists in the
first place, and inherits from a large already working base in the second place. As such, the fact that stuffs needed to develop your own android firmware
are openly available *works*, and the proof is that people actually does, like this guy.
Ironically, I’ll even bet that what is needed to make the 2G/3G phone and
the battery charger working is not openly available because it’s not part of AOSP (for obvious reason), and Samsung keep such information closed, in their private Bada source code, for closeness reason.
Wait. Where the article let you think it was about general openness?
From line one, the title already install the Android context. A few lines bellow the Google I/O
restate it’s about Android…
Do we read both the same article?
Seems we did, finally.
You disagreed so far on the argument that the ICS-Samsung-Wave project is not fully working yet.
I fail to see how this argument proved that Android is not open, or that its openness doesn’t work.
It only prove that project 1) don’t reach their goals at first release and 2) nobody can’t be
sure it will ever.
Which nobody claimed.
Ever.
Edited 2012-06-28 14:19 UTC
Not all open source projects subscribe to the virtues of the “release early, release often” mantra.
Basement developer army arguments Thom … really?
It’s most likely a driver issue. The same thing happens when you install Gentoo on a Nokia N900; for all the “openness” of that device, without the proprietary power drivers it won’t charge or run from the power supply under alternate OSes. And if the manufacturer is unwilling to release a public driver, the only option left is to reverse-engineer one.
Sounds a lot like early Linux development to me; not shocking at all.
Practically all ROMs will have the same beginning: some guy or group of people get bits and pieces running, and show them off to the public. Others join in on the fun, exchange knowledge and experience, fork, start over, improve on others work. In the end, you either get a fully working system, or the device gets too dated and developers lose interest.
Whiny kids on messageboards contribute only whines.
You can expect all you want but battery charging management requires software.
Whereas Steve Jobs snapped his fingers and iOS came to be, perfect from the get go.
Closedness be blessed, for it allows blind idiots to blindly pontificate. I do not see anything wrong, therefore everything is and was always right.
Same was true for Linux, Apache, Python and so many open source projects.
And yet, they eventually becomes very usable for daily use, as testified by millions of Internet servers, or smartphones or the billions of web pages served by Apache every day.
Unusable is the initial step of any project, open or closed.
Get over it.
I completely agree. These are actually all great examples of “what openness looks like” and they have changed the (software)world.
I am not complaining about this project. It is a nice hobby-project that some people will learn a lot from and that will give some other people a good time playing around with another OS.
I am complaining about picking this as an example of what openness looks like. Because if we would show people this example they would all turn their back on openness and say “closed gives us working stuff, open is far inferior”.
And I agree even more completely.
The average customer will start to associate “open” with “not working”. Right now they think “open” means “you can install stuff without paying for it, hahaha”.
And if non-working stuff like this gets praised people might even believe that this result is like reaching the top of Mount Everest: that’s it, it can’t get any better.
Yes, because OSNews is totally a site for those “average customers”.
We’re a geek site, and you guys know this. This is such a non-discussion, which seems more born out of a dislike for Android than anything else.
Thom, you are a very good writer but a bad reader. “which seems more born out of a dislike for Android than anything else”. Where do you even get that from? Nobody in this whole thread has mentioned anything negatively about Android.
We (I am not alone anymore) don’t want to see “I got x running on y”-articles anymore and we especially don’t want them to be made examples when they work badly. That is all, no opinion about Android at all.
Only if open projects start to not working more and more. And why such thing will happens now more than yesterday?
Plus the avergae customer barely knows what’s open and what’s not.
Precisely. The average customer don’t care about open, closed, what he care is price/feature ratio.
Except if open projects starts to have less and less working features, I failed to see why open projects will be associated to not working in average customer mind.
Plus average customer won’t notice that someone ported Android ICS to his Samsung Wave until 1) he becomes geek enough or 2) the port is stable enought to get wider media coverage outside android geeks circles.
In both case, the fact that the port was possible because Android code is open *but* not working at start wont matter that much, and most probably only the former will be remembered, if any.
What will matter is that he could use an better Android version on his quite old Samsung smartphone…
Well, in this exact situation, it’s more “for my Samsung Wave, open gives me hope that non-working-yet new stuff could works someday, while closed wont gives new stuff *ever*.”
And I’m not sure that cast such negative light on the open side, really.
There is no shame to say “not working yet”. What’s a shame is to lie. And it’s far easier to do when nobody but you can looks at internals to figure out himself…
Sorry, If I release software, open, closed, for fun or for project, I will make sure it damn well works.
It does work. Just not every feature. That’s how open source works – even at your pet company.
A phone that can’t make phone calls == doesn’t work.
“Let me reboot my phone into Android before I make a 999 call”.
I appreciate the code is out there, but expecting it to be just taken up because it is “available” doesn’t mean it will.
As I said many times, most open source projects only really work when their is commercial interest. I can’t see it happening here.
BTW mate, my pet company … I don’t work for, or affiliated with … and I buy OpenBSD CDs. 😉
Edited 2012-06-28 19:20 UTC
So the phone part of the phone doesn’t work …
But the smart part of the phone does
😉
So it can’t be that smart if it can’t do the “dumb phone” bit can it.
smart and dumb are not exclusive, as often proven 😉
Interesting.
So far I’m a happy Bada 2/Wave II user, but I’d be willing to give Android a spin.
So do I.
But i would really like the basic features to properly work first, such as phone call and battery charge :p
My fear is that this mod will never get farther than becoming an Android playstation for Wave, rather than a daily usable phone OS.
But should it cross that mark, i will be among the happier users of it.