-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Samsung released driver source for GalaxyS?
- Thread starter chrisx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- samsung behold 2
blackerwater
Member
They Did but it wasn't for 2.1 
Using tapatalk
Using tapatalk
DynamitePress
Member
It's simple and valid business strategy. I doubt there's anything that has them dead-set against the idea, but releasing that sort of thing takes even a small amount of paid hours from their employees--paid hours that they don't want to devote to a phone that has done nothing but lose them money. It sucks for us, and you could argue than it's a bad idea, but customer loyalty isn't what it once was. If you've ever worked retail you know how often people will tell you than they're "never coming back to this store again," and yet more often than not, you see the same people coming back within two weeks.
So as harsh as it is to us (especially people like me, who devotedly buy Samsung's products because...well...I really, REALLY like the stuff they make, especially their phones), it just doesn't make sense to them to sink more money into the Behold 2...even a small amount. I'm not okay with it, I don't like it, I would VERY much like to finagle them into sharing this stuff with us to make these phones a more solid investment for us, but what they're doing (NOT doing) makes sense. Sigh. It's the current business standard to drop a product line that doesn't bring profit. Sucks huh?
So as harsh as it is to us (especially people like me, who devotedly buy Samsung's products because...well...I really, REALLY like the stuff they make, especially their phones), it just doesn't make sense to them to sink more money into the Behold 2...even a small amount. I'm not okay with it, I don't like it, I would VERY much like to finagle them into sharing this stuff with us to make these phones a more solid investment for us, but what they're doing (NOT doing) makes sense. Sigh. It's the current business standard to drop a product line that doesn't bring profit. Sucks huh?
They Did but it wasn't for 2.1
Using tapatalk
They did release the source to 2.1 for the Galaxy S. Although it seems some of the drivers are already compiled (mainly anything dealing with video). From what some people have said though is that they are not encrypted but no one who really taken a look at them has made that claim. If BH_Man/Eugene could look at them it would be nice to know.
I do not think that Samsung design and build different chips (hardware) for every model. They probably change the motherboard layout and add little hw changes (CPU, more memory, ..etc).
In regards to the phone, Bluetooth, USB (and any standard functions) they probably use the same components in many of their models (this is pure assumption).
I am new to the android world, but if I use the PC concept, the windows or Linux drivers for a wireless, blue tooth, USB, etc are basically the same for the chip manufufacturer (i.e. a broadcom 4322 linux driver is the same for all fedora systems).
If Samsung BH2 and another Samsung/ or different make uses the same HW components, would the drivers be used across?
May be I am totally wrong, but it would be very nice if someone can give us better understanding of the driver/OS combination.
By the way, this is my second experience with Samsung (Epix and now the BH2) and all I can say it is/was not a good experience due to lack of support. I would not recommend to buy any Samsung Smartphone.
In regards to the phone, Bluetooth, USB (and any standard functions) they probably use the same components in many of their models (this is pure assumption).
I am new to the android world, but if I use the PC concept, the windows or Linux drivers for a wireless, blue tooth, USB, etc are basically the same for the chip manufufacturer (i.e. a broadcom 4322 linux driver is the same for all fedora systems).
If Samsung BH2 and another Samsung/ or different make uses the same HW components, would the drivers be used across?
May be I am totally wrong, but it would be very nice if someone can give us better understanding of the driver/OS combination.
By the way, this is my second experience with Samsung (Epix and now the BH2) and all I can say it is/was not a good experience due to lack of support. I would not recommend to buy any Samsung Smartphone.
Swizz
Android Enthusiast
You see, this is the kind of thing I was saying you people need to focus your energy on. Get an online petition going, directed at Samsung, to release source for your phone so you can continue to have it developed. This phone is no longer their money maker, if it ever was to begin with, and maybe they'll be a little more kind to its underground devs.
Just do so with a bit of tact, eh?
Just do so with a bit of tact, eh?
1) No, Samsung does NOT need to release driver sources under the Apache Liscense (I was also under the impression it was GPL, but in any case, even under GPL, they would not have to release proprietary hardware drivers)
2) The Galaxy S is not the same as the Galaxy (which is essentially a slightly different Behold II). It's different hardware, so the drivers wouldn't work
3) Technically, even having 1.5 driver sources would work for 2.1: You'd have to re-create the sources to compile against 2.1 using the 1.5 sources as a base. Not sure how easy this would be, but it'd be a DAMN sight easier than trying to build them from nothing
At least you'd have a point of reference ;->
2) The Galaxy S is not the same as the Galaxy (which is essentially a slightly different Behold II). It's different hardware, so the drivers wouldn't work
3) Technically, even having 1.5 driver sources would work for 2.1: You'd have to re-create the sources to compile against 2.1 using the 1.5 sources as a base. Not sure how easy this would be, but it'd be a DAMN sight easier than trying to build them from nothing
At least you'd have a point of reference ;->1) No, Samsung does NOT need to release driver sources under the Apache Liscense (I was also under the impression it was GPL, but in any case, even under GPL, they would not have to release proprietary hardware drivers)
2) The Galaxy S is not the same as the Galaxy (which is essentially a slightly different Behold II). It's different hardware, so the drivers wouldn't work
3) Technically, even having 1.5 driver sources would work for 2.1: You'd have to re-create the sources to compile against 2.1 using the 1.5 sources as a base. Not sure how easy this would be, but it'd be a DAMN sight easier than trying to build them from nothing
I get that Samsung isn't required to release its own source unless it contains gpl'd code. But, don't they still have to release the code for the recent 1.6 update they put out? Even if it's just stock 1.6 android, which I don't believe it is, they have to make it available on request since they distribute it. I'm not talking about the kernel modules for their drivers, but the gpl'd code used.
Since Samsung doesn't see a problem in releasing the source for the drivers in the GalaxyS, when requesting the 1.6 gpl'd code, maybe point them to the driver source for the Galaxy S at their own site. It's not being developed for anyways, I don't see why they would have a problem with it.
My main point is that they will have to put something up. My hope is that we can use their own example for the GalaxyS to convince them to put up source for the drivers of a no longer developed Behold 2.
Swizz
Android Enthusiast
Because I claimed they did, right? What I said, was that if you guys gathered in force and told Samsung "Hey, want to not be dicks and somewhat redeem yourself?", they may listen and throw you a bone.
Of course, you could always roll over and just be mad that you weren't handed everything without any foot work.
behold_this
Android Expert
You clearly have had little to no experience with this situation or dealing with samsung! They will not release driver source code, period! It is their propritary software for this phone and not open source! Behold 2 source code has been requested in writting many times and samsung has responded in writting many times saying they have all ready released all code required by google and apache lic. They have stated that these sources contain code sections that are related to other samsung products and will not be released to maintain the security of the behold as well as many other samsung products effected by it.
I suggest you go over to http://opensource.samsung.com/ and download the GT-I9000 source, and look at the kernel source. You'll be surprised.
behold_this
Android Expert
i have seen it and has nothing to do with what i said! galaxys is s-amoled not amoled totally different drivers totally unrelated to samsung led and 3d tvs which are amoled. now pay attention here: the behold2 uses the same rsf security as their tvs, while the galaxy s does not. thanx for chiming in though.
Oh sorry, I misunderstood when you stated "They will not release driver source code, period!".
Samsung hasn't released the source for the vid drivers on the GalaxyS either, only the binary. I thought the issue with porting 2.1 to the Behold 2 was wifi, sound, and the camera.
I thought Samsung's RFS was just a file system?
behold_this
Android Expert
Oh...ok. Yeah, I was refering to the behold 2 drivers specifically galaxyS is a whole new beast and samsung is not looking to repeat the failures of the b2
behold_this
Android Expert
He also stated in that very thread that it will NEVER be stable enough for an "everyday driver" rom that's why he never released it. But you can download the original work in progress file and go to work yourself but I will warn you several have tired and all have failed!
Funny... I read it as being exactly the OPPOSITE of what you state. My take was that he would have a 2.1 ROM ready for "everyday use" if he could just get sound working...
I don't know.. one of us is mis-reading his comments.
behold_this
Android Expert
So much misinformation here. That's gotta be one big reason he and many many more have left this forum! Enjoy eternally waiting for your 2.1 enabled b2! Get a commfy chair and a good mag for your wait
Let's not fool ourselves. I don't think we'll be getting 2.1 any time soon (if at all). I'm just reposting what BH_MAN said in the other thread. Here's his actual text:
BH_MAN said:Well the biggest thing is the Sound.. If sound worked 2.1 in my testing would be ready for everyday use... As BT / WiFI / Data / Signal / Video all worked on my Test Rom's... If we could get Sound working we would be golden..paul89 said:
That was the Only thing stopping me from release a 2.1 rom
If you read BH_MAN's statement from this recent thread, it sure sounds like he had a stable 2.1 rom that was at least close to ready.. sans sound. And I suggested, that someone could take his "almost completed" work and maybe figure out the sound, so that we could get 2.1 on the BHII.
And being the silly lil fool I am I suggested he take a look at the Galaxy (No additional name/letter) sound driver for 2.1 in the GAOSP release....
.... To which he pointed out that his 2.1 for B2 was based on GAOSP, and that the sound driver didn't work V_V
That's still, IMO, the best bet in terms of getting 2.1 on the B2. Short of getting the source code for Sound drivers from ANY version of Android for the B2 (You could theoretically patch the 1.5 driver source to work with 2.1, for examplee)
.... To which he pointed out that his 2.1 for B2 was based on GAOSP, and that the sound driver didn't work V_V
That's still, IMO, the best bet in terms of getting 2.1 on the B2. Short of getting the source code for Sound drivers from ANY version of Android for the B2 (You could theoretically patch the 1.5 driver source to work with 2.1, for examplee)