Download is still going, but isn't this just the standard GPL parts - ie kernel & some libraries?
(EDIT: it is indeed just the GPL parts.)
In which case, can someone explain how it's really newsworthy? Samsung have been exemplary in all their GPL compliance for all their Android releases to date.
open source code ROM builders and other modders will be able to do more advanced ports and advanced ROMs.
Well, now they can build with the latest kernel instead of the Gingerbread kernel, but does that really make much difference to anything else? Are there outstanding kernel bugs in the Gingerbread releases, or new kernel features that ICS AOSP needs to run?
The bigger question, to me, is what drivers are included. Many of the chips in all these phones do not have specifications freely available or community-built drivers. Does this include, say, the GPU driver? Or is that still a binary blob that has to be (usually illegally) copied from the device's built-in software?
Yes, there are differences between Gingerbread and ICS kernels, though I don't know what they are (other than moving to a 3.x kernel). From what I understand, this is one of the reasons CM9 development has been slow in general (and particularly slow for some devices).
That being said, you're right that Samsung's prompt GPL compliance isn't particularly newsworthy. The recent, newsworthy source release is HTC's. They released the ICS kernel source for the Sensation promptly, without their typical "not until you've waited a few months and threatened a lawsuit" nonsense. Hopefully that trend continues.
As an Android user, I do not want the TouchWiz overlay. I want the pure, unadulterated ICS UI goodness. Why doesn't Samsung "get it"? (Don't answer that).
Samsung has recently become the largest smartphone manufacturer in the world, yet you think they don't "get it"?
Your carrier decides which phones they will carry, and what software those phones will include and exclude. Samsung's job is to do whatever the carriers want. The carriers in return give Samsung support and precious shelf space.
Your carrier also wants you to blame Samsung and not them for all the things that suck about your phone. So well done.
They do get it. They want you to feel an attachment to Samsung devices, not to Android devices. They want customer's to think 'well, I already know how to use a Galaxy, so I'll get the newest one of those', rather than buying an HTC because it's the newest Android.
Samsung have been some of the best in helping get custom ROMs going on their devices, and if you want stock Android, it'll always be available to you that way.
I'm genuinely curious, how is the ICS TouchWiz overlay a problem for you in practice?
Pre-ICS, I'll agree that the custom manufacturer widgets could create issues (performance, app consistency, etc.). However, starting with ICS, manufacturers will have to include the stock widgets as well and apps are likely to select them (to avoid these kinds of issues).
It also isn't hard to replace the TouchWiz launcher with an AOSP-based one (e.g. Apex, Nova, Trebuchet). After that, what is left and how important is it?
There was recent convincing discussion that to the vast majority of the 20+ million(?) people who own the phone have no idea what ICS is and would be shocked if Samsung put out an update that completely changed the UX.
You're a hacker purist. Most consumers are not. Many actually like the features that Touchwiz brings.
It's actually interesting in that "pure, unadulterated" Android has very heavily borrowed from Sense UI, TouchWiz, and Motoblur. Those custom skins were what really helped move the platform forward.
[+] [-] angusgr|14 years ago|reply
(EDIT: it is indeed just the GPL parts.)
In which case, can someone explain how it's really newsworthy? Samsung have been exemplary in all their GPL compliance for all their Android releases to date.
open source code ROM builders and other modders will be able to do more advanced ports and advanced ROMs.
Well, now they can build with the latest kernel instead of the Gingerbread kernel, but does that really make much difference to anything else? Are there outstanding kernel bugs in the Gingerbread releases, or new kernel features that ICS AOSP needs to run?
[+] [-] Xuzz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fpgeek|14 years ago|reply
That being said, you're right that Samsung's prompt GPL compliance isn't particularly newsworthy. The recent, newsworthy source release is HTC's. They released the ICS kernel source for the Sensation promptly, without their typical "not until you've waited a few months and threatened a lawsuit" nonsense. Hopefully that trend continues.
[+] [-] wyclif|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thought_alarm|14 years ago|reply
Your carrier decides which phones they will carry, and what software those phones will include and exclude. Samsung's job is to do whatever the carriers want. The carriers in return give Samsung support and precious shelf space.
Your carrier also wants you to blame Samsung and not them for all the things that suck about your phone. So well done.
[+] [-] batiudrami|14 years ago|reply
Samsung have been some of the best in helping get custom ROMs going on their devices, and if you want stock Android, it'll always be available to you that way.
[+] [-] skeletonjelly|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fpgeek|14 years ago|reply
Pre-ICS, I'll agree that the custom manufacturer widgets could create issues (performance, app consistency, etc.). However, starting with ICS, manufacturers will have to include the stock widgets as well and apps are likely to select them (to avoid these kinds of issues).
It also isn't hard to replace the TouchWiz launcher with an AOSP-based one (e.g. Apex, Nova, Trebuchet). After that, what is left and how important is it?
[+] [-] Steko|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donniezazen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huggyface|14 years ago|reply
It's actually interesting in that "pure, unadulterated" Android has very heavily borrowed from Sense UI, TouchWiz, and Motoblur. Those custom skins were what really helped move the platform forward.
[+] [-] loverobots|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ea1k|14 years ago|reply