Welcome to XDA

Search to go directly to your device's forum

Register an account

Unlock full posting privileges

Ask a question

No registration required
View Poll Results: What DPI Should the ROM run at?
320 DPI (stock) 131 20.31%
240 DPI (more fits on the screen) 224 34.73%
320, but allow user to customise 290 44.96%
Voters: 645. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply

[ROM][4.3][ CM 10.2.] Unofficial CM 10.2 for Galaxy Note II (N7100)

OP pulser_g2

19th August 2013, 01:14 PM   |  #611  
Mazda's Avatar
Recognized Developer
Flag Milton, Florida ✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖✖
Thanks Meter: 10,408
 
4,729 posts
Join Date:Joined: Oct 2008
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by maniac103

IMHO it would be a more productive use of your time gerriting patches for the Note specific interfaces than it is to complain on XDA, as that would actually benefit your users on CM 10.2.

Couldn't have said that better myself
19th August 2013, 01:27 PM   |  #612  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 58
 
323 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2005
Sure, too much talking can be a problem.
To less, could also be bad.

I don't comply with everything said here, but it helped me, to adjust my focus to rethinking year old opinions and ask more for current motivations of "projects".
And, if I only follow maniac's words, still then I question myself, if CM goes in the directions, I want a part of my world to be in. And I don't think so.
So much influence, so much dev power, so good reputation, so great work... and sadly I think, they don't take the responsibility to make the world a better place, instead just concentrating on the own "success".
OK, here come politics, but politics are also a part of our each and own individual reality like CM is. The news showed us that we are in 2013 and not just 1984 anymore... much is lost, privacy hard to maintain... and what does CM? gives us a privacy guard, which isn't one. A false feeling of safety. CM would be better without it. ..ah, wait... then the "consumer" installs less CM.
Yes, that is only one point/ app, but it was an eyeopener for me.
And like anybody else, who isn't active in the AOSP/AOKP/CM/DEV scene, I am not able to invest weeks to get proberly informed to judge for or against CM .. so I rely on own experience like with pguard, some research.. and sure, will be wrong in one or another point of view. But so that's life.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to crypta For This Useful Post: [ View ]
19th August 2013, 01:52 PM   |  #613  
pulser_g2's Avatar
OP Developer Admin / Senior Recognized Developer
Thanks Meter: 11,187
 
19,371 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2009
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by maniac103

I guess we have different understandings of 'example'. I fail to see why the stuff in the N4 repo + the README shouldn't be enough to understand how it's going to work. Adding new interfaces is pretty much straightforward from there.


Got a quote/link for that? I haven't seen anyone shooting down the SD card support patch for camera or the patch for making the SD card the primary storage yet.


There is no such thing as a 'best experience for every user'. More knobs don't necessarily mean better experience.


No, I don't think so, at least if 'those' are thinking about what arcee is trying to convey.

At this point, I don't think furtherly discussing with you about this makes any sense, TBH. You are on a personal mission against arcee and/or against what you think his goals and motivations are, without acknowledging the advantages of the suggested way. I don't feel like I can convince you about those advantages, so it's not a good use of time to argue about it.

(BTW, I was a huge proponent of DeviceParts in the beginning, which was CM7. I think I was even among the first who wrote an actual DeviceParts implementation [DefyParts]. But having seen the ugly code and UI in some DeviceParts instances, I think getting rid of it and merging the useful parts of it into the settings app really is a good idea. IMHO it would be a more productive use of your time gerriting patches for the Note specific interfaces than it is to complain on XDA, as that would actually benefit your users on CM 10.2. But that's obviously up to you to decide.)

IRC discussion involving atinm and arcee (I think), I can find it if you want a reference.

I honestly don't want to turn it into a crusade and I'm glad to discuss it. The trouble is that he's said on the record that he doesn't like these settings and finds them pointless.

Indeed, I remember defy parts actually kudos for it, was a good solution that saw through a lot of use.

I see fully the advantages, as I actually backed him originally when the choice of device parts versus putting options in the "logical" places was discussed on the old mailing list. It makes more sense to put the settings into display than advanced, for example.

The entire disagreement stems over the process - removing what works before implementing the new solution? That's bad programming practice in any scheme of work I've seen. Couple that with his apparent dislike for per device customisation... I know other CM guys who have been put off work on the n4 due to this attitude, but it's up to them if they want to come forward or not...

Regarding CTS, any thoughts on the continual trend to try to pass CTS? Saying no to su daemon by default for the reason of "it breaks CTS", rather than the obvious "well root is dangerous, disable by default" which I thought would be the reason...

I can find you the discussion regarding SD cards if you like, where one of the CM guys was asked by another if he would implement the camera storage toggle, and he said no, and was applauded since it would break CTS.
The Following User Says Thank You to pulser_g2 For This Useful Post: [ View ]
19th August 2013, 02:08 PM   |  #614  
derPianist's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Cologne
Thanks Meter: 621
 
1,195 posts
Join Date:Joined: May 2012
More
wrong thread. delete.
19th August 2013, 02:09 PM   |  #615  
pulser_g2's Avatar
OP Developer Admin / Senior Recognized Developer
Thanks Meter: 11,187
 
19,371 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2009
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypta

Sure, too much talking can be a problem.
To less, could also be bad.

I don't comply with everything said here, but it helped me, to adjust my focus to rethinking year old opinions and ask more for current motivations of "projects".
And, if I only follow maniac's words, still then I question myself, if CM goes in the directions, I want a part of my world to be in. And I don't think so.
So much influence, so much dev power, so good reputation, so great work... and sadly I think, they don't take the responsibility to make the world a better place, instead just concentrating on the own "success".
OK, here come politics, but politics are also a part of our each and own individual reality like CM is. The news showed us that we are in 2013 and not just 1984 anymore... much is lost, privacy hard to maintain... and what does CM? gives us a privacy guard, which isn't one. A false feeling of safety. CM would be better without it. ..ah, wait... then the "consumer" installs less CM.
Yes, that is only one point/ app, but it was an eyeopener for me.
And like anybody else, who isn't active in the AOSP/AOKP/CM/DEV scene, I am not able to invest weeks to get proberly informed to judge for or against CM .. so I rely on own experience like with pguard, some research.. and sure, will be wrong in one or another point of view. But so that's life.

Totally agree. If CM followed a standard development process, feature wouldn't be removed, expecting them to be re-added in future.

I totally agree though about motivations - I'm happy to be entirely upfront with people. I don't have the aim to get this rom into more phones, or to make money or become famous. Instead I have a goal to many my note 2 be the way it should be. Not how someone else says.

I think the reaction to privacy guard is interesting to review - CM accepted it from the original guy (Plamen was his name, brilliant guy, definitely owe him a beer), and merged it into CM7. The issues of bug reporting due to permissions blocking were addressed by preventing crash reports to app developers when permissions were revoked, and displaying a button warning of this when a force close occured with revoked permissions.

The change quickly got negative attention from Google (I believe), and cm decided they didn't want to create a "hostile environment" for apps to work in. That's why even the original changes of pffmod were watered down to prevent mocking or spoofing data.

With cm9 the feature was removed. Steve (Kondik) even commented fairly recently that he was surprised nobody had made a privacy conscious fork of CM. I question why this needs to be a fork at all - what's so dangerous about putting users in a position to protect their privacy?

Eventually, after -2'ing my patch which proposed PDroid into CM (without any explanation whatsoever, check it on gerrit, username pulser), and users eventually starting to care, finally there is enough pressure that Steve says they are considering implementing privacy guard.

I pointed out at this time before development started that this wasn't protecting privacy, as it failed to protect the user from tracking by IMEI etc. This was passed off as being not within the scope of the privacy guard... Instead it only focuses on stopping a rogue app from stealing data like contacts or messages or calendar information... Yet totally overlooks the entire need for privacy from companies who try to track users based on their IMEI or other device identifiers.

CM continue to take the attitude that it's not necessary to do anything here. I continue to disagree. It is necessary to give users to tools to protect their privacy. Otherwise where will we end up?

But to give users a false assurance of privacy when it even advertises to the app that the user is using the privacy mode isn't a good idea - simple social engineering message asking the user to disable the protection would get round this. Much better to make such a privacy more undetectable to the app.

I have no firm proof of why this is the CM "way", but they seem to always be intent to be friendly to app developers and I know some of their leads are involved in apps... Maybe there is a connection here? I don't know...

It's certainly disconcerting that CM would rather someone fork to make a privacy focused rom, rather than integrate such features into the Rom.

And the whole debate actually started as a result of CM trying to turn on anonymous stata tracking by default in the Rom. Let's not return to that dev, but I personally allow those stats, for the sole reason they're optional. But unfortunately cm valued finding out how many users they had, over the integrity and ethics... Anyway in the end, they undid it, due to the amount of whining and bad press it caught.

Putting 2+2 together here leads to an interesting picture of a project which I don't feel puts its users first. Privacy guard should at least feature a warning it won't protect against tracking, and recommend a way to do that
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to pulser_g2 For This Useful Post: [ View ]
19th August 2013, 02:31 PM   |  #616  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 58
 
323 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2005
On the other hand, it could be a more modern definition of privacy. Privacy of personal data (which gets obvious with meta data tracking) seems all that's left of a person's accepted privacy needs.
As Google stated latest in reference to the 1979 ruling: there is no privacy if you couldn't have expected privacy.
Google used this related to gmail.

Sent from mobile.
19th August 2013, 02:33 PM   |  #617  
Senior Recognized Developer
Flag Owego, NY
Thanks Meter: 24,633
 
13,457 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2007
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulser_g2

Regarding documentation, the n4 was already sparse due to one individual's personal dislike of device specific settings. I understand it doesn't have proper gamma control, despite that being possible to do (instead simply tweaking colour levels?). Surely the example reference needs to be a device which heavily uses all the different types of settings, including boolean settings, colour levels, touch sensitivity etc.

I mentioned the latter as I know you trivialised it, but for some devices it's pretty essential, especially some tablets.

Regarding CTS, any comments on why everything is going towards trying to pass CTS, regardless of what it removed or compromises? Example being not re-adding the ability to save to an external SD, for the reason that the CTS "rules", which are issued by Google, continue to push everyone away from SD cards, to further their own cloud storage offerings.

Yeah. I gave up on trying to even get the kernel side of the gamma patch merged in. It was on gerrit for over two months with not a single comment from the maintainer (and yes, they were added to review AND pinged on G+ about it at the beginning of the effort.)

However, as far as CTS compatibility - If we flagrantly violate CTS, then we risk Google taking measures to block our access to the Play Store for breaking apps.
Last edited by Entropy512; 19th August 2013 at 04:55 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Entropy512 For This Useful Post: [ View ]
19th August 2013, 02:50 PM   |  #618  
kokesh's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 308
 
710 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2010
Donate to Me
More
I guess the solution would be to remove Ricardo and re-add device specific settings. WTF?
19th August 2013, 02:56 PM   |  #619  
Formhault's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag X-3043
Thanks Meter: 3,314
 
8,694 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jun 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsolutZeroGI

You mean like the moderators in the secret moderator forum, the developers in the hidden developer forum, and even the news writers in their secret news writers forum...all making decisions with little to no input from the every day users on XDA?

Come on man, I get that you're pissed off here, but at least make a point that doesn't make you sound so...hypocritical.

*You decide who gets banned and who doesn't in secret moderator forums where no average user has ever been. Why isn't anyone made privy to those discussions?

*The countless development discussions in the secret developer forums that none of us normal people have EVER been a part of. You get mad at CM for having private, hidden discussions...then you have a whole hidden forum for your devs to do the exact same thing.

*The XDA design decisions, rule decisions, etc are all done by like a maximum of 4-6 people.

If you're going to sit there and try to tell all these people that you, yourself, aren't having hidden discussions with other XDA devs in the hidden dev forum about this very incident (and probably another one in the secret moderator forum for that matter) without letting everyone in on it, then forgive me for saying so, but you're full of crap dude. You guys plot behind closed doors more than most governments. Not to mention all the horrible things I've seen you people say about the average user on XDA (and everywhere else for that matter).

I used to be behind those doors and the only thing I walked out of those doors feeling proud about was that I was the only person in any forum back there that put the 5.5 million people in these forums first and you guys didn't. Geez man, find another way to complain.

If I may... I don't think these two scenarios can be compared.

CM is supposed to be open. So, its maintainers / admins should be open about it. Right?
In this case, complaining on the matter that admins don't do things as they should, is okay.

XDA is a forum. It isn't supposed to be open (sourced?) or GPL or anything... Right? So... its admins have the right to discuss matters with regards to who gets banned and who doesn't, behind closed doors. Right?

Those are... two entirely different things.

(English did get a pretty good beating in this post, I know. I apologise)
The Following User Says Thank You to Formhault For This Useful Post: [ View ]
19th August 2013, 03:00 PM   |  #620  
Formhault's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag X-3043
Thanks Meter: 3,314
 
8,694 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jun 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by maniac103

The problem is that it's a total BS argument in this particular case. The change that removed it was on review for a couple of days and had an insanely long reviewer list. There was no 'one person decides' thing involved here.

Really?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.jpg
Views:	485
Size:	40.2 KB
ID:	2199103  

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Formhault For This Useful Post: [ View ]
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes