Develop Bugs

[ROM] XWJVA (2.3.3) CSC = LUX released

Updated:
CSC = LUX
Build date: April 4th 2011
http://hotfile.com/dl/114950080/742a49f/I9000XWJVA_LUXJV2_XXJVK.rar.html

Wonder why they release JVA as JVB is out, guess we will never know the reasoning unless its a more stable build, or different region

Is JVA a later build of 2.3.3 than JVB?

Its XW, not XX. CSC = LUX

I can't understand...
This should be the other version (maybe the one with CSC ITV) which was supposed to be released this week (according to Samsung's tweets and announcements).
Am I wrong or this "A" and "B" thingie is some kind of chronologic update? I mean, A comes before B, so JVA "might" be worse than JVB...
This is a stupid idea, I know, but I can see that the developers we have here are WAY better than samsung ones.

It's up on sam firmware
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

stuclark said:
Its XW, not XX, so it's going to be a UK-centric, or multi-CSC build, much like JVK is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but what do you mean with "UK-centric"? Anyway I am not really sure about flashing these new Gingerbread roms... It seems that they didn't test them much enough before the official release...
Could someone post a quick review for me? Something like:
Good things:
....
Bad things:
....
Thanks! D

karmacode said:
Sorry, but what do you mean with "UK-centric"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The XW region code is Western Europe, so often gets used for UK (XEU CSC code) firmwares. XX is worldwide generic, and often defaults to the KOR (Korea) CSC code.
However, this ROM is now confirmed as being a LUX code, which is indeed Western Europe, but not UK.

Thank you bud
Would you recommend to flash the JVB version of Gingerbread? I'm on the stock 2.2.1 CSC ITV, don't know anything about bootloaders or stuff like that.

karmacode said:
I can't understand...
This should be the other version (maybe the one with CSC ITV) which was supposed to be released this week (according to Samsung's tweets and announcements).
Am I wrong or this "A" and "B" thingie is some kind of chronologic update? I mean, A comes before B, so JVA "might" be worse than JVB...
This is a stupid idea, I know, but I can see that the developers we have here are WAY better than samsung ones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that were the case, then JVK should technically have been more up-to-date than any of the two you mentioned. The only thing we can be certain here is that Samsung's approach to versioning and release is confusing.
I don't fault you for saying what you do, but it's important to appreciate the difference between what Samsung's and xda's developers are doing. Samsung's developers have to take a no-frills Android ROM and rebuild it into a usable operating system complete with full support for all the phone's hardware and software packages, to say nothing of having to write the TouchWiz framework from scratch. In comparison, a lot of developers here are just remixing and hacking upon a complete product that Samsung's developers have produced.
The devs here are doing a great thing, and I agree that at times certain decisions that Samsung took on the product design may be quite suspect, but it's not very considerate to discount the hard work of those who have enabled this to all take place in the first place.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

I'd wait a couple of days.
I'm using JVB at the moment, having "updated" from JVK (which now looks to be the "generic" release) - the speed these things are popping out, I reckon there'll be an ITV coded release pretty soon.

Madrenergic said:
I don't fault you for saying what you do, but it's important to appreicate the difference between what Samsung's and xda's developers are doing. Samsung's developers have to take a no-frills Android ROM and rebuild it into a usable operating system complete with full support for all the phone's hardware and software packages, to say nothing of having to write the TouchWiz framework from scratch. In comparison, a lot of developers here are merely remixing and hacking upon what Samsung's developers has produced. The devs here are doing a great thing, but it's not very considerate to discount the hard work of those who have enabled this to all take place.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I got your point, but I meant that here, the Developers work for the whole XDA community - and not only - and they try to create the best Roms or Kernels, which are obviously based on what Samsung releases.
The thing is that it is really great to find people who can spend time on cooking modified roms or kernels, and most of them - if not all of them - do that for free. We are not paying for Samsung's firmware updates, but considering that Samsung's Developers are paid to do the best job they can do for their customers, they should do more. And they COULD.
That's why I think XDA ones are better, because they consider what people asks for and what people would like.

any difrence from xwjvb ?

I think in a couple of days TouchWIz4.0 will com out 4 our Galaxy S.
Since Galaxy S II come out there will be some other Rom that would be ported to the S I.

Model: GT-I9000
PDA: I9000XWJVA
CSC: I9000LUXJV2
PHONE: I9000XXJVK
PCODE: LUX
LATEST_FW_VERSION: I9000XWJVA/I9000LUXJV2/I9000XXJVK/I9000XWJVA
BINARY_NAME: GT-I9000_LUX_1_20110406151108.zip.enc2
LAST_MODIFIED: 20110406150522
Strange that it says modified 2011 Apr 06.

karmacode said:
The thing is that it is really great to find people who can spend time on cooking modified roms or kernels, and most of them - if not all of them - do that for free. We are not paying for Samsung's firmware updates, but considering that Samsung's Developers are paid to do the best job they can do for their customers, they should do more. And they COULD.
That's why I think XDA ones are better, because they consider what people asks for and what people would like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right. They could.

Dr.Dimes said:
I think in a couple of days TouchWIz4.0 will com out 4 our Galaxy S.
Since Galaxy S II come out there will be some other Rom that would be ported to the S I.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not that positive... Of course, as soon as SGS II comes out, some developers will try to port TW4.0 on our SGS, but if it was possible I think Samsung would have added it with the last update.
Maybe some new firmwares will come out in a few days (weeks, months, years LOL) and maybe, as you stated before, we will have TW4 on our phones...
Let's hope.

hostilevader said:
You're right. They could.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm Italian too! XD
We're going to wait a few days for our official release with Kies
@LuffarJoh: Build Date isn't necessarily the Release Date, so it can be built today and released in a month!

LuffarJoh said:
Strange that it says modified 2011 Apr 06.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Build date is 4th April, I think that it has been encrypted on 6th April.

I think Samsung aren't gonna release Touchwiz 4 for the Galaxy S and if they do it will be after the S2 has hit the market.
It gives more reasons to upgrade to the latest S phone and also makes it an even bigger release than it already is.

The GPL obligates Samsung to give us the kernel source

Samsung has given us a kernel source. However, from all the devs, I have heard that this is not the source code for the kernel that is on our phones, and the resulting compiled kernel is not exactly the same as the stock flashed kernel.
The GPL doesn't obligate Samsung to release a source for a kernel, it obligates Samsung to release the source for our kernel.
Maybe if enough of us contact Samsung on this issue, they will release the correct source. I found a way to contact their open-source department about this.
Go to:
https://opensource.samsung.com/
Select Mobile => Mobile phone from the dropdown
Search on the page for SPH-D710 (that's our phones' model number)
On the far-right there is an envelope you can use to contact them.
Use it and ask that they release the actual source code for the shipped kernel version.

I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.

jirafabo said:
I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did the OG Epic fellows ever manage to get Samsung to release the real source?

jirafabo said:
I think this came up on a few phones before, maybe it was my OG Epic. I think I remember they have 90 days or "in a timely manner" to release the source. When it all comes down to it, there really isn't much we, or anyone can do, to force it. It's almost an honor system.
Some of the devs around here will have better specifics though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no 90 day grace period. The kernel source code must be made available when the compiled kernel is made available.

Really, the only recourse is to sue. And since Google owns the copyright, my guess is that they would have to be the ones to sue (not a lawyer, so not 100% sure).
The odds of Google suing Samsung are about as good as the odds of OJ finding the real killer, so we are basically screwed.
Situations like this seriously undermine the open source nature of Android. If it happens enough to where Android loses market share because people doubt Google's commitment to open source, then they might do something about it. Since this issue probably only matters to a few percent of Android users, that's not very likely.
Don't get me wrong - I'm still a big fan of Google, but their philosophy of "do no evil" cannot be maintained forever as a publicly traded corporation. In the long run, "shareholder value" and the bottom line will win. Even more the reason to do what we can to keep Android as open as possible.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Maybe if enough of us contact Samsung on this issue, they will release the correct source. I found a way to contact their open-source department about this.
Go to:
https://opensource.samsung.com/
Select Mobile => Mobile phone from the dropdown
Search on the page for SPH-D710 (that's our phones' model number)
On the far-right there is an envelope you can use to contact them.
Use it and ask that they release the actual source code for the shipped kernel version.

Some one with some pull around here needs to contact Cyanogen... He does work for Samsung after all.
Samsung Galaxy S II

I don't think it is clear whether
1) source is the wrong source
2) source is incomplete but builds ok
3) source is broken/buggy
4) source is correct, but build parameters are slightly off

Okay, so I just received a response from Samsung actually.
♦ classification : Mobile Phone ♦
♦ model name : SPH-D710 ♦
Dear Customer,
Thank you for your continuous interest in our product.
Supported kernel version(EG30) is correct.
Where did you check the version?
Sincerely yours,
You may find the source code
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could a dev chime in on how we know the source version provided is incorrect? I have seen this referenced numerous times, with it cited as a possible reason LOS seems exacerbated on custom ROMs. If no dev sees this, can anyone point to one of the threads where a dev said this so that we can ask them for more information?

manekineko said:
Okay, so I just received a response from Samsung actually.
Could a dev chime in on how we know the source version provided is incorrect? I have seen this referenced numerous times, with it cited as a possible reason LOS seems exacerbated on custom ROMs. If no dev sees this, can anyone point to one of the threads where a dev said this so that we can ask them for more information?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I was surprised to get a response from them so quickly.
If we don't get a response from a dev it wouldn't be to hard to investigate ourselves.
-Compile kernel from source (they give instructions)
-Flash to phone
-show different version # compared to stock

I just got the same reply. We need some info on what to say back. Developers please chime in. Thanks
Sent From My Evo Killer!!!

Okay, so I tracked down one of the places where I've seen reference to the fact that the source Samsung released isn't right.
The ACS Stock Kernel thread says:
Well as everyone knows, the source released from samsung was some bull****... LoStKernel, makes the best use of that source and adds lots of tweaks, and in my opinion is the best compiled custom kernel available...
But, some people stand by the point that only the stock pulled kernel is free from LoS, or is the LoS is least Rampant for them in that kernel.. But they want CWM too!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I private messaged the dev of that kernel, chris41g.
I also contacted zedomax, since he's also a kernel dev and I figure as such he might know something about this.
If anyone can think of anyone else that can shed more light on this, feel free to chime in.

manekineko said:
Okay, so I tracked down one of the places where I've seen reference to the fact that the source Samsung released isn't right.
The ACS Stock Kernel thread says:
I private messaged the dev of that kernel, chris41g.
I also contacted zedomax, since he's also a kernel dev and I figure as such he might know something about this.
If anyone can think of anyone else that can shed more light on this, feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good. Please post when you get some info as I would love to email Samsung back about this.
Sent From My Evo Killer!!!

Evo3d people have some individuals who would request a kernel source whenever a new kernel was released. I forget specific names, but these people would get in touch with the legal department of HTC, and the source would usually be out within a month...

I've heard back from Zedomax and chris41g.
Zedo didn't know anything about this kernel source differing issue.
chris41g says that it is obvious the source and the stock kernel differ. According to him they have different version numbers and different configs, which should show up in dmesg and kmsgs. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually have an Epic 4G Touch, so he's not able to explain in more detail.
Can any who is on a compiled from source (not stock) kernel take a look at this and provide any more information on this?

If you talk.to Chris, tell him we can hook up my phone and he can access anything needed with TeamViewer like he did when he made one of his kernels
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium

JohnCorleone said:
If you talk.to Chris, tell him we can hook up my phone and he can access anything needed with TeamViewer like he did when he made one of his kernels
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, I messaged back Chris and let him know.

Keep up the work on this cause musclehead
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium

They will likely not release it in any other form. Chances are, they stripped proprietary bits from it before release, and didn't adjust the source to make usable after doing so. Its basically up to developers to fix it in this case.
If this is case, which I'm sure it likely is, as I've had conversations with Samsung about these types of things before, there really is no recourse other than someone stepping up and fixing the source. Samsung isn't required to release proprietary bits, and they're also not obligated to release source code that builds and boots the device right out of the box.
Good luck.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App

jt1134 said:
They will likely not release it in any other form. Chances are, they stripped proprietary bits from it before release, and didn't adjust the source to make usable after doing so. Its basically up to developers to fix it in this case.
If this is case, which I'm sure it likely is, as I've had conversations with Samsung about these types of things before, there really is no recourse other than someone stepping up and fixing the source. Samsung isn't required to release proprietary bits, and they're also not obligated to release source code that builds and boots the device right out of the box.
Good luck.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This makes no sense, as the "proprietary bits" are the changes that are made to the kernel that fall outside of the vanilla kernel that google releases. You're saying those changes dont have to be released makes no sense. Otherwise everyone would just be re-releasing the same stock kernel that google puts out. All changes to the kernel made outside of whatever comes stock MUST be released according the to the GPL. So it doesnt matter what conversations you may or may not have had with whatever Samsung personnel. All that needs to be provided in this case is the differences in what we have and what they released. If a non-disputable change is found and easily comparable, then they have no legal choice.

[DISCUSSION] Samsung Epic 4G Touch WIKI

This is a database for the Epic 4G Touch. Please edit/change/remove/add what you feel necessary.
Epic 4G Touch Device Wiki
Epic 4G Touch ROM Database
Epic 4G Touch Kernel Database
Epic 4G Touch Modem Database
Here is a place to discuss the WIKI. Questions, concerns, comments, this is where they should be.

Updated modems.

Thank you sir, we've been needing this for a while now...

are these modems in chronological order? their naming convention is very confusing, whats the latest one?

acme64 said:
are these modems in chronological order? their naming convention is very confusing, whats the latest one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
EL13 is the latest one
Sent from my E4GT

acme64 said:
are these modems in chronological order? their naming convention is very confusing, whats the latest one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1) EG30
2) EG31
3) EK02
4) EL13
G=July
K=November
L=December
The EG30 is what came stock
The EG31 is what was sent to sprint techs
The EK02 is what sprint just pushed out as OTA update
The EL13 is a leak with CIQ removed, Samsung authentic, just not sprint official (yet).
Pretty sure that's correct. Someone correct me if I'm off.
Sent from my SGSIIE4GTuvwxyz....should I touch my nose or walk a straight line now?

Show some EG12 love
Sent from my E4GT

updated most ROM versions, minor changes may be necessary.
added MADDOGGIN's ROM

What kernels can be used with the MIUI?

what modem
just got the phone and its now rooted..
should i just flash to the newest modem ?
I'm on EG30 baseband
and
EL29- CL852097 kernal
still ..

I feel left out. No themes?
Anyways, thanks for the contribution and putting these together.

Tyzing said:
What kernels can be used with the MIUI?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AOSP kernels

updated ROM versions to latest as of 1/20/12
added Blu Kuban, Nocturnal, Swiss Android Rom, and V C S rom

Overstew said:
I feel left out. No themes?
Anyways, thanks for the contribution and putting these together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey man, been quite busy lately. I've got a bit of time today ill put into the wiki for us. Adding themes is on the list, as well as rounding up some 404d downloads and reposting them. Thanks to the others that have contributed!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App

eversavage said:
just got the phone and its now rooted..
should i just flash to the newest modem ?
I'm on EG30 baseband
and
EL29- CL852097 kernal
still ..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you can flash the el29 modem, that is the newest. Different modems sometimes work different for different areas/phones. I always just run the newest, but you can play around with them and find your favorite
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App

Almost caught up with everything new popping up. If you've got something out there that you don't see on the wiki and you'd like to see it up, I either just haven't had time or I've missed it. So post it here and I'll make sure to add it
I've actually subscribed to this thread now, so I'll be able to catch posts quicker.

Ahhhhhhh! looks like you already started what I had started. I was talking to sfhub because the modem database was a mess and of course out of date.
I will use what you have already done to finish what I was doing. I was going to ask you about the thread links and you already removed them. While I wasn't going to go that far I was about to say no offense to qbking77 (I gave him a mirror to help with this) but the thread is also a mess with broken links. Wasn't sure if you wanted to continue pointing to the same thread for everything when the source for the modems are all available from sfhub with maybe a couple exceptions.
Links are still broken for some of the top posts. sfhub has 2 mirrors and cwm and odin files for ALL of the modems except EG12 and EG31. So it was my intention to set it up to have 2 mirrors on each one, 2 lines for each (one cwm one odin) rather than having a line for every mirror like it was for a couple. Unfortunately I wont be able to replace the one one click modem that id10t made since his upload is dead and the EG12 that still exists in someones drop box appears to not be correct so ill leave that link alone for the moment.
Seeing as how you went good and clean with one line for each modem, I could do the same still with the mirrors but it changes things a little. Starting with your table now. I will be around to help with this from now on.

Alright I merged what I was doing with the recent table change. I feel like the links are too close together I did what I could. I too felt having lines for each mirror and each format were not going to work for the amount of modems we have now. But I almost feel like format lines might have "almost" looked cleaner.
Hope you don't mind the addition. I was just figuring (and based on how the table was a couple days ago) since we had a consistent mirror setup for all the modems and one server being able to go down at any given time it was a good idea.

RainMotorsports said:
Alright I merged what I was doing with the recent table change. I feel like the links are too close together I did what I could. I too felt having lines for each mirror and each format were not going to work for the amount of modems we have now. But I almost feel like format lines might have "almost" looked cleaner.
Hope you don't mind the addition. I was just figuring (and based on how the table was a couple days ago) since we had a consistent mirror setup for all the modems and one server being able to go down at any given time it was a good idea.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would agree it was getting a bit messy so I tried to clean it up. I love where you took it though, much better. Thanks for contributing, as that's what it is, coming together to make it better for everyone. I appreciate, as well as I'm sure others do as well, the time you spent on that. Thanks.

barnacles10 said:
Updated modems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry for bumping this topic. im looking for a good modem to work with my aokp milestone 6 rom.

HELP: Holy Buttloads of Modem Releases Batman!

As important as ROMs and firmware and kernels are, I put modems at the top of my list. After all what good is all this flashy functionality if I can't get a decent signal. I'm pretty new to the Android modding scene so take that opinion with a grain of salt. However I've noticed it seems like every week lately there's been a new modem release. I'm currently running FH13, it was just the last one I read anything about. However I logged on today and saw all these new versions.
I guess my main question is what currently is the "best" modem to be running?
But also why all these releases? Are we just lucky enough to get them leaked or are the developers manic? Again though, FH13 was a step up for me but I'd like to go better, so please share with me if you'd had better results on your E4GT. Thanks!

nim6us said:
I guess my main question is what currently is the "best" modem to be running?
But also why all these releases? Are we just lucky enough to get them leaked or are the developers manic? Again though, FH13 was a step up for me but I'd like to go better, so please share with me if you'd had better results on your E4GT. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Modem comes down to your specific device. For me, I still consider EL29 the best.
And why all the modems? Well they are all the modems that are leaked/released from Samsung. Developers don't make modems, they all come from Samsung, which is why they all conform with Samsungs naming method.
For example F(2012)H(August)13(Date)

Has anyone in Eastern TN tested radios?

Just wondering if anyone in e. TN has done any radio testing and found one to be better than others at keeping the signal and 3G locked in?
Thanks!

Please read forum rules before posting
Questions and help issues go in Q&A
Thread moved
Thank you for your cooperation
Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

ntrain2k said:
Just wondering if anyone in e. TN has done any radio testing and found one to be better than others at keeping the signal and 3G locked in?
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To wrap up in summary of the topic of your question -
There have been numerous times where we have discussed the benefits, degradation, "placebo effect", performance, etc of changing modem's/prls to get the best that we can of the device.
General consensus - YMMV. (Your mileage may vary)
From everything to related tower availability, to the actual use of a prl that's purposely put in place, to staying with the most current modem, to the differences in to identical devices sitting side by side.. It's going to be the combination that you find that works.
I will say this, however, since we know it was a kernel/modem/rom change in the actual code. We (RWilco, Garwynn, TD ( I believe and others)) found that the wimax settings that were changed in the latest releases of ICS stock leaks which means if you ran all three parts together - wimax performance was definitely noticeable.
My suggestion for you - Head to RWilco's repository and try the different modems (paying attention to run the correct one with the build of your kernel/rom)
Stock GB and ICS TW Roms - Mix and match GB and ICS era modems to your hearts content.
Stock JB TW Roms - Use only JB TW era modems.
AOSP/AOKP - (For now, may change when JB source drops) Use GB or ICS era modems.

MoHoGalore said:
To wrap up in summary of the topic of your question -
There have been numerous times where we have discussed the benefits, degradation, "placebo effect", performance, etc of changing modem's/prls to get the best that we can of the device.
General consensus - YMMV. (Your mileage may vary)
From everything to related tower availability, to the actual use of a prl that's purposely put in place, to staying with the most current modem, to the differences in to identical devices sitting side by side.. It's going to be the combination that you find that works.
I will say this, however, since we know it was a kernel/modem/rom change in the actual code. We (RWilco, Garwynn, TD ( I believe and others)) found that the wimax settings that were changed in the latest releases of ICS stock leaks which means if you ran all three parts together - wimax performance was definitely noticeable.
My suggestion for you - Head to RWilco's repository and try the different modems (paying attention to run the correct one with the build of your kernel/rom)
Stock GB and ICS TW Roms - Mix and match GB and ICS era modems to your hearts content.
Stock JB TW Roms - Use only JB TW era modems.
AOSP/AOKP - (For now, may change when JB source drops) Use GB or ICS era modems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great post!
Thank you Sir.

ntrain2k said:
Great post!
Thank you Sir.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Welcome. :beer:

Awesome reply. I'm in east tn..gb27 is rocking...for what its worth
sent from a ComAdosed Jellyverse E4GT