[Ezekeel (OP)]

There are several kernel tweaks implemented by various devs that require/support adjustment of some sort of parameters. As an interface a dev usually adds some additional entries to the sysfs. When writing a GUI/frontend for this sysfs interface one simply reads/writes a value from/to these sysfs entries.

Around a year ago one CM team dev (which shall remained unnamed) did start to take kernel tweaks that are out there from other independent kernel devs and to re-implement them under an incompatible interface. His goal was to unify the sysfs interface across different devices so when implementing a GUI in the CM ROM Control the CM devs could use the same sysfs hook. This meant less work for the CM devs since they could use the same code in the ROM across different devices without modification.

However on the other hand that also meant that for each of those devices there now were two incompatible implementations for the same functionality which in most cases could not be both simultaneously added to the kernel. And while some kernel devs stuck to the original implementation, others adopted the CM version to be compatible with the CM ROM Controls. So this practice of CM did lead to an additional artificial fragmentation for those devices resulting in several negative consequences for both independent kernel devs and also the common users.

For kernel devs this means that they are forced to make a decision which implementation to support which practically means to decide which GUI tools to break since these are normally only compatible to one implementation. The original kernel dev of these ripped-off tweaks are hit the hardest since some of them have put out apps on the market to fund their work. So when other kernel devs adapt the CM flavor their apps will no longer work with these kernels.

On the other hand there is the common user which now has the additional problem to keep track which flavor is implemented in the kernel he is using and which GUI tools work with it. This results in unnecessary confusion which again leads to people complaining to the kernel devs that this or that GUI tool/ROM Control is not working.

As one can see the decisions CM has made work out fine for CM themself, however independent kernel devs and essentially the entire community gets the short end of the stick.

In February I contacted that one CM dev who was reponsible for these incompatible re-implementations and I explained my point of view, however he was not willing to cooperate. So early March Imoseyon, Francisco, Morfic and me contacted the CM team leaders. The reponse from the CM team was friendly, they seemed to be willing to cooperate and promises were made to get this problem resolved. Unfortunately it became clear that these promises were not sincere since after giving us a run-around for two entire month nothing at all has happened (http://h11.abload.de/img/cm11t89f.jpg).

At the end of these two month of fooling around with us and wasting our time the CM team did inform us that not only they will not revert the changes they made to fix the mess and confusion they caused but also that for the future they reserve the right to take kernel tweaks from other independent devs out there and re-implement them under incompatible interfaces (http://h11.abload.de/img/cm2evk65.jpg).

For kernel devs in practise this means that one cannot release a new tweak without fearing that CM takes it and reimplements it under an incompatible interface creating another mess. So for the future if one wants to implement a new functionality one better makes sure to use the same sysfs interface that CM has defined at standard. Whether this is intended or not by CM, this will be the practical end result. And having that threat always lingering in the background when one releases a new tweak is simply not acceptable.

We tried to avoid the drama that comes with publicly critizing other developers and showed a lot of restraint and patience in working out a compromise with the CM team in private, however as anyone can see from the published communications our effort clearly have reached a dead end.

We strongly feel that this is an important issue not only for us but also other independent kernel devs and the entire community and we thus feel responsible to bring an end to this hurtful practise adopted by the CM team of creating additional unneccessary fragmentation. So we turn to you - the community - to ask you to voice your concerns to the CM team.

[ThehulKK]

If I cannot use my favorite kernel on CM9 then I'll just stop using their ROM. If they want to be egocentric pricks they can, Linux is open source, but it's not fair that they implement tweaks from other developers, not give them proper credit and then make their system incompatible to that same kernel. That's what I understood from reading the conversations, and they will get my email soon.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[franciscofranco]

ThehulKK, on 23 May 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

If I cannot use my favorite kernel on CM9 then I'll just stop using their ROM. If they want to be egocentric pricks they can, Linux is open source, but it's not fair that they implement tweaks from other developers, not give them proper credit and then make their system incompatible to that same kernel. That's what I understood from reading the conversations, and they will get my email soon.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

It's much worse than that a credit matter (I personally couldn't care less about credits). It's how it hurts the community.

[samthe2can]

Email sent. Its extremely sad to hear that this is happening in the Android community, it goes against what I believe android is really about.

Is there any other way we can help out?

Edited by samthe2can, 23 May 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[phone_user]

I remember Voodoo and BLN in NS. CM bah!

Color Control for GN,

The Kernels using Ezekeel's Color Control

GLaDOS / franco / Trinity / Lean / Popcorn / Air

vs

The Kernels using CM's Color Control

CM / CMPlus / faux123 / JameBond / FuguMod

Again, CM bah!

[Ezekeel (OP)]

Yeah it is really sad that it has come to this. The part that saddens me the most is that we were not able to work out a compromise with CM in private, but instead they chose to screw around with us for two month wasting our time. This is not the kind of respectful treatment I expect among Android devs. We should be working together instead of fighting over this.

[nexus.prime]

I will delete "CM" in my nandroid backup list :)

[ThehulKK]

nexus.prime, on 23 May 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

I will delete "CM" in my nandroid backup list :)

Send them an email too

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[AshG]

After a long discussion among members of the Administrative staff, we've decided to leave this thread open for discussion with the CM team member's email address removed. There were concerns brought up that some messages might be sent that approach the situation in a less constructive and informative manner than Ezekeel intended (i.e. obscenity-ridden tirades, insults, etc). This prompted the thread to be moved for review. Those of you so inclined to email members of the CyanogenMod team will do so whether or not their email address is listed here; it is our hope that having to go and find it for yourself will give you time to think calmly and rationally in composing your comments.

There are many people with strong feelings on both sides of this issue. We encourage you to find middle ground and discuss this in a mature and courteous manner.

[franciscofranco]

AshG, on 23 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

After a long discussion among members of the Administrative staff, we've decided to leave this thread open for discussion with the CM team member's email address removed. There were concerns brought up that some messages might be sent that approach the situation in a less constructive and informative manner than Ezekeel intended (i.e. obscenity-ridden tirades, insults, etc). This prompted the thread to be moved for review. Those of you so inclined to email members of the CyanogenMod team will do so whether or not their email address is listed here; it is our hope that having to go and find it for yourself will give you time to think calmly and rationally in composing your comments.

There are many people with strong feelings on both sides of this issue. We encourage you to find middle ground and discuss this in a mature and courteous manner.

Seems reasonable. At least this is moved back to where it belongs so everyone can read and share to one another.