KZIWarrior
Silver Member
Edit, oh sorry, you don't own the D2G, yet...
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Galaxy Tab Firmeware Shows Locked Bootloader
- Thread starter WenWM
- Start date
Edit, oh sorry, you don't own the D2G, yet...
joeybarclay
Member
the pic should say less possibilities on the go
I think everyone is misunderstanding the issue being presented. If you read the post about the ROM's listed, they are customer built ROM's NOT original ROM's. This is a ROM development that included those boot loaders not the manufacture.
[KERNEL][BETA][24.12.2010][CF-Root v1.4] JM6/A/C/D - su+busybox+CWM3/RFS - xda-developers
[KERNEL][BETA][24.12.2010][CF-Root v1.4] JM6/A/C/D - su+busybox+CWM3/RFS - xda-developers
KZIWarrior
Silver Member
Did the bootloader(s) not come from Samsung? The original post kind of pointed that way:
If you follow my postings - and there's certainly enough of them - my principle complaint with Motorola lies with their malware OTA updates, which, if accepted and installed, play havoc with rooted phones. I found out the hard way about their malicious updates AFTER I had purchased the second Motorola phone, the Droid X. My third phone, the Dinc, is mercifully an HTC product, and was relatively easy to root, and the one HTC OTA update was defeated by the presence of CWRecovery on the Dinc.
Let's look at the Droid X, which Motorola released this summer. Let's look at the looked, encrypted bootloader. That part is pretty pathetic, but no biggie - there's work-arounds for their handiwork - and then there's their surprise package - the Booby-Trap. They're efuse thingy caused my Droid X to totally lock up. Fortunately, I have a friend who is a for real cell phone technician/engineer, and he was able (spending about six hours) to restore the factory setting. Now what reason, other than malicious nastiness would Motorola have for putting the efuse into a phone they sell?
If an auto manufacturer did something similar, you don't think they'd be looking at civil and maybe criminal charges? What, in your opinion is the defense for Motorola's actions? I'm really curious to hear a rousing defense of The Evil Empire and their OTA updates that screw with people's rooted phones, and their booby-trapped boot loaders.
-Mike
KZIWarrior
Silver Member
On the contrary 'their efuse thingy' didn't cause the phone to do anything it wasn't designed not to do (in the presence of non approved software it kept the phone from booting until approved software was present as a security measure to protect the data on the device (their argument not mine since I'm playing devil's advocate)) though granted the it could have gotten a little messy depending on what YOU did. The eFuse technology is an attempt to 'secure' the phone making it more attractable to business users (or rather the IT departments which support the devices). BlackBerry has been doing similar things for years. There are BlackBerry models that are designed for highly secured networks that are EXTREMELY hard to crack (and well I don't follow RIM there used to be at least one or two that were all but impossible) so the precedent(s) for such actions have been around for a while (though granted Google/HTCs course with the Nexus1 was arguable a better way to go, but it didn't really 'secure' the phone).
As for your reference to the cars it would be more akin to you putting a turbo on your car then getting someone that didn't know what they were doing to edit the timing and ignition programing and screwing it up so your car wouldn't start, then crying to the manufacturer about it. Had you put on a 'signed' or 'approved' ROM the eFuse would not have activated just as if you replaced the fuel rail (more appropriate for modern car) with an stock or OEM replacement.
You keep coming back to the point of me - or one of the other victims of Motorola's actions - going back to *them*, or Verizon to correct the problem. That was the furthest thing from my mind. Having gotten caught in their web, I sought help from a qualified party (my friend, the cell phone engineer), in an effort to get the problem resolved. My phone, my friend, my money. After that, I decided that Motorola was not a company I wanted to have any further dealings with - no more phones purchased (two is more than enough) no more of their OTA garbage - I'll rely on custom roms for new features.
The part of your reply that I "snipped" for reasons of space, was a reasonable defense of behavior that I still consider to border on criminal, but I find the argument about the victims going back to the perpetrators and asking them to "please" fix the problem that THEY created to be just plain silly. None the less, thanks for an intelligent response.
-Mike
KZIWarrior
Silver Member
You keep coming back to the point of me - or one of the other victims of Motorola's actions - going back to *them*, or Verizon to correct the problem. That was the furthest thing from my mind. Having gotten caught in their web, I sought help from a qualified party (my friend, the cell phone engineer), in an effort to get the problem resolved. My phone, my friend, my money. After that, I decided that Motorola was not a company I wanted to have any further dealings with - no more phones purchased (two is more than enough) no more of their OTA garbage - I'll rely on custom roms for new features.
The part of your reply that I "snipped" for reasons of space, was a reasonable defense of behavior that I still consider to border on criminal, but I find the argument about the victims going back to the perpetrators and asking them to "please" fix the problem that THEY created to be just plain silly. None the less, thanks for an intelligent response.
-Mike
Huh, didn't mean to imply you want back to them to fix it. Actually I applaud you for NOT going to VZW or Moto and trying to scam them as so many people have. I have no problem with anyone doing anything they want to their phones as long as they don't expect the companies to replace them. And I do agree that their policies aren't the best possible alternative but oh well. Sadly I think this is going to become the norm for most all devices. I do wish more companies would take the Nexus 1 route though.
KZIWarrior
Silver Member
A quick Google search is your friend:
Unlock Nexus S Bootloader [How to Guide] | Redmond Pie
No word on if it will be like the Nexus 1 (i.e. void your warranty, the screen shot didn't say anything about it).
We have to hope that the Good Guys (the fine hackers at XDA, and our friends at this and other Forums) keep undoing the evil that Motorola and their twisted companions keep spreading. Additionally, we should investigate any legal avenues that may exist to try to put a stop to the Evil Empires spreading malware and trojans with their OTA updates.
-Mike
Not necessarily - the original Nexus 1 was hampered by being offered only on T-Mobil, which is not the snappiest phone provider. I considered jumping from Verizon to T-Mobil, just to get my hands on that phone, but in the end stayed with Verizon. My point is that Verizon will probably never again let a phone with an unlocked boot loader onto their system and the presence of an unlocked phone on a minor network (like T-Mobile) will not spur sales. What you'd need would be a Nexus 1 like phone, being offered on Verizon, Sprint or AT&T.
-Mike