yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Nexus 5 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] jsgates:
I was checking the forums yesterday and it appears the Optipop ROM thread has been locked. I'm assuming the ROM developer isn't working on it anymore, and I have been having some random issues lately on Nexus 5. I haven't seen much advantage to using F2FS file system on my device and am not overly impressed with Uber Kernel. I've only been staying on the ROM because it has an exceptional Dark Material theme build. I'm thinking of going back to the latest stock ROM with Xposed and Gravitybox since it's working again on Lollipop. My only issue there is the lack of a Dark Material theme. Regular Material is too much white and too bright. I'm also considering Cataclysm ROM. Is there a way to get Dark Material theme on stock via Xposed or anything? or will I have to stay with a custom ROM for now. As far as the kernel goes, whatever ROM I use, I plan to go back to Franco Kernel or give Code Blue Kernel a try. Thanks for any recommedations or input.
[Nexus 5 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] zerosum0:
Do that you are thinking. Stocks best with Xposed etc. Under themes there is a dark theme for 5.1.1its for xTraSmooth but works great on stock. Change the kernel though. I'm a fan of Exposed
[Nexus 5 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] jsgates:
Well I'm back of a clean installation of Stock 5.1.1 Lollipop with Xposed and Gravitybox and the phone is screaming again. Flashed Franco Kernel again and battery life improved. I guess Uber is great for some, but I seem to have had the best luck with Franco's Kernel. Thanks for the assistance.
[Nexus 5 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] [hfm]:
Stock
[Upgrading, Modifying and Unlocking] eduard007is:
Hy guys can i please have a little help? OK so my problem is that i have and JASJAR pocket pc that is made in Italy and i have a dificult to instal and english WM5 on it. With original roms from I-Mate site i cant install nothing else then an italian WM5. Can someone tell me a solution pls? With respect
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] agriz:
S4 is an old phone. I saw it today for the price of 16K in online site.

Is it good choice to buy that old phone for 16K?

Please advice

16K in Indian currency
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Strephon Alkhalikoi:
A little high compared to prices on Swappa, but not bad. However, I don't believe you have access to Swappa in India so it's really not a bad deal.
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] myawan:
If it is brand new, buy it otherwise not.

Sent from my GT-I9505
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] agriz:
I am planning to buy it from flipkart.

They have mentioned one year warranty for phone and six months for accessories.
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Strephon Alkhalikoi:
If you have a warranty, ₹16000 (US$252.23) isn't bad at all. I'd get it, simply because it will be quite useful for several years to come, even with its older specs.
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] agriz:
My friend is telling me that zenfone2 is best choice for this price range.

He said, the processor in India is exynos, not snapdragon.

Is exynos not a good processor?

I checked the details. It is octo core. Not eight cores work on the same time.

Please advice.
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Strephon Alkhalikoi:
If the phone being offered is an I9505, then it has a quad-core Snapdragon processor. The I9500 is the one that has the Exynos processor. The I9505 has better custom ROM support, so it will be more likely to get the next version of Android when it's released, even if Samsung will no longer provide updates. So your friend is right, if the S4 being offered is an I9500. So what model number is the S4 you're looking at?
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] agriz:
Sir,

This is the model id

Model ID	GT-i9500DKYINU
[Galaxy S 4 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Strephon Alkhalikoi:
Your friend, as I said, is right. The one thing he probably forgot to add is that the I9500 does not have LTE capability. In India I don't believe the lack of LTE matters at this time, but if traveling abroad, the LTE is a plus.
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] iTzz_KAMIKAZE:
I'm on CyanogenMod 12.1 Nightly 2015.07.03 The auto rotate does not work what so ever. It worked in previous ROMs. I downloaded a app that calibrates the gyroscope and accelerometer, and it showed no values for x,y, and z. To make sure it wasn't the app I downloaded another. Same result.

Anyone else have this problem?

I want to downgrade to a previous nightly(but not too far back) but I don't want to go flash down the list until it works.

Is there a fix?

If you are on a CM 12.1 nightly and your auto rotate works, can you reply with build date.

Thanks.
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] cg6ry79m@gmail.com:
I'm struggling with this problem still. I have talked about it in another thread. I have tried everything short of going to another ROM provider (like Oxygen). It looks like it is actually the accelerometer and compass that are not starting up correctly.

The good news is that the auto-rotate does come back but I have not found the magic sequence that consistently revives it.

Generally when I re-flash the 20150515 firmware then reboot a couple of times to comes back. But that is no guarantee.

It is driving me crazy. It should be an easy fix (but what do I know).

The fact that it is intermittent and that multiple reboots or fresh/repeated ROM/firmware re-flashes bring the accelerometer/auto-rotate/compass subsystem back to life tells me it is not a hardware issue.

I beseech someone to look at this and get a fix or a consistent work around.

cg6ry79m

---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------

P.s. ... Right after I wrote the reply above, I rebooted for like the 10th time and viola, the accelerometer/auto-rotate function returned to normal. It rarely survives a reboot though. And since I'm a compulsive CyanogenMod nightly flasher, I'll have the same issue tomorrow I'm sure.
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Chronzy:
I had the same problem, reflashing firmware files one by one in fastboot fixed the gyroscope permanently for me.
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] micemicerabies:
Can you detail the process you used to get the accelerometer functioning again?

Do you have to reflash the firmware files with every nightly update?

What file are you using to get the firmware from? Standard nightly or from COS12/Oxygen?

Note: Just got the nightly working by doing what Chronzy said. I reflashed the following files from the latest nightly.

sbl1.mbn

emmc_appsboot.mbn

rpm.mbn

tz.mbn

logo.bin

static_nvbk.bin

boot.img

sdi.mbn

Perhaps you can shed some light as to which files are the exact ones needed?
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Chronzy:
Good sounds like you got it working. It worked for me on every rom after I flashed the 20150505 firmware. In case you run into the problem again, or for anyone else looking for the fix:

Fastboot commands, #8: http://xdaforums.com/oneplus-one/general/guides-bacon-timmaaas-how-to-guides-t2839471

*Only flash the first 8 commands listed; do not need system, boot, cache, or recovery. Those might wipe your phone. Not sure exactly which one does the trick out of the first 8.

20150505 firmware: https://www.androidfilehost.com/?fid=23991606952597817
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] micemicerabies:
I DL'd a copy of the 20150505 just in case.

I tried flashing the firmware that came from CyanogenOS12 from Oneplus using the above method and have also had success.

What is the difference between their firmware and the cm-nightly firmware? It seems like using the stock firmware would offer more stability for the rom though I could be wrong.

Can this be marked as solved? or do we need to wait for the OP's success?
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] cg6ry79m@gmail.com:
I'd be interested in knowing if you flash nightly builds and if this "fix" survived nightly build flashes. It all seems way to voodoo to me. I am surprised this is still an issue. Mine still fails randomly and a series of voodoo actions and reboots usually bring it back ... But no consistent sequence works for me.

Do the fixes noted above survive reboots for you folks?
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] micemicerabies:
So far this has fixed the autorotate issue for me and does survive reboots.

I have flashed these files from OxygenOS, COS12 and the CM nightly with success.

On a strange note my NFC is acting up now. This could be due to me screwing around too much. Im going to clean flash everything and try again. I want to find the perfect mix to get everything working.
[ONE Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Syaani:
Finally! I only flashed latest bacon firmware and auto rotate is working after 4 months.

http://xdaforums.com/oneplus-one/general/ref-oneplus-one-modem-collection-t2858734/page108
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
Reading around I've found some passing mention of Block C, how bootloaders should be unlocked on it and such because of Open Use terms set by google. I created a petition here: https://www.change.org/p/federal-co...-circumventing-security-ver?just_created=true that although it may not relate completely to XDA in every sense, needs support I feel. An XDA article on the topic may be found here for more information on the subject: http://www.xda-developers.com/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/

Thanks in advance for any support, hopefully we can work around having to hack into the thing(s) and just get what we should've gotten all along.

Cheers :fingers-crossed:
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] veedubsky:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
Question: would a bootloader be considered a "user application" in the sense that an application would be software? Or as firmware does it not extend to that?

BTW, here is a copy of my FCC complaint and text within. If anyone who is reading this has experience in the field and any pointers or arguments I could make that would be great:

For a great majority of phones currently sold by Verizon, many of which utilize Block C of the 700Mhz spectrum, the bootloader is locked. The original terms of Open Access allows for two exceptions only, the second being that the device must comply with other regulations, and the first that limitations may be made for "management or protection of the licensee's network." Locked bootloaders are in violation of Open Access, and thus the response from Verizon is that the allowance of such modification could cause breach in security, and thus such restrictions are necessary for that management. The counterargument to this is in part that phones from outside the network, sold by other manufacturers, as well as some sold through Verizon itself by certain manufacturers do not have any such restrictions. This lack in continuity wholly breaches any argument that security of the network could by improved by locking those devices in such a way that the original terms outweigh those exceptions.

Next comment by me:

Upon receiving reply from the subject of complaint, I have not thusfar been given what I would deem any substantial evidence that it is 1) a method of securing the licensee's network that is reasonable or consistently applied in any effective manner 2) not placing substantial burden on the customer relative to that originally applied by the OEM and 3) that it does not restrict the ability of any consumer to install applications (software, by nature including the operating system and related components) excluding for reasonable network management. This final point is troubling as of yet for the very reason that no specific examples or evidence was given to prove that it is necessary or that any plausible abuse or breach in security of the network may be exclusively performed by an end user with only a device with an unrestricted base firmware

And my last comment as of yet:

Thusfar, I have not yet received any written transcription, summary, or identifiable confirmation of receipt by the fcc from Verizon of the contact over phone that I have had with Verizon over this matter. I still find no reasonable objection to, or exception from, the contents of paragraph 222 and footnote 500 of FCC-07-132A1 that would allow for the restriction placed on these devices. Reasonable network management, as quoted as an exception by Verizon, has not been backed up or supported by any example or feasible hypothetical that a locked bootloader provides, in a direct manner, any noticeable or even quantifiably existent protection to the integrity of the carriers system over that of a phone without the restriction.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] Spartan117H3:
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.

If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.

The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
Also, a major distinction in footnote 502 vs 500:

502: We also note that wireless service providers may continue to use their choice of operating systems, and are not

required to modify their network infrastructure or device-level operating systems to accommodate particular devices

or applications. Device manufacturers and applications developers are free to design their equipment and

applications to work with providers’ network infrastructure and operating systems, and must be given the applicable

parameters as part of the standards provided to third parties.

500: We note that the Copyright Office has granted a three-year exemption to the anti-circumvention provisions of

Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for “computer programs in the form of firmware that enable

wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is

accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.” It found

that software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers to make non-infringing use of the

software in those handsets. 17 Fed. Reg. 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006). We also note that a court appeal of the exemption

ruling is ongoing.

1st point: a distinction between the operating system, and "firmware" as a "program", and by extension an "application"...but not necessary to argue as it, within 500, notes that "software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers...handsets," and although this exception may have expired the original text acts as a type of precedent that establishes 1. that firmware is independent from the operating system and 2. that its restriction does not conform to "open access" or constitute "reasonable network management"
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] veedubsky:
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well :P
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] veedubsky:
Also with all the help here and rescue resources (also knowing that there is that SLIGHT chance to completely brick your phone) you can almost reverse anything... Except some people freak out and first thing they do is call VZW
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] Spartan117H3:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?

I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.

They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.

I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] Spartan117H3:
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:

UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).

Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.

But then there's this:

If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] Spartan117H3:
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] Spartan117H3:
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] Spartan117H3:
Couldn't they claim something as simple as, a keylogger on a phone from a corporate/military person which would impact Exchange? Dunno. But that could be done with root. Bootloader makes it possible to root phones that aren't usually rootable though.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
Lol...I think that's where user discretion comes into play. The thing about rooted phones is that on most other carriers the only thing they could do beyond the normal that would affect them is pinging their network more, allowing tethering, and basically just other stuff about download and upload speeds. Verizon already needs to, and does, allow all this because of very specific terms to allow for them in the regulations.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] Spartan117H3:
There's a lot of things that should be changed. Tethering is free on other carriers within the data allotment, but they've changed that already if I'm not mistaken with their edge or more everything or whatever they call it, (I'm on UDP so I have no idea). Speeds definitely need to be amped. It would be nice if prices were cut. My UDP lines are cheaper than their newer plans, and considering they're getting rid of phones, it makes it even worse for those who are off UDP, because now they have to buy their phone straight up just like we do, except they have a premium for their data.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] KennyG123:
Actually they could care less. It is such a small percentage of returns that it doesn't compare to the millions of dollars they have gotten in military, government and corporate contracts to provide the most secure phones in the industry plus the power of the best US coverage. They have even managed, along with AT&T to secure the new S6 Edge+ and Note 5 against rooting...as of now if the phone is rooted it will not boot.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] dreamwave:
That should seriously just be part of the samsung Kies program, something that can be turned on not on by default...oh wait I think that's what they do on many phones like the s5 that come from carriers other than at&t and Verizon :P

They have ways built in that can act as security features if the consumer wants, but when carriers activate them to lock their customers down that's when a line can get crossed.
[Verizon Galaxy S 5 General] KennyG123:
You are only thinking about individual consumers like you and I. I am talking about big contracts where the companies, government or military purchase the phone and hand it to the employee. They do not want their employees having the option to turn it off.