yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] sub69:
Cheers, I forgot about that one. Saw it in the Wiki a while back, and I flashed it briefly, but I've always struggled to customise Cingular ROM's in the past because of the amount of time it takes to get rid of every last little bit of their "tweaking". So I ignored it - partly because I assumed the slightly increased build number was only to do with the Cingular customisations.

I'll just have to wait until something new comes along from HTC.

I used to love the convenience of picking up an "almost perfect" cooked ROM to tweak for my own use, but it seems that chefs don't want us to do that these days. Thats their choice I suppose - BUT (and I'll get crucified for this!) it smacks of double standards when the "real" hard work was pinched from Microsoft/HTC in the first place.

I'm not trying to start an argument by the way! I just really wish that I could actually benefit from the various chefs' hard work, rather than having to do everything from scratch because of the restrictions they impose...

Only one chef that I know of (may have been kyphur?) still releases unprotected ROM's - maybe I just need to buy him a Touch Pro!?!
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
Here is what a collaegue chef has said:

"I'm not a big fan of people out there that protect "their" rom, which I think goes against the principle of forums and communities. Therefore I'm not protecting it against unpacking so that anyone can learn and share their knowledge. Of course, if you appreciate my work and want to buy me a drink, donation is welcome"

Thanks Spocky!!!

That's what it is all about indeed! But alot of cooks' egos are getting to big. Do not get me wrong, I really appreciate their efforts but by protecting rom's this way you don't give beginning cooks like myself a chance to learn it... And I think XDA is a place where we should learn from each other!
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] mrvanx:
What you will find is that in the process of tweaking the ROMs the dsm and rgu files are removed as they represent around 200 files which sit in \Windows doing nothing. The more files in \Windows the more sluggish access to it is. Just happens that a side effect of this technique is that the dsm and rgu files are not present to allow a reconstruction of the ROM back into package form. Theres nothing wrong with ASKING for help when you require it about cooking etc...
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
Thank you very much for clarifying this issue! I was really getting annoyed by being under the impression that it was done on purpose.

Two facts/questions remain:

1) While dumping a rom (will not mention it's chef) my kitchen command line gave the message: "cook your own ROM!". So that is defenitly done on purpose... I regret that...

2) But with the pro's new way of cooking how can I as amateur cook get my hands on for example a 20755.1.4.0 build (XIP/SYS)??

Anyway again thanks for your explanation!
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] sorg:
There are no any official ROMs for any device with build higher than 19971.

All these 20xxx ROMs can be simple fake - old builds with patched version number.

There is no any serious evidence that all these 20xxx builds are real. Only "trustful" words from some "elite" cookers ;)

So, you may trust or not trust. I'm personally, don't trust any build if there is no any official (at least official beta) ROMs with such build. There are so many 100% fake builds are floating around.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] mrvanx:
1) the tool used to compress the dsms into one single package (thus MANY rgu and dsm file compressed into a single dsm file) generates this string, by default it is "BETA go cook your own ROM" or something to that effect but a simple hex editor can change it to something nicer such as "dsms compressed, sorry".

2) These builds (regardless of what people will claim) are genuine and the tool to edit the version numbers (which are encrypted afaik) is VERY rare, too much hassle than its worth to edit ALL the version numbers it would take AGES. They may not have been released on the devices officially but none-the-less they are out there and they are genuine WM6.1 builds. Each to thier own, but the newer builds DO have some serious improvments over the stock releases on the raphael.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] live4nothing:
I had asked your second question myself for a while and then I discover that many websites (in chinese though) such as xbeta.cn or 5dpda, they have the latest builds (many maybe fake) floating around. You can get one of them there. Or you can go to the Nike sub-forum, I find they have a nice storage of the most recent builds (such as 20748 to 20755), which are ported to NIke, you can re-port them using the same technique. My advice is to do a quick search of the whole forum, not just your device's, every one a while to check the newest build. Hope this help.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] dcd1182:
not true. there are genuine samsung i900/i908 ROMs containing 20270.1.3.1 and 20721.1.4.0 (and others). however I have not seen any genuine ROM containing 20748+.

no offense sir, but i have never bought into this one.

it has been shown that using filemanager to scroll in the \windows folder is more sluggish with more files. many people have begun using this excuse as a reason for removing dsm and rgu files. however, i have seen no evidence to say that the device is more sluggish in general when more files exist in \windows. (and i have tested myself)

i mean no offense here either, but this statement is unfair. chefs can do whatever they please, and users have no right to be upset about their decisions.

(going way off on a tangent here...)

i agree that this community is based on sharing and intentionally making the process harder for another person is counterproductive. however, expecting every experienced chef to cater to every end user's desire to learn the process is the opposite extreme. taking up experienced chef's time to do nothing but train inexperienced chefs would also be counterproductive. in example, i generally do not answer questions on here after the answer has already been made readily available. if you have a legitimate question that you made an honest effort to answer on your own and were unable to, i would be glad to help, and so would most chefs.

i didnt learn how to customize a ROM by dumping other people's custom ROMs. i spent a year searching and reading forums to no end. the information i searched for and read hasnt gone anywhere, and its not my responsibility to nicely organize and summarize it for the next guy. you cant call out chefs because they arent making it easier for you than it was for them.

that said, i don't protect my ROMs.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
1) which program do they use to compress the dsm's? I want to see if it makes a change...

2) I must agree to you about that they can do what they want, but for the part about making it easier I disagree. If it takes me a long time to figure somthing out I will share that knowledge on fora like this just to save others from putting the same effort into it as I did myself. (dutch expression: don't invent the wheel twice...) That's what the idea is isn't it? In my opinion it's selfish to think: I had too work hard so they will also have to do that (we are not 5 year olds are we?). And of course there will always be people who will 'steal a rom' and act as if they made it themselves, but that will be only a few. The majority would be pleased that they can 'finetune' a great chef's rom to their own needs!

I also searched for a year and read thousands of threads. I also started with shipped ROMS. But now I'm getting the hang of it a little and then it's dissapointing that you are not allowed to for example to port a newer xip/sys, to build your OWN cooked rom, because they do not want to share (not all like MrVanx mentionned). But it is just for argument's sake because I found a source for the 20755.1.4.0 XIP and SYS already. And if I can make somebody happy with those, I will be glad to share...
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] jcespi2005:
all_packages_to_one.exe

Included in Raphael Kitchen ;)

Cheers
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] dcd1182:
well that is kind of my point. if the information is already out there, why should i duplicate it? so that someone else doesn't have to search as much? i see your point as well, but what im saying is, there has to be some middle ground. theres an extreme of being selfish, and theres an extreme of spending all of your time "reinventing the wheel" being generous.

it is a moot point to me. i will share something with you here: porting from a port is more trouble than its worth. stick with shipped ROMs. you wont have to piss with whatever somebody else mucked up and you will get your dsm and rgu's.

you will find an aku 1.4.0 build in a shipped rom here. I do not remember which ROM contained it, most of them are 20270.1.3.1.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] mrvanx:
There is a difference between files in \windows which are part of the ROM and files you have put in there during runtime, I and many chefs have seen the evidence to show that reducing the number of files present in the rom in \windows improves access times. Simply popping files in there as you run the ROM isnt an accurate test.

Since the ROM is easily dumpable anyway regardless of the rgu/dsm files it is quite a poor argument that the technique is there to prevent users gaining knowledge of the cooking process.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] dcd1182:
i'm quite familiar with the filesystem, but i do not follow what you refer to as access times? accessing what, how? i mean yes its going to slow down browsing \windows in your filemanager of choice. the question is, what does that matter? is there any effect on everyday operation? i have seen none.

how are you gauging these access times? precisely what actions does your benchmark perform?

when i next have some free time, i will spb benchmark a device with dsm/rgu in \windows, and again without, and post results.

not trying to be argumentative, rather just want to get to the root of the \windows access times debate. i generally stay out of these...
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] mrvanx:
I/We have noticed a general improvement with the filesystem benchmark (coincidently in spb) when rgus are removed and dsms are compressed, ofcourse opening \Windows is quicker but Im not sure what the physical reason is for improved filesystem performance. Its not to the extent of some ROMs in the diamond forum which manage to pull off a benchmark of over 1000 (strangely high filesystem score??) but definatly an improvement of 10% wouldnt be uncommon when this is carried out.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] pfcsabre:
coming from early tweaking of manila 2d, performance is better when the images are being read outside of windows directory. IMO, less clutter in windows directory, more performance gain. Not just for manila 2d, but all other apps. that's why i'm also considering to cook my own rom also.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] pfcsabre:
lol, i've just backtracked this one on my TP, i've also seen this!! :) (no offense to the chef, but nice build you have there-- there's not much clutter :)
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] dcd1182:
thank you, i appreciate the details. i will test this way and prove it to myself. i have thought that this was a lame excuse being used and would like to disprove that :)

since its relevant here now...(sorry to OP we are off topic)...i have changed to using the following in my batch. if a chefs concern is protecting his own additions, its not necessary to destroy the OS in the process.

attrib .\temp\dump\ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-dcd*.* -s -r -h
del .\temp\dump\ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-dcd*.*

attrib .\temp\dump\*.dsm +s +r +h
attrib .\temp\dump\*.rgu +s +r +h
attrib .\temp\dump\mxip*.* +s +r +h

obviously my packages follow a naming scheme and microsoft's do not use fffffff..

ok, but the behavior being discussed here...well if you cook your own rom, youre going to have a copy of every single file included anywhere in \windows. it sounds like what you want is a cab that installs elsewhere.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] pfcsabre:
OT also: I've just pointed out one specific example of performance behavior when applications are reading in the windows\ directory with too much files vs. less files :) One of my point/goal is when I'll be building my own ROM, as much as possible, build a ROM with less files in windows\ directory.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] sub69:
Yeah, thanks for all the comments for/against protection. But with the greatest respect, at the end of the day, it's doing me (and merten3000 - and others like us) no good whatsoever!?!

As I said, I really didn't want to start this sort of debate because I can't be bothered to argue with chefs who have made their minds up. They've made their choice to protect their ROM's, end of story.

I've PM'd chefs, politely asking for dsm, rgu, package.sof files for my own personal use, and have received no joy. Again, that's their choice, but it's certainly nothing to do with reducing the \Windows directory by a couple of hundred tiny files, is it?

What I'm concerned about is that previously I used to be able to take an almost perfect ROM and (using information from this forum) I could make some fairly minor tweaks to it for my own needs.

These days that's just not possible, and in my opinion that's a massive step backwards for both the casual community, and the promotion of both WM and XDA-Devs. Hopefully the current way of thinking is only temporary, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Given all the time in the world, I'd love to be able to port, tweak, perfect, and release my own unprotected ROMs, but that isn't feasible so I have to rely on the generosity of others to do most of that work for me. Unfortunately, that seems to be (almost exclusively) a thing of the past?

If I sound like a spoilt brat wanting everything for nothing, then I sincerely apologise, but I can honestly say that I wouldn't have started cooking my own personal ROM's, I wouldn't have gotten quite as involved with my devices, and therefore I wouldn't have been able to help others as much as I have done - in my own limited way - if the situation had always been like this. I'm quite sure I'm not alone, either...

Ok, got that off my chest, I'm off to bed!
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] sorg:
I would like to make proposal to reduce this mess of builds.

How about to make thread/forum where all new OFFICIAL ROMs with new builds will be posted.

If there is no any official ROM with particular build then this build should be treated as "probable-fake" build. Cooker can claim whatever he wants (that he can not publish original ROM, he saw this but original owner refused to give it to him and other blah-blah-blah) - it doesn't matter.

Very simple rule: If there is official ROM with this build then build is trustful. No offical ROMs - no trust.

This rule will help very much. Today, almost everyone little knowlegeable can cook his own ROM.

For me, last year of xda-developers is year of big mess and garbage :(
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] monx®:
I'm very attracted to this. Base ROM, protected..

Jerpelea is one of the OS build provider is u hv time to find it here.

There is no protected ROM (at least for me). Removing IMGFS signature, reversmode, all_package_to_one, yadiyada.. Just use all the sources here to reverse the thing u called protect.

There is no shorcut to succcess. Read this carefully before u reply.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
Thnx Monx,

I totally agree with that post you linked to.

Like I said earlier in this thread. I spent almost a year trying/learning to cook roms (porting included). But the problem was I could not find a source for new ingredients...until I indeed found jerpelea ;)

Now am cooking again...

But for the reversing of the 'protections'. I searched for that but did not come very far. I guess I'm still a nOOb on that front....
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] jcespi2005:
As always ;) thanks for the usefull info...

BTW the link http://tinyurl.com/5lsbob don't work for me, any mirror?

Cheers
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] karloe:
Link for jcespi2005
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] sub69:
Played with Jerpelea's Niki kitchen for the whole of last weekend. Never quite managed to get a stable Raphael ROM from it, but in the absence of anything better I'm persevering...

Yes, reversing protection is certainly possible, but it's also a bit hit and miss - you can never quite reverse it 100% accurately unless you have the original dsm's, etc...

I'm glad I'm not the only frustrated one. It looks like

more talented people than me have also found the situation an irritation.

As for there being no shortcuts to success - I disagree. They do exist, we used to have an abundance of them, and the title of this thread mentions two of them. Unfortunately the path to success is becoming a lot longer now that they're so few and far between...

And linking to kyphur's post would suggest that in your opinion, looking for recent ROM's that I can modify for my own personal use puts me in the category of "leeching n00b who wants everything done for him"? Bit harsh, isn't it?
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
I'm trying to apply this tool on my 'privat rom', but I keep getting errors. I installed C++ (2008) like Bebe said but It starts and almost directly hangs and I get an windows error message that the program stopped working and they are looking for a solution.

Any help here?? (and yes I searched the whole forum, that's why I installed C++ ;))
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] jcespi2005:
I installed this attached VCRedist in my Vista machine and works fine for me...

Hope this helps ;)

Cheers
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
Thnx, will try and let you know!

EDIT: tried your VCRedist but no luck... still getting the error that the program stopped working...
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] no2chem:
Going further OT, i would like to note that imgfs is linked list based, so the number of files in the linked list would affect traversal speed, especially in the case of an extremely large list. According to the Microsoft patent it seems like multiple linked lists are used:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1544732.html

But in practice, I think there usually is a single linked list. List traversal would then take O(n) time, as opposed to O(log n) time for some sort of binary tree. The storage region is FAT, and as usual is prone to the problems with the FAT filesystem. In particular:

"File entries within a given directory are not kept in any particular order. When a file is opened, the table for the directory is scanned, starting at the begining, to search for the file. When a new file is created, the entire table for that directory must be scanned to determine if the file already exists. When a file is deleted, the entry for that file is cleared, but the remainder of the table is not repacked to reclaim the entry (although the entry may be reused if a new file is created). What all this means is the amount of time to open or create a file in that directory will rise linearly with the number of files in that directory. A directory with a large number of files may impact performance." -http://blogs.msdn.com/medmedia/archive/2007/01/04/fat-filesystem-performance-issues.aspx

Which, although not particularly applicable to WM, does discuss how windows CE handles files in FAT land. I have made some attempts to port exFAT to WM, but uh, CE 6 is quite different from CE5.

Anywho, what this tells us is that a lower number of files is generally better for the performance of the IMGFS/FAT32 file system. The reason why you might not see a general increase in performance is that most day-to-day tasks on WM do not involve the creation or deletion of files in the \Windows directory, and I believe (don't quote me on this) that the MS app guidelines for the designed for wm logo discourage the creation of files in that directory, with the exception of DLLs upon install.

Finally, to get back on topic-

I try to always release a kitchen with a release so people can cook their own roms and possibly make improvements. For example, I'm not too big of a fan of those touchflo3d things, but some other people are, and maybe a cook can make a nice touchflo rom off of my base. Personally, I think that many (not all) cooks that protect/encrypt their files are worried because once the secret behind their ROMS success is revealed, it is easily reproduced. Others may do it because they don't want others to steal their secrets, etc. I've run into problems with certain people editing my work and claiming it as their own, so I guess I could understand where they come from. It is, ultimately their decision. However, I feel that those who are confident with that work, that it is different and good enough that when reproduced, people will still be able identify it, have nothing to worry about.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] jcespi2005:
mmm strange issue...i can imagine you have .NET runtime too, but if you are not sure, can you install at least 2.0... Vista comes with .NET but XP don't... are you using XP?

Cheers
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] sub69:
Thanks for the reply no2chem.

I nearly wrote write a response covering topics such as secrets, community, paypal balances, and ripping off MS code. But I'd be directing it at the wrong person, so I'll save that for another day!

Look forward to seeing more of you in the Raphael forums in future though. I like the cut of your gib!
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
Nope I run vista ultimate sp1... Will try to update .net... :confused:
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] crazyC:
Mbarvian in the Kaiser forums releases his ROMs in chef friendly format. As an amateur tweaker I have found this very helpful, and it has caused me to learn stuff around ROM cooking that I would not have bothered to find out if I had not had the chance to use his ROM as a base.

He also released Kaiserchef as a kitchen.
[Touch Pro, Fuze ROM Development] merten3000:
For those who haven't seen it:

I 'created' M-Rom v1.1 (dutch). It still needs testing and maybe some genius can perfect it even more.... that's why it's UNprotected!!

LINK

Let's work together to make great roms or even the PERFECT rom (although that would be a personal oppinion I think)!!

If people would like a WWE version of M-Rom... let me know!
[Moto G50] cicciomix:
Good morningI bought a moto g50 italy but the oem developer option is not editable. so despite having received the motorola unlock code I can't unlock bootloader. is there a string in adb to activate it? Thank you
[Moto G50] sd_shadow:
Why is OEM Unlocking greyed out?
[Moto G50] cicciomix:
I have tried many times to perform the unlocking procedure. Everything perfect I get the code from motorola but the answer is always the same check oem unlocking in android setting developer Failed. I do not know what to do. the phone has been connected to wifi for a day but the oem unlock option is always not editable. Help me
[Moto G50] sd_shadow:
You did not read my thread.

It can OEM allow unlock can take 3-14 days, after connection to internet
[Moto G50] cicciomix:
Yes thanks I read and I'm waiting.even if it seems absurd to me. I'll let you know. at the moment the phone is always on connected to wifi
[Redmi Note 10] bobbrysonn:
Hello everyone. I just learned that one can debloat Redmi Note 10 without root using adb. Is there a list with the apps and services that are safe to uninstall? Or maybe a cmd batch file? Thanks in advance.