No post body was provided.
Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
161–170 of 245 posts
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#162So will Google pull the rug out from under this if it starts getting real traction?
According to comment by head graphene developer on twitter, google devs really like what they are doing and are happy about it.
Apple also recently made changes into their Mac code supposedly to help Asahi Linux team.
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#163Store brand iOS
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#164From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supporting devices is a time consuming and costly activity, and the risk of bricking an expensive device is just too high for normal users to want to try. Manufacturers are to blame. It's not a technical problem but rather a political one; manufacturers should be forced…
I'd expect the installer to support more devices over time, since /e/ officially supports 269 devices: https://support.e.foundation/devices It's promising that more and more alternative Android distributions are offering installers to make them more accessible to average phone users. On the Linux phone side, even Ubuntu Touch has an installer that supports 81 devices: https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/installer/ But, d…
That looks like a copy of the list of supported devices of lineage. I highly doubt that the e foundation can test their installer on so many devices. They (or their own developer community) would need to get access to these devices at least. I guess the only way to broaden support for the installer a lot would be to work on upstreaming it to the lineage project so that the broader community does the work for them.
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#165From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supporting devices is a time consuming and costly activity, and the risk of bricking an expensive device is just too high for normal users to want to try. Manufacturers are to blame. It's not a technical problem but rather a political one; manufacturers should be forced…
The Mediatek platforms, at least in their early days, were relatively open. The flash utility, which ran off a ROM in the SoC, meant that you could backup and restore the complete state of the device, effectively making them unbrickable. They didn't even seem to have any form of secure boot. Plenty of documentation (only available as leaked, but they didn't care much about stopping that) available if you knew where to look. Huge numbers of devices made with the same platform/reference design, and a correspondingly large (but unfortunately Chinese only) community around them. They were probably the closest to being a "standard Android device" for a while; of course, in the Western world they were mainly shunned due to their low cost and performance, while the lack of (user-hostile) security features was used as a further means of discouraging others away from them.
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd expect the installer to support more devices over time, since /e/ officially supports 269 devices: https://support.e.foundation/devices It's promising that more and more alternative Android distributions are offering installers to make them more accessible to average phone users. On the Linux phone side, even Ubuntu Touch has an installer that supports 81 devices: https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/installer/ But, d…
That looks like a copy of the list of supported devices of lineage. I highly doubt that the e foundation can test their installer on so many devices. They (or their own developer community) would need to get access to these devices at least. I guess the only way to broaden support for the installer a lot would be to work on upstreaming it to the lineage project so that the broader community does the work for them.
LineageOS currently supports 179 models, so it's not a copy of the LineageOS device list.[1][2] These projects support different selections of devices. There are devices that are supported by /e/ and not by LineageOS, and vice versa.
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#167I'll never use a custom ROM that includes microg by default. LineageOS with no gapps of any kind is my preference. I can get apps from f-droid or even aurora store, and everything I need works. I don't want any google stuff on there, not even a slightly less sketchy version.
I might be misunderstanding it, but microg is not (like the name suggests) a stripped down version of the google services. It is a reimplementation of the APIs that the google services provide to installed apps. It doesn't reuse any code (it couldn't, because the google services are not open source) and doesn't connect to google servers, afaik.
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#168From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supporting devices is a time consuming and costly activity, and the risk of bricking an expensive device is just too high for normal users to want to try. Manufacturers are to blame. It's not a technical problem but rather a political one; manufacturers should be forced…
The Mediatek platforms, at least in their early days, were relatively open. The flash utility, which ran off a ROM in the SoC, meant that you could backup and restore the complete state of the device, effectively making them unbrickable. They didn't even seem to have any form of secure boot. Plenty of documentation (only available as leaked, but they didn't care much about stopping that) available if you knew where t…
Unfortunately, the current situation is quite different. MediaTek does not release kernel sources to the public, while Qualcomm does.
https://www.xda-developers.com/mediatek-source-code-release-...
Device manufacturers are obligated to release kernel sources to end users to comply with GPLv2, but many do not, and Qualcomm's source code releases make supporting Snapdragon-based devices a little bit easier for ROM developers.
It's a shame, since the Dimensity 9000 performs better than the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1.
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#169From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supporting devices is a time consuming and costly activity, and the risk of bricking an expensive device is just too high for normal users to want to try. Manufacturers are to blame. It's not a technical problem but rather a political one; manufacturers should be forced…
I'm a strong believer in the right of people to use their devices as they see fit...but there's a real-world problem here.
You know who else loves unlocked bootloaders?
Cyberstalkers and domestic violence perpetrators, who use them to install hidden stalkerware.
Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones
#170From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supporting devices is a time consuming and costly activity, and the risk of bricking an expensive device is just too high for normal users to want to try. Manufacturers are to blame. It's not a technical problem but rather a political one; manufacturers should be forced…
I'm a strong believer in the right of people to use their devices as they see fit...but there's a real-world problem here. You know who else loves unlocked bootloaders? Cyberstalkers and domestic violence perpetrators, who use them to install hidden stalkerware.
I'm a strong believer in the right of people to cut their food as they see fit...but there's a real-world problem here.
You know who else loves knives?
Criminals and thugs, who use them to engage in larceny and assault.