Related
It looks like Marshmallow is following the usual pattern of Android "x.0" alpha release to the public, followed by "x.0.1" beta release with initial defect ('bug") corrections starting with Nexus beta testers (I.e. Nexus users in general).
Reading about the MM 6.0 problems on MXPE, I'm sitting out the 6.0 alpha testing on the sideline with LP 5.1.1. Most trouble-free phone I've had yet, and I don't yet need the only compelling feature I see with MM on the MXPE (T-Mobile Band 12 support).
Any noises yet about MM beyond 6.0.1? (I know I can look for this elsewhere too, but thinking maybe some of the XDA community may have inside info from the Android community.)
TIA...
The marshmallow update give me some new features and better battery life (though I do own the X Style, not pure). Unless you are dead set on being intentionally obtuse, then this isn't considered an alpha update.
Also the 6.0.1 update is quite minor, the largest change being some ART performance improvements, the rest is adding bands to the Nexus line and some emoji's: http://www.androidheadlines.com/2015/12/google-posts-android-6-0-1-changelog.html
I know the label "alpha" is not not the official label for something like 6.0. But with so many substantial defects, and multiple forthcoming revisions to correct those defects a certainty, that's really what it is IMO. Maybe "public release alpha" would be a better description, since pre-release revisions go through even more defect-ridden levels including pre-release alpha, prior to public release.
Similar situation with previous Android versions, and in fact most software foisted on the public these days (I'm looking at you, Microsoft and Apple). Look at Lollipop and the multiple public release revisions it took to iron out most of the substantial defects, finally, with 5.1.1.
6.0.1 is not just "...some ART performance improvements, the rest is adding bands to the Nexus line and some emoji's...", it also includes defect corrections. (Bluetooth, anyone?) And if the changelog doesn't list a significant number of defect corrections, that doesn't necessarily mean it is already polished at 6.0.1. The fragmented Android ecosystem and separation between Google, phone manufacturers, carriers, and users guarantees a plethora of various non-trivial defects in the ecosystem, many of which Google will address only slowly or even never for most phones.
For example, the memory leak defect in LP was not fixed until 5.1.1. How may revisions and months did that take? How many phones still run pre-5.5.1 with this defect?
One reason I bought the MXPE was the idea that it would be one of the first to get the updates. That turned out to be overly optimistic. It looks like Nexus is the only one still close enough to the source to get timely updates, and it also looks like Google is not pursuing Android defect corrections with any kind of urgency at all nowadays, maybe because the hardware ecosystem is becoming way too diverse to adequately support any more (or maybe because the profits roll in no matter what). Motorola phones, with the Moto alterations to Android, outsider status with carriers, and now hollowed-out Motorola support, appear to be no closer to adequate Android support from Google than any other non-Nexus phone.
"Obtuse"? A "bug" is a euphemism for a defect. Let's stop being obtuse, and call it what it is.
Any other info also appreciated.
You're being obtuse by insisting that we're all public alpha testers.
You obviously have no idea about software development, nor about Android Open Source development. Not your fault, but running your mouth is.
You bemoan the memory leak fix took several revisions to fix. So, you think that Google dedicated the whole team to fixing that one bug? What then? No other bugfixes or features are introduced in the meantime? The likely case is (and this is from experience) that bug took some revisions to fix, in the meantime, Google were also pushing ahead with other fixes. Regardless to what the uneducated (about SW development), throwing 15 developers onto one problem doesn't solve it any quicker. 5.0.1 came, adn 5.0.2 came, then 5.1 came in the meantime. While that memory leak was being worked on, more releases come fixing other things. Be grateful they didn't listen to you and leave it at 5.0 for several months while they fixed one issue.
Whatever bluetooth fixes that you think are in 6.0.1 are pure fantasy, because none exist in AOSP 6.0.1: http://aosp.changelog.to/android-6.0.0_r5-to-android-6.0.1_r1.html <-- That's the FULL changelog of commits between 6.0.0_r5 and 6.0.1_r1.
It is not Google's job to fix a problem in anything other than their own devices. At all. Google's job is to make AOSP run smoothly on Nexus devices and release the source. Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola et al all take the source code, just like CM, AICP, Slim and the rest do, and make modifications for their devices, using the sources given to them by their hardware partners and themselves. So if BT works in Nexus devices, but not others, then it's not Google's problem (usually). An AOSP issue will persist several devices, including Nexii devices.
Google also have taken on the quite large undertaking of monthly security updates for their devices, which I can tell you will be taking up some of the development teams time (it's what, 3-4 months into that project?).
No software ever released on this planet comes without bugs and issues. This is software development. You can check the status of AOSP development here: https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open and feel free to download, code and submit your own features.
MattBooth said:
You're being obtuse by insisting that we're all public alpha testers.
You obviously have no idea about software development, nor about Android Open Source development. Not your fault, but running your mouth is.
You bemoan the memory leak fix took several revisions to fix. So, you think that Google dedicated the whole team to fixing that one bug? What then? No other bugfixes or features are introduced in the meantime? The likely case is (and this is from experience) that bug took some revisions to fix, in the meantime, Google were also pushing ahead with other fixes. Regardless to what the uneducated (about SW development), throwing 15 developers onto one problem doesn't solve it any quicker. 5.0.1 came, adn 5.0.2 came, then 5.1 came in the meantime. While that memory leak was being worked on, more releases come fixing other things. Be grateful they didn't listen to you and leave it at 5.0 for several months while they fixed one issue.
Whatever bluetooth fixes that you think are in 6.0.1 are pure fantasy, because none exist in AOSP 6.0.1: http://aosp.changelog.to/android-6.0.0_r5-to-android-6.0.1_r1.html <-- That's the FULL changelog of commits between 6.0.0_r5 and 6.0.1_r1.
It is not Google's job to fix a problem in anything other than their own devices. At all. Google's job is to make AOSP run smoothly on Nexus devices and release the source. Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola et al all take the source code, just like CM, AICP, Slim and the rest do, and make modifications for their devices, using the sources given to them by their hardware partners and themselves. So if BT works in Nexus devices, but not others, then it's not Google's problem (usually). An AOSP issue will persist several devices, including Nexii devices.
Google also have taken on the quite large undertaking of monthly security updates for their devices, which I can tell you will be taking up some of the development teams time (it's what, 3-4 months into that project?).
No software ever released on this planet comes without bugs and issues. This is software development. You can check the status of AOSP development here: https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open and feel free to download, code and submit your own features.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
t
No new or useful information there. Thanks anyway, despite the ad hominem. I guess that comes with the territory (forums).
Yep, the Google-Android-(independent hardware makers) ecosystem is seriously flawed. Too much disconnect between the OS owner (Google), the hardware makers, the carriers, and the customer. And the first three in the chain (not including the customer) have different incentives/disincentives, and there are a bazillion hardware variations, of course it is broken. We know all this.
Reminds me of the original PC/Windows mess. Except worse because the carriers interpose an additional dysfunctional layer hindering OS updates/support. (Before anyone says "just DIY with one of the many available ROMs, I started this "Q" thread about stock MM, not third party ROMs.)
Still hoping for any useful information on anything happening to fix the MM defects, to get an idea when it might be past public beta and worth installing to MXPE.
TIA...
Tinkerer_ said:
t
No new or useful information there. Thanks anyway, despite the ad hominem. I guess that comes with the territory (forums).
Yep, the Google-Android-(independent hardware makers) ecosystem is seriously flawed. Too much disconnect between the OS owner (Google), the hardware makers, the carriers, and the customer. And the first three in the chain (not including the customer) have different incentives/disincentives, and there are a bazillion hardware variations, of course it is broken. We know all this.
Reminds me of the original PC/Windows mess. Except worse because the carriers interpose an additional dysfunctional layer hindering OS updates/support. (Before anyone says "just DIY with one of the many available ROMs, I started this "Q" thread about stock MM, not third party ROMs.)
Still hoping for any useful information on anything happening to fix the MM defects, to get an idea when it might be past public beta and worth installing to MXPE.
TIA...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What ad hominem? Your uneducated state affects your ability to understand the nature of Android and software development. It's a perfectly legitimate response to your position. You lack the ability to understand and therefore your argument is flawed. I'm not attacking you, I actually tried to give you some insight into how it works, but you're not really interested and would rather insist on this "public beta" bull.
As far as fixing any "defects" you suppose, you haven't actually listed any so no-one is going to be able to help you with temporary work around without a list of what you feel is broken. I also showed you the changelog, so you can do your own homework to see if your supposed defects are fixed in 6.0.1.
The various hardware configurations doesn't even matter because Android is built to deal with it. So long as the hardware vendors of chips and modules support them properly and give out functioning binaries to OEM's, or proper source code, it's irrelevant. The exact opposite of what you said is true, Google has a very close relationship with it's partners (anyone signed up to their Google programs, to preinstall Google apps). The problem is carriers, who really shouldn't have a say in software on the phones, but that seems to be a chiefly North American problem.
Google doesn't need to have any connection to Android users as customers. Google does not sell Android, therefore you are not Google's customer unless you use a Nexus phone. Google sell the Google Experience, with the Nexus. You are Motorola's customer, and you are using Motorola's branched version of Android. Google doesn't owe Motorola any fixes or patches for their device. Motorola must maintain their own device tree and maintain their own relationships with their partners.
EDIT:
Also, Motorola's problem is resources. They have four version of the Moto X 2015 to deal with, three versions of the Moto X 2014, the new X Force, then the various versions of the G and E to deal with, along with two smart watches, and so forth. Their line up is increasing whist I imagine their development team is not. There was outrage (rightly so) when news broke that the Moto G 2015 wasn't getting the MM update, despite being a couple of months old, and Motorola listened and OTA's are rolling out.
I am asking if anyone can offer any info on anything being done to move toward MM revision with the many significant defects of 6.0 corrected. Read the forums, there are way too many defects with 6.0, it is patently a de facto public alpha, and we are tracking the usual pattern where it takes 3 to 5 revisions before an OS major rev is ironed out enough that upgrading will not cause more problems than it fixes.
There are always excuses made for why there are so many defects in software. There is a euphemism for "defect" everybody uses, "bug". Everyone has been making excuses for so long about shoddy workmanship and inadequate testing and correction of software, with the "bug" euphemism to minimize the reality that these are defects, that we are all just to suppose to accept systems ridden with faults without complaint. It's unacceptable. It can be done better. Part of why it doesn't get better is because everybody says "that's just the way it is, deal with it". With mountains of byzantine excuses and even ad hominem attacks (as here).
This thread was not started to start a tit for tat ad hominem back and forth, nor to post long essays detailing excuses for the pathetic status quo of the fragmented Android ecosystem with respect to defect causes and distributions. It was started looking for any info about work being done to fix the stock MM defects. Still seeking info.
TIA.
You should probably check the definition of ad hominem. There was no attack on you as a person, just pointing out that your uneducated state with regards to knowledge about software development affects your ability to call judgement on this.
But you haven't listened to a single word I've said and still maintain a shoddy position, so I would suggest to anyone else who reads this to simply ignore you as a troll.
Tinkerer_ said:
It looks like Marshmallow is following the usual pattern of Android "x.0" alpha release to the public, followed by "x.0.1" beta release with initial defect ('bug") corrections starting with Nexus beta testers (I.e. Nexus users in general).
Reading about the MM 6.0 problems on MXPE, I'm sitting out the 6.0 alpha testing on the sideline with LP 5.1.1. Most trouble-free phone I've had yet, and I don't yet need the only compelling feature I see with MM on the MXPE (T-Mobile Band 12 support).
Any noises yet about MM beyond 6.0.1? (I know I can look for this elsewhere too, but thinking maybe some of the XDA community may have inside info from the Android community.)
TIA...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we'll close this debate. There are no real "Android" insiders on XDA, so asking for update info which is privy to Google is perhaps somewhat futile.
On a related note, XDA have a few dedicated "Android Fora", such as this complete Category where non-device specific discussion and indeed conjecture takes place. Perhaps you could take a look there and see what transpires?
Thanks
FYI - apparently a new build of FireOS v5 is in the works which may arrive with other implications (eg: ability to root).
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/amazon-will-restore-device-encryption-after-backlash
Every day, every device made Is under the implications of getting an update. yes the sky is falling For every android product made but only for those who have not rooted and also who have not disabled updates. re-enabling updates and taking an ota is always discourage.
rp201 said:
Every day, every device made Is under the implications of getting an update. yes the sky is falling For every android product made but only for those who have not rooted and also who have not disabled updates. re-enabling updates and taking an ota is always discourage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your thoughts. OP was not an anticipation of a new release (good/bad depending on perspective) but a heads-up for those who track such developments and appreciate the implications. Advanced users, code maintainers, support enthusiasts, etc.
For those on FireOS 5.1.1 who have not rooted the pending release of a new version provides fair notice that the ability to root, install custom roms, etc. may be compromised should OTA update be taken. Decision time for some (at minimum root and block OTA).
Hmm encryption on here would slow it down wouldn't it.
Pond-life said:
Hmm encryption on here would slow it down wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely given no hardware acceleration. FUD feature for majority of users assuming passwords and such are not stored on device and lock screen is password protected. If your tab falls into the wrong hands few are going to dig for personal data if it is not easy to access. Device will either be discarded or wiped. That said there are clearly cases where device encryption is beneficial/necessary. Glad Amazon is doing the right thing and returning the feature to FireOS which historically has been off by default.
Now it's clear there's a security problem with the official build of Oreo before Sept builds.. now all the Oreo roms and official roms have this vuneralablity... If you're gonna continue to publish them without replacing them with the sept security patch you may as well put a damn virus in you're roms cause that's basically what you're doing...
Pixelxluser said:
Now it's clear there's a security problem with the official build of Oreo before Sept builds.. now all the Oreo roms and official roms have this vuneralablity... If you're gonna continue to publish them without replacing them with the sept security patch you may as well put a damn virus in you're roms cause that's basically what you're doing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's the vulnerability?
Plain and simple the software needs removed.. doesn't that apply to the devs policy's which they agreed to here on xda not to publish anything which may be a threat to someone... So you know what should of happened is the devs should of removed the software right away. That never happened so I've lost all faith in theses devs and publishers of official software threads...
I ignore all posts where the word "of" is used instead of the correct "have" or at least the contraction ending in 've that sounds like of.
...should of happened
sliding_billy said:
I ignore all posts where the word "of" is used instead of the correct "have" or at least the contraction ending in 've that sounds like of.
...should of happened
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I ignore all posts that don't make sense like the OP's and this thread.
Pixelxluser said:
Now it's clear there's a security problem with the official build of Oreo before Sept builds.. now all the Oreo roms and official roms have this vuneralablity... If you're gonna continue to publish them without replacing them with the sept security patch you may as well put a damn virus in you're roms cause that's basically what you're doing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, there are no Oreo roms. Secondly, the devs who support our phones for free owe you nothing. Lastly, you need more than 12 posts to be taken seriously about anything around here. And, you can never post enough to attain the right to throw around accusations about the devs who, again, support our phone for free.
Pixelxluser said:
Now it's clear there's a security problem with the official build of Oreo before Sept builds.. now all the Oreo roms and official roms have this vuneralablity... If you're gonna continue to publish them without replacing them with the sept security patch you may as well put a damn virus in you're roms cause that's basically what you're doing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tell us how you really feel!
Windows people ?
Sent from my Pixel using XDA-Developers Legacy app
Pixelxluser said:
Now it's clear there's a security problem with the official build of Oreo before Sept builds.. now all the Oreo roms and official roms have this vuneralablity... If you're gonna continue to publish them without replacing them with the sept security patch you may as well put a damn virus in you're roms cause that's basically what you're doing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this is the case all root and bootloader exploits need removing also.
Any bootloader exploits or method of rooting without and unlocked bootloader is a SIGNIFICANTLY large security risk.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Are we going to remove ALL the old ROMs from XDA? SHEESH.
In before the lock.
One thing I've found out over the years with hacking Android you eventually get tired of doing just hacking so you move onto security... Well that's the case with me anyways. Getting rid of vuneralable software is actually a good thing...
There's a reason why malware is successful with Android, and it's one that still hasn't been addressed: most phones are using old software and haven't been patched against it.
Google does a lot of work to make Android secure and keep it that way. It pays people to find security exploits, works with hardware vendors like Qualcomm or NVIDIA to fix them if needed, then writes a patch that can be injected into the existing version with no fuss. If you have a Pixel or Nexus or BlackBerry product, you'll then get these patches. If you have any other phone you roll the dice and hope the people who made it care enough.
Pixelxluser said:
One thing I've found out over the years with hacking Android you eventually get tired of doing just hacking so you move onto security... Well that's the case with me anyways. Getting rid of vuneralable software is actually a good thing...
There's a reason why malware is successful with Android, and it's one that still hasn't been addressed: most phones are using old software and haven't been patched against it.
Google does a lot of work to make Android secure and keep it that way. It pays people to find security exploits, works with hardware vendors like Qualcomm or NVIDIA to fix them if needed, then writes a patch that can be injected into the existing version with no fuss. If you have a Pixel or Nexus or BlackBerry product, you'll then get these patches. If you have any other phone you roll the dice and hope the people who made it care enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nobody hacks individual phones. They hack companies and clouds.
****! Hey, can y'all hold it for just a moment? Need to run to the store real quick. I'm out of popcorn.
Seriously, though, just simply rooting your phone is a security risk. Also, from what i've seen, the majority of ROM users are smart about what they download. It's the general public that downloads mischevious apps that spread viruses. And as someone else mentioned, the malware and viruses don't target one person's phone. They are free floating and latch onto whatever moron downloads it. Your phone is not exactly the best place to download all your porn
But seriously, there are exploits with every security patch...it's the reason we get them every month, lol. Android is great and I love it but the OS itself is full of holes that malware developers consistently take advantage of.
Couldnt say this better myself..
Security is engineered into everything we do
Our goal is to make Android the safest computing platform in the world. That's why we invest in technologies and services that strengthen the security of devices, applications, and the global ecosystem.
It's also one reason Android is open source. Being open allows us to tap into a global network of security talent full of innovative ideas that help make Android safer every day. Security experts around the world can review our code, develop and deploy new security technology, and contribute to Android’s protections.
As the Android ecosystem evolves, we continue to invest in leading-edge security ideas. And we want to share our knowledge openly with you. Explore below to learn about the latest technologies and information that help secure Android.
Adrian Ludwig
Director of Android Security
Pixelxluser said:
Now it's clear there's a security problem with the official build of Oreo before Sept builds.. now all the Oreo roms and official roms have this vuneralablity... If you're gonna continue to publish them without replacing them with the sept security patch you may as well put a damn virus in you're roms cause that's basically what you're doing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With some custom ROMs whether or not the have the Sept security patch is probably the least of your problems, if security is a concern of yours... you should be more concerned with things like;
- what keys are they using to sign their ROM (Apks included). Did they generate their own private signing keys and platform keys, or did they just use a devkeys or keys provided in the SDK?
- what changes have they made to aosp sources or not integrate (or revert) that could reduce security?
- have they messed with android's security or permissions model?
- have they included legacy code (like forward porting), that may have been dropped in the first place do to being insecure (legacy mediaserver without seccomp integration).
- have they modified selinux policies in ways that potentially could open up attack vectors.
- does the ROM have odexing enabled? The fact is, odexing while useful for booting/loading programs faster, also has the side benefit of making an apk harder to tamper with...
- have any changes that have been made been audited, or verified for correctness?
...and the list goes on. You are worried about a monthly security patch, with a handful or two of fixes for CVEs, yet make no mention of far bigger concerns that may be present in XYZ custom ROM.
Just saying.
contribute to Android’s protections. Is one thing which is lacking from what I see... I hope you understand that there are underaged people who don't know any better about what's best for them and come running off to try to be the cool kids by rooting or adding unsecured software on their phones.. rooting is so crazy to do now a days you're all really going to the extremes by bypassing security features just so you can have root... That's not the message the younger generation should be taught... They should be taught the importance of how security works not 50 ways to bypass it... There's not a feature out there which Google wouldn't consider adding officially but also Google doesn't go off and use unofficial code to pull features from it would look bad for their business..
And as long as there's a community of underaged people who do go off and root and install unsecured software you might wanna lead by example and provide them with the best security you can... A child with unsecured software is scary that someone would open up security holes for them to be a possible victim and the best you're actually willing to do is try to remove yourself from the responsibility of being responsible for it by saying if you install our software you are responsible for any damages. You can't just publish something then go out and say you take no responsibility when by law you're still responsible for any damages cause you never legally got you're software that way...
Since you're the ones distributing the software you're liable for damages if there was a defect in you're product which was distributed.. security flaws and security bypasses count as defects in a product..
Distributorship and Liability
Even though the distributor is not responsible for manufacturing a product, it can be held liable in the event of defects. Under strict product liability laws, the seller, distributor, and manufacturer of a defective product can be held liable if a person is injured due to the defect. Though manufacturers are typically most responsible since they created the product, the liability can also fall to those that distribute or sell the defective items.
This liability law prevents the plaintiff from the need to prove the chain of supply. In order for any entity in the line of distribution to prove it has no fault, it would need to show which entity is actually responsible for the defect
I suggest you stick with Windows dude
The only thing your posts are good for is making people spit their coffee with humour, and embarrassing yourself.
Sent from my Pixel using XDA-Developers Legacy app
As seen here
https://www.reddit.com/r/LineageOS/...ect_trebel_devices/?utm_source=reddit-android
LineageOS team state that project treble is in its baby shoes and completely dependant on google to optimize it even more since as of now gsi rom requires certain adjustments for each device, so will project treble successed?
any1 has an insight please share.
I think it needs more adjustment. The kernel should be universal and updateable along with the OS, it's pretty universal as it is at the moment. Drivers should also be standard and updateable, at least for standard items. There should be a driver model where possible to support other devices, and any phone specific changes could be done through manufacturer supplied drivers. There's really no reason why it can't be done, it would be along the lines of how Windows works. Of course, it can be tailored to suit phones.
System updates should realistically come from Google, it would mean all phones and devices would be up to date with the latest security updates. The phone can also check with the manufacturer for specific updates. If Google keeps them apprised of any changes they can update their specific updates in time. This model would mean individual service testing for a new OS update etc wouldn't be a problem since it should at least be compliant with the base model.
Don't forget Google tracks down security leaks in other OS like Windows, which isn't even a direct competitor, and releases the security leak information if it isn't patched within 30? days. How many Android devices are updated with security patches within 30 days by the manufacturer? It's very much a double standard. Google really needs to think of an even more universal model like I just depicted for Android 10 Quinoa Slice (or whatever they call it).
Will Treble succeed? It's a step in the right direction, but needs more work. Not only should something like I just described be done, it should be made mandatory for all new devices. It doesn't mean custom versions are out, but custom versions would have to have OTA updates and be updated quickly along with the standard OS.
To say whether it succeeded or not, I think you'd first need to define what's its goal.
I still don't even know the answer as of today.
Some people say that the goal is to have a system image controlled and updated by Google.
But I don't see this happening any time soon. Google would need to test their GSIs on many devices, and they didn't even test P GSI over O-MR1 Pixels!
It seems to me that their goal was simply to make updates easier to OEMs. Considering Essential PH-1 getting Pie day-one, this might seem a success.
But we'll need to compare Oreo adoption rate to Pie's to confirm.
Oooh someone made a thread so i can moan cheers
The main problem with treble for me is that it's splintered between a plethora of devices, so one dev will release a treble rom and a multitude of device owners will flash it, each with their own subjective problems and issues, requests and wants.
And there lies the problem, it's difficult even when it's a dedicated rom thread for a particular device to get help at times.
So when you have a bunch of users talking about completely different devices you haven't got a hope in hell.
I think there should be branches to each thread for each specific device, that way help threads can be more linear rather than the chaos that it is at the moment.
Least that's my thoughts
My only rom i've flashed is RR and besides a few missing features, Fingerprint, Stereo and NFC i think it's brilliant.
I guess we are done for security updates. It has been right at 2 years. Sad thing is, this is still a great little phone. I am not in the mood to root and tinker with issues. I wished there was a stable ROM out there to use. I wished that LineageOS would pick this little jewel up. Oh, well. It has been a good 2 years of a small, but very informative community of X Compact users.
I am still searching for a small phone replacement since Sony does not make small phones anymore. Post here if you have any recommendations.
Cheers!
del
I feel you. I think I've said it before on this forum, but I really don't get why there isn't a lineageos build for this phone. Lots of sony xperia phones have official lineageos builds and there even is an unofficial build for this device (so it's not exactly impossible to build).
That being said, I generally prefer omnirom and luckily they are supporting this device. I've been on omnirom 8.1 for ages and haven't encountered a bug yet, so imho it can definitely be considered stable. Right now I'm using a self-built omnirom 9.0 (security patch level 5 november 2018) as a daily driver and for a pre-official build it is already pretty stable. Sony's 'Pie' software binaries (which thankfully they still provide) are still in beta, so coupled with the omnirom team efforts the stability will only increase.
Bottom line for smartphone manufacturers: Just provide what is needed for the open source community to flourish, it'll cost you next to nothing and will pay you back in goodwill many times over.
Next upcoming problem is the lack of support for the Project Treble in Xperia X series devices which at least may cause significant delay in releasing ROMs based the newer Android versions or in the worst case might result in stopping their development as the successor - XZ1 series - supports it. I hope developers will follow the Z5 series path as there already is LineageOS for these. And hopefully some Xiaomi devices path as there are devices which now have unofficial support of the Project Treble.
BTW, we should also thank to the Google for an unwise cycle of releasing new Android version every year which accelerates fragmentation significantly as its main reason seems to be to persuade people to buy newer devices with latest version of Andoid OS on board.
harryharryharry said:
Lots of sony xperia phones have official lineageos builds and there even is an unofficial build for this device (so it's not exactly impossible to build).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suppose more recent Sony smartphones have been sold in significantly lower quantities than older ones (I read many times about Sony's smartphones poor sales numbers) and it might be the reason of a smaller community gathered around those newer devices.
Software security updates stopped?
If Sony stops providing software updates after 2y, it means those of us with a Sony Xperia X Compact (F5321) are unable to add Work e-mail accounts as the Microsoft Intune app requires an Android software update dated May 2019.
This silly policy by Sony is preventing me from adding my work O365 account to the device and means I am very unlikely to buy another Sony mobile phone ever again as its usable life is 2 years max. I am actually quite raging because I like the phone -this is beyond stupid from Sony.
RTV_1974 said:
If Sony stops providing software updates after 2y, it means those of us with a Sony Xperia X Compact (F5321) are unable to add Work e-mail accounts as the Microsoft Intune app requires an Android software update dated May 2019.
This silly policy by Sony is preventing me from adding my work O365 account to the device and means I am very unlikely to buy another Sony mobile phone ever again as its usable life is 2 years max. I am actually quite raging because I like the phone -this is beyond stupid from Sony.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
use browser.
intune sucks anyway.
RTV_1974 said:
If Sony stops providing software updates after 2y, it means those of us with a Sony Xperia X Compact (F5321) are unable to add Work e-mail accounts as the Microsoft Intune app requires an Android software update dated May 2019.
This silly policy by Sony is preventing me from adding my work O365 account to the device and means I am very unlikely to buy another Sony mobile phone ever again as its usable life is 2 years max. I am actually quite raging because I like the phone -this is beyond stupid from Sony.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This device has pretty lackluster support even in the dev community as well. All it's really got going for it atm but fortunately we have Lineage 17.1 and Project Treble. I recommend flashing a new rom if you don't want to switch phones.