[HN Gopher] Fedora on the PinePhone: Pipewire Calling
___________________________________________________________________
Fedora on the PinePhone: Pipewire Calling
Author : ashitlerferad
Score : 111 points
Date : 2021-02-09 17:29 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (odysee.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (odysee.com)
| worik wrote:
| I have a pine phone.
|
| Have had it a week.
|
| Still excited, thrilled!
|
| But it is not a useable phone in day to day life. I have
| successfully made one call so far.
|
| I recommend going out and buying one today.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| Yeah I have one too, using Mobian right now.
|
| I got VS Code ARM to run on it haha it's so slow 3-5 second
| lag... still. Also going to try running a small VM through QEMU
| on it.
| drocer88 wrote:
| Can these Linux phones prevent the mobile phone company ( i.e.
| Verizon, AT&T or the owner of the tower) from tracking you and
| selling ( or "renting" ) your location information?
| LinuxBender wrote:
| No. Cell sites will always know your location. Additionally, in
| the U.S. all cellphone are required to support E911 which
| requires GPS location. Any phone out of compliance can have its
| IMEI blocked on that network.
|
| The benefit of open source phones in this regard could
| potentially be additional control over which apps can access
| GPS or additional visibility into which apps are requesting it.
| This already exists on closed source phones, but the devs could
| make permissions more obvious and potentially give more privacy
| tips if they so desired. Maybe even do something cool like have
| a red icon on your home screen that warns you may be giving
| apps too many permissions or if permissions changed without
| your interaction.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Cell sites have coarse location information only.
|
| E911 does not mean your phone is using GPS all the time, only
| while calling emergency services.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Agreed, I just meant that the phones baseband is required
| to be connected to a GPS receiver. With an open hardware /
| open source phone, you might have more visibility into what
| is going on.
| gsich wrote:
| Location from cell towers is not as accurate as GPS. I wonder
| for what purpose they sell the data. They need to track you,
| that's a technical requirement of a mobile network. (Ie someone
| calls you, the network needs to know where your mobile device
| is to forward the call)
| marcodiego wrote:
| I think it has nothing to do with privacy. Pipewire is like the
| 'new soundserver" for linux distros. Just that.
| fsflover wrote:
| Yes, if you use the kill switches (but then you will not have
| mobile connection).
| marcodiego wrote:
| Wouldn't it be possible for Pine64, Purism and Fairphone agree on
| a common chassis to reduce costs of their phones?
|
| Why can't it be like PC's where the user can buy a bunch of
| separate parts from different manufacturers and build his/her own
| computer?
| notRobot wrote:
| You're not the first one to think of this. See: Phonebloks [1].
| It failed mostly because there wasn't enough demand, but I
| wonder if they could make a comeback.
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonebloks
| marcodiego wrote:
| The librem 5 is somewhat modular. IIRC, you can disconnect
| and replace the modem and wifi card. So, I think a common
| chassis could have a screen, IMU, PMIC, battery, cameras,
| speakers, mics, leds, buttons, headphone jack, usb port and
| sensors (barometer, thermometers, light sensor,
| proximity...).
|
| The mainboard could connect to the chassis using some
| standardized common connectors for the devices provided by
| the chassis. Other devices could be connected to the
| mainboard: modem, wifi card, bluetooth and sd-card.
|
| That is not a giant leap from what librem 5 is.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| Phonebloks has a questionable design:
|
| Each component had its own shell - making it bulky and very
| expensive.
| gggtt wrote:
| Because this era of "separate parts" comes to an end. Now
| everything is single SoC that are only compatible with big tech
| proprietary OS.
|
| Google has on purpose made Android different enough so that no
| Android SoC could run mainline Linux.
|
| Today, no decent SoC can run real Linux, the "best" SoC that
| can run mainline Linux are :
|
| - Rockship (PinePhone) which is reversed engineered so only old
| SoC have support and it require massive effort from the
| community.
|
| - NXP (Librem 5) which are thick power hungry slow SoC (because
| they are made for automobile I guess)
|
| - Broadcom (Raspberry Pi) which is still super slow compared to
| most modern smartphone.
|
| In any case the manufacturers of decent SoC don't give a crap
| about Linux, they only support Android and any Linux support
| must be done by someone else, often through reverse
| engineering.
|
| This is a totally anticompetitive situation which is far from
| what we had on the desktop side.
|
| But even on the laptop/desktop side, this is also coming to an
| end : Microsoft custom chip & Surfaces, Apple M1, etc. Soon
| this will be the same as on mobile.
|
| FairPhone makes no special effort about the choice SoC, they
| just use a SoC which supports Android and which obviously
| doesn't support Linux.
|
| On the other hand Librem & PinePhone use the only SoC that have
| Linux support, and they often must develop support themselves
| through reverse eng. because the manufacturer doesn't care.
|
| Unless we pass laws about it or unless Pine64/Purism become
| very successful, it is the end of any hope for alternative as
| no mobile device is able to run anything else than IOS &
| Android (or HarmonyOS, Fushia or whatever next privacy hell OS
| is coming from those big tech)
|
| Even in Planes & Cars , the entertainment systems are now
| powered by Android and not Linux.
|
| Mainline Linux will disappear until it only exist in a emulated
| VM running on a M1 mac, or on a headless datacenter server.
|
| Purism & Pine64 are currently our only hope for alternative and
| I encourage anyone to support them. They represent the ugly
| reality of what is available to the competition, it is slow,
| thick, power hungry and old but that's all we have.
| gcblkjaidfj wrote:
| > Google has on purpose made Android different enough so that
| no Android SoC could run mainline Linux.
|
| daily reminder that this is only possible because the very
| people in this site, "did not care about GPL or tainted
| kernel" as long as they had their nvidia GTX working to play
| quake.
|
| ha!
| fsflover wrote:
| > Purism & Pine64 are currently our only hope for alternative
| and I encourage anyone to support them.
|
| Detailed comparison: https://forums.puri.sm/t/comparing-
| specs-of-upcoming-linux-p...
| mswann wrote:
| > Rockship (PinePhone) which is reversed engineered so only
| old SoC have support and it require massive effort from the
| community.
|
| PinePhone has Allwinner A64. [0]
|
| And Rockchip SoCs have a quite decent track record of not
| only supporting mainline linux but even running without
| proprietary firmware - as does their current top level SoC
| (RK3399, featured in Pine64's ROCKPro64).
|
| [0] https://wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PinePhone#Specifications
| StillBored wrote:
| But the point is your looking at a SoC with A53's which is
| a 9 year old in order design. Or for that matter the
| rk3399's A72's which is a 5 year old design. That puts them
| at somewhere between an 6x->4x (geekbench) slower per core
| vs a modern smartphone depending on which benchmark you
| compare.
|
| Then you add in the overhead of not being a mobile
| optimized OS, and your also burning massively more power.
|
| The marketshare for these phones will remain geeks who want
| to have a more "open" phone and are willing to deal with a
| slow, buggy, inefficient device.
|
| Frankly, this won't change until Qualcomm/etc decide to
| make their SoC's more open, so that smaller companies can
| build products like these without signing piles of NDAs and
| shipping android BSP kernels. But then again, that might
| cut into their business because they won't be able to
| deprecate 2 year old phones by simply refusing to provide
| security updates.
|
| But then again, most geeks would be better off picking up a
| year or two old phone and running lineageOs. At least the
| devices tend to work, even if they have a dozen or so
| proprietary blobs.
| megous wrote:
| > And Rockchip SoCs have a quite decent track record of not
| only supporting mainline linux but even running without
| proprietary firmware - as does their current top level SoC
| (RK3399, featured in Pine64's ROCKPro64).
|
| Last time I tried, RK3399 was dog slow to boot on Pinebook
| Pro (only thanks to https://gitlab.com/DeltaGem/levinboot
| is this changing) and development once Google stopped doing
| it seems almost entirely stagnant. Just look at ATF
| history, or U-Boot history, etc.
|
| Pinebook Pro doesn't suspend to ram to this day. Only
| whatever Google implemented for their chromebooks works.
| thepete2 wrote:
| Once you separate the phone into its parts you can only improve
| the parts, not the whole phone. I would think that's the
| problem from the manufacturer's side.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Why would they agree on a common chassis when they have already
| been focusing on different market segments? Purism's offering
| is rather higher-end, so the feel of its products will be
| superior to PinePhone, which is aiming at pretty rock-bottom
| prices.
|
| Purism and Mobian-Pine64 are already collaborating on software
| development, so the projects aren't intentionally ignoring one
| another.
| marcodiego wrote:
| > Why would they agree on a common chassis when they have
| already been focusing on different market segments?
|
| Because a common chassis could be good for such targeted
| market and it could reduce prices.
| m463 wrote:
| they do use m.2 cards afaik. The chassis might be harder.
|
| That's like trying to standardize on one motherboard / case too
| early on.
| bArray wrote:
| I own a PineTab (based on similar hardware - A64 and 2GB RAM).
| These devices are very cool, if not a little under-powered [1].
| For the price point, there is no competition in this space in
| terms of what is offered in value and quality. I really hope Pine
| continue to fight the good fight!
|
| [1] https://coffeespace.org.uk/projects/review-pinetab.html
| ninjha wrote:
| Oh hey, this is a project I started a while ago. It's a little
| buggier than the other PinePhone distributions because most of
| our apps are straight from the "Real" Fedora repository and
| aren't patched. [1]
|
| General sentiment in the thread is that this is not a replacement
| for Android or iOS: you are correct.
|
| I can answer questions if people have any.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/nikhiljha/pp-fedora-sdsetup
| nousermane wrote:
| Given proximity to "real" fedora, is this any good with USB-C
| dock (and external keyboard, mouse, and monitor)?
|
| Stretch question - any apps that work well between both
| "desktop" i.e. dock and "phone", i.e. dock-less modes?
| kop316 wrote:
| I can't answer for Fedora, but for Mobian (Mobile Debian). It
| works reasonably well with a USB-C dock and external
| keyboard/mouse/monitor.
|
| A lot of apps works well between both of you use phosh.
| Purism (the software dev behind phosh) developed libraries to
| enable apps to switch between desktop and phone mode (it's
| called libhandy).
| ninjha wrote:
| Yup, others have done the docked thing after installing
| gnome-shell. Haven't tested it myself since I have an older
| PinePhone where this wasn't functional.
|
| I wouldn't say _any_ apps work "well" on mobile - but
| everything that works on mobile is usable on desktop.
| 3np wrote:
| UI responsiveness and polish is a lot better than what I would
| have expected. Pinephone and mobile Linux are coming a long way!
| twodave wrote:
| Funny how perspectives can differ. I was just coming to comment
| how the UI was clearly not as polished as the competition. It's
| just the obvious stuff:
|
| Typing in a passcode: dots are too small, not spaced out enough
|
| Keyboard: it feels like the characters are about to run into
| the borders
|
| Camera: lots of just empty black space around the picture--I'd
| rather they just overscan it a bit to fill up the entire
| screen.
|
| Lack of a splash screen, icons in the app drawer are a bit too
| large, many of the prompts obviously expecting a mouse input,
| screens where responsiveness to the screen form factor is just
| broken.
|
| I am overall impressed with how far Linux on a phone has come--
| it's also still a long way to the top.
| izacus wrote:
| The most jarring thing is probably the lack of touch feedback
| when you tap on screen. There's no confirmation that phone
| actually registered the tap.
| jraph wrote:
| Interesting, I hadn't noticed this because haptic feedback
| using the vibrator is the first thing I disable on any
| phone (because of the noise).
| izacus wrote:
| I didn't mean haptic, but visual feedback.
|
| On most OSes when you press your mouse or finger on an
| interactive element, that element highlights in some
| manner (e.g. text color changes, ripple appears,
| background color changes).
|
| That's critical for proper feedback and feel of a UI.
| It's almost entirely missing in that demo video.
| jraph wrote:
| Oh, ok. I'm quite sensitive to having feedback and that
| does not seem to be an issue on the PinePhone. Except for
| when you open an app on Phosh. Then, no clue that the app
| is loading.
| choward wrote:
| I do it because I find it annoying and distracting. It
| feels like I did something wrong. I'm already staring at
| the screen so visual feedback is all I need.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| I unfortunately must disagree. I have had a Pinephone for over
| six months and I really dislike using it, in spite of my
| looking forward to getting a nearly completely libre phone.
| First of all, the UI is much less responsive than my old Nokia
| N900 that uses 12-year-old technology. On Phosh, it takes about
| five seconds just to show the screen where you can turn wifi on
| or off, for example.
|
| Battery life is also a shambles; I thought about using my
| Pinephone at least as a music player, streaming the music to my
| Bluetooth headphone amp, but it often happens that playing a
| single album with the screen off completely depletes the
| battery.
| 3np wrote:
| I wonder why the video makes it seem otherwise... Did he just
| cut every time he performed a UI action? :P
|
| Your experience sounds more like what I would have expected
| at this stage - we'll get there though!
| kop316 wrote:
| I have found that the UI is sluggish when one first boots
| up the Pinephone, and the experience seems to vary greatly
| between distros. My experience on Mobian is the same as the
| video (with the exception of start up).
| m463 wrote:
| I tried the purism phone and it was fine. Really, it was
| snappy and responsive and h/w accelerated.
|
| What I did notice is that gnome isn't dialed into phones (so
| to speak). For example I tried setting the date/time and you
| have to press +/- on the hour and minute to get to the time
| you want. The popup for month had a long list of months, but
| it put jan-mar off the top of the screen.
| butz wrote:
| Is there any way to squeeze a bit more performance from current
| applications on PinePhone, or do we have to wait for better
| hardware?
| caseyavila wrote:
| Well I don't think waiting for better hardware take any less
| time than improving the software that these phones run. In the
| video, you can see that these phones are still running desktop
| versions of these applications, so there is a lot of room for
| improvement and optimizations for these mobile Linux platforms
| (things like Firefox running at the right size, better GTK and
| touchscreen support, etc.).
|
| One of the cool things about these phones is that the battery
| is removable, so I would imagine these phones will last a while
| and only get better over time, as their operating systems
| mature.
| opencl wrote:
| Supposedly a lot of the performance issues are down to GTK3 not
| really making much use of GPU acceleration and apps getting
| ported to GTK4 should improve things.
|
| Plasma mobile does seem to run a bit better than GNOME/Phosh:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz_hRfkBnic
| asjkaehauisa wrote:
| Why will someone use it? It looks like first android phones. I
| mean usability and security.
| thepete2 wrote:
| It's a handy portable linux device. A phone that lets you treat
| it like a real computer, not a locked down consumer device.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| Usability: being able to do apt-get and write Python scripts on
| my phone makes it a portable automation and computing tool
| rather than a phone.
|
| Security: Android is choke-full of spyware.
| jraph wrote:
| I use a PinePhone as a daily driver.
|
| - its camera is not good
|
| - its battery life is not good
|
| - its call quality is not good
|
| - SMSes are not completely reliable
|
| - receiving MMSes works, but you need to use a custom command
| line tool that you might have written yourself for that
|
| - sending MMSes, I have not even tried. Probably possible, but
| impractical
|
| - it's barely usable for GPS navigation
|
| - it's a bit slow
|
| - Web browsing is a bit clunky but is largely usable
|
| - its overall usability is not very good
|
| It's a prototype.
|
| But it is a bet for the future. A future in which there are
| usable phones running OSes whose roadmap do not depend on
| corporations that close everything in a walled garden or who
| depend on massively tracking people. A future in which every
| single line of code running on the phone can be studied,
| improved and shared. A future in which updates are not at the
| mercy of the manufacturer.
|
| Actually, you can already have one foot in this future thanks
| to this phone, and many things are being fixed at a remarkable
| pace. I hope we will see higher-end hardware for the OSes
| running on the PinePhone soon.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| > I hope we will see higher-end hardware for the OSes running
| on the Pinephone soon.
|
| According to discussions on the Pine64 boards, it will
| probably take 4-5 years before we see an upgrade to the
| underpowered and obsolete A64 chip inside the PinePhone, and
| when that happens, even that new chip may already seem
| antiquated.
| jraph wrote:
| Yeah, this sucks a bit. Those phones need hardware that
| does not depend on proprietary blobs to work, and such
| hardware is not very common. Even the hardware in the
| PinePhone is not perfect in this regard: the modem runs a
| closed firmware (though people are getting mainline Linux
| to run on the modem so there's hope!), and the Wi-
| Fi/Bluetooth chip too (like in most regular laptops
| anyway...)
|
| In the meantime though, I would be happy with an outdated
| SoC but a decent camera and good call quality for people
| you call. 5 GHz Wi-Fi would be wonderful. 3G of RAM is
| already comfortable. A better screen would be fantastic but
| the one on the PinePhone is more than usable.
|
| Better battery life would be nice too, but it is coming to
| the PinePhone with a custom case that will also provide a
| keyboard, and you can always carry a power tank or a spare
| battery since the one in the PinePhone is removable!
| fsflover wrote:
| Sounds like you are searching for
| https://puri.sm/products/librem-5
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| I don't agree that 3G of RAM is comfortable. The problem
| with phones these days is that many people don't really
| use them for calling over the public telephone network,
| instead they are running chat apps like Signal. Launching
| Signal's desktop app (which is Electron-based) or trying
| to emulate Signal's Android app through Anbox already
| places big demands on RAM, and a person can reasonably
| expect from a phone that they can also use their browser
| and their map app at the same time.
|
| The same is also true of map apps. There just isn't
| enough developer manpower to make vanilla-Linux mapping
| apps as featureful as OSMAnd or Maps.me's open-source
| fork, and therefore the best thing to do would be to
| emulate them using Anbox, but the Pinephone's hardware is
| just too underpowered to comfortably do this.
| jraph wrote:
| I agree with electron apps and Anbox being slow to the
| point of being unusable.
|
| Anbox being slow is not a big surprise though: it
| literally runs a complete Android system on top of your
| OS.
|
| We need native, lightweight apps for the phone and that
| requires a big amount of work for sure.
|
| There's an Android port for the PinePhone that I want to
| try one of these days. Back to an OS whose roadmap
| depends on Google, but at least without the proprietary
| blobs. But I don't plan to settle on it. As someone said
| elsewhere in this thread, it's less and less hackable,
| and I hope that GNU/Linux-based OSes work out.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Mine is out for delivery today - I share your sentiments.
|
| I don't expect it to be a great phone. I do think it's fairly
| incredibly that it exists at all, and I want to support both
| the manufacturers putting it out, as well as pick up some
| slack and add some of my spare time as development hours
| towards making the experience better.
|
| This is one of the very, _very_ few mobile devices on the
| market right now that places the user in the driver 's seat,
| instead of treating them merely like a wallet to suck money
| from in any way possible.
| jraph wrote:
| There are a few things that are already better than on an
| Android or iOS phone that you could appreciate as a
| developer / advanced user:
|
| - No heavy SDK. Just use whatever you want to build
| software for it, it's not complicated.
|
| - on $distro, you access any package provided by $distro.
| And when $distro is Mobian, you have everything Debian has.
|
| - You can script anything with a regular shell script.
|
| - There's Avahi, so you can discover things on your network
| and your computers can access services running on the
| phone.
|
| - You can display the SMS app on your computer screen
| through ssh -Y, and this is amazing.
|
| - Since the sound is managed by PulseAudio, you can use its
| networking features. Play sound from your phone on your
| computer or vice versa.
|
| The dock is pretty cool too, and allows running things like
| on a regular computer, though the phone is a bit slow.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Best pro argument I ever read about it. Will try to re-use it
| when people complain that I'm paying more for a hardware that
| does less.
| person3 wrote:
| I never really got this... Surely just forking Android and
| replacing all the closed source Google apps with open source
| alternatives would be easier? Why build an entirely new
| operating system, when Android already uses the Linux kernel
| and is open source. A free software fork of Android could
| accomplish all the of the same goals as PinePhone while
| providing all the benefits of the existing support and
| ecosystem.
|
| edit: apparently this already exists: https://replicant.us
| kop316 wrote:
| A few reasons:
|
| After a few years (3 if you are lucky), your phone will
| stop getting updates. I have a Nexus 5 with the last
| "official" update over 4 years ago. I have a Nexus 5x that
| stopped getting updates 2 years ago.
|
| https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705
|
| To compare, I have a laptop from 2008 (A Thinkpad x200)
| that runs mainline Debian no problems, and bit the thing
| will die before it stops getting mainline support. I want a
| phone where I can like that too.
|
| In all but a select, very few devices, Android is not fully
| open source, nor will it ever be.
|
| On a Pixel 3a, if you follow the offical compiling guide,
| there is a HUGE (~400 MB) vendor.img file you are forced to
| install, and you have to integrate several other
| proprietary libraries to get the Pixel 3a to even boot.
|
| On top of that, pure AOSP cripples the phone (and by that
| mean SMS breaks with LTE, you lose voLTE, Wi-Fi calling,
| etc.) A lot of Android ROMS have to scrape official images
| to get the binary bits (and it is nor a fun needle in a
| haystack excerise) to get basically phone functionality in
| Android.
|
| Running Android without Play Services cripples your phone
| in a number of ways.
| jraph wrote:
| And anyway, Android, even the free software part, will
| always do what Google wants to do. One may fork Android,
| but maintaining an ever diverging fork would have an ever
| growing cost.
|
| And there are aspects of newer Android versions that are
| less than ideal. For instance, one can see how Termux is
| struggling to keep working: it is not possible to run
| binaries that are not part of an Android package (APK)
| anymore. This is a security feature, but it's not always
| relevant depending on how you use and manage your OS.
|
| Plus, developing for Android is a pain. You need to
| download, setup and use a bloated SDK with a non-free
| license. There's Android Rebuilds [1], but it's not
| complete.
|
| I trust GNU/Linux distros like Debian, Fedora, openSUSE,
| Arch, Manjaro to evolve in a direction I like.
| postmarketOS probably too, but I'm not familiar with it
| as well.
|
| [1] https://android-rebuilds.beuc.net/
| kop316 wrote:
| All good points too.
|
| Developing for the Pinephone has been nice! I have been
| using Mobian for it over SSH, and I am pretty happy with
| how well it has been going.
| megous wrote:
| Why would you run Android on an old underpowered SoC if you
| can buy a new Android phone with much better specs for the
| same price or cheaper locally, with much easier to attain
| warranty and better delivery times?
|
| Pinephone is only interesting because it is getting a
| progressively better mainline Linux support every day, can
| run normal Linux distros, has fairly open hardware and a
| manufacturer that accepts feedback, and works on
| interesting stuff, like a kinda unique planned external
| keyboard+battery shell for it.
|
| It's a real pocket computer with HW that I can control
| without restrictions, SW that I can trust, and don't have
| to run everything in a sandbox, just like on my
| workstation.
| gggtt wrote:
| The same reason Firefox and Safari don't use Google V8 &
| Blink. They (mostly Safari) are the only opposition to
| Google monopolistic control on the web.
|
| You will always be under control of others if you don't
| take your independence and open-source means little when it
| is in practice controlled by only one entity.
|
| If you build an OS on top of Android like /e/, replicant &
| Lineage & etc. , you are doomed to be living in Google'
| shadow . They'll shut you down anytime you do something
| they don't like. And even if it is open-source, if you
| disagree, you'll never have the financial means to maintain
| an up to date Android fork. Once/if they abandon Android
| for Fushia, it's going to be hard maintaining all abandoned
| Android legacy code alone.
|
| Then, there are also technical reasons. We could ask "why
| create a new UI lib from scratch when we have QT ?". Yes
| for the end-user it's mostly the same (a bunch of text and
| buttons), yet people are developing custom UI lib (eg.
| Blender/Godot), Flutter, React, Svelte, Druid, Moxie,
| Makepad, etc. This is needed for innovation and/or to fit
| your own needs.
|
| Real Linux has lots of potential : it can run Blender,
| Krita, Godot, VsCode, Steam games, any language, FreeCad,
| KiCad, Matlab, etc. (None of them have mobile UIs, but
| still are an asset for tablets & convergence). It is not
| governed by Google or Apple and it has already quite some
| drivers for several devices (I could just install Bitwig on
| a Linux tablet, plug a MIDI keyboard and make music).
|
| So there are definitely reasons to take this path and
| personally I find this far more exciting than Lineage
| (although I use Lineage daily & I'm super grateful to that
| it exists)
| freedomben wrote:
| Aside from the standard reason of ideals regarding FOSS and
| freedom-respecting hardware/software, Android is getting less
| and less hacker friendly in many ways. I won't likely switch as
| a daily driver for some time as my phone is critical to my
| business, but I'll support these efforts and plan to switch
| eventually. Until then I'll probably have two phones :-D
| admax88q wrote:
| And yet people used the first android phones.
| kelnos wrote:
| Tables stakes is now a lot higher than what was offered by
| the first Android phones. Unfortunately the barrier to entry
| into the mobile phone market has risen considerably since
| then.
| StavrosK wrote:
| "Back when they were the pinnacle of technology", he thought
| but didn't say.
| marcodiego wrote:
| The computer in my pocket doesn't needs to be the "pinnacle
| of technology". It just needs to be "good enough". But,
| until we arrive there, some people will have to be willing
| to accept options which are still not "good enough" or else
| we'll never arrive there.
|
| It is sad that pioneers and early adopters often suffer
| more and are anonymous heroes that enable advanced user-
| respecting technology for the rest of the people.
|
| Think of this like the people who used KHTML based
| browsers. Their compromise allowed us to have the quick
| browsers we enjoy today but they had to endure broken
| websites for years.
| mPReDiToR wrote:
| I've just got my KDE CE PinePhone.
|
| I love it because of what it represents, but as a phone it's not
| there yet.
|
| The more "eyes" on this device, the better.
|
| I have seen phones want to succeed and fail so many times.
|
| It isn't the distro that matters, it's the software running on
| that distro which can then be a universal package for all Linux
| devices.
|
| It's OK making ofono or Wayland run great on device A, but don't
| forget that wpa_supplicant and X11 run on every Thinkpad and
| Raspberry Pi we install on.
|
| The work we do today benefits the ecosystem, not just the
| community.
|
| Sorry for just saying thank you to everyone. I guess I should
| have had a point?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-09 23:00 UTC)