The thing is now a days smartphones are separated by only software. Pixels are a good example. They can give the camera tech to older devices but chose not to. Almost everything that can be achieved through s/w can be cross platform too, only if manufactures don't put virtual separation.
ChromeOS is Gentoo-based and does use the Linux kernel, but everything in the userspace has little to do with the Linux desktop besides Crostini, which is just a Debian container.
That's unlike Android, whose kernel derives itself from a heavily gutted version of the Linux kernel, redesigned to support closed source binary blob drivers provided by device manufacturers and with low level support for the Dalvik JVM. Its API has little to do with the mainstream Linux kernel.
I feel they are taking features and options away. I don't mind if they have a simple and advanced menu so those who want to adjust can do so, and its simple for the average user.
However, instead they treat everyone as if they are tech ikliterate. They lock it down for financial gain and call it protecting consumers.
You can already run Linux apps using Termux and Termux-X11, and I'd say the performance would be better than this demo, because this is running in a virtual machine and uses it's own kernel, whereas with Termux you're running your apps directly on top of the Android Linux kernel. Also, you don't have the overhead of running ChromeOS on top of Android.
At the minimum, to show that Android is not a locked down walled-garden of a system and you're free to choose what you can do with it to the point you can install a different OS on it?
I found Google messages to be unreliable: refusing to send a SMS if the Internet connection is bad. The signal that the message failed to send is a single hollow checkmark.
I switched to fossify messages, which just sends SMSs or MMSs and doesn't create its own flawed messaging protocol
SMS and MMS are not very secure however. RCS is technically an open standard. it's mostly controlled by Google at the moment, but hopefully that will change as Apple enters the game this year.
If I want to have security, I would use a different communication protocol. I find it unacceptable for an SMS app to change quietly change to a different protocol, particularly if it causes messages to fail to send.
SMS is the only universal messaging protocol, it works on EVERY phone instead of only smartphones. Besides that, why would you use a a messaging app owned by a data grabber / privacy violater.
If it was that big a deal for you, why would you use a phone OS by that same company?
SMS is hot garbage:
The first "S" stands for short. If your message is over 160 characters, you are sending multiple messages. The implementation of SMS is a hack on the carrier network in the first place, and joining multiple messages, particularly across carriers is a complication to this hack. Sure, 99.99% of messages are delivered just fine. But if the message doesn't arrive for some reason, there's no acknowledgement of this. The recipient just doesn't get it.
SMS is easy to spoof. If I have even basic carrier access, I can send a message to your dad from your number.
I can initiate a number port on your number, and while that port request will likely fail, it's possible that I can receive messages that were destined for you in the short term.
androidauthority.com
Hot