Looks interesting, but I won't be pre ordering when the only info they give about running Linux is "Linux as an app". Do they mean something like UserLand that's sloooooow or something like the linux terminal, that still has very limited graphical acceleration support and is still unusable for full desktop usage?
Either option sounds really bad and not worth it to jump ship for me.
Yeah - that part is disappointing as well. I'd be glad if it included Wayland support, native touch input, full OpenGL and Vulkan support - but I'm not counting on it.
A analogy for major health events that demand a lot of money, to which I replied you don't have $major_health_event every year. Interesting that you didn't pick that up.
That's very alarmist, sensational and dramatic. The systems are going though some tough times, but they are not breaking down, that's what children would say to make their life more like a Hollywood movie.
My father had to go though multiple appointments and analysis to get his prostate and hernia checked. Never waited more than a week and paid 0 in total. Before, he'd probably only have to wait a couple days for appointments, but the stress the healthcare system is currently undergoing is abnormal due to the more aggressive cases of flue this season. All things considering, things are not "breaking down" (I'm even getting some second hand embarrassment reading those words).
> Pixel is also disqualified for me by the same reason.
How so?
I think all pixels starting from 6 or 7 have DisplayPort output through USB C.
I watched a movie the other day with my projector connected to my pixel 10 running grapheneOS. Other than getting a phone call halfway through the movie and a few hiccups selecting the audio Jack output, everything ran smoothly.
This is good to know, but they certainly do not advertise this feature as existing.
On Google Store there is no information about this and other sites, like Gsmarena, also do not have any information on it, unlike for the smartphones from other vendors that have DisplayPort.
On some older Pixel models, it has been discovered that DisplayPort existed in hardware, but it was disabled in software by the Google operating system. It could be enabled only by replacing the OS. I see that you also do not use its native OS, so this condition may have remained true.
About newer models, it was supposed that the hardware support might have been removed.
How did you discover that DisplayPort exists on your Pixel 10?
Was this mentioned in its user manual?
Do you have the plain Pixel 10 or some Pro version?
Do you happen to know whether you have DisplayPort 1.2 or 1.4? I.e. which is the maximum resolution at which you have used it, can it do 4k @ 60 Hz on a monitor or projector?
Did you have to use the audio jack because the smartphone does not know to send the audio through DisplayPort, or was that a limitation of your projector (or perhaps of some DisplayPort/HDMI converter that you may have used)?
Having this feature and not documenting it for the potential buyers is even more stupid than not implementing it, as this can lead to lost sales. Like with Fairphone 6, I have considered buying Pixel 10, which at least has USB 3, but I have eliminated it from the possible choices for the lack of DisplayPort.
EDIT:
Googling now, I have found an article at Google's "Pixel Phone Help":
which says "Connect your phone to a display device (Pixel 8 and later)",
So indeed, DisplayPort is supported officially starting with Pixel 8.
Nevertheless, it says nothing about what kind of DisplayPort is supported, i.e. which is the maximum resolution that is achievable on a monitor/projector, and this help answer is well hidden, you have to search specifically for it, instead of having clear technical specification of the Pixel phones, easy to discover by potential buyers.
Moreover, it can do only screen or window mirroring, instead of having a desktop mode like other vendors, so I think that it probably is limited to 1080 lines, which is the resolution of Pixel's screen (non-Pro models, but Pro are only slightly better). In that case, it still does not do what I want, which is a 4k resolution on a monitor/projector (it can record 4k movies after all, so I would have expected to be able to play them).
I used the Jack for audio because I wanted to use my surround speakers instead of my projector's tiny speaker, but sound through DisplayPort worked just fine as well. The difficulties I was having were actually about android defaulting to the projector speakers instead of the speakers connected through the Jack, the solution was to go to the sound setting and just selecting the correct output.
I think you've missed the point again, it's more like this:
1. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free.
2. Giant corporations take all my code without giving me anything.
3. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free.
If you can't go to step 3, then you are doing it wrong and need to change step 1 from "giving it away for free" to something like "giving it away for free to the common people and at a price for corporate."
Which you could say "but that's not open source!" and you'd be right, which is exactly my point here: I don't think you want to do fully open source software, you want to do software and get paid for it somehow. If you do open source and get paid eventually and non binding, that's a nice little bonus, but it's not the main goal, never was with open source.
Although I agree with your overall point, there is a middle ground here: (commercially) non-free but open source software.
I believe that's where the biggest disagreement ITT lies. There are currently good ways to do FOSS, proprietary closed-source and free closed-source software development. But if the OSS is worth charging for (commercial) use, devs are left with asking for donations, SaaS or "pay me to work on this issue/feature".
There arguably should be better mechanisms to reward OSS development, even if the largest part of an OSSndev's motivation is intrinsic.
I'm sorry, but in my mind, open source and commercial don't mix. What would a license for that even look like?
I'm not saying going commercial is bad, go for it. I'm just saying that when we are talking open source, we are not talking money, that's all. Money is just one of many things in life, sure it's important, but not by itself.
Are you joking? It looks just as ugly as mountaintop removal to me.
They could preserve all that scenery by just building out nuclear. That's without mentioning the horrible ecological impact of blanketing an entire ecosystem in panels.
The OP asked if someone compared both, which usually means actually trying both and not just installing one and skimming through the other's README file. So, in summary, you didn't try both and didn't answer the OP.
I'm going to send them my wishlist to see what happens. I'm not optimistic about this, but I'm not pessimistic either and am very curious to see what happens.
I don't have one yet, unfortunately. But it's definitely going to include immich (not EU software I think), nextcloud, some form of email server, a secure chat app (which I don't think the EU has), mastodon, an android spinoff like GrapheneOS, Linux (ofc), open source EU LLMs, and I don't know much else, I'll have to think about it more.
Either option sounds really bad and not worth it to jump ship for me.
reply