Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote

> With smartphone tech at a plateau - maybe it's time for a sustainable
> user-serviceable phone with 5 major updates & 8 years of hotfix support
> https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/30/23843287/fairphone-5-price-release-date-specs-features-repairable-smartphone

Just in today... the truth about Apple products (despite Apple's lies)...

Note the news today that not only the latest iPhones received a DO NOT
PURCHASE score from iFixIt (due to Apple's lies about repairability)...

*iPhone 15 Teardown Reveals Software Lockdown*
�<https://www.ifixit.com/News/82867/iphone-15-teardown-reveals-software-lockdown>
"Repairable design undermined by parts-pairing DRM"

Today iFixIt retroactively downgraded the iPhone 14 to DO NOT PURCHASE!
*We Are Retroactively Dropping the iPhone's Repairability Score*
<https://www.ifixit.com/News/82493/we-are-retroactively-dropping-the-iphones-repairability-score-en>
"Systematic Parts Pairing Undermines Design Improvements"

What it shows is that Apple's lies about repairability even fooled iFixIt
for a while - but they have fixed that by recommending nobody purchase
either the iPhone 14 or the iPhone 15 if repairability is an issue.
Repairability of iPhone 14/15 Pro Max = 4 out of 10 (i.e., DO NOT PURCHASE!)
Repairability of iPhone 14/15 Pro = 4 out of 10 (i.e., DO NOT PURCHASE!)
Repairability of iPhone 14/15 Plus = 4 out of 10 (i.e., DO NOT PURCHASE!)
Repairability of iPhone 14/15 = 4 out of 10 (i.e., DO NOT PURCHASE!)

Note: Interestingly, iFixIt also said Apple's 5G modem team was so
incompetent that they said they felt for Steve Cook in how bad they are.

"Apple's 5G modem team has been toiling in isolation for years without
any hardware to show for it. We're not sure who [sic] to feel for,
Tim Cook's wallet or the poor Apple lawyers who had to grovel
with Qualcomm a new contract. Amazingly, the hundreds of
engineers working on this project for first-Infineon,
then-Intel, and now-Apple have yet to ship a single 5G modem
to customers. That's got to be demoralizing."
--
I supply the truth about Android and Apple products where every fact is
backed up by reliable sources such as these two iFixIt articles from today.

On 9/26/23 13:56, Wally J wrote:
> Just in today... the truth about Apple products (despite Apple's lies)...
>
> Note the news today that not only the latest iPhones received a DO NOT
> PURCHASE score from iFixIt (due to Apple's lies about repairability)...

IMO there's not much (real) point to buying new iPhones unless you care
about the camera (which I don't).

Of course they're tying to smoke out the old phones by removing support..
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote

>> Note the news today that not only the latest iPhones received a DO NOT
>> PURCHASE score from iFixIt (due to Apple's lies about repairability)...
>
> IMO there's not much (real) point to buying new iPhones unless you care
> about the camera (which I don't).

The main point was iFixIt rated the iPhone 15 series as DO NOT PURCHASE
if repairability is a concern - where the camera is only one part.

Also, iFixIt retroactively DOWNGRADED the iPhone 14 series to the same
dismal DO NOT PURCHASE rating (if repair is of a concern to the buyer).

The strategic reason Apple makes the iPhones almost impossible for a
homeowner to repair isn't so much that Apple enjoys contributing to ewaste
- it's - as you said - Apple doesn't want the phone to last all that long.

It's the same reason Apple puts those undeniably cheap anemic batteries -
which iFixit even called "anemic" since that's part of Apple's strategy.

Given all batteries degrade to a point that they no longer work, and since
the degradation is based on charge cycles, iPhone batteries die sooner.

The iKooks hate that fact - but none of them has ever taken a class in
chemistry or physics so they only quote Apple's ridiculous advertisements.

Now - to the camera you speak about - it's not clear if you own the adult
cognitive skills to comprehend iPhone cameras rarely make the top ten.

Are you aware of that fact?

The only place iPhone cameras are said to excel is in Apple advertisements.
Real world tests almost always show iPhone cameras are just OK - not great.

In summary, is your camera assessment based on Apple's advertisements?
Or on the real-world unbiased tests (e.g., from reputable camera testers)?

On 2023-09-26 12:46, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/26/23 13:56, Wally J wrote:
>> Just in today... the truth about Apple products (despite Apple's lies)...
>>
>> Note the news today that not only the latest iPhones received a DO NOT
>> PURCHASE score from iFixIt (due to Apple's lies about repairability)...
>
> IMO there's not much (real) point to buying new iPhones unless you care
> about the camera (which I don't).
>
> Of course they're tying to smoke out the old phones by removing support..

Really?

They're removing what support: the OS?

They're removing that after a full 6 YEARS.

On 2023-09-26 14:13, Wally J wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
>
>>> Note the news today that not only the latest iPhones received a DO NOT
>>> PURCHASE score from iFixIt (due to Apple's lies about repairability)...
>>
>> IMO there's not much (real) point to buying new iPhones unless you care
>> about the camera (which I don't).
>
> The main point was iFixIt rated the iPhone 15 series as DO NOT PURCHASE
> if repairability is a concern - where the camera is only one part.
>
> Also, iFixIt retroactively DOWNGRADED the iPhone 14 series to the same
> dismal DO NOT PURCHASE rating (if repair is of a concern to the buyer).

Why must you lie, Arlen?

For the record, iFixit issued no such rating.

On 9/26/23 16:13, Wally J wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
> Now - to the camera you speak about - it's not clear if you own the adult
> cognitive skills to comprehend iPhone cameras rarely make the top ten.
>
> Are you aware of that fact?

I meant more that the camera is about the only thing they actually
change.. besides removing ports and stuff
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-09-26 14:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/26/23 16:13, Wally J wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
>> Now - to the camera you speak about - it's not clear if you own the adult
>> cognitive skills to comprehend iPhone cameras rarely make the top ten.
>>
>> Are you aware of that fact?
>
> I meant more that the camera is about the only thing they actually
> change.. besides removing ports and stuff

I would put much stock in what Arlen says.

iPhone cameras regularly occupy a few places in the top ten:

<https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/>

Currently, that's 3 out of the top 10, and 5 of the top 12.

But then, Arlen only posts about these scores just before the newest
iPhones are released, so he can compare an almost year-old iPhone to
everything released since then.

:-)

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

> I update all my computers. Phones no, I can't.

Carlos,
Is your phone at least Android 10?

If so, the Android operating system was updated yesterday (most likely).
*And today too.*

And your Android operating system will (most likely) be updated tomorrow.
And the day after that.

*Forever.*

If you don't believe me, read any link showing up in this search.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?va=n&hps=1&q=what+is+android+project+mainline+treble>
--
Forever here means nobody knows of any end of life date, and, every module
in Project Mainline is donated to the AOSP so they can support it too.

On 9/27/23 4:20 PM, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
>> I update all my computers. Phones no, I can't.
>
> Carlos,
> Is your phone at least Android 10?
>
> If so, the Android operating system was updated yesterday (most likely).
> *And today too.*
>
> And your Android operating system will (most likely) be updated tomorrow.
> And the day after that.
>
> *Forever.*

You've been talking to ChatGPT again, haven't you?

> If you don't believe me, read any link showing up in this search.
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?va=n&hps=1&q=what+is+android+project+mainline+treble>

Didn't seem to discuss anything beyond A11. I would assume that
'forever' means that if you have 10 or 11 you can also have 12, 13, 14...

--
Cheers, Bev
Why do men's hearts beat faster, their knees get weak, their throats
become dry and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather
clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

>> Is your phone at least Android 10?
>>
>> If so, the Android operating system was updated yesterday (most likely).
>> *And today too.*
>>
>> And your Android operating system will (most likely) be updated tomorrow.
>> And the day after that.
>>
>> *Forever.*
>
> You've been talking to ChatGPT again, haven't you?

Hi TheRealBev,

This is a conversation that has been said on this group a thousand times.
Will telling you a thousand and one times how Android updates really help?

*Let's hope so.*

But you gotta read the links about Project Mainline & Project Treble.
Otherwise you'll be as ignorant as the iKooks (none of whom are adults).

*Seriously.*

The updates are via project mainline and project treble which for some
reason we've talked about for years on this newsgroup - ever since Android
10 - and yet - some on this newsgroup are seemingly incapable of learning
about it.

I can't teach you want you don't want to learn - which is that Android
updates in asynchronous layers - forever - with updates every single day.

It all happens under the covers - over the Internet - via what we'll call
the Google Play Store mechanism (but it's really a module inside of it).

>> If you don't believe me, read any link showing up in this search.
>> <https://duckduckgo.com/?va=n&hps=1&q=what+is+android+project+mainline+treble>
>
> Didn't seem to discuss anything beyond A11. I would assume that
> 'forever' means that if you have 10 or 11 you can also have 12, 13, 14...

Oh my. Where do we start with you when you say stuff like that.

First off, the only significance of Android 10 is that's when Project
Mainline and Project Treble kicked off. There's no other meaning to it.

If you have a phone that is at least Android 10, then it's being updated
every single day via the Google Play Store mechanism - over the Internet.

I don't feel like looking up the number of Android modules but it's up to
something like 34 now and it started with something like a dozen then.

So 34 extremely important layers in Android (aka packages) are updated
every single day for billions of Android phones that are on Android 13.

For Android 10, it's something like a dozen of those modules only.

The point is that Android, like a modern operating system should,
updates itself every single day in layers - where those updates have no EOL
date and where they're all donated to the AOSP so even if they did finally
stop (which they never have yet), they'd still be supported via AOSP.

You don't notice it because it happens completely in the background.
And it happens forever [1].

By way of stark contrast, the primitive monolithic iOS operating system is
not only updated in a stone-age slab-like mechanism - but full support for
any Apple release INSTANTLY TURNS TO DUST the instant a new release comes
out. This means only iOS 17 is fully supported. Not iOS 16. Not 15. Not 14.

Only Apple has support so crappy they only fully support a single release.
(Hell, even Microsoft has better operating system support than does Apple.)
--
[1] Forever here meaning nobody - not me - not Andy Burns - not anyone, has
been able to find an EOL date for these updates (which happen every day).

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

> Google Play system update: 20230701

Hi Carlos,

Please _read_ the links provided before you post another word on this ng.
Pretty please.

It's no longer shocking how anyone can be on this newsgroup for years,
and still not know anything about how Android operating systems update.

*Project Mainline === Google Play system update*

Please read this Carlos (before you say another word about Android).
<https://www.esper.io/blog/what-is-project-mainline>

>> Navigate to Settings > Security > Google Play system update.
>
> 20230701
> after:
> 20230801

Carlos,

Please read the articles cited below before ever posting here ever again.
I'm begging you.

Both Carlos & Frank need to read this article before they say another word.
*What Are Google Play System Updates on Android, and Are They Important?*
<https://www.howtogeek.com/686927/what-are-google-play-system-updates-on-android-and-are-they-important/>

That's the Project Mainline (since renamed to "Google Play system update")
version which means dozens of critical Android components were updated.

> Google Play system update: 20230801 *

The Google Play system update is most of Android, Carlos, in that it's 37
core critical modules which are updated over the net roughly about monthly.
<https://support.google.com/android/answer/7680439>

> That's not an Android update.

Google says it is a critically important component of Android updates.
<https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/11412553>

(Note: *That web page may directly answer Frank's original question*.)

>> Carlos, can you try this on your phone and see if there is a 'hidden'
>> 'Google Play system update', like there was on mine (or that it says
>> that it's up to date ('V'))?
>
> It said reboot to apply update, which I did. It only updated the Google
> Play System Update, whatever that is.

It's no longer shocking that someone has been on this newsgroup for years,
and has been oblivious all those years of how Android actually updates.

BTW, I've always said it's fine if people are ignorant.
It's even fine if people wish to _remain_ ignorant forever.

But what is wrong is people like Carlos saying an Android update isn't an
Android update simply because Carlos is completely ignorant of what it is.

Ignorant people are fine.
Most people are as ignorant as Carlos and Frank are about Android.

And that's OK.

But ignorant people who claim every fact they're completely ignorant of
can't be a fact (because they are ignorant of it) is a problem with me.

Carlos and Frank - please read the links provided (pretty please), as I'm
begging you both to reduce your ignorance on how Android updates itself.
--
I'm on this newsgroup to learn from others and to teach them what they
haven't yet learned on their own (and to show iKooks for what they are).

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

>> That's not an Android update.
>
> Well, no and yes.

Good response, Frank.

Ignorant people are fine.
Most people are as ignorant as Carlos is about how Android updates itself.

And that's OK.

But ignorant people who claim every fact they're completely ignorant of
can't be a fact (because they are ignorant of it) is a problem with me.

I wasn't sure how ignorant you were, Frank, until you began to explain to
Carlos that Project Mainline (aka Google Play system update) is an update.

We need to ask Carlos to read this article before Carlos ever posts another
word about what Carlos (incorrectly) thinks an Android update is.
*What Are Google Play System Updates on Android, and Are They Important?*
<https://www.howtogeek.com/686927/what-are-google-play-system-updates-on-android-and-are-they-important/>

> It's not an Android *version* update, i.e. not from
> Android 12 to Android 13. But it *is* an update to some components of
> the Android *system* - hence it says "Google Play system update", note
> "system update" -, so it's not just an update of one or more Google
> *apps*.

Frank - I'm not sure why you threw in that last clause about "Google apps",
because it doesn't belong with the rest of that paragraph (for a few
reasons which I can explain but which we can simply just ignore for now)...

But...

What you need to explain to Carlos first and foremost is that we've
discussed this umpteen times on this newsgroup that an Android release
version is just a number given that Android updates in huge layers.

Android update layers are almost independent of the release number.

> Compare it to Windows, if Windows Update installs some Windows-related
> update, we say it's a 'Windows update'.

Frank is doing a good job trying to explain to Carlos that an operating
system is updated in layers - where Carlos can't comprehend that yet.

> Anyway, you showed that your 'Android security update:' - so the stuff
> you get from your *phone manufacturer* - has not been updated, but the
> 'Google Play system update:' version - so, the stuff you get from
> *Google* - was updated from 20230701 to 20230801.

Wow. Frank is the _first_ person on this newsgroup (well, I'm sure Andy
Burns understands all this better than even I do) so Frank is the first
person on this thread, who shows that he understands that Android is
updated in layers.

> It is also noteworthy that your 'Google Play system update:' date is
> the same as mine, while our 'Android security update:' dates (and
> 'Android version:' dates) are different. So our Google-supplied stuff
> has the same date, while our phone-manufacturer-supplied stuff has
> different dates.

Again, Frank is showing he understands that Android updates itself in
layers, where those layers come from a variety of sources.

Some of those layers come from the OEM (usually via the carrier).
Other layers come directly from Google (usually via Project Mainline).
Still others can come from the Google Play store (e.g., app updates).
And others come from Qualcomm (e.g., Project Treble driver updates).

>> It said reboot to apply update, which I did. It only updated the Google
>> Play System Update, whatever that is.
>
> There is indeed no information/notification about these updates, which
> is different from 'Software update's from the phone manufacturer, at
> least for my Samsung I get notifications with quite a lot of detailed
> information, including a link to a release notes page.

Wow. Frank is suddenly realizing what we've been discussing for years!

Android updates _seamlessly_ as you don't even realize it's updating.
*Seamless OS updates*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/xBzbxqU0ekM/m/CpMKF-VSAgAJ>

> While doing my searches, I found some information which mentioned
> which parts were changed/added in a particular 'Google Play system
> update', but that reference said this information was well hidden by
> Google and what they found was not very reliable.

Frank - your _adult_ question of how _frequently_ Google updates the dozens
of core modules in the Project Mainline (aka Google Play system update)
updates _may_ be answered in this listing of Google Play system updates.
<https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/11412553>

It's looks like a frequency of somewhat monthly (slightly less so perhaps).

> So we know, we can/do get some 'Google Play system update's, but we
> know next to nothing about what they are all about.

I can't disagree with you at this point about "what they are about", but I
must say that you've been on this newsgroup for years and you seem to have
completely whooshed on the fact that Andy Burns and I have discussed, with
each upcoming Android release, the set of modules _added_ to Mainline.
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/_ZUiLVtLbsg/>

> BTW, a minor, but IMO important point, the Google updates are
> described as "Google Play system update", note the different case of
> the first letters of the last two words.

We actually covered this, Frank - when Andy Burns and I listed the major
layers as Google refers to them as - so you're _years_ behind in detail.

But - since you're the _only_ one (other than Andy and I am) who has showed
any inkling of a grasp of how Android is updated, I consider it a success.

Finally even you, Frank, are beginning to comprehend what I have been
explaining to everyone on this newsgroup for years. And that's good.

It seems none of you have ever prior wondered how Android really updates.
I have.

> AFAICT, that means that it is a 'system update' which is delivered by
> the 'Google Play' component(s) of Android, so it is *not* an 'update' to
> the 'Google Play System' (which beast doesn't exist AFAIK).

Yes. We covered this many times already Frank. It's confusing.
Google, like many large corporations - tries to capitalize on brand
recognition - where the MARKETING organization is who names this stuff.

We covered this too - Frank - so you're still years behind in understanding
how Android is updated - but it's _good_ that you belatedly realized this.

Google has made a naming mess out of the "Google Play system updates"
layer, and we discussed this in the past which is why you may note that I
_still_ refer to it usually as "Project Mainline (since renamed)".

You're _years_ behind, Frank... but the good news is you're catching up.

> Finally, if somone has more information on how to get notification for
> or/and information about past/current/future 'Google Play system
> update's, then please let us know.

Andy Burns and I covered this topic, as we did "seamless updates", and we
even covered at some point the "switch" to get more information.

Alas... I'd have to dig that up for you Frank - but it's a perfectly valid
_adult_ question for you to ask - so I'll see what I can do for you.

I think we should ask Andy first though - as he seems to own a Pixel which
has the A/B partitioning enabled which may (or may not) make a difference.
--
I'm on this newsgroup to learn from others and to teach them what they
haven't yet learned on their own (and to show iKooks for what they are).

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

>> Most people are as ignorant as Carlos is about how Android updates itself.
>
> Insulting again. Not reading the rest.

Which is exactly _why_ you're completely ignorant of how Android updates.

But it's OK for you, Carlos, to be ignorant of how Android updates.
Most people are as ignorant as you are, Carlos.

That's fine.

The problem isn't that you're ignorant, Carlos.

The problem is your oft-repeated claim that every fact you're ignorant of -
can't be a fact - simply because you're completely ignorant of that fact.

That's what's wrong here, Carlos.

1. The fact is that Android updates in complex layers, Carlos.
2. Some of which are completely independent of the carrier & OEM, Carlos.
3. And some of which are updated forever[1], Carlos.

That you are ignorant of those facts doesn't change that they're facts.
--
[1] Forever here indicates that nobody has found any EOL date and even if
there were an EOL date, all Mainline modules are also donated to AOSP.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote

> Thanks. I do tinker with my toys but I'm definitely not technically
> savvy as some are here. I worked in military electronics in the 60's
> (Motorola Western Military Division in Scottsdale AZ USA) but I've not
> kept up. If I ever sound technical here it's because of good old
> Google...

I remember working with Motorola there when we did the Power PC.

>
>> But if you prefer 'enthusiast' instead of 'nerd', that's fine by me!
>> :-)
>
> I think the last time we discussed this we used the word 'geek'... ;)

There's nothing wrong with being technically saavy.

> Yes I use a MSA.

I don't see any reason, yet, to need an MSA. Nor to want one.
What does an MSA buy you on Windows 10 that you can't get otherwise?
a. OneDrive?
b. Microsoft Store?
c. An email account?

Anything else?

None of that is worth the inherent loss of privacy for me to log into any
mothership tracking server 24/7/365 (but the Apple people do it every day).

> But I'm sneaky as I use a fake name. And I'll bet you
> can even guess its initials.

Like you, I'm sneaky when I use a fake name to register my Samsung Galaxy
A32-5G and I'll bet you can't even guess what it might be at the XDA site.
<https://forum.xda-developers.com/m/galaxya325g.11604613/recent-content>

I use Google to find even my own stuff... (like my helpful tutorials).

Most of the time though, when I use Google searches for something I did in
the past, my stuff pops up in the first page - so others find it useful.

> As I recall I tried a local account some years back but missed being
> able to use some of MS's services. They were so important to me that I
> now can't recall which ones they were...

One of the main reasons I am NOT upgrading to Windows 11 (besides the fact
it does nothing that Windows 10 doesn't do), is the MSA requirement.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> How are your Pixel's doing?
>
> Pixel 5a, doesn't feel 'old' yet, only issue I've had was one bad
> monthly update that hurt daily battery life, fixed the following month,
> will receive updates until August 2024 (I doubt whether the 15 upgrade
> will come out during that timescale)

Good for you on the Pixels as you taught me about the A/B partitions and
the OTA updates, which we don't have on my free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G.

I stress particularly that it was free because I love that darn thing!
I didn't pick it though - T-Mobile picked it for me. I buy cheap phones.
<https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/tmo-us-is-giving-away-this-phone.4265127/#post-89033675>

However, the size is right (most of the time it's two feet tall on my PC
monitor anyway) and the 5AH battery lasts forever (where I know how to keep
the radios off unless I need them), and the CPU & display does everything I
need it to do - so it too does not feel old in the least to me either.

Unless I break it, or lose it, or if I move to the slums and it gets
stolen, I can't imagine what they'll have to do to make me want a new one.

But my main question is how to differentiate between Project
Mainline/Treble "security updates" and the Android "security updates".
<https://artihe.com/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-project-mainline-on-android-14-and-later/>
>>> Google previously gave 3 years for both, currently give 3 years and 5 years,
>>> the rumour is from the upcoming pixel8 they're going to going to get 7
>>> years of major upgrades
>>
>> I wonder how "important" the security patches are that happen during the
>> Project Mainline (aka "Google Play system updates") & Treble updates?
>
> The Play updates seem somewhat behind the security updates, e.g. it's on
> 1st Sept security fixes and 1st Aug Play updates right now.

My update status is documented here but I have many updates turned off.
<https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/is-it-just-me-or-is-samsung-google-t-mobile-who-updating-the-heck-out-of-this-free-samsung-galaxy-a32-5g-sma32-6u-phone-lately-who-is-doing-it.4629997/>

Note that I have almost all Google packages disabled but they're _still_
updating my phone even though I have a ton of the updaters turned off.
<https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/for-how-long-are-the-over-two-dozen-android-core-modules-updated-over-the-google-play-system-update-mechanism-aka-google-system-updates.4455927/post-88995551>

> Would
> normally expect a new security fix during the first week of Oct, but
> that's likely to be the v14 major upgrade instead this month.

I tried to stop all security fixes but they still keep coming!
<https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/can-i-prevent-an-update-or-at-least-stave-it-off-or-must-i-accept-the-upcoming-update-i-dont-want-the-baseband-to-increment-for-rooting.4532085/#post-87902917>

You seem to know this stuff better than anyone else on this newsgroup.
Me? I can't figure out why they even bother to separate the updates.
<https://forum.xda-developers.com/attachments/galaxy_update_upgrade-jpg.6008295/>

a. There is the "Android Security Patch Level"
b. There are the "Google Play system updates" (aka Project Mainline/Treble)
c. There seem to be Google Play Store system updates (mine are disabled)
etc.

A critical question we should know the answer to are what the differences
are between the security patches in the Project Mainline/Treble updates
(which happen, as far as we can tell, almost monthly forever) and the
specific entity called the "Android Security Patch Level".

Google is apparently frustrating that effort by not documenting it well.
<https://www.androidpolice.com/project-mainline-android-14/>

Mainly, I can't figure out how to differentiate between Project Mainline
security updates and the rest of the Android security updates.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> The problem with these alerts is they are almost all bogus
>
> Yes, since I got a warning for a tropical storm half the planet away
> from me I've turned them all off (supposedly we don't have a $GOD level
> that can't be turned off)

I wonder if they get the $GOD level reference you just made... :)
<https://duckduckgo.com/?&q=windows+god+mode>

For example...
*How to enable Windows God Mode*
<https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/enable-god-mode-windows-11>

Back to the topic of what's the security update lifetime, I think there are
two overlapping answers to that question - one of which is "forever"
and the other of which is about three to five years for Google/Samsung.

For example, my Samsung shipped in 2021 with Android 11 which then moved to
Android 12 and now to Android 13 while Frank Slootweg's Samsung shipped
with Android 10 and he recently updated his to Android 13 - all the time
with two types of constant weekly concomitant Android "security updates".

Notice though that the two types of security updates are both the same and
different at the same time - which I think is the source of confusion...
"If you don't already know, security patches and Google System updates
aren't the same. You might be familiar with the former because those
arrive as a software update for your phone. Unless you have auto-updates
turned on, you have to manually download and install the monthly security
patches. They fix various privacy and security vulnerabilities found on
Google's version of Android as well as custom skins supplied on top
by your phone's manufacturer.

Google System updates, meanwhile, are fully automated.

Originally referred to as Project Mainline, these updates fix bugs
discovered in various OS components like device connectivity,
location services, media services, Emergency alerts, and others.
Sometimes, they may also bring new features or enhancements."
<https://www.androidheadlines.com/2022/01/google-monthly-changelog-play-system-updates.html>

What it says is that Google is publishing _monthly_ a changelog of both
a. Security updates via security updates, and,
b. Security updates via Google Play system update updates.
*What's new in Google System Updates*
<https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/11412553>

Notice that says "Every week, the Google Play Store provides...", so the
update frequency is literally weekly, forever (as far as anyone knows).

The latest appears to be the October Google Play system updates update.
"Available through Google Play Store v37.8 updated on 10/2/2023"

In summary, "some" security updates on Android last only five years,
while other security updates last forever (Android 10 and above).
--
Forever here means nobody knows of any EOL date and even if there were an
EOL date, all Google Play System updates are donated to the AOSP community.

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote

>> Have you noticed 2 _adult_ things in Usenet yet (when iKooks are involved)?
>>
>> 1. These iKooks never add value - they only contest value, and,
>> 2. They whine about snipping (when it's the correct & proper netiquette).
>
> It's proper netiquette? I was just removing it because the extra text
> bothered me.

You have to understand why the iKooks _hate_ when people snip
(which is the correct netiquette).

One is that snipping is the correct netiquette. The entire conversation is
easily backtraced so it does not need to be repeated a thousand times.

The _reason_ the iKooks hate when you snip is that's _their_ way of
changing the subject of a thread which tells the truth about Apple.

This is the main rule of all the uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks:
*Change the subject* *Fast!* *Blame everyone but Apple!*

They _hate_ every truth about Apple being discussed so they deflect.
And they blame you (or me) for telling the truth about Apple products.

Like Apple, they blame everyone but Apple for flaws in Apple products.

Just watch.

On 10/3/23 23:02, Wally J wrote:
> The _reason_ the iKooks hate when you snip is that's _their_ way of
> changing the subject of a thread which tells the truth about Apple.
>
> This is the main rule of all the uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks:
> *Change the subject* *Fast!* *Blame everyone but Apple!*
>

Wouldn't snipping make it easier to change the subject, having less
context visible? Or do they edit the quotations?

> They _hate_ every truth about Apple being discussed so they deflect.
> And they blame you (or me) for telling the truth about Apple products.
>
> Like Apple, they blame everyone but Apple for flaws in Apple products.
>
> Just watch.

Right, I noticed.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-10-04 06:27, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 10/3/23 23:02, Wally J wrote:
>> The _reason_ the iKooks hate when you snip is that's _their_ way of
>> changing the subject of a thread which tells the truth about Apple.
>>
>> This is the main rule of all the uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks:
>>     *Change the subject*    *Fast!*  *Blame everyone but Apple!*
>>
>
> Wouldn't snipping make it easier to change the subject, having less
> context visible? Or do they edit the quotations?
>
>> They _hate_ every truth about Apple being discussed so they deflect.
>> And they blame you (or me) for telling the truth about Apple products.
>>
>> Like Apple, they blame everyone but Apple for flaws in Apple products.
>>
>> Just watch.
>
> Right, I noticed.

Why have you chosen to become a liar?

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote

> On 10/6/2023 10:30 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-10-06 09:32, AJL wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2023 11:43 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>>>> A peeve she had was with lots of adverts on the browser. Turned
>>>> out that she was using Chrome.
>
>>> Where are the ads located? There's no ads in my Chrome browsers
>>> (Windows and Android).
>
>> Anywhere in the pages.
>
> If you mean web page ads brought up by the Chrome browser that's not
> Chrome's fault. Chrome itself has no ads.
>
>>>> I installed Firefox with uBlock Origin, and that was a
>>>> difference.
>
>>> uBlock Origin is an available extension for the Chrome browser.
>
>> Possibly... I'm not familiar with Chrome myself.
>
> Ah. You might try using Chrome a bit before complaining about it.
>
>> In Linux, my normal browsing is with Firefox. When some page refuses
>> to work with Chrome (there are some) then I switch to Chrome, not
>> blocking anything so that the page does work.
>
>>>> Problem is, she is really used to Chrome integration with google
>>>> tools.
>
>>> Sounds like the ads were coming from outside the browser or perhaps
>>> it had been hacked. Do a little more checking and give her her
>>> browser back...
>
>> I can't, there is a big pond between us.
>
> Too bad. It appears you messed her up and now can't fix it.
>
>> I see similar adverts myself when I don't use an add blocker in the
>> browser.
>
> True for most all browsers. Your statement above that Chrome was the
> cause of your friend's ad problem was false...

To strive to add further value to those correct statements by AJL...

I agree that the "ads" are likely coming not from the browser,
but most likely those ads are coming from the pages visited.

Note that there are Chrome-based browsers which block ads
by default such as Epic Privacy Browser (or something similar).
*Epic Privacy Browser* (no ads)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epic.browser>

The other problem is Chrome itself (which I'll assume you know about).

Hence a related suggestion for those reading this stuff about Chrome,
is 1st & foremost to get native chrome stuff off your user partition.
C:\> adb shell pm uninstall --user 0 com.android.chrome
C:\> adb shell pm uninstall --user 0
com.sec.android.app.chromecustomizations

Yes... there are "chrome customizations"... whatever they are...

Then I'd install Ungoogled Chromium (or Bromite) instead.
<https://www.bromite.org/>
<https://github.com/bromite/bromite>

Lot's of reasons why...

On 10/6/23, 12:05 PM, in article ufplql$165nv$1@paganini.bofh.team, "Wally
J" <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
>> On 10/6/2023 10:30 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-10-06 09:32, AJL wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/2023 11:43 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>>>> A peeve she had was with lots of adverts on the browser. Turned
>>>>> out that she was using Chrome.
>>
>>>> Where are the ads located? There's no ads in my Chrome browsers
>>>> (Windows and Android).
>>
>>> Anywhere in the pages.
>>
>> If you mean web page ads brought up by the Chrome browser that's not
>> Chrome's fault. Chrome itself has no ads.
>>
>>>>> I installed Firefox with uBlock Origin, and that was a
>>>>> difference.
>>
>>>> uBlock Origin is an available extension for the Chrome browser.
>>
>>> Possibly... I'm not familiar with Chrome myself.
>>
>> Ah. You might try using Chrome a bit before complaining about it.
>>
>>> In Linux, my normal browsing is with Firefox. When some page refuses
>>> to work with Chrome (there are some) then I switch to Chrome, not
>>> blocking anything so that the page does work.
>>
>>>>> Problem is, she is really used to Chrome integration with google
>>>>> tools.
>>
>>>> Sounds like the ads were coming from outside the browser or perhaps
>>>> it had been hacked. Do a little more checking and give her her
>>>> browser back...
>>
>>> I can't, there is a big pond between us.
>>
>> Too bad. It appears you messed her up and now can't fix it.
>>
>>> I see similar adverts myself when I don't use an add blocker in the
>>> browser.
>>
>> True for most all browsers. Your statement above that Chrome was the
>> cause of your friend's ad problem was false...
>
> To strive to add further value to those correct statements by AJL...
>
> I agree that the "ads" are likely coming not from the browser,
> but most likely those ads are coming from the pages visited.
>
> Note that there are Chrome-based browsers which block ads
> by default such as Epic Privacy Browser (or something similar).
> *Epic Privacy Browser* (no ads)
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epic.browser>
>
> The other problem is Chrome itself (which I'll assume you know about).
>
> Hence a related suggestion for those reading this stuff about Chrome,
> is 1st & foremost to get native chrome stuff off your user partition.
> C:\> adb shell pm uninstall --user 0 com.android.chrome
> C:\> adb shell pm uninstall --user 0
> com.sec.android.app.chromecustomizations
>
> Yes... there are "chrome customizations"... whatever they are...
>
> Then I'd install Ungoogled Chromium (or Bromite) instead.
> <https://www.bromite.org/>
> <https://github.com/bromite/bromite>
>
> Lot's of reasons why...

Chrome is baked into Android System WebView the same way that WebKit is
baked into iOS.

Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote

> Chrome is baked into Android System WebView the same way that WebKit is
> baked into iOS.

WebView? I had never heard of Android System WebView before.

It was here.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8kfsyKdV/webview01.jpg> WebView is here
Now it's gone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/dtLBhFqh/webview02.jpg> WebView is gone

I am not ashamed to say I've never heard of Android System WebView
(although I'm all too familiar with Apple's walled-garden WebKit).
a. Ignorance can be cured (rather easily);
b. It's stupidity that can't be cured.

Thank you for bringing up Android System WebView so we can learn from you.
And thank you for making the (presumed) "equivalence" with Apple's WebKit.

This presumed equivalence may be true. Or it may not be true.
I'd have to know more since I never looked up Android System WebView.

To find out more about what WebView does for Android 10 and up,
and to then compare & contrast it with WebKit, I opened this thread.

*Compare & contrast Apple's WebKit with Google's Android System WebView*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/hKRmO7SdoUI>

Thank you for bringing up a fact and an assessment of that fact, where I
will discuss that further with you when I learn more of the facts.

FACT: "Chrome is baked into Android System WebView..."
ASSESSMENT: "...the same way that WebKit is baked into iOS."
--
I prefer to discuss topics on the Apple Usenet newsgroups at the level
an adult would appreciate and not at the level of the child-like iKooks.

On 2023-10-06 19:55, Wally J wrote:
> Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote
>
>> Chrome is baked into Android System WebView the same way that WebKit is
>> baked into iOS.
>
> WebView? I had never heard of Android System WebView before.

But you're ignorant of so much...

On 10/6/23, 7:55 PM, in article ufqhbu$1c53f$1@paganini.bofh.team, "Wally J"
<walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote
>
>> Chrome is baked into Android System WebView the same way that WebKit is
>> baked into iOS.
>
> WebView? I had never heard of Android System WebView before.
>
> It was here.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/8kfsyKdV/webview01.jpg> WebView is here
> Now it's gone.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/dtLBhFqh/webview02.jpg> WebView is gone
>
> I am not ashamed to say I've never heard of Android System WebView
> (although I'm all too familiar with Apple's walled-garden WebKit).
> a. Ignorance can be cured (rather easily);
> b. It's stupidity that can't be cured.
>
> Thank you for bringing up Android System WebView so we can learn from you.
> And thank you for making the (presumed) "equivalence" with Apple's WebKit.
>
> This presumed equivalence may be true. Or it may not be true.
> I'd have to know more since I never looked up Android System WebView.
>
> To find out more about what WebView does for Android 10 and up,
> and to then compare & contrast it with WebKit, I opened this thread.
>
> *Compare & contrast Apple's WebKit with Google's Android System WebView*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/hKRmO7SdoUI>
>
> Thank you for bringing up a fact and an assessment of that fact, where I
> will discuss that further with you when I learn more of the facts.
>
> FACT: "Chrome is baked into Android System WebView..."
> ASSESSMENT: "...the same way that WebKit is baked into iOS."

WebView is a copy of Chrome that is baked into the Android system libraries.
It isn't an "app." android.webkit.WebView. You cannot remove it. Whenever an
application wants to render HTML, it calls WebView to do so. They switched
it from Gecko (I think) to Blink (Chrome) so that they can continue to
enforce the Google (Business Model: Uber for Spyware) web browser monopoly.
I don't think you understand how dynamic linking works. An app doesn't
include a copy of WebView, it uses the system version of WebView, which is
Chrome. It's primary use is not for web browsers but instead to render rich
text, HTML, and most importantly, Google® DoubleClick (Business Model: Uber
for Data Mining) Advertisements!

On 10/6/23 22:38, Dorper wrote:
> I don't think you understand how dynamic linking works. An app doesn't
> include a copy of WebView, it uses the system version of WebView, which is
> Chrome. It's primary use is not for web browsers but instead to render rich
> text, HTML, and most importantly, Google® DoubleClick (Business Model: Uber
> for Data Mining) Advertisements!
>

So, could you theoretically fork WebView and patch it out?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom