Jump to content

brunoais

Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

brunoais last won the day on March 28 2020

brunoais had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

132 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes. You need root permissions on the OS side to set the permission values and, for example, set the same UID and GID to the same app for the equivalent app of the other OS (So both have the same UID and GID). Wait... File browser? I thought we were talking about web browser (the usual meaning for "browser"). If it's the file browser, then consider what I mentioned moot. A proper file browser does need root privileges on android.
  2. I think you need to root at the android level. However, why root at the browser app? In other words, why the need to run the browser app with root permissions?
  3. Why a root browser? Why not just make a symlink or a bind mount? Ultimately, the only requirement would be that the uids and gids match in both installs.
  4. The PRO1 doesn't have any locks or any artificial limitations applied. However, some providers lock it out or make the process harder to allow the PRO1 to work in their networks.
  5. There are no hardware security (or security capabilities) features missing if using the SD662. What it doesn't have is hardware acceleration for many security algorithms. That just means that those will be processed much much slower than SD835 can. That can be related to slower internet speeds that is reported/announced for the SD662. Edit: The only hardware security that an have meaning is the TrustZone. Is that the one you were missing? If so, for what purpose in the smartphone?
  6. Thank you @claude0001 for putting that down to words. Even if F(x)tec goes with the SD662, I will follow them. All because they have shown to deserve the trust and they are the ones being screwed. I don't want to screw them more than what they already are by canceling my pledge. I do wish they would explain better the situation they are in. Could it be stress?
  7. From my understanding of all I could gather. There was a breach of contract. Perhaps because that exact fail of 3 months of warning in advance and even taking the money without delivering
  8. Indeed. They don't tell who but they did mention plural. Qualcomm is pretty much the monopoly. Exynos is Samsung phones only, last time I asked them (mid/late last year)
  9. Is that the interpretation it is supposed to have? if so, then I'd change my option. @Erik Please confirm. If so, I will change the poll above. The announcement doesn't specify it. The baiter and switcher is the one F(x)tec hired and not F(x)tec itself. I wonder if it is a Chinese company... This kind of maneuver seems designed to kill small companies!
  10. It's not that you lose them. You just no longer get hardware acceleration for them. That causes their processing to become slower.
  11. I see. I'm not much updated on that. I'd still rather have those and go forward than this bate and switch from Qualcomm who took the money and then didn't deliver to f(x)tec. Maybe any of those ones would be easier and faster to work with... I just wonder if Qualcomm blocked F(x)tec from using them.
  12. Also, does anyone here need android certification? The certification is just a blessing from google so an Android installation passes the SafetyNet attestation. In my case, I'll just buy a super cheap phone for 50$ or so just for those apps.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms