What cell tower am I connectred to

[Erholt Rhein]

There are apps which report the exact cell tower that you're connected to
at any given moment but which of the identifiers that these apps provide
tells me the exact cell tower and sector antenna unique identifier?

The stress of this question is on the word "unique" since just knowing the
cell tower location in an Internet lookup database is not as useful as
knowing the exact identifier for the exact sector antenna connection.

This is an example of the sets of numbers which these apps report.
https://mobiletechtalk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-11-01-12.42.46.jpg

There is a mobile tower TAC, PCI, ECI & EARFCN reported by these apps.

What is the minimum combination of those identifiers that is exactly the
unique sector antenna the phone is currently connected to?

[VanguardLH]

Erholt Rhein <erh...@pobox.com> wrote:

> There are apps which report the exact cell tower that you're connected
> to at any given moment but which of the identifiers that these apps
> provide tells me the exact cell tower and sector antenna unique
> identifier?
>
> The stress of this question is on the word "unique" since just
> knowing the cell tower location in an Internet lookup database is not
> as useful as knowing the exact identifier for the exact sector
> antenna connection.

Network Cell Info (by M2Catalyst)
free: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite
paid: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfo

I have the paid/Pro version, so I cannot say what crippling is present
in the free version. I used the free version for 2 years, and
eventually decided to pay ($1.99) for it along with some other freebies
that I decided to keep after a long trial. They have a features
comparison table at:

https://www.m2catalyst.com/features

Unless you understand the data presented in the app (I don't know a lot
of what it shows), it may be hard to figure out which are the
indentifiers you are looking for. There is so much data presented to
you that you'll be spending lots of time online to learn lots.

It doesn't use a database for tower lookup. It shows you to which tower
you are current connected, and even has a map to show you where they are
besides giving you the GPS coordinates of the tower. GPS is not using
your smartphone, but part of the signal they send to you; i.e., the
towers tell you where they are. That's how accurate tracking works in
Android assuming you don't disable the GPS radio.

Warning: The app will tend to stay loaded when you close its window for
the paid versions. That's because the paid versions do measurements in
the background. When you truly want the app to unload, click the Off
button (circle with a 12 o'clock tick mark).

[Erholt Rhein]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:29:05 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> It doesn't use a database for tower lookup. It shows you to which tower
> you are current connected

That's what I like about these apps. They're actual unique connections.

What I don't know is what "set" of identifiers "is" the minimum to identify
the tower unique antenna sector.

Certainly, in the example given, this is the unique sector antenna.
https://mobiletechtalk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-11-01-12.42.46.jpg

TAC = 35088
PCI = 349
ECI = 129457524(505693-116)
EARFCN = 39250

But what do those mean in terms of the cell tower unique identifier?

[VanguardLH]

That's technical information that you have to research to understand.
The apps expect users to know the technical jargon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Allocation_Code
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:940787/FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://www.hawkanalytics.com/a-simple-guide-to-understanding-cell-site-terminology-when-mapping-cellular-call-detail-records/
https://www.cablefree.net/wirelesstechnology/4glte/lte-carrier-frequency-earfcn/

There are many sites for cellular technology training, too, like to
prepare for certifications. As with such training programs, they aren't
free. Trying to self-educate through the Web is, well, sketchy.

[Erholt Rhein]

As shown in this example, every phone can report where it is and exactly
what sector antenna on what tower by what carrier it is connected to.
https://i.ibb.co/kHMpDBn/Screenshot-2021-05-16-14-38-14-934-make-more-r2d2-cellular-z.jpg

MY LOC = 60.384528/56.850208
Serving Cell TAC = 26566
Serving Cell PCI = 31
Serving Cell ECI = 170572549(666299-5)
Serving Cell EARFCN = 3300/21300
Serving Cell FREQ = 2675/2555
Serving Cell BAND = 7(FDD)
My current RSRP = -99 dBm

As compared to this phone which also knows all that same identifying data.
https://mobiletechtalk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-11-01-12.42.46.jpg

MY LOC = -3.247542/55.976644
Serving Cell TAC = 35088
Serving Cell PCI = 349
Serving Cell ECI = 129457524(505693-116)
Serving Cell BANDWIDTH = 5 MHz
Serving Cell EARFCN = 39250
Serving Cell FREQ = 2360 MHz
Serving Cell BAND = 40(TDD)
My current RSRP = -93 dBm

I was hoping others would know this already so looking each of those
indicators up to better understand which are the minimum unique set.
https://www.hawkanalytics.com/a-simple-guide-to-understanding-cell-site-terminology-when-mapping-cellular-call-detail-records/

The TAC is the Type Allocation Code.
Used to create the first 8 digits of the International Mobile Equipment
Identity (IMEI), the number that identifies each unique mobile device on
all gsm networks.

The PCI is the Physical Cell Id.
This is the identifier of a network cell in the physical layer. This
property is limited to 504 values, and therefore needs to be reused in the
network. If the PCI assignment is poorly planned, the risk for network
conflicts is high.

The ECI is the Extended Cell identification or ECGI (Global).
This number consists of the MCC, MNC, eNodeB and Cell ID.

The CGI is the Cell Global Identification for a Base Transceiver Station in
mobile phone networks. This number is used in the GSM and UMTS networks and
is a combination of the MCC, MNC, LAC and the CI.

The MCC is the Mobile Country Code.
The mobile country code consists of three decimal digits and the mobile
network code consists of two or three decimal digits (for example: MNC of
001 is not the same as MNC of 01). The first digit of the mobile country
code identifies the geographic region as follows (the digits 1 and 8 are
not used):

0: Test networks
2: Europe
3: North America and the Caribbean
4: Asia and the Middle East
5: Australia and Oceania
6: Africa
7: South and Central America
9: Worldwide (Satellite, Air?aboard aircraft, Maritime?aboard ships,
Antarctica)

The MCC is used in combination with an MNC (a combination known as an
"MCC/MNC tuple") to uniquely identify a mobile network operator (carrier)
using the GSM (including GSM-R), UMTS, LTE, and 5G public land mobile
networks. Some but not all CDMA, iDEN, and satellite mobile networks are
identified with an MCC/MNC tuple as well.

The MNC is the Mobile Network Code.
The Mobile Network Code is a unique two- or three-digit number used to
identify a home Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN). MNC is allocated by the
national regulator. A MNC is used in combination with the Mobile country
code to derive the Home Network Identity (HNI).

The LAC is the Location Area Code.
The LAC is the unique number given to each location area within the
network. The served area of a cellular radio access network is usually
divided into location areas, consisting of one or several radio cells.

The eNodeB is the Enhanced NodeB which references a group of antennas on a
cell tower. The eNodeB alone does not identify the sector. To identify the
sector or direction the specific antenna faced, you'll need to refer to the
Cell ID.

The GSM Cell ID is the Cell Identity.
It is a generally unique number used to identify each base transceiver
station (BTS) or sector of a BTS within a location area code (LAC) if not
within a GSM network.

The EARFCN is the E-UTRA Absolute Radio Frequency Channel Number.
In LTE, the carrier frequency in the uplink and downlink is designated by
EARFCN, which ranges between 0-65535. EARFCN uniquely identify the LTE band
and carrier frequency.

From that information which every phone easily reports, I should be able to
deduce the exact sector antenna used by any one connection at any given
time.

Specifically, if I have multiple people at the same place, each of us
should be able to instantly determine which unique sector antenna each of
us is connected to.

[sms]

On 9/29/2022 10:29 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

<snip>

> Network Cell Info (by M2Catalyst)
> free: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite
> paid: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfo
>
> I have the paid/Pro version, so I cannot say what crippling is present
> in the free version. I used the free version for 2 years, and
> eventually decided to pay ($1.99) for it along with some other freebies
> that I decided to keep after a long trial. They have a features
> comparison table at:
>
> https://www.m2catalyst.com/features
>
> Unless you understand the data presented in the app (I don't know a lot
> of what it shows), it may be hard to figure out which are the
> indentifiers you are looking for. There is so much data presented to
> you that you'll be spending lots of time online to learn lots.
>
> It doesn't use a database for tower lookup. It shows you to which tower
> you are current connected, and even has a map to show you where they are
> besides giving you the GPS coordinates of the tower. GPS is not using
> your smartphone, but part of the signal they send to you; i.e., the
> towers tell you where they are. That's how accurate tracking works in
> Android assuming you don't disable the GPS radio.

Awesome App. Well worth the $1.99 for the paid version.

You're right, it provides a LOT of data, and interpreting it is not a
trivial task.

Really too bad that there's no similar app for the iPhone, but it's not
possible because of limitations and restrictions of iOS. There have been
a few attempts to do apps like this for iOS but the ratings are terrible
because it's just not possible to get the level of information that
Android allows developers to access.

[The Real Bev]

On 9/29/22 10:29 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

> Warning: The app will tend to stay loaded when you close its window for
> the paid versions. That's because the paid versions do measurements in
> the background. When you truly want the app to unload, click the Off
> button (circle with a 12 o'clock tick mark).

Bastards. My Pixel2 battery is already shot (I left it on the charger
overnight for at least a year in order to use the snore-monitor app).




--
Cheers, Bev
"Everything sucks; reverse the wires and everything will blow."
-- Desert Ed

[Erholt Rhein]

You have to wonder what Apple is so afraid of by not allowing this type of
extremely useful utility app in their Apple iOS app store.

What's the danger to Apple of the iOS user having useful debugging data?

[Erholt Rhein]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:29:05 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> Network Cell Info (by M2Catalyst)
> free: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite
> paid: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfo

I suspect you wasted your money on that pay ware app copy of open source.
You rewarded a thief.

What does that pay ware do that the free ware open source app does not do?

[VanguardLH]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/29/22 10:29 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Warning: The app will tend to stay loaded when you close its window for
>> the paid versions. That's because the paid versions do measurements in
>> the background. When you truly want the app to unload, click the Off
>> button (circle with a 12 o'clock tick mark).
>
> Bastards. My Pixel2 battery is already shot (I left it on the charger
> overnight for at least a year in order to use the snore-monitor app).

It's your choice after loading the app whether to leave it backgrounded
or not. I've never bothered leaving it run backgrounded, but then I
don't use any of its tracking/logging features. Not their fault your
battery is too old, and perhaps even bulging from outgassing. If you
know about Android, exiting a window does NOT unload an app. Android
leaves it in memory, and that includes apps that can continue to drain
your battery. Unlike Windows and Linux where exiting an app mean the
app gets unloaded, Android leave apps loaded when you exit (just the GUI
disappears until you use Recent to bring it back). Some polite apps
give you a real Exit function, like Network Cell Info and Firefox (with
its Quit menu entry). Else, you have to use an app killer to get rid of
backgrounded apps before Android decides to do so to make more space
available for a newly loaded app.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKULr67ZZXw

You don't need their kit, especially if you want to install a factory
branded battery instead of an unknown generic. Spludgers can be bought
for a $1. Depending on how you may or may not collect tools, or stock
your toolkits, you might already have the other tools in the kit. If
not, get the kit.

The problem with disassembling the phone is all the glued-down
components won't stick as well when reassembled. The glue is not
designed to be reusable. Some screws have blue (temporary) threadlock,
but I've yet to see a video showing reapplying new threadlock. Most
users gob on way too much threadlock. Even if you have a shop do the
battery replacement, they go through the same procedure which means
water resistance get compromized since breaking the seal means the seal
remains broken thereafter.

[VanguardLH]

Rather than have me waste time comparing one payware app against every
candidate freeware app, give an example of a freeware app that does
everything the payware one does. You'll need to build a table showing
this app compared against a freeware one with all the features of each
to know which is missing what.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/2/22 5:00 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/22 10:29 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> Warning: The app will tend to stay loaded when you close its window for
>>> the paid versions. That's because the paid versions do measurements in
>>> the background. When you truly want the app to unload, click the Off
>>> button (circle with a 12 o'clock tick mark).
>>
>> Bastards. My Pixel2 battery is already shot (I left it on the charger
>> overnight for at least a year in order to use the snore-monitor app).
>
> It's your choice after loading the app whether to leave it backgrounded
> or not. I've never bothered leaving it run backgrounded, but then I
> don't use any of its tracking/logging features. Not their fault your
> battery is too old, and perhaps even bulging from outgassing. If you
> know about Android, exiting a window does NOT unload an app. Android
> leaves it in memory, and that includes apps that can continue to drain
> your battery.

I've installed a couple of 'cleanup' apps that claim to actually shut
down all the unnecessary apps. They themselves use significant battery
power and a lot of apps restart all by themselves. Or the cleaner lies
through its teeth...

> Unlike Windows and Linux where exiting an app mean the
> app gets unloaded, Android leave apps loaded when you exit (just the GUI
> disappears until you use Recent to bring it back). Some polite apps
> give you a real Exit function, like Network Cell Info and Firefox (with
> its Quit menu entry). Else, you have to use an app killer to get rid of
> backgrounded apps before Android decides to do so to make more space
> available for a newly loaded app.

Do you know of one that actually works?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKULr67ZZXw
>
> You don't need their kit, especially if you want to install a factory
> branded battery instead of an unknown generic. Spludgers can be bought
> for a $1. Depending on how you may or may not collect tools, or stock
> your toolkits, you might already have the other tools in the kit. If
> not, get the kit.

The batteries are under $20 and many of them seem to come with the
essential tools. I love the word "sp[l]udger". One came with the set of
torx drivers along with some tiny +/- screwdrivers and nifty tweezers.
I love tools. It makes me sad that we just don't want to use them any
more. How many people do yo know with 6 crowfoot wrenches?

> The problem with disassembling the phone is all the glued-down
> components won't stick as well when reassembled. The glue is not
> designed to be reusable. Some screws have blue (temporary) threadlock,
> but I've yet to see a video showing reapplying new threadlock.

I'm trying to remember the actual name of that stuff. We never used
that, but we did use 'yellow stuff' to keep the nuts and bolts on the
old Japanese motorcycles from falling out. I never actually believed
that they were made of pot metal, but I certainly couldn't prove that
they weren't.

> Most
> users gob on way too much threadlock. Even if you have a shop do the
> battery replacement, they go through the same procedure which means
> water resistance get compromized since breaking the seal means the seal
> remains broken thereafter.

There are people who are just GOOD at this sort of thing. I watched an
old guy with Parkinson's rebuild our monsterhome's automatic
transmission by hand and from memory. Not a single tremor and he moved
like one of those robots that puts cars together. A memorable sight.

The phone claimed to be 'refurbished', which would seem to imply that it
had been taken apart. It looked entirely virgin, though. I have yet to
drop a phone on a hard surface and the wettest they ever get is from the
sweat inside my bra -- that's where I tuck it when I'm skiing. I figure
the fat will sort of cushion it if I fall on it, which has never
happened. The only problem I've ever had was when I was holding my
camera in my hand skiing faster than I should have been -- the tumble
and the OH SHIT! are recorded for posterity and it tweaked the lens
cover of the little Canon camera so it won't close all the way.

--
Cheers, Bev
"...and then I'll become a veterinarian because I love children."
-- Julie Brown

[Erholt Rhein]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 07:01:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

>> What does that pay ware do that the free ware open source app does not do?
>
> Rather than have me waste time comparing one payware app against every
> candidate freeware app, give an example of a freeware app that does
> everything the payware one does. You'll need to build a table showing
> this app compared against a freeware one with all the features of each
> to know which is missing what.

Common pay ware thievery of open source apps is common on Google Play.

Rather than reward a thief, why not reward the original developer?
https://github.com/hzx0910/cellular-z

Rather than have me list everything each app does, you'll need to tell me
what your pay ware app copy does that the free ware original doesn't do.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z&gl=DE

Rather than each of us work alone, why not each of us work together.

You tell me what you need most from the thief's app. Five or ten things.
I tell you whether the original app does what its thieved copy does.

It will.

[VanguardLH]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've installed a couple of 'cleanup' apps that claim to actually shut
> down all the unnecessary apps. They themselves use significant battery
> power and a lot of apps restart all by themselves. Or the cleaner lies
> through its teeth...

Some killer/cleanup apps are ineffective. As I recall, I used to use
Droid Optimizer. However, it's screen gadget stopped working (which
tells you how much memory space is left).

Also, many apps can be designated as a service or "sticky". With either
attribute, it is the responsibility of the OS to reload them if the OS
finds they are missing. You can kill them all day long, but the OS will
reload them. I also found that sometimes I was killing the wrong app.
For example, Hangouts Dialer has its app (ancilliary to Hangouts app to
add a phone dialer to add calling to Hangouts instead of just having
Hangouts a chat app), but the app to kill was for a differently named
process. As I recall, and after trying unsuccessfully to unload
Hangouts and Hangouts Dialer, I displayed all apps, including system
apps, and that's how I found the correct one to kill. I did NOT leave
Droid Optimizer (DO) configured to periodically kill idle apps, because
I might try to use it just before DO decided to kill it. I'd use the
screen gadget instead (which didn't display correct info anymore, but
did activate DO to do the idle app cleanup). It also has a whitelist to
prevent those apps from getting targeted for kills, and the whitelist is
already pre-populated not to kill DO. Some apps you really do want
running in the background all the time, like phone dialer, e-mail,
calendar, messaging, car park tracking, Fitbit, home security
monitoring, OneDrive/Dropbox/Google Drive, OneNote or Evernote, etc).

If an app is a service or has the sticky attribute (to get reloaded by
the OS if found missing), you have to dig into the app to see if there
is a setting or option to immediately and fully unload the app when its
window closes, complain to the app author about the greedy behavior, or
find another equivalent app that has a real exit option. Or, you let
Android decide when to unload the backgrounded app to make room for a
newly loaded app.

> The batteries are under $20 and many of them seem to come with the
> essential tools. I love the word "sp[l]udger". One came with the set of
> torx drivers along with some tiny +/- screwdrivers and nifty tweezers.
> I love tools. It makes me sad that we just don't want to use them any
> more. How many people do yo know with 6 crowfoot wrenches?

I have a set: SAE and metric. Almost mandatory when working in tight
spaces, like car engines where the body has shrunk to make the engine
compartment overly cramped. However, those require a bit more width to
use, because an extension bar that goes from the socket wrench to the
crowfoot box socket. Sometimes it's easier to use a ratcheting box-end
wrench. The only leeway you need then is the thickness of the wrench to
get on and off a nut. My father was a contractor (building, HVAC,
electrical, plumbing), so I inherited tons of tools from him. Farm
sales are good places to find tools, especially old specialty ones that
aren't in the hardware stores, as long as they aren't too rusted. Got a
belt punch that wasn't too rusty, and cleaned and lubed it. Hook-style
spanner wrenches, too. And a variety of hammer styles for which I still
don't know what some were designed for. Fact is, I'll have a shopping
list when I go to the hardware store, but I always come out with more
than was on the list. Can't get out of the toy shop without more toys.

>> The problem with disassembling the phone is all the glued-down
>> components won't stick as well when reassembled. The glue is not
>> designed to be reusable. Some screws have blue (temporary) threadlock,
>> but I've yet to see a video showing reapplying new threadlock.
>
> I'm trying to remember the actual name of that stuff.

Used to be butyl tape, same stuff you use around newly installed windows
as waterproof flashing, but now it might be a type of vinyl inside the
phones. I liked butyl tape for wrapping electrical connections than the
rubber splicing tape now available. The butyl formed better and stuck
together, but you need to add a wire tie around the rubber (and vinyl)
splicing tape to keep it from unwrapping (don't rely on the glue to keep
the tape from unraveling, because it won't over time). I keep looking
for a roll of silicone repair tape as it is advertized as self-sealing
aka self-bonding, but it's always out of stock at the stores. Might
have to order it online.

Or were you asking about the threadlock? What I dislike is blue was
temporary, green was light-duty and a penetrating grade, orange is
removable but 3X strength of blue, and red was high-temperature
permanent (requiring 500F heating to remove). Nowadays blue comes in
red-colored squeeze tubes. The tube color can no longer be relied to
tell you which color threadlock is inside.

> We never used
> that, but we did use 'yellow stuff' to keep the nuts and bolts on the
> old Japanese motorcycles from falling out. I never actually believed
> that they were made of pot metal, but I certainly couldn't prove that
> they weren't.

Hmm, don't remember "yellow stuff" threadlocker, but there are lots of
formulae that I haven't use. Permatex has lots to offer. Didn't see
"yellow" threadlocker at permatex.com. 3M makes lots of products, too.
but didn't see yellow there, either. Maybe the yellow stuff was
actually a low-strength epoxy. I know if you use JB Weld
steel-reinforced epoxy, you will NEVER get the parts undone. I even
used it to repair a hole in a car's drain pan: drained the oil, ground
around the hole to expose bare metal, applied the JB Weld, and it
hardened to close to the strength of steel (couldn't scratch or dent
it).

Ah, found yellow threadlock at Loctite: medium strength, for coarse
threads, anaerobic (absense of air). See it advertized at the online
retailers (Amazon, eBay), like:

https://www.ellsworth.com/products/by-manufacturer/henkel-loctite/adhesives/anaerobic/henkel-loctite-577-medium-strength-threadlocker-yellow-50-ml-bottle/

Not a high-temperature formula (up to 212F, boiling water), so hopefully
you didn't use it on engine or exhaust. I'd use red (high-temp), and
know that I'd need my heat gun to undo the connection. Loctite 577 is
better suited for coarse threads (to bridge the larger gap between
mating surfaces). Loctite 567 & 577 are considered pipe sealants: they
don't shrink, crack, creep, or shred, are more pliable (resist vibration
and shock), and seal to the bursting strength of most piping systems.

https://www.loctiteproducts.com/en/know-how/fix-stuff/use-pipe-sealant-to-put-an-end-to-leaks.html

I don't deal with high-pressure plumbing setups, just what you find in
residential construction, so I just get the yellow pipe dope/goop you
get at the hardware store for cast iron pipes. Copper is soldered, and
plastic uses a solvent to seal, and SharkBite fittings just need cleaned
ends to clamp onto (only have found them at sharkbite.com, Home Depot,
and Ace Hardware).

> The phone claimed to be 'refurbished', which would seem to imply that
> it had been taken apart.

Not usually. It just means someone returned an item they didn't want,
it wasn't what they expected, or it was from one of those trade-in
programs (bring in your phone, you'll get a newer one). Tis also
possible it came out of stock, but was discontinued by the manufacturer
or past warranty, so the seller or storehouse dumped it. Also,
refurbish meant the product went through some testing to ensure it still
works. Nowadays all it means is a clean wipe was used, maybe some
scratch filler, and the product is resold with almost no inspection or
functional testing. I consider refurbished the same as as-is regarding
quality and usability.

[VanguardLH]

Rather than look at an app hosted at Github, or other code repository,
I'd start with the Google Play Store since that is from where I install
Android apps. No, Google doesn't immediately catch every app with
untoward behavior, but they strive to do so, may retroactively remove
"bad" apps, and do more than nothing at the repositories. The app is in
the store at:

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z

The app's author is Zhengzhou CengSan Information Technology Co., LTD.
Distressing the readme.cmd file at their Github project site doesn't
list anything about their product other than hyperlinks to the Github
pages; i.e., no info about their product. I don't read Chinese, so
their Cellular-Z.pdf file is useless to me, and I'm not wasting time
trying to feed it through Google Translate. I did run about a page of
the PDF through Google Translate to see that is where you get info on
how to use the app. Learn Chinese, the app author's native language, or
use Google Translate and end up trying to comprehend Engrish. The
instruction.html file is also in Chinese.

I didn't bother delving into the app's code to see which libraries or
services were borrowed by this app. I also don't use a vast majority of
the functions in the Network Celluar Info app, and likely the same for
the CZ app.

Some differences I see (not an in-depth review):

- Cellular-Z (CZ) has a panel for Wi-Fi stats. Not there for me in
Network Cellular Info (NCI). Not sure why CZ bothers with wi-fi stats
since that has nothing to do with cellular stats. You might be using
a VOIP app to make calls, but that's with a wi-fi hotspot, not with a
cell tower.
- CZ shows a GPS map of satellites relative to my current location. NCI
shows a Google map for the cellular tower to which I'm current
connected. If I needed to know which GPS satellites were used for my
location (not of the tower's which provides that data in its signal),
I use the GPS Status app. However, that's all about GPS location and
the satellites used for YOUR position, and nothing to do with cellular
communication itself. NCI tells you the GPS data for the tower that
the tower is reporting to the phone. I don't need to know which GPS
satellites the tower uses probably because it's position is fixed and
doesn't need to connect to GPS satellites. It's not like the tower is
drifting at sea. I don't need GPS satellite info on myself when I'm
getting positioning of the *tower*. I can enter GPS coordinates into
Google Maps to find out where is the tower geographically, or just use
the Map panel in NCI.
There is a Map panel in CZ, but it's in Chinese in the screenshot, so
I can't tell what it's showing me. Presumably the app should be using
the regional settings in Android to determine which language
(character set) to use for text. NCI shows it is using Google Maps.
CZ doesn't identify its map data source. Maybe it's OsmAnd which is a
front-end for OpenStreets which is community-driven reporting (aka
contributors) for updates, and uses city plats for base data (and
plats are often out-of-date or show future streets that don't yet
exist). If an area has few or no contributors, mapping accuracy is
poor, if even present. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/about. NCI
uses Google's Map API. I've before used the OpenStreetsMap and OsmAnd
apps. No thanks. Google is more complete and more accurate, and
updates are more often. Google generates $4.3bn/year with their
mapping services. They can afford to be running their mapping trucks
around, and accessing other commercial map data sources. OpenStreets
resources are pitiful by comparison. OpenStreets desparately needs
more contributors.
- CZ's tower map is, according the app's screenshots at the Play Store,
maybe a Google map or might use OsmAnd (which is a community driven
database), under the Slot 1 and Slot 2 tab panels, but presents what
looks like a walking map to the tower (I don't read Chinese, so I
can't tell what is presented in the map).
- CZ present other wi-fi data, like device names, IP address, dBm, DNS
server, etc, but again what has that to do with *cellular*
communication? That's just feature bloat.
- I don't see CZ offers a signal tracking feature to report in which
areas coverage is low or zero, like OpenSignal's signal tracking
feature. For both NCI and OpenSignal, you need to leave the apps
running in the background, so they can record signal strength and
upload the data to their servers to have them track actual coverage
rather than what the carriers claim. What carriers claim is false in
many areas, like them showing superb coverage in my area, but that's a
lie because I'm in a valley near a river - the towers on my side don't
point down (which would obviously point at obstructions, like
buildings and trees, and the towers on the other side of the river
atop a cliff also don't point down to me). You can get network
coverage via community-driven recordings, or rely on the overly coarse
granularity of the maps from the carriers. No, I'm not a volunteer by
leaving those apps running in the background.
My smartphone has a bad battery design (drains way too fast) which
is known ever since released (I didn't research enough when I bought
it 3 years after its release). I've put in new non-counterfeit
batteries, and they still don't provide more than 10 hours of
up-time, or down to 6 hours under heavy use. Else, with a phone and
battery that stay up for days, yeah, I'd consider participating in
the coverage reporting. I don't relish when I get around to
replacing the phone with a new one since the new ones don't have
user-servicable batteries (you have to break into the case instead
of having a convenient back panel to replace the battery).

There are so many differences between the libs and services used by CZ
and NCI that your claim that NCI stole CZ's code is not only unfounded,
but a deliberate lie. Even if some online services overlap, one doesn't
have to steal the code from another to use those services. Those
services provide public APIs to access the services. That they overlap
on some functionality also does not mandate code stealing. M2Catalyst
is a commercial corporation at 120 Vantis Dr Ste 310 Aliso Viejo, CA,
92656-2677 United States; see:

https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.m2catalyst_llc.454c0eaf64c57f5074ed3c84c0aedf76.html

Who is Zhengzhou CengSan Information Technology Co., LTD? I let you to
find them, their postal address, a phone number, and sales information

Also remember that I said I had used NCI for a couple years before
deciding to pay for it. Like with shareware, if I've kept it and used
enough to know I want to keep it further, I pay for it. Sure, they get
rewarded, because they offer more of on-topic content (cellular, not
wifi and your-GPS fluff to bloat the product away from its primary use
of getting cellular information). If $2 if so extreme a cost to you,
keep using the freeware stuff. Sorry, I don't see that I rewarded the
wrong app author. You seem to confuse 2 apps that overlap in some
functionality as one just must be stealing from the other.

https://github.com/hzx0910/cellular-z/graphs/contributors
Just 1 contributor: the app author.

https://github.com/hzx0910/cellular-z/graphs/code-frequency
A big effort 3-1/2 years ago. Little since then.

M2Catalyst was formed in 2012. M2Catalyst acquired the Network Cellular
Info app from Wilysis in July 2019 (https://www.m2catalyst.com/faq)
which is why Wilysis is sometimes mentioned for this app. I found an
online manual for Wilysis' Network Cell Info app at:

http://wilysis.com/images/cellinfo/pdf/Network_Cell_Info_Manual_v3_180730.pdf

That's dated July 2018. Too damn close for one author to steal another
author's code. That was version 3 of their manual. I could dig further
to find earlier versions of their document only to find out that their
product was introduced before the CZ app. I did a time-based Google
search walking back to earlier years. There are articles dating back to
Sept 2015 about Wilysis' Network Cell Info app which is 2-1/2 years
BEFORE the CZ app showed up; example:

https://twitter.com/wilysis/status/644220075310981120?lang=en

How could Wilysis steal code from an app that didn't exist until another
2-1/2 years later? If there was any code "stealing", it was by CZ from
NCI. In addition, anything stored at GitHub *must* be open sourced, so
no code stealing is possible, anyway, but then I've shown Wilysis came
out with their app years before Zhengzhou CengSan fabricated their CZ
app.

Seems more like you are defending your choice instead of actually
evaluating the choices.

And, no, I'm not nor have ever been an employee of Wilysis (assuming
they still exist) or M2Catalyst. I didn't intend to prosyletize my
choice over others. If the free stuff works for you then you use it.
Just don't make blind accusations trying to justify your choice.

CZ was *not* the original app. It was a copycat app. Whether CZ stole
from NCI is not an issue to me, because I don't use CZ. Other than
overlapped functionality, just what led you to believe NCI stole from CZ
(which is open source, anyway, for anyone to use)? An exact copy of
open source could be called thievery, but not if the clone provides
added value, like just providing an easier GUI. Besides, NCI existed
2-1/2 years BEFORE CZ. Hmm, so who could've stolen from whom?

[Erholt Rhein]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 21:36:42 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z
>
> The app's author is Zhengzhou CengSan Information Technology Co., LTD.
> Distressing the readme.cmd file at their Github project site doesn't
> list anything about their product other than hyperlinks to the Github
> pages; i.e., no info about their product.

If you want to pay money for open source apps, then that's up to you.
If you want to reward thievery of open source code, then that's up to you.

Rather than each of us work alone, why not each of us work together.

You refuse to work together so that we can compare the two apps.
All you had to do was describe what you paid for that you needed.

To do that, all you had to do was install both apps which is what I did.
Unfortunately, your copycat app crashed on my Pixel.

So I can only tell you what the more robust Github app does that I like.
There are screenshots for all of these features on the Google Play Store.

In addition to the screenshots (which are in my system language so it's
your problem if you can't find them in English) for the open source app,
there are speed tests, auto save, map & track, nr-arcfn queries, earfcn
queries, arfcn queries, and even indoor coverage tests based on a floorplan
map which you can input into the open source app.

> - Cellular-Z (CZ) has a panel for Wi-Fi stats. Not there for me in
> Network Cellular Info (NCI).

The open source app has both Wifi and Cellular debugging information.
Based on what you said, the NCI app does not have both.

> - CZ shows a GPS map of satellites relative to my current location. NCI
> shows a Google map for the cellular tower to which I'm current
> connected.

We can work together to double check but I think the open source app shows
what it thinks is the location based on signal strength. I know this
because the open source app doesn't use the Internet (for privacy reasons).

I think the NCI app might be using an Internet lookup.
Internet cellular tower lookups are well known to be always wrong.
There are reasons for that we can go into but everyone already knows this.

Since the NCI app crashed on my Pixel, you'll have to work with me to say
how the NCI app mapped the tower location. Did it use an Ineternet lookup?

If so, that's a strike against it.

> If I needed to know which GPS satellites were used for my
> location (not of the tower's which provides that data in its signal),
> I use the GPS Status app. However, that's all about GPS location and
> the satellites used for YOUR position, and nothing to do with cellular
> communication itself.

The open source app tells you the satellite information in real time.
Based on what you're saying, I'm assuming the NCI app does not.

> NCI tells you the GPS data for the tower that
> the tower is reporting to the phone.

This is actually impossible.
So it's not doing what you think it's doing.
You were led astray.

It's well known that no GPS lookup for cell towers exists in the USA that
is available to the public.

Anything you think is a lookup is based on an amalgamation of user data.
Which means your app is using the Internet.
That's a strike against it.

> I don't need to know which GPS
> satellites the tower uses probably because it's position is fixed and
> doesn't need to connect to GPS satellites. It's not like the tower is
> drifting at sea. I don't need GPS satellite info on myself when I'm
> getting positioning of the *tower*. I can enter GPS coordinates into
> Google Maps to find out where is the tower geographically, or just use
> the Map panel in NCI.

You think you have the GPS coordinates of the tower you're connected to.
As I've already explained, that's impossible.
You're being fooled.

> There is a Map panel in CZ, but it's in Chinese in the screenshot, so
> I can't tell what it's showing me. Presumably the app should be using
> the regional settings in Android to determine which language
> (character set) to use for text.

You did install the app, didn't you?
Mine is in the Android system language.

When you installed the free app, why would you have a system language set
up in Chinese? Please don't blame the tool for your own mistakes.

> NCI shows it is using Google Maps.
> CZ doesn't identify its map data source.

The open source app map display can show the decibels for each historical
connection and it can save the tower locations to a csv file or a jpeg.

I don't use the map feature as I don't need to know where my phone thinks
the tower is since all those net lookups are well known to be inaccurate.

Mine doesn't show any map anyway.
But the many screenshots on Google Play show what may be an OSM map.

Anyway, the best way to find a tower is to call the carrier 611 and ask
them what you're currently connected to or at least what towers are nearby.

> - CZ's tower map is, according the app's screenshots at the Play Store,
> maybe a Google map or might use OsmAnd (which is a community driven
> database), under the Slot 1 and Slot 2 tab panels, but presents what
> looks like a walking map to the tower (I don't read Chinese, so I
> can't tell what is presented in the map).

I don't know why your display is not in your system language.
Don't blame the tool for your mistakes though.
My Google Play Store screenshots for Cellular-Z are in the system language.

> - CZ present other wi-fi data, like device names, IP address, dBm, DNS
> server, etc, but again what has that to do with *cellular*
> communication? That's just feature bloat.

You paid for less features and then you complain about getting many more
features for free? That is not a sensible position for you to be taking.

> - I don't see CZ offers a signal tracking feature to report in which
> areas coverage is low or zero, like OpenSignal's signal tracking
> feature. For both NCI and OpenSignal, you need to leave the apps
> running in the background, so they can record signal strength and
> upload the data to their servers to have them track actual coverage
> rather than what the carriers claim.

The open source app has an "auto save" feature which can save in json or
csv at user settable time intervals of 1 minute, 2 minutes, and 5 minutes.

> What carriers claim is false in
> many areas, like them showing superb coverage in my area, but that's a
> lie because I'm in a valley near a river - the towers on my side don't
> point down (which would obviously point at obstructions, like
> buildings and trees, and the towers on the other side of the river
> atop a cliff also don't point down to me).

You don't have to explain the obvious to me. I know.

> Also remember that I said I had used NCI for a couple years before
> deciding to pay for it.

You wasted your money.
You paid for less when you could have obtained more for free.
It's your money.

Just don't try to justify paying for less as being a logical decision.
It's a dumb decision if you ask me.

> If $2 if so extreme a cost to you,
> keep using the freeware stuff.

Every time some asshole like you seem to be justifies their dumb decisions
by claiming everyone else is too cheap to waste their money on garbage,
they use that stupid argument you just made.

You made a stupid decision.
And that's OK.

Live with it.
Don't call me cheap because I don't make stupid decisions like you do.

Own your own stupidity and misplaced hubris.
Apologize or this conversation is over.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/2/22 4:49 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've installed a couple of 'cleanup' apps that claim to actually shut
>> down all the unnecessary apps. They themselves use significant battery
>> power and a lot of apps restart all by themselves. Or the cleaner lies
>> through its teeth...
>
> Some killer/cleanup apps are ineffective. As I recall, I used to use
> Droid Optimizer. However, it's screen gadget stopped working (which
> tells you how much memory space is left).

I've got that. "1-touch" kills 6 apps. I do it again and it kills 12
apps. WTF? It didn't seem to make any difference. I can pretty much
WATCH the battery discharging :-(

> Also, many apps can be designated as a service or "sticky".

That's pure evil.

> Or, you let
> Android decide when to unload the backgrounded app to make room for a
> newly loaded app.

I don't care if it just sits there in memory, I only worry if it's
actually doing something that eats battery.

>
>> The batteries are under $20 and many of them seem to come with the
>> essential tools. I love the word "sp[l]udger". One came with the set of
>> torx drivers along with some tiny +/- screwdrivers and nifty tweezers.
>> I love tools. It makes me sad that we just don't want to use them any
>> more. How many people do yo know with 6 crowfoot wrenches?
>
> I have a set: SAE and metric. Almost mandatory when working in tight
> spaces, like car engines where the body has shrunk to make the engine
> compartment overly cramped.

Excellent! We've never had a use for ours. We acquired most of ours at
yard sales. For a quarter you can't turn down a nice Proto wrench.
Best is when the ex-wife is selling off hubby's stuff! We never got
around to using the case of Mobile 1 that we bought for $5. Even so, I
eventually had to buy a Craftsman 10mm socket, which was a
disappointment -- I could peel the chrome off with my thumbnail.
However, a number of decades later I found a couple of 10mms (one a deep
6-point) in the gutter so I guess it all evens out..

> My father was a contractor (building, HVAC,
> electrical, plumbing), so I inherited tons of tools from him.

A friend's dad repaired the big earthmoving equipment used to build the
western interstates. He'll never use the tools. He'll never use the
yard sale tools he accumulated when we were all going to yard sales.
His kids don't want them. Maybe NOBODY wants them. Really sad. My son
fixes stuff, but cars just don't need a lot of fixing any more and he
has his own tools. Do they even teach this stuff in school any more?

> Farm
> sales are good places to find tools, especially old specialty ones that
> aren't in the hardware stores, as long as they aren't too rusted.

Before The Plague there used to be a bimonthly antique-tool sale behind
one of the hardware stores. It was fun to go and try to guess the
purpose of the weird ones. Once you know its name, a spokeshave is obvious!

> Got a
> belt punch that wasn't too rusty, and cleaned and lubed it. Hook-style
> spanner wrenches, too. And a variety of hammer styles for which I still
> don't know what some were designed for. Fact is, I'll have a shopping
> list when I go to the hardware store, but I always come out with more
> than was on the list. Can't get out of the toy shop without more toys.

There used to be a real hardware store here. When we were building
electronic stuff I bought a lot of weird hardware there. The owner
offered me a job as a salesperson once, a fact of which I am
inordinately proud. I had toddlers and couldn't take it, but I would
have liked to.

>>> The problem with disassembling the phone is all the glued-down
>>> components won't stick as well when reassembled. The glue is not
>>> designed to be reusable. Some screws have blue (temporary) threadlock,
>>> but I've yet to see a video showing reapplying new threadlock.
>>
>> I'm trying to remember the actual name of that stuff.

LOCTITE!

> I keep looking
> for a roll of silicone repair tape as it is advertized as self-sealing
> aka self-bonding, but it's always out of stock at the stores. Might
> have to order it online.

I bought some at Walmart to wrap around a good hose with a leak. I
suspect that the hose (heavy black unshiny rubber) couldn't be cleaned
well enough to make it stick. I used half the roll, but it still
leaked. I returned it. Hubby insisted we buy some Alien Tape, though,
and that's pretty cool stuff. We'll probably be buried with it.

> Or were you asking about the threadlock? What I dislike is blue was
> temporary, green was light-duty and a penetrating grade, orange is
> removable but 3X strength of blue, and red was high-temperature
> permanent (requiring 500F heating to remove). Nowadays blue comes in
> red-colored squeeze tubes. The tube color can no longer be relied to
> tell you which color threadlock is inside.

After my time.

>> We never used
>> that, but we did use 'yellow stuff' to keep the nuts and bolts on the
>> old Japanese motorcycles from falling out. I never actually believed
>> that they were made of pot metal, but I certainly couldn't prove that
>> they weren't.
>
> Hmm, don't remember "yellow stuff" threadlocker,

This was some sort of special-purpose cement/gasket stuff that came in
toothpaste-size tubes. You put a fingernail-size blob of it on the
nut-bolt join. Once it hardened you could see wrinkles if the nut
started to loosen, which hardly ever happened. ALL dirtriders used
'yellow stuff'. After a while the Japanese learned to make good
fasteners, but not in the early 60s. You got into the habit of going
over your bike with a wrench before each ride to make sure nothing came
apart. If the yellow stuff looked iffy you peeled it off, tightened the
bolt and gave it a new blob.

Kawasaki and Suzuki used welded-on nuts for some things and aircraft
nuts for others. Honda and Yamaha didn't. I figured that that meant
that H and Y cheaped out in other ways too.

> I even
> used it to repair a hole in a car's drain pan: drained the oil, ground
> around the hole to expose bare metal, applied the JB Weld, and it
> hardened to close to the strength of steel (couldn't scratch or dent
> it).

I fixed a crack in my Kawasaki F7 carb with that 2-part epoxy gas tank
repair material that you knead together. Wonderful stuff.

> Ah, found yellow threadlock at Loctite: medium strength, for coarse
> threads, anaerobic (absense of air). See it advertized at the online
> retailers (Amazon, eBay), like:

That's not it, but I swear I remembered 'Loctite' before I saw it here.

>> The phone claimed to be 'refurbished', which would seem to imply that
>> it had been taken apart.
>
> Not usually. It just means someone returned an item they didn't want,
> it wasn't what they expected, or it was from one of those trade-in
> programs (bring in your phone, you'll get a newer one). Tis also
> possible it came out of stock, but was discontinued by the manufacturer
> or past warranty, so the seller or storehouse dumped it. Also,
> refurbish meant the product went through some testing to ensure it still
> works. Nowadays all it means is a clean wipe was used, maybe some
> scratch filler, and the product is resold with almost no inspection or
> functional testing. I consider refurbished the same as as-is regarding
> quality and usability.

That's a shame. Son and hubby bought the 64GB version (ebay, refurb,
$80 as I recall) before I did and I liked the camera so much I bought
the 128GB version for myself. All three looked totally virgin, so
perhaps they were just overstock. Generic charge cables and box, so
probably not from the factory. I've used only half of the memory, so I
KNOW I did the right thing.

--
Cheers, Bev
I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people, I'm just
saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem
sort itself out.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/2/22 10:00 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

>>> We never used
>>> that, but we did use 'yellow stuff' to keep the nuts and bolts on the
>>> old Japanese motorcycles from falling out. I never actually believed
>>> that they were made of pot metal, but I certainly couldn't prove that
>>> they weren't.
>

> This was some sort of special-purpose cement/gasket stuff that came in
> toothpaste-size tubes. You put a fingernail-size blob of it on the
> nut-bolt join. Once it hardened you could see wrinkles if the nut
> started to loosen, which hardly ever happened. ALL dirtriders used
> 'yellow stuff'. After a while the Japanese learned to make good
> fasteners, but not in the early 60s. You got into the habit of going
> over your bike with a wrench before each ride to make sure nothing came
> apart. If the yellow stuff looked iffy you peeled it off, tightened the
> bolt and gave it a new blob.

This may be it, but it came in a yellow tube -- much easier to find!
Perhaps that's why they changed the tube color to black.

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b40069421/

--
Cheers, Bev
"I just realized how bad the economy really is. I recently
bought a new toaster oven and as a complimentary gift,
I was given a bank." -- L. Legro

[VanguardLH]

Erholt Rhein <erh...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 21:36:42 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z
>>
>> The app's author is Zhengzhou CengSan Information Technology Co., LTD.
>> Distressing the readme.cmd file at their Github project site doesn't
>> list anything about their product other than hyperlinks to the Github
>> pages; i.e., no info about their product.
>
> If you want to pay money for open source apps, then that's up to you.
> If you want to reward thievery of open source code, then that's up to you.
> Rather than each of us work alone, why not each of us work together.

Well, you're back to your lie refusing to acknowlege that CZ didn't even
exist when NCI came out. You want to push your agenda regarding
reputation, and I'm not going to participate anymore. Perhaps you
spewed your insult before getting down to where I mention the history of
both app authors, and didn't bother to edit this out before submit.

> You refuse to work together so that we can compare the two apps.
> All you had to do was describe what you paid for that you needed.

I already provided the web page with the feature comparison between the
free and paid versions.

As for why I purchased, that was over 2 years ago, so I don't remember.
Could've been I had been using other apps in their freeware versions,
decided to pay similar to how I use shareware enough to know if I'm
keeping it, and went through the apps list to see what others I want to
buy. If you think $1.99 is costly, you should look at the ParKing
(https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=il.talent.parking.premium)
that costs $6.99, and I paid for it after a year or two of use. As I
recall, I paid to get support for more than 1 car, and perhaps automatic
parking recording using a Bluetooth disconnect from my car (so I didn't
have to manually add a new way point for parking). Yep, I tried some
other parking recorders, but in trialing them found they sucked. Free
doesn't always mean better. Is LibreOffice better than MS 365. No
fucking way, but it's free, and I use it, but periodically run into
limitations, especially in Calc (MS Excel equivalent), that makes be
consider going back to Excel, like the stupidity in LO's workaround for
dynamically sized tables linked to charts that is easy with a drag
handle in Excel. I tried other office suites, but found them lacking.
LO was lacking, but not enough to yet prod me to dole out for MS 365.

By the way, you can still get Windows 10 for free. Just don't register
it, and ignore the watermarking on the desktop (there are workarounds).
The trial of Windows 10 never expires. Did I do that? Nope. My new
build cost around $2600, so the OS cost was trivial. Can I get clothes
for super cheap at Goodwill? Sure, and I did back when I was destitute,
but not now when I can afford the retail stores. Do I like deals? Sure
I do, but not if I'm going to waste more of time in research and
trialing than the cost to buy. Amazing how so many users consider their
time as valueless.

> To do that, all you had to do was install both apps which is what I
> did. Unfortunately, your copycat app crashed on my Pixel.

Oh, here we go again with the deliberately bogus reputation berating.
If anyone copied another, it had to be CZ which wasn't around when NCI
came out. Duh!

I have no interest in the CZ app. NCI does what I need, and a hell of
lot more that I don't yet understand. I'm not writing a review to post
at Youtube, or some other site for the socially needy (Facebook,
Twitter, etc). Unlike you, my time has worth. I don't consider my time
as valueless, especially when I'm not interested in an app that relies
on OpenStreets for its map data source.

>> - Cellular-Z (CZ) has a panel for Wi-Fi stats. Not there for me in
>> Network Cellular Info (NCI).
>
> The open source app has both Wifi and Cellular debugging information.
> Based on what you said, the NCI app does not have both.

Actually I just found wifi data in the NCI app. I find it worthless, so
I accuse NCI of also having feature bloat, just not as much as CZ. An
app to provide information on cellular communications that wastes code
and screen space on wifi connectivity, uh huh. For wifi info, I'd
rather use an app that is specifically designed for that connection
method, like WiFi Analyzer from VREM (open source, free) although I'd
have to research to check if it was best of breed, but I'd only spend
time on research if I actually had a need for that info instead of just
idle curiousity to waste my time. However, if I had wifi problems that
required digging into the technology, I might was a wifi surveying app,
like NetSpot from Etwok.

>> - CZ shows a GPS map of satellites relative to my current location. NCI
>> shows a Google map for the cellular tower to which I'm current
>> connected.
>
> We can work together to double check but I think the open source app
> shows what it thinks is the location based on signal strength.

That would be of dubious value. Signal strength is affected by more
than straight-line unobstructed distance. Just walking down to my
basement is going to raise attenuation of the cell signal. I could see
it showing, and perhaps even recording (as in a log), how signal
strength varies as you move around. The NCI app does that.

> I know this because the open source app doesn't use the Internet (for
> privacy reasons).

From where does it get its map data?

Cellular-Z PRIVACY POLICY
https://hzx0910.github.io/cellular-z/

How do they get that info without an Internet connection? Could be a
problem with Engrisch. "We need" could mean they collect that data, or
perhaps they meant "Our app needs".

> I think the NCI app might be using an Internet lookup.

Not for the GPS data in the signal from the tower, or data obtained from
the phone, like signal strength. Yes, for the Google Maps API they use
to show maps. NCI doesn't use a cell tower database lookup where it has
to download the database from somewhere. You get the GPS coordinates
from the tower, and the coordinates are used in Google Maps. This is
all dynamic, not from stagnant database downloads.

Oh, and the NCI app, if you choose, can monitor signal strength as you
move around for whatever tower it is currently connected. This is
provide a more accurate coverage map than you'll find from any of the
cell carriers. OpenSignal has the same community-driven data update
feature. The logs get uploaded to them, so they can analyze and report
to other users.

Obviously the speed test in both apps require an Internet connection to
use servers for the testing.

> Internet cellular tower lookups are well known to be always wrong.

With NCI, the Google Maps API is used when it draws a map for where is
the tower. I think CZ uses OsmAnd aka OpenStreets. Do they have a
dynamic API to which an app can issue map requests, or do they require
downloading of map data?

OsmAnd (freeware)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmand

OsmAnd+ (payware)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmand.plus

Uffdah! $25, and you thought $2 was pricey for NCI. Obviously the CZ
app is using the free version. I didn't find a free vs paid comparison
web page at http://osmand.net/ to see just what the hell $25 buys more
than in the free version. OsmAnd and OpenStreets are separate entities,
but OsmAnd looks to be the biggest consumer of OpenStreet data. I'm
just guessing CZ uses OpenStreet, but you'd have to check on that to see
if the app declares whose mapping database it uses. I couldn't find out
at the CZ Github site (the Chinese stopped me from investigating
further).

> Since the NCI app crashed on my Pixel, you'll have to work with me to
> say how the NCI app mapped the tower location. Did it use an
> Ineternet lookup?

Yep. It gets the GPS data in the signal from the tower, and sends the
GPS coordinates to the Google Maps API to show a map. It does NOT go
downloading map databases which due to publishing limitations means that
data is always stale.

Oops, I may be wrong on how CZ gets mapping data. From:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API

looks like CZ, if it is using OpenStreet, can use an API to request
mapping data from OpenStreet. That would eliminate lag in updating a
mapping database, but it is still compiled from "contributors" to
OpenStreet who walk around with the app running in the background to
record what the app discovers wherever the user's phone travels. If CZ
uses OpenStreets, I would think it would have an option to do the
environ logging of cell towers and their specs. Maybe CZ didn't go that
way, as the logging has to get uploaded. Again, I cannot perform a
whitepaper comparison of the apps (and they have far too much for me to
waste time learning both in detail) since all docs at CZ's Github site
are in Chinese. I don't want to learn Chinese, either, or keep pasting
into Google Translate (which results in bad translations since
grammatical translation is not the same a linguistic translation to
convert from one language to another).

> If so, that's a strike against it.

Perhaps since maps in NCI are got from Google Maps API. Where does CZ
get its mapping data? Can't be some huge database bundled with the app
to make it huge as it wouldn't fit on most smartphones, and would get
stagnant the moment it got bundled with the app before you even got to
download the app. It has to get the mapping data from somewhere, and
that means an Internet connection for CZ, too.

I use the Here[WeGo]! map app as an alternative to Google Maps. There
have been times when I'm out of range of any cell tower. Google Maps
has its offline maps feature, but it has limitation in size, and you
pick the areas you want saved which means downloads of large files.
Here! can also use offline map databases. Instead of having to draw a
region to snare map data to store offline as in in Google Maps, you
select which regions you want to capture: country, state, city.
Currently I have North America selected. I configured Here! to download
map data only over a wifi connection. Over a cellular data connection
would eat up my quota damn quick. A pisser about Here!'s app GUI is
trying to figure out to get to settings. At one time, I dragged from
the left side of the window to bring in the menu pane. Either they
removed it, or my armor case is blocking my finger from using the last
couple pixels on the left side. Some apps are very tiny for the grab
area of a drag-in pane. I finally got into settings, verified North and
Central America (no just North America) was getting downloaded, and it
eats up 14GB of my 120GB SD card. If I selected all of Africa, Asia,
Australia/Oceania, Europe, North and Central America, and South America,
I'd eat up 53 GB of my SD card. Well, I've got the room, but then I
don't take photos or videos with my phone, and if I did they would stay
on my phone (I'd move them elsewhere). I don't know how long it took
last time to just download the North and Central America database which
was over a wifi connection at home, but it was MANY hours. Not because
of wifi speed, but because they throttle their connections as do many
web sites so all connections get some response. You could let it
connect as you go to get map updates, but you're not always near a cell
tower. The Here! download maps cover a much more huge area than offline
maps you can define in Google Maps, but they lack many of the extras,
like roadside cafes or other POIs (Points Of Interest).

Looks like both CZ and NCI apps use APIs to issue online requests for
map data. Looks like saving huge map databases is not doable for them.
I'm talking about mapping data, not about some cell tower database which
I've never needed to use in NCI. Don't see the point of downloading
cell tower database(s) for stagnant data that is already available in
the signal from the tower, and can be found using online map APIs.

>> If I needed to know which GPS satellites were used for my
>> location (not of the tower's which provides that data in its signal),
>> I use the GPS Status app. However, that's all about GPS location and
>> the satellites used for YOUR position, and nothing to do with cellular
>> communication itself.
>
> The open source app tells you the satellite information in real time.
> Based on what you're saying, I'm assuming the NCI app does not.

I don't need my phone telling me where I am (well, where is the phone).
That would only be of use when trying to find your lost phone. Any map
app will tell you where you are.

If I want to see which satellites were involved in the GPS calculation
for my phone, I use the GPS Status app
(https://play.google.com/store/search?q=gps+status). Neither the CZ nor
NCI app needs to find the GPS coordinates of the tower as that data is
sent by the tower to my phone in the cellular connection. The GPS
coordinates for the cell tower are static, so why would anything
locating its GPS coordinates have to use satellites?

If I need to give someone my latitude and longitude, I use a compass
app. Dump those into Google Maps to see where is that location. The
NCI app will also show latitude and longitude, but only in the map.
Alas, I cannot tap and hold to paste the lat/long data to paste
elsewhere, like into the Google Maps app. Does the CZ app show latitude
and longitude for your phone's location, or just GPS coordinates?

>> NCI tells you the GPS data for the tower that
>> the tower is reporting to the phone.
>
> This is actually impossible. So it's not doing what you think it's
> doing. You were led astray.

You asked about the tower's identifiers. The NCI apps reports MCC, MNC,
TAC. Those don't encode into their computed value the tower's location?

For GSM, the unique IDs are: MCC:MNC and (L/T)AC:CID (for CDMA, they are
SID:NID:BID). Obviously the app is getting that data from the cell
tower, not from some drone you flew over the area. There is a lookup,
but a database is not downloaded to your phone. Coordinates of base
stations are in the Google and Yandex databases. For Google Maps, their
geolocation API does the lookup, and its on-demand, not a database you
retrieve to your phone.

https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/overview

So, indirectly the tower is sending you its GPS coordinates by sending
you its IDs that are used to locate the tower. I can tell you that I'm
the 4th house on the north side of the street from some intersection,
and that's the same as if I gave you my house number, and visa versa. I
didn't bother looking into how Yandex's geolocation API works. For the
Google geolocation API, the response is latitude and longitude.

You could look at the API as a conversion service, or a database lookup,
whichever floats your boat. With MS 365, you can consider the
subscription price is for MS 365 and you get 1TB of OneDrive quota for
free, or you can consider you bought 1TB of online storage quota and got
MS 365 for free. Either viewpoint gives the same result. Online
conversion service, or online on-demand database lookup. You say
po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.

> It's well known that no GPS lookup for cell towers exists in the USA that
> is available to the public.
>
> Anything you think is a lookup is based on an amalgamation of user data.
> Which means your app is using the Internet.

So is your CZ app. Again, what mapping data source does CZ use? If
OpenStreets, it should be using their API to request mapping data, not
some huge stagnant database file that gets uploaded to your phone. If
CZ works the latter method to do the GPS to lat/long conversion, yeah,
that would suck.

> You did install the app, didn't you?

Nope. I don't install apps willy nilly just to waste my time in
trialing them, especially with highly technical apps with a very narrow
market for limited need. I just assume CZ is internationalized to use
the charset selected in the OS. However, charset mapping doesn't mean
intelligible words get formed, or the linguistics of one language
(Chinese) are properly transformed to the linguistics of a different
language (English). If you're using English with the CZ app, do you see
recognizable words without biasing by Engrish translation?

> When you installed the free app, why would you have a system language
> set up in Chinese? Please don't blame the tool for your own mistakes.

I don't install apps blindfolded. I research them first. If the app
developer provides little or no documentation, I have to rely on 3rd
party reviews most of which are useless unless they go into the nitty
gritty details of all the features of an app. It can help if reviews
provide comparisons between apps, but I found none for CZ compared to
NCI.

>> NCI shows it is using Google Maps. CZ doesn't identify its map data
>> source.
>
> The open source app map display can show the decibels for each
> historical connection and it can save the tower locations to a csv
> file or a jpeg.

Huh? What does that have to do with where is the source of mapping
data?

As for saving tower locations, is that as the tower IDs, or as them
converted to latitude/longitude?

The comparison page (free vs paid) for NCI mentions exporting as a
feature for both free and paid ("Database export measurements in KML
2.2, MLS Geosubmit v.2, CLF v.3, OpenCellID csv, CMWF database types"),
and the comparison table says free and paid have "Export measurements",
but I've never used it, so I'm not sure where it is. I found in its
settings where I can select the export database type, but not where in
the app I initiate the export.

Okay, a bit more digging and I found:

https://www.m2catalyst.com/manual

which mentions exporting is initiated when viewing the Maps panel, and
tapping on the checkmark button. Not exactly what I would consider a
instinctive icon for an export function. I tapped it, and a downloads
list appeared of which there was an entry of exportable data with a Save
button next to it.

> I don't use the map feature as I don't need to know where my phone thinks
> the tower is since all those net lookups are well known to be inaccurate.
>
> Mine doesn't show any map anyway.
> But the many screenshots on Google Play show what may be an OSM map.

Hmm, the Play Store page for CZ shows a map panel. CZ's maps look like
they're grouped by Slot 1 and Slot 2 (probably to support a dual-SIM
phone), but how to get there isn't clear from their screenshots. Maybe
you select Slot 1 or 2 as the panel (tab) you want to view, and maybe
those "eye" icons get you to the map. In the top navbar of CZ, there
are a padlock, location, speed, and settings icons in order from left to
right. I'd try the 2nd icon that looks like a position tag, like you
see in Google Map when you tap somewhere in a map, with a flat doc
underneath, like it's a pointer to a position on a map.

> Anyway, the best way to find a tower is to call the carrier 611 and
> ask them what you're currently connected to or at least what towers
> are nearby.

I use MVNOs, like Tracfone. You don't get that level of service from
other than a primary cellular carrier. Never used 611 to call my
carrier (Tracfone which doled me out to AT&T, but Tracfone got acquired
by Verizon, so already they're trying to push me to get a new SIM card
for Verizon).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator

Tracfone buys in bulk from the major carriers, and resells for less.
You get less service and features with an MVNO, but you also get a
cheaper price. They said the acquisition would not immediately force
all Tracfone users to connect to Verizon, but "not immediately" is
indefinite, and means it will happen someday.

I've never called the 611 number. They do mention sending texts to
611611, like for quota balance info. Supposedly you can text "help" to
611611 to get a list of keywords you can send for other info. Their
short URL took me to https://www.tracfonewirelessinc.com/en/brands/
which has nothing about 611 keywords. Alas, my Internet connection just
went down, so a search on "tracfone 611611 keywords" was un-doable at
the moment. Yep, my cable modem has all its lights out. Got an outage
in my area. I'll have to wait 20 minutes, or more, for the cable model
to get reset and reprovisioned. My phone switched from wi-fi to 4G, so
I'll see if their app lists an outage, or I have to report one via app.
... Okay, modem reset, and Internet is back. I hate when they do
unscheduled maintanence.

I found https://dsweb.tracfone.com/611611/help/ using a Google search.
Didn't find any keyword sent to Tracfone that would access AT&T's
cellular tower mapping data. I texted "coverage", and got "there was
problem processing your request." So, maybe I do have to call 611, but
I don't know if that connects me to Tracfone (who won't know anything
about AT&T cell tower locations) or to AT&T (who will push me off
because I'm not their customer).

Calling the actual carrier is useless. I'm using an MVNO (Tracfone) who
assigned me to AT&T as the carrier. If I call AT&T tech support, they
won't help because I am not their customers. Tracfone will avert
responsibility by saying they're not the carrier, and cannot get that
information.

>> - CZ present other wi-fi data, like device names, IP address, dBm, DNS
>> server, etc, but again what has that to do with *cellular*
>> communication? That's just feature bloat.
>
> You paid for less features and then you complain about getting many more
> features for free? That is not a sensible position for you to be taking.

I also don't need a cellular information app telling me what is the room
temperature, or the compass direction my phone is pointing. Note: I did
mention NCI also has this feature bloat after I re-reviewed the app
(there's a lot of it I don't use).

I didn't pay for fewer features. I paid to get more, but it's been
since Jan 2020 when I bought the app. I didn't add an entry to my diary
as to why a purchased. I don't keep a diary as half my life would be
recording the other half of my life. I'm not going to concern myself
with the "strife" of paying $2 for a paid version of an app.

>> - I don't see CZ offers a signal tracking feature to report in which
>> areas coverage is low or zero, like OpenSignal's signal tracking
>> feature. For both NCI and OpenSignal, you need to leave the apps
>> running in the background, so they can record signal strength and
>> upload the data to their servers to have them track actual coverage
>> rather than what the carriers claim.
>
> The open source app has an "auto save" feature which can save in json
> or csv at user settable time intervals of 1 minute, 2 minutes, and 5
> minutes.

Guess that might be important to you if you were maintaining a database
of locations, signal strength, and so on regarding cellular coverage.
I'm not interested in building my own coverage map. In fact, I don't
even participate in M2Catalyst's, OpenSignal's, or other services
services to build a collective of user reports to view actual coverage.
If I were to log coverage and tower locations, I'd push it upstream to
their server, and let them figure out all the statistics. So, while NCI
(and OpenStreetsMap) have the logging function, it's superfluous to me.
I only mentioned it when comparing some features between CZ and NCI.

>> Also remember that I said I had used NCI for a couple years before
>> deciding to pay for it.
>
> You wasted your money.
> You paid for less when you could have obtained more for free.
> It's your money.

Sorry, buy despite your viewpoint, I don't see that paid for less.
Where were you when I was trying to find a cellular info app? What is
my time worth to go beyond the research that I already did?

Also, I bought the NCI app in Jan 2020. I also mentioned that I had
been using their free version for a couple years earlier. I'm not sure
when I chose an app that CZ was even a choice back then.

> Just don't try to justify paying for less as being a logical decision.
> It's a dumb decision if you ask me.
>
>> If $2 if so extreme a cost to you,
>> keep using the freeware stuff.
>
> Every time some asshole like you seem to be justifies their dumb decisions
> by claiming everyone else is too cheap to waste their money on garbage,
> they use that stupid argument you just made.

And everytime I hear someone proslytizing about FOSS, or just freeware,
and a better choice is a deaf orator on their soapbox spewing free is
better.

> You made a stupid decision.
> And that's OK.

Same could be argued about your choice. Your berating retorts really
make you sound like your qualifying your decision. You decided one way,
and feel the need to defend it. Back when I made my decision, I never
heard of CZ, and obviously didn't find it as an alternative to trial
back then.

Hindsight is wonderful. It make you the perfect wizard regarding
expertise.

> Live with it.
> Don't call me cheap because I don't make stupid decisions like you do.

Hmm, I don't recall calling you a cheapskate. I use freeware, too, but
sometimes even after using it I decide to later go with payware.

> Own your own stupidity and misplaced hubris.
> Apologize or this conversation is over.

Sorry, this conversation ended when you falsely accuse M2Catalyst (and
formerly Wilysis) of stealing code from CZ before CZ even existed. Own
your own stupidity!

[Erholt Rhein]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 05:19:40 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> Well, you're back to your lie refusing to acknowlege that CZ didn't even
> exist when NCI came out.

OK. You win. NCI was first. That changes nothing else of what I said.
You paid for less and you called me cheap for not being stupid like you.

> You want to push your agenda regarding
> reputation, and I'm not going to participate anymore. Perhaps you
> spewed your insult before getting down to where I mention the history of
> both app authors, and didn't bother to edit this out before submit.

I take back that NCI copied the source code.
That admission of error doesn't change anything else I said.

NCI is less functional than CZ.

> I already provided the web page with the feature comparison between the
> free and paid versions.

All you really had to do was install both.
That's what I did.

Unfortunately, NCI crashed every time it's called up on my Pixel.
Luckily, you provided the feature comparison which I used to compare.

>
> As for why I purchased, that was over 2 years ago, so I don't remember.

As I said, and as I will continue to say, you can spend your money however
you wish. But just don't call me cheap for me not being stupid. That's all.

It's classic of assholes who are defending their dumb decision to buy
software that they could have gotten open source apps instead to claim that
anyone who doesn't waste their money on substandard apps is cheap.

Admit that you were an asshole just as I admitted I was wrong on the copy.

> Could've been I had been using other apps in their freeware versions,
> decided to pay similar to how I use shareware enough to know if I'm
> keeping it, and went through the apps list to see what others I want to
> buy. If you think $1.99 is costly, you should look at the ParKing
> (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=il.talent.parking.premium)
> that costs $6.99, and I paid for it after a year or two of use.

Like I said, I don't care how you justify wasting your money.

As long as you don't call me cheap just because you felt you had to justify
your buying habits, I don't care how you waste your money.

As an aside, there usually isn't any app I want that I can't get for free,
usually open source; but that's just because I'm not stupid.

> As I
> recall, I paid to get support for more than 1 car, and perhaps automatic
> parking recording using a Bluetooth disconnect from my car (so I didn't
> have to manually add a new way point for parking). Yep, I tried some
> other parking recorders, but in trialing them found they sucked. Free
> doesn't always mean better.

Stop being an asshole. You're still trying to justify your stupid decisions
by intimating that I, somehow, said "free is always better."

Own your stupidity.
Don't foist your stupidity on me as an asshole's defense of your actions.

It's classic projection.

Nobody said "free is always better"; you are welcome to waste your money
any way that you see fit - but don't project your stupidity on me.

> Is LibreOffice better than MS 365. No
> fucking way, but it's free, and I use it, but periodically run into
> limitations, especially in Calc (MS Excel equivalent), that makes be
> consider going back to Excel, like the stupidity in LO's workaround for
> dynamically sized tables linked to charts that is easy with a drag
> handle in Excel. I tried other office suites, but found them lacking.
> LO was lacking, but not enough to yet prod me to dole out for MS 365.

Nobody said free is always better.

You're trying to defend your stupid decisions using arguments that are in
your mind but I didn't say them.

Stop doing that.
It's what assholes do.

And I was hoping you were not an asshole.
Just accept that the NCI app isn't as functional as the CZ app.

It's not a difficult comparison to do.

> By the way, you can still get Windows 10 for free. Just don't register
> it, and ignore the watermarking on the desktop (there are workarounds).
> The trial of Windows 10 never expires. Did I do that? Nope. My new
> build cost around $2600, so the OS cost was trivial. Can I get clothes
> for super cheap at Goodwill? Sure, and I did back when I was destitute,
> but not now when I can afford the retail stores. Do I like deals? Sure
> I do, but not if I'm going to waste more of time in research and
> trialing than the cost to buy. Amazing how so many users consider their
> time as valueless.

I get it that you're embarrassed you made a dumb decision, but I must
repeat nobody said anything about Windows 10, free or otherwise.

This conversation, which you started, is simply comparing the functionality
of NCI with CZ. That's all. And CZ beats NCI in almost every category.

Does NCI do anything better than CZ, by the way?

> Oh, here we go again with the deliberately bogus reputation berating.
> If anyone copied another, it had to be CZ which wasn't around when NCI
> came out. Duh!

I take it back that NCI copied the source code as it's not germane to the
fact that even if NCI was written on a tablet by God herself on top of the
mountain, NCI still would be less functional than CZ.

> I have no interest in the CZ app. NCI does what I need, and a hell of
> lot more that I don't yet understand.

You started this thread on the comparison. Not me.

> I'm not writing a review to post
> at Youtube, or some other site for the socially needy (Facebook,
> Twitter, etc). Unlike you, my time has worth.

There you go again being an asshole because you made a dumb decision.
Don't project your stupidity on me as a way of defending you being dumb.

Own your decisions.

First you claim I'm cheap for not wasting my money on substandard apps.
Now you claim your time is superior to mine because you make dumb moves.

Own your decisions.
Stop projecting your stupidity onto me.

You are doing what assholes do.
Don't you realize that?

Just accept that CZ is a better app and accept that you're happy with the
NCI app which, while doing far less than CZ, serves your minimal needs.

> I don't consider my time
> as valueless, especially when I'm not interested in an app that relies
> on OpenStreets for its map data source.

Stop claiming that anyone who makes smarter decisions than you do must be
(a) cheap, and now, preposterously, (b) wasting their less valuable time.

It's what assholes do who are trying to defend their dumb decisions.
I never said a word about how much time you waste (nor do I care).

I own my own decisions.
Why can't you own yours?

> Actually I just found wifi data in the NCI app.

Good. I was wondering about that because almost all of these apps do the
same stuff in different ways and almost everyone wants to know both wifi
and cellular information.

> I find it worthless, so
> I accuse NCI of also having feature bloat, just not as much as CZ.

That's fine. I don't find it worthless. But you do. That's OK.

What I use the Wi-Fi mostly for is to show people I visit that they can
move their home routers to a different channel, especially 2.4GHz channels.

It's a great visual teaching aid.

I also use it to see what signals are in the area when I'm at a hotspot.

If I don't see a signal, then I don't bother asking the cashier for the
password. Saves my "valuable time" :) <=== joke in case you don't get it.

> An
> app to provide information on cellular communications that wastes code
> and screen space on wifi connectivity, uh huh.

It seems you're really defensive about making a dumb decision.
If you're happy with NCI, then I'm happy for you.

It crashes on my Pixel so I wasn't able to test it out.

> For wifi info, I'd
> rather use an app that is specifically designed for that connection
> method, like WiFi Analyzer from VREM (open source, free) although I'd
> have to research to check if it was best of breed, but I'd only spend
> time on research if I actually had a need for that info instead of just
> idle curiousity to waste my time.

As you likely know, a lot of apps are called "WiFi Analyzer" where the
green icon WiFi Analyzer from https://github.com/noisnogit/WifiAnalyzer
is also in my toolkit. They all do the same things differently.

> However, if I had wifi problems that
> required digging into the technology, I might was a wifi surveying app,
> like NetSpot from Etwok.

There are many wifi and cellular debugging apps and utilities.
I happen to have "Signal Strength", "WiFi Manager", "WLANScanner", "WiFi
Analyzer and Surveyor", "NetSpot", "Network Info II", "IP Geolocator",
"Internet Status", "WiFi Automatic" and many more currently installed on my
Pixel.

>> We can work together to double check but I think the open source app
>> shows what it thinks is the location based on signal strength.
>
> That would be of dubious value.

As I said, if I need a tower location, I dial 611 and ask for that data.

> Signal strength is affected by more
> than straight-line unobstructed distance. Just walking down to my
> basement is going to raise attenuation of the cell signal. I could see
> it showing, and perhaps even recording (as in a log), how signal
> strength varies as you move around. The NCI app does that.

All these apps do that.

>> I know this because the open source app doesn't use the Internet (for
>> privacy reasons).
>
> From where does it get its map data?

As I said, mine has no map data.

> How do they get that info without an Internet connection? Could be a
> problem with Engrisch. "We need" could mean they collect that data, or
> perhaps they meant "Our app needs".

All these apps "need" permissions because it's an Android requirement.
Every app you mentioned asks for the same permissions.

It's ridiculous for you to think otherwise.

>
>> I think the NCI app might be using an Internet lookup.
>
> Not for the GPS data in the signal from the tower,

Maybe you know something I don't know but I do not think there is "GPS data
in the signal from the tower".

Are you just making that up?
Why would you say such a thing?

If there is "GPS data in the signal from the tower", prove it.

> or data obtained from
> the phone, like signal strength.

Of course. The app is reading & displaying the signal strength.
That's what it does.

> Yes, for the Google Maps API they use
> to show maps. NCI doesn't use a cell tower database lookup where it has
> to download the database from somewhere. You get the GPS coordinates
> from the tower, and the coordinates are used in Google Maps. This is
> all dynamic, not from stagnant database downloads.

Are you sure any app can "get the GPS coordinates from the tower?"
I think you made that up.

If you did not make that up, then you should be able to point to some
reliable reference on the net which says any phone can "get the GPS
coordinates from the tower" because I don't think that's how it works.

> Oh, and the NCI app, if you choose, can monitor signal strength as you
> move around for whatever tower it is currently connected.

All the apps do that if all you're saying is the signal strength is
reported. That's what the apps do.

> This is
> provide a more accurate coverage map than you'll find from any of the
> cell carriers.

As far as I know, any cellular signal strength app itself can only tell you
the real time signal strength of the carrier that your SIM card is set to.

I am on Verizon. Any app I install will only tell me the real time signal
strength of Verizon. Anything else is an Internet database lookup engine.

> OpenSignal has the same community-driven data update
> feature. The logs get uploaded to them, so they can analyze and report
> to other users.

I said in my prior post that I'm well aware of how inaccurate the Internet
database lookups are but we're talking here about real-time signal strength
(which is affected by many factors which are not in a net lookup).

> Obviously the speed test in both apps require an Internet connection to
> use servers for the testing.

Yes. Of course.

>
>> Internet cellular tower lookups are well known to be always wrong.
>
> With NCI, the Google Maps API is used when it draws a map for where is
> the tower. I think CZ uses OsmAnd aka OpenStreets. Do they have a
> dynamic API to which an app can issue map requests, or do they require
> downloading of map data?

It's not the map which is wrong most of the time but the location of the
tower. I'm sure many towers are accurately listed but many are not.

Also I'm sure most of the time your phone is connected to the closest tower
but many times it may not be (as signal strength can vary based on real
world conditions such as LOS obstructions).

>
> OsmAnd (freeware)
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmand
>
> OsmAnd+ (payware)
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmand.plus

Notice you can get (a) the substandard OSMAnd from Google Play for free,
or, you can get the (b) the better OSMAnd+ from Google Play for money, or,
you can get (c) the better OSMAnd+ from F-Droid for free.

Open source OSMAnd+ payware, for free.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.osmand.plus/

It's your choice.

> Uffdah! $25, and you thought $2 was pricey for NCI.

Stop calling me cheap to cover up for your dumb decisions.
It's a classic asshole move on the Internet for people to do that.

If you don't know that OSMAnd+ (normally called OSMAnd~) is free, then
that's your ignorance causing you to waste your $25 bucks on it.

It's fine if you feel that you need to donate your money to the developers
but don't call me cheap just becuase you didn't kow that OSMAnd+ is free.

Own your own ignorance.
Don't project it upon me.

> Obviously the CZ
> app is using the free version. I didn't find a free vs paid comparison
> web page at http://osmand.net/ to see just what the hell $25 buys more
> than in the free version.

There is only an extremely minor difference between the pay ware OSMAnd+
and the free OSMAnd+ (note I'm not talking about the substandard OSMAnd).

The difference, albeit extremely minor, is in support (last I checked).
a. OSMAnd on Google Play (less functional)
b. OSMAnd+ on Google Play (fully functional)
c. OSMAnd+ aka OSMAnd on F-Droid (fully functional, sans support)

Since everyone knows this information above, and since you don't seem to be
in the superset called "everyone", then it's you who is ignorant, not me.

You keep projecting your ignorance upon me to defend your dumb decisions.

If you paid for OSMAnd+ on Google Play, then you wasted your money because
the same functionality is free on F-Droid.

Notice that if you love throwing your money around to developers, then you
didn't waste it but you're claiming I'm cheap so that's why I'm trying to
explain to you that your dumb decisions don't mean that I'm cheap.

Own your own dumb decisions.
Don't project your ignorance upon me.

> OsmAnd and OpenStreets are separate entities,
> but OsmAnd looks to be the biggest consumer of OpenStreet data. I'm
> just guessing CZ uses OpenStreet, but you'd have to check on that to see
> if the app declares whose mapping database it uses. I couldn't find out
> at the CZ Github site (the Chinese stopped me from investigating
> further).

As I said, I have no need for the maps inside the cellular debuggers.
I get the signal strength and other specific tower information.
If I need to know the location of the tower, I call 611.
They always give it to me.

> Yep. It gets the GPS data in the signal from the tower, and sends the
> GPS coordinates to the Google Maps API to show a map. It does NOT go
> downloading map databases which due to publishing limitations means that
> data is always stale.

I think you made up that "It gets the GPS data in the signal from the
tower."

Do you have any reliable written cites that say "It gets the GPS data in
the signal from the tower" or do you just think that is the case?

> Oops, I may be wrong on how CZ gets mapping data. From:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API
>
> looks like CZ, if it is using OpenStreet, can use an API to request
> mapping data from OpenStreet. That would eliminate lag in updating a
> mapping database, but it is still compiled from "contributors" to
> OpenStreet who walk around with the app running in the background to
> record what the app discovers wherever the user's phone travels.

As I said from the start, it's well known how terrible the Internet
crowd-sourced databases are for cellular tower locations.

Everyone knows this.
Everyone has known this since the dawn of cellular.

It's not new news except perhaps to you.

> If CZ
> uses OpenStreets, I would think it would have an option to do the
> environ logging of cell towers and their specs. Maybe CZ didn't go that
> way, as the logging has to get uploaded. Again, I cannot perform a
> whitepaper comparison of the apps (and they have far too much for me to
> waste time learning both in detail) since all docs at CZ's Github site
> are in Chinese. I don't want to learn Chinese, either, or keep pasting
> into Google Translate (which results in bad translations since
> grammatical translation is not the same a linguistic translation to
> convert from one language to another).

I don't know why you keep saying the CZ data is in the wrong language.
It's in my system language everywhere I look it up for information.

> Perhaps since maps in NCI are got from Google Maps API. Where does CZ
> get its mapping data? Can't be some huge database bundled with the app
> to make it huge as it wouldn't fit on most smartphones, and would get
> stagnant the moment it got bundled with the app before you even got to
> download the app. It has to get the mapping data from somewhere, and
> that means an Internet connection for CZ, too.

The map isn't the problem.
It's the location of the tower on that map which is the problem.

As I said from the start, this is a well known problem with ALL the
Internet lookup databases for cell tower locations.

This problem isn't new to anyone except to you.

> I use the Here[WeGo]! map app as an alternative to Google Maps.

I use OSMAnd+ and MapFactor Navigator. But I've tried them all.
ZANavi had been promising for years but they've never fixed their bugs.
Same with Sygic.

> There
> have been times when I'm out of range of any cell tower. Google Maps
> has its offline maps feature, but it has limitation in size, and you
> pick the areas you want saved which means downloads of large files.

Most people I know use Google Maps for when the signal is good, and any
decent offline navigation program (such as OSMAnd+) for when it's not.

Google Maps generally does traffic better IMHO.
And Google Maps generally has a smarter POI and Address lookup database.

The offline maps feature of Google Maps is constantly changing and in my
humblest of opinions, is too much of a PITA to maintain so I don't use it.

> Here! can also use offline map databases. Instead of having to draw a
> region to snare map data to store offline as in in Google Maps, you
> select which regions you want to capture: country, state, city.
> Currently I have North America selected.

Most offline map programs work that way.

> I configured Here! to download
> map data only over a wifi connection. Over a cellular data connection
> would eat up my quota damn quick. A pisser about Here!'s app GUI is
> trying to figure out to get to settings.

Each map program has its foibles. For example, OSMAnd+ can't directly save
your current location. You have to fat finger it instead. I consider that a
flaw that MapFactor Navigator doedsn't have. With MapFactor Navigator you
can just press a button to save the current location as a waypoint.

With OSMAnd+ you can't.
Can you directly save the current location as a waypoint in Here!?

> At one time, I dragged from
> the left side of the window to bring in the menu pane. Either they
> removed it, or my armor case is blocking my finger from using the last
> couple pixels on the left side. Some apps are very tiny for the grab
> area of a drag-in pane. I finally got into settings, verified North and
> Central America (no just North America) was getting downloaded, and it
> eats up 14GB of my 120GB SD card. If I selected all of Africa, Asia,
> Australia/Oceania, Europe, North and Central America, and South America,
> I'd eat up 53 GB of my SD card. Well, I've got the room, but then I
> don't take photos or videos with my phone, and if I did they would stay
> on my phone (I'd move them elsewhere). I don't know how long it took
> last time to just download the North and Central America database which
> was over a wifi connection at home, but it was MANY hours. Not because
> of wifi speed, but because they throttle their connections as do many
> web sites so all connections get some response. You could let it
> connect as you go to get map updates, but you're not always near a cell
> tower. The Here! download maps cover a much more huge area than offline
> maps you can define in Google Maps, but they lack many of the extras,
> like roadside cafes or other POIs (Points Of Interest).

Most offline map programs do what Here! seems to be doing.
You get "big chunks" of map data, usually states.

That works fine for medium sized states like Pennsylvania.
Not so well for huge states like Texas or small states like Rhode Island.

> Looks like both CZ and NCI apps use APIs to issue online requests for
> map data. Looks like saving huge map databases is not doable for them.
> I'm talking about mapping data, not about some cell tower database which
> I've never needed to use in NCI. Don't see the point of downloading
> cell tower database(s) for stagnant data that is already available in
> the signal from the tower, and can be found using online map APIs.

As I said, if I need the cell tower location, then I call 611 and ask the
Verizon personnel to tell me the nearest tower. Usually they give me three
or so, and usually they're within a mile of each other and me. (If they
were closer than that, I wouldn't be having any connection problems.)

> I don't need my phone telling me where I am (well, where is the phone).
> That would only be of use when trying to find your lost phone. Any map
> app will tell you where you are.
>
> If I want to see which satellites were involved in the GPS calculation
> for my phone, I use the GPS Status app
> (https://play.google.com/store/search?q=gps+status). Neither the CZ nor
> NCI app needs to find the GPS coordinates of the tower as that data is
> sent by the tower to my phone in the cellular connection. The GPS
> coordinates for the cell tower are static, so why would anything
> locating its GPS coordinates have to use satellites?

Are you sure GPS "data is sent by the tower to my phone in the cellular
connection?"

If it is sent, I'm ignorant of that fact.
It's ok that I'm ignorant as long as I don't blame you for my ignorance.

If you can show me a cite which confirms your assumption that GPS "data is
"sent by the tower to my phone in the cellular connection" then I'll be as
informed as you are.

> If I need to give someone my latitude and longitude, I use a compass
> app. Dump those into Google Maps to see where is that location.

I generally keep a super simple open source compass app on my phone.
Mine can send my location to an SMS as a distress call.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.sgr_b2.compass/

Beware of an app with the same name on the Google Play Store.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.communitycompass&gl=DE

I also keep Azimuth Compass on my phone which is more for trekking as it
has useful digital readouts and bearing and declination settings, etc.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ro.overwrite.azimuthcompass&gl=DE

I also keep SatStat open source on my phone for satellite details.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.vonglasow.michael.satstat/

> The
> NCI app will also show latitude and longitude, but only in the map.

Instant access to lat/long (especially for texting to emergency contacts)
is in the apps I mentioned above and is in many of the others so it's
easily found.

> Alas, I cannot tap and hold to paste the lat/long data to paste
> elsewhere, like into the Google Maps app. Does the CZ app show latitude
> and longitude for your phone's location, or just GPS coordinates?

There are emergency SOS apps that text your lat/long to predefined SMS/MMS
recipients (see above). That's an easy way to get the coordinates, IMHO.

> You asked about the tower's identifiers. The NCI apps reports MCC, MNC,
> TAC. Those don't encode into their computed value the tower's location?

The identifiers are unique to the sector antenna on the tower.
But the LOCATION of the tower is not inherently in those identifiers.
That sector antenna can move, for example (albeit it's unlikely).

As I said, it's well known there is no published public database of cell
tower location. I suspect it's a national security issue but I don't know
why. I just know it is not available to the public.

Everything on the net is crowd sourced instead.

> For GSM, the unique IDs are: MCC:MNC and (L/T)AC:CID (for CDMA, they are
> SID:NID:BID). Obviously the app is getting that data from the cell
> tower, not from some drone you flew over the area. There is a lookup,
> but a database is not downloaded to your phone. Coordinates of base
> stations are in the Google and Yandex databases. For Google Maps, their
> geolocation API does the lookup, and its on-demand, not a database you
> retrieve to your phone.
>
> https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/overview

I'm very familiar with Google location lookups.

> So, indirectly the tower is sending you its GPS coordinates by sending
> you its IDs that are used to locate the tower.

Of course. The identifiers are unique to the sector antenna on the tower.
But there is no accurate lookup database available to the public.
Everything out there that you or I can access is crowd sourced instead.

> I can tell you that I'm
> the 4th house on the north side of the street from some intersection,
> and that's the same as if I gave you my house number, and visa versa.

Bear in mind the identifier information is specific to the sector antenna.
So it's like telling me which window in your house you're currently using.

That is, it's not only telling me which house you are at, but also which
side of that house you are at where you are looking out of a specific
window of that house (ie towers have multiple sector antennas on them).

> I
> didn't bother looking into how Yandex's geolocation API works. For the
> Google geolocation API, the response is latitude and longitude.
>
> You could look at the API as a conversion service, or a database lookup,
> whichever floats your boat. With MS 365, you can consider the
> subscription price is for MS 365 and you get 1TB of OneDrive quota for
> free, or you can consider you bought 1TB of online storage quota and got
> MS 365 for free. Either viewpoint gives the same result. Online
> conversion service, or online on-demand database lookup. You say
> po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.

I have no idea what you're tryin to explain above as it's rambling.

>> It's well known that no GPS lookup for cell towers exists in the USA that
>> is available to the public.
>>
>> Anything you think is a lookup is based on an amalgamation of user data.
>> Which means your app is using the Internet.
>
> So is your CZ app. Again, what mapping data source does CZ use?

As I said many times, I don't use the mapping since I just call the carrier
at 611 if I need to know where the nearest three towers are.

> If
> OpenStreets, it should be using their API to request mapping data, not
> some huge stagnant database file that gets uploaded to your phone. If
> CZ works the latter method to do the GPS to lat/long conversion, yeah,
> that would suck.

As I said, my CZ shows the location but there's no underlying map
underneath it. It's probably something I never enabled as I don't care to
debug why a map that I don't need or want doesn't show up on my phone.

>
>> You did install the app, didn't you?
>
> Nope. I don't install apps willy nilly just to waste my time in
> trialing them, especially with highly technical apps with a very narrow
> market for limited need.

It's better than trying to read Chinese.

> I just assume CZ is internationalized to use
> the charset selected in the OS.

It is.

> However, charset mapping doesn't mean
> intelligible words get formed, or the linguistics of one language
> (Chinese) are properly transformed to the linguistics of a different
> language (English). If you're using English with the CZ app, do you see
> recognizable words without biasing by Engrish translation?

Only you have this problem.
Mine is in my system language.

>
>> When you installed the free app, why would you have a system language
>> set up in Chinese? Please don't blame the tool for your own mistakes.
>
> I don't install apps blindfolded. I research them first.

No you don't.
At least not well.

Every app you've suggested I've tested long ago and found substandard.
Every app you said you paid for I have looked at and found better for free.

If you don't mind me being blunt, your research capability stinks.
At least compared to mine it does (IMHO).

I challenge you to find better apps than I do in any category that I've
already done the research (which I've done for cellular/wifi debuggers and
for map navigation and compass and emergency geolocation apps).

> If the app
> developer provides little or no documentation, I have to rely on 3rd
> party reviews most of which are useless unless they go into the nitty
> gritty details of all the features of an app. It can help if reviews
> provide comparisons between apps, but I found none for CZ compared to
> NCI.

Most "reviews" are shills, as you are well aware I hope.
Gotta get to work.

You still haven't apologized for saying I'm cheap because I'm not stupid.
Nor have you apologized for saying I waste my time by doing smart research
and, as a result, I find free apps that are better than those you pay for.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/3/22 3:19 AM, VanguardLH wrote:

> ...Can I get clothes

> for super cheap at Goodwill? Sure, and I did back when I was destitute,
> but not now when I can afford the retail stores. Do I like deals? Sure
> I do, but not if I'm going to waste more of time in research and
> trialing than the cost to buy. Amazing how so many users consider their
> time as valueless.

You're looking at it wrong! It's a GAME, and the more/better you play
the more you win -- or don't lose, anyway. Yard sales were a social
occasion with our best friends -- one of whom died and the other of whom
developed walking problems -- and whatever we bought was pretty much
gravy. We have more tools (and everything else) than we need now. (Ref
other post.)

Long ago hubby was the company tech hotshot. He wore nice casual
clothes. One day company president stopped by and said it would be
really nice if hubby started wearing suits, especially for client
meetings. We bought a BEAUTIFUL suit for him at the Goodwill store and
I shortened the jacket really nicely (yeah, I used to be able to do
stuff like that). President complimented hubby on his choice. Hubby
said "Yes, and it was only $5 at the Goodwill store." President never
mentioned it again.

When you're retired your time IS valueless in terms of money.

I'm going to talk to a local cellphone repairguy tomorrow afternoon and
maybe let him replace the Pixel2 battery. When the battery is under 30%
the phone reboots when it tries (and fails) to write a photograph.
Since its greatest value is as a camera, this is intolerable. Option 2
is MAYBE an Amazon-refurbished Pixel 4XL, which also has a real
telephoto lens.

Is removing the battery equivalent to a factory reset? Is phone memory
volatile? I'm shocked that this only occurred to me today. Running a
backup even as we speak...

Yeah, I could afford the latest pixel or iPhone and a real phone plan,
but those costs are pure waste, with no additional utility value. Even
as a child I hated wasting money.

I think it's genetic. My mom would only buy steak when it was on sale.
I don't buy it at all, but I hate to cook...

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

[VanguardLH]

Erholt Rhein <erh...@pobox.com> wrote:

> It's classic of assholes who are defending their dumb decision to buy
> software that they could have gotten open source apps instead to
> claim that anyone who doesn't waste their money on substandard apps
> is cheap.

Give the Message-ID of where I called you cheap. So far, the only one
calling yourself cheap has been you.

>> Could've been I had been using other apps in their freeware versions,
>> decided to pay similar to how I use shareware enough to know if I'm
>> keeping it, and went through the apps list to see what others I want
>> to buy.
>

> Like I said, I don't care how you justify wasting your money.

Yes, we all see you are a FOSS prosyletizer. No one really cares here.
This is not a FOSS advocacy newsgroup.

> Own your stupidity.

I don't argue with children. I trialed the candidates available when I
decided I wanted an app that gave cellular information. Your CZ app was
not yet even a wet dream at that time. After choosing, there was no
impetus for me to redo the entire trial testing. Call me lasy since
that may placate your temperament.

> It's what assholes do.

And name calling is what children do. Grow up.

> Just accept that the NCI app isn't as functional as the CZ app.

So far, from what I and you said regarding the features of CZ and NCI, I
am not convinced your statement is true. The only fact that differs the
two that you have harped upon is price, and I really don't care. CZ was
not available when I trialed the candidates, so it was a non-runner no
matter if it was payware or freeware.

>> By the way, you can still get Windows 10 for free. Just don't register
>> it, and ignore the watermarking on the desktop (there are workarounds).
>> The trial of Windows 10 never expires. Did I do that? Nope. My new
>> build cost around $2600, so the OS cost was trivial. Can I get clothes
>> for super cheap at Goodwill? Sure, and I did back when I was destitute,
>> but not now when I can afford the retail stores. Do I like deals? Sure
>> I do, but not if I'm going to waste more of time in research and
>> trialing than the cost to buy. Amazing how so many users consider their
>> time as valueless.
>
> I get it that you're embarrassed you made a dumb decision, but I must
> repeat nobody said anything about Windows 10, free or otherwise.

Nope, not at all. You're the one prosyletizing FOSS, so maybe you would
be interested in how to get that OS for free, if you use it. Instead
you lambaste the info.

> This conversation, which you started, is simply comparing the
> functionality of NCI with CZ. That's all. And CZ beats NCI in almost
> every category.

That has not yet been proven by you or I. CZ is free, you are using it,
I provided a URL to the feature comparison table between editions of
NCI, so you look at which features listed that CZ already has against
the payware versions of NCI that you so vehemently argue against (and
attempted to accuse of theft, but were shown of false accusation), and
report back to the rest of us your results.

You look at the features list for NCI. Then see if CZ has an equal
function. There may not be a direct correlation of features, but some
may be equivalent, like how NCI exports versus how CZ exports. You can
install NCI if you want, but a whitepaper comparison of features based
on the published features is sufficient for many folks. I cannot do the
same, because CZ's author doesn't publish a features list for me to
perform a whitepaper compare. Yes, I can actually read, so a features
comparison based on information is truly possible. I can also read the
nutrition labels on food to compare similar products, too.

Give up on disqualifying NCI as a choice just because it is payware
although it also has a free version. You're not winning that argument
with me, and a features comparison would only add that as a single entry
to denote one is free and the other is free or paid.

> Does NCI do anything better than CZ, by the way?
>
>> Oh, here we go again with the deliberately bogus reputation berating.
>> If anyone copied another, it had to be CZ which wasn't around when NCI
>> came out. Duh!
>
> I take it back that NCI copied the source code as it's not germane to the
> fact that even if NCI was written on a tablet by God herself on top of the
> mountain, NCI still would be less functional than CZ.

You accuse M2Catalyst aka Wilysis of stealing CZ's code to smear NCI's
reputation as though that somehow counts in a feature comparison between
the two. That was you, and I proved you wrong, so now, gee, it's not
germane. You berate NCI because it costs money, but it does have a free
version.

>> I have no interest in the CZ app. NCI does what I need, and a hell of
>> lot more that I don't yet understand.
>
> You started this thread on the comparison. Not me.

I started by mentioning NCI for an app that would give you the
information. You did not yet mention you already had one (CZ) that gave
you that info. As for understanding the IDs of a tower, I bowed out
because I'm not an wifi specialist. Most of what I could find out, and
seems you, too, would be through online searches.

YOU started this subthread by asking for a comparison. I didn't
volunteer a comparison before that post of yours, because you had not
yet mentioned CZ. In fact, in your reply "What does the pay ware do
that the free ware open source app does not do?", I asked for you to be
more specified since I'm not doing work of not interest to me. Only
then did you mention CZ, and then this subthread ensued with your name
calling insults. If calling someone stupid, supporting a code thief,
how you engage a professional discussion on "working together"?

Once, and after, you identified your app choice as CZ, I did offer some
comparison. Since all documentation is written in Chinese, so the
"documentation" (files in the build, not online web pages, FAQ, or help,
all I could base a whitepaper comparison was on the screenshots of CZ,
and then check if NCI had the same features. There were some
differences, but I didn't see much to differentiate them. So, I did
offer some comparisons. Sorry, no matter on much you harp, price was
not a factor in deciding on NCI. I used their free version, I
eventually bought their paid version, and there has been no impetus to
redo trialing all the candidate apps.

Now it's your turn. Look at the feature comparison chart for NCI which
is available online, and to which I gave the URL. Now YOU compare which
features listed for NCI are also equal to CZ. You can even include
features of CZ that you don't see listed for NCI, and I can check if NCI
has those features since feature lists are constrained in how much
information they can present. And don't bias your feature comparison
based on price. You can add that at the end of the comparison noting CZ
is free, but against which edition (free, paid, paid Pro) each
comparison was made to CZ.

I found NCI's comparison table at:

https://www.m2catalyst.com/features

I see they also mention some features at:

https://www.m2catalyst.com/network-cell-info-lite

but did not check if all those were already in their comparison table.
When using their table, and listing which NCI features are covered by
CZ, and which CZ features are not listed for NCI, be sure to include the
features listed on the other web page.

Yeah, as you wished, let's work together. So far, other than price,
your, ahem, arguments have not been convincing that CZ has everything,
and more, than does NCI.

>> I'm not writing a review to post
>> at Youtube, or some other site for the socially needy (Facebook,
>> Twitter, etc). Unlike you, my time has worth.
>
> There you go again being an asshole because you made a dumb decision.
> Don't project your stupidity on me as a way of defending you being dumb.

Oh yes, you elicit such comraderie with your insults. You really impel
me to "work together" with you. Even after all your name calling,
accusing me of calling you cheap, and trying to impugn NCI was a code
thief,

I cannot do a whitepaper comparison of CZ versus NCI, because CZ's
documentation is in Chinese. However, YOU have the CZ app, so you can
do a whitepaper comparison of CZ against NCI, because you speak English,
and NCI's site is in English. Stop harping on price, and do the damn
comparison. I did what I could with the materials available to me to
investigate CZ. No, I'm not installing every damn cell info app to
compile a comparison table of all them. Nope, I'm not installing CZ to
do the comparison, either. I don't install unless I have intent to use,
and nothing yet convinces me CZ is better in features than NCI that I
already have. You can't run NCI on your phone, and I'm not helping
someone troubleshoot problems with an app who name calls, accuses, and
is so opininated as yourself. You don't need to run NCI to to do a
decent comparison of CZ versus NCI. Just look at the feature pages
given to you for NCI, and compare those against the CZ app you can check
on your phone.

I did my comparison. Now do yours. Or was "work together" a ruse
trying to inflate your reputation over mine of a thief rewarder?

> Own your decisions.

Own yours. Do the comparison you have been, so far, very reluctant to
perform.

> First you claim I'm cheap for not wasting my money on substandard apps.

Again, give the MID of my post where I called you a cheapskate. Like
with you saying NCI stole code from CZ, you make yet another false
accusation.

> Now you claim your time is superior to mine because you make dumb moves.

Again, another false accusation. I add my time in computing the value
of a task or product.

> Own your decisions.

Geez, you are really in a mindset rut. Time to change the tape.

> Just accept that CZ is a better app and accept that you're happy with the
> NCI app which, while doing far less than CZ, serves your minimal needs.

Sure, after you do YOUR comparison which is not wholly biased on price.

I didn't have to install CZ to do a feature comparison against its
screenshots (the only documentation usable to me) to NCI's feature
lists. You don't need to install NCI which has been problematic for you
to do the comparison. I just walked down the feature list of NCI, and
tried to find something like each entry in the screenshot. You can do
the same, but you have the CZ app to actually look at to see which
features in each edition of NCI is also in CZ, and perhaps add more
entries for CZ where you didn't find a matching entry for NCI.

You, so far, have made a lousy sales rep for the free CZ app.
Customer: Why should I get CZ?
You: Because it's better.
Customer: How is it better?
You: Because it's free.
Customer: Okay, beyond price, how is CZ better than NCI?
You: It does everything NCI does, and more.
Customer: You have a comparison of CZ against NCI?
You: Nope, but CZ is better.
Customer: What more does CZ do?
You: asshole, dumb, stupid, thief, own it, yadda yadda insults

Yep, that'll convince the customer.

[Erholt Rhein]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 05:40:20 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

>> It's classic of assholes who are defending their dumb decision to buy
>> software that they could have gotten open source apps instead to
>> claim that anyone who doesn't waste their money on substandard apps
>> is cheap.
>
> Give the Message-ID of where I called you cheap. So far, the only one
> calling yourself cheap has been you.

I'm not playing your silly game because you need to own up to your own
words, not me. You _repeatedly_ chastised me for not spending money on apps
that I get the functionality for free. If you're that stupid that you don't
even realize what you _repeatedly_ said, then I can't fix your stupidity.

Only an asshole would do what you did and then ask me to prove you did it.
Read your own words. Own them. You wrote them.

I apologized for being wrong on the NCI copying CZ.
I own my words.

You need to look at what you wrote (just look for the dollar sign in your
posts) and then you need to read your own words for yourself.

If you want to lie and say you didn't do what you did, then we're done.

> Yes, we all see you are a FOSS prosyletizer.

You say that as if it's a bad thing, which says more about you than me.
What's wrong with FOSS?

The beauty of FOSS is proprietary code has fewer eyeballs on it.
FOSS, we can hope, can have more eyeballs on them.

However one problem with FOSS is that people "can" shamelessly copy them.
And then they "can" add ads and payments to those shameless copies.

I'm a proponent of rewarding the guys who wrote & published the FOSS code.

> No one really cares here.

Your obvious hatred for FOSS is clear from everything you say.

> This is not a FOSS advocacy newsgroup.

Nor is it a newsgroup for assholes to be calling everyone else cheap for
not wasting their money on apps that do less and cost more than FOSS apps.

The real reason you called me cheap is you were embarrassed that I called
you out on being incredibly stupid in your choices of apps to pay for.

Just own your own stupidity please.
Stop being an asshole just because you're embarrassed by your bad choices.

> I don't argue with children.

Trust me that I get it that you don't know how to deal with someone who is
showing you what an asshole you are so I don't mind you calling me a child.

> I trialed the candidates available when I
> decided I wanted an app that gave cellular information.

That's fine. I do the same thing. As time goes on, there are better apps.
Sometimes you feel the need to look again, sometimes you don't.
As an example, I'm still using Firefox but I'm ready to ditch it.
It was good for a long time, but it's getting worse over time.

If you have a better browser, then I'm all ears, for example.

> Your CZ app was
> not yet even a wet dream at that time. After choosing, there was no
> impetus for me to redo the entire trial testing. Call me lasy since
> that may placate your temperament.

It's normal.
I do the same thing.

I use a barcode scanner that I chose long ago.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.zxing.client.android

Is there a better barcode scanner out there?
Maybe. Probably. But I don't know because the one I chose is working.

If you found a _better_ FOSS barcode scanner, I would thank you.
Not call you cheap.

BTW, when I looked up the URL It says on Google Play "Note that this app
can no longer be updated on Google Play, and there will be no further
releases." so maybe I need to find a better FOSS barcode scanner (or
another source).

I don't know the reason it is no longer being developed though.
https://github.com/zxing/zxing

My point is that we should work together to find the best apps.
It's not a sin to want FOSS apps where the code can be reviewed even if you
think that those who want reviewed code are "proselytizers" all.

> So far, from what I and you said regarding the features of CZ and NCI, I
> am not convinced your statement is true. The only fact that differs the
> two that you have harped upon is price, and I really don't care.

Price is always the LAST criteria when choosing apps.
The first criteria is functionality.

As an obvious example of why that is always the case, an app that does
nothing useful, or that gives the wrong answers, or that is buggy, isn't
even worth "free", let alone a dollar or two.

It's only you who put price in the forefront. Not me.
I put functionality above all and your app is less functional.

Price has nothing to do with functionality even as you think it does.

> Nope, not at all. You're the one prosyletizing FOSS, so maybe you would
> be interested in how to get that OS for free, if you use it. Instead
> you lambaste the info.

Again you deprecate people being able to review the source code.
Why?

What do you hate about the source code being open to public purview?

> That has not yet been proven by you or I. CZ is free, you are using it,
> I provided a URL to the feature comparison table between editions of
> NCI, so you look at which features listed that CZ already has against
> the payware versions of NCI that you so vehemently argue against (and
> attempted to accuse of theft, but were shown of false accusation), and
> report back to the rest of us your results.

I asked before, and I'll ask you again.
What does NCI do that you find useful that CZ doesn't do?

If you can't answer that simple question then it's not worth talking to you
given you're the one who said that all you care about is the price, not me.

I look at functionality.

If any app doesn't have the functionality, subsequently charging me money
isn't going to give that app magical powers of that missing functionality.

> You look at the features list for NCI. Then see if CZ has an equal
> function. There may not be a direct correlation of features, but some
> may be equivalent, like how NCI exports versus how CZ exports. You can
> install NCI if you want, but a whitepaper comparison of features based
> on the published features is sufficient for many folks. I cannot do the
> same, because CZ's author doesn't publish a features list for me to
> perform a whitepaper compare. Yes, I can actually read, so a features
> comparison based on information is truly possible. I can also read the
> nutrition labels on food to compare similar products, too.

The difference between you and me is I make functionality paramount.
You make price paramount.

Don't feel too bad though as lots of people are like you are.
They feel that if they pay more for less that they got a better deal.

> Give up on disqualifying NCI as a choice just because it is payware
> although it also has a free version. You're not winning that argument
> with me, and a features comparison would only add that as a single entry
> to denote one is free and the other is free or paid.

Again and again you are saying that, to you, price is the most important
thing, while you deprecate functionality.

To me, functionality is the most important thing.

The price is the LAST think you look at when comparing apps (or when you're
comparing ANYTHING technical, for that matter).

> You accuse M2Catalyst aka Wilysis of stealing CZ's code to smear NCI's
> reputation as though that somehow counts in a feature comparison between
> the two. That was you, and I proved you wrong, so now, gee, it's not
> germane. You berate NCI because it costs money, but it does have a free
> version.

I said I apologize for saying NCI copied the CZ code.
I said that openly.
I said that publicly.

Do you want to start another thread on that topic so I can say it again?
I don't mind.
Do it.

I'll say it again every time you bring it up.
No matter how many times you gloat, I'll repeat what I said that I was
wrong by assuming that NCI copied the CZ code without evidence of that.

I own my words.

> I started by mentioning NCI for an app that would give you the
> information. You did not yet mention you already had one (CZ) that gave
> you that info.

I would wager that there may not be a single functionality that you have on
your phone that I don't already have on the Pixel that is of use to me.

I don't do a lot of things (like Facebook) on my Pixel that others do, but
I do a lot of things on my phone - so if you want to ask me "what is the
best app" for any particularly utility - you're welcome to ask and I
probably have it if it's a utility that I've needed myself.

> As for understanding the IDs of a tower, I bowed out
> because I'm not an wifi specialist. Most of what I could find out, and
> seems you, too, would be through online searches.

The problem with cellular tower utilities is correct that you said from the
start which is that the apps expect you to know what to do with the data.

I think I know enough now about the various identifiers to be dangerous.

> Yeah, as you wished, let's work together. So far, other than price,
> your, ahem, arguments have not been convincing that CZ has everything,
> and more, than does NCI.

I put functionality first, price last, in terms of making a decision as to
what app is better than another app.

Bear in mind that being FOSS, there is an advantage that a proprietary app
doesn't have which is that there is a greater potential for eyes on the
source code.

Note that I'm not saying that eyes are always on the source code because I
don't know that - but I am saying that being FOSS has an advantage that
eyes are on the source code (it's also a disadvantage if the code can be
viewed if a hacker knows how to circumvent the algorithms).

>> Own your decisions.
>
> Own yours.

I own my words.
I already profusely apologized for saying that NCI copied CZ code didn't I?

What else do you want me to own?
If I said it, I own it.

I expect the same from you with an apology from you for calling me cheap
for putting functionality over price in importance.

> Again, give the MID of my post where I called you a cheapskate. Like
> with you saying NCI stole code from CZ, you make yet another false
> accusation.

Own your own words.
It's in YOUR posts.
Look them up yourself.

Did you notice I didn't ask you for a message id of when I said
(erroneously so) that NCI copied CZ?

I own my words.
Own yours.

>
>> Now you claim your time is superior to mine because you make dumb moves.
>
> Again, another false accusation. I add my time in computing the value
> of a task or product.

Again, own your words.
You are the one who brought up the time element of looking for good apps.
Not me.

An asshole doesn't own their words.
Own yours.

>> Own your decisions.
>
> Geez, you are really in a mindset rut. Time to change the tape.

Look. I get it that you're embarrassed that you make dumb choices based on
dumb criteria while I make smarter choices based on functionality so I get
it that your butt is hurt.

You think I don't know why you called me cheap?
You think I don't know why you said your time is too valuable to be
choosing good apps?

I get it.
You're embarrassed that you made stupid decisions compared to mine.
And that's OK.

I wouldn't be on Usenet if it hurt my feelings every time some asshole told
me that they spend money and save time first instead of thinking about
functionality first.

You're not the first, nor the last person on Usenet to make dumb decisions
and then to have to justify those dumb decisions any way you can come up
with.

The only difference is that you calling me cheap for not wasting my money
and you repeatedly declaring your time is worth too much for you to make
smart decisions isn't gonna work with me.

Own your words.
Like I own mine.

> Sure, after you do YOUR comparison which is not wholly biased on price.

I repeat what you can't get out of your mind because to you, price is
paramount, but to me, functionality is paramount.

When I assess ANYTHING (whether it's a car, or a house, or a tool), price
is the LAST thing I look at. The functionality is paramount to me.

I use a lot of tools, and I know how to find the best value in them.
But that takes both time and intelligence - which some people don't have.

> You don't need to install NCI which has been problematic for you
> to do the comparison.

The biggest problem with NCI is that it does nothing but crash on my pixel.
The functionality of NCI, for me, is zero.

> You, so far, have made a lousy sales rep for the free CZ app.
> Customer: Why should I get CZ?
> You: Because it's better.

That's a good start.

> Customer: How is it better?
> You: Because it's free.

Wrong. I said it's more functional.
The fact it's free is a bonus.

What's MORE IMPORTANT than being free is the source is open.
That means there's a potential for eyeballs on the source.

Which, while it's a double edged sword, is generally considered a "good
thing" by most people (in terms of robustness and privacy).

> Customer: Okay, beyond price, how is CZ better than NCI?
> You: It does everything NCI does, and more.

That's a good continuation since it's all about functionality.

> Customer: You have a comparison of CZ against NCI?
> You: Nope, but CZ is better.

Even if CZ was EXACTLY the same functionality as NCI, it's better because
it's FOSS and FOSS has eyes on the source which is considered a good thing.

> Customer: What more does CZ do?

If nothing else, CZ is FOSS, while NCI is not, which means there is a
greater potential for eyes on the code to ensure privacy & robustness.

Remember, you started this thread, not me.
Own your thread.

The question you asked is which came first and you then provided evidence
that NCI came first which I accepted without argument.

[VanguardLH]

Erholt Rhein <erh...@pobox.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>>> It's classic of assholes who are defending their dumb decision to buy
>>> software that they could have gotten open source apps instead to
>>> claim that anyone who doesn't waste their money on substandard apps
>>> is cheap.
>>
>> Give the Message-ID of where I called you cheap. So far, the only one
>> calling yourself cheap has been you.
>
> I'm not playing your silly game because you need to own up to your own
> words, not me. You _repeatedly_ chastised me for not spending money on apps
> that I get the functionality for free. If you're that stupid that you don't
> even realize what you _repeatedly_ said, then I can't fix your stupidity.

You need to take your meds. Your view of what is said is highly skewed.

> Only an asshole would do what you did and then ask me to prove you did it.
> Read your own words. Own them. You wrote them.

I already owned up that I paid for NCI after using the free version for
a couple years. As to asshole, thief helper, stupid, dumb, and other
aspersions of you against my character, no, I won't own up to YOUR
words. That's your opinion of my choice, and irrelevant to comparing
the features of CZ against NCI.

>> Yes, we all see you are a FOSS prosyletizer.
>
> You say that as if it's a bad thing, which says more about you than me.
> What's wrong with FOSS?

Using FOSS is fine with me. It is when someone devolves into a flamer
by berating choices made by other users. I was dumb, an asshole, a
thief abettor, and so on with your insults.

> The beauty of FOSS is proprietary code has fewer eyeballs on it.

I see that argument all the time about open source code. Yes, someone
could audit it, but rarely does that ever happen. The most the code
ever gets reviewed is when someone generates a variant of the program,
but, according to you, that is stealing.

> However one problem with FOSS is that people "can" shamelessly copy
> them.

See, you think open source cannot be used in other products. Please
review just what is open source. It's public. ANYONE can reuse it.
There is no such thing as shameless copying of open source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
"Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible
modification and redistribution."

https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source
"Open source software is software with source code that anyone can
inspect, modify, and enhance."

Sometimes the author of the FOSS aks that anyone reusing their code also
mention the original product. Some authors don't. Depends on the
licensing model attached to the open sourceware.

That you even proposed unfounded (which was proven false) that NCI stole
code from CZ the latter of which is open source shows you don't know
what is open sourceware.

Open source. Yep, anyone can unashamedly copy, modify, and reuse it.

> I'm a proponent of rewarding the guys who wrote & published the FOSS
> code.

Alas, I don't see CZ accepts donations. I've done that, too. I'll
trial the freeware, I could continue using it, but if it has been
sufficiently useful, and I intent to use it, then I donate. I do the
same with shareware.

You aren't rewarding FOSS authors by using their software. The only way
to reward them is through donations if they bothered to setup a payment
system, or by debugging their software and providing professional,
technical, and detailed problem reports, or becoming a contributor to
fix or enhance their code. CZ has a Github project site. Since they
don't accept money, just how are YOU going to reward Zhengzhou CengSan
Information Technology Co., LTD for their Cellular-Z app?

> Nor is it a newsgroup for assholes to be calling everyone else cheap for
> not wasting their money on apps that do less and cost more than FOSS apps.

Hear that timer go bing? Time for your meds again.

> Just own your own stupidity please.
> Stop being an asshole just because you're embarrassed by your bad choices.

I'll own my purchase. I won't own your insults!

> My point is that we should work together to find the best apps.

Nope, not after all your inane insults. You burnt the bridge.

> It's only you who put price in the forefront. Not me.

I mentioned NCI has free and paid versions. You went off on a tangent
with there being a paid version, promoting FOSS, and all the other ...
stuff.

> Price has nothing to do with functionality even as you think it does.

Interesting interpretation of where I said to put pricing at the bottom
of the comparison table.

> Again you deprecate people being able to review the source code.

Please cite just who has audited CZ's code. That something can be done
doesn't mean it has been done.

> What do you hate about the source code being open to public purview?

The nebulous argument that open source can be audited despite the severe
dearth of such auditing by an independent party.

> I asked before, and I'll ask you again.
> What does NCI do that you find useful that CZ doesn't do?

I already gave a comparison listing based on what non-Chinese info I
could find from the app author. I didn't put it into a table, just a
point-list. To do your demanded app-to-app comparison would not only
require me becoming an expert in all of CZ, but also of NCI.

> If you can't answer that simple question

Neither have you. I have the NCI app, and compared it against what I
could find documented of CZ which was mostly just the screenshots. Now
it's your turn. You have the CZ app, so compare it against the features
list published on M2Catalyst's site. I noted the differences that I
saw, not list every feature but then have to leave a bunch of blanks in
the table as to whether or not CZ had them. Just list what differences
you find. I'll agree that the non-differences are what comprise the
equivalency in the two.

You keep complaining that NCI crashes on your phone. With 5+ million
downloads from the Play Store, it wouldn't get that many along with all
the reviews if it was crashing on a vast number of phones. If you
really need NCI to run on your phone, contact the app author with a bug
report. For now, just do a whitepaper comparison: look at the features
list for NCI, and check if CZ has those, or how they differ.

> The difference between you and me is I make functionality paramount.
> You make price paramount.

Oh yes, sure I did, uh huh. I started with the NCI free for a couple
years, decided to pay for more features, and, of course, I'm supposed
compare against another app that didn't yet exist, or discard an already
paid-for app to move to another one that even you declare is very close
in functionality.

> Again and again you are saying that, to you, price is the most important
> thing, while you deprecate functionality.

So, again, look at the list of NCI features that are published at
M2Catalyst's site to check which are the same (really don't need to list
those) and which are different (missing coverage, or implemented
differently). If you find features in CZ that you don't see listed at
M2Catalyst's site, I can check my NCI install to see if I can find them.

> I own my words.

Even those were you insult with dumb, asshole, stupid, and so on with
the name calling? If so, you condemn yourself to a child.

> I would wager that there may not be a single functionality that you have on
> your phone that I don't already have on the Pixel that is of use to me.

Okay, back up that wager by following through. Look at the published
list of NCI's features, and check they are all the same in the CZ app.
If the CZ app has more, mention them. I can then check if the NCI app
has them since authors don't always publicize every feature.

> The problem with cellular tower utilities is correct that you said
> from the start which is that the apps expect you to know what to do
> with the data.

Didn't I mention the Google (and Yandex) geolocation APIs for converting
the cell IDs into latitude and longitude? It looks like NCI is using
the Google geolocation API. You say your CZ instance doesn't have maps,
but the app author's screenshots show otherwise. Perhaps you could
determine if CZ is using the OpenStreets geolocation API to retrieve map
data into the CZ app. They let the APIs figure out how to do the
conversion.

If you are exporting the cell data to a file, well, then it is up to you
do do the lookup. I did find some sites where you can enter either the
CDMA or GSM cell IDs to get back the latitude and longitude. If you
don't want to do the online lookups, well, they had to get the location
data from somewhere, but that's beyond my interest to research.

> I expect the same from you with an apology from you for calling me
> cheap for putting functionality over price in importance.

Never called you a cheapskate. That's some connotation of my words that
you chose to construe as my meaning.

>> Again, give the MID of my post where I called you a cheapskate. Like
>> with you saying NCI stole code from CZ, you make yet another false
>> accusation.
>
> Own your own words.
> It's in YOUR posts.
> Look them up yourself.

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't follow up on that. It must be me that
proves your claims. Uh huh.

> Look. I get it that you're embarrassed

Not embarassed.

> that you make dumb choices

Not a dumb choice.

> based on dumb criteria while I make smarter choices based on
> functionality so I get it that your butt is hurt.

Not possible to test functionality on a product that doesn't exist when
performing comparisons or trials of candicates. The timeline seems to
escape you.

> You think I don't know why you called me cheap?

Never called you cheap. That's your delusion.

> You're embarrassed that you made stupid decisions compared to mine.
> And that's OK.

I suspecting I'm in a conversation with a bot instead of a person.

> I wouldn't be on Usenet if it hurt my feelings every time some asshole
> told me that they spend money and save time first instead of thinking
> about functionality first.
>
> You're not the first, nor the last person on Usenet to make dumb decisions
> and then to have to justify those dumb decisions any way you can come up
> with.

You use hindsight as your proclamation of superiority by selecting a
later released product, and claiming they're smarter than someone who
had to make decisions at an earlier time on whatever solutions were then
available. I made the best decision AT THE TIME for what solutions were
available AT THE TIME to research and trial the candidates.

In fact, your claim (not yet shown in a comparison by you) is that CZ
and NCI do the same thing, or most of the important ones. Well, when
later products show up that are equivalent, where's the impetus to
change? That I should change to FOSS because it is free, but neglect my
prior expenditure, and I should get into another learning curve for no
gain in an equivalent app?

If there's no bang-for-the-buck, why should I reinvestigate and move to
a different solution? I used Windows XP for about 12 years, used
Windows 7 for 6 years, and my car is 20 years old. It if ain't broke, I
don't fix it. If it is still completely functional, there's no need to
put in the effort to research and change. I bought a wallet, and a
couple years later out comes a new wallet, and you must be superior
because the 2nd wallet was free. Am I going to toss my old wallet? No.

> The only difference is that you calling me cheap for not wasting my money

Never called you cheap, and you refuse to point at where I did.

> I repeat what you can't get out of your mind because to you, price is
> paramount, but to me, functionality is paramount.

Oh yes, discarding price and comparing just on features just must be me
heavily skewing the results based on price. Time for your meds again.

>> You don't need to install NCI which has been problematic for you
>> to do the comparison.
>
> The biggest problem with NCI is that it does nothing but crash on my
> pixel.

Then, as suggested, don't install NCI. Just compare CZ against the
published list of features at M2Catalyst's site. Since you claim
without foundation that the two are equivalent, don't bother listing
what is the same, just what is missing or different. I can then check
what you say is missing by looking at my installation of NCI. You're
the one saying we should work together, but you won't.

> The functionality of NCI, for me, is zero.

Same for me using CZ. Why should I move to another app that does the
same functions?

>> Customer: You have a comparison of CZ against NCI?
>> You: Nope, but CZ is better.
>
> Even if CZ was EXACTLY the same functionality as NCI, it's better
> because it's FOSS and FOSS has eyes on the source which is considered
> a good thing.

Which was released 1 or 2 years after NCI. CZ wasn't even a wet dream
when I was looking for a cell info app. You really think everyone
should wait indefinitely for a FOSS equivalent to show up later, if one
ever does?

>> Customer: What more does CZ do?
>
> If nothing else, CZ is FOSS, while NCI is not, which means there is a
> greater potential for eyes on the code to ensure privacy & robustness.

Potential that has never been realized. Show me a report of an
independent audit of CZ's code. I own a car. It has the potential of
running over lots of pedestrians. Not yet.

> Remember, you started this thread, not me.
> Own your thread.

You started the thread. You are the OP (original poster). I gave a
suggestion for an applicable app, because you didn't say which, if any,
you used. This sub-thread started because you accused me of abetting a
thief, and then proceeded to insult me because, gee, I didn't wait
around for CZ to show up to make the same decision as you.

I hope you never become a manager. You don't have people skills.

[Erholt Rhein]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 04:13:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> You need to take your meds. Your view of what is said is highly skewed.

Look. I get it your butt is hurt that you not only make incredibly stupid
decisions but that you don't like it when I pointed that out to you.

It's OK.
Calm down.

You don't have to try to say I need to take medications because you think
that the price you paid for a substandard app instantly makes it better.

>> The beauty of FOSS is proprietary code has fewer eyeballs on it.
>
> I see that argument all the time about open source code. Yes, someone
> could audit it, but rarely does that ever happen. The most the code
> ever gets reviewed is when someone generates a variant of the program,
> but, according to you, that is stealing.

Well, in the case of some code, you KNOW that people are looking at it,
such as Google looking at all the FOSS YouTube variants.

If Google could find any way to sue the developers of FOSS YouTube clients,
you can bet your ass that they would. But they can't.

That's one advantage of FOSS code. You know the code has been reviewed if
it gives you free functionality that Google charges people for in YouTube.

> There is no such thing as shameless copying of open source.

I have to point out that you don't seem to own the intellect to ascertain
even the slightest bit of pertinent detail.

In this case, you completely missed the part where I clearly (and
repeatedly) said it is better to reward the original developer than to
reward the one who not only copies the code but who also adds
advertisements or who charges money for those copies.

Since you clearly lack the capacity to comprehend critical detail, I
suggest you go back and read what I had said about rewarding the right
developers so that you can re-form your opinions based on what I actually
said - and not just on the little that you comprehended of what I actually
said.

> You aren't rewarding FOSS authors by using their software.

It's interesting that all you care about is money.
There are other ways to reward developers for making a good product, such
as I did when I recommended their product to others, as just one example.

I realize all you can think of is money so that wouldn't occur to you.

> The only way
> to reward them is through donations if they bothered to setup a payment
> system

Again, you put money paramount in importance while I put it last.

> or by debugging their software and providing professional,
> technical, and detailed problem reports, or becoming a contributor to
> fix or enhance their code.

Or by publicly recommending their products to others.

> Hear that timer go bing? Time for your meds again.

Again, I get it that your butt is hurt that you paid more for less.
But it's not my fault you paid more for less. Own your decisions.

>> What do you hate about the source code being open to public purview?
>
> The nebulous argument that open source can be audited despite the severe
> dearth of such auditing by an independent party.

The part I love BEST about open source code is that the big guys who have
all the lawyers can't shut them down by alluding to what the code does.

Take the example of the Google Play Store clients.
They've been around for years and they're much better than Google Play is.

Do you think Google hasn't reviewed their source code?

Do you think if Google found that source code doing something illegal that
Google's lawyers wouldn't shut them down in an instant?

The fact that Google knows all about these FOSS Google Play Store clients
being far better than the proprietary Google Play Store client and that
Google hasn't shut them down, gives the user confidence these FOSS Google
Play Store clients are following Google's rules.

For you to intimate otherwise is not logical, which is why I bring up these
advantages to FOSS code that you don't understand because you don't seem to
be able to comprehend technical detail at the level of a normal person.

> Neither have you.

Well, one obvious difference between the NCI app is it crashes on my phone.

> You keep complaining that NCI crashes on your phone. With 5+ million
> downloads from the Play Store, it wouldn't get that many along with all
> the reviews if it was crashing on a vast number of phones.

I wonder if you realize that you don't comprehend even the slightest level
of technical detail? I don't "keep complaining" that it crashes. I told you
that it crashes when I tried faithfully to see what it does.

You didn't even try to see what cellular-Z does, so I'm way ahead of you.
Yet you don't see this because your butt is hurt that you paid more for
less.

I will repeat that it's not my fault you paid more for less.
Own your own decisions.

> Didn't I mention the Google (and Yandex) geolocation APIs for converting
> the cell IDs into latitude and longitude?

Again and again (and again) you are showing a lack of capacity for detail.

I told you many times that you can get a tower lookup on the net but that's
no guarantee it's accurate (and, in fact, it's well known to NOT be
accurate).

> Never called you a cheapskate. That's some connotation of my words that
> you chose to construe as my meaning.

Look up what you said about me not paying what you paid for your app.
Look up what you said about your "valuable" time.

Own your words.

I get it that you're embarrassed that you made a dumb decision based purely
on price and not on functionality - and I get it that you didn't spend any
time looking at other apps before placing your bets on that substandard app
- but calling me cheap doesn't absolve you of your own dumb decisions just
as saying your time is more valuable than is mine doesn't.

It just means you're embarrassed you make dumb choices that you can't
defend without calling others cheap for making good decisions or that they
waste their time by making good decisions.

> Never called you cheap. That's your delusion.

Go look up exactly what you said and paste it here in response.

Own your words.

> I suspecting I'm in a conversation with a bot instead of a person.

You think I'm not aware that every time you run into a fact that you have
no defense to, that you resort to instant asshole instead of responding to
those facts.

You're so afraid of your own stupidity that you have no defense to facts
other than to claim that all facts must come from a "bot" instead of from
an actual person.

> You use hindsight as your proclamation of superiority by selecting a
> later released product, and claiming they're smarter than someone who
> had to make decisions at an earlier time on whatever solutions were then
> available. I made the best decision AT THE TIME for what solutions were
> available AT THE TIME to research and trial the candidates.

Why is it my fault that you wasted your money on that substandard app?
Own your own decisions.

> In fact, your claim (not yet shown in a comparison by you) is that CZ
> and NCI do the same thing, or most of the important ones. Well, when
> later products show up that are equivalent, where's the impetus to
> change? That I should change to FOSS because it is free, but neglect my
> prior expenditure, and I should get into another learning curve for no
> gain in an equivalent app?

Notice all you really care about is your "prior expenditure" (aka money).
Every decision by you seems to be based purely on money and nothing else.

Somehow your brain calculates that if you spend money on a product, it must
be better than FOSS products which don't cost any money.

It's odd how you think because all you seem to care about is money.

> If there's no bang-for-the-buck, why should I reinvestigate and move to
> a different solution?

Again, all you care about is money.

>> The only difference is that you calling me cheap for not wasting my money
>
> Never called you cheap, and you refuse to point at where I did.

Own your words.
The fact you deny your own words tells me more about you than anything
else.

Look up your own words.
Paste them here.

Then tell me you didn't call me cheap for not wasting my money on a
substandard product like you did.

> Oh yes, discarding price and comparing just on features just must be me
> heavily skewing the results based on price. Time for your meds again.

Notice how you resort to instant asshole whenever anyone points out a fact
that you have no logical defense for.

Your brain is incapable of handling these facts to you claim that anyone
who speaks facts must be on medications.

>> Remember, you started this thread, not me.
>> Own your thread.
>
> You started the thread. You are the OP (original poster).

The fact you just lied so openly tells me more about you than me.
This thread is "which app came first" which YOU started.

For you to claim otherwise is a lie.

I get why you're lying. You're embarrassed by your dumb decisions.
But your lies won't get you out of your own dumb decisions.

Own your decisions.
You started this thread of "which app came first".

Not me.

> I hope you never become a manager. You don't have people skills.

Again and again you resort to instant asshole every time you are faced with
a fact that you can't deny.

Don't blame me for your words.
Don't blame me for your decisions.

Own your own words.
Own your own decisions.

[VanguardLH]

Erholt Rhein <erh...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 04:13:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> You need to take your meds. Your view of what is said is highly skewed.
>
> Look. I get it your butt is hurt that you not only make incredibly stupid
> decisions but that you don't like it when I pointed that out to you.

You are still insulting. Your opinion of my purchase is irrelevant.

> Calm down.

I'm not the one replaying the "work together" and "own it" recordings,
nor have I called you a cheapskate as you claim nor called you dumb,
stupid, an asshole, or having a sore anus. Why you divert the
discussion with insults is usually feminine logic to divert you don't
have an argument, or your lost your argument.

> You don't have to try to say I need to take medications because you think
> that the price you paid for a substandard app instantly makes it better.

You have yet to show CZ is superior to NCI. First you say its better,
but based solely on price, because that's the only remaining argument
you have. You then claim they are equivalent apps, which defeats you
arguments to migrate from NCI to CZ. If equivalent, there is no impetus
to suffer a new learning curve only to achieve the same result.

> Well, in the case of some code, you KNOW that people are looking at it,
> such as Google looking at all the FOSS YouTube variants.

Off topic, but are you talking about alternative YT clients (those
connecting to YT), or alternative free video content delivery services?
I haven't bothered to research the later most likely because the volume
of video content would be so very poor compared to YT. There is Vimeo
as an alternative video source, but I wasn't aware they used FOSS server
programs.

> If Google could find any way to sue the developers of FOSS YouTube
> clients, you can bet your ass that they would. But they can't.

Let's stay on-topic discussing CZ versus NCI.

> That's one advantage of FOSS code. You know the code has been reviewed
> if it gives you free functionality that Google charges people for in
> YouTube.

You say FOSS code has been reviewed but without qualification which
means all FOSS code has been reviewed. I have seen extremely few
independent and published audits of FOSS software.

Please give the URL to someone who has independently audited the source
code for Cellular-Z. Of all the FOSS software you use, list those that
you have, and show who audited which ones.

Sorry, contributors to FOSS do not audit FOSS. Usually they only get
involved in part of the code, and those contributors do not publish an
audit. In fact, they aren't auditing the code at all. Looking at the
code, and helping to code fixes or feature enhancements is NOT auditing
the code.

As an example of one of very few FOSS programs that I know have been
audited is TrueCrypt. See:

https://opencryptoaudit.org/reports/iSec_Final_Open_Crypto_Audit_Project_TrueCrypt_Security_Assessment.pdf
https://opencryptoaudit.org/reports/TrueCrypt_Phase_II_NCC_OCAP_final.pdf

So, where is a published report of someone that has audited CZ's code,
or of one, or more, of its contributors blogging about what they
noticed? Someone looking at code, but never reporting their results, is
of value only to that person, and to no one else.

Most FOSS is started by one, or a couple, persons who do whatever they
like in the code. When they have contributors, the authors review it to
decide whether to add it or not. There is no weekly code review meeting
for multiple authors or contributors to analyze the code nor are the
minutes of that meeting ever published. Best you can do is integrate
yourself into the contributor community, or go through their bug
reports, or analyze the code yourself providing you are expert in every
technology implemented within the code. Code audits often require a
wide range of expertise, and why they are rare.

>> There is no such thing as shameless copying of open source.
>
> I have to point out that you don't seem to own the intellect to
> ascertain even the slightest bit of pertinent detail.
>
> In this case, you completely missed the part where I clearly (and
> repeatedly) said it is better to reward the original developer than to
> reward the one who not only copies the code but who also adds
> advertisements or who charges money for those copies.

There are lots of front ends or variants of FOSS software. There are
many front ends to FFMPEG. Anyone that adds value to FOSS can charge
for their contribution, or for support. An example: Redhat. They
charge for their value-added features, and for support.

Have you ever tried to report a bug to the author of CZ? You know the
"Zhengzhou CengSan Information Technology Co., LTD" facade is responsive
to support requests? I have needed tech support from M2Catalyst on NCI,
and they replied in 2 days. I didn't want the app to stay loaded and
active in the background, and they responded about the exit button.
That's why I suggested you might contact them on why NCI crashes on your
smartphone. However, as with the vast majority of technical support,
you have to buy the product to get support. FOSS is pretty much
whatever you get, you struggle to work out a problem, and hope other
users might help you.

A lot of FOSS gets discarded when users find they have no support, and
the user community cannot resolve an issue, especially since they are
outsiders instead of the dev group or authors that wrote the software.
An example of you asking for support on the CZ app would be why you
don't get maps, but the screenshots for the app show a mapping function.
If the author responds then you know they monitor their e-mail, and
provide support.

FOSS may be free to acquire, but expensive when trying to spend time
figuring out how to use the product, or resolve problems with it. I
don't consider FOSS as truly free if I have to waste time trying to fix
it or find workarounds.

> Since you clearly lack the capacity to comprehend critical detail, I
> suggest you go back and read what I had said about rewarding the
> right developers so that you can re-form your opinions based on what
> I actually said - and not just on the little that you comprehended of
> what I actually said.

No, you're trying to convince me despite equivalant apps that I should
discard what I already have for something unknown with a new learning
curve.

Sorry, but I've yet to see you do your half of the "work together"
suggestion by doing the comparison of functions between CZ and NCI, and
that the NCI app crashes on your phone does not preclude the comparison.
Do the whitepaper comparison that I mentioned. That's more likely a
fault of your smartphone's setup, or perhaps a bug in NCI (that you
could report since there was a new release just a month ago to see if it
has a limitation with your phone's setup). You are the one that is
lacking critical detail, or any detail.

>> You aren't rewarding FOSS authors by using their software.
>
> It's interesting that all you care about is money.

Yeah, keep striving to claim all I'm interested in is money. Okay,
let's see just how critically detailed you can be. How does a FOSS
author get rewarded by you using their software? CZ doesn't ask for
donations. Qualify your "reward FOSS authors" by detailing just HOW
they are getting rewarded.

> There are other ways to reward developers for making a good product,
> such as I did when I recommended their product to others, as just one
> example.

So all those online NCI reviews are also then further rewarding
M2Catalyst, too, for their free version. NCI is getting are more
rewarded than CZ, and for the NCI free version, too.

> Or by publicly recommending their products to others.

Oh yeah, "it's better" is such a commanding persausion. Only to boobs.
You make a lot of noise defending your FOSS choice, but have yet to do
an actual comparison. You don't even delineate the functions in CZ, so
other potential users could do a compare against other apps.
Recommendations that are merely Yes and thumbs-up voting are just an
indicator. If I choose an app, indicators have very limited value. I
don't really care where the crowd goes.

>> Hear that timer go bing? Time for your meds again.
>
> Again, I get it that your butt is hurt that you paid more for less.
> But it's not my fault you paid more for less. Own your decisions.

It's called "tit for tat". You insult a lot, so eventually I'll return
the favor.

> The part I love BEST about open source code is that the big guys who
> have all the lawyers can't shut them down by alluding to what the
> code does.

I have not seen "big guys" suing FOSS authors per se. I have seen FOSS
authors that have violated law or been scared off by letters of intent
from lawyers. As an example, RTMP-e was developed by Adobe who said it
was not to be used as a DRM method, but that's how it got used. As a
result, FOSS authors that all capturing DRM content using RTMP-e has to
move the hosting of their software to outside any country that enforces
DRM. The FOSS authors didn't get sued. They moved outside the country
because they were scared. They weren't going to be a test case in
federal court to incur the legal fees.

I can find lawsuits filed by FOSS authors regarding violation of
licensing of the FOSS software. That is, there have been FOSS authors
suing for license violation. There are many licenses used for FOSS, and
some restrict modification, require copyright notification (someone
copying the FOSS to produce a variant has to acknowledge the source),
the variant author must make open/public the code for the variation, or
other conditions of the FOSS license. Some licenses are very lax, some
are more restrictive.

There is FOSS where proprietary code has been added. For example,
Google adds proprietary code to the Chromium web browser. Guess who
owns Chromium? My understanding is other authors can make a variant of
Chromium, but cannot include the proprietary code which means some
features are lost in the variant. When Microsoft decided to dump their
EdgeHTML renderer and Javascript interpeter in the Edge web browser,
they replaced it with Google's Blink renderer and V8 script interpreter,
but did not copy any of Google's proprietary code used in Chrome.
Chromium is FOSS. Google's contribution to Chromium (not Chrome) falls
under the 3-clause BSD license
(https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause). As long as anyone
creating a variant includes the copyright notification, anyone can
produce a variant - and they can charge for it. The license does not
preclude generating revenue from a FOSS variant under this license.
That you don't like that behavior doesn't make it illegal nor immoral.

Check the license actually used for the FOSS software. Much of it has
no license, so any use is legally allowed. I found no license file in
the build package for CZ at its Github site. It has no license
restricting how that code can be used. By using Githuh as a hosting
repository for open source, CZ must be open source, but licensing is the
code author's perogative. Without any license, CZ can be used by anyone
for anything without any restrictions, including charging for the
variant product.

If the FOSS has no license, or the license has no restrictions on
monetary gain in reusing the FOSS code, anyone creating a variant can
make money from it either through sales or donations. FFMPEG license is
at https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html. Other authors have used FFMPEG
for capturing video streams, but they added a GUI front end (FFMPEG is
command line), add more features, and may add proprietary code. The
variant app author can charge money for the code they added atop of the
freeware FFMPEG code. VideoLAN's VLC player used FFMPEG, but offers a
far easier front end to users. They don't charge for their extra code
added to FFMPEG. jaksta uses FFMPEG in their video stream capture
software, but adds many more features and proprietary code, and they do
charge for their product (they can charge for their code, but not
directly for FFMPEG). Both use FFMPEG, but one charges nothing for
their front end while another does charge for their front end, extra
features, and proprietary code beyond FFMPEG.

If a FOSS license exists, it would need to bar use of that code in any
variant that uses the FOSS code which generates revenue even if more
features or proprietary code were implemented in the variant. Know of
any FOSS licenses like that?

https://opensource.org/faq#commercial

No, I'm not enamored with paying for software. If I can get it free,
and it has everything some payware does (without ads or crippling) and
satifies my criteria, then I use the free stuff. Seems you are the one
highly sensitive to whether a product is freeware or payware, especially
since you like to slam aspersions on my character regarding monetary
gain by the author. Get over the money aspect, and focus on the
features which you claim to do.

Any idea what CZ's "Create app-ads.txt" file is for? It has just one
line of text referencing Google.

> Take the example of the Google Play Store clients. They've been around
> for years and they're much better than Google Play is.

Please list them. I'd be interested in how they are "better" which is
vague (no delineation on /how/ they are better). Alas, even if they
were somehow better, they would need to have more features than the Play
Store app that I would actually use. Better features but unused
features is akin to using a cannon to swat a fly. I'd like to know
which alternatives to the Play Store app are better, and how they are
better. Do they have every feature of the Play Store app, and some more
features? They managed to figure out how to pretend to be the Play
Store app to implement the protection features, too? They manage the
apps (install, update, sync to the bad list)?

Or are you just talking about organizing video playback and playlists?
I don't watch anything through the Play Store app, so a "better" app
that has a GUI you prefer to watch videos would not be a better app to
me. They might be better player apps to other users that watch lots of
videos on their phone.

> Do you think Google hasn't reviewed their source code?

Depends on what "better" means. If they tried to usurp the protection
features, I'm sure Google investigates those since likely those apps
present a security vulnerability. If they allow downloading APKs from
both the Play Store server, and from other online sources, Google Play
Store client already allows that (turn off a security option), but
Google might check the safety of those alternative app download and
management apps. If "better" only means playback of video content, why
would Google care what app does that? Hell, Google publishes and
support a server-side API (at their cost) that allows any app to access
videos. However, some Youtube content costs money, like Youtube Plus.
I never bothered to check if player apps other than the Play Store app
(and Youtube app) are granted access to pay-for-view content, because
I'm not into watching that stuff on a smartphone.

> Do you think if Google found that source code doing something illegal
> that Google's lawyers wouldn't shut them down in an instant?

No lawyers involved. Google will remove the untoward app from their
Play Store. Their Play Store client will sync with a bad list to remove
it from your phone. The default in the Play Store app is to NOT allow
app downloads from other than the Play Store service, but you can
disable that (which is just a warning, and you can still sideload an APK
from elsewhere). "Shutting down" is merely Google removing an app from
their online store.

I've seen some authors wonder why Google decided their app was "bad".
When Google removes the app from their store, they don't need lawyers to
do so, and often the app author gets a rather vague notification.

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/2477981?hl=en

Do those supposed "better" alternatives to the Play Store app include
Play Protect to sync with Google on badware, and those better apps then
send receive and present the push notification for the user to select
whether or not to remove the bad apps?

> For you to intimate otherwise is not logical, which is why I bring up
> these advantages to FOSS code that you don't understand because you
> don't seem to be able to comprehend technical detail at the level of
> a normal person.

Where did I say Google is not investigating FOSS apps?

> Well, one obvious difference between the NCI app is it crashes on my
> phone.

That does not preclude you from comparing CZ's features in the app you
have installed against the list of features at NCI's web site.

I don't have your phone to know its setup, or why its farked, and likely
I don't have the same Android version as you to see if it's a new bug in
the month-old new version of NCI. Could be a difference in a new
version of GMS (Google Mobile Services) on your phone than I have on my
phone. I never intended to debug why NCI fails on your phone nor have
interested in fixing your phone. If you want to use your phone as a
test platform, don't have any other apps installed on it that are not
bundled in the image that comes from the factory. As test platform,
that means you have to reset your phone to start from scratch. That
means your test platform is not your critical platform (the phone you
need for everyday personal use). That's a lot of work, and a lot of
setup to lose, so I'd probably test under an Android SDK emulator which
is a factory image, so I'd be testing just the NCI install and
operation.

> I wonder if you realize that you don't comprehend even the slightest level
> of technical detail?

Oh goody, you added another recorded tape to reply in your replies.

> You didn't even try to see what cellular-Z does, so I'm way ahead of you.
> Yet you don't see this because your butt is hurt that you paid more for
> less.

You said they are equivalent apps. No impetus to change to get the same
thing. I did a whitepaper comparison. So can you. You don't need to
install or use NCI to do a feature comparison against CZ.

> Own your own decisions.

I do. What I don't own are your opinions or insults. Those are yours
to own.

>> Didn't I mention the Google (and Yandex) geolocation APIs for converting
>> the cell IDs into latitude and longitude?
>
> Again and again (and again) you are showing a lack of capacity for detail.

There's the other pre-recorded tape playback.

> I told you many times that you can get a tower lookup on the net but that's
> no guarantee it's accurate (and, in fact, it's well known to NOT be
> accurate).

The geolocation APIs *are* tower lookups on the net.

>> Never called you a cheapskate. That's some connotation of my words that
>> you chose to construe as my meaning.
>
> Look up what you said about me not paying what you paid for your app.

You can get its free or paid version. Your choice.

> Look up what you said about your "valuable" time.

Yep, and you devalue yours as your counterargument to mine.

> Own your words.

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. You sure act like a troll.

> I get it that you're embarrassed that you made a dumb decision based purely

Stop arguing like a child. I'm not embarassed, dumb, stupid, an
asshole, code theft abettor, or any other of your inane opinions.

> on price and not on functionality - and I get it that you didn't spend any
> time looking at other apps

How do I look at apps that don't exist? You've already been shown NCI
was out 3 years, or more, before CZ. Oh, I'm supposed to wait
indefinitely for apps to maybe exist, and not get any now. I did
compare apps AT THE TIME of looking for a solution. I didn't have to
install all the apps, either. I did whitepaper compares where I checked
the features they listed to see they had the critical ones that I wanted
and what else each offered, and hunted online for reviews (not
regurgitating the author's blurb), came down to a couple candidates,
installed those, and picked the one that *I* liked, not one you would
like, and obviously not one that didn't yet exist.

> - but calling me cheap

You're lying again. I never called you a cheapskate; else, I'd have to
be calling myself a cheapskate, too, for all the freeware that I use.

> It just means you're embarrassed you make dumb choices that you can't

Stop using copy and paste.

> Go look up exactly what you said and paste it here in response.

I did. Now it's YOUR turn to prove your claim by giving the MID for the
article(s) where you claim I called you a cheapskate. That you harp on
something I didn't say alludes that you yourself consider yourself a
cheapskate.

> Why is it my fault that you wasted your money on that substandard app?

Why is it my fault that I used a free app, and later paid for it, that
actually existed versus your app that didn't show up until 3 years
later? You don't comprehend timelines.

> Notice all you really care about is your "prior expenditure" (aka money).
> Every decision by you seems to be based purely on money and nothing else.

And your argument is that I should change to an equivalent product only
on the basis it is FOSS and may somehow nebulously reward the FOSS
author. I should go through another learning curve, and dump another
app that does nothing more on my phone, to get nothing more. I should
switch from my chosen brand of vanilla ice cream to your chosen brand of
vanilla ice cream despite they taste exactly the same.

I'm staying with the product that I got for free and later paid for,
because your choice gives me nothing MORE. Switching apps won't get
back my money (all of $2), but that's not why I resist the change. The
change gives me nothing more regardless of cost. You have not, and
obviously will not, provide information on how CZ is better than NCI.
It's "better" is the argument of someone that has no real argument.

> Somehow your brain calculates that if you spend money on a product, it must
> be better than FOSS products which don't cost any money.

There goes that tape machine again.

>> If there's no bang-for-the-buck, why should I reinvestigate and move to
>> a different solution?
>
> Again, all you care about is money.

What I care about is features, and you yourself has claimed in your
"better" argument that CZ and NCI have equivalent features. So, you
yourself have convinced I get no advantage in switching to CZ. You are
your own worst enemy to arguing why I should change.

>>> The only difference is that you calling me cheap for not wasting my money
>>
>> Never called you cheap, and you refuse to point at where I did.
>
> Own your words.
> The fact you deny your own words tells me more about you than anything
> else.

Yep, bots cannot understand instructions, just spew out their canned
responses.

<rest of your canned responses deleted>

[The Real Bev]

On 10/8/22 3:47 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

> Why you divert the
> discussion with insults is usually feminine logic to divert you don't
> have an argument, or your lost your argument.

HEY HEY HEY!

--
Cheers, Bev
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.

[Erholt Rhein]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 17:47:33 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

>> Well, in the case of some code, you KNOW that people are looking at it,
>> such as Google looking at all the FOSS YouTube variants.
>
> Off topic, but are you talking about alternative YT clients (those
> connecting to YT), or alternative free video content delivery services?
> I haven't bothered to research the later most likely because the volume
> of video content would be so very poor compared to YT. There is Vimeo
> as an alternative video source, but I wasn't aware they used FOSS server
> programs.

As I surmised prior, your rather obvious lack of technical understanding is
hindering your ability to comprehend a word that anyone technical says.

You've already jumped to the insane unsupported crazy conclusion that the
FOSS YouTube clients have a "poor volume" of video content.

I wonder if you realize what you concluded is like saying the volume of
email content for K-mail on the Google servers is "so very poor" compared
to the volume of email content for the BlueMail email client on the Google
servers.

If you're that incapable of understanding what a "client" is for any given
protocol, then we really aren't conversing on the same technical level.

>> That's one advantage of FOSS code. You know the code has been reviewed
>> if it gives you free functionality that Google charges people for in
>> YouTube.
>
> You say FOSS code has been reviewed but without qualification which
> means all FOSS code has been reviewed. I have seen extremely few
> independent and published audits of FOSS software.

I get it you have a stick up your butt about FOSS code not always being
reviewed, which I'm not disagreeing with - but at least it has the chance
of being reviewed - which proprietary code does not.

In the examples I provided, the chance that Google did NOT review the code
is zero. That means you can rest assured the FOSS code (which is just
replacing Google clients) is not breaking any of Google's rules.

> As an example of one of very few FOSS programs that I know have been
> audited is TrueCrypt. See:
>
> https://opencryptoaudit.org/reports/iSec_Final_Open_Crypto_Audit_Project_TrueCrypt_Security_Assessment.pdf
> https://opencryptoaudit.org/reports/TrueCrypt_Phase_II_NCC_OCAP_final.pdf

I use Veracrypt ever since the Truecrypt developers suddenly dropped the
project... which brings up ANOTHER advantage of FOSS code - which is that
others can pick up where the original developer left off.

> I have needed tech support from M2Catalyst on NCI,
> and they replied in 2 days. I didn't want the app to stay loaded and
> active in the background, and they responded about the exit button.

I get it that you are trying to rationalize that you made a dumb decision,
and it's OK for you to make that dumb decision but don't blame me for your
dumb decisions.

If you really needed them to tell you about that exit button, then maybe,
for you and for the less technical people like you, maybe - after all -
it's not so bad of a dumb decision as it would have been for me to make the
same dumb decisions that you made.

Maybe you (and people like you) need that support.
Then that's what you paid for. Support.

> That's why I suggested you might contact them on why NCI crashes on your
> smartphone. However, as with the vast majority of technical support,
> you have to buy the product to get support.

I'm not worried about the NCI crashes as I think I know what it's doing but
it doesn't matter for me to delve deeper into the flaws in the NCI code.

The fact it crashes simply means it's crappy software.
Why would I spend more time on it than that?

The only reason I even spent the time I did on those crashes was to learn
better how to debug crashes in general - but I've been too busy to delve
deeper (yet) into the debug process.

> FOSS is pretty much
> whatever you get, you struggle to work out a problem, and hope other
> users might help you.

Well, let's state the obvious that Cellular-Z doesn't crash, and better
yet, it gives me the data I ask for so what "support" do I need?

To the contrary, your suggested program doesn't even work on my phone.
Your chosen tool needs support that the FOSS tool doesn't even need.

> A lot of FOSS gets discarded when users find they have no support, and
> the user community cannot resolve an issue, especially since they are
> outsiders instead of the dev group or authors that wrote the software.
> An example of you asking for support on the CZ app would be why you
> don't get maps, but the screenshots for the app show a mapping function.

You think that's a fault of the tool?
It's not.
I have Google GMS disabled. CZ can't do the lookup. And that's by design.

> If the author responds then you know they monitor their e-mail, and
> provide support.

I purposefully disabled Google GMS. I expect a lot of software to crash.
It's normal when you disable Google GMS. Think about it before you respond.

> FOSS may be free to acquire, but expensive when trying to spend time
> figuring out how to use the product, or resolve problems with it. I
> don't consider FOSS as truly free if I have to waste time trying to fix
> it or find workarounds.

Given you dislike free open source software, why are you on Android?

> Sorry, but I've yet to see you do your half of the "work together"
> suggestion by doing the comparison of functions between CZ and NCI, and
> that the NCI app crashes on your phone does not preclude the comparison.

What I want from Cellular Z is an accurate assessment of the cellular
signal strength and the tower sector antenna identifying descriptors.

Also what I want is an accurate assessment of nearby towers and their
signal strength.

In addition, I want Wi-Fi signal strength and identifying descriptors.
That's all I want from Cellular-Z and that's what it gives me.

The rest of the functionality is superfluous to me.

If your NCI app does all that, then that part of the functionality is
equivalent and the only practical difference would be that your chosen app
doesn't work on my system (and that's OK as a lot of apps don't work on my
system because I disable many things, including Google GMS).

> Do the whitepaper comparison that I mentioned. That's more likely a
> fault of your smartphone's setup, or perhaps a bug in NCI (that you
> could report since there was a new release just a month ago to see if it
> has a limitation with your phone's setup). You are the one that is
> lacking critical detail, or any detail.

What you don't get is that plenty of apps crash on my system.
Not just NCI. It's OK. I expect them to crash.

THe better written programs don't crash.
And I have hundreds of those installed.

Crashes come with the territory because I've disabled all unnecessary
Google services (just as I do on Windows for many Microsoft services).

People have been disabling running services for decades.
If an app can't handle that gracefully, it's a poorly written app.

> It's called "tit for tat". You insult a lot, so eventually I'll return
> the favor.

You may consider me assessing your lack of technical comprehension an
insult, and I get why you would think that.

But look again at the completely unsupported crazy statement you made above
about how FOSS YouTube clients have a "poor volume" of video content.

Ding dong.
It's a client.

The completely irrational conclusion you jumped to is like saying FTP
client A has a "poorer volume" of FTP sites than FTP client B.

When you say things like you did there you are just proving that you own
not even the slightest amount of basic simple technical acumen.

How am I supposed to talk to you on the same level when you trust your
completely crazy unsupported illogical conclusions that YouTube clients
have a "poor volume" of videos.

You don't even understand the basics of what it means to be a client.

> I have not seen "big guys" suing FOSS authors per se.

Look up YouTube Vanced.

The fact you're unaware of that is yet another indicator that you're
completely clueless about virtually every belief you seem to hold dear.

> There is FOSS where proprietary code has been added. For example,
> Google adds proprietary code to the Chromium web browser. Guess who
> owns Chromium? My understanding is other authors can make a variant of
> Chromium, but cannot include the proprietary code which means some
> features are lost in the variant.

I used Ungoogled Chromium on Windows and Android.
Works for me.

> Both use FFMPEG, but one charges nothing for
> their front end while another does charge for their front end, extra
> features, and proprietary code beyond FFMPEG.

LAME has been around for years.

> No, I'm not enamored with paying for software. If I can get it free,
> and it has everything some payware does (without ads or crippling) and
> satifies my criteria, then I use the free stuff. Seems you are the one
> highly sensitive to whether a product is freeware or payware, especially
> since you like to slam aspersions on my character regarding monetary
> gain by the author. Get over the money aspect, and focus on the
> features which you claim to do.

You are the one who called me cheap for not wasting my money.
You still haven't pasted your own words so that means you know you did.

I get it you're embarrassed that you did that but you should own your own
words and simply apologize and move on.

If I got flustered by every asshole like you who thinks he knows everything
and yet doesn't even know what a client is, I wouldn't be still on Usenet.

>> Take the example of the Google Play Store clients. They've been around
>> for years and they're much better than Google Play is.
>
> Please list them.

Are you serious that you don't know about the Google Play STore clients?
I guess it goes with the territory since you don't even know what a client
is.

Yalp was one but Aurora is better.

If you don't know this, which everyone knows, what right do you have to
even be condeming FOSS on this newsgroup?

You need to be a bit more humble given how little you know about FOSS apps.

> I'd be interested in how they are "better" which is
> vague (no delineation on /how/ they are better).

This has been discussed so many times on this newsgroup that for you to (a)
condemn FOSS and yet (b) know NOTHING about FOSS apps, is hyper critical.

There are so many ways that the FOSS Google Play Store clients are better
than Google PLay Store app that it's not funny. An anonymous login is one.
The APK is saved for another. The filters allow free apps without GSF and
ads is yet another. Spoofing of Android versions is yet another. The list
goes on for a long time.

The fact you know nothing about FOSS isn't really the problem with you.
THe problem is you THINK you know everything there is to know about FOSS.

And yet you know nothing.
You jump to the craziest unsupported conclusions like you did with the FOSS
YouTube clients.

You don't even understand that a client is.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of people are ignorant of all the things you are
ignorant of - but they shouldn't be condeming FOSS like you do if they're
that ignorant because everything they say proves they believe in things
that are fundamentally unsupported by any semblance of technical logic.

> Alas, even if they
> were somehow better, they would need to have more features than the Play
> Store app that I would actually use.

You're crazy if you think the Google Play Store app can hold a candle to
the Google Play Store clients out there in terms of useful features.

You know so little about everything, I can't educate you.
I can only tell you that you are so wrong that you sound stupid.

Seriously.
Install the damn thing and test it out for God's sake.

Stop being ignorant of everything you say.

> Better features but unused
> features is akin to using a cannon to swat a fly.

Again, you are desperate to support your religious conviction that nothin
can beat the Google Play Store app, which is fine but then you prove to be
completely ignorant of everything that beats the Google Play Store client.

You're nuts.
Your brain isn't working properly.

> I'd like to know
> which alternatives to the Play Store app are better, and how they are
> better.

Do you realize EVERYONE knows the answer to that statement?
You're the only one who doesn't know the answer to that question.

You already assumed nothing beats the Google provided client, when
EVERYTHING beats it. That's what is so sad about how your brain works.

Why not just install it for God's sake and look at what it does?

> Do they have every feature of the Play Store app, and some more
> features?

Better. They don't have the bad features of the Google Play Store client,
and they have tons of features that the Google Play Store client doesn't
have (see above short list).

> They managed to figure out how to pretend to be the Play
> Store app to implement the protection features, too? They manage the
> apps (install, update, sync to the bad list)?

That's two different things and yes, they do the latter for sure and no
they don't need to do the former because if you want to turn the Google
Play Protect features on, they have NOTHING to do with the Google Play
Store client other than their GUI is kept there.

The Google Play Protect feature works regardless of what Google Play Store
client you are using.

It seems you're desperate to find a flaw when millions of people have
already worked out all the flaws.

You're a creature of assumptions made on zero data and now you're desperate
to find a hole in the logic of someone who isn't a creature of zero data.

> Or are you just talking about organizing video playback and playlists?

WTF?
Do you even understand what a Google Play Store client does?
It's not "video playback" nor "playlists", is it?

> I don't watch anything through the Play Store app, so a "better" app
> that has a GUI you prefer to watch videos would not be a better app to
> me. They might be better player apps to other users that watch lots of
> videos on their phone.

I am talking about APKs. Not videos.

>
>> Do you think Google hasn't reviewed their source code?
>
> Depends on what "better" means.

Waaaaaaay better.

> If they tried to usurp the protection
> features, I'm sure Google investigates those since likely those apps
> present a security vulnerability.

Again, the Google Play Protect feature has NOTHING to do with the Google
Play Store client other than the GUI is kept there. It works OUTSIDE of the
Google Play Store client and as such, it works whether or not you use the
Google Play Store client.

You could load your Android phone from an APK repository on your PC for
example, without ever using the Google Play Store client on any givefn
phone, and if you've enabled the Google Play PRotect feature, it would
still work.

You need to understand better all these imaginary hurdles you keep throwing
up to justify your ignorance about FOSS Google Play Store clients.

> If they allow downloading APKs from
> both the Play Store server, and from other online sources, Google Play
> Store client already allows that (turn off a security option), but
> Google might check the safety of those alternative app download and
> management apps.

What do you "think" a Google Play Store client fundamentally does?
It downloads APKs off the Google Play Store servers - that's what it does.

It's just a client.
DO you know what a client is?

If I had two FTP clients, and one FTP server, do you think one client
wouldn't be able to access all the files on that FTP server while the other
could?

It's just a client.
The protocole is what matters.

> If "better" only means playback of video content, why
> would Google care what app does that? Hell, Google publishes and
> support a server-side API (at their cost) that allows any app to access
> videos.

I think you're confusing the Google Play Store clients with the Google
YouTube clients. They're different.

Just as an FTP client isn't the same as an openvpn client, the Google Play
Store clients are different from the Google YouTube clients.

One fundamentally downloads APKs from one set of Google servers while the
other fundamentally streams video from a different set of Google servers.

> However, some Youtube content costs money, like Youtube Plus.

A lot of what's in the FOSS YouTUbe clients is what Google charges for.
The FOSS client legally give it to you for free.

> I never bothered to check if player apps other than the Play Store app
> (and Youtube app) are granted access to pay-for-view content, because
> I'm not into watching that stuff on a smartphone.

Stop conflating the YouTube clients with the Google Play Store clients.
They're different.

> No lawyers involved. Google will remove the untoward app from their
> Play Store.

Do you seriously think Google allows these FOSS clients on their servers?

> Their Play Store client will sync with a bad list to remove
> it from your phone. The default in the Play Store app is to NOT allow
> app downloads from other than the Play Store service, but you can
> disable that (which is just a warning, and you can still sideload an APK
> from elsewhere). "Shutting down" is merely Google removing an app from
> their online store.

For you to explain sideloading to me is the height of your inability to
judge the technical acumen of the person you are corresponding with.

I'm well aware of sideloading thank you.

> I've seen some authors wonder why Google decided their app was "bad".
> When Google removes the app from their store, they don't need lawyers to
> do so, and often the app author gets a rather vague notification.

Look up what happened to YouTube Vanced.

> Do those supposed "better" alternatives to the Play Store app include
> Play Protect to sync with Google on badware, and those better apps then
> send receive and present the push notification for the user to select
> whether or not to remove the bad apps?

Didn't you already ask that in the post above?
I responded to it which is that you're stretching credularity to the limit
by assuming Google Play Protect is the same thing as the Google Play Store.

It's not.
They're independent.

They're only linked in the GUI which does almost nothing but provide the
on/off switches.

> Stop arguing like a child. I'm not embarassed, dumb, stupid, an
> asshole, code theft abettor, or any other of your inane opinions.

You don't know what a client is.
That makes you ignorant.

You think you know what a client is.
But you're dead wrong.

That makes you stupid.

> You're lying again. I never called you a cheapskate; else, I'd have to
> be calling myself a cheapskate, too, for all the freeware that I use.

Own your words.
Don't be a coward.

You wrote them.
Paste here what you said and then say I'm lying.

Given you said it, and now you deny you said it, that makes you an asshole.

> Yep, bots cannot understand instructions, just spew out their canned
> responses.

Every time you have no logical response to the facts, you claim that only a
bot could outhink you. Again, that makes you an asshole.

[Tareq Shadow]

thanks for sharing
https://www.shadowhackr.com