Wasn't just saying he wasn't worried about Android updates...

[Alan]

...because of all of those "asynchronous updates".

Well, isn't it odd then that the developer of Android has announced that
one of their phones...

One introduced just a little more than THREE years ago!

...won't be getting updates any more:

'When you'll get Pixel updates

Pixel 3 & earlier

The following Pixel phones no longer receive Android version updates and
security updates:

Pixel 3 & Pixel 3 XL
Pixel 2 & Pixel 2 XL
Pixel 1 & Pixel 1 XL'

<https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en#zippy=%2Cpixel-earlier%2Cpixel-a-a-xl-xl-a-a-g-a-g>

By way of comparison, Apple is still updating the OS to support phones
back to the iPhone 6S...

...which was released more than SIX years ago.

Just thought you'd like to know.

:-)

[Andy Burns]

Alan wrote:

> the developer of Android has announced that one of their phones...

It isn't as though they've *just* announced this, it was known at the time they
were sold, that updates weren't guaranteed for more than 3 years.

> One introduced just a little more than THREE years ago!
> ...won't be getting updates any more:

Actually, having received the Android 12 upgrade back in October (at age 3
years) the Pixel 3 has already had one emergency update this year, and will be
getting a final planned update of Android 12 fixes this quarter.

<https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/143968432/google-pixel-update-january-2022>

<https://9to5google.com/2021/11/02/last-google-pixel-3-xl-update>

I know Arlen is convinced that the various runtime components will continue to
be updated separately from the "base" android firmware, that may or not be true
or Pixels, but I don't even know how we'd check what version numbers are visible
to determine whether such updates are taking place behind the scenes?

Unfortunately these runtime updates won't give you any new features, whether
that's look&feel or functionality.

[Alan]

Talking about yourself in the third person, now?

[Andy Burns]

Alan wrote:

> Talking about yourself in the third person, now?

You're confusing me with someone else.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:38:14 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

>> the developer of Android has announced that one of their phones...
>
> It isn't as though they've *just* announced this, it was known at the time they
> were sold, that updates weren't guaranteed for more than 3 years.

Hi Andy,

You responded to the Alan Baker troll that everyone else has plonked (not
because he's a troll mind you (as some trolls are intelligent), but because
his IQ of about 40 precludes any possibility adding any adult value).

However, to your point, when someone buys an Android phone, they already
know how long the manufacturer will provide "support" as I understand it.

However, it's _much_ more nuanced than that simple statement indicates.
a. There's the maker of the hardware (often more than one)
b. There's the maker of the operating system
c. There's the carrier
d. And then there are the apps on that phone
All of whom have _different_ schedules of support for that Android phone!

The Apple iKooks like Alan Baker can't comprehend such nuance even as it's
how all _other_ operating systems work such as Windows, Linux, and Android.
a. The hardware maker (such as Qualcomm) provides firmware independently
b. The OS maker turns the code to the open source community to maintain
c. The key apps (e.g., Chrome) are updated _forever_ independent of the OS
d. And most app APKs work on almost every Android version out there

Hence, in many ways, Android support is _forever_ (in terms of how long any
given firmware, APK or open source product will be supported in the future).

That. That. *That is a key factor of why Android _versions_ don't matter!*

All of this nuance in support is completely lost on iKooks like Alan Baker.

> I know Arlen is convinced that the various runtime components will continue to
> be updated separately from the "base" android firmware, that may or not be true
> or Pixels, but I don't even know how we'd check what version numbers are visible
> to determine whether such updates are taking place behind the scenes?

What even you fail to comprehend, Andy, is the _nuance_ in how Android
updates, in that there are multiple components of the operating system.

a. User apps (such as your personal APK archive) are often updated forever
b. Key apps (such as the default web browser) are often updated forever
c. Firmware (such as the Qualcomm modem firmware) are updated by Qualcomm
d. Core modules (such as the two dozen core modules) are updated by Google
e. Security updates (these are likely team efforts of google, mfr & carrier)
f. Android updates (these are the only things that only come from Google)
And even then, most of the above is donated to the ASOP to maintain forever.

You can't compare the primitive monolithic iOS update mechanism to this.
There's no comparison possible given most of Android is updated forever.
(especially when you take into account most code is donated to the AOSP)

The iKook you're responding to has no ability to comprehend that nuance.
But you do, Andy, I hope. Don't you?

> Unfortunately these runtime updates won't give you any new features, whether
> that's look&feel or functionality.

Andy,
I have no problem saying what I know and what I don't know, because I'm here
to learn. Usenet is a team effort. The iKooks aren't a team - they're like
cheerleaders - of no value whatsoever for what we're trying to accomplish.

They cheer for Apple on every move that Apple makes - no matter what.

But the fact is that Android updates are nuanced, just as Windows and Linux
updates are nuanced - and that's just a fact we need to understand.

I never said how long the core modules are updated (other than to say
_every_ single one is donated to the AOSP community who can update them
forever if they feel like it).

I can only tell you the 25 core modules are updated _asynchronously_ from
everything else, which you must know to be a fact.

I don't expect the iKooks to understand a word we say here, but I do expect
_you_ to comprehend that I _never_ said how long the 25 core modules are
updated (they're donated to AOSP at the _beginning_ of their life cycle).

In summary - I expect _intelligent_ people to comprehend nuance in words.
a. You're wasting your time trying to explain nuance to iKook cheerleaders
b. I claim much of Android is, in essence, updated (essentially) forever
c. I claim that's _different_ from the primitive iOS monolithic mechanism
d. I also claim the 25 core modules are updated asynchronously from the OS
e. I claim those core modules are always donated to the AOSP by design
etc.

But I never made any claims for how long _Google_ maintains the 25 core
modules inherent in Project Mainline nor Qualcomm for Project Treble.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=project+mainline+treble+core+modules>

Since Usenet is a team sport, if someone can figure out how long Google
updates asynchronously the 25 core modules in project mainline, let us know.

[Alan]

Ah!

Arlen has now revealed himself as impersonating you.

My apologies to the real Andy Burns.

:-)

[Andy Burns]

Alan wrote:

> Arlen has now revealed himself as impersonating you.
>
> My apologies to the real Andy Burns.

I don't think he's ever impersonated me, though Burnelli seemed an oddly "close"
choice when he started using it ...

[Alan]

My column width for "From" truncates after about the width of your name.

To be honest, I never noticed that that he was posting with a slightly
different name than yours.

It will be interesting to read his excuse for his nym shifting...

...but I suspect he'll simply duck replying.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:22:23 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> The Apple iKooks like Alan Baker can't comprehend such nuance even as it's
> how all _other_ operating systems work such as Windows, Linux, and Android.

To be clear for the iKooks (who don't own any adult comprehensive skills),
Android updates at least eight different ways, each on a different schedule.

Intelligent people understand the facts first, and then assess those facts.

FACT:
1. User apps (such as your personal APK archive) are often updated forever
2. Key apps (such as the default web browser) are often updated forever
4. Firmware (such as the Qualcomm modem firmware) are updated by Qualcomm
5. Security updates (these are likely team efforts of google, OEM & carrier)
6. Android updates (likely also a team effort of google, OEM & carrier)
7. 25 core modules (which is _most_ of Android!) are updated asynchronously
8. Those core modules are always donated to the AOSP for them to maintain.
(any others?)

ASSESSMENT:
My assessment is the key reason the Android version matters less and less
over time is simply because almost all of Android is already being updated
wholly outside the Android OS version itself.

Do you agree or disagree with that assessment of the facts (and why)?
--
Yes, I know, this is too complex for iKooks, but it's actually essentially
how _all_ modern operating systems update today (e.g., Windows & Linux).

[Andy Burnelli]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:45:55 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> 1. User apps (such as your personal APK archive) are often updated forever
> 2. Key apps (such as the default web browser) are often updated forever
> 4. Firmware (such as the Qualcomm modem firmware) are updated by Qualcomm
> 5. Security updates (these are likely team efforts of google, OEM & carrier)
> 6. Android updates (likely also a team effort of google, OEM & carrier)
> 7. 25 core modules (which is _most_ of Android!) are updated asynchronously
> 8. Those core modules are always donated to the AOSP for them to maintain.
> (any others?)

Before the iKooks say I got a fact wrong, there's a typo in the numbering

1. User apps (such as your personal APK archive) are often updated forever
2. Key apps (such as the default web browser) are often updated forever

(Many of those key default apps are open source such as Chromium.)
3. Firmware (such as the Qualcomm modem firmware) are updated by Qualcomm
4. Security updates (these are likely team efforts of google, OEM & carrier)
5. Android versions (these are what changes Android 11, say, to Android 12)
6. _Core modules_ (*updated by Google over GP* or *OTA by Android partners*)
7. All Android core modules are donated to the ASOP to maintain forever

Given the fact that the modules in item #6 are a _huge_ part of Android...

Notice the fact that the Android version number in item #5 is only a small
portion overall of what is inside any given Android release on your phone.

Also note that the core modules in item #6 are usually downloaded completely
invisibly to the user in normal operation of the Google Play Services. Those
two dozen core modules are only actually applied during a boot-up procedure.

That means most users won't even realize their underlying Android system was
almost completely updated, since it happens without the user doing anything.

Also note that the APEX (Android Pony Express) format has been added in
Android 10+ so that the two dozen Android core modules in item #6 can be
applied _earlier_ in the boot sequence.

Also note that item #6 does _not_ have to come _only_ from Google!
The two dozen core modules (in APEX or APK containers) can come from:
a. Google (via Google Play Services Update mechanisms), or from
b. Android partners (via OTA mechanisms)

In summary, what the iKooks don't have the capacity for details to
comprehend, is that Android does not employ a primitive monolithic update
mechanism, and hence, since _most_ of Android is updated asynchronously (and
essentially forever), the actual Android version number is only a small part
of the mix.

Obviously, this is how _all_ modern operating systems update, except for the
primitive iOS monolithic update mechanism, where the version _does_ matter.
--
The word "forever" is used to indicate there is no set update expiry date.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:36:38 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

> I don't think he's ever impersonated me, though Burnelli seemed an oddly "close"
> choice when he started using it ...

Hi Andy,

I only see Alan Baker's posts when helpful people like you respond to them.

You can converse with the moron Alan Baker but you will _never_ ever learn a
single thing by doing so, as he is, unfortunately, of about the lowest IQ
possible that can still formulate a sentence (at about the 1st grade level).

Nonetheless, to address your point, the names are generated in a file out of
a dictionary lookup where I didn't even _notice_ the similarly you speak of.

If you want, just say so and I'll change it as I'm not hiding my headers
from you but from aggregation robots (hell, if it took you more than mere
seconds to figure me out (especially given my unique screenshots for God's
sake) I'd consider you an idiot too like that Alan Baker clearly is).

In addition, by now you realize that Android (much like most operating
systems outside of iOS) is not a monolithic operating system in the least.

Android is _many_ components which each have their own update schedules.
1. User apps are often updated forever (and very many are open source);
2. Key apps are often updated forever (even some of those are open source);

3. Firmware (such as the Qualcomm modem firmware) are updated by Qualcomm;

4. Security updates (these are sometimes monthly or quarterly for years);

5. Android versions (these are what changes Android 11, say, to Android 12);

6. Core modules (updated either over GPS on the net or OTA by partners);
7. In addition, all core modules are donated to AOSP to maintain forever.

iOS, on the other hand, is a primitive outdated monolithic clusterfuck:
1. User apps;
2. Everything else.

Because iOS is so primitive of a clusterfuck, Apple can't release a fix for
a bug (such as what happened this month with Safari) until Apple completes
the testing for the huge primitively monolithic iOS clusterfuck.
*Here's why Apple should provide standalone updates for native iOS apps*
<https://9to5mac.com/2022/01/21/heres-why-apple-should-provide-standalone-updates-for-native-ios-apps/>
"Security is the biggest reason why Apple should rethink the iOS
update process. On January 18 it was reported that Apple engineers were
able to fix the exploit, but they had to wait for the next iOS update
in order to make the patch available to everyone. As I write this article
on January 21, *there's a build of iOS 15.3 available for developers*
*that includes a fix for the Safari bug*. However, it will still be a
few days before this update is released to the public. If there were
a way to update the native iOS apps separately, iPhone and iPad users
could already download the latest version of Safari that is not
vulnerable to the bug."

Notice _because_ of the primitive way only iOS is released, of course you
keep hearing from the iKooks how very much it matters to them not only the
version of iOS that they have uploaded, but the exact subversion too!

Of all operating systems, the version only matters on the most primitive.