Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

I'm hoping more that it will be ultra......spec wised it's almost the same

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

aren't they already selling SFOS?

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

What's this with 18:9? Not that I have anything against the format, but why 18:9? Why not 2:1?

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Could this have been started from photography:
Professional cameras had negative sizes such as 6 cm x 6 cm, 9 cm x 6 cm at least. Often they were shortened to 6x6 and 6x9. In negative sizes it makes sense. Even if it does not make sense in screen form factor, they seem to use that same format also there.

Other theories are welcome...

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

what he meant was that 18:9 is the same as 2:1 and since we all know and use term 4:3, the question is why in this case 2:1 is called 18:9 and not 36:18 :D

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

I don't know the real reason, but for me it makes more sense to use the 18:9 than 1:2, since there are already the standard 16:10 & 16:9.

e.g. [Company X announcement]:
'the next model will switch from 16:9 to 18:9 display'
makes it very easy to visualise the change than:
'the next model will switch from 16:9 to 2:1 display'

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

I really wish the dimensions were simply given in cm. Like my current phone screen is 13cm by 7cm. That's it. Don't even need to know diagonal which is meaningless unless you know the aspect ratio.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Yeah... 16:10 is also weird. It's 8:5, FFS.

16:9 makes sense. It cannot be shortened. But 16:10, 18:9 or my suggestion, 16:12, are nothing more than a marketing trick. The fact that "it makes more sense" to some people indicates that it works.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

And here I thought my reductionist tendencies were unique. 18:9 bothered me as well...

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Nothing so complicated as suggested below, re photography.

I simply want the absolute maximum screen space that I can use one handed. that makes elongated aspect ratios more useful than square ones.

unlike tablets, which are two handed devices so the importance goes back to the viewing utility which favours square screens.

i'm a big fan of the new breed of 6" 18:9 screens, where previously i've said 5.2" was as big as i could comfortably use one handed.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

what's so unusual? it's easy to understand

first it was 4:3, then (4:3)^2 = 16:9 and also 16:10 (also it has to do with old resolutions like 320*200 (16:10), 320*240, 640*480, 800*600)
then from 16:9 it evolved to 18:9

when you say 2:1 you have to calculate to understand how it is different to 16:9, whereas 18:9 tells you which dimension became bigger comparing to usual ratio.

PS 3:2 is nasty to look at, would be better if it was called 15:10

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

I think I'll hold out till 128:64 comes out...

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

That sounds like marketing language again. It is a damn legth ratio, nothing more. One side is twice as long as the other. Simple. If anything forces me to calculate anything, then it is presenting it like 18:9 or 1486:743. Why should I care how different is it from anything?

But OK, let's assume it matters. Then why not 16:8?

But I see I am fighting an uphill battle. The damage has already been done. If the population at large really sees it like the quote above, then there is no chance. We are all doomed. And we deserved it.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Of course it is.

Product Engineer: "Our displays are bigger! Now they are 2:1!"
Marketing Person: "That sounds smaller... I'VE GOT IT!"

Regardless, this kind of thing should not be news. No one advertises their product logically. Thinking it strange when they don't is just as illogical.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Because people like 'common denominators'. Hey, it's even in math! :)

PS What if I told you that there are 21:9 monitors? mind you, 21:9, not so logically-looking-for-you 7:3

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

If the Product Enigneer says: "Our displays are bigger! Now they are 2:1!" he is an idiot
If the Marketing Person answers: " That sounds smaller ..." he is also an idiot.
The aspect ratio is not telling you anything about the size of the screen. Whoever don't get that is an idiot.

If you want to tell somebody what's the size of the display, tell him:
"It's 12,8 x 7,2 cm" Whoever still don't know what's the exact screen size is a complete idiot.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Complete idiot, you say?

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Last EA update has my tablet stuck at the Intel Inside screen. Great. Just great.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Official mentioned XA2 H4113 will be supported, just thinking if it can flash into H4133....the difference between is H4133 got more bands in 4G network

https://www.phonemore.com/compare/ph...-h4133/7544688

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

I have the H3123 variant, I think it will work, as at least for Android, ROMs for H4113 works on H3123, hope that will be the same

Enviado desde mi H3123 mediante Tapatalk

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Of course I'd be delighted if support for the XA3 was announced:

https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia...news-33552.php

Bit difficult to get excited about a £250 XA2 with SD630 chipset and 5.2" screen when the Xiaomi Mi A2 is rocking around at £215...

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Maybe time to update the title ?
Now on 2.2.1.23

These were updated on my J1

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Am not able to update, system update does not show any updates available. And I have signed up for early updates

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Use commandline ;)

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

@nieldk what is the version of sailfish browser in 2.2.1.23?

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

That's cheating.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Based on version number, this includes just some bug fixes. Do not expect any new features before 2.2.2.x.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

To force an update to a version not meant for my device(s)? No, I don't think so. Unless you have an Inoi R7, those updates are not for you. If the settings menu tell you there's no update, then you are on the latest version for your device, period. It would take some kind of obsessive-compulsive need to always be on the highest version number made available by Jolla to update via the command line at that point - and any negative consequences thereof would be highly deserved.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Thats up to you ;)

Wrong! Period!

Yeah, no, not really. There are issues that have been fixed, thus released to alpha testers to verify.

Eh? deserved, well, perhaps, but I know how to restore my device as-is. So for me, no real 'risk'

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

version is 1.16.10 - but that doesnt say whats fixed or not

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

I've installed 2.2.1.23 without problems (Xperia X). I remember jolla have similarly in the past released intermediate versions without officially announcing them. I'm not sure about the purpose, though.

I've many times wondered why not software releases could be handled like in a linux distro. Just push new versions of packages into the repo and let users upgrade.

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

That makes sense, but in practice most users would simply stop updating, because you can't see any differences if every day you get a different package to update. "Another update, really? And nothing changed!" What's more is that nearly all of the packages included in a regular OS update would still require you to restart your device for them to install and start safely.

On top of that, it's easier for Jolla to push out batches of updated packages as they only need to test them once, all at the same time.

I'm not sure if it would be feasible to have a system where combined updates could be pushed to all users, but 'power users' could just zypper dup at any time as if they were using a rolling distribution (I'll coin 'Sailfish Wave' for that one).

Re: 2.2.1.18 Nurmonjoki
 

Even if you consider the slightly different usecase - a deskstop/laptop vs a mobile device you use for call/take photos/send SMS/as an alarm/email/etc. and possibly less technical users for mobile devices than normal PCs. So the mobile device breaking due to software update can be more serious and the user could be less likely to fix the issue.

But "update everything any time" is far from clear cut even in normal Linux distros.

For example in Fedora, there are quidelines what types of package updates are allowed for a stable release (currently Fedora 28) and even then all packages have to pass a community QA process before they reach the repositories.

For this reason many core components (GCC, Gnome, Python, GCC, glibc, etc.) are only receiving bug fixes for a stable Fedora release and major updates only go to users via new stable release, like the upcoming Fedora 29, so that major bugs and integration issues can be worked out before peoples machines break.

Still, what I think is definitely wrong at the moment is that even critical security updates are bundled with feature updates on Sailfish OS. Those should get out as soon as possible, not being possibly blocked for weeks by bugs in feature work.

And what about the future ?

The atomic/silverblue project looks like a good candidate for addressing many of these and other issues.

You basically have an immutable base system tracked by ostree that you can update atomically and even keep more than two different versions and switch between them as needed. All this is also deduplicated, so you are storing only the changes, not multiple copies of rootfs.

As for applications, they live in containers (Flatpacks in case of Silverblue) that are sandboxed from the base system and should not break when the base system is updated.

Note that this would also fix many of the Jolla Store API issues, as the application containers/Flatpacks would share a number of runtimes instead of using libraries from the base system directly. So this way you could update libraries and available API separately for apps and base system, without breaking the other in the process.

You could also have more than one application runtime available at the same time (say Qt 5.6 based, Qt 5.9 based, Nemo/Glacier based, etc.) making it possible to run unmodified older applications while making new APIs and libraries (possibly with breaking changes) available to new/updated applications.