Does anyone know how to bypass this thing? I want to download some game but it doesnt let me download. I've been trying to find a bypass for this but I couldnt
What device are you using?
JetSlime said:
Does anyone know how to bypass this thing? I want to download some game but it doesnt let me download. I've been trying to find a bypass for this but I couldnt
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Shen Ron said:
What device are you using?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huawei Matepad T8
It is quite possible you are having problems because the game is written for 64-bit ARM architecture(arm64) while your device is 32-bit ARM.
Or it could also be the vice versa situation where your phone is 64-bit while the app is meant for 32-bit systems.
This problem is basically a mirror of the common 32-bit vs 64-bit problems we often see on Laptops having Windows/Mac/Linux OS.
While in WIndows generally 32 bit apps run fine in a 64-bit environment, I've observed in *NIX OSes (Android is based on Linux) 32-bit and 64-bit compatibility is very bad because modern *NIX systems tend to have very bad backwards compatibility which makes the system fast and efficient but basically have no backwards compatibility with old programs.
Windows is extremely bloated and slow for the exact reason that it still carries a lot of very old and redundant code to support decade old or even older programs and machines. This gives excellent compatibility with old systems and programs but makes the OS bloated, slow and inefficient.
Neocaesar said:
It is quite possible you are having problems because the game is written for 64-bit ARM architecture(arm64) while your device is 32-bit ARM. This problem is basically a mirror of the common 32-bit vs 64-bit problems we often see on Laptops having Windows/Mac/Linux OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But like some lite games dont run on this too like Clash Of Clans and stuff. If there was a way to bypass this then I would be able to play some games
JetSlime said:
But like some lite games dont run on this too like Clash Of Clans and stuff. If there was a way to bypass this then I would be able to play some games
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even properly read and understand what I've written?
It doesn't matter how "light" the program you are trying to run is. If the program calls for incompatible libraries and such(incompatible as in ones you don't have on your system) it won't run.
Neocaesar said:
Did you even properly read and understand what I've written?
It doesn't matter how "light" the program you are trying to run is. If the program calls for incompatible libraries and such(incompatible as in ones you don't have on your system) it won't run.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have Google Play Store on your phone, the best indicator you can have of whether an app is compatible or not is to just try to install it from the play store. It does all the verification checks and stuff on its own so you don't have to worry about it.
Neocaesar said:
If you have Google Play Store on your phone, the best indicator you can have of whether an app is compatible or not is to just try to install it from the play store. It does all the verification checks and stuff on its own so you don't have to worry about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Other phones dont display this message when downloading through "Package Installer". I have an Honor 8X and I have downloaded Fortnite on it through Package Installer, but it doesn't display THIS message?!?
JetSlime said:
Other phones dont display this message when downloading through "Package Installer". I have an Honor 8X and I have downloaded Fortnite on it through Package Installer, but it doesn't display THIS message?!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea what exactly you mean by "Package Installer". I don't have a Huawei phone. i think you should try finding the CPU architecture of your phone with the "CPU-Z" app or something similar of your choice and then check if the app you are trying to install is compatible with the CPU architecture that shows up.
Here is an excellent wikipedia article that will help you. The TL;DR is:
ARM v7 and below is 32 bit. ARM v8 and above is 64 bit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Search if the program you are trying to install is for ARM v8+ or for ARM v7-. Further you might have issues due to your android version but that isn't likely because then you would have gotten a different message.
Neocaesar said:
I have no idea what exactly you mean by "Package Installer". I don't have a Huawei phone. i think you should try finding the CPU architecture of your phone with the "CPU-Z" app or something similar of your choice and then check if the app you are trying to install is compatible with the CPU architecture that shows up.
Here is an excellent wikipedia article that will help you. The TL;DR is:
Search if the program you are trying to install is for ARM v8+ or for ARM v7-. Further you might have issues due to your android version but that isn't likely because then you would have gotten a different message.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright Thanks
JetSlime said:
Huawei Matepad T8
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think your device can install it because it's a Huawei device. Support for it should have ended since the ban
Related
Can I use android app on ubuntu Phone?
No. Ubuntu for android would run its own apps I would assume.
pureexe said:
Can I use android app on ubuntu Phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no u cant because ubuntu is without java virtual machine...
I bet the devs will have some way to hack it to be able to run android apps.
Me
jon7701 said:
I bet the devs will have some way to hack it to be able to run android apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I want to be the first one to do it!
---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------
jon7701 said:
I bet the devs will have some way to hack it to be able to run android apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey U dont need to hack ubuntu Its open!! So there gonna be some way to run android apps on your phone!
Cant we load up the Android SDK and run stuff that way? I know it would be slower than molasses but its a start....
I would imagine running bluestacks on a windows virtual machine would get the job done.
Ubuntu running Windows running Android on a phone. Crazy!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
mvgadagi said:
no u cant because ubuntu is without java virtual machine...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't one just install a Java Virtual Machine?
I think we should wait for sources before starting this kind of discussions.
thenewshaft said:
I would imagine running bluestacks on a windows virtual machine would get the job done.
Ubuntu running Windows running Android on a phone. Crazy!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you would be able to use a Windows because the processor would still be 16 bit
hay just wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!
u can install android apps just so easy
install wine for windows emulator
install blue stack throw wine
run android app from wine
but i i think there will be much easy way than that in the future cus the system is not out yet so i think it will easy cus ubuntu or linux in fact is open source
neonlove said:
u can install android apps just so easy
install wine for windows emulator
install blue stack throw wine
run android app from wine
but i i think there will be much easy way than that in the future cus the system is not out yet so i think it will easy cus ubuntu or linux in fact is open source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
[sarcasm]
Yeah sure x86 apps works completely fine on a arm operating system which we don't even know if there is going to be a full ubuntu running on the background. [/sarcasm]
I think the main goal is running web apps on the OS not java or objective-c, so even if it has some sort of java support it would probably suck.
Android app on Ubuntu should be doable
Looking around it seems android apps don't actually use the android runtime. they are running on a vm called dalvik which itself is forked off of zygote. Both running on the Linux kernel. According to stackoverflow.com/questions/1297678/how-do-i-make-isolated-dalvik dalvik can be compiled separately from android. Shouldn't be too tough. Once I get full up Ubuntu running on my Next9p I'm going to attempt this. It would be nice to get a couple of android apps running on Ubuntu.
leventccc said:
[sarcasm]
Yeah sure x86 apps works completely fine on a arm operating system which we don't even know if there is going to be a full ubuntu running on the background. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mark Shuttleworth said that this is the full Ubuntu OS just repolished and trimmed down for mobile.. Btw I think .deb packages will work.
darkforester67 said:
Mark Shuttleworth said that this is the full Ubuntu OS just repolished and trimmed down for mobile.. Btw I think .deb packages will work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope deb packages will work but I don't expect too much because its still mobile and it's designed to run light and small apps. Of course compiling a kernel for my device, on my device would be very cool but probably not gonna happen
neonlove said:
u can install android apps just so easy
install wine for windows emulator
install blue stack throw wine
run android app from wine
but i i think there will be much easy way than that in the future cus the system is not out yet so i think it will easy cus ubuntu or linux in fact is open source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WINE is a recursive acronym which stands for WINE Is Not an Emulator. It translates Win32 API calls into Linux API calls, but it does not emulate a different processor architecture. You couldn't use it on an ARM processor to run apps compiled for X86.
Given the shared kernel and drivers and open-source nature, if Canonical releases the Galaxy Nexus images and source in a timely fashion, there will probably be enough developer interest for someone to bring Dalvik to Ubuntu mobile fairly quickly. The question is will it kill developer interest in building truly native apps for the Ubuntu mobile platform.
x86 on ARM
The question is will it kill developer interest in building truly native apps for the Ubuntu mobile platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The attractiveness of Ubuntu on these increasingly powerful "mobile" devices is the millions of applications already available in the repositories (Ubuntu's "app store"). All of which are already free downloads. Granted some of them will be more usable than others on smaller screens. But, given a 10 inch screen or bigger, almost everything should run just fine. Since Ubuntu has only one code base for all of their varying distributions, I'm looking forward to UI and efficiency improvements across the entire platform.
As far as x86 hardware emulation... there are a couple of projects doing some work on implementing at least a subset of the more than 700 x86 instructions as an application level translator. One Russian company (1) has a working translator, albeit a slow one. They expect to be able to release something usable in the next year or so. Also, there is a thread (2) on the winehq mailing list that discussed this very possibility last year. IDK how far it went or whether anyone associated with the wine project is actually working on this or not.
(1) computerworld.com/s/article/9232222/Russian_startup_working_on_x86_to_ARM_software_emulator
(2) winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2011-April/089562.html
Qemu android is really fast with kvm on x86 in emulator. Choosing the custom screen resolution make it looks like SDL game. Can we do the same for arm to emulate android dalvik for apps? It can be just a separate package with android for ubuntu phone if seamless integration is impossible.
Of course you can run Android Apps in your Ubuntu on Android Desktop without Bluestacks or some sort of virtualisation...
Here are the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JISeFQ_1QzU 1:15 - Presentation by Canonical as you can see from all the Pictures with the Canonical Logo in the Image Viewer Application.
I did some research and this is what I believe it would be:
apps written for UT (developed with QML)
any linux binaries, given that they are compiled for ARM and that corresponding non-kernel libraries or services that are being used are present in UT
QEMU will help out for x86 versions
android apps: can be run if someone writes an emulator for UT (probably not developed by Canonical)
otherwise there will probably be a way to easily port android apps to UT
windows software: the ARM versions (WinRT) should be able to be run with the ARM version of Wine
for x86 versions QEMU can emulate the x86 environment for the x86 version of Wine to run the software
windows phone: not sure
OSX: through a virtual machine running OSX on top of QEMU
iOS: seems unlikely at the moment
Theoretically UT will be able to run A LOT of software... however, for the non-android and non-UT software it will depend on QEMU, Wine and the hardware of the phone. I'm confident about the hardware part (phones are getting more powerful by the day) and therefore believe that we'll be getting a powerful desktop with a vast selection of software to run when having connected the UT phone to a dock with screen and input devices.
The question for what apps UT can run seem to pop up quite a lot so making this a sticky thread might be a good idea...
I'm not 100% sure about the statements I made above so please do give feedback and suggestions for additional info.
Win8 apps? What?
Fatal1ty_18_RUS said:
Win8 apps? What?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I guess maybe it should read this:
win8 software compiled for ARM (which should be WinRT software...?) can be emulated with Wine
I'm not too sure about win8 phone apps... suggestions?
It's entirely possible to run x86 windows applications on ARM, see this thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1258506
And the official site
http://wiki.winehq.org/ARM
Note that WINE Is Not an Emulator. It just provides an environment that allows windows applications to run on Linux and X.
To get x86 applications to work on ARM you need an emulator, which what qemu is. And the above links are about using Wine and qemu together.
BukaKing said:
It's entirely possible to run x86 windows applications on ARM, see this thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1258506
And the official site
http://wiki.winehq.org/ARM
Note that WINE Is Not an Emulator. It just provides an environment that allows windows applications to run on Linux and X.
To get x86 applications to work on ARM you need an emulator, which what qemu is. And the above links are about using Wine and qemu together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're absolutely right... Wine isn't an emulator technically speaking. As I got to know it's also in the name! (WINE stands for: Wine Is Not an Emulator)
Haven't heard about qemu... good to know!
Thanks for the info, I'll update that!
Why develop "bluestacks" for cyanogenmod modification stripped from dalvikVM? Couldn't one just reimplement it in some way?
I uninstalled Ubuntu Touch from my N7 because there were no apps
You don't want to use Wine and all that stuff on a mobile environment, not even if it's docked.. It's not that easy as installing Wine for ARM, or supposedly on an Intel atom powered phone. You want applications that are breed for Ubuntu and Ubuntu only, honestly, you guys ran Windows apps on Wine before and you know it's a real pain (and this is on desktop, imagine on a smartphone)..
Don't get me wrong, it's totally possible but by the time you get all this working and configured you're better off learning QML and making the program from scratch.
Not so good...
Android apps on Chrome OS: hands-on and initial thoughts
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/17/android-apps-on-chrome-os-hands-on-and-initial-thoughts/
As expected.....
lollyjay said:
Not so good...
Android apps on Chrome OS: hands-on and initial thoughts
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/17/android-apps-on-chrome-os-hands-on-and-initial-thoughts/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay but you do realize it's on an unstable dev build on a Chromebook with one of the lowest-end processors in a Chromebook (ARM Rockchip)? Until it gets in the stable build and is also tested on other hardware (like the x86 Pixel), I wouldn't judge it too much.
Also, the privacy issues with ChromiumOS(not just ChromeOS), prevent it from being a real threat.
moriel5 said:
Also, the privacy issues with ChromiumOS(not just ChromeOS), prevent it from being a real threat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not about the "threat" (let's not be religious here) - it's about the options.
I honestly prefer a google supported OS with google supported hardware instead of a hack like Remix OS.
Chromebooks are amazing tools. I am expecting Android apps on Chromebooks to cause a very deep disruption in the PC market.
note the asus flip is the only chromebook with arm chip in the 3 ones that get the m53 dev update.
so i assume for the moment only the arm code is ready.
from what i know google does not want to use the android x86 open source project to make their x86 compatibility layer unlike remix os
this explain why no other chromebook have the playstore for the moment.
and yes this asus is only to show the extreme lower end part of chromebooks.
wait until the x86 code they are building is coming...
it will be another story.
you want to be scared?
imagine cloudready or just chromium os for pc
with playstore inside
if it comes.
or29544 said:
It's not about the "threat" (let's not be religious here) - it's about the options.
I honestly prefer a google supported OS with google supported hardware instead of a hack like Remix OS.
Chromebooks are amazing tools. I am expecting Android apps on Chromebooks to cause a very deep disruption in the PC market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't worry, while I am deeply against Google's behaviour in matters such as privacy, I do agree that if someone absolutely wants to use Google, he/she should be able to.
What I was referring to was being locked to sending personal data to Google, some of it unwantedly.
I think that ChromeOS, or at least ChromiumOS, should at least allow you to create a local owner account, with connecting to Google as an option, should you wish to.
Had that been an option, then I would have been of the same opinion as you.
Anyway remix for the moment make a really bad desktop.
Without a way to select sound inputs and outputs most of the time we got no sound or sound in the wrong output...
Also it need to change resolution on the fly like most os does...or just change screen scaling because remix os on some screens is not usable at all...
And what about include a desktop grade browser that support extensions.because remix browser is as useless as edge for the moment.
The things is ,chrome os have all those fixes already inside.
tailslol said:
Anyway remix for the moment make a really bad desktop.
Without a way to select sound inputs and outputs most of the time we got no sound or sound in the wrong output...
Also it need to change resolution on the fly like most os does...or just change screen scaling because remix os on some screens is not usable at all...
And what about include a desktop grade browser that support extensions.because remix browser is as useless as edge for the moment.
The things is ,chrome os have all those fixes already inside.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with about half of what you said.
However, changing the DPI on the fly may have to wait until Android N.
And while I don't think that a browser has to have addon support, I do prefer it that way.
By the way, Firefox for Android supports both addons and themes, as well as plugins and addon frameworks (e.g. Greasemonkey), so technically you could put it on RemixOS.
And I thought RemixOS doesn't have it's own browser, rather arriving with the AOSP Browser?
I personally prefer Lightning Browser on Android, it's so light without comprimising on absolute necessaties.
All the rest, you're right, there already tools to those on the fly (with root).
moriel5 said:
I agree with about half of what you said.
However, changing the DPI on the fly may have to wait until Android N.
And while I don't think that a browser has to have addon support, I do prefer it that way.
By the way, Firefox for Android supports both addons and themes, as well as plugins and addon frameworks (e.g. Greasemonkey), so technically you could put it on RemixOS.
And I thought RemixOS doesn't have it's own browser, rather arriving with the AOSP Browser?
I personally prefer Lightning Browser on Android, it's so light without comprimising on absolute necessaties.
All the rest, you're right, there already tools to those on the fly (with root).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well now it comes with chrome included.about firefox well i never used on android.
but in case of need of flash or silverlight for old sites i dont think it will handle them with addblock in same time.
root and tools in remix is another story,mostly because this is not easy,and most of those tools just not work on remix,for example on remix to be able to patch sound you need to change the kernel...
not stability or update friendly.
and not usable by everyone.
so i think google will go to the right way here.
but remix?
lets just say remix should count the month or year it have left.
tailslol said:
well now it comes with chrome included.about firefox well i never used on android.
but in case of need of flash or silverlight for old sites i dont think it will handle them with addblock in same time.
root and tools in remix is another story,mostly because this is not easy,and most of those tools just not work on remix,for example on remix to be able to patch sound you need to change the kernel...
not stability or update friendly.
and not usable by everyone.
so i think google will go to the right way here.
but remix?
lets just say remix should count the month or year it have left.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You brought some very important points, however I have to say that I disagree with you, since:
1. Jide could always update the kernel to support on the fly audio channel switching.
2. 3rd party developers could do the above.
3. RemixOS is still in beta, and literaly is reinventing the wheel when it comes to Android, so instabilities are to be expected.
About #3, some of what RemixOS is doing is becoming redundant with the native Android APIs in MM and N, so if Jide chooses to yse the native APIs, then RemixOS will become much more stable.
FF can can handle Flash fine with an adblocker (I recommend uBlock Origin), however you need a patched version of Flash for it run at all on Android 4.4 and up.
And by the way, Silverlight is unsupported on both Android and ChromeOS.
Please don't think I'm bashing you, or being zealous.
I'm just trying to answer all the points, and I have a tendency to be formal.
I personally would love to use ChromiumOS, however the mandatory Google owned user policy (the owner account has to be connected to Google), prevents me from doing that.
I need the owner account to be strictly local, plus other reasons which will take several days or weeks to explain.
Thanks for telling me that RemixOS comes with Chrome, by the way.
moriel5 said:
You brought some very important points, however I have to say that I disagree with you, since:
1. Jide could always update the kernel to support on the fly audio channel switching.
2. 3rd party developers could do the above.
3. RemixOS is still in beta, and literaly is reinventing the wheel when it comes to Android, so instabilities are to be expected.
About #3, some of what RemixOS is doing is becoming redundant with the native Android APIs in MM and N, so if Jide chooses to yse the native APIs, then RemixOS will become much more stable.
FF can can handle Flash fine with an adblocker (I recommend uBlock Origin), however you need a patched version of Flash for it run at all on Android 4.4 and up.
And by the way, Silverlight is unsupported on both Android and ChromeOS.
Please don't think I'm bashing you, or being zealous.
I'm just trying to answer all the points, and I have a tendency to be formal.
I personally would love to use ChromiumOS, however the mandatory Google owned user policy (the owner account has to be connected to Google), prevents me from doing that.
I need the owner account to be strictly local, plus other reasons which will take several days or weeks to explain.
Thanks for telling me that RemixOS comes with Chrome, by the way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no it is ok,you made some point but for android n it is wait and see on what will be available in the final version.
remix was good to kick the bee hive i think
it kinda made move the big name os and things are starting to change,but as always in the long run it is another story.
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Google is already taking Android down that same path more so on MM and up.
for example with permission controls(enforcement) I would like to use a word processor and one of the permissions is location so i block that but guess what can't use app until i enable location again. have to use google app installer instead of aosp, etc ...
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Maromi said:
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Google is already taking Android down that same path more so on MM and up.
for example with permission controls(enforcement) I would like to use a word processor and one of the permissions is location so i block that but guess what can't use app until i enable location again. have to use google app installer instead of aosp, etc ...
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is true actual chrome os is closed source,but they use a open source base (chromium os)
and distro like cloudready or arnoldthebat are clearly advanced already.
i just hope someone will figure a way to port the android part on those distro.
but stock android N x86 will already be something good.
Maromi said:
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, Chromium OS is open, however your're locked to Google there.
Maromi said:
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using the Enterprise edition allows you more freedom, however, I still can't disable Cortana.
I like Unity 8, however Canonical is right now at crossroads, and they seem to be edging the same path as Google, Microsoft, and others.
By the way, I mainly use Gnome 3.20 as well as Budgie, since I mainly use Antergos (as well as Solus OS).
Maromi said:
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't use most of the GApps, however Chromium does run without GApps, you just can't connect it to Google without GApps.
And I don't always use F-Droid, however this post is through XDA Labs.
And I have nothing against closed-source and/or paid software, while at the same time supporting FOSS.
moriel5 said:
Actually, Chromium OS is open, however your're locled to Google there
I don't use most of the GApps, however Chromium does run without GApps, you just can't connect it to Google without GApps.
And I don't always use F-Droid, however this post is through XDA Labs.
And I have nothing against closed-source and/or paid software, while at the same time supporting FOSS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I said chrome and chromium i was talking about OS's not the browsers
I'm not against closed source. Remix OS is one.
Maromi said:
When I said chrome and chromium i was talking about OS's not the browsers
I'm not against closed source. Remix OS is one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I was just pointing out that there is an open-source version of Chrome OS.
And thanks, I didn't notice I had made a spelling mistake until I saw it in your quote of my previous post.
It should be "locked", not "locled".
I guess we all reach one point in life sooner or later when we stop being ideologists and start being consumers. I used to care and tinker with all my software and all my devices, tuning and optimizing, caring for a device like it was a pet. I was switching linux distros like clothes, writing my DOS drivers and optimizing memory usage in config.sys - nowadays I don't care. I want Android on my system just to stick to the same UI as my tablet and phone. I want Android for the apps, not for the ideology. I couldn't care less if my user is "owned" by Google - I can handle my own privacy.
Having said that, if Google or Jide will be the first to offer Android on desktop for me - I will use it. If Chromebooks will - I will use them. I am too lazy to think about open source. Just give me something that works and it's fine for me. No matter how much we delude ourselves, RemixOS doesn't work for now. I can't be expected to throw my nVidia card just because nVidia is closed source and gives no **** about the community.
or29544 said:
I guess we all reach one point in life sooner or later when we stop being ideologists and start being consumers. I used to care and tinker with all my software and all my devices, tuning and optimizing, caring for a device like it was a pet. I was switching linux distros like clothes, writing my DOS drivers and optimizing memory usage in config.sys - nowadays I don't care. I want Android on my system just to stick to the same UI as my tablet and phone. I want Android for the apps, not for the ideology. I couldn't care less if my user is "owned" by Google - I can handle my own privacy.
Having said that, if Google or Jide will be the first to offer Android on desktop for me - I will use it. If Chromebooks will - I will use them. I am too lazy to think about open source. Just give me something that works and it's fine for me. No matter how much we delude ourselves, RemixOS doesn't work for now. I can't be expected to throw my nVidia card just because nVidia is closed source and gives no **** about the community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm something in the middle, and I hope it will stay like that.
Ideology and practicality/consumerism.
Android and open Source Chromium
I read that GOOGLE will never release Chromium OS with android support. What I am saying is unless someone hacks the Chrome os and pulls the OS apart to get the required files and what not to make a hacked copy of chromium with android it is NEVER going to happen.
how secure is Remix-os and Android-X86?
can I, for example, run my bank-app on it?
Thats a good question...
Do you trust google?
Would you trust ex-google employees? (Remix developer team)
Do you trust.. all your apps, that you installed?
The RemixOs M comes pre-Rooted and has therefore a higher chance for malware takeovers
So... how knows
Ps... installing a firewall.. is adviced (like netguard,you can select what apps can connect to the web)
capoeiraES said:
how secure is Remix-os and Android-X86?
can I, for example, run my bank-app on it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sort of thing depends on the bank app. Most have set conditions that have nothing or very little to do with Android version but rather the hardware used [where they can ensure the OS is exactly the same and unaltered on the same device]. Bank apps may report things like 'altered OS detected' or 'you're device has been rooted' and refuse to work; but most of the time the issue is that the device itself is blacklisted by the app.
mitchell4you said:
Thats a good question...
Do you trust google?
Would you trust ex-google employees? (Remix developer team)
Do you trust.. all your apps, that you installed?
The RemixOs M comes pre-Rooted and has therefore a higher chance for malware takeovers
So... how knows
Ps... installing a firewall.. is adviced (like netguard,you can select what apps can connect to the web)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is false having a rooted device can actually increase security if you know what your doing.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using XDA-Developers mobile app
gangrenius said:
This is false having a rooted device can actually increase security if you know what your doing.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using XDA-Developers mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man I know Linux (Arch) very well, but I still don't understand Android.
can I do things like compile Linux packages in terminal? or does Android only execute APK?
I have the same concern as OP. I understand computer security but I can't say the same about phones/tablets.
My concern is, would it be possible for the OS to log your key entries and have access to those data? Or keep a log in the system that contains sensitive data? I know, I sound paranoid but it's better to be safe than sorry. I just installed RemixOS on my old Nexus 10 and I'm really impressed with the performance.
I always have these types of concerns when installing custom roms. If someone can help me understand the situation better, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
hooman64 said:
I have the same concern as OP. I understand computer security but I can't say the same about phones/tablets.
My concern is, would it be possible for the OS to log your key entries and have access to those data? Or keep a log in the system that contains sensitive data? I know, I sound paranoid but it's better to be safe than sorry. I just installed RemixOS on my old Nexus 10 and I'm really impressed with the performance.
I always have these types of concerns when installing custom roms. If someone can help me understand the situation better, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NO. I don't recommend sensitive data running Windows 10, Ubuntu based distro's, android, or IOS
the way how Jide is displaying ads in the OS is a definite IDGAFF about security.
as for android-x86
http://www.android-x86.org/documents/analytics-program
WIndows 10
adobe flash built-in. if you remove it you lose system updates.
good luck disabling cortana. if you actually manage system updates will enable it again
Ubuntu
12.04.1 LTS user updated to try newer LTS's. WTF did canonical do?
Maromi said:
NO. I don't recommend sensitive data running Windows 10, Ubuntu based distro's, android, or IOS
the way how Jide is displaying ads in the OS is a definite IDGAFF about security.
as for android-x86
http://www.android-x86.org/documents/analytics-program
WIndows 10
adobe flash built-in. if you remove it you lose system updates.
good luck disabling cortana. if you actually manage system updates will enable it again
Ubuntu
12.04.1 LTS user updated to try newer LTS's. WTF did canonical do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I see your point, what I mostly am concerned about is that RemixOS is closed source, so I don't know if users data could be abused or used in a way that is not ethical. Again, I am not saying it is. I just am curious to know if there is evidence proof that it's not. I'm just trying to be more educated in this regard. Thank you.
hooman64 said:
Well I see your point, what I mostly am concerned about is that RemixOS is closed source, so I don't know if users data could be abused or used in a way that is not ethical. Again, I am not saying it is. I just am curious to know if there is evidence proof that it's not. I'm just trying to be more educated in this regard. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
closed source is the problem. we don't realy know what is in the code at all.
capoeiraES said:
closed source is the problem. we don't realy know what is in the code at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True!
Does anybody know if there is a tool to monitor OS activities?
To monitor data.. android tuner by 3c (you can also manage startup apps)
To manage data.. netguard.. firewall, seems a to be a good app
Cheers
mitchell4you said:
To monitor data.. android tuner by 3c (you can also manage startup apps)
To manage data.. netguard.. firewall, seems a to be a good app
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks buddy.
If you really want to find out exactly what it's doing set it up with a wired Ethernet connection through a trusted device (device would need two Ethernet ports.) Run wireshark or similar on trusted device. Leave it in this configuration for days, not hours. As for security in android your best bet, as with all modern electronics, is to invest in a hardware firewall to put it behind. Untangle NG or the like can even be run on an old computer. Failing that, root plus a firewall that writes to IPtables, which is what protects most of the internet anyway. AFWall+ is an example of that.
tjmidnight420 said:
If you really want to find out exactly what it's doing set it up with a wired Ethernet connection through a trusted device (device would need two Ethernet ports.) Run wireshark or similar on trusted device. Leave it in this configuration for days, not hours. As for security in android your best bet, as with all modern electronics, is to invest in a hardware firewall to put it behind. Untangle NG or the like can even be run on an old computer. Failing that, root plus a firewall that writes to IPtables, which is what protects most of the internet anyway. AFWall+ is an example of that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is great info. I m gonna try this and see if I get anywhere. Thank you very much for the info.
Hi, I have an old app (SPB Wallet) that I paid for and have been using forever to store passwords / important information (I have A LOT of info in this app). It has not been supported since 2012 but I continue to use it because it does everything that I need and is local backup instead of cloud (which is important to me). Now that I updated to a Pixel 7 Pro, which as I understand it is a 64-bit architecture it is telling me the app is no longer compatible, because I assume SPB Wallet is 32-bit.
So I have 2 questions:
Is there anyway I can get this app to run on my new phone (Pixel 7 Pro)?
Does anybody have the source code for this app (SPB Wallet)?
JamJamBam said:
Hi, I have an old app (SPB Wallet) that I paid for and have been using forever to store passwords / important information (I have A LOT of info in this app). It has not been supported since 2012 but I continue to use it because it does everything that I need and is local backup instead of cloud (which is important to me). Now that I updated to a Pixel 7 Pro, which as I understand it is a 64-bit architecture it is telling me the app is no longer compatible, because I assume SPB Wallet is 32-bit.
So I have 2 questions:
Is there anyway I can get this app to run on my new phone (Pixel 7 Pro)?
Does anybody have the source code for this app (SPB Wallet)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Your device arbitrarily blocks 32 bit apps from running where the Pixel 6 does not.
2. You can try to check the archives from the release section.
rodken said:
1. Your device arbitrarily blocks 32 bit apps from running where the Pixel 6 does not.
2. You can try to check the archives from the release section.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I see in the link you provided there's an exporter tool to convert that .SWL file (extension spb wallet uses for its database) to an XML file. But I cannot find source code for the SPB wallet app.
I really want to get the app to work.
JamJamBam said:
Thanks. I see in the link you provided there's an exporter tool to convert that .SWL file (extension spb wallet uses for its database) to an XML file. But I cannot find source code for the SPB wallet app.
I really want to get the app to work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can check out this thread.
rodken said:
You can check out this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hahahaha.. ya thanks. Actually, that's my thread, under my old username (forget the old password).
Nothing in that old thread talks about converting a 32-bit to a 64-bit.
You can now (unofficially) add 32-bit support to your Pixel 7 phone
The Google Pixel 7 series shipped without 32-bit app support, but two new hacks let you revive this option.
www.androidauthority.com
CXZa said:
You can now (unofficially) add 32-bit support to your Pixel 7 phone
The Google Pixel 7 series shipped without 32-bit app support, but two new hacks let you revive this option.
www.androidauthority.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought it had to do with 64-bit vs 32-bit but I think it has to do with Pixel 7 Pro being on Android 13 vs my old phone being on Android 12.
Jamolah said:
I thought it had to do with 64-bit vs 32-bit but I think it has to do with Pixel 7 Pro being on Android 13 vs my old phone being on Android 12.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is still a possibilty... lol.
Have you tried to run some other 32-bit apps in it?
How about some virtual android system?