Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ranguna's commentslogin

> Pixel is also disqualified for me by the same reason.

How so?

I think all pixels starting from 6 or 7 have DisplayPort output through USB C.

I watched a movie the other day with my projector connected to my pixel 10 running grapheneOS. Other than getting a phone call halfway through the movie and a few hiccups selecting the audio Jack output, everything ran smoothly.


This is good to know, but they certainly do not advertise this feature as existing.

On Google Store there is no information about this and other sites, like Gsmarena, also do not have any information on it, unlike for the smartphones from other vendors that have DisplayPort.

On some older Pixel models, it has been discovered that DisplayPort existed in hardware, but it was disabled in software by the Google operating system. It could be enabled only by replacing the OS. I see that you also do not use its native OS, so this condition may have remained true.

About newer models, it was supposed that the hardware support might have been removed.

How did you discover that DisplayPort exists on your Pixel 10?

Was this mentioned in its user manual?

Do you have the plain Pixel 10 or some Pro version?

Do you happen to know whether you have DisplayPort 1.2 or 1.4? I.e. which is the maximum resolution at which you have used it, can it do 4k @ 60 Hz on a monitor or projector?

Did you have to use the audio jack because the smartphone does not know to send the audio through DisplayPort, or was that a limitation of your projector (or perhaps of some DisplayPort/HDMI converter that you may have used)?

Having this feature and not documenting it for the potential buyers is even more stupid than not implementing it, as this can lead to lost sales. Like with Fairphone 6, I have considered buying Pixel 10, which at least has USB 3, but I have eliminated it from the possible choices for the lack of DisplayPort.

EDIT:

Googling now, I have found an article at Google's "Pixel Phone Help":

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/2865484?hl=en

which says "Connect your phone to a display device (Pixel 8 and later)",

So indeed, DisplayPort is supported officially starting with Pixel 8.

Nevertheless, it says nothing about what kind of DisplayPort is supported, i.e. which is the maximum resolution that is achievable on a monitor/projector, and this help answer is well hidden, you have to search specifically for it, instead of having clear technical specification of the Pixel phones, easy to discover by potential buyers.

Moreover, it can do only screen or window mirroring, instead of having a desktop mode like other vendors, so I think that it probably is limited to 1080 lines, which is the resolution of Pixel's screen (non-Pro models, but Pro are only slightly better). In that case, it still does not do what I want, which is a 4k resolution on a monitor/projector (it can record 4k movies after all, so I would have expected to be able to play them).


I think you've missed the point again, it's more like this:

1. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free.

2. Giant corporations take all my code without giving me anything.

3. Work for free making open source code and giving it away for free.

If you can't go to step 3, then you are doing it wrong and need to change step 1 from "giving it away for free" to something like "giving it away for free to the common people and at a price for corporate."

Which you could say "but that's not open source!" and you'd be right, which is exactly my point here: I don't think you want to do fully open source software, you want to do software and get paid for it somehow. If you do open source and get paid eventually and non binding, that's a nice little bonus, but it's not the main goal, never was with open source.


Although I agree with your overall point, there is a middle ground here: (commercially) non-free but open source software.

I believe that's where the biggest disagreement ITT lies. There are currently good ways to do FOSS, proprietary closed-source and free closed-source software development. But if the OSS is worth charging for (commercial) use, devs are left with asking for donations, SaaS or "pay me to work on this issue/feature".

There arguably should be better mechanisms to reward OSS development, even if the largest part of an OSSndev's motivation is intrinsic.


Agree completely, that's why I don't understand these people who demand payment for open source code after having given it away to the world.

Technological, manufacturing and energy advancements aside (congrats China on those), the pictures look beautiful. Amazing work from the photographer.

Same sentiment! The one photo from Mongolia is going as my desktop background

Are you joking? It looks just as ugly as mountaintop removal to me.

They could preserve all that scenery by just building out nuclear. That's without mentioning the horrible ecological impact of blanketing an entire ecosystem in panels.


Yeah! Pretty sure the person silhouette in the first photo is fake, so we can understand the scale. Great touch.

Came here to appreciate the same. Not only it truly captures the scale, but does it in a great way.

The OP asked if someone compared both, which usually means actually trying both and not just installing one and skimming through the other's README file. So, in summary, you didn't try both and didn't answer the OP.

I'm going to send them my wishlist to see what happens. I'm not optimistic about this, but I'm not pessimistic either and am very curious to see what happens.

Can we see your wishlist?

I don't have one yet, unfortunately. But it's definitely going to include immich (not EU software I think), nextcloud, some form of email server, a secure chat app (which I don't think the EU has), mastodon, an android spinoff like GrapheneOS, Linux (ofc), open source EU LLMs, and I don't know much else, I'll have to think about it more.

Bose: does something bad. People: complain. Bose: undoes what they did and does something slightly better. You: complain.

I'm not sure I get the logic here.

Slowly but steadily I'm comprehending why companies are getting tired of some people. No matter what companies do, people will always complain. Don't get me wrong, there's always room for more improvement, but a slight complement for their slight improvement won't hurt anyone + a change in tone from complaining to suggesting improvements would be a nice bonus.


Parasitic strategies != ads

The regulation was about unskippable ads, not ads in general.

I agree with the op and I don't agree that we are better off without YouTube. It's not hard at all to understand the op, so I'm not sure why you misread them and jumped to conclusions that all ads are parasitic and asked if we're better off without YouTube. Was that rage bate or did you really think the op was talking about all ads?


Ah yes, fake news. Just because a private company is running the mail service, doesn't mean letter delivery is being discontinued. Letter delivery is subsidized by the government.


Care to elaborate?


I'm not sure what your problem is here.

Non-US means anything that is not US. Pickup a map and start enumerating countries, China and Russia are just two of many.


[flagged]


You understand that the set is greater than those two countries, thus you understand the problem already.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: