Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21955 > unrolled thread

Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> - 2015-08-11 11:07 -0400
    Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-08-11 15:41 +0000
    Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 17:09 +0100
    Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-08-11 17:32 +0000
      Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Moe DeLoughan <moe@null.com> - 2015-08-11 15:13 -0500
        Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-08-12 07:16 +0100
    Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-08-11 20:38 +0100
      Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? "Ivan D. Reid" <Ivan.Reid@ivan.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-08-12 22:42 +0000
        Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-08-18 21:28 +0100
      Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> - 2015-09-01 08:55 +0100
        Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-01 09:13 +0100
    Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Moe DeLoughan <moe@null.com> - 2015-08-11 15:11 -0500
      Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-12 20:03 +0000
        Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Moe DeLoughan <moe@notmine.null> - 2015-08-17 13:47 -0500
          Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-17 19:43 +0000
            Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> - 2015-09-01 09:47 +0100
              Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-01 20:40 +0000
                Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> - 2015-09-02 07:45 +0100
                  Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-02 17:51 +0000
        Re: Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up? Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-08-18 23:38 +0000

#21955 — Has Your Nexus Device Patch Showed Up?

Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare and was supposed to patch 
several security flaws and was supposed to go out OTA to all supported 
Nexus devices. Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which looks 
to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of their own 
making. Did yours show up in a more timely manner? Am I expecting too much? 
I paid a premium to get the Nexus 5 because it was supposed to receive good 
support direct from the source but I'm really starting to wonder if it was 
worth the cost.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21956

In news:Ucoyx.34463$VI.521@fx23.iad John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> wrote:

>  Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which looks 
> to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of their
> own making. 

Dangerously slow? It's lightning fast when compared to the frequency of
OS updates most people see. 

How many people running Android 4.something will never see any form of
update, critical security or otherwise? 

-- 
bert@iphouse.com	St. Paul, MN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21957

On 11/08/2015 16:07, John McGaw wrote:
> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare and was supposed to patch
> several security flaws and was supposed to go out OTA to all supported
> Nexus devices. Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which
> looks to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of
> their own making. Did yours show up in a more timely manner? Am I
> expecting too much? I paid a premium to get the Nexus 5 because it was
> supposed to receive good support direct from the source but I'm really
> starting to wonder if it was worth the cost.

In what form is it likely to show up - as a system update?

I've just checked my Nexus-10 tablet for system updates, and it says 
that it's up to date!
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom 
checked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21961

On 2015-08-11, John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> wrote:
> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare and was supposed to patch 
> several security flaws and was supposed to go out OTA to all supported 
> Nexus devices. Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which looks 
> to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of their own 
> making. Did yours show up in a more timely manner? Am I expecting too much? 
> I paid a premium to get the Nexus 5 because it was supposed to receive good 
> support direct from the source but I'm really starting to wonder if it was 
> worth the cost.

My Nexus 7 (2012) is still showing Android 5.1.1 build LMY47V.  Previous
updates have taken 'a while' to appear after being announced.  I don't
think the internet could cope if every Nexus was forced to update at the
same moment (even if Microsoft weren't rolling out a whole new OS at the
same time).

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21965

On 8/11/2015 12:32 PM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2015-08-11, John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> wrote:
>> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare and was supposed to patch
>> several security flaws and was supposed to go out OTA to all supported
>> Nexus devices. Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which looks
>> to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of their own
>> making. Did yours show up in a more timely manner? Am I expecting too much?
>> I paid a premium to get the Nexus 5 because it was supposed to receive good
>> support direct from the source but I'm really starting to wonder if it was
>> worth the cost.
>
> My Nexus 7 (2012) is still showing Android 5.1.1 build LMY47V.

Google has discontinued software updates for the 2012 Nexus 7, since 
it is now past Google's three-year window for security updates for its 
devices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21969

in 22168 20150811 211314 Moe DeLoughan <moe@null.com> wrote:
>On 8/11/2015 12:32 PM, Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2015-08-11, John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> wrote:
>>> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare and was supposed to patch
>>> several security flaws and was supposed to go out OTA to all supported
>>> Nexus devices. Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which looks
>>> to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of their own
>>> making. Did yours show up in a more timely manner? Am I expecting too much?
>>> I paid a premium to get the Nexus 5 because it was supposed to receive good
>>> support direct from the source but I'm really starting to wonder if it was
>>> worth the cost.
>>
>> My Nexus 7 (2012) is still showing Android 5.1.1 build LMY47V.
>
>Google has discontinued software updates for the 2012 Nexus 7, since
>it is now past Google's three-year window for security updates for its
>devices.

It's still supported by CyanogenMod.  I'm running LMY47G on my 2012 N7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21963

John McGaw wrote:

> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare

Not showed up for my N4 yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21995

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:38:44 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk>
 wrote in <4Kudnezrq4Lc0lfInZ2dnUU78R-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>:
> John McGaw wrote:

>> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare

> Not showed up for my N4 yet.

	Showed up on my 2013 N7 tonight.

-- 
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________  CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University.    Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch]    Room 40-1-B12, CERN
        KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22082

Ivan D. Reid wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Not showed up for my N4 yet.
>
> Showed up on my 2013 N7 tonight.

Finally showed up tonight ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22216

In message <4Kudnezrq4Lc0lfInZ2dnUU78R-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at 
20:38:44 on Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> 
remarked:
>> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare
>
>Not showed up for my N4 yet.

Arrived on my N5 a couple of weeks ago.
-- 
Roland Perry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22217

Roland Perry wrote:

> Andy Burns remarked:
>
>> Not showed up for my N4 yet.
>
> Arrived on my N5 a couple of weeks ago.

My N5 died a horrid death (by washer drier) a couple of months ago, so I 
was glad I hadn't managed to sell my N4, now waiting for the N5 mkII to 
be released ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21964

On 8/11/2015 10:07 AM, John McGaw wrote:
> Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare and was supposed to patch
> several security flaws and was supposed to go out OTA to all supported
> Nexus devices. Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which
> looks to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of
> their own making. Did yours show up in a more timely manner?

Google pushes out updates for its Nexus devices in waves, so your 
device may or may not be one of the first getting the update, but it 
will get it within a week or two. They also post factory images for 
specific devices for people who don't want to wait for the update to 
hit their device.

> Am I
> expecting too much?

Yes. Compared to the support provided by carriers, Google provides 
prompt and timely updates.

> I paid a premium to get the Nexus 5 because it was
> supposed to receive good support direct from the source but I'm really
> starting to wonder if it was worth the cost.

Google has announced a monthly security update schedule for Nexus devices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21991

Moe DeLoughan <moe@null.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/2015 10:07 AM, John McGaw wrote:
> > Build LMY48I was announced with much fanfare and was supposed to patch
> > several security flaws and was supposed to go out OTA to all supported
> > Nexus devices. Mine finally showed up on afternoon of the 10th which
> > looks to be a dangerously slow process to fix a high-danger problem of
> > their own making. Did yours show up in a more timely manner?
> 
> Google pushes out updates for its Nexus devices in waves, so your 
> device may or may not be one of the first getting the update, but it 
> will get it within a week or two. They also post factory images for 
> specific devices for people who don't want to wait for the update to 
> hit their device.
> 
> > Am I
> > expecting too much?
> 
> Yes. Compared to the support provided by carriers, Google provides 
> prompt and timely updates.

  "carriers"? Who cares about the carriers. It's at least the (device)
*manufacturer*'s job and it *should* be done by Google, which 'writes'
and 'maintains' the crap.

  Case in point: My WiFi-only tablet obviously does not have a
"carrier", so - for the time being, until Google######Alphabet grows up
- it's the manufacturer's job (in my case Samsung).

> > I paid a premium to get the Nexus 5 because it was
> > supposed to receive good support direct from the source but I'm really
> > starting to wonder if it was worth the cost.
> 
> Google has announced a monthly security update schedule for Nexus devices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22067

On 8/12/2015 3:03 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Moe DeLoughan <moe@null.com> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2015 10:07 AM, John McGaw wrote:

>>> Am I
>>> expecting too much?
>>
>> Yes. Compared to the support provided by carriers, Google provides
>> prompt and timely updates.
>
>    "carriers"? Who cares about the carriers. It's at least the (device)
> *manufacturer*'s job and it *should* be done by Google, which 'writes'
> and 'maintains' the crap.

The advantage of purchasing a Google device is that the device/OS has 
not been modified by a third party, and support comes directly from 
Google. Google provides 'pure' Android. Everybody else is free to do 
what they will to/with the Android devices they produce or distribute 
- but Google is not responsible for keeping modified versions of 
Android devices current. Thus, there are usually _long_ delays between 
updates of non-Google branded devices.

>    Case in point: My WiFi-only tablet obviously does not have a
> "carrier", so - for the time being, until Google######Alphabet grows up
> - it's the manufacturer's job (in my case Samsung).
>

Fine - as noted above, for non-Google branded devices, the carriers 
*or the manufacturers* of said devices are responsible for updates - 
and compared to Google's, their updates are few and far between. Plus, 
as noted in another post, Google also makes installer packs of updates 
available for Google devices that are still in the support window. 
Persons who don't want to wait to have the update pushed out to their 
device can download and manually install it themselves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22068

Moe DeLoughan <moe@notmine.null> wrote:
> On 8/12/2015 3:03 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Moe DeLoughan <moe@null.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2015 10:07 AM, John McGaw wrote:
> 
> >>> Am I
> >>> expecting too much?
> >>
> >> Yes. Compared to the support provided by carriers, Google provides
> >> prompt and timely updates.
> >
> >    "carriers"? Who cares about the carriers. It's at least the (device)
> > *manufacturer*'s job and it *should* be done by Google, which 'writes'
> > and 'maintains' the crap.
> 
> The advantage of purchasing a Google device is that the device/OS has 
> not been modified by a third party, and support comes directly from 
> Google. Google provides 'pure' Android. Everybody else is free to do 
> what they will to/with the Android devices they produce or distribute 
> - but Google is not responsible for keeping modified versions of 
> Android devices current. Thus, there are usually _long_ delays between 
> updates of non-Google branded devices.

  "The advantage of purchasing a Google device" is not a (positive)
feature, it's the (negative) *result* of the brain-dead Android (==
Google) software distribution mechanism.

  It is highly unusual - to put it mildly - to tie the software
distribution mechanism of an OS to the device manufacturer. There is
also no valid reason to do that. Other OSes are perfectly capable of
seperating the general - i.e. the OS itself - and device-specific parts.
I.e. the OS supplier supplies updates for the OS and the device
manufacturer supplies the device-specific updates.

  The industry has been doing this for many decades, but Google 'had' to
invent a brain-dead, non-working method.

  And BTW, there is no such thing as "modified versions of Android
devices" (whatever that may mean)! Part of the software on different
devices may be customized or/and device-specific, but the OS itself is
not "modified", or at least does not have to be.

[More of the same deleted.]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22218

In message <d3erqiF5nifU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:43:14 on Mon, 17 
Aug 2015, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> remarked:

>  It is highly unusual - to put it mildly - to tie the software
>distribution mechanism of an OS to the device manufacturer. There is
>also no valid reason to do that. Other OSes are perfectly capable of
>seperating the general - i.e. the OS itself - and device-specific parts.
>I.e. the OS supplier supplies updates for the OS and the device
>manufacturer supplies the device-specific updates.

It's not unique to phones/tablets, the same happens with some laptops.

The one I'm typing on at the moment has at least a dozen "extras", some 
of them utilities and others "built-in" as device drivers.

Obvious ones are drivers for the power management but there's also a 
fan-speed control, another for its somewhat quirky touchpad. Altogether 
there's over twenty separate files required to update the original Vista 
to Windows 7, most of which are neither included with the generic 
Windows 7 nor are available from normal "driver download" sites.

So while it can be updated with normal Microsoft security patches, if we 
regard Win7 as a "patch" for Vista (in the same way Lollipop is a patch 
for KitKat) then it's hard work to upgrade. The manufacturer produced 
files for Win7, but you have to download and install them by hand. They 
haven't developed files for Win8.0 and later.
-- 
Roland Perry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22224

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <d3erqiF5nifU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:43:14 on Mon, 17 
> Aug 2015, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> remarked:
> 
> >  It is highly unusual - to put it mildly - to tie the software
> >distribution mechanism of an OS to the device manufacturer. There is
> >also no valid reason to do that. Other OSes are perfectly capable of
> >seperating the general - i.e. the OS itself - and device-specific parts.
> >I.e. the OS supplier supplies updates for the OS and the device
> >manufacturer supplies the device-specific updates.
> 
> It's not unique to phones/tablets, the same happens with some laptops.

  No, it *is* unique to Android phones/tablets. What you're describing
(below) is exactly what I said.

  With "Other OSes" I was implicitly and mainly referring to Windows on
laptops/'desktops'. And those do *not* follow the Android model.

  Windows updates and new versions are *not* distributed by the device
manfacturer, but by Microsoft.

  I.e. for Android, the updates and new versions should be distributed
by the *OS* developer - i.e. *Google* -, not by (for example) Samsung.

> The one I'm typing on at the moment has at least a dozen "extras", some 
> of them utilities and others "built-in" as device drivers.
> 
> Obvious ones are drivers for the power management but there's also a 
> fan-speed control, another for its somewhat quirky touchpad. Altogether 
> there's over twenty separate files required to update the original Vista 
> to Windows 7, most of which are neither included with the generic 
> Windows 7 nor are available from normal "driver download" sites.

  Exactly: You get the OS from the OS developer (Microsoft) and the
device-specific part from the computer/device manufacturer.

  So likewise you should get the OS from Google, *not* Samsung.

> So while it can be updated with normal Microsoft security patches, if we 
> regard Win7 as a "patch" for Vista (in the same way Lollipop is a patch 
> for KitKat) then it's hard work to upgrade. The manufacturer produced 
> files for Win7, but you have to download and install them by hand. They 
> haven't developed files for Win8.0 and later.

  What you're describing for Windows - i.e. Vista to 8[.1] - are
upgrades, not patches. And yes, *unlike* for Android, you get those
upgrades from the *OS* developer, not from the *device* manufacturer.

N.B. The issue of the device manufacturer not supporting newer OS
versions on their hardware is (more or less) the same for Windows and
Android, with the exception that the (software upgradability) lifetime
of an Android device is much, much, shorter.

  Bottom line: The Android software distribution mechanism *is* highly
unusual, if not unique, and, given the consequences for the users,
broken-by-design.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22228

In message <d4mgpuF2e29U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:40:30 on Tue, 1 Sep 
2015, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> remarked:

>> So while it can be updated with normal Microsoft security patches, if we
>> regard Win7 as a "patch" for Vista (in the same way Lollipop is a patch
>> for KitKat) then it's hard work to upgrade. The manufacturer produced
>> files for Win7, but you have to download and install them by hand. They
>> haven't developed files for Win8.0 and later.
>
>  What you're describing for Windows - i.e. Vista to 8[.1] - are
>upgrades, not patches. And yes, *unlike* for Android, you get those
>upgrades from the *OS* developer, not from the *device* manufacturer.

I can't get them from the OS developer because they don't run properly 
(all the special support for my laptop is missing).

>N.B. The issue of the device manufacturer not supporting newer OS
>versions on their hardware is (more or less) the same for Windows and
>Android, with the exception that the (software upgradability) lifetime
>of an Android device is much, much, shorter.

When I put an android upgrade on one of my tablets it came from a third 
party (although I don't know who built the update).
-- 
Roland Perry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22232

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <d4mgpuF2e29U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:40:30 on Tue, 1 Sep 
> 2015, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> remarked:
> 
> >> So while it can be updated with normal Microsoft security patches, if we
> >> regard Win7 as a "patch" for Vista (in the same way Lollipop is a patch
> >> for KitKat) then it's hard work to upgrade. The manufacturer produced
> >> files for Win7, but you have to download and install them by hand. They
> >> haven't developed files for Win8.0 and later.
> >
> >  What you're describing for Windows - i.e. Vista to 8[.1] - are
> >upgrades, not patches. And yes, *unlike* for Android, you get those
> >upgrades from the *OS* developer, not from the *device* manufacturer.
> 
> I can't get them from the OS developer because they don't run properly 
> (all the special support for my laptop is missing).

  Sorry, but we're not on the same page, because we assign a different
meaning to the same term(s). (Of course I assign the *correct* one! :-))

  Rest assured that we actually do *agree*. You just don't realize it
(yet)! :-)

[...]

  Thanks for your responses and time. Hopefully we have better luck next
time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22089

In news:d31n4aFqkleU1@mid.individual.net Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: 

>   "carriers"? Who cares about the carriers. It's at least the (device)
> *manufacturer*'s job and it *should* be done by Google, which 'writes'
> and 'maintains' the crap.

T-Mobile customers have to care.

I have a Nexus 6, bought directly from Motorola, but which obtains its
Android OS updates directly from Google. 

But, since T-Mobile has a feature (WiFi calling) which requires special
OS support, I get an Android version that's different from the one that
everyone else gets, even though the version number is the same. 

Still, in the case of the "Stagefright" fix, I got my T-Mobile-special 
(build number LYZ28J) at the same time as everyone else. I just hope
that T-Mobile keeps that up in the future. 

-- 
bert@iphouse.com	St. Paul, MN

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web