Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
There are system contacts, which are visible to apps which have the contacts permission. You shouldn't need to install extra apps to use them.
You can, however, have several contacts databases which can be accessed in different ways. Your phone's local contacts database, your Google contacts, your SIM card contacts, etc.
That doesn't stop other vendors making their own contacts database
completely outside of the Android contacts system. A few apps do that so they protect their own contacts from privacy-invading apps that want to read your system contacts and upload them to their server.
However, I'm a bit surprised if Samsung is doing that. Are you sure you're not conflating your local contacts database with one stored on Google's server? You will need Google's contacts app to sync that. Perhaps the Samsung contacts app won't use the Google contacts database, only the local contacts?
I find K-9 will only use Android contacts, rather than picking those up from recent emails, which is a bit annoying as I don't use them.
On 09.07.26 19:26, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
BTW: Why should anyone use proprietary software for contacts? My TB on
my Pixel knows all contacts I have on my CardDAV-server at any time.
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
On 2026-07-09 19:30, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 19:26, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install >>>> the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
BTW: Why should anyone use proprietary software for contacts? My TB on
my Pixel knows all contacts I have on my CardDAV-server at any time.
Because Samsung phones come with the Samsung contact app
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 18:33:59 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
This is why I detest Samsung: their need to use their own apps. In
Belgium we use an app called Itsme to access government sites and
netbanking. It simply doesn't work on a Samsung with Samsung Internet as default browser, but it works just fine on Firefox and Chrome (and
probably every other browser besides Samsung Internet).
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 22:22:52 +0200, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
I wonder that myself. I once had a Samsung Galaxy Mini and at times I
just wanted to throw it against the wall. I switched to Nexus 5X and
then Pixel (I know). Nexus was cheap at that time, but with the Pixel available Google upped their price. I know I can install Graphene OS,
but I just cannot be bothered. I've turned off as much settings as I
can, but I'm not 100% convinced it makes any difference to my privacy.
On 2026-07-09 19:02, Theo wrote:
I find K-9 will only use Android contacts, rather than picking those up from
recent emails, which is a bit annoying as I don't use them.
Yes, this is what he told me. And I understand that it would not work
with the Samsung app, had to install the google one.
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-09 19:02, Theo wrote:
I find K-9 will only use Android contacts, rather than picking those up from
recent emails, which is a bit annoying as I don't use them.
Yes, this is what he told me. And I understand that it would not work
with the Samsung app, had to install the google one.
Does the user perhaps only have phone numbers in their contacts? In that case I think K-9 won't have any email addresses to work with. Maybe you needed the Google contacts app to sync email contacts from your gmail account? ie this sounds like he's in the Google 'ecosystem' and is complaining that the Samsung app isn't part of it.
Personally I would never want to have any kind of list of contacts automatically scraped from my emails on my phone, because it would be full
of noise and be a pain when I wanted to make phone calls.
On 09.07.26 20:10, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2026-07-09 19:30, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 19:26, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install >>>>> the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
BTW: Why should anyone use proprietary software for contacts? My TB on
my Pixel knows all contacts I have on my CardDAV-server at any time.
Because Samsung phones come with the Samsung contact app
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install
the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
On 09.07.26 19:26, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install >>> the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
BTW: Why should anyone use proprietary software for contacts? My TB on
my Pixel knows all contacts I have on my CardDAV-server at any time.
On 09.07.26 22:17, s|b wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 18:33:59 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install >>> the google contacts app to provide the API.
This is why I detest Samsung: their need to use their own apps. In
Belgium we use an app called Itsme to access government sites and
netbanking. It simply doesn't work on a Samsung with Samsung Internet as
default browser, but it works just fine on Firefox and Chrome (and
probably every other browser besides Samsung Internet).
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
Am 10.07.26 um 11:12 schrieb s|b:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 22:22:52 +0200, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
I wonder that myself. I once had a Samsung Galaxy Mini and at times I
just wanted to throw it against the wall. I switched to Nexus 5X and
then Pixel (I know). Nexus was cheap at that time, but with the Pixel
available Google upped their price. I know I can install Graphene OS,
but I just cannot be bothered. I've turned off as much settings as I
can, but I'm not 100% convinced it makes any difference to my privacy.
Sounds very much like my own "Android-career".
Started 2016 with a Nexus 5X and switched then to a Pixel 4 and later to
a Pixel 7 which is still doing its job satisfactorily. Today I would
only buy a Pixel and ignore the rest of the crowd. My primary smartphone
is a iPhone 17 which explains perhaps my hardware strategy.
Personally I would never want to have any kind of list of contacts automatically scraped from my emails on my phone, because it would be full
of noise and be a pain when I wanted to make phone calls.
On 2026-07-09 22:21, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 20:10, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2026-07-09 19:30, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 19:26, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install >>>>>> the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
BTW: Why should anyone use proprietary software for contacts? My TB on >>>> my Pixel knows all contacts I have on my CardDAV-server at any time.
Because Samsung phones come with the Samsung contact app
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
Another Swiss :-P
The problem is, that Samsungs *custom* Android version cripples the
official APIs, so that only Samsung Apps work as expected. Blame Samsung
for that, not Android.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]
The problem is, that Samsungs *custom* Android version cripples the
official APIs, so that only Samsung Apps work as expected. Blame Samsung
for that, not Android.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Samsung 'Contacts' app (actually part of the 'Phone' app).
For example the Contacts app handles WhatsApp contacts just fine. I
think it's very unlikely that the Contacts app is special-coded for
WhatsApp or vice versa, so if the Contacts app works with WhatsApp, I
don't see wwhy it wouldn't work with K-9 Mail / 'Thunderbird'.
Having said that, it seems that Samsung is slowly moving to Google
apps instead of their own. For example the Messages app is now Google Messages.
And my primary smartphone is a Google Pixel 6a (which will once vy
replaced by a Pixel 10 or whatever is the current version when the
software supports ends for the 6a in 1-2 years). I don't need Apple
devices at all.
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
Frank Slootweg, 2026-07-10 15:38:
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]
The problem is, that Samsungs *custom* Android version cripples the
official APIs, so that only Samsung Apps work as expected. Blame Samsung >> for that, not Android.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Samsung 'Contacts' app (actually part of the 'Phone' app).
For example the Contacts app handles WhatsApp contacts just fine. I
Well - Samsung and Meta are both big companies. They will have some
agreement to get thinks working.
think it's very unlikely that the Contacts app is special-coded for WhatsApp or vice versa, so if the Contacts app works with WhatsApp, I
don't see wwhy it wouldn't work with K-9 Mail / 'Thunderbird'.
Because K-9 / Thunderbird is free software and even the Mozilla
Foundation is just a small player compared to Samsung and Meta.
Having said that, it seems that Samsung is slowly moving to Google
apps instead of their own. For example the Messages app is now Google Messages.
Yes, because they don't want to develop and maintain their own messages
app to support RCS and propably Google also demands using this app, if Samsung wants to get an official license for Google Play Services and
device certification.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Frank Slootweg, 2026-07-10 15:38:
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]
The problem is, that Samsungs *custom* Android version cripples the
official APIs, so that only Samsung Apps work as expected. Blame Samsung >> for that, not Android.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Samsung 'Contacts' app (actually part of the 'Phone' app).
For example the Contacts app handles WhatsApp contacts just fine. I
Well - Samsung and Meta are both big companies. They will have some agreement to get thinks working.
Or perhaps the Samsung app uses the standard Android contacts system?
That's how it's done on every Samsung I've had (admittedly the most recent one - which I still use - was released 2014).
Samsung haven't done a deal with every single app provider that uses contacts. Apps which use contacts work normally on Samsung phones.
But the standard contacts system won't sync with anything. You need an additional app for that, eg Google's app to sync with Google's contacts.
On 2026-07-09 19:30, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 19:26, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install >>>> the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
BTW: Why should anyone use proprietary software for contacts? My TB on
my Pixel knows all contacts I have on my CardDAV-server at any time.
Because Samsung phones come with the Samsung contact app.
On 2026-07-09, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2026-07-09 19:30, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 19:26, J”rg Lorenz wrote:
On 09.07.26 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ji,
Just found out that Samsung has its own contacts app.
And if you want Thunderbird (K-9?) to use contacts, you have to install >>>>> the google contacts app to provide the API.
Curious!
Not at all!
Typical Android-chaos.
BTW: Why should anyone use proprietary software for contacts? My TB on
my Pixel knows all contacts I have on my CardDAV-server at any time.
Because Samsung phones come with the Samsung contact app.
Unless they have botched it, the user should be able to install another
one and set it as default. With Android 15, I was able to install the
Fossify one.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Wrote in message:
But the standard contacts system won't sync with anything. You need an additional app for that, eg Google's app to sync with Google's contacts.
On this Samsung tablet, Android 13, I use K9 and the default
Contacts app plus CardDAV-sync free, which syncs to my contacts
on NextCloud, which is also sync'd to my iPhone.
As mentioned, K9 - and presumably TB on Android - does not
automatically collect addresses you type in.
On 2026-07-11 09:50, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-07-09, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Because Samsung phones come with the Samsung contact app.
Unless they have botched it, the user should be able to install another
one and set it as default. With Android 15, I was able to install the
Fossify one.
Of course you can. But if one buys a Samsung phone, which is a very successful brand that sells a lot of phones, and it comes with the
Samsung Contacts app installed, one assumes that it has been tested and
that it works, always. And if not, I expect to be told, not having to
find out.
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote or quoted:
The debilitating drawback of the Pixel, for me, is the lack of sd card but >>I understand that if I buy way too much storage, that isn't then an issue.
I want an SD slot, too, but for a different reason: The SD
card is my data storage. I buy a new phone, plug in the SD
card from the old phone, and have all my data again!
Arno Welzel wrote:
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
Because Samsung has a big marketing department and people realize such
problems only *after* they bought the phone.
For some of us, the only Android brands to choose from are Pixel or
Galaxy.
As you know, when I was thinking of replacing my Samsung, I only looked at Pixel and Galaxy because there's a ton of customization documentation for both.
The debilitating drawback of the Pixel, for me, is the lack of sd card but
I understand that if I buy way too much storage, that isn't then an
issue.
Otherwise the answer to "Why buy a Samsung" is that many still have sd
slots, which means you get portable storage for about 30 bucks a pop.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Frank Slootweg, 2026-07-10 15:38:
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]
The problem is, that Samsungs *custom* Android version cripples the
official APIs, so that only Samsung Apps work as expected. Blame Samsung >>>> for that, not Android.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Samsung 'Contacts' app
(actually part of the 'Phone' app).
For example the Contacts app handles WhatsApp contacts just fine. I
Well - Samsung and Meta are both big companies. They will have some
agreement to get thinks working.
Or perhaps the Samsung app uses the standard Android contacts system?
That's how it's done on every Samsung I've had (admittedly the most recent one - which I still use - was released 2014).
Arno Welzel wrote:
WTF should anyone buy a Samsung?
Because Samsung has a big marketing department and people realize such
problems only *after* they bought the phone.
For some of us, the only Android brands to choose from are Pixel or Galaxy.
As you know, when I was thinking of replacing my Samsung, I only looked at Pixel and Galaxy because there's a ton of customization documentation for both.
The debilitating drawback of the Pixel, for me, is the lack of sd card but
I understand that if I buy way too much storage, that isn't then an issue.
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote or quoted:
The debilitating drawback of the Pixel, for me, is the lack of sd card but >> I understand that if I buy way too much storage, that isn't then an issue.
I want an SD slot, too, but for a different reason: The SD
card is my data storage. I buy a new phone, plug in the SD
card from the old phone, and have all my data again!
On 2026-07-12, Stefan Ram wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote or quoted:
The debilitating drawback of the Pixel, for me, is the lack of sd card but >>> I understand that if I buy way too much storage, that isn't then an issue. >>I want an SD slot, too, but for a different reason: The SD
card is my data storage. I buy a new phone, plug in the SD
card from the old phone, and have all my data again!
Yeah, that touches on the same thing that occurred to me: it's not
merely another storage device and an upgradeable one (also one that can
be replaced in case of wear, although I'd expect the internal one to
meet much higher levels of resiliency for that to be an issue), it's
also a way to move/copy files when needed.
I tested a tablet recently, and bought a tablet from a different brand >recently. Both said that the tablet had to be powered off before
insertion of the card, and warned that the card could be formatted
before use.
On 7/12/26 4:49 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I tested a tablet recently, and bought a tablet from a different brand
recently. Both said that the tablet had to be powered off before
insertion of the card, and warned that the card could be formatted
before use.
Powered completely off?
I don't remember about the formatting since I
haven't bought a new card in years but I routinely plug in cards to my various Android toys while they are asleep and upon awakening they ask how
I want to use the card and after I make my choice they say it's ready to
go. No problems. I do get a warning if I do that while awake but so far (knocks on wood) even that indiscretion has caused me no problems. But then my cards contain mostly music and old apks (like my favorite Groundhog newsreader) so maybe other stuff would be damaged??
Time to do some card experiments on your new toys and report back...
On 2026-07-12 18:18, AJL wrote:
On 7/12/26 4:49 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I tested a tablet recently, and bought a tablet from a different brand
recently. Both said that the tablet had to be powered off before
insertion of the card, and warned that the card could be formatted
before use.
Powered completely off?
Yes. At least whatever the tablet can do when you push the power button
and select power off. The battery can not be removed, after all.
I don't remember about the formatting since I
haven't bought a new card in years but I routinely plug in cards to my
various Android toys while they are asleep and upon awakening they ask how >> I want to use the card and after I make my choice they say it's ready to
go. No problems. I do get a warning if I do that while awake but so far
(knocks on wood) even that indiscretion has caused me no problems. But then >> my cards contain mostly music and old apks (like my favorite Groundhog
newsreader) so maybe other stuff would be damaged??
Time to do some card experiments on your new toys and report back...
In the past I introduced SIM cards or memory cards while fully on, no >problem. The warning in the new tablet surprised me.
My card was not formatted, but the warning is there. If the tablet
doesn't like the card, I assume it will format it. I hope it asks first.
AJL wrote:
If you have an unformatted one sitting around
I haven't tested it fully, but in the past I had a 32GB card for my 64GB >Galaxy and then when I put in a 64GB card which had a complete copy of the >file system, it didn't recognize everything (like app maps stored there).
On 7/12/26 6:05 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
AJL wrote:
If you have an unformatted one sitting around
I haven't tested it fully, but in the past I had a 32GB card for my 64GB >Galaxy and then when I put in a 64GB card which had a complete copy of the >file system, it didn't recognize everything (like app maps stored there).
This Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with will only accept up to a 32GB
card. Anything larger won't work. Surprising for Amazon's latest tablet
model. But then the Fire OS is a bit behind in the Android department also.
Check my headers but last I looked my PhoNews newsreader thinks it's
Android 11.
AJL wrote:
This Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with will only accept up to a 32GB
It's good to know about your Amazone Fire and how you keep it working for >you. I'm also surprised at the sd card limitation. Seems unnatural to me.
Fire HD 10 (2023) - supports microSDXC up to 1024 GB (1 TB)
I have a Samsung tablet that I got back after gifting it to an iPad owner >whom I didn't convert to Android, so I'm learning about Android 16 now.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
On 7/12/26 6:05 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
AJL wrote:This Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with will only accept up to a 32GB >> card. Anything larger won't work. Surprising for Amazon's latest tablet
If you have an unformatted one sitting around
I haven't tested it fully, but in the past I had a 32GB card for my 64GB
Galaxy and then when I put in a 64GB card which had a complete copy of the >> >file system, it didn't recognize everything (like app maps stored there). >>
model. But then the Fire OS is a bit behind in the Android department also. >> Check my headers but last I looked my PhoNews newsreader thinks it's
Android 11.
Try (on Windows/Mac/etc) reformatting your card to FAT32.
'SDHC' cards up to 32GB are formatted FAT32, 'SDXC' cards above 32GB are >exFAT - the only difference is the formatting it comes out of the box with, >there's no hardware barrier at 32GB.
Some devices don't support exFAT (either too old or they didn't want to pay
a royalty to Microsoft). But FAT32 itself has no 32GB limit, so if you >reformat it on Windows the tablet may be happy with it.
(also be aware FAT32 has a 4GiB file size limit, so if you're storing long >videos on the card that may be an issue)
Thanks. That may well be the problem. I'll give it a try when I need more
card storage on this Fire HD10 tablet and acquire more toys that can
accomplish the reformatting...
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
Thanks. That may well be the problem. I'll give it a try when I need more
card storage on this Fire HD10 tablet and acquire more toys that can
accomplish the reformatting...
Your Chromebook can do it: >https://support-en.sandisk.com/app/answers/detailweb/a_id/43506/~/instructions-to-format-a-usb-flash-drive-or-memory-card-on-chromebook
I have always used a card to transfer stuff to the tablet or to use as
external storage (like my music collection for tablet listening - earphones
of course as the speakers ain't so great...) so it has already been
formatted and loaded beforehand. I'd try sticking in an unformatted card
just to see what it would do but don't have any. My guess is just a failure
warning. If you have an unformatted one sitting around give it a try on
your new toys and let us know...
On 7/12/26 11:26 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
AJL wrote:
This Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with will only accept up to a 32GB
It's good to know about your Amazone Fire and how you keep it working for >you. I'm also surprised at the sd card limitation. Seems unnatural to me.
Fire HD 10 (2023) - supports microSDXC up to 1024 GB (1 TB)
Interesting. That turned out to be right. Apparently this tablet didn't like
my 64GB cards for some reason and I just assumed that it didn't take
anything larger. You know the definition of ASSUME, right?
I really don't need more than the installed 32GB card so won't change
anything for now.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
On 7/12/26 11:26 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
This Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with will only accept up to a 32GB
It's good to know about your Amazon Fire and how you keep it working for >>> you. I'm also surprised at the sd card limitation. Seems unnatural to me. >>> Fire HD 10 (2023) - supports microSDXC up to 1024 GB (1 TB)
Interesting. That turned out to be right. Apparently this tablet didn't like >> my 64GB cards for some reason and I just assumed that it didn't take
anything larger. You know the definition of ASSUME, right?
If it's a rather old 64GB card, it might be a non-standard card.
Before the SDXC (>32GB) standard, some manufacturer already made 64GB
cards. These were non-standard and will give problems in devices which
expect SDXC cards.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_card#Capacity_standards>
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
[...]
I have always used a card to transfer stuff to the tablet or to use as
external storage (like my music collection for tablet listening - earphones
of course as the speakers ain't so great...) so it has already been
formatted and loaded beforehand. I'd try sticking in an unformatted card
just to see what it would do but don't have any. My guess is just a failure
warning. If you have an unformatted one sitting around give it a try on
your new toys and let us know...
Minor, but in this context important, nit: There is no such thing as
"an unformatted card". An SD card can be formatted with the
wrong/undesired filesystem or the formatting might be partly broken,
etc., but it's not unformatted. I.e. when you buy one, it's already formatted.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
[...]
I have always used a card to transfer stuff to the tablet or to use as
external storage (like my music collection for tablet listening - earphones >> of course as the speakers ain't so great...) so it has already been
formatted and loaded beforehand. I'd try sticking in an unformatted card
just to see what it would do but don't have any. My guess is just a failure >> warning. If you have an unformatted one sitting around give it a try on
your new toys and let us know...
Minor, but in this context important, nit: There is no such thing as
"an unformatted card". An SD card can be formatted with the
wrong/undesired filesystem or the formatting might be partly broken,
etc., but it's not unformatted. I.e. when you buy one, it's already formatted.
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
[...]
I have always used a card to transfer stuff to the tablet or to
use as external storage (like my music collection for tablet
listening - earphones of course as the speakers ain't so great...)
so it has already been formatted and loaded beforehand. I'd try
sticking in an unformatted card just to see what it would do but
don't have any. My guess is just a failure warning. If you have an unformatted one sitting around give it a try on your new toys and
let us know...
Minor, but in this context important, nit: There is no such thing as
"an unformatted card". An SD card can be formatted with the
wrong/undesired filesystem or the formatting might be partly broken,
etc., but it's not unformatted. I.e. when you buy one, it's already formatted.
Not in the original sense of a floppy coming out of the factory without any magnetic data on the medium - 'formatting' meant creating the magnetic
sector boundaries, checksums, etc something you had to do before you even thought about writing data into the sectors.
But 'unformatted' has become a synonym for 'not having valid partition(s)'. That's what 'Format' in Windows will do - create a partition table and a partition with an empty filesystem on it.
If you still have a floppy it
will also write the sector boundaries, but once done it creates the filesystem just like any other device. The 'Format' tool (and the verb 'format') covers both operations, with modern media needing one but not the other.
So it's outdated nit really. The term encompasses more than it previously did.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
But 'unformatted' has become a synonym for 'not having valid partition(s)'.
That's what 'Format' in Windows will do - create a partition table and a partition with an empty filesystem on it.
These days, it's hardly possible to buy a storage medium/device 'not
having valid partition(s)'. It might not have the partition(s) one
*wants* or/and not the filesystems (in those partitions) one *wants*,
but it *does* have a valid partition and a filesystem in that partition.
It is common to do a full wipe with zeroes to make sure no data is hiding on a disk before giving it to someone else. If you hand it over without creating a new partition table, it's 'unformatted'.
If you buy a SATA HDD or NVMe, it's common for them to be completely blank with no partition table. If you're installing an OS a existing partition table is just a hindrance you have to delete, otherwise the installer might get confused.
Nuno Silva wrote:
With Android 15, I was able to install the
Fossify one. That said, I wasn't impressed when
Caring about privacy, I installed OpenContacts which I think is better than the Fossify Contacts app, since OpenContacts ties to WhatsApp, Telegram & Signal, in addition to whatever your default SMS app is (mine is pulsesms).
*Open Contacts*
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/opencontacts.open.com.opencontacts/>
<https://gitlab.com/sultanahamer/OpenContacts>
Below is a copy of what I wrote a few months ago on this newsgroup.
Fossify Contacts is apparently a nice replacement UI for managing
contacts. But apparently it still uses the standard Android
ContactsProvider. That means it uses the system SQLite contacts
database. Which means it uses the same storage model as the stock
Contacts app.
So if we add a contact in Fossify Contacts, it will appear in the
system contacts DB and that means any app with contacts permission
can read it.
Sigh.[...]
The pre-2021 Simple Mobile Tools Simple Contacts Pro had a "local-only"
mode that stored contacts in its own internal storage, and it also
supported VCF import/export. But in my testing years ago, it worked
only with some dialers, not all.
The only contacts apps that I've found that meet the privacy
requirements are:
1. DOpen Contacts (supports private storage + VCF import/export)
2. Simple Contacts Pro (old version from before 2021)
If anyone knows of a modern FOSS contacts app that keeps everything
out of the system provider and supports VCF import/export and integrates
with dialer/SMS, I'd love to hear about it.
I don't need Apple
devices at all.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 496007:19:46 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 605 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (18,398K bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,062 |