The code for Recall is in the code for File Manger. Recall cannot be turned off if you want Windows to load and function.

I did wonder if Aurora version might function better. I downloaded the standalone apk file in hopes that there would be a removal from such heavy dependancies compared to the Play Store version.

I know Services is available in a sandbox, I didn’t think of that, presumably because I view it either with disdan or treat is not an option. There’s also MicroG which I’ve never been interested in trying.

Thank you for the link, I was not understanding you correctly

For talking with people outside of North America where people still pay to send a text message, getting rid of Whatsapp means cutting off all communication.

Buy an Android phone that you can flash to change the OS to remove all Google dependancies and use F-Droid to get all of your apps.

I can speak on Cisco’s system or software, because I have always been suspicious of Cisco due to how massive they are, no company gets like that without dirty dealing underneath.

I don’t think Google forks Linux, they use parts of the kernel, and there’s also OpenBSD security code in Android as well.

While Google is evil and I will rejoice at the death of Google, I hope they are successful in their new OS to fully replace Android. I think it’s called Fusia. Software development is always better then GPL code is stripped out and replaced.

I say socialist because of forced redistribution of any code changes, nobody is allowed to keep any new development for themself to use.

The argument that GPL helps everybody to benefit equally and nobody can keep the code for themself, that’s what a socialist says for they government must take everybody’s money to help those in need, except now the ones who had the money previously have become needy themselves and the government has all f the money and it’s not helping anybody.

It safer for software developers to bad GPL to protect themselves from any troubles and develop on any other operating system where they can choose what code to share and what to keep secret.

Look at how well Sony has done with FreeBSD on Playatation 4 and 5 with the BSD license. The Playstation system stays proprietary but they send code to FreeBSD for any network and server issues. Maybe Sony refused Linux for PS4 due to GPL to protect company secrets.

My argument is if Linux goes AGPL3 which causes each company to fork the last GPL2 release, than after a few years of each company maintaining their own forked version, they will each evolve into their own operating system designed for their corporate software rather than all coporations using a single operating system that each develop their software to run on that OS.

But if they choose to develop on top of BSD then they will never be constricted by meaningless pointless software license.

I am an ISC supremaist for the sake of individual liberty.

But if each corporation forked their own kernel, after a few years of customizing the code to their needs, they would each be developing their own operaging system so all software would only run on company systems and would not be compatible with customer’s systems.

I agree with you 100%, no exceptions. Strongly agree. I say the GPL is socialist. What those people don’t consider is that there are many countries in the world where no court will take a case over a software license.

The ISC license is a libertarian license.

Tell me your opinion on one thing. I’ve considered that if Torvalds changes the license to AGPLv3, meaning servers have to publish their source code, it would an extremely quick collapse and abandonment of Linux. The GPLv2 Linux kernel can have binary code in it, but a AGPLv3 must be 100% open source, and Google would ban Linux on all corporate systems, Microsoft would ban it, CISCO would ban it, IBM would ban it, a complete implosion. What do you say?

But if all those corporations adopt one of the BSD’s operating systems, due to the BSD and ISC license, the corporations can ignore those licenses and develop on more complete, stable, secure, long term reliable system. Linux is a collection of various parts forced together. BSD is a complete operating system from a single couple of developers who all have commit access to every part of the system.

Stallman pushed false propaganda about BSD for ideological reasons because the BSD developers allow freedom of choice to let people do what they want with their own computers and BSD developers don’t fight proprietary software, they simply don’t allow it as part of each BSD base operating system. Stallman and his followers think they know better than UNIX developers which software everybody in the world should use.

It’s because of his kind that I only support open source software and comdemn free software and the politics of free software. A whole complete BSD operating system is 100% open source compared to the generic Linux kernel. Why doesn’t the Linux-libre develop their own drivers like BSD develop drivers and commision hardware companies for specs for the BSD’s to write their own drivers?

It would be no suprise if chromium is more secure but Firefox is more private.

What does the law say where your brother lives?