4 ms·

Sadly, termux now has its own issues since android 12+. It is possible to work around the limitations, when you do not have an Android Phone with MDM enabled an

Sadly, termux now has its own issues since android 12+. It is possible to work around the limitations, when you do not have an Android Phone with MDM enabled and have no problems with turning on dev tools and start remote adb from time to time. I no longer use it because of those reasons. However, there appears to be a native terminal in android 15. Maybe this will be the game changer I waited for.

jeroenhd 2y ago
On my (Pixel based) LineageOS ROM, you can disable enough power saving settings to make Termux work well again. Unfortunately, many vendors remove half the settings from their interfaces and make their app killers extra aggressive (just to spite people, it seems, because battery life doesn't seem affected in my experience). If your phone's manufacturer disabled the necessary power saving settings, I doubt they'll enable them for the Android 15 terminal.
- seanw444 2y ago
  https://dontkillmyapp.com/ https://dontkillmyapp.com/
- notpushkin 2y ago
  > just to spite people, it seems, because battery life doesn't seem affected in my experience Don't forget all the crap they can run in the freed capacity now!
- gruez 2y ago
  >Unfortunately, many vendors remove half the settings from their interfaces and make their app killers extra aggressive (just to spite people, it seems, because battery life doesn't seem affected in my experience). To be fair, for every well behaved background app (ie. a ssh server that's listening on a socket, which should consume basically zero power), there's probably 10 other misbehaving app that's phoning home every 30 seconds for ad/tracking/analytics purposes. Moreover, "battery life" is a metric that often shows up on reviews, so it makes sense to game this metric as hard as possible, especially since most people probably aren't running servers 24/7 on their phones.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    Some of those apps are things I want to phone home, like the system I have that is supposed to dial my thermostat back automatically (as well as back up again). When these are the tasks that are killed, it costs me more than whatever precious bodily fluids that some ad/tracking/analytics stuff may sap: It costs me real money.
    - gruez 2y ago
      The problem is less with phoning home per se, and more about doing it in a way that's against user expectations. I already acknowledged that there are legitimate use cases out there, but for the overwhelming majority of users, their phone is primarily a communication and media consumption device, which doesn't need 24/7 background access. Yes, it's tragic that the handful of people are being harmed by this, but it's hardly because of "spite" as OP suggested.
      - ssl-3 2y ago
        The problem is that I'm only theoretically harmed by things that unexpectedly succeed in phoning home, while I'm absolutely harmed by things failing to phone home when I need them to do so. Dollars I have lost due to things phoning home against my expectations: Close to zero -- if not literally zero. (And close to zero time spent managing that.) Dollars I have lost due to things failing to phone home when I want them to do so: More than zero. (And hours and hours of time spent trying to make them work more reliably.)
        gruez 2y ago
        If you really want to get into a game of theoretically vs practically, for most users: they're only theoretically harmed by not being able to disable background activity, because all they're doing is texting (worst case, there's GCM which is whitelisted) and watching tiktok. Meanwhile they're practically harmed because the one-of-a-dozen e-commerce app has some misbehaving background service that's trying to send telemetry 24/7. People also have terrible battery discipline, and if you're out and about a dead phone has actual costs (eg. having to rent a power bank, or having to take a cab rather than uber). None of this invalidates your use case, but given the rarity of your use case compared to the more common use case, I hope you understand why companies are implementing it not purely out of "spite".

jeroenhd 2y ago

On my (Pixel based) LineageOS ROM, you can disable enough power saving settings to make Termux work well again. Unfortunately, many vendors remove half the settings from their interfaces and make their app killers extra aggressive (just to spite people, it seems, because battery life doesn't seem affected in my experience). If your phone's manufacturer disabled the necessary power saving settings, I doubt they'll enable them for the Android 15 terminal.

seanw444 2y ago
https://dontkillmyapp.com/ https://dontkillmyapp.com/
notpushkin 2y ago
> just to spite people, it seems, because battery life doesn't seem affected in my experience Don't forget all the crap they can run in the freed capacity now!
gruez 2y ago
>Unfortunately, many vendors remove half the settings from their interfaces and make their app killers extra aggressive (just to spite people, it seems, because battery life doesn't seem affected in my experience). To be fair, for every well behaved background app (ie. a ssh server that's listening on a socket, which should consume basically zero power), there's probably 10 other misbehaving app that's phoning home every 30 seconds for ad/tracking/analytics purposes. Moreover, "battery life" is a metric that often shows up on reviews, so it makes sense to game this metric as hard as possible, especially since most people probably aren't running servers 24/7 on their phones.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  Some of those apps are things I want to phone home, like the system I have that is supposed to dial my thermostat back automatically (as well as back up again). When these are the tasks that are killed, it costs me more than whatever precious bodily fluids that some ad/tracking/analytics stuff may sap: It costs me real money.
  - gruez 2y ago
    The problem is less with phoning home per se, and more about doing it in a way that's against user expectations. I already acknowledged that there are legitimate use cases out there, but for the overwhelming majority of users, their phone is primarily a communication and media consumption device, which doesn't need 24/7 background access. Yes, it's tragic that the handful of people are being harmed by this, but it's hardly because of "spite" as OP suggested.
    - ssl-3 2y ago
      The problem is that I'm only theoretically harmed by things that unexpectedly succeed in phoning home, while I'm absolutely harmed by things failing to phone home when I need them to do so. Dollars I have lost due to things phoning home against my expectations: Close to zero -- if not literally zero. (And close to zero time spent managing that.) Dollars I have lost due to things failing to phone home when I want them to do so: More than zero. (And hours and hours of time spent trying to make them work more reliably.)
      - gruez 2y ago
        If you really want to get into a game of theoretically vs practically, for most users: they're only theoretically harmed by not being able to disable background activity, because all they're doing is texting (worst case, there's GCM which is whitelisted) and watching tiktok. Meanwhile they're practically harmed because the one-of-a-dozen e-commerce app has some misbehaving background service that's trying to send telemetry 24/7. People also have terrible battery discipline, and if you're out and about a dead phone has actual costs (eg. having to rent a power bank, or having to take a cab rather than uber). None of this invalidates your use case, but given the rarity of your use case compared to the more common use case, I hope you understand why companies are implementing it not purely out of "spite".