What’s your thinking there?
That could be controversial for those who use the phone docked, such that the dock would then block access to other sockets on the bottom. Of course it could be argued that if you use the phone docked, you can probably direct audio via the dock (depending on the capabilities of the dock) - or you can probably work around it with a USB-C cable. Some people though do like one of those docks that also acts as a stand for the phone.
I cannot place the Librem 5, a connected power bank, and a connected stereo interconnect cable into any pockets, so I have to hold onto the phone whenever I listen to music.
I use a stereo cable for audio when using my L5 in the car. Simultaneously charging the phone and using a stereo cable creates an undesirable experience when placing the L5 within the window phone mount, or, on the charging pad (which is more so like a charging pocket in my car). Having all cables connect to the bottom of the phone would resolve this.
I have a headphone jack option as well on my vehicle, but these are largely features of older cars. Everything will be Bluetooth to follow how “Premium” (I don’t agree with the definition) phones don’t have headphone jacks. There are other solutions to your problem:
I can understand the frustration, however I personally prefer the headphone jack on the top so when I pull it out of my pocket it is right side up, and so I can use a dock well with it.
I’m not frustrated, nor do I have an older car, nor would a different mount fix my issue, nor would I want degraded sound via a transmitter. I’m glad you enjoy the headphone jack location.
I’m not going to switch to a Liberux phone; please stop with the unsolicited suggestions to my post. This topic was created for people’s wishlists.
I not believe on Librem 6 to be honest, however i pretty sure that @Captain_Morgan used the number 6 just to supersed 5 versions.
I superbelieve on Librem 4 to 4.9’ max and width’ max. Or Librem 5 v2 to 5.0’
Cheaper is HARMFUL for Librem 5, Gnu Mobile, Purism and User..
Trimming bloat from the entire software stack would eliminate the need for this. Unfortunately no single company can put even a dent into the bloat problem.
15 years ago the Nokia N900 had a small fraction of the EMMC, CPU, and RAM of the L5. The tiny EMMC was the primary limiting factor. I looked forward to a future model with more flash memory and generic debian OS.
Convergence is a good concept, but there should be an option to have a phone where phone functionality comes first and gee-whiz animated GUIs are not mandatory.
That is simply not true. Copying files from an external drive onto my L5 takes significantly longer than copying the same files onto my L14, and, this is due to the much slower CPU on the L5. This is only one off-the-top of my head examples where trimming bloat won’t help at all.
The speed of copying files to/from the L5 vs the L14 has more to do with the data bus and drives than it has to do with the CPU speeds IMO:
The L5 has an eMMC drive rather than a NVMe drive in the L14.
The L5 USB port is 3.0 … rather than USB 3.1. It depends on the USB controller, but even the spec has a “top speed” difference of a factor of 2 difference (5Gbps for 3.0 vs 10Gbps for 3.1).
I’m copying the same files onto microsd cards inserted into both my L14 and L5’s. The microsd cards are the same, the files I’m copying are the same, and you could sell me a bridge if I were to believe the USB versions are making up the transfer time difference. PS As I mentioned, this is just one example.
First: You didn’t say that you were testing with microsd cards.
However … that’s even more important. And while I’m not selling you a bridge, others here will understand that the sdcard on the L5 is on the USB2 bus. That’s right. USB2.0 speeds!!! For most sdcards (UHS I for read and II for read/writes) the USB 2.0 bus is the limiting factor.
Unless you are doing checksums or encrypting on the L5, CPU speeds won’t be the limiting for a copy IMO.
Why would you think CPU speeds would be the difference???
Aside: Perhaps you’ll buy a bridge from Amos Librem 5 Phone - SD Speed .
Edit: You could test the differences by buying a USB3.0 (not 3.1) USB-c external sdcard reader and seeing how that compares between the Librem 5 (USB3.0) and Librem 14 (USB3.1). Compare those read/writes with the internal sdcard slots for the L5 (USB2) and L14 (USB3.1).
But then Bluetooth (or wireless of any kind) would solve the particular problem as stated (cable clutter and the location of sockets). Of course then Purism would need to fix Bluetooth audio to avoid the stuttering …
Agree. The topic title was wrong, in my opinion, 2 years ago - as obliquely referenced in my first post in this topic.
Yes, the speed of the µSD card is poor - something that I included in my wishlist from 2 years ago at the top of this topic. For multi-gigabyte transfers, sneakernet is faster ! i.e. shut down phone, remove µSD card, put in big computer, transfer files on, … Certainly that is how I did my initial population of my audio collection onto the µSD card.
Like you, I am unconvinced that USB version explains the performance of the µSD card. There is, I suppose, some hope that this is a software problem and hence will not require the Librem 5v2 in order to improve the situation.
Not in this case though (and I understand that you don’t have a Librem 5 and hence wouldn’t actually have been able to test this).
I may be able to mostly do that test (later on).
However, in my opinion, the comparison with a big computer is a bit bogus. It’s a bit like complaining that my Librem 5’s CPUs can’t keep up with my late-model 12-core Intel box when doing video generation.
I would be happy if the µSD card could keep up with the eMMC drive so that the decision as to how to spread files across the two drives did not have to take into account the dramatic performance difference.
Now that I can believe; I was unaware it was on a USB 2 bus (thank you for that and for the reference), which is also the answer to your question. If that’s the only limiting factor, then I’ll have to revise my wishlist.
I would like that @dos to say what uSD model it is for L5 for max performance. ATM i not sure.
S.Krzyszkowiak-Mastery
Bluetooth wouldn’t solve my problem as I’m listening to lossless files in my car and the degradation with bluetooth is noticeable.
yes, this is how I’m doing so currently; I think a faster micro sd card slot will replace the faster CPU on my revised list
Can you explain what you mean?
I’ll fork the topic with some actual measurements.
NFC can be done through the breakout board for the L5