Feedback on Xperia 10 V

[Sharks]

Aside from a few more screens allowing auto rotate and some extra ambiences, I see no real changes on my 10 IV either, though I already had ESR91. To be fair, it was noted:

@jovirkku

• The state of initial support for Xperia 10 IV (XQ-CC54) and Xperia 10 V (XQ-DC54) continues. Only the free trial Sailfish versions are available as an over-the-air update (as this is an Early Access release). Android AppSupport and the Sailfish licence are not yet available .

…

• Camera is disabled
• Fingerprint detection does not work on Xperia 10 V

etc etc…

So as expected, there is no progress on the new Sony blobs.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain as nothing new is broken, but what exactly was supposed to be added with the big 5.0 release? Is it just screen rotating on the homescreen, an extra wallpaper or three, and the community developed ESR91? What has Jolla been doing? Do I expect too much? Heck, even if they’d just release AppSupport for us that would be a nice QoL improvement. Surely the issues with the Sony blobs can’t be the reason that’s still being held back.

[Steve_Everett]

In the Tampella 5.0.0.55 thread Jolla say they’ve been fully occupied with the C2 and Jolla Mind, so I guess other things have been de-emphasised for now.

I also thought the 5.0.0.55 release was more like a small bugfix point release (i.e 4.6 → 4.7) rather than a major OS upgrade release, as aside from the new browser engine (done by a community member, no longer a Jolla employee), landscape mode for some of the existing Jolla apps, and a call blocking feature added to the settings of the phone app, there appears to be little different from before in terms of new functionality of SFOS.

[emva]

If Jolla is using semantic versioning (or something like it https://semver.org) there is a reason why they did not go 4.6 → 4.7.

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes
2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner
3. PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes

Or it could be something “funny” like the reason the Linux kernel is using:

Does the major version number (4.x vs 5.x) mean anything?

No. The major version number is incremented when the number after the dot starts looking “too big.”
There is literally no other reason.

[toastal]

If Jolla is using Pride Versioning, they are probably just really proud to pass a major milestone they are proud to see … such as the many-month upgrade of the browser, & getting new devices.

[koza]

their versioning has something to do with this:

[toastal]

The lack of headphone jack is pretty irritating—one of the primary motivators for going this route was going to be keeping the headphone jack on my phone. pactl list cards seems to show only a Card #0 with nothing related to headphones or hi-fi. Is the jack on some sort of daughter board with a DAC that the kernel isn’t exposing?

---

Bluetooth worked with a bit of fiddling but was stuck on SBC codec. I much prefer my wired setup.

[olf]

@emva

If Jolla is using semantic versioning (or something like it https://semver.org)

They do not, as you can tell by the four field version numbers and the fact that “incompatible API changes” are introduced with every “minor” version.